HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810722 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 81-18 Meeting 81-18
L
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
Wednesday 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
July 22 , 1981* Los Altos, California
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 24 , 1981; July 8 , 1981
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(7 : 45) 1. League of Women Voters' Film: "Thin Edge of the Bay" --
C. MacDonald
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 :10) 2. Follow-Up on Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Approval
Process -- S. Sessions
(8 : 30) 3. Proposed Schedule for Thornewood Lease Negotiations -- C. Britton
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 35) 4. Use and Management Plan Status Report for Foothills Open Space
Preserve -- S. Sessions
(8 : 45) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiations and Personnel)
ADJOURNMENT
*THIS MEETING MAY BE CANCELLED AND A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON JULY 29. CHECK
WITH DISTRICT OFFICE FOR STATUS.
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you 're concerned
with appears on the agenda, please address the Board
at that time; otherwise, you may address the Board
under Oral Communications. When recognized, please
begin by stating your name and address. Conciseness
is appreciated. We request that you complete the forms
provided so your name and address can be aceurateZy in-
cZuded in the minutes.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors.Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 81-19
-A-
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
Monday 375 Distel Circle, D-1
July 27, 1981 Los Altos, California
7 : 30 P.M.
There will be a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on Monday, July 27, 1981
at 7 : 30 P.M. The meeting will be held in Closed Session for the
purpose of conducting the General Manager' s performance evaluation.
A G E N D A
Monday, 7 : 30 p.m. 375 Distel Circle, D-1
July 27, 1981 Los Altos, California
(7: 30) ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION (Personnel)
ADJOURNMENT
Herbert A Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G Hanko,Richard S Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 81-16
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
June 24 , 1981
I . ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 :38 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley, Richard Bishop, and Harry Turner
who arrived at 7 :45 P.M.
Staff Present: Craig Britton, Steven Sessions, Charlotte
MacDonald, Pat Starrett, Jean Fiddes , and Michael Foster.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 10 , 1981
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of June 10,
1961 as presented. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes reported the Board had received a letter, dated June 14 ,
1981, from Harry H. Haeussler, Jr. , 1094 Highland Circle, Los
Altos, commending the land management staff for the new trail
that had been constructed at the Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
R. Bishop stated the Board' s consensus that the agenda was adopted
as written.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
VI . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Approval of-Interim Use and Management Plan for Acquisition
of Tax Deeded Property near Lake Ranch, Santa Clara County
R. Bishop, summarizing memorandum M-81-64 , dated June 15, 1981,
stated the Board had authorized the purchase of the property
of the meeting of June 10, 1981 and deferred the adoption of
the use and management recommendations, pending additional
public input. There were no comments from members of the public.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of the interim use and
management plan for the tax deeded property near
La'X.e Ranch, Santa Clara County. K. Duffy seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
K. Duffy asked when the Public Notification Committee would present
its report to the Board, and N. Hanko stated the report would
be made at the July 22 meeting.
Meeting 81-16 Page two
B. Schedule and Process for Resolving Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Parking Lot Location
S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-81-69, dated June 181,-- 1981, outlining
the schedule and process proposed by staff and based on discussions with
members of the planning staffs of San Mateo County and the City of Palo
Alto for resolving the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve parking lot
location. He noted the State Department of Parks and Recreation had
imposed a December 1, 1981 deadline for the submittal of plans and
specifications for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Development
Plan, including the parking lot, and said the project' s grant funding
would be lost of this deadline was not met.
E. Shelley asked if staff had investigated the possibility of requesting
a delay from the State for the submittal of the final plans, and C.
Britton responded the Department' s analyst had indicated the Depart-
ment would closely adhere to the schedule.
N. Hanko stated she had contacted the Planning Department staff at
the City of Palo Alto and would support the recommendations proposed
by District staff. She said she would propose some additional cri-
teria for Board adoption that she felt would be acceptable to City of
Palo Alto officials and that she hoped the Board could match sites G,
L, and FA against the new criteria at the next meeting. She hoped
the Boar would find site F, an acceptable location for the parking
lot and refer it to the City of Palo Alto for approval at the next
meeting.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the Board adopt a modified locked-room
approach with the following four step process :
1) staff be directed to input changes to the criteria
at the July 8, 1981 meeting which could then be
discussed;
2) Board adoption of the criteria at the meeting of
July 22 , 1981;
3) At approximately the second meeting in August or
perhaps a Special Meeting, the Board would have
a joint meeting with the Palo Alto Planning Com-
mission with attendance by at least a couple
Palo Alto City Council members so they could be
heard and hear; and
4) At approximately the second meeting in September,
the Board would hold a second meeting with the
Palo Alto Planning Commission and not leave, no
matter what the hour, until a parking lot location
is selected.
N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Discuss-ioi-i: D. Wendin stated he had built lag time into
the process to allow for public input. R. Bishop noted the
parking lot would have to be designed and an engineering
study completed after a location was approved, and K. Duffy
noted approval would still have to be received from the Palo
Alto City Council after the proposed second meeting with the
Palo Alto Planning Commission. E. Shelley stated the Board
would need to know how much dirt would need to be moved for
a parking lot at the Fl location. Thomas Harrington, 4201
Page Mill Road, expressed his appreciation to the Board for
Meeting 81-16 Page three
their reconsideration of the location of the parking lot for
the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and offered to present
to the Board a conceptual drawing of what a parking lot at
the Fl location might look like at their next meeting.
R. Bishop stated Mr. Harrington should present the conceptual
drawing of the parking lot to staff for their consideration.
D. Wendin requested he be allowed to offer a substitute motion.
Substitute Motion: D. Wendin moved that staff be directed to
work with the appropriate authorities at the City of
Palo Alto and San Mateo County to develop a meeting plan
that meets the following approximate schedule:
1) Input for revised criteria, if any , to this Board
at meeting of July 8, 1981;
2) Final adoption of revised criteria, if any, by this
Board at meeting of July 22, 1981;
3) A joint meeting in early August, not later than
second week in August, with the Palo Alto Planning
Commission, with attendance by at least two Palo
Alto City Council members , to review lots against
adopted criteria (in the south frontage from "G"
to "Ll' ) ;
4) A similar joint meeting with attendance by City
Council members in early September, but not later
than second week of September, to choose a final
location to recommend to the Palo Alto City Council; and
5) A Palo Alto City Council meeting to approve proposed
location by end of September with a Special Meeting
of this Board to finally adopt location and direct
staff to complete plans.
N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko stated she had seconded the substitute
motion with the understanding there was some flexibility built
into the motion in order to allow the December deadline to
be met and noted she would like to see the Board recommend a
particular site, preferably Fl, to the Palo Alto City Council.
D. Wendin stated he intended the two joint meetings proposed
in the substitute motion to be official, publicly noticed
joint meetings and said the Board should not consider sites
when adopting the criteria, The substitute motion passed
unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that staff be directed to work with Mr. Harring-
ton who had offered to assist in the preparation of a pre-
liminary engineering design for the F 1 location. D. Wendin
seconded the motion.
Discussion: Discussion centered on the clarity of the
motion, and N. Hanko subsequently withdrew her motion.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board direct staff to prepare a
preliminary plan for the Fl lot, utilizing the volunteer
services of Mr. Harrington, by at least the first meeting in
August, and if expenditure of out-of-pocket funds beyond
nominal amounts is required, staff should make such a request
at the next meeting.
K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-16 Page four
K. Duffy stated she felt a position statement from the Board was
necessary to explain the background and factors relating to the
selection of a parking lot location for the Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve. R. Bishop, with the Board's concurrence, appointed Direc-
tor Duffy to formulate a policy statement on the matter for the
Board' s consideration.
C. Request for Interim Signing for Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
N. Hanko introduced her memorandum M-81-67, dated June 15, 1981, re-
garding interim signing for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. She
noted the proposed interim signing was in keeping with the Board' s
approved development plan for the Preserve, that she had sent a copy
of the memorandum to the Palo Alto Planning Department, and that the
Department' s staff had indicated only an administrative approval for
the posting of the signs would be necessary.
E. Shelley stated he could not support N. Hanko' s recommendations since
the location of the main preserve sign must be located relative to the
parking lot and since undesireable use patterns might be encouraged,
H. Turner stated he disagreed with the recommendation of distributing
brochures about the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve at the Los Trancos
Open Space Preserve. D. Wendin stated he opposed encouraging people
to park at the Los Trancos parking lot and to cross Page Mill Road
to reach the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and could not support the
signing recommendations.
Ellie Huggins, 824 San Francisco Court, Stanford, expressed her support
for the interim recommendations suggested by Director Hanko.
Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills, expressed his
support for Director Hanko' s recommendations and discussed safety
hazards on the Preserve, vandalism, and fire danger concerns in the
area. He encouraged the Board and staff to meet with the Preserve' s
neighbors and City of Palo Alto officials to discuss the fire danger
and possible solutions.
Mark Schneider, Box 343, Star Route #2, La Honda, discussed the vandal-
ism and destruction of the District' s fence at the Preserve and the
high fire danger.
E. Shelley requested the staff report back to the Board at the next
meeting on the status of the Black Mountain fire watch tower.
Motion : N. Hanko moved that a sign similar to the Saratoga Gap
District ownership sign be set back a few yards inside
the Preserve at the hiking stile entrance of Page Mill
Road. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Motion to Amend: K. Duffy moved to amend the motion to state
an informational sign stating the District 's rules
and regulations be placed several yards in from Page
Mill Road on Canyon Road so as not to be visible from
Page Mill Road. B. Green seconded the motion to amend
which passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-16 Page five
The motion as amended passed on the following vote:
AYES: K. Duffy, B. Green, N . Hanko, H. Turner, and
R. Bishop.
NOES: D. Wendin and E. Shelley.
N. Hanko noted staff should inform the Palo Alto Planning Department
staff of the sign 's placement.
Motion: N. Hanko moved a Monte Bello site brochure containing
trail routes that now exist be provided at the Los
Trancos parking lot.
The motion was not seconded.
Motion: N. Hanko moved two small Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
signs be installed at the entrance to Canyon Trail and
the trailhead hiking stile entrances .
The motion was not seconded.
Motion: K. Duffy moved a directional sign indicating Canyon
Trail be placed near the hiking stile on Page Mill
Road. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion
passed on the following vote:
AYES : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, B. Green, N. Hanko,
H. Turner, and R. Bishop.
NOES: E. Shelley
Motion : N. Hanko moved to encourage docent leaders to plan for
fall and spring walks on the Preserve. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved to ask staff to return with an appropriate
budget modification resolution at the next meeting to
transfer the funds for the signs from open space acqui-
sition to open space management. E. Shelley seconded
the motion.
Discussion: Discussion centered on whether or not it
was necessary to transfer the funds from open space
acquisition. C. Britton suggested the Board allow
staff to report back as necessary if it was necessary
to transfer the funds from open space acquisition.
Substitute Motion: D. Wendin moved the Board direct staff to
return with a proposal for funding to implement the
Board's actions at the next meeting. E. Shelley
seconded the motion. The substitute motion passed
unanimously.
T. Harrington requested the fire hazard signs be placed on Page Mill
Road as had been done in previous years and noted he had seen indi- '
viduals swimming in the cistern on the Preserve.
P. Obluda asked the Board to direct staff to address the items of fire
danger and safety hazards on the Preserve.
Meeting 81-16 Page six
D. Evaluation of Thornewood Lease Proposal
H. Turner reviewed the Thornewood Proposals Review Committee' s
report R-81-33 , dated June 18, 1981, noting the Committee was
recommending the Gano, Pollard, and Means proposals for Board
consideration for the long-term lease and restoration project
of the Thornewood house and grounds . D. Wendin summarized the
three proposals and their differences and explained the buyout
. provision.
Artemas Ginzton, 28014 Natoma Road , Los Altos Hills , questioned
the Ganos' exception to the basic parameters of having only one
public tour of the Thornewood house per year, and N. Hanko
posed various questions to the three proposers on their respective
proposal.
Discussion centered on the developability of the adjacent lake
parcel the Ganos were offering to the District at a discounted
price from its estimated value and the importance of the lake
parcel to the District. E. Shelley stated he felt the parcel
was an important trail link from Wunderlich Park.
Jan Matser, 359 Tyrella Avenue, Number D, Mountain View, expressed
his concerns about leasing the Thornewood house and grounds to
the Ganos .
Tom Gano of Woodside and Frank Means of Mountain View explained
why they each felt their proposal should be accepted by the Board.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that staff be directed to negotiate a
lease contract with the Ganos following the general
criteria set out by the Board with two additional
criteria:
1) the discounted price, coupled with the 17 year lease,
be reasonable in view of the upfront dollars offered
by the Pollards ; and
2) the appropriate certification be obtained stating
that the lake parcel is developable.
H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley and H. Turner stated the trail
link provided by the lake parcel was critical to the
District. T. Gano stated he would be willing to
negotiate with staff on the number of public tours
per year, and, in response to a question from R. Bishop,
said that, if the lake parcel was not developable, he
would be willing to negotiate the sale of the property
at a lesser value. R. Bishop called for a roll call
vote on the motion, and the motion passed on the
following vote :
K. Duffy-Aye
D. Wendin-Aye
B. Green-Aye
E. Shelley-Aye
N. Hanko-No
H. Turner-Aye
R. Bishop-Aye
D. Wendin requested staff return to the Board at the meeting of
July 22, 1981 with a schedule that would be followed in the
lease negotiations.
Meeting 81-16 Page seven
break at 10 :10 P.M. and reconvened at 10 :15 P.M.
for a
recessed o
The Board e h
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Response to Letter Regarding Problems at Sheldon Road Access to
El Sereno Open Space Preserve
S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-81-70, dated June 24, 1981, relating
to access problems at Sheldon Road, showed slides to illustrate as-
pects of the staff report, and noted staff could include the opening
of Sheldon Road as a fire and patrol road in the 1982-1983 proposed
budget if attempts to negotiate a joint project with the County' s
Fire Department were unsuccessful. He stated four to six cars could
be accommodated at the roadside turnout on Montevina Road.
Barbara Crafford, 16830 S.heldon Road, Los Gatos, agreed with the
staff' s recommendations regarding proposed signing and flyer distri-
bution, but stated a stronger fence and gate were needed, the clearing
of the patrol road was essential, and additional ranger patrol was
needed in the area.
Eric Miller, 16930 Sheldon Road, stated the meadows were very popular
for camping and cooking and were a high fire hazard area. Marcia
Miller, of the same address, said the clearing of the fire land was
essential.
Discussion centered on the joint project with the County' s Fire
Department to open the fire road and the Fire Department's responsi-
bility in the area. D. Wendin encouraged the Sheldon Road residents
to join with the District in proposing the joint project, noting that
such a project would be a less total expense of taxpayers' money.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that staff be authorized to work with the
Sheldon Road residents to strengthen the existing gate and
fence, post District regulatory signs and "Fire Lane - Do
Not Block" sign where appropriate, allow the posting of the
"Private Road, No Parking" signs, and enlist the aid of the
neighbors in handing out informational flyers on an interim
basis. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: K. Duffy expressed her concern about the "band-
aid " approach for alleviating the situation and said she did
not feel the T-post fence and gate were adequate.
S. Sessions said staff would be addressing the subject in
the Preserve' s use and management plan scheduled for Board
review in September. R. Bishop stated Sheldon Road resi-
dents who signed the letter to the Board should be notified
when the use and management plan was going to be considered
by the Board. In response to a question from one of the
residents, S. Sessions said he would flag the meadows area
for patrol on July 4, but could not state that a ranger would
be stationed there over the holiday. S. Sessions stated he
would coordinate with the residents on the petition to Central
Fire, noting his target date for contacting the residents
would be thirty days from the meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
Meeting 81-16 Page eight
B. Review of Use and Management Plan for Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve, Picchetti Ranch Area
S. Sessions reviewed the proposed use and management plan for the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, Picchetti Ranch Area as contained in
report R-81-32, dated June 17, 1981. He noted the Board was being
asked to approve conceptually the recommendations in the report since
the final plan would be returned to the Board for review concurrent
with the Picchetti lease agreement.
K. Duffy requested item five of Status of Existing Recommendations be
amended to state "Landscaping is still recommended, but it is suggested
that it be coordinated into an overall landscaping plan for the lease
area. " (the word coordinated replaced the word incorporated) and an
e) "maintenance of restroom" be added to the provisions outlined in
item nine under New Use and Management Recommendations for the summer
camp program outlined by the City of Cupertino.
S. Sessions stated it was staff' s intention for the Stortzes to main-
tain the restroom when the summer camp program was not being operated
on the property and the .restroom's hours of use would be the same as
the Preserve' s hours. He stated, in response to a question from K.
Duffy, staff was planning to undertake the proposed fencing and signing
within the coming year.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the conceptual approval of the use and manage-
ment plan recommendations contained in the staff report
R-81-32. B. Green seconded the notion. The motion passed
unanimously.
R. Bishop stated the Board' s concurrence that, due to the lateness
of the hour, the Board would consider next the agenda items requiring
the uresence of the Controller, M. Poster.
C. Approval of Auditor for 1980-81 Fiscal Year
M. Foster reviewed memorandum M-81-62 , dated June 12, 1981,
noting the District should try to maintain audit continuity
with Deloitte, Haskins and Sells for several years.
Motion: B. Green moved the appointment of Deloitte, Haskins
and Sells as the District' s auditors for the fiscal
year 1980-81. K. Duffy seconded the motion, and the
motion passed unanimously.
D. Adoption of Annual Claims Lists for 1981-82 Fiscal Year
M. Foster reviewed memorandums M-81-60 and M-81-61, dated
June 9 and June 12, 1981 respectively, noting this was the
first time the debt service annual claims list had been
submitted for Board approval.
D. Wendin requested that future debt service annual claims
lists include the remaining debt service balance for each
acquisition.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the annual claims
list for 1981-1982 and the debt service annual
claims list for 1981-1982. E. Shelley seconded the
motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-16 Page nine
VIII. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, continued
E. Pilot Program for Overnight Sleepouts at Rancho San Antonio
Open Space Preserve (Windmill Pasture Area) by Hidden Villa, Inc.
D. Wendin reviewed memorandum M-81-66, dated June 17, 1981, re-
garding allowing sleepouts at the Windmill Pasture Area by
Hidden Villa, Inc. on a trial basis . He noted the Hidden Villa
Committee considered the program a pilot one, not a permanent
program, and the fact Hidden Villa was receiving special
consideration since the program did not accommodate the general
public. The report called for the program' s results to be evaluated
by staff and submitted to the Board by November, 1981 . D. Wendin
stated the word "campover" - in the notification section of the
interim guidelines should be changed to "sleepover" .
Motion: D. Wendin moved adoption of the pilot program for over-
night sleepouts at the Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve (Windmill Pasture Area) by Hidden Villa, Inc.
on a trial basis . H. Turner seconded the motion, and
the motion passed unanimously.
R. Bishop thanked the members of the Hidden Villa Committee and
the Thornewood Proposals Review Committee for their
efforts. It was clarified that the two committees would not
be disbanded at this time.
IX. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, continued
E. Proposed Addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (Bean Property)
S. Sessions showed slides of the proposed 14 acre acquisition near
Skyline Boulevard in San Mateo County, and C. Britton reviewed re-
port R-81-31, dated June 15, 1981. He noted a newly constructed four
bedroom house, an auxiliary building, and a generator shed were lo-
cated on the property and stated acquisition of the property would
give the District fee title to the road on the property, control over
the eventual running of PG and E lines on the property, and a loop
trail for the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. He said since the house
was not occupied, there would be no relocation obligations and noted
the terms of the contract called for a purchase price of $325, 000,
with $75, 000 as down payment and the balance over five years at 10%
interest. C. Britton stated staff was proposing that the house be
leased for one year based on a current rental survey, thus allowing
staff time to determine the most advantageous method of handling
the improvements in the long term. S. Sessions reviewed the use and
management recommendations contained in the report, noting staff was
recommending the site not be dedicated as open space at this time.
Motion: B. Green moved the adoption of Resolution 81-36, a Resolu-
tion of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement to
Purchase Real Property, Authorizing-Officer to Execute Certi-
ficate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing
General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents
Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction Long
Ridge Open Space Preserve (Bean Property) .
K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Meeting 81-16 Page ten
Discussion: D. Wendin stated he supported the acquisition,
but requested the minutes reflect the purchase was being made
to acquire only trail rights for the public and not to buy a
developed Parcel. He encouraged staff to determine a creative
way, not only to recover the District' s investment in the
property, but to allow the removal of what he considered would
be a long term management problem. The motion passed
unanimously.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the Board approve in concept the use and
management plan, but defer adoption until the Board' s next
regular meeting, withhold the site from dedication, un-
officially name the site as an addition to the Long Ridge
Open Space Preserve, and authorize staff to immediately rent
the premises for one year pending a detailed study of the
long term disposition of the improvement. K. Duffy seconded
the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
F. Amendment to District ' s Rules of Procedure (memorandum
M-81-63, dated June 11, 1981)
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of Resolution 81-37,
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Amending
Rules of Procedure. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop stated the resolution referred
to the increase in compensation from $50 - 00 to $75- 00
members of the Board would receive for each attendance
at public Board meetings. The motion passed unanimoulsy.
G. Follow-up on Issues and Questions from Site Emphasis and
Program Evaluation Workshops
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board defer this agenda item
to a future Board meeting to be set subject to the
President's discretion. N. Hanko seconded the motion,
and the motion passed unanimously.
X. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
S. Sessions reported the District' s Rangers had helped fight a fire
that burned approximately 20 acres of land near the Rancho San Antonio
Open Space Preserve the previous week.
S. Sessions stated two additional tours had been added to the June 28,
1981 open house at the Fremont Older house in order to accommodate
interested members of the public. K. Duffy requested the staff issue
special invitations for the next Fremont older open house to officials
from the City of Saratoga, noting the City would be celebrating its
anniversary in the fall.
S. Sessions said the District' s trail improvement Coastal Conservancy
grant for Crittenden Marsh currently had a high rating for approval.
S. Sessions noted the District had 35 miles of road to maintain.
Meeting 81-16 Page eleven
C. Britton reported AB 597 was heard in the Assembly Ways and Means
Committee and Assemblyman John Vasconcellos had requested the removal
of the bill ' s section relating to a 4/5th vote to exchange land.
C. Britton stated he had recently visited three youth hostels along
the coast.
S. Sessions reported the Palo Alto Planning Commission, earlier in the
evening, had voted to allow chain link fencing around the residential
development on Page Mill Road to remain. He noted .District staff had
sent a letter to the City objecting to the fence and that the City' s
Public Works Department had also objected to the request for the
fence to remain.
XI. CLAIMS
Motion: B. Green moved the approval of the revised claims, C-81-13,
dated June 24 , 1981. E. Shelley seconded the motion which
passed unanimously.
XII. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session at 11 :45 P.M.
XIII, ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :30 A.M. , Thursday, June 25 , 1981,
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
C-81-13
June 24, 1981
Meeting 81-16
Revised
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
2226 $ 16. 00 Administrative Management One Year Subscription
2227 220. 00 A-1 Septic Tank Service, Inc. Pump Tank-Saratoga Gap Residence
2228 83. 26 Auerbach Publishers , Inc. Book-"Computers in Local Govt/
Police and Fire"
2229 1. 33 B and H Rentals One Pull Rope for Pumper
2230 3, 354. 75 Birnie Lumber Split Rail Fencing-Windy Hill ,
Los Trancos , Rancho San Antonio
2231 1 , 150. 00 Louis B. Bordi & Son Discing Fire Guards at Windy
Hill and Rancho San Antonio
2232 123. 20 Bull ' s Glass and Screen and Screen and Screen Door-Ranger
Screen Center Office
2233 325 . 13 CA ;,rater Service Co. Utilities
4 10. 00 James Boland District Vehicle-Reimbursement
2� s5 90. 00 The Dark Room Prints and Slides
2236 318. 96 Department of Parks and- Plumbing Skills Program-David
Recreation Topley
2237 1 ,029 . 92 Dorn' s District Vehicle Expense
2238 149 . 57 Dyna Industries , Inc. Emergency Medical Supplies
2239 91. 35 Emergency Vehicle Equipment- Law Enforcement Equipment .
Service
2240 134. 80 Ewert' s Photo Film and Mailers
2241 40. 00 Excel Pool and Patio , Inc. Pool Maintenance
2242 75 ,000. 00 First American Title- Addition to Long Ridge Open-
Insurance Co. Space Preserve(Bean Property)
2243 25. 10 The Frog Pond Meal Conference-Thornewood and
Hidden Villa Committees
2244 116 . 66 Graphicstat Trail Sign Prints-Deer Hollow
and Hidden Villa
2245 497. 16 Hubbard and Johnson Materials for Fremont Older
Adobe Shed and Flooring,Counter-
top for Skyline Cabin,Shelving
and wood for Skyline Cabin.
109. 48 The Hub Schneider' s Ranger Uniforms
2247 6. 71 Keeble and Shuchat Prints of Burn for Docent Walk
2248 39. 32 Lunde Mfg. Inc. Eagle Claw Rubbish Pickers
-81-13 - P e 2
ine 24, 1981 i0i s e d
Meeting 81-16
Amount Name Description
2249 $ 9. 00 Management Learning Lab . Subscription-One Year
Li 220. 00 Microfiche Publishers , Inc. Mapping
2251 19. 16 Minton' s Lumber & Supply One Gallon Exterior Primer
2252 19. 92 Norney' s Office Supplies
2253 300. 70 Orchard Supply Hardware Support Equipment and Supplies
for Rogue Valley Trail and Field
-Supplies
2254 52. 72 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter
2255 40. 00 City of Palo Alto ' Agenda and Minutes-One .Year
Subscription
2256 72. 52 PG and E . Utilities
2257 627. 50 The Pipe Yard Culvert Pipes for .Trails
2258 1 ,425 . 00 Rogers ,Vizzard and Tallett May Legal S ervides
2259 13. 50 Rancho Cobbler Repair Uniform
2260 1 , 158 . 19 Clyde Robin Seed Co. , Inc . Seeds
2261 349. 02 REI Co-op Rescue and Recovery Equipment
2262 10. 65 S and W Equipment Replacement Parts for Chain Saws
2263 653. 73 -Sears Drill and Hold Down Clamp ,High
Pressure Washer and Safety Goggles
5 ,960. 0.0 SGS , Inc. Grading of Roads-Rancho San
Antonio ,Fremont Older and
Manzanita Open 'Space Preserve
2265 8 . 20 San Jose Art Drafting Supplies
2266 191. 63 Tools-R-Us Shop Power Tool and Field Power
Tool and. Accessories
2267 110. 64 Uno, Graphics Fremont Older and Skyline Trails
'Brochures
2268 10. 64 Victor Shop Supplies-Oxygen
2269 389. 63 Xerox Installment Payment and
Maintenance
2270 144. 71 Xerographic Copy Systems Xerox Supplies
2271 78.00 Cardillo Travel Agencies Out-of-Town lieeting Expense-
Herbert Grench
2272 126 . 40 Steven D. Sessions Private Vehicle Expense
2273 100. 00 Susan Murie ' Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Training-9 Rangers
2274 400. G0 Mr. & Mrs . Jens Karl -Kroijer Deed of Trust Payment-June
2275 733. 00 Katherine Blackburn Contract Services-June
100. 00 Metro Real Estate Research Appraisal Services
2277 62.00 David Topley Training-Woodshop
2278 369. 00 Santa Rosa Junior College� NPS -Law Enforcement Course
Joan Ferguson
C-81-13 Page 3
June 24, 1981 Revised
Meeting 81-16
` MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Ir Amount Name Description
2279 $ 220. 00 California Tomorrow Summer Legal Intern
2280 162 . 99 Petty Cash Office Supplies , Private Vehicle Expense
Out-of-Town Meeting Expense,Color Prints
for LWCF Grant, Meal Conference Expense,
and Paper for District History Project
l
r,
!eting 81-17
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
July 8, 1981
I . ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7: 39 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Edward Shelley,
Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Amber Absent: Daniel Wendin
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Steven Sessions, Charlotte
MacDonald, Jean Fiddes , Stanley Norton, and Michael Foster.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 27 , 1981
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of May 27, 1981.
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Y.-Fiddes reported the Board had received a letter, dated June 19,
1981, from Senator Alan Cranston in response to the resolution
passed by the Board regarding the cuts in Land and Water Conser-
vation Grant funds.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
H. Grench requested the addition of a new agenda item to New Business
with Action Requested following Item 5 on the agenda. He stated
S. Norton would present the new agenda item which dealt with the
possible reissue of the Windy Hill notes .
R. Bishop stated the Board' s consensus that the agenda was adopted
with the addition of the new agenda item to New Business with
Action Requested.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos , expressed his
appreciation to the Board for the new trail that had been con-
structed at the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and en-
couraged the construction of similar trails .
Malka Kopell , Conservation Director for the Peninsula Conservation Center, and
Michael - Rigney, a 'Wildlife biologist, gave a slide presentation
on Bair Island in Redwood City and noted the Peninsula conser-
vation Center was opposed to Mobil Oil 's proposed development
on the island because of the impact of wildlife in the area and
the traffic that would be generated from the project.
VI. OLD EUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Approval of Interim Use and Management Recommendations for
Addition to Long Ridge Open SpacePreserve (Bean Property)
R. Bishop, summarizing memorandum M-81-71, dated June 30 , 1981. He
stated the purchase of the Bean property had been authorized at
the meeting of June 24 , 1981 and noted the Board had deferred the
Meeting 81-17 age Two
adoption of the interim use and management recommendations ,
pending additional public input. There were no comments from
members of the public.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board approve the use and management
recommendations recommended by staff for the Bean property
addition to the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. K. Duffy
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Presentation by Midpeninsula Trails Council
S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-81-73 , dated July 1, 1981,
noting staff did not object to the concept of a Trails Council,
but a significant amount of staff time might be consumed if the
Board directed staff to serve as a liaison to the Council. He
said an alternative approach would be to recognize the Council
as an organized special interest group and to solicit input from
the Trails Council for the biennial reviews of use and management
plans and to utilize the Council as a resource during the planning
process.
D. Hubbard, Acting Chairman of the Mid-Peninsula Trails Council,
explained the history of the organization, its purpose, and its
benefits to the District. She noted the primary focus of the
Trails Council was trail development and maintenance within the
District' s preserves and those public areas which have the possi-
bility of linkage with open space lands and said the Council ' s
members would aim for specific knowledge of the plans and imple-
mentation of trail plans by the District, local, county, and State
governments. She requested the Board appoint an advisor to the
Council, whose duties would be to advise the Council and keep them
informed on all matters of interest to the Council in which the
District is involved and to keep the Board advised of the interests
and actions of the Council.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the Council and its
recognition by the Board: Fran Stevenson, Chair of the Los Altos
Hills Pathways Committee and member of the Trails Council; Francis
Spangle; Larry Farber; Carolyn Lemper, who represented the Cali-
fornia Roadrunners; Janie Killerman, President, League of Women
Voters, Los Altos-Mountain View Area; and Bob Doyle, vice-president
of the East Bay Area Trails Council. A letter, dated June 9 , 1981,
from Artemas Ginzton, 28014 Natoma Road, Los Altos Hills, was read
into the record in support of the Council.
B. Doyle explained in detail the function of the East Bay Trails
Council, how it economically benefited local agencies, and re-
sponded to various questions posed by Board members.
H. Haeussler suggested substituting the word "liaison" for "advisor"
in the Council ' s By-Laws and expressed his support for the letter
distributed by J. Killerman from the League of Women Voters, dated
July 8, 1981 , regarding the building of citizen participation into
every step of the planning and management of land resources and
encouraging the Board to establish a periodic public review pro-
cess for land acquisition and use planning.
Meeting 81-17 Page Three
D. Hubbard read a letter from Hewlett Hornbeck, Chief, Land Acqui-
sition Department, East Bay Regional Park District, on the history
of the East Bay Trails Council.
Bob Emert, Chief of Operations and Maintenance of San Mateo
County' s Parks and Recreation Department, commended the Board on
encouraging the Trails Council, explained the various ways citizen
advisory groups function in San Mateo County, and said the County
would have, to the best of their ability, County staff members
at any Trails Council meeting where San Mateo County issues were
discussed. Dave Christy, Director of Parks and Recreation, Santa
Clara County, noted the District would have an inter-county special
interest group with the Council and said, due to current budgetary
cutbacks, he could not at this time offer. Santa Clara County staff
support to any voluntary group or commission.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the Board appoint a staff member as liaison
to work with the Trails Council. N. Hanko seconded the
motion.
Discussion: H. Grench stated S. Sessions had determined land
management staff would probably have to commit a range of
8-12 hours per month to the Council, and since this was a new
task being assigned staff, either priorities would have to
be shifted or possibly additional staff added. E. Shelley
noted it was important to compare staff sizes when comparing
the District to the East Bay Regional Park District since
they had more staff to commit to their trails council. He
said it would be useful for the Council to coordinate meeting
items and that the Board might want to consider the time
lapse between approving an acquisition and interim use and
management. plans for the acquisition so that the Council would
have the opportunity to review the use and management recommen-
dations. Discussion centered then on having a representative
from the Council at all Board meetings.
Motion to Amend: H. Turner moved that the motion be amended to state
the General Manager or his designee as a liaison to work
with the Trails Council was contingent upon the Council
appointing a representative or representatives to attend
District Board meetings. B. Green seconded the motion to
amend which passed unanimously.
The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously.
D. Hubbard stated the Trails Council would meet the first Monday of
each month at the District office, beginning at 7 : 30 P.M.
The Board recessed for a break at 9 : 30 P.M.
The Board reconvened for the public meeting at 9 : 43 P.M.
Meeting 81-17 Page Four
C. Position Statement on Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
R. Bishop stated, with the Board' s concurrence, this agenda item
would be considered before the item on the Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve Parking Lot Approval Process. He commended Director Duffy
for the position statement she had prepared for Board consideration
(memorandum M-81-77, dated July 2, 1981) . Discussion centered on the
deletion of the second sentence in the conclusion paragraph which
referred to the District as having been put in an uncomfortable posi-
tion of being the "Dirty Guy Developer" and despoilers of open space.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board approve the position statement on
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve as drafted by K. Duffy with
the deletion of the second sentence in the conclusion Para-
graph. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed on
the following vote :
Ayes: K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko, H. Turner, and R. Bishop
Noes: E. Shelley
E. Shelley requested the record state hd only opposed the modification
made to the report, not the report itself.
D . Follow-up on the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking
Lot Approval Process
S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-81-74 , dated July 1 , 1981,
containing criteria the staff would ask the Board to adopt
at the July 22, 1981 meeting for the evaluation of potential
parking lot locations for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve.
He noted four criteria had been added to the list which re-
presented concerns expressed by the Board, the Palo Alto
Planning Commission and City Council , and members of the
public. He stated staff was requesting the Board to approve
an expenditure of approximately $1800 to complete necessary
engineering studies to be used in the evaluation and site
selection process .
H. Turner, noting he would not be in attendance at the meeting
of July 22 , 1981, requested that a criteria be added to the
list that categorized initial size of lot to be studied and
expansion potential.
S . Session stated staff at the City of Palo Alto was in
agreement with the parking lot approval process adopted by the
Board at its previous meeting and noted Palo Alto staff had
suggested a joint field trip as part of the approval process .
Motion: E. Shelley moved the Board authorize the expenditure of
up to $1800 to complete necessary preliminary engineering
studies . N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Haeussler requested that the provision
of horse trailer parking be taken into consideration
in the engineering studies .
The motion passed unanimously.
K. Duffy suggested staff investigate the amount of soils testing
required for the parking lot locations to be evaluated.
Meeting 81-17 Page Five
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Approval of Short-Term Loan
M. Foster reviewed memorandum M-81-76, dated July 2, 1981, re-
garding the Board's authorization for a six-month $1,500,000
tax anticipation loan from First Interstate Bank of California.
He noted a copy of the July 7 , 1981 letter from S . W. Pickard,
Vice President and Manager, First Interstate Bank of California,
176 Main Street, Los Altos , had been distributed to the Board
and said the letter indicated the tax anticipation note would
bear interest at a rate of 9 . 95% per annum.
M. Foster and S. Norton answered questions regarding the note
posed by Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View.
Motion: B. Green moved the adoption of Resolution 81-17, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Authorizing the Issuance
of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Tax
Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A. K. Duffy seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: B. Green moved the adoption of Resolution 81-18 ' a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Awarding Sale of Tax
Anticipation Note. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
J. Fiddes stated she had provided the Board with incorrect motion
numbers prior to the moving of the two motions and said the
motions should have been numbered 81-38 and 81-39 respectively.
Motion: B. Green moved the number of Resolution 81-17 be changed
to 81-38 and the number of Resolution 81-18 be changed
to 81-39 . K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
to correct the clerical error passed unanimously.
B. Reissue of Windy Hill Notes
S. Norton distributed a draft letter to the Board, dated July 8, 1981,
from Wally H. Leynse & Associates requesting the Board consider
adopting a resolution that would allow for the reissue of the
five $100 ,000 Windy Hill notes to a smaller denomination. He said
Wally H. Leynse & Associates, the owners of the notes, had been
unable to sell the larger denomination notes and had requested
the notes be reissued into $5,000 denominations . He noted the
District was under no obligation to accomodate the request and
that Leynse & Associates would pay any and all expenses incurred
by the reissue of the notes .
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of Resolution 81-40 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Supplementing Resolution
No. 80-51 to Provide for the Issuance of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Negotiable Promissory Notes
(Windy Hill Open Space Preserve - P.O.S .T. Property) .
B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Meeting 81-17 Page Six
C. Follow-Up on Issues and Questions from Site Emphasis and
Program Evaluation Workshops
H. Grench, referring to memorandum M-81-75, dated July 2 , 1981,
noted this agenda item had been deferred from previous meetings
and asked the Board to approve the summary on Board positions
on issues and questions from site emphasis and program evaluation
workshops discussed at previous meetings and to adopt the
publicity guidelines related to site emphasis policy.
E. Shelley pointed out an inconsistency between the response to
question five on establishing classifications for each site and
the criteria listed in question six. N.
Hanko suggested the
Board delete the words "which is consistent with classification"
in the eighth criteria listed under question six. R. Bishop
stated the Board ' s concurrence to delete the words .
Motion : N. Hanko moved the Board adopt the statements, as amended,
made in memorandum M-81-47 , dated May 7, 1981, up to and
through the statement on .site stewardship,
:>, as a statement
of the policies the Board has adopted on site emphasis.
K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
N . lianko explained she had proposed some wording changes to the
publicity guidelines relating to brochures since she felt the
emphasis of the brochure should be placed on providing the public
with information on what properties the District had acquired and
how to reach them, rather than discussing why certain sites were
emphasized. She said she would like the brochure to include a
very clear map showing where all District land was located.
Discussion centered on the practicality of having one large map
showing how to reach all preserves .
Motion: H. Turner moved the Board adopt the originally proposed
publicity guidelines related to site emphasis policy
contained in memorandum M-81-47 , dated May 7 , 1981 .
E. Shelley seconded the motion.
Motion to Amend: N. Hanko moved to amend the motion by striking
the word "Ideally" at the beginning fifth sentence of
paragraph Al under Brochures and beginning the sentence
with the word "The" . B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: C. MacDonald requested the phrase "an area
that for one reason or another" in the third sentence
of the paragraph be changed to "where for one reason
or another" to correct a grammatical error.
The motion to amend, including C. MacDonald' s correction,
,passed unanimously.
Motion to Amend: N. Hanko moved to amend the motion by adding
the sentence "The kind and availability of specific
site brochures will be considered at the adoption and
biennial review of individual land use plans . " at the
end of paragraph A2 under Brochures . B. Green seconded
the motion. The motion to amend passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-17 Page Seven
Motion to Amend: N. Hanko moved the motion be amended to include
the statement "With the exception of press releases used
to encourage public involvement in site planning, " at
the beginning of the first sentence in the paragraph
on press releases .
Discussion: Discussion centered on the need to include
the proposed statement, and N. Hanko subsequently with-
drew her motion.
Motion to Amend: N. Hanko moved to amend the motion by adding
the word "informational" before the word "tool" in the
first sentence of the paragraph on the Openspace
newsletter and deleting the word "potential" from the
same sentence. R. Bishop seconded the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench suggested substituting the word
"device" for "tool" in the first sentence. N. Hanko
and R. Bishop agreed to include the substitution in
their motion to amend. The motion to amend passed
unanimously.
The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously.
VIII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench reported the informational signs to be installed at
the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve would cost $125 . Ile stated
staff had received favorable reports from the staff of the
California Coastal Conservancy on the approval of the District's
joint grant application with the city of Mountain View. He
reported on the recent Special District Conference he had attended
in Du Page County, Illinois .
C. MacDonald reported on the recent San Francisco Bay Area California
2000 Conference that the District had co-sponsored.
S. Sessions reported on the status of the Black Mountain fire tower,
noting the tower had not been completed,and stated fire danger
signs had not been placed on Page Mill Road since the road Was
outside the jurisdiction of the California Division of Forestry.
He reported the mitigation of hazards on the Monte Bello Open Space
had been delayed since staff had received some incorrect bids on the
project. He stated Santa Clara County was in the process of in-
stalling a fence at Rancho San Antonio County Park and reported on
two incidents that had occurred on District land on July 4 .
He informed the Board of an arson fire on Windy Hill earlier in
the day and another fire in the Long Ridge area which was not
on District property.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the revised claims,
C-81-14 , dated July 8, 1981. B. Green seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 81-17 Page Eight
X. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session for land negotiations and per-
sonnel matters at 11: 26 P.M.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11: 59 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
LI-0 I-14
July 8, 1981
Meeting 81-17
• Revised
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
2281 $ 2,000.00 AAA Fence Company C/Link Fence & Gate Installation
2282 9.00 ABRACADABRA Typesetting Soaring Area Windy Hill Sign
2283 92.87 Antelope Camping Equipment Bag & Supports for Maintenace EquiD.
2234 16.13 B&H Equipment Rentdl Parts for Mower & Pumpers
2285 2,163.65 Birnie Lumber Fence--LTOSP, FOOSP, Windy Hill.
2286 750. 00 California Advocates Services .-- June, 1981
2287 23.32 Carlsen Volkswagon - Floor Mat, Brake. Boot
2288 218.00 Communications Research Co. Maintenance & Scanner Replacement
2289 300.00 Susan Cret'ekos Patrol Windmill Pasture - June
2290 81 .14 Ray Dodd Materials & Development - Photos
2291 6,049. 20 Hipp Welding Inc. Fabricate Eight Pipe Gates
2292 512.09 Mobil Oil District Vehicle Expense
2293 32.80 Stanley Norton Telephone Tolls & Copies - May
2294 123.166 PG&E Utilities - Rancho San Antonio
2295 14.39 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service -
2296 2. 98 Palo Alto Utilities Monte Bello Road Utilities
2297 14.36 Peninsula Blueprint Blueprints
2298 1 ,206.41 Peninsula Office Supplies Desks, Chair
2299 320.63 The Pipe Yard PVC Pipe & Fittings
2300 18. 51 Rancho Hardware Tools & Automotive Supplies
2301 910. 58 Real Estate Register Microfiche service lease 81-82
2302 15.00 San Francisco Newspaper Agency San Francisco Examiner Subscription
2303 659.48 Sears Field Equipment & Tools
2304 261. 15 Shell Oil .Company District Vehicle Expense
2305 436. 58 Signs of the Times Signs--Los Trancos
2306 289. 50 Soil & Plant Lab, Inc. Monte Bello Burn Project
2307 9.27 David Topley Rubber Stamp - Ranger Office
2308 342. 59 Valley Stake & Supply Building Materials
2309 462. 99 Western Fire Equipment Pump Parts & Repair
2310 40. 00 City of Palo Alto Minutes and Agendas-One Year
2311 859. 205 Western Title Insurance, Co. Title and Escrow Fees-Risley
Property
July 8, 1981
Meeting 81-17 Revised
Am, ount Name Description
2312 $ 62. 90 Alice Watt Private Vehicle Expense
2313 50.00 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
2314 69.20 Steven Sessions Private Vehicle Expense
2315 218.60 Herbert Grench Reimbursement-Educational Assistance
Program
2316 80.00 Virginia Michelson Artwork for Newsletter
2317 39.40 Craia Britton Meal Conference
2318 744.54 Herbert Grench Out-of-Town Meeting Expense
2319 172. 34 Petty Cash Out-of-Town Y.eetings ,Blueprint:
Meal Conferences ,Advertising-
Bean Rental ,Mis6ellaneous Hard-
ware ,Maps ,Office Supplies , and
Private Vehicle Expense .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-18 JUL 16 1981
JONES HALL HILL & WHITE,
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HENNETI-I I.JONES FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
ANDREW C. HALL,JR. SUITE 1930
ROBERT J. HILL SAN FRANCISCO 04111
SHARON STANTON WHITE July 15, 1981
CHARLES F. ADAMS (413) 391-5780
STEPHEN R. CASALEGGIO
WILLIAM R. MADISON
PHILIP N. LEE
Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION: $1,500,000 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Tax Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A
Members of the Board:
We have examined the Constitution and the laws of the State of
California, a copy of Resolution No. 81-38, as hereinafter identified and
defined, certified as a true and correct copy of the same and relating to the
authorization and issuance by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(the "District") of its note designated Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Tax Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A, in the principal amount of
$1,500,000 (the "Note"), the executed Note, and such other information and
documents as we consider necessary to render this opinion.
The Note has been issued pursuant to Article 7.6, commencing with
Section 53850, of Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the California
Government Code, and under Resolution No. 81-38, entitled "A Resolution
Authorizing the Issuance of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Tax
Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A", adopted by the Board of Directors of the
District on July 8, 1981 (the "Resolution").
Based on the foregoing, in our opinion:
(i) the offer and sale of the Note by the District is exempt from the
qualification requirements of the California Corporate Securities Law by
virtue of Section 25100(a) of the Corporation's Code of the State of
California, in that the Note constitutes a security issued by an
instrumentality of a public district; and
(ii ) the Note is not subject to the registration requirements of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Resolution is exempt from
qualification pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended.
Respectfully submitted,
A Professional Law Corporation
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-18 U14 L Al At 9
I
STONES HALL HILL & WHITE,
A PROFESSIONAI. LAW CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KENNETH I-TONES FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
ANDREW C.HALL,JR SUITE 1950
ROBERT J. HILL July 15, 1981 SAN FRANCISCO 94111
SHARON STANTON WHITE
CHARLES F. ADAMS (41715) 391-5780
STEPH FN R. CASALEGGIO
WILLIAM H. MADISON
PHILIP N. LEE
Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
OPINION: $1,500,000 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Tax Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A
Members of the Board:
We have examined the Constitution and the laws of the State of
California, a copy of Resolution No. 81 '38, as hereinafter identified and
defined, certified as a true and correct copy of the same and relating to the
authorization and issuance by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(the "District") of its note designated Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Tax Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A, in the principal amount of
$1,500,000 (the "Note"), the executed Note, and such other information and
documents as we consider necessary to render this opinion.
The Note has been issued pursuant to Article 7.6, commencing with
Section 53850, of Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 2 of Title 5 of the California
Government Code, and under Resolution No. 81-38, entitled "A Resolution
Authorizing the Issuance of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Tax
Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A", adopted by the Board of Directors of the
District on July 8, 1981 (the "Resolution") .
The Note is issued as a single fully registered note and is payable to
First Interstate Bank.
The Note matures on December 31 , 1981, and bears interest at the rate of
9.95%. Such interest is payable on maturity.
The Note is not subject to call or redemption prior to its fixed
maturity date.
Principal of and interest on the Note are payable in lawful money of the
United States of America which at the time of payment is legal tender for the
payment of public and private debts, upon surrender at the office of the
Treasurer of the District.
Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
July 15, 1981
Page Two
The Note is issued by the District to provide for current expenses and
capital expenditures of the District.
The Note is not a debt of the State of California or any other political
subdivision of the State of California. The Note is a special obligation of
the District payable from and secured by a pledge of and first lien and charge
against, all the now uncollected income and revenue of the District to be
received from taxes for the fiscal year 1981-1982 and all other income,
revenue, cash receipts, and moneys of the District, including any moneys
deposited in inactive or term deposits, lawfully available in said fiscal year
for the payment of the Note and the interest thereon; except, however, for
moneys which, when received by the District, will be encumbered for any
special purpose. To the extent not paid from said taxes, income, revenue,
cash receipts, or other moneys of the District pledged for the payment
thereof, the Note and the interest thereon shall be paid from any other moneys
of the District lawfully available therefor, provided, however, that in no
event shall the District be required, obligated or authorized to levy a
special tax for payment of the Note.
We are of the opinion that the Note has been duly and validly authorized
and issued and constitutes a legally binding special obligation of the
District enforceable in accordance with its tenor.
We are further of the opinion that, under existing laws, regulations,
rulings and judicial decisions, interest on the Note is exempt from income
taxation by the United States of America and from personal income taxation
imposed by the State of California.
Respectfully submitted,
A Professional Law Corporation
I
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-18 Al
JUL j
JoNEs HALL HILL & WHITE,
A PROFESSIONAL -LANV CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HENNETH I.JONES FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER
ANDREW C.HALT.,JR. SUITE 1950
ROBERT J. HILL SAN FRANCISCO 04111
SHARON STANTON WHITE
CHARLES F. ADAMS July 15, 1981 (41:5) 391-5760
STEPHEN R. CASALEGGIO
WILLIAM H. MADISON
PHILIP N. LEE
Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
NON-ARBITRAGE OPINION: $1,500,000 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
.District Tax Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A
Members of the Board:
It is our unqualified opinion that the note designated Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Tax Anticipation Note, Series 1981-82A (the
"Note") is not an arbitrage bond within the meaning of Section 103(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the applicable Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder. This non-arbitrage opinion is the
non-arbitrage opinion specified by Treasury Regulations, Section
1 .103-13(a)(2)(iii), which may be conclusively relied upon by the holder of
the Note.
This opinion is based upon our examination of Section 103(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Treasury Regulations, Section
1 .103-13 to 1.103-15, inclusive, and our review of the certificate as to
arbitrage executed this date by the Treasurer of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District. Furthermore, no matters have come to our attention which
would make the representations contained in that non-arbitrage certification
either unreasonable or incorrect.
Respectfully submitted,
A Professional Law Corporation
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-18
THOMAS E. HARRINGTON
July 2u , 1981
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle , D-1
Los Altos , Ca . 94022
Subject : Montebello Parking Lot
Comparison Criteria
Dear Board members :
I respectfully disagree wtth some of the rating factors
assigned by your staff in comparing the alternate sites for
the parking lot.
I ' m afraid the staff may have simply taken their
judgements of the "F" location and applied them to "F-111 ,
which is inappropriate . For example , criterion 4 : "F " would
be visible from Skyline , but "F-1" only slightly. Also , my
engineering investigations to date indicate criterion 7 to
be wrong for "F-1" . Grading and geoloyy problems appear
minimum for "F-1" .
I have enclosed Joy "regrading" of the criteria .
Very ruly y.o r ,
Thomas E . r • ,t n
cc : Ken Schreiber, City of Palo Alto
105 Fremont Avenue Los Altos, California 94022 (415)941-6900
Z
• Desirability of Parking Lot T,oc"--ions j
with Respect to Various Criteria
Page Mill Road Location
Factors Limiting Development 1 G L
1 Line of sight on Page Mill Road for Good 3 Good
safe ingress and egress to parking area
*2 . Close visual proximity of parking area Good 3 Good 3 Good
to roadway for patrol and safety
3 . Visual impact of parking area as seen Fair Fair 7- Fair
from Page Mill Road
rA 1JT 2
4 . Visual impact of parking area as seen Fair -2- Good
from Skyline Boulevard
5 . Visual impact of parking area as seen --polar- Fair Poor
from Monte Bello Ridge public land
*6 . Restrictive view from site to dis- Fair Z_ Fair -z. Poor
courage parkers from loitering
6
7 . Ease of engineering, i .e. lack of ex- -4 Fair Fair
cessive grading or geologic problems
6,Dc,� 3
8 . Expansion potential , if needed in the Fair -Z
future
9 . Proximity to attractive parts of site ; Good Good Good
desirability as a trailhead staging area
10 . Relationship to the Monte Bello Open Good Good Good
Space Preserve and proximity to trail
system
11 . Protection of the City of Palo Alto ' s Fair 2- Poor Fair
Page Mill Road Scenic Corridor (200 '
setback)
12. Protection of visual integrity of Fair z Poor ____F_ rr iz
Stevens Canyon watershed area
13 . Protection of existing natural land- Fair 2- Poor
scare feature
14 . Ability to landscape area as mitigation Good "9 Fair Poor
of visual impacts from road , public
06land , and private property
&L, r,�,I R
f�;Nc-r oA) Af0&Ha0Fc111_0C,4(,
7-Y
*The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to a public
roadway is a critical factor with direct impacts on the District ' s
management program. If the lot is highly visible from the roadway and
has a limited view, it will be less inviting to vandals and loiterers .
A lot positioned away from the roadway will most likely result in a
security system c.,,ith extended patrol co%,erage and locked dates during
the night .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Board of Supervisors Meeting 81-18
County of Santa Clara isp
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street 1P
San Jose, California 95110
Zoo Lotgren
(408) 299-2323 Supervisor, Second District
ZARA CO
July 13, 1981
Mr. Richard Bishop
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-I
Los Alto, CA 94022
Dear Mr, Bishop:
I appreciate the fact that you made the effort to let me know of your support for
the Planning Department during the recent budget hearings. As you may be
aware the county is facing a shortfall of between $23 and $42 million and it has
been necessary to reduce valuable programs in order to balance our budget.
In an effort to preserve as much of the planning function as possible, the Board
conceptually approved the creation of a new centralized planning office,
consolidating various countywide planning functions. In addition, the Board
directed the department to increase reimbursement revenues by more than
$200,000 to support land development activities.
The Board will be holding additional budget hearings during the last ten days of
August and it is expected that we will have to make additional cuts at that time.
It is my hope that we will be able to make these cuts without jeopardizing our
ability to plan for the future. This is a difficult time for all of us who care about
services to our community.
Again, my thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I hope you
will get in touch with again whenever you think I ought to know what's on your
mind.
Sincerely,
JLofgren
of r peLrvisgor, District Two
ZL:LS:lt
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-18
of su an McCorquodale
Supervisor,Third District
Executive Assistant: Peter Szego
County of Santa Clara
q Cr A IN Office of the Board of Supervisors
70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110,Telephone (408) 299-4116
July 10 , 1981
Richard Bishop, President
Board of Directors
Mid Peninsula Regional open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los A S'ZA 94022
Js
Dear ihop:
Thank you for your support of continued funding for the County
Planning Department. This County has been a leader among
all the counties of California, and perhaps the nation, in
developing new planning concepts . I fully realize, however ,
that much remains to be done to provide for orderly growth
and to work toward achievement of the quality of life we all
desire.
I did all I could to minimize the proposed cuts in the Plan-
ning Department, and I will continue to work to rebuild the
department to full capacity. While the Board of Supervisors
did vote substantial reductions in County planning capabilities ,
we were able to retain an essential core in order to insure
the availability of good planning disciplines.
I appreciate your support and interest in this vital County
service. I hope you will contact me on issues of interest
to you in the future and will feel free to call on me if I
can be of assistance at any time.
Cord-i-a, ly,
D;ncCorquodale
Supervisor , Third District
DM/mm
printed on 100% recycled paper
M-81-80
(Meeting 81-18
July 22, 1981 )
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. MacDonald, Public Communications Coordinator
SUBJECT: "The Thin Edge of the Bay"
The Special Order of the Day for July 22, 1981 is the showing of the film,
"The Thin Edge of the Bay," produced by the League of Women Voters. The
film lasts about twenty minutes and gives a historical overview of the
problems besetting San Francisco Bay and the citizens' movement that has
led to the present-day mechanisms for protecting it.
M-81-82
(Meeting 81-18
'4*441'e July 22 , 1981)
0 am
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
July 16 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Follow-up on the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot
Approval Process
Introduction: At your June 24 , 1981 meeting, you directed staff to
follow a process which is designed to lead to the selection of a
parking lot location for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve.
In accordance with that process , staff presented a list of evaluation
criteria (see memorandum M-81-74 , dated July 1, 1981) for your review
on July 8 , 1981 , and also forwarded the criteria to City of Palo
Alto staff for their information. We are now presenting the criteria
for your approval.
Discussion: The Board-directed process, as we understand it, is :
A) By July 8, present evaluation criteria to you for review and to
the City of Palo Alto for information (completed) .
B) By July 22, Board to adopt evaluation criteria and direct staff
to set up joint meetings.
C) By the second week in August, Board to hold a joint meeting
with the Palo Alto Planning Commission and respective staff
members, with at least two members of the Palo Alto City Council
in attendance. Conceptual sketches of possible parking lot
configurations for the G, Fl , and L locations are to be avail-
able at this time. A field trip may also be required. This
effort is also to be coordinated with San Mateo County as
necessary.
D) By August 26 , the Board will select a preferred parking lot
location.
E) By the second week in September, hold a joint meeting with the
Palo Alto City Council to approve the selected parking lot
location.
M-81-82 Page two
F) By September 23, Board to direct staff to submit an application
for development of a parking lot on the Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve to Palo Alto and San Mateo County.
Following the above process, staff is now submitting the evaluation
criteria for your approval. The criteria and short explanation of
them follow:
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for safe ingress and egress to
parking area.
This is the minimum line of sight from a potential driveway
up and down Page Mill Road in order to allow for a safe
entrance and exit. Grading may be necessary to provide
the line of sight.
2 . Close visual proximity of parking area to roadway for patrol
and safety.
The design and location of a parking lot in relationship
to a public roadway is a critical factor with direct impacts
on the District' s management program. If the lot is highly
visible from the roadway, it will be less inviting to
vandals and loiterers . A lot positioned away from the
roadway will most likely result in a security system with
extended patrol coverage and locked gates during the night.
3 . Visual impact of parking area as seen from Page Mill Road.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Page Mill Road?
4. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Skyline Boulevard.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Skyline Boulevard?
5. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Monte Bello Ridge
public land.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people hiking along the Monte Bello Ridge
public land area?
6 . Restrictive view from site to discourage parkers from loitering.
The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to
a viewshed is a critical factor. If the lot has a limited
view, it will be less inviting to vandals and loiterers.
A lot offering a picturesque view of the Bay Area will most
likely result in a security system with extended patrol
coverage and locked gates during the night.
7. Ease of engineering, i .e. lack of excessive grading or geologic
problems.
Does the proposed location require excessive grading to con-
struct a parking lot : Is a complex engineering design re-
quired to overcome geologic problems?
M-81-82 Page three
8 . Expansion potential, if needed in the future.
Can the parking area be logically expanded if needed?
9 . Proximity to attractive parts of site; desirability as a trail-
head staging area.
Does the location of the lot make accessible those areas of
the Preserve which are most attractive and inviting, namely
the hilltops , which offer panoramic views of Stevens Creek
Canyon and the Canyon itself?
10. Relationship to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and proximity
to trail system.
How does the location relate to the trail system and the
projected use patterns of the site?
11. Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s Page Mill Road Scenic
Corridor (200 foot setback) .
Does the location allow for Page Mill Scenic Corridor
restrictions (fencing, setback, etc. ) ?
12. Protection of visual integrity of Stevens Canyon watershed area.
Does the location have potential visual impact on the
Stevens Canyon watershed area?
13 . Protection of existing natural landscape features.
Does the location allow for protection of existing natural
landscape features , i.e. rock outcroppings and native
vegetation?
14 . Ability to landscape area as mitigation of visual impacts from
the road, public land, and private property.
Can the location be adequately landscaped to mitigate possible
visual impacts which may result from a parking lot?
One criteria that you might want to consider is the number of parking
spaces that could be accommodated in each of the proposed locations.
The preliminary layout for the "G" area shows a 45 stall configuration
and the "L" area indicated a possible 35 car layout. The design
for the F 1 location has not been completed, but 35 parking stalls
are being conceptually considered. A layout for each location will
be available for the proposed August meeting.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you approve the evaluation
criteria to be used in the selection process for the Monte Bell
Open Space Preserve parking lot and direct staff to try to arrange
the Board-Planning Commission meeting as discussed herein.
M-81-79
(Meeting 81-18
July 22, 1981 )
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Schedule for Thornewood Lease Negotiations
At your meeting of June 24, 1981 , you authorized staff to negotiate a lease
agreement with the Ganos and directed staff to prepare a proposed schedule
for those Thornewood lease negotiations. The material for this agenda item
will be available for your consideration at your meeting of July 22.
M-t-81-, 84
(MeEiting 81,18
July 22 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
July 22, 1981
To: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Target Schedule for Thornewood Lease Negotiation
Introduction: On June 24 , 1981 you directed staff to negotiate
a lease contract with the Ganos following the general criteria which
you set out with two additional criteria:
1) The discounted price, coupled with the 17 year lease, be reason-
able in view of the upfront dollars offered by the Pollards; and
2) The appropriate certification be obtained stating that the adjacent
lake parcel to Thornewood is developable.
Staff was also directed to return at the July 22, 1981 meeting with
a proposed schedule for the lease negotiations. The proposed target
schedule follows:
Schedule:
7/21 - 7/31 Completion of Staff financial analysis
8/1 - 8/14 Preliminary negotiations completion
8/15 - 8/21 Finalization of exchange agreement (30-day option)
and lease agreement
8/26/81 Board consideration of final documents (alternatively,
if negotiations become protracted, the target date
for Board consideration would be September 9 , 1981) ,
12/1/81 90 days from Board approval would be allowed in the
contract for Woodside determination of developability of
the lake parcel.
(3/l/82) Contract would include additional 90 day extension in
anticipation of delays in Woodside approval process .
1/1/82 close escrow for purchase of lake parcel and execution
(4/1/82) of lease would occur within 30 days after V?oodside
approval .
Earliest possible date for completion of project would
be ll/l/81 (assuming Woodside approval within 30 days) .
Recor.unendation: It is recomr,,,ended that you approve the proposed tzirtj--'c
schedule.
R-81-34
IV (Meeting 81-18
1 eA, July 22 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
July 15, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: S. Sessions, Land Manager, and
D. Woods, Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Summary Status Report on Use and Management of
Planning Area IV - Foothills Open Space Preserve
Introduction: The use and management plans for Planning Area IV
were last presented to you on May 14 , 1980 in the form of a
detailed review ( see report R-80-22 , dated May 6 , 1980) .
In accordance with the land management planning process, an
informational status report is to be prepared biennially to
summarize visitor use and management concerns and the imple-
mentation of physical improvements and to present new use and
management recommendations which staff feels should not be
delayed to the next year when the plan will again be reviewed
in detail.
Planning Area IV contains the Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve, the Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area, and the Foothills
Open Space Preserve. Ordinarily, the entire planning area
would be reviewed together , but because forthcoming information
relating to Rancho San Antonio and the Windmill Pasture Area
has not yet been received, but is expected by the end of July,
the summarization of use and management plans for these sites
is planned for the meeting of August 12, 1981. The present
summary report is for the 180 acre Foothills Open Space Pre-
serve, which includes the two non-contiguous 10 acre parcels
formerly known as the McCulley and Leonheart parcels.
A. Use of the Preserve
The site has moderate usage because of its small size and
limited trail system. Illegal activities such as night use,
littering, shooting, and camp fires continue to exist. Be-
cause of these problems, the site requires more patrol effort
than most other preserves. The Preserve is still considered
a non-emphasized site and as such, a Xerox copy of the site
map and other information is available upon request at the
office.
R-81-34 Page two
1. Projects Completed
a) The remains of the cabin and foundation located on
the former McCulley property were removed in the late
spring of 1980 .
b) The regulation sign at the trailhead was replaced
with a "Wildland Area" sign, which stresses the
ordinances which are most often violated on this
site.
2. Projects Uncompleted
None .
3 . New Projects
Because litter continues to be a problem on this preserve,
staff will initiate an effort to solicit volunteers to
help pick up the litter, not only on the site, but along
Page Mill Road. This project will be an on-going effort.
The Great American Resource Fair and Litter Lift-Off Day,
sponsored by Palo Alto, was held in April of this year
and will likely be scheduled again in the spring of 1982 .
District staff should work with coordinators of the fair
to organize a litter clean-up activity along Page Mill
Road in the vicinity of the Preserve .
4 . Dedication Status
Foothills Open Space Preserve has 170 acres dedicated.
The 10 acre former McCulley parcel remains undedicated
and should remain so for the time being (see report
R-79-20 , dated June 6 , 1979) .
Recommendation: It is recommended that you adopt the use and
management recommendations for the Foothills Open Space Preserve
contained in this report.
r
u
ty
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEki SPACE DISTRICT
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: N. NANKO
SUBJECT: F.Y. I.
DATED: 7_9_81
i
I
r
{t
_.____.._.
Planning Department
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
Countof Santa Clara San Jose,California 95110
Y 299-2521 Area Code 408
California
EMA I GSA
Environmental Management/
General Services Agency
June 29, 1981
Nonette Hanko
3172 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Nonette:
Thank you very much for your efforts on behalf of the Planning Department during
the recently-concluded, preliminary County budget hearings. Your efforts, together
with those of others who share your concern regarding our county and its future,
were successful in preventing the virtual elimination of the County Planning Depart-
ment.
The Board of Supervisors rejected the Administration's proposal which would have
resulted in a 70% reduction in Planning Department staffing. They adopted instead
a somewhat less drastic proposal which will still result in a 40% reduction in staff.
(This is in addition to the 45% reduction the Department has already experienced
since the passage of Proposition 13.) Twenty of the Department's current 52 staff
positions will be cut.
These cuts will obviously necessitate significant cutbacks in the functions the
Department performs and the services it provides. It currently appears that the
most severely affected will be the Department's capability to address countywide
housing and transporation issues, to encourage and facilitate intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation, to assess the environmental impacts of private land
development proposals and expansions of the urban area and to prepare maps and
reports for publication.
The hearings which just concluded were only preliminary budget hearings aimed
at making approximately $20 million in spending cuts considered to be the minimum
amount necessary to deal with the County's anticipated budget shortage. Additional
cutbacks and layoffs may be necessary in August when the Board adoptfs its final
budget. The Board will then know how much revenue it will be receiving from
the State and Federal governments and the extent of any year-end (1980-81) deficits/
surpluses.
We deeply appreciate the interest you have already shown in the need to retain
a countywide perspective in dealing with current and future problems facing Santa Clara
County. We hope you will continue to be involved during the August final budget
hearings.
Sincerely,
U%_
Don Weden
Associate Planner
OWN-I An Equal Opportunity Employer
MIDPaqI'ijSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: H. GRENCH, GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATED: 7-13-81
i
i
r
i
J � '
To Arm or Not to Arm
by Lawrence LeRoy, Charles Nelson, and Dr. Lewis W. Moncrief
HE FIRST FEW warm violations and protect the health and It found that 62 percent of the visi-
Tweekends of each spring con- safety of both rangers and visitors. tors questioned feel rangers should
tinue to pose a problem for Still others have armed rangers as always carry visible side arms while
Kent County, Michigan, authorities. the result of serious injuries to park on duty. Only 18 percent responded
Those families making the short rangers and users, and some rangers that rangers should never carry visi-
drive out of Grand Rapids to one of have acquired the right to carry side ble side arms while 76 percent felt
the county's parks inevitably en- arms as a result of union contract de- rangers should be armed when on
counter problems with other park mands. Then there are the ex- walking patrol, road patrol, and in
users,motorcycle gangs to be precise. tremes—administrators who arm confrontations with disorderly peo-
These gangs have on occasion rangers simply because neighboring ple.It was also found that 45 percent
assaulted families, driving off many agencies have done so and adminis- hold visible side arms as deterrents
park users. Kent County parks staff trators who feel that guns simply to crime while 41 percent feet that
are unable to handle these problems have no place in parks. side arms have no effect on crime.
alone, so extra patrols and overtime Rangers themselves have mixed In addition to park patrons, chief
invariably ensue for sheriff's feelings about carrying side arms. rangers were interviewed.They said
deputies. This Kent County scenario Many rangers believe that their com- it would be better if rangers assigned
is a typical example of urban prob- mon sense and ability to reason with to a heavy-use area,such as a beach,
lems spilling over to park and people are the most effective enforce- carry no visible side arm. The
recreation areas today. And as such ment tools, seeing no need to carry rangers themselves responded with
spill over occurs more and more side arms. Other rangers feel much definite ideas on situations when
often, agency administrators must safer with side arms because they side arms should be carried and, if
struggle with the question of arming feel that in an emergency, such as carried,whether they should be visi-
rangers. when a violent crime or personal ble or concealed.
Some administrators are con- assault is committed in their pre-
cerned that park visitors may have sense, they could deal more effec- /� study at Yosemite National
negative reactions when they see tively with the situation. A Park conducted by Sandra Kir-
armed rangers. They fear side arms Several studies have investigated meyer and Allan Wicker in 1975
might tarnish the Smokey-the-Bear, the question of arming rangers.Law- shows this clearly. Of the rangers
a It-America n-good-guy image of rence P. Selby's study on the at- who carried side arms,83 percent ex-
park rangers. On the other hand, titudes of park patrons in the pressed the opinion that they should
many administrators have made the regional Huron-Clinton Metropark be visible while on road patrol.
decision to arm rangers as a preven- system located near Detroit presents However, 61 percent said they
tative measure hoping it will deter some insights into user attitudes. should be concealed while patrolling
38 PARKS&RECREATION/JUNE 1981
walk-in camp-sites.While on duty in arming question by going through with any law enforcement situation
the Village Mall, a heavy-use area, the decisionmaking process. The in- instead of notifying local law enfor-
32 percent wanted a visible side arm, formation was drawn from a series cement agencies to handle those
64 percent wanted a concealed side of interviews with agency heads, problems not covered by park rules
arm, and 4 percent wanted no side some of whom have armed their and regulations.
arm.While on a rescue,84 percent of rangers and some of whom probably You must also determine what law
the rangers authorized to carry side never will. enforcement agency should commis-
arms said they wanted no weapon sion the rangers and whether or not
and 12 percent wanted one but �+ he first step in the decision pro- the head of that agency will agree to
would carry it concealed. 1 cess is to determine the legal and do so. For example, a county park
Another study, "Results of Inten- economic feasibility of arming your and recreation agency should consult
sified Law Enforcement in Urban- rangers. The first question that must with the county sheriff to determine
Oriented National Forest Areas," be answered is, "Does the depart- whether he or she would agree to
conducted from 1967 to '1969 by ment have the legal authority to es- deputize rangers. Many sheriffs
Bruce B. Hronek and Frank McEI- tablish rules and regulations and arm recognize that some parks have
vain of the Forest Service, may pro- rangers?" For example, Michigan's problems that their departments are
vide some helpful insights into the Public Act 261 Section 140)states,"A unable to handle efficiently due to '
problems of vandalism, rowdy county or regional commission may manpower and budget constraints.
teenagers,and camping fee violators. make,amend,or repeal rules for the The agency administrator can also
To combat these problems,several protection,regulation,and control of communicate to the sheriff that laNv
changes were made in the course of its facilities and areas with the ap- enforcement in parks needs a
the three-year period. These in- proval of the local board or boards of different approach than the typical
eluded change of uniform so the supervisors." Without this legal car-patrolling style of sheriff's
forest ranger looked more like an authorization, an agency may have deputies. A more personal-contact
authority figure; the addition of red orientation,such as rangers provide,
flashing lights on patrol vehicles; is generally more effective.
more fee collectors; increased night Some sheriffs refuse to deputize
patrols; fencing in some areas; and rangers because they lack direct con-
daytime use only of some areas. trol over the ranger's day-to-day ac-
During the study's course, afield tivities. As a result, the rangers can
analysis was conducted comparing enforce only park rules and regula-
public reaction to vehicles with red tions and must rely on the sheriff to
flashing lights and vehicles without handle all other law enforcement ac-
red lights. The officers received tivities within parks.
much more cooperation when the
vehicle was equipped with the lights. gency administrators must also
Vandalism in terms of monetary consider the training that
damage decreased approximately 96 rangers have to receive prior to bear-
percent to a total of $1,200 in the to depend on the city or county ing arms.For example, the Michigan
three-year period. In addition, user government to establish rules and Law Enforcement Training Act of
fee collections increased approx- regulations governing user conduct 1969 mandates that all peace officers
imately 400 percent to a total of on park property. receive 296 hours of law enforce-
$29,292. Even with the increased Section 14(4) states: "A county or ment training from an approved
costs for more equipment and more regional commission may appoint training center. As a result,adminis-
personnel, a net benefit of $30,350 rangers who may be deputized by a trators must determine if they can
was realized from decreased vandal- sheriff to enforce laws of the state afford the cost involved in training.
ism and increased revenues. and the apprehension of violators Expenses for the training program
During the study, forest rangers thereof. Park rangers may enforce include a possible tuition fee, and
were armed only with chemical the rules adopted by a county or food and lodging if the program is
mace. It was reported that this gave regional commission whether further than commuting distance.
the rangers a psychological lift when deputized or not and shall have the Furthermore, the ranger's salary or
dealing with large groups of rowdy powers, privileges and immunities wage for the duration of the training
individuals. However, no attempt conferred upon peace officers by the program, must still be paid.
was made to enforce state laws,such laws of this state." The watchword It would also be advisable to con-
as consumption of alcohol by minors, here is "may" appoint rangers who sult with the department's insurance
drug use,or traffic laws except as in- "may" be deputized rather than carrier in case extra insurance costs
cidental to the enforcement of Forest "shall" appoint or "shall" be will be incurred when the rangers ,
Service regulations. deputized. are armed. It is possible for the
None of the previous research out- This paragraph is important sheriff's office to cover the deputized
lines the legal, training, and cost because it empowers deputized park rangers with its insurance carrier
issues involved in arming rangers. rangers to enforce all state laws as and then receive reimbursement
What follows is an attempt to aid well as park rules and regulations, from the park department.
decisionmakers currently facing the thus giving rangers the power to deal Once an administrator decides it is
PARKS&RECREATION/JUKE 1981 39
'feasible to arm rangers, he or points were mentioned as prime fac- YES !
should consider what rules or laws tors in arming rangers. Parks in ur- "REVENUE IS
will be enforced.There is no need to ban settings often serve as a gather- 131
arm meter maids because they are ing spot of youths who view the park AVAILABLE
not expected to apprehend criminals. as home "turf' because of their FOR
Similarly, if rangers are expected to familiarity with the area. However, Recreation Parks that Qualify
M
provide information services, visitor these youths behave differently in an ( �� � ��'
assistance,or collect fees,there is lit- unfamiliar rural park because they W
tie justification for arming them. are away from their home ground ®���a %LMJ
Nn
However, if rangers are expected to and are unsure how to act. ��
enforce all state laws as any other Another reason location of parks is "PROVIDE"
peace officer is, then it is reasonable important is that the possibility of • New recreation activities for your
for them to have the tools that other urban crime spilling over into parks community
• No capital outlay required
peace officers feel are necessary. is of paramount concern to most ad- a Excellent 40%net revenue available
You should also decide how many ministrators when considering the a Aquatic or water park in phases
rangers will be armed.If the rangers arming of rangers. • 300'to 1,200'water slides installed
who receive training will function a New state-of-the-art beauty
solely in a law enforcement capacity j A j hat is your park agency's rela- • Safety. . .totally enclosed see-
(having no duties such as mainte- �l�I tionship with the local law en- through flume
nance or visitor information),it may forcement agency, what priority • Designed for 225-8,000 people per
be economically unfeasible for some does that agency give to problems in day
• Ground lease requirement of a half
departments with low winter use to your parks,and what is the speed of acre
hire and train the number of rangers its response? Your answers to these • Short term ground lease
needed for the busy summer months. questions are important because, • Option to purchase at any time
The Genessee County, Michigan, when problems'arise in your parks, • Most city, county,or state parks
Parks and Recreation Department you want to deal with them quickly qualify
• 4 week site installation time
has solved this problem by hiring and effectively. . Qualifying applications available
police officers on a part-time basis to If your problems are given low . 24 hr..7 day service:1-919-998.6106
work during their off-duty time over priority and assistance is generally WAM FM Q M TM
the busy summer months. Park and slow, then perhaps your' rangers P.O. Box 142
recreation departments anywhere in should be given all the tools for effec- Clemmons,North Carolina 27012
the county now have a pool of tive law enforcement. On the other
prospective deputized officers from hand,if the sheriff is cooperative and Please circle reader service card number zo
which to choose. handles park problems effectively, Sun-Alredi
When hiring peace officers on a perhaps a contract with him fora s Approved
part-time basis, it is advisable to specific number of man hours spent PLASTIC SCREEN
screen those lacking a strong per- in the park will provide all the law
sonal-contact orientation. A public- enforcement presence necessary. CLOTHES CHECKING
relations, public-assistance attitude The seriousness of the crimes that
when dealing with visitors must be occur in the parks should also be
emphasized. weighed. If the problems consist
Once the legality and feasibility of mostly of littering, vandalism, skin-
arming rangers is determined, ad- ny dipping,and so on,side arms may BAG
ministrators should consider the be unnecessary. If the problems are
Famous
following factors. more serious, such as drug traffick- for
in , assaults, and larcenc , then side r
Ffirst, what purpose will arming arms and law enforcement training 30 Years! sd y
rangers serve? Is arming pri- are probably required. / y
marily intended to protect rangers Further research on the arming of DON T ftt
and users as a result of serious inci- rangers is needed. The broad range y'
dents where someone was injured? of experiences personnel have en- GO Another
Are rangers expected to enforce state countered in making their decisions Season Without It!
laws? If these are the reasons, to date make comparisons from cur- Hundreds of Americo's swim pool operators have
perhaps they should be armed. rent data difficult. When more learned the value and efficiency of Sun-Aired's
However, if arming rangers is in- uniform data is obtained, it will be famous CLOTHES CHECKING BAG.Jailers, too,
tended primarily to prevent vandal- possible to develop a weighting in city and county institutions have swung over to
ism and rowdiness and to establish scheme administrators can apply to our bag. in Fact, it's highly rated wherever a
change of clothing or uniforms is required. In
rangers as authority figures, then their individual department's cir- addition.Sun-Aired provides Brass checks.Identi-
perhaps another answer should be cumstances in order to make fication Tags and Safety Pins, and Elastic wrist
sought. enlightened decisions on the arming bonds to make your Clothes Checking System
What impact does the location of question.We feel it is imperative that complete.
Call `"rite us today for complete details.
parks close to urban areas have? administrators examine the Call collect
question —
What is the origin of park visitors?In of arming rangers closely because it SUN AIRED BAG CO.
interviews conducted with munici- is a complex problem involving emo- P.O.Box S48—524 Cypress Ave.
pal, county, and regional park ad- tional, legal, safety, morale, and fi- Hermosa Beach,Calif.90254
ministrators in Michigan, these two nancial issues. Phone(213)372-7225
Please circle reader servke card number 21
40 PARKS&RECREATION/JUNE 1981
r
11-15
y 22 , 1981
Meeting 81-18
II
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Des'cription
Amount Name
� 2320 $ 100. 00 Regents of University of- CEQA Seminars-D.Woods and
California A. Watt or M. Gundert
2321 28. 72 Katherine Duffy Telephone Expenses-May ' 80-
June ' 81
2322 8. 52 B & H Equipment Co. Wedge Guard
2323 1 , 100. 00 Foss & Associates Personnel Services-May and June
2324 489. 00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Fidelity Bonds
2325 188. 73 Harfst Associates , Inca Computer Services-June
2326 10. 00 Stanley R. Norton June Telephone Expense
2327 34. 15 Pacific Aerial Surveys Aerial Photo
2328 550. 00 Louis Bordi & Son Discing-Los Trancos
2329 75 . 00 John Pichetti Discing Fremont Older
2330 276 . 62 CA Water Service Co. Utilities
2331 20. 50 Joan Ferguson Reimbursement-Books on First
Aid and Rescue
2332 40. 00 Excel Pool & Patio , Inc. Pool Maintenance
2333 82 . 91 The Hub Schneider' s Ranger Uniforms
2334 1, 364. 10 Dorn' s Safety Service District Vehicle Expense
2335 450. 00 Louis Bordi & Son Discing-Monte Bello Ridge
2336 29. 90 Norney' s Office Supplies
2337 15 . 76 San Jose Art Drafting Supplies
2338 90. 11 Union District Vehicle Expense
2339 200. 74 Xerox Installment Payment-July
2340 48. 00 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
2341 54. 87 ZZZ Sanitation Portable Toilets-Los Trancos
2342 1 ,402 . 76 Signs of the Times Molding Dies-Trail Signs ,
Hidden Villa Signs ,Informational
Signs
2343 398. 02 Hawkins-Hawkins Co. ,Inc. Metal Signs
2344 992. 05 IBM Selectric III Typewriter
2345 19 . 33 Graphicstat, Inc. Enlargement Print-Soaring Area
Sign
2346 28. 33 Peninsula Office Supply Legal Blue Binders
C-81-15. Page2
July 22 , 1981
Meeting 81-18
Amount Name Description
2347 $ 3 , 900. 00 Rogers , Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services-June
2348 1 , 800. 00 The CEIP Fund, Inc. Environmental Intern Program
2349 900. 00 Clevenger Realty Appraisal Appraisal Services-Guiffre
Co. Property
2350 2 , 116. .00 Gregory Archbald' Professional Services-Winship .
Property
2351 7. 00 First AmericanTitle- Recording Deed
Insurance Co.
2352 190. 00 First American Title- Preliminary Titl& Reports .
Guaranty Co.
2353 48. 97 PG and E Utilities
2 354 27. 50 Emergehicy Vehicle, Systems Service Call-District Vehicle
2355 696 . 18 Minton' s Lumber & Supply Lumber,Concrete Mix,Shop SupplieE
Paint and Plumbing Supplies
2356 1 , 242. 02 . Orchard Supply Hardware Fence Posts andBarbless Fence
Wire ,Electrical Supplies ,Paint
Supplies , and Field Tools'
2357 758. 91 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service for June ,and
Repair and Installation Work