HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810928 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 81-24 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
NOTICE
There will be a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on
Monday, September 28 , 1981, beginning at 7: 30 P.M. at
the District office, 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1, Los
Altos , California.
Among other agenda items , the Board will be considering
the adoption of a Resolution Finding and Determining that
the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition
of Certain Properties for Public Use, to Wit: for Public
Park, Recreation and Open Space Purposes , Describing the
Properties Necessary Therefore and Authorizing and Directing
its Retained Legal Counsel to Do Everything Necessary to
Acquire All Interests Therein (Lands of the California
Province of the Society of Jesus) . This resolution refers
to a portion of the Novitiate property.
A map showing the location of the District office appears
on the back of the notice.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager 9/18/81
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,NonetteG Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,EdwardG Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
101 1 01
- -- Bayshore Freeway
�N
N
85
W o
Central
t� Ex r ai al Ex resswa
m >
0
4-,
0
El Cam' m
o x
El Camino Real
Carl Jr's.—- -•A ,� > --Grand China Restaurant x
Walther's D�� b Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District M
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 m
�N Los Altos
r �c
•� (Suite D-1 located in the single-story,
mbrown shingle office building)
w
o ;
t
1
Foot ;
.il
es
PA way
�s
�od
280 280
Junipero Serra Freeway
ting 31-24
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Special meeting
Board of Directors
A G E N D A
Monday 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
September 28, 1981 Los Altos, California
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 10 , 1981
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 : 45) 1. Proposed Los Gatos Creek Park Acquisition Project (Novitiate
Property) -- H. Grench
a) Approval of Execution of Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement
Resolution Approving and Authorizing Executing of Amendment
to Joint Powers Agreement for Purchase of Real Property
b) Determination of Public Necessity
Resolution Finding and Determining that the Public interest
and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Properties
for Public Use
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 45) 2. Review of Edgewood Park Plans Being Considered by San Mateo
County -- H. Grench
(9 : 45) 3 . Program Evaluation for the 1980-1981 Fiscal Year -- H. Grench
(11: 15) 4 . Scheduling of Special Meeting -- H. Grench
(11: 20) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION - Land Negotiations
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you'te conceAned with appears on
the agenda, ptease addmm the Boated at that time; otheAw&se, you may
add,tez,s the Boated undeA OAat Communicationz. When itecognized, ptease
begin by stating yom name and address. Conciseness is appreciated.
We uquat that you compf-ete the {otLms ptovided so youA name and ad-
cttas can be accwLatety inceuded in the minute.
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 81-22
Ail
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS AI-T OS.CALIFORNIA 94:22
(415) 965-4717
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
September 107 —1981
I . ROLL CALL
Vice President Daniel Wendin called the meeting to order at 7 :39 P.M.
in the Council Chambers of the Los Gatos Civic Center, 110 East
Main Street, Los Gatos .
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko and Harry Turner. Richard Bishop
arrived at 7 : 50 P.M. during the slide presentation.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Del Woods ,
Charlotte MacDonald, Jean Fiddes , Stanley Norton, Pat Starrett,
Eric Mart, and Dennis Danielson.
II . PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF THE NOVITIATE PROPERTY FOR LOS
GATOS CREEK PARK
a) Staff Presentation
D. Wendin stated the purpose of the meeting was for the District to
review the proposed Los Gatos Creek Park project and to receive
public comments on the project. He stated public comments should
be made in the following order: Novitiate representatives , persons
speaking in behalf of organizations , and individuals . He noted
no Board action was intended on this item at the meeting, except
for deciding whether to schedule this matter for another public
meeting.
H. Grench introduced District staff in attendance, and reviewed the
project 's history, noting the project had formally gotten underway in
April 1981 when the District and the Town of Los Gatos adopted a Joint
Powers Agreement for the joint acquisition of a portion of the Novitiate
property. He said funding for the Project would come from a federal
grant, with the rest of the acquisition costs being split fifty-fifty
by the Town and the District, and noted that in April, the Town also
adopted a Resolution of Public Necessity requiring acquisition of the
property. He stated the staff report focused on three questions :
(1) Is the subject property desirable for public open space? (2) Should
public acquisition of this property be actively pursued, including the
exercise of the power of eminent domain, if necessary? and (3) When and
if the subject area is acquired for public open space and recreation,
what are the potential and proper uses for the property?
C. Britton reviewed the staff report, R-81-38 of September 4 , 1981,
and D. Woods presented slides of the property. C. Britton noted that
the property contains three grassland hillls that serve as the dominant
Herbert A Grench.Gene,,a:,vdnjgPr
Board of D,recrors:Katherine Duffy.Barbara Green,Nonette G Hynku R.chy:S 13.shop Ecfv3,d G Sne:,s y --y A %,r. - Darrel G '.%erC--
Meeting 81-22 Page two
scenic backdrop for the Town of Los Gatos and form prominent landmarks
visible from Highway 17 ; that the property was used by joggers and
eauestrians; that the property, due to its location adjacent to a
reservoir recreational area with easy access to a State highway would
have regional recreation significance; that the current zoning for the
property was A-20S; that portions of the property were rated in the
highest composite scoring of the District's Master Plan; and that
trails on the property would connect with the Lexington Reservoir recre-
ational area and with streets leading to the center of the Town of Los
Gatos.
C. Britton stated the Sacred Heart Novitiate and winery adjoin the
project area to the northeast; that the Novitiate has ceased to operate
as an instructional institution; that the vineyards are no longer
cultivated; that the buildings adjacent to the property area serve
as a retirement home and administrative center; and that the project
area did not include any of the developed area. He said these private
facilities would be situated on approximately 40 acres of land remain-
ing in the Novitiate holdings. He stated the Jesuits owned other land
in the vicinity, about 1600 acres, and noted the Alma College site had
been marketed and the Sisters of Charity property is currently for sale.
He stated, according to a brochure he had seen, that $10 million was
needed to be raised by the Church to endow the retirement facilities ,
and that the best source of funds would be the land investments which
could be sold off.
He reviewed previous acquisition efforts for the property, and noted
the Town had been awarded a federal Land and Conservation Fund grant
for approximately $465, 000. He noted the project area would become a
low development park and open space complement to the adjacent reservoir
recreational area, noting that the Joint Powers Agreement included the
provision that the Town take over the property, after the District' s
initial management, in order to further develop the property into parks
with high intensity use. Ile noted that the use ane. management recommenda-
tions contained in the report wouia be subject to further public hearing,
noting that details proposed on the map he reviwed at the meeting were
schematic in nature.
N. Hanko asked if the property was in the Los Gatos' Sphere of Influ-
ence, but not in the Los Gatos Urban Service Area. C. Britton responded
that it was in the Sphere of Influence , but not in the Urban Service Area.
D. Wendin opened the meeting for public comment, requested that
people address the three questions which were the focus of the staff
report, and speak in the order previously outlined. He stated, with
the Board' s concurrence, that, while the District at this point in
time had made no decision to move forward with the resolution of
necessity, in the event the District did so, the evening' s proceedings
and the public ' s input would be considered a part of the public record
at that time.
Meeting 81-22 ,ge three
Father James Brennan, Financial Officer for the California Province of
the Society of Jesus, stated he had not had time to review the report
and would not be commenting on it at this time. He said the Province
did not want to sell the Novitiate property, noting the Province had
been in the area for 100 years with the facilities being used initially
for the training of young men, growing grapes, and operating the winery.
Citing that the load of the training had been shifted to Southern Cali-
fornia, Father Brennan stated the facilities had been converted to a
retirement center and an infirmary, and also currently housed the head-
quarters for the Province. He said the facilities were also used for
retreats for religious and lay people. He noted that because of the
retreats and the need for privacy at the retirement facilities, the
property was needed by the Church and was important to the facility.
He stated he viewed the property as private property, noting taxes were
paid on it. He said the property was an asset to the Church' s well-
being and purposes, explaining he had to have assets such as this in
order to finance other operations . He noted the property was a security
and that the Catholic Church historically treasures its property and
does not buy or sell it like a real estate agent. Ile said the property
was important to support the buildings, the retirement center, and the
Province ' s religious activities . Father Brennan stated the Province
had no desire to sell the property to anyone at this time and was not
interested in conceding to any negotiations with the District. In
closing, he reiterated "we do not want to sell the property" .
D. Wendin requested the people addressing the Board limit their comments
to five minutes and asked any individuals representing organizations to
address the Board at this time.
Linda Elkind, 2040 Tasso Street, Palo Alto, representing the Committee
for Green Foothills, stated the Committee supported the District' s pro-
posed acquisition of a portion of the Novitiate property for public
use. She stated that before 19781 the Committee had believed the
property should remain as open space for public use. She stated the
Committee felt the property should be public open space for the
following reasons: (1) it is a prominent viewshed from Highway 17;
(2) it is close to existing public recreational land and would provide
continuity of land use and enhanced recreational opportunities; (3) it
is close to a rapidly growing population center and is less than one-
half hour ' s drive from San Jose, Santa Clara, and Campbell , which have
a combined population of almost three-quarters of a million people; and
(4) there was easy access to the property by major highways, making the
property available to people living in the mid and southern Parts of
Santa Clara County.
John Lochner, representing the Parks Protection Leagued explained the
background of the Town' s interest in acquiring the property. He noted
that in 1977 and 1978, the Town did enter into negotiations with the
Novitiate . He said the negotiations were entered into because of the
possibility of acquiring the Federal grant and that the Town Manager
was directed to attempt to make contact with the representatives of
the Novitiate and enter into negotiations to see if there was some
Meeting 81-22 Page four
potential of acquir,,ig the site in the event .te Novitiate wanted to
do something with the site. He said that the Council was informed of
the negotiations, that the Novitiate at that time was interested in
further proceedings , and that the Town did authorize the Town Manager
to have the County Assessor appraise the property. He said that, at no
timeldid the Council indicate by any means whatsoever that the Town
would be in a position or would be placed in a position to condemn
the Property, and that it was only if the property were faced with de-
velopment that the Town would proceed any further. He said the initial
contacts by the Town were peaceful negotiations in an attempt to keep
the property in open space. He outlined the current history of the
Town' s parks programs, noting the program was completed at this time
and that the program' s budget (currently $400, 000) was currently facing
budget cuts.
He stated he would like to see the Novitiate land remain in open space
and askeCL why the District and Town should be spending their funds in
this area to acquire the site and develop
P it when there was no threat of
development being posed by the Novitiate.
Ile noted the El Sereno Pre-
serve was close to Town, but had no development except minor trails and
encouraged the District, if development were necessary, to develop the
El Sereno Preserve. He said there was no threat of development on the
Novitiate property at this time and that condemnation was morally wrong
unless there was a proven necessity for the good of all people. He
stated the Novitiate property was not in the Town' s urban service area
since such land placed in the urban service area is land planned for
development within a five year period noting there have been no proposals
for development of the Novitiate property. Ile said costs of the pro-
posed use of the property (campsites/high intensity use) were unacceptable
to taxpayers of the Town of Los Gatos.
He said the recommendation of the Parks Protection League was for the
Town and District to enter into peaceful negotiations with the Novitiate
in the event the property becomes a burden upon them and they were
forced to sell; then Town and District should make plans to acquire
the property at that time to preserve it as open space.
Jack Panighetti, 101 South Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, Chairman of
the Parks Protection League, posed the following questions to the Board:
(1) has a survey ever been made as to the need for another park in the
area; (2) would the District help the Town of Los Gatos pay the bill
of $30, 926. 28 that the Jesuits had filed for the Town ' s lawsuit, and if
so, how much; and (3) what are the attorney fees for the attorney hired
by the District for the lawsuit by the Town that failed and who is
going to make this payment.
D. Wendin responded staff would respond to the first question at the
end of the meeting and asked staff to respond to the other two questions
at this time.
11. Grench responded that he was not aware at this time of any bill
submitted by the Jesuits and did not know that, in anv event, whether
the Court would finally award the amount. He said the Question of
whether the Town or the District were liable for those expenses would
be resolved through legal procedings. Ile said the Joint Powers Agree-
ment called for the District and the Town to pay jointly for the Town ' s
Meeting 81-22 Page five
and District' s legal expenses. The question of the legal expenses for
this particular bill had not been resolved, and it had not been estab-
lished that it was actually an expense.
He said the District had paid approximately $5, 000 for the District' s
attorney ' s fees.
Harry Cohen, El Gato Penthouse, #43 , 20 East Main Street, Los Gatos,
speaking on behalf of the Council of Aging of Santa Clara County and
Mr. Lendin Farber, President of the Zoological College in Berkeley,
stated there was no reason for the District to acquire the property,
that development of the property would bring an unwanted type of
people to the property, and the District should "stay off" .
Barbara Reed, 5 Montebello Way, Los Gatos, President of the Los Gatos
Chamber of Commerce, said the group was interested in the project and
opposed to it, noting it would be the subject of the group' s next
legislation meeting. D. Wendin requested that Ms. Reed review the
material available at the meeting and contact staff if she wanted any
other material.
Kathryn Morgan,- 142 Wheeler Avenue, Los Gatos, President of the Los
Gatos Homeowners ' Association, stated she was speaking for the or-
ganization only insofar as to what the group' s aims and by-laws were.
She noted by-laws state one of the main purposes of the organization
is to preserve the foothills environment of the Town of Los Gatos. She
said preservation of open space must be viewed in the long term; i.e.
what land can be preserved for 100 or 200 years from now, and thanked
the District for investigating the possibility of doing that. She felt
it was desirable to preserve the Novitiate land as open space because
of its accessibility and viewability from the Town.' She noted that
when the Town drew up a hillside plan for the Town, the Jesuit brothers
at that time asked for an R-1 zoning (single family residential zoning)
on at least part of the property and felt this fact should be brought
up as a matter of the public record. She discussed the more lax County
building controls, citing the example of Montezuma Hills and its land-
scape scars, erosion, and the building on the ridgelines. She said it
would be an incalculable loss if the same thing were to happen on the
Novitiate property. She hoped that something could be worked out
with the Novitiate, noting that it was a wonderful opportunity to connect
with the Lexington recreation area and other open space areas and thanked
the District for its far-sightedness .
Egon Jensen, 182 Lester Lane, Los Gatos, President of the Los Gatos Tax-
payers Organization, noted the previous discussions to acquire the
property had been almost without knowledge of the public, and stated
he felt the Joint Powers Agreement was the most loosely written agree-
ment he had ever seen. He said he would riot like to see this property
developed into single family dwellings and said an alternative to con-
sider was the buying of development rights . Ile urged the District not
to act in haste on the matter.
--a-oGqojd aq p1nom X4jodoid otlq quq-4 o.)uuansse oq off. BUTOB 01ol-A �)ADLJ-4 - F
t�, � - wr
z:-3:.,s2 all 04 squoplso-T s , ijmoL aq- oq f.)u-rs-ejTd pui--> 0j)!STjTq
aq daaij o-4 XqAocio-Td oqq uo soaj4 spw-4sT-iqD quvId Ajjen4U0A0 04 SPIA
ueld siq 4eqq Pup �qjadoAd oqq uo BuTzpaB sTuwTuP xis XTUO Diom ajoq4
,,;Dno,,i all -A-4.1,3doad oq-4 asn o-4 sjobfoE) . 04 UOAT5 uooq peq uoissTwAod pies
Oil - papoou oaom sxaed alow OU pup S'f-TP(j DTIqnd qqTm polvan4ps Apeoi
-1P sem PGJP aqq 4103 aq pies all --4uouio6uTjJui 71noqqTm SOATT TIAJ0020d
JTOqq OATI 04 oTqe @q pino,,A jaquaD aqq go squopisaj 0144 a0q40qI.., PUP
�Iaco-Td 0q-4 lojqud p1nom oqm pa�jsp all -quatuqjudou 03TIOd so4ug soq 0q4
-4
.-.q p@sn sum a6u-ex ;D- Tj -x aqq 4pq4 pup "OUT.ILIS sqTnsar aq-4 papnj )LIT U01
-isTnbop aoj paAapTsuoD BuToq puel aqq poqou all -s6uip-Ljnq oq-4 go v-,oje
aqq 04UT 5UTqOOqS PUP UISTTQPUPA BUTPnTDUT qsed oqq UT Aqaodoid uo suia-L
-goad paqTo OH -A0PATad Aiaqq 0PuAUT PUP SqUaPTS01 aq:} 41WTT pTnom 4T
lasn oTTqnd 1pioua5 Xoj pouodo oq oq ajam Aqjodoid otiq jT qpqq Buiqou
I.;:aquaD qinsar aqq qp squapTsaj oqq Aq Aqjadoad 04eT4TAON Oq4 go osn oq4
pGulpTdxa laoquaD qTnsOf 4JP@H PDJOPS go JOTaOdnS 'U4SOD qdasor joqqQa
-AJPssa0aU 31 AqTssooau oTlqnd go asT;Dx@xa aq-4 q5no-Tqq
pup luoTqpTqobau q5nojqq AjqPjajajd ;aopds undo SP PUPI aqq OAJaS
-Dac Oq sdaqs Ajpssaoau aNP4 PJPO9 Oq4 Pup lasn AqTsuoquT mol P Ada:{
eq Aqjadoad aqq qpqq Aqj@dojd aqq pajinbop 40TJqSTG OLI-4 JT 'poi6an 01-1
-poaoojd pTnoqs pjuoq aq4 IXqj@dojd @qj DJTnboe o4 XPm ATuo oq4 spm
UTUWop qU3UjWD lqjoSaj qSpj p Sp pup STSATPUP JPUTJ aqq UT JT qvqq qnq
; aoPas uado jog Aqaodoid aqq ajinbop- oq oqnoj ojqpqd000P ' AjjPnqnui Pup
.::ZO--' 0PJS-1-4us 0-Totu J@q-40UP ST a-T;DLIq jT as aod UTPWOP qUOUTWa JO OSTOJONO
Gq4 5UT4e3OAPQ qOU SPM* Gq Pies OH 'Sa0AeaxPq aqq oq- asuadxa BuTolb
-uo aqq go asnvooq SqqbTl quowdoIDA0P BuTAnq go qdaouoo oqq pasoado
-OWT4 sTqq qe sjaApdxvq aqq Oq qsO3 ajqeuosp@j awos qu aTqPuTvqqP
spm �Cqjadojd aqq os AqTssaoau oTlqnd JO UOTqnTosaa aqq asTDjaxa 04
A:zessooau aq Avw qT 1poqoaqojd aq oq sum Aqaadoid aqq jT ajojoaDq4 pup
' SI20A U,-3q 10 aATJ uT Aqjadoad aq4 go ONPW 04 qSTM AeW sqTnsar aqq osn
YPgM auIT4 sTqq qe umouX you sT qT asnpoaq ainqnj oqq uT Aqjodoid aqq
DUT40040id go A-Pm OU sum aj@qq Pies all -Aqjadojd aqq ospqojnd oq sem
ao2ds uado sp AIjacload go ao@Td P Alquoupwaad DAJOSaad oq Aem ATuo
oq4 poqou aH -ooeds uado uT qdaX aq oq puel aTqPJTSDP- Alqblq P sum
Xqja6ojd 04PTqTAON aqq P@4ou pup aovds undo go Oq-4 JOJ
SuJGDUOO STq possajdxo Isoquq soq lonUOAV UOSUqOf OTC 'SOUTrO 'S PJPq3FH
• TM SuO-1-4;Dau�100
,i4jGdoad aqq BuijTnbop jog suospoa sP SPUPT quaDuCPT? 144
TTPJ4 BuTinsse pup A4TTTqTssaooP BUIXTq POIaPTSUOD Oqs qPqq
pup Pale IPJ@UaB aqq UT SITPI4 Aupw apnjouT suvId j@qspw AqunoD Pup
TpuoTBaa aqq paqou aqS -quawdolGAOP TvUOTqPajDaj AqTsUaqUT MOT
ao; pup saTqTTvnb oTuaos sqT jo.7' aopds uado sv pupT aqq @AJaS@Jd 04
aTqPJTSaP aq p1nom qT qpqq pup Paje Soqeo Soa alb uT Aqjadoid @4PTqTAON
aqq go sojop OOE go uoTqTsTnbou quToC pasodoad aqq pasjopuo Gqs
paqvqs ajoLusnH - sw ' 1861 IOT jaquiaqdas paqpp '�@11PA P10-4-10d
vpualaq 9E lajowsnU uear wojj uoTqPoTunwiuoo uaqqTjm P pup ' AqTssGoDu
OTlqnd go uoTqnTOsOJ aq4 qqTM Paaooad pipog aqq qvqq uOTq2T4G5DU
qBnojqq pajTnbop aq qou p1noo Aqjadoid aqq JT 4uq4 BuT40u PUP YLJpd
%a@JD sOqpq Soq Jog S010P 00C JO UOTqTsTnbov aqq log qaoddns sTq
O-4TV cT-,dlqo;D-Tqs jadmoD SZL IN-Tell -4jaqoH -jG woli ' T86T ' 6 JDquIGnd0S
"a-lep 'UOTqP3Tunwwoo uDq4TJIA e PaAT0001 PPq PIPOU aqq PaqPqS S@PPTJ ' f
-plo3al OLIq OqUT SUOTqVDTunwwoD u@qqTlm OmI PP-01
sappTj - r laqjv papog aqq ssaippv p1noo sTunpTATPUT PO4P4S UTPUO,%, ' Cl
XTS afiVd ZZ-T8
Meeting 81-22 Page seven
Dimone Pedersen, 145 College Avenue, Los Gatos , said the Novitiate
property, although an historic backdrop, is private property and that
the problems the Novitiate residents , surrounding neighbors , and
adjacent property owners have is the result of public lands adjacent
to their property. She posed questions on the Joint Powers Agreement ,
including the limit of out-of-pocket expenses; what would happen if
the value of the property was more than the grant; what if grant
funds became unavailable; how would the Town be expected to patrol
the property; how and why would the District manage the site ;
what is the definition of the easements ; and what if there is disagreement
between the two parties if a sale of surplus was contemplated.
She said she felt this land was private property , that this type
of condemnation did not qualify as a public necessity , and asked if
more open space was genuinely needed in light of the current park
acreage in the County . She stated she was concerned about problems
that would be encountered if the land :•:as an open space park, citing
specifically fire hazard. She said the Los Gatos taxpayers should
be asked how they would like their tax dollars spent and their
lands used and asked what the cost would be to have a District-wide
advisory vote at the next General Election .
Patrick Hazel , 229 Elmwood Court, Los Gatos , protested the "illegal
taking" of the Novitiate property, noting he felt neither the Town nor
the District had the jurisdiction to condemn the Novitiate property. 171e
felt there was already enough open space in the area and that tne con-
tinuance of the proceedings against the Novitiate was an obstruction of
constitutional rights.
Preston Hill, 33 Peralta Avenue, Los Gatos, expressed his concern about
the method of acquisition of the property, not because of condemnation
itself, but because of the strained relationship coming into existence
between the District and the Town. He asked what provision there was
in the Joint Powers Agreement for the contingency of the failure of
the Town ' s lawsuit or for the possibility that the condemnation award
might come in over budget. Quoting from the staff report, he asked if
only three residential lots could be developed on the site.
C. Britton responded that the particular density matrix was done under
the current zoning of 20-S in the County of Santa Clara, noting that
zoning and general plans can change , and in fact, had changed on this
property. He noted that the property was in the County, not the Town, and
stated that Montezuma' s Ridge was an example of what could happen .
Mr. Hill said zoning had changed to become more strict on the Novitiate
property. He said under the County ' s current zoning, a Montezuma Hill-
type subdivision was impossible in the area being discussed. Ile stated
he personally had no desire to see the property be anything but what it
is right now, said it was possible to purchase development rights in a
lump sum, rather than having annual payments. He noted that it might
someday be necessary to use property for something other than a park,
that the Jesuits were maintaining the area in practically an ideal
situation, and that there should be no real reason to change the land' s
status. Ile asked whether the District feels that since the original
negotiations and condemnation lawsuit failed, that the Town is committed
to paying half the costs of acquisition, and asked where this informa-
tion was embodied in the Joint Powers Agreement.
meeting 81-22 Page eight
Dr. Bernard Ilymel. , -3 Ambassador Court, Los _os, a neighbor of the
property, discussed public safety problems on the property and at L_x-
ington Dam, including the carrying of firearms and assaults. Ile did
not feel the nature of the Novitiate propery would allow it to be
properly patrolled and said there was not adequate park staff in the
'Town. lie said the Alma Bridge Road is a bad route for heavy use or
w�2ekends and said the development of a formal park and hiking area on
the property would mean increased delinquent young people use
activities and other illegal activities . He felt the property was less
useful as a public recreation area compared to other areas , noting the
steep areas, incomplete roads , difficult tO patrol , and said there was
currently enough recreational space in the County.
Dr . David Leeson, 15300 Blackberry Hill , Los Gatos, said, with respect
to desireability, the Lexington area was already overcrowded and that
Highway 17 and Alma Bridge Road were impassable on the weekends and
that he did not think the area required any futher development . He
said the area is a fire hazard area and increased public use would
create a greater fire hazard area beyond the District' s control . fie
said he felt there was enough open space area in the Los Gatos area and
stated he was; against the District exercising condemnation of, this sort,
because he did not feel the true value of the property could be set .
lie said he trusted the Jesuits to keep it in open space and that he
did not trust the open space district since land adjacent to his , which
had been owned by the District, had been sold for development.
Robert Hamilton, 368 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos , asked how many
rangers the District employed, their salary range, how they would police-
the property, and what authority they would have in making arrests .
Ile stated he had a great fear that if the District was able to take the
property away from the Novitiate, for which he could see no clear rea-
son, that as a private citizen, he would greatly fear condemnation of
his own property.
Philip Trautman, 107 Cherrywood Court, Los Gatos, asked why the District
had joined with the Los Gatos Town Council in pursuit of the venture ,
noting the Council did not necessarily have the support of the towns-
people. lie asked how the District was funded and stated his opposition
to the exercise of eminent domain. He felt it was unnecessary to -,Lake
any condemnation action and was a great waste of public money and time.
Leila Naslund, 19301 Bear Creek Road, Los Gatos, felt the land should he
open space, and was open space now while in private hands. She said
she had 800 signatures on a petition which states that, in general, not
only in this instance , but with the proposed Bear. Creek Park, that the
taxpayers ' money be used for development of currently owned land, rather
than for acquisition. She stated her opposition to eminent domain �ro-
ceedings , noting the property was not of a necessity to the public
since it was now open space and discussed access problems on and off
Highway 17.
Clifford Winger, 300 College Avenue , Los Gatos, expressed his opposition
to the acquisition of the property since it was currently open soace at
this time. lie said the taxpayers ' money should be saved.
D.iane Forsythe , 140 Whitney Avenue, Los Gatos , felt condemnation of the
property would be like robbery and that the District would be stealing
t'n-, property.
81-22 Page nine
Catherine Smith, 122 Whitney Avenue, Los Gatos , categorized into
three groups the people who had addresse-j the Board : 1) neighbors
living near the property who have enjoyed using the property for
many years and do not want anyone else to; 2) the type of people
she labeled "I 've got mine and you 'd better not try to get any of
it" ; and 3) the political outs . She noted that four -years ago
an election had been held to elect ne�s public representatives on
the basis of "enough is enough" . She said the Town Council had
publicly discussed the matters relating to the. Novitiate acquisi-
tion and that nothing had been kept a secret. She said that fifteen
years ago people had wanted to develop Vasona Park as office
buildings because they said the park was not being used and she
challenged anyone to make that statement tonight. She said she
had lived in the Valley all her life and had seen w1hat had happened
to open space and that she thought anyone who had looked at the
pictures taken from Blosson Hill Road down over the Valley would
say that open space is needed.
Bobbie Crafford, 16830 Sheldon Road, Los Gatos , stated open space is
desireable, but the El Sereno Open Space Preserve was already in the
area and was under"utili7ed. She said the preserve presented many
problems such as motorcycle use , illegal fires, illegal use of access
roads, and therefore she opposed development of the ovitiate property
because the same problems would he faced. She had previously addressed
the Board on the problems at El Sereno and that there do not appear to
be sufficient funds to maintain what the District already owned. She
stated her opposition to the exercise of eminent domain to acquire this
private property.
Robert I-luckell, 17920 Daves Avenue , Monte Sereno, stated the '.Novitiate
property was not a functional piece of property for a Dark , and should
not be purchased simply because it was a scenic viewshed. lie felt the
District should use its money on property people can use.
Kathryn Morgan, read a letter, addressed to the Board of Directors and
dated September 9 , 1981, from Mrs. John Lincoln, 58 alpine Avenue, Los
Gatos, in which Mrs. Lincoln stated she was very much in favor of the
acquisition of the Novitiate property as open space and expressed her
strong support of the concept. She said it had always been her hope
that the hills and background of Los Gatos would be nreserved as a park
and that the preservation of these hillsides would mean a great deal
to the Town.
Dominic Sallitto said that property rights are not absolute , noting that
the District should not have to institute legal proceedings against the
Novitiate since they should be charitable enough to donate to the
community the property for which they no longer have use .
D. Wendin declared a recess at 10 : 01 P.M. 'The Board reconvened for the
meeting at 10 : 19 P.M.
D. Wendin asked staff to respond to some of the issues raised during
the public comments, specifically : a review of the Joint Powers Agree-
ment with the Town of Los Gatos; patrol , maintenance and fire hazard;
access to the property; funding available to the D'Istrict; cost of an
election; and purchase of development rights. Ile stated that if ques-
tions were not adequately answered during the meeting , members of the
audience should contact the staff via a phone call or letter, or in
the event the Board did schedule further consideration of the matter,
question the item at that time.
C . Britton summariz- the Joint Powers Aqrceni(. Ile said the federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund grant was for $465 , 615 , from which a
surcharge (currently a rate of 1 . 6%) would be subtracted. Ile said the
idea was that the grant funds would be available to either the Distr--*c--
o:,- the 7n,�...-n and stated the balance of the cost would he -alit betwee-
D-,_strict and the Town. Ile said the Joint Powers Agreemnent addressed
t'� r.ethods in which the property would be utilized, acquired, func'.e_411
and managed in the short and long term. In regard to the costs of the
recent lawsuit, he said there had been a great deal of cooperation
between the District and the Town in putting together the Joint Powers
Agreement and that he felt confident something would be worked out re-
garding the costs. Ile said the agreement called for L
held by the Townand the District would have an easement and that
annexation was a requirement of the agreement so that the Town could,
provide emergency Police services . He said the property was in the
Ce:,tral Fire District and that the District would patrol the urooertv
on a regular basis as long as it was open space. He said the grant
funds required that the property be used for recreational purposes and
rioted if there was a conversion of that use, for example the sale of
surplus, the government would demand reimbursement of its grant funds .
Ile said the Joint Powers Agreement required that the Town Council and
the District Board agree in writing to a final amount of their comr"I' t-
ment. He said that if individuals had any other questions about the
Joint Powers Agreement, they should contact him at the District office .
C. Britton stated he assumed that if the District did consider legal
action to acquire the property, that there would probably be an amend-
ment to the Joint Powers Agreement.
11. Grench discussed patrol of the site , noting that in planning for. tht�
site there would be considerable public input before any plans for ,:se
of the site were presented to the Board. He said that under the Joint
Powers Agreement the Town would also be involved in planning for the
site . He said the District had its own Ranger staff, that Rangers are
limited status peace officers, and that the property would be included.,
in the Rangers ' beat area. He said the budget for Land Management is
on a growth pattern and Rangers would be added to the staff as they are
needed; the planning for adding to the Ranger staff was done through t--
budget process when all sites were reviewed to determine the number
of Rangers needed to provide proper stewardship of all District lands .
E. Mart said the current salary range for a Ranger was about $15 , 00101 -
$20 , 000 per year, exclusive of benefits. He said that when the District
acquires new land, the agency having primary responsibility for law
enforcement -
torcem.ent and fire protection for that property was contacted by the
District, that abilities and expertise areas were discussed and that
the agencies tried to complement each other. Ile said the Ranger staf-F
had particular expertise in resource-protection area , i .e. crimes against
property vs. people vs. people crimes, off road vehicle Problems , cer-
tain types of weapons regulations , destruction of wildlife, and vegetation
fires . Ile reviewed the District Rangers ' beat structure , noting that
there was also after hours call-out. He said the patrol truces were
equipped with 100 gallons of water and have enough fire tools to ec.uip
a six Person crew.
C. Britton discussed access to the property, noting that access would
I
not be through Los Gatos streets because of potential traffic probl:-:-:.s .
:Ieeting 01-22 Pac-4 eleven
fte said that if the meters of Charity property ..ere to be utilized, a
road would have to be built off of Alma Bridge Road through the Novitiate
property and across St. Joseph' s Hill, and if that road were developed,
it would be the access road to the subject property. He said the long-
term solution to the congested access problems would lie with the
Division of Highways.
C. Britton said staff had explored the buying of development rights
with the Jesuits during previous negotiations , noting the value of an
open space easement is based on development potential and could cost
as much as acquiring fee title. He stated there are areas on the
property where trail connections were desirable, and with an open
space easement, trail easements would not be allowed. lie said, as far
as he knew, the possibility of purchasing development rights was re-
jected by the Jesuits , and there was no further discussion of acquiring
an open space easement on the property.
if. Grench said the District' s basic source of funding was a share of
the maximum $4 per $100 of assessed Property valuation or the equivale-n--
of about 1-1,% of the $4 . He said the property tax revenue income for the
year District-wide was approximately $3 . 6 million. He said he did not
know the cost of an election at this ti-., e because of the varying factors
involved.
D. Wendin stated he planned to terminate this agenda item and move on
to the item regarding the scheduling of September meetings .
B. Schedulinq of September Meetincls
H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-81-93 , dated September 10, 1981 . He
suggested that the September 16 meeting be cancelled and a Special
Meeting be held on Tuesday, September 29 .
E. Shelley suggested the date of September 28 for the Special Meeting.
Motion : D. Wendin moved that the Board cancel the September 16 Special
Meeting originally scheduled, and schedule a Special Meeting
on Monday, September 28 for two purposes : (1) to consider the
regular set of agenda items to be later specified by staff
and (2) to continue the item heard tonight to that meeting
with a consideration of a resolution of public necessity and
to decide whether or not the Board would proceed with the
project. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion : D. Wendin stated the meeting would be held at the
District ' s main office 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 , Los Altos ,
beginning at 7 :30 p.m. , that agendas with a map showing the
office ' s location would be sent to everyone who requested
one, and that people could request a copy of the staff ' s re-
port for the meeting by calling 965-4717 . N. flanko requested
that the meeting' s minutes be available as soon as Possible
for Board consideration. The motion passed unanimously.
III. CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the Revised Claims 81-18,
dated September 10, 1981 . If. Turner seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
D. Wendin stated the meeting was adjourned at 10 :54 P.M.
Jean 11. Fiddes
District Clerk
Claims 81-18
September 10, 1981
Meeting 81-22
Revised
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
453 69. 80 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Pacer
454 70. 83 Carolyn Caddes Publicity Photo
455 750. 00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Services-Aug.
456 213. 00 Communications Research Co. Eauio. r4aintenance-August
457 4 . 88 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Expense
458 7. 40 Excel. Pool & Patio Water Sys'%--e.--Saratoga Gap
459 830. 00 First American Title Guarantee Prelim. Title Reports
460 92 . 97 Hipp Welding Signing Supplies
461 9. 31 Hubbard & Johnson Construction. Supplies
Skyline Cabin
462 380. 81 Mobil Oil District Vehicle Expense
463 255. 95 Multiplex Slide Storac:e Cabinet
464 47. 70 Stanley Norton July Expenses (phone, copies)
465 174 . 37 PG&E U-Lilities-7400 St. Joseph
466 690. 96 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
467 5. 00 City of Palo Alto utilities
468 9. 59 Peninsula Blueprint Service Bluelines
469 52. 72 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter Rental
470 70. 51 Rancho Hardware & Garden Shop "lisc. Field Supplies
471 202 . 45 Shell Oil District Vehicle Expense
472 23. 00 Specialty Towing Vehicle Towing
473 157. 00 Title Insurance & Trust Preliminary Title Report
474 150. 00 U.S. Postmaster Postage-0P!�7S-_`1,-CZ 'cN&,qs1ettter
475 163. 12 Union oil Company District Vehicle Expense
476 464 . 34 Xerox Corp. Xerox Supplies
477 143 . 75 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Construction Sum- 1;.e s
- 7-i 0 104 . 10 John Pound Private Vehicle Expense
479 49 . 00 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
480 175.00 ion C . Cummings Site 7I.-nalysis-'b-n-ke Bello
Parking Lot
2181 390 .00 UC Berkeley-Extension Training Course - D. Camp
and J . Escobar
482 200 . 00 Assn. of Bay Area Gavern-i-,ients Training Course - Gundert
and 1-7 a t t
September 10 , 1981
Meeting 81-22
Page Two
Amount Name Description
2483 40 . 22 Charlotte MacDonald Private Vehicle Expense
2484 33 . 00 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
2485 187 . 16 flarfst Associates, Inc. Computer Services
2466 80 . 00 Stanley Norton August Expenses (p:-one,
copying, out-of-to,.-, r-ee---Jng,-,
2467 30 . 00 Calif. Park & Recreation Land tanager Recruit;-env Ad
Society
2488 127. 58 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense ,
Postage , and Mea- 11
Conferences
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
M `ing 81-24 r
/23/81
DALE S. HILL
150 ROBIN WAY
LOS GATOS, GA. 95030
September 17, 1981
Board of Directors
Paid-Peninsula open Space District
375 Distel Circle Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94622
Re: Novitiate property, Los Gatos
I regret that I was unable to attend the public hearing
in Los Gatos on September 10. I do want to go on record
however, in favor of eventual public acquisition of the
portion of the Novitiate property under discussion.
I served on the Joint Los Gatos-County Hillside Study
Committee and have been a member of the Los Gatos
Planning Commission since 1976. The public testimony
over the years has been consistently opposed to hillside
development in general from several points of view.
The objections include: 1) Visual alteration of the
scenic hillside backdrop of the Town, 2) Streets and
circulation patterns which are inadequate for additional
traffic burden, 3) environmental--concern regarding
landslides earthquakes, destruction of habitat, grading,
etc. and 43 Loss of low-intensity recreation potential.
I would prefer to see a purchase negotiated without the
necessity for exercise of eminent domain. I fear the
Society's statements to the effect that they have no
intention of selling the land lack some credibility
considering that their representatives have argued in
public hearings for higher density designation than
that proposed.
The fact remains that the public is using the property,
regardless of ownership. Residents of the Town are
aware of that hillside as a logical place to hike
through open space and enjoy the out of doors in a
close to home location. I understand that there are
some less acceptable uses occurring also; surely that
argues for some responsible supervision and patrol.
I am not a hiker myself, and might never set foot on
the property. Nevertheless I treasure it as a visual
and psychological resource. I would prefer to know it
was owned by the public before it is actually threatened
with imminent development and the price raised beyond
possibility of purchase.
Yours very truly,
�a
Dale S. Hill
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-24
198w `� b
Sept. 28, 1981 :.Z
pp
�sv u
�3/9fl
den
AA
0, 'the,
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 81-24 GP 2
9/23/81
DALE S. HILL
150 ROBIN WAY
LOS GATOS, CA. 95030
September 17, 1981
Board of Directors
Mid-Peninsula Open Space District
375 Distel Circle Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94622
Re: Novitiate property, Los Gatos
I regret that I was unable to attend the public hearing
In Los Gatos on September 10. I do want to go on record
however, in favor of eventual public acquisition of the
portion of the Novitiate property under discussion.
I served on the Joint Los Gatos-County Hillside Study
Committee and have been a member of the Los Gatos
Planning Commission since 1976. The public testimony
over the years has been consistently opposed to hillside
development in general from several points of view.
The objections include: 1) Visual alteration of the
scenic hillside backdrop of the Town, 2) Streets and
circulation patterns which are inadequate for additional
traffic burden, 3) environmental--concern regarding
landslides earthquakes, destruction of habitat, grading,
etc. and 45 Loss of low-intensity recreation potential.
I would prefer to see a purchase negotiated without the
necessity for exercise of eminent domain. I fear the
Society's statements to the effect that they have no
intention of selling the land lack some credibility
considering that their representatives have argued in
public hearings for higher density designation than
that proposed.
The fact remains that the public is using the property,
regardless of ownership. Residents of the Town are
aware of that hillside as a logical place to hike
through open space and enjoy the out of doors in a
close to home location. I understand that there are
some less acceptable uses occurring also; surely that
argues for some responsible supervision and patrol.
I am not a hiker myself, and might never set foot on
the property. Nevertheless I treasure it as a visual
and psychological resource. I would prefer to know it
was owned by the public before it is actually threatened
with imminent development and the price raised beyond
possibility of purchase.
Yours very truly,
Dale S . Hill
S
y
Distributed by Susan S ors at 9128181 Board Meeting
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County Government Center
Redwood City, Ca.
Dear Supervisors;
I am writing about the Master Plan for Edgewood Park. Before I make my
comments I feel I should introduce myself to you. I am a professional field
ecologist, certified by the Ecological Society of America, and employed in
this county for almost ten years. I first visited the Edgewood Park site in
1971 , and have returned frequently ever since, because of my interest in the
ecological aspects of the biota which live on serpentine soils.
During the course of the hearings before the Parks Commission, I urged them to
delay the formulation of a Master Plan because, in my judgement, the park
planners had not been given sufficient data to create a plan which would both
accomodate the County's recreational needs, and preserve the unique biological
resources present. I have repetedly offered-Zata relevant to the deficiences
which I have pointed out. Further, I have volunteered my services and
knowlege to assist in any way I can. I have long favored the establishment of
a park on this land, and I do not wish to present any unnecessary obstacle to
it.
At the August meeting of the Parks Commission, two Master Plans were presented
by your consultants, and one was voted to be recommended to you as "the
project" for purposes of the EIR. It appears that the EIR process could be
initiated at your next meeting, if you follow the recommendation of the
Commission. Rather than urge delay again, I feel it would be more
constructive for me to present an additional Master Plan concept (see enclosed
map). This concept attempts to address the deficiences I have previously
noted by avoiding intensive facilities development in "sensitive habitats"
which were not previously recognized. I urge you to direct that the EIR
consider this additional Master Plan concept along with the two presented by
the park planners. Further, I urge you to direct that each of these plans be
evaluated at an equal level of detail . Such an approach to the EIR would
continue the park planning process without requiring the Board to prejudge
which Master Plan concept it may later wish to adopt by voting for one of them
as "the project".
I thank the Board for its time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
T.H.Lindenmeyer
311 Boulder Brook Dr.
Boulder Creek, Ca. 95006
^V
Y
14
� ai✓c J'4rK,N=� � -� �-, ,�� ,�� •-�. , \ .3• � / �' -CIS �'� ���_,:,,
n / I•
,�J It _1� �. � � •.�:� / _ _
SUSAN SOMMERS 55.5 HILLCREST WAY REDWOOD CITY. CALIFORNIA 94062
Distributed at 9128181 Board M�_,ing
September 28, 1981
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
745 Distel Circle
Los Altos, California
Re: EDGEWOOD PARK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Dear Sirs:
Good planning requires complete and acurate information on all aspects of
a project prior to initial development plans.
The Environmental Assessment Report on Edgewood Park is a base document with
serious limitations in the extent of information as well as the accuracy of
some of the information it offers. While it gives indications of the complexity
of the environment, it fails to provide details necessary for good planning
practices; this is especially true of Plan B which needs more information for
evaluation and decisions because of it's complicated design and impact.
Areas which need greater clarification are those concerns which include, but
are not limited to, environmental information, economic information and safety
information.
Environmental information should include the following:
1. On-site, mapping of geology, soils and hydrology on a large scale map
which is not merely a blow-up of smaller scale maps. ClearW and
accurate definitions of the soils types, slumps, sinks, fractures and
other geologic hazards.
2. Accurate studies regarding the extent of the sensitive habitats and
buffer zones for these habitats should be charted on the use-plan map.
3. A greater policy of preservation of the existing water system ought to
be implemented. Water run-offs, springs, seeps and other water zones
ought to have maximum protection from alteration, contaminations, etc.
Access ought to be provided for the residential and migrating wildlife
to these water zones with minimal interruption by human use facilities.
4. *P_Tnformation regarding the details of the holding basins or ponds for
Golf Course water run-off. What is the location, size, total network
system, costs, and safety provisions to protect wildlife and humans from
water hazards (i.e. drowning, contamination).
5. A more complete outline regarding the methodology of course preparation,
and maintenance, parking lot development, clubhouse location and development,
access roads and service roads on-off the greens, and provisions 04 AS00r
how the development and maintenance of the course will impact the wildlife
on EdgeT,70od Park.
Economic information which would be extremly helpful in the decision making
process include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Cost to provide safety for the various park users as well as protection
of facilities, and the sensitive habitats.
2. Cost of sewer hook-ups and location of facility.
3. The cost of importing soils, and the economics of insuring the reduction
of foreign plants, pestiferous insects, and undesirable environmental
influences.
4. A methodology of how the park would be restored when water became unavailable
to the Park system for maintenance of cultivated vegetation. Who pays the
restoration bond? When? How is this bond going to be assessed? Who would
do this type of assessment?
Some immediate questions regarding information wproviding for the public
safety include:
1. Protection of the natural water systems. Edgewood Park is an important
head water source for the Crystal Springs Lakes, and other watercourses
in San Mateo County. It is a well-used water source by wildlife and
is vital to many species who use the site when their own water sources
are dry.
2. What plans for wildlife and sensitive habitat protection have been designed?
3. What means are going to protect park users from golfball which are out
of the intended territory of target? How are the people going to safely
enter the park from Robertson's Way between the cross-fire of two greens
to get to the picnic area at the top of the large eastern hill? What will
be the financial and visual impact of these safety provisions?
As you know, toy approve a major development such as a Golf Course requires
an economic impact analysis prior to approval, especially if it is to be
included in a master plan. Once included, without financial consideration,
in a master plan the planning agencies (in this case San Mateo County and
you) will be, in essence, committed to providing such a facility. How does
approval of projects without ecnonomic analysis exemplify good planning
practices?
I would further suggest that included in the assessment for planning decision
is information regarding the EIRs which have been written regarding development,
mitigations, and wildflower preservation zones (water zones, too) in this county,
as well as others with an analysis of the realities that are present on the sites
of those EIRs. We need to really know how the sensitive colonies and habitats
have responded to local development and cultivated vegetation which have occurred
on such regions. There was no cross-reference to other EIRs which have dealt with
some of the same situations and problems planning Edgewood Park presents to us all.
I am in favor of good planning and all that that requires. How else will we make
the most effective, as well as legal, use of our resources?
Very tXuly yours,
Susan Sommers
Distributed and read i- the record at 9128181 Board A' ;ng
1 Ili
TOWN of LOS GATOS
Office of the Mayor
354-6801
September 28, 1981
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board ;
I am in wholehearted support of the purchase of the Novitiate Open Space
preserve. I am presenting my comments both as the Mayor of Los Gatos and
as a private citizen. I have long been an advocate of adequate open space
preservation as a real need within and nearby to heavily urbanized areas.
I would like to present a brief history of hillside preservation from my
perspective. The_Joint Town-County Hillside Study Committee of which I was
a member was formed in 1975. That committee considered planning for
development of the hillsides around Los Gatos in an orderly manner with
consideration given to roads, sewers , water supplies, and geological issues.
The study committee was an outgrowth of the Town' s concern with the high
density development called Montezuma Hills. During numerous public hearings,
the vast majority of citizen testimony expressed concern that only very low
density development or open space be considered for the hillside. The desire
for high intensity use was only expressed by owners of undeveloped land,
including those representatives of the business that owns this particular
property.
Subsequently, these same concerns regarding hillside development and open
space were voiced at hearings before the Town 's Planning Commission (of which
I was also a member, having been appointed right after the conclusion of the
study committee's report) and before the Town Council . The result was approval
of a hillside plan which, although not perfect, did respond to a large number
of the citizen concerns by seeking to limit development and preserve open space .
In 1978, I ran for Council with Tom Ferrito on a joint platform which raised
the two main issues of proper land use planning and hillside protection ; we
won with an overwhelming majority. Ruth Cannon, the third Council member
elected that year, also ran on a platform that included hillside protection as
a primary issue. Subsequent to the 1978 election, the Town Council voted
unanimously to join with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to pur-
chase that portion of the Novitiate property which several representatives of
the owners indicated was not economically usable, and was becoming a problem
to them.
CIVIC CENTER 9 110 EAST MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 949 • LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA 95030
f
Board of Directors, MROSD -- 2 September 28, 1981
The Town Council election in 1980 saw the hillside preservation issue strongly
raised again by Brent Ventura. Again the voters responded, and Brent won by a
large margin.
There are now two primary scenarios for future development, if this property
is not purchased for open space. One is development at the current density
in the Hillside Plan; among the problems associated with each development are:
1 . A traffic study done after approval of the Hillside Plan concluded
that even the current densities are excessive, given the capacity
of the existing residential streets that will have to service these
areas. Political , economic and environmental constraints preclude
the widening of any of these streets.
2. Loss of the major scenic backdrop of the Town.
3. Loss of an existing (albeit not legal ) recreational use by Town
hikers and joggers .
4. Increased Town services in an area of difficult access.
5. County would have development control .
The second scenario is development at high density. This is what I feel is
the most probable situation if the property is not purchased for open space.
The owner's representatives have stated publicly that they have no immediate
plans for development; they also have not responded to our suggestion that
they grant a binding open space easement to the Town or District even though
we are willing to pay for it. This indicates to me that the owners are wait-
ing for a future political situation to exist wherein a high lot yield could
be obtained. Under such a condition, the problems with development at the
existing density described above would be multiplied many times over.
Again, I would like to reiterate my support for this open space acquisition.
Too often, politicians have been criticized for "restricting development," for
requiring open space dedication or for zoning property as open space. The
argument has always been: "If you want it, buy it. " That's what we're doing.
There has always been public and unanimous Council support for this open space
acquisition. When it became apparent that condemnation was the only tool left,
one Council member and some members of the public (as could be expected) voiced
objections. While I philosophically do not like condemnation, I feel that the
greater public good necessitates this action.
Sincerely yours ,
PETER W. SIEMENS
Mayor
PWS/ss
cc: Town Council News Media
Muqmv Mmuc-ATIO-14
-etina 81-24 9/22/81-2 page 1
pt. 28, 198!
21 Sept. 81 E P 2 05 1981
FOR THE NOVITIATE PARK
Open Space is essential to our community, to our
individual mental health, and to the health of the bay area. It
is more than a "nice" thing to have; it is more than a luxury.
Because our valley is crowded and busy , neighbors, - fellow*"workers,
and family- rhembbr-s are often` too 'close to one- another for *365
days of the year for us to fully relax. Humankind must have
vistas and opportunities for mountain top meditation in order for
our personalities to grow and flourish. we are fortunate in Los
Gatos in having some community-preserved green space. Some of us
also have individual open space, but many do not. All of our open
space is to be cherished and preserved for ourselves and for our
descendants. When the space is developed, it is lost to use by the
other residents of our town. The new land titleholders become
additional residents of the valley, bringing their additional
automobiles and additonal demands upon the resources of the town
and the valley.
We have a great opportunity for sensible land use in how
we deal with the land whose title is presently held by the
Novitiate Jesuit order
Land use is properly the concern of the community and
how it is used is largely the responsiblity of the community. The
freedom of the title holder is not absolute. Certainly one cannot
burn rubber tires freely on one's property, and one cannot build a
gasoline station or a used car lot capriciously upon one' s land.
Similarly, there are times when a community does not want land
converted to residential use.
9 /-)2/81-2 page 2
The right c eminent Domain is well es�,Dlished in
constitutional and common law. There are times when a community or
government must exercise this right. There are many safeguards
against the abuse of this right. Land condemnation must first be
reviewed by the appropriate branches of government, such as the
town Planning Department, with Public hearings and community
input. Next our elected representatives must vote affirmatively
to take action on land condemnation, again with public hearings.
Next, there must be judicial review and judicial approval, with
the various points of view represented by counsel, and again
ample consideration is given to the risk of abuse of the power.
Citizens need not be apprehensive nor feel paranoid that their
backyards or front yards will be quietly seized by some grasping
and scheming government.
A fair way to transfer the land to public ownership is
simple purchase, with a fair value established based on
surrounding values. This value will deliver a substantial profit
to the present titleholders. With little or no social or economic
contribution by the present holders, the Novitiate land has grown
immensely in value since its original purchase.
The Novitiate order has not, however, chosen to pursue
the path of simple sale. There have been a number of attempts to
negotiate. The Novitiate has not been willing, to the best of my
knowledge and information, to negotiate, plan, or othEyrwise
discuss what might become of this land, nor have they given their
reasons for this lack of willingness . . .one is obliged to conclude
that they are following the business policy of waiting, in the
expectations of receiving an even greater dollar value in a few
years. Although this may be a good business policy, it represents
9/22/81-2 page 3
insensitivity to the needs of the people of Los Gatos. . .In fact,
the Novitiate has already attempted to gain permission to put up
high density housing on one portion of their holdings. Their
business managers might advise going well beyond the present
density restrictions if given a free hand, and since their
principle management and policy interests are remote from the
town, the order would not be hurt by high density usage and there
is little motivation for them to be concerned with living
conditions in the town.
Time is an important factor in our decision. The dollar
value of obtaining the land will of course rise, and each year
the necessary appropriations will be more difficult to get. The
appropriation presently available to Los Gatos and to the Open
Space District will expire on the date . Further, and even
more serious , there are currently bills in Sacramento to remove
from the local communities , both towns and counties , their
present power to determine land use. County land could be
developed in a virtually uncontrollable manner, heedless of
neighborhood and county wishes . This real threat to local land use
control was reported upon in the San Jose Mercury issue of
September 20, 1981, under the headline "How the Special Interests
Got Their Way" .
The proposed park is desirable in many ways, other than
the general need for open space described earlier. It will
preserve the view of our hillsides which we now enjoy, and a park
will not spot the hills with residences, roads, and street
lights. The hills are a beautiful visual background to our town
and add to the desirability of living here. . Also, if development
occurs , the roads through the hills will attract and make hillside
9/22/81-2 page 4
cruising more convenient to sightseers and troublemakers and
rip-off artists.
The land is in the county. The Novitiate has opposed
annexation to the town. .Yet any residences built there will use
all the town conveniences, its post office, sewage connections,
schools, and freeway entrances.
The proposed park is not for high activity use. We would
be able to substantially determine its mode of use, in
cooperation with the Open Space District. Los Gatans would see
the park used by the Girl Scouts , Boy Scouts , local service
clubs , equestrians, bycyclists , and by people who want to enjoy
the view of the town and the valley. We could avoid some of the
problems arising from finding Oak Meadow Park and Vasona Park too
crowded to enjoy on weekends.
We are fortunate in having the Mid Peninsula
Regional Open Space District with its capability for preserving
open space. They have the authority, authorized by public
referendum some years ago, to legally hold land in open space for
ourselves and for future generations. It is to our advantage to
cooperate with this District and turn its capabilities towards
giving us something of use to ourselves.
Why has Los Gatos proven to be such a desirable place
in which to live? Partly this has been the luck of being situated
in a spot between several beautiful tree covered hilltops and
ridges. It is has also become desirable because sensible and
public spirited citizens have dedicated time and effort over the
years to making and keeping the town attractive. Let us join in
this ongoing effort and continue the good work, and use this
opportunity to make and keep the town desirable and beautiful. C. Walton
WRITrMN COMMLNICATIO14
ting. 81-24
--ot. 28, 1981
100 Ann Arbor Court
Los Gatos , California 95030
September 24 , 1981
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
375 Distel Circle , #D-1
Los Altos , California 94022
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Novitiate Property in Los Gatos
I am writing this letter in hopes that it will
seriously be considered at the time the final decision
is to be made regarding the Novitiate Property in
Los Gatos .
As I understand the vote will be taken this Monday
evening, September 28 , 1981 , the shortage of time will
prevent the collection of numerous signatures that I had
hoped to have as physical proof that there is an "unsilent"
majority in Los Gatos , and we do support the Public
Acquisition for the eminent domain of that property. If
it would become necessary to present these signatures in
order to secure the vote, please be assured , they will be
delivered.
As a resident in Los Gatos for over seven years , I
am joined by many of my neighbors in the area with the
opinion that we want this land to be purchased with the
grant money allowed to do so. We are against the sale
of this property for any other developments.
Sincerely,
.24
cc: (Mrs. ) Barbara Green Rene Neuner
R-81-43
(Meeting 81-24
September 28 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
September 23 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Los Gatos Creek Park Acquisition Project (Novitiate
Property)
Background: On September 10 , 1981, you held an informational hearing
in the Town of Los Gatos Council Chambers to receive public comment
on specific questions related to public acquisition and use of the
subject property (see report R-81-38 of September 4 , 1981) . On
September 21, 1981 the Los Gatos Town Council approved and executed
the Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement which is now before you for
final approval and execution.
Discussion - Acquisition: It was evident from the public informational
hearing held on September 10 , 1981 , that the subject property is
extremely desirable for public open space and recreational purposes.
It also appeared clear that if and when the property is acquired, that
the public represented at that hearing preferred a low-intensity
recreational use which might include hiking trails, equestrian paths ,
casual picnich-ina and the like, but no typical "park" improvements or
high-intensity recreational uses.
The public answer to the question of public acquisition including the
possibility of the District exercising the power of eminent domain was
less clear because of the limited public comment received. It is also
true that only a small segment of the District ' s constituency was
represented at that meeting. It appears that the central issue is
whether the Jesuit property owners intend to develop the property or
to leave it as private open space. Since the property is currently
undeveloped, it was easy for the public represented to feel comfortable
about the possibility of non-development continuing, but this view
ignores the future possibilities and necessities that might lead to
development. Through all of the negotiation sessions , and the public
statements made by or on behalf of the property owners , there has been
an unwillingness to discuss the acquisition of development rights or
open space easements to assure that this property is kept in its un-
developed state. The Jesuit Fathers have maintained throughout the
purchase discussions that this property is a valuable asset and in-
vestment. They have always approached this acquisition in a very
businesslike fashion with an attitude that they want to keep their
future options open. (Sale of this property at this time would not
allow the potential of developing this property in the future. ) As
mentioned in the earlier report, the Jesuits have been marketing other
lands in the area, and are trying to raise substantial amounts of
money to endow the retirement facility located on the land that would
remain adjacent to the project area.
R-81-43 Page two
Additionally, the Sisters of Charity, another Catholic order, have
been actively marketing their adjacent property, which would require the
construction of major access road from Alma Bridge Road across the
back of the subject property, to serve the existing buildings on their
property. The Jesuits have been willing to grant the necessary rights ,
and have entered into agreements to make this possible. The construction
of that access road would be the first step in the development of the
subject property (since its main access would also be from Alma Bridge
Road) . The construction of that road also represents one of the
major costs in developing the subject property, and would not only make
development more feasible and desirable, but also more profitable.
Retention of this property as public open space is so important that
development should not be allowed, but the cost of the property after
construction of the access raod might be so prohibitive as to preclude
public acquisition. Also, the funds for acquisition are available
now and might not be available when the inevitable development of this
property takes place.
As mentioned in the earlier report, the Town and District have been told
very clearly that: "The property is not for sale , " and therefore
nothing short of initiation and prosecution of eminent domain pro-
ceedings will accomplish acquisition of this critical property.
I want to emphasize, however, that non-development of the property
does not assure public access to it, and this site is very important
as a close-in area for low-intensity recreational area.
Discussion - Joint Powers Agreement: The Joint Powers Agreement with
the Town of Los Gatos was adopted by you on April 8 , 1981 (see report
R-81-13 of April 1, 1981) and provided, among other things , for Town
leadership in the acquisition process. In order for this project to
proceed, the District must assume acquisition responsibility, primarily
because of a Superior Court decision which our attorneys feel is a
very poor one, denying Town jurisdiction in the current condemnation
action by the Town. (This matter is still subject to the possibility
of appeal. )
The recommended amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement provide for
three major changes :
1. MROSD leadership in acquisition of the open space property;
2 . Provision fir only open space, low intensity use of the
property and removal of all language dealing with high
intensity park use;
3 . Commitment of both Town and District funds into a "Los
Gatos Open Space Acquisition Fund. "
Terms for participation by Town and District in the acquisition still
provide for an equal sharing of costs up to a total Town contribution
of $775 ,000 ; a District contribution of $775 ,000 ; accrued interest;
and the State grant proceeds of $465 ,615. In the event that the final
purchase price for the open space property to be obtained exceeds
these resources , either the Town or District may withdraw from the
agreement. However, either the Town or District may decide to proceed
with acquisition unilaterally, with the provision that the entity making
R-81-43 Page three
that decision is responsible for all costs over and above proceeds
of the grant and the Los Gatos Open Space Acquisition Fund. The
second agency would be required to maintain its original contributions
and grant proceeds for the acquisition.
In order to satisfy concerns on the eventual use of the open space
property, all reference to uses other than low intensity, open space
park use in the agreement would be deleted.
Copies of both the proposed amendments and the adopted Joint Powers
Agreement are included with this report for your information.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you adopt the accompanying
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Approving and Authorizing Execution of the Amendment to
the Joint Powers Agreement for Purchase of Real Property, and Authorizing
the General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or
Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Los Gatos Creek Park) .
It is further recommended that you adopt a second resolution of the
Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Finding
and Determining That the Public Interest and Necessity Require the
Acquisition of Certain Properties for Public Use , to Wit: for Public
Park, Recreation and Open Space Purposes , Describing the Properties
Necessary Therefore and Authorizing and Directing its Retained Legal
Counsel to -do Everything Necessary to Acquire All Interests Therein
(Los Gatos Creek Park - Novitiate Property) .
I make these recommendations in the strongest terms. The site is
extremely important to the region for close-in open space and recreation-
al purposes; scarce federal funds are available to help fund the pro-
ject; the Town Council of Los Gatos as the Town ' s elected representatives
has made its strong commitment; and District funds have been set aside.
If this action is not taken now, I am convinced the property will
eventually be lost to development.
I would hope that productive negotiations with the property owners
would ensue following your actions.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE
OF REAL PROPERTY, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER
TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION
(LOS GATOS CREEK PARK) .
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District does resolve as follows :
Section One . The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District does hereby approve and authorize
execution of Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement for the purchase
of real property between the Town of Los Gatos and the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District, a copy of which is attached hereto
and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President
or other appropriate officers to execute the agreement on behalf
of the District.
Section Two. The General Manager of the District shall
cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance to Town. The
General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all other
documents necessary or appropriate to the closing of the transaction.
r
1
AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos, hereinafter referred to as TOWN,
adopted Resolution number 1981-89, dated April 20, 1981 , approving
and authorizing final execution of said Joint Powers Agreement,
dated April 20, 1981 , and
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereinafter
referred to as DISTRICT, adopted Resolution number 81-26, dated
April 8, 1981 , approving and authorizing execution of a Joint Powers
Agreement for the cooperative purchase of Los Gatos Creek Park, and
WHEREAS, paragraph 17 of said Joint Powers Agreement provides for
the amendment of said Agreement in writing at any time by mutual
consent of the parties thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, TOWN and DISTRICT hereby agree to amend said Joint
Powers Agreement as follows :
Paragraph 2 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be amended in
its entirety to read as follows :
2. ACQUISITION. It is agreed by the parties hereto that TOWN
and/or DISTRICT shall be responsible for all acquisition
activities, including, but not limited to, the initiation
of eminent domain proceedings. At all times during the
acquisition process DISTRICT and TOWN staffs and expertise
will be available for the acquisition project. Staff time
and overhead costs of both TOWN and DISTRICT shall be pro-
vided at no cost to the other party. It is further agreed,
that in the event it is necessary to acquire said property
by exercise of the power of eminent domain, TOWN and/or
DISTRICT shall utilize the services of the firm of Rodgers,
Vizzard and Tallett through DISTRICT, and DISTRICT will
coordinate such activities. Any and all other costs of
acquisition, including, but not limited to : legal fees,
expert witness fees, appraisal and engineering costs and
other out-of-pocket expenses shall be shared equally by
the parties hereto, including, but not limited to reason-
able fees and costs as may be determined by the court
should the parties hereto or either of them fail to
prevail in any action (s) in eminent domain, or the parties
hereto chiose to abandon the proceedings in accordance with
paragraph14 hereinbelow.
Paragraph 3 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be amended in
its entirety to read as follows :
3. PURCHASE TERMS. TOWN and DISTRICT agree to share equally
(50%/501) the total purchase price as determined by nego-
tiated purchase, negotiated settlement, or Final Order of
Condemnation, or other means, subject to the terms of
paragraph 14 hereinbelow; the payment required for said
purchase shall be made from the Fund established in
paragraph 14. Said total purchase price shall be deposited
AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 2
by DISTRICT into escrow (or with the court, if applicable)
along with all necessary documents for closure within
thirty (30) days after notification to TOWN that DISTRICT
is ready, willing and able to close escrow in accordance
with this Agreement (including execution by TOWN and
DISTRICT of the easement required as a part of paragraph
6 herein) ; or within ten (10) days after notification to
TOWN and/or DISTRICT from a court having competent juris-
diction that it has determined the amount of just compen-
sation necessary to acquire the property by Final Order
of Condemnation.
Paragraph 4 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be amended
in its entirety to read as follows :
4. GRANT FUNDS. It is understood that TOWN has applied for,
received, and executed a project contract for a Federal
financial assistance grant of Land and 'Water Conservation
Funds in the maximum amount of Four Hundred Sixty Five
Thousand Six Hundred Fifteen and NO/100 Dollars ($465,615) ,
with the possibility that additional Land and Water
Conservation Funds may be awarded, to reimburse the parties
for a portion of the full purchase price. It is hereby
agreed that the net proceeds from said Grant and any
additional amounts as may be awarded from time to time,
after deduction of the State surchar e, shall be divided
equally between TOWN and DISTRICT. ?At the current State
surcharge rate of 1 .6% of the total project amount, each
party would receive a $229,144 reimbursement of the current
grant amount). TOWN shall upon notification from DISTRICT
or the court, as appropriate, and within the time frame
provided in paragraph 3 hereinabove, make an advance
deposit with the escrow agent or with the court, as
appropriate, of TOWN'S one-half share of all of said
Land and Water Conservation Grant Funds as may be
awarded as of that time. TOWN shall at all times in
good faith pursue said grant project and to that end
shall , within thirty (30) days after close of escrow
or recordation of a Final Order of Condemnation apply
through the State of California for reimbursement from
the Federal Government, and TOWN shall remit DISTRICT'S
share within ten (10) days of receipt of said funds from
the State but in no event later than six (6) months from
the date of close of escrow or recordation of the Final
Order of Condemnation, provided however, that if through
no fault of TOWN said grant funds are no longer available,
TOWN shall be released from any and all responsibility to
reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT'S share of said grant
funds.
Paragraph 10 B (2nd) of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be
correctly numbered 10 C and the sixth word of the second line
of said paragraph shall be correctly spelled - "operation".
AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 3
Paragraph 10 is further amended to add as Subparagraph 10 D
the following:
D. USES NOT CONTEMPLATED
DISTRICT shall not be obligated under this agreement to
plan, develop, operate, maintain, or patrol any park
facility or recreational uses of greater intensity than
those enumerated or given by way of example in Paragraph
10 A above.
Paragraph 11 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be eliminated
in its entirety.
Paragraph 12 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be renumbered
as Paragraph 11 and shall be amended to delete the second sen-
tence.
Paragraph 13 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be renumbered
as Paragraph 12.
Paragraph 14 of said Joint Powers Agreement is hereby deleted.
Paragraph 15 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be renumbered
as Paragraph 13.
Paragraph 16 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be renumbered
as Paragraph 14 and shall be amended in its entirety to read as
follows :
14. FUNDING PARTICIPATION
A. TOWN shall , within ninety (90) days after approval and
execution of the Amendment to the Joint Powers Agree-
ment by both parties, irrevocably deposit with DISTRICT
the sum of Seven Hundred Seventy Five Thousand and NO/100
Dollars (,$775,000) to be matched by a contribution in
an equal amount from DISTRICT, and the total held in a
separate account by DISTRICT (hereinafter called the
"Los Gatos Open Space Acquisition Fund" or "Fund"),
to cover the costs of acquisition as described in
Paragraphs 2 and 5 herein, and the cost of purchasing
said Property as described in paragraph 3 herein.
Said "Fund" shall be maintained and managed by DISTRICT
and shall accumulate interest equivalent to the rate
earned from time to time by the County of Santa Clara
Commingled Investment Fund. Said "Fund" , together
with accumulated interest from the date of deposit
with DISTRICT by TOWN shall be used for ongoing
expenses associated with the purchase of said Property,
and DISTRICT shall maintain adequate accounting records
of all such expenses which shall be available to TOWN
for examination upon the giving of reasonable notice
to DISTRICT.
AMENDMENT TO JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Page 4
B. If and when said Property is purchased and there are
remaining monies in said "Fund" (after payment of the
full purchase price and all associated costs of acqui-
sition) , TOWN and DISTRICT shall endeavor to agree
upon other Open Space Lands appropriate for acquisition
in the Los Gatos Area; provided however, that either
party hereto, may require of the other party, in
writing, that the remaining monies be refunded to the
parties on an equal share (50%/50%) basis.
C. In the event the final purchase price of said property
(including all associated costs of acquisition) is in
excess of the grant funds identified in paragraph 4
herein, plus the principal and interest accumulated
in the Fund as above established ("Total Sum") , then
either TOWN or DISTRICT may withdraw from the acqui-
sition if either party hereto elects to withdraw from
the acquisition pursuant to this paragraph, and the
other party concurs, any costs of abandoning the
acquisition proceedings shall be shared equally bet-
ween the parties, in accordance with paragraph 2
herein, and this Agreement shall be deemed terminated;
provided that if the other party elects to proceed
with the acquisition, the withdrawing party shall
nevertheless be liable to participate but only to the
extent of one-half of the amount of said Total Sum,
and this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
Paragraph 17 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be renumbered
as Paragraph 15.
Paragraph 18 of said Joint Powers Agreement shall be renumbered
as Paragraph 16.
All other terms and conditions of said Joint Powers Agreement shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment
to the Joint Powers Agreement this day of
1981 .
TOWN OF LOS GATOS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
BY: BY:
Mayor, Town of Los Gatos President, Board of Directors
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Town Clerk District Clerk
DATE: DATE:
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT made this -L day of 14pelL _ 1981 by and
between the Town of Los Gatos, a political sunaivision of the State
of California, hereinafter referred to as "TOI.,RN" , and the midpeninsula
Regional open Space District, a public District, hereinafter referred
to as "DISTRICT" .
W I T N E S S E T H
- - - - - - - - - -
RECITALS:
A. TOWN and DISTRICT are "public agencies" within the meaning
of government Code Section 6502, and desire to enter into a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement pursuant to the provisions of California
Government Code Section 6500 et seq. , for the reasons and upon the
basis hereinafter set forth.
B. TOWN has received a fully executed Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund Project agreement for the purchase of certain real property
located within an unincorporated area of the County of Santa Clara,
California, adjacent to the southerly TOWN limits; said property,
hereinafter called "Los Gatos Creek Park" or "Park" or "Property" ,
consists of 300 acres, more or less, and is more particularly described
in exhibit "A" and outlined in red on the map labelled exhibit "B" ,
both as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference .
C. The acquisition of said Park is of mutual benefit to the
parties hereto and to the public in that said acquisition as implement-
ed by this agreement will serve to protect valuable public open space
and recreation lands in perpetuity.
D. The purpose of this agreement is to provide for funding to
purchase Los Gatos Creek Park for open space and recreation purposes
by TOWN and DISTRICT, to provide for acquisition and legal services,
to establish the final vesting of title to said property, and to
designate the responsibility for the management and maintenance of
said Park for recreation and open space use.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. PROPERTY. TOWN and DISTRICT agree to participate jointly in the
purchase of Los Gatos Creek Park, being legally described in said
exhibit "A" as attached hereto.
2. ACQUISITION. It is agreed by the parties hereto that TOWN shall
be responsiblefor all acquisition activities, including, but
not limited to, the initiation of eminent domain proceedings. At
all times during the acquisition process DISTRICT staff and
expertise will be available to TOWN. It is further agreed, that
in the event it is necessary to acquire said property by exercise
Page 2
of the power of eminent domain, TOWN shall utilize the services
of the firm of Rodgers, Vizzard and Tallett through DISTRICT,
and DISTRICT will assist and coordinate such activities . Staff
time and overhead costs of both TOWN and DISTRICT shall be
provided at no cost to the other party. Any and all other costs
of acquisition, including, but not limited to: legal fees,
expert witness fees, appraisal and engineering costs and other
out-of-pocket expenses shall be shared equally by the parties
hereto.
3. PURCHASE TERMS. TOWN and DISTRICT agree to share equally (50%/50%)
the total purchase price as determined by negotiated purchase,
negotiated settlement, or final order of condemnation, or other
means, subject to the terms of paragraph 16 hereinbelow, in the
following manner:
A. DISTRICT shall contribute and deposit in escrow (or with the
court, if applicable) 50% of the full purchase price together
with all necessary documents for closure within 30 days after
notification from TOWN that it is ready, willing and able to
close escrow in accordance with this agreement; or within 10
days after notification' from a court having competent juris-
diction that it has determined the amount of just compensation
necessary to acquire the property by Final Order of Condemna-
tion.
B. TOWN shall contribute and deposit in escrow (or with the court,
if applicable) 500 of the full purchase price together with
all necessary documents for closure within 30 days after
notification from DISTRICT that it is ready, willing and able
to close escrow in accordance with this agreement; or within
10 days after notification from a court having competent
jurisdiction that it has determined the amount of just compen-
sation necessary to acquire the property by Final Order of
Condemnation.
4 . GRANT FUNDS. It is understood that TOWN anticipates receiving a
Federal financial assistance grant of Land and Water Conservation
Funds in the maximum amount of Four Hundred Sixty Five Thousand
Six Hundred Fifteen and N01100 dollars ($465 , 615) , with the
possibility ghat additional Land and Water Conservation Funds. may
be awarded, to reimburse the parties for a portion of the full
purchase price. It is hereby agreed that the net proceeds from
said Grant and any additional amounts as may be awarded from time
to time, after deduction of the State surcharge , shall be divided
equally between TOWN and DISTRICT. (At the current State surcharge
rate of 1. 60 of the total project amount, each party would receive
a $229, 144 reimbursement of the current grant amount. ) DISTRICT' S
share shall be remitted by TOWN within ten (10) days of receipt
of the net grant reimbursement from the Federal Government, through
the State of California.
Page 3
5. CLOSE OF ESCROW AND COSTS . It is agreed by the parties hereto that
esZr&W-shall close in accordance with paragraph 3 hereinabove
through an account with First American Title Guaranty Company,
675 North First Street, San Jose, California, escrow Number
S.J. 1-5688. It is further agreed that all escrow fees and title
insurance costs, if required as a part of this transaction, shall
be shared equally by TOWN and DISTRICT.
6. TITLE. Fee title to said property shall vest in. TOWN, subject to
existing easements, encumbrances and other clouds on the title to
said property as acceptable to both parties. Concurrently with
close of escrow, as abovementioned, TOWN shall convey or cause
to be conveyed to DISTRICT a recorded Park, Recreation, Scenic and
Open Space Easement (hereinafter "Easement") upon, over and across
said property as described in said Exhibit "A" . The exact language
of said Easement shall be determined and agreed upon by mutual
consent of the parties hereto, prior to close of escrow. TO;,7N,
shall furnish DISTRICT a duplicate copy of any policy of title
insurance and escrow closing statement.
7. DEDICATION. Upon acquisition of the property by the parties, it
shall be deemed to be dedicated as public park land and its use
may be discontinued or abandoned or the property disposed of only
pursuant to the procedures provided in article 2 , chapter 9 , part
2, dividion 3, title 4 (commencing at Sec. 38440) of the Govern-
ment Code; and Further the District shall officially dedicate
its interests or rights in said property pursuant to sec. 5540 of the
Public Resources Code of the State of California.
8. ANNEXATION. After close of escrow as herein described, TOWN shall
immediately take any and all steps necessary to annex into the city
limits of said TOWN all of said property to better provide for and
accomplish the joint planning, development, maintenance and
patrol of said property. After annexation, TOWN shall provide
primary police response for local emergency calls at or upon the
property, and routine perimeter patrol at all times .
9. HOLD HAMLESS. it is agreed that TOWN shall defend, hold harmless
and indemnify DISTRICT, its officers, agents and/or employees from
any and all claims for injuries to persons or damage to property
which arise out of the provisions of this agreement and which
result from negligent acts and/or ommissions of TOWN and its
officers, agents and/or employees.
It is further agreed that DISTRICT shall defend, hold harmless
and indemnify TOWN, its officers, agents, and/or employees from
any and all claims for injuries to persons or damage to property
which arise out of the provisions of this agreement and which
result from negligent acts and/or omissions of DISTRICT and its
officers, agents and/or employees.
Page 4
In the event of the concurrent negligence of DISTRICT, its
officers, agents and/or employees and of TOT.17N, its officers,
agents, and/or employees then the liability for any and all
claims for injuries or damage shall be apportioned according
to the "California Theory of Comparative Negligence" as present-
ly in effect or as may hereafter be modified.
10. OPEN SPACE USE.
A. DEFINED. Any and all public facilities which might be
developed or enhanced on said property, which would be
considered by the parties hereto to be open space or low
intensity recreation use, include by way of illustration,
but not limitation:
1) Unpaved pedestrian hiking trails
2) Unpaved equestrian trails
3) Casual picnicking
4) Kite flying
5) Wildlife observation
6) Meditation
7) Nature study
8) Unpaved parking areas
9) Photography or landscape painting
10) Primitive backpack camps
B. DEVELOPMENT. DISTRICT shall plan, design and develop such
facilities as are reasonably necessary for public use and
enjoyment of said Property for open space or lot.; intensity
recreation as defined above. TOWN shall have the right of
design review and approval privileges on any and. all open
space development. Any and all open space development shall
be funded equally by TOWN and DISTRICT.
With regard to open space development of said property, an
application for design review and approval shall be made by
DISTRICT to TOWN.
The application shall include a site plan showing the location
of all proposed trails, planted or landscaped areas, proposed
grading or other development or improvements, and indicating the
proposed uses or activities on the property.
Within 60 days from the filing of the application with TOTN-NZ,
TOWN shall review the site plan and drawings , and shall make
its recommendations, changes or approval based upon the following
objectives :
(1) To ensure construction and operation in a manner that will
be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
(2) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design
and ecological balance shall be observed.
(3) To ensure adherence to the terms, conditions and purposes
of this agreement and the definition of open space ol� low
intensity recreation use as defined above.
Page 5
B. MANAGEMENT. Except as provided in clause 8 herein, DISTRICT
shall be responsible for all oeprations, patrol and mainten-
ance of said Los Gatos Creek Park as long as said property is
developed and operated for open space and low intensity
recreation purposes as defined hereinabove .
11. PARK USE.
A. DEFINED. Any and all public facilities which would be consid-
ered by the parties to be Park or high intensity recreation
use, as distinguished from open space or low intensity use
as described in paragraph 10 herein , include by way of illustra-
tion, but not limitation:
1) Playground equipment
2 ) Picnic facilities
3 ) Improved campgrounds and campsites
4 ) Paved bicycle trails
5 ) Campfire pits or areas
6 ) Historical or memorial monuments
7 ) Paved roads
8 ) Ranger or caretaker' s residence
9 ) swimming pools
10 ) Tennis courts
11 ) Paved parking areas
12 ) Sports fields
B. DEVELOPMENT Any and all park facilities as above defined,
shall be planned, designed, and developed only by TOWN).
at its sole cost and expense, but with the right of design
review and comment privileges by DISTRICT, and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Park, Recreation, Scenic
and Open Space Easement described in Paragraph 6 hereinabove.
C. MANAGEMENT. TOWN shall assume all management, operation
patrol and maintenance of said Park, and relieve DISTRICT
of any and all such functions as to all of said Property,
at such time as TOWN commences development of any Park
facilities as above defined.
12 . ORDINANCES. As long as said property is developed and used as
open space as defined herein, both TOWN and DISTRICT ordinances
shall apply and be enforced. At such time as TOWN may choose to
develop said property for Park use as defined herein (and limited
by said Easement in favor of DISTRICT) , DISTRICT ordinances will
no longer be applicable to said property, except as specifically
adopted and enforced by TOWN.
13. SALE AS SURPLUS. It is understood and agreed that in the event
any or all of said property is declared free of its dedicated use
(see paragraph 7) and sold by TOWN, with the mutual consent of
DISTRICT, as will be provided for in the Easement described in
paragraph 6 hereinabove, the proceeds of any such sale shall be
equally shared by TOWN and DISTRICT.
Page 6
14 . INCOME. It is understood and agreed that TOWN shall maintain,
on a fiscal year basis, adequate accounting records of any
and all income generated from said Park as described in exhibit
"A" . It is further agreed that any net income from the use or
development of said Los Gatos Creek Park (after subtracting
identifiable TOWN costs of promoting, administering and managing
said areas of development) shall be shared by the parties hereto
according to the following formula: the net income, as above
described, shall be multiplied by a fraction consisting of all
capital costs, excluding grant funds, but including land and
improvements, as the denominator; and the DISTRICT contribution
to all such capital costs as the numerator. Said net income
shall be computed separately for each fiscal year and shall be
paid by TOWN to DISTRICT by August 31 following the end of each
fiscal year, and shall continue annually until the DISTRICT has
received a cumulative amount equal to DISTRICT' s total contribu-
tion to this project.
15. PUBLICITY. TOWN and DISTRICT shall share equal recognition on all
open space, Park or public facility signs, brochures and all
other public information about the site.
16. LIMITATION ON PARTICIPATION. It is hereby agreed that any offers
to purchase said property shall only be tendered by the written
mutual consent of the parties hereto, and either TOWN or DISTRICT
may withdraw from the acquisition, should the final purchase price
of said property be in excess of the highest offer so tendered.
If either party hereto elects to withdraw from the acquisition
pursuant to this paragraph, and the other party concurs, any
costs of abandoning the acquisition proceedings shall be shared
equally between the parties, and this agreement shall be deemed
terminated; provided that if the other party elects to proceed
with the acquisition, the withdrawing party shall nevertheless
be liable to participate to the extent of one-half of the amount
of said highest offer and its share of the costs associated there-
with, and this agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
17. AMENDMENTS. This agreement may be amended in writing at any time
by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
18, BINDING ON SUCCESSORS. The provisions hereof shall inure to the
benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the parties
hereto.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
r
4of
BY: >�—_- BY:
TI' or , Toos Gatos President, Board of Di ectors
ATTEST ' ATTEST: -f J
Town Clerk District Clerk
Sch
`� ,� J•:._ i; b'✓F�'nrro/ = 't� \ (�). _ 'S'rcc ' V +::/ .la• +•ii : - r r w
it
oo O� 1 �f a° `�`eas ss - t .le Pak
•� \�� �!�jt 1 % J•l �• Ca•4 O;��-`t r •A
•'� \ 1,�a�;r•.���,% � �';� . s� ,r-•-)a1� r
'•, It�l,'�P��J�' �y'�,/.•II!' ��/� '1-•I��^`r'�<�' �?ay + -hr _ j i
•S� � %\�� � n`�•'•i• iJ/ (1` is , ,.\\r0;_"���.L%.• ' " a�� "Lf ..1.. � s• _
is •+ f.�, ,. •� ',t„YOp/1'i1u- _ l .) ,t� 1\ of L_ ;;0.%�•/'•/ �; '`_�� - ~:- - � '
,��f ..) ! �S r'•�'� /(!.�-`�, S r� __.�, "•,.a, tt�r�•, , � ,. � ---' "�_ ��'-. —ire.... _ to
Pro�ased
`
` `9':�}i;l �\ '> ` ,�J'"j �,�I� �_j�• :.t±`<*Tj^ap. j't•?•'. :r R%'+::: •�~, - -- L'
i,j!;fli)i, r,��(�j (� . (o/�'``��[ `1�v 'Z `/ o/�r-_•,/'�� :c� i±;/=•=r'•\� � ;' t n
zINN
! .'���:•I+V , 1� J .-=� .,, �-� - �^i•,�`r� / rri-�.ter/' ^.?.%//j/'r'�='J•'✓ i�`-/'f�f '�`��C
Zoo
•l./ \r/j\/ / i _�� r �•��� \ l i---' •" ��\/' � ,- -tea { -_�`..�,1 ___• ✓�!-`,✓j,.'/'�
y'j"r,/'.J/ � /�-1.\r \.^` u-�.yi\•il/-�.. `--:� '4 a rry f`s•- 'f , �i j� /•(�
_ /�/• ,�,._ •�``1��. �� � --:\r1an:Zan>:ta;--RzdSe,�. .��_�': _ _ r :( :� ��
pQ�e `\ ace-•�reser ve _
' ST UWAY aas -.� 1 ',.j Y� t-:._• ,..�- �' cVv;..^� ice=•% ��' �\ i
N�^� �u-=`-jam���j���\\�/``�,`1�._✓^..��/'r,�.-� .� _�'ri.��='�tal
�t �.i �,) >��\ (]� '�•� ,,n-;�,\ft �'`„\J ,�=`/-• /� �,:�\� .� - J% --'� =i/gip
f !*: o'r1.;
f S�intar"Clara ; Fa1Fe ',`� �, --��. -u . `�_• \^� ,� ', W`� -
�i . �.
liate Distriet`� •�.... � � %N)y �.✓ti.- ,:.,
� i �;'� 'I � �r' - •_,Z—ter.-' .�'`��'� �>^'�;,� `S ^\ �"�`i-.•^ _f t :) ,:. �I-
(Rex l�n.gto�:Re-se-r�rg �
ear at-iQrit'Area-kr. Al
�,'
/
N. ,r` ✓--����v•i-:-�: ����, :It'. _ Y�i-�-�%�^=\. .i��7 �—'� j`;
,� • �";��. �/_ /; \ :-)� , `-� , off; irt:�• � �=•-��• �`•'='�'`•::_ p -
Alma t✓f- - '' %�� /�.S - - :s _ _�_ .�
Fire\,� e .r=► ,!. �,/ '��--'�.�� .�, '''"-"- '1 �- �` �.��`� ;i.
_ to �. -(!2 'i > %N
1� --• - Cal ' � ! fn' 'V ,i(� �t y I r r�-•-f; j!��`•L•��---- i'�. ��` ,l-��n r-'�'i(�\�� -
ex 0
•�.9�, r,a` �` � ''%L� ` �iL ' �'`�:' ;,'�r::•�.:v - .� PROPOSED
;J��u LOS GATOS CRE-K PARK
Trail s
'� 1��� i+:. ' �• \ �/�III rj/ r �'�y J ,�^'`-��•..[-"'1 .S (J. C. Co. }
Trails & Pat
-- \;-\tom; �•�.j `�^`'C� �°%,r-�1- ° Plan, 1978)
Proposed Trails
'M 67 Scale 000 ' '''o_,_h
{:��j(��• '�/ '• % :i-,-•-•\.�'t\\•a.o �.�.�;/�� � s�,y`' r r n,p�pr w n� yy'p i s�y�r� n'■ ,� �r �� �'w rCa
v x�►>J s •v' �- : � X �► ''� e�a°�i1's���w'"�f"�'a�'aP"ar'r�i�'a�iCu a�aPw'bC'i><w'w'��s'��!'�a�a i�' n'a�' v n
ESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT,
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION
OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR PUBLIC USE, TO WIT:
FOR PUBLIC PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
PURPOSES, DESCRIBING THE PROPERTIES NECESSARY
THEREFORE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ITS
RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL TO DO EVERYTHING
NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE ALL INTERESTS THEREIN
(LOS GATOS CREEK PARK - NOVITIATE PROPERTY) .
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos and the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District have entered into that certain agree-
ment for Joint Exercise of Powers to acquire and maintain certain
property for public park, recreation and open space purposes , dated
April 20 , 1981, and amended September 28 , 1981, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District is authorized to acquire property for public
purposes , pursuant to Division 5 , Chapter 3 , Section 5542 of the
Public Resources Code, State of California, and
WHEREAS, the property, rights , and interests described
in Exhibit A attached to this resolution and incorporated herein
by reference (the "property") are necessary for public park,
recreation, and open space purposes, said purposes constituting
a public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors
of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby find and
determine that the public interest and necessity require the acquisi-
tion of the property for public park, recreation and open space
purposes ;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that acquisition of the fee (unless
a lesser estate is described in Exhibit A) is necessary therefore; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby find and
determine that said property is located so as to be most compatible
with the greatest public good and cause the least private injury; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager be and is
hereby authorized and directed to cause to be negotiated and/or prepared
all appropriate application to governmental agencies for grants of
funds or property, legal documents and related instruments for acquisi-
tion of title to the property by gift and/or purchase , all upon terms
and conditions discussed by or presented to this Board at its meeting
this date or customary to this District in like transactions; provided,
however, that each such application, document and instrument shall be
subject to approval as to form and content by this Board prior to its
execution or delivery on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the law firm of Rogers , Vizzard
& Tallett be and the same is hereby retained, instructed and directed
to do everything necessary to acquire all interests in the property
described in Exhibit "A" , and they are further authorized to prepare
and prosecute such condemnation proceedings in the proper court
having jurisdiction thereof as are necessary for such acquisition,
including the obtaininq of an order for immediate possession, if
necessary, to prevent the development of such property, pursuant to
the Code of Civil Procedure Sec . 1255. 410 et sec.
f
EXHtGrT
page of
All that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State
of California, described as follows:
PARCEL 6NE:
All that portion of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Twenty-Nine
(29) in Township Eight South, Range 1 West, M.D.B. & M., lying Easterly of
the Easterly line of Assessment Lot No. 79, as said Easterly line is shown
upon that certain Map entitled, "Map No. 72 San Jose Water Works Lands",
which Map was filed on February 26, i944 in Book 6 of Maps, at page 30,
Santa Clara County Records.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion thereof lying 16.50 feet on each side
of the center line of Assessment Lot No. 70-B as said center line is described
and shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Map No. 81 San Jose Water Works
Lands", which Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the
County of Santa Clara, . State of California, on March 1, 1944 in Book 6 of.
Maps, at page 35.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM: All that portion thereof lying Westerly of the high water
line of the east bank of the Los Gatos Creek."
PARCEL TWO:
LOTS 1, 2, 13 and 14 in Section 28, Township 8 South, Range 1 West, M.D.B. & M.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion thereof lying 16.50 feet on each side of
the center line of Assessment Lot No. 70-B as said center line is described
and shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Map No. 81 San Jose Water Works Lands",
which Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of
Santa Clara, State of California, on March 1, 1944 in Book 6 of Maps, at page 35.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
That portion thereof lying within the bounds of the parcel of land described in the
deed to Noviate of Los Gatos, by instrument recorded February 23, 1972 in Book 9715,
Official Records, Page 309, as follows, to wit:
COMMENCING at the section corner common to Sections 20, 21, 28, and 29 of Township
8 South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
thence S. 89° 15' E., on and along the section line common to said sections 21 and
28, a distance of 880 feet, to the true point of commencement of the parcel of land herein
described,
thence from said true point of commencement, Southerly, at right angles to said
section line, a distance of 325 feet,
thence at right angles, Easterly, (and parallel to said section line), a distance of
150 feet,
thence at right angles, Southerly, a distance of 310 feet,
thence at right angles, Easterly, (and parallel to said section line), a distance
of 185 feet,
Continued/
EXHIL IT—A
Page of
thence at right angles, Northerly, a distance of 210 feet,
thence at right angles, Easterly, (and parallel to said section line), a distance
of 55 f6et,
thence at right angles, Northerly, a distance of 425 feet to a point in the said
section line common to said Sections 21 and 28.
thence N. 89* 15' W., on and along said section line, a distance of 390 feet, to the
true point of commencement, containing 4.35 acres, and being a portion of Lot 1
(NW 1/4, NW 1/4) of said Section 28.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL TWO ABOVE DESCRIBED :
A portion of the NW 1/4 of Section 28 , of Township 8 South , Range 1
West , M. D. B . & M. , described as follows :
COMMENCING at the section corner common to Sections 20 , 21 , 28 and 29 of
Township 8 South, Range 1 West , Mount Diablo Base and Meridian,
thence S . 890 15 ' E . , on and along the section line common to said
sections 21 and 28 , a distance of 1 , 270 feet TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
thence from said true point of beginning , and continuing on and
along said section line common to said Section 21 and 28 , S . 890 15 ' E. ,
1, 560 feet , more or less to the 1/4 section corner standing in said
section line and running North and South through the center of said
Section 28 ,
thence on and along said 1/4 section line South 635 feet to a point ,
thence at right angles to said quarter section line and parallel to
said section line running between said Section 21 and 28 , Westerly
1, 615 feet , more or less to the Southeasterly corner of that certain
parcel of land described in the Deed to Novitiate of Los Gatos , by
instrument recorded February 23 , 1972 in Book 9715 , Official Records ,
at page 309 ;
thence from said Southeasterly corner , Northerly along the Easterly
boundary of said parcel of land 210 feet ,
thence at right angles , Easterly (and parallel to said section line)
55 feet ,
thence at right angles Northerly 425 feet to the true point of beginning
Said parcel contains 23 acres , more or less .
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO ABOVE DESCRIBED:
That portion thereof lying within the bounds of the parcel of land described
in the deed to Town of Los Gatos, by instrument recorded October 9, 1967 in
Book 7885, Official Records, page 241, as follows, to wit:
"A portion of Sections 20, 21, 28 and 29 of Township 8 South, Range 1 West*,
H.D.B. & M., described as follows:
"Af
Page 0 f .57
Beginning at a 3/4 inch iron pipe set at the Southerly terminus of the Easterly
line of Jones Road, 40 feet wide, as shown on the Map of Tract N. 554, Stonehedge,
filed July 18, 1949, Book 24 of Maps, page 18, records of Santa Clara County,
said point of beginning also being the Southwesterly corner. of Lot 1, as shown
on said Map;
thence N. 89* 39' W. , along the Southerly terminus of said Jones Road and
the Southerly line of Lot A, as shown on the Map of Canyon View Terrace, filed
November 19, 1927, Book "W" of Maps, pages 22 and 23, Santa Clara County Records,
364.06 feet to a 2" x 2" stake set at the Southeasterly corner of Lot 7, as
shown on the Map of Tract No. 330, Arroya Vista, filed July 8, 1946, Book 11 of
Maps, page 14, records of Santa Clara County;
thence N. 89* 36' 42" W., along the Southerly lines of Lots 7 and 8 of said
Tract No. 330, Arroya Vista, 163.88 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence along the Easterly line of the strip of land reserved for the old
flume of the Los Gatos Manufacturing Co. , the following courses and distances:
S. 9* 54' 32" E. , 232.98 feet to a one inch pipe;
and S. 7* 35' 28" W., 95.04 feet to a one inch iron pipe set at the most
Northerly corner of the 0.117 acre p'arcel of land conveyed to the State of
California, by Deed recorded September 28, 1954, Book 2969 Official Records,
page 49;
. thence along the Easterly line of said 0.117. acre parcel of land the following
courses and distances:
S. 17- 131 23" E., 34.85 feet to a C.H.C. monument and .S. 17* 49"21".
W., 176.84 feet to a one inch iron pipe set at the most Southerly corner
thereof;
thence S. V 46' 14" E., 171.90 feet;
thence S. 80' 18' E. 255.48 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 26* 13' 19" E. 34.88 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 38* 00' 19" E. 29 feet to a one inch.iron pipe;
thence N. 28* 55' 19" E. 93.27 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 27* 25' 19" E. 63.59 feet to'a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 33* 40' 19" E. 28.42 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N 37* 15' 19" E. 40.17 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
-thence N. 67* 271 19" E. 11.23 feet to a"one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 30* 25' 19" E. 73.55 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 35* 05' 19" E. 17.95 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 43' 55' 19" E. 46.15 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 37* 40'* 19" E. 13.93 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 23* 55' 19" E�. 28.35 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 18* 05' 19" E. 31.06 feet to a one inch-iron pipe;
thence N. 21* 35' 19" E. 18.04 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 35* 40' 19" E. 15.16 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 46' 25' 19" E. 14.35 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 51* 35' 19" E.*47.55 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 46* 40' 19" E. 25.72 feet to a one inch iron.
pipe;
thence N. 40* 15' 19" E. 51.30 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 42* 40' 19" E. 63.83 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 46`50' 19" E. 26.84 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 35* 55' 19" E. 9.32 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
-thence N. 28* 15' 19" E. 9.61 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 20* 25' 19" E. 69.18 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
thence N. 12* 30' 19" E. 9.73 feet to a one inch iron pipe;'
thence N. 6* 05' 19" E. 23.58 feet to a one inch iron pipe;
which bears S. 89* 34' 43" E. from the point of beginning;
E H!.L`3 i T
past or
thence N. 89* 34' 43" W. along the East prolongation of the Southerly line
of Lot 1 as shown on said Map of Tract No. 554, Stonehedge, 55.86 feet to a
3/4 inch iron pipe set at the Southeast corner of -said Lot 1;
thence N. 89' 34' 43" W. along said Southerly line 150 feet to the point of
beginning and designated as 8.000 acres, more or less, on the Record of Survey
Map filed June 22, 1967, Book 224, Maps, page 21, Santa Clara County Records.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM: All that portion thereof lying Westerly of the high water
line of the east bafik of the Los Gatos Creek."
PARCEL THREE:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) .of Section 29 in Township 8
South, Range 1 West, M.D.B. & M., described as follows:
Beginning at the 1/4 section corner standing in the Section line running
between Sections 28 and 29 and in the Township and Range aforesaid, and
running thence South along said Section line 591.36 feet to a point
marked "H.W." (being the common corner of the land described herein and
the lands formerly of Humphrey Estate Inc.)
thence West along the Northerly line of said Humphrey land 724.02 'ieit,
more or less, to a point of intersection with the Easterly line of Assiss-
ment Lot No. 15, as said Lot and line are shown and described upon that
certain Map entitled, "Map No. 71 of San Jose Water Works Land", which Map
was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, on. February 26, 1944 in Book 616of Maps, at
page 29, records of said County;
thence Northerly along said Easterly line of Assessment Lot No. 15, to
the point of intersection of said Easterly line with the 1/4 section line
running East and West through said Section 29;
thence Easterly along the last mentioned line 736.56 feet, more or less,
to the point of beginning.
PARCEL FOUR:
LOTS 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Section 28, Township 8 South, Range I West, M.D.B. & M.
TOGETHER WITH the rightto construct and use a road or roads across Parcel
1A -described below, for access to and from the remaining property of the
grantors localed Northerly of said parcel to the new two-way road to be built
by the Grantee on said parcel, as reserved in the Deed from Novitiate of
Los Gatos, to Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District, dated September
20, 1951, recorded September 26, 1951. in Book 2290 of Official Records at
page 207.
1A. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described in the Deed from
Novit*iate of Los Gatos, to Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District,
recorded September 26, 1951 in Book *2290 of Official Records at page 207,
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the Section line between Sections 28 and 3.3, Township
8, South, Range 1 West, M.D.B. & M., said point lying South 88* 38' East
1239.92 feet from Section corner 29/28 T 8 S R I W1 M.D.B. & M.;
32/33
yam.9'�S a d tr�•D
thence leaving said point of beginning the following courses and
distances:
North 23° 43' East, 537.35 feet;
North 60° 29' East, 664.95 feet;
North 69° 29' East, 149.05 feet;
North 85° 16' East, 640.55 feet to a point on the Easterly boundary
of Lot 6 in Section 28, T 8 S. R 1 W, M.D.B. & M.;
thence along said Lot line South 0° 05' West, 962.17 feet to the
Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, T 8 S, R 1 W, M.D.B.
& M;
thence along the section line,between Sections 28 and 33, T 8 S R 1 W.,
M.D.B. & M, North 88° 38' West, 1571.78 feet to the point of beginning.
CONTAINING 26.47 acres, more or less, and being a part of Lots 4 and 6 in
Section 28, T 8 S R 1 W, M.D.B. '& M.
2A. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described in the Deed
from Novitiate of Los Gatos, to Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation
District, recorded November 7, 1952 in Book 2522 of Official Records at
page 420, described as follows:
Beginning at the 'section corner common to Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33,
T 8 S R 1 W., M.D.B. & M;
thence Northerly and along the Section line, North and South between
Sections 28 and 29, T 8 S R 1 W., M.D.B. & M.
North 654.66 feet to the point of intersection of said last mentioned
section line with the center line of a 20 foot right of way hereinbefore
conveyed to Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District;
. thence leaving said mentioned section line, North 85° 04' East 2181.91
feet and North 85' 16' East 640.55 feet to a point on the 1/4 section line
running NOrth and South through the center of Section 28, T 6 8 S R 1 W.,
M.D.B.. & M;
thence Southerly and along the last mentioned 1/4 Section line, South
0° 05' West 962.17 feet to the 1/4 section corner on the South boundary
of Section 28, T 8 S R 1 W. , M.D.B. & M;
thence Westerly and along the section line running East and West between
sections 28 and 33, T 8 S R 1_W., M.D.B. & M;
North 88° 38' West 2811.60 feet to the place of beginning.
CONTAINING 52.232 acres of land, more or less.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM -Parcel 1 of lands conveyed herebefore to Santa Clara
Valley Water Conservation District, by Deed recorded.September 26, 1951
in Book 2290, Official Records, page 207.
R-81-42
(Meeting 81-24
September 28 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
September 23 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: A. Watt, Environmental Analyst/Writer
SUBJECT: Review of Edgewood Park Plans Being Considered by
San Mateo County
Background: The Edgewood State College site was acquired jointly
by the District and the County of San Mateo in October 1980 from
the State of California. A Joint Powers Agreement details
the role of each organization in the purchasermaintenance,
development and operation of this site as a County park and open
space area. One of the conditions of this agreement is that the
District have advisory review and comment privileges on all environ-
mental documents and park development plans . It is in this capacity
that we are reviewing the Preliminary Master Plan for Edgewood
County Park.
The Preliminary Master Plan and Environmental Assessment were pre-
pared at the request of the County of San Mateo by Torrey and Torrey,
Inc. in conjunction with CHNMB Associates. On July 16 , 1981 , CHNMB
Associates presented two alternative Preliminary Master Plans at
a public hearing. Plan A would provide trails and picnic areas
for daytime use, while Plan B calls for a golf course and fewer
hiking and picnic facilities. The hearing was well attended, particu-
larly by golfers , with the plans stimulating much interest and debate.
In response to the public concerns, the consultants began work on
plan revisions. At this point, District staff had its first oppor-
tunity for review and comment on the proposals . The District was
not able to comment in detail at that time, but the consultants
were responsive to the District ' s preliminary suggestions . The
revised plans were presented at a second public meeting on August 27 ,
1981 (see attached Plans A and B. Note : the maps depict the
original Plans A and B rather than revised plans . A list of revisions
to each plan is attached. ) After three hours of vigorous public
debate , the San Mateo Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously
voted to recommend Plan B to the Board of Supervisors .
In October, as we understand, the Board of Supervisors will con-
sider both plans and presumably vote to accept the concept of one
or the other. Details such as trail and fairway locations are not
considered final in the Preliminary Master Plans. If the Board of
Supervisors approves the concept of a golf course, the next step
R-81-42 page two
will be the preparation of a Final Master Plan with an Environmental
Impact Report and completed design details. Proposals for the
development, operation, and maintenance of a golf course would
then be solicited, addressing the question of economic feasibility.
The consultants will attend your September 28 meeting to present
the plans to you.
Site Description: This 467 acre site is the largest undisturbed
serpentine area in San Mateo County. Located close to urban centers ,
it is known for its spectacular spring wildflower displays , with
bright carpets of color visible to passing motorists on Interstate
280 . Unusual rock outcroppings , extensive views , and a variety of
plant and animal life, including several rare species , make this
area unique, and provide an outstanding open space experience for
users .
The site is divided by a north-south ridge containing three prominent
knolls, which form a scenic backdrop for the adjacent Emerald Lake
residential area. East of the ridge, the terrain is steep and rugged,
cut by deep canyons and densely covered with chaparral and oak wood-
land. West of the ridge the terrain is gently rolling, with large
expanses of grassland.
The serpentine soils underlying the grassland are responsible for
the variety of wildflowers found on the site . Most of these can
grow only on serpentine soil and include two rare species : the
San Mateo Thornmint (Acanthomintha obovata duttoni) and Marin Dwarf
Flax (Hesperolinon congestum) . Two other rare-wildflowers also found
on the site, Fragrant Fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) and San
Francisco collinsia (Collinsia franciscana) , grow both on and off
the serpentine.
In addition, a large colony of the endangered checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha bayensis) inhabits part of the prime serpentine
grassland, depending upon serpentine plants for both larval and
adult feeding.
The site contains several year-round springs, which are a water
source for blacktailed deer, coyote , fox, bobcats , and other wild-
life. They may also provide critical habitat for the endangered
San Francisco garter snake .
The site is presently undergoing severe erosion during the rainy
season, due to previous unauthorized motorcycle and other off-road
vehicle use. Vehicular use of these trails, now largely controlled
by County patrols , has resulted in severe soil loss , visual scarring,
loss of wildlife habitat, and noise pollution in neighboring
residential areas .
Discussion: our recommendations are based on the objectives listed
in the attached Parks , Recreation, and Open Space Easement, which
accompanied the Joint Powers Agreement signed by the District and
San Mateo County. District comments will help ensure observance of
sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance in
R-81-42 page three
the management of the property, as well as adherence to terms and
conditions detailed in the easement. We are specifically concerned
about alterations of the terrain, soil, and natural vegetation,
especially those which would damage rare plant colonies in the
unique and unusual serpentine area.
Plan A (Low-intensity Recreation)
For the above reasons , we prefer Plan A, which provides extensive
hiking and equestrian trails, both walk-in and drive-in picnic
areas , and a park headquarters/interpretive center. We feel these
features best utilize the natural landscape and provide a good
variety of recreation. All sensitive habitats are preserved, and
the trail system avoids the checkerspot butterfly and thornmint
habitats .
We have some concerns over the plan of the interior road, which
may require extensive grading and disturbance to the unstable
serpentine soil. Such a road would also require more patrolling
than if visitor use was on foot from a compact parking area nearer
the entrance. We also question the introduction of a large turfed
recreation area over the serpentine along the interior road, which
would detract from the natural character of the site. However,
these concerns could be remedied in the final design by limiting
the turf to non-serpentine areas , and reducing the length of the
interior road.
Plan B (Golf Course)
Since Plan B has been recommended to the San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors, we will focus our comments on it, considering both the
overall concept and details of the plan which we believe could
cause problems .
1. ' Environmental Assessment :
overall, we find the consultant ' s presented data inadequate for
the detailed review which would be rquired for golf course
development. Both the geological map and the soils map appear
to have been enlarged from existing regional scale maps . There
are numerous inaccuracies that were observed in an on-site tour
with persons knowledgeable about the geology and vegetation of
the area. For example, the boundary of the serpentine is
actually much higher than that shown on the map on the slope
northeast of the walk-in picnic area. Professional geologists
and soils engineers should be involved in any further planning,
to provide the site-specific commentary required for environ-
mentally sensitive planning.
Delineation of the sensitive plant areas is also not sufficiently
accurate for planning or review purposes. The map of rare/
endangered species accompanying the Environmental Assessment
does not correspond with the "sensitive" areas as shown on the
enlarged map of revised Plan B. For example , on the Plan B
map the San Francisco collinsia colony is incorrectly located
in the grassland instead of on the steep wooded slope south of
R-81-42 page four
the spring on the east side of the park. It will not be possible
to protect these rare plant colonies unless they are accurately
portrayed on a map showing both actual outlines of the colonies
and suggested buffer zones to protect them from overwatering,
overfertilizing, and other damage. Such mapping could be done
in the spring.
An additional inadequacy is the omission of the extensive network
of existing trails and roads from the planning maps . It is not
possible to tell which trails shown on the map represent new
trails or which utilize existing roads or trails , although it
appears that some new ones will be cut through woodland and
chaparral . We strongly recommend that all subsequent planning
maps show existing roads and trails. Careful consideration
should be given to minimizing new construction in any develop-
ment plan.
2. Geological Problems :
There appear to be numerous geologic/soil constraints which should
be addressed in consideration of this site as a golf course .
Some of these were alluded to in the Environmental Assessment.
First, much of the soil is expansive . It expands when wet and
contracts when dry, forming deep cracks. Irrigation could lead
to piping, i.e. the development of tunnels along these cracks ,
which could then collapse to form gullies. Such gullies would
be a major maintenance problem for a golf course. Expansive
soil often also causes problems in the construction of roads
and light buildings.
Second, there are slumps and other areas of soil instability
throughout the area. Although they are not problems now, dis-
turbance of the surface by grading and irrigation could cause
numerous shallow soil slips. An example is the slump just down-
slope of projected tee No. 4 . Such potential problem areas
should be mapped and avoided in any golf course development.
Third, some of the planned tees and greens have been placed
upon rocky knolls which have little soil . The proposed location
of tee No. 6 is an example, being largely rock. Development of
such sites would probably require extensive grading and impor-
tation of soil. We would want to know where such soil would
come from, whether on or off-site . We are concerned about the
potential impact of removing local soil, as well as the impact
from the passage of large earth-moving equipment.
Some of the planned fairways also appear to be in locations
which will require considerable modification of the terrain.
For example, No. 6 and No. 14 have tees on one side of steep
gullies and greens on the other. Others cross or adjoin sensi-
tive areas , making it likely that golfers will enter these
areas to retrieve lost golf balls. For example, Nos . 3 , 7 and
17 all cross sensitive areas , and Nos . 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 and 11 adjoin
sensitive areas . To get from No. 10 to No. 11 , golfers would have to
cross the checkerspot butterfly area.
R-81-42 page five
A major concern is the water and drainage problem caused by a
golf course. Currently, water from the west side of the park
drains into a swampy area just east of the underpass planned
as the park entrance. On a recent visit, in the middle of
September, this area still contained standing water, indicating
it is probably extremely wet in winter. With the addition of
golf course irrigation water, either this swamp will get worse
or extensive drainage systems will have to be constructed and
will additionally modify the site. The wetland would disappear,
altering the natural balance for plants and animals dependent
upon it. Though we support the concept of natural areas be-
tween fairways , we are also concerned about the extent of drainage
required to confine irrigation to the introduced turf.
The quality of the water draining from the site is another
potential problem, since golf course water will be altered by
the addition of fertilizer and herbicides. The disposal of
sewage would also be a problem. Mention is made in the plan
of holding drainage water in impoundment basins, but there is
no provision made for such basins . What size would they be and
where would they be located? Since the water drains into the
San Francisco watershed, the final plan should be reviewed by
the San Francisco Water Department.
The above considerations raise serious concerns about the site
modifications necessary to accomplish the objectives of golf
course design.
3. Low-Intensity Recreation Opportunity:
Since we hope that the park will provide a quality open space
experience for all users, we are concerned about the reduction
in facilities for low-intensity recreation users in Plan B.
In contrast to Plan A, there are fewer hiking and riding
trails , and the drive-in picnic area has been moved to the north-
east corner near the intersection of Edgewood Road and 1-280 ,
an area which is noisy and lacks shade. Picnickers would be
surrounded on two sides by roads and on a third by a golf course
and parking lots . While we like the fact that this area is
separate from the golfing facilities with its own parking area
and provides access to the Hassler property across Edgewood
Road, we feel there should be another more secluded picnic area
also accessible by car.
In the original Plan B, the drive-in picnic area was located in
a swale behind the PG&E substation at the southern corner of
the property, while in the revised Plan B, that area is desig-
nated as a driving range. It appears to be less suited for use
as a driving range , since the only open flat area is long and
narrow, and golf balls would easily be lost in the dense under-
brush on the steep slopes to the south. This site would be ad-
vantageous for picnickers, however, in that the open area could
be used for games and the long, narrow shape would provide space
for many shaded private picnic sites . The steep sides of the
swale shelter this area from highway noise . A parking area
could be located adjacent to the PG&E substation, where it
would not detract from the picnic table sites.
R-81-42 page six
If Plan B is adopted, conflicts between low-intensity recreation
users and golfers should be minimized by keeping the facilities
as separate as possible. However, as Plan B now stands, we
feel non-golfers have been slighted. For example, hikers
would have to park near the clubhouse to gain access to the
walk-in picnic area on the hill. There is no direct trail
connection from the picnic parking area to the walk-in picnic
site. No trail is indicated along the western side of the park,
making it difficult to walk from the proposed driving range to
the clubhouse. The Plan does not indicate what facilities
would be included in the proposed "day camp picnic area" at
the northern corner of the park, or whether they would differ
in Plans A and B. This appears to be a very nice area for a
picnic area open to the general public during park hours , not
simply to groups by permit.
Regardless of which plan is ultimately adopted, some specific plans
should be developed for correction of the existing erosion problem
resulting from prior off-road vehicle use .
Recommendation: I recommend that, after hearing the consultants '
presentation and considering their responses to the comments herein
and your own, you direct staff to prepare a letter for the President' s
signature to be sent to the Board of Supervisors with your comments
on the plans. It appears that much more detailed environmental
analysis , mapping and design are needed before the Board of Super-
visors should make a final decision to proceed with a golf course.
i�.:.:1_.':,`.This is the original
5 ,_ �'�r] an A. See follow-
-- '✓; _�_,: ---� - %%�'_�:�.:..; ��.� _-_:__.jnq page for re-
+y ;�:: "`_;;"r ....;^_.``-:•::, ��i-:% :: sions.
`. — =: "7 / .s,� : ' �� •" t; . GROUP 4WIPING
i L' !
n :r
t
9
f
i --
i
1�
,1.
s
!
;t \11 �y
ti'ti=
Jam.
i
\
m _ \
I i
L � '
i
' � .� rL.•`+�:..' .t.�^J^. s..v..fi1.-...,. /�' ~:3� �triA�:�:1..�..:•:. �J/( �\ s�`\
'\\. t "�r`»•.�f�:`° a . rr„�.,•.:�::� _ '•.\ '�_•C - .
��� �-• `;;�`_ ♦�� Rr' ;; INTERPRETIVE='` ....
—�• '`-1 � .:..... \ ,� 1,CENTER ::: -?�`
/ ; \` •\';e �_ .x .:- PICNIC & PASSIVE
RECREATIONAP,EA - LcG�=ND
EXISTING VEGETATION
SENSITIVE HABITAT
\ ♦,..� � Illllfflll;lil[illl! ROAD
EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
•-•••-••�• INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
PARKING
PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN AUTO ACCESS
°
,nty of San Mateo
CHNNIB Associates date- 714181
Trey St Torrey Inc.
REVISIONS TO MASTER PLAN A
The following revisions have been incorporated into Master Plan A, which
will be presented at the August 27, 1981 special meeting of the San Mateo
County Parks and Recreation Commission:
- "group" camping re-labeled "day camp." (erroneously labeled)
- hiking and equestrian trails expanded.
- individual and group picnic facilities added.
- turfed recreation areas added.
- walk-in picnic areas added.
- park road added to provide access to two major picnic areas.
- major park entry pulled closer to west side of 1-280, where 1-280
construction impact still evident.
- access control point added east of 1-280.
- access from Canada Road eliminated.
- park headquarters/interpretive center with scenic overlook added.
- all sensitive habitats preserved.
- trail system avoids sensitive checkerspot butterfly and thornmint
habitats.
4
J
is the original
. ✓. - __ � .: �f' ,�s:'�: �. B. See following
cc or revisions .
.. -;/ ` ` ~ :t -GROUP
- ...
' •:~:
f:
i�
;:' yam—'_ _ _ __ .yrc/ ��•1.i .\bl ( /•'^�
;►)`fir-� J;• {��i
v i
its
•,y y ,t GOLF COURSE M,••\;\;,_v t.�
•CLUSri0USE — - •�` _ ., ,.,� _
i
/ rray
�df1
1
-
•r -
i
t e
I
�i. r•.
i (!
`\ � ,,^:fir.;' `..:#•: - ��' oo
\\ �k� �r•Y?�•\• '''•::•�:1 •• �/mil` � • `=
NZ
\ \\` \� is i�: ��\\`` .?,•''\ l ` J,"'mot°:: (,�' ...\� 1='a^ N'D
PICNIC & �PASSIV'E
RECREATION AREA EXISTING VEGETAHON
j I'a i SENSITIVE HABITAT
ROAD
GOLF COURSE BOONDARY
EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
011 PARKING
PRELINNARY MASTER PLAN �� AUTO ACCESS
FffLF10
inty of San Mateo
Ci-- NIMB Associates date: 7/9/31
Torrey & Torrey Inc.
REVISIONS TO MASTER PLAN B
The following revisions have been incorporated into Preliminary Master
Plan B, which will be presented at the August 27, 1981 special meeting
of the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission:
- green fairways minimized to maximize serpentine and wildflower
preservation.
- critical checkerspot butterfly habitat preserved intact within
surrounding golf course.
- no public or golf course access into checkerspot butterfly and
thornmint habitats.
- golf course designed to drain away from sensitive habitats or
into intercepting drainage ways.
- clubhouse relocated out of wetland habitat.
- driving range added.
- access road pulled closer to west side of 1-280, where 1-280
construction impact still evident.
- hiking and equestrain trails expanded.
- walk-in picnic areas added.
- picnic areas added •to day camp area which is more scenic, and
deleted from area behind P.G. & E. substation.
- "group" camping re-labeled "day camp;" previous plan erroneously
labeled.
5
M-81-97
(Meeting 81-24
ts, September 28 , 1981)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
September 23, 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Program Evaluation for the 1980-1931 Fiscal Year
Discussion: The material for the second program evaluation
session for the 1980-1981 fiscal year is attached. For each
of the District' s programs and subprograms, staff has summarized
progress on the key projects and activities for the full 1980-
1981 fiscal year. In addition, the objectives and key projects
and activities for 1981-1982 have been listed, and proposed
changes to any key projects and activities have been typed in
italics.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you adopt the proposed
changes to the 1981-1982 key projects and objectives.
OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Negotiations Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. Convert the budgeted funds in the New Lands Commitment category
into strategic open space lands at desirable prices (fair
market value or less) .
PROGRESS - Total acquisition efforts for the year resulted in
the expenditure of $9 . 8 million for land purchases, and the
New Lands Commitment category was overspent by approximately
$2 .0 million. Including the Edgewood open space easement,
3 ,105 acres were added to the District's acreage total -- putting
the District over the 10 , 000 acres mark! Not including the
the Windy Hill bargain purchase from Peninsula Open Space
Trust, the District received land valued at $633, 700 more than
its documented market value -- the Windy Hill purchase would
increase this total to over $2 .0 million in gifts .
2 . Expend the previous land commitments backlog.
PROGRESS - $1. 9 million of the $5 .4 budgeted for committed
projects was expended, including the bargain purchases of Cooley
Landing and Crittenden Marsh, the Peterson settlement , and the
joint purchase of the Edgewood site with San Mateo County.
The balance of committed projects are: Hassler and McNiel (both
near closure, with McNiel actually completed in August 1981) ,
the Bear Creek Redwoods State Park (State completed its appraisal) ,
and the joint acquisition project of the Novitiate property with
the Town of Los Gatos .
3 . Work with Peninsula Open Space Trust to enhance the overall open
space goals .
PROGRESS- The Crittenden Marsh and Windy Hill bargain purchases
and the purchase of the former Dieterich property were com-
pleted with POST. A portion of the funds from the Windy Hill
purchase made it possible for POST to purchase the Rancho
Raymundo property.
1981-1982 Objective
Provide for the acquisition of all real property rights neces-
sary to secure a recreational greenbelt in the foothills and
baylands , utilizing the major portion of the District's income .
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Convert the budgeted funds in the New Lands Commitment budget
category into strategic open space lands at desirable prices
(fair market value or less) including, where possible, private
financing with favorable terms .
2 . Expend the Previous Land Commitments backlog.
3. Work with Peninsula Open Space Trust to complete at least one
acquisition project that furthers the District' s overall open
space goals .
OrEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Land Analysis Subprogram
1980-19-81 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue information gathering process , order title reports where
appropriate, and complete necessary legal research.
PROGRESS - Forty-five preliminary title reports were ordered
for parcels under consideration. The part-time legal intern
researched title problems , legal issues , and wrote reports
on information collected from various resources . Zoning,
planning, and owner information was gathered for research parcels
as a part of the ongoing parcel research program.
2 . Assemble comparable sales history and incorporate into new
filing system.
PROGRESS - Comparable sales histories were compiled on acquired
parcels for background and in-house valuation. Chains of title
were completed for three properties and District-wide comparable
sales history were gathered in three areas.
1981-1982 Objective
Provide the background information needed to carry on an effective
land acquisition program.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1 . Analyze, in conjunction with open space management programs,
particular geographic areas of the District, such as the bay-
lands , to develop acquisition recommendations and project costs.
2 . Continue gathering current information on areas and projects
of interest, including updating zoning and general plan
information , and development potential and proposals .
O� _N SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Special Projects Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. eliminate the current grant project backlog (see Negotiations
Subprogram) , continue to submit timely grant applications for
future projects , and follow-up on two existing and any new
applications .
PROGRESS - A new Land and Water Conservation Fund acquisition grant
was not obtained this year, but the District did receive the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve development grant. The SB 174 (Roberti-
Z 'berg) Edgewood project was completed ($365 ,000) , along with
the Land and Water projects for Crittenden Marsh ($208 ,000) and the
Edgewood site ($475 , 000 to the District) . The 1976 Parks Bond
Act Monte Bello acquisition project was also completed ($814 ,000) .
The 1980 Parks Bond Act was passed and will provide approximately
$780 ,000 in acquisition funds for the Skyline Scenic Corridor and
Hassler property. Additional SB 174 funds will also be available
for one or more of the District ' s urban-oriented projects . An
application was made for a State Coastal Conservancy Wetlands
Enhancement Grant for $175 ,000 which includes funding for the
acquisition of a parcel in the Cooley Landing area. The Leslie
Salt parcel at Cooley Landing was acquired at the bargain price
of $500 ,000, completing the San Mateo County Baylands Reserve
Land and Water Conservation Fund Project.
2 . Seek and encourage agencies and groups to undertake sole or
joint acquisition projects which will preserve additional open
space. Specifically, bring the Bear Creek Redwoods State Park
joint project to conclusion and initiate at least one joint
project with Santa Clara County.
PROGRESS - Santa Clara County completed two projects - the addition
of 35 acres to the Rancho San Antonio County Park and the ac-
quisition of the 1,100 acre "Lake Ranch" . The cooperative
project with San Mateo County for the Edgewood site was com-
pleted. The future Bear Creek Redwoods State Park had $3,000, 000
in committed funds ($2,000 ,000-AB 990 , $400 , 000-County of
Santa Clara, $400 ,000-MROSD, and $200 ,000-Save the Redwoods
League) , largely due to District efforts . A joint project with
the Twon of Los Gatos is in process with a Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant for $465,615 and a joint project in the
area of Lower Stevens Creek County Park is in the initial
stages .
1981-1982 Objective
Establish a broad base for the acquisition program by coordinating
District efforts with other public and private agencies and
develop additional acquisition revenue sources .
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Eliminate the current grant backlog (see Negotiations Subprogram) ,
keep abreast of grants available to the District. Submit a
new SB 174 grant project, at least one Land and Water Conservation
Fund acquisition grant request, and a project for 1980 park bond
act funds .
Special Projects Subprogram Page two
2 . Test the market, and, if possible at favorable terms , market
a new District note issue for land acquisition purposes .
3 . Seek and encourage other agencies and groups to undertake sole
or joint acquisition projects , including the completion of the
Bayfront trail in the Moffett-Ames area with Santa Clara
County. Work with the State to secure the balance of funding
necessary for Bear Creek Redwoods State Park and help them
bring the acquisition project to a conclusion. Complete the
Los Gatos joint project, as approved, and continue work with Santa Clara
County on other cooperative efforts.
OPI SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Plannin
g,g Design and Development Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue to develop, review, and implement Board approved use
and management plans, both in conjunction with the Open Space
Acquisition Program and the annual review process . This also
includes implementing the Monte Bello development plan when
approved, leasing the Picchetti and Thornewood properties , and
completing Hassler site preparation in conjunction with the
Open Space Acquisition Program when plans are approved.
PROGRESS - Seven District planning areas reviewed during the
year (Rancho San Antonio review shifted earlier in year and no
land within the West of Skyline and Baylands North planning
areas to review) . Public meetings held for preparation of
Picchetti Ranch Area and Windy Hill use and management plans.
A total of 18 acquisition plans with use and management re-
commendations prepared during the year. Picchetti and Thorne-
wood lessors selected in April and June , respectively, following
numerous committee meetings , and Land Acquisition Manager
began work on lease negotiations . Draft of THassler environmental
assessment completed by consultants. An application was submitted
for a Wetlands Enhancement Crant from the Coastal Conservancy for the
San Mateo Baylands Reserve. Two ARLO projects , utilizing Stanford
students as volunteers , were supervised and assisted in the gathering
of use and management base material. Ill'onte Bello Development grant
was awarded, and the development plan was approved by Palo Alto,
except for the parking lot. The parking lot application was
withdrawn from San Mateo County and joint planning efforts with
Palo Alto were begun in June to determine acceptable location
for the parking lot.
2 . Continue to coordinate the planning of joint agency park projects
by serving as a liaison between other governmental agencies .
PROGRESS - Work centered around the Bayfront Trail . An applica-
tion for a Coastal Conservancy Public Access grant was prepared,
involving coordination between MROSD, Santa Clara County ,
Mountain View, and Santa Clara County Water District; the grant
was awarded in July. Interagency meetings and meetings with
Lockheed and Moffett Field were held on implementation of the
Bayfront Trail. Staff participated in joint planning for
the Slate Creek trail connection during the beginning of the
year, but the project was subsequently dropped by the State. Staff
worked with the State on the Bear Creek Redwoods State Park,
and the ball is now in their court. Preliminary discussions
held with San Mateo County regarding cooperation on the management
of Hassler. Assisted Santa Clara County in the update of its
Trails and Pathways Plan. Worked with Santa Clara County on
the planning of Rancho San Antonio County Park, and during the
second half of the year, focused on management problems following
the Park 's opening. Coordinated with Santa Clara County on
their planning for Phase II of the Park and the planning for
the two newly acquired parcels (barn area and tennis courts) .
Planning, Design and Development Subprogram Page Ewo
3. Resolve site emphasis questions and adopt policy as necessary.
PROGRESS - Following a report from the Site Emphasis Committee ,
Board discussed various parts of the Committee ' s report at public
meetings throughout the spring. In early July 1981 , the Board
adopted its policies and policy decisions relating to site
emphasis. Staff had previously been directed to 1) return to the
Board in six months to one year with a suggested plan for the
number and general location of emphasized sites and 2) return to
the Board with a suggested set of guidelines for restrooms , drink-
ing water, level of trail development, provision of maps , parking
areas , and signs.
1981-1982 Objective
Provide short term and long range acquisition planning and the formulation
and review of use and management plans.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue to develop, review, and coordinate the implementation of
Board approved use and management plans , including the Monte Bello
development plan when parking lot location approved, follow-up
on Picchetti and Thornewood adopted restoration and use plans , and
conclusion of the Hassler demolition project upon acquisition of
the property.
2 . Continue the liaison effort, in conjunction with the Open Space
Acquisition Program where appropriate, for the planning of multi-
jurisdictional projects , involving other agencies and non-profit
groups. Obtain plan commitments from other agencies for the Bay-
front Trail alignment and development.
3. Prepare a pZan for the number and general location of emphasized sites
within the District subject to the site emphasis policy decisions. Review the
planning process, including public participation, as it reaZtes to site
emphasis.
4 . Review and begin the revision as appropriate of all land management
policies and present in a coherent reference form.
5. Provide pre-acquisition planning necessary for acquisition decisions .
Previous wording: Prepare comprehensive use and development general
plan consistent with adopted site emphasis guidelines .
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Operations , Maintenance, and Volunteer Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue to provide a responsible level of stewardship of
District lands , including planning for future organizational
structure to meet the increasing user needs.
PROGRESS - An active training program was carried out providing
a total of nearly 800 hours of training for District Ranger staff .
Major incidents involving District lands included several small
fires and a major rescue operation. District Rangers issued 311
citations and 355 written warnings during the year and made
several hundred additional enforcement contacts involving only
verbal warnings. Field staff added all newly acquired property
to existing patrol beats and has developed a more intensive
weekend surveillance schedule for the heavily-used Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve. A draft long-range organizational
structure was prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the
FY 81/82 budget, and is expected to be presented for Board
approval in September of 1981.
2 . Continue to implement approved site use and management plans and
recommendations, including specific plans such as the Monte Bello
fire management plan. Begin to prepare a comprehensive mainte-
nance and operations plan for District preserves.
PROGRESS - Almost all use and management plan recommendations
have been implemented, although about 100 - 15% of the work
scheduled for FY 80/81 has been carried over and will be completed
during the first quarter of FY 81/82 . The Monte Bello fire
management plan was approved and successfully implemented. A
grant was obtained to cover the costs of this program. Staff has
begun a facilities inventory of District sites and is developing
a catalogue of District construction and maintenance specifications
in anticipation of completing a maintenance and operations plan
in FY 81/82 .
3. Continue to operate a docent interpretive program focusing on
meetinq increasing user needs and program demands. Implement
plans for regularly scheduled interpretive walks on Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve. Formulate plans for the development
of a docent program for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve.
PROGRESS - The docent program has had continued success . Regu-
larly scheduled tours and special programs accomodated approxi-
mately 2 ,000 people during the year. Docent training has continued
with the District adding 11 new docents during the year. An
interpretive program was tried, on an experimental basis , at
Rancho San Antonio. This program may be continued on a permanent
basis in FY 81/82 . Planning for programming on the Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve was deferred until FY 81/82 due to delays in
the planned development of the site.
Operations , Maintenar. and Volunteer Subprogra, Page two
1981-1982 Objective
Provide responsible stewardship of District lands by providing those
public safety and maintenance services necessary for the effective
management of these lands. Part of the objective of this subprogram
is to educate the public regarding features and proper use of these
lands.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue to provide a responsible level of stewardship of District
lands , including, subject to subsequent Board approval , adoption
and implementation of a five year, lonq-range organization
structure for field staff .
2 . Implement approved and funded force account portions of site use
and management plan recommendations as scheduled. Prepare a
comprehensive maintenance and operations plan for District preserves ,
including formalization of the District ' s preventative maintenance
program.
3. Conduct a docent interpretive program, focusing on meeting increas-
ing needs and program demands , using Los Trancos Open Space
Preserve, Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve. Conduct an Edgewood spring wildflower walk,
if feasible.
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Enterprise Activities Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue to administer existing leases and rental accounts.
PROGRESS - 7 residential leases generated $22 , 960 in revenue.
Additional agricultural leases and special rentals brought in
an additional $20 ,850.
2 . Monitor staff time as well as out-of-pocket costs required to
administer and maintain enterprise activities.
PROGRESS - A cost accounting system was implemented to track
materials costs and contract labor expenses associated with
-nterprise accounts. An adequate cost tracking system for
District labor has not been developed as yet.
1981-1982 .Objective
Manage all the revenue producing activities.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue to administer all leases and rental accounts in such a
way as to maximize income from enterprise accounts consistent
with use policies.,
2 . Prepare a cost/benefit grazing study.
3. Prepare a revenue producing study of District resources , evaluating
previous studies , ecomonic trade-offs, and District policy guide-
lines.
4 . Develop a plan to more effectively administer revenue producing
activities.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM
Public Participation and Education Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue printing and distributing the Openspace newsletter.
Issue updated version of fact sheet as needed. Conduct tele-
phone survey and incorporate findings in planning of future
publications.
PROGRESS - Two issues of the Openspace newsletter (out of three
originally planned) were printed and distributed during 1980-81 .
An updated fact sheet was prepared and distributed with news-
letter #5 .
The telephone survey originally planned as a follow-up to the
newsletter was deferred for a variety of reasons , among them
the lack of the volunteer help needed to conduct such a survey,
the possibility of including the survey questions as part of a
Master' s thesis and the Board' s feeling that the Public Communi-
cations Program had higher priority tasks .
The Openspace mailing list grew by 381 subscribers from 2052
to 2433 during 1980-81. 54 paid subscribers contributed a total
of $666 . 50 toward printing and mailing costs. This was $152
less than the amount contributed in fiscal year 1979-80 .
2. Broaden the program of presentations with emphasis on scheduling
talks to councils , planning commissions , park and recreation
commissions, etc. Find new sources of "people power" to create
new slide shows and display materials . Make effort to determine
which kinds of presentations or displays are the most effective.
PROGRESS - The Public Communications staff scheduled and/or
participated in a total of 31 presentations and three displays
during 1980-81. Audiences for the presentations included many
more governmental bodies , environmental groups , and college or
school groups than in previous years .
Governmental agencies - 9
Environmental groups -10
College or School groups - 7
Social or community organizations- 5
The large District display spent most of the year in the lobby
of the San Mateo County office building. Smaller displays were
set up at the Los Altos Energy Conservation Fair in October and
at the Friends of Hidden Villa Celebration in May.
Throughout the year, the Public Communications staff worked
with the Board members to schedule presentations to city
councils, planning commissions , park and recreation commissions ,
etc. A tentative rotating schedule has been prepared for
future presentations , and Board members are now being contacted
for their input.
Public Participation a Education Subprogram Page two
Two new slide shows, the hiking and wildflower shows , were created
and presented during the year. Several new people were involved
in these efforts. These were the District docents who helped
to prepare the wildflower show and the two others who assisted
in presenting it to groups. Another docent began work on a multi-
media presentation about the District for use in the public schools.
Efforts to determine the most effective kinds of presentations
or displays consisted mostly of paying attention to the kinds of
requests we receive and the kinds of questions we hear at our
presentations. The hiking and wildflower slide shows are
responses to this kind of input.
The frequency of requests for the various slide shows was
as follows:
Hiking show 8
Wildflower show 9
"Case for Open Space" 6
Other (usually selected slides
on a particular topic) 3
1981-1982 objective
Communicate clearly the District ' s programs and goals to its con-
stituency, with the aim of generating greater public involvement
and support.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue printing and distributing the Openspace newsletter.
Issue updated version of fact sheet as needed.
2 . Continue program of public presentations and displays for
community and school groups . Continue working with docents
on new slide shows and display materials . Continue efforts to
evaluate the most effective kinds of presentations or displays.
3 . Begin planning for the District' s Tenth Anniversary Celebration
in November, 1982 .
4. PubZish information brochure based on site emphasis policy
when adopted.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM
Public and Private Liaison Subprogram
1980-1981 Key Projects and Activities
1. Accomplish priority items in District' s Legislative Program
utilizing services of Legislative Consultant.
The following progress has been made on priority A items and
AB 547 in the Legislative Program for 1981 :
(1) The District' s share of the property tax is intact.
(2) Clean-up legislation on the Bear Creek Redwoods project
has been sent to the Governor and the District is in
close contact with key legislators regarding any needed
additional funding.
(3) Some progress has been made with the State on the Murray
Ranch/Rancho Raymundo area.
(4) State funds have been obtained for the joint District/
Mt. View project, and a marshlands enhancement grant
application has been submitted.
(5) AB 597 has passed the Assembly and has been sent to the
Senate floor.
2. Communicate with San Mateo County elected officials regarding
land use questions of mutual importance.
PROGRESS - Action has been taken by San Mateo County assuring
conformity of acquisition of open space with the General Plan.
The District is now receiving advance notification of specific
development plans. The District has participated in or attended
public hearings and the tours regarding Skyline Corridor planning.
A presentation about the District was made to the San Mateo
Planning Commission.
1981-1982 objective
Work with other public agencies and private organizations to secure
legislative remedies to the problems created by reduced levels of
funding and to complete projects of mutual concern.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Accomplish priority items for fiscal year in District' s
Legislative Program utilizing services of Legislative Consultant.
2. Continue the program of informational presentations to public
agencies and private organizations with particular emphasis on
county and city planning departments and city councils within
the District 's boundaries . Develop rotating schedule for
reaching these groups .
3 . Communicate with San Mateo County elected officials regarding
private development proposals , proposed rezonings , trail dedica-
tion ordinances , and enhanced protection on the Skyline Scenic
Corridor.
PUBLIC COMMA—MICATIONS/GOVERNMENTAL LIAj0_)N PROGRAM
W_ Media Subprogram W.�
I r
1980-1981 e ro sec and Activities
1 . Continue regular communications with the press .
PROGRESS - Regular communications with the press have been
maintained through news releases , telephone calls , and personal
contact with reporters , editors , and freelance writers .
The District is currently receiving a great deal of press
coverage. During the three months preceding the January
program evaluation, 93 articles about the District appeared in
regional newspapers . Thirty of these were "features" with
photos or four or more columns of text. This trend has defi-
nitely continued.
2. Develop contacts with radio and television stations .
PROGRESS - Radio and television contacts have been established
with KPIX (Channel 5) , KNTV (Channel 11) , KXRX radio, KGO radio ,
and KFJC radio at Foothill College. In each case , the initial
contacts were made by the radio or TV stations as a result of
newspaper stories or press releases about the District. District
Board and staff members have appeared on Channels 5 and 11 and
on KGO and KFJC radio.
A series of Public Service Announcements for radio and television
was prepared for the District by two Stanford students . Plans
are being made for trying out the spots on various channels and
measuring the amount of public response they generate.
The possibility of a short film about the District suitable for
TV is still being explored by a Stanford student as part of a
Master' s program in filmmaking.
If grant funds for such a project can be obtained, the film
might be produced as part of the District ' s 10th anniversary
celebration.
3 . Set policy guidelines for radio-TV publicity efforts .
PROGRESS - The Board of Directors adopted a set of publicity
guia—elines related to site emphasis policy on July 8 , 1981 .
The guidelines for radio and TV are necessarily quite general .
More specific guidelines may (or may not) emerge as the site
emphasis policy is further refined. In the meantime, District
publicity aimed at radio and television has been designed solely
to increase public recognition of MROSD and its lands generally,
but has not promoted specific sites.
1981-1982 Objective
Work to increase public awareness of the District through news
stories and feature articles in the press and other media as
appropriate .
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Continue regular communications with the media in accordance with
the District' s basic policy relating to open information and
cooperations.
2 . Develop and implement procedures for publicizing selected District
sites in accordance with site emphasis policy guidelines .
General Management and Program Support Page two
5. Continue to promote an atmosphere conducive to generating a crea-
tive team effort.
PROGRESS - Items 1 and 4 continue to be examples of ways to pro-
duce a creative team effort. Management and administrative staff
continued to meet on a weekly basis to review regular activity and
work together on projects, such as formulation of program evalua-
tions, the Action Plan, and the budget. Entire staff met to review
District' s goals, land acquisition program and field operations.
Acquisition staff met outside the office to discuss work and acqui-
sition projects in progress. Management/administrative staff and
land management staff discussed a work retreat, but were not able
to formalize any concrete plans.
1981-1982 Objective
Provide overall coordination, direction, and an administrative base
for all District activities so as to maximize the accomplishment of
the Board' s policies and directives.
1981-1982 Key Projects and Activities
1. Provide necessary interpretation, coordination, direction, and
administrative base, including on-going review and updating of
personnel-related matters, for District' s staff and programs in
order to carry out Board policies, Action Plan, and specific actions
according to written and unwritten Board priorities.
2. Forecast future revenues and develop strategies to provide neces-
sary funding to carry out the Board' s programs and priorities.
3. Analyze District' s population distribution and redistrict by Board
as necessary.
4 . Continue to promote an atmosphere conducive to generating a creative
team effort, including at least one staff workshop retreat.
M-81-98
14440 (Meeting 81-24
446 1&* September 28, 1981)
�0 emw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
September 23 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Scheduling of Special Meeting
Discussion: A Special Meeting should be considered early in
October for the following purposes : (1) completion of the
program evaluation item on the September 28 agenda, if it is
not completed then, and (2) your annual performance evaluation
for Legal Counsel.
Recommendation: I recommend that you schedule a Special Meeting
on Tuesday, October 6 , 1981.