Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19811110 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 81-27 Meeting 81-27 AAA, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 Regular Meeting Board of Directors Tuesday* 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 November 10, 1991 A G E N D A Los Altos, California (7 :30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 23 , 1981 and October 28 , 1981 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY (7 : 45) 1. Status of Legislative Program for 1981-1982 Legislative Session H. Grench OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (8 : 30) 2 . Final Adoption of Summary Status Report on Use and Management of Saratoga Gap and Long Ridge Open Space Preserves -- H. Grench (8 : 30) 3. Approval of Interim Use and Management Plan for Addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Crist Property) -- H. Grench (8 : 30) 4. Proposed Change in Picchetti Ranch Area Preliminary Use and Management Plan -- H. Grench NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (8 : 45) 5 . Agreement with City of Mountain View for Deer Hollow Farm -- H. Grench (8 : 50) 6. Tax Increment Exchange -- H. Grench Resolution Approving Agreement for Exchange of Property Tax Revenues for Territories Affected by a Jurisdictional Change Resulting in a Special District Providing Service Where Such Service Had Not Been Previously Provided by Any Local Agency NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED (8 : 55) 7 . Summary Review of Use and Management Plan for Planning Area VII (El Sereno and Costanoan Way Open Space Preserves) -- H. Grench (9: 20) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION - Land Negotiations ADJOURNMENT NOTE FIRST REGULAR MEETING IN NOVEMBER TO BE HELD ON SECOND TUESDAY RATHER THAN WEDNESDAY., 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 81-24 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS M I N U T E S September 28 , 1981 I . ROLL CALL President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 :34 P.M. Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Personnel Present : Herbert Gr-ench, Craig Britton, Charlotte MacDonald, Stanley Norton, Jean Fiddles, Michael Foster, Alice Watt, Pat Starrett , Joan Combs , and Iris Youngs . II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of the September 10 , 1981 Special Meeting. 11. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Fiddles stated she had four written communications pertaining to the agenda item on the Novitiate property . R. Bishop stated the written communications would be considered by the Board during that specific agenda item. IV. ORAL COILMUNICATIO_vS There were no oral communications , V. OLD BUSINESS t^;ITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Proposed Los Gatos Creek Park Acquisition Project (Novitiate Property) H. Grenr_h introduced the agenda item, noting that an informational hearing had been held in Los Gatos on September 10 and since then the Town of Los Gatos had adopted amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement which the Board would be considering at this meeting. He stated he strongly recommended the Board adopt the two reso- lutions before them for consideration for the following reasons : 1) the site is extremely important to the region for close-in open space and recreational purposes; 2) federal funds, which are scarce, were currently available for the project; 3) the Los Gatos Town Council had made a strong commitment, including financial commitments for the project; and 4) Di-strict funds had been set aside for the project . He said he felt the property would eventually be lost to development if the Board did not adopt the two resolutions . C. Britton reviewed the content of the staff report (R-81-43 , dated September 23 , 1981) , and exhibited a map .of the property that showed possible trails and public use areas . He stated that it was evident Herbert A Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nanette G Hanko,Richard S Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin Meeting 81-24 page two from the public informational hearing held on September 10 , 1981 in Los Gatos that the subject property was extremely desirable for open space and recreational purposes and that the public represented at the meeting preferred a low-intensity recreational use of the site . He said the main controversy at the hearing centered on whether the powers of eminent domain should be used to acquire the property, and he said the Jesuits had stated they had no plans to develop or sell the property. He stated the report presented at the September 10 meeting stated the density on the property would be approximately three units under the S-20 zoning. He noted that if the property were annexed to the Town of Los Gatos, the density would be substantially higher, on the order of 20-25 units. He said he did not feel the property was proposed for development at this point in time, but that develop- ment was inevitable. lie said that the adjacent Sisters of Charity property had been on the market for several years , and there was no question on the part of the Town that access to this property would be via Alma Bridge Road. As a part of that construction, a road would be built from Alma Bridge Road across portions of the Novitiate property to service the existing Sisters ' building. He said this particular road would open the Novitiate property to development. He said there was also a question of zoning and density on the property, noting that procedures that have restricted development could be easily reversed. He stated the funding for the project was currently available, that the develop- ment of the property is inevitable, and that the only way the property could be acquired would be through the passage of a resolution of public interest and necessity. C. Britton summarized the changes to the Joint Powers Agreement, stating 1) all the sections relating to high-intensity use of the property had been deleted; 2) provision that either the District or the Town could take a leadership role in the acquisition of the property; 3) the Los Gatos Open Space Fund had been established and the Town and the District would each deposit $775 ,000 into the Fund. R. Bishop stated the meeting held in Los Gatos on September 10 , 1981 would be considered part of the record for this meeting, and any- thing said at that meeting would be considered by the Board in making any decisions at the present meeting. He stated that written communications on the matter would be considered, followed by statements from representatives of the Novitiate, individuals representing organizations, and individuals who wished to speak on the matter. lie requested that staff record questions asked during the statements and respond to the questions after all statements had been heard. Jack Panighetti, 101 South Santa Cruz , Los Gatos , representing the Parks Protection League, requested the Board , rather than the staff, respond to the questions posed by the public, since he felt the staff had already decided what actions should be taken. R. Bishop ruled that the questions would be answered by staff. D. Wen,11in asked what property taxes the Novitiate currently paid on the property and whether the property was under the Williamson Act. C. Britton responded that the property taxes were a little more than of $3 ,000 per year and he did not know of the property Meeting 81-24 page three being under the Williamson Act. J. Fiddes stated the Board had previously considered a written communication from Jack Panighetti , Chairman, Parks Protection League, stating that additional input would be presented at the September 28 meeting. She read the following written communications into the record: a) a letter, dated September 17, 1981, from Dale S . Hill , 150 Robin Way , Los Gatos , stating that he was in favor of the eventual public acquisition of the portion of the Novitiate property, that he would prefer to see the purchase negotiated without the necessity for exercise of eminent domain, that he feared the Society 's statements to the effect that they have no intention of selling the land lacked some credibility, that the public is using the property, and that he treasured the property as a visual and psychological resource; b) a letter, dated September 23 , 1981, from Herb and Nancy Greenfeld, 17610 Bruce Avenue, Loa Gatos , stating their support for the acquisition of the Novitiate property and noting they hike in the meadows and enjoy the property as a lovely backdrop to the Town; c) a letter, dated September 24 , 1981, from Mrs . Rene Neuner, 100 Ann Arbor Court, Los Gatos , stating she was in favor of the acquisition of the property and that she felt there was an "unsilent" majority in Los Gatos who supported the acquisition; and d) a letter, dated September 28, 1981, from C. Walton, 19115 Overlook Road, Los Gatos , stating that he supported the acquisition of the Novitiate property, that open space was essential in the bay area, that the right of eminent domain was well established in constitutional and common law, that he felt the Novitiate order had not chosen to pursue the path of simple sale of the property since they might be waiting to sell the land at an even greater dollar value in a few years , that the Novitiate had already attempted to gain permission to put up high density housing on one portion of their land, that time, because of funding availability, was an important factor in the decision, that the proposed park was desirable in many ways , including preserving the view of the hillsides now enjoyed by many, and that Los Gatos had proven to be a desirable place to live because of its beautiful hilltops and ridges , noting the effort to keep the Town beautiful and desirable should continue. Father James Brennan, Treasurer for the California Society for the Society of Jesus , stated the Board had heard his remarks at the previous meeting and he was not changing his remarks. He said the Board knew, from those remarks , that the Society was opposed to the District' s taking of the Church ' s property. He said the Society felt it was private property, that the Society had the right to use, that they had a use for it, and that it was of extreme value to the Society. He stated the Society had owned the property for over 100 years and he felt confident some of the beauty of Los Gatos had been contributed by the Society, citing the Society ' s beautiful vineyards that had been on the hills and the Society' s preservation of the property for over 100 years, and he stated the Society had no intentions of changing it. He said he objected to many fine points in the minutes, notes , and communi- cations to the Board, noting they were small points of misinter- pretation. He stated that the Church objected to the condemnation of the property, saw no real necessity for it, and asked that he be able to add a few further remarks through the Society ' s legal counsel for the matter. Meeting 81-24 page four William Turner, attorney-at-law with the firm of Turner, Mulcare & Whitaker in San Mateo, stated the decision is firm with the Jesuits that they do not want to sell their land. He stated he did not feel the Jesuits had been remiss in com- municating with the Town and the District their desire and intentions to keep their land. He stated there were various discussions between members of the Town and the Jesuits during the period of time, but no negotiations. He said an offer was made to purchase the property in 1979 for $1 million based on an April 1979 appraisal report. He said there was never any request for the Jesuits to make up their mind at that time as to whether they wanted to sell ; rather there were a series of discussions about what the Town and District were planning to do. He said a February 25 , 1981 letter from the Town asked the Jesuits for a decision as to whether they wanted to sell, and on March 3, 1981, the Jesuits wrote back to the Town saying they did not want to sell the property. He stated there was no necessity for the immediate acquisition of the property and said Father Brennan had stated the Jesuits had no plans to develop the property, adding "that' s not to say it couldn't be, certainly it could be some day if someone wanted to, but they don 't have the plans to do it" . He stated that the property was valuable, certainly more than indicated by the 1979 appraisal . He asked staff for an explanation and some factual basis for the reasons they gave for the acqui- sition; specifically the central issue of whether the Jesuits intended to develop the property now, for the name of one party who threatens to buy the property, and for the name of one party to whom the Jesuits threatened to sell it. R. Bishop stated this would be one of the questions answered by staff and would be answered in the form as to what the staf-f's perception was for the public necessity for buying the property. W. Turner asked for the factual basis for the statement "The development of this major thoroughfare and its necessary utilities would greatly enhance the accessibility and developability of the subject property" , which referred to the access road to the Sisters of Charity property. He asked what properties in the adjacent area the Jesuits had been marketing, number of acres , and price. He submitted that there was no pulbic necessity that required the taking of this land against the will of the owners and implored the Board to reject the two resolutions before them on the matter. Barbara Reed, speaking on behalf of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce, read a letter to the Board that the Chamber of Commerce sent to the Mayor of Los Gatos and the Council which stated the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors , at their September 18, 1981 meeting, voted unanimously to oppose the proposed condemnation of the Novitiate property. The letter stated all other avenues should be explored before condemnation procedures are instituted and that the Directors also voted to recommend the issue be placed on the ballot for the vote of the people. Meeting 81-24 page five Pete Siemens, Mayor of the Town of Los Gatos , stated he had written a letter himself to the Board and requested the District Clerk read the letter into the record. ' In the letter, Mr. Siemens stated he was presenting his comments both as Mayor of Los Gatos and a private citizen and stated his support for the purchase of the Novitiate property, noting there has always been public and unani- mous Council support for this open space acquisition, although after it was apparent condemnation might be involved, one Council member and some members of the public had voiced objections. In response to a question posed by a member of the audience, Mr. Siemens stated he was speaking as Mayor of Los Gatos and a private citizen and had informed the Council he was planning to speak at the Board Meeting. Jack Panighetti, representing the Parks Protection League, stated that thirty people were present from Los Gatos to show their opposition to the condemnation, that twenty-one individuals spoke against the condemnation and four individuals spoke in favor of the action at the September 10 meeting, and that four past mayors of the Town of Los Gatos were in the audience and opposed to the condemnation of the Novitiate land. John B. Lochner, 150 Creffield Heights, Los Gatos, representing the Parks Protection League, stated the Parks Protection League has noticed by newspaper the intent to circulate a petition for an initiative to be placed on the ballot in April, whereby a majority vote of Los Gatos citizens would be needed for the Town to continue its agreement with the District and the expenditure of Town funds, and asked if, in the event the initiative was placed on ballot in April and if the Board adopted a resolution of necessity, what would take place in the interim. He asked if the condemnation hearing would proceed or be held in abeyance. He said the El Sereno Open Space Preserve was adjacent to the Town of Los Gatos, and instead of spending money to purchase new land, the District should use the money for minimum development at El Sereno. C. Walton, 19115 Overlook Road, Los Gatos , representing the Committee for Green Foothills , a Palo Alto based organization interested in the preservation of open space in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties , stated the Committee 's Board of Directors were in favor of the preservation of the Novitiate property as open space. Patrick Hazel , 220 Elmwood Court, Los Gatos, spoke against the condemnation of the Novitiate property, noting the Board 's actions on the passage of a resolution of public necessity had to stand the test of legal sufficiency. Robert Hamilton, 368 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, stated the rule of eminent domain was being misapplied, noting the possibility of three home sites on the property did not warrant the action. He did not feel three home sites on 300 acres would scar the Novitiate property. Meeting 81-24 page six Art Snyder, 236 North Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, expressed his opposition to the condemnation action, noting the Jesuits had been good neighbors to the Town, that he felt Mr. Siemens did not speak for the Town Council, and that the Los Gatos citizens had a right to work on the matter. He asked where funds would come from for the maintenance, patrol , and amenities on the Novitiate site and discussed current security problems at Los Gatos parks . Mardi Bennett, 38 Alpine Avenue, Los Gatos , a former member of the Los Gatos Town Council, said the Town Council, while she was on it, considered the use of condemnation for the safety of the public, and said she saw the issue of acquiring the Novitiate property "as something that we would like to have , but I do see it as a matter of public safety or public good other than an amenity" . She said the Jesuits had been a good neighbor to the Town and that the land could not be taken without just recompense or without a person' s or organization' s desire to participate in the acquisition action. Michael Canning, 115 Euclid Avenue, Los Gatos, discussed the paradox that the Jesuits were maintaining the land as open space and there was no reason for the District to acquire what the people already had. He said it would be inappropriate to use public funds for this project. Preston Hill, 33 Peralta Avenue, Los Gatos, stated he felt his questions had not been answered at the September 10 meeting and that he felt there was a filter between the Board and "the facts that are going on out in the world" . He posed questions on the price of the property, on the number of sites that could be built on the property, and on the proposed amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement. He said he felt intense development on the property was unlikely in the extreme. Dimone Pederson, 145 College Avenue, Los Gatos, stated she did not feel Mr. Siemen' s letter represented the Town of Los Gatos , that the visual impact of the Montezuma's Hill development could be mitigated by the planting of greenery, and that she felt the people of Los Gatos did not want or need more parks. She expressed her opposition to the condemnation of the Novitiate property and urged that ' the matter be put to the citizens of Los Gatos for an advisory vote. William Johnson, 15266 Via Pinto, Monte Sereno, expressed his opposition to the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of the Novitiate property, stating he did not feel it fair or just to introduce at this time on the Jesuits . Bobbie Crafford, 16830 Sheldon Road, Los Gatos, stated the develop- ment of 3-15 sites on the property was not a threat of private development. She said, because of public recreation areas in the vicinity, the site was not needed as additional open space in the area and questioned the statement concerning easy access to the property. She said that highly visible topography was not a basis for public necessity, that $1 million was an understatement of market price for the property, and that, rather than acquiring the property, the District should use its existing funding for the development and maintenance of currently owned lands . She urged that the matter be placed before the voters of Los Gatos. 'Meeting 81-24 page seven David Leeson, 15300 Blackberry Hill , Los Gatos, stated he felt the Novitiate land should not be taken away from the Jesuits , said federal funds should not be used for an action involving condem- nation, and urged the Board to rethink what he felt was their current position on the matter. Ciddy Wordell, 867 Highlands Circle, Los Altos, cited two parallels about parklands in Los Altos involving St. Joseph's Seminary property and the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and stated she hoped the people of Los Gatos would have the chance to enjoy an open space preserve like the Rancho San Antonio. William E. Mason, 56 Oak Grove Avenue, Los Gatos, stated that he felt Los Gatos did not need more parks and that the Jesuits had been good and cooperative neighbors to the Town. He asked where funds would come from to purchase the property and urged that the Board have an up-to-date appraisal on the property. He asked if the Board had considered acquiring a right of first refusal to purchase the property and urged the Board to work with the Novitiate to see if there might be a common ground that could be agreed upon. R. Bishop asked if any representative of the Novitiate wished to make any additional comments. Father Brennan stated he did not have anything further to say and that the people had supported the Church with their ideas. R. Bishop asked staff to respond to the questions posed during the meeting. H. Grench, in response to the 'question initially raised by W. Turner, stated the reasons for the necessity of the acquisition were, in his mind, visual backdrop; public safety (including aiding and prevention of storm and flood damage by non-development of the property, lesser earthquake damage, aiding air quality) ; protection of flora and fauna and topography; containment of urban sprawl, and significant recreational uses (including hiking, horseback riding, kite flying, jogging, photography, wildlife observation, painting, and meditation) . He said the property connects with Lexington Reservoir and adds a new type of dimension to the County facilities there. He said that sooner or later, he felt, the Novitiate property would be developed. C. Britton, in response to questions posed by W. Turner, stated the Jesuits had been contacted by the Town of Los Gatos when the Town first considered applyingfora Land and Water Conserva- tion Fund grant to acquire the property, and the Town was not given a negative response. He said that after the Town received the grant, an appraisal was made on the property and an offer to purchase the property for $1 million was made to the Jesuits . He stated the offer was never rejected or countered and said the only time the Jesuits stated the property was not for sale was after a recommendation went to the Los Gatos Town Council to consider a resolution of public necessity for the property. He stated that if the Board adopted a resolution of public necessity for the Meeting 81-24 page eight property, the District would be required to testify to the value of the property as of the date of value, which would be the date a lawsuit was filed. In response to the question regarding threat of development, he stated he had seen brochures at the Jesuits ' office stating $10 million was needed to endow the retirement facility, and said they had previously marketed the 1100 acre Alma College site. C. Britton stated the Sisters of Charity property had been marketed over a 10-year period, and while not directly related to the Novitiate property, this was an indication that land was being disposed of by other Catholic orders . He said the Novitiate had recently sold a 36 acre parcel, north of the property, for development, and stated the access road to the Sisters of Charity property and the placement of necessary utilities would enhance the developability of the Novitiate property. In response to a question regarding the sale of development rights or an open space easement, C. Britton stated the suggestion of a buffer zone between the land now owned by the Jesuits and the land the public would use had been advanced (including the idea of an open space easement) , but the idea had never been countered or accepted as far as he knew. He said he did not know whether funds would be available if the District had a valid right of first refusal for the property , and a future sale took place. C. Britton stated he did not know of any particular parties interested in acquiring the property at this time, but said he was told by Father Charvet at the time he toured the property when it was appraised that several people had expressed interest in the property and had made offers . H. Grench stated that under the terms of the amended Joint Powers Agreement the District would be responsible for the maintenance and patrol of the property. S. Norton, in response to a question regarding whether the matter would be held in abeyance in light of the fact that a petition was being circulated to place the matter before the voters of Los Gatos in April, said he was not aware of any legal constraints on the District in the meantime. R. Bishop said the Board would have to make a policy decision on the matter if a comdemnation action was commenced and an election was held in Los Gatos on the matter. C. Britton stated the Joint Powers Agreement called for annexation of the property into the Town and that the Town's police would be available for emergency calls and patrol, in addition to the District's patrol of the property. H. Grench stated access to the property would come from the Lexington Reservoir and the parking area adjacent to the dam. He said use of the property for low intensity recreational purposes was not expected to create access problems . R. Bishop asked if the members of the Board had any questions or comments , and D. Wendin suggested the Board members comment on the matter before voting on the resolutions. Meeting 81-24 page nine K. Duffy stated she would vote in favor of the two resolutions, noting that in 1972 when the District was formed people had discussed saving the Novitiate property from development. She said there had been a consistent interest in Los Gatos in preserving the hillsides, and felt that any plans to develop the Novitiate property would face a horrible fight in the Town. She stated the Los Gatos Town Council, the duly elected representatives of the Town, had passed, by a four to one vote, a resolution of necessity to acquire the property and had recently awarded funds to pay for the project. She discussed the visual impact of the land, its recreational use in linking the area to other open space, and the regional recreational value of the land. She stated that even three houses on the property would scar the area with roads and fences and said the land would be in better care in the Districts hands . She urged the Jesuits to negotiate a fair price for the land since the land was not being used. Noting she would prefer not to use eminent domain, she said the land was so important that eminent domain must be exercised in this case. She stated the District had no intention to include the Jesuit's buildings , shrine,and gardens in the area to be acquired and said the Jesuits privacy should be protected by a buffer area. She urged that the District and the Jesuits work together to preserve the land and take care of it in the best possible way and suggested changing the name of the project to Novitiate Park or St. Joseph's Hill Open Space Preserve to commemorate the long history of the Jesuits in the area. She urged the other members of the Board to support the two resolutions in light of the strong support from the Los Gatos Town Council and others in the area to preserve the land as a community and regional resource. H. Turner stated his support for the resolutions, noting the proposed acquisition of the property was consistent with the objectives of a regional open space district, that the land was important to a regional trail system in the area, and that public access could not be provided without public ownership of the land. He said the threat of development, which was not the only item for the Board to consider, would eventually come about, even if it were not present at this time. He said that the land in its present state could not do much for the Jesuits financial stability since it was not producing an income for them. D. Wendin discussed reasons why the District was formed, noting that in order to save open space for the future generations of people who will be living in the Santa Clara Valley, the land must be bought. He said he found it hard to believe that the Jesuits would never develop the property, noting they had never made a statement to the effect the property will not be developed and that they had not put the land under the Williamson Act. He noted that councils and political bodies change quickly, and it was important to move forward with this project. Meeting 81-24 page ten E. Shelley stated the Board had to make a decision for the entire District and that the land was of regional recreational significance. He said he had to accept that the Los Gatos Town Council, which had expressed its support for the project, was representing the majority of Los Gatos residents . He said that if any harm were to occur it might be to the retired people at the Novitiate facility and he felt it should be quite possible to provide adequate buffering to protect the privacy of these individuals and that in the long run the District could provide better facilities for their enjoyment of the property. R. Bishop stated he felt the Jesuits considered the property a matter of financial security that they may ultimately have to rely upon. He felt it unrealistic to think that they would not be selling the property at some time in the future, and that if the land was going to be preserved as open space, it should be done now because of the funding sources available. Motion: K. Duffy moved the approval of Resolution 81-42, a 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) . D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: K. Duffy moved the approval of Resolution 81-43, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the 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) . B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board recessed for a break at 10 :25 P.M. and 'reconvened for the public meeting at 10 :34 P.M. VI . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Review of Edgewood Park Plans Being Considered by San Mateo County H. Grench introduced the staff report, R-81-42, dated September 23, 1981, regarding the two preliminary master plans that had been prepared for the Edgewood County Park. He noted the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission had voted to recommend Plan B, which included a golf course on the site, to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. He introduced Duane "Doc" Mattison, the Director of Parks and Recreation for San Mateo County. Meeting 81-24 page eleven .E. Byron McCulley, Vice President, CHNMB Associates , and Deb Mitchell, Project Coordinator for the firm, made a detailed presentation on the two alternative preliminary master plans prepared for the site. Discussion centered on the impact the golf course would have on the site, the need for more specific designs before selecting one of the plans, the District assuming a more active advisory role while planning for the site was taking place, and how the Board should proceed on the matter. D. Wendin and E. Shelley stated they felt the Board of Supervisors would support Plan B and said -the Board needed to make sure the District would have a maximum voice in the implementation of any plan that was accepted. N. Hanko expressed her support for Plan A. H. Turner stated a continued analysis of both alternatives should be recommended to the Board of Supervisors. Noting that he felt Plan B was too intrusive, H. Turner stated the District should not oppose a golf course on this site simply because golf courses were not part of the District's open space philosophy. A. Watt reviewed the staff report. Lennie Roberts, representing the Committee for Green Foothills, and Bob Young, expressed their concerns regarding Plan B, which included the golf course. Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, spoke in favor of a public golf course in San Mateo County. Susan Sommers of Redwood City submitted a letter, dated September 28, 1981, regarding the Edgewood Park Assessment Report, which she felt had serious deficiencies, and stated more information was needed on Plan B before it was evaluated or recommended for approval. Motion: R. Bishop moved that a letter be written to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for their October 6 meeting stating that, based upon the information the Board of Directors currently has, they favor Plan A and recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt Plan A, that a copy of the staff report be enclosed with the letter noting that the Board realized some of the items in the staff report are looking ahead to future planning, but that the Board wanted the Supervisors to have the benefit of the report, and that the letter include a statement that in the event the Board of Supervisors adopts Plan B, the District wishes to participate in the planning for Plan B. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed on the following vote: AYES: K. Duffy, B. Green, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop. NOES: D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and H. Turner. Motion : D. Wendin moved that the Board next consider Item 4 on the- agenda. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 81-24 page twelve B. Scheduling of Special Meeting H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-81-98, dated September 23, 1981, regarding the scheduling of a special meeting in October for the program evaluation and Legal Counsel 's review. He noted an alternative would be to include both items on the October 14 agenda, with the meeting beginning earlier to accomodate the review session with Legal Counsel. Motion: N. Hanko moved the continuation of the Program Evaluation item to the meeting of October 14, 1981. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. R. Bishop stated the October 14 meeting would begin at 7:00 P.M. J. Fiddes stated that although the agenda included an item for claims there were no claims for Board approval . VII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Grench stated the District's consultant would present the Monte Bello parking lot plan to the Palo Alto Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 30 , 1981. D. Wendin and N. Hanko stated they would be attending the meeting. VIII. CLOSED-.SESSION The Board recessed to a Closed Session on land negotiation matters at 12 :21 A.M. , Tuesday September 29 , 1981. ADJOURNMENT IX. The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12:23 A.M. Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk Meeting 81-26 Ally 1)1 W MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS M I N U T E S 5cT,oE;e—rT8—, 1981 I. ROLL CALL President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 :40 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Harry Turner, Richard Bishop, and Nonette Hanko. Dan Wendin arrived at 8 :15 P.M. Personnel Present: Craig Britton, Charlotte MacDonald, Mary Gundert, Jean Fiddes, Suzanne Shipley, Michael Foster, and Joan Combs. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of October 14 , 1981. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA R. Bishop stated the Board would adopt the agenda as written. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, suggested the Board appoint a 7 person finance committee to report to the Board and oversee the finances of the District. R. Bishop noted that the Board already had a Budget Committee, as well as experts in financial matters who advised the District and helped with investments . VI . SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY C. MacDonald introduced District Volunteer Hollis Russo, who has completed the first two volumes of the news clipping history of the District. VII. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED Thornewood Barbecue Area (Proposed Amendment to Lease Parameters) C. Britton introduced memorandum M-81-111, dated October 23 , 1981 , regarding the proposed amendment to the Thornewood lease parameters. He said the Thornewood Proposals Review Committee suggested the barbecue area should be included in the leasehold area. He said the Ganos were amenable to this suggestion, but wanted to limit the number of permits for fire use. He said that if the District could not negotiate a sufficient number of permits per year, the barbecue area would be excluded from the leasehold area, adding 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 81-26 page two that the District would retain the right to remove the barbecue area from the leasehold at a future time if the District wished to expand its use. H. Turner said the Thornewood Proposals Review Committee was satisfied with all five points of the memorandum. In reply to a question from N. Hanko, C. Britton said that the District would take over implementation of managing the area in the event it was removed from the leasehold area. N. Hanko said she felt it was important to provide the Ganos with guidelines for issuing fire permits for the barbecue area. She said she would support the amendment based on the understanding that the District will develop guidelines that will protect the public' s rights. Motion: H. Turner moved the approval of the five point amendment to the lease parameters. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VIII.' NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Proposed Addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Crist Property) M. Gundert presented report R-81-46, dated October 23, 1981, noting that the District has been offered the opportunity to lease , with the option 'to purchase, an additional 92 acre parcel which adjoins the 120 acre parcel. She added that both parcels were outside District boundaries , but adjacent to existing District lands. C. Britton said the overall price for both parcels is $600 ,000 . He noted that the so-called 92 acre parcel actually contains 102 acres according to the assessor' s records and that the sellers understood this discrepancy existed, but agreed to proceed on the total purchase price basis of $600 ,000 . He said the price of the 120 acre parcel is $339,600. In addition, an option for which the District would pay $30 ,000 would enable the District to pur- chase the 102 acre parcel for $206 ,000 during the month of January, 1983. During the interim period, the District would be renting the 102 acre parcel. He explained that the $30 ,000 does not apply against the purchase price, but covers rent and the anticipated increase in the value of the property during the year of the option. C. Britton pointed out that Clause 8 , on page 2 of the Lease, should read "Lessee" rather than "Lessor" . C. Britton noted that a recommendation regarding garding dedication for both parcels would be made in January, 1983 , when a decision is made regarding the purchase of the 102 acre parcel . Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 81-48 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement for Purchase of Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to, Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve- Crist Property) : B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 81-26 Page three Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 81-49, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Option Agreement with Lease, Authorizing officer to Execute Lease of Real Property to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve - Crist Property) . B. Green seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Britton noted the Option Agreement &tte , in the resolution should be October 27, 1981. The motion carried unanimously. D. Wendin arrived at 8 :15 P.M. Motion: H. Turner moved tentative adoption of the use and manage- ment recommendations contained in the report, designating the site as an addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, and withholding the larger parcel from dedication. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Revised Budget for 1981-1982 M. Foster discussed memorandum M-81-108 , dated October 21, 1981 , noting that available funds were $1. 75 million more than budgeted previously. He reviewed major changes from the June Preliminary Budget, noting the tax revenue was approximately $200 ,000 more than projected in June, 1981. He stated that the interest figure increased approximately $.5 million because of a slower pace of acquisition. Motion: R. Bishop moved the adoption of Resolution 81-50, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenins- ula Regional Open Space District Adopting Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-1982. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Improvements to Internal Accounting Controls M. Foster introduced memorandum M-81-110 , dated October 22, 1981, , concerning his evaluation of the suggestions by the District' s auditors and noting the improvements the District is implementing this year. Motion: B. Green moved acceptance of the report. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rescheduling of November Meetings C. Britton reviewed memorandum M-81-106 , dated October 15, 1981, noting holiday conflicts with regularly scheduled meeting dates. He said two meetings would probably be necessary for November. Motion: H. Turner moved that the President be authorized to schedule one or two meetings in November, utilizing the three dates suggested in the memorandum. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. R. Bishop scheduled November meetings for Tuesday, November 10 , and Monday, November 23. Meeting 81-26 Page four IX. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED Summary Status Report on Use and Management of Long Ridge and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves M. Gundert introduced report R-81-45 , dated October 22, 1981, noting that Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and the Picchetti Ranch Area were not included in the report as use and. management plans for these sites were presented earlier in the year. Motion: N. Hanko moved to amend the recommendations to include hiker and equestrian access through the pipe gates at Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved the tentative adoption of the use and management recommendations as amended. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS C. Britton announced that six cords of wood will soon be available for purchase at the Ranger Yard. He said the 'price is $25 per quarter cord, and people interested in buying the wood should call Joan Combs at the District office. D. Wendin reported he gave a presentation to the Los Altos City Council, adding that a poll of the audience to determine how many people attended in response to the agenda ad in the Los Altos paper revealed none had attended because of the ad. XI. CLAIMS Motion: R. Bishop moved approval of the Revised Claims, C-81-2 1, dated October 28, 1981. H. Turner seconded- the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ' XII. CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to Closed Session on Land Negotiations at 9 :05 P.M. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10 :20 P.M. Joan Combs Secretary ims 81-21 Revised )ber 28,1981 _ting 81-26 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT C L A I M S Amount Name Des'cri tion 2570 $ 502. 74 AMC/Jeep, Inc. District Vehicle Expense 2571 109. 13 Alvord and Ferguson Uniforms 2572 21.00 American Bar Association Resource Document 2573 33. 04 Bancroft-Whitney Book-"CA Real Estate-1981- Supplement" 2574 10. 65 Carolyn Caddes Black and White Photos 2575 68. 18 David Camp Private Vehicle Expense and Uniform Expense 2576 75. 00 CA Parks and Recreation Membership Dues Society, Inc. 2577 171.35 CA Water Service Co. Utilities 2578 1, 800. 00 Deloitte Haskins and Sells Annual Audit . 279 1 , 619. 04 Dorn' s Safety Service District Vehicle Expense 2 . J 6. 76 Emergency Vehicle Systems Repair Fire Equipment 2581 90. 40 John Escobar Private Vehicle Expense 2582 4, 345 . 80 Frahm, Edler and Cannis Engineering Services Acquisition 2583 16. 61 The Frog Pond Meal Conference-Agenda Meeting 2584 325. 00 First American Title- Preliminary Title Services Guaranty Co. 2585 75 . 00 Joyce Fonner Secretarial Temporary Secretarial Services Services 2586 550. 00 Foss and Associates Personnel Services-September 2587 35. 75 Graphicstat, Inc. Brochure Artwork-El Sereno and Saratoga Gap 2588 39. 20 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense 2589 206. 67 Hope Rehabilitation Services Newsletter Distribution 2590 57. 30 Image Technology Photo Processing-Novitiate 2591 601. 90 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. District Vehicle Expense 2592 277. 74 Miracle Auto Painting District Vehicle Maintenance 2( 536. 57 Mobil District Vehicle Expense, 2594 250. 00 The Montana Land Reliance Conference Fees-Herbert Grench and Craig Britton 2595 .57.02 Norney' s Office Supplies Claims 81-21- Page 2 ^-!tober 28, 1981 Revised eting 81-26 Amount Name Description 2596 $ 21. 36 Stanley Norton Phone and Copying Expenses- September 7 1 ,087. 60 Orchard Supply Hardware Los Trancod Fence Hardware, Ranger- Truck Replacement Supplie -Barbless Wire, Tools and Shop Supplies 2598 . 53 PaloAlto. Utilities Utilities . 2599 10. 46 - San Jose Art Drafting Supplies 2600 12..67 David *Sanguinetti District Vehicle Expense 2601 31. 85 S & W Equipment Co. Maintenance on Field Equipment 2602 49. 72 Signs* of the Times Trail Signs-Rancho San Antonio and Monte Bello 2603 125. 31 First Interstate Bank Note Paying Fe'es 2604 120. 15. Uno Graphics Brochures-Saratoga Gap and * El Sereno 2605 8. 00 University of Wisconsin- Subscription: "Restoration and Madison Management 'Note's" 2606 478. 00 US Rentals Backhoe Rental-Fremont, Older and Rancho San Antonio 2607 9, 14 Victor of CA Oxygen 8 307. 02 Xerox. Maintenance Agreement-September 2609 134. 82 Craig Britton Private Vehii-,le Expense-Public Trust Symposium and Grant Meeting in Sacramento. 2610 67, 87 Precision Photo Aerial Photos Laboratories , Inc. 2611 *4,500.00 Christopher E. Taaffe . Rental-McNiel Property 2612 79 ,900.00 Title Insuran*ce and Trust Property Purchase-Crist 2613 30 ,000. 00 Frank Lee Crist ,et al. Option Payment-Crist Property 2613 3,000. 00 Kurt L. Reitman Appraisal Services 2614 500. 00 U.S . PostAge Postage 2615 198. 82 Petty Cash. Meal Conferences , Private Vehicle EXDenses ,Postage,. BCDC Documents ,Office Supplies , Printing and Duplicating,And Out-of-Town Meeting Expenses . , *In anticipation of District requirement .to extend escrow to November 30, 1981 . M-81-115 (Meeting 81-27 ee November 10, 1981) 0 Oww MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM November 3 , 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Status of Legislative Program for 1981-1982 Legislative Session Introduction: On December 30, 1980 you adopted the District' s Legisla- tive Program for the 1981-1982 session of the California State Legislature (see memorandum M-80-104 dated December 26 , 1980) . Your Legislative Committee met in December to make recommendations to you on the Legislative Program and twice during 1981 to give guidance to staff and further recommendations to you. You considered an update and proposed action on the Legislative Program at your April 8 , 1981 meeting (see memorandum M-81-39, dated April 1, 1981) . In addition, on October 14 you received a report in connection with your evaluation of progress with respect to the 1981-1982 Action Plan (see memorandum M-81-97 , dated September 23 , 1981) , as well as oral informational reports and copies of pertinent correspondence from time-to-time during 1981. The 1981 portion of the legislative session has been completed, and it is timely to make a further more detailed report to you. The Dis- trict' s Legislative Consultant, Bob Beckus, plans to be on hand at your November 10 meeting to make a report on legislative happenings in Sacramento. Discussion: The attached letter and list of June 1, 1981 to Mr. Beckus Highlights most of the bills in which the District has had an interest this year. Also attached for your information is the latest (September 30, 1981) Legislative Summary and Status Report which California Advo- cates prepared for the California Special Districts Association. I receive copies and follow these bills in content as they progress. The notes in the left-hand margin are our notes and denote the District' s level of interest in each bill (NI = no interest to District) . I will be pleased to report further regarding any of these measures. Bills amending the Public Resources Code sections under which the Dis- trict operates are of particular interest. Assembly Bill 597 sponsored by the District has passed the Assembly and Senate and is back to the Assembly floor for consideration of Senate amendments. The three bills sponsored by the East Bay Regional Park District, SB 353, SB 354 , and SB 993 , passed and were signed by the Governor. Our suggestions were incorporated into these bills. Conclusion: Staff has some ideas regarding possible legislation for 1982 , and I will ask the Legislative Committee to meet to consider these and to forward recommendations to you, -All J, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 June 1, 1981 Mr. Robert Beckus California Advocates, Inc. 925 L Street, Suite 380 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Bob: Eloise has asked that I let her know the bills in which we are particularly interested so that she can let me know when hearings are doming up. There are about 60 bills in which we have at least a passing interest and watch. Most, but not all, are on the CSDA list. The attached compilation, which is culled from our longer list, represents bills where we have a position or where our interest in just watching them is strong enough that I'd like to be informed when they will be heard and what happened to them soon after the hearing. Since I have sent correspondence to you on many of these, I won't try to explain each one again in detail. Sincerely, Herbert Grench General Manager HG:ej P.S. I received the revamped version of SB 993 today from East Bay. It looks fine! 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 6/1/81 Bills of Particular Interest to MEZOSD Latest NROSD Bill No. Version Position and Author We Have Sunmmy & Priority Comnents 13 4/7/81 Statutory changes W Protect our interests on share of Alquist 1981-82 Budget property tax, subventions, etc. SB 121 3/31/81 Bond interest rates: S, B I would like to attend an inmr- Craven local agencies tant hearing on this or AB 184 to get a sense of how the Legis- lature looks at interest rate changes SB 353 2/24/81 Regional Park ordinances, S, C East Bay bill Holmdahl rules & regulations SB 354 2/24/81 Regional park district S, B East Bay bill Holnrlahl boards; ccnpmsation: group medical & dental SB 398 3/2/81 open-space & recreation S, B See letters of 5/26/81 to our Roberti facilities assistance legislators SB 730 4/20/81 Natural resources: Wildcat S, C A technical correction to Bear Holmdahl & Canyon Reg'l Park: Del Valle Creek parcel acquisition list -- Boatwright Lake State Recreation Area & does not include the 100 acre Bear Creek Redwoods Project Holmes Lumber parcel which should also be included in project at some point SB 836 5/14/81 Agriculture use of land: 0, C We are opposed to any of these Boatwright cancellation of contracts bills that weaken the Williamson Act SB 993 5/26/81 Regional park, regional S, B We support the new approach! Petris park & open-space, and open-space district: special taxes: establishment of zones AB 177 3/12/81 Alameda-Contra Costa O'C Bill could be a dangerous McAlister Transit District, exclu- precedent sion of territory AB 184 12/23/80 Bond interest rates: S, B See SB 121 Inbrecht local agencies AB 251 Statutory changes: 1981- W See SB 111 Vasconcellos 1982 Budget ]4-ls 'of Particular Interest to NRDSD Page 2 AB 597 4/7/81 Regional Park, regional S, A Our bill! Sher park & open space, & regional open-space districts AB 630 2/24/81 Benefit assessments: 0, C We dislike a vote requirement, Frazee drainage, fire suppression, although a majority vote when police protection, flood there is say, a 30% protest control, & street lighting would be acceptable services AB 738 3/2/81 Public safety officers: 0, B Poor idea from management's Floyd peace officers standpoint AB 854 3/9/81 LAFCO: spheres of 0, B See letter of 4/24/81 Cortese influence AB 991 5/7/81 Agricultural use of land: 0, C See SB 836 Floyd cancellation of contracts AB 1100 3/17/81 Agricultural use of land: 0, C See SB 836 T, Cortese c*,4ncellation of contracts AB 1153 3/18/81 Local agencies W See letter of 1/21/81, etc. Kapiloff Needs amendment AB 1317 3/20/81 Improvement Act of 1911: W See AB 630 Costa Municipal Improvement Act of' 1913 AB 1879 3/30/81 Presumptions: government 0, C See letter to B. Sher Boscoland disposition ? S, A Bear Creek supplemental funding ? S, A Rebudgeting of trail funds ? S, A Funding for State acquisition of Rancho Raymando property from. Peninsula Open Space Trust Paeic Exeecuti+re�BIB.,925 l Street,Suite 3B0,Seeermneuetes,CA 958141916►441.6050 Soptember-. 30,- 1981.. ZEGZSLATZVE SUMMARY AND STATUS REPORT for CALZFORNZA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCZATZON Legend O - Oppose S - Support V - watch Senate Bills Bill No. and Author Summary Position Status ?, —SB 4 Beverage containers: refund value Interim study Rains 0,,�,O SB 25 Local agencies: state funding Senate Local tie Campbell Government �, .SB 29 Elimination of automatic cost-of-living S Senate Govern- Campbell adjustments mental Organiz. SB 44 Property taxation O Senate Revenue (' Nolmdahl & Taxation r SB 55 Local Government: con mission members S Approved.ky GQv. Johnson Chapter 52 SB 65 Emergency vehicles: pollution control device S Approved by Gov. . Boatwright exemption Chapter 669 Jmc , SB 102 Public Finance: State subventions S Approved by Gov. marks Chapter 101 SB 103 Joint exercise of powers by public entities - S Approved by Gov. Alquist bonding Chapter 6 SB 110 1981-82 Budget w Approved by Gov, Alquist Chapter 99 c SB 111 Statutory changes 1981-82 Budget w Superseded by Algquist AB 251 SB 121 Bond .interest rates: local agencies S Approved by GOO, V Craven Chapter 1092 SB 189 water districts: directors' compensation S Approved by Gov. �� .Ayala Chapter 725 Bill No. & Author Summary Position Status L��4c'o � SB 225 Property tax; .indebtedness S To Inactive file v.tc Garcia '-)1 SB 353 Regional park ordinances, rules and N Approved by Gov. V-Z,"�y„,go,ladahl xegulat,ions Chapter 683 SB 354 Regional park district boards: compensation: S Approved.by Gov. fiolmdahl group medical and dental benefits Chapter 601 ` SB 361 County budgets Approved by Gov. Alquist Chapter 168 O,A-� SB 398 Open-space and recreation facilities Assembly floor Roberti assistance SB 555 Local Agency Indebtedness Fund S Senate Finance t� !larks SB 556 Local Agency Indebtedness Fund S Senate Finance Marks SB 708 Parks and recreation: urban fishing program: Assembly floor Presley local assistance grants SB 730 Natural resources: Wildcat Canyon Reg'1 Park: Approved by Gov. Halmdahl Del Valle Lake State Recreation Area and Chapter 608 Bear Creek Redwoods Project. SB 836 Agricultural use of land: cancellation of S Assembly Energy & `Boatwright contracts Natural Resources SB 89.9 Forest practices: county & regional regula- Assembly Ways & Garamendi tions: forestry board review beans SB 912 Cemeteries; regulation and additional charges Approved by Gov. Craven Chapter 397 vj,r�c'w' SB 993 Regional park benefit assignments W Approved by Gov. Q PGtris Chapter 565 SB 1002 Fiscal affairs S Senate Finance `-� Campbell SB 1062 California water districts powers W Approved by Gov. Stiern Chapter 393 SB 1064 McCloud Community Services Dist., hydro- S Approved by Gov. Johnson electric generation Chapter 117 SCA 8 Property taxation O Senate Revenue ' Holmdahl & Taxation SCR 4 Heritage Task Force S Approved by Gov. marks Chapter 75 -2- CSDA 9130182 Assembly BIIZs Bill%NO. & Author Summary Position Status AB 11 Public finance: allocation of revenues; 0 Conference Lockyer Income tax credits Committee r AB 137 Environmental information program: grants Assembly Energy Imbrecht & Nat'l Resources AB 151 Property taxation S Assem. floor for 6 Deddeh conc. In Sen. ants. AB 177 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, S Assembly Ways & McAlister exclusion of territory Means -i-AB 284 Bond Interest rates: local agencies S Conference Imbrecht Committee rl AB 197 Bond Interest rates: water districts S Approved by Gov. N. Waters Chapter 62 n/ r AB 230 Water agencies: power S Approved by Gov. Ivers Chapter 249 teJ,, ,j_) AB 250 1981-82 Budget W Approved by Gov. Vasconcellos Chapter 133 AB 251 Statutory changes 1981-82 Budget W Approved by Gov. Vasconcellos Chapter 102 AB 254 Local agencies: state funding - repeals S Assembly Ways & Ryan deflator formula Means G $, AB 263 County water district: directors - Increases S Approved by Gov. Lehman compensation to $100 per day Chapter 45 AB 270 State and local governmental contracts: In- O Assembly Govern- Harris formation, reporting and payments mental Organiiz. AB 285 Community services district; television Aaaroved by Gov. N. Waters (Cable TV) Chapter 268 AB 320 Public agencies: water: charges for fire S Approved by Gov. Berger protection services Chapter 73 W, cL, AB 326 Vandalism: cemeteries and places of worship S Approved by Gov. Levine penalties Chapter 211 j AB 402 California Water Supply Protection Bond Act W Assembly Ways & N. Waters of 2982 Means -3- CSDA .913018I Bill No. & Author Summary Position Status AB 470 Conservation easements S Approved by Gov. c� Bates Chapter 478 AB 521 Taxation, property tax allocation S Assembly !days & Deddeh Means AB 597 Regional park, regional park & open space, S Assem. floor for Sher and regional open-space districts conc. in Sen. amts. AB 607 Local agency formation commission 0 Approved by Gov. Berman Chapter 1181 f� AB 630 Benefit assessments: drainage, fire suppres- S From Senate floor c Frazee sion police protection, flood control and to inactive file street lighting services AB 675 San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development S Assem. floor for Sher Commission conc. in Sen. amts. AB 738 Public safety officers: peace officers Failed passage- Floyd C Floyd �,��� �� -,�> - � �� ...��� , , ,e , . _ Asset. Cram. Just. AB 753 County water districts: power generation S Approved by Gov. Cramer Chapter 79 AB 854 LAFCO: spheres of influence 0 Assembly Local Cortese Government < -}AB 934 Property tax revenues; special districts S Approved by Gov. Kapiloff Chapter 971 U tJr� AB 953 Community services districts S Senate Local Bergeson Government s4 AB 991 Agricultural use of land: cancellation S Assm, Energy & Floyd of contracts Nat'l Resources y C ( AB 1071 Local funding: jurisdictional changes S Senate floor to Lancaster inactive file AB 1100 Agricultural use of land: cancellation Assembly Energy & Cortese of contracts & Nat'l Resources AB 1113 Local agency formation commissions 0 Approved by Gov. Costa Chapter 855 y AB 1153 Local agencies O Assembly Local yKapiloff Government anus 1192 California Debt Advisory Committee 0 Approved by Gov. Costa Chapter 1088 -4- CSDA 9130182 Bill No. & Author summaryPosition Status AB 1200 water pollution: state bonds S To inactive file McCarthy AB 1269 Public employer-eW2oyee relations: local S Assembly Public 1 Rosenthal agency employees Bmp. & Bet. AB 1327 xWrovement Act of 1911 - Muni. Improvement O Senate Local Costa Act of 1913 Government AB 1662 Pest abatement S Assembly mays & Thurman Means AB 1675 Aerosol paint containers O Approved by Gov. c Alatorre Chapter 1125 tom-A-( AB 2742 Local agency funding--special districts Assembly Local C, Ryan Government AB 2749 Swamp and overflowed lands: navigability Senate Gov't c� Naylor Organization AB 1791 Special districts - fiscal affairs Assembly Ways & Means Frazee AB 1858 Local agency fees Assem. floor for Konnyu conc. in Sen. ants. AB 2878 Special taxes To Interim Study Frazee AB 2879 Presumptions: government land disposition Assembly Judiciary Bosco at7; AB 2003 Local agency formation commissions Assem. floor for Cortese conc. in Sen. amts. /,)) d) AB 2004 Local agency formation commissions Assem. floor,for Cortese conc. in Sen. amts. AB 2053 Joint exercise of powers by public entities S Approved by Gov. /V � Frazee Chapter 1260 >u >�. AB 2074 Agricultural use of land; cancellation of Approved by Gov. Robinson. contracts Chapter 1095 AB 2078 Peace officers S Assem. floor for Nolan cone. in Sen. amts. AB 2097 County Water districts: standby assessments Approved by Gov. r/ { Lewis Chapter 231 AB 2123 Municipal Water district promissory notes S Became law w/o Gov. Valley sig. Chapter 464 w,dli AB 2124 Municipal water district promissory notes S Became law w/o Gov. Kelley sig. Chapter 463 -5_ CSDA 9130181 Bill No. & ,Author Summary Position Status AB 2125 Municipal Water district charges S Approved by Gov. ! Kelley _ Chapter 459 AB 2221 Parks and recreation: appropriation: S Assembly Ways La Follette coastal resources and Means AB 2249 Water resources Assembly Water, Bates Parks & Wildlife } AB 2250 California Water Fund Assembly Water, Bates Parks & Wildlife AB 2259 Taxation: open-space lands: subventions Senate Local Imbrecht Government AB 2280 Appropriation of water, hydroelectric Assembly Water, N. Waters energy Parks & Wildlife AB 2286 Redwood City: swamp & over lands Assemby Energy & Natural Resources Naylor G--4e4J ACA 22 property taxation: local government finance O Assembly Revenue Hannigan & Taxation Sponsored bills underscored -6- CSDA 9130181 M-81-114 (Meeting 81-27 November 10 , 1981) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM November 4 , 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Final Adoption of Summary Status Report on Use and Manage- ment of Saratoga Gap and Long Ridge Open Space Preserves Introduction: At your meeting of October 28 , 1981, the summary status report for Saratoga Gap and Long Ridge Open Space Preserves was presented to you (see report R-81-45 , dated October 22 , 1981) . According to your Public Notification Policies , all use and manage- ment plans heard for the first time will be tentatively approved, with final approval being deferred until the next regular meeting to allow for further public input. To date, staff has not received any additional public comments . Discussion: At the October 28 meeting, Director Hanko suggested the provision of hiker and equestrian access through the areas which would be closed to vehicular traffic by the installation of two pipe gates on the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. The provision of hiker and equestrian access was not identified in the report, and a motion was passed to include such a recommendation . At this time, staff would like to amend the use and management plan for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve in the following way: 3. New Projects a. Two pipe gates should be installed at the Preserve boundaries. One gate should be located on Ward Road at the southeastern boundary of the Preserve , and the second gate should be installed on the Preserve's western boundary along Long Ridge fire trail, and should accommodate hiker and equestrian access . Unauthorized vehicular traffic entering the Preserve from these two points has been a management problem in the past. Area residents would be notified prior to installation. Recommendation: It is recommended that you adopt the use and management recommendations presented to you on October 28 , 1981 as amended by this report. M-81-113 (Meeting 81-27 November 10 , 1981) Al OMW MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM November 4 , 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Approval of Interim Use and Management Plan for Addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Crist Property) Discussion: At your meeting of October 28 , 1981, you approved the proposed addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve and the lease of a 102 acre parcel adjoining the Preserve and the proposed addition parcel (see report R-81-46 , dated October 23 , 1981) . In accordance with your Public Notification Policies , the use and management recommendations were tentatively approved, deferring final approval to your following meeting to allow for additional public input. To date, staff has not received any additional comments from the public. Recommendation: It is recommended that you approve the interim use and management plan for the addition to Russian Ridge open Space Preserve (Grist property) and the leased parcel as con- tained in report R-81-46 , dated October 23 , 1981 . M-81-116 (Meeting 81-27 -A%Ioe November 10 , 1981) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Change in Picchetti Ranch Area Preliminary Use and Management Plan Discussion: On October 14 , 1981, you referred the question of the public amenities to the Picchetti Winery Committee for further analysis and recommendations (see memorandum M-81-102 dated October 8 , 1981) . The Committee subsequently met with staff, and the group reached a consensus in regard to the public amenities to be constructed by the lessee (picnic tables , toilets , water fountain, and telephone) . It is recommended that item 6 under the new Use and Management Recommendations be amended to read as follows : 6) The lease holder should provide drinking water, restrooms , picnic tables, and a public telephone at a location re- moved from the parking lot. The location and design of the amenities should be under the direction of the Site Review Committee , to be established in accordance with the terms of the final Picchetti lease (with ultimate decision power resting with the Board) . The lessee should allow public use during the times the building area was open, and the lessee would be responsible for management and maintenance at all times. The lease itself would be somewhat broader than what would be re- quired in the initial Use and Management Plan. The lease should give the District the right to require that the amenities be open during any or all times the Preserve is open and during normal preserve hours. The lease should also give the lessee the right to have the amenities open during times the Winery is open. The lessee should manage and maintain the facilities so long as they are in a location removed from the parking lot. The lease should include an option for the District to move or replace any or all of the public amenities within the portion of the leased area adjacent to the parking lot (i.e . , where the picnic tables are now located) , with management and maintenance responsibility to be handled by the District. Recommendation: I recommend you adopt the Committee ' s recommendation regarding the lease and the Use and Management Plan as discussed herein. M-81-112 (Meeting 81-27 Aj November 10, 1981) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 30, 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Agreement with the City of Mountain View for Deer Hollow Farm Introduction: The District and the City of Mountain View entered into an agreement in 1979 that allowed the City to operate and maintain the Deer Hollow Farm complex at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The agreement expired March 31, 1980 and was renewed for a one year period ending March 31, 1981. In May, 1981 , staff requested an interim extension of six months be granted to Mountain View, allowing staff time to review and incorporate proposed changes into the agreement (see memorandum M-81-54 , dated may 21, 1981) . You approved the six month interim agreement and conceptually approved the proposed changes to the agreement at your May 27 , 1981 meeting. The City of Mountain View incorporated the changes into the lease agreement and received City Council approval of the lease at their meeting of October 26 , 1981. At this time, the agreement is returning to you for approval. Discussion: A) The changes conceptually approved by you at your May 27 , 1981 meeting have been incorporated into the agreement and are identi- fied below. They are: 1) The City shall maintain the swimming pool year round, in- cluding maintenance of the pumps and equipment (Paragraph 4 of Agreement) . A pool maintenance firm has been contracted by the City for the work. 2) The District shall retain site and design review of any plans the City may have to alter or improve the area. Permanent alterations shall become the property of the District, with the exception of the portable restrooms installed in the farm area (Paragraph 6 of Agreement) . 3) The agreement, upon your approval, shall become effective until March 31 , 1982 , at which time renewal for a one year period would be handled on a City staff level if no changes were to occur in the agreement (Paragraph 20 of Agreement) . 4) Prior to capital improvements on District lands by the City, an addendum to the Agreement must be filed with the District (Paragraph 21 of Agreement) . M-81-112 Page two B) In the summary status report for Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (see report R-81-35, dated August 19, 1981) , staff pointed out that under the existing agreement with Mountain View, the City is responsible for "all utility bills" . The Board agreed that the City should start carrying the expense of water for the farm area as soon as the District installs a metering system. It is not necessary to amend the agreement because pro- visions for utility costs are currently covered in Paragraph 4 of the agreement C) In an attempt to expedite the renewal process of this agreement, I recommend that the agreement be reviewed and renewed annually at the District staff level, provided there are no significant changes and that this continuation is consistent with the use and management plan. This change would alter the existing re- newal procedure which requires that you specifically approve the renewal annually. Staff would continue to inform you of Mountain View' s programs at Deer Hollow Farm through the use and management review process. D) A new issue has arisen in connection with the vacancy coming toward the end of November of the house currently occupied by the Opera- tions Supervisor. This structure was recommended for removal in early use and management planning. The vacancy provides the opportunity to reassess and change, if appropriate, use of the house. Staff will return with recommendations. Recommendation: I recommend that you authorize the General Manager to approve the attached amended agreement between the City of Mountain View and the District for the management of the Deer Hollow Farm area, and that you approve the revised renewal policy stated in Paragraph C herein. •a DUPLICATE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MUUNTAIN VIEW AND MID-PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 19 , by and between the City of Mountain View, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "CITY" and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, a public district under the laws of California, hereinafter called "DISTRICT." PURPOSE In order to provide an expanded and varied program of organized recreational activi- ties for the citizens of the CITY, CITY has arranged with DISTRICT to use DISTRICT's Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, formerly known as Permanente Creek Park, located in Los Altos Hills, adjacent to St. Joseph's Seminary, for recreational and educational programs, consisting of activities such as archery, arts and crafts, hiking, picnicking, games, singing, nature studies, swimming and caring for farm animals. It is understood by both parties that the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve is a semi-wilderness area with certain environmental hazards, such as uneven landscape, wooded areas, poison oak, wildlife and rattlesnakes, and that DISTRICT makes no assurances as to the safe condition of the property. CITY shall offer no programs that, in the estimation of DISTRICT, have a negative impact on the environment of the area, or the future use of the property. In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the par- ties agree as follows: 1. DISTRICT agrees to provide the primary use of the area and buildings indicated on Exhibit "A," known as Deer Hollow Farm, without charge to the CITY, to carry out recreational and educational programs. For pri- mary use of Deer Hollow Farm (Exhibit "A"), CITY agrees to allow a mini- mum of thirty-three and one-third (33 1/3) percent of the groups and individuals using the farm to be non-residents of the CITY, to partici- pate in farm-related programs during the fall , summer and spring months. During the summer months, the CITY shall have exclusive use of Deer Hollow Farm for its day camp program. 2. DISTRICT agrees to provide the nonexclusive use of other areas in Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve without charge to the CITY for hiking, nature study and swimming. 3. CITY may provide a resident naturalist to coordinate and supervise CITY's programs. Said employee and such person's immediate family shall reside within the management area using the building marked "Resident Naturalist's House" on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. CITY shall be responsible for all utility bills and normal maintenance of buildings and grounds associated with Deer Hollow Farm management area. The degree of such maintenance determined to be necessary or desirable within the management area shall be at the discretion of the CITY. If the CITY uses the swimming pool located at the Resident Ranger House for its programs at any time during the term of this agreement, the CITY shall maintain the pool for the entire term. 5. Other buildings, outside the CITY's management area, bridges, roads, trails, and all other improvements on the property shall be maintained by DISTRICT, to the degree such maintenance is determined to be neces- sary or desirable at the sole discretion of DISTRICT, provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to impose on DISTRICT any responsibility assumed by CITY in paragraph 4 hereof. DISTRICT shall maintain the through road and bridge in management area. 6. CITY shall not make or suffer to be made any alterations, additions or improvements (which shall include but not be limited to outbuildings, fences and signs) to or of the premises or any part thereof without the prior consent of DISTRICT first. CITY shall make available to the DISTRICT all plans and specifications for such alterations, additions or improvements. Upon approval by DISTRICT, CITY agrees to complete such work in accordance with such plans and specifications. Any perman- ent alterations, additions or improvements of said premises shall become a part of the realty and belong to DISTRICT. The two (2) restrooms installed and maintained by the CITY in the barnyard area shall not be considered a part of the realty and may be removed by the CITY upon ter- mination of the agreement. 1. CITY agrees that all agricultural produce grown on DISTRICT lands will be consumed by participants, naturalists or other recreational program participants offered by the CITY and are not to be sold. CITY may sell farm animals and/or their byproducts provided all revenue from said sales is used by CITY to help pay for the cost of maintaining the farm animals. 8. Upon immediate oral notice, DISTRICT may designate certain areas unsafe or unusable to CITY and restrict or prohibit the use of said areas to CITY until further notice. 9. CITY agrees to furnish and pay for all necessary services, supplies, and materials directly related to the program, including utilities and trans- portation. 10. CITY agrees to obtain all necessary permits for fire, safety, health, and other clearances required by local and State agencies necessitated by the use of the Preserve by CITY to carry out its programs. 11. CITY shall be responsible for all necessary or appropriate supervision and control over agents and employees of CITY, participants in the pro- gram, and other persons on the property at the invitation of the CITY or as a direct result of CITY's programs. Responsibility for supervi- sion and control include providing qualified staff members and volunteers to protect the safety of the participants and to promote, organize and conduct the various programs. 12. It is expressly understood that this agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to create a relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association between DISTRICT and CITY, but it is, rather, an agreement between independent contractors. Each is to be responsible for its liabilities in the areas of responsibility designated by this agreement. 13. For purposes of this paragraph (and as used elsewhere in this agreement) , "CITY participant" shall mean and include supervisors, employees, staff members and volunteers for CITY, all participants in the program, and all persons on the property at the invitation of CITY or as a direct result of CITY's program. CITY shall have a responsibility and bear primary liability for: a. Locating and identifying any hazards, natural or man-made, on the property and calling such hazards to the attention of CITY participants. b. Loss, damage or injury to CITY participants, for any cause what- soever, except negligent, willful , wanton or active misconduct of DISTRICT's officers, agents or employees. c. Loss or damage to property of CITY or of CITY participants from any cause whatsoever, except the negligent, willful , wanton or active misconduct of DISTRICT's officers, agents or employees. d. Loss, damage or injury to third persons, including employees of DISTRICT, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of CITY or CITY participants. e. Loss of or damage to property of third persons, including property of DISTRICT and its employees, caused by negligent or other wrongful acts or omission of CITY or CITY participants. Nothing herein shall be construed to impose on CITY responsibility for any liability for which DISTRICT would otherwise be responsible and which is in no way attributable to the conduct of the CITY's program or activities under this agreement. DISTRICT shall have the responsibility and bear primary responsibility for these activities and risks not under- taken by the CITY pursuant to this agreement. CITY participants shall be deemed to be on the property at the invita- tion of CITY and not of DISTRICT. 14. CITY shall carry liability, property damage, death and bodily injury insurance during the term of this agreement covering, among others, the insurable risks set forth herein, and DISTRICT shall be named as addi - tional insured on said policy. Said policy shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per injury or death to one person, $1,OUO,000 per occurrence, and $3D00,000 property damage. CITY shall furnish DISTRICT a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance coverage. CITY shall carry fire insurance on Resident Naturalist's house in an amount sufficient to repair or rebuild house at time of fire. Said policy shall include an escalation clause to provide for inflating building costs. All other structures within the management area shall be the responsibility of the CITY due to the loss or damage resulting from fire, vandalism or any other causes. 15. DISTRICT shall carry liability, property damage, death and bodily injury insurance during the term of this agreement covering its risks arising out of its ownership of the property in an amount not less than $1,000,UUU per injury or death to one person, and $1,000,000 per occurrence, and $1,000,000 property damage. 16. CITY hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the DISTRICT from and against all liability for all claims, suits, damages, injuries, costs, losses and expenses, including attorneys' fees and court costs, in any matter related to or occurring during the program, provided that the matter giving rise to the liability is directly attributable to the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the CITY's employees or agents, or otherwise arises out of matters which by the terms of this agreement are the responsibility of the CITY. 17. DISTRICT hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees from and against all liability for all claims, suits, damages, injuries, costs, losses and expenses, including attorneys' fees and court costs, in any matter related to or occurring during such recreational program, provided that the matter giving rise to the liability is directly attributable to the negligent or wrongful acts of the DISTRICT's employees or agents, or otherwise arises out of matters which by the terms of this agreement are the responsibility of the DISTRICT. 18. Each party shall , in good faith, attempt to avoid interference with the activities and facilities of the other, in keeping with the spirit and purposes of this agreement. 19. Either party may, without cause, withdraw unilaterally from this agree- ment after 90 days ' written notice to the other party, with the result that this agreement shall be terminated at the end of such 90-day period. 20. This agreement shall become effective Uctober 1, 1981 and shall continue in effect until March 31, 1982, unless sooner terminated by action of either party in accordance with the terms of this agreement as herein specified. Upon the date of March 31, 1982, and at the end of each year thereafter, the parties by unanimous consent may extend the terms of this agreement by one (1) year under such conditions pursuant to such terms as they may then agree upon. Unless the terms of this agreement are mutually changed by the parties, the City Manager of the CITY shall have the authority to execute annual extension of this agreement without the approval of CITY Council first being obtained. 21. CITY agrees to file an addendum to this agreement with the DISTRICT, and receive DISTRICT approval , prior to any capital improvement projects by the CITY on DISTRICT lands. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW: Bye cf-ScW CI Y AT TORNEY APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: MID-PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT By.. Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: PB/SS/Z 66/B2-6 1b 5'r �..�Fptj �y�. PAKK5 � Kjfc, EATj Gt4 T%cMf�f Z�4T wb�MVEEK MLLON FAFM CKE-F Mar E�1ENT • AZEA -•----- rzoaD �l 1 -,r-•--*—f FENCES - - INES d RANC.�fQ `,AN ANTON10 OP�I SPG,C� FES'c�VE /wAt �s ia � � MiRp�rUN5u1-A KE��oNA� GFEr! sPAGF l'K�T,i�T wmr Oman w, Vrw�i+'iG l , ❑ENO AWNV ( Z CAI Z-: it . (AmoxfMA7joti) • !� ❑�TuKptl5i5 ;..•iNtUi� tiPti'�f = h �♦ Irv` U.PfL`K/b/1ltlllt� ` sw,` lk � �rfs 3d Mr=AT7Vent Gr'� =; �w COMM wm,06 ql FIGITES l r -r' •� a'� ���� f r st1EEP ftov5� MEA36W A M � � � J b ' .I M-81-107 (Meeting 81-27 November 10, 1981) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 21 , 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Tax Increment Exchange Resolution Introduction: The attached correspondence relating to a tax incre- ment resolution was received from the Santa Clara County Government Council. They are requesting concurrence from cities and special districts for a formula to be used for property tax allocations for areas affected by future jurisdictional changes caused by annexations by special districts. Discussion: Among other changes , SB 180 in 1980 added Section 99. 1 to the Government Code. It reads in Dart: (a) For the purposes of Section 99, in the case of a luris- dictional change which will result in a special district providing one or more services to an area where such services have not been previously provided by any local agency, the following shall apply: (1) The special district referred to in this subdivision and each local agency which receives an apportionment of property tax revenue from the area shall be considered local agencies whose service area or service responsibility will be altered by the juris- dictional change. (2) The exchange of property tax among such local agencies shall be limited to property tax revenue from the annual tax increment generated in the area subject to the jurisdictional change and attributable to such local agencies. The key words are "limited to. . .annual tax increment" . The annual tax increment is essentially the difference between the current and previous year' s property taxes in a given area. Over the last few years the percentage increment has typically been in the 10%-15% range for the whole District. The formula proposed, which appears to be in conformity with Section 99. 1, allows very little to a district annexing and serving new territory, since that district receives none of the tax base (the to of market value in M-81-107 Page two 1975-76 plus annual increases allowed by Proposition 13) . Section 99. 1 is clearly very protective of the property tax revenues estab- lished agencies receive in a given area. The annexing district is completely out of parity with other local agencies within the area to be annexed, and the district' s fractional share of the total property tax is completely different in the new area than its fractional share in the rest of the district. Under such circumstances , there would be a great disincentive to annex unless the costs associated with serving the new area were very small (for example, smaller than the district' s share of the tax increment) . However, it appears to be in the interest of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to adopt the suggested approach, since there are no District plans to annex new private property in the foreseeable future. Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution of Agreement Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99. 1 for Exchange of Property Tax Revenues for Territories Affected by a Jurisdictional Change Resulting in a Special District Providing Services Where Such Service Had Not Been Previously Provided by Any Local Agency. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 99 . 1 FOR EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOR TERRITORIES AFFECTED BY A JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE RESULTING IN A SPECIAL DISTRICT PROVIDING SERVICE WHERE SUCH SERVICE HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BY ANY LOCAL AGENCY. WHEREAS, Section 99. 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code re- quires that all affected local agencies participate in an exchange of property tax revenues regarding territory affected by a jurisdictional change which will result in a special district providing one or more services to an area where such services have not been previously pro- vided by any local agency; and WHEREAS, the cities, County and special districts wish to facilitate orderly and expeditious jurisdictional changes; and WHEREAS, the cities, County and special districts have reached agreement pursuant to the above-referenced code section; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District agrees that, in such terri- tory, the special district extending service shall be included in the allocation of the annual tax increment to local agencies; and that the non-school portion of the annual tax increment shall be shared by all local agencies in the tax rate area in proportion to their "equivalent tax rates" as derived from the provisions of AB8 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this distribution formula shall be applied to all pending and future jurisdictional changes which will result in a special district providing service where such service had not been previously provided by any local agency; and BE IT FURTHUR RESOLVED that the County Auditor and the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation 'Commission shall be notified of this resolution pursuant to subparagraph (b) of Section 99 of the above-referenced Code. I I th Floor,County Government Center,East Wing, 70 West Hedding Street,Son Jose,CA 95110(408)299-2424 santa clara county intergovernmental council August 24, 1981 TO: Affected Agencies (Cities 'and Special Districts) FROM: Jane Decker, IGC Staff SUBJECT: TAX INCREMENT EXCHANGE RESOLUTION You may recall that a resolution regarding the exchange of property tax revenues after annexations by cities was adopted by all involved parties early in 1980. SB 180 of 1980 established provisions concerning property tax adjustments for a jurisdictional change which results in a special district providing services where no such services had previously been provided by a local agency. The adjustment is limited to the annual tax increment generated in the area and does not affect the property tax base. This resolution must be adopted by the affected agencies before LAFCO can process any new annexations to special districts. JD:rs Campbell Los Altos Milpitas Mountain View Santo Clara County of Santo Clara Santo Clara Valley Water District Cupertino Los Altos Hills Monte Serena Palo Alto Saratoga Santo Clara County Special Districts Gilroy Los Gatos Morgan Hill Son Jose Sunnyvale Santo Clara County School Districts w The County Executive Office of Management and Budget:Center for Urban Analysis County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Heading Street San Jose,California 95110 County of Santa Clara 299-3285 Area Code 408 California February 24, 1981 PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT UPON JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE RESULTING IN A SPECIAL DISTRICT - PROVIDING SERVICE WHERE SUCH SERVICE HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BY A LOCAL AGENCY Property tax adjustment upon annexation of unincorporated territory to cities in Santa Clara County has been operating under the provisions of a "master agreement". The master agreement consists of Resolutions adopted by each city and the County. The property tax adjustment procedure assures the annexing city that their share of the property tax revenue from the annex- ation is not less than that from territory within the city with similar jurisdictions. The property tax adjustment is accomplished by determining the c.ity's portion of the "tax increment" within the annexation and by increas- ing the city's "base year revenue" used to compute the following year's allocation. The base year revenues for other local agencies affected by the property tax adjustment, such as detaching special districts, are reduced accordingly. SB 180 (Chapter 801, Statutes of 1980), established provisions concerning property tax adjustments for jurisdictional change which results in a special district providing service where such service had not been previously provided by any local agency. In such a circumstance. Section 99.1, Revenue and Taxa- tion Code, restricts the property tax adjustment to the annual tax increment generated in the area. The procedure proposed to implement the requirements of Section 99.1, Revenue and Taxation Code, includes the district providing the new service by proportionately adjusting all other property tax sharing entities in the tax rate area, except schools. Each local agency's share of the non-school portion of the increment is determined by the ratio of its "equivalent tax rate" to the total of the "equivalent tax rates" of all local agencies in the tax rate area. The "equivalent tax rates" were derived by the sum of a jurisdiction' s An Equal Opportunity Employer -2- 1978-79 property tax revenue and its adjusted state "bailout" divided by its 1978-79 assessed value, pursuant to the provisions of ABB. The following hypothetical example illustrates the application of the adjustment procedure. EXAMPLE A District has been requested to provide service to all of the territory within tax rate area 63-016. This service has not been previously provided to this territory by any local agency. The District wishes to annex the territory and receive a share of the property tax revenue. Step 1. The share of the increment available for adjustment is determined: 100% - schools share (51.9%) = 48.1% Step 2. The Equivalent Tax Rate (ETR)* of the District is added to the sum of the Equivalent Tax Rates (ETR's) of the other jurisdictions in the tax rate area, except schools: District Equivalent Tax Rate (ETR) _ .58 Sum, Other Local Agencies ETR's = 1.99 TOTAL, ETR's (excludes schools) = 2.57 Step 3. A proportional adjustment factor is calculated by dividing the Sum, Other Local Agencies ETR's, by the total ETR's (except schools): 1.99/2.57 = .77 Step 4. The District share is determined by multiplying the share of the tax increment available for adjustment by the complement of the adjustment factor: Share of Increment available for adjustment: 48.1% Complement of adjustment factor: (1.0 - .77) .23 X District Share of Tax Increment: 11.06% Step 5. The tax increment share of each Other Local Agency is adjusted by the proportional adjustment factor: e.g. County = 24.44% x .77 = 18.82% Library = 4.38/ x .77 = 3.387 -3- Step 6. The Adjusted Shares of Tax Increment are applied to the amount of the tax increment of this flax Rate Area to determine the allocation attributable to each local agency: e.g. District: 11.06% x $3292 = 364 County: 18.821 x $3292 = 620 Library: 3.38% x $3292 = 111 'The "Equivalent Tax Rate" was determined by the sum of a jurisdiction's 1978-79 property tax revenue and its adjusted state "bailout" divided by its 1978-79 assessed value, pursuant to the provisions of AB8. I - �AM670 DATE 11/19/79 T A X I N C 12 E M E N T D Y A C C O U N T W T T H I M T R A WA AC(01111T AC(MINt NM;". ETR PEi:CENT TAX INCREMENT 63 016 00n10 COUNIY 1.0013992 24.4417064 805 0001)0 C001IY I1DRARY 0.1814909 4.3924797 145 10.110 CUf LP1 tN0 011 SCH 11AINT 0.67335^3 16.2966097 ✓h 536 1;,1.0 TPLM(INT 111011 MAINT 0.7034536 17.0251275 560 ihnnl fCtouiitt. CO[i LOLL 11411i( I 0.2685358 6.4991582 214 1`0 V11 'M 1 H1 hill-CI�I�ET T iNO � 0.36s2927 8.9134950 rI'S� , 293 1 "01" (011111Y 'J11,101. 1.LRVICE 0.01942L3 0.4700745 15 1 r0',6 JU'VI Ntt l HALL '.:CHOOLS 0.0101230 0.2449959 8 1/U37 CAVIIAL Q1JrtAY-00 SCHOOLS 0.0167438 0.4052368 13 170,10 01:VLLM' L1111 f2S-HANDICAP MINORS O.OI98695 0.480885b I 16 17044 IN,111U11011 TUITION TAX 0.0070736 0.1711967 I 6 17051 SA NTA CLAPA `C11!tit)LS-COE' 0.0070146 0.1697637 6 17224 SPEC FACILITY-CUPERTIM 0.0498894 1.2074334 40 17236 SPEC FACILITY-FREMMT HIGH 0.0008877 0.0214842 1 23018 *CENTRAL FIPE DIST 6.63''i� 90 ' 25.3657I30 506 26001 MID PENINSULA OPEN SPACE DIST 0.0656510 1.5s88988 52 27005 SCV WATER 0-14 1.E:,T 0.0517670 1.2528754 41 27010 "CV W.:.TER D-DT TPICT 0.0075271 0.1321724 6 30001 DAY AREA AIR QUALITY NGHT DIST 0.0077998 0.1867723 6 77001 SCVWD-SPATE WATEFI FIROJ 0.0223989 0.5421027 18 77021 SCV WATER O-ZONE W-4 0.0057734 0.1397301 5 TOTALS 4.1318551 100.0000000 3:292 i Equivalent Tax Tax Rate Percent Increment School Share 2. 144688 51.91 1,709 Remainder 1.9871963 48.09 1,583 New District . 5823788 2.5695751 Proportional Adjustment = 1.9871963/ 2.5695751 = .773356 New District Share: (1.0 - .77) _ .23 x 48.09 - 11.06 364 County (.77 x 24.44) 18.82 619 Library ( .77 x 4. 39) 3. 38 ill Central Fire 11.83 389 Mid-Peninsula Open Space 1.22 40 SCV Water D N West .96 32 SCV Water D District .14 5 Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt .15 5 SCV',v'D State Water Project .42 14 SCVWD Water D Zone W-4 •11 4 LOCAL AGENCY TOTALS 48.09 1, 583 R-81-47 (Meeting 81-27 November 10 , 1981) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT October 30, 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Woods, Open Space Planner, and M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Summary Review of Use and Management Plan for Planning Area VII (El Sereno and Costanoan Way Open Space Preserves) Introduction: The use and management plans for Planning Area VII were last reviewed in detail on August 27 , 1980 (see report R-80-46 , dated August 15, 1980) . The Land Management planning process provides for a summary review of planning areas on alternate years when planning areas are not reviewed in detail . This use and management plan review is for Planning Area VII , which includes Costanoan Way and El Sereno Open Space Preserves. A. Costanoan Way Open Space Preserve This 2 . 1 acre preserve remains unused, and there has been no change in its status since the last use and management plan. No recommendations for improvements were made in the previous use and management plan review. The Preserve does not cur- rently have active recreational potential, due to its small size and isolated nature, and no development is recommended at this time . Dedication Status Dedicated. B. El Sereno Open Space Preserve On October 15, 1981, neighbors of El Sereno Open Space Preserve residing on Overlook and Sheldon Roads were invited to a public workshop to discuss future development and management plans for the property. Concerns were centered on problems occurring in the meadow area of the Preserve, public access to the Preserve, and emergency access via Sheldon Road. Problems occurring in the meadow area range from the use of firearms to late night fires and overnight camping. 1. Completed Projects a) A pipe gate and hiking stile were installed at the end of Montevina Road. b) A brochure was recently completed for the El Sereno Open Space Preserve and is available from the District office. R-81-47 Page two 2 . Incompleted Projects a) Sheldon Road has not been re-opened. The road is considered a desirable patrol road for District vehicle access and the preferred emergency access to the Pre- serve by Central Fire District. On the other hand, opening the road could invite additional problematic use of the area and encourage more parking at the end of Sheldon Road. The road is deeply rutted and has a slide, requiring significant repairs to bring it up to patrol and emergency vehicle standards . Repairs are estimated at $6 , 000 , and are not funded in the present budget. Because the benefits would accrue to various interests , staff should continue to research cost- sharing strategies involving the Central Fire District, the neighbors , and the County. b) The fencing and hiking stile along Sheldon Road have not been installed. The existing fencing was repaired, and more permanent split rail fencing should be installed. The hiking stile should be deleted from the use and management recommendations , since the portion of Sheldon Road directly affected by the installation of the stile is a private road, and there is no available parking. c) The fencing and hiking stile have not been installed at the Bohlman Road entrance to the Preserve. A question has been raised regarding the exact location of the Preserve boundary, and once resolved, the fencing and hiking stile construction would occur. d) The fencing, pipe gate, and regulatory sign at Linda Vista Avenue will be installed this winter. 3 . New Projects a) The patrol road which follows the ridge is graded each year as a part of the County' s road maintenance program. The road is becoming very wide with the annual grading, and staff should work with the County to try to minimize the width of the road. b) A "wildland" sign should be installed beyond the fence at Sheldon Road. Dedication Status El Sereno Open Space Preserve has 967 acres of dedicated land. Fifty-one acres of detached land remain undedicated. No change of status is recommended. Recommendation: It is recommended that you tentatively adopt the use and management recommendations contained in this report, and continue final adoption until your next regular meeting. vey Pit , � 14 A. ^; Borrow 't aA a x `jSi� B � x= B > X. M 1 2 B{ 3 ( , U. 20 Xv 12 q r // it'S_ ►�,-.ui S Jl tj ���J, .r 'Lain' � y1� /��.��/�///��i �� ��p � ��,�� (�a �µ �i ` (n• \�: 1 24 l'f oucht3teTaWSH, r �'• C � �� / ' /�a� , cr "�•, o n n -. j s The'Pea Cr.Res. 09e -_ 1�•�i./, ��//-��' � a* �` � y��O .RE K STEVENS `/- \_ , �� \♦ �' �`�_.fix CREEK P RK l� 4 CO.PARK F .\` \\ - 1 �-� !a•a �/B •�. �': �Iq�h 1.8 w f ice- F - �' - _ •,1/f�� -•I u .? ,P , ,BEN°., o�A 5.3 Saratoga a 4 �,. ` ., EXHIBIT A SITE MAP (USGS) \ F p0 1.6 - ' STATE MG3 rR ` FOREST J -�`- rCASTLE E� ARR `w �� + =t, COSTANOAN WAY _ROCK' ;srArR' — =a PARK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE { SPAR 6.3 rf 1 fVNDEVELOPEi C SU LE {\1``ra'?03 R \ YOUNi 1"=2000 NORTH ..ti.,•� �•ii '•s i L •i. '�'�ti � -- ��1 ti � v� �, � ,� —./ � �1,� �t .)� i .:ice,•• I� 12 q , --�, � ��l�f I � .--� l � �)��/`✓G=� �� � •.•" t h �� �/J1 �, rr �/ J t x\1 �E 11� _ ✓; _ ✓ -� �' !� , 2Up �1� 1� �lll �nAIN ST ti•.ti.}y/t �i'/��q �a"S. ` 11 1� 'l "\\_ ���-.\ ^��1 "�. i`,`( - \1 \ T , 'Clr. )1 �j /M —�_iw�!'r,nl•• �,�� \ boa/ '�` �-/ /;A- t ' � �..� '/�� �. /�' �� •'/•• �.� l �.. �-��4��/ /•'i"0"- '�`j � �, -1 ;11 �.�-tif �,���� �-'��t '-_��' r- i I`1_ '�y, .." � �-, ,� -� � _ .� ,, lr-�\ �.- � _ -;"1 I � � it�, •, „�,• � .. .� � \!�//\ � _ -., �� .. `(` .'; � � ,•- � ., � �,� ) c'_ �. 'sue �_ -E` � - o'Q_ (='=�- � --L h• AIN .�.�` �� - �il'I� 1\\\�/ 1 l.,i J ��../ � 1\.�-� l�� D �/ � 1\\1,��� t(c�_C..e'/i//' �1,r.i �"�.�• \��.... lift E ;;,• Saratoga a•R, �{ AlA ,;�� '�Mnnte .Tw° '' � ~ 7 1+ ��, �% +1 ` �.''���� " ICE. ._i II !�� i p. �'" ���l �: sAr.oma AAuoAr�:. kreno ''nn;Ml Ali, ^} �y�'p - L/,� ���'�- r !..\ �,�"-�, \' ��`�.�`''�\'/ �� r �. -� _ � ' J/r�r\- 11, -$�� ---- `:•:< AU `�-)��I\�`��!( -� � •� ©..� \ , �` C\_: { \- e0♦ .,r �IEXINOEON RES. WADALUiE1 `\ ��`�� � / \ �f J^ ��• : ^/ I f� .��� " RES.WATER WATER REC.AREA RTC.AREA - _ - I '1 Redwood •Aidercroft EXHIBIT A - SITE MAP (U S G S) SPILLWAY-.e+A_ i \�r• ( u ��"`��� ;. Estates y1,e �MHoly City (1� .. E ��: ` / � �--�rO�j•'� EL SERENO r„ o :•. a \ r t- ": PEN SPACE PRESERVE O g`ow 4 . t e°'',,y,,• rn�\ Z �� x1it420 i `"'_„ " . 1"=2000 ' NORTH , al, �l I �i� u�..:...R.l,...c...:w.a,.n..ar»...r..I.r• i •,�� -_; ((<( 8p0~-. Cla` 81-22 Nov, !r 10, 1981 Meeting 81-27 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT C L A I M S A Ir Amount Name Description 2616 13. 30 B & H Equipment Rental Part for Chain Saw 2617 3, 500. 00 Berliner & Kidder Appraisal Services 2618 750. 00 California Advocates , Inc. Legislative Consultant' s Fee-Oct. 2619 213. 00 Communications Research Co. Communications Equipment Main- tenance-Oct . 2620 300. 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture-Oct . 2621 92. 66 The Dark Room Black and White Photo Processing for Newsletter 2622 17. 19 Ewert' s Photo Carousel Trays and Slide Pages 2623 95. 00 First American Title- Preliminary Title Reports Guaranty Co. 2624 58. 55 Foster Bros . Locks and Keys 2625 59. 53 The Hub Schneider' s Ranger Uniforms 2626 90. 00 Los Altos Garbage Co. Garbage Service-Oct. 2627 15. 00 Meredith Newspapers Subscription 2628 149 . 10 Ferry Morse Seed Co. Seeds 2629 1 ,035. 00 National Recreation & Park Maintenance Management Training Association for Rangers 2630 86. 40 Olsten Temporary Services Temporary Secretarial Help 2631 840. 45 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service 2632 3. 75 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities 2633 1 , 326. 65 Peninsula Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense 2634 2. 83 Rancho Hardware Spark Plugs 2635 4,592 . 00 Rogers , Vizzard and Tallett Legal Services 2636 17. 36 S & W Equipment Co. Field Supplies 2637 22 . 50 County of San Mateo Inspection of former William's House 2638 72 . 00 San Mateo Times Subscription 2639 48. 42 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense 2640 200. 00 Valley Title Co. Preliminary Title Reports 2641 79 . 86 West Coast Shoe Co. Ranger Uniform Expense 2642 328. 02 Xerox Corporation Xerox Supplies 2643 164. 12 Harbinger Communications Computer Services for Newsletter Hailing List and Subscription to Harbinger File Claims 81-22 rage z vember 10 , 1981 ting 81-27 J.: Amount Name Description 2644 $ 186 .94 PG & E Utilities 2645 484.00 Andrea L. Hendrick Drawings for Site Brochures and Graphic Design for Newsletter 2646 7. 72 Crest Copies Maps- 2647 1 , 322 . 42 Toyon Architectural Revisions and Presentations-Monte Bello Parkinj Lot -2648 2,090. 00 Rick Skierka, Licensed Land Topo Survey -of Thornewood ,Surveyor 2649 360. 86 * Scribner Los Trancos Brochures 2650 95 . 00 Jim R. Angelo Partial Reimbursement for Land Manager Interview Expenses 2651 86 . 14 Austin R. Cline Partial Reimbursement for Land *Manager Interview Expenses 2652 620. 58 Herbert Grench Out-of-Town .Conference Expense V I oe • MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM November 2 , 1981 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Subdivision on Kennedv Road in Los Gatos Attached is a copy of a letter from the Planning Director of Los Gatos regarding a proposed subdivision on Kennedy Road. Note conditions 8 and 9, which were the results of comments by District staff. If the subdivision goes ahead, the dedication of the parcel and the easement will come before you for consideration of acceptance. 1 TOWN of LOS GATOS Planning Department 354-6872 October 29, 1981 Sandy Harris c/o Mr. Jim Barber Harris Fence Company 1445 Old Oakland Road San Jose, California 95116 Re: Subdivision Application M-79-16 Dear Mr. Barber: On October 28, 1981 the Town Planning Commission approved your request for an eight lot subdivision on Kennedy Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall file a final map, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 2. Right-of-way shall be dedicated, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, to provide: a. 40-foot-wide right-of-way for main cul-de-sac road, b. Slope and utility easements as required. C. Public utility easement and private ingress and egress easement over the loop access road serving Lots 3 through 6. d. Fee dedication of water tank and pump sites. 3. Guarantee by recordable contract and bond, the following improvements to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer: a. Kennedy Road (minimum 28 foot wide), including curb, gutter, pavement, street lighting, masonry retaining wall, and storm and sanitary sewers as required. b. Main cul-de-sac (minimum 24-foot curb-to-curb width) , including concrete curb, gutter, 4-foot-wide sidewalk along one side, pavement, street lighting, storm drainage, masonry retaining walls. C. Loop access road (20 foot wide) , including extruded concrete curb, pavement, masonry retaining walls. d. On-site and off-site sanitary sewer facilities. CIVIC CENTLR • 110 EAST MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 949 • LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA 95030 J Page 2 Sandy Harris c/o Mr. Jim Barber Re: M-79-16 -- October 29, 1981 e. Public utility water system to the standards of San Jose Water Works. 4. Provide grading, drainage, masonry retaining (walls which will have suitable landscape amenities along Kennedy Road) , street lighting, erosion control and landscape plans, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 5. The developer shall enter into a recorded agreement providing for maintenance of the loop access road serving 'Lots 3 through 6. 6. The public water system shall be in place and operational prior to the issuance of building permits for any of the 7 lots in the subdivision. 7. The developer shall provide a detailed geologic and soils report prepared by a registered soils engineer establishing criteria for roadway grading and retaining wall and utility design. The grading and excavations for retaining walls shall be under the continuous supervision of the soils engineer while work is in progress. 8. The southerly 42 acre parcel shall be dedicated in fee to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District and an open space easement shall be given over the 12 acre Lot 8 to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. 9. A suitable pedestrian and bicycle trail easement shall be provided to permit access from Kennedy Road to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District lands to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. A bicycle rack shall be provided in the easement area. 10. The Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision in no way is an endorsement by the Town for the formation of a water assessment district in the area. I 11. Any residence constructed on Lot 2 shall be located to allow a minimum of 100 feet between it and the existing residence on the adjoining property to the east. Approval will expire one year from the date of this approval pursuant to Section 27a-13 of the Town Subdivision Ordinance unless all conditions of approval are satisfied and a parcel map filed. PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 5.20.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, this approvaZ may be appeaZed to the Town CounciZ within fifteen (15) days of the date the approvaZ is granted. Therefore, this action for approvaZ shouZd not be considered final, and no permits by the Town wiZZ be issued untiZ the appeaZ period has passed. Ver truly yours, LEE E. BOWMAN Planning Director cc: Joe Szabo - Nowack & Associates Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Districts-`"J LEB:AL:pd Development Review Committee Y MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 November 5, 1981 Identical letters x,-7ere also addressed to: Assemblyman Robert Navlor State Senator Plarz Garcia Honorable Byron Sher California State Assemblyman 1265 Montecito Avenue, Room 107 Mountain View, CA 94043 Dear Assemblyman Sher: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has applied for a Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program (SB 174) Need Basis Grant, and a letter supporting this application would enhance the chances of District success. The intent of the need basis program is to provide funding sun port to agencies that p have identified recreation deficiencies in their most heavily populated areas. The proposed grant application project consists of acquisition of 181 acres of bayfront lands immediately south of the Dumbarton Bridge and north of Cooley Landing (see attached map) . Composed of salt marsh and adjacent tidal flats and bay, and connected by a levee, these bayland properties are an ideal site for a bay- front hiking and bicycling trail. This section of trail would link the CalTrans commuter bikeway and fishing pier resulting from the reconstruction of Dumbarton Bridge with District-owned baylands to the south and the proposed marina and water-related activity at Cooley Landing. Eventually, it could connect with the- South Bay Trail, a planned 15 mile trail system along the shoreline of South San Francisco Bay, from Palo Alto to Alviso. The project area is within the city limits of Menlo Park and would provide convenient shoreline access for residents of East Palo Alto and the Belle Haven area of Menlo Park, both low in- come areas with limited recreational facilities. Although the baylands represent a unique and irreplaceable open space resource directly adjacent to these densely urbanized communities, no public access currently exists to the Bay margin. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nanette G Hanko,Richard S.Bishop.Edward G Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wend,n Honorable Byron Sher November 5, 1981 Page 2 The amount of grant request is $100,000. The total estimated project cost is $182,500, with the District providing $82,500 in matching funds. Both the East Palo Alto Municipal Council and the Menlo Park City Council have passed resolutions supporting the project. Your letter of support to Peter Dangermond would be important to the success of the project.. All letters of support must be in the Director' s office by Decem- ber 1, 1981, to receive consideration. TATe would appreciate receiving copies of any correspondence. Thank you for any assistance you might give us. Sincerely, Herbert Grench General Manager HG:ej Attachment cc: MROSD Board of Directors R. Beckus of ell 10 CALIF ORWA DEPARTMCN7 OF PLANNING 94-'101 A1•iD COMMUNITY ENVIRVNIVIENT Oct�$I � F,41981 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Attn: Herb Grench Subject: Site and Design Review - Montebello Parkin Lot, 32100 Page millRoad Dear Herb: At its meeting of October 19, 1981, the Palo Alto City Council approved the application for site and design review of the Montebello parking lot at 32100 Page Mill Road. The approval was granted subject to the following conditions: 1. A ten foot wide apron where the parking lot access meets Page Mill Raod will be paved with asphalt to minimize the accumulation of gravel from the lot on the road. 2. Prior to development of the landscape reserve area for parking, the application will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council to find that a need exists to require expansion of the lot. If you have any questions regarding the approval, please contact me at 329-2321. Sincerely, 'R991150"A- ROBERT M. BROWN Zoning Administrator RMB:jb cc: Inspection Services Public Works MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 November 3, 1981 Mr. Kenneth Cory, Chairman State Lands Commission 1807 Thirteenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Cory: Thank you for sending on October 26 the paper and articles regarding the public trust doctrine. We are grateful for your efforts in protecting the public trust, particularly in San Francisco Bay where this District is making a great effort to preserve open space. I've en- closed an issue of "Openspace" which describes some of these efforts. Sincerely yours, Herbert Grench General Manager HG,-ej Enc, cc: MROSD Board of Directors R. Beckus, Legislative Consultant 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 SACRAMENTO ADDRESS COMMITTEES ROOM 5031 FINANCE STATE CAPITOL 95814 CHAIRMAN AREA CODE (916) 445-9740 STATE SENATOR ENERGY AND PUBLIC VTILJTIES GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIC N DISTRICT ADDRESS 777 NORTH FIRST STREET ALFRED E. ALQUIST SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95112 AREA CODE (408) 286-8318 ELEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT REPRESENTING os . SAN BENITO, SANTA CLARA, AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES IN THE end t `WS 13 October 27 , 1981 Mr. Herbert Grench General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , CA 94022 Dear Mr. Grench: Thank you for your letter concerning the current Administration' s freeze on the Roberti-Z 'berg Park and Open Space Program funds . The State' s $310 million deficit through September 30 necessitated the recent actions by Governor Brown and the Department of Finance. And, with the next figures due to be released on November 10 , we are not too optimistic about the State' s ability to meet its present fiscal needs without further cuts . A thorough review of the State' s commitments and resources will be a major topic of concern when the legis- lature reconvenes in January. You may be assured that the needs of our State Park and Open Space Program will be considered at that time. Sincerely, ALFRED E.- ALQUIS AEA/j 1 DON EDWARDS WASHINGTON OFFICE, LOTH DISTRICT.CALIFORNIA (202)225-3072 COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OFFICES: ,1,O1CiARY 4Conare0� of tie aifteb Otate� 9625 THE A SAN JD$E,CALIFORNIARN/A 95126 CHAIRMAN (408)292-0143 SU®COMMMEE ON oua of Repreantatfbefs 38M PASCO PADRE PARKWAY CIVIL AND FREMONT,CALIFORNIA 94536 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (415)792-5320 Wa�fjftrgtan,�.C. 20515 22300 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD COMMITTEE ON October 23, 1981 HAYWARD,CALIFORNIA 94541 VETERANS' AFFAIRS (415)886-0242 Herbert Grench General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, California 94022 Dear Mr. Grench: Thank you for a copy of your letter to Secretary Weinberger regarding the federally owned land at Mt. Umunhum. I am quite interested in the wilderness value of this land. The General Services Administration must follow prescribed rules when disposing of excess federal lands. In the case of Mt. Umunhum, other branches of the Department of Defense will be allowed to pick up this land for specific military related activity. If no other branch of the Department of Defense wants these parcels, other Federal agencies will be offered it. Assuming no other federal agency has an interest in Mt. Umunhum, the State of California will then be allowed to claim it, and should they refuse it, the County of Santa Clara would be next in line. Only after all units of government have refused access to Mt. Umunhum will it be offered to public groups. I suggest that you contact the Department of Interior regarding the wilderness value of these lands. Any documentation you may have as to the likelihood of this area being added to the wilderness system should also be sent to the DOI . I would appreciate this information so that I may pass it on to the appropriate Committee here in the House of Representatives. With kindest regards. Sincerely, tb-&Y'\w. Member of Congress DE:raw MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 November 4 , 1981 Ms. Lois Hogle 2000 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Dear Lois: I'm sorry that I was unable to attend your Celebration on Sunday, since you have done so much for the environmental movement over the years. In particular, vour support and hard work in establishing the Orlen Space District will be of increasing benefit in the years to come. But bevond all these things, you have given me great personal and much-needed support in my job with the District, and I 'm very grateful for that. On behalf of the Board and staff of the District, our congratulations ! With warmest regards, Herbert Grench General Manager HG:ej cc : MROSD Board of Directors Herbert A Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G Shelley.Ha,ry A Turner,Daniel G Wendm 107 South Mary Ave. , #100 Sunnyvale, California 94086 October 13, 1981 Mr. C. David Burgin Editor, The Peninsula Times Tribune P. 0. Box 300 Palo Alto, California 94302 Dear Mir. Burgin, As a reader with limited knowledge of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and no personal connection with the District, I am appre- ciative of a series on the District, yet am struck by the one-sidedness of your recent series. From its front-page opener on October 7, which gives several times the space to arguments against open space as to considerations in favor, it shows a clear bias to the point of heavy- handedness that belies any appearance of fair, informational reportage. In focusing on benefits to a few landowners from land sales to the District, it overlooks the less tangible, but very evident and real bene- fits to all Midpeninsulans of recreation, watershed protection, wildlife preservation, sheer physical beauty, and making a stand for esthetic and human values in an urbanizing area. As my own case I think testifies, since I have walked within the District only once or twice, these benefits extend to all Midpeninsula residents, whether or not they personally make use of the District's facilities--and to generations yet to come. While even the most casual reader will recognize the series as in large part a piece of advocacy which belongs on the editorial pages, it does make one wonder about The Peninsula Times Tribune, its concept of journalism, what interests it is serving. From your mode of presenting this series on a matter of significant concern to the area, it would seem that you have missed an excellent opportunity for service to the people of the Midpeninsula, ti•:ho are to be commended for creating a needed reserve of open space which should serve as an example for urban and suburban communities elsewhere. Sincerely, Frederick S. Reis 3 y t the Peninsula , I bune 245LyttonA xae Box300 PabAito.Caktomia94302 (415)326-,200 October 19, 1981 Mr. Frederick S. Reis 107 South Mary Avenue, #100 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 ~ pax °' Dear Mr. Reis: Thank you for your letter with your assertion that our series on Open Space was biased in favor of the real estate lobby. Responsible and earnest criticism such as yours is a basis for improvement, and I accept your letter in that spirit. However, the series was as balanced as we could possibly make it. Reporter Janet Reinka did a brilliant job and worked hard to that end. Failure to do that would have been ffi- awfully naive, if not irrespes motionConsbothlsgdese Ilthink culty of the question, and t is the the series was spectacularly fair. Yours, in fact, only criticism I've received so far, while we've gotten dozens of plaudits citing fairness and balance. Please consider also that this newspaper and its two predecessors have taken strong editorial positions in favor j of Open Space. And I do mean strong, because the pro-growth + people criticize us for it. In fact, on our editorial page. on the Friday before the series ran we,took a strong "yes" position z- ��.. ,, uy . on a controversial neta '"open space land acquisition. What we were trying to do was be fair on our news pages to a question that---because of rising housing costs, increased unemployment and industries threatening to leave---has dra- matically come up again. So, when you commend the "people of the Mid-Peninsula . . .ou are commend- for creating a needed reserve of open space," y as well because we've been at the lead--- ing this newspaper in no uncertain terms. C t David Burgin Editor i . f Frederick S. Reis Page Two October 19, 1981 mew - What really bothers me about your letter, as well spoken as it was, is your apparent notion that this newspaper is come sort of journalistic aberration or just plain stupid for what appears to you to be an effort to serve a special interest. Now that hurts. The easy way is to do nothing, ask no questions, raise no issues. Our "concept of journalism,' to use your phrase, is as sound and as honorable as is any there is or ever was. i I stand on that. I r Thanks `again for,-writing. ? ncerely, - David Burgin DB/n cc: Janet Reinka I 1 f i 1 i .� WrrYrla. j I `0�.L1fE•4 ~ �^ W 1 14 W wt Legislative Action Bulletin OQIFORNIK PARKAND RECRMTION SOCIETY November 9, 1981 #4-1981 All-Congress Session speeches by Interior Secretary James Watt and former senator Gaylord Nelson, chair of the Wilderness Society, impressed the California delegation to the national Congress for Recreation and Parks in Minneapolis in October as the most challenging parts of the Congress. Members of the delegation strongly suggested that CPRS publish the remarks of the two speakers in this special legislative report. Secretary Watt 's speech, delivered on Tuesday, is reproduced here in its entirety. Senator Nelson's remarks are excerpted from his more lengthy address to the Closing Session on Thursday. We think the statistics Senator Nelson cites on pages 8 through 10 are especially worthy of your review. Remarks by James Watt, Secretary of the Interior October 27, 1981 Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the new direction in federal policies for parks and recreation. want to preface my remarks by saying that this administration fully appreciates the importance of parks and recreation. How and where we relax can be as important as the work we do. When we improve our recreation opportunities , we can also improve our economic productivity. The other side of the coin is this: unless we restore our economic vitality, we will not have the means to maintain or improve our parks and recreation systems. To restore that economic vitality will require some changes in our federal policies. These changes reverse the trend of centralization of power in the federal government. I don't have to tell you what impact these changes will have on those of you who administer and manage parks and recreation programs. You are aware of the funding cuts which I have proposed and the actions taken to date in the Congress on these cuts. One of my first actions was to consolidate the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service with the National Park Service. I was director of HCRS back in the early days when it was the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. It was under my direction that the first comprehensive outdoor recreation plan was completed. At BOR, I was administrator of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, so I am keenly aware of the great benefits which it has brought to all parts of America. Never- theless, I found it necessary to ask Congress to cut state-side funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to zero--and the House committee agreed with me. It's my understanding there is some $600 million in the pipeline already. How much we SUITE 400 K STREET e SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 * PHONE CPRS is a non-profit professional organization and public interest group representing over 4,500 professionals.commissioners and board members,students,and interested individuals in the recreation and parks field in California. can add in future years will depend upon how quickly we can restore the American economy. The actions which I have taken and which I propose have not been taken lightly. My actions have been taken out of concern for the economy and out of concern for our system of government. My actions have been taken out of concern for good stewardship. Good stewardship demands that we care for what we have before we accept the respon- sibility for more. As Secretary of the Interior, I wear many hats. I am one of the nation's chief environmental officers. I am the / chief developer of coal on the public' s land. I am the chief irrigator, disbursing the waters from the federal reclamation projects. I am the chief driller of oil and gas. I am the chief sportsman for fish and wild- life activities. I am the chief in charge of the Indian lands. All of these missions of the Department bring conflict and controversy. One of our chief responsibilities is that of landlord of a huge chunk of America. The federal government administers 768 million acres , or one-third of the land area of the United States. This includes: 72 million acres of national parks to be preserved for the enjoyment of people; * 84 million acres of national wildlife refuges , an area twice the size of the six New England states , to be managed for fish, wildlife and people; and ;; 530 million acres of national forests and public lands , an area five times the size of California or four times the size of Texas , to be managed for multiple purpose values. In these areas we have almost 80 million acres set aside by Congress as wilderness. Millions of additional acres are being managed to protect wilderness values while studies are being made in order to make recommendations to Congress. Why do I take the time to spell out the magnitude of the lands managed by the federal government? The reason is that the greatness of a nation is determined by how it manages its human resources and its natural resources. When the federal government manages one-third of the nation 's lands , it has a major bearing on how great that nation will be. For example, the United States is vulnerable to a natural resources war in that we are dependent on foreign nations for roughly 40 percent of our crude oil . In addition, we are dependent upon foreign sources , Russia and southern Africa, for most of our strategic mineral needs. We need not be this dependent for our energy and mineral resources. So we have not done well in managing our land for economic or national security purposes. Neither have we done well in managing for recreation. - 2 - We find that the 72 million acres of parklands have not been kept up and that deterioration and degradation have been allowed to such a degree that a government study of last year says that it will take $1 .6 billion to restore the park system. In addition, large sums of money will be needed to restore and improve the wildlife refuges and ranges that for too long have been ignored. If we have the will , we can improve wildlife habitat and fisheries , but it takes management and it takes money. National parks should be limited to areas of national significance—those scenic or unique areas which attract people from across the nation as well as from across town. These are parks owned by and used by everyone from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Gulf Coast. This administration will honor the commitments made for parks in urban areas of America, but we do not want to continue the trend toward providing federally owned and operated parks to meet the recreational needs of local areas. I do not believe the American people want a federally dictated recreation system. They want a local system based on a mix of their own resources, services they buy when they want them, and a modest and responsive local , state and federal public recreation system for those things they cannot provide or purchase themselves. Parks and recreation are primarily the responsibility of state and local government and of the private sector--they are not a primary responsibility of the federal government. Recreation and leisure services are important to the health and well-being of Americans. Public recreation systems are not superfluous, as some critics have charged. They are vital to our communities. The central issue today is not the value of public recreation but how it is to be provided in the new environment of government fiscal austerity. It is my belief that we all must look more to the private sector to meet the recrea- tional needs of our society. According to U.S. News and World Report, personal expenditures for sports, recreation and entertainment activities have soared 321% in 16 years to $244 billion. Even after discounting the effects of inflation, this growth represents a 47% increase in that 16-year period. Clearly, there is enormous public demand for recreation. There is also an enormous source of revenue supporting the American pursuit of leisure. Where such sums of money are involved, there obviously is great involvement by the private sector. One action which I have taken is to require that concessioners in our national parks begin making major, long-term commitments to improve needed visitor facilities. This has proven quite successful in negotiations for new concessioner contracts at Denali National Park in Alaska and at Yellowstone. In addition, I think that we all need to cooperate with and encourage the private sector operating outside our park or recreation area boundaries. When private entrepreneurs provide recreational facilities and services, we can cut government costs at all levels--federal , state and local . I would hope, and would expect, that groups such as the National Recreation and - 3 - Park Association would step in to fill some of the void resulting from federal bud- get cuts. For example, is it possible that NRPA could provide many of the services which are being eliminated or curtailed at Interior? Now let 's consider a few of the many actions 1 have taken as Interior Secretary. * I proposed budget cuts at Interior of some one and one-quarter billion dollars to help the president reduce federal spending. (Roughly a 20% cut.) I have consolidated agencies and programs to bring greater efficiency and economy. „ I have proposed a near-moratorium on parkland acquisition so that we can use the monev to catch up on restoration and maintenance of the parks we already have. I have proposed spending $200 million per year for five years to correct the health and safety hazards in our national parks. . .to correct a $1 .6 billion maintenance backlog the Reagan administration inherited. This is more than twice what the previous administration had recommended. y I have moved to accelerate the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program and with more than adequate safeguards for the environment. I have staffed the Department of the Interior with people who appreciate the need for natural resources development as well as the need for preservation. I have taken several actions to help save whales from extinction, I am opposed to the Dickey-Lincoln Project in Maine, and I strongly support our Migratory Bird wetlands acquisition program on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. It may be more important for you to be aware of what I have not done and what I have not decided. For example, critics tried to create hysteria by insisting that Jim Watt has drawn up "hit lists" of national parks and wildlife refuges. There is no "hit list"--not for parks , not for refuges, not for water projects. And there never was. Let 's look at another instance of hysteria arising from critics who claim to read my mind before I even consider the issue. Recently we suggested to the court that Interior reconsider a decision under the previous administration as to what lands, several miles outside Bryce Canyon National Park but visible from a high peak within the park, should be open to c6al mining and which lands should be closed to protect the park. Environmentalists did not like the previous administration' s decision and neither did industry. Both sued, con- tending the previous administration did not follow all the legal procedures and asking that the action be reviewed. But what happened when I announced that we agreed with the environmentalists and industry on the need to review this decision? Virtually every major story was pegged to the contention by environmentalist organizations that this was just another ploy by Jim Watt to wreck our national parks. If I have a regret, it is that I personally have been the subject of so much contro- versy. I am not important; the policies I am dealing with are important. By directing attention at the person, the critics have used the press to raise dollars for their special interests and have kept the public from being informed on issues. - 4 - This is a time of major change in government; the Department of the Interior is expressing great change. As chief steward of natural resources, I must not only preserve but also must develop. I support the environmental protection laws. What we are doing is im- proving administration under existing laws so that we will have the balance in resources management which Congress envisioned. What we seek is to move the pendulum from the far extreme of preservationism to the center where we can protect the environment, build our economy and strengthen our national security. Remarks by Gaylord Nelson, Chair, the Wilderness Society October 29. 1981 If each of us were asked to compile a list of the most important matters that confront us in the world, the list would be long with much duplication. It would include such matters as war and peace, world hunger, discrimination, justice, jobs, the economy, free speech, free association, freedom to worship, indeed, freedom in its broadest sense, and many more. It would be difficult , if not impossible, to rank these matters in their order of importance. We would not agree with each other and we would find it difficult even to resolve the priorities for ourselves. However, there is one issue that stands alone, above all others. Right now at this moment in history and in the long haul into the next century and centuries thereafter, no other issue is more relevant to the physical quality of life for the human species than the status of our resources and the quality of our environment. . . . In the few moments we have, I intend to confine my remarks to only one part of our resource base, namely, the public lands. And, even within the context of that limi - tation I intend to address only some aspects of our public lands policy and Secretary Watt's influence upon it. There are some 750 million acres of public land in the United States out of a total land base of 2.27 billion acres--375 million in the lower 48 states and 375 million in Alaska. Of the 375 million acres in Alaska, 144 million are in the process of being transferred to the state of Alaska and to Alaska natives. These lands are varied and serve a multitude of functions--they provide timber, grazing lands, minerals, gas, oil , wildlife habitat and recreation. The forests pro- vide 12 billion board feet of timber annually; 170 million acres are used for grazing. The combined total of gas and oil leases on public lands on shore as of early this year was 134,576 leases on 188,050,997 acres. Outercontinental shelf leases total 2,254 on 10-73 million acres. There were. . .300 million [recreational] visitations to national parks in 1980 and 233 million to national forests. . . . [Annual ] visitation days equal twice the population of the nation. The visita- tion increases by decade are equally remarkable. In 1930 there were 3,246,000 national park visitations , 33,000,000 in 1950 and 300,000,000 in 1980--a ten-fold increase from 1930 to 1950 and another ten-fold increase from 1950 to 1980. The population of the country is projected to increase by 100 million by the year 2050. If park visitations - 5 - were to increase in the next 70 years at just half the rate they did in the past 30 years, that would total one billion five hundred million visitations annually by the year 2050. 1 doubt anyone will argue that the resource base could tolerate that kind of pressure without disastrous degradation. In the face of this compelling reality, the National Park and Recreation Association along with the Wilderness Society and others have given vigorous support to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In our judgment , the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been one of the most effective conservation enactments in our history. It not only made it possible to acquire parklands , wildlife habitat , scenic rivers , lake- shores and seashores that almost certainly would not otherwise have been acquired, but it established a creative fund sharing program with the states. This has made it possible for the people of each state to decide their own priorities and protect a great deal of their land heritage that would otherwise be lost. Since 1965, the achievements that have resulted through the administration of this fund have been impressive by any standard. Approximately $5 billion has been appro- priated, with 40 percent made available to federal land agencies, 59 percent to the states on a matching grant basis, and the other 1 percent covering the costs of program administration. Through FY '80, more that 2.8 million acres have been pur- chased by the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM. Since 1965, on the state side about 27,500 projects have been completed and more than 2 million acres of land have been protected pursuant to the judgment of the people of each state as to what best serves their conservation interests. The Land and Water Fund is supported by a modest earmarked share of outercontinental shelf oil royalties on the theory that as we deplete one national resource we ought - to make a modest investment in preserving another. While we recognize the necessity for budget cuts, we object to the practical abolition of the fund as recommended by Secretary Watt. Instead of a 25 percent or 50 percent reduction, he supports a 95 percent cut , leaving just enough to pay for court settle- ments and nothing to complete the acquisition of 65 parks, lakeshores, wild rivers and seashores in 33 states that have been authorized by the Congress and signed by the past four presidents. This policy is shortsighted and costly and will do irreparable long-term damage to the nation and future generations. Since Mr. Watt 's jurisdiction over public lands is so broad as Secretary of Interior and his influence so pervasive as chairman of the Cabinet Council on Natural Resources, it is vital that we understand what he is saying, what he is doing and where he is going. . . . Any careful analysis of his philosophy, his policies and his rhetoric make it clear that he basically rejects the major conservation and environmental laws of the past two decades and that he disagrees with the public lands management policies of past administrations and Congresses respecting our national parks , wildlife refuges, BLM grazing lands, wilderness areas and national forests. In short, he favors turning over to private concessionaires a larger role in the national parks; he opposes addi- tional national parks because, he asserts, we have enough parks; he wants wildlife refuges open to multiple use; he is opposed to enforcing the law requiring the im- plementation of the sustained yield principle on BLM grazing lands; he favors opening wilderness areas to gas and oil development; he favors junking the historic sustained yield management practices in the national forests. . . . Mr. Watt has created a nationwide controversy with his repeated assertions that vast 6 - resources of minerals, gas and oil are "locked up" on public lands because of the influence of perverse environmentalists, onerous rules and regulations , bad laws passed by Congress and signed by Republican and Democratic presidents and general bad management by his predecessors. Not unexpectedly, a whole platoon of oil , coal , timber and mining companies have jumped into the fray endorsing his policies and praising his wisdom. They are spending large sums of money on simplistic and mis- leading magazine and newspaper advertisements which are adding a great deal to the confusion and very little to an understanding of the issues. Simply and directly put, Mr. Watt and the energy, timber and mining companies, claims of a massive resource "lock up" on public lands is a gross exaggeration. There are, of course, valuable resources on public lands on which entry is prohibited by law (national parks) or permitted only under certain very strict conditions and guide- lines (wilderness areas and wildlife refuges) . . . . The political objective is, quite simply, to strip away or compromise most develop- mental guidelines, eliminate or compromise the use of environmental impact statements, significantly compromise the Surface Mining Act, junk wilderness review procedures and open the maximum amount of land for maximum economic development immediately with very little concern for any competing values. . . . It is appropriate to note that all of the conservation organizations are in broad general agreement with the professional administrative policies of past Interior secretaries and the environmental legislative compromises worked out by recent Congresses. It is Mr. Watt 's dramatic reversal of these policies that causes our opposition. Needless to say, Mr. Watt vigorously disagrees with us, as well as past Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Watt correctly perceives that if he is to prevail with his program he must re- pudiate past policies, embroider his own with a coloration of reasonableness and dis- credit his most vocal opposition. Mr. Watt has repeatedly charged that the leaders of national conservation organi- zations are extremists while he is in the mainstream of the environmental movement. Mainstream, indeed! Mr. Watt and the industries he represented at the Rocky Mountain States Legal Foundation have opposed almost all major conservation legis- lation of the past decade. What, one must ask, is "extremist" about additions to the National Park System, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act , the BLM Grazing Act, the Wilderness Act, the Alaska Lands Actand the Strip 'Mining Act? This is a sample of the so-called "extremist" activities of conservation leaders over the past few years. Who, really, are these "extremists" Mr. Watt keeps talking about? Is it that group of radical "extremists" who passed all of this "extreme" legislation that Mr. Watt did battle against while in the private sector and now in the public sector? Is he talking about Senator Baker, Republican majority leader; or is it Senators Eastland, Stennis, Mansfield, McClure, Mathias, Packwood, Cranston, Domenict , Hatfield, Proxmire and others who supported these measures? Can he be referring to Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter who signed the legislation? All of this legislation overwhelmingly passed both houses of Congress and is brQaOly supported in every public opinion poll . . . . 7 Mr. Watt claims that conservation leaders are out of touch with their members and he, Mr. Watt, is more representative of their viewpoint. On that precise point, the National Wildlife Federation polled its members. It is the largets national conservation organization, with over four million members and affiliates. Those members polled voted 2 to 1 for President Reagan over President Carter. Yet on ten major issues, including national parks, wilderness areas , wildlife refuges, endan- gered species and marine sanctuaries, the members voted overwhelmingly against Mr. Watt's philosophy. Here is a quote from the poll : "Members reject the Watt Philosophy by an average of 13 to 1 . . . . Let's get back to Mr. Watt's central premise, which is the claim that there is a massive ''lock up" of vital resources on public lands. It is around this premise that he has developed the justification for most of his drastic proposals for a massive reversal of previously established policies. Since the conservation movement is in open opposition to his proposals, he responds by alleging that we are unconcerned about America 's needs for minerals, oil , gas and timber. Mr. Watt is wrong. I am not aware of a single conservation leader anywhere who is unconcerned. Proper resource management and use is what the conservation movement is all about. In fact , it is about that and nothing else. On almost any day, selected at random, one can pick a magazine or newspaper and find an oil company advertisement supporting Mr. Watt 's public lands "lock up" campaign. A recent oil company advertisement had this to say, in part: "Look at the facts. Our public lands currently supply an estimated 10 percent of our energy. Yet they actually contain about one-half of all our known domestic energy sources--vast amounts of coal , oil shale, tar sands, crude oil and natural gas. Yet over 40 percent of the 760 million acres that the federal government owns has been withdrawn from mineral mining or leasing. Another 25 percent has been placed under such restricted regulation that oil , gas and mining operations are effectively precluded." Mr. Watt and the oil , coal , timber and mining companies are using approximately the same statistics and making the same arguments. Their statistics and arguments collapse under even the most casual examination. If one were to characterize these statistics and how they are used in their very best light it would be fair to say that then represent just about one-half of a half-truth, or less. Using the same reference material then are using and interpreting the same laws, I will make a gen- eralization that is much closer to the reality and reaches just the opposite conclu- sion. While any generalization of a complicated issue requires some explanation and recognizes some exceptions, the following generalization is correct with only minor exceptions: Under the laws affecting public lands , except for national parks, all major categories of public lands are either available for resource extraction without substantial restrictions or are available if the intrusion is compatible with the environment and purposes of those designated areas. The latter caveat strictly limiting intrusions applies to designated wilderness areas and wildlife refuges. Congressional intent is clear. These are fragile and unique areas that are not to be degraded under any circumstance. These lands repre- sent only 30 million of the 375 million acres of public lands in the lower 48 states. I emphasize for clarity that I am referring to limitations on entry imposed by statute. Over the years , millions of acres have been withdrawn from entry by admin- istrative or executive order for compelling public policy reasons. Most of these withdrawals are either temporary, revocable by the secretary, by the president or by Congress. Fifty-five million acres of these kinds of withdrawals are under review pursuant to direction of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The review process was accelerated under the Carter administration and continues under this one. Millions of acres of these withdrawals will be revoked under this pro- cedure. Nonetheless , millions of these acres which are under review for release are included in the statistics in order to give substance to industry and Mr. Watt 's resource ''lock up" campaign. Let 's look at just a few statistics to get some idea of the dimension of the dis- tortion involved here. Take the case of Alaska, which has about half the federal public lands. The Alaska Lands Bill only passed the Congress ten months ago. Tens of millions of acres were "locked up" pending a congressional decision on designation of these lands for parks, forests, wildlife refuges and pending Alaska state and native selection of the 145 million acres awarded to them under the law. This process is underway on schedule. The Alaska natives and the state have yet to select about 90 million acres. That 90 million is counted as part of Mr. Watt' s "lock up." Yet when the selection process is completed, this "lock up" will dissolve and disappear in thin air. Suddenly an area two and one-half times the size of the combined area of the states of Wisconsin and Illinois will become unlocked and available for resource development. One more pertinent point on Alaska is worth noting. The Alaska lands legislation was carefully drafted to leave open for oil and gas drilling 95 percent of the most promising geologic formations. The other 5 percent is open to seismic exploration, and 100 percent of off-shore land is open for drilling, so far as the law is concerned. In the lower 48 states there are 375 million acres of public lands out of a total land base of 1 ,934,246,400 acres. A large percentage of these public lands are currently available for some commercial purpose--forestry, cattle grazing, gas and oil devel- opment or mining. Of these 375 million acres , 24 million have been set aside for national parks. Not even Mr. Watt or the oil companies have yet suggested that we put an oil rig in Yellowstone Park next to Old Faithful or in the vallev of Yosemite Park. Neverthe+ess, these 24 million acres are counted as part of the "lock up" of public lands. Surely they do not intend to open national parks for oil and gas drilling. Why then do they distort the figures by including lands that neither the Congress, the president nor anyone else advocates throwing open for commercial development? Incidentally, they also include 51 million acres of national parks in Alaska as part of the "lock up." Twenty million acres of public lands in Alaska and the lower 48 states have been withdrawn for military use. This land also is counted as part of the "lock up." Ironically, another 24 million acres they count as part of the "lock up" was, in 9 fact, withdrawn many years ago by executive order as a petroleum and oil shale reserve. A substantial portion of those withdrawals are for national defense purposes. Just to make sure they have left nothing out, they count 4 million acres of lands set aside for American Indian uses as part of the "lock up." Statistics and numbers tend to be boring, but unfortunately they are necessary in this political dialogue if we are to see clearly the gross misrepresentations in Mr. Watt 's ''lock up" campaign. To put in perspective the public lands situation in the lower 48 states , a short statistical summary may be useful . Of the 375 million acres of public lands, 342 million are under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Designated wilderness and congressional wilderness additions might ultimately reach a total of 40 million acres, leaving 302 million legally available for timbering and mining, subject- only to sound management practices and without significant legal restrictions. That hardly constitutes a resource "lock up" by any rational standard. What, then, is this widely publicized, well financed ''lock up" campaign all about? Bluntly put, they hope to convince the public that there is, in fact, an unreasonable "lock up" of resources and if we will only free the timber, oil , coal and mining companies to exploit the public lands at will , America 's resource problems will be solved. If they can convince the public, they then hope to stampede the Congress into weakening environmental standards, acquiescence to bad management practices on public lands and condoning weak or non-enforcement of established law. While Mr. Watt has a big agenda and is pushing on all fronts to move it forward, his number one objective right now is to open wilderness areas for gas and oil devel- opment. No other interior secretary has considered such development compatible with wilderness. Thus, since the 1964 Wilderness Act directing establishment of these preserves as "an enduring resource" for future generations there has been no gas and oil development on these preserves. . . . When the Wilderness Act was passed 17 years ago, it described the concept saying these areas were to be places where "the earth and its community of life are un- trammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Mr. Watt has repeatedly made it clear that he favors massive development , utilization and exploitation of resources on public lands , specifically stating that "no federal lands are sacred." Simply put , that means that Mr. Watt considers wilderness areas and wildlife refuges fair game for development and exploitation contrary to the intent of Congress. The debate raised by Mr. Watt's drive to open the wilderness will , as the New York Times put it, "ultimately reshape and redefine the way America manages its remaining tracts of primitive and pristine public land.". . . Since designated wilderness areas represent only 5 percent of all public lands it would make much better sense to drill all other available lands first and leave the wilderness untouched. It will take a quarter-century or more to explore all potential areas on and off shore. Since the Interior Department 's own estimates are that 80 percent of all new - 10 - oil potential is off shore, that leaves a relatively modest percentage of the total likely to be found in wilderness areas. Since we already have 24 million acres of public lands set aside as a petroleum reserve in non-wilderness areas , what sense does it make to move now into wilderness areas? The gas and oil potential of the wilderness should be treated as a petroleum reserve. After all , it won't go away. It will be there for a future generation to utilize if there is a compelling reason to do so. That is a judgment they can make then based upon more knowledge and a better understanding than we have now. Mr. Watt recently returned from a tour of Alaska and the West. His rhetoric out on the hustings was music to that influential portion among the oil , gas , mining and timber interests who want to exploit the public resources with minimum restraints or controls and with very little regard for long-term national interests. While in the West , Mr. Watt took an inspection flight over the wilderness areas and national forests that surround and provide a buffer zone for Yellowstone Park and the Grand Tetons. It is a buffer zone that is vital to the future of Yellowstone. According to the park superintendent, not only would drilling in the wilderness next to the park have a devastating effect on the wilderness area, but it would damage the park as well . In his words , "It is the park's view that oil and gas leasing and devel- opment. . .will be detrimental to Yellowstone National Park." There is, in my opinion, little doubt that the purpose of Mr. Watt 's tour is to provide the foundation for announcing a decision he has already made to open the Washakie Wilderness [which abuts Yellowstone] and many others as rapidly as possible. Only the courts or an aroused public opinion can stop him from making a fateful decision that would mark the beginning of the degradation and destruction of America 's few rare wilderness areas. While the merits of the argument are not on Mr. Watt 's side, speed is. He must move rapidly before the public is aware that he is prepared to dissipate a precious part of our heritage for the short-term gain of a handful of energy companies, many of which he represented in the private sector. This is an enormous conflict of interest. In good conscience and as a matter of sound public policy, he should step aside from the decision-making process. If we stand mute and Mr. Watt prevails, one must wonder what that says about us as a country, as a people. What does it say about our value system to those generations that will follow us? Or, for that matter, what does it say right now to our children and grandchildren? Shouldn 't we try to save here and there a few remnants of nature's work untouched and undisturbed? Is not a million years or ten thousand years of evolving landscape and fragile beauty worthy of our most attentive stewardship? More to the point, why should we have to ask any question about it at all ? Isn't it enough that wilderness is part of us and our heritage and gives us a thread of communication with what went on before us? Aldo Leopold, one of the founders of the Wilderness Society, said it succinctly enough for all to understand when he observed that "anyone who has to ask what is the value of wilderness , wouldn't understand the answer.''.