HomeMy Public PortalAbout19820113 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 82-01 Pleeting 82-1
,AA
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Wednesday Board of Directors 375 Distel Circle
January 13, 1982 Suite D-1
Los Altos, California
A G E N D A
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- December 10 , 1981; December 16 , 1981
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(7 : 45) 1. Election of Board officers for 1982 -- R. Bishop
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
2 . Approval of Interim Use and Management Plan for Addition to Russian
Ridge Open Space Preserve (Crist Property) -- D. Woods
3. Approval of Interim Use and Management Plan for Addition to Windy
Hill Open Space Preserve (Catalano Property) -- D. Woods
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 : 55) 4. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve - Picchetti Ranch Area (Waiver
of Right of First Refusal - Consigny Property) -- C. Britton
(8 : 00) 5. Scheduling of Program Evaluation Workshop -- H. Grench
NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
(8 :05) 6. Summary Status Report of Use and Management Plan for Planning
Area VI - Fremont Older Open Space Preserve -- D. Woods
(8 :25) 7. Dedication Status of District Lands -- H. Grench
(8 : 30) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION - Land Negotiations
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concerned with
appears on the agenda, please address the Board at that
time; otherwise, you may address the Board under Oral Communi-
cations. When recognized, please begin by stating your name
and address. Conciseness is appreciated. We request that
you complete the forms provided so your name and address can
be accurately included in the minutes.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin
(8 : 00) 5. Scheduling of Program Evaluation Workshop -- H. Grench
Meeting 81-30
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
December 16, 1981
I. ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Edward Shelley,
Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Daniel Wendin
arrived at 8:25 P.M.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grencn, Craig Britton, Del Woods, Jim
Boland, and Jean Fiddes .
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 23, 1981
Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of the minutes of November 23,
1981 as recorded. B. Green seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously, with E. Shelley abstaining from
the vote since he was not present at the November meeting.
D. Wendin was not present for the vote.
III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes stated the Board had received the following written
communications :
1) a letter, dated December 4, 1981, from Thomasene and Warren
Dutton, 1872 Colleen Drive, Los Altos , regarding parking
problems at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and County
Park and allowing a limited number of vehicles to park under the
280 overpass;
2) a letter, dated December 3, 1981, from Pearson, Del Prete & Co. ,
Certified Public Accountants , 755 Page Mill Road, Suite B180, Palo
Alto, requesting the opportunity to submit a proposal to conduct
the District's audit and to render other accounting services;
3) a letter, dated December 4 , 1981, from Rick Hawley (no address) ,
regarding the need to restore and preserve Devil 's Canyon;
4) a letter, dated December 11, 1981, Robert F. Dominge, 1060
Crestview Drive, San Carlos , supporting the District's acquisi-
tion of the Hassler property, recommending the District proceed
with the eminent domain process, and saying plans for the use
of the property are not needed at this time;
4) a letter, dated December 10 , 1981, from Harold Drake, 2081 Greenwood
Drive, San Carlos , supporting the District 's use of eminent
domain in the purchase of the Hassler property; and
5) a letter, dated December 11, 1981, from Jerome A Young, 229 Stevens
Court, San Carlos , supporting the acquisition of the Hassler
property and the District 's use of eminent domain in this case and
commenting on the ineffectiveness of government bodies.
Herbert A.Grench.Genera/Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy.Barbara Green,Nonette G Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley.Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 81-30 Page Two
R. Bishop stated that, unless there were any objections from Board
members, he would respond by telephone to Mr. Hawley's letter and
possibly assist, as a private citizen, in removing the debris from
Devil 's Canyon. No objections were voiced by the members of the
Board.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
H. Grench requested an item be added to Special orders of the
Day for two personnel announcements.
R. Bishop stated the Board would adopt the agenda as written with
the addition to Special Orders of the Day for two announcements .
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications .
VI. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. Personnel Announcements
H. Grench announced David Hansen from the Marin Open Space District
has accepted the District's Land Manager position and would be
starting on January 7, 1982 and said D. Hansen had appointed
James Boland the District's new Operations Supervisor. H. Grench
stated, unless there were objections from the Board, that he
planned to fill the vacant Lead Ranger position, created by
J. Boland's promotion, and a Ranger position, created by the
promotion of one of the Rangersto the Lead Ranger position.
The Directors did not voice any objections to H. Grench's plan.
J. Boland presented a wood plaque with the District' s seal, made
by Lead Ranger David Camp, to the Board in behalf of the Ranger
staff in appreciation of the Board's support during the past year.
B. Gift of Land - Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Lands of Crist)
C. Britton reviewed report R-81-50, dated December 10, 1981, noting
the Crist family was offering the District 40 acres of land as a
gift. He stated the parcel was adjacent to the land purchased from
the Crists in October and would become, if accepted, an addition to
the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. He noted the Crists were
making the gift to the District to show their continued support
of the District's programs . C. Britton stated the use and
management recommendations presented for the previous Crist
acquisition in report R-81-46, dated October 23, 1981, would apply
to the gift parcel and said staff was recommending the parcel
be withheld from dedication at this time, pending a decision in
January 1983 to purchase the 102 acre parcel in the vicinity being
leased by the District from the Crists.
Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 81-53, a Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Accepting Gift of Real Property and
Authorizing Execution of Certificate of Acceptance with
Respect Thereto and moved the Board tentatively adopt the
previous interim use and management plan as extended to
the property, withhold the property from dedication, and
officially name the parcel as an addition to the Russian
Ridge Open Space Preserve. E. Shelley seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously. Director Wendin
was not present for the vote.
Meeting 81-30 Page Three
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Proposed Addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Catalano
Property)
C. Britton introduced memorandum M-81-124 , dated December 8, 1981,
regarding the opportunity for the District to purchase three
parcels of land, owned by Rodney M. Catalano, totaling 107.5 acres
adjacent to the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. D. Woods reviewed
a map of the property, explained the natural features of the
land, and discussed the use and management recommendations for
the property. C. Britton noted the terms of the purchase agreement
called for a total purchase price of $500,000; $348,000 in cash and
the $152,000 balance in the form of an assumption of an existing
deed of trust. He said staff was recommending the property be withheld
from dedication at this time to allow for boundary adjustments or the
exchange of property rights , including the possibility of im-
proved access rights across adjacent private lands.
Motion: H. Turner moved the Board adopt Resolution 81-54, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of
Agreement to Purchase 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 (Windy Hill Open Space Preserve - Catalano
Property) . B. Green seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously. Director Wendin was not present for
the vote.
Motion: H. Turner moved the Board tentatively adopt the use and
management criteria contained in the report, withhold the
property from dedication, and unofficially name the
property as an addition to the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve.
B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto, questioned
withholding the property from dedication as open space.
H. Grench responded that„ because of the illegal subdivisions
in the area, Portola Valley might require boundary adjustments
for the lots and that the District would like to get the
trail connection for the District's land in fee. He said
because of these reasons it was premature to dedicate the
land. H. Turner stated that this acquisition brought the
proportionate amount of land in Santa Clara County and
San Mateo County very close. The motion passed unanimously.
Director Wendin was not present for the vote.
B. Additions to Legislative Program for 1981-1982 Legislative Session
H. drench reviewed memorandum M-81-124 , dated December 8, 1981,
regarding additions to the 1981-1982 legislative program that
had been considered by the District's Legislative Committee. He
noted that changes to the Public Resources Code included "house-
keeping" amendments regarding signatory requirements in Sections
5544 .1 and 5544 . 2 and the leasing of District land. He said
the proposed addition to the Public Resources Code would allow the Board
to lease land or property for a term not exceeding 40 years
when the proposed use was compatible with or enhanced public
use and enjoyment of the land or property.
Meeting 81-30 Page Four'
R. Mark expressed his general concerns about leasing public
land for forty years and said he felt the vote to take such
action should be more than a simple majority Board vote.
After discussing the matter, the Board concurred with R. Mark's
suggestions on the forty year lease voting requirement.
Motion: H. Turner moved that on the provision regarding a
forty year lease as discussed in the staff report
that an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the membership
of the Board on any lease over twenty-five years
be required. N. Hanko seconded. The motion passed
unanimously. D. Wendin was not present for the vote.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board instruct the General
Manager to work with the District's legislative
consultant and legislators to introduce legislation
amending the District's enabling legislation as
described in the staff report. H. Turner seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Wendin
was not present for the vote .
H. Grench commented on the other State legislation discussed in
the report, noting that R. Beckus , the District's legislative
consultant had recommended the Board adopt the resolution
concerning Murray Ranch and the Rancho Raymundo property. He said
the wording of the can and bottle recycling initiative was es-
sentially the same as Senator Rains ' SB 4 which the Board previously
supported.
D. Wendin arrived at 8 :25 P.M.
Motion: H. Turner moved the adoption of Resolution 81-55, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Requesting Designation
of the Murray Ranch as a State Park and the Acquisition
of the Rancho Raymundo Property as an Addition Thereto.
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of Resolution 81-56, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Supporting the Californians
Against Waste Can and Bottle Recycling Initiative
Petition. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
VIII . NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A. Review of Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands
and Agricultural Uses
H. Grench introduced memorandum M-81-125 , dated December 9 , 1981,
outlining the two issues discussed by the Structures Committee
which needed discussion by the full Board. He noted the issues
were retention of structures on District lands and whether staff
should take a more proactive role on encouraging agricultural uses
on District lands .
Meeting 81-30 Page Five
E. Shelley stated that he and fellow Committee member D. Wendin
felt the policies regarding structures were correct as written and
did not require modification. He noted the Board might want to
add a policy stating that acquired structures suitable for long-
term housing, and that did not interfere with the open space use
of the land, should be returned to the private sector, rather than
being retained and managed by the District. He said he did not
want the District to be in the real estate management business.
N. Hanko, the third member of the Committee, said she agreed with
E. Shelley' s statement up to the point of returning a structure
to the private sector. She said a cost-benefit analysis should be
undertaken when considering retention of the structure by the Dis-
trict or its return to the private sector. She added that each
structure should be considered independently.
K. Duffy stated she agreed with the structures policies as written
and E. Shelley' s suggested addition to the policy.
C. Britton explained the process involved when acquiring property
that included a structure, noted that any house had an income poten-
tial, and said he did not feel structures should be demolished
precipitously until the District' s acquisition goals had been com-
pleted since all possible funding sources should be carefully examined.
D. Wendin noted the Board did not know enough about a structure on
property being considered for acquisition at the time of acquisition
and said the Board should try to keep its options open for the struc-
ture. He suggested that the policy might be changed from its "tear
down in due course" emphasis to a case by case analysis of each
structure.
E. Shelley noted it was not inconsistent with the present policy to
retain a structure for several years until an open space site was
completed and the structure' s compatibility determined, as long as
the structure was not just being retained as an income producer.
N. Hanko suggested that the following sentence be added after the
fifth sentence in Section B of Policies Regarding Improvements on
District Lands : "A cost benefit analysis shall be considered regarding
residence and or improvements recommended for lease or return to
the private sector, " and said she agreed with H. Grench' s definition
of a cost benefit analysis as contained in the staff report.
D. Wendin suggested that residences could be divided into three
categories : 1) those with identified actual or potential District
uses; 2) those with identified significant negative impacts now; and
3) those in another category (where options would remain open and
would support a statement of return to the public sector if such
could be done in a way as not to impact the open space uses of the
land) .
E. Shelley noted use and management plans should explicitly state
why structures are being retained by the District.
Meeting 81-30 Page Six
D. Wendin stated he felt the statement "The District will retain
and maintain or build a structure or other improvement only if it
is complementary to the objectives of the District outlined in the
Basic Policy" , coupled with the statement "Structures will not be
maintained or constructed solely for the purpose of producing
revenue" gave staff enough guidance for use of improvements on Dis-
trict lands and said he did not feel the policy needed to be changed.
E. Shelley felt the policy still needed to address when structures
are to be retained for other than District use (i .e. , return to the
private sector) .
R. Bishop stated the policy should not be made so explicit that it
would limit the District' s options that might be taken into con-
sideration.
N. Hanko stated the Board should consider some of the District' s
structures as financial resources and should retain them, if com-
patible with open space uses , as financial resources.
D. Wendin suggested the Structures Committee consider the following
items: l) a timeline for disposal or demolition of structures , and
2) the options of how to dispose of District property, noting the
example of the former Bean house in terms of how and when the Dis-
trict might dispose of the house and the underlying turf.
E. Shelley noted that in terms of a timeline the Board might adopt
a policy that when a use and management plan stated that a structure
is not one needed for District purposes and -should be slated for re-
moval, that staff also present a timeline for removal (e.g. , rent a
structure for seven years while acquiring adjacent property or im-
plementing a trail system and then remove) .
H. Grench stated he felt the Board should also address the subject
of structures, which detract from scenic areas or which are incom-
patible with potential public recreational use of the surrounding
area, could be acquired over a long period of time as they came on
the market and rented or leased by the District during the interim.
He noted consensus on this matter would provide direction to staff
and would also be a statement to the public as to why the District
might acquire such property.
E. Shelley noted the matter was more an acquisition decision and
should not be addressed in the structures policy before the Board.
D. Wendin noted that such acquisitions would probably surface when
the Structures Committee grappled with the timeline concept for
disposal or demolition of structures. He suggested the Committee
review each structure presently owned by the District to see if the
timeline concept they proposed could be applied in all cases.
R. Bishop stated the Board' s consensus, after a discussion of the
matter, that the Board was satisfied with the staff ' s present level
of encouraging agricultural uses of District lands, in light of other
Land Management priorities.
Meeting 81-30 Page Seven
IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Turner reported he had invited three members of the press to
attend the Board/staff Christmas party, and the Board invited
those members of the public who were at the meeting to attend
the party.
N. Hanko reported on the death of Mrs. Frances Perham, and the
Board directed the President to send a letter of sympathy to
the Perham family. R. Bishop stated the Board's consensus that
they were satisfied in allowing the Perham family six months ,
if necessary, to vacate the homes that had been occupied at the
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve.
R. Bishop stated he had been interviewed by Channel 7 news staff
on the acquisition of the Hassler property and informed the Board
that the Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
would be discussing the Hassler matter on December 23 . N. Hanko
suggested R. Bishop send a letter to the members of the Board
of Supervisors explaining the background of the Hassler acquisition
project.
E. Shelley reported he had met on December 3 with persons interested
in the completion of the South Bay Trail and representatives from
Moffett Field. He noted a letter about the meeting was included
with other material distributed for the Board meeting.
H. Grench reported the City of Mountain View had approved the
agreement to carry out the joint trails project at Shoreline Park.
He stated he had attended the East Bay Regional Park District's
dedication ceremony for the San Leandro Bay Regional Shoreline
Arrowhead Marsh on December 10 .
C. Britton stated the Finance Committee of the San Francisco
Board of Supervisor would be discussing Hassler at their December
23 meeting which would begin at 2 :00 P .M. R. Bishop stated he would
be attending the meeting.
C. Britton stated staff had received word that there were no
Land and Water Conservation Funds available for 1982 and said
the State had returned the applicationsfor the McNiel and
Coplon acquisition projects with a letter stating no funds
were available.
X. CLAIMS
Motion: H. Turner moved the approval of the revised claims
81-25, dated December 16, 1981. B. Green seconded the
motion.
Discussion: J. Fiddes noted Claim 2731 was for Los
Trancos Open Space Preserve brochures, not Windy Hill
brochures . The motion passed unanimously.
XI . CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session on land negotiation matters
at 10 :04 P.M.
XII . ADJOURMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10 :37 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
Claims 81-25
all
December 16, 1981
,,n81-30
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
r Amount Name Description
714 $ 38. 29 Antelope Camping Field Supplies
715 373. 00 B & H Equipment Co. Equipment Rental and Repair
716 253. 28 Barron Park Supply Co. Plumbing Materials for
Generator-Former Bean House
717 238. 31 Carolyn Caddes Photo Processing
718 25.56 Jo Combs Book for District Library
719 11. 67 Crest Copies Maps
720 29. 14 H.S. Crocker Co. , Inc. Office Supplies
721 1 , 884.49 Dorn' s Safety -Service District Vehicle Expense
722 1,000.00 First American Title Guaranty Chain of Title Report
Company
723 9. 30 The Frog Pond Meal Conference
724 51.65 General Printing Co. Warrants
725 612.40 Lawrence Tire Service , Inc. District Vehicle Expense
726 188. 80 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service-November
728 2,000. 00 Metro Real Estate Research Appraisal Services
729 24. 31 Monta Vista Garden Center Base Rock for Road Repair
730 60. 87 Norney's Office Supplies
731 157- 94 Redwood Trade Bindery, Inc. Brochures-Windy Hill
732 67.04 S & W Equipment Co. Equipment Repair
733 5. 59 San Jose Art 'Drafting Supplies
734 175. 84 Union Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
735 65. 00 - Warren,Gorham and Lamont*, Inc. . Real Estate Law Digest
-736 50. 60 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
737 382. 21 Xerox Installment Payment for Dec.
and Supplies
738 348,000. 00 First American Title Insurance Land Purchase-Catalano
Company
739 14. 64 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies
740 46. 22 Kathleen A. Blackburn Out-of-Town Conference Expense
741 60. 17 Pitney Bowes Postage Meter
742 66 .78 John Escobar Out-of-Town Conference Expense
743 1, 100. 00 Foss and Associates Personnel Services-Oct.and No
744 84.05 PG and E Utilities
December 16 , 1981
Meet' T 81-30
amount Name Rev: Description
745 $ 40. 80 . Alice Watt Private Vehicle Expense
746 22.00 John Eastburg Retirement Meal Conference-Herbert .Grench
Luncheon and Mike Foster
747 27.00 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
748 -1,436.28 Harfst Associates , Inc. Computer Setvices-July through '
October
749 124. 00 Charlotte MacDonald Photo Processing
750 186.48 Petty Cash -Private Vehicle Expense,
Meal Conferencbs ,Maps,Office
Supplies Postage and
Demolition Permits-Monte Bello ,
%eting 81-29
X,
0 IMMIX
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
December 10 , 1981
I . ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7: 40 P.M.
in the Multi-Purpose Room of San Carlos High School , 2600 Melendy
Drive, San Carlos .
Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley , Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench , Craig Britton, Charlotte
MacDonald , Jean Fiddes , Stanley Norton, and Suzanne Shipley .
R. Bishop welcomed San Carlos Councilmen William Steele and Victor
Stoltz and former San Carlos Mayor and Councilman Joseph Judge. He
noted the meeting was being held in San Carlos to gather public input
on what future actions the District should take regarding
the Hassler Health Home property as open space.
II . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes read the following written communications into the record:
1) a letter, dated November 25 , 1981 , from Betsy Bechtel thanking
the Board for their recent note of congratulations on her election
to the Palo Alto City Council and asking that she be kept informed
about the issues concerning Palo Alto and the District;
2) a letter, dated December 5, 1981 , from Mrs . Valerie Roberts ,
2760 Melendy Drive, No. 5 , San Carlos , stating she was overwhelmingly
in support of the District's acquisition of the Hassler property
and its use of the power of eminent domain if necessary and noting
she could not imagine another beautiful area being taken over by
developers and that she was not clear why the Finance Committee
of the City and County of San Francisco had not accepted the
District 's $2 . 5 million offer for the property ;
3) a letter, dated December 5, 1981 , from Mr. and Mrs . Robert E. Hess ,
2411 Garland Avenue, San Carlos , noting that after all the years
the citizens of San Carlos have fought to acquire the Hassler
property as open space, the District should not give up now and
stating the use of eminent domain seems reasonable in view of San
Francisco's lack of concern for the desires of their San. Carlos
neighbors;
4) a letter, dated December 5 , 1981 , from Jean and Randy Jenks ,
2848 Tramanto Drive, San Carlos, urging that every possible legal
action be taken to prevent the development of the Hassler property
and to preserve it as open space and applauding the possibility
of exercising the right of eminent domain to acquire the
property;
5) a letter, dated December 7, 1981, from Margaret Mitchell ,
1947 Cordilleras Road, Redwood City, stating she hoped the members
of the Board would seriously consider doing what is necessary to
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 81-29 Page Two
acquire the Hassler Health Home parcel for open space and noting
the whole community would obviously benefit by such action ;
6) a letter, dated December 4 , 1981, from Cy and Eleanor Jobson,
noting that, as members of the Sierra Club and active participants
in the District 's efforts to acquire the Hassler property, they
hoped all necessary steps are taken to make the purchase of the
property, including exercising the power of eminent domain; and
7) a letter, dated December 8 , 1981 , from the Charles Geraci Family,
600 Knoll Drive, San Carlos , and Lisa Lamb, 2350 San Carlos Avenue,
San Carlos, strongly urging the Board to do whatever is necessary
to keep the Hassler Health Home property as open space, noting they
hoped the property would not fall into the hands of developers, and
stating that some of what makes this part of California so beautiful
should be saved for future generations .
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications at this point in the meeting.
IV. STATUS REPORT AND PUBLIC COMMENT ONHASSLER HEALTH HOME ACQUISITION
PROJECT
a) Introduction
R. Bishop-outlined the meeting 's format, he noted the Board had
voted unanimously to make an offer to the City and County of
San Francisco to acquire the Hassler property , but said District
staff had been unsuccessful in trying to negotiate a purchase .
lie noted that this meeting was being held in San Carlos because
the property 's purchase price was more than anticipated two years
ago, when another meeting was held in San Carlos on the matter,
and the Board wanted public input on whether they should exercise
the District 's power of eminent domain to acquire the Hassler
property. R. Bishop explained the power of eminent domain, stating
the use of the power was used with great discretion by the Board.
He noted the members of the Board wanted to know if the members
of the public wanted the District to proceed with the acquisition,
despite the higher price, and if there was strong public support
for the use of eminent domain to preserve the property as public
open space. He noted the District felt obligated to the members
of the Assessment District who had voted to help acquire the
property and said San Mateo County had informally pledged $100 ,000
toward the purchase of the property.
b) Staff Presentation
H . Grench introduced members of the District ' s staff present at the
meeting. He explained the District 's financial situation with
regard to the Hassler property, noting the District had an approved
$1 . 1 million federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant for
the project and that there was $300 ,000 from the Assessment District
for the purchase of the Hassler property. He said that when the
property 's price was initially thought to be $2. 2 million, $900, 000
of District funds would have been used to make up the balance of
the purchase price. He stated the District' s latest offer to the
City and County of San Francisco was $2 . 5 million, and the District
was presently willing to fund $1 million of the purchase price.
He added the County of San Mateo had informally pledged $100 , 000
toward the purchase. H. Grench stated federal Land and Water Conserva-
tion Funds were in short supply and the federal administration
had cut out the program in this year's budget, and noted he was con-
cerned that federal funds for the project might be lost if the project
was not completed in a timely fashion.
Meeting 81-29 Page Three
C. Britton reviewed the staff report R-81-48, dated December 4, 1981,
noting that since September 1978 he had been working, both on
an informal and formal basis , with representives from the City
and County of San Francisco to acquire the Hassler property as
open space. He said, after working with the City 's Real Estate
Department, that a purchase price of $2 . 24 million (which the
Department would recommend to the Board of Supervisors for sale
of the property to the District}, had been agreed upon and in
Octobbr 1980 the Board of Directors had authorized District staff
to make a formal offer to San Francisco to purchase the Hassler
Health Home Property. He noted it took over a year for the
Real Estate Department to make its report to the Board of Supervisor ' s
Finance Committee, and in September 1981 when the Committee considered
the sale of the property to the District, the Committee referred
the item back to City staff for consideration of the City developing
the property or selling it at public auction. He said a subsequent
City staff report outlined six alternatives for the property, including
sale at public auction, leasing the land, developing the property,
or holding the property, and added that a direct sale of the
property to the District was not one of the alternatives.
He stated he did not think the Finance Committee would be discussing
the disposition of the Hassler property again until January or
even February 1982 and noted the matter would then have to go
to the Board of Supervisors , which could take thiry days to six
months. C. Britton said the District had four alternatives at
this point: 1) continue working with City staff to negotiate a
direct sale of the property to the District; 2) participate in
a public auction for the property if the City decided to auction
the property; 3) drop the project, rescind the grant, disband
the Assessment District and rely on preserving the open space
on the property that might be dedicated as part of a private
development project; or 4) consider exercising the District' s
power of eminent domain. He said he felt the direct negotiations
with San Francisco to acquire the property had come to a standstill ,
and said the Board should consider the fourth alternative, the
use of eminent domain, in order to acquire the Hassler property
for public open space .
R. Bishop stated questions raised by members of the audience
during the public comment portion of the meeting would be
answered by staff at the end of the public hearing. He read
the following written communications , which had been delivered
to his home prior the meeting, into the record:
1) a letter, dated December 8, 1981, from Ruby Seager Lewis,
1230 Highland Court, San Carlos, requesting the Board members
preserve the Hassler property as open space and noting that
time and again the community had reaffirmed its sincere desire
for the acquisition;
2) a letter, dated December 9 , 1981, from Spencer J. Bendle,
1920 Arroyo Avenue , San Carlos , stating Mr. Bendle was very
much in favor of saving the Hassler property as open space,
that he had yet to talk to anyone against the open space use
of the property, that development of the land was not needed,
and asking the Board members to do whatever they can to preserve
the Hassler property; and
3) a letter, dated December 9 , 1981 , from Mrs . A. Bendle, 1920
Arroyo Avenue, San Carlos , stating she felt the Hassler property was
Meeting 81-29 Page Four
a beautiful location for a natural park for San Carlos and
Redwood City residents , that there was a need for open space,
and that she hoped the Board would "consider our efforts since
1973 to save this parcel of land, along with the assessment
neighbors of the site in San Carlos" .
R. Bishop stated the public hearing on the Hassler Health Home
acquisition project would commence at 8 : 10 P .M.
c) Public Comment
Fred Endicott, 3336 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos , stated he felt the
District was very sincere in its efforts to preserve the Hassler
property as open space and noted how slowly matters involving
local governments progress. He reviewed some of the project 's
history , noting that 92%-95% of the San Carlos residents
had voted in favor of forming the assessment district to help
acquire the property. He stated he was not uneasy about the
amount of land the District was acquiring in the north end of
the District, noting the Edgewood site would be used for a
golf course. He urged the Board to use their power of eminent
domain to acquire the Hassler property, noting that it was sig-
nificant that private property was not involved in the case, rather
two government agencies were involved, and that he could think
of no better example where eminent domain was the proper action
to take . He stated the land was beautiful open space and said
he was amazed by the long-term and tremendous amount of local
support on the issue of preserving the property as open space.
R. Bishop thanked Mr. Endicott for all his efforts over the
years to help the District acquire the property as open space.
Jospeh E. Judge , 3335 Brittan Avenue, No. 9 , San Carlos , noted the
relative importance of the property as prime open space was a
major issue and said that in 1974 the voters of the City of
San Carlos approved the purchase of the Hassler property by a
two to one margin. He said he was personnally very enthusiastic
about the preservation of the property as open space and said
that when the Hassler Assessment District was formed it was
subscribed by 950 of those people within the district, an indication
of the desire of the people within the district to acquire the
property as open space. Mr. Judge commented on new development
and zoning changes in the San Carlos area, noting that conditions
had changed and it was more important today to acquire the
Hassler property as open space than it was three years ago. He
thought it was prudent to follow through with the negotiation
process with the City and County of San Francisco as best as
possible, but said he did not feel San Francisco would move
any faster on the project in the next two years than they had
in the past two years . He stated it would be prudent for the
Board to follow the negotiation process, but not wait too long,
and he urged the Board to use the power of eminent domain to
acquire the property as soon as possible .
R. Bishop requested that individuals addressing the Board discuss
the questions of which alternative action the District should
pursue , whether the power of eminent domain should be used by the
Board if necessary, and what low intensity recreational uses
Meeting 81-29 Pace Five
should be made of the Hassler property if it were acquired by
the District.
Bob Carlson, 109 Highland Circle, San Carlos , stated' he was present
at the 1974 San Carlos City Council meeting when a representative
from the City and County of San Francisco told the Council that
the Hassler property was surplus property and that San Francisco
wanted to sell it. Mr. Carlson noted that a lot of footwork had been
done to acquire the property since that meeting , and he said
it was like a breach of promise for San Francisco to say now
the property was not for sale as open space . He stated the original
price of the property of approximately $1. 8 million which was
quoted in 1974 was the amount the District should pay for the
property. He endorsed the use of the right of eminent domain
or whatever process was necessary to "get the sho-.,.- on the road" .
He concluded by saying the City and County of San Francisco had
originally offered to sell the property .
Anne DeGheest, 3362 La Mesa, San Carlos , noting she was a newcomer
to the area, said it appeared from the reports that seven years
had passed since efforts were started to acquire the Hassler property
and added that if another seven years passed the property ' s price
would be too high. She urged that steps be taken to force San
Francisco ' s hand in the matter, including the District ' s use of
eminent domain and advocated soliciting mass media support for
the project.
Ann Erhimani, 3353 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos , stated she had
supported the acquisition of the Hassler property as open space
since 1973 and noted the citizens in the area had made two
financial commitments , the bond issue and the assessment district,
to help acquire the property. She said that by waiting nine years
San Francisco was making tacit approval of the citizens ' efforts
to acquire the property as open space. She said the use of
eminent domain was the most expedient way to proceed with the
project and force the issue.
Brian Barts , Eaton Avenue, San Carlos, said he had been involved
with the group of citizens seeking the acquisition of the Hassler
property as open space since its inception, urged the District' s
acquisition of the property, and noted it was appropriate for the
District to use the right of eminent domain to acquire the property .
He said it was important to maintain public access to the property
for picnicking and hiking so people could use and enjoy the
Hassler property.
R. Bishop stated that if the Board decided to use its power of
eminent domain to acquire the Hassler property, it would be
necessary to hold another public meeting at which a resolution
of public necessity would have to be adopted by the Board. He said
everyone in the audience was welcome to attend the meeting, adding
that all the comments made during the present meeting would be
considered part of the record and would be taken into consideration
when the Board acted on a resolution of public necessity for the
Hassler property.
Meeting 81-29 Page Six
Mory Sussman, 3336 Brennan , San Carlos , stated he had been active
in circulating the petition to form the assessment district,
said he approved of the use of eminent domain in this case, and
suggested that a citizens committee be formed to seek support
from San Francisco residents and groups to lobby the Board of
Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco to sell
the property to the District for open space purposes .
Olive Mayer, 245 Jocelyn Lane, Woodside, recounted the changes she
had seen take place to open space lands in the area, noting that
with increased population in the coming years , the value of
open space would grow. She said steps must be taken today to
preserve open space for future generations to enjoy, noting
open space helped maintain the quality of life. She said that
lo-,-- of the beauty of the land was part of the American character.
She supported the District ' s use of the power of eminent domain
to acquire the Hassler property, noting the City and County of
San Francisco had in the past sold off some of their watershed
lands for financial profit. She said the property should not
be lost to developers and stated it was not necessary to determine
at this time what the recreational uses for the property should
be since future generations should be part of the decision making
process .
Rose Cooper, 3350 Brittan Avenue, San Carlos, expressed her support
for the District ' s past activities and asked if it was a likely
possibility that the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant
would be lost if too much time passed, what the problems associated
With the use of eminent domain were for the District, and if there
was a possibility, and if so what were the chances , that the District
might fail to acquire the property if it exercised its power of
eminent domain.
Councilman William Steele, 133 Highland Avenue, San Carlos ,
stated he did not know of any other issue that had sustained such
broad and active interest for such a long period of time, complimented
the District' s staff on their report, and noted that members
of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had changed since the
effort to acquire the Hassler property started nine years ago.
He felt it was incredible that San Francisco 's staff had not
included sale of the Hassler property to the District as one
of the options presented to the Finance Committee, and felt that
San Francisco representatives had an unrealistic view of the
situation. He said he did not feel negotiations with San Francisco
would produce any results and urged the Board to pursue its right
of eminent domain to acquire the property, noting the property
had been declared surplus and for sale by the City. He urged
that action be taken in a short time to solidify the funding
commitments that had been made to help the District acquire the
property and said the Hassler site was a prime acquisition area
for the District in the northern part of the District.
Bob Young, 1065 Drake Court, San Carlos , noting he was a District
docent, stated the Edgwood Park and the Hassler site provided
opportunities for providing nature studies and field trips for
Meeting 81-29 Page Seven
local schoolchildren and agreed with previous speakers that the
right of eminent domain should be used to acquire the Hassler
property as open space.
Councilman Victor Stoltz, speaking as a private citizen and longtime
San Carlos resident, stated he supported the acquisition of the
Hassler property as open space by whatever means are best.
James Goeser, 222 Frances Lane, San Carlos , stated both the
San Carlos/Belmont Sierra Club, of which he was Chairman, and
the San Mateo County Sierra,Club with over 3000 members , supported
without reservation the condemnation of the Hassler property
for open space. He said there was a need for open space in
the area, noting the development taking place on Bair Island
in Redwood City and in Poster City, and added the District
"should not hesitate and be too nice - it should save what ' s
left" .
San Carlos City Councilman John Buchanan stated he had attended
the San Francisco Finance Committee meeting and made a presentation
in behalf of the City of San Carlos. He said he did not feel
that San Francisco understood the amount of planning and citizen
input that had been put into the acquisition of the Hassler property
as open space or the kind of planning that takes place in
San Mateo County . He said it appeared a stand would have to be
taken to preserve the site as open space, noting that open space
is never a lost resource, rather a resource for the people of
San Mateo County, San Carlos , the District, as well as the
citizens of San Francisco, to enjoy. He stated he felt an over-
whelming majority of the citizens in San Carlos supported the
acquisition of the Hassler property as open space and said that
as long as he was on the City Council he would seek to preserve
the land as open space. Noting that the situation and the attitude
of San Francisco made it appear that the negotiation stage
had passed, he felt it was appropriate in this case to use
the power of eminent domain and urged the Board to proceed in
this line. He stated it was important to preserve citizens rights
and a higher, better use of the Hassler property than development
of the property.
Robert Black, 585 Dartmouth Avenue, San Carlos , stated he had
served on several citizen committees working on the acquisition
of the Hassler property as open space, noted many of the comments
he had planned to make had already been stated, and urged the
Board to proceed immediately with eminent domain to acquire
the property . He said that financial support to help acquire the
property should not be lost and recommended that low impact recre-
ational use of the Hassler site be planned.
Dawn Clifford, a member of the staff of Assemblyman Robert Naylor,
stated she agreed with the previous statements made during the
meeting.
Robert Carlson asked the San Carlos Council members if there was
any chance for reprisals from the City and County of San Francisco
.if the District proceeded with the eminent domain process and
asked H. Grench if District staff was doing anything to lobby or
influence the San Francisco Board of Supervisors .
Meeting 81-29 Page Eight
Frk!d .ndicott asked what the current plans were for the buildings
if the property was acquired. Other members of the audience asked
what would happen if the Board proceeded with the project and the
cost of the property was more than expected and whether the District
would accept contributions to be used in helping to acquire the
Hassler property.
R. Bishop responded that the District hoped to acquire the Property at
a reasonable price and said the District would greatly accept contri-
butions to help acauire the property. Ile noted that if the Purchase
price were higher than felt reasonable he felt the Board would have
another public meeting to discuss the price and possible alternatives.
In response to questions raised by members of the audience , H. Grench
stated District staff had not been lobbying the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors , but he understood there had been some lobbying by private
citizens. He stated the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant
called for the buildings to be used only for recreational purposes
and after public hearings , the District had concluded that most of
the buildings would have to be demolished, with the exception of the
main doctor' s house and the duplex next to it which- might be used for
housing an on-site ranger for patrol of the property. He said San
Mateo County has expressed an interest in housing rangers on the site.
H. Grench stated that possible low-intensity recreational uses for
the property included hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, photography,
kite flying, nature study through, for example, the District's
docent program, and enjoying the area for inspiration.
C. Britton responded to the questions regarding eminent domain,
noting the District was currently involved in a couple eminent
domain actions , one of them in Los Gatos , and he said it is
an expensive procedure, in terms of fees for attorneys, . expert
witnesses, and engineers. Ile said as much as $50 ,000 could be
spent on costs in d condemnation case and that a jury trial was
one of the worst places to determine the value of land. He said
a negotiated purchase of property was always preferable. He said
a condemnation case was not necessarily lost; rather the settle-
ment price might be higher than anticipated. He added that the
options, if the price were higher than anticipated, could include
moving for a new trial, appealing the judgment, or dropping the
project. He said that if the Board adopted a Resolution of
Public Necessity and if the jury 's settlement price was higher
than anticipated, there would probably be another meeting in
San Carlos to determine the course of action for the acquisition
of the Hassler property . C. Britton stated the District, not the
City of San Carlos , would be taking action against the City and
County of San Francisco and noted that contributions to the
District for the acquisition project should be marked for
Hassler and were tax deductible .
In response to a question from a member of the audience regarding
whether the District could work with a developer to acquire a
portion of the property if the condemnation case was --Lost" in
court, R. Bishop said that it was possible for the District to
work out a joint project with a developer. C. Britton noted, however,
that the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant probably precluded
such action .
Meeting 81-29 Page Nine
R. Bishop thanked the members of the audience for their comments
at 9 : 12 P.M. and suggested the Board schedule a meeting in early
1982 that would include on its agenda the consideration of
adopting a Resolution of Public Necessity for the Hassler property.
D. Wendin requested that staff review the action proposed in their
report to the Board, and C . Britton responded staff had recommended
the Board allow negotiations to proceed with the City of San
Francisco through the month of January . He noted that he, however,
had heard rumors that the Finance Committee would not discuss the
matter again until late January or early February. R. Bishop stated
he felt the District had negotiated long enough with San Francisco
and said the Board should proceed with the 'consideration of a Resolution
of Public Necessity for the Hassler property. He stated the
matter would be considered at the District' s main office in Los
Altos and suggested the item be considered at the second meeting
in January. S . Norton reviewed the procedure that would be
followed if the Board adopted a Resolution of Public Necessity
to acquire the Hassler property.
Motion : R. Bishop moved the Board place the Hassler matter on
the agenda for the second meeting in January and at
that time have on its agenda a Resolution of Public
Necessity to begin. eminent domain proceedings for the
Hassler property. B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: D . Wendin stated he felt it premature to
schedule a meeting in January to consider such a resolution,
noting the District was dealing with a political body in
the matter and suggested the scheduling of the meeting
be kept tentative and that staff be allowed to continue
to negotiate with the City through January.
Motion to Amend : D. Wendin moved that the motion be amended to
state the Resolution of Public Necessity be scheduled for
a meeting in February if staff has made no progress in
negotiations during January . E. Shelley seconded the
motion.
Discussion: H . Grench noted, due to the fifteen day notice
required by law, that the item would have to be scheduled
for the second meeting in February . B. Green stated
she supported taking definite action with a time
limit as a message to San Francisco that the District
and people in the area were impatient.
The motion to amend failed to pass on a roll call vote:
AYES : D. Wendin, E. Shelley, and H. Turner.
NOES : K. Duffy, B . Green, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop.
R. Bishop ' s motion, seconded by B. Green, passed unanimously
on a roll call vote:
AYES : K. Duffy, D . Wendin, B. Green, E. Shelley, N. Hanko,
11 . Turner , and R. Bishop.
NOES : None .
H. Grench stated the meeting to consider the Resolution of Public
Necessity would be held on January 23, 1.H2 at the District' s main
office in Los Altos.
Meeting 81-29 Page Ten
V. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
There were no informational reports .
VI . CLAIMS
Motion : N. Hanko moved the adoption of,
the revised claims 81-24 ,
dated December 10 , 1981 . B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously .
VII . CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session for land negotiation matters
at 9 : 23 P.M.
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 9 :30 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
Claims 81-24
9ecember 10 ,1981
aetirg 81-29
Revir J
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
2698 $ 750. 00 California Advocates , Inc . Legislative Consultant ' s Fee-
,
ove=ber
12699 69 . 00 Cardillo Travel Agency, Inc. Out-of-To%-.-? Meeting Expense-
Herbert Grench
2700 213. 00 Communications Research Co . Equipment Yaintenance-Nov.
2701 300. 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture-Z:ov.
2702 209 . 04 H. S . Crocker Co . , Inc . Office Supplies
2703 64. 67 Ewert ' s Photo Audio-Visual Equipment
2704 280. 42 Herbert Crench Out-of--To%-.n Meeting Expense
2705 60 . 39 Image Technology, Inc . Photo Processing
2706 61 . 60 Stanley R. Norton Telephone , Copying and 11al
Conference Expenses-October
2707 623. 41 Mobil Oil Corporation District Vehicle Expense
2708 2. 77, City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
2709 36. 00 San Mateo Times Newspaper Subscription
2701 89 . 00 Scott 0. Reese Partial Reimbursement for
Lan6 Manager Interview
2702 324. 84 She!! Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2703 105 . 82 Uno Graphics Brochures-Windmill Pasture
704 40. 00 U. S . Postal Service Bulk Mailing Permit-1982
2705 75 . 89 Norney' s Office Supplies
706 750. 16 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
707 150. 00 Eric Mart Refund-Ranger Residence Deposit
708 13. 77 Monta Vista Carden Center Road Repair-Fremont Older OSP
709 4,500.00 Christopher E. Taaffe Rental-McNiel Property
710 5 ;341 . 97 Rogers , Vizzard, and Tallett Legal Services-October
2711 65 . 20 Mary Gundert Private %lenicle Expense
2712 195 . 98 PC and E Utilities
2713 167 . 91 Petty Cash Meal Conferences , Postage ,
Private Vehicle Expenses
Mice Supplies , Seminars and
Training, Photo Processing,
Printing, and Miscellaneous
Expanses .
zo-SLZ ainjeu6iS alp(] U01lL1A1dx3 AaqwnN juno33V pAeZ)lipajo
DWG
V S I A
P0Z1JO43nV a6je40 pjeo i!paiO
PaSOIDUO Iliq of uo,jez,joLIlnv [-] pasopue japAo aseqziind E (SLL$) P9SOIJu8 >ID0140
sS@jPPV lo!jls!(]
OweN IOPISICI
9L L$ 6DIE1 i,n,!1sul SJ0qW0VY PJ8013 ?9 SWONSOAd Z86L
aaj -ON d(13 all,j as,noo
.......... auoAd aumAeC) apoo d!z alels AuD
Li A111111��,, 11 1-1111.6.11 1
............ i"", ","6 —
S S o A p P V 15)u I!e
@tUeN Isel 112111L)l I)Ue auJeN ISAIJ
...... 'ON Ai,,nnaS iLsz)oS
6%Z� 110 11�1e11�1,
I N 8 d 3 S V 3 7 d
S CL6 L
V '0,
ejUJOIlleo;0 A1lSA3Al aqi jo sivalfiaH aq_L
01 alcleAed SpaqD Ile anew
7,
LEZE-1,96 (908) :aUOLld
90tCC)V3 'eAeqAPq PILIPS
UOlSUalXq l?IUJOj!lP3 jo AI!SlaA!U() :01 I!ew
N0I1V311ddV 1N3W1108N3
"G, X09 SIHI NI 1311HAA 10N 00
....... 'V9( I IV 11111� 11— 1A
JA I 11L�1�1�11L��L,�'_",'�C,'.A "n."I
THE 1982 SPECIAL DISTRICTS
PRESIDENTS' & BOARD MEMBERS'
INSTITUTE
Sacramento, California
February 26, 27, & 28, 1982
164416MA23 7274315
AIDPEN BEG OPEN SPACE DIS PEES
PRESIDENT
745 DISTEL LEIV E
LOS ALTOS CA 94022
Volume XVII,Number 28,December 1981 (LISPS 821-700)
QUEST is Published thirty-two times a year,one time in April,
June,September and November, seven times in May and August;
five times in February and December,two times in January and
March,and no issues in July and October. Published by University i
of California Extension, University of California,Santa Barbara,
California 93106, Second class postage paid at Santa Barbara,
California.Sent free of charge to those desiring information of UNF%ARSIW OF COWFORNLA EXTENSION,
University Extension activities. i5ANM BARBAM
SUNDAY, February 28
The Institute resumes at 9 a.m. Sunday with BOB RAUCH'S seminar on COMMUNITY AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. This seminar is designed to provide specific guidance in
planning, developing and carrying out an effective community and intergovernmental relations
program. His presentation will deal with the following:
• Defining the "community" and various publics • Determining how much to invest in community
and intergovernmental relations • Where the costs are • How to estimate benefits • Guidelines
for allocation of resources • What media to use • Improvement of media relations • Direct
mail • Brochure preparation • Press releases • Speakers bureaus • Maintaining a community
relations program • Using the Citizens' Advisory Committee • Intergovernmental committees.
The seminar leader, ROBERT A. RAUCH, is a consultant on community relations activities for a
number of Special Districts and County Special District Associations in California. He provides
community relations assistance in the areas of media relations, direct mail, brochures, annual
report preparation and citizen information campaigns. His professional background includes
extensive work with both private and public sector organizations, and he is a regular speaker and
seminar leader on communications skills for University of California Extension.
The Institute concludes at noon.
Although this is a heavy schedule, the concentrated format — over a weekend — means minimum
time away from your weekday responsibilities. Each participant receives a binder with lecture
outlines and material for reference and study after the program. The program is applicable to both
large and small districts.
Fee for the Presidents' and Board Members' Institute is $175 per person. The fee includes tuition,
instructional materials and reference notes, coffee breaks, Friday evening banquet, Saturday lunch
and Sunday continental breakfast. The fee does not include lodging or other meals. You can assure
a place in the program by a telephone call to me at (805) 961-3363, or by completing and mailing
the enrollment form.
The seminar is held at Hotel El Rancho Racquet Resort in West Sacramento. Lodging arrangements
can be made directly with the hotel, phone (916) 371-6731, or at a hotel of your own choosing.
This intensive weekend of lecture-discussion seminars is aimed at your concerns as a public office
holder and will be attended by special district directors from all parts of the state.
For the newly elected or appointed Director, it offers an effective and efficient way to become
better acquainted with Special District government. For the experienced Director, it offers a
refresher, and an opportunity to broaden horizons by contact with fellow Directors. Most of all, it
gives a chance for reflection and planning for the forthcoming term.
I hope to see you at the 1982 PRESIDENTS' AND BOARD MEMBERS' INSTITUTE in Sacramento,
February 26, 27 and 28, 1982.
Cordially,
J ck W. Harris
Director
Advanced Studies Program in Special Districts Management
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 82-01
Jan. 13, 1982 UNIVERSITY OF
Continuing Education in == ' atr CALIFORNIA EXTENSION,
SPECIAL DISTRICT GOVERNMENT SSAWA EVU:?I A
Santa Barbara, California 93106
December, 1981
To: Presidents, Board Members, Trustees and
Commissioners of Special Districts
Re: 1982 SPECIAL DISTRICTS PRESIDENTS' AND BOARD MEMBERS' INSTITUTE
This is to give you advance information on the 1982 Presidents' and Board Members' Institute, the
weekend program for Special District Directors offered by University of California Extension in
cooperation with California Special Districts Association. It will be held in Sacramento at the Hotel
El Rancho Racquet Resort on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, February 26, 27 and 28, 1982.
This program, an annual affair and the only one of its kind in the country, has been attended by
hundreds of California Special District Directors in the past ten years it has been offered. Many
District staff and operations personnel have attended, too.
A detailed brochure describing the program will be mailed to you in January. In the meantime, the
general program schedule is shown herein with information for advance enrollment and for making
your lodging arrangements.
May 1 suggest that it is not too early to bring up the matter of your attending the Institute at your
next Board meeting.
FRIDAY, February 26
The Institute begins at 3 p.m. with GLENN REITER'S presentation on SPECIAL DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT. Designed as an overview of special district development and organization, this
portion of the program deals with some of the myths and realities of Special District government,
and with the all-important role of the Director in management. Topics to be covered are:
• Independent vs. dependent districts • Functions and characteristics — size, diversity of purpose,
revenue and expenditures, jurisdiction • Efficiency and effectiveness • Intergovernmental rela-
tions — voluntary vs. mandated, relationship to type, size and location • Public policy and the
implications for Special District government — federal and state policy • The Director as decision
maker, policy maker and communicator • What a Director is not • Some areas of Director
responsibility • Board-Management relationships • A checklist for Directors.
The seminar leader, GLENN REITER, is President of Glenn M. Reiter and Associates, consultants.
He is a founder and past secretary of California Special Districts Association, and has been active
in Special District affairs throughout California for many years. He has lectured extensively on the
development of Special District government and financial management of special districts. He is the
author of A 3-DIMENSIONAL VIEW OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS, FINANCING SPECIAL DISTRICTS
and THE SPECIAL DISTRICT DIRECTOR.
After a social hour and banquet, Friday concludes with DICK SCHMIDT, President of
California Special Districts Association, giving an UPDATE CAN STATEWIDE SPECIAL DISTRICT
ACTIVITIES. In this vital presentation, legislative goals and objectives for the coming year, critical
problems and issues facing California Special Districts, and Association plans will be discussed.
Dick Schmidt was recently elected President of California Special Districts Association. He is
Finance Director of Shasta Dam Area Public Utility District. As a Director of the Northern California
Special District Association, he has been very active in liaison with county special district
organizations in the north part of the state, and has sponsored and encouraged training programs
and activities in his area.
SATURDAY, February 27
This is a full day, from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m. with appropriate breaks for coffee and lunch. In the
morning DICK ANDERSON will discuss LAW AND THE DIRECTOR, In this important seminar,
legal requirements for board procedures and action will be thoroughly covered. Legal foundations
of Special District government for both general law and special act districts and the doctrine of
limited jurisdiction will be discussed. The relationship of the board with LAFCO and other local and
state government agencies will be discussed. The initiative and referendum process as it applies to
Districts will be explored. Legal and legislative trends as well as the effects of current legislation on
board activities will be addressed. Other topics will be:
• Powers of districts • Conflicts of interest • Organization and organization changes • Gifts-
• Delegation of powers • Authorized acts and prohibited acts • Personal liability • The
Brown Act • Recent legislative developments • Compensation • Manner in which the board
may act o Ordinances, resolutions, motions and minute orders • Powers of individual board
members • Financial disclosure.
RICHARD T. ANDERSON, is a partner in the law firm of Best, Best & Krieger. His firm is general
counsel to California Special Districts Association and has long been active in legal affairs for
Special Districts throughout the state. Mr. Anderson is a lecturer in both the Presidents' and Board
Members' Institute and the Advanced Studies Program in Special Districts Management. He also
serves as legal counsel to a number of Special Districts.
Following the Law seminar and lunch, KELSEY TYSON will lead the afternoon seminar, A
SITUATIONAL APPROACH TO BOARD LEADERSHIP, The practical information in this session
might have been invented for the board member. It is designed to help Directors to better
understand the specifics of the situation they are trying to influence and to match the appropriate
leader behavior — telling, selling, participating or delegating — to the other persons' knowledge
and skill, and to their willingness and motivation.
An effective Director must diagnose the leadership needs of complex situations and select the
appropriate leader behavior. Situational leadership can help you to adapt your behavior to meet the
precise needs of actual situations that you find yourself in on your Board. Topics to be covered are:
• The difference between board level leadership and operations management • How to determine
what leadership style is appropriate to use in a given situation • Guides to reviewing your
leadership style as a board member • Analyzing the effects of your leadership actions and
approaches • Using situational leadership in analyzing your people problems • Tips for learning
to change your style to meet the needs of your people.
The instructor, KELSEY RANDALL TYSON, is Managing Director of Blanchard Training and
Development, Inc., an internationally known organization specializing in Situational Leadership
training and management seminars. Mr. Tyson was educated at the University of Maryland and has
a diversified consulting background in human resource development, employee motivation,
organizational communications, and career planning and management.
Saturday's program concludes at 4:30 p.m. and Saturday evening is free.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Local Agency Formation Commission
Meeting 82-1
County Government Center, East Wing
Jan. 13, 1982 70 West Hedding Street
Countof Santa Clara San Jose, California a 408
Y 299-4321 Area Code 408
California
December 21 , 1981
TO: BOARD OF SLPERVISORS
CITIES, COUNCILS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SCCPO AND IGC
FROM: Alan La Fleur, Senior Staff Assistant
SUBJECT: URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ANNEXATION PROCESSES
At their meeting of December 9, 1981 , the Local Agency Formation Commis-
sion considered the attached staff report which describes a concept
whereby the Commission's responsibility and authority relative to city
boundary changes would be limited to urban service area revisions.
Annexations of territory within the urban service area would be accom-
plished by the affected city without further approval or processing by
the Commission.
Staff was directed to contact local legislators to determine those
interested in sponsoring bills which would implement the concept in
Santa Clara County. The Commission further directed staff to solicit
support of the concept from cities and other affected agencies within
the County.
It is requested that the attached be reviewed and appropriate comments
be forwarded to the Commission.
C i t y staff questions relating to the concept should be directed to the
undersigned (299-3242) .
?�'a k A�,
rt
Attachment
cc Jane Decker
Gorge Francis
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Local Agency Formation Commission
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
Countof Santa Clara San Jose, California 95110
y 299-4321 Area Code 408
California
December 1 , 1981
TO: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
FROM: Alan La Fleur, Senior Staff Assistant
SUBJECT: REASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR URBAN SERVICE AREAS
AND ANNEXATIONS: CONCEPT PAPER - AGENDA ITEM 18-2
At the meeting of September 2, 1981 , Commissioner McCorquodale proposed a
concept intended to clearly delineate LAFCO and cities' authority and
responsibilities relative to incorporation of territory. Staff was directed
to investigate the concept identifying issues, relative to procedures,
policies and legislation associated with implementation of the concept.
THE CONCEPT
Responsibility and authority of LAFCO relative to city boundary changes
would be limited to revisions to city urban service areas. Annexation of
territory within the USA would be accomplished by the affected city without
further approval or processing by LAFCO. A control would be needed to
assure conditions which resulted in the approval of the USA by LAFCO did not
change during the period prior to annexation by the city. This control
could be accomplished by assigning a "reasonable time" constraint between
USA approval and annexation. Existing LAFCO authority over incorporations,
consolidations, mergers, dissolutions, reorganizations, special district
annexations and detachments, and spheres of influence would remain as is.
BENEFITS OF THE CONCEPT
Five major benefits have been identified as being associated with the
concept:
• Elimination of conflicts between city and County general plans;
• Elimination of much of the uncertainty faced by property owners and
developers who wish to annex to cities by clearly defining
responsible agency (LAFCO or city) as decision-makers;
• Reduction of LAFCO costs through simplification of LAFCO process;
• Improve city's ability to plan rate of annexation in order to
complement financial commitments to service delivery systems
including capital improvement plans;
• Add emphasis to the analysis of the cumulative impact of
development; whereas, under the current process the additive impact
( impact of single annexation on overall city service system) is
difficult to analyze and track when dealing with individual
annexation.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Reassignment of Responsibility for Urban Service
Areas and Annexations: Concept Paper
Page 2
December 1 , 1981
THE CONCEPT VS. EXISTING LAFCO PURPOSE AND PROCESS
When considering the impact of the proposed concept, it is important to
separate existing LAFCO process from existing LAFCO purpose. The purpose of
LAFCO is defined in the law as:
". . .the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the
orderly formation and development of governmental age,icies based upon
local conditions and circumstances. . ." Government Code Section 54774) .
The law goes on to identify factors to be considered by the Commission in
order to fulfill its assigned purpose (Attachment 1 is a listing of these
factors) . Staff can find no inconsistency between the proposed concept and
the overall purpose of LAFCO. In fact, the Commission on a number of
occasions has acknowledged that once territory is placed within an USA, it
is extremely difficult to justify denial of annexation to a city.
Santa Clara LAFCO has adopted guidelines and policies which are intended to
reflect the intent of the law. The concept is also found to be in general
agreement with adopted Santa Clara LAFCO policies with the exception of:
( 1 ) Requirement for prezoning, and
(2) Control over selectively annexing territories having large assessed
valuations or giving special advantages to a particular interest
group.
These exceptions could be minimized by a greater reliance on the city' s
general plan, requirements for industrial and residential growth management
plans, and an in-depth analysis by the Commission of the city' s adopted
capital improvement program prior to any extension of an USA.
In addition to describing the purpose of LAFCO, the Government Code pre-
scribes an exact process necessary to accomplish boundary change. The
following table summarizes the basic procedural functions and their assign-
ment under existing law versus the concept (each of these functions can be
related to a specific Government Code section/s) .
Reassignment of Responsibility for Urban Service
Areas and Annexations: Concept Paper
Page 3
December 1 , 1981
<---Existing---> <---Pro sed--->
Function City* LAFCO City* LAFCO
Application Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . .X X
Petition/Resolution,Map,
Legal Description, etc.
Certificate of Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X X
Pre-Hearing Process
F e Maintenance . . . . . . . . X A
Legal Notice/Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X N/A
Application Review/E.O. Report. . . . . . . . . . . .X X
LAFCO Hearing Process
Resolution Approve/Deny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X N/A
Reconsideration Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X N/A
Conducting Authority
Resolution Initiating Proceeding . . . . . .X X
Notice of Hearing/Publication . . . . . . . .X X
Certification to Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X N/A
Resolution Confirming Action . . . . . . . .X N/A
Finalizing
Notice of Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X X
Recordation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X X
Notifying Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o -X X
Of course, the above process uses elements of existing laws--should the concept
be implemented, the cities may well redefine existing elements and further
refine the process. It would appear, however, that the minimal functions needed
to be performed by the city are:
- Application Process
Petition/Resolution
Certificate of Filing
- City Hearing Process
Legal Notice and Publication
Application Review/Staff Report
Resolution Approving/Denying
Applicant may also be landowner.
Reassignment of Responsibility for Urban Service
Areas and Annexations: Concept Paper
Page 4
December 1 , 1981
- Finalizing
Notice of Completion
Recordation
Notifying Process
ASSOCIATED ISSUES & AB 1113
The intent of the concept is consistent with the existing mandated purpose
of the Commission; therefore, no major policy issues can be identified. In
fact, the recently approved AB 1113 (Costa - effective January 1 , 1982 -
LAFCO opposed) states that the Commission cannot disapprove annexation
proposals which are subject to the following basic conditions:
I . Initiated by Resolution (rather than petition)
and
2. Contiguous to city limits.
and
A. Substantially surrounded by the city (but need not
constitute and entire island.
LE
B. Within the city's USA (but does not contain prime
agricultural land) .
AB 1113 also adds to the Government Code the following definition of USA.
"'Urban Service Area' means existing developed, undeveloped
or agricultural land, either incorporated or unincorporated,
within a city' s sphere of influence, which is currently served
by existing urban facilities, utilities and services or are
proposed to be served by urban facilities, utilities, and
services in the first five years of a city' s adopted capital
improvement program. The boundary around such an urban area
shall be called the 'Uuban Service Area Boundary' and shall
be delineated and adopted by mutual agreement of a commission
and a city pursuant to policies adopted by a commission in
accordance with Sections 54774 and 54774.5.11
Reassignment of Responsibility for Urban Service
Areas and Annexations: Concept Paper
Page 5
December 1 , 1981
Although there are many legal interpretations which require clarification
( i .e. what does "mutual agreement" mean?; are commissions required to
establish USA?; etc.) , the Assembly Bill is clearly a major state-wide move
toward the implementation of the concept.
Although the concept is consistent with the mandated purposes of LAFCO, the
same consistency is not present in the law for the procedural or mechanics
of the annexation process. The procedural problems--i .e. , elimination of
LAFCO frcm the annexation process will require major revisions in the
government codes. Any such modification in the procedural elements of the
law would be difficult if not impossible to effect, on a statewide level ,
since less than one-fifth of the LAFCOs have adopted spheres of influence or
USAs for their cities.
The concept does present some issues when viewed in light of the
Commission' s past practices, i .e. :
A Loss of leverage over cities by withholding annexation
approval .
B Need to develop methods to deal with special district annexations
and detachments that are required as part of a corresponding city
annexation.
C Danger of violating mandated purpose to promote orderly
growth if conditions change between the time LAFCO
approves the USA modification and the city annexes
territory.
D - Need to review and possibly modify existing USA in order
to balance inventories of vacant unincorporated territory
prior to relinquishing annexaticn alithority-
E - Confusion or lack of a coordinated and uniform processing
of annexation forms through county and state agencies due
to decentralization of process among cities.
RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARY
As seen by staff, the concept is clearly consistent with the purpose of the
Commission as defined in state law and partially implemented by AB 1113.
The concept, when viewed in the light of Santa Clara LAFCO's past actions
and local situation, does create a number of issues to be addressed. These
issues and staff recommendations are as follows:
Reassignment of Responsibility for Urban Service
Areas and Annexations: Concept Paper
Page 6
December 1 , 1981
Issue A -- Loss of Leverage Over Cities
Recommendation: Critically analyze USA revisions. Demand
cities address all urban service questions
( i .e., Police, Fire, Public Works, Traffic,
Sewage, etc.) rather than concentrating just
on mL,, jJor Impacts. Require cities to show
funding commitments to proposed extensions to
urban services by adopted cap7tal and opera-
tional budgets. Carefully monitor cities'
actions vs. plans.
Issue B -- Special District Procedures
Recommendation: Identify the factors affecting special districts and
their growth planning. Once identified, these factors
should be introduced into legislative conditions
requiring city review and/or findings at the time of
annexation/detachment.
Issue C -- Change of Conditions Between USA Approvals and Annexation
Recommendation: At the Time of annexation, the cities should be
required to make specific "findings" that
conditions which justified the USA revision
exist and have not significantly changed. Staff
recommends this approach rather than establishing
a "reasonable" time constraint due to the fact
that conditions do not have a constant rate of
change - i .e. , conceivably an urban service could
reach a critical stage one or two months following
an USA expansion ( failure of treatment plant, or
destruction of public facilities by fire, etc.)
and yet others could remain below capacity for
more than the five-year USA horizon.
Reassignment of Responsibility for Urban Service
Areas and Annexations: Concept Paper
Page 7
December 1 , 1981
Issue D -- Imbalance of Vacant Land Within Existing USA
Recommendation: The law allows LAFCOs to review and modify
spheres of influence annually. Prior to
implementation of the concept (or consider-
ation of the first annexation initiated
under the terms of AB 1113) LAFCO should
review the city' s entire USA and revise as
necessary to arrive at a reasonable USA
given the city' s ability to control annexations.
Issue E -- Potential of Loss of Coordination of Finalization Process
Recommendation: The finalization process, (recordation and
distribution of resolutions, maps and fees)
should remain as a centralized process under
the control of LAFCO. The law should be
modified to allow LAFCO to charge a "cost
recovery" fee for performance of this process.
Should the Commission desire to pursue implementation of the concept,
including the recommendations above, staff should be directed to:
I . Prepare a new "Statement of the Concept," integrating the
appropriate recommendations mentioned above.
2. Contact local legislators - advising them of the desire
to pursue modifications to existing state laws relating
to LAFCO - to determine those interested in carrying
legislation.
rt
cc George Francis
Don Fallon
M-82-01
(Meeting 82-1
January 13 , 1982)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 24 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Election of Board Officers for 1982
Pursuant to Section 1. 22 of your Rules of Procedure, your
election of new Board officers for the 1982 calendar year
is to take place at your first Regular Meeting in January.
Each officer will be voted on separately by secret ballot,
and the candidate receiving a majority vote of the members
of the Board will be elected. In the past, the voting has
taken place in the order of President, Vice-President, Secre-
tary, and Treasurer.
M-82-03
(Meeting 82-1
January 13 , 1982)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 22 , 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 December 16 , 1981 , you accepted
the Crist gift addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
(see report R-81-50 , dated December 10 , 1981) .
In accordance with the Public Notification Policies , the use
and management recommendations were tentatively approved, de-
ferring 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 (Crist gift property) as contained in report
R-81-50 , dated December 10 , 1981.
M-82-04
(Meeting 82-1
January 13 , 1982)
Aaw 0(elm
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 22 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Adoption of Interim Use and Management Plan for Addition
to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Catalano Property)
Discussion: At your meeting of December 16 , 1981, you approved
the proposed addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (see
report R-81-49 , dated December 16 , 1981) . You also tentatively
approved the use and management recommendations made in the
report, deferring final approval until your following meeting
to allow for additional public comment. Staff has received
no additional public comments .
Recommendation: It is recommended that you approve the use and
management plan for the addition to the Windy Hill open Space
Preserve as contained in report R-81-49 .
R-82-03
(Meeting 82-1
January 13 , 1982)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
January 7 , 1982
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: Monte Bello Open Space Preserve - Picchetti Ranch Area
(Waiver of Right of First Refusal - Consigny Property)
On May 14 , 1980, you approved a Purchase Agreement enabling the
District to acquire 107 acres of the 157 acre Consigny property
(see report R-80-23 dated May 8 , 1980) . That transaction included
a Restriction Agreement on the remaining 50 acres which entitled
the District to a right of first refusal should any portion of the
remaining lands be sold. Through the efforts of District staff and
Peninsula Open Space Trust, the County of Santa Clara is now acquir-
ing 40 of the remaining 50 acres, which includes a stable and rid-
ing rink, for $150 ,000 (see attached map) . In order for the County
to complete their purchase and close escrow it is required that the
District waive its Right of First Refusal.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you waive the District 's
Right of First Refusal to enable the County of Santa Clara to pur-
chase 40 acres of the remaining Consigny property by authorizing the
President of the Board to sign the attached relinquishment as re-
quired by First American Title Guarantee Company.
January 4, 1982
TO: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
445 So. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
RE: Escrow No. 550027
A.P.N. 351-16-025, Santa Clara County, California
This is to certify that Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. a public
district, has been properly notified of a sale of the property referred to
above by Peter Consigny pursuant to that Agreement recorded December 2, 1980
in Book F765, Page 216, Official Records of Santa Clara County, California,
and does hereby relinquish their right of first refusal under the terms of
that Agreement only as to the sale between Peter Consigny as seller and
the County of Santa Clara as purchaser, and Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District further acknowledges that all other terms of the Agreement
are to remain in full effect.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
BY:
—President, Board of Directors
ATTEST:
District Clerk
M-82-02
A (Meeting 82-1
% January 13, 1982)
0"Mmm
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 28 , 1981
TO; Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Scheduling of Program Evaluation Workshop
Discussion : In June 1980 (see report R-80-30 of June 5, 1980) ,
you adopted the evaluation format for the District' s programs.
In January, staff is to review Drogress since July 1 on the key
projects and activities in the 1931-1982 Action Plan and present
for Board discussion the key projects and activities being con-
sidered for incorporation in the 1982-1983 Action Plan. Due to
scheduling conflicts in the month of January and in order to
allow the new Land Manager to participate in the evaluation
process, I suggest the Board schedule the Program Evaluation
Workshop for the third Wednesday in February.
Recommendation : It is recommended you schedule a Special Meeting
for Wednesday, February 17, 1982 , beginning at 7 : 30 P.M. at the
District office, for the purpose of holding the first Program
Evaluation Workshop of the 1982 calendar year.
R-82-02
(Meeting 82-1
low January 13 , 1982)
ar_
IF,
X 0 C
AV MW
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
December 28 , 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 Status Report of Use and Management Plan for
Planning Area VI - Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Introduction: The use and management plan for Planning Area VI
was last presented to you on August 27 , 1980 (see report R-80-47 ,
dated August 20 , 1980) in the form of a detailed review. At
this time, the Planning Area is being reviewed in the form of
a summary status report. Planning Area VI is scheduled for a
full review in fall , 1982 .
Planning Area VI contains one District site , the Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve. The former Garrod parcel expanded the
size of the Preserve by 118 acres when the District received
title in August, 1980 , bringing the Preserve to 734 acres .
The interim use and management recommendations contained in
the acquisition report (see report R-80-34 , dated June 12 , 1980)
are being reviewed at this time and are included in this report.
Site Use and Management: Equestrian use continues to be the
major activity on the Preserve, with local equestrians gaining
access from adjacent properties and Garrod stables . Trail
damage due to heavy equestrian use in the wet winter months
continues to be a problem. A trail maintenance program has
been organized for the former Garrod property and Seven Springs
Canyon area in coordination with District staff, volunteers
from Garrod Stables , and the Castle Rock Horsemen' s Association.
Maintenance will include the installation of erosion control
measures and brush removal . The former Garrod property also
contains many parallel trails and roads on unnecessarily steep
terrain. Abandonment and reseeding of the unnecessary trails
is recommended.
The primary management concern remains the illegal use of the
Prospect Road parking area and the roadway leading to the hay-
field. over a year ago, a gate was installed at the entrance
R-82-02 Page two
to the Preserve with the intent of blocking the roadway during
the night. An adjacent property owner (within the gate) objected
to the inconvenience, so the gate has not been closed. In the
meantime, problems have escalated to the point that the adjacent
country club has complained because littering and vandalism are
going beyond the parking area and onto the golf course . Repre-
sentatives from the Club have expressed an interest in helping
District staff resolve the problem.
An alternative to the entrance gate would be to enclose the
parking lot by installing fencing and gates parallel to Prospect
Road. In addition, lighting could be provided by the country
club to increase security. This alternative would mean that
cars entering the Preserve at night would most likely continue
up the road and turn around in the driveways or at the hayfield.
If the latter happens, it may be necessary to gate the road
below the adobe house.
The maintenance of this roadway has also been a topic of con-
troversy, and staff is currently seeking a solution with the
neighbors. In November, staff attempted to set up a meeting
with all the affected parties, but there was no response,
probably due to the holidays. Additionally, there has been
no response to billings to the neighbors for a proportionate
share of last year' s culvert repair costs. Another attempt
will be made after the new Land Manager has joined the staff.
On June 28, 1981, the second public open house was held at the
former Fremont older home . The event was advertised in several
local newspapers , and docents aided in the reservation process.
Reservations were accepted for 150 visitors, and tours of the
house and gardens were staggered to prevent overcrowding of
the grounds or parking area. Since many persons considered the
event a success , staff hopes to hold a two-day open house in
the spring.
Additional Planning Considerations : The draft Environmental
Impact Report for the development of the Seven Springs Ranch
has been presented to the City of Cupertino. The District has
obtained a copy of the Report, and staff has reviewed the
document. District concerns regarding public access to the
Preserve were addressed, and staff has made additional comments
on the Report. As part of the E.I.R. , a traffic study was
conducted, which identified important problems which must be
mitigated prior to project approval . A series of public meetings
has been held reviewing the plans and the E. I .R.
A condition placed on the development occurring in the Rainbow' s
End tract adjacent to the Preserve requires a trail easement
connecting the residential area to the Preserve. The trail
will accommodate equestrians and hikers. The easement is re-
corded and construction will occur prior to July, 1982 .
R-82-02 Page three
Staff is proposing to waive the District ' s right of first refusal
on purchasing a portion of the Consigny property located adjacent
to Stevens Creek County Park and the District's Picchetti Ranch
Area of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. If this action is
approved and the property is purchased by Santa Clara County,
there would be the potential for trail connections between two
of the District' s preserves and a County park. Staff should
work with the Mid-peninsula Trails Council to coordinate a
meeting between the District and County to discuss possible
trail connections and the integration of existing trail systems .
Completed Projects
1. The second open house at the Fremont older home was held in
June 1981. Staff should continue to work with the Levines ,
the lessees of the Fremont older home, and District docents
to organize an open house, tentatively scheduled for two
days in spring, 1982 .
2. Trail signs were installed on the Preserve trails indicating
destinations and mileages . The project was completed in
September, 1981.
3. The partially collapsed culvert below the roadway between
the parking area and hayfield was replaced in December 1980 .
Total cost of the project was $6600. The cost of the project
is being prorated to the District and residents using the
road. The District' s share of costs is calculated at $2828.
A letter explaining the formula used to derive the cost
breakdown and an invitation to meet and discuss a road
maintenance agreement, was sent to the residents . No
responses have been received from the residents .
4 . Hiking stiles were installed at both ends of the hiking
trail connecting Prospect Road to the hayfield.
5. A wooden gate has been installed at the entrance to the
hayfield.
6. The water system for the adobe house was connected to the
well supplying the Fremont older home in November, 1981 .
7 . A Western Meadowlark population study was conducted in the
hayfield lease area to determine if harvesting of the hay
seriously impacted the bird populations. The area was
monitored during the nesting period (February 1 to May 15 ,
1981) , and no meadowlarks were observed in the proximity
of the hayfield area during the study.
8. A brochure was completed in April for the Preserve and is
available at the site and the District office .
9 . A sign located at the intersection of Prospect Road and
Rolling Hills Road, indicating the direction of the Fremont
Older Open Space Preserve, was installed in December. The
sign was made and installed by the County Transportation
Department.
R-82-02 Page four
Incompleted Projects
1. The brown house remains in poor condition. This building
was slated for demolition rather than spend any substantial
amount of money on. However, Proposition 13 brought the
District' s structures policies into question. Furthermore ,
the fate of adjacent undeveloped land owned by Saratoga
Country Club remains undetermined, and the open space
benefits of removing the brown house depends upon the
use of the adjacent land. A re-determination of whether
to remove the house should be made following the Board ' s
review of the Structures Policy.
2. The gate proposed for installation below the adobe house
has not been installed due to staff consideration of a
fencing and lighting plan for the parking lot. Lighting
in the paring area should be installed as a first step
in discontinuing night use. If the problem continues ,
fencing and gating of the parking area is proposed. However,
the closing of the parking area at night (or lighting it)
could tend to funnel night visitors into the interior of
the Preserve, transferring the problem from one location to
another. If this were to occur, the gate below the adobe
house should be installed to prevent vehicles from entering
the hayfield. This gate would also be closed at night.
Maximum cost of this project is $2500 .
3. Staff has identified a work program for trail maintenance
on the former Garrod property. Some of the trails need
brush clearing and erosion control measures . Other trails
have been identified for closure due to excessive grades ,
duplication of adjacent trails, or erosion problems . This
project will be conducted within two months by a volunteer
group from Garrod Farm and under supervision of District
staff. A similar arrangement has been made with the Castle
Rock Horsemen' s Association for trail maintenance in the
Seven Springs Canyon area.
4 . If the gate in item 2 is installed, then split rail fencing
should be extended further along Prospect Road to the pro-
posed gate location. Cost for this project is expected to
be approximately $300 .
5 . The boundary with the remaining Garrod property should be
fenced, incorporating hiking and equestrian stiles , in order
to exclude horse grazing from the adjacent horse ranch and
to allow implementation of a vegetation recovery plan. An
existing service road would be gated and maintained as a
patrol road. The estimated cost of the project is $1500 .
6 . In accordance with the District' s gifts recognition policy,
the two areas called "Nob Hill" and Maisie ' s Peak" , located
on the former Garrod property, should be identified and
signed in accordance with the Garrod family' s wishes . Sign
placement is anticipated for Spring, 1982 or upon receipt
of the Garrod family' s suggestions on format of the signs.
Cost is estimated at $200 .
R-82-02 Page five
New Use and Management Recommendations
1. Signs indicating the boundary between the Preserve and the
Garrod property should be installed to further delineate
the property lines.
2 . Upon acquisition of the Consigny property by Santa Clara
County, District staff should encourage the Mid-peninsula
Trails Council to coordinate a meeting which includes the
District and County regarding trails planning in the area.
Integration of the trails system in the Fremont Older Open
Space Preserve , the Picchetti Ranch Area, the Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve, and Stevens Creek County Park would
be the primary emphasis of the meeting.
3. The District has not received any income from the agricultural
tenant in the past few years due to unprofitable crops .
Recently, an interest has been expressed in using a portion
of the land for vineyard. The District should engage services
of the U. S . Extension Service and the County Agricultural
Advisor to examine alternative land uses which may be
more profitable to the District. If the hayfield is deter-
mined to be an unsuitable land use, the present tenant will
be notified in May 1982 not to replant for the following year.
Dedication Status. The entire 734 acre Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve is dedicated open space.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you tentatively adopt
the use and management recommendations given herein for the
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. Final adoption of the use
and management recommendations would be scheduled for your
next Regular Meeting to allow for further public comment.
o ^+ ntz e6w M star c � K n rr c se.eara � x .' f Atstf ce r�esrr �r •■r .+ r �ro- ' n a1n�
r iE Y i a ,�• r e � �r ���� �..rrr r r •�. - � a e �.�"9� a a '�e� r r ,J�f:�.:dr a° K'a4J �`�`i• �tlCr
��r r"r r .{^r"r i�"'yr r ■sr>AC"s°�_ �s r "'r a ,p � � '�• s'��•7'`I�'r.+► �� r w ■�f"jr• �°ll.
, �, � /1 Rl! ��' � '��w�/ ,7��/�'-_, rid j•� � y, � �...� ,, -� .- ,
•
\ (� f / %lj C� �1:-) �j�� ?f r \�( —'i- .� r \ ( c.�(6 ''` •�� '�y�r� 77FR 1-T.• '!�•�iai
600 �,. ' ` Jf,::� �o i \ /"4%(J,/ W� ;• SEVEN SPRINGS
,c 1� ) 1• �' DEVELOPMENT
1.._ �W�tF • \\
j� �y .}-�s��X� �:�^ � Al �� c 36 /�l,�i � �._�� I� � li /. )',�,•"/�/ � �" __�. i%��. 1 7�� •v � � �
f0� TorI
PORTI
jj
ki
0i. ('� 1�✓" i.1 •� , ) +� i r\)\V" f .�� ,/�• •�� °
0 �___)l> '� . � I \ '� � �I ��— - N"r r _ '� '• ,, \.
_ 60 •�J��► l;' __ • ~ " ,�. 1, r�
P I C C H E`F I I - r_- --�� -' �- ,, - �800
, > `;F R E ter.%..;+�t `•.'�`�1 �.
q P N SPACE �R S r�V o .c� . !; 7") ( o
�+ V� .. --�..� • (,ter-: ..- �
00
1, t .- '("{_ � �\ .. ' �� �.d�4+ ,,.• j ��
I .
eo� I C N
;o /, PR FRTY. (�; 600
"� • -•
��✓ �TE�/.N5 REEK
X"/
\,f� tit e /'-.� ���` o \ ���i' J� ���� t; SITE MAP (USGS) 1
!� `��' I,��I � �\ �`�� ! _� y.` •��� 11../�\:`i ,•/ � Lam,UUO,�r�i :-� �� (.-. ��.i r, I
FREMONT OLDER
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE /
---- Existing Trail System ,
.._ _ AIL
f \� - � �� 1 n
;�- oo/ Scale 1 - 1300 North r000
a
�r a rtir a �r a rr� r i Rat r "` ■' r r,r�,■ .� �l ;ra_. T� ��� ,
. � r/'r� �f't�"Y�*.fir r R rt s' � ■r�rY � ■'�'y"■��'� T � r �' �a'•YRr
R-82-01
(Meeting 81-1
oe January 13 , 1982)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
December 28 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Dedication Status of District Lands
Introduction: The District' s revised Dedicated Lands Policy
adopted on November 28 , 1980 (see memorandum M-79-146 , dated
November 21, 1979) requires that an annual report be made in
January of each year showing which District lands are in
planning reserve status and are not dedicated as open space
land and which lands are dedicated. During each year, the
status of each parcel of undedicated land is also individually
reviewed as part of the regular land use and management
planning process for the various planning areas .
The purpose of withholding lands from dedication, as stated in
the Dedicated Lands Policy, is : "Normally, undedicated lands
within the District' s boundaries will be held for future
dedication to park or open space purposes , but only after the
necessary planning, boundary adjustments , provision for per-
manent access and other changes in configuration, which may
involve the disposal or exchange of interests in all or portions
of such lands , have been completed. "
Discussion: The attached tables show the status of the lands
.
owned of i in the process of purchase by the District. Table 1
indicates the District lands and pending purchases dedicated
as open space . Of the 1177 acres of land acquired by the
District in 1981 , 533 were dedicated. The total acreage of
dedicated land now owned by the District is 8351 acres .
The attached Table 2 lists the undedicated property owned by
the District. In 1981 , 644 acres of the land that was pur-
chased was withheld from dedication. The total acreage of
undedicated land owned by the District is 2181 acres or 210
of the District' s land holdings .
The dedicated and undedicated open space easements held by the
District are shown in Tables 3 and 4 , respectively. The District
R-81-01 Page two
retains 471 acres of dedicated easements and 50 acres of un-
dedicated easements; 5% of the District ' s holdings are in the
form of easements.
District lands increased by 12% in 1981 with the acquisition
of ten parcels of land, plus one gift acquisition, one ease-
ment acquisition and a 102 acre lease. In addition, three
land acquisitions are pending and, upon close of escrow, will
add another 207 acres , bringing total District holdings to
11, 260 acres .
Further clarification of the status of District lands is in-
dicated in Table 5 , the summary.
Table #1
Dedicated Open Space Lands
OPEN SPACE BOARD
PLANNING AREA PRESERVE FORMER OWNER APPEQX. ACREbM APPBQML DATE
1. Hassler Area (no District
preserves)
2* Wes
t
West of Skyline (no District
Area preserves)
3- Los Trancos Los Trancos Dahl 274 11/24/76
Los Creek Russian Ridge Crist 130 12/13/78
r�Watershed William 33 3/26/80
Fine 23 4/9/80
Schroeder 11 10/22/80
Coplon 238 1/14/81
Subtotal: 435
Thornewood Sierra Club 87 9/13/78
Foundation
Windy Hill P.O.S.T. 537 12/30/80
4. Foothills Area Foothills Blair 70 6/12/74
Crocker 90 5/28/75
Leonheart 10 5/25/77
Giuffre (pending 1 2/25/81
Subtotal: 171
Rancho San Perham 394 5/30/75
Antonio
Roman Catholic 118 7/13/77
Church
Duveneck. 430 12/14/77
Peterson 80 11/12/80
Winship 251 1/28/81
Subtotal: 1273
BOARD
PLANNING AREA PRESEPYE FORMER GWNER A—PPROY. AQ;EAGE APPROVAL DATE
5. Stevens Creek Saratoga Gap Chesebrough 136 10/9/74
Watershed Gunetti-Larrus 275 10/30/75
Subtotal: 411
Long Ridge Nichols et al. 390 4/26/78
Smith 15 1/28/81
Subtotal: 405
Monte Bello Avidano et al. 760 1/22/75
Boy Scouts 1 5/26/76
Picchetti 200 7/14/76
Eldridge 150 11/12/77
Burns 610 11/22/77 (SC)
Burns 13 7/26/78 (SM)
Stanford 694 9/27/78
Phil. Invest. 100 1/24/79
Swanson 11 3/25/80
Consigny 107 5/14/80
Maridon 169 6/25/80
Winship 29 1/28/81
McNeil(pending) 97 8/26/82
Subtotal: 2941
6. Fremont Older Fremont Older Lyddon 266 5/14/75
Open Space Area Radin-McDonald 36 10/8/75
Cocciardi 5 3/3/75
Merkelo, 6 6/4/76
Claitor 3 5/26/76
Gregory-
Maurantonio 20 2/23/77
Mozzetti 216 2/23/77
Nellis 64 4/13/77
Garrod 118 6/25/80
Subtotal: 734
7. El Sereno Costanoan Way Saratoga School 2 5/14/75
Area District --
El Sereno Moore 983 10/30/75
8. Manzanita manzanita Ridge Dieterich Trust 142 12/10/80
Ridge Area
9. Baylands- (no District
North preserves)
10. Baylands Stevens Creek P.O.S.T. 54 7/9/80
South Nature Study Area (includes pending)
TOTAL ACRES DEDICATED: V-�26
Table 2
Undedicated Open Space Lands
BOARD
F1;2'NILNG GPFU SPACE APPROX. APPROVAL
AR%�'� PRESERVE FORMER OWNER ACREAGE DATE REASON FOR WITHHOLDING
I.Hassler (no District
Area preserves)
2. West of (no District
Skyline preserves)
Area
3. Los Russian Ridge Crist 120 10/28/81 Parcel non-continguous to
11razicos Preserve.
watershed
Crist 40 12/16/81 Parcel non-contiguous to
Preserve.
Subtotal: 160
Windy Hill Catalano 103 12/16/81 Portion of parcel ion-
(pending) contiguous to Pre:—re.
Possible trace of portion.
4. Foothills Rancho San Roman Catholic; 80 7/13/77 Possible trade with adjacent
Area Antonio Church property owner
Foothills McCulley 10 6/13/79 Possible boundary adjustment
or exchange of property rights
including fee title
5. Stevens Saratoga Gap Gunetti and 80 11/10/76 Possible transfer to Santa
Creek Larrus Clara Co. Parks for inclusion
Watershed - in Upper Stevens Creek Park
Monte Bello McCone 40 1/24/79 Possible transfer to Santa
Clara Co. Parks for inclusion
in Stevens Creek Park
Melton 17 3/26/80 Isolated site with no public
access
Collins 8 4/9/80 Isolated site with no public
Subtotal: 6,5 access
Long Ridge Bridgeman 55 11/28/79 Possible sale of one or more
subdivided lots. Future
pattern of private develop-
ment unclear.
Bean 14 6/24/81 Possible trade of leasehold
Subtotal: 69 area
The Job Finder
Ranger ($1, 319-$1, 778) Patrol District lands in Midpen. Bay
Area. Provide visitor information.
BOARD
PLANNING OPEN SPACE APPROX. APPROVAL
AREA PRESERVE FG_ t OWNER ACREAGE DATE REASON FOR WITHHOLDING
6.Fremont
Older Open
Space Pre-
serve Area
7. El Sereno El Sereno Moore 16 10/30/75 Parcel non-continguous to
Area Preserve. Possible trade
with adjacent property owner.
Lovell 35 4/9/80 Parcel non-contigous to
Preserve. Possible trade
with adjacent property owner.
Briggs Creek State of Cal. 1 6/10/81 Possible trade or flexibility
(pending) in planning.
Subtotal: - 52
8.Manzanita Manzanita Kennedy 290 4/25/79 Possible transfer of
Ridge Area Ridge Trails density rights
Laye 137 6/13/79 Only-E artial interest acquire(f
Poss, le transfer of
density rights.
Fairweather 187 11/14/79 Possible transfer of
density rights.
Bell 83 7/9/80 Possible transfer of
property rights, either
fee or easement.
Mindling- 121 6/26/80 Possible trade of develop-
Harrison
ment rights.
Guadalupe 338 11/10/80 Parcel non-contiguous to
Rubbish Dis- Preserve.Possible use of
posal Co. development rights as tool.
Leverich- 285 5/13/81 Parcel non-contiguous to
Risley Preserve. Possible use of
development rights as tool.
Sorahan 37 5/27/81 Possible use of development
rights as tool.
Subtotal: 1478
9. Baylands- (No District
North preserves)
10. Baylands- San Mateo Co. kWestbay 40 11/12/80 No public access.
South Baylands Associates
Reserve Leslie 148 6/22/81 Allow to transfer to
Subtotal: 188 another agency.
TOTAL ACRES UNDEDICATED: 2290 (includes pending)
Table #3
Dedicated Open Space Easements
BOARD
PLANNING AREA NAME FORMER OWNER APPROX. ACREAGE APPROVAL DATE
1. Hassler Area Edgewood State of Calif. 467 8/27/80
3. Los Trancos Thornewx)od Oswald 4 7/9/80
Watershed
TOTAL DEDICATED EASEMENTS: 471 acres
Table #4
Undedicated Open Space Easements
BOARD
PLANNING AREA NAME FORMER OWNER APPROX. ACREAGE APPROVAL DATE
8. Manzanita Manzanita Ridge Sorahan 30 5/27/81
Ridge Area
Summit Road
O.S. Easement LaPointe 20 6/30/75
TOTAL UNDEDICATED EASEMENTS: 50 acres
Table #5
SurmTa-ry
PENDING
EASEMENTS LAND LAND TOTAL
Dedicated 471 8351 98 8920
Undedicated 50 2181 109 2340
TOTAL 5.21 101532 207 11,260
kq
NAIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
745 DISTEL DRIVE, LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717
DOCENT TRAINING SPRING 1976
Date & Time Meeting Place Title and Instructor
April 3 Black Mountain Bird Banding and
5 : 30 to bird identification
11 : 00 am
April 8 745 Distel Drive MRPD history and policy
7 : 30 p.m. Herb, Jon, Carroll
April 12
(not yet confirmed) 745 Distel Dr. Cultural history of
Montebello Ridge
Shana McArthur, Dave
Benion
April 22 Black Mountian Natural History of
9 : 30 a.m.- carnool frnm nict-FP1 n-,- Tt71 —I- T-T--I,
1
t
�.RI % ✓ t
1q"�
i
I'ZDi'i.tiT SJI.71 REGIGNAL OPEC SPACE DISTRICT
i
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y. I .
i
1
DATED:: 1/6/82
1
t
1
i.
i
t
.j
.i
t
OI I'F{;F.S COIs1Mi"I'TEES
❑ State Capitol Vice Chairman
Sacramento 95814 Education
(916) 445 3104 Member
Agriculture and Water Resources
GRI G AL I ERTON Energy and Public Utilities
❑ Administrative Assistant Talifornia i1f a islature Incur Insura and nce
are
de
lt?O2tI N. Dc Anza Blvd. �LJ1 �;j Insurance and]ndemnity
Culwrtino 95014 ter_ Jt. Ad Hoe Educational Sunset
�,Sp?
408) 257-5083 Review
Select Committee on
Governmental Efficiency
RON KATz �, ` Sul:worn mittee on Aging
Administrative Assistant
Vocational Education and
�i Em yloyment Training
Tas Force
DAN O'KEEFE
SI,NATOR
TWELFTH DISTRICT
CAMPBELL, CUPERTINO, LOS ALTOS, LOS ALTOS HILLS, LOS GLTOS, MONTE SF.IIENo,
MOUNTAIN VIEW, PAL.O ALTO, SAN JOSF SANTA C:LARA, SARATOGA, SUNNYVALE
December 17 , 1981
Mr. Herbert Grench
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
37S Distel Circle , Suite D-1
Los Altos , California 9SO22
Dear Mr. Grench:
As I promised in my earlier letter to you, my staff has
looked into the matter of the frozen funds for the Roberti-Z 'berg
Park Project .
According to the Legislative Counsel , the Department of
Finance has final authority over expenditures for capital outlay
projects . In a year when state revenues do not match expenditures ,
it is the Director of the Department of Finance who makes the deter-
mination as to which legislatively-mandated programs will continue
to receive full funding and which programs will not . The Director
and the Public Works Board prioritizes state-funded projects starting
with those essential to life , public health and safety, and so on.
By their determination, parks and similar public works programs have
been assigned a low priority by the Department of Finance . Although
funding may be frozen, it is possible for the Department to resume
program funding later in the fiscal year. My staff was informed
that there is no provision in law which states that money appro-
priated for a certain month must be spent that same month.
While funding of the Roberti-Z 'berg Park Project has been
frozen, due to a determination by the Department of Finance , the
legislative mandate supporting the Project remains valid. Full
funding for the Project can be sought for the 1982-83 fiscal year .
I would appreciate further contact from you and your representatives
in Sacramento when items for the upcoming State Budget are discussed
ill the coming months .
S nce etly,
D N 01KEEFE
Senator, 12th Distri t
DO/rbc
mw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
December 18, 1981
Mr. and Mrs. Warren Dutton
1872 Colleen Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dutton:
At their meeting of December 16 , 1981, the Board
of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District received your letter of December 4 ,
1981 regarding parking problems at Rancho San An-
tonio Open Space Preserve and County Park, and
allowing a limited amount of parking under the
280 overpass.
In behalf of the Board, I thank you for expressing
your concerns on this matter. Your views will be
taken into consideration as the District' s staff
works to resolve the parking situation.
Sincerely,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,NonetteG.Hanko,Richard S Bishop,EdwardG.Shelley,Harry A Turner.Daniel G Wendin
Ilk
0 11
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1.LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
December 17, 1981
Mrs. Gordon F. Lewis
1230 Highland Court
San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Mrs. Lewis:
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to thank you for your letter
supporting purchase of the Hassler property. At the December 10 Special
Meeting in San Carlos, the Board decided to place a resolution of necessity
to acquire the property by eminent domain, if necessary, for consideration
at the January 27, 1982 meeting in Los Altos.
Sincerely yours,
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.Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendm
-lit
Mamk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
December 17, 1981
Mr. & Mrs. Spencer Bendle
1920 Arroyo Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bendle:
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to thank you for your
letter supporting purchase of the Hassler property. At the Decem-
ber 10 Special Meeting in San Carlos, the Board decided to place a
resolution of necessity to acquire the property by eminent domain,
if necessary, for consideration at the January 27, 1982 meeting in
Los Altos.
Sincerely yours,
A 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.Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin
NEWS III
RELE00ASEmIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-11,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94:22
(415) 965-4717
December 17 , 1981
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Charlotte MacDonald, Public Communications Coordinator
(415) 965-4717
LOS ALTOS--The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has
announced the filling of two management-level positions , by
David William Hansen as Land Manager, and James Boland as Operations
Supervisor. Hansen is currently the Open Space Planner for the
Marin County Parks and Open Space District, and Boland is a Lead
Ranger for MROSD.
David Hansen, who has been with Marin County since 1975 , was born
in New Zealand and emigrated to the United States in 1956. A
U.S. citizen since 1966 , he graduated from Williamette University
with a bachelor ' s degree in art and from the University of California
with a master' s degree in landscape architecture/environmental
planning.
Before joining the Marin County Open Space District, Hansen
served as Executive Director and Zoo Park Planning Consultant for
the East Bay Botanical and Zoological Society. Prior to that,
he worked as a self-employed landscape designer and as a post-
graduate research assistant for the Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. He also spent three years as a volunteer
with the U. S. Peach Corps in Brazil.
As Land Manager for MROSD, Hansen will be in charge of the
group responsible for pre-and post acquisition planning, maintenance,
and operations on the District ' s system of public open Space
Herbert A Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green.NonetteG Hanko,Richard S Bishop,Edward Shelley Nagy Fume*.Daniel Ves n
NEWS RELEASE Page two
December 17 , 1981
preserves.
Announcing Hansen's appointment to the MROSD Directors at
their regular meeting last night, District General Manager
Herb Grench Said, "David comes highly recommended for the job
and one of his strongest points is his ability to work with the
public. "
James Boland, a District Ranger since 1977 , was born and raised
in San Jose, California. He received a Bachelor ' s degree in
parks and recreation administration from California State University
at Chico in 1975 , and worked for the Santa Clara County Parks
Department before joining the Open Space District as Construction
Ranger. He was appointed as one of three Lead Rangers for the
District in October, 1981.
As Operations Supervisor, Boland will replace Eric Mart, who
held the job for four and a half years before starting his own land
management consulting firm earlier this year. Boland will be
responsible for all the patrol, construction, and maintenance
activities on the District's 15 preserves, as well as for the
recruiting, training, and supervision of the Ranger staff.
"He' s worked his way up to this job, " said Grench about
Boland. "He' s very deserving of this promotion. "
-30-
All ►
1%it,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
December 18 , 1981
Mayor Diane Feinstein and
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
City Hall
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: Proposed Acquisition of the Hassler Health Home
Property for Public Open Space and Recreation Purposes
Dear Mayor Feinstein, President Molinari and Members of the Board:
As a resident and former Mayor of the City of San Carlos , I
have actively supported acquisition of the Hassler property for
public open space and recreation purposes as early as 1974 . Two
years after the Hassler Health Home was permanently closed, San
Carlos residents approved a special tax levy to match a grant
or other fund sources that might be obtained to acquire the property
for open space and recreation use. At the same time, San Francisco
had made it clear that the property was available for sale and the
anticipated income from the sale of the site was even included in
San Francisco' s budget for that year.
In 1976 , 1 was appointed as a director of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District and am the current President of the
Board. Part of the successful campaigning to annex this area
of San Mateo County to the District in 1976 stemmed from the
citizenslefforts to "save Hassler" . Accordingly, the District
has been actively interested in acquiring the Hassler Health Home
property since early 1977 and took the lead role in this project
in October, 1979. At that time , the District was awarded a $1.1
million federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to assist
in the purchase. Also, the local residents, by a 92% vote, agreed
to assess themselves an additional $300 ,000 to be applied toward
the purchase price. Since then, San Mateo County has tentatively
agreed to participate in the project in the amount of $100 ,000.
This type of cooperative effort is unique and exciting for
preservation of open space lands , and indicates the level of interest
and desirability of the Hassler property for urban open space.
In an attempt to purchase this property through negotiations ,
the District hired a professional appraiser, recognized and utlized
by the City' s Real Estate staff. On October 25, 1979 the District
made a written offer to purchase the property; this offer was
personally presented to the City ' s Director of Real Estate by the
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
Page two
District 's Land Acquisition Manager. A copy of the State
approved appraisal was also delivered at that time.
Negotiations proceeded on an amicable basis , and on October
15 , 1980 , the District made a formal Offer to Purchase the
property for $2 . 24 million, and included a District check in
the amount of $10 ,000 as a good faith gesture. This price was
based upon an updated appraisal which included a consideration
of the passage of time in the escalating real estate market and
an investigation of recent real estate sale activity in the
vicinity of the Hassler property. It was our understanding at
the time that this offer would be favorably considered by the Real
Estate Department. Instead, negotiations continued and it wasn 't
until September 23, 1981 (almost a full year after our formal
offer) that the sale was presented to the Finance Committee of
your Board with a recommendation that a direct sale be made to the
District at a purchase price of $2.5 million. This brief , but
recent series of events alludes to a much deeper level of effort
as shown on the attached "Chronology of events" .
During this interim time, the State, which administers the
Land and Water Conservation Fund grants, and the neighbors of the
site who formed the assessment District, continually questioned
and pressured the District to complete the acquisition. The
facts as they knew them were that the property was surplus land and
was to be sold as quickly as possible by San Francisco , and further
that the District had the cash and an appraisal that was acceptable
to the City. These groups may not have realized that land sales
between governmental agencies sometimes take inordinate amounts
of time, and we responded that the District negotiated in a good
faith, forthright and timely manner.
Most recently, the Hassler Health Home has come to public
attention because of the illegal activities and vandalism occuring
in and around the abandoned facilities. As a result, these build-
ings have been called a nuisance and a major public safety liability
by local residents and politicians. Also, because of the narrow
and difficult access to the building area, emergency vehicles are
delayed in responding to these current difficulties, and a major
accident or fire might be disasterous possibly resulting in loss
of life or property. Concerns have been voiced directly to the
District, the County and the City of San Carlos , and reported with
regularity in the newspapers. The District had always intended to
immediately demolish most of the structures
es upon close of escrow if
and when the property was purchased from San Francisco. Unfortunately,
the District had also hoped to retain the main Doctor's house and
nurses quarters (a duplex) for an on-site ranger residence and for
future recreation uses (possibly a youth hostel, etc. ) ; we hope
these two buildings are not vandalized beyond repair. It would
seem that the City would be anxious to sell this property to a
responsible agency such as the District before the City was forced
to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to demolish these
structures in order to abate the public safety hazzard and relieve
the City of a possible expensive liability problem.
Page three
On December 10 , 1981 , the District Board of Directors
held a public informational hearing in San Carlos to solicit public
comment on the District 's alternatives relative to the Hassler
property. Of the approximately 100 people in attendance, there
was not one person who voiced opposition to purchasing this property,
utilizing the District's power of eminent domain, if necessary.
(I have also attached a copy of the staff report from that
hearing. )
Our Board of Directors continues to believe that the District 's
offer of $2. 5 million, all cash, is still the City ' s best
alternative. This is not a contingent offer; the District does not
have to worry about zoning, development potential , sewer capacity,
major access provisions, and the like. The District could close
escrow and relieve the City of all burdens connected with this
property (including disposition of the buildings) within any time
period the City would dictate (within one week if necessary) .
Any current private offers the City may have would still rely
on a bid and final payment at public auction. After a thorough
investigation of the difficulties associated with developing this
property (including density questions , sewer capacity, public outcry
about the existing buildings and development costs) , a private
party could always decline to bid, or even after bidding could
decline to make payment. It is much more prudent to walk away from
a relatively small deposit than to hold a $2.5 million property
that is undevelopable or unprofitable. The delays in scheduling
a public auction (possibly as much as six months lead time to
adequately advertise and auction such a property to insure proper
exposure on the market and allow prospective bidders adequate time
for investigation of the potential development) would further
aggravate the deteriorating situation at the building complex
and may require the expenditure of large sums of money by the City
to assure the local jurisdictions that San Francisco is adequately
and responsibly managing its property. .
Additionally, as a result of the public informational hearing,
and the unprecedented support for the purchase of this property,
the District has scheduled consideration of a Resolution of
Public Necessity as a prelude to the filing of an action in eminent
domain. This consideration is currently scheduled for January 27 ,
1982 . Since October of 1979 , the District has been committed to
this project and although we have continually tried to purchase the
property through negotiations , it appears that this property, because
of public support and necessity, warrants this last-resort
consideration. We feel that such an action is costly and time
consuming, and we would still be interested in purchasing this
property on a direct sale basis.
We have even agreed in the original offer to return any profits
to San Francisco over and above interest the District might have
received on its cash investment in the property. Although the
District would not intend or have any interest in the reselling of
a high priority open space. parcel such as the Hassler Health Home
property, (and the grants and dedication policies of the District
would make resale nearly impossible) this was done to assure San
Francisco that it was not the District ' s intention to resell this
property or try to make a profit on commercial development should
Page four
such an opportunity present itself. I have attached a copy
of our original offer and accordingly refer you to paragraph 7
therein.
I would like to conclude by saying that the current settlement
offer of $2 . 5 million,as originally supported by San Francisco 's
Real Estate and Health Departments, seems to be a fair and reasonable
solution for both the City and the District. The District is ready
willing and able to close escrow on this basis and bring a seven-
year process to a conclusion that will benefit all parties. It
appears that all other solutions will delay this project for at
least another year and will not solve the aggravated conditions
that currently exist on the property. The District is committed
to this project but would like to settle the matter on a cooperative
basis.
Sincerely,
Richard Bishop
President , Board of Directors
LCB: iy
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
The City, of Sunnyvale
Recreation Activit.*Ies Guide
ter Win .
d �
e s.,y Ss'" � ,a-q'�� 'i f"r,= � a ti'. 7 •9 �
.1982
Ai�
dan' i •L.-. Pvt. •Fr' '"ry:E it
IV RAO�g
KN
v t•� ram,
a r�
1�
Holiday Package —
r December 5
Mh'3
•fit Join volunteer naturalists from the Open Space District on
t the following walks through our nearby open space:
t Every Sunday — 2:00 P.M. at Los Trancos Open Space
Preserve
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Learn to read the landscape for evidence of geologic
activity. A walk along the San Andreas Fault Trail takes
OUTDOOR OPPORTUNITIES about one hour..
Would you like to work outdoors and become familiar with Saturday, January 16, 1982 — 1:00-3:00 at Russian Ridge
local trails while gaining experience in park maintenance? Open Space Preserve
Walk on a grassland ridgetop with panoramic views of Mt.Become a volunteer Ranger Aide with the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District.Vo{ 965-471 iunteers assist Rangers in T f San Francisco Bay,and parts of the coast.Call
-4717 for information.
such tasks as trail clearing, site clean-up, and equipment
maintenance every Thursday from 8:30 to approximately Saturday, February 20 & March 20 - 2:00-4:00 Ranch San
5:00 p.m. To apply, call Kathy Blackburn at (415) 965-4717. Antonio Open Space Preserve
If you have a Scout troop or other youth organization in Experience woodland,chaparral and grassland commu-
nities as you walk up Wildcat Canyon. Call 965-4717 for need of a community service project,call the above number
information.
for information onop
portunities with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Saturday, March 27— 11:00-2:00 at Windmill Pasture
� y�
MROSD is a regional public agency which preserves land Come out and see what is flowering and budding in prepa-
in our local foothills and baylands.Maps and information are ration for spring.Eat lunch in beautiful Windmill Pasture.
available by calling 965-4717. Call 965-4717 for information.
REGISTRATION PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS
REGISTRATION INFORMATION CALENDAR
Registration Information Telephone Line—733-0111 Dec. 18 — Non-residents may register for the first time in
Weekdays 10 a.m.-2 p.m., Nov. 30-Dec. 15 person, 9 a.m.-8 p.m.at:
Community Center
Recreation Center Building
RESIDENT MAIL-IN INFORMATION AND DATES 550 E. Remington Drive
738-5521 for information
Guide Arrival Thru Dec. 14 — Mail-In Registration - All
classes will at first be registered by mail only.All mail is held BOTH RESIDENTS & NON-RESIDENTS
until the first day of processing, Dec.7.Forms recieved after
the first day of processing will be opened in order according
to the day received.Mail that is postmarked after Dec.14 will Dec.19—Registration held each Saturday,beginning today
be returned. A box is provided at the Community Center 9:30 a.m.-12 noon only.
where you may leave your registration in person during mail-
in dates. Dec. 21 — Registration continues weekdays, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Dec. 17 & 18 — Begin WALK-IN REGISTRATION, Class until the second class meeting where openings are available.
Changes and Substitutions—9 a.m.-8 p.m. at: Dec.24,25,31&Jan.1—Legal holidays,Community Center
Community Center Closed.
Recreation Center Building Jan.11 &12— First two days of the start of classes.We will
550 E. Remington Drive reserve these two evenings for late registration until 8:00
738-5521 for information p.m.
LATE TENNIS REGISTRATION
NON-RESIDENT INFORMATION AND DATES Beginning Dec.21 tennis registration moves to:
Sunnyvale Municipal Tennis Center
Dec.5—Non-residents may pick up an Activity Guide at the 755 S. Mathilda Ave.
Community Center. You can mail in your registration thru 732-2130
Dec. 14. Include additional fees listed below for each class. Mon.thru Sat., 9 a.m.-6 p.m.
We will return, unprocessed, mail that is not accurately M
totaled.Mail that is postmarked after Dec.14 will be returned. MAIL REGISTRATION FORMS TO:
Mail is opened on Dec. 18 in random selection. 'Registration'
Non-Resident Fee Schedule P.O. Box 60607
$1.00-5.50 ..................... Add 1.00 Sunnyvale, CA 94088
$6.00-10.50.................... Add 2.00
$11.00-15.50................... Add 3.00 ENCLOSE:
$16.00-20.50................... Add 4.00 — Registration form
$21.00-25.50................... Add 5.00 — Payment
$26.00-30.50................... Add 6.00 — Stamped, self-addressed return envelope
$31.00 Up ..................... Add 7.00
30
� .
r
y.
..r �, �Jl • •✓a_bjl C• �Alff ft•ir i.� k1'f t9���,;.kw.���
r �
r `
of
40
ell
'^� � ,� '$�'." fig! h t= $.. � /�r yr •� �1
J�k
r ;
`# • • Circle
• , tos
tCa
NI --slog
Los
~ ` • r '+.
Ik
Recreation Awards A
Program Launched
The California Park and Recreation
Society announces a new recreation
awards program whose purpose is to
r _
4 ti
honor agencies within the state of Cali-
fornia for innovative recreation pro-
grams of outstanding merit. All Cali- 7
fornia cities, special districts, thera-
peutic,armed forces,volunteer,commer-
cial and community school recreation �-
providers are eligible to submit one spe-
cific program entry. - Q1,
s=�
Further information and applica- r -
tions are available from this years ''
chairperson,Rich Bunnell,346 Church
Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. The =_ -
entry deadline is January 5, 1982. Japanese Gardens Grace Postcards
This year's program has been made This year the Hayward Area Recrea- newspaper coverage. This spring the
possible through the support and spon- tion and Park District won the Award District began to receive requests for
sorship of Marriott's Great America. of Excellence for park design for facili- photographs of the Gardens from many
ties completed in 1980. The award was local and out-of-town visitors. General
Park and Rec Facilities' made for the Japanese Gardens which Manager L.A. "Bud" Critzer, Jr.
are part of a central complex including a reports on the cost-effective method the
Resources in Times senior citizens'center and 250-seat little District found for meeting these
of Disaster? theatre. requests: through production of post-
cards, which can also be included in
At its recent quarterly meeting, the The Gardens have been featured on industrial packages and promotional
California Association of Park and CBS's "Evening Magazine" television materials of the chambers of commerce
Recreation Commissioners and Board program on two occasions and in located within the District, the City of
Members called attention to a logical Sunset magazine, as well as receiving Hayward,and Alameda County.
but rarely-considered function of park
and recreation personnel and facilities:
disaster preparation. Kudos to MROSD for Keeping the Public Notified
Focusing specifically on the threat of The League of Women Voters,whose process and appreciate the efforts you
a major earthquake, the Association Observers provide"watchdog"services have made so far. We hope that the
noted that "park and recreation per- to public agencies at all levels of policies you establish will cause future
sonnel and facilities are logical resour- government, gave the Midpeninsula boards to retain that same high degree
ces to create public awareness and to Regional Open Space District good of awareness. In addition, we hope the
provide public education,"and that"in marks in September for improvement in policies you establish will be ones which
the event of a major earthquake or other its public notification procedures. maintain high interest in our commun-
disaster, many public park and recrea- Janie Killermann, President of the ity about how the open space tax dollars
tion facilities would be valuable com- Los Altos-Mountain View Area branch are used."
munity assets as sources of emergency of the League, read a letter into the
shelter and information." record at the September 23rd MROSD The MROSD Directors recently
Board meeting. "Your proposals for completed a comprehensive study of the
CAPRCBM passed a resolution to public notification and greater empha- District's Public Notification Policies
"encourage all cities and other govern- sis on action plans and public presenta- and Procedures and adopted an
mental jurisdictions in the State of Cali- tions are a good basis for interacting expanded set of procedures for inereas-
fornia to fully utilize park and recrea- with the people you serve," she said. ing public involvement in such matters
tion personnel and facilities in carrying "We have watched the present Board as land acquisition,condemnation pro-
out an effective disaster preparation develop a high awareness of the need to ceedings, grant applications, and land
i program." involve the community in the decision use planning.
December 1981 / January 1982
Claims 82-1
nuary 13, 1982
ting 82-1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Tr Amount Name Description
2751 2. 65 Alvord and Ferguson Uniform Name Plate
2752 358. 75 B & H Equipment Co . Electrical and Road Repaits-Rancho
San Antonio, Fremont Older and
Long Ridge
2753 5. 33 Baker Graphics , Inc. Map Reproduction
2754 156. 56 Bay Area Uniform Sales Ranger Uniforms
2755 74.55 Matthew Bender Resource Documents
2756 23. 38 James Boland Ranger Uniform
2757 225 . 57 CA Water Service Co. Utilities
2758 6. 12 R. Cali & Bro. Field Supplies
2759 622 . 22 Clementina Electrical Generator Rental-Former
Bean House
2760 213. 00 Communications Research Equipment .Maintenance-December
2761 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture-December
2762 3.58 H.S . Crocker Co. , Inc. Office Supplies
2763 281.16 Curtis Lindsay Inc. File Cabinet
2764 23. 64 Custom Color Laboratory Prints
2765 89.46 The Dark Room Photo Processing
2766 138. 39 El Dorado Trading Group Financial Calculator
2767 24. 72 Emergency Vehicle Systems District Vehicle Expense
2768 62.50 First American Title Title Research-Catalano
Insurance Co.
2769 19.44 Graphicstat , Inc. Map Enlargem.ent-Fremont Older
2770 240.00 CA & Pacific Southwest Conference Expense
Recreation and Park
Conference
2771 80.00 Sacramento Convention & Conference Expense
Visitors Bureau
2772 550.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting-December
2773 79. 88 Graphics West , Inc. Typesetting-Land Manager Brochure
2774 217. 14 Harfst Associates , Inc . Computer Services-November
2775 99. 88 Hubbard & Johnson Lumber and Shop Supplies
2776 150.00 Herbert Grench Reimbursement for Court Deposit-
Guiffre Acquisition
2777 98. 51 I.B .M. Corp. Office Supplies
Claims 82-1 * Page 2
lanuary 13, 1982
aeting 82-1
Amount Name Description
2778 $ 50. 00 League of CA Cities Legislative Bulletin
2779 92 . 60 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service-December
2780 192 . 80 Mobil Oil Corp. District Vehicle Expense
2781 35 . 17 Monta Vista Garden- Center Road Repair-Fremont Older and
Rancho San Antonio
2782 163. 18 Orchard .Supply Hardware Field and Shop Supplies
2783 19. 75 Pacific Telephone Di-splay Advertising
2784 219 . 59 PG and E - Utilities
2785 928. 63 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
2786 19. 59 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
2787 205 . 45 Peninsula Office Supply Filing Cabinet
2788 1 , 386. 65 Peninsula Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2789 98. 72 Rancho Hardware & Garden Plumbing and Hardware Supplies
Shop
2790 3 ,500. 00 Kurt L. Reitman and Assoc. Appraisal Services
2791 6 ,234. 19 Rogers , Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services-November
2792 53.43 Sears District Vehicle Expense
2793 201. 28 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2794 127. 20 Signs of the Times Signs
2795 21. 60 State of CA-Procurement Niblications
Publications Section
2796 52 . 60 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense *
2797 186 . 35 ' Techni-Graphics , Inc. Stationery-Business Cards
2798 - 1 , 103. 98 Title Insurance and .Trust Title Fees
2799 33. 60 AMC/Jeep Inc. District Vehicle Expense
2800 147. 00 Type' Plus Typesetting
2801 500. 00 U. S . Post Office Postage
2802 151. 23 Utility Body Co. District Vehicle 'Expense
2803 12 . 40 Victor of CA Oxygen
2804 2 , 945 . 00 Ware , Fletcher & Fteidenrich Legal Services
2805 1 , 225. 00 Wylie , Blunt and McBride Legal Services
2806 528. 14 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Agreement-Oct. and Nov,
2807 1 , 569, 104. 10* First Interstate 'Bank Six Month Tax Anticipation -Loan
2808 600 , 000. 00 First American Title Land Acquisition-McNiel Property
Guaranty Co.
30. 60 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
2809 750.00 CA Advocates , Inc. Legislative Consultant ' s. Fee-Dec.
*Paid 12/31/81 in accordance with First Interstate Bank
Loan Agreement.
C' b *ns 82-1 - Page 3
.; pry 13, 1982
Meeting 82-1
; Arn otznt Name Description
2810 $ 74.00 San Carlos High School Room Rental-San Carolas High
School
01laims 82-1
anuary 13, 1982
Meeting 82-1
Revise
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
D
-Amount Name escription
2751 2 . 65 Alvord and Ferguson Uniform Name Plate
2752 358. 75 B & H Equipment Co . Electrical and Road Repaits-Rancho
San Antonio , Fremont Older and
Long Ridge
2753 5. 33 Baker Graphics , Inc. Map Reproduction
2754 156 . 56 Bay Area Uniform Sales Ranger Uniforms
2755 74. 55 Matthew Bender Resource Documents
2756 23. 38 James Boland Ranger Uniform
2757 225. 57 CA Water Service Co . Utilities
2758 6 . 12 R. Cali & Bro. Field Supplies
2759 622. 22 Clementina Electrical Generator Rental-Former
Bean House
2760 213. 00 Communications Research Equipment .Maintenance-December
2761 300. 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture-December
2762 3. 58 H.S . Crocker Co. , Inc. Office Supplies
2763 281 .16 Curtis Lindsay Inc. File Cabinet
2764 23. 64 Custom Color Laboratory ' Prints
2765 89.46 The Dark Room Photo Processing
2766 138. 39 El Dorado Trading Group Financial Calculator
2767 24. 72 Emergency Vehicle Systems District Vehicle Expense
2768 62.50 First American Title Title Research-Catalano
Insurance Co.
2769 19.44 Graphicstat , Inc. Map Enlargement-Fremont Older
2770 240.00 CA & Pacific Southwest Conference Expense
Recreation and Park
Conference
2771 80. 00 Sacramento Convention & Conference Expense
Visitors Bureau
2772 550. 00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting-December
2773 79. 88 Graphics West , Inc. Typesetting-Land Manager Brochure
2774 217. 14 Harfst Associates , Inc. Computer Services-November
2775 99. 88 Hubbard & Johnson Lumber and Shop Supplies
2776 150.00 Herbert Grench Reimbursement for Court Deposit-
Guiffre Acquisition
2777 98. 51 I.B .M. Corp. Office Supplies
*aims 82-1 - Page 2
uary 13, 1982 Revised
ting 82-1
r Amount Name Description
2778 $ 50. 00 League of CA Cities Legislative Bulletin
2779 92. 60 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service-December
2780 192 . 80 Mobil Oil Corp. District Vehicle Expense
2781 35 . 17 Monta Vista Garden- Center Road Repair-Fremont Older and
Rancho San Antonio
2782 1.63. 18 Orchard .Supply Hardware Field and Shop Supplies _
2783 19 . 75 Pacific Telephone Display Advertising
2784 219 . 59 PG and E • Utilities
2785 928. 63 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
2786 19 . 59 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
2787 205 . 45 Peninsula Office Supply Filing Cabinet
2788 1 , 386 . 65 Peninsula Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2789 98. 72 Rancho Hardware & Garden Plumbing and Hardware Supplies
Shop
2790 3 ,500. 00 Kurt L. Reitman and Assoc. Appraisal Services
2791 6 ,234. 19 Rogers , Vizzard & Tallett Legal Services-November
2792 53. 43 Sears District Vehicle Expense
2793 201. 28 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2794 127. 20 Signs of the Times Signs
2795 21. 60 State of CA-Procurement Publications
Publications Section
2796 52 . 60 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
2797- 186 . 35 " Techni-Graphics , Inc. Stationery-Business Cards
2798 • 1 , 103. 98 Title Insurance - and- Trust. Title Fees
2799 33. 60 AMC/Jeep Inc. District Vehicle Expense
2800 147. 00 Type' Plus Typesetting
2801 500. 00 U.S . Post Office Postage
2802 151. 23 Utility Body Co. District Vehicle 'Expense
2803 12 . 40 Victor of CA Oxygen
2804 2 , 945 . 00 Ware , Fletcher & Freidenrich Legal Services
2805 1 , 225 . 00 Wylie, Blunt and McBride -Legal Services
2806 528. 14 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Agreement-Oct . and Nov
2807 1 , 569 , 104. 10%` First Interstate 'Bank Six Month Tax Anticipation -Loan
2808 600 ,000. 00 First American Title Land Acquisition-McNiel Property
Guaranty Co.
30 . 60 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
2809 750.00 CA Advocates , Inc. Legislative Consultant ' s. Fee-Dec.
"Paid 12/31/81 in accordance with First Interstate Bank
Loan Agreement.
C ms 82-1 - Page 3
0 ary 13, 1982 Revised
Meeting 82-1
Amotint Name Description
2810 $ 74. 00 San Carlos High School Room Rental-San Qarlo.s High
School
2811 275 .00 United States Postmaster Postage -Newsletter
2812 67.68 Herbert Grench Meal Conference Expenses
2813 202.59 Petty Cash Postage ,Private Vehicle Expense ,
District.
Vehicle Expense,M-eal
Conferences,Maps ,Photos ,Office
Supplies ,Duj)licating,Wiring
Permit , Film ,and Film Mailers ,
and Printing of "Ranger Brochures