HomeMy Public PortalAbout19830622 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 83-16 Meeting .83-16
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Wednesday A G E N D A 375 Distel Circle, D-1
June 22, 1983 Los Altos, California
(7:30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 8, 1983)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7:45) 1. Acceptance of Bid for District's Insurance Coverage -- H. Grench
(7:55) 2. Adoption of New Salary Ranges for Fiscal Year 1983-84 -- H. Grench
(8:15) 3. Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District for Fiscal Year 1983-1984 -- H. Grench
(8:20) 4. Adoption of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-84 -- H. Grench
Resolution Adopting Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-1984
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8:25) 5. Approval of Annual Claims List -- M. Foster
(8:30) 6. Proposed Changes in Rules of Procedure -- H. Grench
Resolution Amending Rules of Procedure
(8:35) 7. Policies for Use of Salary Incentive Awards -- H. Grench
(8:50) 8. Use and Management Review for the Picchetti Ranch Area of the Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve -- D. Hansen
(9:10) 9. Proposed Annexation to District of Sunland Park Area of Saratoga -- H. Grench
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, continued
(9:20)10. Authorization to Contract for Hassler Demolition Bid Specifications -- D. Hansen
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, continued
(9:40)11. Land Acquisition Public Notification Procedures -- H. Grench
(10: 10)12. Cancellation of July 13, 1983 Meeting and Scheduling of Special Meeting -- H. Grench
.(10:15)INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation, Litigation, and Personnel Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
a
Meeting 83-14
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 i
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JUNE 8, 1983
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Barbara Green called the meeting to order at 7 :34 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Nonette Hanko, and Harry Turner. Richard Bishop arrived at 7 :38 P.M.
Member Absent: Edward Shelley.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Charlotte
MacDonald, Michael Foster, Stanley Norton, Jean Fiddes, Del Woods,
Emma Johnson, and Pat Starrett.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
i
A) May 25, 1983
Motion: H. Turner moved the approval of the minutes of May 25, 1983.
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
with D. Wendin abstaining from the vote since he had not
been present at the May 25 meeting. Director Bishop was
not present for the vote.
III. WRITTEN COD1MUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes stated the Board had received the following written communi-
cations:
1) a letter from William G. Notz, President, Sunland Park Homeowners'
Association, requesting the District initiate proceedings to annex
Sunland Park;
2) a letter from Harry H. Hauessler of Los Altos, regarding reasons to
notify adjacent property owners of District acquisitions; and
3) a note, with a $25 donation toward the purchase of the Hassler
property, from Mary M. Houck, Treasurer, Garden Club of Menlo Park.
The Board referred the letter regarding Sunland Park to staff and
stated Mr. Haeussler's letter would be taken into consideration during
the future discussion of public notification procedures.
J. Fiddes reviewed the comments received from the following individuals
regarding the possible retention of the . buildings on the Hassler
property for use by the San Mateo County Arts Council: Frederick E.
Schultz, Program Development Consultant, Western Office, International
Sculture Center; George Duggar of Belmont; K. M. Brignola; Margaret
Mitchell of Redwood City; Elly and Robert Hess of San Carlos; Richard
and Theresa Lynam of San Carlos; Mr. and Mrs. Robert Dehner of San
Carlos; Joseph E. Judge of San Carlos; Hans and Lilian Arum of San
Carlos; Zack and Susan Hangauer of San Carlos; Leah and Vic Feldman
of San Carlos; and Gerald and Joyce Kafoury of San Carlos.
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 83-14 Page Two
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
B. Green stated the agenda was adopted as presented by Board consensus.
V. ORAL'COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
VI. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Motion: N. Hanko moved the continuation of Special Orders of the Day
until one of the Tenth Anniversary Coordinators was present.
D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VII. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A) Adoption of Interim Use and Management Plan for Addition to Whittemore
Gulch Redwoods Open Space Preserve - Lands of Hosking
D. Hansen, referring to memorandum M-83-64 of June 2, 1983, stated
staff had received no public comment on the proposed use and management
recommendations for the property.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the final approval of the use and management
plan as contained in report R-83-18 for the gift parcel.
K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B) "The Next Decade" Workshop Follow-Up
H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-83-65 of June 3, 1983 and proposed
the Board continue the item to a future Board meeting to be designated
by the President.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the item be continued to a future Board
meeting with the date to be set at the President' s discretion
and moved the Board disband the "The Next Decade" Workshop
Planning Committee. H. Turner seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
C) Disposition of Hassler Health Home Structures - Approval of Use
and Management Plan
D. Hansen began his review of memorandum M-83-66, dated June 3, 1983.
B. Green, noting that Ellie Huggins was now present at the meeting,
stated it would be appropriate to interrupt the Hassler item in order
to consider Special Orders of the Day.
VIII. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY, continued
B. Green read the text of the Resolution of Appreciation to Betsy
Bechtel and Ellie Huggins.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of Resolution 83-23, a Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Expressing Its Appreciation to Betsy Bechtel
and Ellie Huggins for Their Outstanding Coordination of the
District' s Tenth Anniversary Celebration Activities. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Green expressed the Board' s thanks to Ellie Huggins for the work
she and Betsy Bechtel had done for the Tenth Anniversary.
Meeting 83-14 Page Three
IX. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED, continued
Disposition of Hassler Health Home Structures - Approval of Use
and Management Plan, continued
D. Hansen continued his review of the staff report. He noted staff had
not received the detailed proposal from the San Mateo County Arts Council
prior to the writing of the report, discussed the Council's proposed uses
for the buildings, outlined the suggested criteria to which the Council
should adhere if the Board were to consider further retaining any buildings
for proposed Arts Council use, and stated the reasons staff was still
recommending demolition of all the structures on the site, as outlined in
the report.
D. TvIendin questioned the meaning of the motion made at the May 25 meeting
by H. Turner that amended the main motion to entertain a proposal from
the Arts Council for use of one or two wings , rather than just the doctor's
house and the duplex, and discussion centered on the reasons for the amend-
ment.
B. Green stated the Arts Council's proposal did not include the costs that
would be incurred to bring the buildings up to code and stated it should
be clear the District was not paying for the rehabilitation of any of
buildings.
D. Wendin requested that, in the future, the minutes reflect the reasons
a Board member voted against a motion.
D. Hansen showed slides of the property and indicated which three tiers
the Council was proposing to retain. He noted a new heating system for
the buildings would have to be installed, as* the 'old system was inoperable.
Nancy Jalonen, 1219 Ralston Avenue, Belmont, Executive Director of the
San Mateo County Arts Council, addressed the Board regarding the Arts
Council's proposal. She discussed the possible partnership between the
District and the Arts Council, the support the Council had for its en-
deavor, and she read a letter, dated June 8, 1983, from Representative
Tom Lantos expressing his support for the Council's use of a portion of
the Hassler buildings as an arts center.
Ruth Waters, President of the Peninsula Sculptors Guild and Director of
the Twin Pines Arts Center, discussed local artists ' needs for a place
to work and how the proposed arts center would function. She stated
the Hassler buildings offered affordable space for art groups and said
seven groups had already requested space. She noted that affordable
space was essential and said that people who wanted space would pay for
it in dollars and time. She said the Council considered security a prime
problem and asked that. the District use $150,000 it would be saving in
demolition costs to cover security for a few weeks and added it would
take the Council two to four weeks to make the doctor's house habitable.
She noted Dave Christy, Director of San Mateo County Parks and Recreation
Department, had offered, once the duplex was habitable, to house County
Rangers in the duplex and have them patrol the site on evenings and week-
ends. Ms. Waters stated that once the buildings were secured, then art
groups would undertake the cleanup. She remarked she did not feel the
buildings were an intrusion on the site and said public events were not
Meeting 83-14 Page Four
being planned for the arts center. She noted retail sales would not
occur at the arts center, which would provide restroom facilities for
hikers on the site, and said, with regard to parking, the Council was
proposing that some of the pavement be taken out around the buildings.
She stated the people she had talked to in the Brittan Heights area
were in favor of the Council's retention of some of the Hassler build-
ings for an arts center and discussed the support the Council's pro-
posal had received from the Mayor and City Manager of the City of San
Carlos, the Mayor of Redwood City, and San Mateo County Supervisors
Ward, Gregorio, Eshoo, and Speier.
Bill Russell, Two Palo Alto Square, Palo Alto, an attorney and member
of the San Mateo County Arts Council Board of Directors, addressed the
Board concerning funding, insurance, and contracts. He stated the Council
was looking for approval of the general concept of their proposal and
noted the Council would be handling initial funding for the restoration
of the buildings. He said the Council would obtain necessary seed money
to get the restoration project underway, and then the tenants would
"take over," and added the Council was seeking $100,000 within the next
four months. He said the tenants would form a separate non-profit organi-
zation to guide the center's day-to-day activities and would have a
director who would serve as liaison with the District.
In response to a question from K. Duffy, N. Jalonen stated the Council
was seeking foundation support and a funding proposal may be placed on
a foundation's June 17 agenda. She felt the Council would know if the
seed money could be raised within six weeks, and noted the Council had
a firm estimate of $17 ,000 from a builder for restoration of the doctor's
house.
B. Russell continued his address to the Board, noting the Council was
looking for a $1 a year lease and asking the Board for some help with
security.
In response to a question from K. Duffy on security, D. Hansen stated
the District was responsible for security of the site from the close of
escrow to at least the start of demolition. He stated, in response to a
question from B. Green, that the estimated cost of demolition was between
$240,000 and $280,000 , that the District was paying $1000 per day interest
until the close of escrow, and that security would cost approximately
$11, 000 per month after that time.
D. Wendin questioned the Council 's representatives on the estimated num-
ber of average car trips per day and public use of the restroom facilities
and stated he was concerned that the use the Council was proposing was
not a general public use. He also questioned staff about the value of the
property, particularly the dollar value of the hilltop.
In response to D. Wendin's question regarding car trips, R. lVaters stated
she did not have a figure, but noted the library area might be used for
dance troupe rehearsals, that the space would be used as working studios,
not office space, and that, as a guess, she thought 20-40 people might
go to the arts center on a given day. She noted there would be little
night use of the arts center and not much weekend use, and said the
Council would be most happy to make portions of the lease area available
to the public, but requested some direction from the Board as to their
philosophy on amount of public use.
Meeting 83-14 Page Five
N. Hanko, commented on the District's Picchetti lease, and questioned
whether the Council would be agreeable to having the public use portions
of the proposed lease area on the weekends.
K. Duffy stated she would like to see environmental education space
included on the site, noting this was one criteria she would find very
important if the buildings were to be retained.
N. Hanko, and K. Duffy asked questions about the maintenance of the road,
and C. Britton stated the City and County of San Francisco would not
maintain their portion of the road leading into the site. N. Hanko stated
she would like to see some arrangement whereby the Arts Council would be
responsible for a major portion of the upkeep of the asphalt-surface road.
C. Britton discussed the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant for the
property, noting that a state representative for the Grant had indicated
the Arts Council's proposal for use was marginal as a recreational use of
the land. He noted that if it were necessary to carve out the area of
the site requested in the proposal, the amount of the Grant to the Dis-
trict might decrease. He showed a map of the Hassler site that had been
used as a court exhibit and stated that the major value of the property
had been based on the flat ridge top, where development might occur and
where the current health home buildings are located. He said that if
this area had to be carved out of the grant to accommodate the Council 's
proposal, the District would have to show the state that the rest of the
land was worth a minimum $2.2 million and that, in his opinion, the value
would be more nearly $1.75 million, with the grant amount of $. 88 million
or a loss of $.22 million.
N. Hanko questioned Bill Spangle of Portola Valley, a member of the audi-
ence, on whether he though the Arts Council proposal would be considered
a recreational use under the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant
criteria. Mr. Spangle stated he was not familiar with current Land and
Water Conservation Fund grant regulations and how use by artists would be
categorized.
C. Britton stated he could not say whether the state grant auditors would
consider the proposal a recreational use. He noted that if the doctor 's
house and the duplex were used as an arts center, such use would probably
be approved. He stated the flat area, where typical recreational activi-
ties would occur, would probably have to be carved out of the grant fund
area, since "more strings" would be attached to the grant funds if it were
not carved out.
C. Britton discussed sewer rights for the property, noting that sewer
rights would have to be secured from the City of San Carlos.
In response to questions regarding water and utilities, D. Hansen stated
the District would be paying approximately $12 ,000 to complete the
project, which had been started by the City and County of San Francisco,
to recharge the water system tanks and hydrants for fire protection. He
noted, however, that potable water for the main buildings would have to
come from CalWater connections on Edgewood Road. He noted that power
was currently provided through San Francisco's system and that to isolate
the power for three buildings , the doctor' s house and the duplex, costs
were estimated by a contractor at between $55 ,000 and $60,000.
Meeting 83-14 Page Six
C. Britton stated that both District and San Francisco appraisers had
felt the buildings were a detriment to the land, and the demolition cost
would be subtracted from the value. He noted reconstruction of the build-
ings would have to meet building code requirements. He discussed the
special provision in the settlement agreement with the City and County of
San Francisco that allows 70,000 pounds gross weight trucks to cross the
access road, where it crossed four Hetch-Hetchy water lines , until Decem-
ber 31, 1983. He noted that if demolition were delayed past December
31, 1983, or if the District were to come back and demolish certain build-
ings at a later time, costs might increase substantially since the larger
tonnage trucks would not be able to cross the access road.
H. Grench stated he was recommending demolition of the structures based
on the Board's decision of use of funds and use of land. He noted that
the Board's main thrust in this project had been to preserve open space
and all efforts had been directed to the creation of open space. He
said the District had received $100 ,000 from the County of San Mateo for
the project. H. Grench stated the questions of intrusion of the buildings
to be saved, traffic levels generated, and overall public good accomplished
had to be addressed. He also stated that the following stumbling blocks
were reasons he was recommending demolition: 1) the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund grant and questions regarding the proposal meeting recrea-
tional use criteria that could not be answered until a final proposal was
received and reviewed by state and federal representatives for the Fund;
2) checking with San Francisco to see if the City approved of the proposed
use of the property; 3) the matter of police and fire protection; and 4)
the amount of staff time that would be involved in working on a lease
document.
H. Turner stated the County of San Mateo had contributed $106,000 toward
the acquisition of the property and noted four members of the Board of
Supervisors had expressed their support for the Arts Council 's proposal.
In response to a question from N. Hanko regarding demolition costs ,
C. Britton stated the $240,000 to $280 ,000 figure was for removing all
the above ground structures and taking the material off the site to dump
and burying other material, like concrete and pavement on the site. He
noted that if nothing could be buried on site, demolition costs would
be approximately double.
D. Hansen noted that the hazardous materials of asbestos and some PCB
were prevalent throughout the buildings , and R. Bishop said that volun-
teers dismantling asbestos would be working under very dangerous condi-
tions.
H. Haeussler of Los Altos stated he felt that the Arts Council 's proposal,
if approved, would take away funds from other District projects. He
noted artists could go out on District lands at any time now, and said
that if the project were approved the Council should be required to put
up a bond so that the District could recoup any funds that might be lost
if the project did not succeed.
Walt Wurchey, former mayor of the City of Belmont, discussed the Council 's
association with the City of Belmont and the positive experience surround-
ing the establishment of the Twin Pines Arts Center. He expressed his
support for the Council ' s proposal for the Hassler buildings and requested
the Board give the Council an opportunity and time to show what it could do.
Meeting 83-14 Page Seven
Victor E. Stoltz, 736 Tamarack Avenue, San Carlos, Vice Mayor and a
member of the San Carlos City Council, stated he felt the San Carlos City
Council would respond favorably to the Council 's proposal to occupy some
of the Hassler buildings and requested the Board support the proposal.
Fred Endicott, former chairman of the group that formed the Hassler Assess-
ment District, stated he personally did not find the Council 's proposal
consistent with what he and the other members of the assessment district
were told regarding what would be done with the Hassler property if
acquired. He stated he felt the net result of an arts center on the prop-
erty would be a more human impact, and therefore did not support the
proposal.
Anne Degheest, 3362 La Mesa Drive, San Carlos, stated she agreed with
Mr. Endicott's comments and noted she thought the property was to be open
space that would protect wildlife and conserve vegetation. She stated
an arts center would create noise and traffic problems.
Cortlandt Bender, 1328 Greenbrier Road, San Carlos, stated he had been
interested in buying the Hassler property, expressed his interest in the
arts concept and the Council 's proposal, and urged the Board to give the
Council time to respond to the questions. raised during . the meeting. In
response to his question on how the top area where the buildings are
currently located would be used if the buildings were demolished, he was
told the area would be restored to an open meadow.
Louis Giannattasio, 1795 Edgewood Road, Redwood City, expressed his sup-
port for the Arts Council 's proposal.
Bill Spangle of Portola Valley expressed his support for allowing the
Arts Council to use some of the buildings , noting an arts center would
enhance a Derson's open space experience. He said he felt there should
be ways to work out the problems raised during the meeting.
Claire Stoltz, 736 Tamarack Avenue, San Carlos, referring to K. Duffy's
comment regarding environmental education on the site, stated she thought
botanical-related uses, including exhibits , on the site would be considered
recreational use.
Lois Bergerson of Moss Beach stated coastside residents did not have the
choice of being discriminating in use. of coastside areas and said she
sensed the District was being selective in use of its open space.
D. Wendin stated he was not prepared to vote on the matter this evening
and asked that interested Board members work with the Council to get a
proposal in shape for final Board consideration. He said he thought the
Council' s idea was beautiful, but proposed for the wrong place, noting
the Council 's use would_ preclude other uses. He stated he felt commer-
cial ventures were needed in order to make the Council 's proposal a go,
and said that if the Board started down the path of saving some of the
buildings for the Council, public use of the facilities must be accommo-
dated by the Arts Council's proposal and said it was unacceptable to him
for a select group of artists to have access to $1 million worth of
property bought by public funds.
Meeting 83-14 Page Eight
R. Bishop said the Board had to address the fundamental policy question
of whether it was appropriate for an open space district to enter into
this type of project. He noted that County and City parks have a differ-
ent role than that of an open space district and said he felt an unduly
large area of the property would be devoted to non-open space activities
if the Council's proposal were approved. He stated he supported restoring
the area to open space, and therefore would vote to adopt the recommenda-
tion made by staff.
H. Turner stated he was looking for a way to stay true to the basic
reason of the District's existence, but wanted to take the time to get a
final proposal presented by the Arts Council. He noted his concerns
regarding traffic that would be generated by an arts center and the num-
ber of buildings and wings being proposed for retention in the present
proposal. He said the Council should include fewer buildings in the pro-
posal and said the Council should assume some costs, particularly start-up
costs, and some risks. He stated he would be willing to work to see a
more concrete proposal from the Arts Council that would address Board
concerns.
N. Hanko stated she was impressed by Bill Spangle's remarks, noting the
first ten years of the District had been for the acquisition of open
space with the following years incorporating projects aligned with open
space. She stated she felt the proposal for an arts center was comple-
mentary to what the District was trying to achieve and said the District
would be saving money if the proposal was accepted since demolition costs
would be cut and the District would not have to maintain the road. She
stated she hoped the City of San Carlos would help by granting sewer
rights and said the area proposed for the arts center would not detract
from the property. She noted that public use of the site that had already
been approved by the Board was not near the buildings and said the arbo-
retum should be saved. She noted the lease should provide for public use
and keep the road in good repair.
H. Grench stated he had received a telephone call from Bob Dominge,
1060 Crestview, San Carlos, who expressed his opposition to the retention
of the Hassler buildings for an arts center.
K. Duffy stated the Hassler property was highly accessible and would
allow for more things to be done with the site. She stated the site was
oriented for activities involving more people, and therefore, she had
suggested the environmental education use. She noted that more people-
oriented activities need facilities and the District could save money
and provide facilities if the buildings were retained. She said this
was an opportunity to bring more people onto open space and stated she
felt the Arts Council should be given more time to formulate their pro-
posal. She suggested the Council be granted two meetings or six weeks
of additional time to finalize the proposal.
B. Green stated she did not support the proposal, noting the District
should be an open space district and that outside liabilities in terms
of costs would take funds away from projects throughout the rest of the
District.
Meeting 83-14 Page Nine
Victor Stoltz stated he would like to see the Board give the Council an
opportunity to respond to the criticisms and problems raised during the
meeting and work out differences. He stated that support of the Council 's
proposal gave the District an opportunity to expand the appeal of open-
space to more people
R. Bishop stated he would be making a motion to adopt the staff 's recom-
mendation, noting that the Board had to decide the basic policy as to
whether the Board would allow such a leasehold arrangement under any cir-
cumstances on the site. He noted the Board needed to make this decision
prior to asking the Arts Council to spend any more time, effort, or money
on formulating their proposal.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board follow the staff 's recommendation
and approve the interim use and management plan for the site
as outlined in report R-83-17 , dated May 6 , 1983, that the
Board direct staff to proceed with the securing and demolition
of all the structures on the site as soon as possible upon
close of escrow and that the Board defer naming the site at
this time. D. Wendin seconded the motion.
Discussion: Discussion centered on the meaning of the motion
and whether allowing the Council more time to formulate their
proposal would delay any staff actions to secure a bid on the
demolition of the buildings. K. Duffy noted staff could still
proceed with their work while the Council formalized their
proposal. D. Wendin stated it was important for Arts Council
members to realize there were only two strong votes on the
Board in favor of their proposal, and he said he would be willing
to give the Council more time to formulate their proposal and
respond to the,questions and concerns raised during the meeting
as long as a great deal of. staff time was not involved. Dis-
cussion centered on the staff 's activity of preparing bid speci-
fications. R. Bishop reiterated he had made his motion to get
a policy decision on whether the District should proceed with
the demolition of the structures, but noted that based on the
discussion of the motion, he was willing to withdraw his motion
and make another one. D. Wendin, as seconder, agreed to
R. Bishop' s withdrawal of the motion.
Motion: R. Bishop moved this Board determine as a matter of policy
that the District is going tjo keep the entire site as open
space and proceed to demolish the buildings and that the
Board not further consider the proposal for the Arts Council
to lease some of the buildings. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion failed to pass on the following vote:
AYES: B. Green and R. Bishop.
NOES: K. Duffy, D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and H. Turner.
The four directors voted against the motion since they had pre-
viously stated they wanted to give the Council more time to
finalize its proposal.
Motion: D. Wendin moved the President be directed to appoint a two or
three member Board committee to work with the Council to return
at the second meeting of July with a final proposal to be re-
viewed by the Board. N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Meeting 83-14 Page Ten
Discussion: D. Wendin noted the motion did not change the
staff 's timeline for securing bid specifications for the demoli-
tion of the structures. The motion passed on the following
vote:
AYES: K. Duffy, B. Green, D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and H. Turner.
NOES: R. Bishop.
R. Bishop stated he voted against the motion for reasons pre-
viously stated during the discussion.
B. Green appointed H. Turner and N. Hanko to the committee to work with
the representatives from the Arts Council and stated K. Duffy could be
an alternate committee member.
H. Grench requested specific direction from the Board on how staff
should proceed.
Motion: R. Bishop moved that staff be directed to proceed with plans
for demolition so as , in the event the Board decided to go
ahead with the demolition, as little as possible time will
have been lost, hopefully none. D. Wendin seconded the motion.
The motion passed on the following vote:
AYES: K. Duffy, D. Wendin, B. Green, H. Turner, and R. Bishop.
NOES: N. Hanko.
R. Bishop suggested the.,Arts Council have the the San Mateo County
Building Inspector inspect the buildings the Council proposed to use
for an arts center.
B. Green declared a recess at 10 :32 P.M. and the Board reconvened for
the public meeting at 10:41 P.M.
X. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A) Presentation of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-84
H. Grench introduced report R-83-23 of June 2, 1983 on the preliminary
1983-1984 budget, and he, C. Britton, D. Hansen, and C. MacDonald
highlighted the sections of the report for their respective programs .
H. Grench discussed the recommended minor changes for the Open Space
Management Budget Policies, and he noted the proposed Open Space
Management budget exceeded the budget guidelines by approximately
$25, 500 in order to accomplish catch-up work from the winter's storms
and in order to carry out use and management plans.
Discussion and questions centered on use and management planning,
printing costs of District brochures, and the impact of the Progress
Report.
H. Hauessler stated he would like to see the Open Space Management
budget increase each year.
M. Foster highlighted his Controller' s report (R-83-21 of June 1 , 1983)
on the proposed budget.
'Meeting 83-14 Page Eleven
H. Turner reviewed the Budget Committee's report (14-83-62 of June 2,
1983) , noting the recommendations included having the Budget Committee
review the Land Management Budget Guidelines and increasing from $75
to $100 compensation per Board meeting for Board -members with a maximum
0-F
$200 per month.
B) Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the
Mid peninsula -Regional Open Space District for Fiscal Year 1983-1984
H. Grench, referring to report R-83-20 of May 31, 1983, questioned
whether the Board had any questions and noted the Board was not being
asked to take any action at this meeting. Discussion centered on the
comprehensive review of District salaries and benefits during the
coming year.
XI. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A) Amendment of Legislative Consultant's Contract
(memorandum M-83-61 of June 1, 1933)
Motion: H. Turner moved the Board authorize the General Manager to
amend the contract with California Advocates, Inc. to provide
for an increase in fees to $900 per month for the 1983-84
fiscal year. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
B) Appointment of Auditors for 1982-1983 Fiscal Year
M. Foster, referring to memorandum M-83-60 of June 8, 1983, recommended
the Board re-appoint Deloitte, Haskins and Sells as the District's
auditors. Discussion centered on the advantages and disadvantages of
having the same auditing firm over a five year period.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the Board appoint Deloitte, Haskins and Sells
as the District' s auditors for the fiscal year 1982-1983 . H.
Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
XII. INFORMATICNAL REPORTS
D. Hansen reported on the recent tours of the Fremont Older 'House.
R. Bishop stated he had led a Sierra Club hike on the new eight mile
Windy Hill loop trail.
N. Hanko reported on the June 4 docent graduation event on the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve. -
XIII. CLAIMS
C. Britton stated Claim 5091 in the amount of $10.00 to the Santa Clara
County recorder should be deleted since the District does not have to
pay recording fees. He also stated it was necessary to add a claim in
the amount of $3 ,264. 53 to William T. Wilkins for the final interest
payment on the settlement of the lawsuit involving the Whittemore Gulch
property. He added the settlement required a full reconveyance of a
deed of trust on the property that the District recorded against Wilkins '
property to secure any further debts , and noted B. Green would have to
sign the document. S. Norton said also implicit in approving the Wilkins '
claim would be authorization for B. Green as President to execute a re-
lease in favor of Wilkins.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of the amended revised claims 83-11
of June .8, 1983 . K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
Meeting 83-14 Page Twelve a
XIV. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to a Closed Session at 11:28 P.M.
XV. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to . Y.
adjourn at 12:30 A.M. Thursday, June 9 1983.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
Claims 83 Revi ed 2
Meeting 8. 4
June 8, 1983
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Descri tion
5032 80.00 ABAG Conference Registration-:H. Grench and
C. Britton
5033 20 00 American Red Cross CPR Msniki.n Rental
5034 417.43 Betsy Bechtel May Coordinator's Fee & Misc. Expense for
May 14
5035 1,625.00 Louis Bordi Road Repairs
5036 815.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Consultant Fee - May
5037 250.92 California Safety & Supply District Uniform Expense
5038 10.97 Clark's Auto Supply Vehicle Supplies
5039• 2$ 00.00 ClearCon Corp Trail/Road Maintenance 01anzanita Ridge)
:. 5040 604.94 Comnsiications Research Co. Radio Repairs
5041. 684.45 Contemporaries Temporary Trail Aides-:Windy Hill
5042 300.00 Susan Cretekos Windmill Pasture Patrol--May
5043 47.54 H.S. Crocker Co. Office Supplies ..
5044 23.93 The Dark Roam Photo Processing
5045 700.00 Calif. Dept. 'of Parks & Rec. Training--J. Ferguson
5046 65.00 Emergency Vehicle Systems Vehicle Radio Repair
5047 40.00 Joan-Ferguson Private Vehicle Expense
5048 238.77 First Interstate Bank Note Paying Agent Fees
5049 400X0 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--May
5050 472.33 Foster Bros. Security Systems Locks
5051 90.00 GranTree Furniture Rental Furniture Rental.
5052 221.25 Herbert Grench NRPA Conference & Meal Conferences
5053 53.20 Mary Gunldert Reimbursement for Altimeter & Maps
5054 350.00 Peter & Lucia Hammar Reimbursement for.Tenants' Pest- Control
5055 1,050.31 Hengehold Motor Co. Truck Rental
5056 57.98 The Hub Schneider's Inc. Uniform Supplies
5057 123.19 Hubbard & Johnson YAsc. Field & Shop Supplies
5058 371.79 Eleanor Huggins May Coordinator's Fee & Misc. Expense for
May 14
5059 78.20 Interior Technology Assoc. Nbving Expenses & Building Permit
5060 6,675.00 Rogers; Vi.zzard & TAllett Legal Services--April
5061 9.16 Keeble & Shuchat Photography Photo Processing
5062 1,760.83 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for District Vehicles
Claims R3-11 Revised 2
Meetir 3-14
June 8, _983
Page Two
. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIM S
Amount Name Description
5063 22.31 Los Altos Western Store. District Uniform Expense
5064 32.75 Charlotte MacDonald Meal Conference
5065 11.00 Leanzung Lab. Subscription
5066 1€32.20 Mobil. Oil , Fuel for District Vehicles
5067 10.00 NRPA Publications Department Resource Book
5068 27.89 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
-5069 18.24 Pacific Telephone Phone Service--Field Office
5070 4.$1 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
5071 37.50 Peninsula Times-Tribune Subscription •.
5072 465.00 Jokni *Pound Legal Research
5073 19.32 Rancho Hardware . Feld Supplies
15074 1*000.00 Rhus Ridge Association. Repair Portion of Rhus Ridge Bridge
5075 561.38 William Ryan Company Septic Tank:NY�nte. e11p Open Space Prese, i.�
j5076 337.27 San Jose Camera Lens, Film, & Mailers
''' S077 25.90 David Sanguinetti Training Reimbursement
5078 455.67 Shell Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
5079 725.77 John S. Shelton, Inc. . Steel Piping
5080 59.40 Patricia Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
I, 5081 71.24 David Tapley Reimbursement for Uniform Expenses
5082 511.72 Transcontinental Sales Co. Training Equipment
5083 29.66 Lhzion Oil Fuel for District Vehicles
5084 132.81 U.S. Postmaster Bulk Mailing Postage
5085 65.14 Alice Watt Private Vehicle Expense
5086 100.42 West Publishing Company Resource Docents
5087 29.90 Del Woods Travel Expense Reimbursement
5088 50000.00 DANA Real Property Analysis Corp. Appraisal Services
5089 614.00 Flixm, Gray & HerCerich. Insurance
5090 1,740.00 Pacific Telephone Phone Service & Installation Charges
.-%91-------1-£r:88----Recorder;B arzta -Clara--Conn-t-y--- #--Rectrr�diizg-Fee- -
5092 139.68 Petty. Cash Meal Conferences, Misc. Office Supplies,
Subscription, Film, and Processing
5093* 3,264.53 William Wilkins Interest (settlement) Payment
*Added verbally at June 8 meeting.
Meeting 83-15
V
MIDPENINSUI.A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JUNE 9, 1983
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Barbara Green called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Daniel Wendin,
and Nonette Hanko.
Members Absent: Edward Shelley, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishon.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Michael Foster, Stanley Norton
and Jean Fiddes.
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as presented.
.III. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION..REQUESTED
A. Presentation of 1983-84 Salary Survey
H. Grench introduced report R-83-22, dated June 2, 1983, regarding
data collected for the 1984-84 salary survey. He noted the 4 .8 -
5. 4% average for public agency comparables on page three of the report
should be changed to 4.2 - 5.7% because of new data from the City of
Palo Alto. He said the Palo Alto City Council was being asked to
approve a 3% salary increase for City employees for the 1983-84 fiscal
year. He noted updated graphs and Tables A and B had been distributed
to show salaries for comparables from the City of Palo Alto, based
on the projected 3% increase.
J. Fiddes summarized the information on Tables A and B, Percentage
Salary Increases for Comparable Organizations for 1983-84 and Salary
Increases for Surveyed Organizations. She noted management unit
employees at the City of San Mateo had settled a two-year contract,
with the 1983-84 year of the settlement calling for employees to select
either a 5.53% salary differential on existing salary ranges or having
the City pay their 7% PERS contribution.
Gary Foss, the District's personnel consultant, reviewed private sector
salary data. He discussed general trends in the private sector, noting
overall yearly merit increases of 8.6 - 8.9% for non-exempt and exempt
employees respectively included 5. 8 - 6.2ro increases for general range
movement for non-exempt and exempt employees.
H. Grench stated he was recommending the Board also take into account
strengthening of the District's position to regain 1979 salary status,
the date when the Foss salary plan was adopted. Discussion centered
on the recommended additional 3.5% adjustment to cover slippage.
IV. CLOSED SESSIOPv
The Board recessed to a Q_losed Session on personnel matters at 8:21 P.M.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12:35 A.M. , Friday, June 10, 1983 .
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
WRITTEN COMMUNICAT'
Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983 -Al y A,11�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
HASSLER MEETING NOTICE
Wednesday 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
June 8, 1983 Los Altos, California
7 : 30 P.M. (415) 965-4717
On June 8 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District will be considering a proposal by the San
Mateo County Arts Council to retain some or all of the buildings
on the former Hassler health Home property for an arts center.
Your written opinions prior to the meeting or your comments
at the meeting on this use of the property are welcomed.
1� Vic+ i /�ts utz-rJ/,,�'S
7#,,9;; chi✓ /3tq '€sT�L�� J�P�PR-i4 o.2
T�1is Lvsg� µt 2 /�e-TI vi
Paul San Filipo
P.O. Box 244
San Carlos
I
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
f
.. j
r I 5 A_
�0 � U. P O 'T GE
'A �� L OPEN SPACE ., Ln
�' /' = FOR purr-rs� ': j
ROOM TO BREATHE �j '2
•"1 11.y5�.�� �
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1
I
LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 `
r
;PiN �'.�3 0,30-%0.` 041 06/'t)9 £3:3 >
farli�! t::F11=;1..t7f::: t:r"{ gX40 r 0
Paul. San Filipo �o a6X "YAY i
San CArlos, CA 94070 `
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeti i.-3 83-16 °�� 2 i98
,rune 22, 1983 v
1 -
W. AM 5K ro wmfj l
WOODS tAm
1 fps ALTOS, C'.LIF. 94022
F
CptlNfp* "x�ci,o w xx,xixx A. _`.
w +F♦4QVT N Yy f 4 4Kn 1 _ -
R. 4b xx,w
YC RO A K_ _ E
t�Ar r x rE i s
ONCERNED/VES I DENTS ORGANIZED 'AGAINST /I(ILLER 4fM I SS I ONS
Sfs I O i! p"!9 11 I
Y
4 Ar L
@ p
WHAT ? North County officials want a GARBAGE DUMP and TRASH INCINERATOR "" e� t ^� �• �H,MESTEAU
in Los Altos' and Cupertino' s back yard ( Bryan Canyon
Sr" Sfws
A RAISED ACCESS ROAD would be built over I-280, demolishing homes on /Arboretum Lane and relocating Cristo Rey (Maryknoll ) Road. �`°"`°
•` AAN ,♦O ..'. '�T q �UI. ' NIS.UxIx
\( :Ixalx
600 CEMENT TRUCKS and 50 GARBAGE TRUCKS would make round trips each ; SAN iANTON90 ?: xxxlY yb
day, creating tremendous NOISE and AIR POLLUTON in the area. co
Incinerators and landfill pollute regional air, ground, and water ?`.` y� #'. �i •a`5, ;; �` " «
with DIOXIN, PCBs, TOXIC METALS, SULFUR OXIDES (acid rain) , etc. . ACCESS- F = �
ROA
Construction would cost OVER $200 MILLION, to be PAID BY RESIDENTS O '� �,"
, -.,x,r11.
via skyrocketing refuse collection rates and taxes.
CEMENT C.
PLANT
? SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ( S.W.M.A. ) prefers the Bryan
Canyon site to alternatives safely distant from existing residential Aae •"• `" "•� '; �.
areas. ® f 'VAV "f,g�
KAISER-PERMANENTS will get the access road DEFEATED BY RESIDENTS in ••• :
1978-' 79, and low-cost heat from the 24-hour-a-day incinerator. ; - - '"" o 1 : _ M
.HE' ? BRYAN CANYON, near Permanente, will hold the landfill . Access will I INE RAT OR
be from an overpass just north of the existing Foothill Blvd. Exit.
1�
N ? The decision is being made NOW unless you voice your concerns and
contribute your time and $$ to fight this preposterous site
selection.
LANDFILL - n ���� Ql
p.. . .
W ? ATTEND the INFORMATIONAL MEETING at MONTCLAIRE SCHOOL, corner of _ Errs
Stonehaven and St. Joseph Ave. , 7:30pm Wednesday, June 8, 1983.
` Cum, HM
ONTACT Rose and Dean Hartman Woodland Acres 968-8744 ),coPARVu
_ (W) 408-736-3362 - -- 1T - U
Richard Lynch Woodland Acres 967-3712
Lyman Black To on Farm 964-4958
Y Y
Jim and Michiele McIninaney Vista Los Altos 966-VI42
Sandy and Dan Goldstein Sierra Ventura 968-2751L'I�YyS
Cliff and Del Maurer Sierra Ventura 965-2134
Ci ddy Wordel 1 Highlands 969-1829
J
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983
Citm of Cwperti»o
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone (408) 252-4505
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
(408) 253-2060
June 16, 1983
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Sirs:
Due to a variety of circumstances, including construction by the lessee,
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department will not be using the Picchetti
Ranch site for programs this summer.
We have very much enjoyed the use of Picchetti in the past years, and hope
that we may return in the future.
Sincerely,
Carol Scurich
Recreation Supervisor
CS:ar
I
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983
THOMAS E. HARRINGTON
June 22 , 1983
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos , Ca. 94022
Dear Board Members :
It has come to my attention that your rangers recently
caught about 30 rattlesnakes on the Rancho San Antonio Preserve
and transported them to other district land near Skyline and
Highway 9 .
If the above is true , may I voice considerable objection
to any such foolishness . First , it may be very dangerous for
your personnel to catch them. Second, we have plenty of
rattlesnakes up here already! I would not say that carrying
rattlesnakes on or near someone ' s property is very good for the
safety of the public who might be hiking on nearby trails or is
consistent with your "good neighbor policy" . Is this a new
form of condemnation?
From the viewpoint that the only good conservationist is
a live conservationist, may I respectfully suggest a policy of
extermination in the future.
Very truly yours ,
Thomas E. arri to
i
105 Fremont Avenue Los Altos, California 94022 (415)941-6900
T F
CITY O SUNNYVALE �
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION P.O. Box 60607
Meeting 83-16 Sunnyvale, California 94088
June 22, 1983 Telephone (408) 738-5467
June 9, 1983
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos, California 94022
Dear Board Members:
On December 29, 1982, pursuant to Section 33327 of the California Health and Safety
Code, a "Statement of Preparation of Redevelopment Plan for North Mary/Central
Redevelopment Project" in the City of Sunnyvale, a project boundary map, and a project
boundary description were transmitted to the Santa Clara County Auditor, Assessor and
Tax Collector, to each affected taxing entity, and to the State Board of Equalization.
The "Statement of Preparation" stated that the Sunnyvale Redevelopment Agency
intended to use the 1982-83 roll as the Base Year Assessment Roll for the allocation
of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code. Filed herewith is
a new "Statement of Preparation" for the North Mary/Central Redevelopment Project.
This Statement supersedes the Statement filed on December 29, 1982. The Sunnyvale
Redevelopment Agency now intends to use the 1983-84 roll as the Base Year Assessment
Roll for the Project.
In all other respects, the December 29, 1982 filing remains the some. There are no
changes in the project boundary as shown on the boundary map and described in the
boundary description filed with the December 29, 1982 statement.
A portion of the Project Area lies outside the Sunnyvale corporate boundary, in
unincorporated county territory. Santa Clara County is aware of this situation, and
pursuant to Section 33213 of the Health and Safety Code, has aance No. NS 3.32
authorizing the Agency to undertake redevelopment of the unincorporated county
territory within the Project. A copy of Santa Clara County Ordinance No. NS 3.32 is
enclosed for your information.
Pursuant to Sections 33353 et sec. of the Health and Safety Code, a fiscal review
committee has been created for the project, a hearing has been held, and a report has
been issued. Please advise of the name address and/or telephone number of the official
� P
within your agency we should contact to arrange for any additional consultations your
agency may desire with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the North
Mary/Central Redevelopment Project.
Sincerely,
William F. Powers
Director of Redevelopment
i
STATEMENT OF PREPARATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
for
North Mary/Central Redevelopment Project
TO: Auditor, Assessor, Tax Collector of Santa Clara County, to all other affected
taxing entities and to the State Board of Equa!ization.
Pursuant to Section 33327 of the California Health and Safety Code, you are
hereby notified that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sunnyvale is in
the process of completing a redevelopment plan for the North Mary/Central
Redevelopment Project. It is the intention of the Agency to complete said plan
and to have it adopted pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law.
It is the intention of the Agency to use the 1983-84 roll as the Base Year
Assessment Roll for the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the
Health and Safety Code.
Dated o Redevelopment Agency of
City of Sunnyvale
enc: Project Boundary Map Director of Redevelopment
Ordinance NS 3.32
Distribution:
State Board of Equalization
Auditor - Santa Clara County
Tax Collector - Santa Clara County
Assessor - Santa Clara County
Board of Education - Sunnyvale School District
Board of Education - Fremont Union High School District
Board of Trustees - Foothill College District
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
El Camino Hospital
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County Board of Education
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Santa Clara County Library
1
County of Santa Clara included within the proposed North
Mary/Central Redevelopment Project .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Super vi sp�,%(A-f the County
of Santa Clara, State of California on MAR 1 5 1983
by the following vote :
AYES : Supervisors
�. LEGAN, LOFGR!:-N, NI OMGAN,
NOES: Supervisors `30NO
ABSENT: Supervisors *eM bMMD014 181ILSON
REBECCA Q. O RGAN
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: DONALD M . RAINS , Clerk
� Board f SPsors III
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT J. ME IF
Deputy County Counsel
RJM:mw
1415L
-2-
i
ORDINANCE NO. NS
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
AUTHOPIZING T11E CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO UNDERTAKE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY
WITHIN THE NORTH MARY/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara do
ordain as follows :
SECTION 1 . Findings .
The City of Sunnyvale has requested authorization pursuant to
-California Health & Safety Code § 33213 to undertake a redevelop-
ment project located in part within the unincorporated territory
of the County of Santa Clara. The proposed project is known as
the North Mary/Central Redevelopment Project, the boundaries of
which are described generally and by metes and bounds in the
attached Exhibit "A".
Based on its review of the proposed project and on the agree-
ment of the Sunnyvale Redevelopment Agency to avoid financial
detriment to the County of Santa Clara through in lieu payments
made pursuant to California Health and Safety Code § 33401, this
Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the interests of the
public health, safety, and welfare for the City of Sunnyvale to
undertake redevelopment in the unincorporated territory located
within the project boundaries .
SECTION 2. The City of Sunnyvale is hereby authorized to
undertake redevelopment of the unincorporated territory of the
BOUNDARIES OF PROJECT AREA
The Mary/Central Project Area is approximately 190 acres
in size and extends generally from the Southern Pacific Railroad
tracks on the south, (excluding the Mary Manor Mobile Hone Park ) ,
along the western City limits boundary on the west , across the
rear property lines of those lots facing [Maude Avenue on the
north, down along the rear property line of those parcels facing
Patrero Avenue on the east, (jutting to the west to exclude new
industrial development on Hermosa Court) , and extending eastward
to Mathilda Avenue.
y
EXHIBIT "A"
! c i t 4
41
1 , 1 � • � 1�•�. -`ate — !•��•j 1..���� .. _ '. J�� /r
_ 1'' �is I=i i' cS r ,�'-�:`.'�:,R.I•t ,,i 1�� •1� r _ 1 l j!
i Frec
we
4 Atar.r.r� lard F.. /7 1. I r • 1 r� .. .
r ■
r . • ; Sr��y ��
a � r
, I 1
CITY pF SLJNNYVALE ���--
C.11rCea!r f!
F
:•f_pf Y(y, or �••�—_ —7�-1 Exhibit "A" --
Beginning at the f;rani t e rIc •a nuent on t he or i s i nil r r rat erl ine of approximately 20 frret north of the
and lot as shown .and delineated on that :r.a ,tnfl(, corner of L.ot 32
} Tnaffe Su?,
filed for record January 19, 1897 in Book I jivisien �'pm ,^n[
of (taps at Fa€es 52-53, Santa Clara
County, California;
Thence southerly and along the westerly line of said subdivision to the southerly
line of the 50 foot wide Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way line as shoc.n
on said map;
Thence easterly along said southerly line of Southern Pacific
of c P 'nt a of i i 1 P intersection ro ection with the southerl , ad to a
} prnln19ation of the easterly line of
Mathilda Avenue, 40 feet wide, as shown en that rap of Janes T. Murphy Subdivision
No. 2 filed for record July 6, 1896 in Book I of Maps at Page 30, Santa Clara
County, California;
—Thence northerly and along said easterly line of 'Mathilda Avenue to a
point
intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot39 of
shown on said map; said line also being the northerly line of California Avenue;
Thence westerly and along said northerly line of Lot 38 to its intersection with
the centerline of Pastoria Avenue as shown on said map;
Thence northerly along said centerline of Pastoria Avenue to the northeasterly-
most corner of Lot 1 as shown on that Tract Map No. 7089, filed for record A,,zust
27, 1981 in Book 489 of Maps at Pages 26 and 27, Santa Clara County, California;
w
Thence westerly along said northerly line of Lot 1 to .its intersection with the
centerline of Pajaro Avenue, also being the northwesterl•rmost corner of said Lot 1 ;
Thence northerly along the said centerline of Pajaro Avenue to its intersection
with the northerly line of Hawthorn Park as shown on that Tract Map No. 684, fi; _ 1
for record April 24, 1950 in Book I of Map.4 at Page 12, Santa Clara County ,
California;
Thence easterly along said northerly line of Hawthorn Park to a point of inter-
section with the southerly projection of the centerline of Pot.rero Avenue;
Thence northerly along said southerly projection and along the centerline of
Potrero Avenue to its point of intersection with the easterly projection of the
northerly lot line of Parcel "A", as shown on that parcel map filed for record
May 22, 1978 in Book 418 of Maps at Page 46, Santa Clara County Records,
California;
Thence westerly and along said northerly line of Farrel "A" to its most north-
westerly corner, said point also being on the easterly line of the original W. F
Taaffe Subdivision No. 2;
Thence continuing along said easterly line to the Lranite monument on the originni
centerline of Maude Avenue as shown on the aforementioned map of W. F. Taaffe
Subdivision No. 2;
Thence westerly along said original centerline of "aude Avenue to the Feint of
Beginning.
Exhibit "A"
'ITY OF SAN CARLOS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 83-16 +pf SAN��9
June 22, 1983
'
Vice
P
(h�J(/ /Y/
v aVO4 I
Telephone (415) 593-8011
June 20, 1983
Honorable Barbara Green
President, Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Barbara:
At the June 13th meeting of the San Carlos City Council,
Mrs. Ruth Waters of the San Mateo County Arts Council gave
a presentation reviewing their
proposal for the establishment men t
of a multi-arts center at the Hassler site.
The Council has asked me to approach the Open Space District
regarding support for the concept. Obviously, there are
problems that need to be addressed; but, the Center would
be such a tremendous asset to the region that we feel the
Arts Council should be given an opportunity to provide
solutions that meet with your Board' s approval.
There are a couple of points that the Council asked me to
relay:
1. We feel the use of the site should be such that it
would not encourage large crowds.
2. The City of San Carlos would cooperate in every
possible way on the issue of sewage treatment.
Thank you for soliciting the views of San Carlos in your
deliberations of this proposal.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM M. STEELE
MAYOR
WMS/jtp
cc Board of Directors-MPROD
Herb Grench, General Manager
Ruth Waters, Arts Council
Nancy Jalonen, Arts Council
City Council
M-83-74
(Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 16, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: S . Norton, , Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Bid for District's Insurance Coverage
Discussion: At your meeting of May 415, 1983, you approved the
insurance specifications proposed by Flinn, Gray and Herterich,
the District' s insurance brokers, for the District's 1983-84
insurance coverage (see memorandum M-83-59 of May 19, 1983) .
You also authorized Flinn, Gray and Herterich to seek competitive
bids based on those specifications.
No material has been included in your packet for this item
since Flinn, Gray and Herterich needed to set Monday, June 20
as the due date for bids. However, N. Ralph (Skip)
p) McIntyre
will distribute the necessary information at your meeting
Wednesday night and will be prepared to review and explain the
material to you.
Since I will not be in attendance at your June 22 meeting, I
have asked Skip to brief Director Bishop about the bids prior
to your full Board discussion. Director Bishop has served as
Board liaison in this matter, has reviewed the District 's current
insurance program, and I believe, will be in a position to offer
his recommendation to the Board on the insurance program.
Recommendation: Based on the information you receive on Wednesday
night, I recommend you accept the appropriate bid for the District ' s
insurance coverage for 1983-84 .
R-83-24
(Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
June 10, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of New Salary Ranges for Fiscal Year 1983-84
Introduction: At your meeting of June 9, 1983 you considered a staff report (see
R-83-22 dated June 2, 1983) , and comments from the District's Personnel Consultant.
Discussion: In summary, pursuant to your policies, the main items to be considered
in setting new salary levels are the following:
I. Public Agency Comparables
A. Average of comparables from surveyed public 4.2 - 5.7%
agencies for surveyed positions (1982 to 1983)
--incomplete data but updated from June 2 report
II. Private Sector Data
A. Western Management Group Survey 6%
(1982 to 1983)
B. Other private trends 4.5 - 5%
(1982 to 1983)
III. Consumer Price Index 0.2%
i
April 1982 to April 1983)
IV. Strengthening of District Position 2%
to Regain 1979 Status
1979 to 1982)
The 4.2% and 5.7% average increases for the public agencies use 6.5% and 10%, re-
spectively, for Hayward. The Hayward figure of 10% stems from the second year of
a two-year contract and is somewhat of an anomaly this year. Without including
Hayward, the 5.7% would become 4.3%. The zero increase ABAG employees are currently
receiving stems from a severe budget anomaly. If both Hayward and ABAG were ex-
cluded, the 5.7% would become 5.1%. On the other hand, if ABAG employees had
received the expected 7.5% increase and Hayward is included, the 4.2% and 5.7%
become 6.1% and 5.6%, respectively. When the Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County
decisions are made the averages could be also affected somewhat. Therefore, an
average is somewhere in the 4% to 6% range, depending upon the data used.
An analysis was also performed for each position where the 1983 average for each
of the other agencies where salary increases have been determined was compared to
the average of those same agencies for 1982 (i .e. , Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County
were excluded) to arrive at a percentage increase. The average increase was 5.0%,
right in the middle of the 4% and 6% range mentioned above.
The private sector data listed include only the range change component of salary
increases. Overall private trends including the merit increase component are
about 8.6% and 8.9% for nonexempt and exempt employees, respectively.
i
R-83-24 Page two
An analysis was also performed to compare for each position the ChdDg9 in averages
Of other agencies from 1979 to 1983, again using only those agencies where 7983
decisions have been made. For each position the overall increases already granted
(27%) by MRO3D from 1979 to 1982 was divided into the above 1983 to 1979 ratios to
give the amount Of additional iOCyedSe needed to strengthen the MR0SD salaries to
the same relative position in 1983 they were at in 1979, This overall average �
change, which includes 1982 to 1983 increases, is about 7%. This analysis, which
is probably somewhat more accurate than that given in my June 2 report, indicates
that there is about 2% catch-up to do in addition to a 5% change from 1982 to 7983. �
This is an excellent opportunity for the District to make up the ground it has lost
between 1978 and 1982 in comparison with the public Sector. This Could be accom-
plished without a marked budget impact compared to the last few years. As listed
above, an overall 7 point increase would bring the District to its former stronger
position' The cost Of the 7 point increase in 1983-84 would be about $45,000.
Recommendation: I recommend that effective July l ° 1983 you grant an across-the-
board
fn salary ranges for General Manager appointees of 7 points /7.2%\
by adopting the attached salary table.
In response to employee requests, I have also recommended separately (see memoran-
dum M-83-70 dated June lO, }983) that the District's holiday schedule be revised.
�
�
|
|
/
�
R-83-24 Page three
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Salary Pay Plan
Present Monthly
Salary Range_ +7 points
Classification No. Min-Max No. Min-Max
Senior Typist Clerk 132-162 '1049-1414 139-169 1125-1516
Public Communications Aide 143-173 1170-1578 150-180 1255-1692
Secretary 148-178 1230-1658 155-185 1319-1778
Secretary to General Manager 153-183 1293-1743 160-190 1386-1869
Accounting Specialist 153-183 1293-1743 160-190 1386-1869
Ranger 163-193 1428-1925 170-200 1532-2064
Real Estate Research Analyst 163-193 1428-1925 170-200 1532-2064
Associate Open Space Planner 168-198 1501-2023 175-205 1610-2170
Coordinator of Volunteer Prog. 173-203 1578-2126 180-210 1692-2280
Lead Ranger 173-203 1578-2126 180-210 1692-2280
Enviornmental Analyst 178-208 1658-2235 185-215 1778-2397
Open Space Planner 192-222 1906-2569 199-229 2044-2754
Operations Supervisor. 198-228 2023-2727 205-235 2170-2924
Real Property Representative 198-228 2023-2727 205-235 2170-2924
Public Communications Coord. 195-225 1964-2647 202-232 2106-2839
Administrative Assistant 192-222 1906-2569 199-229 2044-2754
Land Manager* 235-265 2924-3941 242-272 3135-4226
Land Acquisition Manager* 235-265 2924-3941 242-272 3135-4226
*Range of 3% to 5% to be added to base salary as assigned and approved by
General Manager for assignments and performance of the employee as Assis-
tant General Manager.
Ak M-83-69
(Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Fiscal Year 1983-1984
Discussion: At your June 8 meeting you considered the amended Action Plan
see R-83-20, dated May 31 , 1983) for the 1983-84 fiscal year but took no
action. No changes were requested.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the amended Action Plan for the
Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District for Fiscal Year 1983-1984 as given in report R-83-20.
i
R-83-26
(Meeting 83-16
I L of June 22, 1983)
IVI
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
June 10, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-84
Introduction: At your meeting of June 8, 1983 you reviewed my report (R-83-23
dated June 2, 1983) , the Controller's report (R-83-21 dated June 1 , 1983) , and
the Budget Committee's report (M-83-62 dated June 2, 1983) regarding the new
budget but took no action. You also considered an amended Action Plan but
deferred action until June 22. On June 9 you considered the salary survey for
1983-84 (see report R-83-22 dated June 2, 1983) but took no action at that time.
The proposed budget which is part of the attached resolution allows for a 7
point across-the-board increase for the General Manager's appointees (see my
current report R-83-24 dated June 10, 1983) on Adoption of New Salary Ranges
for Fiscal Year 1983-84.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution Adopting
Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-1984.
I also recommend that you adopt the amendments to the Open Space Management
Budget Guidelines given in report R-83-23.
When final tax revenue projections are received from Santa Clara and San Mateo
Counties, a "final " budget will be prepared for your consideration. At that
time reserve and expenditure adjustment amounts will also be made to reflect
actual July 1 cash, and any differences in salary figures from those assumed
herein.
The Budget Committee recommended that you assign to that Committee the task of
reviewing the land management budget guidelines in detail during the coming year
(see memorandum M-83-62, dated June 2, 1983) . They felt that this review would
be tied in with the Board's review of policies which may result from the recent
"Next Decade" workshop. At that Workshop the consensus was that reviewing the
Basic Policy and Open Space Manaqement Budget Policies were closely interrelated
and should be addressed as a package (see M-83-65, dated June 3, 1983) .
I recommend that you consider the Budget Committee's recommendation at the
forthcoming Workshop follow-up discussion. At the Workshop you decided to con-
sider at the follow-up meeting the idea of forming a committee; this could be a
separate committee or one with Budget Committee representation.
RESOLUTION NO. 83 2
� RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING PRELIMINARY BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984
The Board Of Directors of the Midpenfnsula Regional Open Space District does
resolve as follows:
Section One. The preliminary budget for the Midp8ninsulO
Regional Open Space District for the fiscal year 1983-7984
is adopted as set forth in Exhibit A.
Section Two. ID addition to this District's allocation of
property taxes collected corresponding to the maximum tax �
rate of one percent of assessed valuation for all agencies
within each county, a property tax levy in the amount Of
$816,808 shall be made to pay fiscal year 1983-1984 debt �
service sufficient to retire indebtedness incurred prior
to June 6, 1978, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5544.2
Section Three. A total tax rate of ten cents (10�) per $100
assessed valuation is adopted, or Such lesser amount as may
be allowable by law.
Section Four. An adjustment to land acquisition funds shall
�
� be made to reflect any difference between actual revenue and
budgeted revenue'
� Section Five. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance
with said budget.
�
EXHIBIT A
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1983-84
I. REVENUES
A. Basic Property Tax Allocation $ 4,024,600
B. Debt Service Property Tax 816,808
C. Prior Years Redemptions 458,000
D. Tax Relief Subventions 497,000
E. Interest 650,000
F. Grants 2,506,000
G. Enterprise Activities 176,000
H. Hassler Assessment District 32,500
I. Other 36,000
TOTAL REVENUES $ 9,196,908
II. RESERVES ($ 3,440,340)
III. EXPENDITURES
A. Debt Service -(Land)
1. Interest 1 ,065,516
2. Principal 2,659,607
SUBTOTAL 3,725,123
B. Debt Service (Other)
1. Interest 50
2. Principal 11000
SUBTOTAL 1 ,050
C. Salaries & Benefits
1 . Directors' Fees 16,800
2. Board Appointees 109,800
3. General Manager Appointees 647,800
4. Fringe Benefits 155,550
SUBTOTAL 929,950
D. Services & Supplies
1 . Legal Services 51000
2. Regular Outside Services 12,725
Preliminary Budget for T -1 Year 1983-84
Exhibit A
Page Two
3. Land Option Fees $ 2,000
4. Contract Services 69,400
5. Election/Annexation 1 ,500
6. Library & Subscriptions 1 ,950
7. Memberships & Dues 750
8. Rents & Leases 43,550
9. Utilities 18,500
10. Postage 7,100
11 . Printing & Duplicating 36,300
12. Audio-Visual Presentations 11000
13. Insurance 16,580
14. Advertising 5,300
15. Maps and Aerials 1 ,500
16. Private Vehicle Expenses 10,550
17. District Vehicle Expense 55,050
18. Conference/Meeting Expense 12,950
19. Training and Seminars 5,850
20. Maintenance/Repair Equipment 7,950
21 . Office Supplies/Small Equipment 3,900
22. Field Supplies/Small Equipment 9,195
23. Site Operation, Maintenance, & Repair 44,850
24. Property Taxes 7,500
25. Miscellaneous 300
SUBTOTAL 381 ,250
E. Fixed Assets
1 . Committed Land Purchases 2,000,000
2. New Land Purchases 4,500,000
3. Opportunity Purchases 500,000
4. Site Acquisition Expense 178,000
5. Site Preparation Expense 300,500
6. Structures & Improvements 60,280
7. Field Equipment 15,770
8. Office Equipment 24,125
9. Vehicles 21 ,200
SUBTOTAL 7,599,875
TOTAL OF ALL EXPENDITURES $12,637,248
R-83-27
(Meetin� 83-16
June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
June 13, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: M. Foster, Controller
SUBJECT: Annual Claims List for 1983-84
In accordance with Section 1 . 53 of the District ' s Rules of Procedures,
this list of annual claims for the 1983-84 fiscal year is submitted
for Board approval. All items are in accordance with the budget
being presented for adoption on June 22, 1983.
ANNUAL CLAIMS
Item Description Amount
Directors ' Fees $ 16 ,800
Staff Salaries 757, 600
Retirement Funds 70, 150
Group Insurance Premiums 63,250
State-Mandated Insurance 19, 650
Office Rent 33, 800
Management Vehicle Expense 6, 800
Expense Subtotal $973,050
Noteholder-Land Principal Interest
1 . Scott $ 12,500 $ 2 ,031
2 . Hayes 17 ,500 2 , 844
3 . Blair 16 ,560 2, 153
4 . Burns 160, 000 48, 000
5. iviindling-Harrison 6, 500 4 ,080
6 . Lovell 5, 000 800
7 . Bell 10, 500 6,720
8 . P.O.S.T. 100, 000 25, 500 ,
9 . Garrod 145, 000 34 ,800
10 . Guadalupe Disposal 21 ,300 1:3,632
11 . Coplon 80, 000 19,200
12 . Risley (Leverich) 1 ,376 3,276
13. Bean 50, 000 20, 000
14 . Crist (1981) 37, 100 17 ,808
15 . Catalano (Bertetta) 9,120
16 . Sorahan (Jeffries) 2 ,290 1 ,717
17 . Sorahan (Thoren) 3,955 2, 966
18. Skyline Ranch 300, 000 96, 000
19. Anderson 20, 000 6,400
I
R-83-27 Page two
Noteholder-Land Principal Interest
20. Rose and Basich $ 76,243 $ 23,636
21 . Basich 4, 989 3,542
22. J. Allen 29,400 9,114
23. K. Allen 29,400 9,114
24. Rose 9,978 3, 093
25. Bell (Liebelt) 1,493 10,570
26. Truesdell (Rongey) 93 4,767
27 . Zabel 15,000 10,950
j 28. Gano 35,000 15,750
29. 1982 Promissory Notes 600,000 499, 200
30. Crist (1983) 35,000 14, 638
31 . Fernandez 371,430 48,875
Land Debt Service Subtotal $2, 199,607 $ 970, 296
Noteholder - Other
32 . Xerox 1, 000 50
Total Debt Service Claims $2,200,607 $ 970,346
Total Annual Claims $4,144,003
Information on the individual notes is attached.
,r
Page 1 of 2 t
g qatDel.
DEBT SERVICE (1983-84) rlePa..aer
_July_l_,.__198_3 _ App...*4 By
1 3 4 7 i 91 _(1 1
Original_. -Payable ., Principal ._Interest Remaining
Close__of_ Amount___ Fiscal Yr. $ $ Princ. as Final
a able to Escrow of Note Rate Term 1983, 1983-84 3_ of 7/l/83 ---
Coal-Creek--__Rose_Et_Al_ Roe _ i i _.__- 4-8 _ . _ 81 16-- $.!0____ _5. Z' s
s_ ___99, 79. _ _ ?6' 243_ _23,- 36_ __ 24 t 34 .___ 7TQ2-87
&� C ( r-
h
E3a �c -- --- '1-8 _ 9' 92 _ 8.10 _ 10 y, ___.$ 5 1_ _ 4{989 ,.542 . _ 46 r50. 7r02 87
J. A11 -1-8 7 00 8.10 5 s 8, 14 29�400 1, 14 24;950 7=-02 87
3
• _. _.4 ___________� IK. All _ _ -18 47 .000 0 _-_-- _5 years 38,_ 14 2�9,_ 00 9,1144�950 7-0287 ____ __•_ - _._
c LL — _ . t � r_J { a I �. ___ .
Rose
-1-82 49 92 $.'0 5 s 13 071 19' 7$ 13.0931 42 0$ ?-02r87
Scott! _ - 6- 5- __- 5- - 00._ ___ 665 __ ._9 Yeas._ 14, 2 r 00- - ._ . _2, _31. _ .37OQ- 1 i Q37.85
1 __ ___ _-- 344 _ 1
Ha s - 10- 5__ 5 _ 00.- .'S _._.-_ _9_ y s-- 2 31 171 00_ __. _ 2,84.4 ---- 2 y a00_ ._ 1- 3 $5
Lovell- __. -9 8 , � 00__ 8_.0 _— -_5 years__ ___ __ 5,800 5l000 ___._ __;.-�'$00 -_.. _10 000 ___ 5�09:85
0__ _ _
Bl r'___L___.__ ____ -4-74___ ___ 65,_00_. _ 6,'� _ 8, yes.__. ______�.8,.713 __-- _l6� 560 - __�_2,153 ____ 33,120 7r3lr84t1f,
in
00
In
AS I
,o Ride 28 5 eaz � �� 8=26-
= - - 1__ _— 50' COO _— 10,_ -- y s_--_ 70,000 - _ 50,000 20,000 .___ 00,.000_ _.._ 7;-2886
� _Ridge _ �_ _ _ _ _-__ � j 12 'eats � 4 � � I � 14,767_ � _ �
- -
625 2 �9=-94
€ 1z Long Ridge (Rongey) --.. __.. esd 11 -- -13 2 59._98 _ -r 8• _ y ,860 93 - 59 _
_ ( _-.- _ .r _
_
It
,3 i4ar�zanita_Ridge __ _ _. ._ dl` g 2 13-80 _._.. 85 00_ _- -- 6• _ 10 y s 12, 80 . _._ (8 500 4,080 68,000 8-13. 90
10 0
1 N !4- . __. ._ __._. -....____ Be 1 7= -8 . . 051p00 8. 10 yes 17,�20 10' $00 16,720 _ . 84,000 7-22�-90 _ _. ..b_. _.._'._ .... _ 14-
alu 1 1 G f l
�s �� � s � 5' �3 8 53` 00 i 7 � _ 20 �e� . s_... ___ -� 4� 52 __- il'� 7006_ - ' 3' ,_40 l._1.4. � is
Manzanita.-R�.dge_._(Risley)__. _ Le er��c�h_ �1, l _�__ ;Of � __-.-- -;- . 0-._ Y � I 2 9 ,432 5;O1fi20 �1_. __ s t' ��.m _._. .�a.
. _ _ _ , _. r _ ,. __
__ _._._._ —_Gr an)___.� Je fri s 2 31 81 21 t 078 16. 8 s 4 07 2 y 290 I 1 717 18;200 _ 7--01-89 _ As o /Tr w _a 1
a� ,� t6 76 7
Tlx�ren_ -- _. 2-31-81 _ 36' 07_ 10. 8_. a s_ 621 _ __ 3 955 2 66 31 437 7- lr$9 �s
__ _, Y - r - ,9 - f - _.. _
��__20
$ 0 belt}.-___.___ 1; _ _ _____ __. 063 1''S0 - -E O� _. 2i25� 93 __ Asstkp �s
2 82 33y 26 8. _ 11 y. s___ ___ ._12, y.493 Q,570 . _ 32 681 7 Q2 -- Q2 8 �.4_- t Zo
zi Russian Ridge Co ion 3i19 81 00, 00 8. y 0000 9,200 40r000 3T19r86 2i
_.___. ._ __. -_ � _.. _ � � O 8 7 ye al 4 �08 3 � � j , i
2z Cr st((- 2-09 81 59 0 _._ . '' S y s _ 99; 00 87, 00 7,808 22 600 1''
f � � � � $ 6 G s 49 38 35� �00 _ _ 38 '0' 000 1�Q1 89
.__23 ._. _ _.. ._ Cr st. .__ _ _ 2 16 83 io 100 _ y , ,, r 0 !�,5 l , ,1789 _ _ _ 13
..__ :q Saratoga.-Gap..____ _._ .__. 1 0;05�82 ___ 50 i�00 8• __ 10 Y s _ _ 25,950 15 �00 1.0, 50 42 500 1 02�-93 '. j _ . -u _ 214
t
zs Skyline I t
_ 00 _ 6 000 H 000 1 00;000 2 O11-87 � ! 1 zs
zs 0 50 _ 35 _
. c In 2� Ol 82 1�__.�- 00 ___ ' 8 years s �, 400 15 50 40 000 1 r ,
_-. 5 0'Thornewood_ l' 22 82 75 _ 5 s 3 6 000
._w_-_---' - 00 Q0! 00 2}"�2-87
00 ' 9,. 4 r f-
z Windy Hill _ ._ ._ oSuSmr l 29 81 _. 00, 00 _ _ t $,. 5 yeas 125 00 OO fi Q00 25 0 =Q1�-86 signed $ 00
r _ _28 Wind Hill__(Catalano)___.__.--__.__ 1-14 82 5,2 00- 6 , r ' +
_._ _.
7 s - c
zs
20 _ _ 2 000 9248 �.n
_.._._? Windy_Hill_ _ _____ _ __.___._.....__ An er n,._ _ 4 r 13-82 __. 60' QOO 8. 5 y 4 s 6,400 Z0 00 00 .__ 60 00 4113-87 Kea:
I
3o_Various _._ _...._ _. ._ __ Seriea_ re '7_ _ 7T31�77 4 00' 000 !_5. 10eazs 5 5, 20 EOM �00 20 2, , -15-87 _ __ . _3Q
Q y -- 6 _ , 00 000 7;
00� '00 I 10 eazs 1 099,200 00'600 4p9L
00 6, 00 00 2�-1;5-92 ! 31
t . 3, Pran. N to 198 _ 2-16 82 6, 0 i _ . , ._ __ _
_ ._ ___.. .__._._---- _ -;-- t __ yfi7� �I 01641TGTALS
$ 907 409 304,818 2, 8; -
DEBT SERVICE (1983-84) Page 2 of 2 _
(nlHei■ Dale
1.- -1983 Preps d 9y
APPre d.6y
1 2 3 4 5 0) (11)
Payable_ _ Parincipal _-_Interest Remaining
Close-of- -_Amount— -----...____._. ____.___. _ Fiscal_Yr.. ____-_$______. _.______$ _._ ___ .Print, as __Final _ _._. ---------
of— Ec Note Rate Term 1983-84 _3-$ 83- 1 ---Rem-:, ks_—_
_ _ -- _ -2 ,82 __ 7 „0 9__ _--' e 0_ ___.. ._5__ _ ____ -__ 0,7 0 __ __- 35 00 __-.- 5� 150___]40,,090 11-22-87_ _. _ __ _ _ _ ____ ___. . __ _
Z.
' P S ;_ -- - _._ __-_ --_--- --_ -., ___ , ', _ "000_ 02 01= 6-- _
Windy Hill = 0 2 81_ 00 0 .0_ 5 1 5Q0_ 100 �00 _ ;5 _50 _ 00,, igned $ 000
25
25
nd Hill (Catalano) t 0 '14 82 52 10 0 6 b 5 ear 9 20 1 9� 20 52.;000- 09 24-87 '
' _ ----___y_._ _._ _.. _. _.._ .._ _ ra . -__- - -__ , _ __-- _-- r�. y -_-- _ - _ on Pr c _
r ( f_ _ _ — i
d 09 24 87
^� Windy H111 _ .. ?-r n__ 113, ,; __ _ _ ___ 6,4 0_ ___- 20, . 00 ___ _ ,6' 400 ___80,,Op0 _ 04 13�-&�7 F -_. �_. ___ _�
Various Series N tes� 77 _0 $2__ __ 00 0 0_. ___ e Q_ 5-- ear q
'31-i7? 00,'0 0 5. 0 earr 5 5 20 4601000 95 20 OQ,OpQ 07 15 87 I I
Var'ious � .__ ___.Prom._ a 1982 ___ __1 �16,82 OO,000_ __-__. -�_ ___ PO_ ear - _ ,0 9,200 . _ 600, O0 __- 99,200 Op,I;OQO__ 12 15-92 - _ ! _ _. __ _._ e_ -_. _�___ e
- ! 69 348 '
MEN, ; !, f �8 2,2M,�77 1 16 641
_ 1 2
,. ,
_C4al_C,reek_ _.-_-- -____.--.�__ _F ez 0 01-83_ 50 :0�0__ . _. _ Z_ ear 4 0 305 _ _-__ 371 430 . _.__ 48 875 5Q ,01.0__ 02 1,5-90
10 (1 I 1 -ia I — 10.
i 1� I
} s-0 6 5 5 ears. i,6SO I 1 600 - 15' Q00 1,000 08 142�.g�3 �
_12 Copy Machine X 1 _. �?
13
� 4, 14
qy ! 1 ; i 1
_ 15
,
17
t �
J-1
20 __
20vt
,
21
122
22
23
R
23 } t
i
_ ! ` 24
__ - - .
i
16
26
{ 1 -
27
27
I ! �zs
28
29
I I
30
31
JJ
_._
M-83-70
(Meeting 83-16
ML In6lof
June 22, 1983
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes in Rules of Procedure
Discussion: There are two current proposals that would require a change in
your Rules of Procedure.
(1 ) Holiday Schedule: There is a strong (although not unanimous) consensus
among staff that it would be preferable to have the Friday after Thanksgiving
as a holiday that the District office is closed rather than Admissions Day.
Many employees like to take a long weekend in connection with Thanksgiving,
and the office has been minimally staffed that Friday. Calls into the office
have been light, since many other agencies (5 out of 7 surveyed in our area)
with which we deal have that day as a holiday, or their employees are taking a
day off anyway, and perhaps since there is an expectation on the part of the
public that the office would be closed. Many private employers offer this
holiday. On the other hand, although Admissions Day is observed by most agen-
cies (6 of the 7 surveyed observe it), it seems rather unnoticed by the public
(except for students and their parents because it is a school holiday in some
cases) since for the vast majority of private employers it is a work day. From
a management standpoint the District would gain in efficiency if the change
were made. The new language would read as follows:
1 .90 Public Records. All public records of the District shall be open
to public inspection during District office hours: Monday through
Friday from 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 Noon and 1 :00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. ,
holidays excepted. He44days-awe-the-safe-as-these-era-wh4eh-the
eff4ees-ef-Santa-64awa-6eaety-awe-e4esed.--The-afteweeen-ef-Beeem-
bew-24-of-eaeh-year-4s-hereby-des4gmated-a-bel4day-ee-wh4eb-the
eff4ees-ef-the-84stw4et-shall-be-elesed. Holidays observed by
the District are New Year's Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's
Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day,
Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving, the
afternoon of December 24, and Christmas Day. If a holiday falls on
a Saturday, the holiday shall be observed on the preceding Friday.
If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the holiday shall be observed on
the following Monday.
(2) Directors' Compensation: The Budget Committee has recommended that
Directors' compensation be raised from $75 to $100, with a maximum of $200
per month for public Board meetings. The new language would read as follows:
M-83-70 Page two
2.30 Com cnsation of Directors and Payment of Ex enses. 11
Members of the Board shall receive 9evemty-€4ve- $7g-884 one hundred
(sloo.00) dollars for each attendance at public Board meetings or
public Board meetings continued to from another day. They shall not
receive pay for more than two such meeting days in any one calendar
month. At least one item agendized under Approval of Minutes,
Special orders of the Day, Public Hearing, old Business, New Business,
or Claims must be discussed in public at a meeting or a continued
meeting for the meeting or continued meeting to be compensable.
Members of the Board may be allowed actual necessary traveling and
incidental expenses incurred in the performance of official business
of the District as approved by the Board.
The additional language is a previous clarification given by District Legal
Counsel under which we've been operating and which should be included in the
Rules of Procedure regarding compensable meetings.
Recommendation: I recommend that to implement the changes in policy discussed
herein you adopt the attached Resolution Amending Rules of Procedure.
i
I
i
RESOLUTION NO. 83-27
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Amending Rules of Procedure
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does
resolve that the Rules of Procedure as last revised on June 24, 1981 by
Resolution No. 81-37 are hereby amended as follows:
Section One: Section 1 .90 shall be amended to read:
1 .90: Public Records. All public records of the District shall
be open to public inspection during District office hours:
Monday through Friday from 9:OO A.M. - 12:00 Noon and
1 :00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. , holidays excepted. Holidays observed
by the District are New Year's Day, Lincoln's Birthday,
Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor
Day, Columbus Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day
after Thanksgiving, the afternoon of December 24, and Christ-
mas Day. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the holiday shall
be observed on the preceding Friday. If a holiday falls on
a Sunday, the holiday shall be observed on the following
Monday.
Section Two: Section 2.30 shall be amended to read:
2.30 Compensation of Directors and Payment of Ex enses.11
Members of the Board shall receive one hundred 100.00)
dollars for each attendance at public Board meetings or
public Board meetings continued from another day. They
shall not receive pay for more than two such meetings in
any one calendar month. At least one item agendized under
Approval of Minutes, Special Orders of the Day, Public
Hearing, Old Business, New Business, or Claims must be dis-
cussed in public at a meeting or a continued meeting for the
meeting or continued meeting to be compensable.
Members of the Board may be allowed actual necessary traveling
and incidental expenses incurred in the performance of
official business of the District as approved by the Board.
I
R-83-25
(Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
June 9, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Policies for Use of Salary Incentive Awards
Introduction: The "Salary-Fringe Benefit and Personnel Systems Study" done for
the Board in 1979 by Foss and Associates included a section on the Salary Plan
Concept and Administrative Guidelines (attached) , which you adopted. Part of
that section (page 30) dealt with management of an "incentive range. " This is
an increment of up to about 5% above the top of a given salary range that was
designed to help retain (at least temporarily) and motivate key personnel who
have reached the top of their normal salary ranges and receive no further normal
merit raises (although they do receive any annual cost of living/labor market
..salary increases) Mr. Foss summarizes the issues as follows:
I �
The original incentive range was designed to address
those issues stipulated to on page thirty (30) of the
May, 1979, report. The concept had in mind the imple-
mentation of a method to give the General Manager a
tool with which to keep good employees; high performers
who are few in number and the District can ill afford
rapid or excessive turnover in these employees. It is
in the District's best interest to get and keep, as
long as possible, talented people. When these employees
have reached the top of their salary range, additional
should be prov
ided. This concept
monetary incentives shou p P
is what the "incentive range" recommendation is based
upon.
The public sector has been historically thwarted from
developing a flexible salary plan to provide incentives
after an employee reaches the top of their salary range.
In larger public agencies, an employee may hope for
promotion to gain added salary growth. This same condi-
tion does not exist in small agencies like the District.
The employee normally stays in the same job they were
hired into because promotions are very rare. Some organi-
zations allow for "grade creep" which gives supervisors
the ability to reclassify a job to provide for a higher
salary. This approach is not always sound because it
builds in false levels of expectations and a lot of
classification restructuring and wage alignments.
The private sector has always had similar salary plans
with range numbers and spreads of minimum - mid - maximum
i
� R-83-25 Page two '
�
|
( |
dollar amounts. However, the private sector has been
| more fluid in their application of salary plans and,
therefore, they have the flexibility to pay a deser-
ving employee a higher salary than the market may call
for. In addition, to all Other personnel related
justifications, a private organization will generally
pay an above-market rate for an employee who is impor-
tant to their organization.
� It is my belief that, due to the District's Size and
� continued growth during these formative years, d driving
� force for paying an employee above market rate is, above
all else, the employee's value/importance to the District's
accomplishment of their Current goals and objectives.
� This point was not as clearly understood by me when the
May, 1979, report was submitted; however, employee value
is certainly compatible with the intent of the incentive
range. As mentioned earlier, the single driving force
� may be value/importance for the granting of "above market"
rates Of pay,
�
Discussion: The District is now in the position where Some employees are reaching �
the top of their normal ranges, and it is appropriate for you to adopt policies
which can be implemented by administrative policy to accomplish your intent for
use of the incentive range in an equitable manner. Over the last several months
Mr. FO8S and I have developed the attached proposed policies for your consideration.
The policies were not ready when the first potential recipient of an incentive
award topped out in 1982; therefore, the application Of these pO7iCi8S is
recommended to be retroactive. �
I recommend that you adopt, effective July 7 , 1982, the attached
Policies for Use of Salary Incentive Awards.
� Since these incentives are not part Of a regular salary Or the normal salary
range, the term "incentive award" is used rather than "incentive range. "
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
SALARY PLAN CONCEPT AND ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES
This salary plan is designed to allow an employee an opportunity
for growth and adjustment to their new position, and to earn
salary increases on a planned basis . In addition, taking into
account the differences in individual growth and development of
employees , this salary plan also provides for flexibility in earning
salary increases . The combination approach allows for employees to
become adjusted to their new position without emphasis on performance ;
however, after a certain period of time, it is expected that the
employee has adjusted to their new position and is capable of earning
salary increases based on their performance.
SALARY RANGE
Step Step Top
A 8 St P
5% 5% 1% 20% 1%
5
Merit Increase based on job Incentive
6 mos.- Yr.--- performance; granted by Range
appointing authority based upon
annual review.
Beginning Automatic Automatic Maximum Maximum
Salary Range Growth Growth Salary Incentive
Rate Increase ' Increase Range Rate Salary Rate
(Salary increase compound as an employee moves from beginning step to
top step, i.e. , a nominal 5% increase is actually 5, 1% increments compounded).
All salary increases are recommended by the appointing authority
and reviewed by personnel , for all employees not directly supervised
by the General Manager. Each salary increase must receive final
approval from the General Manager before the increase becomes
effective.
The appointing authority is the General Manager who may assign
said responsibility to other persons in the organization, in order
to hire or terminate staff. Final authority still rests with
the General Manager.
The General Manager shall have final approval over all salary
transactions . The staff member assigned personnel responsibilities
shall review all salary transactions to insure that proper forms
are complete and accurate and the action follows the intents of
-27-
the salary plan policies and procedures. The arriinting
authority, other than the General Manager, shall make recom-
mendations as appropriate and forward them to Personnel for
review and to the General Manager for approval.
General Administrative Procedures
Employees hired or promoted to the beginning of a salary
range receive a normal growth salary increase of S% in six
months to Step A, and a normal growth salary increase of S
in one and one-half years to Step B. Promoted employees
start the process in- accordance with placement in the new
range.
Consideration may be made of hiring or promoting an employee
to a salary above the first salary step of a salary range .
Consideration shall be made using one or more of the following
reasons :
A present salary higher than that salary shown for the
assigned salary range .
I
The proposed new or promoted employee's qualifications
bring to the job a reasonably higher level of work
experience and/or education than required.
There is reasonable concern that the District salary is
out-of-date due to past or projected dates when said
salary will be reviewed.
The level of salary will make a difference in whether
the best person will be able to be hired or promoted.
I
Turnover or recruitment problems .
Other salary and/or benefit considerations deemed appropriate
by the General Manager to justify a higher beginning salary.
The District employee's present salary is higher than the
first step of the range for the class to which they are
to be promoted.
Upon the date that an employee has reached Step B, they are eligible
to receive a merit increase in to increments according to policies
set forth herein. The criteria to be used for providing merit salary
increases above Step B, may include but not be limited to:
Length of Service
Competency
Growth in handling job responsibilities
Attitude
Specific actions toward self improvement
i
1
f
-28-
Recognition t,- excellence
Productivity increases of tangible quantities and qualities
Creative and innovative contributions
Cost and budgetary savings realized
Meeting schedules for agenda items
Meeting "sub" program objectives - accomplishing project
objectives in the District' s Action Plan - accomplishing
other projects assigned or undertaken.
All merit increases have to be authorized and approved by the appointing
authority and reviewed by Personnel and approved by the General Manager
prior to implementation.
The automatic growth salary increases and the merit and incentive
increases must be submitted to Personnel with an employee evaluation
form for proper processing.
The Maximum Salary Rate is considered that rate which is set annually
by the Board of Directors according to District Salary policies
relating to comparable and competitive rates of pay found in the
labor market for similar work and which rate reflects the impact of
the cost-of-living for the San Francisco Bay Area. When the Maximum
Salary Range rate is adjusted, the entire salary range must be
adjusted and the individual 's salary will be adjusted by the same
rate . This adjustment will maintain the internal balance between
salary ranges for each class and maintain the employee' s salary
within their assigned salary scale.
Guidelines for Recommending Merit Salary Increases or Decreases
The Personnel office shall review the appointing authority's merit
salary increase actions to assure that the identified criteria are
noted on the personnel action form in whole or in part and there is
consistency as to applying the merit increase policies and procedures .
Employees who are just performing their work as assigned
should not be considered for merit salary increases .
Employees who are showing progressive and continual growth
are eligible to receive no more than 3% merit salary increase
at any one time that they are evaluated.
Employees performing at an exceptional and outstanding
level are eligible to receive no more than 5% merit salary
increases at any one time they are evaluated.
Employees should be considered for their first merit increases
on the date upon which they received Step B salary, of their
assigned range, and yearly thereafter.
-29-
_T
The General Manager, upon request by the sppointing authority and
supported with proper documentation of all relevant issues , may
reduce an employee's salary. Such decrease cannot go below the
"Automatic Growth Increase B"' level. All such reductions shall be
appealable to the General Manager who shall conduct a formal review
of the matter prior to submitting a final decision. The General
Manager may desire to review this matter with the Board of Directors
if circumstances warrant .
The specific salary plan designating the assignment of salary numbers ,
by classification,, is provided in a separate document.
Management of Incentive Range
The incentive range of 1% up to 5% should be managed exclusively by
the General Manager. Request for incentive increases by appointing
authorities should be sent directly to the General Manager or made
by the General Manager where appropriate.
The major use of this part of the salary plan should be for out-
standing performance, retention and/or assignment of an additional
project of District wide importance. Other reasons as deemed appro-
priate by the General Manager can be applied. Any incentive increase
is considered to be for no longer than one year, but can be renewed
upon request with new documentation.
-30-
POLICIES FOR USE OF SALARY INCENTIVE AWARDS
Purpose: The purpose of the salary incentive award is to help retain and motivate
those District employees who have reached the top of their normal salary ranges,
who consistently display exemplary performance, who would probably be very diffi-
cult and costly to replace, and whose leaving would cause severe disruption to
the District's programs.
Award Criteria and Application Rules:_
1 . Employee has exhibited exemplary performance in the last and previous
years through accomplishment of previously identified performance standards.
2. Employee is fully expected to be of extraordinary value to the District in
the coming year.
3. Continuity of the employee's duties or program area of responsibility is
crucial .
4. Employee has skills, knowledge, and ability invaluable to the District.
5. Employee would probably be very difficult and costly to replace.
6. An employee at the top of his or her normal salary range who fulfills all
the criteria herein is eligible at the employee's annual performance review
date for up to a five point incentive award.
7. Each employee who is at the top of his or her salary range will be re-
evaluated each year, and a new incentive award may be higher (up to 5
points), lower, or may not be granted in light of the then current conditions.
8. The amount of incentive award will depend upon the degree to which policy
criteria are fulfilled.
9. The incentive award is not a part of ordinary salsary but will be split equally
into two lump-sum payments six months apart, the second payment assuming con-
tinued exemplary performance.
10. The Board's Budget Committee will audit the incentive award program for com-
pliance with the policies herein, will approve budget for the program on
behalf of the Board, but will not be involved in approving incentive amounts
for specific General Manager appointees. From time to time, the Budget
Committee may recommend increases or decreases in the amount of incentive
funds available to be used by the General Manager.
11 . The General Manager will develop and maintain an administrative process
necessary to implement the policies herein.
R-83-28
(Meeting 83-16
ASF June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
June 15 , 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D. Woods,
Open Space Planner; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Use and Management Plan Review for the Picchetti Ranch Area
of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Introduction: The use and management plan for the Picchetti Ranch
Area was last presented to you on June 24, 1981 (see report R-81-32,
dated June 17 , 1981) . In addition, use and management considerations
were presented to you in conjunction with the Historic Restoration
Lease of the Picchetti Ranch Area at your October 13, 1982 meeting
(see report R-82-39, dated October 8 , 1982) .
According to the Final Adoption of the Relative Site Emphasis Plan
and Review Schedule, this preserve is considered relatively emphasized
and as such, will most likely be reviewed annually. The next review
of the Picchetti Ranch Area is anticipated for July 1984 .
I. Site Description and Use
The Picchetti Ranch Area and nearby District parcels (including
the former Collins, Melton and McCone properties) comprise 373
acres of open space. Since the last review there have been no
additions to this area. The 307 acre Picchetti Ranch Area is
bounded by Montebello Road to the north and west Stevens Creek
County Park to the east and private property to the south and
west. The former 40 acre McCone property is located northeasterly
of Stevens Canyon and is also adjacent to the County Park. The
former 26 acre Collins and Melton properties are approximately 1
mile west of the ranch area.
Staff efforts have been directed toward the implementation of the
Picchetti Ranch Area Historic Restoration Lease. The lease, which
went into effect on November 1 , 1982 , requires restoration of the
original Picchetti Winery and surrounding five acre building area.
During the initial restoration, the lease area is to remain closed
to ensure safety and expedite construction. The lessee has con-
centrated his efforts on temporary repairs to the winery and
renovation of the main house, with the intent to occupy sometime
next month.
R-83-28 Page two
The resident Ranger vacated the lease area on November 1, 1982 .
The residence has remained vacant while restoration plans were
being prepared and approved. During this time there were some
cases of minor vandalism, but this has been curtailed with the
presence of the contractors on the site for the renovation of
the main house.
This winter two landslides occurred along Montebello Road and
Stevens Canyon Road adjacent to the Preserve. The slip out on
Montebello Road is opposite and above the driveway into the
building area and has taken with it a portion of the roadway.
Major repairs will be necessary to bring the road to its former
width and it is possible the Santa Clara County Transportation
Department will seek an encroachment permit from the District to
perform the work. The second slide to impact the site is directly
adjacent to the turnout and trailhead located on Stevens Canyon
Road. A portion of the road slid out, making it necessary to
re-route the traffic into the turnout, thereby eliminating this
informal parking area. As a result of the access problem and
lack of use, the trail has become overgrown. Until repairs are
made, which are currently underway, access to the Preserve will
be difficult.
II . Planning Considerations
The Picchetti Ranch Area is located within unincorporated Santa
Clara County and within the sphere of influence of the City of
Cupertino. Operation of a winery on the property is consistent
with the General Plans for both jurisdictions.
At your October 27, 1982 meeting, the Picchetti Winery Committee
was disbanded and a Site Review Committee formed. The three
member committee, comprised of one Board member, one staff
member, and one representative of the lessee, is responsible
for reviewing and approving all plans of restoration for the
structures. To date, plans have been submitted and approved
for the restoration and modernization of the interior of the main
house (a Category II improvement - see attachment) and remodeling
of the structure is currently underway.
The necessary permits needed for the restoration were obtained by
the lessee. When construction started, the District filed a
Notice of Non-Responsibility with the County of Santa Clara.
This procedure protects the District against mechanics liens
or liability associated with the lessee ' s total reconstruction
project.
III . Use and Management Recommendations
The following discussion and recommendations focus on existing use
and management recommendations contained in the last use and
management plan (report R-81-32) , use and management recommendations
contained in the Picchetti Ranch Area Historic Restoration Lease
(report R-82-39) and on proposed use and management recommendations
for the coming year.
A. Access and Circulation
Access to the northern portion of the Preserve is currently
restricted to those gaining access from adjacent private property
or having permission from the lessee to enter through the lease
area.
R-83-28 Page three
Until completion of the proposed parking lot, which is to be
located in the lease area, access to the Preserve will continue
to be from the trailhead along Stevens Canyon Road. The road-
side turnout is now being repaired and should be usable in the
next few weeks.
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Parking and trails within the lease area should be compatible
with the District's plans for general public use of the area.
Status: The plans for parking and trails as contained in
the lease agreement provide for a 25-car parking area and
public trail within the lease area. The parking area will
be constructed by the lessee and opened to the public by
May 1, 1984 . Parking will then be available 7 days a week.
The connecting trail between the parking area and central
portion of the trail will be aligned to bypass the building
area. Construction of this trail is anticipated in April
1984, to be completed prior to the opening of the parking
area to the public. Cost of the bypass trail is estimated
at $720, with funding to be included in FY 83/84 budget.
2. Staff should work with Santa Clara County Parks and
Recreation Department and local equestrian enthusiasts
to align an equestrian/ hiking trail connecting the
Picchetti Ranch Area to the Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve through the former Consigny property and lower
Stevens Creek County Park.
Status: This recommendation incorporates two previously
adopted recommendations relating to 1) constructing trails
on the former Consigny property and 2) planning a connecting
trail to Fremont Older. Staff is seeking the assistance
of the Mid-peninsula Trails Council in pursuing this
project with the County Parks and Recreation Department.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . The trail leading uphill from the entrance on Stevens
Canyon Road and the trail connecting to Montebello Road
near the hairpin turn will rea'uire a significant amount
of brushing as they are both badly overgrown. Staff
will seek volunteers to oamplete this project as soon as
possible. The project should be completed by Fall 1983.
B. Signing
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Signing within the lease area should be compatible with the
District' s plans for general public use of the area.
Status: Signs will be installed in the parking area and
along the bypass trail to acquaint visitors with the
Preserve and lease area and to direct visitors to the
central portion of the Preserve. This will be completed
prior to the opening of the parking area. Costs of the
signs is estimated at $450, with funding to be included
in FY 83/84 budget.
2 . Complete necessary trail signing on the remainder of the
Preserve, including the signing of the proposed trail
through the former Consigny property.
R-83-28 Page four
Status: Signing of the existing trails will occur in -
conjunction with the opening of the parking area. Signing
of the proposed trail through the former Consigny property
will be installed following anticipated trail construction
in the summer of 1984 . Cost of signing the existing trails
is estimated at $150, with funding to be included in FY
83/84 budget.
C. Brochure
At the present time there is no formal brochure for the site;
however, visitors may obtain an 8�" x 11" map of the site by
contacting the District office.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . A folded brochure and map should be made available for the
site concurrent with the opening of the parking area.
Cost of the brochure is estimated at $150 and is to be
included in FY 83/84 budget.
D. Structures and Improvements
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Fencing within the lease area should be compatible with the
District' s plans for general public use of the area.
Status: Under the lease agreement, the perimeter and
interior fencing is not required to be completed until
May 1 , 1988 . Since the building area will be highly
visible and accessible upon the opening of the parking
area, it would be to the advantage of both the District
and the lessee to install a portion of the fencing prior
to May 1984 . Total cost is estimated at $1500 and staff
will encourage the lessee to conduct the project. Funding
is not specifically provided for in FY 83/84 budget.
2 . The leaseholder should provide drinking water and restrooms
that are accessible and open to the general public during
the times the building area is open.
Status: Accommodations for public amenities (including
restroom facilities, drinking water, telephone, and picnic
tables) have been included in the lease. Installation of
the amenities by the lessee is scheduled for completion
prior to November 1, 1984 . These amenities will be
managed by the lessee and be available to the general
public when the building area is open, which will eventually
be two days per week. In addition, they will be available
upon special request in conjunction with docent-led tours
or other organized activities.
3. Stabilization of the historic buildings should proceed as
necessary until a lease goes into effect.
Status: The lessee temporarily covered the winery roof
prior to finalization of the lease agreement.
4 . A gate should be installed at the boundary of the former
Melton property.
Status: A gate is not considered necessary at this time.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Fencing at the hairpin turn on Montebello Road should be
improved and an equestrian/hiking stile installed. Cost
is estimated at $500; funding is to be included in FY
83184 budget.
R-83-28 Page five
2 . A bridge should be constructed over the creek on the trail
near the pond. Footings were previously installed by
Pacific Telephone in 1979. Cost is estimated at $500;
funding is to be included in FY 83/84 budget.
E. Natural Resource and Agriculture Management
Existing Use and Management Recomendations
rr
1 . The existing agreement with Ridge Vineyards should be
continued until such time as a vineyard lease is negotiated
with the winery tenant. This area should be leased on a
year-to-year basis at market rent to the winery tenant
until such time as an overall vineyard lease is negotiated.
The total area to be considered for vineyard lease should
not exceed 43 acres.
Status: The agreement with Ridge Vineyards to lease 3
acres of vineyards has been terminated and a new agreement
is in process with the winery tenant.
2 . The planting of native shrubs and grasses along the road-
side berm to screen the buildings from the new segment of
Montebello Road should be coordinated into an overall
landscaping plan for the lease area.
Status; Landscaping plans will be prepared in conjunction
with the renovation project.
3 . Staff should investigate grazing activities on the former
McCone property.
Status: It appears grazing has been discontinued on the
adjacent parcel; therefore, cattle are no longer present
on District land.
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Annual discing of fire breaks and clearing of hazardous
vegetation around the building area should continue. Cost
of discing is estimated at $500; funding is to be included
in FY 83 / 84 budget. Fire protection measures within the
leasehold area should be conducted by the lessee.
F. Visitor and Site Protection
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . Careful attention should be paid to phasing the restoration
and development of the winery and vineyards in such a way
as to control use and avoid undesirable impacts.
Status: Provisions for phasing development were built
into the lease agreement.
2. The lease agreement should address ordinances applicable
to the tenant which are deemed necessary to provide
adequate manageability.
Status: District ordinances will apply to the parking area
and surrounding open space preserve, but not to the re-
mainder of the leasehold area.
G. Additional Recommendations
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . The City of Cupertino has expressed an interest in operating
its summer camp program following the implementation of the
winery lease.
R-83-28 Page six
Status: Provisions were included in the lease agreement
to allow a day camp program on the preserve, utilizing
portions of the lease area and proposed public amenities.
An Agreement between the City of Cupertino, the Lessee
and District has been reached to provide an area for the
day camp this summer.
IV. Dedication Status
The 307 acre Picchetti Ranch Area is dedicated public open space.
The 40 acre former McCone parcel should remain undedicated to allow
for possible land exchanges in conjunction with County park
acquisitions in this area. The remaining 26 acre former Melton
and Collins properties should continue to be withheld from dedication
since both parcels constitute an isolated site with no public access.
.Recommendation: I recommend that you tentatively adopt the use and
management plan for the Picchetti Ranch Area as contained in this
report.
tICCHETTI LEASE TIMELINE
�__M_O- Yr. Lease Provisions Public Use
IOct. 1982 Lease signed Building area closed during initial
Design Review Committee appointed renovation; access at sole dis-
cretion of lessee.
Remainder of Preserve open via
Stevens Canyon Road
Nov. 1982 Lessee took possession
---Rangers moved off site
Mar.1983 Lessee submitted renovation plans Slide closed Stevens Canyon access
for main house
Apr. 1983 Review Committee reviews
interior house plans
May 1983 Lessee starts house renovation
Deadline for lessee to withdraw
from lease
May1984 Lessee to construct parking area 25-car parking area to open
7 days/week
Nov. 1984 Lessee to complete Category I Public amenities and interiors of
improvements Category I Improvements to open
for general public 1 day/week
Lessee to complete public annenitieE Public amenities and building area
to open to individuals and groups
requesting toursfrom lessee
May 1985 Lessee to complete Category II Public amenities and interiors of
improvements Category I improvements to open
for general public 2, days/week
May 1988 Lessee to complete Category III
improvements
Lessee to complete all other
miscellaneous items of site plan
Definitions :
A. Category I structures : winery, pressing/fermentation barn,
and garage
B. Category II structures: main house, wash house and house
C. Category III structures: homestead house, blacksmith shop, barn
with stalls and all other buildings
D. Public amenities: parking area, restrooms, drinking water,
fences, picnic tables, signs
�:. • • . • • . • • +�a + • a�•• ■ • a �/►y a t_ • «w t • • •■ ■ • •. a ;'+i • • ■ a .• ■r •s • - > > r. a si`„ s «'.•�.'-,ti^„� r�'•�K�'
00
`I •
� r -
•"��e►n �--1 11 a
i
/ 1
y •
r
R, 85 I I � � : C •�
.'u
R■I
t � '
t- ■ i't t • ■ ■•'• ii• al • • ••■os te■ n.: •tom•■.'■ • ate•I'e a -'■a e i i a e i + i.• i�_��i�=r� w ■ ••a��ar fi+ ■3s=a ■�s • • ■ a■ •
A. . . w ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ c e ■ �■ r ■ rrnriizr� aav'wnaae.ia_iitJ_7L�LLl - �.�.L�.rw��`�• �.i>!a�ja�..•
ATTACHMENT •a�
Part of Assessor's Parcel #351-18-23
i
I
i
i
a �
LA ■•••••■••■
•
O •
•
y ED
a.
r�� p
r+ '
n�
an 'Pr
■
On J
� L c
m � � � �, IIIIIIIIIII I
0 �
a 0
0 � �
R 88
(ht;cting 83-16
June 22° 1983)
Am
MDDPENDNSUL& REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 10, /983
TO: Board Of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation to District Of 3unland Park Area of Saratoga
� Background: On June 8, 7983 you considered a letter dated May 31 (attached)
from the 3unland Park Homeowners' Association requesting annexation Of 5un7and �
�
Park to the MidpeDfOSuld Regional Open Space District and referred the matter �
to staff. The District was set up originally to include either
� all or none of d city and its Sphere Of Influence. Saratoga and its sphere
were included. In keeping with this approach, as city boundaries have changed
there have been annexations and detachments from the District. In 1981 , an
area (the 3unland Park annexation) a few blocks square just Outside the �
District's boundaryand up until that time �n the San Jose Sphere Of Influence �
(see attached maps) , was annexed to 3drOtooa' Inadvertently, the Sunldnd �
Park annexation to Saratoga did not include the 3unland Park annexation to the
District, and a corrective action is needed to achieve consistency.
According to Local Agency Formation Commission files, the area encompasses 51
acres and has 200 single family residences, an average lot size of 8100 square
feet, 443 registered voters, and approximately 500 residents (as of 1981 \.
On April 13, 1983 the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
approved your requested Sphere of Influence boundaries (see report R-83-9
dated March 3, 1983\ . Although lying outside present District boundaries,
the Sunland Park area was specifically included in the District's new Sphere
of Influence and brought to LAFCO's attention to facilitate later annexation.
� Procedure: The simplest procedure would be for you to adopt a resolution
� requesting the Santa Clara County LAFCO to initiate annexation proceedings.
If LAFCD feels annexation is appropriate, the matter will be passed back to
you to complete the proceedings and reach a decision. In keeping with Standard
LAFC0 procedures, all property owners within the area were mailed notices of
� the proposed annexation to Saratoga at the time Of the Sunland Park annexation.
The noticing process is, Of course, time consuming and costly. Fortunately,
� it appears unnecessary to repeat individual mailed notice since the issue at
�
� the time was annexation to Saratoga, and annexation to the District also would
Surely have had no significant impact on the public re5pOnSe. There would
again be newspaper notice, however. Therefore, as a very first step in the
proceedings, even before you adopt your initial resolution of application,
LAFC0 should be requested to waive its local requirement to 32Ud property
owners notice by mail .
R I recommend that you authorize the General Manager to inform
Santa Clara County LAFCO Of your intent to apply for annexation Of the SuD7aDd
Park area to the District and to request waiver of the requirement of mailed
notice to property owners.
RITTEN COMMUNICATIOt
to
,eeting 83-14
June 8, 1983
SUNLAND PARK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
18276 Purdue Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
31 May 1983
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear President Green & Members of the Board:
In 1981, the "Sunland Park" area,* which had been in the County
and in the San Jose Sphere of Influence, was placed in the Saratoga
Sphere of Influence and was annexed to Saratoga. Inadvertently, the
area was not annexed to your District at the same time, as it should
have been, since Saratoga is in the District's boundaries. We
would like to be included and represented.
On behalf of the Sunland Park Homeowner's Association, I request
that you initiate annexation proceedings to bring Sunland Park
within the District.
Thank you for your help on this matter.
Sincerely,
�4� �
William G. Notz, President,
Sunland Park Homeowners' Assn.
cc: Kay Duffy, Ward 1 Area Director
Wayne Dernetz, Saratoga City Manager
*The Sunland Park area consists of 200 homes, bounded on the West by Quito
Rd. , on the South by McCoy Ave. , on the East by Villanova Rd. , and
on the North by the row of houses on the North side of Baylor Ave.
4: _...............................................................................................................................................................
a
':'• , MROSD BOUNDARY
S:
SAN92
V/ L
—SAN MATEO
FAANCISCO _
i BELMONT State ��� •" �
Wildlife
Refuge MI PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
:? Regional Map
I
CAYSTAL
F AESERVOR SAN PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO '
:=: \ CARLOS 101 SAN MATED MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL l
? E,A, BATLANOS OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
EDG
REDWOOD CITY EAST Mid peninsula - Sunland Park
Watershed Lands San FranciscoEd park , „APALO ALTO _ p -Y_+
ATHERTON c ooj � qy WHITTEM
O J CNN Palo�o -1
Baylands V`
s o, PAL(3 ALTO }�
Hud rt
P - Y,r,MENLO o �� Sher ine
24yoPARK F o Par �STEVENS CREEK
WOODSIDE NATURE STUDY AREA
CREEK RD. w u
y SF F Sunny Park
< q
z W IN posed)
Wu
Sty Park h v MOUNTAIN _
PORTOLA VIEW
VALLEY
Y ORNEWO °Cy AS
g
At L O
HILLS C m
9O < LOS
INOY Hlll ALTOS
...AosD 04R1• `FoPahills *.,yy SUNN ALE
r: { M�y,�
i � 85
COAL \ FOOTHILLS OUVENECK 'RANCHO N .'
EC WINOMIL NTONIO
MT.MELVILLE AREA LOS \ — PASTURE ST K s�Lo
TRANC REvsr
Rancho San UPERTINO
RUSSIAN R106E MONTE BELLO Antonio Park
Sam McDonald PAGE MILL RD.
Park `AflEA -:-
of
SKYLINE ? o .aosPEcr
' FVE RIDGE Skyline so ,
Proposed
PIELHETT
Park RANCH FREMONT< �>� jrAnnexation
`�, OLDER
San Mateo v ARATOGA Stevens Cree
4 Pescadero Creek GAP -.Park
Memorial Park Park LONE
{{ a RI09E �o
I- .o ~oq 2 SARATOGA
Portola Fss s�uNos aD
Park COS
WAYOAN Vasona Lake o
Park
Castle Rock Villa Montalvo y
Park Arboretum r o
Sanborn CT
ark rEl REND oy tF
---------------- LOS GATOSy
�KENNEOY
t 5 �yyyA AREA
erg
BRIGGS CREEK EEK :.
rExrNcro LIMEKILN S
Big Basin AESEAvo, CANYON
2
i Park S MANIANITA RIDGE MT. MUNHUN
NORTH m ARE
{ SCALE IN MILES 17 MTAREAYER
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
.k.,_t ._,_��. ....�.�........,,s ti..� .�. ..... �....�,.. ,_sue.............
{: •.T ,,.:.� •. .I:A :: :. ..:•::.......... -: -:...... _ ........4....aMp:. ::2.: .: .:v:•...:: •:.... .........................
u 3 l,� <1 0 2 c i MUHDOCA.:: y c r NPO pFi
=:
Wi
Ga GOCLESS CT C�S o s AV'.;PA�x ocr LQ /ti Q " i3 � ��tr°s<`r-> > TEALS
" j L`MPR SS CT hi�, �o •kYp J -./yyA C= �J BLUf ,JA ...:d, ,tI fS L/B G Q 3REE
6400 Q ✓R HS L CrOr D ...b Kt
FLO• G� l7YcT Y4 A--DEN DR_ 'DF o'eQ, O`D� THE at v Ir-a �� -
4 z.:rs R - Y N.1 hT' LLT .:•k` ENGL _ = CtAkf7:p` 0�1 9 PLAZA■
{ 6300 w, wa BROCK ti• ?. "`..!v' LYNBROOK Z;, 'YCT V .J 'R A•!`nn v `��,�'t. Q. i100
w ? h(, _ CP. u O R18 ON Ct> R a�z LU '�'3 = iA pR REL4¢ J �� o DR
TUCKER ■ v, g CAS CT oz� w t�� j
> CrW? 07 \ `A- EM W ` � . 'O RNON G � o :q OAT I ��
SLIDA DR o a Di W Y L L; c, ANOR u DR Q, t �- ky01:D4 9�i� A �Q a
�^4, ,�/o ,,; COUNIRi
-� RvAl 4NN L' g( ?N'Q Q/ KAVFNY D Q /"--CN L`• ky i v :C (r '+ Li. �,
' YI<ANNA z W i ? (N o,r F,'IL ' tom. •i,t — ..
DR O R ` EN CR v�
wY = s : x• Q c �
C, f awt
~ _ e
• .X .aNARY WY z1 C C o. 2 O.1►• \� JIY�Q� CO Jew .:.. o ,AROta �
:cr
!S 3 o`^I ELLFLT wY C EE -'� S TNGl15H 2 j 30 nR p .i. °' p.' b9 a �- - aajU t:.
> a�=
Plr. T OS
o Boo
L l Q• w>z llyy $ o N "Cr CO ,fl ., s L HAA+ILTi,1ri
IBEL AVC J SOu1R Fll „ 3 � �AtiL �CT
LNI JCt 5' BISMARK
TZ TRACF
C 1 0 i �v 2 m m J MAY az HILTON AV CL o v
a c�,tt9'a +aF ,�o 0 0
I E I p I e AV g 7 0 >ycA
SCENSIbN R M x T DR ,,. �. P ,t DR ALRERTSTONE P.
C 04 r W F•PTy WESTGAT! oC o
t56op z 3;n: c•'wy EF cS p BROOK CT
+ Q III ¢
ION AROTH Ai 'I CT O W Cl cr yaBROOK CT
z CT ER 4�C J \tiD Ci,9 to 0 o i PROSPECT 1: ;S•O�^M�FRGVAROL FC 1�P ErR =O,_ M.S. y .ei• - 1'CONT CkEENBPOOK CT Ao a
..,.
KVIEW W 1 OCp ELPASEO _ P W3^t i i
ui t t9 OR J DE �C 7y 0 `r/G CO?• /O S ,9 0
Aver -SCSI o K S1C o- SaRATOCA DR yam- 9 � r g
P70N MILL RCT EALMOUTH .jR
Cr 3 �t�� tieO �y�P�1? oPA BR W YLO?fLPI
;:R a DORCHE 7ER <:I -"! v • : o' a ti� o. O" '� ELMwCUL y,�S2^j,'`R OQ po j c� P Q SAN•
!mod R a� _ _ a ( xisting DistrictA.
K T c = o BEI 1/ Boundary r t z KIRKw00D 17500 s
LN TI D \. NO .r_ �1 NY PLAZA o
Cy lr vE uR cuNT 0 0 _ Z y f
t• 2 o F 4 O n.. o wHITw00D
:: • E r� CT ti +. O O o O- 4 ¢3 z z CT �2
CCQ 4/t�ti O + i�C P p �J uc�Q C_. C'r.� n o LN �r a �Y� �•
4 `HWau r FLOCz �»Q SA �Qq,TF< S R CC Zr`}__ Proposed Dis-trlct it D tiu p z '
3 ml" o Is t��� n,Toc, Oq QgAq q W-�'` Boundar �,Y
L y�. cox �CT + N l�t�♦ fdSEO IERR s w; .• i O J sAv^Rr CT r N
EN BRaE p` $NURERI F L aC J __
R ;PASEO PUEBL rI r TLo z z a W o F- RINC t:
u 0� IOC•p/ Q �� T J ..:QU�TQ.-PTc 0B8,E .? Q J - ate, T 6URY Q o
IP `oU .�� yADILLdi l v AV t8700 ts<-00 V t 1 o Vi ¢ o�av i3 I LE4GY?
: P >Rllgrg$�--
f12M \ �` !zo L/B o P14SE0 ADO L °c o n
Q- 'Vie: :4 .=ALEX S
T ti- 'v v C e, �.,. w z tt REDEN DR w.-' f. ;•.
p �C w 1• In > i a_� > LL-.vAL <"yo SAD,
Oe' AV '}e- .}�• G -n- 2
uw DRUTA ?CT 9F P �U ypEVON �IIrZ` `- [1 1Nl OC P ' r.r -I Q
'RANDS DR h Q O PAUL �q0 N 8r MARTHA AV - �•, Area of INDA DR >� Y
O MASSON �N C yr w A IT
-:ST•gk �` '- E O [ uiq .� 1♦ WINERY V'L F-- z r_�r0' 18J00 3• `'S•� �''•��1,� !�AV d o/ CT 2 r
?annexation
Cr �/ CT 2 gu
A y S O(L ? C.ro c CD Q-tc �y� o>- YAONTREAL:000 z DR I v o s
TISOALE
r ��max, M1 t L NSKI oCP
'�:•: /' yj4 ���O �O�aOP �`� O,t-BO` 4,L`TDM1I <w c�i vai .IORKTON •#IY WO y .K.; 1 ...q.9' _
DR IV
mc
l�F•ifq ' r py^ r SA G, PPQ .„ °o y'Y o\ �tBDULLA EMA/yUEL 5200 k.?i- 7ctL a700 E C
�qY A p Y y 09 r PIRS)
OpJ. P° ` WI'Cf u5A LN NA�� OG`��HG �{j CR ► m a W<
Xl O o y n a s yam* O
TO^'IA
��E. •P- � O 1 `' OQ- A ` �jT� S
t
OA �p�" O.1E' E.1`L GARDINER... LN 3 ` a.,i.<+o�- TM.S. R T > '
C' ? o h� a�`` ;!W � rLER t ■ TM�N o =
ASIDE DR �� �. 'do- W 5 z ►au �.
A Q
LIB J z C HARIEIGH D,p C7 u '~"�, r°+� oo •j o� p Cl i rY d
F
'9 O,p o►/8 0 w W x Z Y'lgINQ c`.a �,yj f.. � 9 �`"'9- p1-ty0
C�sJ Q r A7N05 <• W a ALCOTTa Ci rWv1 .�_ 'ems LLP REGO WY 85�ROUNO`~�o9 p D o+ A '<�HAGEND� ►V�
-:' 1f �' PL �►•= i WYO 2 o w ae Pti OR E► `` R M* nt.,,
r� o ON�P ESPADA G A VETYea
C. ` A
C/V/C H. P Eµ L E AV = L'l FNDAL E tfipp A V �00~ 3�HL'� •ELwO� �•� i E• S
CENTER u. QA JR HS p w 4
S a o� m a a s /:/9
JR a Ra OR
A DNER l p V o� RAVE OOD OQ o O, �►•S ,.L,. ` r<v,• RO
CA
-.O,V
9500 o 42 O 6 o ITO {tom
'4 lAUK O 1 nn S < p o TP_ o nx 4U CT p p) AA
v ..— _ �-., � r •lQ' 14100 ace fZ �L� � ,L• n p�'- par�'�, f i F�1R `�.4. o�'C�►,Iyd M1. , ,
W ( L� `Q``y PPOS pP a 1 1EL'•-� �d�'�} '` y�R.� Vp z S,or OLy . og��r.•.
tr WEST
W N roeoo R t p `E T A i.
vo F- ■ I�ALLEY , o , a Vicinity Map
COGS I C LLEGE `. �L `>� o p� >`E ' r1A• ?.
Lr `_ SCAMPUSA U T'OgCAE �� z y>- V11TA-, rcA1° PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO Y`.
LN o �° -- `-- '-�a --� ` L MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
-.J `o�' ,,; p�oR Q OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
S= eCA Kvt SAN M RCOS_-;.sue RD ••F vP` 1N D CT v s
B RGUNDY ' / h vlr.OAK
45AI w,W ■■,,,,��■ ^� ,Q- -� ion Afidpeninsula - Sunland Park
X wY r_ a" '7' ,100F _ 1 ,V SSING RO O �•( LN
C C+9
~is O "iB(�t, HOME y Ox I o co
Scale 1" = 16501 North
t4
m (\ r
Xe
s:•
SIMILWIV PARR'.ANNEXAT10,Y
:. MCKNALL ANNEX. No. ti (468)
sA,v rosr cirY Laflrs
� .� 7.09' N 880 40• a
will-- ..
BUCKNALL ANNEX NO. I i; SUCKNALL AN NO. 2
• (269) • me: 047
/P09. 0.
+: I ....•a.•e ....ee• __- •�.�/ ::.or is.•..-arc .•u.• _�� -
.ti I \.� - _- I I --.
Existing District ,_ ................
-i ! I I I I -I -� I l Il I ��•�
IAYLOR
Boundary y wvEvuf
J
r� 1 IYROVf OR1Vf I.�
'2
�• I �i h O
to e W
•s�•a yABDCRs!(r OR,vf • _
a r-
V1J�
Quito Rd 1 x
NI
cccrsa.v wvfNuf . D
-FIT
■=lo Villanova Rd
'- SMARrOA.ORAr ?..
" M ,i I•»
K.N. ��- �,:,:t�a::T.G.% 'BOUNOARY/J/�cIffs/ McCoy Rd
� :: +• O 100 Tao 300 400 300
" ,SCALE IN• FEET
C'
ti
Site Map
PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
' Midpeninsula - Sunland Park
1
Scale 1" = 375'
._._.. ...........................
8 3-2 9
A, (Meeting 83-16
I& June 16, 1983)
lqq4blol
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
June 22, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D. Woods ,
Open Space Planner; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve
(Incerpi Property)
introduction,. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has been
offered the opportunity to purchase an improved 47± parcel fronting on
Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35) , two miles south of Page Mill Road. The
property is adjacent to the southeast boundary of the 843 acre Skyline
Ridge Open Space Preserve and would become an addition to that site.
Located on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains, this
property, with 650 feet of frontage on Skyline Boulevard, repre-
sents an important link in the Skyline recreational trail route.
The Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve is close to a network of
State, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County parks and 11.1id-
peninsula Regional Open Space District preserves that could, in
the future, make it a part of a regional trail focus linking
22, 500 acres of recreational land.
A. Description of the Site
(a) Size, Location and Boundaries. This property is comprised
of two parcels of land, a 6 acre parcel located in the City
of Palo Alto and a 41 acre parcel situated in San Mateo
County. The property is contiguous to the southeastern
portion of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and only
1000 feet northerly of the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve.
The Monte Bello Preserve lies directly to the east. The
site is bounded by Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve to
the north, Skyline Boulevard to the east and private
property to the south and west.
(b) Topography, Geology and Soils. The terrain is characterized
by moderate to steep sloping grasslands forming a valley in
the central portion of the site. Elevation ranges from
2200 feet to 2500 feet. A prominent ridge offering coast-
side views is located on the westerly boundary.
The San Andreas Rift Zone is located one mile to the
northeast in Stevens Canyon.
R-83-29 Page two
Grassland soils on 15-30% slopes near Skyline Boulevard
exhibit both moderate runoff and erosion hazard. Steeper
slopes in the grassland and woodland exhibit rapid runoff
and high erosion hazard.
(c) Vegetation and Wildlife. The property contains three plant
communities: open grassland, orchard, and woodland. This
combination creates ideal conditions for a variety of wild-
life. Grassland and woodland species are represented, as
well as those species that favor the transition between plant
communities. The orchard contains a rather unique grove
of mature chestnut trees.
B. Current Use and Development
The property has been owned and cared for by the same family for
over thirty years. A small ranch comprised of a residence,
garage, guest cabin and barn is located on the easterly portion
of the site. A well and septic system serve the residence.
Gravelled and dirt roadways lead from Skyline Boulevard to the
residence and connect to the upper ridgeline near the westerly
boundary. The property has been used primarily for the growing
of orchard trees, which still remain, and some limited grazing.
C. Planning Considerations
Acquisition of the property for open space purposes has been found
to be in conformity with the San Mateo County and Palo Alto
General Plans. The 6 acre parcel is subject to Palo Alto 's open
space zoning ordinance and the 41 acre parcel is within San Mateo
County ' s resource management district. The property also falls
within the official scenic corridor of San Mateo County.
D. Relationship to Existing and Proposed Trails
The property connects to existing trails on Skyline Ridge,
Russian Ridge, and Monte Bello Open Space Preserves. It could
feasibly serve as a critical link in the proposed Skyline Corridor
Trail which will someday extend from Highway 92 to Highway 17 .
This network could eventually access existing trails in Santa
Clara County' s Skyline Park and Portola State Park, San Mateo
County' s Sam !,,IcDonald, Pescadero Creek, and San Mateo Memorial
Parks.
E. Potential Use and Management
Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve has been selected to be an
emphasized preserve in regard to use and development. This
property, as part of that Preserve, offers ideal opportunities
for expanding equestrian and hiking trails from the suggested
trailheads located near the intersection of Alpine Road and
Skyline Boulevard. The orchards should be investigated to
determine if an agricultural lease is possible. Planning for
the site, including use of the structures, should be incorporated
into the overall planning of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve.
The house and adjacent buildings, which are in good condition,
could potentially be considered for a public facility such as
a youth hostel. Since the regional trail would most likely
pass in close proximity to the residence, Private use of the
structures could be undesirable. However, until the planning
process is completed, the structures would be rented on an
enterprise basis.
R-83-29 Page three
F. Use and Management Recommendations
(1) The site should be open to hikers and equestrians who can gain
access from roadside parking areas along Skyline Boulevard.
(2) Perimeter fencing and gate along Skyline Boulevard should be
maintained to restrict off-road vehicle access.
(3) Preserve boundary signs should be placed at appropriate points.
(4) The residence should be rented as soon as possible to provide
a presence on the site until long term disposition can be
considered.
(5) A determination for disposition of the structures will be
included in the overall plan for Skyline Ranch. The plan
is anticipated to be completed in 1984 .
G. Naming
It is recommend that the property be added as a dedicated portion
of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and be known by the
same name.
H. Dedication
It is recommended that the entire 47 acre property be dedicated
as public open space.
I. Terms
The details of this proposed acquisition are included in the attached
Purchase Agreement. The property is divided into two portions: a
fully improved 6 acre residential site within the City of Palo
Alto, and approximately 41 acres located in San Mateo County
with the potential of two building sites. The total purchase price
of $550, 000 is arbitrarily broken down as $250, 000 for the improved
parcel and $250, 000 (or $125, 000 per lot) for the 41 acre sub-
dividable parcel. The lot prices are consistent with other parcels
purchased by the District having similar proximity to Skyline
with desirable view potential. Closing of the transaction would
require $250,000 in cash and $300, 000 in 10-year, 7% District
notes secured by a first Deed of Trust on the property.
Since the house is currently occupied by the owner, the agreement
includes for a 30-day grace period (free rent) after close of
escrow, with the owner having the ability to rent the house on
a month-to-month basis at the rate of $750 per month. Any and
all relocation benefits and/or payments were included in the
purchase price.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution of
the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase Agreement, 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 (Skyline Ridge Open Space
Preserve/Lands of Incerpi) .
I also recommend that you tentatively approve the interim use and
management recommendations contained in this report, designate Skyline
Ridge Open Space Preserve as the unofficial name of the site, and
state your intention to dedicate this 47 acre acquisition as open space.
`5'� �j;, ti�� �£.i' `i'r.''�r'.y'.s tid:- 7: x f.�::�•`ti •..tr't 'tr .r. � Y. •. •_
l
t , �--,'FRO D a tQ y =4 �� mac. , •�„1' '4'� f ��
x ADDITION _ ' �� , �
t• �E I I1 � J U-• _..__ �. ,
fir. ` �i� i ( ���,+�• '1� ' ; � ��, r'` �---'�;�\ '\` r_,r,'
mow. or \ PARKING AREA
PUG
�. (,•/ / r r��,• =ram'-'�-. i `�� �� � � � y1 �
�, ✓ yr�;% �. a_,,.�.� —�r__may.
SKYLINE COUNTY PARK;
^•� + /1 � r asaai Ye � b6 � o{T�/ �.� + /._�' � r i �.L _
1000-3
i I
iW
i y
=LONG
PRE ,_ �� I
,� � _��� ,�� •�—� � r SER�V+�E (�~ �a ''� •��%; �\, or�
�N 411A
SARATOGA GAP
PRESERVE
— - IM J.c'l ffl� 11?,'--'2 —.c Fn >O 4 2 ���� 1 ..� \� � � �• (r'
rtol>r � :.u,.Y„r :g= los �` J \��`��.!�/� �� _� i .'• :Sit, i
alley Rltos /I ) '
�O 5 s' ,`Altos• "Lvnn a ' ,9 ��h f •y
�/ 3� Hills a `� --� ��r `� �� �!` •���
�•,� _) ,-2 e ;� c5 %� nip ur]n- ,EEC;.�3 -��I � ����i-- �� (, � ',' �"'
I _,- i� va a \.,� � r ;/•� I l
k,. ' Jsoor- wooar 3 • a Ecs a n �. 1�,. �Ovr•,,%� �...",����•'+ .� \ •� ,t `+ ``•
itE33GYT
«, +o saw. `i ` ,. or•�,4 ' _ - \ti
-� •J�6 r8=�/� 5 snYENs �573 r^� � \`— � , � ,1� `�
'� Perms»ente / @ 1 ��L/ `— r tog7it
ii e a Ciipeitl / / ��" a ctcevn �`-ti--
arevrrs ' Site claps
F"✓ e�L I' `�„°°.� �.', '. ii ;3.�: \\ (� �' `` LONG RIDGE i
�Sara`tog \ \� o�;_ OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
4f� MK ` flrars l,4 i.W3 4 VILLA
Scale 1" = 2000' North
��-; �. tr:s� f-? '� ::v;T.-'�.iT '•S-T..;:`-'� s �.a.,fir:. ., ,i..,. 'Y'......iy,.,.•..=q,rr.�,, , �-
RESOLUTION NO. 83-28
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT,
AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE
OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT AND
AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY
AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPRO-
PRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (SKYLINE
RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE/LANDS OF INCERPI)
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District does resolve as follows :
Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District does hereby accept the offer contained
in that certain Purchase Agreement between Mary Incerpi , and the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, dated June 1983, a
copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a part here-
of, and authorizes the President or appropriate officers to execute
the Agreement on behalf of the District.
Section Two. The President of the Board of Directors or
other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of
Acceptance to any deed (s) granting title to said property.
Section Three. The General Manager of the District shall
cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance to the seller.
The General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all
other documents in escrow necessary or appropriate to the closing
of the transaction.
Section Four. The General Manager of the District is au-
thorized to expend up to $5 ,000 to cover miscellaneous costs re-
lated to this transaction.
Section Five. The sum of $300 ,000 is hereby ordered to be
withdrawn from the Midpeninsula. Regional Open Space District 1982
Negotiable Promissory Notes Acquisition Fund for this purchase.
"4-8 3-7 3
Meeting 83-16
A, June 22, 1963)
'Viol
*=0 mw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
11FI-1017AINIDUM
June 16, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization to Contract for Hassler Demolition
Bid Specifications
Staff will have materials available at your June 22 meeting regarding
the selection of an engineering firm to prepare the plans and
specifications and to oversee the Hassler project demolition.
The attached memorandum from your committee working with the San
Mateo County Arts Council also concerns additional tasks for the
engineering firm to cover in preparation of plans and specifications.
�i
0.
CURRENT HASSLER TIMETAB
ITEM JUr,E JULY AUGUST22/ .
i / o
w~ 1)-• .Solicit engineering firm— — — 14Ir
rw 2) ' `Plans & specs. M+
r'. 1 month 4 we s / a
3) Out to. bid - - - - - - - - - - - — -- — — — — i -
:5 wedks.
4) Demo job — — — — — — — — -
a- - — 1_ - - - - - — j- - �- - — •i - - - — - -
u`•
4� •
l,.
M-83-75
(Meeting 83-16
AA.
June 22, 1983)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 16 , 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: N. Hanko and H. Turner - Liaison Committee for the
Hassler Health Home Buildings
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Engineering Services
Hassler Demolition
The Committee met on June 15, 1983 with the San Mateo County Arts
Council and staff to further clarify the detailed costs, needs,
and restraints in retaining some of the structures for an arts
center.
From the conversation, it became obvious that we needed further
detailed information on the costs and mechanics of retaining some
of the buildings while removing and/or burying the rest.
We are requesting that you recommend, upon hiring an engineering
firm, that they draw up plans and specifications for alternative
plans for the partial demolition and burial, if feasible, at the
same time as the complete demolition specifications for the entire
complex. Staff has indicated that this may increase the engineering
costs to $25, 000, an increase of about $10, 000 to $15, 000 .
We will again be meeting with the Arts Council representatives and
staff on site on Tuesday, June 21 to further discuss this matter.
The Tuesday meeting will be subsequent to a meeting of the San Mateo
County Arts Council the previous night, Monday the 20th, and the
Council representatives have committed themselves to presenting a
precise description of the buildings they wish to retain.
1
SAN MATED C(x INTY
AQTeS
COLNNCIL
June 22, 1983
I
PLAN FOR DEMOLITION OF HASSLER BUILDINGS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ART CENTER PROPOSAL
d we learned that our calendar includes considera-
tion of the alternate demolition contract.
l Because detailed maps and building blue prints are lacking, we have used the
sketch map you provided. We are designating our proposed demolition plan as
"Alternate B," the 11.2 acres of built-up area at Hassler. We assume that
under "Alternate B" you will demolish buildings and renovate pavement in 7.4
acres, or approximately two thirds of the built-up area.
Demolished and removed will be both dormitories, the four largest wings and
one smaller wing of the main complex.
Within buildings on the one third of the area not demolished or removed will
be about 40% of the net usable floor space, including the residential and utility
buildings, five of the ten wings of the main complex and the garage adjacent. Of
the three lowest tiers all will be retained except the middle wing on the south
side. The cut off point will be the intersection of the portico with the Yop
level, as discussed with Mr. Hansen.
Because it is important that the perimeter road structure be retained for fire
protection and one way vehicle circulation, we proposed in "Alternate B" that
all asphalt not shown in the red areas be removed, with the following modifi-
cations:
(1) In the sector marked "F" the pavement will be reduced to 20' in
width.
(2) In the sector marked "B/C" (which will be affected by building demo-
lition) the curbs will be retained and the pavement of the ramp and
walkway will be retained so far as possible within 20' out fromthe
curb.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with your Board members and your staff in
cooperatively developing the potential plan for the Art Center.
Sin erely, �-
�H;o
Ad Committee for the Art Center
Twin Pines Park 1219 Ralston Avenue Belmont, California 94002 (415)593-1816
,41
1 . a
• 2l' �b,.�0 �..o. ,.,.tom- ..,Q �1 3 c
i
i
,.
� g..
r
II k .� r « �pv,,.�y
� .. �'i �..^f
�.
1
i
Y
_.. _—
d
s/Ll c 4c cn
a F
.,.�. o o v
I — h u .� -� Q,f 17 000
e. � A-,? ,cam.
E47--cP
z
b 7
74,
i
r- 0ATIMP
.... ...._ Aso-
uI c-T v P`\(i� �7�,5 y QA iJ S Mr-.A
(Vi,c'c L.v f� i�j C. Roc a 1-,eKYc7tAA
AcD s
Ils PRO
oe
ol
--; — - - F - . - - - v� WAIr ----- - -- --
r•;=-� _---_ �_ - ��.�~ _ F ---- � `---•- _ .--�-_.-..._.. - Vi'�utt.prNGS vYt�zn��
Vr
_
Ell—
IA :flSTT �c' �7ur1�.
M-83-72
(Meeting 83-16
wh.
June 22 , 1983)
M1 4111M
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 15, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: Land Acquisition Public Notification Procedures
Background: At your meeting of May 11, 1983 in connection with discussion
related to the acquisition of the former Fernandez property, Director
Turner requested the President place an item on a future agenda to dis-
cuss public notification procedures. Director Turner' s specific request
was to address the notification of owners of contiguous land to property
being considered for acquisition by the District. The section of your
Public Notification Policies , adopted August 26 , 1981, relating to land
acquisition notification is attached for reference. In addition, a June
2 , 1983 letter from Harry Haeussler is attached.
Discussion: At the time you adopted the current Public Notification
Policies, the question of notification of adjacent property owners in the
case of an acquisition was discussed, but a motion made by Director Hanko
to include an Item (f) of the Land Acquisition section to state "Notifi-
cation of owners of contiguous property" died for lack of a second.
As in the past, staff does not recommend any change in public notification
procedures for land acquisitions. By nature, transactions to purchase
land can be considered fragile and vulnerable until the point the seller
and the buyer, in this case the District, have consummated a transaction.
At the time agenda notices are mailed the Friday prior to a Wednesday
meeting, staff, although they are recommending an acquisition for your
approval, may not have been able to secure final executed agreements from
the seller. A case in point is the purchase of the former Skyline Ranch
property where fully executed documents for this very complicated trans-
action were secured just prior to the meeting at which you considered the
transaction.
In addition, staff feels that a seller' s rights must be protected even
though the land is being sold to a public agency. If a person were selling
his land to another private individual, it would be the seller's choice
to inform his neighbors of the possible change in ownership. Because two
potentially volatile issues are involved--land and money--the District
could face possible controversy if adjacent property owners were notified
at the District ' s discretion, rather than the seller' s discretion, of a
potential District acquisition. Examples of cases where potential land
deals were complicated by outside parties who were made aware of an acqui-
sition include the Washington Realty deal and the purchase of the former
Wilkins property. Even the loss of one such acquisition could create a
gap in our green belt and trails goals , and possibly lease an undesirable
inholdinq.
F
M-83-72 Page Two
Staff feels strongly that a delineation must be made between notifying
adjacent property owners of a proposed acquisition versus notification
of adjacent property owners for land use planning matters. Your current
policies call for owners of contiguous property who have requested
notification regarding a particular site to be notified of upcoming land
use planning agenda items. In addition, all interim use and management
plans included in acquisition reports have two public meeting readings
in order to allow for public input.
Recommendation: I do not recommend any change in the current Public
Notification Policies for land acquisitions for the reasons included in
this report.
If however, a majority of the Board feels some type of notification of
adjacent property owners is absolutely necessary, I recommend the Board
include the following statement in the Land Acquisition section:
f) Agenda Notice* - mailed to homeowner occupants of
improved, adjacent property as long as signed options
have been secured from the seller of the property.***
The single asterick refers to the notation regarding mailing currently
in the policy and the three astericks would refer to the following
statement:
The General Manager shall have authority to withhold
the mailing of agenda notifications to homeowner
occupants of improved, adjacent property who do not
subscribe to agendas if it is determined the notifi-
cation would be detrimental to the acquisition project.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Public Notification Policies
Adopted By
Board of Directors
August 26, 1981
1. Land Acquisition
a) Notification of owner or representative (method as deemed appro-
priate by staff for particular negotiation) .
b) Agenda Notice* - mailed to Dress, and persons and organizations"
that subscribe to agendas ($5 per year 1981) .
c) In some cases, press releases are also sent in advance of meeting,
as deemed appropriate by staff (or ordered by Board) .
d) Posting of notice on District office door prior to meeting.
e) Notification* to Clerk of a city, or county if no city, within
whose jurisdiction the land is located.
*Notice: Mailing by 5:30 P.M. five days in advance of a meeting
(Friday before a Wednesday meeting) , but shorter notice for a
Special Meeting is allowed as provided by law and the District's
Rules of Procedure. The Board shall note in 'thd' minutes of the
Special Meeting the reason shorter notice was required.
**Staff to contact known neighborhood associations annually to ad-
vise that they can subscribe to District' s agendas for an estab-
lished fee.
NOTE: The provision for the giving of notice under these procedures
shall be directory only, and the failure to give such notice in
any particular instance shall not affect the validity of action
taken.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIC
Meeting 83-14
June 8, 1983
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
1094 Highland Circle
Los Altos, Calif. 94022
June 2, 1983
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
At the Board of Directors meeting on Tray 11, 1983,
during a discussion on acqusition of a property, a
side discussion on "public notification" occured.
During this "side discussion" Director Duffy made
comments to the effect that when property is sold by'
one indicual to another indivual, there is no notifi-
cation to neighbors , so why should MROSD notify neigh-
bors of a possible purchase.
There is a differences
1. Where an indivual sells to another indivual, partner-
ship or corporation, there will be no change in use of
the property without public hearings on the matter before
a public agency. ..
2. Where an indivual sells to MROSD there will be a change
in use of the property - from whatever it currently is to
public recreation. This is a change in useage , and should
be subject to }public hearings just as any other change
in useage.
This letter is written for the record, and it is requested
that this letter be submitted for consideration at the
next meeting where Public Notification Policies are dis-
cussed for possible change .
�t `/Ma,�,Z &
Harry Haeussler, Jr.
WRITTEN COMMUNICA•4.-JN
Meeting 83-14
June 8, 1983
SUNLAND PARK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
18276 Purdue Drive
Saratoga, California 95070
31 May 1983
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1,
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear President Green & Members1, of the Board:
l
In 1981, the "Sunland Park" area; which had been in the County
and in the San Jose Sphere of Influence, was placed in the Saratoga
Sphere of Influence and was anne ed to Saratoga. Inadvertently, the
area was not annexed to your Dist ict at the same time, as it should
have been, since Saratoga is in th District' s boundaries. We
would like to be included and repre ented.
On behalf of the Sunland Park meowner's Association ' I request
that you initiate annexation proceed gs to bring Sun d Park
within the District.
Thank you for your help on this m tter.
r'r
rr
Sincerely,
William G. Notz, President,
Sunland Park Homeowners' Assn.
cc: Kay Duffy, Ward 1 Area Director
Wayne Dernetz, Saratoga City Manager
*The Sunland Park area consists of 200 homes, bounded on the West by Quito
Rd. , on the South by McCoy Ave. , on the East by Villanova Rd. , and
on the North by the row of houses on the North side of Baylor Ave.
M-83-71
(Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983)
Ak AA.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Cancellation of July 13 Meeting and Scheduling of Special Meeting
Discussion: Due to vacation and business schedules, it appears you will
not have a quorum for July 13. We expect there to be District business
that cannot wait until your July 27 meeting and should be handled early in
July.
Recommendation: I recommend that you cancel the July 13 meeting and authorize
the President to schedule a Special Meeting for Wednesday, July 6.
I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 21 , 1983
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: 1983 Congress for Recreation & Parks
Attached is information on the NRPA Congress to be held in Kansas
City, Missouri from October 2 - 5. If you have an interest in
attending this convention, please let me know at your earliest
convenience.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
June 15, 1983
TO: Board and Staff
FROM: -a;. Hansen,' Land ~Manager, and C. 'Britton,* Land Acquisition
Manager
SUBJECT: Property Acquisition: Addition to-Whittemore Gulch Redwoods
Open .Space Preserve - 3 acres
The District his acquired Hosking Property
( name o property
as of May 26, 1983
` ((date)
A map of the property is attached for your reference.
" NOTE: ._
.4, . U W V W 4 a v - . r
_we.-Y 11 1 . I �. .
A AY-4 W4 VA
f
Site Map '- USGS yt
WHITTEMORE GULCH RED1,11OODS Jw.
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
T,
�'t \�`'f;�r '!lr � _reek ''~ � '.�'i`(, -...., tii'J! ..r_ �/ .(' -Y�}: l� ` 1 � � j'i?j � ,`. I rf
Scale 1"=20001 North
� �l j`�� ���;i Jr�,�� ,, ,'. ( 1:��<l- r .. "�"( �� yr a ��� ' rJ� ����.;�f/r }��;Jr t f �:= 1l' 1t,�- /soo! �l'lv� l <} ' t VT
J3
4
%\
fit
Sj 5 'W/
3 IV:
If
x
Sc e.)
X.
>
NN "'
Jr. I-No
/*4
J,7
C N
;� �,�� \\� ,. �)'��' !J yl -(% i:,� ,i� jib�, ( •�/:. 7,`j �\ '�� :., ���� .1 , } ` 1! I, 1J, .'t� '� .\
Lev
W)
�`- (_ ,\���"` art` lr f '`
.� / ,, ='F ��71,' r 'c j �� - I r
777,'
titIN
1P
)It ir P r 11P 1 ni bi
1
4 R I I-..-�-.",.,4
luddaft County 1.
11F,
Pa 1
I k
r'd A
T1
Ali .IC;u 0
Ilk
7 • in 110.u4)L a u4)Lai
D
Je
is It et to SR 1 1 r-L A*1 v It il Il r, r�o'bit w a a
Knob
z kf
Vk
AL_J2',TJrL
*,
ati
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS.CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
June 22, 1983
Planning Commission
County of San Mateo
County Government Building
590 Hamilton
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear Chairman Satterwhite and
Members of the Commission:
We have reviewed the staff report regarding the Langley Hill Quarry and
are concerned that there may be significant visual impacts from the near-
by Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, particularly the Mt. Melville area.
E_ We respectfully request a one-month continuance of this item so that we
will have the opportunity to do field checks from the Preserve on possible
impacts Of further quarrying and on the reclamation plan, using the appli-
cant's detailed plans.
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has made a substantial
investment of public funds to provide recreational open space in that
area, and forthcoming trail development, signing, and increased publicity
will make Russian Ridge a very popular spot in the future. We would like
to insure that, if quarrying is going to continue, the visual impacts on
hikers, equestrians and other Preserve users are mitigated as much as
possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
,cc: MROSD Board of Directors
i
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
L._
Cla" 83-12 Revised
Mee 83-16
June 22 , 1983
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
5094 $ 162.00 George Lee Ackerson and Refund of Security Deposit
Shelley Buck
5095 12.00 Amerigas Oxygen/Acetylene Tank Rental
5096 184. 60 Camden Rentals, Inc. Mower Rental and Parking Lot Light-
Fremont Older Open. Space Preserve
5097 123.50 CA Water Service Co. Utilities-Rancho San Antonio
5098 157.41 Captain Copy Printing Costs of Whittemore Gulch
Open Space Preserve Report
5099 52.41 Clark' s Auto Parts and District Vehicles Supplies
Machine Shop , Inc. '
5160 2 ,072. 31 Communications Research Co. Purchase and Installation of G.E.
Portable Unit Radio
5101 471.90 Contemporaries Trail Construction .Aides-Windy Hill
Open Space Preserves
,51Q2 19 .56 Crest Copies Bluelines
5103 .4,689.00 The Jack Dymond Co. Office Construction
5104 45.96 Ewert's Photo Replacement Lamps for Slide
Projector
'15105 52. 32 Federal Express Shipping Fee
5106 235.00 First American Title Preliminary Title Report
Guaranty Co.
'5107 9, 719. 70 First American Title Escrow and Title Fees-Hassler
Insurance Co.
5108 110.09 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Two Ton Power Puller
5109 485 . 32 Foster Bros.Security Systems Master Locks and-Keys
5110. 304.59 Georgia-Pacific Corporation Posts for Structure Repair
5111 30.00 Grantree Furniture Rental Desk Rental
5112 328. 72 HAI Computer Services , Inc. Computer Services-April
5113 135. 21 Harbinger Communications Computer Services for Mailing List-
March and April
5114 1,050. 31 Hengehold Motor Company Truck Rental
5115 70. 16 Evans/Hubbard and Johnson Materials for Ranger Residence
Repair-Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve
5116 41.25 Interior Technology AssociatesFurniture Moving Expenses
5117 63.96 International Camera Repair of Slide Projector
Technicians
Claims 83-12 Page 2
Meeting 83-16 Revised
June 22, 1983 "
Amount Name Description
5118 $ 115.00 J & R Drilling Posthole Drilling-Monte Bello and
Skyline Corridor
5119 6,070.00 Desmond Johnson,.Inc. . Appraisal Consultant
5120 157.83 Langley Hill Quarry Road Repair-Skyline Ridge Open
Space Preserve
120 239.55 Los Altos Garbage Co. Garbage Service _
5121 601.47 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for Patrol Vehicles
5122 94.02 Charlotte MacDonald Reimbursement-Picture Frames and
Mat Boards , Photo Processing, and
Meal Conference
�123 195.47 Minton's Lumber and Supply Materials and Supplies-Rancho San
Antonio Ranger Residence
124 94.13 Mountain View Door Closer,Key Lock Replacement-Office
and Lock Service
I` 125 35.00 Joyce Nicholas Private Vehicle Expense
126 54. 39 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. District Vehicle Expense
127 480.21 Orchard Supply Hardware Miscellaneous Field and Shop
Supplies
5128 28.00 PG and E Utilities
129 575. 12 Patton Brothers Base Rock for Road Maintenance
130 1,240. 82 Peninsula Oil Co. Fue1 'fo7r District Vehicles
5131 536. 16 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair and
Maintenance
132 174.17 Pine Cone Lumber. Co. Redwood Posts for Sign Repairs
133 25. 00 RSVP Workshop-Joyce Nicholas
5134 24.13 Rancho Hardware and Garden Paint and Shop Supplies
Shop
5135 266.20 S & W Equipment Co. Miscellaneous Field Supplies
5136 40.24 Sanborn Security Systems Inc. Padlocks
5137 1 ,171.50 Scribner Graphic Press , Inc. Reprinting of All Site Brochure
5138 21. 72 Sears Shop Equipment
5139 520..00 E.R. _Sheehan Trail Repairs-Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve and Stevens Canyon
5140 55.00 Specialty Towing Towing Service
5141 137.52 Standard Brands Paint Co. ,Inc.Paint and Supplies-Fremont Older
Ranger Residence
5142 71. 00 Stanley Norton May Legal Expenses-Phone, Copying,
Travel and Meal Conferences
5143 71.80 Starrett Publishing Co. Law Enforcement Identification
Guide Books
5144 845.00 State Compensation Insurance Additional Deposit Premium
Fund
Clai- 83-12 Page 3
, Meet 83-16 Revised
June _Z . 1983
Amount Name Description
15145 $ 21.00 The San Mateo Times Subscription
5146 218:92 True American Jeep District Vehicle Repairs
5147 500.00 U.S. Postmaster Postage for Meter
5148 1,166. 35 U.S. Rental Equipment Rental
5149 105.49 Union Oil Gas for District Vehicle
5150 154.00 Valley Title Co. Preliminary Title Report
5151 42.18 Alice Watt Private Vehicle Expense
5152 303.43 Walther's Carpet Patching
5153 126. 70 Western Fire Equipment, Co. . Replacement Fire Tools
5154 515.98 Xerox Corporation Installment Payment and Maintenance
Agreement-May
5155 298.21 ZZZ Sanitation Co. Toilet Rental-Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve
5156 8.20 The Country Almanac Rental- Ad
5157 27.60 Peninsula Times Tribune Rental Ad
5158 26.88 San Jose Mercury News Rental Ad
5159 - 8.25 Los Gatos Times Observer Rental Ad
5160 2,500.00 Louis B. Bordi and Son Discing-Lang Ridge, Russian Ridge,
Windy Hill, Los Trancos and Monte
Bello
15161 158.69 Charlotte MacDonald Work Table for Office
5162 472.50 County of San Mateo,Building Payment for Permits
Inspection Division
'5163 232. 82 Petty Cash Local Meal Conferences ,Prints ,
Slope Indicator for Tractor,Film
and Mailer,Postage,Newspaper
Subscription,Private Vehicle Expense
Miscellaneous Office Supplies,Keys
for Rental Unit and Photo Processing
C1a 83-12
MeeL-_.Lg 83-16
June 22, 1983
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIriS
Ir Amount Name Description
I:5094 $ 162.00 George Lee Ackerson and Refund of Security Deposit
Shelley Buck
5095 12.00 Amerigas Oxygen/Acetylene Tank Rental
5096 184. 60 Camden Rentals, Inc. Mower Rental and Parking Lot Light-
Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
15097 123.50 CA Water Service Co. Utilities-Rancho San Antonio
5098 157.41 Captain Copy Printing Costs of Whittemore Gulch
Open Space Preserve Report
'5099 52.41 Clark's Auto Parts and District Vehicles Supplies
Machine Shop , Inc.
'5100 2*072. 31 Communications Research Co. Purchase and Installation of G.E.
Portable Unit Radio
'S101 471.90 Contemporaries Trail Construction Aides-Windy Hill
Open Space Preserves
f$102 19.56 Crest Copies Bluelines
'i5I03 -4,689.00 The Jack Dymond Co. Office Construction
5104 45.96 Ewert's Photo Replacement Lamps for Slide
Projector
I15105 52. 32 Federal Express Shipping Fee
5106 285.00 First American Title Preliminary Title .Report
Guaranty Co.
15107 9,719. 70 First American Title Escrow and Title Fees-Hassler
Insurance Co.
II5108 110.09 Forestry Suppliers , Inc. Two Ton Power Puller
15109 485. 32 Foster Bros.Security Systems Master Locks and Keys
5110. 304.59 Georgia-Pacific Corporation Posts for Structure Repair
� 5111 30.00 Grantree Furniture Rental Desk Rental
5112 328. 72 HAI Computer Services , Inc. Computer Services-April
5113 135.21 Harbinger Communications Computer Services for Mailing List-
March and April
5114 1,050. 31 Hengehold Motor Company Truck Rental
5115 70. 16 Evans/Hubbard and Johnson Materials for Ranger Residence
Repair-Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve
5116 41.25 Interior Technology AssociatesFurniture Moving Expenses
5117 63.96 International Camera Repair of Slide Projector
Technicians
Claims 83-12 Page 2
Meeting 83-16
June 22, 1983
Amount Name Description
$118 $ 115.00 J & R Drilling Posthole Drilling-Monte Bello and
Skyline Corridor
5119 6,070.00 Desmond Johnson,.Inc. Appraisal Consultant
5120 157.83 Langley Hill Quarry Road Repair-Skyline Ridge Open
Space Preserve
5120 239.55 Los Altos Garbage Co. Garbage Service
5121 601.47 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for Patrol Vehicles
5122 94.02 Charlotte MacDonald Reimbursement-Picture Frames and
Mat Boards , Photo Processing, and
Meal Conference
5123 195.47 Minton's Lumber and Supply Materials and Supplies-Rancho San
Antonio Ranger Residence
5124 94.13 Mountain View Door Closer,Key Lock Replacement-Office
and Lock Service
125 35.00 Joyce Nicholas Private Vehicle Expense
5126 54. 39 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. District Vehicle Expense
5127 480.21 Orchard Supply Hardware Miscellaneous Field and Shop
Supplies
5128 28.00 .PG and E Utilities
5129 575.12 Patton Brothers Base Rock for Road. Maintenance
5130 12240. 82 Peninsula Oil Co. Fuel -for District Vehicles
5131 536. 16 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair and
Maintenance
5132 174.17 Pine Cone Lumber Co. Redwood Posts for Sign Repairs
5133 25.00 RSVP Workshop-Joyce Nicholas
5134 24.13 Rancho Hardware and Garden Paint and Shop Supplies
Shop
5135 266.20 S & W Equipment Co. Miscellaneous Field Supplies
5136 40.24 Sanborn Security Systems Inc. Padlocks
5137 1 ,171.50 Scribner Graphic Press , Inc. Reprinting of All Site Brochure
5138 21. 72 Sears Shop Equipment
5139 520.•00 E.R. Sheehan Trail Repairs-Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve and Stevens Canyon
I5140 55.00 Specialty Towing Towing Service
�141 137.52 Standard Brands Paint Co. ,Inc.Paint and Supplies-Fremont Older
Ranger Residence
5142 71. 00 Stanley Norton May Legal Expenses-Phone , Copying,
Travel and Meal Conferences
5143 71.80 Starrett Publishing Co. Law Enforcement Identification
Guide Books
144 845.00 State Compensation Insurance Additional Deposit Premium
Fund
Clam 83-12 Page 3
Meet. 83-16
June i-l-, 1983
Amount Name Description
145 $ 21.00 The San Mateo Times Subscription
146 218.92 True American Jeep District Vehicle Repairs
147 500.00 U.S. Postmaster Postage for Meter
�148 1,166.35 U.S. Rental Equipment Rental
�149 105.49 Union Oil Gas for District Vehicle
$150 154.00 Valley Title Co. Preliminary Title Report
5151 42.18 Alice Watt Private Vehicle Expense
5152 303.43 Walther's Carpet Patching
153 126. 70 Western Fire Equipment, Co. . Replacement Fire Tools
5154 515.98 Xerox Corporation Installment Payment and Maintenance
Agreement-May
5155. 298:21 ZZZ Sanitation Co. Toilet Rental-Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve
5156 8.20 The Country Almanac Rental Ad
5157 27.60 Peninsula Times Tribune Rental Ad
5158 26.88 San Jose Mercury News Rental Ad
5159 - 8.25 Los Gatos Times Observer Rental Ad
I