HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850410 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-08 oe Meeting 85-08
0 mw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 375 Distel Circle, D-1
April 10, 1985 A G E N D A Los Altos, California
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (March 13 , March 20, and March 30 . 1935
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(7 : 45) 1 . Announcement of Award for District Docent Program -- H. Grench
PUBLIC HEARING
(7 : 50) 2. Annexation of Certain Parcels in Santa Cruz County -- H. Grench
Resolution ordering Annexation of Territory Designated as
"Sempervirens Annexation No . 687-A" Into This District
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 20) 3 . Final Adoption of Interim Use and Management Plan for the Stour
Investments , Inc . Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space
Preserve -- D. Hansen
(8 : 25) 4 . Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for the
Windy Hill Open Space Preserve -- D. Hansen
(8 : 30) 5 . Final Adoption of the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Revised
Use and Management Plan -- D. Hansen
(8 : 35) 6 . March 30 Workshop Follow-Up -- T. Henshaw
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 50) 7 . Proposed Good Neighbor Communications Program -- N. Hanko
(9 : 00) 8 . Permanent Trail Easement Across Lands of Corte Madera.. a Limited
Partnership, for Windy Hill Open Space Preserve -- C. Britton
Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Gift Easement, Authorizing
Officer to Execute Same, and Authorizing General Manager to
Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate
to Closing of the Transaction (Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
Lands of Corte Madera, a Limited Partnership)
(9: 05) 9. Scheduling of Special Meeting with San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors -- H. Grench
(9 : 10) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR T17E MARCH 13 , 1985 REGULAR MEETING AND THE
CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 13 , 1985 HELD ON MARCH 20 , 1985
Copies of the minutes for the above meetings were distributed with
the packet for the March 27 , 1985 Regular Meeting. Please contact
the District office if you need another copy of these minutes.
! ' *
85-07
MYDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D 1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
March 30 , 1985
WORKSHOP MINUTES
Rob -ert Fisse Said
S that the District should buy land from willing
sellers only and that it should never use or imply the "threat"
of condemnation on land negotiations. Said eminent domain should
never be used on improved properties , never after the start of
building or subdivision procedures , never on a por
tion Lion of a
P
person' s property, and never to obtain easements .
June Janis - Said there should be a binding contract between the
Board and property owners stating that eminent domain would never
be used.
James Warren - Suggested that information be gathered from other
agencies regarding eminent domain policies,
Janet Schwind - Speaking in behalf of the South Skyline Association,
said eminent domain should not be usel of all . Said individuals
had been told when the District w.- �-c=e,--' ghat eminent domain
would not be used and now they felt 6;2c.eived. Said that the
District should change its approach and redefine its attitude.
Said that the Board should force staff to cooperate with land
owners and that the County should be used in an eminent domain
appeal process.
H. Turner - Said he was repelled by the coercive aspects of eminent
domain and that alternate methods for land acquisition should be
explored. Said that he would be willing to forswear use of
eminent domain and that the District should not remove people
from the land on which they are living,
D. Wendin - Said that eminent domain should not be used on owner
occupied dwelling units and added that the use of eminent domain
should not be eliminated completely. Said the Board needed to
figure out where to draw the line , noting categories to be con-
sidered were: (1) owner occupied; (2) occupied, not by owner;
(3) building plans submitted; (4) subdivision plans submitted;
(5) raw land, no plan submitted.
E. Shelley - Stated that the Board needed a well stated policy on
the use of eminent domain. Said it should not be used on owner
occupied properties.
R. Bishop - Said it was necessary to look at the District' s objec-
tives to create a permanent greenbelt for futuregenerations,P g
notingthat conflicts could arise with pr
operty err owners.
P P Y
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
85-07 Page two
Sharon Fogarty 8loomenthal - Requested the question of condemnation
of part of a person' s land be addressed.
Lennie Roberts - Said use of eminent domain not unique to MROSD, and
that District might want to consider using it in some cases where
land is under subdivision.
Artemas Ginzton - Discussed her opposition to use of eminent domain.
Said Stevens Creek connection involved willing sellers , not eminent
domain.
Carol Doose - Said "only" situations regarding when eminent domain
might be used creates other problems, noting it may cause people
to develop their property. Said MROSD needed an active community
outreach program and that the threatening actions concerning eminent
domain from District caused alienation.
James Warren - Said he wanted a permanent, binding policy (either a
contract with property owners; legislative action; or permanent
restraints) . Said the Board should state when eminent domain would
be used and when eminent domain would not be used.
Richard Bullis - Discussed the interaction and conversations he had had
with staff regarding Russian Ridge Ranch.
K. Duffy - Said it was necessary for MROSD to have power of eminent
domain in order not to be "held for ransom" over the cost of a
piece of Property. She said public money was involved and that
there are exact and precise procedures regarding the use of eminent
domain. Said some guidelines are needed regarding use: (1) no
threat or coersion from staff; (2) no trespassing; (3) seek other
courses first.
N. Hanko Said her ideas were expressed in her letter to the Board;
discussed long-term guarantees to owners beyond current Board; and
said an outreach program was needed.
William Obermayer - Said there should be a 7-0 vote to use eminent domain
and that the matter should also go before the Board of Supervisors.
Robert McKim- Said long-term effect of use of eminent domain on fair
market value was a negative effect.
David Leeson - Said that by using eminent domain, MROSD can't expect
positive attitudes regarding the District from the public . Said
private open space important, as well as commercial open space.
Said a checks and balances system was necessary with respect to the
use of eminent domain.
Betsy Crowder - Said some people less than honest in the use of land,
for example, land speculators. Said the idea of how eminent domain
relates to fair market value should be explored.
Alan Hoskings - Said a small number of acres have been acquired by
MROSD using eminent domain and noted "friendly" condemnations must
be considered.
85-07 Page three
C. Britton said in eminent domain procedures , a jury decides fair
market value; he discussed the tax advantages of eminent domain
and "friendly" condemnations. fie said the Board exercises resolu-
tion of public necessity, not the staff.
E. Shelley - Questioned whether current Board could bind future Boards
legally and asked staff to address condemnations of part of properties.
R. Bishop - Said eminent domain might be used when there was a willing
seller, but the property involved was over-valued.
Charles Touchatt - Said whatever anyone willing to pay for a piece of
roperty should determine fair market value. Said appraisals could
e manipulated.
Robert Schwind - Said no middle ground on this gut issue and that the
threat of eminent domain impacts individuals ' well-being. Said use
of eminent domain destroying MROSD and called for the replacement
of District staff members if Board really wanted to change course.
Supervisor Tom Nolan - Said various San Mateo County agencies involved
in land preservation should meet and discuss their plans.
Unidentified Speaker - Questioned how much land MROSD needed and called
for input from residents in the Skyline area.
Mrs. Steers - Said she was opposed to use of eminent domain whether
land developed or not.
George Norton - Said MROSDIs use of eriin=_nt C,,-;:lain struck terror in
the hearts of Skyline residents. Sa-d it s'f-iould not be used on
owner-occupied land. Said other situations exist where the use of
eminent domain is appropriate.
Purusha Obluda - Urged MROSD representatives to meet with groups of
people. Expressed concern regarding whether legal requirements
of eminent domain law have been met . C. Britton explained the
requirements of the law and said they had been met in each case.
Dr. Fogarty - Discussed condemnation for public necessity vs .. condem-
nation for recreational pursuits. Asked whether Board members felt
they were working on everyone' s behalf and whether MROSD policed
developments.
H. Grench - Discussed the Board' s notification policy for eminent domain
proceedings.
N. Hanko - Said she felt additional notification procedures needed to
be addressed by the Board.
H. Turner - Said MROSD does not police all developments, noting if a
development was in conflict with MROSD goals then the District
would get involved. He said Directors are elected representatives
and that he felt public support exists for what the District is doing.
85-07 Page four,
David Bomberg - Said MROSD should do whatever it can to preserve the
undeveloped greenbelt; noting eminent domain may be needed to
acquire some parcels.
Robert Fisse - Said the Board should consider "family" aspects of land
and that a non-owner occupied situation may be due to the owner's
temporary move out of the area. Said the District was timeless and
that land could be purchased when available. Said MROSD uses
eminent domain without foresight. Said MROSD should be proactive in
land acquisition only within District boundaries.
James Warren - Asked if a Board member would be willing to trade his
or her home with person whose home is condemned. Said renters are
people too. Said the Board should not leave any statement drafting
to staff alone. Said there should be a check and balance system
with another agency and not hearing before a Board "who want to get
that land" when eminent domain concerned.
Richard Bullis - Discussed report by Mr. Peters of a recent meeting
between C. Britton and Colin Peters regarding Russian Ridge Ranch,
noting he felt staff' s actions were inappropriate. Noted he wanted
to be present when any District representative was on Russian Ridge
Ranch. C. Britton recounted what had transpired in his recent
meeting with Mr. Peters.
David Leeson - Discussed the value of a person' s property, noting value
was not only measured in dollars. Said people in the Mt. Umunhum
area were concerned about the District ' s actions . Discussed use
and safety of District lands, said they were dangerous to use since
unsupervised. Said meetings were essential to building trust and
that eminent domain should not be us,_-�.
June Janis - Discussed the interpersonal utility concept and the
anguish of land owners with respect to the use of eminent domain.
Said no government agency should use eminent domain.
H. Turner - Said the Board should exclude eminent domain where personal
residences involved and noted a Board committee should be appointed
to draft an eminent domain policy.
E. Shelley - Said he felt a Board committee should draft policy
representing all Board members ' opinions. He said the Committee
should summarize input and recommend a draft policy which should be
disseminated in advance.
The Board agreed to place a workshop follow-up item on the agenda for
the April 10 Regular Meeting.
Written Comments Received During Meet:
Anthony Such - Said he opposes use of eminent domain by MROSD in any
form; if MROSD does not forswear use of eminent domain, should be an
appeal process involving an appeal board made up of owners who may
be subjected to use of eminent domain. No annexation of properties
without 100% consent of owners involved.
Stbil Plank - Said he wants a permanent no-condemnation policy. Asked
that the question of partial condemnation be addressed.
Jean H. Fiddes , District Clerk
Cecilia A. Cyrier, Secretary.
WRITTFN COMMUNICATION
Meetinq 85-07
April 10, 1985
LAURENCE DAWSON
13875 Mir Mirou Drive
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
1 April 1985
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Ladies and Gentlemen :
For personal reasons (I had to Chair a meeting in San Jose at
7 : 30 AM following your meeting) , I was unable to present
testimony at your meeting of Wednesday, 27 March, although I was
present at a part of it. I would hope that my statement will be
acceptable on personal grounds, and, in part, because my failure
to make it in person may have shortened your meeting , if only
slightly!
A note of personal background : I am a thirty-plus year resident
of our area. I served a term as a Planning Commisioner of the
Town of Los Altos Hills, and , before that , had the honor to serve
with Artemas Ginzton in the development of Los Altos Hills Path
Plan. I think I may claim some credit for the policy of the town
which holds that "Los Altos Hills should be wholly permeable to
horse and pedestrian traffic , but essentially impermeable to
vehicular traffic." I also have the honor to serve on the
Advisory Board of the Peninsula open Space Trust (POST) .
I have reviewed the Draft Master Plan for the Skyline Open Space
Preserve. I also had the pleasure of biking most of the area a
while ago when POST had a party up there. And, of course, I have
driven past the area for years so am not totally unfamiliar with
the area .
I would suggest to the District's Board that your staff has done
an extraordinarily sensitive job in making the proposals which
are the Draft Master Plan. It seems to me that the Plan meets
both the needs of the environment and of the public for
reasonable access. Having myself invested heavily in a then-
undeveloped area and seen intensive development follow around my
own biome, I think I can say with some confidence that the
neighbors' fears , real indeed as they are , are probably
exaggerated .
In sum, I would encourage you to adopt the plan as presented and
make that grant which is within your power to provide a fabulous
resource , to us , to our children and -- to theirs !
Sincer
WRITTEN COMMUNI( TON
Meeting 85-G
April 10, 1985
Manager
MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle
Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Sir, April 1, 1985
On Sunday, March 31, 19859 a friend and I were hiking north on the
Canyon Trail within the 14onte Bello Open Space Preserve. At the base of
a 6% grade we were forced to the sides of the trail by two people riding
mountain bikes. These obnoxious individuals merely hollored "bikes!" as
they emerged from the forest cover, signalling that all in their path should
get out of the way as the importance of their pleasures was superior to that
of others. Beyond this cursory warning no effort was made on either cyclists
part to slow down and/or pull to the side of the trail. As the cyclists
speed was 20-25 miles per hour a collision was inevitable if we hikers had
stood our ground. Curiously, within five minutes of this encounter we were
passed by yet a third person on a mountain bike.
I have not supported the MP SD in its endeavors only to confront such
irresponsible and disruptive activity in our open space preserves. It is
evident that a conflict of use philosophy exists between those who seek
respite and solace in nature and those who utilize District lands as a
means for testing themselves and their equipment against the terrain at hand.
There is a fundamental incompatability between mountain bikes specifically and
bicycles in general and hikers and equestrians. Germaine to this fact are the
following points:
-There exists a fundamental danger in mixing mountain bikes with
hikers and equestrians. Older and infirm walkers and hikers do
not possess the agility needed to escape the instantaneous
apperance of fast moving bicycles. Horses are skittish animals,
easily frightened and difficult to control, especially when objects
of unfamiliar speed and shape Ue fast moving bicycles) appear.
-All MFROSD lands possess a combination of steer terrain, wide trails
and varying amounts of abundant forest cover; these conditons are
much loved by mountain bikers. These same conditions give rise
to high rates of speed by bicyclists, obscured uphill and curvil-
inear views for hikers and equestrians and therefore short response
times for all in sudden encounters on trails.
-YPROSD lands are posted no vehicles. A vehicle is by definition any
device on wheels for conveying persons or objects. Thus bicycles
are by District decree prohibited from District lands.
i
:eventually there will occur a serious injury accident between a speeding
bicyclist and a hiker or equestrian. The District may then find itself in
the politically and economically awkward position of being; sued for neglig-
ence in enforcement of its own policy of no vehicles in District lands. Such
action would further polarize District adversaries who seem to find little
merit in the concept of open space preservation.
The basic incomratabilit - of bicyclists and hiker/equestrian users of
District lands can only be resolved through a r1_anket ban and enforcement
against bicyclist in MPROSD lands. There exist abundant opportunities through-
out the San Francisco Bay region for c,yclinr,. Access to :)istrict lards for
bicylist violates the intent and tone of the open space concert : a refiave
for solace from the insanity that pervades our lives.
In closing note that I am a strong supporter of the MPROSD because they
have performed a tremendous job to date in land accuisition. The District must
now deal with incompatable uses of those lands to avoid further controversy
in executing its responsibilities.
I would appreciate your transmitting this letter to all memebers of
MPROSD Board of Directors and res-Bonding to me concerning; the Districts
intentions on this problem.
Sincerely,
Robert Zatkin v
P.O. Box 620502
Woodside, CA 94062
WpITT,EN CCK4JNICAUCN
Meeting 85-08
April 10, 1985
EDWARD NELSON INC.
A LAW CORPORATION
(415)494-3121
POST OFFICE BOX 705
PALO ALTO,CA 94302
March 26, 1985
Mid-Peninsula Open Space District
375 Vistel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Claimed Rights of MROSD over Grandview Drive, a private road in
Woodside.
Gentlemen:
I am the owner of two parcels of property on Grandview Drive, Woodside,
between State Highway 84 and Espinoza Road. Including approximately
1400 feet of that private road, to the center thereof.
I have advised your Mr. Hansen, your Mr. Britton, and Mr. Harry Turner
of that fact. In 1983 and again in 1984 1 met with your Mr. Hansen, and
Mr. Britton, respectively. Mr. Britton, and again Mr. Hansen advised me
that the District had acquired and owned recorded easements over my prop-
erty, and I was assured by Mr. Britton that he would send to me such docu-
mentary evidence. I also requested to be advised in writing of any meetings
at which the District would raise the questions of access over my property.
Both Mr. Britton and Mr. Hansen assured me that I would be so advised.
To date I have received no such notification from the District.
Today I was advised by Mr. Langrock, a neighbor, that the District intends
to hold a meeting on Wednesday April 10, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss "the
use of Grandview Drive for..." by the District.
The purpose of this letter is to memorialize the foregoing and to state clearly
my position as owner of approximately one half of the road of Grandview
between La Honda Road and Espinoza. I am unequivocally opposed to the
use of that portion of the roadway by the District, any employees of the
District or any of the constituents of the District. I do not object to the
use of that portion of the roadway by Deputy Sheriffs or by Park Rangers
acting in their capactities as peace officers.
It is my belief that the District failed to investigate the nature of the prop-
erty which it acquired some years ago and failed to ascertain the existence,
if any, of any ingress to and egress from that parcel. It may be, although
I do not express an opinion on that question that the District might have
a claim against its grantors for having been misled, if, in fact, they were
reasonably misled. If, on the other hand as it appears at this time the District
simply acquired the property with the intent to bull doze its way over the
rights of property owners then, in such case the District has no equities
going for it at all.
I will appreciate it if in the future the District will keep me advised, ahead
of time of planned meetings, actions, etc.
Very truly yours,
Edward Nelson
EN/cl
cc: Don Langrock
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D 1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965.4717
April 5, 1985
Members of Portola Hills Subdivision
c/o Don Langrock
271 Grandview Drive
Woodside, CA 94062
Dear Subdivision Members :
Thank you for your March 29 , 1985 reply and comments following up
on our written legal op
inion pinion and the January, 1984 neighborhood
meeting on the subject of District and public use and rights and
of neighborhood concerns on Grandview and Espinsoa Roads .
At the present time it appears that we are not far apart in agree-
ing that Rangers should continue to patrol the District' s g p Schilling
Lake parcel of the Thornewood Preserve by way of Grandview Road .
I believe also that the question of public use on these roads is al-
most at the point of resolution in that we do not desire to encourage
public access to the Preserve via these roads and that you feel the
I. public has no legal right anyway. There may be some rather simple
solution to resolve this matter by agreement. However, I do not
believe that our Board meeting is the correct forum to be resolving
the issue at the present time .
I suggest that the subdivision residents meet again with Craig
Britton, the District's Land Acquisition Manager, representative
Board members and me to see if we can resolve the matter as soon as
possible. I will contact Don Langrock today to set up the meeting
date and time.
We will be postponing the regular Use and Management Plan Review of
the Thornewood Open Space Preserve to accommodate this meeting and
hopefully resolve the public access problem before the Plan is re-
viewed by the Board. Therefore, the matter will not be on the
April 10 agenda.
Please let me know individually in the interim if you have any
questions on this matter or any other item regarding use and manage-
ment of the Thornewood Open Space Preserve .
ou s vqlHa
uly,
David Wen,
Land Manager
i
DWH:ds
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendm
i
Members of Port a Hills
Subdivision - 2 - April 5 , 1985
cc : (All Thornewood neighbors on Thornewood site list and who
signed subdivision letter)
Ms. Barbara Seitle, Woodside Town Council
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Assemblyman Robert Naylor
State Senator Rebecca Morgan
MROSD Board of Directors
I�
March 29, 1985
Mr. David W. Hanson
Land Manager
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Re: Rights of MROSD Over Private Roads in
Portola Hills Subdivision, Woodside, California
Dear Mr. Hanson:
This responds to your memorandum dated November 29, 1983 by
S. Hurst, legal intern (hereinafter "your memo" ) , and other
pertinent correspondence, memoranda and reports of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (hereinafter
"District" ) on the subject of the District ' s rights over private
roads in the Portola Hills Subdivision. We have consulted a
land use attorney who has reviewed these documents, researched
the applicable law and advised us as to our rights. By this
letter we will respond to each of the points discussed in your
memo and set forth our committee' s position on this issue.
Nature of the District ' s Access Rights. Your memo is
correct when it states the all purchasers of lots in a recorded
subdivision possess private easements in the streets opposite
their respective lots for ingress and egress. Although this is
not an unqualified right, as far as the District is concerned
and for purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the
District, as a lot owner within the Portola Hills Subdivision,
retains reasonable ingress and egress rights for its patrol
vehicles. The question then becomes what is the scope of these
rights?
Scope of Private Easement Rights. Your memo correctly
acknowledges that a lot owner may not "overburden" an easement
or extend its use to serve non-dominant property. The author of
the memo then goes on, however, to assert that:
Just as other landowners in Portola Hills may extend an
invitation to the public to attend a party or open
house on his or her property, the District may extend
an invitation to its constituency to visit the Shilling
Lake parcel .
Mr. David W. Hanson
March 29, 1985
Page Two
We disagree completely with this conclusion and its
reasoning. A private landowner ' s right to invite guests to his
or her property is in no way analogous to a public entity' s
rights to "extend an invitation" to the public at large. it
should go without saying that private homeowners retain the
right to invite guests to their homes for any number of reasons
without being characterized as overburdening a private road
easement. We disagree that the District 's public users are to
be treated in the same manner as the guests of private home-
owners. Under this type of reasoning, virtually any private
road could be opened to the public by the mere act of a public
entity acquiring a parcel within a residential subdivision and
characterizing its constituency as "guests. " This would wreak
havoc on the well established distinctions between private and
public roads in California, with the attendant rights and
responsibilities. The original subdivider of the Portola Hills
Subdivision and all later residents of the subdivision never
intended nor envisioned such a bizarre situation as this, and,
in our opinion, California courts would reject it out-of-hand.
The community feels that the roads are inappropriate for public
use as they are narrow, steep, and have no sidewalks for our
children or for pedestrian use.
Public Prescriptive Rights. The last paragraph of your memo
states that the public' has used Grandview/Espinosa for sixty
or more years and that "District representatives, in their
private vehicles, have driven these roads on many occasions
without interference. " Both of these statements are demon-
strably false. The public has never used Grandview Drive and/or
Espinosa Road. Grandview and Espinosa are deadend roads.
With respect to signing of the road, it is untrue that
Grandview Drive was posted as a private road only within the
last year . Many "no trespassing" and "private road" signs have
been posted over the years. From the time of its original
construction, the road has periodically been barricaded with a
locked chain at various locations.
Conclusion. For the above reasons, the undersigned
community members hereby inform the District, its Board of
Directors and staff, that (1 ) Grandview/ Espinosa is not now and
has never been a public road; (2 ) the public has no rights in
Grandview/Espinosa, prescriptive or otherwise; and (3) the
undersigned will vigorously resist any effort by the District to
J
r
Mr. David W. Hanson
March 29, 1985
Page Three
open up Grandview/Espinosa for use by the public for access to
the Thornwood Preserve, either on a regular or "selected event"
basis.
Very truly yours,
,rim ,.SGaoLvx
lu� a,
Ap
i
i T
�.
......................
cc-Ms - Barbara Seitle , Assemblyman Bob Naylor
Woodside Town Council State Senator Becky Morgan
San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D1, LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 22 , 1985
Ms. Gail Lapierre
265 Grandview Road
Woodside , CA 94062
SUBJECT: District use Plans for the Thornewood Open Space
Preserve
Dear Ms. Lapierre :
I have enclosed the current use and management plans adopted by
our Board in 1983 for the Thornewood Preserve as we discussed on
the telephone today. As you can see , it reiterates that we are
not encouraging any public use on the Preserve which would entail
public access via Grandview or Espinosa Roads whether the public
has rights on those roads or not. In fact, in the final report
dated October 14 , 1983 , under A. 1 , the statement is made that 'the
use and management plan will not call for encouragement of public
access via those roads . '
The internal trails and Highway 84 entry parking facilities men-
tioned in the plan were not funded for the 1984-85 fiscal year,
but will probably be included for the upcoming year. Again, as
I mentioned to you, none of these facilities are tied to public
access via Grandview or Espinosa Roads.
Our rangers have been regularly patroling the Schilling Lake end
of the Preserve for the last year and will continue to do so, I
believe benefiting both District and neighbors alike.
Thank you for your inquiry. I hope to see you at our April 10th
Board meeting when the Thornewood use and management plan is
reviewed.
Very truly yours ,
Vj/David Wm. Hansen
Land Manager
DWH:ds
Attachments
cc : Don Langrock
Herbert A GrenCh,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
' 5-O8 |
Meeting �
lO, 1985
� K�K���o�������� |
|
Center
Foundation
2253Park Bou|ove/d |
Palo Alto,California S43U8 |
Telephone (4l5) 328-53l3
|
� March 27, 1985
�
� |
�
� Board of Directors
� Midneninsu7d Regional Open Space District |
375 DiStel Circle, Suite D-1 |
� "
� Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of the South Bay Wetlands Coalition, I wish to thank
you for allowing me to present the Coalition's history and current �
activities at your recent meeting. Your decision to endorse the
goals and objectives Of the 3BWC as expressed in the Wetlands �
�
Resolution and Addendum is most appreoiated. We will keep you
informed, through your staff representative, Of all current �
development proposals, illegal fills, toxic contamination, and
any other activities that threaten the wetland habitat around the
\
South Bay. Thank you again for your concern.
Sincerely, ~ |
�
� /�' �
� Deborah J88�SOO
Program Director
\
� ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY THROUGH EDUCATION AND DIRECT Aorom
|
j WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
' Meeting 85-08
April 10, 1985
Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association
22400 Skyline Blvd, Box 16
La Honda, CA 94020
March 21, 1985
District Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, #01
Los Altos, CA 94022
I
Dear District Directors,
As elected representatives of the Portola Park Heights Property
Owners Association (PPHPOR), we must take issue with the use of
our community access road as a public hiking trail _ While this
letter is intended to promote a cooperative resolution to a
P
potentially dangerous situation, we Must go on record as holding
you fully responsible for any harm this hazard may cause _
The road in question is narrow, with steep blind corners and
marginal surfacing _ It is a private primary access serving a
major subdivision of over thirty families _ Consistant with
rural residential usage, it is at times very busy with heavy
fuel and propane trucks, gravel trucks, septic cleaning and
other heavy equipment _ We have an easement across the Pacific
School road, but have voluntarily limited our use of that road
at the request of your staff _
Your policy of representing our main road segment as a public
hiking trail has created an attractive nuisance with dangerous
possibilities _ It obstructs the free passage of vehicles and
could overburden the easement _
We request that you reverse this policy, cease distribution of
MROSO literature describing our road front as a public trail and
post signs directing public users to more suitable trails _ We
request that you provide certification of liability insurance
naming PPHPOR as additionally insured by MROSD _
We would appreciate your assistance in helping to keep our
community roads safe for all users _
i
'ortola Park Heights Property Owners Association
J _ MacHiven, W _ BbarmeVer, P _ Storaasli
I
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Sunnyvale , - ~ ,
Meeting 85-08 March 21 , 1985
April IO. 1985
Board of Directors
widpeninsuIa Open 5peCB District
� 375 Distel Circle
Suite O-I
Los Altos , C8 . 94022
�
� Dear Board Members :
�
� I was sorry to read that you were subjected to abuse at your
recent board meeting by e typical selfish special interest group .
Z hope that your vote not to condemn Ns . Dooley / S property represented
� your true beliefs and that you did not panic because a bunch of
� people were yelling at you .
�
� I egInB that the Open Space District Should respect the property
rights Of residents of long Standing in the mountains . Ma , Dooley ,
� however , is e different breed of CBt , She is Obviously One Of the
�
� new rich aristocracy Of Silicon Valley , many of which would like to
� stake out their Own little five acre mountain domain . If this kind
� Of development is elIOmod to continue , there will soon be little
left in the mointains for the hoi polloi to enjoy .
� I frankly don ' t give 8 damn whether Ms . Dooley ever gets her
� dream home Or her Christmas tree farm--but I do want to see our
grandchildren and greet grandchildren have something left of their
�
� natural heritage . The way the Santa Clara Valley is going , you (we)
�
� must save every beautiful natural area that can be Saved .
� If Ns . DooI8y / s property , Or any like it , is really necessary
to preserve the integrity of on open space area , Z encourage you
to go after it . You may have Ms . Dooley and 8 few Of her friends
� screaming at you , but you will also have thousands of v8II8y
� dwellers applauding your every move . A 20 year old tract house or
� a I200 sq , ft . condo will do for Dooley , as they are doing for
thousands of Other local residents .
�
I have only praise for the work done by the Open Space District
since its inception . You--and the board members who preceded you--
have done a magnificent job and you have kept your eye on the ball
f the job t b
at all times . Your concepto � JO O � done has been the
correct one , and you must not let the Ns . DoOleys of the world
shout you down .
Sincerely ,
| Walt Marsh
|
' 511 Humber Ct .
Sunnyvale , Ca . 94087
�|
� �
WRITTEN COMnJNICATION
Meeting 85-08
April 10, 1985
26865 St . Francis Road, Los Altos Hills , CA 94022
27 March 1985
Mid-Peninsula Open Space District
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos , CA 94022
Subject : Request for Beneficial Preservation of Hassler Estate
Reference: "Morgan Hills ' s Anguish Over Teen ' s Suicide - Maggie
Olson ' s death caused six teen-age classmates to try
to end their lives too" . San Jose Mercury News ,
Sunday 17 March 1985 , page 1 , (enclosed ) .
Maggie Olson ' s suicide , reported in the referenced article ,
calls attention to a widespread community crisis - a crisis
which is not over . According to Tom Kinoshita , a supervisor at a
non-profit counseling center in Morgan Hill , "The community
needs to talk about it and then look at possible solutions " .
A major component of the crisis appears to be that there is no
satisfactory place for young adults to go outside of school and
not be alone - a place where these young people can gain confi-
dence and worthwhileness in themselves .
Preservation of Hassler offers a timely unique opportunity for
averting more of these community catastrophes . In company of
creative , constructive leaders , young adults can experience the
thrill and satisfaction of participating in something bigger
than any single individual . Initially, emphasis would be directed
toward manual and people skills . Later , emphasis would be cul-
turally directed to include arts and humanities , laced with the
sciences . Caring people would be available to guide if needed .
Peer pressures would be notably absent . All this can be achieved
realistically in Hassler ' s natural environment , during and after
refurbishing its facilities .
Preservation of Hassler is a solution which ideally matches the
referenced problem . Preservation of open space for its own sake
virtually is meaningless . The Open Space District would perform
the community an immense beneficial service were it to preserve
open space for a vitally important purpose, such as that indi-
cated herein .
A request is made to maximize the benefical use of Hassler in
its preservation as open space , to serve an identified pressing
community need .
)�purs truly,
1 �'_R.
Norman R. run
cc : Coalition to Preserve Hassler
% Barbara Wiesner, 1509 Edgewood Drive
Palo Alto , CA 94303
cw:5
Serving Northern California Since 1851
Sunday morn * g, March 17, 19,'%
Morgan Hill's anguish over
teen'
s sui cide
Maggie Olson's death caused six teen-age classmates to try to end their lives too
By Linda Goldston The Maggies of the world have become all too
Mercury News Staff'Writer common: 5,000 young people aged 15 t0 24 kill them- Earlier in the day, a school official had reported
s eyes were dilated and her pulse rapid.
Fifty-eight days after her 13th birthday,scarcely selves each year, and 500,000 others attempt suicide that Maggie
past the leap from child to teen, Maggie Olson — triple the rate of 30 years ago. Her second offense
hanged herself from a tree near her Morgan Hill For the families, the friends and the teachers of It was the second "drug" offense for the troubled
home. troubled youths, the hardest part is realizing how eighth-grader at Britton, and school he dictated
In the grim, nightmarish week that followed,six serious the threat of suicide has become — that e y
other students from Britton Middle School that she be expelled for the rest of the semester. On
attempted suicide. Some of them were consumed depression among young people can be as severe as the last day of school the year before,she and several
P that suffered by adults, that kids who talk about other students had been caught smoking marijuana on
by guilt, tortured that they may have failed their killing themselves usually mean it.
death friend in her Ii me of need.
For the own complicated others,
Maggie's
"Threats are followed by suicide attempts 70 per- campus.
time, Maggie had taken pills that were pre-
P cent of the time. Our advice is that you always take gibed to a friend's mother,said Santa Clara County
lems, and the pain no longer seemed bearable, suicide threats seriously, because you are not in a Sheriff's Sgt. Don Zies. The pills were an antibiotic
counselors and school officials said.
ition to if
pos judge the kid means it or not, said Meg and medication for diarrhea. These kids apparently
Twelve of Maggie's friends were even planning a Paris, director of the Suicide Prevention and Crisis were going through their parents' medicine cabinets
mass suicide on the Sunday after her death. Center of Santa Clara County. found," he said.
whatever the
and talon ,
g y
It was a phenomenon that local counseling cen- Even if it is a bid for attention,"she said,"to what Even so,the principal rincipal called the Morgan Hill Police
tern called a community crisis. And it wasn't new. extent does a kid have to go to get attention?, Department to report the incident and expelled Mag-
In the month before Maggie's suicide and the subse- Morgan Hill, like most communities, was not Pre- gie from school.
quent attempts, six other young people in the Mor- pared for such a crisis. But in the long,soul-searching While waiting for her mother to come to pick her
gan Hill and Gilroy area had tried to kill them- weeks since Maggie hanged herself Jan. 28, the up, Maggie told a vice principal: "Life is a game.
selves. schools, the police, some parents and even some Today I am a loser."
But it was a phenomenon that the community children have received training in how to be more She also told school officials that her mother hac
failed to recognize at first. Such things happened responsive to troubled teens and how to handle suicide threatened to send her to live with her natural father
somewhere else, some believed, not in a town threats. in San Francisco if she got into trouble and that she
where most of its residents still ,.now the faces, if ; Maggie Olson made such a threat. No one realized would rather be dead than do that, her mother said.
not the names, of everyone else. its seriousness on that cold,rainy Monday in January, When Kathleen Beavers, Maggie's mother, arrived
"That's the thing that was so startling, that it the last day of Maggie's lif at the school to e. P P daughter,"pick u her dau ter, all I saw was a
could happen here," Britton Middle School Prin very sad Maggie who was in trouble. She wasn't
cipal Roger Bennett said. "We spent a lot of sleep- On Jan. 28, Maggie was called to the principal's crying. She was just sitting there. The feeling I got
less hours over `how are we going to handle this office at Britton Middle School. Another student had from her was 'oh, bummer.'"
cane?' " come to school drunk and, while being questioned, "Delia Johnston (the vice principal) told me that
And et, Maggie's suicide and the attempts, by mentioned that Maggie had some pills, Principal she had to be expelled, that it was school policy,"
the others are ags much a symbol of kids in crL�is A'- BeI100t told the Santa Clara County Coroner's Office. Beavcr,� said. "The last thing before I left, the nurse
Ym Maggie was asked to turn over her purse for was called in.She said Maggie had said she would kill
a sad reminder that overwhelming pain and pr#. inspection, and school officials found a pill. When herself father than go live with her dad. The nurse
surer are not limited to adults or to large, m tr asked what it was,Maggie said, "I don't know,let me said, `Well, I would think about counseling.' '
politan cities. look at it."She then grabbed the pill and swallowed it,
according to the coroner's report.
�I
2
The issue about going to live with her father had Appeared happier When Bennett called Beavers to say Maggie was
arisen the year before when Maggie was being defi- Although the transition from elementary school to being expelled, "he asked me if she was offered drug
ant, Beavers said. "I told her that if she didn't follow junior high had been hard for Maggie, the skinny, counseling the last time (when Maggie was caught
my rules, that she'd have to go live with her father honey-blond youngster had appeared happier in smoking a marijuana cigarette on the school grounds).
and follow his rules." recent months, her mother said. Last summer, she I said, 'I never heard anything about drug abuse
On the way home from school, realizing that her made a trip by train with her mother and twin sisters, counseling,'" Beavers said.
daughter was still fearful, "I went to great pains to Yolanda and Marita, to visit their grandparents in Under school policy, the first time students are
reassure Maggie that I would never do anything like Alabam, caught with drugs in their possession at school, they
that," Beavers said. "She didn't say too much on the The rest of the summer, Maggie was involved in are suspended for five days and given a police cita
way home. She said, `Well, you should just get rid of 4-H.She raised a market sheep and won a blue ribbon tion.As an alternative to that,students are offered the
me.' „ at the Santa Clara County Fair. chance to undergo six weeks of drug abuse counseling,
Back out again "She made about $50 on the project," her mother enabling them to avoid the police citation and five-
After arriving at the family's home in the Morgan said. "She sold it at the auction(at the fair). It was a day suspension.
Hill countryside,Maggie went out to feed the chickens tearful goodbye at the end." For the second offense,the school's policy is expul-
and her horse, Spring, as she did every evening. She Maggie had named her lamb Sheila — Sheila sion for the rest of the semester.
returned to the house briefly and then went back out SAP. firitton Vice Principal Johnston said that Maggie
again "She loved animals, but she'd say lambs are so had known of the option for drug counseling but chose
A half hour or so passed and Beavers noticed that dumb," eavers said. "At the very end of the project, the suspension at the first of school this year.her daughter had not come back in. She also noticed she said,'I'm never going to do this again.,A few days "When Maggie got suspended,it was the last day of
that Maggie's puppy was inside the house. The two later,she said,`Next year,I'm going to get two sheep. school and there was no program(drug abuse count
had been inseparable ever since Beavers gave the dog Maybe I can make even more money.' " ing),"Johnston said."She would have had to wait unL-
to Maggie at Christmas. Roxanne Bracco, Haggle's 4-H adviser, said the school started,so Maggie chose the suspension."
", ,
Beavers went to look for Maggie. She found her girl told her, I want to do this sleep right. Tell me Maggie did not mention that to her mother, how-
hanging from a tree in a ravine just down from the how to do it right.' She did a good job." ever, and started Britton last fall as usual.
house, dead less than an hour after arriving home. "She was not a talkative child,"Bracco said."Some "On the first day of school, they called me up and',
"I ran back up here, loaded up the twins(Maggie's kids are really bubbly, but she was very quiet." said, 'Oh, no, she'll have to stay out a few days,' "
4-year-old sisters) and drove down into the ravine to Ever since Maggie was 4 years old, "she wanted to Beavers said.
"" other said. "She was in "If they would have alerted me," she said, "but
her m
w and be a vie .
u t, ,
d. I P
get her to take her to the neighbors, Beavers sac grow
we came u here because she of her maybe there was nothing for them to see. If I didn't
heave
n when g
her."
P
had a cut her down and teed to revive e , see it, how could I expect strangersto see it? It was
The neighbors tried to revive Maggie,too,but were horse-"
unsuccessful, as were the paramedics who were Maggie was born in San Jose and learned to ride a just a bad combination of things,and nobody noticed.
called. neighbor's pony in Alviso when she was 5.The family I just hope they(school officials)can learn something
moved to Morgan Hill seven years ago. Her mother from it. They're dealing with everybody's kids every
Maggie was pronounced dead at 5:54 p.m. at Kai- .
ser-Permanente hospital's Santa Teresa branch. and stepfather, Emilio, gave her Spring three years day."
Later,a suicide note was found in Maggie's room,a ago. Talked to her friends
typical teenager's room with clothes thrown about On weekends, Maggie would either invite a friend
and rock posters and horse pictures lining the walls. to her house or ride Spring to a friend's home several Shortly after Maggie's death, Beavers said she
On her bed was a folder with wasting on the front: chiles away, stay one or two nights and then ride talked to all her daughter's friends to see if she had
"Bye, bye world. I'll be dead but it'll be cool because Spring back home. threatened suicide or talked about it.
you don't have to bother with me because I got "This is all she had except for school," Beavers
busted" said. "Her everyday entertainment was to come here "One friend recalled that years ago, Maggie ha.
Inside the folder was a note to several of her and play with animals." wondered what it would be like to be dead,"she said.
friends, saying she would miss them and "don't be "If they had been more aware at school,they might At school, "we were aware she(Maggie)had prob-
sad." To her 19-year-old brother, David, she wrote, have interpreted what she said as don't expel me lems," said Bennett. "All along, Maggie said she was
"give Spring(her horse)lots of love,because you can from school," she said. going to do it," Johnston said.
have her." Expulsion from Britton Middle School meant that Still, "you can go back and 'if' all you want,"
"Last year, I might have been able to understand Maggie would have had to attend another school in Beavers said, "but it doesn't do any good. I'm just
it,"Beavers said."She was very moody,up and down. the district.But because the family lived so far in the trying to get through each day without sitting down
One minute she'd be happy, the next minute sad. country,she would have had to move in with a friend and crying all day."
"This year, she was so much better. This year,she or a relativ,_ .c attend another school, Beavers said. For now, one of the hardest things for Beavers is
was so much warmer and nicer. Her grades were "It's (the drug policy) rather clear-cut and fairly trying to reassure Maggie's 4-year-old sisters,
coming back up. Everybody in the family had been well-publicized," said Principal Bennett.
commenting on how satisfied she seemed."
Maggie had been devoted to the twins, teaching Rathee,ife said, "we find that the parents feel a lot 3
them how to feed her horse and taking them along of pressure to provide these nice car-, and these
when she did chores. "All right, we're going to go do homes. They expect the kid- to achieve at the same
chores," she'd say to them, "Let's go shovel manure." leveL
I'We*re seeing kids pay fc, ihat pressure and fail,
"Every day, they still say, 'Mom, why did Maggie too,"said Nan Pacheco,program manager of counsel-
could"she said. "I keep telling them I was hoping we ing at South County Alternatives. "We started getting
could save" her. I told them there was a terrible concerned before Maggie's death because of the
accident.Ever since this happened,they don't want to steady increase of kids trying to hurt themselves. And
be alone." we're still getting calls about kids who are thinking
0 about suicide. The crisis isn't over."
The problems surfaced when the schools were least
Seven weeks after Maggie's death,officials at Brit- able to handle them. In the wake of Proposition 13,
ton say the situation is"calm,"although local counw- 1- counseling staffs were eliminated at many schools At
Ing centers warn that the crisis is not over. Britton, there is one counselor for 1,100 students.
"What we see is a reflection of what's going on in "After NLggie's death, a lot of kids realized that
this community, and there is a volatile problem with caring is very important," said Johnston, the vice
teen-agers," said Tom Kinoshita, outpatient clinic principal. "rhey're pulling together among them-
supervisor of The Bridge, a private, non-profit coun- selves."
seling center in Morgan Hill. For the first few days after the suicide,some of the
"The community needs to talk about it and then kids weren't sure of what to do.They were seared and
look at possible solutions." blaming themselves, Johnston said.
Everyone familiar with the crisis stresses that the Notes about 'seance'
same thing is happening around the country, as the Twelve of Maggie's friends were even passing notes
high suicide rate for young people nationally suggests, in school about a "seance" to be held at one girl's
sevOre,
but they also admit that the problem in their area LR hhome, where they planned to listen
"talk" to Maggie and then overdose on pills.sten to music, some-
,
Mank Qf the social problems hitting youths nation- Two days after Maggie's death, "a girl came to me
ally are affecting young people in South County as hysterical,"Johnston said."I was just asked to go to a
well: a high divorce rate, blended families after seance," the student said.
divorce, both parents working, drug and alcohol "That's how I found out about it," Johnston said,
abuse. "and thank God I did."
But there is another factor in Morgan Hill, Johnston helped arrange counseling for most of the
Dramatic change 12 and placed a few in a hospital for observation.One
Kinoshita, like officials at South County Alterna- boy remains hospitalized.
tives, a counseling center based in Gilroy, believes In a way, she said, Maggie's death prompted some
that part of the turmoil stems from the dramatic of the other kids to face their own problems, an act
change the Morgan Hill area has undergone in recent that was too painful for several of them, and they
years. attempted suicide.
Seemingly overnight, the rural little town became If any good can come from such a tragedy, getting
an affluent bedroom community to the Silicon Valley, help for some of those kids was it. South County
with $250,000 homes springing up all around the city, Alternatives said the number of their clients has
particularly on "the hill" near Lake Anderson. nearly doubled in the last year.
Ten years ago, the population was 8,800, and kids "We were able to identify kids who had serious
riding their horses through town were not uncommon. problems," Bennett said, "and we were able to get to
The population jumped to 16,600 five years ago and them in time."
has leveled off at about 19,000. Further development
is stalled because of sewage capacity.
"It's an area that went from being literally rural
and out-of-the-way to crowded,"said Albert Valencia,
executive director of South County Alternatives,
which serves Morgan Hill as well as Gilroy.
"What we're seeing is multiple issues, multiple
problems," Valencia said. "We're not seeing the ste-
reotypical youth in rebellion."
4
one tr e nearHowtragedy nearly became two
At first,Michelle blamed her- suicide unleashed some of their other kids who hurt.
self for Maggie Olson's death. own emotional problems,and the "Maggie just wouldn't talk,"
It was all she
and
several impact was overwhelming. she said."She was all bottled up.
Mid- "One friend had been molested Her main problem is that she
from Britton ,
other
friends „
talk to anybody.
dle School could think about for when she was 2 years old, Mich- wouldn't
days aftercould tMaggie's suicide on elle said."Right after Maggie's "If you're feeling down or
Jan. of death,she realized she needed to lonely or something,talk to a
"Because we didn't know what do something.Problems for friend or a parent or something,
was going on in her head,we felt some of the others just popped but talk to somebody.Gall the
we were the problem,"Michelle up.It's like they've got the world suicide crisis number.Just don't
said on their shoulders and they don't kill yourself."
"It was like,`Why,Maggie? know how to get it off." Too often,she said,"it's not
Why did you do this?Why didn't Michelle attempted suicide by even the kid's problem.It's the
you tell somebody?'We always cutting her wrist.Others took parents'(problem),like a drink-
thought she was one of the per- pills.Life no longer seemed ing problem,but the kid thinks
fect people.She was pretty and worth living. it's his fault"
real popular at school." , But in the long weeks after "Us teen-alters have to stick
Michelle,15,had moved to Maggie's death and after receiv- together,"she said."Don't ruin
Morgan Hill from Memphis, ing counseling at South County your life because of some prob-
Tenn.,last July and was still Alternatives,Michelle said she lem you think you can't get over.
adjusting to new friends and a has now come to believe that I came close to death,but I'm so
new home. although Maggie is gone,"I know glad that I'm still living."
For her,as for several others, she would want us to live." Linda Goldston
the trauma caused by Haggle's Michelle hopes now to help
I
i
5
16A Sunday, March 17, 1985 ■ San Jose Mercury News
Facirm updrug to abuse
Parents organized when they realized their kids were hooked
By Linda Goldston forward," Fran McMann said. "If it could happen to
Mercury News Staff writer Dan, it could happen to anybody."
Two years ago, several Morgan Hill parents Dan has recovered from his drug problems,he says,
decided they had to face reality: Their kids were on and is now in college. His mother remains committed
drugs. to the parents group.
"You lie to yourself as long as you can," said Fran "I think there has been an impact on the kids,"she
McMann. "Then you get yourself ready." said. "It says that . . . some parents do care."
McMann was one of the founders of the Morgan The group began holding meetings and started
Hill Concerned Citizens Commission on Drug and involving the schools and the Morgan Hill police.They
Alcohol Abuse,which began with a handful of worried printed up cards with crisis numbers for kids to call.
parents and grew to include students and school and They took out full-page ads in the local paper, asking
law-enforcement officials. parents and youths "to care" enough to do something
Alarmed by drug and alcohol problems among about drug and alcohol abuse.
Morgan Hill's young people, the parents weren't sure Police credit the group's efforts with helping 6D
what they could accomplish; they just knew they had reduce "recreational use of drugs." Parents and
to try something. youths call the police department regularly with tips I
said detective Michael T.
on who's dealing drugs, tec
'That denial process is very strong and the 'it's-
8 ��
not-my-kid syndrome' is very strong," said Jennifer
Tate, a parent and secretary of the commission. But one of the major complaints by young people in
Morgan Hill remains: There is nothing to do.
Many parents had moved to Morgan Hill from San That's one of the reasons sports is a major attrac-
Jose because it was a good place to raise kids. They tion in Morgan Hill,said Gary Newquist,a member of
were shocked to find some of the same big-city the concerned parents group.Newquist and others are
problems in smaller Morgan Hill. working with the schools to provide more activities,
Drug abuse in the town became so obvious that including a swimming pool at the high school and an
residents talked openly of problems on the football indoor gym for the kids.
team a few years back. Dan McMann, a popular "Our approach has been, let's do what we can to
player on the team, was one of those with a drug help these kids,"Fran McMann said."I'd like to say to
problem. parents, 'Love your kids and let them know they're
"It's one of the reasons I felt the need to come loved."
r ,
K. ITTEN COMMUNICATIOI.
Meeting 85-08
April 10 , 1985
azch.
13oa4d of OiA-ctozd
".idppniimula ?egional Op'n Space )i. faici
37S �i.�#o1 !izcle, Suited-1
Lo,4 Al too, ra. 1*?22 �
Dart r nt1 PpPzjon4,
Once, not jo .lone ago, i i .lePmad aj #hough the ajphalt stungle ttvuld epzead
Ptncontiwll,,d. A 7zAa# part# of the dzive 6,hind c tPa#ing MOSD =4 to pzoteet
ttAa# uaj left of .the "ePn open 4paceiJ ?iron 4/'eminq inovi#able deve. op►nPnt. The
rli.�#zict lands could also rytovide cl04e io 40,np, Old of doom zecneation. oppez-
# tni#iPe. Although innovative and tell in,t;-ndrd in it,4 concepfcon,the di fAict
.eeem io have 6ee_n aajimilated irdo the dWiem and has now become pazi of #.he
pzoUem rhea up to czpa#ed to oo&e.
arch of the SAWline, Sanla I-zuT o,irda.in azea .i j zanch. and zurzal
4edidenfial. Theae aze fami q4 woo have owned theiA mopeAti.e4 4oz qenezaiiorw.
44 the old zanch 4iwm come down and the nece44"q ;IYtSD di gnage i.6 in4ialled
the chazac#ea of the area char -ee. The quiei countzri zo" become 6tatdened
utith zec/ PaUona.l #RafWc. The open epacej arse paved �oz paahing and whole
acce,m. .The public, with iheiz multibtde of .4pecial inteze ;t j,ovezzun th.eland
a,j #.he demand foz zecteal i_onal accede inc e-a4e,4.
Nivaie land ounelm uho ujbA fo mejeive open epace, qet do not feel it
neceeea,?q oz tuiee .fo have theca open epace .land am ihle io the public and �rnde t
die#tic, u4e and Pwnagement plan.4 aze pout in an aw!?aartd pojition. 'Iant; dio
uv.ae con#en# with the land a7 it unA have m2de a#tempi4 to impzove #he.iz paopeztiee
a4 a di/te_ci ?eex"nce io '''r�.SD'e nzo-active aqui,4iiion pzoq�tam in the azea. .ALthough
i f iA on.ltt now thnt ,the noazd iel condidez.ercq policrq pwiecti.on of home., it ,hae
been undp,"iood on S� line that ourt.eae had 6ettez Guild a� � nd/oz matte lntpzoveraent.i
quick oz VCSD could and uvuld take -the lande /oz 6azgin pzicej. The atwuni of
development planned eince :VOS/1'.4 pzejence A" 6een feet in .the azea e.hould 6e
sufficient io .i1 uAtzate the zeal effeet4 uAich aze the zellult of the means
treed bq the die#btict to accomplish theiz 4oald. It has 6ecome, in pazl, a eelt-
'Zefeating paoCpO7,
The dietzict claims it has used the pvtaez of emineni domain epaltinq q.
l�e 4nowl edge that .the di ;tAict has the potLeA, emrA"i fed &V the i"i nuatioro
i
i
C
�cA 30, 105
Opon Sf.3ace, . fit c,
a i
�I
2.
o )wte-&Gal tme and o k� 1,44eaid o ` ii4 pw6a6le uee potec4de
i
the need o� achially exeAci4einq the poueA. The 4amtificaliorw o rhomvt4 4ighfinq
the di dte iCf qkVe .the paopertei oumer/rea.i.dent little OPUOn AaA to de We MiVWUi
cond Lion pwceedb7,qd 6e.i.rtri ca4Aied to colq� 'on. .
4 iend pointed out to me that eminent c4ps2ine to quite ` the
steed on lq dpaltinq demondtwtiom o� i14 Muvre, a fW4 uA.ich the thra o4 tot,
indeed the me4e exiodtance o4 the pomi" .i,4 .4alficierd to pwduce At de4i4ed e 4ee t.
In the awe of :SO :the .duo enders o pw 'e4, due to 4eu'a4 o ° de
id the de4i of ect. The exparnd.icon of , SO .in .the -4h ar
the 4tomAled4e of VOSQ'-, pawn o f eminent domainAa4 had a -.vbe4ing e Act upon many
Au4al tedide
/WSO Aa4 not enle4ed the neigAbo4l6od uxth the e 4edpect 6e4
name. tt ,Acw a42t.ved as .the new mt&nq o4ce 6q po tabeovera, after aqui4ition
come .the Aange,44, m"A Aebt low .in n , high in rAofide pto, 04denanced
gat be eft!64cfdo stet are ".ie n to Ae areae ,hiAtortcxaUy, a4e pular.
rural 4e4.i.d l 4oadA have been tu4ned inlo gated, pabwlled ,V Sd ' imi-d.4.
�a4 _nt q-iqktd and p2ivraie read ud reterwion mat be fouglU 46re,
Some omrer?4.4 tract defena.i.vel , oAezd are du6mi,"ive. 16,dl �avo,4 the concept
apt open jpace land 60 Tzedtion ` 2 SO',j a bve a uin.ition pwq&m and non-
aWeAdive tme and manaqemenl . Some 4i.nd .the dod.la44 and dea,14 MOSD can
011ler , eep9ecia}lly t .the adte4mfive ij a pwtwctid wwu �d negot%atiotw
`ch evenbnVy l to mmAerd doomne pvuace . Vet othe44 Aave been
.*tccem1AtVq doll the theorg ilf the . any mearw to achieve ile
comp.leation i4 acce de. The xtme tkeoAy r Zi;ed Ae ude o f the 6
i In rat hea4l I do 6elieve there i,4 awAe4 maV. I be i.eve education and
i
comwaication, and coopezation arse .the bed no4 4 4eaAing, a goal. The .4ta f f say
heave been able to pozoduce an excell en tf papeA 4 ecord o f account 4Aee4 and acewn-
ala,fed ace4aqe. lloueve4, theq have a4do cra . PeOpIlC e
to mi ducA a di 4tri,ct have been alienated 6jt , 't?S d "aged;ta o .tit le" taAe
i
overt o I the area.
The deA- e path uA ich lead to ; S ',d conce patV on Atao been duc .al.
There are now over 18,000 acz4s of ; SO Zandd alone. I believe the 60a4d .Aho ,
co arbi e th e.lve.e, heave a AigA o�1 relief ;6,z , .then 4 e
I the.a hearlA clean and tcthe a fr.eAh .lov h at the ua q t are now. ad I am not a
I teAidenf .in an uiban area and I dg deers recra tional/ opendpace expe4iencew
I in .the bdq&rIdd or f00thill4 as , I an not pe44onalZy Ausibare allA .the prteaervee
Iard prtoa74ame .in Atoe4 aaead. IV feelinq j, houev , tAat Aey arse quite -4ucceaj fad.
j a."tmption uould be that there arse mo4e rld 6.laach ma,44 on .the
Ij
.3.
di�tzi ct.� c�azt. I fee) if such a (4az t ,veze made that .the qo.d dtaz.4 uould pzedomin.
enVq be .in columns xe&tin7 to pze,4ezved ufrich aze neazedt to the uz6an azeaA.
T hi e .tom tAue foz manta )z e-a4orw, amunq .the wz e ob vcouj .c a uden acce.,6 ibt li.ty. Thew
aze othen zea.4ond foz -jucce•44 that a ze_ not ze&ied to phVical aapeetj.
Theze .i4 a p"rtchologi cal c ,"on undezetandinq amvung, uAbani.fed people. T he/ze
aze .inummeza6le that aize uncon4ciou4ly urtde d"ood
and accepted, jfml as foz the jet and comouctez. aet 6u4ine4a id no iongen an
area epeci fic item. Ae cvn.4tand cZoae ph.,te.ica.l pzoxim:lq of people, pzedi jgo4ed
.them to acceotance of and "e of ptlil is land.
The zuaal azea•4 aze c.e4turzallq di?fezent. The 1"Veological diApoj.ition of the
co►mtiq people id not uncle-"tool 6q the .mjo,7i4 of .the cite du i&zj and un6an
6ue.inee,jpeople. Theze ij a vezq et4ong. land jpecilic .identification on a vezg
pezdonal level. �znq 4uvzal lie-d.ident4 have a foot .in both Theq unde'"tand
uz6ani motion and have in paz t a,jca,r d .i t. Some AP-4 dent4 pzecieve the di itzicf a j
brz.inginq the uz6an.i;ation to them and to the land, uAi.ch had been "coup 4,1".
Thew aze fea�z.4 of the count4q noar6 6ecommin.g zeazeatiorzal tza44i.c fame and the
eventual dobdi.on 6et.nq, the.iz expar"ion to highurz". Th.eze arze feaz,j that countaV
uxll 6eco,ne an o6,jolete tez,�n, rteplace bq open 4pace, yot a-d zonal comee io
connote zeczeational. The .i.ndi.viduald uhv coml>Ti4e the zuvza-1, countaw poprclattion
ujill beco+tP extinct .in the aze-a. Thoee ttho aaeatrt d4i_ven off will be aej.imilated
.i.nto the g4eate2 wt6ani Ted jtolem.
I .imploze W,.e, membeze of .the boazd, to jW .impo4e an aqui4 ti_on mvzatorcium.
I eugq.e-di qou wend Cza.iq 32itton. on a tuell dejezved vacation. %a.�e time to
cazefuVq cort4.iden the zamtfieati.onw of ,puz plan. ,'f gou ehvuld pzoceed along,
gOuA nze_-4er t corrzee. Ta6e time to zeviem and evaluate all .the planning azea4. See
.if change] could pezhape be made that miq.V bettez fzurthez the di dtz.ict4
a pvtpo-je-A and also pzeAezve the phenomenon of 4unal, "cv-urtng" culi,,t4e .in the azea.
At the veizq mini."im each and evezq one of ttou Aould .ta:Se the time to
nez donallq and 44Ao.ceZVq to,,a t..he aitea z, and viA.it tuith the.people uAeze p04,jt6.le,
in the azead Aeie fubjz.e ag+m.ctcon 4e~ de4iAa6le. Ilopefu.Uq .if qwi have a bettez
aaazeneia of the pze-we a4ed of the az.ea and even the j, igUe4i undeizdtandi nq o
the counbrq 4oal W+c tui ll not be Ao anxiou4 foz the "ea to become a pant of the
open .4pace/ izecnea;Gonal 6zanc4 of the ozeatez uzban. mega-metlzopoliA.
1641 S.inceze-Czt,
{ Cazol Dooae
2,Mro BAd.
La Honda,La. g4o x1
1AIRITTEN COMMUNICATION
DIeetina 85-07
- Peninsula Citizens' Action April 10, 1985
(415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062
85-Mar-29
re: March 30th "Condemnation" Workshop
MROSD Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District This is submitted as a formal written
375 Distel Cir #DI communication, to be included and distributed
Los Altos CA 94022 as part of the MROSD public record.
Greetings,
We would like to propose the following positions and analyses for your consideration. For
everyone's benefit, a serious attempt has been made in this presentation to avoid the rhetoric and
"loaded" phrasing that these emotion-laden topics tend to engender.
[I must apologize for the typos and misspellings that will surely appear in this proposal. I had planned to write it Monday or
Tuesday, providing time for proofreading, and time to get it to you folks be Wednesday or Thursday. However, the week has
somehow been consumed, and I am once again producing a document/proposal in a last-minute effort. — JW]
1. CONDEMNATION POLICY ALTERNATIVES
The presumption, here, is that at least a majority of the Directors feel that it is now
appropriate for MROSD to formulate and adopt a set of policies and/or regulations restraining
the mention and/or initiation of condemnation as a tool for acquisition — or, at least make some
policy statements regarding mention and use of condemnation. If this presumption is correct,
then the issue is:
What should those policies be?
1.0. Background
There appear to be very few people who oppose MROSD acquiring property from voluntary
sellers under terms that are mutually acceptable. At issue is the use of the "force" of eminent
domain condemnation — or [alleged] mention or "threat" of such condemnation — by District
staff or by formal Director-adopted action.
It is generally true that few people are prone to giving up their powers and options without
amplc justification; and most people are greatly inclined to retain and expand their powers and
options, whenever possible. It is perhaps the mark of responsible officials and the ultimate
character of our free society that government agencies in this state and nation formulate and
follow self-restraining policies.
1.1. Other Agency Policies
There appears to be some — but relatively little — precedent from which to seek guidance.
Although perhaps most government agencies have the power of eminent domain condemnation,
very few propose that land acquisition is the primary purpose of their agency. Instead, property
acquisition is usually a minor function of a single department within a larger a&ency, e.g., a
small office within a county public works department, or a small department within a state
division of highways or division of parks & recreation.
It is our impression that most agencies that have a department, or even an office, concerned
with acquisition and possible use of eminent domain on any repeated basis — e.g. the California
Parks Department — have formal policies specifying when use of that power may be considered,
and the conditions under which it may be proposed during negotiations, much less actually
initiated.
It seems appropriate for MROSD to have similar, formally stated, Board-adopted policies
all the more so in that MROSD is widely viewed as considering acquisition as its primary
function. It is equally appropriate to review the policies of other, more experienced and
established agencies.
Recommendations:
1.1.1. To the extent that a majority of the Directors can reach agreement on some set of
condemnation policies, regulations, restraints, or guidelines, please adopt them promptly.
1.1.2. However, specify that these policies are to be considered interim policies, to remain in
force only for only a month or two, until a broad survey can be accomplished, obtaining and
examining the policies of other agencies that have repeated occasion to consider use of
condemnation powers.
page 1
i
1.1.3. Instruct staff to obtain complete statements of the condemnation guidelines and
policies used b other agencies of local, county, regional, state and federal government. This
requires little m g ore thana day of research to identify the agencies, and a day or two of phone
calls and form letters. Instruct staff that they are to seek such policies from highway, public
if that this is an
works, and parks agencies, as well as from other space agencies. Spee y s
important matter of high priority, to be pursued in an aggressive and timely manner. Ask that
the staff report their progress in the public, written communications to the Board on at least a
P P g
monthly basis — including dates of staff action, agencies contacted (including names and
addresses of contacts) and policies received.
1.1.4. Specify that copies of policies received from other agencies are to be made readily
available as MROSD public records, and that those policy statements that are less than — say —
20 pages are to be included in the "communications" portions of the packets distributed to
Directors and the public, as soon as possible after they are received.
1.1.5. Unequivocably specify that time is of the essence — that staff is to treat this as a
high-priority matter, and that a reasonable effort is to be made to avoid even any appearance of
unnecessary delays. This is appropriate as a practical, "political" matter, in light of the current
level of citizen interest and concern. More importantly, it is appropriate as a matter of
principle, given that the "list of 695" formally expressed the District's interest in possibly
discussing the acquisition of 500-1500 parcels that include homes.
Hopefully, there is agreement that even the possibility of taking an occupied home by the
force of condemnation is a most serious matter, and the absence of any guidelines for such
action must be addressed in a very prompt manner — as is being initiated by the Directors via
the March 30th, 3-hour workshop. For, until there is a policy, the default policy remains that
the staff can mention and recommend forced condemnation, completely at their discretion.
Matrix of Alternative Condemnation Policies
It is worthwhile to catalog the alternatives that are available for consideration in setting
condemnation policy. There is a matrix of such positions or alternatives — at least including the
following:
1.2. One may consider a combination of occupancy and owner-proposed use, as criteria for
allowing/prohibiting mention or use of condemnation, e.g.:
1.2.1. owner-occupied homes
1.2.2. homes occupied by other than the owners
1.2.3. unoccupied, but habitable, dwellings
1.2.4. property where plans have been submitted for a new dwelling
1.2.5. property where no construction or subdivision plans have been submitted
1.2.6. property where subdivision plans have been submitted
We support "the Artemis Ginzton proposal" — namely that the District should acquire
property only from willing sellers. We adamantly support a prohibition of use of condemnation in
any of the circumstances of alternatives 1.2.1. through 1.2.5.
Candidly speaking, there is almost-universal mountain support for a prohibition on forced
acquisition under the first five conditions; there is widespread but not universal support for a
prohibition on forced condemnation under the sixth circumstance.
1.3. In another dimension, one may consider use of condemnation to obtain "partial"
acquisition, e.g., acquisition of:
1.3.1. absolute property ownership
1.3.2. easements for essentially-unlimited public access
1.3.3. prohibitions on remodeling existent structures
1.3.4. prohibitions on construction of new detatched dwellings
1.3.5. easements for public access, far-distant from family compounds
1.3.6. prohibitions on subdivision/development
Given that we oppose any use of forced condemnation, this is a possible ranking of the
importance of alternatives for partial acquisition. We strongly oppose condemnation used for 1.3.
1. through 1.3.4.
If condemnation force is to be permitted to acquire partial rights to part or all of a parcel,
then we propose that it be District policy to allow the owner to specify whether the acquisition is
to be absolute property ownership, or some partial acquisition-by-force of easements or
prohibitions. Le., if MROSD wants to take some property rights by condemnation, then adopt a
District policy permitting the owner to determine how much more rights MROSD must also take.
Regarding essentially-unlimited public access: Aside from the mass of legal, liability and
administrative problems such a circumstance poses, most mountain dwellers live there — and
accept the numerous inconvienences of those secluded and distant homes — precisely because they
desire (or "need") that "elbow-room." For most, it would be as bad or worse to force nearly-
page 2
unlimited public access as it would be to simply take their homes and land, outright.
Regarding possible public access to areas far-distant from family compounds — say, 1000
yards or more — though certainly undesirable, it may be more tolerable to many owners than
outright acquisition, prohibitions, or less-limited encroachment.
1.4. Still another dimension of alternatives concerns the "portion" of property acquired by
condemnation, e.g., acquisition of whatever rights or ownership as it pertains to:
1.4.1. portions of parcels, distant from family compounds
1.4.2. entire parcels
Consider the circumstance in which the District was going to use condemnation force to
obtain rights or ownership of a parcel, but would be willing to leave out the family compound
and some portion of property surrounding it. In this circumstance, we propose that it be District
policy to allow the owner to select between entire-parcel acquisition versus part-parcel
acquisition.
1.5. Definition of "Owner-Occupied"
If owner-occupancy is used in setting criteria for prohibiting/allowing use of condemnation,
then 'owner-occupied" needs to be carefully defined. Issues to be addressed include, but are not
limited to:
1.5.1. current occupancy, e.g. owners vacationing
1.5.2. length of permitted owner absences without occupancy by others
1.5.3. length of permitted owner absences with occupancy by others
1.5.4. definition of "owners", e.g. offspring, relatives, etc.
1.5.5. dual occupancy, e.g. owners and others, housernates, etc.
1.5.6. how identity of occupants will be determined
If protection against condemnation is to be afforded a property on the basis of owner-
occupancy, certainly District policy should clearly delineate the circumstances under which such
occupancy is "validated" and the circumstances under which an owner might loose their home or
land due to "incorrect" owner-occupancy.
1.6. Mention of "Condemnation" by Staff and/or During Negotiations
There have been allegations that the threat of forced condemnation has been implied,
mentioned or used in negotiation with unwilling property owners. Others have denied that such
tactics have been or are used.
We ask that the Directors clearly state the explicit circumstances under which anyone under
the control of MROSD may imply, mention or propose condemnation — prior to the actual
initiation of legal condemnation action. If no one has been using this "lever" in contacts and
negotiations, then the staff are not in any way restrained from doing what they have been doing,
all along.
Under any circumstance, it is appropriate for the elected Directors of MROSD to clearly
specify the circumstances under which any person acting on their behalf may use such a strong
— ultimate — negotiating tool. In the absence of such a Board directive, the default directive is
that District representatives may use it any time they, unilaterally, choose to do so.
We recommend that Directors adopt the public policy that — if condemnation is to even be
mentioned to a property owner — such mention is to first be authorized by the Board (in closed
or, preferably, open session).
1.7. Who Drafts the Specific Statements of Condemnation Policy
There are several alternatives for who will draft the actual phrasing and statements of
whatever condemnation policies the Board will formally consider for Director-modification
and/or ultimate adoption. With instructions and direction provided by the Board, the proposed
policy statements might be drafted by:
1.7.1. a Director-appointed committee of concerned citizens, including those
supporting and those opposing use of condemnation, with the input and advice of staff, but with
staff having no "voting" power over the final phrasing of the draft policy statements to be
submitted to the Directors for their consideration, modification, and finally, adoption
1.7.2. a Director-appointed committee of concerned citizens representing all major
views, plus members of the staff
1.7.3. the MROSD Directors, themselves
1.7.4. the MROSD staff, exclusively
Under any circumstance, it is clearly understood that the Directors have the responsibility
and authority to modify such draft policy statements in any way they see fit.
We support the first three alternatives, in decreasing order, and strongly oppose the fourth.
It is reasonable to believe that there are informed, responsible members of the public who
represent all major views on this matter, who would be willing to serve on such a committee.
page 3
Where opposing factions could not agree on one statement or another, we recommend that
Directors instruct them that they are to draft statements for their alternative positions, leaving it
up to the Directors to select and modify as they choose.
If the senior staff were generally believed to be neutral parties in this issue, without their
own strong biases, it would be usual and appropriate to assign this task to such a neutral
administrative body. However, the apparent reality of the situation is that few, if any, senior
staff members favor any significant formal restraint on their ability to mention condemnation or
recommend condemnation as their pursue their responsibilities as they percievc them. This is not
a criticism — merely a statement of likely fact. If this is the case, it is unfair to the staff, to
the portion of the public who favor some limits on condemnation, and — ultimately — to the
Directors and the cause of fair creation of open space, to assign this task exclusively to MROSD
staff.
1.8 Assure Property Owners that Condemnation Restraints are Permanent
There is concern that policies restraining condemnation may be adopted by the present
Board — perhaps responding to current public outcry — that can or will be reversed by this
Board at some future date, or reversed by some future Board. In fact, various Directors have
repeatedly pointed out that (a) the current Board cannot bind the hands of future Directors,
and/or that (b) the current Board does not wish to restrain the alternatives available to future
Boards.
We observe that — in fact — this and past Boards have regularly taken the action of
dedicating property, which specifically restrains the freedom of future Boards to sell property —
without the approval of the voters (as we currently understand "dedication"). To restrain the
freedom of future Boards' acquisition of property by forced condemnation would be no more
than a balancing decision — though the legal system may mandate a different implementation of
such an acquisition restraint.
We propose that the Board make every effort to seek a permanently binding restraint on
present and future exercise of condemnation powers, to assure concerned citizens that they never
again need fear the District's exercise of condemnation — beyond whatever powers are finally
selected, now, by this Board.
We ask that the Board seek legal and legislative advice on how it may assure itself and the
public of the permanency of whatever condemnation restraints it seeks to adopt. One possibility
is to explore deed-recorded contractual alternatives for assuring permanent restraint. Another
possibility is to seek legislative action — less stringent than that suggested by Senator Becky
Morgan in 1984 — that would restrain but, presumably, not cancel the District's powers of
condemnation.
Being candid, once again: Few people really expect the District to voluntarily give up all
condemnation powers. We feel there may be some justification — in extreme and highly unusual
circumstances — for the District to be able to exercise condemnation power to acquire an
absolutely essential parcel, e.g. when the District has completed a Highway 92 -to- Highway 17
continuous trail except for one small parcel which the owner refuses to sell for even 5 or 10
times the reasonable market value. Recognizing this rare-case possible need, perhaps the
following is an appropriate self-restraint to place on an agency that views itself as primarily in
the land acquisition business: By legislative action, require that (a) the full Board must approve
any exercise of condemnation power, and (b) at least 4/5ths of the County Supervisors of the
concerned County must also vote for such acquisition.
It may be fair to observe that an agency viewing its primary charge to be the acquisition of
land from private owners is hardly in a position to make a fair and impartial judgement
regarding when it should and when it should not exercise forced condemnation.
We urge the Board to voluntarily pursue the creation of legally-binding permament self-
defined restraint on its use of condemnation powers.
2. ANNEXATION
The District's master plan appears to say little about policies for expansion of the District's
sphere of influence (SOI) nor set comprehensive guidelines for when annexation will be sought.
This must surely provide a temptation to seek to grow larger and expand the District's control,
authority, and influence. It seems reasonable and fair — to the public, to the tax-payers, and to
the staff — for the Directors to specify and adopt formal policies regarding its intent and plans
for its ultimate size and scope. To do less is — almost by definition — "unplanned", and hardly
appropriate for any tax-supported public agency. It also leaves the door open to temptations of
adventureism, perhaps-justified accusations of "land grabbers", etc.
It is appropriate that such a specification of plans for the future be included in the
page 4
District's master plan. Certainly, if the District later decides to modify those plans and expand
further, it can do so — but it would be done through fair public notice and public hearings, as
planning by public agencies is typically done.
There are at least several issues that might be addressed regarding expansion to new areas
by the District:
2.1. expansion of MROSD's sphere of influence by any means other than approval
of the registered voters in the proposed new area
2.2. annexation of areas within the District's SOI where MROSD owns no property,
and a majority of the affected property owners oppose annexation
2.3. annexation of areas within the District's SOI where MROSD owns some
parcels, but the annexation includes non-MROSD parcels and a majority of the property owners
oppose annexation
2.4. annexation of areas where all owners approve the annexation
2.5. annexation of areas exclusively composed of MROSD parcels
We propose that the Directors adopt a policy explicitly rejecting 2.1. through 2.3. and
explicitly approving expansion and annexation only under the circumstance of 2.4. or 2.5. If
LAFCo insists on a District-desired annexation that is described by 2.1. through 2.3., we propose
that District policy should be to oppose the LAFCo position, even to the extent of withdrawing
the MROSD application for expansion, if necessary.
3. OUT-OF-DISTRICT PURCHASES
As with annexation and/or expansion of the sphere of influence, it is fair and appropriate
for the Directors to publicly adopt a formal policy regarding "function expansion" outside of the
District via out-of-district purchases. It seems apparent that this should also be a part of the
District's master plan, for it can have significant impact on the District's financial, acquisition
and annexation plans.
The District property is obviously fragmented, with 18,000 acres scattered over 30-60 miles
or more — perhaps an hour's drive or more from one extreme to the other. Yet, numerous
fragments remain unconnected.
The District has significant, but none-the-less limited financial resources. To the extent that
they are spent on acquisitions outside the District's boundaries, they reduce the District's ability
to complete connection and cohesive or orderly "development" of its fragmented parcels.
We propose that the Directors adopt the policy that no acquisitions be considered nor made
outside of the District's current boundaries unless and until all parcels within the current
boundaries — that are deemed by the Board to be desirable — have been acquired. If the District
desires to make out-of-District purchases, adopt a policy of first expanding the boundaries, then
pursuing the acquisition. This would insure orderly and publicly-heard planned expansion.
4. BROWN ACT ISSUES
From our position, the Keene amendment was of great value to the area's mountain and
rural residents, for it encourages the District to publicly state its intentions and plans. We have
no particular objection to the amendment's current form, however feel it could be "improved," as
could its implementation by the District.
District proponents have objected to the requirements of the Keene amendment, stating that
it forces the District to either list every parcel in which it could concievably have any interest —
as was done with the "list of 695" — or else give public notice of District interest in particular
parcels as those parcels "become interesting." The objections to the latter condition are:
4.1. Some property owners wish for there to be no public notice of their negotiation with
the District, no matter how obscure. It is said that this violates the privacy of the property
owner in a private business transaction.
Our response is that this is not a private business transaction. As a transaction with a
government agency, it may have significant obligatory ramifications for tax-payers and adjacent
property owners. The public's "need to know" outweighs the property owners desire for privacy.
4.2. The second objection proposed that giving public notice of District interest in a given
parcel opens the door to 3rd party adventurism and other responses from members of the public
that may hamper negotiations or District acquisition, or might increase the price to the District.
page 5
t.
For so long as MROSD retains the right of condemnation, the District has an absolute power
to overcome any possible 3rd party adventurism.
As to price, it is fair and reasonable that the District pay the often-disputed "market value"
for any property it obtains. In this case, we take the most basic, fundamental definition of
"market value" — whatever amount a voluntary buyer is willing to pay a voluntary seller.
As to possible public response to District plans for a specific acquisition, such public
response is completely appropriate. Once again, this is not a private business transaction between
individuals or companies. It is a transaction involving public funds, public benefits, and positive
and perhaps-negative impacts on some or much of the public. There is a long history of
government plans being given public airing and fair hearings — prior to government action — so
that positive and negative impacts can best be evaluated, by the agency decision-makers and by
the affected individuals and concerned citizens. This principle should apply to specific
planning, as well as general planning.
The apparent intent of the Keene amendment was to provide fair prior public notice of the
planned acquisition of property by a government agency. We support that intent, and would be
willing to work with District representatives and Senator Keene to make that intent more clear
and the means of its implementation less ambiguous.
4.3. Withdrawal of the "List of 695"
If the Feb. 13th list of 695 names — plus the multitude of others who were included only by
asterisk — is to be "withdrawn," we urge the Directors to clearly define what is meant by
"withdrawn."
We support its withdrawal, provided it is clearly stated that such Director action means that
there will be no closed-meeting Director-discussions of possible acquisitions until and unless
there is new public notice of such intentions, as mandated by the Keene amendment.
4.4. Proper Notification
We support the position that proper notice, adequate to meet the requirements of the Keene
amendment, should include the complete name and address of the owner-of-record for the
parcel(s) to be discussed in closed sessions, and at least include assessor parcel numbers and some
nominal written description of the approximate location and character of the parcel(s). A
transparent overlay of a two-county map is clearly inadequate [a pun I couldn't resist].
Under any circumstance, to do less gives at least an appearance of perhaps-questionable or
inadequate "public notice." Certainly few would disagree with the comment that the list, as
adopted and published, did little good to the District's reputability and presumption of fair and
open operation.
These comments and proposals do not reflect a formal position adopted by any organized
body of citizens. They do, however, certainly reflect the feelings and desires voiced by many
mountain and rural residents.
We believe that a free society must include a restrained government.
Thanking you for your attention to these suggestions and comments, I remain,
Sinter ince
r J Warren, founde
cc: various individuals, elected officials and community groups
fill
page 6
e s
A, K 92 Written Commun_ tion presented to
P Y the Board of Directors at April 10 ,
N9 0 1985 Board meeting.
E
o
SANTA U C L A R A
L
E
V
A SOUTH SKYLINE ASSOCIATION
R
D PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH THE BEAUTY AND THOUGHTFUL PLANNING OF THE SOUTH SKYLINE
April 10, 1985
I
I
Ms. Teena flenshaw, President
Board of Directors
Vidpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, D 1
Los Altos, CA
Re: Sempervirens Annexation No. 687-A
I
Dear Ms. Henshaw and Board Members;
I
The Board of Directors of the South Skyline Association opposes District
annexation of private lands when the owners of those lands are opposed
to the annexation.
We feel that the situation with Sempervirens No. 687-A is analogous to
a larger annexation by vote of the people. In this case, the people (Bar Y)
voted "no."
If the resolution before you is approved, a precedent of coercion in
annexation might be set.
We urge the Staff and the Directors of the t�idpeninsula Regional Open
Space District to research all alternative methods for annexation or
enforcing District regulations on the District controlled lands in this
I
I area.
i
Sincerely you/rs,
le(t H. Schwind
11825 Skyline Boulevard
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(I am a voter in the MROSD)
cc: Santa Cruz LAFCO
-M-85-62
Meeting 85-08
April 10, 1985
Will.
N
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 9, 1985
To: The Board of Directors
From: Harry Turner
Subject: Proposed restrictions on the use of eminent domain in land
acquisition
Dear Colleagues,
When the Committee on Land Acquisition policy meets I will advocate the
following policies. I invite your co-sponsorship of this approach.
Position. The use of eminent domain proceedings should be infrequent and
reserved for situations that "maximize the public good and minimize private
harm."
Rationale. The district, like all other public agencies, has been given
eminent domain power. But even though the public support for its use to
acquire open space is significantly less than for its use by cities,
counties, and school districts, the potential for its use is present in
every land acquisition. This potential, without evident restraints, has
created anxiety by neighbors with whom the District would like to maintain
good relations. These people deserve the relief that would be provided by
an explicit policy. Moreover, the continued absence of the restraints
needed to assure the public that eminent domain will be a minor part of the
District's acquisition program may cause erosion of public support for the
District's objectives.
The District has wisely employed a strategy of dealing with willing sellers
and creating many alternative ways to fulfill its basic objectives. The
public good can often be achieved, for example, by an indirect, less than
optimum travel route, rather than a direct one. The personal damage
inflicted on persons who are committed to long term residence on land they
love, and may have improved with their own labor and emotional energies, can
never be offset by mere payment of fair market value. To "minimize private
harm" in these situations is nearly impossible.
The District's purposes are to acquire and preserve, for public benefit, use
and enjoyment, undeveloped lands. Therefore, acquisition of residences is
incidental to its primary purposes and is unlikely to ever "maximize the
public good."
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
t .
Restrictions on the Use Eminent Domain
April 9, 1985
Page 2
i
Recommendation. The District should adopt the following eminent domain
policies:
1. Residents, whether owners or tenants, will not be subject to
involuntary removal from the land on which they live.
2. Lands that are essentially in their natural state will not be
acquired by use of eminent domain proceedings except in the most
extraordinary circumstances and in which no feasible alternative is
available.
Sincerely,
Harry Tu er
I
M-85-61
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 9 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: San Mateo County Five-Year Parks Acquisition and
Development Program
Attached is the San Mateo County program as recommended by
County staff. I have marked sections of direct interest to
the District.
Ii
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DAT! March 8, 1985
To. Board of Supervisors
FROM Director, Parks and Recreation
Via: Paul M. Koenig, Director, Environmental Management
S wrw
FIVE-YEAR PARKS ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:
That you approve the Five-Year Priority List of County
Park Acquisition and Development Projects as a guide
for preparing future annual budgets.
BACKGROUND:
At a Study Session on May 15, 1984 , your Board a0 ed that a proposed
Five-Year Park Improvement Program be prepared and submitted for your
review. The financial parameters suggested were that the program be
limited to $3.5 million, or approximately S700,000 per year. Using
these guidelines , staff has prepared such a program, which was subse-
quently reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The projects are shown in priority order-, with an approximate dollar
amount shown for each one. Most of the development projects on the
list have been derived from Master Plans approved by your Board over
the last several years. The list has been prepared in a numerical
priority order, so that as many or as few projects as the Board wishes
to fund can be included each year.
I
It should be noted that, consistent with the Board's stated philosophy
of the last several years , the recommended program is a development
program ar.d contains no money set aside for acquisition. However, a
separate list of acquisitions ha,. been prepared, which the Commission
and staff believe would be valuable to the Park System. These projects
represent park in-holdings which, if acquired, would reduce mixed
ownership problems , or parcels which would protect downstream watershed
resources . These parcels are not being recommended for acquisition at
this *ime, and are not in any priority order. They are parcels which,
we believe, should be considered for acquisition if a good opportunity
arises. It is assumed that if an o �orturni t ac uisi tion arises the
� p{ Y q
money for the acquisition would come from the funds already set aside
for development, or from some outside source, such as grants or gifts.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Development Program has been estimated to cost approximately
$700,000 per year. Financing would be derived from the General Fund,
and augmented by available State and Federal Park Grants when available.
Completion of all recommended projects would require an estimated
operational expense of approximately $292,000 per year. $200,000 of
this increase would be required to open and operate a proposed new camp-
ground at Pescadero Creek County Park.
REVIEW BY OTHERS:
The Parks and Recreation Commission held two public hearings on the pro-
gram; one in Redwood City, and one in Pescadero. Input from those
hearings has been incorporated in the program. Copies have been sent to
the Planning Commission. On March 7, 1985, the Parks and Recreation
Commission approved the program, and recommended that it be forwarded to
your Board for review and approval .
Respectfully submitted,
P Y
ellCIG"�C�� "
David A. Christy, Di./ector REVIEWED FOR AGENDA
Parks and Recreation
DAC:bl
cc: Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
David Hale, Planning Director
Michael Murphy, Deputy District Attorney
I
PKUPOSED ACQUISITION PROJECTS
t:orth County estension of San Andreas Trail (only partially acquired).
2. San Pedro Valley -
- Sportsmen's Club property (75)
- Mid-Valley parcel (160)
3. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve
- Callan lot
- Lewis lot
- Andrini lot
4 . Redwoz)d Park
- Various lots (Midpeninsula. )
5. Flood —
Flood School
Belle-Haven Motel
6. Fescadero Complex
- Sam McDonald - various lots
- Alpine Road parcels (160)
- Ettinger property (400)
- Callan property (160)
Miscellaneous Parse1s (1 00
)
3/8/85
I
1985/90 CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
,riority Fiscal Unit Phasinq and Description Amount Operations & Maintenance
j_ Year
1 . Flood A new park Master Plan was prepared in 1984. Two of the $ 200,000 Will provide for improved
primary goals included: 1 ) the upgrading of worn out park operations and maintenance
facilities ; 2) prolonging the vigor and life of the Heritage methods. -0- increas- in
Oak and Bay Tree Grove by reducing the soil compaction and O&M costs.
trampling over their root systems. Preliminary work comple-
ted in 1984 , included the moving of the petanque area to the
playground in the vacated petanque area. This year's proposed
Phase 2 work will include the relocation of group picnic
facilities from the Heritage Tree area into the old playground
site, renovation of the old concession building into restrooms,
path relocation, and new planting and irrigation in the former
petanque and playground areas , and planning for handicapped
access to playgrounds.
This is considered a first priority project because it permits
the upgrading of worn out recreational facilities in one of our
most heavily used parks , while reducing overuse damage to
the Oak and Bay Tree Grove.
_ c
2. 85J86 County-Wide Trails Sawyer Camp Trail is a six mile Lang linear park receiving 10,000 Increase in 0&M costs ,3,500
very high use, particularly on the weekends. There is a per year.
great need for parking of user vehicles at the south end
of the trail , which seems to be the most popular starting
point. Vehicles now park on the shoulder of Skyline Boulevard,
in the vicinity of the intersection of Crystal Springs Road.
This area accommodates about 30 vehicles. Vehicles now back
out into the oncoming Skyline Boulevard traffic to leave the
area. It is proposed to construct parking for 65 vehicles
in an off-road area between Skyline Boulevard and the begin-
ning of Sawyer Camp Trail . The property on which the facility
is proposed belongs to the San Francisco Water Department,
and will require tiiei r approval .
This is considered a high priority project because of the safety
hazard and the need for accommodating more vehicles.
Fiscal
Priori Year Unit Phasing and Description Amount Operations & Maintenance
3. 85/86 Huddart In 1982, a Master Plan of redevelopment was prepared. The $ 430,000 The improved water system
purpose of the plan was to evaluate the layout and facili- should reduce O&M costs by
ties of the park so that management and the recreational $1 ,500 per year.
services provided could be more effective and less costly,
to improve the recreation experience and opportunities to the
visitor, and to improve and enhance the natural resource by
rehabilitating environmentally damaged areas. The first
phase of this redevelopment, called for in the 1984/85 budget,
is the reconstruction of the existing water system, an ex-
pensive, antiquated facility in which water is pumped from
the lower elevation of the park by a series of pumping stations
to tanks in the upper area of the park. No logical sequence of
redevelopment can be carried out until the water system is per-
fected.
This project is a portion of the Phase 2 development, provided
for in the Master Plan, including redevelopment of circulation
roads , relocation of picnic sites , restroom renovation, plant-
ing, erosion control , and irrigation, all in the Werder area.
The Werder area is the most heavily used and heavily developed
in the park. It was never formally planned, and a poor circu-
lation pattern allows vehicles to drive throughout the area ,
thereby creating unnecessary safety problems and traffic con-
gestion. This project will provide for a one-way circulation
pattern, the redevelopment of park facilities so that they are
more convenient to picnic sites , and the relocation of picnic
sites so that damage to the natural resources can be repaired.
4. 86/87 Huddart Completion of the Phase 2 development begun under the 270,000 -0- to $5,000 omcrease om O&M
Priority #3 project. This would be a continuing redevelop- costs (depends upon scope of
ment of circulation; roads, relocation of picnic sites , rest- planting and erosion control
room renovation, planting, erosion control and irrigation. project).
This is a continuation of the work already called for in the
1985/86 fiscal year, and should complete Phase 2 of the
development called for in the Master Plan.
I
Fiscal
Priories Year Unit Phasing and Description Amount Operations & Maintenance
3 86/87 County-Wide Trails In 1983, the Parks and Recreation Division was assigned the $ 130 ,000 -0- increase in 00 costs.
responsibility for the development of a segment of the
Baylands Trail , which eventually will transverse the Bay
Front from Santa Clara County to San Francisco. The portion
assigned to San Mateo County runs from Runnymede Street in
East Palo Alto to University Avenue, where a segment of the
trail is under construction as a part of the University
Avenue extension. Much of this trail from Burlingame to
Foster City is already completed, along with a project by
the City of Palo Alto which extends the trail into
San Mateo County as far as Runnymede Street. This project
calls for the acquisition phase of this 1 .7 mile Baylands
Bicycle Trail . Acquisition will include the purchase of
rights-of-way along privately owned dikes , the Southern
Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and across San Francisco
Water Department land.
This is a fairly high priority project because construction
of the Baylands Trail cannot commence until acquisition is
completed.
6. 86/87 Flood This project consists of the renovation and redesign of 200,000 This will improve 0&M methods.
existing parking, including the repositioning of the base- Result: -0- increase in 0&M
ball field. It will provide for better use of the land by costs.
cutting down vehicular circulation and consolidate parking
by repositioning the baseball field northerly and easterly
of its present location.
Better use of the ball field area can be made, and two soft-
ball playing areas can be added to the outfield.
V7. 86/87 County-Wide Trails This will be a subsequent phase in the development of the 150,000 One Seasonal for 1 ,000 hours
Baylands Trail , embracing the construction of a portion @ $6.00/hour = an increase of
from Runnymede Street to Bay Road in East Palo Alto. $6,000 in 0&M costs.
Although this will not complete the link to University
Avenue, it will enable bikers to follow Bay Road to
University Avenue, and thence to the existing trail already
under construction along the University Avenue extension.
Fiscal
Priority Year Unit Phasing and Description Amount Operations & Maintenance
8. 87/88 Junipero Serra A Master Plan for the redevelopment of facilities was pre- $ 350,000 -0- to $10,000 increase ,
pared in 1981 , to review the park's present use and to depending upon scope of plant
improve existing facilities in light of more recent needs and irrigation projects.
and demands. The 1984/85 budget included a project that
embraces parking area rehabilitation, creek erosion con-
trol , planting, and irrigation. This project consists of
a new entrance and new entrance station , restroom rehabili-
tation, landscape rehabilitation, including irrigation, site
grading, culverts , and a playground in the Anza and Bay View
areas. This will provide for the upgrading of most of major
facilities in the park, making better use of the land,
resources, and making it more attractive to the visitor.
improvements
This was assigned ssi ned a lower priority riorit so that the rove ments
P
made in the 84/85 project could be monitored to determine
their impact upon attendance.
9. 87/88 Pescadero Creek A park Master Plan was prepared in 1974. Its direction was 300,000 This project will provide for
to provide camping and picnic facilities in a relatively improved methods of operation
remote and wild area of the county, where few such facili- and maintenance. -0- increase
ties exist. Due to a shortage of water in subsequent years , in 0&M costs .
the plan was postponed. In the ensuing ten years , it has
been revised to include facilities which would require little
or no water. One element of that plan, which is being pro-
vided for in the 1984/85 budget, is the construction of a
trail and service road bridge across Pescadero Creek, which
will provide more access for equestrians and hikers , and
emergency and service vehicles.
Phase 1 of the revised Master Plan consists of utilities for New utilities will result in
a vehicular campground at Blomquist Flat, Piney, and Schenley, increase of $5 ,000 to $6,000
and is proposed in this program. These areas were chosen per year in 0&M costs.
because they are readily accessible from Wurr Road, at the
western end of the park. The project would be the first step
in providing utilities, such as water, power, and telephone.
This is considered a high priority project because it is the
first step in opening up an area of the park which will pro-
vide for vehicular camping with about 100 campsites.
Fiscal
Priority Year Unit Phasing and Description Amount Operations & Maintenan-ce,
10. 88/89 San Bruno Mountain A park Master Plan was prepared in May 1982, for this $ 700,000 Operations and maintenance
2,000 acre State and County Park. The basic goal of costs will increase $45 ,000
the plan is the preservation of the majority of park to $60,000 (1 Park Ranger
areas in open space, and the enhancement of the park's and Services and supplies) .
principal resources by concentrating visitor uses at a
few locations , in a Park Center, and at several Vista
Points. The 1984/85 budget includes the first phase of
development comprising entrance road and entrance
station, parking, picnic sites, day camp, and an under-
pass connecting the northerly and southerly sections of
the park.
This project consists of a Park Center building, including
office, restrooms , and nature interpretive exhibit, addi-
tional family picnic areas , group picnic areas , and
additional parking. Implementation of this project will
depend upon public response to, and utilization of pre-
viously installed facilities.
11 . 89/90 Pescadero Creek This project consists of the completion of a vehicular 750,000 Increase of $200,000 in O&M
campground at Blomquist, Piney, and Schenley Flats, along costs.
with the necessary road improvements. This would be a
continuation of the Priority #4 project, where actual
construction of the 100-unit campground and the improvement
of the access roads would take place.
This is a logical sequence in the development toward making
this park more available and accessible to the visitor.
k
This five-year program does not include:
1 . The completion of Phases 4 and 5 at Flood Park, which provide for the Visitor Center renovation and a new entrance
and service area.
1112. Phases 3 and 4 of the Nuddart redevelopment, which would be additional picnic area renovation, utilities , roads , and
a Visitor Center.
3. Phase 3 of the Pescadero Creek Park Master Plan, which calls for improvements in the western section of the park near
Wurr Road, including a Visitor Center.
4. Phases 3 and 4 of the Junipero Serra Park redevelopment.
5. A portion of Phases 2 and 3 of the San Bruno Mountain development.
6. A day camp in the Middle Fork Valley of San Pedro Valley Park.
7. Parking, restroom, and beach development in the westerly portion of Coyote Point Park, or for a new park maintenance
yard.
All of these projects have approved Master Plans and environmental documents consisting either of EIR' s , Negative Declara-
tions , or Categorical Exemptions. At the present rate of $700,000 per year allocated for parks and recreation development,
ten more years would be required beyond this program to complete all development called for in the improved Master Plans.
Also not included are: Coyote Point, San Pedro Valley, Mid-Coast Beaches , Milagra Ridge, San Francisco Bay Discovery Site,
San Mateo Fishing Pier, Sanchez Adobe, Sweeney Ridge/Skyline Preserve, and Wunderlich Park. It is probable that Mid-Coast
Beaches will eventually be transferred to the State of California, and that Milagra Ridge, the San Francisco Bay Discovery
Site, and Sweeney Ridge/Skyline Preserve will become part of the newly acquired Sweeney Ridge portion of the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
I
M-85-58
(Meeting 85-08
April 10 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 5 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Announcement of Award for District Docent Program
I am happy to let you know that we have received notice that the
District Docent Program has been selected to receive the National
Association of County Park and Recreation Officials (NACPRO) FRIEND
AWARD.
This award is presented to a lay individual or a public or private
organization that has responded in an unusual manner in making a
significant major contribution to benefit park and recreation pro-
grams or facility development at any level of government.
I have attached a copy of the program description sent to NACPRO.
I am sure you will join me in applauding Volunteer Coordinator Joyce
Nicholas and the District Docents as recipients of this well deserved
award.
10e
elmmnr
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
THE DOCENT PROGRAM OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MROSD How, What, _ni
The Midpeninsula Regional open Space District (MROSD) is an independent,
special-purpose district created in 1972 by the voters of northwestern
Santa Clara County for the purpose of acquiring and preserving open space
lands in the foothills , mountains and baylands , outside the urbanized
area. A large part of southeastern San Mateo County was annexed to the
District in an election in June, 1976 .
The MROSD is empowered, acting through its Board of Directors, to spend
its funds to acquire land through purchase or gift, for open space, park
and recreational purposes .
The District is also empowered to create and maintain recreational facil-
ities in order to maximize the effectiveness of its open space preservation
efforts; however, it has been the District ' s policy to allocate the vast
majority of its funds during the first years of its existence to the acqui-
sition of open space, rather than to the development and maintenance of
facilities and recreation programs . Therefore , the need for volunteers to
supply certain essential services was recognized.
A volunteer program was begun in 1975 to encourage citizen involvement in
projects of the District and to encourage educational and recreational use
of the land. During the first year, volunteers were recruited for jobs
ranging from clipping newspapers to clean-up on a few District properties .
The Docent Program
The volunteer docent program was inaugurated in the spring of 1976 . Ten
volunteers signed up to take 50 hours of training in order to interpret
the natural and cultural history of one of the District' s most significant
properties , the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. The program was begun so
that the District could open this site to the public in a controlled way
(a parking problem and high potential for fire existed) and to educate the
public about the natural wonders of the land as well as the value of open
space preservation.
Since then there has been annual recruitment and training of new docents
so that a roster of 60 to 70 docents is maintained. Although most of the
docents are new to the field of natural history interpretation, many have
had formal training in geology or biology. Some are active members of
the California Native Plant Society, Sierra Club and the local Audubon
Society chapter. Included among the docents are school teachers, an urban
planner, scientific illustrators and a Nature Conservancy staff member.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Page Two
The docents conduct regularly scheduled and publicized hikes on many of
the District ' s 23 preserves in addition to special hikes requested by
groups of 3 or more people .
Hike t-eir.es are developed on geology, wildlife, wildflo%-,,ers , uses of
native n. lants and human history of the preserves in addition to the ecol-
ogy of grassland , chaparral and oak woodlands . Meekly hikes on the San
Andreas Fault Trail attract many visitors , including travelers from
abroad" , and Meld trips for school classes are also regularly conducted
by docents on this trail . Other popular docent-led activities include
,;4 flower walks , all day hikes and discovery hikes planned to
spring -. -1 1-L--r -
introd,,ice the area 's residents to newly acquired preserves or newly
deveIc::,,e_4 trails . Future docent-led tours will focus on redwood ecology
and life in a salt marsh when access and trails are developed on pre-
serves -a%7, ng these natural communities .
Docents cive house and garden tours of a restored historical property
located on Fremont Older Open Space Preserve . A turn-of-the-century fam-
ily winery located on one of the preserves is being restored, and docents
are preparing to lead tours there . Docents give speaking and slide presen-
tations , staff informational booths for the District, occasionally help
with District office tasks , and work on construction and maintenance of
trails . They help train new docents and prepare training materials .
Approxi-ately 2500 people enjoyed docent-led activities last year and
about 1700 hours were donated by docents .
Everyone and anyone may join or request a docent-led activity: individuals,
families , clubs , youth groups , senior groups, school classes , groups of
people with special needs .
Any me.mber of the public may have the opportunity to hike, tour, photograph,
study or picnic with the guidance of a District docent.
People :gay be introduced to trails and public recreational lands new to
them. Those who are reluctant to hike by themselves or explore new terrain
on their own often are eager to join a docent-led group.
Natural wonders and historical events are explained, and the increased
awareness and knowledge gained by hike participants enhances their recrea-
tional experiences on the preserves.
Desirable features of the docent program include its availability the year
around to all citizens without fee and its flexibility: hikes and tours are
tailored for each group's needs.
The agency - MROSD - is benefited in many ways by the docent program. Do-
cents aid in the use and management of the open space lands . Their pre-
sence on the preserves augments the Ranger staff on patrol . They encourage
full enjol,ment and careful use of the land and promote the need for open
space . They inform the public about the District and in many cases are the
only link between members of the public and the District. MROSD docents
are good and valuable friends of the District.
R-85-24
(Meeting 85-08
April 10 , 1985)
0
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
March 26, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Annexation of Certain Parcels in Santa Cruz County
I
Introduction: On February 27 , 1985 you passed a resolution setting
a Public Hearing for April 10 regarding the proposed annexation of
certain parcels in Santa Cruz County. Notice required by your reso-
lution has been given.
'I Discussion: As stated in: memorandum M-35-30 dated February 20, 1985
(attached) , the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission,
in approving the annexation and giving you the final determination,
required that the Bar-Y parcel be included even though the District
had not requested its inclusion, and the property owner opposed it.
The 35-acre Bar-Y parcel (11% of the area approved for annexation)
is located at the extreme northern Skyline Boulevard tip of Santa Cruz
County and the area approved by the Commission.
The 270 acre annexation area proposed by the District included only
lands in which the District holds an interest. Most of these lands
are open to public use and patrolled by District Rangers . The rea-
sons the District sought the annexation were twofold: (1) to avoid
challenges to enforcement of District ordinances on the basis that
the lands are not within the District, and (2) to bring District-owned
lands within the political boundaries of the District.
r
These reasons remain compelling , in my opinion, and the Commission' s
reasons for including the additional parcel, which are based upon
sound planning principles, must also be respected.
The LAFCO analysis of factors in the Knox-Nisbet Act to be considered
by you such as need for services, the ability to provide services,
conformity with a general plan, and inclusion in the sphere of influ-
ence, is attached. LAFCO determined that the territory to be annexed
is considered "uninhabited" for purposes of annexation law, that is ,
the territory contains less than twelve registered voters. If the
Bar-Y owners register a protest to annexation, it would not constitute
a majority protest since that property represents less than 50% of the
assessed value of the land within the area to be annexed (it contains
about 12%) and the other owners have consented.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution
Ordering Annexation of Territory Designated as "Sempervirens Annexa-
tion No. 687-A" into this District.
M-85-30
1-Alt, 4 4 (Mee'-ing 85-04
_ _� February 27 , 1985)
amm"'t
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
February 20 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Setting of Public Hearing for Annexation of Certain Parcels
in Santa Cruz County
Introduction: On July 25, 1984 you considered my report M-84-64 dated
July il, 19-84 (attached) regarding the Minor Extension of District 's Sphere
of Influence and Annexation of Certain Parcels . You approved submittal
of an application to the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) . Starting at the time the District proposed its Sphere of Influ-
ence in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties , Santa Cruz County LAFCO staff
has also been kept advised of the proposal and, later, the submittal of an
application.
After submittal , the Santa Cruz County L,7�5CC (on a 3-2 vote) requested
jurisdiction from Santa Clara County -LA-7CO, the District 's major-county
LAFCO which has jurisdiction over District matters unless it chooses to
relinquish the power in any given situation. Santa Clara County LAFCO
attempted to confer on the matter with Santa Cruz County LAFCO without,
at least initially, relinquishing jurisdiction. That mechanism did not
work out between the two groups, and on November 14 , 1984 Santa Clara
County LAFCO agreed to pass jurisdiction to Santa Cruz County LAFCO.
Although the District initially asked Santa Clara County LAFCO to retain
jurisdiction, in the long-term interests of a cooperative relationship
with Santa Cruz County I did not press the issue further.
Discussion: On February 6 , 1985 the Santa Cruz County LAFCO approved
the extension of the Sphere of Influence (see the attached letter dated
February 8 , 1985) . The Commission also approved the annexation of the
lands requested by the District subject to the condition that the iso-
lated parcel at the north end of the area (the 35 acre Bar-Y Ranch) also
be annexed. The District did not apply for annexation of that parcel
because the land is privately held, and the owners did not consent to
annexation. It should be noted that the private property would remain in
Santa Cruz County, of course, and taxes on it would not increase as a re-
sult of the annexation. This is because total regular ad valorem taxes
of all taxing agencies combined are limited to 1% of assessed value regard-
less of the number of agencies , and the special debt service tax the Dis-
trict is empowered to levy over the next three years (in the range of
$0. 50 to $1 . 90 on this property) would not be worth the administrative
effort to process. Parenthetically, under the policy of the Santa Cruz
County Board of Supervisors , the District would receive no part of the 1%
tax levy on this property if annexed. However, it is against LAFCO policy
for annexations to leave unannexed "islands" , unless there are compelling
reasons to do so. The landowner protested the inclusion of the Bar-Y pro-
perty at the LAFCO hearing. The testimony was not compelling to LAFCO.
M-85-30 Page 2
At this point you will have only the option to approve the annexation with
the LAFCO boundary including Bar-Y or to disapprove it. You cannot, for
example , delete the Bar-Y property and approve the annexation as originally
submitted.
Procedure: The next step for you in the annexation procedure is to set a
Public Hearing on the proposed annexation (the adoption of the Sphere of
Influence has been completed) . At that time you would hear any public
testimony and consider possible protest before determining whether or not
to annex the territory.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution of
the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Initiating Proceedings to Annex Territory Designated as "Sempervirens
Annexation No. 687-A" to This District.
Notice of the hearing will be posted and published, and it will be sent
to the owners of the Bar-Y Ranch and other owners in the area being con-
sidered for annexation.
y M-84-64
(Meeting 84-17
July 25, 1984)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMOP.PMUM
July 25, 1984
TO: Board of Directors
FRO-M: H. Grench, General Manager
Su33ECT: Minor Extension of District's Sphere of Influence and
Annexation of Certain Parcels
,Introduction: In February, 1983 the Santa Clara County Local Agency
Formation Co--nnission (LAFCO) initiaed establishment of spheres of
influence for each special district"within the County and solicited
input from each District. On March 9, 1983 you considered my report
on this subject (see attached report E-83-9 dated March 3, 1983) and
adopter the recommendations therein for a sphere of influence to be
requested in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties_ Santa Clara County
LAFCO adopted the District's -requested sphere on April 13, 1983 (see
Map A) . At the time of your meeti.,a and when the matter was before
Santa Clara County LAFCO, tha ooss: _lit � of eventually including a
portion of Santa Cruz Countywas c scams= d. Eowever, because this
hou=c reouire additional tire, ana S=--= Clara County 2,A_K'CO was under
a to-ght schedule at that rise for adopting spheres, consideration of
including a portion of Santa Cruz County in the sphere was deferred.
Discussion: The rationale in my march 1983 report for the District's
sphere of influence along the Skyline Corridor as proposed and adopted
was as follows:
Skyline Corridor - A vital feature of the District's program'
has been to provide scenic protection, trail systems, and other
recreational uses along the Skyline Corridor. The District's
boundary in places follows Skyline too closely to accommodate
natural features and logical land acquisitions. The proposed
sphere of influence would extend outside District boundaries in
,
two places so that a band a minimum of about two miles wide . ould
allow both the natural spine (Skyline Boulevard ridge) and the
adjacent ribs (ridges running out from. Skyline) to be included.
This would then enclose ridges, minor watersheds, and special
natural features which are logical elements to include in the
regional greenbelt along the Skyline Corridor.
Neither of these extensions beyond District boundaries is in--
tended to imply a very proactive open space acquisition or annex-
ation program beyond present boundaries. However, it has been
our experience that gifts, bargain sales, and market sales of
very useful open space lands have been offered to the District
both within, just outside, and straddling District boundaries_
Once acquired,
red
these lands
s sho
uld ,b e annexed to remove any doubt
as to _enfor
cement m e ,e nt o District
f rxct ordin
ances n
ances and, simply, to have
Distric
t t owne
d
ed land within
th
e District.tract.
Page tv_:�
The Di
of course, already owns fee and lesser interests in land
in Santa Cruz County. in 1978 the District
POrt4oa of the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve.
the first and rnaJc
0:'_""ered as a package by the owners e. Of thet385 acres
, 38 acres happened o be in Santa
Cruz COUnt-y . The Santa Cruz County portion Was particularly important
in th i
is case because it Provided access to the San Mateo County Portion
0-f-fered a significant link in a Skyline trail, and was quite visible
F-0-1 the Skyline Boulevard State Scenic Highway and from the rest' of
%'-.he Preserve. The purchase of the Santa
J.b!4�_c use and enjoyment of the Preserve Cruz County portion enhanced
2. -7-2 in t. and protected the public's
In 1982 in the same area, the
District improved its holdin
adjacent use control further i gs and
trade and Purchase to obtain, n a transaction Which combined a small
the Jikoji group Within the Santa in fee and easement, an inholdinj:, from
.w Cruz, County portion of the original
Purchlase• As part of that transactiOne the District obtained a
reversionary interest in the final Jikoji holdings, public trail rights
over their property, Zn open space easement over a portion,
c0_.-_a'twlent to public "hostel" use o-� n, and a
f their facil; -Y-
In 1984 the District made a bargain Purchase of an open space easement
and 0"' Public use rights over a 182 acre parcel o= land that was being
A.
acquired by Semperviren% s Fund jus,,.- South of the District,
County holdings . Again, rights i� 4- s Santa Cruz
,,�_his parcel help Protect the Sky-
line Scenic Corridor, extend the n ,
S Yline Trail, protect views from
Long Ridge Open Space Preserve and Provide an exceptionally scenic
public use area. This land is'n-ana-ged. as part of the Long Ridge Open,
Space Preserve .
,The critical
point in deciding to acquire these Parcels outside* Dis-
trict bound
y
fit the Distridt!s
-at-, es and in another count was that their acquisition Would
greatly benefit _ constit_uents land tax-payers as had the
adjacent lands within the boundaries.
These three transactions- have occurred in an unusual int or nin
of Santa Cruz County that is contiguous to San Mateopo County 0pethe sula
n west,
Santa Clara County across Skyline Boulevard on the northeast and Highway,�
9 (and Castle Rock State Park) on the South. From f
topography, scenic Protection,
recreational use, andthe originstandpoint of visitors,,
this Santa Cruz County area is an integral part of the Skyline Corridor
to the north in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties where the District
has a very strong program.
To the southeast of Saratoga Gap along Skyline Boulevard, however, the
situation is different. The State, with Castle Rock State Park, and
Santa Clara County, with Sanborn Skyline County Park, provide parhatraill,
and open space amenities. The District has not been involved in
area, nor does there seem to be a need remaining land southwest of Saratoga Gafor involvement. Most of thep along the Skyline Corridor
has been developed, or at least subdivided, for residential use-
Proposed Sphere of Influence; Xn keeping with the insSan
itrict's approach
to a ere of influence west of Skyline Boulevard Mateo Countw-
a band of land at least two miles wide would be indicated for potenti'�
scenic protection and recreational corridor Purposes. The possibilit
Of connections to Castle Rock State Park are also a very important y
factor. Thus, the area shaded on the attached r-ap E would be a logical
and consistent extension of the District's sphere of influence. The
following table indicates the ownership pattern.
M
1-1-8 4-6 4 Page three
Ownership Pattern
Owner Acreage
----------
MROSD 75.2
Sempervirens Fund 298.
Jikoji 13 .5
Boy Scout Memorial 173.
Foundation
Private Parties (3) 180.
As can be seen, of the 739 .7 acres in the area, 559.7 acres p or 76%r
are owned by public 'or private non-profit entities.
Annexations: I am procisi.ng annexation of certain parcels to be con-
current ;with the request for an extension of the District's sphere
of influence. In keeping with the District's approach in the past of
only proposing annexation of parcels o;Med by the District or with the
owner's consent, the proposal is to annex lands of MROSD, Jikoji, and
Sempervirens Fund (the 182 acre portion managed as part of Long Ridge
Open Space Preserve) . The District has not approached other owners on
the annexation question.
+ Since Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, p-ovate property owners pay
an annual ad-valorem--proc4--tr _=�. � _=A to 1% of the fair market
value of their property as assess:" -This levy is divided among
local governmental agencies according to a formula adopted as State
law. If such property is annexed to or detached from any local agency.,
the basic 1% levy is unchanged; only the sharing among agencies may be
changed. Through fiscal year 1987-1988 the District will continue to
levy a special tax to retire debt incurred prior to the passage of
Proposition 13 . Aside from District owned land, which would become
exempt from property taxes once annexed, the other land proposed for_
annexation is exempt from property taxes and would not be subject
to an assessment for the special tax. Each of the three remaining non-
exempt properties is assessed at from about $26,000 to $73,000_ If
they were annexed now (and this is not proposed) each would be subject
in principle, to a special levy starting in 1985-86 for three years
of from about 50� to $1 .50 per year. * Since pre-Proposition 13 debt
service is decreasing and the assessed valuation of property District--
wide is increasing faster than the 2s increase these particular proper--
ties are limited to while under the same ownership, their payments
would be even lower the final two years. Therefore, the total tax
impact on each of the three owners would be less than $Q• over three
years. It would not be cost effective to coordinate with Santa Cruz
County to collect such a minor amount.
Nor would there be significant income from a share of basic 1% levy
on these properties, if annexed. Under State law when a local agency
annexes territory, the agency is limited to a share of the tax incre-
ment, i.e. , the increase in taxes over the base year when annexation
is completed_ Since these three properties while under the same
ownerships increase in assessed value at just 2% per year, the total
tax increment for all three is only about $28 per year. If the same
hi_
8 6 4. Page fa.:
sharing formula used ii, Santa Clara County would be applicable* in Santa
Cruz Co-_-nty, the District 's share of the $28 would be about 75�.
There-,fore, there is no tax income incentive for the District to annex
private pZ-operty within the Proposed new sphere of influence area.
Ra-rer, as is the -case in San 1,1ateo and Santa Clara Counties, the
inte7.t is to annex parcels which the District owns in fee or lesser
interest for the following primary reasons:
(1) to avoid challenges to enforcement of District ordinances on the
basis that the lands are not within the District, and
(2) to bring District owned lands within the Political boundaries of
the District.
Fees : There are potential fees for both a sphere of influence change
and for an annexation. In 1983, after discussion, it was requested
that we not try to include a portion of Santa Cruz County in the sphere
of influence at that '4-iT,-,e* since LAFCO was under a very tight time schedu
then and the complexities of a new county would be involved. X agreed
but indicated that .the— District might be back later with a- request .
for an extension of the sphere. There was no fee at that time. -
Annexation of District owned land is exempt froi-i fees. Since. the Dis—
trict o�-ns substantial public interests in the Selmpervirens Fund and
a
Jikoji properties also, it would seen appropriate to recruest waiver of i
the entire annexation fee.
Recommendation: I reco:pxiend that you authorize tha-G6neral Manager to
request the extension of the sphere of influence described herein
and that you adopt the at-a-,
-ne= of the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula 'Re' Jonal ro-en --ace Distric-a- Requesting Initiatic.
9 pen- Z,- 4-
of Annexa4on Procedures by —
Santa Clara County Local Agency Forma ,
tion Cori ssion - Midpeninsula Annexation, 1984 .
X further recommend that you request a waiver of Santa Clara County
LAFCO fees for the extension of the District's sphere of influence
and for 1---he annexation for the reasons discussed herein.
I
I
i
i
I
i
i � I
i I
i I
i I
i I
I i
i I
II
I
i I
i I
i
i
I
FEB 1
Santa Cruz Lo-cal Agency
Formation Commission
701 Oc—n St..Rzom 31 3_D
Sa-a Cruz_Ca;:Icrnia 95;,'60
*25-26---4 A!ea Cote_'Co
February 8, 1985
BOAP,D 0-:' -TRECTORS
Midpezins=2a Regional Open
Space District
Sui-te D--
375 Dist-1 Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
SUBjECT: OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE NO. 687
SE-MIPERVIRENS ANNEXATION NO. 687-A
Memhe=s cf- the Board:
On February 6, 1985, the Santa Cruz Local A"gency Formation
C0-=i=sipn a=.ended the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 's sphere
of influ-e-nce. A Copy of the resolution (No. 687) and map are enclosed
for your records.
Attached are two certified copies of Resolution No. 687-A of
the Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission approving proceedings
for annexattion of territory designated as "Sempervirens."
district. P_-elirninary proceedings were initiated by resolution of the
The aooroval of this proposal is subject to the following terms
and ccn-d-it-Jons: a) the applicant shall provide a legal map, description,
and -fees to meet the State Board of Equalization requirements.
The territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited for purposes
of aln:'.exation.
Procee-c"ings for this annexation must be initiated by the District
withi 70 ;--a-. s after the date of the approval by the Commission and com-
pletl =_d on Cr be-'ore February 6, 1986 unless an extension of time is
9 ante-_ Co-mmission.
BOARD OF DIRECTOR MRO,
No. 687 & No. 687-.,,�
February 8, 1985
Page 2
If the Board adopts a resolution of annexation, the followin-g*
documents must be returned to the Local Agency Formation Commission for
completion of the annexation proceedings:
1. Five certified copies of the resolution
of annexation.
2. Five copies of the legal description marked
Exhibit "A" and five copies of the map marked
Exhibit "B".
3. A warrant made out to the State Board of
Equalization in the amount of $480.00.
Very truly yours,
PATRICK M. McCORMICK
Executive Officer
PMM:ntm,
Attachments
cc: Santa Clara LAFCO
San Mateo LAFCO
C:-"-" LOCAL AGENCY FOR2MATION COMIMISSICI.T.
RESOLUTION NO. 687
On the motion of Commissioner Levy
duly seconded by Commissioner Leichter
the following resolution is adopted:
A_M_ZND1'_',*TG THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
FOR THE
M_E_DZNINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
The Local Agency Formation Commission does hereby RESOLVE,
.27.D ORDER as follows:
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Smace District,
C=".�: ssion has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Sphere
for the Midoeninsula Regional Open Space District
=o Section 54774 of the Government Code.
2. Officer has given not-ice of public hearing by this
---pon this Sphere of influence amendi-zent in the form and
=a=nsr -=eszribed by law.
3. nearing was held by this COrmlission, on February 6, 1985,
t-h-e- hearing this Commission heard all interested persons.
4. The C=,.=ission has considered the Negative Declaration dated January 15,
with the comments received during the public review
and approves the Negative Declaration. The Commission finds
at ='C=tJng t'his sphere of influence amendment will not have a
s effect on the environment.
5. The C=Lission adopts the Sphere of Influence Findings listed in
6. C--immission hereby adopts the Sphere of Influence Amendment for
Regional Open Space District to include territory
shown on -the man designated Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
PASSE n., ;:,'0P17=-D by the Local Agency Formation ConLmission of the County
of Santa --==z t2iis 6th day of February 1985 by the following vote:
AYES: COXISS.IONEERS LEVY, TELL, LEICHTER
NOE"S: CC_'Q-=SIONERS BELTRA.M
A3 Sz C-1--irC-1-ISSIONERS PATTON
DENNIS F. BELTRAZ-1, CF-AIRPERSON
Santa Cruz Local Agency
Formation Commission
Att=:Z
Exec-1:tive Cff'-icer
1i>}f r;�"'� `Rj17"'� :'AS .F��l tl�r .i• •• N - `� 1 ;�l'� „ l(I"+•' � t, ,J, rS•
�'r• r r ,F��� r �I�,�I(1� '1�{' �•i"j.1�•b�{1�J, �f. ,�1 G�j] ,�''\,,;• �J/ •� yet a '�•r�'t 4 1,�1 � -�•+�''�� i'
:1.1 � f,( '!I'f�sr,'.! �,f�i I,r 1r'.' �•.�`�{���), �i_T .1,� •t 11 r;,,t'• . '�'� .� t 1,.!•,� �,4n�': 'j i '
' S5,� .�t }�,jK H' :ll�'. t t� f! �! '?'� � I.•.'I:Y��!J('Zr' f.. i, r : 11a. � � •��t • � r.� } �,
l•� . �Ifk+ � ���i1{{y�' •fiF i. i �• � •J� ! i �,f�;•r,~. ,t•., rlt•• i �` 1 '�t�! r � ' � � t �r� '� � r�i
{'}�., 'S.1! rrJ I:r ,�111�!.rt•�f ��r' ���•;'�%'��" ,(,,+f � � �•' �`� y � 1. S�� ,� ,,, y � �' II• ;f ei lt� ,,.i'.1)�.,��' .�� •,
r 11,I •i'
}.r,1� f♦ '� .r�•'I� ►i14 t�'f}'f�•.l •r'� •��;.,• ! v r , •..+} � �;�„ v 't r'ti � .• ! �, �1 , �r, � .�:{ ;\.•. �Y�1•% .�'� � � +4 :�Q ti
)
i.'''t'' t 1/• I� �If 1 ,�a'..9 f�t�l/t �t � -1 �• •r'� ® �t � 't � i t/t� { .q.� r r�•' ?1 .f,i• 1 .1
� '+. ' .. , I ..�' 1, ..,.I P, 41 i t ra' t'/ � 1 n 1 r ✓• It' ,� ,g .1. n ,a,t I {,t , 4 )��I�� �� • y. ' d .r YT 1;) r � }1• ,` !.
t' tr••� '`. ,I�� �.•'1 {t ,H'y '� 1'•' 1. ...r.�,�� .� r l ,,, ll'}'1 r� .': 1 ��t ' 'I, ��lY t .tU s + .I '(I: .�1�1, r. rl '� A; w,.' ., / �S"I
'
IIt �•5'�I .+., I'• ` ,r!.�` t �� I ! t. ✓- �� � . l• .'� { ,/• , !. Il� 51�. � 1' �� '.� ''r I •f �\, t` •,' � .�(/'• t'•.��,�1 r 'w
�+' 3n, IrV)• �F�{'.�
E: �Y t F. f�r !I• r. :. 6:)i11i
� t. I`` + '.:, 1,' 1',1Tar*+;r2 f`• �' ...- .r � r<]' 71 �a•,�
�n �` J , ''iww
4 y/l i� ;+1, 'ti{ '" t' / ♦ , .i �, l`,t 7 I 4! ��ft 1`n\{� : f�'•t }11,�M•YC Ie �r ' i�!S`' r (t I,
r' t' 'E .�r�t'1 •' Mij. 1 •:�+�, • r, f '7',,.., i 'l�''
1
•ytt}�"�- . t.� :
t t • � '• , L t 7 �J !'r'. t ,� r' • / 1 1 'f� .:�� •' , � �, ,, r T � ``i A ••�iti" ?!�r'
/ Y r } ` •`;11�{+•'',,R.1 � ,a:ry •L f, �•tK•• S �' �tlr k/. n t
'� t '' ,•• ` ?�,, '=�!� >!.1� ,' _I��• J :��• • "�,.� ,•t, �'� tr r d f � r•, , � � , ' « �.�•',,;xr ;E :t
(, i.. Je. y � 1 r. i � .r� r J.t{/I( f rk I tip{, fi �. �• M' ���• �1T�} r�1 1
1 'y•' ,', j�'i 1 '7f ,fj}. ` !///}p .+^f�,i •1 �I.� -l/'I\ - 1r •!' 1' ' I lrfle%I'1. � ' t •'y, :i:a�• ;r{ ^1 �}�{ ��,- ''�; '� "� i 1 ':
�; lfr��, r{f L
t 1 i1 •i�.. r � �✓��A.,��1 t '�it� r'� •f 1,,�t('i� .. �, +f �`"� ."i �+Ni� (� S ' �/. " �3��I f ;�S•' r•y� 1 �� �-�\
Y fit' ��• '1' ri. ' �'•••" ►.•%i1 ly
� �/•1hr.' � � • •rJ /stir � .;'''.^ � 1 . •r/,^�'1' i J� t`7 � it .� ` l •f�' �. ..►• '`vC,^
t ';1. a;. } ..• � • ��r :{/� i t�l�:� ,�I� '� `y1111w � a.�' �'^� '�' �" t .�. ��.'
. 111 � '^ hj I I�a ja, :,rr.'���AY .p,htt .< S' ti', 'i' ( ����y�,� ,. '' L:.".` 1'��/,�,, _ ,i. ''��+ti:• r.• '...•,J/�jV,'r2�h.
\t:•.�, i ' �al�j f��,� S• r""" ...��7`v '+
�..' A{+,.7,� , r ; •' 1 !1 f �111�1 :/i�� +' it� '• r `{�(t' !r .t�? a •��, itr r• .5 1 `r�-� •
jn,-
l . '(. `0.•1• !r: I'r'I + •.• i!� f• // '':iSw r\ ��,f,� ` '� '-1�r' .I� "�- 1• •a�l ."�' , S'1. �. ►1t j 't: ''� 'f'' r '�'•'•. Ik
!t .i; li� i �; •.'. r ?" ' .l r/ •• t•.�jl� .' •J�:"'� .t r �' r „ !Fr� 1 C' ! �1 'V� i f•� t.' ��+`\• � '14Kr
''• ,r I•` f'!'l { + •�?��� �•�� i �•�.••••1 .'► � ��.�"� !I��Vr w4. f. P � , �� 4C!p�r �' '%ri?,': 'j" ,Q� •��s�� t;.'t'r'�• i (, �. :�.
"' ''t T '�I '7; ~1'1r.1 • erf = .� +r' •''` • '� t�.• ' ,1� ? l ! t�`(� �1� � 1-• a Yt-. ..�}.\. ,. .• �j'4 �"(U� !�
l;', :j .J �'�I�i, ''i,i'I�ryl,�{ • �r n./!( r , •1 _ t �.f 't;, �� �� /,`Ir. ,:r ! •t` 1`. � •��. Yrh l l
' � �.IrJ I.�t,�'•�1 j,�\_ '�N'` r �V�riJ �. — 1 Itt 44`�'�� 4y. rt •)" .,� � ',4'f r. �,i• i� lr ��l' � �'�•�'•' `,• ��„�,. � ��
14., �'y ,s. Iy � ly�';I :,�,,�'`' 1'!/; f' � �� r� ,�5:;�{ � � � „*�i�ii,� °f• �'�' —• J ,J/`•���.
!� + '{��• .,'fjY`r!'.:•'� ��fih? �:' � /'•I,.! ' ! •� ( � f KFr `''1 � >� � �;r•',�S a•i:. .�
,,' r •��.il. tr '" f�,.h71: !r.�, �'�% / / � �� �J O f .{}, '. •�r �} ,� 'i :rY.'(il ` ,1'' �:,.I �i •� a.t ti ~• '�
%,�,�' :1 ► ''�:.I" r 1' • S.i, • tt!'j :>y rr!•'`.r ,' ��• 'Y -r 7.�'i� Jr '}'• 1,TA'
11 •{� 1 l� �d+�• � r � � (�♦r �t
r•, ..,.. •�', � .t: 1 a, a / �tl /� i 1 � ! r� ,` d y tij r,1. r �. 1• ''� , ', ��, f 1 la•,,! 'Y•w �.
• � ,����.::yc y�. +; ��! r ��..� ( ''V 'ti: ' /.i,yf• d f '`• ,,,r`+ :r_�':;t .# �► `��. ( t
•r �•�� +%
JAI' •.'' .�' M,1•,�I • '+"l �` ! ♦.r �1 J1 Y-t'' ;., .� •�', j(. 'IWi,� -, * ♦ U ,
• �, �fIj r. . , �•-.;i i' �r'�� lip /� �>"t},`` r. �� ♦ J{� • •'-"S,._C,, •t• t.'`. N•.' �F, '� '� i'�' 1 /� y,1 NZ '� 7.
' � 't`•� •a` •V/,' ,f�',�'� ►)' ,���� !)1uT'T � r,'. , '7TTT17. ••' y •f! , ••_ � �O � N ,.
t i r'"J d� 1a 'N
.J;r .'Is f•i•�y. r , ! rwt�' •,`` 7! ' '-� •x,..�,�.. .•) '"l ,C'l�,�J,-.• :+ r, - •rr �5�. ^v ,/'•/ ' {�
•(`tr� , %� :t�l _ '�_''• r( `•,'i-'• a� "i��) a� � 'i Z� � to u�i d
1 �+ .,t►• '��� .s +},�. .. -. • r ,�. � � .gig. ,• :f,�• ,F�11•'. �;. It l i ��(•'.� � . '_�� � � 9
ii.'1; r 1 I• , .a f �. 1".rr /�', "' •.1 1, }' 4r<:J> }" N Lou
M ; .!li�, .a n c <.,+;•� . •rv:: �r �.,;'� M-1 �. "►fk r 'u4o to t� '^ d '^
• 7. .�' 1r. f. �.• tl II/� . �� .�� i:'l1." �" ;;•�/is` " +rt. .Jl.•'' i? �,> ,�)•_ y7'r 11 :+ r•�, .�5�{� � � � O
(.`,.N •e' .l ,, � r .• f• •t,}�•1:•it � 17 rr .�� r( I, ••!>ti., � �.. � ,�'i��►;• J.,1:�'.: j� 'r�•t7•� .{�• � = H
t{' 'a ' ' •r''��i �:,� Y' ww �1.`;� J��"I�r 'v`' ,' .J..t'.�; �r1 '.➢f� f�•�f/A�a��ly'�.r„1 � ''•j!t r•.f'`••v"�'t•)t�f(l 1 !' �r/f� l.+��JZ� (�,aati... � y Z r �( y
•: '•� 1+ � .r•1r .1'(T,\ � .11 t, �. .e �• .�Ir •'�'`/.��{' n' i. 'lltrl_;'��l tI''a: r t,r��i••wr 1. ' •l1 Ir'• ��`�!['\5 C„ �, ... _ �.", � ►-� r� « ,
..1 '�I r,f 12 1 .\ (i , b. "✓/ •'' �\'d I•a'. ,h i� -iit',.,t ..� 'a,.'•" S'"'':��r •r.t. !-`'1•�f r +.'�' 5 �•�r t t\. ' y' G
r.• i 'r. ', ('1 'Jr � ti � �•..• :J 1�� f,r {!1• •1•�t'� JIC�It.t� I r, Y {' Air .-.., 11� )`` ,P9� A( '� -/
�'r r•t \ I ! � � �Lti�• }, �5 f' i �,l( �1`'"1 --.. !'•'•' „��`��••�1• "�'T!�'•r •f " ; ,. � � aq' u� � �� �� O �cti `1
+9y► ? '�\r �r '•1.{!'t !tt" :�,(('' 1 /►� r ' ,,'.:,...•I , •�•�� (. �.5�•+ (; `;� ft� ,�ryj�•r, , (.��({ o
'�!{� �\�\'jy�J+'fit*`�T t• w�/I�� ,�',1•,t I ''�• •r 1 R'+ 'A�".` �.';r'�/ , ,�Sk�•'1�'• I,{r.' fe/ N� �'� �``l�� V��I_�.�.� � Y. � •
, 'rQ�l. �f I ti, � r,1 Y ' � � ''•<<`I'•fr _ l'r' I 7s`� :,�C •�. (, a I S1 1`�.4,,•,�I r i•� LC'1�•� �,t.K `�. .1•^l � --� • ..
.r.^ +! t 'S 'r tI` r( � +� �`•._ ) , 4 l '.� Vt� �'Sf��� �.j,i t_1 ({r� j ,f� f t. 1 � � . «r
,'� '(.l' 1 ;r',,t( �r�rr�rf�/f. 1r ;7��✓ , ly� 0..'' �f1 '��1;{!•.yt L'1,�-��',\\,� i 1 r. �..i'r�t /avt�(] �'�. }l;J v'?� (�' .1 �"..r.,1 ) 1'' t • ` !•
' �j{', l � t rI ,t� F!. ,.''' ;f�i Z. •,. v`lyA�t/'J�.��`•. (�y ,t.• • 'G' � ii rM•�(X•,r a NT �n
't' '' l•'� .'. "J•lr�t w5�t7i� 'Nr ,.. r� ,���,'�,\' ''YtII'r•71s1 "�♦v�:. t+',t�� t '`4''^J/Y��.%ll•t''� �.r.\'1 r` ?/iY.,h;' 4�` '`C` •..! i'1• �t 4J,7f,�� t �. 'f ,4.. \. . /r Ira � � •
f
SANTA CRUZ LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COkNIISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 687-A
On the motion of Cor-missioner Levy
duly seconded by Co=issioner Leichter
the following resolution is adopted:
MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PROCEEDINGS TO
ANNEX TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS
SEMPERVIRENS NO. 687-A
TO THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
The Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission DOES HEEREBY RESOLVE,
DETERMIN—E, AND ORDER as follows:
1. An application for the proposed annexation of certain territory to
the X6idpeninsula Regional
1 Open Space District has been filed with
the Executive Officer of this Commission by resolution of the district
pursuant to the District Reorganization Act of 1965 (Government Code
Section 56000 et seq.) ; and said annexation is assigned the short
term .deisgnation of "Sempervirens No. 687-A. "
2. The Executive Officer of this Commission has given notice of public
hearing by this Commission in the form and manner provided by law;
and has reviewed the proposal and has pre-oared a report, including
his recommendations thereon, and has presented the report before
this Commission for consideration.
3. The public hearing by this Commission was held on February 6, 1985,
being the time and date and at the place specified in said notice
of public hearing, and at such hearing this Commission heard and
received all oral and written protests, objections, and evidence
which were madepresented, or filed.
4. Said territory includes approximately 300 acres and is found to be
uninhabited for the purposes of annexation law.
5. The boundaries set forth in the description of territory proposed
to be annexed are approved as shown on Exhibit "A".
6. The approval of this annexation is subject to the following terms
and conditions: a) the applicant shall provide a legal map, descrip-
tion, and fees to meet State Board of Equalization requirements.
7. The Commission certifies that it has considered the Negative Declara-
tion prepared by the Executive Officer on January 15, 1985 and the
comments received during the public review process. The Commission
approves the Negative Declaration and finds that the project could
not have a significant effect on the environment.
8. Pursuant to the Board of Supervisors resolution, there will be no
exchange of property tax revenues.
(•- "RESOLUTION NO. 687(
Page 2 of 2
9. The Commission hereby approves this proposal and authorizes the
Board of Directors
of the Mid
Peninsula Re
gional Tonal Open Spa
ce District
to conduct annexation proceedings in compliance with this resolution
and state law. `
PASSED AND ADOPTED b the Local Agency Formatio
n xon
9 Y Commission of the County
Of Santa Cruz this 6th day of February 1985 by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS LEVY, TELL, LEICHTER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS BELTRAM
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS PATTON
i
DENNIS F. BELTRA-M, CHAIRPERSON
Santa Cruz Local Agency
Formation Commission
Attest:
c
Patrick M. McCormick
Executive Officer - -
STATr a< C+:"Oft:A
j,t!=l`i rf w^;+?i'.n."� aCda.3fJ°."3.'�1 C'i Zi94
��rr�^.'•i.^.':-:�::C`T L�i'LI.ZIiZ't��:C"loS
ISi
my
•-------
~'7
secre y-^,;:A.S_ to Cry La.
A'-anvj Fe ,%t:a
RESOLUTION NO. 85-19
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX
TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS "SEMPERVIRENS
ANNEXATION NO. 687-A" TO THIS DISTRICT
1. WHEREAS, Preliminary proceedings for this annexation were initiated by
Resolution No. 84-33 of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District pursuant to the District Reorganization
Act of 1965 (Government Code 56000 et seq. ) ; and,
2 . WHEREAS, the shortform designation for this annexation is "Sempervirens
No. 687-A" , and the territory proposed to be annexed to the Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District is generally located in Santa Cruz
County along State Highway 35 starting approximately one mile north--
westerly of the intersection of State Highways 9 ana 35 and is precisely
described on Exhibit A which is at-tached, and available for inspection
at the office of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District which is
located at 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1, Los Altos, California; and
3. WHEREAS, The territory proposed for annexation is legally classed as
uninhabited territory as defined in the District Reorganization Act, and
4 . WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed annexation is to avoid challenges
to enforcement of District ordinanc!-: s on the basis that open space lands
are not within the District and T-c brinq District-owned lands within
political boundaries of the District, while at the same time being con-
sistent with the decision of the Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation
Commission not to leave a small unannexed "island" ; and,
5 . WHEREAS, Resolution No. 687-A of the Santa Cruz County Local Agency
Formation Commission, authorizing this Board to conduct annexation pro-
ceedings imposed the following terms and conditions: the applicant shall
provide a map, description, and fees to meet the State Board of Equali-
zation requirements.
A) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District will hold a public hearing on April
10, 1985 at the hour of 7 : 30 p.m. at 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1, Los
Altos, California, to consider the proposed annexation; and,
B) The clerk is directed to comply with the notice requirements -as spedi-
fied in the District Reorganization Act; and
C) At the designated hearing, all interested parties may appear and be
heard on the proposed annexation. Persons desiring to make a written
protest against this annexation shall do so by written communication
filed with the District Clerk at 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 , Los
Altos , California 94022 no later than the time set for the hearing.
A written protest by a voter shall contain the residential address of
such voter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District on 19 at a regular
meeting thereof, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary, Board of Directors President, Board of Directors
I , the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,
hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution
duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called
on the above date.
District Clerk
1 _ EXJITBTT A `
Santa Cruz LAPCO Resolution No. 687-A
r, ®� Sempervirens Annexation to the
+` Midpeninsula Regional Open
Young Space District
District Boundaries
Annexation Area Boundaries •ee
' 1 ram►,
g M..
EA
f.
• i t t. f
�,� ��. �j�t► 88-02
r • Ol !
t1 J
V N
t { Nor
INVll
++
��llPifar•i���oo����0�0o�0*war b*o�.iyo.ssae��sos���1
Pp Ip � i
i '°®dew ' ,..n.,, � I•
ZO-RA '
M/ o e
so,
lei
•t�-•.. • let
' •�!'�f''�4..,y�1 rat . �
. : Q
a p
a
I R
Bi
? a
000 E:• r . rrrrrs $1 IV IrO1:.j1?XvlltlV � •;t`
." .. w.
\19
'TeO fiUnUA A �
trod() W
�t(Z o-) do 1 j V'N:+u1rV Sth .1 1 A.t, `*
V-L89 -ON 0.)JV'i �n.l;l t�auL'S ` v
A
v,r,ist�iix.•i �q �
a
l�.-ru p
ANA! YS IS W A 111,1011W)AL TO I AI-Ct!
T 1ILL: Sentpervi rens An►lexa ti on
LAI-CO NO. : 687-11 ,
IICnI;ING DATF: February 6, 19135
I'1;t11tOS/iL : AnnexaLion to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space MUM
LOCATION: Southwest side of Skyline Boulevard, northwest of Saratoga Gap �
11l)L I C 11'S AND S I ANDAili1S I I NI)I_NGS 11N1) UL T IM-1-1 Nti 1 IQ').
state Pullcy I - Discourage W han sptawl
Antupg till, pats-uses of th• local agency formation cooaslsslun are the dla-
eouraien.rnt of urGut alrrawl . (t:.,vs�naent Code Section 54774).
It is the Intent of the Lefislatuta that local aPenry fw matlun cunuttlsslutts
estahllslt policies and snwrcive thelr power• purauaut to tilts chapter in such a a,uwrr !`\
to sniu.n'ape and pruvlda piaunej, wel►-otJeted, a(ticlent urban Javeltq-tucnt Itatterus
. (4.,vrrl0"sut lode section 54774.5).
Santa crux mirco Pulley I, - cuostateoay With Spheres
All rltaoqer of "tyanleatlon shad be consistent with adoptud
apltr.tus ut Influu"'m ul affected mycttt:tue.
3twulaad
An allre(vd agency is a cite/ o+ disttiet which ptouiJr♦ ON is ptol•uttJ (u The affected age►icy is the M i dponi nStll a hell i Gild i
ptovlde any ul tilt public aetuirea to tilt ptuyvsrd atea tiart uwufd be change.! by Nee Oj)en 'Space District (MRMD).
Jaupc a.t f. ,
1 W
Male J
i'UI_ ICII', AND "dA1lIl/IIZI)t.) � itll)EP1I�`; AND 1r1 III 14-1111A11i111`,
tiauta Crux I.AFCO Pulicy I.6 - Stsysd C,ru++th
for lsnle Ntujects ttte Conodsslun •lull encuursye plans for
staged ytuwtlt.
St.trt,taad Not app'! it'ahly.
fat p1Yr/JfJt[ InvolvL.g tilt [cth.f(Yn o� h+t+f runentt[holl'[ltl,[M1 (al(f'ti'n[
frLvfrN to p+ol'Jfar a+eaf gitatrt f6.l.t SO Jc+tf, t t P I'
fLiqe.l ytwrth Le.Inuu,,.I tlof+'a( to Jn tuftfig urban atta of IG1
J.p,nllt+ett t.4y f..rh
a I•l.tn ,l.•es Piet pto.,wte utLa,t 41t.a�t and an uteidictent paftttn a{ fetwcrs.
St.rt• Yollty 1 - Liwoutsdt urd[rly 4uvetl.+naet Struututs
A,nonr, ti.t Iwp.,ae% of s 1,"%' rr,en.-y futu,ttlun t:ua.rsl•tlon Jts . . tI'v
cr.c..wng.atnt ..t th.: .n II,rIy furt�.ftI.-n au.l aevtlolpn.ttit to Inca! 6vvetawt[It tl•sgeueita
L.r.r.i „I...n 1.,,J1 wuditluua rttd tic:un.atrncaa (:ittaiutt 54114).
fialtta Ctur Pullcy 1.1 - ltuml.ur tit Ayettcles
[►upuYals, where feaalllle, siu,uld minitttixe the IMI "r ut local
a.l.ln.:tt s anJ l.t.,wuttt the uyt! ut nwttt-hutNuru syuueiss.
Illis prol)os(I i5 prioI•i l.y Iituh It!1. 4 - tlliliex(It i0l,
St..n.tatd t.t.t tt! d11 exiSLing diStl'ICt. t)11C11-`>llt1tt' `PCI'v)('CS t:(tllltl
f1yrY OM1 eonaotid.tfed ♦riviet +halt he p4ovided by one of tilt (Yttvrdinj not, ode(platoi.y be 111'ovided by tl 111t11i('1` lit'1 or'I 1.y
u.ltncitf in 11it desce„.tt.,j vide♦ .,6 l id6tirn et
-anne;at.ion tv an ttiftt„I city,
-annt1.160A t0 on taisttnrj dtetitet a,( which the !farad oa
51.1'etvieou if tilt yuvttnu,y body, i. - No Peas)211 e Co►i`,(1 i i tla 1 1tm% <trt' 1't-'ltl teti to
-a,utuafton to an etiatinJ nut Li-I tywft disttict, t11IS l)i'olmsct
-ann[,atian to anothtt taiftin.I difctict,
-6oa,,,lt4an of a "flip cau,tty [tiv/ct as tat
-IncoM11vtaCion 04 a ntnl tsity,
t
-�atlMtlYt1 v6 a nuY r.ttti-frual'att ttilttitt,
,
-d0u.ttiun oa a nttY ♦inyte lu+f'oft dtetlict. 1
J t.t,tda M1d 2.2.2
the cvrtei4aien'witt ptv,aate and alynavt dtetaict toMoit.f.ttiunit IYhtte
Page 7
POLICIFS AND STANDARDS ftN1�1NG`> l�tlf) Ill" Ik:Rtllfllll (�1N'-
S tnnda W 1.f,l
lAtro wilt ltevitto each ptoposat and take actlont needed to tncoutagt 2.2• The proposal I S consistent W I t�i this S talidd rd
IAMC14 annttattont to diseou+agt agenettt dltue etttnding attvim by aque"trrt J)eCdoSe Bind C,l111r01Lly UWIled by the (IiSLl'iCt WOUI(I bt'
withaut anntting to the agency. alinexed to the district.
Standard f.1.4
Tilt dt6i,titiona od "setbttanfiatty tulttounded" and "tuhatantiatty davetoptd" 2.2,9 _ Not dprl iCdbie.
art set ns dotttws to as to asaitt cities in determining wi,at atw s art tt/gibtt dos
tilt 44tand artnctation proceduttt in tilt tsuricipat Rtorganuation Act.
1. "Substuntially rurroun.i✓d" - territory nut exceeding 100
ooves in area, which is 1-ounded by mr inoorhor•ated uity
along /SS of its prim✓t✓r.
1. ".Sut•stu.�tiully d✓ralope,t" - ter-ritory not etatedtrul 100
aorea in urea which h.ra IsS of the tut.rt nimber of h.u•oalo
drawlyt
•rd rxr."t that the total ucrrag• of t1,J ar,.1.rN.rl.rpeJ
t
lau..ls sl,.rll not be yr✓uter thin tslt of the total av✓aga
of the territory.
i
Santa Crux L.ArCU Policy 2.3 — rinancially Desirable Areas
7'he bile inclusion ttf financially desirable areas in a
Jurisdiction $iwil lid avulded.
Standard 1.3.1
Tilt Connission ahatt mend olt lttieet any ptupoaat that, in its estimation, 2.3. 1 — This proposal doeS not Select Pl'i11CiPdI ly
atptolts to itttet pltinulatly etvtrwr-prud.tcurg µroptltfit♦ dolt incluaiuu ist it j,.risdictiort. revenue—producing properties.
• t
i
Page o "
POLICICS AND STANDARDS FINDINGS AND DFIEltt.ilNATlt)taS
Santa Cruz t.AFCO Policy 2.4 - Overall Effects
I'lts Commission shall consider tits effects of a proposed actl0n
on adleceul areas, mutual social slid econutnit: interests, sod On local
yuveruntental attueturo.
.
4. 1 - The proposal will allnw the dititl•ict: Lo
rht apptieation thatt JesctiLC flit edlects which tht annteation crutd have manage a Hwee-Coon Ly Sect 1 Oli U f the �W I lie
on adjacent arras within and outside the allre(Id a.)tneq. It ♦haft arse deirtibt .tnu car't•1(lot, In a cons isLellL Ilktilliel'.
sactot and ttunvmte beneltte which wilt acctut to Cht s.tbitet agency told tttaNd agetfeicl
in tilt vicinity.
2.41..2 - Not appl icable.
StanJatJ I.Lt �����
rot ri(y anntenfion i+toi,osats. .id flit City has molt juts than pfares $,•t
w•ttkc+s to five (jobs to emi•toyed .trsufeats iatto yteatet than 1.OJI (licit a I'lopos:t
w ttfh tritt dittr(lq %Cst,tt (4 utl..ln dtvttni flit iuc(uding tlety pe ttv.inrtil r,nitto.pnrn(
a.tt one f e ,loved a Htnt t.utd is destgnttCtJ dot atettfenttat uses ut rite cthj's
y 11 t l lltett
J•n N o Cltatt a obsthoasit but at. ce.
. Ciat I 't t
ill
5.11ita Cruz i.AFCO Policy 1.5 - Ptezuniny
'Yhe l•t.uu,lit:slnn ithnll ieyulre pieroning for all city aunnxutluns
t.0 that the potential etfut:ts t,f the irst,l.usala Can be evaluntvti I,y the
Cutreairait:n and hnuNn to the aftt:t'tr.J crticens.
St.lnd.ttd t.S.1
(at ptapotats invotuin.l city annetafiaas, flit WCJ Fete,,fivt olfictt ?.J. 1 Not appl icable.
Aloft out lift a Cctltlicaft al l theta, whteh acfuw,vtrJ.irs (hat an a;ytitati+,u is
q
Cv„ .tt(e, unfit file city has co,nl,trtcd a ptetontttg ptoerss lot the lul,jtet ptope4ty
13,1,1 datt+..ttdtt! tht At*OCA W (A(CU.
j � V
j
raga: 9
PUl_I(:l f S 111d47 STi1t1(lf�li(1S f�(t1(l1 Pll;`� /ltl!) YETI Itl•1(t1A 1 !�I!f't ,
State tolit:y 3 - Atricultural Lauds, C,itan Epace, lntltl
It is Me lntrot of the trtlslatw a that ).cat atency foitastlon cornisstons'
eatst,lish pot icies an4 e„etclse their Iv.^ers pnreuaut to this chapter in such a m-+u,.ev
to .oruanate a.aJ pt„vide pla,n.e4, .•rlt-..IJt•te•1, ufticlent utLan drvelup.neut pattrtus
.,ith eppr4prlate tol'alJel"atiW+ of p+eservlt.y upen-ogre• lands within au,.h pattalus
(.•lanai SvtJv.!).
5e0tiun 447.90.1 states:
�r^�t!'iinn of cp.+n-sLac� JnnAs_!o ot!,.•r �,e���alhi rs nn.t orjgr!YfE
In r.•uievinJ.m.f.gpr.,t,inJ or Jisajpyvuin.r prorothils ulri.r/I rauLl r.r,rn.tn:'•IJ
to dy•caeJ to WL.,.n4 faeWultd or lea.l to t-1,d v-11'ersion of dristing .qan o�.arr
1,....1. to Iowa other than vren-5010d udse, Ihd eunsiJdr Nyd foll,nJiCj
I•J11,'tda a141 f^rive-ttiev:
tat Udvalup•ernt or I.as of lanJ for other than open-di"100 uses
ah•Itl he uuid01 ox y Jim 0rintin0 prima yrit "W-.Il
An" in c.p.nt ;+liar✓ ut+y t,uard areov .`anRai.linf n.••gyimd
,tjri.•ultln+tl 1."I11, u.ileae su;h .an ,action atn+.t,1 not
pr.••,••to the pLuln.nf, orJdrly, sffioidnt JevdIol"u1t of
on al•.t.I.
I
fL1 lI,^u.•h lam*nt of milting vacant or nonorir+A nJri.ultural
l.vr.t.i for ui•I:.u1 1..+rs within art vridtinJ juvia-
,li,.•ti,,n u. uitl.i,r an .el.•.n•YIN sl,hcr•e of infiarn.rd sh.ntl.1
bd en.an,r.ay..1 t•.f'. r.r u•,y Inrl•j.a.al is apin-olied which LVIII:
a11..J f:n• ur• jell (It th.r ,1.•"dl.yadnt rf tridtinJ vp.mv:i.tad
I,1,0J fvr Ia J,1-•1-I.r,2...•. m.ws ohioh ore ur.tdi,Ll of tNIo
aytrn AI Wary jr.t"ti.•ti„n or outside of an a;ldn.•J'd
atilt Llrt/ nl h.rr,•
sa"ta Cruz I.Arco Policy 3.1 — Prima Agricultural Lands
Urban giowth shall bn yuldvd away tram prime agricultural lan•t•1,
unt.•ea such a"tiun would nut pat,mute Pidnnad, otd SK atticlent davul„i^-
muuc ut an atca. 3. 1 .1 — There 1S no 11r111Itt dlfriC"lLUrdl land in alle
sfa"md L L I dnHeXdLion llr0p0Sdi . APH 2;ti-O A/ iS SulljeCt to an
"Puree oquent' a,taf We it h1be.d as 14 tnnJ which Quat"A Y1 Adfinll i)pun 511ace and conserVeltion eaStHl enL.
as Chuff I ON ('fast 11 4.1 Uwe 1111rt:.1 ti1.I1:s Soot conservation Sctuive lon.l use cd0.1'
L.l.t./ rlattid/rJftons, ON III) f.1"t d...h 4t..1116its bat �1.If4114 to 100 4.1 (1,e Sfotle I 1 ' 1` LC111. IJl Lll
In•t,, k.at+,.q, ON lot 1.1.0 whl,h ,s ,•..yled en the A,IucJfuul kraoutees All as thr 1. 1 � — I11� proposal lS Je"erdl ly C011`. >
l'v..,Ity u(S.+ItGt iaut or Cea.:.etta,al Aju,ul(.,tat land. LIIe recolllllle1111e(1 Sllllel'N u t I n t 1 up", v dill) Llle po 1 1 C i es
sran,W l.l.t and Stan(1drt1S herein. Sep regardinO
A eflange o6 o+g-11-0 ion i1 eonaiJtstJ to p^tonote tilt ptanntd, oeJt+fy, and Z,2,5 fur possible I nCunS I S Le"c y.
ti6ieiu+t Jevelolaa;nt o1 0.1 area .,heal
al It is c••nstsfcl,( with (fit sphttts 06 irtifutact Inlpa and potieieit
adupttJ by IA1Ct1 (dt (he adeectcJ agenctes.
61 It c"Jotms to all othts potauta And AtJ11J4141a e0ntaintJ htsein,
V
Putt ?.
l't►� � CII S 110 4fANlliiRD", r.lri111N)A nN,) lil �� i�ra1101 i►►►l�,
A +,urin cunsistrury .Ji Ns lilt ( , (,ct (}1L, 1I►'t)lt!)',al I`, gull', (`.(I'll► tl I l�1 the ',jifit'I t'
t'ansisfnt:y abaft (.♦ detttm,.,fd (`f a t iN ( g a i _ . _
al.hrlt a( iniLunct „uiu andts,fa<:trs J✓pttJ Ly I.4)it) (Jt tilt a1itittd o,it.lc/ts. o i if IllEtli e tur the EMU) as in miII"vi"J"I in dwi t.
Resolution No, 6H/.
stan.(ald 1,41 1 . 1 .3 - Hot appl iCAle.
unlit JannJty I, 1981. ehangts of 0tgancta(ion Wily be epptoved wduie one -
ol *ate aiitcted agtneita' 4hrlfs Yi utihtenCe Wa not been SAWUJ by ImLj +i
14110 can mitt the i•'ltuwulg iini,n.16 con(at,ttd in G,ivetnment code Section Se111.1
eJncetninq ()it avq.tc( on agticuttl,tat l.tadss
14 tilt C,..natu+on ahaff Jevth•p detetmrnt, nod J.iopt At
aphote ,•i uljf,lta,a iut FACit licit tiovtinmin(at age-icy within
a(a JutiadtCttjA no I.t(tt C/wn JJ«uaty 1. 111f.
161 11.1tit J,t•nt,rv/ 1, 191S, .t Cummissiva which 1614 not adopteJ
a split Ie Yi +njfnra:e sat a f.CJf qo%-f1.1mta(.1t jgcocty go.) vv(ov,
t •i
1 i A )tV Y!.tt «n. l
. ..n. t nJ(( � �Nuve Yt del. . taVe i �
apl,1,vr, r h lr y 1 f i i
u,elndt! lvttiloly which mi.lht•be C40-AtntJ Militia a apilty ai
♦uch i.,cJt djeacy. Ic11t.1 at'tt..q On a plop✓eat puiSnan( (J this
Nt(.d tJ.llJn (hf CW..n/i.,Jn shalt ptepate 4 Wtl((tn ♦latf,*ent
vi iu,dt•tys t,)ith nr4pfrt to O.t rtiatr«ct of ayticutfalat
ptelfl✓ea l,i flit ally ..Itt'J. CJ.,td bt co,tsidite.l Wttt.la in
0,ien,.q's aihcle of i.,it v,we and the tiifet 04 Wiltlau/s,/g lilt
p1uitr.1t and eco...imtc in(r,)tt(y ui tucit i.teaetvts in tilt twat
U,at su:h I,leirtvrs set l,:tth,n a api,ett Yi i,tiftsence 04 a
Im"t q Jrvrl:nt.,l a.I;n:y. !i flu plal,.,sat Would ttn'tt in
At co.wrti.on Yi IHr.L a+It,t+ll4,Id( (.i«d tJ nJn1.11tN,f(.i tat
ulf, (I.f r,inn,uaian siwft matt w attn iurtinys etpf.►inu.y
O..: t,;,tions iat its df(evat'14(40m. ,
I
Santa Crux LAfCO POLICY 1.2 - ►leed fur S01vIC05
Any pu,pueal Involviny annexatluns, 1114orpolntlonn, and futma-
t1un0 shall nut Ate appeuved t+nit:ar It Jpmunstratta a ueed tut the
edAlti,,ual au1vlvv0 to bn pluvsd.d to thu Steal while all l,supusats
{nvulviny .la:tachmeuta, diss"amIu+atluns, and dlst.ulutl...ny Thal► nut 1)a
apptuved unl.sss the plupu"ent Jcm. ttstlates that thu subject 00tvicns
a,a not "ceded or can be pluvlded as wall by another ayenay ur ptivat0
ulyaulaatiun.
Sta«datd I.t.i
tat ptopusnfa cunctining citits, need shalt bt tANWahed by )4) An 1•�,• 1 Nat dppl IC hIe.
41101. rd ptetvuinj, ronsis(tnt 64.(11 the City gr,itiat plan, that $1.0603 Callon( 01 iaQlte
,(C.ftJl.nt.il at a l(instty 1:mt weft trrulit utbnt enviers 1401 as s.ulital,l shell a•1.1
V.t(el, a.;.t (b) a city 31ow(h watt and patlsl,t .11taf At eubjeet atta Witt be diveto):td
Wawa S vtata.
Page 3 '
AM `� 1/1111)ARD.c) l i fill f P!I�� J1ffl) 11I 11 kf I l flJ11 1 I!t!`,
Not applicable.
Nt 1"'toih,aatt concrint",j Ito(if t ,mJ inlet tits(tict a,ntf,a(tont, uttl 311,I;t ---- -----
bt eImt'ttilled I,y lach uj soviet& t) rlitti,ta at(.a+t t.,nJ ItIrA, Yt a tnttdtfll p(t"••It
r,y"tl..ItidnYt.lticnl(ian JA n tin,)fc �•",+thy &;"W'l ut, "I a fat•Ict tt."se" by I .2.3 - The Sd►Itd Cruz Coullt.y (it'llt ral I' do lfE.'sig"i te%
(a! a ttnt.iCtve Yt juwt land Yof tutittemt,tt (tt,ttaCAVt eut:tivittu,t m.lp, ust 1•41nit,
eY,ldltiJ,ifd un .•btautu"g s,dfet ut Stroll AC%V'Ct and (bt a gw"cth tall and Lhe proposed dnnexa t.inn Wed for ims compatible w 1 Lh
Iott:tn that (hit t,+biect atta Witt bt dtvttvytd within S ytale. open SpdCe, Sul;ll d`i IIIIiillitt) in res tttt'rllid l dull LIIIIbur
St.lnd.vtd I.t.1 11►•utltic:L i nil.
lvt ploposall cJncft,tu"g flit tttntsion uj Offal Attvtct♦ by a,n"t.atiun,
tncovolativ,t, ut d"Cttef jutntN"n, need thatt be W.tbtishtd by flit airl,ttidlit 1.2.4 - HoL d ) )1 ICdhlU.
gentt.tt ylon tJnd list designat,00t a,id the ttwiet ttvtle tptp(jitd jva flu '"bitet _-_-_-- {
sort in the a1q,Cicab(t yfoetat pttn.
t"
I
1.2..E l hc. luI
)u I d( t nn 1 _, a )I)1•uX iul;t t e l y �l t'. T{
!
lest piol otafs invotvu"g tree disevnfuwafiun 01 /fluids, lack us need p(1p111 a tion (IeuS 1 Ly is dl prOX IUId i e I y .01 People
h •t rite ,
,t itY
it Y (lie t4
th uttt 1 1 . 1 hi .1'
th.11t be ts(Jbtishtd L" I•II +1,/ attia",t P!(jtcts vn t e j + + IE_1 Ca pi td Vd Wilt t 11)II 1`, d pt't1X 111 t _I y
� per art 1h1. !
c
u. NtP Otte u".tt ,an bt I I I
d",c to duce„tnu,attun snit (b) ,w ptulvtttd tttwu♦ ejjtctf 1
e,ta'ttt•r to 0""1 to the ne.t S Yeats baatd qWm the yptieabte gtactat plan and $149,474.
• pt.rtec(ed gliwth tau$ ,l,ld yattttns.
In aevit,vt,:g ptopotdls. 141C11 ahatt eonuidrtl (11 flit 'pup"ttatto+I" in fla•
px"p.•t,/t atvJ (is to the pnl,,,Lrtt.ul nfvvt,led in tilt tas( bitnaiat at tpee,at reuse%
ut 1 :r(rd ". a earl rttstnt n1.,bltf.t Yt ,"roof dr Llt fPd u,Su t,n.it iu•t
tn:t:t t (he ptul+Jnr,"f jI Je' 'I I
,,,,t;t, (A!1`t) •r:t,'t,tu".'t (., It +•,,t; d•,,,tatP, III flit "}olafaftun dtnsify" tit bP lit" .
J,:J III V:a "fret Pupt(.1 attested vlhtdito„" to b:t
llie Pat r1%h vat••r uj all Chet"t,y'ett"j to a pt,,I,Osat attY (a0 aft by flit fait serett,I
I l•t•'N•tt,l (at, wf/l d.vtded bq the i•oF..l.lt,vn.
1—N
I
5attta Ctt12 IAPCO P011Cy 1.1 - Genutal Plane
I/1 cases I,f uv"•t 1•"s'pll,y plain, I.AFIU shell make a dr.tt:/ml net 1,"11
nt which general plan Le„c catalua out. the pulialee lot the Ituux-111eLut
Act..
St.nld,ttd I.l.I
Connally. LAIN will ptrame to javot a titq't genetat Pull inside the 1. `. 1 - The �dlltil t,l'lIL t.Clullty (ii'lit'i'd 1 I'latl tip{)111's.
tlhrtf uj injt",toet adov(ed jot the eery byy rAICO, and the tunnty't ye•Iftdf ll,t,t
rl,.,.hcu. It is the ptupontal't negW"Itucy to prove any eteept.Y,l by nt(tvtGlg
to (lit pJtll.ite of (f,t A,IYt•NlaUC Act.
pilt.je Q
itr�i I�.l I ', nisi, si nrai�Aiti,5 i I ND I P!►A AND Ill i i i�H I NA I J HN',
Gaul• Crux I.AFCU Polley 1,1 - In-fill ttevsloptaent
In order to avoid further urban sprawl, I.AFCO shalt encourage
!n-fill development in urban •tros and •nuaxatIijns of aralad Inaid/a the
city Sphered of influencu.
S(nnJ.rld r.l,r l,�l, 1 - l ht� site is r "ra l .
"U1Lan alias" aft J1151d as M1,11 within City ti011t1, ereepf 6n1 1an03 -
Jtli,;.+.r(tJ as vptn arwe on me Wes "newt pfan; and areas inaiJe the Ut6a.t
Se1..t.ta tint as adop(eJ L./ (lit ('pun(y 06 San(.1 t'1t41,
Santa Cinx LAFC0 Policy 1.S - Provision of Services
In ord.rr l+.r WCO to appluve a change of ut+)nnitntiuu, the
pr.l•unant Uall Wtm,uyltdta that Zhu buhlect tvices can hit p[uvi.l.:d In
a timely manner and At a lell ,n.lt,le cost.
1,14+1.0i.1fa ah.let Le oceol-+otte.l In( a ►tivice Jefively pl,lut in,li;ating (lie ripen space "ser viCeStt (illihl lc access!, rangers
.t.•.tifal'it.ty OS PINe."d and J""We af(;1n.t(we .,+,Amh of plavtd _1 b" the etc:, ) wl l l (:(�)rltrir"e in d IIIC11iri111' Srllll lt1l' ill What 1S
u(-( lan.If vj lrtv,tdl, !ne(n4'n.l !."L...�(t, Ieyntled (v ativice (lit aira; file IwuliaMe +
s ciu�rt�ntlY being provided. lnforTculerit autht)ri ty ills
IJaC ud a.,Ch arlvrtrt; and (its mithu,t! vj (l,wa:linJ,
stile will(I i s t r�i(.C-tlr)n(.11 1 a ails in the anal xtll lull he
Clearly established.
s(.tt.d�l+l r,s.t
1..t art plapasati ditnl wnitl the Nn,t,eipaf t;rol+ani;a(iun Act, the allvire Jrtivcly 1 .S.? .. Not applicable.
ptan shaft consul u1 (lit 4n601.•.Je+.,n (ialeJ [n Sieben 35101 01 the t;.rvet"mf#1f
Page G
I)OL I C I L S ntll) FINDINGS AND H i t itt•t I tan i I HNS
2.2. 1 - The annexation area boundaries generally corresnol
Santa Crux WrCO Policy 2.2 - logical boundaries
Mli the tlistr'ir.t-uwuell and other permanent uf)en-share
LArcu shall prumuts more iuylcai agency boundaries. IdritlS along the sector of the Skyline corridor near the
,junction of San Mdteo, Santa Clara , and Santa Cruz Countic,
st.tnJatd t.t.1
10 the g,tatral posaib(t te(ent, bouftJatits ♦halt (otlo.o etist(ng pvtitical
OovnJa,iea, n.t4,t.tt jratutta (such as redyoa and t.attteoutstsl, and eunshueled ita(u,ea 2.2.2 — Subject to the Executive Officer's cerLi f ica-
(anch as ,5ai(,vod UaCka). __ _.__.
Lion, any Ina{) and legal tiescril)Lion to he filed with
sta,ura,J r.r.r the Coun Ly Recorder anti AM to Board u t l.+fua l i to L i on
Evundaty hole shah be lucntrd so the( entiu I"J aiyhU-o(-,vay art shall conform to this standard.
placed wcthart tht ♦awe /utiaJ4c6un a♦ the p,upettita (tooling on (ht 4vad.
sta"Wil r.r.l
trounda%ifa should avoid dividinq an ttdattnq 1Jrn(4t{ia6tf cv.rotutdhl,
ecr•.ne.<tal dtshtct, o, o(l,rt oita 6.rvu.g avcu,t ut r,unrw c hvv,•y:nrtbf, Whrtr
ii-At d,vtstons art pwpaseJ, Uri pseponenU shalt tud(tly etetp a ttvs to lilts 'i 2.2. - See discussion regarttin+J ?,:'.
s(a"Kid. `)
st.WMJ t.r.1
The citation of boun.bf,ifs that divide astfasmttt( pa,efts al,att be ova,d.d, 2a2r�_ — No a55C55111('nt parcels are proposed t0 he split.
w•i,(.ttvtt pnadtbte. la the p,tyvrstJ M,uuJa,y dtv4Jes .usraamritt pa,rets, (l,e
-,5t fasttjy to the (Voo—isidon thr rtfft,a/fy d.t, a,teh division. 14 file Ciro«x,55,Ua 1 — , t i
.,ll.,ovrt the psopasat, the C,rf.••idau•,5 m,y cvrtdttt.+n tilt app,ovat upon ubhtd,turg .t �•t•-) Tllt. I)►'t)I)U.,dl WE)llltl crt.fttE: d single-I)dr(:E_
bonadaty adµut,sent ut let split (tom a city oa courtly. island of untinnexetl territory at the northern tit) of
s(ar5d.(,d r.t.s Santa Cruz County - AM BB-011-01 (Young et dl . ). The
8orut mAs MOd not be duw% so at to CUM an hUM M ship W40% district's Justi flcaLiun is that their practice is to seek
Within At p "Wred tfttttoty o, t,.nedtatrty adjacent to it. WWW aurh am (!Clod annexation of properties only where they have the
o, AMP as psopoatd, the ptolwnertt oa.s( Iuataly seaavrta (vt nr•n•Con(,,,u.tnce nvtlt lr t t i rma ti ve. conseM of the a t tec l ed property owners.
tilts ♦/an./ttJ.
Vandt,d 1.1.4 2,20 - Plot. appl icahle. r^^�
Whet 6sasil.tt, City 04 ar(aNd Mhict bou"My changes shod ucrut
cunr:,ttttntty to avutJ an VL%dqutat fl-st(t,n oj buundauta.
't'_.,?.7. - See discussion re+Jar(liri+J 2.2.2.
A asp of any p"W"d OJI"My Chougt •haft ♦hWr the p,tlfrtt au.1 1,up-1101
O.r..nJatits v6 ntl adlrctt.t agf„c.fa to (i,c vt:tatty 01 tits ptv/resat stic. the s,. urtl
d t.n shalt as),t Lf (l..t( any ,11•111,,VCJ O.,wt.Li,y Ch.utgfAt ate Je Atnt fe and CC%tat rt, Ih:
('.n..Ir ttlua may airtHvvt a ptvlrvaat con.ItttunCJ art (he piopottjrtt p,el•.tttug it noo boiuidaty
e.tp and JtACttpLtws.
I
I
1'0I.1 t_I I S AND S TAId(lliltUS 171 NIMIC,S AIII) III I I PH I Ell;11011`;
Santa Crux LATCO Policy 3.2 - Infill
LAS'CO shall encourage the urbanization Of vacant tends and
non-prime agricultural lands within an agency's jurisdiction slid within
an agency's spltcre of lnfluuncts batoce this urbanization of lands uutelde
the jurladictlon and outside Life api+ere of influence.
Al 01011(111 1M t (1 i►•('c L 1 y (It!S 1 tlna t.e(1 on the ;a
"Open-sivice land+" ate defined in Section 6SS60 0a file Cove%nnint Code. In Cruz uz t,oun ty Gene►"a l P l nil, five of f.11t' parcels a L Hitt
gcnetat, these aft tand and wa(et atcas dtaigmt(ed on lucaC plaru as oyticuttutat ta,l.tt,
gau,nid autct ntchwgt attaA, natute al'itavte, and pAikA. Si Le are ill public 01' (ItIdS I-Ill'" is Itt�l"UKIIIeIIt 0Pu"-SI)d(�f
SLni.Lttd 3.1.1
ton a rtoi—at to extend atwet, auttt, 0t gtnetnt ninieitut itevicta to 3.2.2 - Not appl icable.
any vptn-arace toads, tilt ptopJ.itnt ♦halt sul.nit a vacant tared uwentoty JJ lilt
Aubject jut4adictwn.
3.2.3 - Not applicable.
Standatd 3.1.3
tilt patotitits Jot tiAhunitation aAtr 3.2.h - Not appl icahle.
11 open-enact lands within ea44(u1q buwldallts, -- -
11 oprll-Aluct t.111d1 wt(llin an adop(td Ailltte JJ a1iJlUtt/C!, 3.2.5 — Not ai)pl lcahle.
31 pti+nt agticuttutat t.uide wi(it ut etiA(ing bJundatit$ ---�--
/) ptin.t Jgiiituttittat Lutde within an aduy(ed Aphttt JJ in(tutnce.
Standatd 3.1.4
Ptoposate involving utbani:ation 01 ptimt agticnftataf ta.uts within
a 'utn t Ahatt not bt a .tlJved untt'S it ta11 bt dt,nJnt(t.lt.d
a,G t d h tee o � t
e r A( r J J li
(al (licit is iusuiJicte.it tand in the nulttet aua (ut flit 1111.e 01 61ad It It
i.lol.ased, Ib► theft ii nu voca,it told in the subject juusdtc(<J1t avattabtt Jot
0'..t LJl!e of ust.
Stand.ltd 3.I.5
Wei A(talt tacoutagt detachMenta al palnte agtieuth+tat faade .end 011ie%
ulte,t $pact tau,js Jtum ci(its, watttt dtattic(s, aid aewct di4 tteta iJ cuwtsttat utth
file a.fupted 41-littt o f initutnct o f the aiieeted agency.
V
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
DESIGNATED AS "SEMPERVIRENS ANNEXATION
NO. 687-A" INTO THIS DISTRICT
1 . WHEREAS, the Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission of the
County of Santa Cruz did, by its Resolution No. 687-A with bound-
aries as shown on Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 687-A adopted
February 6 , 1985 , authorize the Board of Directors of this District
to proceed with public hearing to annex that certain territory known
as Sempervirens No. 687-A, and more particularly described by legal
description marked Exhibit "A" and map marked Exhibit "B" , both of
which are attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof;
2. WHEREAS,
annexation of the aforesaid territory known as Sempervirens
No. 687-A will be in the best interest of the landowners and the
present, as well as future, inhabitants of both the District and
territory proposed for annexation; and,
3 . WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission and the Board of
Directors of this District considered the factors specified in the
Knox-Nisbet Act such as the need for services , the ability to provide
services , general plan, and sphere of influence; and
4 . WHEREAS , the annexation of the aforesaid territory was approved by the
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz subject to the following
terms and conditions : the applicant shall provide a legal map, descrip-
tion, and fees to meet State Board of Equalization requirements; and,
5 . WHEREAS, a majority protest to the annexation does not exist and the
territory to be annexed is uninhabited for purposes of annexation Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the annexation of afore-
said territory is approved and ordered.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Secretary of this Board
shall furnish the Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission with the
following:
1 . 5 certified copies of this resolution;
2 . 5 copies of said legal description marked Exhibit "A" ;
3 . 5 copies of said map marked Exhibit "B" ;
4 . A warrant drawn upon the District in the amount of
$480 . 00 made out to the State Board of Equalization.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District, this day of 19
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
"EXHIBIT A"
Annexation to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Name of Annexation: Sempervirens No. 687-A
Date: April 10, 1985 DESCRIPTION I
Situate in the County of Santa Cruz , State of California and described
as follows:
Being a part of the West 1/2 of Section 36 , T. 7 S . , R. 3 W. , M. D. B. & M. ,
and a part of the North 1/2 of Section 1 , T. 8 S . , R. 3 W. , M. D. B. & M. ,
and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a stake set in a mound of rocks marking the common corner of
Sections 25, 26 , 35 and 36 T. 7 S. , R. 3 W. , M. D. B . & M. , as said stake
is indicated on that certain Deed of land conveyed to the State of
California by Deed dated December 5 , 1928 and recorded December 7 , 1928
in Volume 134 at Page 284 , Official Records of Santa Cruz County, thence
S. 01 241 40" W. along the West boundary of said Section 36 5280 feet more
or less to a concrete monument with a bronze disc marked "T. 7 S . 35/36 ,
2/1, T. 8 S. , County of Santa Cruz , County Surveyor" as said monument
denotes the common section corner of said Sections 35 and 36 and 1 and 2
thence Southerly along the West boundary of said Section 1 , T. 8 S. ,
R. 3 W. , M. D. B. & M. , 2350 feet more or less to the 1/4 Section corner
on the West boundary of said Section 1 thence Easterly along the 1/4 Section
line running East and West through the center of said Section 1 4930 feet
more or less to a point on the Westerly line of State Highway 55-A, known
as Skyline Boulevard , thence in a general Northwesterly and Northerly
direction along said Westerly line of Skyline Boulevard as said Skyline
Boulevard is more particularly described on those certain State of
California, Department of Transportation, Right of Way Record Map Sheet
Nos. 518. 4 , 518 . 5 and 518 . 6 of State Highway 55 (also known as State
Highway 35) , Section A, District IV, to the intersection of said Skyline
Boulevard with the common corner of Sections 25 , 26 , 35 and 36 , T. 7 S . ,
R. 3 W. , M. D. B. & M. , being the Place of Beginning.
i
M-85-53
(Meeting 85-08 ,
Ak-
April 10 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
March 29 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; Mary Gun-
dert, Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for
the Stour Investments , Inc. Addition to the Sierra Azul
Open Space Preserve
Introduction: At your February 13 , 1985 meeting you approved the
acquisition of the Stour Investments , Inc. addition to the Sierra
Azul Open Space Preserve (see attached report R-85-09 , dated Feb-
ruary 6 , 1985) . You also tentatively adopted the use and management
recommendations outlined in the report and indicated your intention
to withhold the property from dedication.
In accordance with the adopted Land Acquisition Public Notification
Procedures (see memorandum M-83-106 , dated August 31 , 1983) , final
adoption of the interim use and management plan was deferred until
after close of escrow to allow for public comment. Escrow on the
65 acre Stour Investments , Inc. property closed March 22 , 1985 .
Since the initial hearing, staff has received no further public com-
ment on the acquisition.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the Interim Use and
Management Plan for the Stour Investments , Inc. property addition as
contained in report R-85-09 and withhold the property from dedica-
tion.
I �
R-85-09
Atil ,, -i- (Meeting 85-03
February 13 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
February 6 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY .SI ILTTY AND PREPARATION:
O C. Brit
ton , Land Acquisition Manager,
D. Hansen, Land Manager; W. Tannenbaum,
Real Property Representative; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve -
Mt. Umunhum Area (Lands of Stour Investments , Inc. )
I
Introduction: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District currently
has the opportunity to purchase approximately 65 acres of land located
east of Highway 17 within unincorporated Santa Clara County. The property
adjoins the eastern boundary of the District ' s existing Mt. Umunhum Area
of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and is an important link in con-
necting the District-owned properties on the eastern face of Mt. Umunhum.
A. Description of the Site
1. Size, Location and Boundaries
This 65 acre property is located south of the City of San Jose
on the east-facing slopes of Mt. Umunhum. The District-owned
Mt. Umunhum Area borders the site to the west, and private property
surrounds the site to the north, east and south. The non-contiguous
portions of the Mt. Umunhum Area (former McCoy and Mariscal prop-
erties) are located approximately one-tenth mile to the east.
The subject property is located outside the District's boundaries
but within the District 's Sphere of Influence. The property is
also within the Sphere of Influence of the City of San Jose.
The property is approximately 3 miles southwest of the inter-
section of Loma Almaden Road and Hicks Road.
2. Topography, Geology and Natural Landscape
The property is comprised of the steep east-facing side slopes of
Mt. Umunhum. An east-facing ridge on the southwestern corner of
the property is relatively level and affords magnificent views
of the south Bay and south Bay hills. Guadalupe Creek, a perennial
stream, traverses the site, entering the property in the southwest
corner and flowing through the property to the northeast corner.
R-85-09 Page Two
Elevations on the site range from 2900 feet in the southwestern
corner to a low of approximately 2000 feet along the northwestern
boundary. Vegetation is comprised principally of chaparral com-
munities of manzanita, chamise, and ceanothus with an occasional
knobcone pine. The banks of Guadalupe Creek are lined with
California bay trees mixed with madrones and coast live oak.
Soils on the property are of the Los Gatos-Maymen Association,
derived from shale.
B. Current Use and Development
Vehicular access to the property is from Loma Almaden Road via a 60
foot easement across the southerly adjoining property. The easement
enters the property in the southeastern corner. This road eventually
forks to the east and west, with the east fork connecting with the
road system on the former McCov property. The western fork of this
road winds up the southermost ridge on the property to leave the south-
western corner of the property and tie back into the Loma Almaden Road
across private property.
A second access road enters the property in the northeastern corner.
This road branches from Loma Almaden Road through the former McCoy
property to connect eventually with the El Sombroso trail network and
on to the Kennedy Road Area of the Preserve. The road provides ease-
ment access to the subject property, as well as to the four parcels
beyond this site. A road maintenance and use agreement exists between
the current owner and other property owners holding easements on this
road. An 11- 11 percent share- of the costs of maintaining the road is
associated with the proposed acquisition. This amounts to an esti-
mated cost of $125 for work to be completed this year.
There are no structures on the property.
C. Planning Considerations
The property is zoned Hillside by the County of Santa Clara, which
requires a 20 to 160 acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit based
upon a slope density formula. The parcel would allow one building site.
The site is currently under a Williamson Act agricultural contract
which, according to the Government Code, would be terminated upon
acquisition by a public agency.
Open space use of the land is in conformance with the General Plans
of the County of Santa Clara and the City of San Jose. The site did
not receive a rating in the District' s Master Plan since it lies out-
side the District boundaries.
D. Potential Use and Management
The site should be managed as a natural area and be open to hikers
and equestrians gaining access from Loma Almaden Road and adjoining
properties. Parking for 2 to 3 cars is available at a roadside turn-
out adjacent to the southeastern access road.
-85-09
Page Three
E. Interim Use and Management Recommendations
1. The maintenance and use agreement for the northeastern access road
should be continued between the District and six involved parties.
2 . Boundary plaques should be installed where appropriate. The cost
is estimated at $30.
3. Logs should be placed across the trail in the southwestern corner
of the property to limit motorcycle access. Cost is estimated at
$150.
F. Dedication
This property should be withheld from dedication as public open space
to allow for future transfer of development rights or other property
rights or to allow for trade if advisable.
G. Naming
This property should become an addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space
Preserve- - Mt. Umunhum Area.
H. Terms
The total purchase price for the subject property as set forth in
the attached Purchase Agreement would be $58 , 000 payable in cash
at the close of escrow. On a per acre basis this representsa
payment of approximately $900 per acre , which is reflective of the
real' estate market sales in the area and represents a fair price
for the property. Funds for this purchase would come from the New
Land Commitments budget category.
Escrow for this purchase would also include the conveyance of
certain water rights by the District to Robert W. Barlow, an owner
of property contiguous to the subject property. During earlier
successful negotiations for other nearby property owned by Mr. Barlow
(see report R-84-52 , dated December 5 , 1984) , Mr. Barlow requested
that his unrecorded but prescriptive water rights in th e subject
property be formally recognized in the event the District completed
the Stour Investments acquisition. Mr. Barlow agreed in advance to
make certain concessions which would benefit the District in exchange
for this formalization. These concessions included his withdrawal
of a competing offer on the subject property. Further, it is the
opinion of staff, due to Mr. Barlow' s apparent open and notorious
exercise of these water rights for more than10 years, that a claim
for prescriptive rights to the water could well be supportable in a
court of law. The attached deed will , when recorded, formalize
Mr. Barlow' s rights to water from Guadalupe Creek while simultaneously
limiting how these rights may be exercised. (Report R-84-52 also
included mention of a Right of First Refusal obtained by the District.
This Right of First Refusal is recorded and pertains to the Barlow
property benefitting from the prescriptive water rights mentioned
above. )
R-85-09 Page Fou'r
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the accompanying resolutions,
as follows:
A. 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 (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Stour Investments,
Inc. Property)
B. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula, Regional
Open Space District Approving and Authorizing Officer to Execute
an Easement Deed in Favor of Robert W. Barlow and Authorizing
General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary
or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Sierra Azul Open
Space Preserve - Stour Investments , Inc. Property)
I further recommend that vou tentatively adopt the interim use and
management recommendations contained in this report, including the
naming, and that you indicate your intention to withhold the property
from dedication.
-L���.r•�.-+s=.ra:o-c_v'r'i':nJ't-'Z3'U7ILSLSiJ �,��•-7r-y}�7LYQC I uj
�. � •��� -.� '_'�.. �- —mil, �Li•-!� � '_'� ,��-� i,,`� �\�•-•i�\�� ,� ^� �,v-� _
l � �� ��, J _`/'^� K�t•:.- _ ••'}::mow'::•... '� �} '.� /� '' '' Ty''O �����
{. l� .__1 � 1'`- -� �•/li :�:��'� -�'� � �i .� ,ice //
` - -- dary
- D. Boun :.;.;. ;:r;: �/ � /� _�� \ ,. .• :
Approx. LocationBarlow n o�p_rty_'
of Water Easement.
� 'a ` \.' � ,�✓%\1 \ � :titiri.J:e..eiw^i w.w-'� �i.: r / ��.s�% d'1 � i,() i�-�""�
-fltj Mt Umunhu!?t f.:; .
���� _,��_ �-�..�-.. �. ,_;•�,;:a Area -. �;. ,� ;• � �1,��,.'���(���/'.
`-r - � � :1 -_`'Tft `lam s>._y: i :~ •= _ter' -' _:r_- �r (' i' �' PrD Sed tion•�'
C �t ••...:.•• 11h .. = •T• !•- �.r�-•v-ors r(I�.. \ - ...•^ `-�;"��� '� '}• ;. �� ) �/` ':Lam Yr�-��/ _ J
,��_��= 'r 'I : � �_�=� ��r.�•�ti� �VI/i//�i,�� � �'.� _r.�.•r�: � ' �asemen-���'f •�:�.+'
�{ �� 'r ��._��� _;«yam`, _.-��• �Y•�� .-. ._r--^�• ,��✓' •fir-�6=5' ::i. •'"�' �r•1�.�:� 171/ �-ry
\\ 1 t, ���^ '- _��::-�.f�.Y'. - ♦s `moo , \�:�� ~r.:.�� -;.. ` j;�T�`:�1'.�•1 :,J-, -
���� ! �^/`��� •+�? _ '\�- i.-3. a!J ����:— :•_'. ..- _ _•� ��l I y�v' to
' �f,�--t = `�s I :.,-:w_•y ��y,^ ��'"`�\- ��:Easezent:;t-• - ', .* � '� ,
,�"r` . = �_ :M ;• iJ r } , 1J �,i '',; �^�- Loma Almaden
-�.
�`- ✓' ��' =% �, o t; �, _ Road
�'^' =�t�• _ �tiZ' ..s;,^.%1�;T � r1�� it •.,� `i per% '.;�'I1� i
/�_v�� r'r�=\ :i'?-�i� •'1.•.1L;fir. � i• /�( � //�;\ J`j� 1���1!
Former Barlow Property
Ilk
\•--'� �i .' �_� '•L� ^ !( .may` ,\ .\�\
;� L✓' _ r �� Site Map
SIERRA AZUL
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
� l � (� ,q\� \ Scale 1" = 2000' AN''th-
-''�- `%'!� � /• ,r,\•o• r%•.� ���� /iif� rtiT.r..�- _ -+1 •*r:v-� _ --•.c t. '-
RESOLUTION NO.
- 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 (SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE - STOUR INVESTMENTS, INC. PROPERTY)
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 hereb-', accept the offer contained
in that certain Purchase Agreement between Stour Investments, Inc.
and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which
is attached hereto and by reference -made a part hereof, and authorizes
the President or appropriate officer to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the District.
Section Two. The President of the Board or other appro-
priate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance
for the Grant Deed conveying title to the property being acquired
by the District.
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
authorized to expend up to $3 ,000 to cover the cost of title insur-
ance, escrow fees , and other miscellaneous costs related to this
transaction.
M-85-55
(Meeting 85-08
AOW April 10, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 2 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for
the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
Introduction: The Use and Management Plan for Windy Hill Open Space
Preserve was tentatively adopted at your March 20, 1985 meeting (see
report R-85-19, dated March 5, 1985) . The dates shown on the acquisi-
tion of the five additions to the Preserve reflected the date of
final adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plans instead of
close of escrow date. The close of escrow dates should be substituted
as follows :
1. Bachtold property - 26. 6 acres , acquired March 30, 1984
(see reports R-84-16 and M-84-45) ;
2. Bowers property - 1 . 3 acres, acquired September 21, 1984
(see reports R-84-38 and M-84-79) ;
3 . POST gift parcel - 1. 27 acres, acquired November 15, 1984
(see reports R-84-48 and M-84-97) ;
4 . Fiore property - 18 . 5 acres, acquired November 27, 1984
(see reports R-84-44 and M-84-101) ;
5. Martin property - 3 .3 acres, acquired December 28, 1984
(see reports R-84-54 and M-85-07) .
Final adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan was deferred
until your April 10, 1985 meeting to allow for public comment. To
date, staff has received no public comment.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the Revised Use and Manage-
ment Plan for the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve as contained in report
R-85-19 and amended herein.
M-85-54
(Meeting 85-08 ,
April 10 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 2 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Revised
Use and Management Plan
Introduction: The Revised Use and Management Plan for the Los Trancos
Open Space Preserve was tentatively adopted at your March 20 , 1985
meeting (see report R-85-18 , dated March 7 , 1985) . Two items were dis-
cussed at the meeting as additions and corrections to the Use and Man-
agement Plan. They are as follows :
A. Access and Circulation
New Use and Management Recommendations
1 . The area around the trail leading up to the first interpretive
station and the station itself are becoming trampled from the
number of visitors and groups using the interpretive trail .
The trail and station area should be delineated to restrict
visitors to the interpretive area. Estimated cost is $350 and
will be included in fiscal year 1985-1986 budget preparation.
C. Brochure
Existing Use and Management Recommendations
1 . The site brochure should be updated to reflect the connecting
trails when they are completed.
Status : The brochure map was updated to reflect the new trail .
Final adoption of the Use and Management Plan was deferred until your
April 10 , 1985 meeting to allow for public comment. To date, staff
has received no public comments .
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the revised Use and Man-
agement Plan for the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve as contained in
report R-85-18 and as amended herein.
M-85-60
(Meeting 85-08
0-0 April 10 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 5 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: March 30 Workshop Follow-Up
Discussion: At the conclusion of your March 30 workshop that centered
on the District's use of eminent domain, you discussed asking Board
member volunteers to draft proposed policy regarding the use of eminent
domain for Board consideration. You also determined that another work-
shop would be held to discuss procedures in implementing amendments to
the Brown Act regarding Closed Session discussions of property negotia-
tions , policy regarding acquisition of land outside the District's
boundaries, and policy regarding annexation of land.
The evening of Wednesday, April 17 was selected (presumably contingent
upon finding a suitable meeting place) for the next workshop, which you
preferred to hold in the Town of Portola Valley's Multi-Use Room, if
available. If the workshop is held on April 17 , it would be very dif-
ficult for me to attend , and I would like to do so. A telephone poll of
the Board indicates that a date change to Monday, April 15 should be
considered. The Multi-Use Room has been reserved for both dates pending
your decision.
Recommendation: I recommend that the President of the Board enlist two
or three Board members to draft a proposed consensus policy statement
regarding the use of eminent domain based on the reaction of individual
Board members to the public comments and written communications received
at the March 30 workshop.
I further recommend that, once you determine the date of the next work-
shop, you schedule a Special Meeting to be held at 7 :30 P.M. in the Town
of Portola Valley's Multi-Use Room, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, on
the date selected.
This agenda item will be discussed y M-85-60
at the Board ' s Regular MeE ig of ; (Meeting 85-08
April 10, 1985 to be held ac the tt April 10 , 1985)
District office, 375 Distel Circle,
Suite D-1 , Los Altos beginning ate �7777X
7 : 3 0 P.M.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 5 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: March 30 WorkshopFollow-Up
P
Discussion: At the conclusion of your March 30 workshop that centered
on the District's use of eminent domain, you discussed asking Board
member volunteers to draft proposed policy regarding the use of eminent
domain for Board consideration. You also determined that another work-
shop would be held to discuss procedures in implementing amendments to
the Brown Act regarding Closed Session discussions of property negotia-
tions , policy regarding acquisition of land outside the District's
boundaries, and policy regarding annexation of land.
The evening of Wednesday, April 17 was selected (presumably contingent
upon finding a suitable meeting place) fc).- th. - next workshop, which you
preferred to hold in the Town of Portola valley' s Multi-Use Room, if
available. If the workshop is held on April 17 , it would be very dif-
ficult for me to attend, and I would like to do so. A telephone poll of
the Board indicates that a date change to Monday, April 15 should be
considered. The Multi-Use Room has been reserved for both dates pending
your decision.
Recommendation: I recommend that the President of the Board enlist two
or three Board members to draft a proposed consensus policy statement
regarding the use of eminent domain based on the reaction of individual
Board members to the public comments and written communications received
at the March 30 workshop.
I further recommend that, once you determine the date of the next work-
shop, you schedule a Special Meeting to be held at 7 :30 P.M. in the Town
of Portola Valley 's Multi-Use Room, 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, on
the date selected.
M-85-99
(Meeting 85-08
April 10, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
April 5, 1985
To Board of Directors
From : Nonette Hanko
Subject : Proposed Good Neighbor Communication Program
Dear Colleagues
Workshop #1 ( march 30 ) has convinced me of the need
for a Board program of communication with neighbors of the Dis-
trict ( residents of our acquisition planning area In anticipation
of the appointment of a Board committee to draft policies regarding
the use of eminent domain, I see a window of opportunity to com-
municate whatever policies we eventually adopt, to our neighbors
and also to our local legislators , some of whom have expressed
interest in our efforts.
I can't overstate the importance of this policies statement
as a communication from the Board. As part of the Good Neighbor
Communication program; the staff should be asked to prepare a
brochure for landowners ( especially homeowners ) which would
provide information on tax advantages, life estates , leases , any
special arrangements such as lease-caretaker, easements for trails
with fencing agreements , conservation easements , private land
trusts , etc. ; in short, all methods we may know about that would
assist existing homeowners in continuing to live peacefully on
their lands.
In addition, I would like to see a continued form of commun-
ication with our neighbors on a quarterly or semi-annual basis in the
form of a Board approved newsletter-type of brochure which would
list meeting dates , new lands acquired, status of site plans, pictures
and interviews with landowners . And how about a party once a year
somewhere in the vicinity of Skyline ?
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
R-85-25
(Meeting 85-08
April 10 , 1985)
0
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
April 5 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
I
SUBJECT: Permanent Trail Easement Across Lands of Corte Madera, a Limited
Partnership, for Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Access
I
Background: At your meeting of July 27 , 1983 (see memorandum M-83-82 ,
dated July 18 , 1983) you approved and accepted a temporary trail easement
between Hamms Gulch and Alpine Road across lands of Corte Madera, a
limited partnership (Ryland and William Kelley) . A status report was
included in the most recent Use and Management Plan for Windy Hill Open
Space Preserve (see section III . A. 4 . of report R-85-19 , dated March 5 ,
1985) .
Discussion: Staff has received the permanent easement documents that
have been executed by Corte Madera, a limited partnership, and the Town
of Portola Valley. The terms of the easement have been approved by
District Legal Counsel , and the area of the easement encompasses the
District' s current trail alignment.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the accompanying Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Space District
Authorizing Acceptance of Gift Easement, Authorizing Officer to Execute
Same, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other
Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Windy
Hill Open Space Preserve - Lands of Corte Madera, a Limited Partnership) .
I also recommend that you name this easement as an addition to Windy
Hill Open Space Preserve and dedicate this interest in real property
for public open space use. Since there is no land use change involved,
it would be appropriate for ou to make our action on the urecedin
Y Y g
items a final adoption of the recommendation.
I
'I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 85-29
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GIFT EASEMENT,
AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE SAME, AND
AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY
AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPRO-
PRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (WINDY
HILL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF CORTE
MADERA, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)
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 and approve that
certain Gift Easement from Corte Madera, a California Limited Part-
nership, to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a public
agency and the Town of Portola Valley, a California Municipal Cor-
poration, dated March 7 , 1985 , a copy of which is attached hereto
and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President
and appropriate officers to execute the Easement on behalf of the
District.
Section Two. The General Manager of the District shall
cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance and approval of
Easement to seller. The General Manager further is authorized to
execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to the
closing of the transaction.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
i
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF AND ORIGINAL FOR RECORDATION:
WTHEEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
MIDPENI`ISULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT
375 Distel Circle, Suite D--1
Los Altos, California 94022
Attn: Mr. Craig Britton
GIFT EASEI�IENT
CORTE MADERA, a California limited partnership
(hereinafter called "Corte Madera") , herebv grants to the
TOe,N OF PORTOLA VALLEY, a California municipal corporation
(hereinafer called "Town") a:,: t'ne _MI.OPENINSUZA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a public agency (hereinafter called
"District") a non-exclusive Easement far the purpose of
establishing a public equestrian and/or hiking trail on that
portion of its property described in Exhibit 1 attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto.
1. Trail . The term "Trail" shall mean a fifteen
(15) foot wide strip located anywhere on that portion of the
property described in Exhibit 1, which Trail shall be desig-
nated by Corte Madera at Corte Madera' s sole discretion at
anv time after the date hereof and prior to :3anuary 1, 1990 ,
after consultation with the Torn and Distric�. At such time
I
as Corte Madera designates the Trail, Corte Madera, Town and .
District shall re-execute and record this Easement with the
Trail then being more particularly described , all costs re-
lating to survey and recordation to be borne by Corte
Madera.
2. Scope. This Easement shall include the right
to install, use, and maintain a public equestrian and/or
cikina trail. Corte Madera shall have no liability or
responsibility for any property damage or personal injury
not caused by their act or omission or resulting from im-
provement or use of the Trail by Town or District. This
Easement or any agreements contained herein shall not be
construed to interfere with Corte Madera' s right of access
to its property (Exhibit 2) or any portion thereof either in
k
its present state or as develoQer' subsequently or anv other
substantial rights of its ownership.
3 . Term. Except as provided in Paragraph 10
hereof, this Easement is perpetual and shall not be exting-
uished by non-use or abandonment. The foregoing notwith-
standing , in the event that Corte Madera shall have executed
and Tot-in and District shall not have caused to be recorded
in the official records of San Mateo County prior to
January 1, 1990 , documentation sufficient to designate the
Trail as required hereunder , then this Easement shall termi-
nate automatically. Corte Madera, commencing January 2 ,
Page 2 of 6 Pages .
K234-53--C t' vQ?
1990 , may, but shall not be required to, record documenta-
tion affirming such termination.
4 . Structures and Other Improvements . Corte
Madera, Town, or District shall not build or place on the
Trail any above-ground building or structure which would
Der-anentl interfere with ' Ease-
ment. the public' s use of the .�ase
ment. Costs of any improvements constructed for the benefit
of sown and/or District under this Easement shall be borne
av Town and/or District.
5 . Corte Madera' s Uses . This Easement is a non-
exclusive Easement, and Corte Madera shall have the right
subject to Paragraph 4 hereof, to make any use of the Trail
which is not inconsistent with the uses permitted. This
Easement or any agreements herein contained shall not be
construed in any manner to interfere with Corte Madera' s
right of access to its property or any portion thereof
either in its present state or as developed subsequently nor
to any other substantial rights of its ownership, provided
that any improvements constructed within the Easement neces-
sary for Corte Madera' s purposes shall be installed and/or
maintained by Corte Madera.
6 . Benefits . This Easement is for the benefit of
and k
appurtenant to the Town' s adjacent property
_ ._ � p noan as
Assessor ' s Parcel No. APN 080-250-08 (Exhibit 11 and the
District' s adjacent property known as Assessor ' s Parcel No.
APN 76-350-23 (Exhibit 4) .
Page 3 of 6 Pages.
K234-53-C/Nov07
. . .... ....._._
t+
7 . Pronerty Taxes . Corte Madera shall have no
liability or responsibility for property taxes on the Ease-
ment area or any improvements constructed by Town and/or
District which may from time to time be located thereon;
provided , however , that the underlying interests of Corte
Madera shall be fully taxable to Corte Madera.
8 . Attorneys' Fees. On any action or proceeding
among the parties hereto relating to this Easement, the un-
successful party shall pay all costs incurred by the pre-
vailing party therein, including attorneys' fees and court
costs in a reasonable amount as may be determined by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
9 . Successors and Assigns . This Easement shall
I
inure to the benefit of and be binding upon Corte Madera and
its respective transferees , successors, and assigns and all
persons claiming under them.
10 . Termination of the Easement . This Easement
shall immediately terminate at any time all or any portion
of either the Town Property or the District Property becomes
owned by any party other than the Town, District, another
public agency, or a public, non-profit, charitable organiza-
tion. At any time after transfer of all or any portion of
either the Town Property or the District Property to any
party other than the Town, District, another public agency
or a nublc, non-profit, charitable organization, and upon
request by Corte Madera, Town and District or its successor
Page 4 of 6 Pages .
K234-53-47/Nov07
i
a�
in interest as provided in this paragraph shall execute, and
Corte Madera shall have the right to record, all documents
reasonably requested by Corte Madera, including quitclaim
deeds, evidencing that Town and District or its successors
1-11 interest have no further interest in the Trail.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Git Easement on , 1983 .
CORTE MADERA,
a California limited partnership
By
L� X
Ryl d Kelley, Its G7) eral Partner
V
By C.G
William K. Kelley, Tts Ge eral Partner
TO'W-1 OF PORTOLA VALLEY,
a California municipal corporation
By Ate' exa?e"4 --
Pgrri w1Lz_1,tA4 S Mayor
r
. By
L 'roy M. Gimbal, Chairman, Trails
4 . GCommittee
Attest:
Town Clerk
(SEAL)
Page 5 of 5 Pages.
K234-53--C/::ov07
i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT,
a public agencv
By
President Board of
Directors
Attest:
District Clerk
M
Pages.
Pa e 6 of 6 Pa
9 9
K234-53-{:/\1ov07
,il
r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
ss.
COUNTY OF ,,
On this da of / 1�¢ �'
,,� Y , in the year 198� ,
before me, �`>. /,1 �, , Notary Public in
and =or the State of California, personally appeared RYLAND
PCEuLEY and WILLIAM R_ RELLEY known to me (or Droved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who
executed this instrument, on behalf of the limited partner-
ship and acknowledged to me that the limited partnership
executed it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m_v hand and
affixed my official seal in the County of
` the day and _year in this certi.fica`e first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
OFFICIAL SEAL In and for the State of California
B. BIRCN
"rD•d s:!=i^ NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA
:�••it',� ;• SANTA CLARA COUNTY
�•��-,;�_ My Comm.Ezrrtes Noy O.1987
My Commission Expires: . /rG7
I�
(SEAL)
i
:C234-53-C/Nov07
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
,! On this day of in the year
193R; before me, _=� Notary Public in
and for the State of California, personally appeared
and LEROY M. GIMBAL known to me to
be the Mayor and Chairman, Trails Committee of the TOWN OF
PORTOLA VALLEY and known to me to be the persons who exe-
cuted the within instrument on behalf of said municipal cor-
. I
Dration, and acknowledged to me that such municipal cor-
noration executer] the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
E.
affixed my official seal in the County of
the day and year in this certificate first above written.
NOTARY UBLIC
In and for the torte of California
My Commission Exoires :
li
(SEAL)
K234-53-C/NovO7
i
46
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , in the year
1933 , before me, , Votary Public
in and for the State of California, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person
who executed this instrument as of
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT and acknowledged
to me that the public agency executed it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal in the County of
the day and year in this certificate firs'_ above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
In and for the State of California
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL)
K234--53-C/Novg7
EXHIBIT 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
?''=az certain parcel of
land situate in the Town of Portola
`fay --Y, County of San Mateo,, State of Calif
as as follows :
CC-).-,- at the
cane y point of beginning of Parcel I of the lands
conveyed b ' deed recorded in Volume 4416 at Pages 452_465
Records of San Mateo County , California; thence f,on said
0= beginning North 00° 10' East 128. 04 feet t- a point
West- 174 . 90 feat • thence South 85 55 ttest � 123. 42vorth 810 35 *
. orth 580 06 ' hest 64. 36 feet • thence South300 15' vest 131 . 00
feet ; thence
=eet ; thence leaving the boy,:nc,,
��_ y line of the aforesaid
Guth 59 25 49 East 591 . 9r3 feet to a point ; n paid Parcel I
0f E? Corte Madera Creek; thence northerl along tij-- center lire
of "said creek ?North 22° 32 ' �R`est 92. 64 feet • thence he Center line
I'test 168. 3 feet to the North 18 16
CONTAINING 2. ? � Point of beginning.
1 _ acres of land.
a €: t of
7"AX CODE A PEA
-- —___-- -- +�
76'-35
ZONING_-_
h �>S° N v h
33 : • �� °aw o �► 2 0 •� h n
go
h
of
h T to 3 �i'v! SS'oo Alf'-IO a 128 c.' '-
0 a ? v� • ° 1 1� '� 41 i. a 1'/,I •� ; \ ���•••fffyyy ..-`�+'
Ns�j550 ° n�jv 3 } 0« �`W. ! l N/6•!s'w �•1' a' _
`rr O `4 h \ NS 1•31 W 92 64
cl �` N42.37'W /421 56' B!1-80
'-� f•F �Q � t - N/i°3D'w 12L C8'
25
n GG!
vQ a �'��1 ���H1/•oz'w is6 68'
U 2 f33`jj NZ2 33'w 68
2 YT711/3.`—E---��N47•S!'W 6311' Y
Ng't4�9'E 62 15'
N12°0,9'E 62 73/
p� z
N30•*3E 72 25'
•�p N/S•Z9'36 f 56.
--NA4*34W 127 57'
N2_Q•02'E 61 8/'
'� �1� r N Na•35'w 48
-Ila'34 E J36 87' a�
e4 o Z Z
6a.511
N52'5!'E 27.9Z' �:yt-•
:P06 �T•_'
co
ct
6
h � �yf•�
Q ELK-80
nPARCEL MA P VO L 13119
n PARCEL MAP VOL 2b/46 oil_ € Y�
�Yy �
PORTOL A VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
�`� .. ` •-f• . Q.1
. - •�•_,•, _ -- \_�•elf ^1 � -
•J `
Y
a . :i ,,. ,• _ e s _ mar,
11 /,:_�� t.;�•��a�) ! �� i' ='� i:a�a.s��i=•� y f...r'- •✓jam �a
ems" +t• '.t``T - - r •"' 200 A
ra.
Mo
Pa&o 3 of 3
Fags 3 of 3
'/•-�•.pf7�,IJ tI I.'r', r� ± ; • \\ yr J..'•' I .
.01
� ,-�' 1 .rJ.. ,:�i 1 �•'`.l./.��•.,/••h JJ rr• ' r'�',f tr �
TJJ•.J ,r•.. •!fJ'— �.� ' , .r[ JJJ tr '� +I J'
J`rf�
•. rr .., ice• ' l.t, ,`n{ Q •Q�,Ujo
;'.. ! 'S�' r•
`� , PA RCEI. N fv/L LOYY!)AOOK �R. I Jet •�'•./�� R
r l7 ♦,
5 Clio U1Ir
P4QCEL I?
/
43)
2fl, P4RCCL I 1 U7
•�O d> 6 f•Jo'fJ or'
b._� 7
�s l 1 t• // L Jla•ww.rl 02050
1•�sr♦/• 0
• a. :+ r r JJ
r / r lid
.fre - • � ; G
.•� 17.1• t J Jp
• •r f l� p.tl IOP•de `1ti y
, d
i• u •+ �` w Ci)4RCVL I J
ti LOT' L co
Jfl It •t/r{t��. ��,` I
rco
• _s! � -S_ tom. i'
EXHIBIT 3
The real property In the Town of Portola Valley,
County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows:
All that real property in the Town of Portola Valley,
County of San Mateo, State of California, described 1
as follows:
A portion of Lot 7 as said Lot is shown on Map oade by
Shackelford L Barker In 1896 entitled "Map of the Partition
Of the Estate of Jose Antonio M.artin,:z, San Mateo County,
California, 1896" f12ed,in the office or the County Recorder
of San Mateo County on November la, !B96, In Book "B" of
Maps at page 58 and copied into Book 2 of Mars at paves
83 and 84, said portion conslstin? of 3,34 acres, more or
p leas, and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGII-NING at the most Souther!;, fcrner of Iar,:s described. in
Deed fron A. P. Bovet and wife to the County of San Mateo,
dated February 21, 1952 and recorded Pe ruary 2°, 1962 in
Book 4156 of Official Records at page 312 (Pile No. %5625-C)
Records of San Mateo County, California; THENCE aloe; the
Southwesterly boundary line of said last mentioned lams.
North 550 03' West 179.02 feet; THENCE North 72" 48' Hest
131.25 feet; THENCE North 45m 54' 50" West 251.96 feet to a
point which bears South 34e 57' West 50.00 feet fron County
Engineer's Station L 186+26.24 E.C.. as established by survey
made in 1962 for the realivrment of Alpine Road; THEVC7 North
770 57' West 155-53 feet; THENCE North 580 30' 30" Kest 91.57
feet; THENCE North 86" 29' West 58.77 feet to a point in the
Center line of Alpine Road, 40.o0 feet In width last r.entlor.ed
point being on the Northwesterly line of that. certain 512 Acre
Tract of land described in Deed to A. P. Bovet, dated June 7,
1940 and recorded August 29. 1940 In Book 916 of Official
Records at pave 80, Records of San Mateo County, California;
THENCE alonr. the center line of said Alpine Road (usln: the
azimuth contained In the last mentioned Deed to A. F. Bovet),
South 45' 36, West 42.59 feet to an anrle point therein.;
THENCE North 74' 28' West 4.97 chains; North 890 10' Rest
2.93 chains; North 72° 20' West 2.21 chains; South 531 12'
West 4.37 chains; South 80° 1%' West 2.21 chains; South 493
23' West 3.66 chains; South 260 19' West 1.58 chains; South
660 55' West 38.12 feet to the intersection thereof with the
Preliminary Survey Line of said Alpine Road at County
Engineer's Station "P" 277+21.90 P.O.T. (County Eneir.eer
Pile No. 6-1771) and the TRUE POI:;T OF BEGINNING (said point
also being at the Intersection of said Preliminary Lire and
,Brown Ranch Road); THENCE fron said true point of beTirnin;.
leaving said line of Bovet 512 Acre Tract. alon.- said
Preliminary Survey Line of Alpine Road South 280 53' 30" West
283.0% feet; THENCE South 12* 53' 30" West 189.48 feet; THENCE-
48 u 0"
D" East .11 feet• THENCE South 2 06'
06 5 3
THENCE—
South 1 . 3 S 5 3
East 334.29 feet; THENCE South 16' 06' 30" East 222.5;a feet;
rLINH I BIT
Page of 3
TF7`:CE South 640 06' 30" East 329.40 feet to County
Engineer's Station "P" 258+15.00 P.O.T.; THENCE leavinz
said Preli-inary Survey Line of Alpine Road South 25' 53'
30' West 53 feet more or less, to the intersection thereof,
with the center line of El Corte Madera Creek, and a point
in the Southwesterly boundary of said Lands of Bovet (512
Acre Tract); THENCE Northwesterly along said center lire
of El Corte Madera Creek and along said boundary (512 Acre
Tract) to the intersection thereof with the center line of�
said Brown P.anch Road; THENCE alon said center line and
continuing alone said boundary of 512 Acre Tract North 5S'
22' East 0.57 of a chain; THENCE North 36° 35' East 1.27
chains; THENCE North 18^ 09' East 1.15 chains; North 41'
18, East 1.46 chains; THENCE North 25* 12' East 1.68 crsatns;
THENCE North 660 55' East 25.90 feet to the true point of
be;lnning.
RESERVING AND EXCEPTING unto Grantors, their heirs.
successors and assigns, all water and all riparian and water rie-1ts.
easerents, rights-of-way, and privileges of every kind. character
and description which belong to. or in ary -anner appertain to.
the aforecentloned real property.
Page a of 3
EXHIBIT 2
PAP.CEL I ,
IECAL DESCRIPiLON
PORTIOS OF TYE EL CORTZ MAnERA P.A_NCUO
A!!—v that certain property situate-in the Torn of Portola Valley. County of
San Y.ateo, State of California, and being a portion of the lands ce nvefed by
Deed recorded in Volume 4416 of Deeds at Pages 452 through 465 to Corte l:adera,
a partaarship more particularly described as follows: .
8"'..,:I5:4I'.:C at the most Southerly point of ?arcel B as said parcel is s}•awrn on
that certain map entitled "Parcel Map, being a resubdivision of portion of
El Corte Fadera Rancho",recorded on August 2. 1971 in Volume 13 of Parcel Naps
at ?age 19, Records of the County P.ecorder of San Mateo County, California;
thema from said point of beginning the following courses and distances:
South 84'3435" fleet 759.46 feet
Borth 33'55'25" West 505.26 feet .
North 14'25'25" Nest 1,128.69 feet
North 5'04'35" East 621.90 feet
North 37'3435" East 921.62 feet
South 63'32'50" East 836.14 feet to a point wnicb bears
North 19'31'20" West 1.136.06 feat from the cost Nartherly point of Parcel C
as ahoua on the above said Parcel Map; said paint also being the car on corner
of Parcel C and Parcel A; thence in a Southeasterly direction South 55*02'.'0" Fast
94O:C0 feet; thence ticrrth 35'57110".Ea3t 1,135.00 feet; thence North 51'12'10"
Fist 1,770 feet sore+ or less to a point in the Northerly boundary line of the
aforesaid parcel of land, said point also being in a gulch known as )Is-.=s Culch
and wS ich bears the following courses and distances from the point of begin:ing
of the ?ands conveyed by the aforesaid deed recorded in nook 4436 of Peeds. at
Pages 452-465:
Worth 81'35'00" Hest 174.90 feat
South 85'4510O" West 123.42 feet
Borth 67'29'00" hest 154.44 feet
North 86'14'00" lest 91.08 feat
thence along said Northerly boundary and down Haaas Culch the following courses
and distances:
South 86'14'00" East 91.08 feet
South 67'29'00" East 154.44 feet
North 85'45'00" Last 123.42 feet
South 81'35'00" Esnt 174.90 feet to the point of birzinninK
of the lands corrve/ed by the aforesaid deed recorded in Souk 1.416 of Deeds at
Pages 452-/.6% thence frog referenced paint of beginning along the Easterly
boundary (Corte Madera Creek) and the Southeasturly boundary of the aforesaid
land thy+ folluwtng courses and distances:
• II
Lags I of 3 Cocatd...
€'agC f of 3
South 00'10'00" test 123-04 feet
South 18'16'00" East 163.30 feet
South 22'32'00" East 92.64 feet
South 14'10'00" West 137.28 feet
South 05'37'00" Fast 80.52 feet
South 03'23'00" Hest 103.62 feet
South 42'37'00" East 142.56 feet
Sou
th h t 1 3 59 C 0 East 124.08 felt
South 54"41100" East 32.34 feet
South 03'36'00" Past 150.48 feet
South 51*36100" E-ist 1s14.74 feet
South 21'02'00" East 196.6a feet
South 22'53'00" West 81.95 feet
South 41*73#00" East 55.00 feet-
South 66'53'00" East 75.00 feet
South 86'13'00" East 150.50 feet:
South•22'S3'00" East 88.00 feet
South'4753'00" East '63.11 feet
South 77'13'00" Nest 733.75 feat
South 21'50'00" Neat 33.04 feet:
South 35'15'00" Nest 94.48 feet _
South 24'33'00" Hest 102.47 feet
South 30'17'00" Nest 194.E6 feet
thence leavL"3 said Easterly boundary (Corte 4a2era CreeK) and the South-
easterly bouad'ary of the aforesaid land South 42'30'00" Nest 1,740 feet
n6re or leas to a Point which bears South 55' East 820.00 feet; thence
South 57• -East 910.00 feet from the most Northerly corner of Parcel C. said Poi
as shown on the aforesaid referenced Parcel Yap recorded in Volume 13 of
Parcel Baps at Page 19; thence North 57' Nest 910.00 feet and North
55' West 820.00 feet to the aforesaid cost Northerly corner of ?arcel C.
thence Northwesterly along the Northerly boundary and Westerly boLmdary of
Parcel A the following courses and distances:
North 73*50.00" Veit 770.00 feet
North 61'45'00" Nest 491.91 feet '
South 38'19130" West 177.54 feet
South 22'42'05" Nest 143.56 feet
South 40'08.2S" Neat 166_57 feet
South 00*57*15" Nest 139.80 feet
South 33'5635" Neat 177-53 nett
South 12 36 00" East 105.49 feat
South 55*12*06" East 106. 17 feet
South 85*10*10" East 149.62 feet -
South 33'24'35" East 109.06 feet
South I6'31120" West 147.72 feet '
South 34'49'45" East 61.66 feet
South 71'49'50" Last 86-79 feet
South 87'04105" East 106.70 feat
South 59'42'03" EAst 662.77 feet '
South 05-25123" East 270.53 feet
to the point o< b.slnntna ♦nd eontstnI,N apProzinarely 200 Arras of L+od.
Pago 'r o 3
�Yk� b1T
Page a of ;
EXHIBIT 4
LARCEL II
LEGAL DESCRIP2IO.4
p}may^, PORT104 OF THE EL CORE MAD--PA RAHatO
_ II (see Hap) '
ALL that certain property situate in the Torn of Portola Valley, County of
San Yateo, State of California, conveyed by Deed recorded in Volume 4416 of
Deeds at Pages 452 through 465 to Corte Madera, a partnership.
E7 :ItiG THE-REFROH that portion thereof conveyed by Deed from Corte Madera,
a 14-=-4ted partnership to the heirs and devisees of John Francis Neyian.
deceased, subject to administration and recorded April 9. 1968 in Book 5456
of Official Records at Page 529.
ALSO E.CC_?TlW. , THEREFROM:,
ALL that certain property situate-in the Town of Portola Valley. County of
San Y.ateo, State of California, and being a portion of the lands conveyed by
Deed recorded in Volume 4416 of Deeds at Pages 45� through 465 to Corte Madera.
:EGINNING'
partnership more particularly described as foll)ws:
at the most Southerly point of Parcel 8 as said parcel is shown on
that certain map entitled "Parcel Hap, being a resubdivision of portion of
E1 Corte !Madera Rancho". recorded on August 2, 1971 in Volume 13 of Parcel Maps
at Page 19, Records of the County Recorder of San !4ateo County, California;
thence from said point of b>ginning the following courses and distances:
South 8:'34'35" Vest 759.46 feet
North 33'55'25" West 505.26 feet
?north 14'25'25" West 1,128.68 feet
North 5'04'35" East 621.90 feet
North 37'34'35" Fast 921.62 feet
South 63'32'50" East 836.14 feet to a point which bears
North 19'31'20" Vest 1.136.06 feet from the most Northerly point of Parcel C
as shown on the above said Parcel Hap; said point also being the co corner
of Parcel C and Parcel A; thence in a Southeasterly direction South 55'02'50" East
940.00 ff-et; thence Nortb 35'57'10" East 1.135.00 feet; thence North 51'12'10"
East 1.580 feet more or less to a point in the Northerly boundary line of the
aforesaid parcel of land. said point also being in a gulch known as Ka=ns Gulch
and which bears the following courses and distances from the point of begianing
of the lands conveyed by the aforesaid deed recorded in Book 4416 of Deeds at
Pages 452-465:
North 81*35100" Vest 174.90 feet
South 85'45'00" West 123.42 feet
North 67'29'00" West 154.44 feet '
North 86'14'00" West 91.03 feet
Page 1 of 4
C."td...
E; H I B I T �
'age ! of �jl
then;" along said Northerly boundary and down Hasa Culch the following COut3ta
and distances:
South 86'14'60" East 91.08 feet
South 67*29,00" East 154.44 feet
North 85*45,001, East 123.42 feet
South 81'35'00" E.zst 174.90 feet to the point of beginnin3
of the lands ..--eyed by the aforesaid deed recorded In Book 4416 of Deeds at
Pages 452-465; thence front referenced point of beginning along the Easterly
boundary (Corte Madera Creek) and the Southeasterly boundary of the aforesaid
lays" the following courses and distances:
South 00'10'00" West 128.04 feet
South 18'16'00" East 163.30 feet
South 22'32100" East 92.64 feet
South 14'10'00" Kest 137.28 feet
South 05'37'00" East 80.52 feet
South 03'23'00" West 103.62 feet
South 4237'00" Ea5t 142.56 fret
South 13'59'OC" East 124.08 feet
South 54'41'00" East 32.34 feet
South 08'36'00" East 150.48 feet
South 51'36'00" East 124.74 feet
South 21'02'00" East 196AS feet
South 22'53'00" West 81.95 feet
South 41'23'00" Fast 55.00 feet
South 66'53'00" Fast 75.00 feet
South 86'13'00" East 150.50 feet
South-22'53'00" EjL,t 83.00 feet
South'47'53'00" Fast 63.11 fete
South 77'13'00" Wxst 7-13-7.5 ftftt
South 21'50'00" West 33.04 feet
South 35'15'00" West 94.48 feet .
South 24'33'00" West 102.47 feet
Swth 30'17'00" West 194.86 feet
thence leaving said Easterly boundary (Corte Madera Creex) and the South-
easterly boundary of the aforesaid land South 42'30'00" West 1,749 feet
ache or less to a point which bear& South 55'. East 820.00 feet; thence
South 57' -East 910.00 feet fro= the most Northerly corner of Parcel C• said pointl
as shown on the aforesaid referenced Parcel Map recorded in Volu_-*1e 13 of
Parcel Maps at Page 19; thence North 57' West 910.00 feet and North
55' West 820.00 feet to the Aforesaid cost Northerly corner of Parcel C;
thence Northwesterly along the Northerly boundary and Westerly bot=dary of
Parcel A the following courses and distances:
Page 2 of 4 Contd...
EXHIBI Y
PN;,C of
i
1
Korth 73'50'00" West 770.00 feet
Korth 61*45100" Went 491.91 feet
South 38•19.30" i+eae 177.54 feat �
South 22*42*05" Wes: 143.56 feet
South 40*08125" Webt 166.57 feet
South 00'57'15" West 139.80 feet
South 33'56135" West 177.53 feet
South 12'36'00" East 105.49 feet
South 55'12'06" East 106.17 feet
South 85'10'10" East 149.62 feet
South 38'24135 East 109.06 feet
South 16'31'20" West 147.72 feet
South 34'49'45" East 61.66 feet
South 71*49150" East 86.79 feet _
South 87'04'05" East 106.70 feet
South 59'42'03" East 662.77 feet
South'05'25'23" East 270.58 feet
to the point of beginning, said Parcel I containing approximately 200 Acres of Land.
410CETFE2 S,'IT4 easements and rights-of-way over, across and under adjacent
lards of grants- for utilLcies, fire and police service, public trails and
public access and the concomitant right to mi intain, restore, replace or
remove any of said lines and facilities.
Said Parcel II containing approximately 537 acres of land.
Psge 3 of 4
Page 3 or `�
t
1 1
1 i
f ;Y • '� .1 t v. �NI i
s••`� ie fil:' ;R !i ti_:r'r'r'�• iti � '�•�; •..•w Z.
It _ •i• i{• i 7 2
r � i �.�i ... .. ._• .�_ � ,1T;.r`t.t ��T• tea.
S• 7~ i•� .ii � •� .r�?. �I tea• -�f ..
r'' ;.r .;:; , � �-ice;t i • � •t /� r
Karma'DSO
i
i
QD
53
i •
ti Pat* 4 of 4
,'$IBiT
p
Y ��•y�O t T
M-8 5-57
(Meeting 85-08
April 10 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 4, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench General Manager
SUBJECT: Scheduling of Tour of District Lands with San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors
Introduction: Towards the end of 1984 then-President Wendin spoke
with San Mateo County Supervisor Ward about the possibility of a
tour of District preserves, particularly in San Mateo County. County
staff and I polled our respective boards and arrived at a tentative
date of April 9 1985.
P �
It turns out that this date would present difficulties for both boards.
Discussion: The Supervisors prefer a Tuesday afternoon since that is
the time they normally schedule field trips. From a telephone poll of
your Board, it appears that the earliest dates we could schedule a
Tuesday afternoon would be May 14 and 21 . I expect to hear from County
staff prior to your April 10 meeting as to the availability of the
Supervisors.
Recommendation: I recommend that you schedule a Special Meeting at
2 P.M. on an agreed-upon date to convene at the CalTrans parking lot
at the junction of State Highway 84 (Woodside Road) and Interstate 280,
to take a field trip to tour District land with the San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors.
I
i
i
M
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 4, 1985
XEROX XEROX is a trademark of XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX
-----
To Our Customers :
I have just completed service on your Xerox -- - 1 .✓_" --- --------
This letter represents the copy quality it is now producing .
Xerox "Call Management" procedures have been followed to maximize
performance . I use this document to ensure your machine is delivering
peak copy quality . If the machine requires attention in the future and
you are unable to correct the problem , please call our Work Support
Centerat ------ - —--- -- - - - - ------ - - - ---- ---
Our goals are to provide you with the most reliable Xerox products
producing the best possible copy quality . In addition to unscheduled
maintenance service , we also perform equipment update changes to
improve our machines , provide operator training so you can maximize
the capabilities of your Xerox machine , and provide Customer
Call Assistance which will often solve your problem with a simple
phone call . Remember , when calling , just give us your machine ' s
nine digit serial number, which is
and we ' ll do the rest .
j Xerox procedure authorizes copy credits based on either spoiled
copies , caused by a machine malfunction and/or test copies made dur-
ing service . I have indicatedbelow those copies that meet either of
these conditions . This is foryour information as the credits listed
will be automatically applied to any subsequent invoice .
Sincerely,
7 AA
Ar
Xerox Service Re esentative
Copy Credits Issued:
Service Credits
Bad Copy Credits----
Total Copy Credits
Thank you for your business .
Xerox Corporation, Rochester , New York
82P509
(716) 423-9200
MARCH 22, 1985
Local Agency Formation Commission
County Government Center, East Wing
San Jose, Ca. 95110
Dear Ms. Lazuras:
I'm writing in regards to the application by Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District for annexation of nine parcels into it's district.
These are shown on the attached copy of MROSD map labeled Exhibit B. These
are properties which the district purchased outside of the district's
boundry and now wishes to include. This is a procedure which should be
discouraged. It creates inholdings of private residents and a tendency
toward district sprawl. The expansion of MROSD in the neighborhood in this
fashion has many residents confused, upset and concerned.
Six of the parcels proposed for annexation shown as (BCDEFG) should
not be annexed at this time. Their annexation is illogical due to the
nature and the location of the properties. The annexation would adversely
impact a great many neighboring residents.
The properties connect to MROSD's Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve on
it's south west border along a small mid section and circle to attach to
it's southern corner. Annexation of these six parcels would create a four
parcel inholding of private residents who do not wish to join the district
or become an "inholding". The districts boundry line presently runs along
the south western side of the ridge, away from most private residences. It
would be changed to jog down the steep hillside to the creek, across the
creek and up the otherside, where it would border a rural residental neigh-
borhood, before jogging back to the creek. In the future, the creek might
be considered as a logical boundry line.
MROSD has included these parcels in SROSP. This preserve is to be
MROSD's most used emphasized preserve. There are plans for elaborate hiking
and equestrian trails, varied other facillities including those for over-
night camping. The six parcels in question are composed of steep rugged land
and riparian corridors. These are ecologically fragile areas. They are hazardous
areas. The inclusion of these areas in SROSP's extensive trail system will
adversly affect the environment and create an attractive nusiance.
In the application from MROSD it is stated that the present use of these
lands is "public open space with hiking and equestrian trails; rural
residential". These lands are presently rural residential lands. The only
"trails" are private resident easment roads and native animal paths. MROSD
has not created, cleared or constructed any hiking or equestrian trails on
any of the parcels to be annexed.
Pag- two
Presently these lands serve as wildlife sanctuaries, particularily along
the riparian corridor. If MROSD plans to open these lands using existing
"trails" it will be devastating to the reparian corridor, animal trails
and a attractive nusiance on residential roads.
Road access to these six parcels is presently limited to one single
lane country road. This road serves rural residents whose mail boxes are
located outside the locked gate at Skyline Blvd. The road is presently
used by residents and property owners to access their homes and properties.
If MROSD annexes these parcels they will eventually develop their trail
system and need to enforce their ordinances. The use of the road for
construction, maintenance and patrolling purposes will be an overburden.
Proposed use of an aquired home at the end of this road would also increase
traffic. It is unfair to force owners and residents who have improved and
maintained at great personal expense a private easement road over the years,
to assume the burden of the public and public use.
The use of the land is changing drastically. The once rural residential
neighborhood is becoming a public park. There are liability and tresspass
concerns. when MROSD says our road is now a public trail, Who is liable if the
public is hurt by a vehicle also using "trail" on neighboring private land
or by pets guarding their territory? MROSD PROVIDES NO FACILITIES AND
MINIMAL DIRECTION. Residents don't wish to provide for public sanitation
facilities, phone booths or general information.
The addresses of seven of the residents living on the properties to be
annexed is 22400 Skyline Blvd. , as is my own. There are twenty or so homes,
with forty or more people who have differing box numbers at this address.
It is an illogical district process to annex a small portion of a neighorhood
in the proposed fashion.
I strongly feel this annexation should not go through as presented. The
six parcels focused upon here especially deserve further study in terms of their
use, present and proposed, access and address.
I understand I will receive your "Executive officer"s Report". If these
issues are not already addressed in that report I would appreciate your further
response to them.
II
Sincerely,
Carol Doose
22400 Skyline Blvd. Bx. 21
La Honda, Ca 94020
�'l \\\ '\ .\ /� ( �• � \ \ �\•\` 1�:\�� \ \\�� �� tip:
vv:;
No
;_i� „�y,"". � ' \ \ \ \ �` ONT
BELLO
�7
SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
Q-1
20
F Meii
C
SKYLINE COUNTY
M it I.,
lzzz�,_V/
I
_
N Wo f �lr
M.R.0.S.D.
30 ARY
-SCALE
20001 NO T
..... Test
.2.,j
'DPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
-OPOSED AJIMXATION: MIDPEP41NSULA PRESERVES, 1985 %LONG RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
PROPOSED AREA k
EA OF ANNEXATION
'Il LQ
MOSD LANDS
STATE 6 COUNTY PARKLANDS f
RCEL
ASSESSOR'S NUMBER ij
k•
it 6
A 080-282-030 :k
080-390-060
c
080-390-050 1>1jf
D
080-390-050
E
080-400-060
F
080-400-070
G
080-400-020
H
085-160-230
085-160-94n
March 21, 1985
MROSD
375 Distel Circle
Suite D-1
Los Altos, Ca. 94022
ATTENTION: Herb Grench,
General Manager
Dear Mr. Grench:
At the March 13, 1985 MROSD board meeting I questioned you regarding
your response given on an application to LAFCO for annexation of properties
shown on your attached exhibit B.
On the application you stated "public open space with hiking and
equestrian trails" as the present use of the areas to be annexed. I
questioned the existence of said trails. If I'm correct, your response was
that there were no trails constructed by MROSD for public hiking and
equestrian purposes. However, you felt that your statement on the application
was correct and acceptable due to the presence of roads and animal trails
on the property when purchased by the district.
I cannot help but interpret your statements to mean that your procedure
is to purchase rural land which as previously served the rural residential
and wildlife population and then open these lands to the public without
concern for existing populations.
If the district wishes to open lands for the public to use, the district
should construct public trails at a respectful distance from animal trails,
and vehicle access roads.
The method you have implied of opening animal trails to the public
will adversely affect the wildlife population especially in such ecologically
fragile areas, as the riparian corridor along Lambert and Peters Creek.
Taking over these existing trail systems is typical of mans devastating
domination of nature. This adds to destruction of wildlife not preservation.
Use of rural residential roads as open space trails is equally ludicrous.
These roads are narrow, single lane country roads which are used by residents.
In the case of the properties to be annexed, the sole access road to the
properties (BCDEFG) has been created and maintained at great private cost
by property owners and residents. There have already been incidents and
near accidents due to the conflicting use of the road by open space hikers
and residential commuters.
I strongly recommed you review your stance that it is in the public
best interest and best serves the purpose of enviromental protection to
aquire land and then open it to the public prior to construction of appropriate
people paths.
ZINN
��\ \\ \ \ MONTE BELLO �<
���.':;':Y( •ti, ,!;: *�� \\� \\. \, � � OPEN S
SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE M\
Jet-JT/;I`1;^ + (•`� 'R�E�R .R �! •� � � •\.�\\\\ti `\'•
_`/�// 1 �, �• ��1 �\ \\\•\ }'ij •� •Vim: \ \ .� •► .,i\•, V
71
r 04 ` , s J,:rl. \ �_v_'' t'
� � is�•).-,` � ��\,\
`
t ,_
\,�'�'�`\J•' _ `� \ -Ni
f ,� l ;mow! L":;�t \\`\\\`. ✓ - \\`� \,, \�\�\\�\ i
UPI
' _\•`�\'!a •�� .•.-C�.,f( l •,, ,., 11 .`.J\.• - :'.l�•: `\�� r -1.— SKYLINE COUNTY P
\"l+ o°o q f l �� ,'(it�fr �- ,•, \ \ \ ;i [•`r% �.:.'�� ice` t`\ \ `yt.` \\`�
:'o' " _ �\\ ✓ �1. �,J r - - v-ti���i�i.! � \ �\ \\ t\' �\
g, 1,0o. J.1lf M.R.O.S D BO • DARY A \ ` \
-SCALE r
.. _ - 2000 NOtTHTe
•.�.—.r,.- �z�z---ccoy\ ,~� z z :��'� I,
'DPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPA l n ���
ACE DISTRICT ,\ �
'OWED ANNEXATION: MIDPENINSULA PRESERVES, 1985 � -.' LONG RIDGE
v OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
MD PROPOSED AREA OF ANNEXATION \\ /
MROSD LANDS
�-
\ STATES COUNTY PARKLANDS
CEL ASSESSOR'S NUMBER
1�, 1---ter'.;•� {�`�. �r�' =`.,�, ' \�� 1
080-282-030
G 080-390-060
080-390-050 ) !f
080- t
080-400-060
080-400-070
080-400-020 �'
5-160-230 4 Q'. s�� � � y;�e�0�i•v•�,�( j�
I _ 085-160-21+n );� t_. ram'=" �;,;• =,- - ••'=;����1��`�. T�I �/:+��'il i��"
two
I would appreciate a response from you on this matter. It is possible
I have misunderstood your procedure, or perhaps you have neglected to
consider the neighborhoods, wildlife and people, into„MROSD has moved.
w t--G4-
Sincerely,
Carol Doose
22400 Skyline Blvd. Bx. 21
La Honda, Ca 94020
Enc:
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
LAFC San Jose
LAFC Redwood City
Jim Warren (PCA)
Portola Heights Assoc.
NN
\\ �� IT � \
\'
�x. \\\ \ \ p
mom\
kN
Ail N
+
�'•�� yMM11�
�`�t�:' SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE \�
1 M y
Jam_ ��, ' \/� ��' \ \•� � / � ^,, •\ �\l� -J,\'iV � \ ��
_ \
•� \. � D 1:, SKY
LINE AUNTY ARK
`� ,9•l1 0�i�• / ' 11\�l�%r )1• ��+�<C� •� �� - 1, �' �\�.\ •` �\ . . \\ � `'`��\ j
Mv
E,i lF
u _ \ � ♦� ,
M.R.o BOUI�DA Y
+ `) t r ♦ !- 0/ 1.t9,�-�;����;� . J 1,a �i/J/�� yriya v/•r��, \ , _�/J�j ✓r ;'J
MJ, I I .../1. I l(+ r 7�/l_"`-_ \ �i s':_�..ti` �,• 1�_+,1�/�; Y�`l/)>/`
UP-,
v��
C SCALE 1 = 2000' % l Z
v /
OPEN INSULA REG IO:Lo! OPEN SPACE DISTRICT �����+''� \� \`•�\ ��+\��•' ��
OPOSED ANNEXATION: MIDPENINSULA PRESERVES, 1985 _ o
LONG RIDGE OPEN .SPACE PRESERVE
PROPOSED AREA OF ANNEXATION
MROSO
LANDS
'y STATE 6 COMTY PARKLANDS - \
`ZCEL ASSESSOR'S NUMBER
A 080-282-030 {'�� \���•,rf
Y 080_ SO �i ' ,
C 080390-0 50 +> r
080-390-050 r ►p' r \
E 080-400-060 + \` --. ,
F 080-400-07r
080-400-0, r-�^J -!
=1 085-160-2 0 ' /
errW�4;
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 28 , 1985
Ms, Carol Doose
22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box ,,21
La Honda, California 94020
Subject: Trails on Lands Proposed for Annexation to District
Dear Ms. Doose:
I am writing in response to your Marc-. 21 letter which follows up
your question to me at our March 13 Board neeting regarding the
statement in our annexation appl-ic-atio.- (Midnen-J -4sula Preserves,
1985) regarding present uses of the lands to beannexed. To
reiterate, my statement regarding uses is a general statement
referring to all (not each) of the parcels in the application.
There are, for example, well develo-ed-4 , wide public hiking and
equestrial trails (former ranch rz--ds) on the Chesebrough lands
and no significant human-made trails cn the former P.O.S.T. parcel
"G" . LAFCO did not require (or wa_--,-:) a specific detailed physical
site anaylsis of each parcel , and Thus my state-,Ientt on general
uses was made in the context of the LAFCO application for annexa-
tion.
Regarding our trail planning procedures, we have always taken into
consideration sensitive wildlife habitat areas and road easement
areas leading to adjacent private lands to assure that the natural
environment, the trail users, and easement holders are all accom-'
modated with as much compatibility as possible. Our primary goal
is the protection of the natural resource, with the degree of
public access that is encouraged to be consistent with the natural
qualities of the specific area.
It is interesting to note that wildlife is becoming increasingly
more visible and abundant at our "close-in" more developed pre-
serves, such as Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, Monte Bello
and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves , where many new trails have
been constructed and public use is the highest. Trail construction,
wildlife biologists have noted, has actually aided some animals
in some cases in gaining access to areas, or fleeing them, much
more quickly than on their own less defined routes. Animals which
are becoming more evident at the more heavily used preserves
include deer, bobcat, coyote, and even occasionally mountain lion,
as well as all the smaller animals and birds.
Herbert A.G,ench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Dully,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop.Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
.........
Ms. Carol Doose
March 28 , 1985
Page 2
We will not be constructing new trails in those lands to be
annexed without the appropriate public hearing and Use and Manage-
ment Plan. We frankly cannot imagine the public flocking to the
Lambert and Peters Creek areas in great numbers due to the remote-
ness and difficulty of the terrain and access. For this reason,
I believe the lands and neighbors will remain relatively undis-
turbed.
I understand that you will be attending the meeting of the Portola
Heights Road Committee with David Hansen and Craig Britton in our
office on Tuesday to discuss your access road over the District's
Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. I believe that meeting can
resolve some of the trail use issues regarding that route (which
we, incidentally, cannot overburden with public uses because the
District owns the underlying fee . We wish, however, to
mitigate and resolve the conflicts which you feel are being
created by the public pedestrian and --questrian uses along the
route.
I hope this letter has helped answer s=ne of your questions. Please
call Craig Britton on District acc:uisition and easement matters,
David Hansen on wildlife protection and other land management items,
or me.
Very truly yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:cac
,,,-~cc: MROSD Board of Directors
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
IB041 BARATOGA-LC38 GATOS ROAD
MONTE S ERENO, CALIFORNIA 95030
408-354-7635
March 20, 1985
Rod Diridon, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara County
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Mr. Diridon:
At its last meeting the City Council of Monte Sereno passed
the enclosed resolution. - The possibility of imminent development
was brought to our attention by a group of County hillside residents.
Monte Sereno is very concerned with the direction to be taken by the
County with respect to the mountain slopes behind Monte Sereno. As
you know, much of this property is part of El Sereno Open Space Pre-
serve; it is accessible by foot from Monte Sereno as the enclosed
map shows. We are concerned not only at the prospect of losing our
wooded backdrop (the building and scarring on Montezuma Acres behind
Los Gatos, under the County's jurisdiction, is not reassuring) but at
losing access to open space.
It is our understanding that the owner of the property adjoining
El Sereno Open Space Preserve received a permit from you to remove
brush and went ahead and did a considerable amount of grading without
permit. We realize that the County does not have the personnel to
police every permit. I would like to call your attention to the fact
that this is a common practice of grading contractors in mountain
areas. This kind of unsupervised cutting results in loss of trees,
damage to water sources, etc, even before any authorized development
begins.
Ideally, from the point of view of Monte Sereno, the property
to the west presently being considered for development could become
part of the El Sereno Preserve. Once the land is built on that
possibility is lost forever.
Sincerely,
Dorothea F. Bamford
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: t/Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
DFB/rp
RESOLUTION NO. 935
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HILLSIDES
RESOLVED , by the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno ,
County of Santa Clara , State of California , that ,
WHEREAS, the hillsides adjacent to or above the Monte
Sereno sphere of influence are important to the residents of
Monte Sereno as valuable open space , and
WHEREAS , the hillsides adjacent to or above Monte Sereno
are a part of the environment of Monte Sereno . and
WHEREAS , development on these hillsides will have a
negative impact on roads in the area , on the stability of the
slopes , on fire hazard , water sources , and on the watershed , and
WHEREAS , development of the hillsides will have a nega-
tive quality the on impact im a u
P q ty of life in Monte Sereno ,
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City
Council of the City of Monte Sereno urges the County of Santa
Clara to review carefully the hillside area adjacent to or
above Monte Sereno and to minimize development in that area .
REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March ,
1985 .
Dorothea Bamford , Mayor
ATTEST :
ir:�irurl:c3ra is a c:,rl:: py
iayAFuado , City Cler
of if orig;rai ca 11'"-, in is-Js ofi1C<i
A'tf:.i: Fay Fall"t—nGlO
ei;y C erk, of [he City of tv'oOnte Sereno
Daiod / � S
NA�PRO
National Association of County Park and Recreation Officials
An
o Affiliate of the National Assciation Of Counties
440 0
First Str(,,,(-t N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 202/393-6226
F t1i t1CSj)0I1d10t11(-individual in(iWate(L
1
PRESIDENT
Gene Young,Superintendent March 25, 1985
BREC(East Baton Rouge Parish
Recreation and Park Commission)
P O.BoxI5887
Baton Rouge,[A 70895
Phone (504)272-9200 Herbert Grench, General Manager
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Midpenisula Regional Open
Jerrold Soesbe,Director
Lake County Forest Preserve District Space District
2000 North Milwaukee Avenue 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-I
Libertyville,IL 60048 Los Altos, California 94022
Phone (312)367-6640
SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Dear Mr. Crench:
William C.Scolzo,Director
Department of Parks,Recreation and
Cultural Affairs,County of Essex Congratulations, the Board of Directors of the
115 Clifton Avenue
Newark,NJ 07104 National Association of County Park and Recreation
Phone (201)482-6400 Officials (NACPRO) has selected your nominee, The
SECRETARY-TREASURER Docent Program of the Midpensuila Regional Space
Lou E.Tsipis,Executive Director-Secretary District, to receive the FRIEND AWARD.
Cleveland Metroparks System
4101 Fulton Parkway
Cleveland,Ohio 44144 This Award will be presented to your nominee
Phone (216)351-6300 at the NACPRO's Award Banquet on Sunday, July 14,
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 1985, in Orlando, Florida, during the National
Clifton French Association of Counties Annual Conference.
7050 Woodland Trail
Greenfield,MN 55373
Phone (612)477-5959 Final arrangements have not been made as to exact
location and/or cost of the Awards Banquet but should
be forthcoming within the next month. As soon as
that information is available, we will provide to
you.
As Sponsor of your Award nominee, you are requested
to make every effort to have your Award recipient
in attendance at the Awards Banquet. NACPRO will
host your nominee and their spouse or companion at
the Awards dinner.
Herbert Grench
Page Two
March 25, 1985
In case that you or your nominee are unable to
attend the Awards Banquet, would you please advise
how you would like for us to forward you the Award
plaque?
Thank you for participating in the NACPRO Awards
Program and again, congratulations.
Sincerely,
Frank L. Stramler
Awards Chairman
FLS:hs
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 10, 1985
DRAFT # 6 Meeting 85-07
DRAFT AGENDA ITEMS
Meeting Date:April 10
-A N
Name on Lead Report
Status
Category # Time Title
(min.) Agenda I Responsibility
OBWAR 1 5 Stour 2nd Reading David David. done
5 15 Santa Cruz Annexation
Resolution Herb Herb drafted
2 5 Windy Hill 2nd Reading David David final
3 5 \�s Trancos 2nd Reading David David final
Th rn ewood U & M Plan drafted
NBWAR 6 Re i
30 ew David i David
\ti 7S
8 30 Revi s to Policies re -_-se
by 0 de Groups
Ferb David
US
Dedicatiiclean-Up
10 10 Resolu t Herb Herb drafted
sQlut
OBW,AR 9 15, office Space Craig Craig
NBWAR 7 5
Corte Madera Trail ment
Resolution
Craig Craicr
1
n c� d IN �J I� o
6 L9 � m
I
1
11641 SUGNX UIST\
I OS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA 94022
Planning and Conservation League Foundation
909 12th Street le Sacramento, California 95814 • 916/444-8726
cf�rman
David 1,Hnsch
Exec WireD9rec'tor April 8, 1985
Gerald H.Meral.Ph.D. A
c�eralC04.r,.ef Sacramento, C
Carey Brown
Board of Dkedon
Gerry fort
Dwight Steele
William Wilt oxen URBAN GREENBELT BOND ACT PROJECT: ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING #1
AGENDA
1:00 - 1:15 Introduction and Opening Remarks - Jerry Meral
PRIMARY ISSUES
1:15 - 1:30 Focus: Is this a viable idea and do we want to proceed?
1:15 - 2:00 Location of Lands: What is the area we are discussing.
2:00 - 2:15 Definition of "urban"
2:15 - 2:45 Public Benefits and Encouraging Support
2:45 - 3:00 BREAK
SPECIFICS
3:00 - 3:10 General Remarks - Pete Dangermond
3:10 - 3:30 Allocation of Funds
3:30 - 4:00 Criteria
4:00 - 4:30 Local Involvement and Adminsitration of Lands and Funds
4:30 - 4:50 Amount of Funding and Additional Comments
4:50 - 5:00 Conclusion - Jerry Meral
t.
Planning and Conservation League Fo
undation
90912th Street 0 Sacramento, California 95814 • 916/444-8726
Chairman
L—11 L.Hnxh
Executive Direclor URBAN GREENBELT BOND ACT PROJECT: ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING #1
General Counsel AGENDA
Board of Directors April 8, 1985
t;e+ry Fero I
D—ghl swele• Sacramneto, CA
1 +16,tm t'4+k ux en
I. Statement of Purpose
II. Primary Issues
III. Specifics of the Act
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
A. The Urban Greenbelt Bond Act:
To provide funds to urban areas for the purpose of acquiring land and land
use rights on the urban periphery. These lands are to be preserved in agri-
cultural and other productive uses in perpetuity.
B. The Advisory Task Force:
To define the concept and objectives of urban greenbelts and to outline
specifications of a bond act designed to achieve these objectives.
C. Urban Greenbelts:
-To preserve a wide range of productive lands on the urban periphery in
the uses to which they are best suited; this includes preserving agricul-
tural lands for agriculture, park and recreational lands for public use,
and environmentally sensitive lands for wildlife habitats and scenic areas
and to avoid natural hazards to development;
-To help define urbanized areas and maintain a sense of urban and community
identity;
-To enhance and maintain the quality of life in major urban areas in California.
i
PRIMARY ISSUES SURROUNDING THE URBAN GREENBELT CONCEPT
A. Focus of the act: What are the reasons for re ervin p s g agricultural and other
productive lands on the urban periphery that should be defined in this act?
B. Location of lands:
1 . What is the area to be affected by this act?
2. How far should these lands be from urbanized areas?
3. Should special consideration be given to lands in or near existing produc-
tive agricultural regions, existing parks or other open space areas?
-1-
s
C. Definition of Urban: How should the term "urban" be defined for the purposes
of this act?
Bureau of Census definition of urban:
1 ) an urbanized area consisting of densely settled areas in a city and the
surrounding suburbs;
2) any place outside an urbanized area of 2500 or more people.
D. Public Benefits:
1 . How will this act benefit the urban public and owners of lands to be
preserved?
2. What are the effects of preserving lands on the urban periphery on air
and water quality, livability of cities and other urban aesthetics?
3. What are the economic benefits?
4. What are the benefits of fostering local involvement?
E. Encouraging Support:
9 9 PP
1. How do we incorporate the needs of special interest groups?
2. Which terms do we need to define and what buzzwords do we need to avoid?
3. What should our approach be to the idea of development rights?
SPECIFICS OF THE ACT THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
A. Distribution Funds:
o f How should funds be allocated
1. Through competitive grants
2. Per capita allocation by county
3. Per capita allocation by region
4. Through legislative action
5. A combination of the above
B. Possible Criteria for Project Eligibility:
1 . The use of lands to be preserved: priority for high-value agricultural
lands, wildlife habitats, lands with aesthetic value or lands usable for
recreation.
2. Inclusion of these lands in existing county, regional , open space or other
land protection plans.
3. Size of lands to be considered for preservation.
4. Contiguous arrangement of individual parcels of land in a given area.
5. Benefit to public of preserving these lands.
C. Local Involvement:
1. What should the relationship be between local planning departments, park
departments, open space districts, non-profit land trusts and other local
organizations?
2. How do we involve open space districts, land trusts and other local org-
anizations, both in the process of land and land use rights acquisition
and in the administration of these acquisitions?
-2-
D. Administration:
1. Will State Parks and Recreation Department administer preserved lands?
2. Which local agencies will administer preserved lands?
E. Amo
unt of Funding; Wh
at is an acce
ptable amount for this act and how should
funds be broken down?
F. Other: What components should be added to the act in order to gain
constituencies?
-3-
\ tlelo,
4)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 3, 1985
Mr. Andrew Allison
Town Council, Los Altos Hills
City Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Andy:
I was sorry to hear that your notice of the Skyline Ridge
hearing arrived late. It turns out that you weren' t the
i
only one affected in spite of the fact that the notices
were sent out a week in advance.
The Board did adopt the plan on March 27 . Thank you for
your interest.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
W116c: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert A.Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
U
00ast & skvl I*
��l• �f Tyf��r f•I��
0
v p R B
ac��s °k�}° 'od s�
4'�,4'.� �°s ;�1a� ��}� a�'o
�ca � �
or ��•
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACF,, p 3�, Q'� e, �}°Ye 0Q,y° o<b °�,'�tr �l Q" O
• °��' �eo `bo`os c dal'�1�Flo ar ?l � °�`� k�o 1r°
RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY CONSIDEAAi� fc�o ff°k s,��'�� sc��Qrfl�yko C.
° �y �A j�����1� ° y`�� °� , (�
USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT Dr,o �.SJ�e3�a��,��j����°�t' ls��01�- *r���o�ojo,��s �'to %o��+ A �q�y�,p�a�1� e
° L �F d °�c���°L��°�'�'?, ''g�°�c�7`0 7�a �}o�Q'�'�ro'' ?I �� Q' d � �o�
DATE OF s �s s �` d a� S ��. o� -3
d��� o f 97d� f , �s��� q_ 4, ' s ��, a �,o ,�. Q'.r�° o�d� �,� cos •��,
ADOPTION VOTE e Q' o C� �', Q' or. �'' 1° "�o q,,'��S �° lfco z; �' j of f4
sy a� �c bo a�'o Q' �`kflc' ��0`'� y `'�o e �° ° ��j' Q,'
5/08/74 5-0 Rz �S•�ba �$S0 1 Os � ol�t�QQ'�° �`C�, k a T�` s goo . �',�, a 394
k�• �s �' 1If • sa e o° f �?o �a °�j �S� fj• �o
�✓ S o oe. s s T s s 0 1' 1' Q' �` t Q' �,D s o
0 0 o j if.�° e l �' o o A o �,
141 �%s°�r��` � ��•°%s�0 �°s g °s �� �� �o�'o�fQ' l s� 6 ��� 47
1/2 2/7 5 5 0 s s �0 o� �S° a yd tt,`0 L °�" �o ��S 04, 4
&° ° S',�yd°o���'a� %�°°js �'1�jy¢�tl��j°fl�� ° a �o°��1��6 s /°;?1 Olk 68
10/08/7 5 5-0 0. � l °�,°tq� d r!? s�?30 os lfy A° �� A� dys f�4�.
• aZil a �S. 1G C'o � �° U� ��ay 1rj �? • �d �l
6/13/7 9 6-0 Ra ° ,y �t, o 7 1 �1. trl o� �� 80
°a Qcy,�jQ' �� e,> -o+:�° °*��s -1 �° s ' o
2/27/80 7-0 Monte °d,S,4 oe o�jo� �° so �a' C��'dl'�°?" e�, *, 1ctures ** 97
•A6°a -0 kos , ° �� 2S s'� to �o °�.
7/09/80 5-0 Russian v ps�� sjfds�'o�°6a�oj� �ot�cS °,,�° ,3 238
S cS',� 1,g o° j•�i1Q' J, ail flQ, rl0 0
2/25/81 7-0 Foothills ��° .f-vyf °y°� j� o4°s �d�%, A1,(
9/28/81 7-0 Los Gatos Creek �Q, - �, �f�ss �y �a� cco°'�. cant 267
1/27/82 6-0 Hassler °�' °�?Q�'os%��• �,� 1° � � Many 293
1/25/84 7-0 Coal Creek �'� .C' ti Vacant 15
Ijs�
-- 5
2-5 Coal Creel, Doo�°h 020,E Vacant
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 29, 1985
County of Santa Clara
Local Agency Formation Commission
70 West bedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Members of the Cc=nission:
In January the Midpeninsula Regiona7 C-pen Space District submitted
an application (called Midpeninsula- -m-rese-rves, 1933) to you for
annexation of lands totalling 471 acres along Skyline Boulevard
in San I'lateo County. The District as well as yo-u,-?- staff sent
copies of the materials to the San County LAFCO for review.
On March 20 San Mateo County LAFCC the matter and
voted 3-2 to request jurisdiction cn this and future proposed Dis-
trict annexation in San Mateo Cc-,=-v .
I respectfully urge you to den.; the requests for the following !
reasons:
(1) The District owns 90% of the land in fee or easement and has
the consent of the private property owners.
(2) The land is adjacent to other District land and is within
the District' s duly adopted Sphere of Influence.
(3) The Sphere of Influence as proposed in 1983 was reviewed by
San Mateo County LAFCO which offered no objection.
(4) Unlike the Santa Cruz County annexation which also involved
the concurrent extension of the Sphere of Influence where
the District was getting into a new County that was unfamiliar
with the District, the District has been active in San Mateo
County for almost nine years.
(5) Santa Clara County LAFCO has handled the District' s San Mateo
County matters for those nine years.
(6) About 70% of the District' s tax revenue is paid by Santa
Clara County taxpayers for acquistion and operations in both
Counties, and the lands in question are much more accessible
on a population basis to Santa Clara County residents.
Herbert A Grench,General Manager Board or Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
LAFCO
Santa Clara County
March 29, 1985
Page two
The San Mateo County LAFCO request appears to be purely politically
motivated. Reasons given for the requests had to do with the
Hassler litigation, complaints from some Skyline residents, and
continuing unhappiness with the original 1976 annexation of southern
San Mateo County. The District is working very hard to resolve the
Hassler litigation so that harmonious relations with the San Mateo
County Board of Supervisors can be restored for the good of the
public both agencies serve. We are also having a workshop to hear
from the Skyline landowners about their concerns which have resulted
or surfaced from a procedure the District instituted in compliance
with the Brown Act. We would be happy to meet with you or with
San Mateo County LAFCO to bring you u; to date on District activi-
ties and to answer questions.
We regret that you have been brought into a poll -4cal situation not
of your making and that, in effect , vz,-- have he asked to take sides
by granting their request. We fervent- y hone that vou will consider
the District ' s annexation request on 7:s -me r i t S
Sincerely yours,
Teena Henshaw, President
Board of Directors
TH:ej
c: MROSD Board of Directors
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 11, 1985
I
COMMITTEE FOR GREEN OTHILLS 0 1285
Peninsula Conservation Center 0
2253 Park Blvd., Palo Alto,California 94306
Phone: 327-5906 or 328-5313
C
Co,)nty of '),-n nt l, Clars, p-j.1 77
HONORARY PRESIDENT
Wallace Stegner -10-1-lisssion
7, -,,Ai-st q.2- 1dinrT
PRESIDENT
Len Erickson r" 9511 10
VICE PRESIDENTS Dear 71 em b-I-s of th- Corl qission :
Marilyn Baunedel
David Bomberger
Sandra Cooperman V- urc,-- you to approve the routine request by
Ciddy Wordell th� Mlidlpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
SECRETARY annex 471 �cr"s of land .,rithin thn miR')SD sp"I3re
Betsy Crowder of influence and in San ',',,--,teo County.
TREASURER 'Fur`h—er-ore ue recommcnd that Barbara Behling f You d-�n y San
Mateo 'County LAFCO's request for jitrisdiction on
BOARD OF DIRECTORS n �xt Cea c ountMaron Blukis y.
Douglas Fuchs
Terry Lobdell 14e base our position on -a nurnber of precedents
Sara Macl and reasons. Haw,-w, v e r.,
Marc McGee I th 7nost Sly
gnificant
Jeff Miller issue for your consideration is the need to
Hans Morawitz mAintain a (,.0- oar and consistent process for
Jerry Perkins !-i a n d 1. i n f; d i s t r i c t boundary j u r i s d i c t i o n
Cindy Rubin
Jim Wheeler dc -lisions. Tole request before you is for a
routine annexation which originally w a s
ADVISORY COUNCIL, r e c o ri rn e n lo d b y t h e S,a n "I�1 t eo, :3 County LkFCO Donald Aitken
Pat Barrentine E.xc�cutive. To split the MROSD District be''wenn
Betsy Bechtel Santa Cl,)ra and San x1ateo, confuses the lines of
Chris Berl
Robert Brown responsibility and would involve Santa Clara
Mary Davey County LAFCO in complex side issues whicli qre
Walter Droste not, its responsibility and are irrelevant to
Barbara Eastman
John Gilliland L�F:1'0 bound��iry decisions.
Bob Girard
Nonette Hanko W--her reasons for our recommendations are that
Lois Hug
Ellie Huggins Clar,-t County Lt,,FCO `,as handled MROSI)
Thomas Jordan,Jr boundary issues for t-In e last 13 years a n d
Bill Leland
aoproved t'ne current t,IROSD sphere of influence
Sidney Liebes In 19;)3 79,-, of the district 1--)nds are within
Bob Mark
Richard Merk Sgntn C 1 n r a C o,,i n t y. The property owners
Diana Miller
involved have Pgre��d to th�- annexati
Alan Newlands on.
Nils Nilsson
George Norton Sinc?r-ly yours ,
Bob Reese
Jean RLISMore
Isabel Sewell
Jon Silver
Frances Spangle C •iddy Wordell , Pr --sid,�nt
John Stoddard
Ruth Troetschler
Howard Wilshire of Dircqtors .
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATES
Linda Ell
Lennie Roberts
COORDINATOR
Georgia Perkins A REGIONAL GROUP WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
M
MIOPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Fic:hard Bishop
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: 4/11/85
I
APR 4 1985
3/29/85
Enquirer- Bill etin
961 Laurel St
San Carlos CA 94070
Editor;
In your last two issues you presented one side of the Hassler controversy
without mentioning the other view. Those opposed to the reconstruction of
the Hassler buildings have some valid agruments, in try opinion!
The image that the buildings need only renovation is not true. The estimate
presented by the Arts people makes no mention of earthquake standards, for
example; to bring these buildings up to those standards Would require
reconstruction from the foundation up. The heating plant alone Would cost
their entire estimate to replace; repair on a system that old is out of
the question.
The Arts people are private citizens trying; to acquire public lands for
private use. However noble their cause, they have no legitimate claim on
public land, especially one designated for open space use by all - not
closed rooms to be used by a privileged few.
They have argued their case at public forums and lost. They pursued their
case in court and lost. They were warned that they might have to pay for
the additional costs incurred by the delay of demolition; they now demand
to be absolved of that consequence of their actions. They are pressuring
local politicians to try and achieve by the back door what they couldn't
achieve thru legitimate means. With every further tactic, they are appearing
less and less the patrons of the arts and more like greedy individuals who
see a chance to have their own foundation complete with directors, grants
etc - at the expense of the taxpayers who have already paid for the land.
You speak of "Hassler preservationalists" and a Coyote Point type of facility;
the buildings cannot be "preserved" - they are too old, too weak and trashed
beyond anything short of total rebuilding. The locked rooms at Twin Pines are
not to me a Coyote Point type of facility.
You say give the Coalition time to raise money; they've had months and months,
and as I understand it have received pledges of about .+200,000. The public
support for these private citizens, however noble their cause, does not exist.
Give them a chance to "put up or shut up"? I heartily agree. Now that they've
gone thru legitimate public channels and failed, and tried the courts and
failed, when axe they going to shut up?
Jerry O'Donnell
3355 Brittsn J4
San Carlos 593-2926
P-
Af
a
s y
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Nonette Hanko
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: 4/11/85
'r
SACRAMENTO ADDRESS
State Capitol
Sacramento,California 95814
(916)445.8188 t}y
DISTRICT OFFICE AssembIg
San Carlos City Hall Talifurnia Legislature APR 5 19$5
Second Floor
666 Elm Street
San Carlos,CA 94070
(415)591.5544
ROBERT W. NAYLOR
ASSEMBLYMAN.TWENTIETH DISTRICT
ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN LEADER
April 4, 1985
Ms. Nonette Hanko
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Ms. Hanko:
Thank you for our recent conversation and
for sending a copy of your recent memo about the land
acquisition policies of the MROSD.
We appreciate the sensitivity and thought-
fulness of the proposals you advance.
Please keep us informed and we will continue
to follow this issue closely.
S* ely,
�
,
L
Ji ourgart
nistrative Ass' tant
JB:af
APR 5 ;SS,
Star Route 2, Box 403
La Honda, CA 94020
April 3, 1985
Nanette Hanko, Director
MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Ms. Hanko:
First of all, let me thank you for your position paper regarding MROSD's use of eminent
domain, acquisition of land outside District boundaries, and annexation of lands to the
District. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that there are sympathetic people like
yourself on the MROSD Board of Directors.
So that you may better understand the positions I take on these issues, I am including
the following information. My husband and I own and occupy a home on 95 acres, west
of Skyline Blvd. This parcel was originally outside of the MROSD boundary, but has now
been included on the infamous Brown Act list.
Our first encounter with MROSD was over the Coplon property. Although we share
a quarter mile of common boundary with that property, MROSD did not notify us of the
hearings on the condemnation of that parcel; we attended the last hearing on the issue after
learning of it from one of our neighbors. When we protested this oversight at the hearing, a
member of MROSD's acquisitions staff beligerently asserted that MROSD had no obligation
to notify us, since we lived outside the District. We pointed out that the majority of the
parcel being condemned was outside the District, at which point a member of the legal staff
R loftily told us that MROSD was in no way constrained to keep its acquisitions within (or
even near) the bounds of the District. We then sat and watched the Board politely ignore
nearly 20 people who protested the Coplon condemnation. Instead, the Board chose to
listen to a variety of rather silly excuses from the acquisitions staff as to why it was totally
impractical to permit the Coplons sell MROSD only the front part of their property (the
part in the District's boundary), while building a single family home on the back portion
of the property (next to ours). The Board voted to condemn the entire property, leaving
many of us with the impression that we had just seen a "kangaroo court" in action.
I left that hearing with a strong feeling of "There, but for the grace of God, go 1". Had
we happened to have acquired our land and attempted to build our home a mere 5 years
later than we did, MROSD could well have stopped us from fulfilling our dream of living
in the country, as they had so effectively quashed Coplon's dream. As it was, we weren't
out of the woods, for part of MROSD's stated justification for condemning all of Coplon's
property was to provide a potential link to the various County Parks via Mindego Creek,
which bisects our property.
From then on, we regarded MROSD with a fear that grew into loathing. We came to
see it as a cancer, slowly spreading across the landscape, gobbling up parcels, and stepping
on any of the Skyline residents who happened to be in the way. Over the years,we watched
it take in many of the parcels we had looked at before buying our property, and wondered
if there would be any place left for us to move to when MROSD ran out of other people to
pick on and came after our home.
1
Then came the Brown Act and the infamous list, which included our parcel; again we
found out about it, not from MROSD, but from a neighbor. My husband hit the roof; I
merely crawled off to bed and cried for hours. It seemed that our worst fears were coming
to pass—MROSD's shotgun approach to land acquisition had a pellet in it with our name
on it.
We attended the workshop on March 30, and discovered several things. First of all,
we were not alone—a lot of people were extremely upset about the District's policies (or
lack thereof). The good news was that the Board seemed to feel that reasonable, humane
policies should be established, documented, and adhered to. The bad news was that the
MROSD staff still contained the same people that "got" Coplon, and they hadn't changed
their attitudes one bit. It was not clear whether official policy changes by the Board would
have any effect, since the staff people advising on and implementing the policies obviously
like things the way they are.
Because these issues affect me at such a deep emotional level, I was unable to stand up
and say what I feel at that workshop. I am instead writing you, in the hopes that you can
persuade the rest of the Board to adopt some much-needed reforms. My positions on the
issues are as follows.
First of all, I believe that MROSD should never have been given the power of eminent
domain. Recreational space is a diffuse need—the failure to acquire any single parcel may
be esthetically unpleasing to MROSD, but does not jeopardize the overall concept of open
space not when there are so many available parcels which remain on the open market for
months or years. Therefore, I see is no moral justification for "big brother" MROSD to
acquire land by force,which is what condemnation amounts to. The arguments I have heard
about it being needed to establish a fair market value are highly unconvincing. Truly fair
market value can only be determined by negotiation between a willing seller and a willing
buyer, both of whom have the freedom to walk away from the deal if they don't like it.
Condemnation locks the buyer and seller together, and leaves the determination of price
up to a judge or jury. In this urban area, the odds are that this judge or jury will have no
interest in nor appreciation of rural values in general and the subject property in particular.
They are most likely to vote their pocket-books, deciding on a low price to save money for
the government, hence for the tax-payer—hardly a fair situation for the seller to be forced
into.
However, I am a realist. I understand that a bureaucracy like MROSD is unlikely to
voluntarily give up power, particularly when advised by a staff which so seems to enjoy
using, or at least threatening to use, this power. Therefore, the best I can hope for is that
the MROSD Board will adopt a policy of extreme restraint in the use of eminent domain.
It should be used only after prolonged negotiation, and after the MROSD negotiator has
completely broken off negotiations at least twice. It should never be used as a threat,either
expressed or implied. Its use should require at least a 2/3 majority of the whole Board, and
preferably a unanimous vote.
Condemnation should never be used against privately owned, improved property—
whether occupied by the owner, a renter, or temporarily left vacant. In fact, MROSD
shouldn't be acquiring this type of property at all, since it will invariably lead to embar-
rassing decisions about whether to bulldoze the structures, leave them vacant for vandals to
destroy, rent them out, or have District personnel move in—any of which will offend some
2
segment of the public. Also, improved properties, especially relatively small parcels with
single family homes, tend to be a waste of MROSD funds, since so much of the value is in
the improvements rather than the land itself.
I also believe that MROSD needs to draw firm boundary lines, permanently delimiting
the area in which it will be active, and within that area, make known their plans as to what
priorities are attached to the various parcels. This allows land owners to know for certain
whether their land has been targeted, and to make appropriate plans. It also allows anyone
looking for rural property (whether a first-time buyer or one MROSD has displaced by a
previous purchase) to select a home site that is permanently outside the District, hence
safe from MROSD acquisition. It is extremely unkind to leave people uncertain, living in a
state of fear for years, which is the effect of the current lack of policy.
Acquisitions outside of the District should be strongly discouraged, and should never
involve the use of condemnation. Annexations to the present District boundaries should
happen one parcel at a time, and only with the consent of the property owner. Furthermore,
some means must be found to assure the public that all of these policy changes are binding,
rather than something which can be changed back to the original abuses once the heat dies
down.
Adoption of these policies will reassure many people. However,it will take many years of
rigorous adherence to these policies to dispel the distrust that MROSD has earned to date.
This process can be hastened, however, if MROSD makes it obvious that they have turned
over a new leaf. One way in which to do this is to replace the members of the staff who have
been responsible for past abuses. Certain members of the acquisitions staff in particular
have alienated many members of the community with their arrogant, obstructionist, and
generally unsympathetic attitudes to human values. It is my belief that these people have
cost MROSD far more in good will lost than they could ever save MROSD in dollars; in
fact I believe that you will find they are now costing MROSD dollars as well, as land owners
escalate their prices to pay for the aggravation of having to deal with these people. I feel
that a change of personnel would be of benefit to all.
Well, thank you for listening to my thoughts and beliefs. I sincerely hope that you are
successful in bringing some much-needed reform to MROSD's policies.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Marsha Quam
3
CLAIMS No. 8 5-0 7
Meeting 8 5-0 8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date:April 10, 1985
REVISED
C L A I M S
# Amount Name
Description
8152 411.48 A.T.& T. Telephone Equipment
8153 83.04 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Office Supplies
8154 35.00 Irene Brown Docent Training
8155 1,295.88 Creegan & D'Angelo Fence Installation - Novitiate
8156 50.00 Mabel Crittenden Docent Traininq
8157 37. 50 Alice Cun.mings Reimbursement--Subscription
8158 105.26 Dark Room Photo Processing
8159 403.47 John Escobar Reimbursement—Conference
8160 9.16 Graphicstat Art Reproduction
8161 51.46 Mary Gundert Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
8162 385.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference
8163 1,500.00 W.V. Henderson Company Real Estate Appraisal Service
8164 406.50 Kelly Services Temporary Office Help
8165 15.00 Lauren Langford Typesetting
8166 35.61 Charlotte MacDonald Reimbursement--Pr' h'ple
;RcYttff ice upp lie s
8167 970.30 Margaret MacNiven Road Grading--Portola Heights
8168 24.00 munday & Collins Slide Screen Rental
8169 255.99 National Mailing Service Skyline Ridge Mailing
8179 80.00 Oregon State University Seminar Fee
8180 1,160-74 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
8181 7.02 Palo Alto Utilities Electric Service
8182 1,047.54 Peninsula oil Co. Gasoline for District Vehicles
8183 188.70 Peninsula Times Tribune Legal Advertising
8184 Pine Cone Lumber Field Supplies - Coal Creek
8185 5,615*00 Dennis Plank Construction Carport - 13130 Skyline Boulevard
8186 159.40 Shell Oil Repairs & Gasoline—District
Vehicles
8187 101.08 San Francisco Water Dept. Water Service--Hassler
8188 223.56 San Mateo Times Newspaper Group Legal Advertising
8189 110.60 Santa Cruz Sentinel LecTal Advertising
8190 762.01 Scribner Graphics Brochures Printing
8191 51.64 David Topley Reimbursement--Travel
8192 925.49 Universal Printing Master Plan Map Printing
8193 285.38 Sandy Voorhees Reimbursement--Personal Expenses
8194 213.00 Woodside Gardens Trees--Rancho San Antonio
8195 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel. Consulting Fee - March
8196 642.83 Ervin Alves - union 76 Fuel for District Vehicles
cLkTM'S No. 85-0,
Meeting 85-05
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 10, 1(- :
C L A I M S
REVISED
Amount Name Description
8197 94.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Drench
8198 91.79 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies,
Field Supplies and Private Vehicle
Expense
j CLAIMS No. 8 5-0 7
Meeting 8 5-0 8
MIDPENINSUL. .trGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date:April 10, 1995
C L A I M S
# Amount Name Description
8152 411.48 A.Z.& ..T
. Telephone Equipment
8153 83.04 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Office Supplies
8154 35.00 Irene Brown Docent Training
8155 1,295.88 Creeqan & D'Angelo Fence Installation - Novitiate
8156 50. 00 Mabel Crittenden Docent Traininq
8157 37. 50 Alice Currrnings Reimbursement--Subscription
8153 105.26 Dark Room Photo Processing
8159 403.47 John Escobar Reimbursement--Conference
8160 9.16 Graphicstat Art Reproduction
8161 51.46 Mary Gundert Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
8162 385.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference
8163 1,500.00 W.V. Henderson Company Real Estate Appraisal Service
8164 406.50 Kelly Services Temporary Office Help
8165 15.00 Lauren Langford Typesetting
8166 85.61 Charlotte MacDonald Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
8167 970.30 Margaret MacNiven Road Grading--Portola Heiqhts
8168 24.00 Munday & Collins Slide Screen Rental
8169 255.99 National Mailing Service Skyline Ridge Mailing
8179 80.00 Oreqon State University SEninar Fee
8180 1,160.74 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
8181 7.02 Palo Alto Utilities Electric Service
8182 1,047.54 Peninsula Oil Co. Gasoline for District Vehicles
8183 188.70 Peninsula Times Tribune Legal Advertising
8184 170.01 Pine Cone Lumber Field Supplies - Coal Creek
8185 5,615.00 Dennis Plank Construction Caroort - 13130 Skyline Boulevard
8186 159.40 Shell Oil Repairs & Gasoline--District
Vehicles
8187 1.01.08 San Francisco Water Dept. Water Service--Hassler
8188 223.56 San Mateo Times Newspaper Group Legal Advextising
8189 110.60 Santa Cruz Sentinel Leval Advertising
8190 762.01 Scribnex Graphics Brochures Printing
8191 51.64. David Topley Reimbursement--Travel
8192 925.49 Universal Printing Master Plan Map Printing
8193 285.38 Sanely Voorhees Reimbursement--Personal Expenses
8194 21.3.00 Woodside Gardens Trees--Rancho San Antonio
8195 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee - March
8196 642.83 Fxvin Alves - Union 76 Fuel for District Vehicles
CLADB No. 8 5-0 7
Meeting 8 5-0 8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date:April 10, 1955
C I. A I M S
# Amount Name Description
8152 411.48 A.T.& T. Telephone Fkluipment
8153 83.04 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Office Supplies
8154 35.00 Irene Brown Docent Training
81.55 1,295.88 Creegan & D'Angelo Fence Installation - Novitiate
8156 50.00 Mabel Crittenden Docent Training
8157 37.50 Alice C v.mings Reimbursement--Subscription
8158 105.26 Dark Room Photo Processing
8159 403.47 John Escobar Reimbursement--Conference
8160 9.16 Graphicstat Art Reproduction
8161 51.46 Mary Gundert Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
8162 385.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference
8163 1,500.00 W.V. Henderson Company Real Estate Appraisal Service
8164 406.50 Kelly Services Temporary Office Help
8165 15.00 Lauren I--ingford Typesetting
8166 85.61 Charlotte MacDonald Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
8167 970.30 Margaret MacNiven Road Grading--Portola Heights
8168 24.00 Munday & Collins Slide Screen Rental
8169 255.99 National Mailing Service: Skyline Ridge Mailing
8179 80.00 Oregon State University Seminar Fee
8180 1,160.74 Pacific Bell. Telephone Service
8181 7.02 Palo Alto Utilities Electric Service
8182 1,047.54 Peninsula Oil Co. Gasoline for District Vehicles
8183 188.70 Peninsula Times Tribune Legal Advertising
8184 170.01 Pine Cone Lumber Field Supplies - Coal Creek
8185 5,615.00 Dennis Plank Construction Carport - 13130 Skyline Boulevard
8186 159.40 Shell Oil Repairs & Gasoline--District
Vehicles
8187 101.08 San Francisco Water Dept. Water Service--Hassler
8188 223.56 San Mateo Times Newspaper Group Legal Advertising
8189 110.60 Santa Cruz Sentinel LecYal Advertising
8190 762.01 Scribner Graphics Brochures Printing
8191 51.64 David Topley Reimbursement--Travel
8192 925.49 Universal Printing Master Plan Map Printing
8193 285.38 Sandy Voorhees Reimbursement--Personal Expenses
8194 21.3.00 Woodside Gardens Trees--Rancho San Antonio
8195 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee - March
8196 642.83 Ervin Alves - Union 76 Fuel for District Vehicles
I
r
CLAIMS No. 8 5-0 7
Meeting 8 5-0 8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DIS`t'RICT Date:April 10, 19&5
REVISED
C L A I M S
Amount Name
Description
8152 411.48 A.T.& T. Telephone Equipment
8153 83.04 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Office Supplies
8154 35.00 Irene Brown Docent Training
8155 1,295.88 Creegan & D'Angelo Fence Installation - Novitiate
8156 50.00 Mabel Crittenden Docent Traininq
8157 37. 50 Alice CLmmings Reimbursement--Subscription
8158 105.26 Dark Room Photo Processing
8159 403.47 John Escobar Reimbursement--Conference
8160 9.16 Graphicstat Art Reproduction
8161 51.46 Mary Gundert Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
8162 385.65 David Hansen Reimbursement--Conference
8163 1,500.00 W.V. Henderson Company Real Estate Appraisal Service
8164 406.50 Kelly Services Tesrporary Office Help
8165 15.00 Lauren Langford Typesettinq
8166 85.61 Charlotte MacDonald Reimbursement--Pri t�Veh' le
anc��ttice applies
� �7 970.30 Margaret MacNiven Road Grading--Portola Heights
_L68 24.00 Munday & Collins Slide Scree
n Rental
8169 255.99 National Mailing Service Skyline Ridge Mailing
8179 80.00 Oregon State University Seminar Fee
8180 1,160.74 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
8181 7.02 Palo Alto Utilities Electric Service
8182 1,047.54 Peninsula Oil Co. Gasoline for District Vehicles
8183 188.70 Peninsula Times Tribune Legal Advertising
8184 39 Pine Cone Lumber Field Supplies - Coal Creek
8185 5,615.00 Dennis Plank Construction Carport - 13130 Skyline Boulevard
8186 159.40 Shell Oil Repairs & Gasoline—District
Vehicles
8187 101.08 San Francisco Water Dept. Water Service--Hassler
8188 223.56 San Mateo Times Newspaper Group Leval Advertising
8189 110.60 Santa Cruz Sentinel
I,ecral Advertising
8190 762.01 Scribner Graphics Brochures Printing
8191 51.64 David Topley Reimbursement--Travel
('92 925.49 Universal Printinct Master Plan Map Printing
�93 285.38 Sand Voorhees --
Y Reimbursement Personal Expenses
8194 213.00 Woodside Gardens Trees--Rancho San Antonio
8195 500.00 Foss & Associate -
s
Personnel Consulting Fee March
8196 642.83 Ervin Alves - Union 76 Fuel for District Vehicles
` CLAIMS No. 85-07
Meeting 85-08
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 10, 1985
C L A I M S
REVISED
Amount Name Description
8197 94.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert. GYench
8198 91.79 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies,
Field Supplies and Private Vehicle
Expense