HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850424 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-10 Meeting 85-10
ee
0 aftn<
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-11,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 375 Distel Circle, D-1
April 24 , 1985 A G E N D A Los Altos, California
(7 :3 0) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (March 13 , 1985; March 27 , 1985; April 10 , 1985)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 : 45) 1 . Resolution Disapproving Annexation Entitled "Sempervirens No.
687-A" -- C, Britton
Resolution Disapproving the Annexation of Territory Designated as
Sempervirens No. 687-A" Into This District
(7 : 50) 2. April 17 Workshop Follow-Up -- C. Britton
(8 : 05) 3 . Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters - Financial
Analysis of mountain View Site -- C. Britton
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 25) 4 . Appointment of Auditor for 1984-85 Fiscal Year -- M. Foster
(8 : 30) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT OF FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS -- OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
The Budget Committee wiZZ meet at 4:30 P.M. at the District office on the
foZZowing dates: ApriZ 30., May I, M(2y 74, and Mcxy 27_ The purpose,
of the meetings is to discuss preparation of the budget for the 1985-86 fiscdz
year. The meetings are subject to cancellation or rescheduZing. Contact the
District office to confirm date and time.
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
74
Meeting 85-09
All 41
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APRIL 10 , 1985
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley,
Harry Turner, Nonette Hanko, and Richard Bishop.
Member Absent: Daniel Wendin
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench , Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean
Fiddes , Stanley Norton, James Boland, Joyce Nicholas , and Doris Smith.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A) March 13 , 1985nor_
Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the minutes of March 13 ,
1985 . K. Duffy seconded the motion .
Discussion: N. Hanko asked that the minutes be corrected
on page 4 , paragraph 2, to change the word "use" to
"acquisition" .
Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, refer-
red to page 7 , paragraph 4 , and stated that C. Britton
was incorrect in stating that Caltrans did the levee work
and that the minutes should state that Leslie Salt did
the work. C. Britton said that he had just learned that
the levee was built up with excess materials that came
from a Caltrans job but that the work was done by Leslie
Salt. T. Kavanaugh stated that all dredge work was done
by Leslie Salt and that the levee 's elevation was a con-
cern of local property owners. E. Shelley directed that
the minutes for the April 10 meeting include this infor-
mation.
Jan Sutter, P.O. Box 4 , La Honda, said he listened to
tapes of the March 13 meeting and that Mr. Bullis ' state-
ment was not accurately reflected. He said the Board
meeting minutes do not reflect the flavor of a meeting
and expressed his concern that tapes from past meetings
were erased. H. Grench stated that Board meeting tapes
were erased once the minutes for a meeting were approved
in order to recycle the tapes. H. Turner stated that
there is merit in saving meeting tapes for awhile. He
added that sense minutes are currently taken and that a
more expensive alternative would be verbatim minutes.
He asked that this subject be placed on a future agenda.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the motion to approve the minutes
of March 13 , 1985 be tabled until the April 24 meeting.
R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0 .
Meeting 85-09 Pagel
T. Henshaw requested that members of the public who felt their
statements made at the March 13 meeting had been inaccurately
reflected submit a written statement to the Board for review
and consideration.
B) March 20 , 1985
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board approve the minutes of the
Continued Regular Meeting of March 13 , 1985, which was
held on March 20 . K. Duffy seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4 to 0 , with E. Shelley and N. Hanko
abstaining because they were absent from the continued
meeting.
C) March 30 , 1985
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the minutes of the
Special Workshop Meeting held on March 30, 1985. R. Bishop
seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko stated that the seventh speaker on
page 3 noted as unidentified was Candace Stone, 22500
Skyline Boulevard, La Honda.
J. Sutter asked that each Board member provide a written
statement as N. Hanko had done and that these be included
in the minutes . T. Henshaw agreed to the request.
The motion to approve the amended minutes passed 6 to 0 .
III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
D. Smith stated the Board had received the following written communi-
cations: 1) a letter, dated April 10 , 1985, from Janet H. Schwind,
11825 Skyline Boulevard, Los Gatos, opposing the District 's annexation
of private land when the owners of those lands are opposed to the
annexation; 2) a letter, dated March 26, 1985, from Edward Nelson,
P.O. Box 705 , Palo Alto, advising that he is the owner of two parcels
of land on Grandview Drive, Woodside, and stating his opposition 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; 3) a letter,
dated March 29, 1985, from 23 members of the Portola Hills Subdivision
in Woodside regarding property rights on Grandview and Espinosa Roads
in Woodside. Attached to the letter was the April 5th reply by Land
Manager David Hansen suggesting a meeting of subdivision residents with
staff and representative Board members to attempt to resolve the issue;
4) a letter, dated March 30 , 1985 , from Carol Doose, 22400 Skyline Bou-
levard, La Honda, stating her concerns over the increased traffic and
potential urbanization of rural roads, and urging an acquisition mora-
torium; 5) a letter, dated April 1, 1985 , from Laurence Dawson, 13875
Mir Mirou Drive, Los Altos Hills, stating his support of the Skyline
Ridge Master Plan and encouraging the Board to adopt the plan as
presented; 6) a letter, dated March 291 1985, from Jim Warren, 345
Swett Road, Woodside, presenting his position and analyses on condem-
nation Policy alternatives , annexation, out-of-District purchases,
and Brown Act issues; 7) a letter, dated April 1 , 1985 , from Robert
Zatkin, P.O. Box 620502, Woodside, stating his views of the incompat-
ibility of mountain bicyclists with other users of the District lands;
8) a letter, dated March 27 , 1985 , from Deborah Jamison, Program Direc-
tor of Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation, 2253 Park Boulevard,
)' Meeting 85-09 Page 3
Palo Alto, thanking the Board for allowing her to present the Coali-
tion's history and current activities at a recent Board meeting;
9) a letter, dated March 21 , 1985 , from J. MacNiven, W. Obermeyer, and
P. Storaasli , representing the Portola Park Heights Property Owners
Association, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box 16, La Honda, stating their
opposition to use of their community access road as a public hiking
trail . They requested that the road not be used as a hiking trail ,
that no literature be distributed showing the road as a trail , that
signs be posted to direct users to more suitable trails, and that the
District provide certification of liability insurance naming the
Association as an additional insured; 10) a letter, dated March 21,
1985 , from Walt Marsh, 511 Humber Court, Sunnyvale, praising the Dis-
trict for the work done since its inceptionand expressing support for
the Board should it have voted to condemn Ms. Dooley 's property; and
11) a letter, dated March 27, 1985, from Norman R. Bergrum, 26865 St.
Francis Road, Los Altos Hills , in support of the retention of the
Hassler buildings .
T. Henshaw referred the letter from Robert Zatkin referring to mountain
bicycle conflicts to the staff . T. Henshaw stated that the issues
involving the Grandview Drive easement could probably be resolved at
the staff level .
H. Turner stated that the safety issue needs discussed in the Portola
Park Heights letter should be addressed by staff with a report back to
the Board. D. Hansen said he had sent a letter to the Road Committee
regarding the question of liability and C. Britton reported on a
meeting held on Tuesday, April 2 at the District office with staff and
representatives of Portola Heights neighbors, William Obermayer, Carol
Doose and Charles Touchatt. He said they discussed the roads and trails
of interest to the District in that area. C. Britton stated he informed
the group that staff would be willing to meet with them on site to fur-
ther discuss any problems relative to the Portola Heights trails. Wil-
liam Obermayer, 3200 Long Ridge Road, La Honda, asked that the District
make some kind of commitment to stop publicizing the road. T. Henshaw
stated that if the members of the Association were not satisfied with
actions taken by staff they could ask the Board to consider the matter.
C. Touchatt, P.O. Box 254, Redwood City, said that he felt most of the
letters summarized by staff did not reflect what was said in the letter.
IV. AGENDA
T. Kavanaugh asked that future agendas list what land negotiations
would be discussed in Closed Session. H. Grench said that such a
listing might be possible but often the specific negotiation items to
be discussed in Closed Session were not known until the day of the
meeting.
T. Henshaw stated the agenda was adopted by Board consensus .
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
T. Kavanaugh stated that he did not want his property discussed in
Closed Session and that he would like an update on the Hassler case,
asking if the Board had taken any action. S. Norton responded that
the matter is in litigation and cannot be discussed publicly. He said
the Board had decided to appeal the appellate court 's decision.
Meeting 85-09 Page 4
Richard Bullis , Rt. 2, Box 310 , La Honda, commended the Board for
thinking about better public communications, adding that the Board
should begin by acting in a democratic manner. He called for the
Board to have the milk of human kindness , and to not use its force
on people, noting that many people do not trust the District.
E. Shelley responded that he is concerned about the rights of all of
the people in the District. He said it is the Board 's legal responsi-
bility to make sure the public gets the rights it paid for. H. Turner
said he objected to Mr. Bullis ' partial and selective quotation of
Board members ' statements .
Tony Such, 22306 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated that the District
should not annex land when the property owner objects to the annexation,
VI . SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Announcement of Award for District Docent Program (Memorandum M-85-58
April 5 , 1985)
Joyce Nicholas , Coordinator of Volunteers, reported that the District's
Docent Program was selected to receive the Friend Award by the National
Association of County Park and Recreation Officials. She said the
award is to be presented in July in Orlando, Florida, during the
National Association of Counties Annual Conference.
T. Henshaw complimented the docent volunteers for the fine work they
are doing and upon being selected for the Friend Award. E. Shelley
suggested that the Board send a representative of the docents to Or-
lando to accept the award. He stated that he would be in favor of the
Board approving funds for staff or volunteer member to personally
receive the award. Staff was directed to put this item for discussion
on the agenda for the next meeting.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING
Annexation of Certain Parcels in Santa Cruz County (Report R-85-24 of
March 26 , 1985 and Memorandum M-85-30 of February 20 , 1985)
H. Grench introduced the staff report and gave a background on the
annexation request, noting that when the District applied to the
Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission for the annexation
of the 270 acre area, the application did not include the Bar-Y Ranch;
however, Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Commission, in
approving the annexation, required the inclusion of Bar-Y Ranch. He
said the Santa Cruz LAFCO did not want to leave an island unannexed
even though the owner did not consent to the annexation.
H. Grench stated that the Board had two options, to pass the annexa-
tion, including the Bar-Y Ranch, or to turn it down. He said that if
the Board chooses the latter option, the District might have to wait
one year to re-apply. H. Grench reviewed the content of the annexation
resolution.
N. Hanko said the Board has never voted to annex land where a protest
existed and that she would oppose annexation if the owners of Bar-Y
protested the annexation.
R. Bishop said the District should annex property which the District
owns, but not property where an owner objects to annexation.
4* Meeting 85-09 Page 5
T. Henshaw opened the Public Hearing at 8 :38 p.m.
Mark Reschar, 112 Calfhill Court, Los Gatos , one of the owners of the
Bar-Y Ranch alonq with his wife and sister-in-law, said he would like
to register their objection to the annexation for the reasons which
they stated to LAFCO. He said they do not want to be in the District
for fear of the District exercising right of eminent domain. He said
they do not want another layer of government put on them and that the
inclusion of Bar-Y would be without a vote of the people.
Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside,
questioned the Board about
acreage involved, enforcement of property owners rights and the abil-
ity to reapply to LAFCO.
R. Fisse, representing the South Skyline Association, expressed his
concerns about the District's previous actions in this annexation pro-
cess and the actions of staff in presenting the annexation application
to the Santa Cruz LAFCO. He questioned why an appeal had not been
made in 30 days after Santa Cruz LAFCO decided to include the Bar-Y
parcel.
N. Hanko asked staff to investigate annexation procedures and report
back to the Board with a written report.
Janet Schwind, of South Skyline Association, read the letter she wrote
to the Board in which she stated the Association' s opposition to the
annexation.
Gary Folcher, of Santa Cruz County, said he was troubled by the Dis-
trict's extending its boundaries into Santa Cruz County. He stated
that if the District extends its boundaries, it should stand for
election in Santa Cruz County.
C. Touchatt said no members of the public had protested the annexation
since they did not know about the District' s Sphere of Influence.
T. Kavanaugh said the Board should not spend District funds in Santa
Cruz County since it is outside of the District boundaries.
Carol Krackhouse, of Santa Cruz County, said she does not want the
District in Santa Cruz County and she had registered her protest with
the Santa Cruz County LAFCO. She urged the Board not to vote for
annexation.
T. Henshaw closed the Public Hearing at 9 :05 p.m.
R. Bishop said he would oppose the resolution for annexation since
the Bar-Y Ranch owners were opposed to the annexation. K. Duffy said
she would support the resolution since the District was trying to con-
trol its own land, adding that she would support the appeal to remove
the Bar-Y Ranch from the annexation.
E. Shelley asked what the options would be should the Board choose to
appeal the LAFCO decision and ask for a rehearing and what would be
accomplished by a continuation of the annexation procedures. H. Grench
responded that there was a question as to how long the District would
have to wait before it could reapply for the annexation.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board reject the annexation resolu-
tion. T. Henshaw seconded the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley said he would suggest a continuance
because he felt some conflicting statements had been made
Meeting 85-09 Pale 6 -
at the meeting and that he would like to understand the pro-
cedures before taking action.
Motion to E . Shelley moved to continue the annexation matter in order
Continue: to receive further information from Santa Cruz LAFCO. K.
Duffy seconded the motion.
The motion to continue was defeated 4 to 2 :
Ayes - K. Duffy, E. Shelley
Noes - T. Henshaw, H. Turner, N. Hanko and R. Bishop
S . Norton stated that the Board should formally consider the annexation
resolution as contained in the staff report. H. Turner withdrew his
original motion; T. Henshaw withdrew her second to that motion.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-29, a
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. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion was
defeated by a vote of 5 to 1 .
Aye K. Duffy
NOES E. Shelley, T. Henshaw, H. Turner, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop
E. Shelley asked for a report from staff at the next meeting or two on
what the Board ' s options are now and what they would have been earlier
in the process .
The Board recessed for a break at 9 :18 p.m. and reconvened for the
public meeting at 9 : 25 p.m.
VIII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Final Adoption of Interim Use and Management Plan for the Stour
Investments , Inc. Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve
(Memorandum M-85: 53 of March 29 , 1985 , and Report R-85-09 of
February 6 , 1985)
D. Hansen stated the Board was being asked to adopt the Interim
Use and Management Plan and to withhold the property from dedica-
tion. He said that since the initial hearing, staff had not
received any further public comments on the acquisition.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board 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 dedication. R. Bishop
seconded the motion.
Discussion: T. Kavanaugh said the property should not
have been purchased since it is outside the District
boundaries and the Cities of San Jose and Campbell should
be asked to participate in the purchase and management
with the District.
W. Obermayer said that property should not be purchased
outside of the District's boundaries and the people
should be given a vote before property is acquired.
The motion passed 6 to 0 .
Meeting 85-09 Page 7
B. Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for the
Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Memorandum M-85-55 of April 2,
1985 and Report R-85-19 of March 5 , 1985)
D. Hansen explained that the escrow dates shown on the initial
report were in error and the correct dates were shown in memoran-
dum M-85-55 presented at this meeting. He said no further public
comments had been received.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board adopt the Revised Use and
Management Plan for the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
as contained in report R-85-19 and amended in memorandum
M-85-55. N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Discussion : 11. Haeussler said the District should install
the hitching rack discussed in the report and not rely on
volunteer help. D. Hansen responded that the Trails
Council had requested a rack be installed and had indi-
cated they would do the necessary work.
The motion passed 6 to 0 .
C. Final Adoption of the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Use and
Management Plan (Memorandum M-85-54 of April 2, 1985 and Report
R-85-18 of March_7 , 1985)
D. Hansen presented the report and stated that no further public
comments had been received.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board adopt the Revised Use and
Management Plan for the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve
as contained in report R-85-18 and as amended in memoran-
dum M-85-54 . N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6 to 0 .
D. March 30 Workshop Follow-Up (Memorandum M-85-60 of April 5 , 1985)
Discussion first centered on the date of the next meeting, which
had previously been scheduled for April 17 . H. Grench said it
would be difficult for him to attend if the meeting were held on
April 17 . Monday, April 15 was discussed as an alternate date.
Because of the facts that the meeting had previously been announced
for April 17 and that April 15 was the last day to file with IRS,
the Board concurred not to change the date.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board schedule a workshop for
Wednesday, April 17 at 7 : 30 p.m, in the Multi-Use Room,
765 Portola Road, Portola Valley. The motion was
seconded by E. Shelley. The motion passed 6 to 0 .
Discussion next centered on the format for the April 17 meeting,
including how T. Henshaw should run the meeting and what time
allotments speakers should have. The consensus of the discussion
was that the March 30 format should be used again, that elected
representatives of a group would be able to speak for five min-
utes , and that individuals would have two minutes to speak, with
additional opportunities to speak later in the workshop if time
allowed.
T. Henshaw introduced the recommendation to appoint a Board com-
mittee to draft a consensus policy statement regarding the Dis-
trict' s use of eminent domain. K. Duffy suggested the committee
Meeting 85-09 Page 8
prepare a list of proposed policies and let the Board discuss
them item by item.
E. Shelley stated that the public needs a feeling of where the
Board might be on issues, and a draft policy statement is needed
of what Board members might suggest. N. Hanko said she agreed
with E. Shelley that a statement be provided that the Board could
live with. She said the statement should also state the impacts
of any proposed policies .
E. Shelley said the consensus statement should include different
alternatives and a probable range of possibilities and added that
the public needed ample time to review any material prepared for
Board consideration.
In response to questions from H. Haeussler and T. Kavanaugh, T.
Henshaw said this committee would be a closed working committee
and its meetings would not be noticed. She noted that public in-
put was being gathered at the workshops. H. Turner, N. Hanko and
R. Bishop volunteered to serve on the committee.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board form a three member
working committee to draft for Board consideration a
proposed policy change in the use of eminent domain.
H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko requested that staff provide the
Committee with eminent domain policies from comparable
agencies and asked Legal Counsel to address whether this
Board could legally bind other Boards if guaranteed exemp-1
tions were made for single family residences .
The motion passed 6 to 0 .
E. Shelley asked for a clarification of the charge given to the
Committee, and T. Henshaw stated the Committee was to address
the use of eminent domain. She asked that the Committee report
back to the Board at the May 8 Regular Meeting.
The length of time of the April 17 workshop was discussed.
T. Henshaw said the workshop would be from 7 :30 p.m. to 10:30
p.m.
IX. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Proposed Good Neig
hbor Communications Program (Memorandum M-85-99
of April 5 , 1985)
N. Hanko stated that she felt the controversy surrounding the
Brown Act and the use of eminent domain provided the Board with an
opportunity for an open window to the community. She discussed
the good neighbor communications program she was proposing that
included a newsletter geared to property owners and the distribu-
tion of various Board policies to property owners in the District' s
acquisition and planning areas. She said she felt the Board should
oversee the production of a quarterly communication to property
owners and host a party somewhere in the Skyline vicinity.
T. Henshaw said she liked the thrust of N. Hanko's suggestion,
and she proposed that the subject be held over so that other
ideas could be added. She suggested Board member attendance at
various landowner organizational meetings on a rotation basis.
Meeting 85-09 Page 9
E. Shelley stated he supported the content of the second para-
graph of N. Hanko's memorandum and the printing of a brochure
stating District policy on acquisition and landowner's rights
and vulnerabilities. He did not feel that the people living in
the Skyline area should receive special attention in terms of
District news, but should in terms of acquisition policies.
H. Turner stated that the Board needs to step up to its responsi-
bilities to put people at ease, and he suggested quarterly or
semi-annual meetings with homeowners associations .
R. Bishop suggested that each Board member put suggestions in
writing and give them to N. Hanko.
J. Warren said it is desirable for the Board's communication to
be in writing and informational, rather than promotional .
C. Touchatt asked the Board to keep in mind that Skyline residents
are not the only citizens concerned about the District's acquisi-
tion program.
R. Fisse said the terms of Board members should be limited to allow
the opportunity for other people to be elected to the Board and to
prevent the Board from being self-perpetuating. He said more out-
side views should be presented.
J. Schwind said she favored the move in the general direction
expressed by N. Hanko, but she asked the Board to go slowly be-
cause the party stage has not yet been reached.
T. Kavanaugh suggested that private individuals should be allowed
to put articles in the District 's newsletter and said the District
should start its good neighborhood communications programs by
sending letters to the property owners on the Brown Act listing.
T. Henshaw said she would be willing to work with N. Hanko and
that they would return to the Board at a later time with some for-
mal recommendations . The Board took no action on this matter at
this meeting.
B. Permanent Trail Easement Across Lands of Corte Madera, A Limited
Partnership, for Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Report R-85-25
of April 5 , 1985 and Memorandum M-83-82 of July 18 , 1983)
C. Britton stated that necessary documents had been received to
establish a permanent trail easement between Hamms Gulch and
Alpine Road across lands of Corte Madera, a limited partnership.
Motion: E. Shelley moved the Board adopt Resolution 85-29, a
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 Appropriate to Closing of the
Transaction (Windy Hill Open Space Preserve - Lands of
Corte Madera, A Limited Partnership) . R. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0 .
C. Scheduling of Special Meeting With San Mateo County Board of
Supervisors (Memorandum M-85-57 of April 4 , 1985)
H. Grench stated that two dates , May 14 or May 21 , had been
Meeting 85-09 Page 10-
proposed for the tour of District lands with the San Mateo
County Board of Supervisors and that an informal poll showed
May 21 as the best date for the District's Board members . The
Board tentatively agreed to schedule a Special Meeting on May 21,
1985 at 2 :00 p.m. for a field trip to tour District lands with
the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors . H. Grench stated staff
would return to the Board at a later meeting for formal action to
be taken to schedule the meeting.
X. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
T. Henshaw said the Board had received an invitation to a barbecue
for Sunday, April 14 , 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. , to celebrate the Tenth Anni-
versary of the Santa Clara County Trails and Pathways Committee.
R. Bishop said he would attend in the Board's behalf .
Potential dates for Budget Committee meetings were discussed and T.
Henshaw announced the first committee meeting would be held at 4 : 30
p.m. on April 23 in the Board room.
S. Norton stated matters to be discussed in Closed Session pertained
to the Hassler and Aine cases .
K. Duffy reported on the Santa Clara LAFCO meeting she attended on
the District's annexation of land in San Mateo County. She said
protests against the annexation had been voiced and that the matter
had been continued because documents concerning survey lines were
not in order.
XI . CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the Revised Claims
85-07 . K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: T. Kavanaugh questioned Claims No. 8185. C.
Britton stated that it was for the construction of a carport
at 13130 Skyline Boulevard to meet permit requirements
established by San Mateo County.
XII. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session at 10:50 p.m.
XIII . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to Public Session to adjourn at 12:50 a.m. ,
Thursday, April 11 , 1985 .
Doris Smith
Secretary
CLAIMS No. 8 5-0 7
Meeting 8 5-0 8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 10, lq&E
S
C L A I M, REVISED
Annount 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 Training
8157 37.50 Alice Curmings Reimbursement--Subscription
8153 105.26 Dark Rom Photo Processing
8159 403.47 John Escobar Reimbursement--Conference
8160 9.16 GraplAcstat 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--Pr* h* le
RY101ftiNcee fupplie.,
17 970.30 NI-imaret MacNiven Road Grading--Portola Heights
68 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 11-0-60 Santa Cruz Sentinel Lek-al PAvertising
8190 762.01 Scribner Graphics Brochures Printing
8191 51.64 David Topley Reimbursement—Travel
42 925.49 Universal PrintincT Master Plan Map Printing
IL93 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
C ATFS No. 6,1-GI 1
Meeting 85-6&
MIDPFI SULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE. _.IS`TRICT ate' April 10, 198
C L A I M' S REVISED
4 Amoant Name Description
y
8197 94.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Gxench
8198 91.79 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies,
Field Supplies and Private Vehicle
Expense
Meeting 85-06
iMIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE.SUITE D 1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MARCH 27 , 1985
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called to order the Special MeetincT of the
Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
at 7 : 40 P.M. at the City of Mountain View ' s Adobe Building, 157 Moffett
Boulevard, Mountain View, California.
Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette
Hanko, and Harry Turner. Director Richard Bishop arrived at 7 : 47 P.M.
Member Absent: Edward Shelley.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, David Hansen, Jean Fiddles, Del Woods,
Alice Cummings, Mary Gundert, Charlotte MacDonald, Jol-m Escobar, Dennis
Danielson, and Stanley Norton.
DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
J. Fiddes stated the Board had received the following written communi-
cations regarding the Draft Master Plan:
1) a letter, dated March 18 , 1985, from Ken Hanley of Conservation
Earth, urging the use of the Preserve as an educational setting and
proposing the use of the A-frame structure as a headquarters for a non-
profit conservation program;
2) a letter, dated March 25, 1985 from Phyllis Cangemi , Acting Director,
Whole Access Project, 517 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, stating that the
overall plan was a balanced and sensible use of the Preserve, that they
were pleased to see whole access loop trails in the Plan, that they
assumed that whole access would be provided at any appropriate facilities,
including toilets, showers (if there are any) , parking and interpretive
material;
3) a letter, dated March 23 , 1985, from Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill
Road , Los Altos Hills , stating in part that people who live near the
Preserve or on Page Mill Road had not been involved in the development
of the Draft Master Plan, that public comments regarding the development
of the area had not been taken into consideration, that the Skyline Ridge
Open Space Preserve should not have been selected as a site for potential
development because of the traffic impact on Page Mill Road, and that the
proposed Draft Master Plan was too grandiose. He questioned whether
traffic and accident problems on Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard
had been studied and whether an Environmental Impact Report had been
prepared for the Plan. He urged the Board to vote only for the most
minimal development of properties at the end of Page Mill Road and to
use the money saved to study which of the District' s preserves should
be developed, and how.
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
Yec•ti.nci 8 -06 page 2
T. Ilensha;. - ;m-anted on ry; orocess. 2eadin:; to the formulation of the
Draft Maste. !'-- an and l. . -!-ench int'oJl',iced Christy Rollaway, the chair
of the P=-: in ;al.a 0-en u Trust ' s Xdvisory Committee for the Master
Plan process . Ms. FIoT1 : vir briefly discussed the role of the Committee
and the work it had done and introduced those members of the 16-member
Advisory Committee who were in the audience.
Patrick Miller of 2M Associates reviewed the process that had been
followed to solicit public input to formulate the Draft Master Plan,
noting that over 200 individuals had commented on the Plan, and he
provided an overview of the four basic worksteps in the Master Plan
process.
Using slides and maps to illustrate his verbal report, P. Miller reviewed
the contents of the Draft Master Plan for the Skyline Ridue Open Space
Preserve that his firm had prepared. He discussed the development por-
tion of the Draft
Master Plan, including 1) . access facilities (vehicular
entrance; parking; signage; trails; including the Skyline Trail , whole
access trails, hiking and equestrian trails, hiking trails only, and
carriage trails; trail control gates; sanitary facilities; benches;
and camping faci.lities; (including a hikers ' camp and a group camp) ;
2) educational use facilities (visitor contact points; environmental
education center utilizing existing ranch buildings; a new environmental
education building; a picnic area and a plant propagation area;
interpretive trails (including Alpine Loop Trail and Observation Blind;
Old Page Mill Road Trail; Horseshoe Loop Trail; Vista Loop Trail ;
and Mosaic Loop Trail ; and an astronomy observation area) , 3) manage-
ment facilities (Ranger residences , maintenance facilities, fire suppres-
sion facilities, water supply and emergency medical. service) .
fie stated that alternatives included in the development portion of
the Draft Master Plan included signage , a hiking trail dawn Lambert
Creek, a youth hostel , a hikers ' hut., an equestrian center, a visitor
inform
ation
on center , an organizational building and an emergency water
supply system. fie clarified that these were in
cluded as future develop-
ment -
ment options since they needed further_ study before implementation or
that implementation hinges on an agency or group other than the District .
P. Miller reviewed the management portion of the Draft Master Plan,
outlining in detail the twenty-six various activities, within defined
management zones, that would take place to realize the overall habitat
enhancement, resource management, educational and access goals of the
Preserve. He stated that two Ranger residences would be located on
the site at the former ranch manager' s house and at the former Incerpi
house; that a maintenance area would be located behind the upper barn;
that fire hydrants would be placed at key points; and that an emergency
helicopter landing site was proposed. He noted that management alterna-
tives included in the plan concerned the tree farm and a third live-in
ranger on the site.
P. Miller discussed the phasing of the Draft Master Plan, noting
Phase 1 covered one to three years; Phase 2 covered three to eight
years; and Phase 3 covered eight years and beyond. In summarizing
the Draft Master Plan, P. Miller stated that Phase 1 called for:
developing an entrance to the site, gates, a helipad, two parking areas,
signage, development of an all-purpose trail and a whole access trail ,
revegetation of the burned portion of the Christmas tree farm, one
picnic area, and two restroom facilities . Phase 2 calls for an
Meeting 85-06 page 3
additional parking area, -3c-11,elopment of the Horseshoe Lake Trail ,
development of a group ca,p site! to he utilized first by volunteers,
expansion of the trail systepi, and a second Ranger residence on the
site. Phase 3 calls for a third Ranger residence on the site, completion
of the trail- system, a fourth parking area and another picnic area.
He stated that alternatives in Phase included a youth hostel , the
hikers ' hut, the equestrian center, and the visitor information center.
He noted that pertinent costs for the development proposed was included
in the Draft Master Plan document.
D. Hansen, referring to report R-85-23 of March 21 , 1985 presented
the staff ' s report on the Draft Master Plan. He said that staff was
recommending adoption of the Draft Master Plan essentially as is with
the following exceptions: development alternative section #3 . 2.4 .
(pages 25 and 26 of the Draft Master Plan) should be eliminated from
the Plan as alternatives, but the following elements should be included
in the timeframe noted: signage, Phase 3; hiking trail down Lambert
Creek, Phase 3 ; organization building, Phase 1; and emergency water
supply system, Phase 1 . He stated that the following other proposals
should not be included within the 20 year timeframe of the Master Plan;
youth hostel , hikers ' hut, equestrian center and visitor information
center. D. Hansen stated staff ' s concerns regarding potential use
conflicts on the Skyline Trail , the exclusion of horse carriages from
the site; the assignment of Resident Rangers and Rangers on the site,
the implementation of Phase 1 items in the Plan, the continuation of
the POST Advisory Committee as an Implementation Advisory Committee that
would work with the District Board or a Board committee and District
staff in setting funding and implementation priorities, and the inclu-
sion of several items in the Plan despite the fact they may trigger
policy questions because they are facilities (trash cans, picnic tables,
construction of an environmental education center) which have not been
built or considered on District sites in the past.
D. Hansen stated that 2M Associates had completed an Initial Study
checklist and supporting documentation and a summary table explaining
all yes and maybe answers in the Initial. Study for the proposed Draft
Master Plan. Ile stated that staff was recommending that the Board
adopt a Negative Declaration for the Draft Master Plan, noting that
the State Office of Planning and Research had confirmed that a Negative
Declaration should be used on a conceptual master plan if the Initial
Study warrants it. He stated that later when specific plans are developed
which may have the potential to significantly affect the environment,
another Initial Study should be done to decide if a Negative Declaration
is still appropriate or if a focused Environmental Impact Report is
necessary at that time. He stated that items of potential concern
on the Initial Study checklist had been adequately researched and miti-
gation measures recommended by the consultant .
D. Hansen stated that the Draft Master Plan, the Initial Study and the
draft Negative Declaration had been sent to the County of Santa Clara,
the County of San Mateo, the City of Palo Alto, and CalTrans, the four
responsible agencies involved in the project for comment. The Negative
Declaration was also posted on site and sent to 23 other individuals
and interested organizations. He said that the County of Santa Clara
and CalTans had made no comments to date and that the City of Palo Alto
via a telephone call was in agreement with the conclusions of the Initial
Study and did not have any concerns regarding the proposed Master Plan,
with the exception of the alternate proposal to connect to Palo Alto ' s
water system. He said the County of San Mateo had responded in a letter
Meeting 85-06 Page 4
dated March 26 , 1985 fr= Senior Planner Deborah S . Nelson stating
that "although a Neqati-,-e- Declaration appears to be the appropriate
environmental document for the Master Plan, the following additions
are recommended to the analysis Is provided in the Initial Study: First,
si
there should be some overall discussion of total development within
the preserve related to grading, coverage , increased runoff , etc.
Although impacts either individually or incrementally are not signifi-
cant, they should be identified . Second, projects within the Resource
Management District will require Resource Management District Permits
and where applicable Building Permits and Grading Permits . Third, by
operation of law, those MROSD lands previously in Timber Preserve Zone
are presently not zoned at all . Former TPZ lands will need to be rezoned
to Resource Management (RM) . "
R. Bishop, referring to the proposed Negative Declaration, questioned
whether the grading of roads and construction of trails could create a
situation that could affect the water sources on the Preserve. P. Miller
stated that the trails had been laid out to follow the site' s contours
to minimize siltation problems and that given the soils types on the
property, he did not foresee any problems if the trails were properly
built. fie stated that the Draft Master Plan included water moni-
toring stations at key creek locations.
In response to a question from H. Turner regarding conflicts in the plan
for use of the A-frame structure, D. Hansen stated that staff did not
support use of the structure as a youth hostel since additional building
would be required for this type of use.
D. Wendin questioned what would happen if the Board adopted the Master
Plan and what budget implications were involved . H. Grench responded
that the Board would be adopting an overall Use and Management Plan
for the site; however, because of timing and budgetary implications, the
Board would have to consider the matter again after decisions were
made on what portions of Phase I were to be implemented and what funding
would be required. fie noted that the Master Plan was different from a
regular Use and Management Plan, no-Ling that POST' s Committee would
hopefully continue to work with the Board and staff . fie said that
because of timing, contingency items would probably have to be included
in the 1985-86 budget preparation process .
K. Duffy stated that she would like to keep a youth hostel in the
Master Plan as an alternative . N. Hanko said she agreed with K. Duffy,
adding that she did not favor additional building for that purpose.
T. flenshaw called for comments from the public on the proposed Draft
Master Plan.
Phyllis Cangemi , 517 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, stated she was
generally supportive of the plan, expressed concern about the ideal
open space experience where people would be spread out over the Pre-
serve, said multi-use trails could create problems, and stated there
should be safe access to whole access trails.
Janet Schwind, representing the South Skyline Association, read a letter
dated March 27 , 1984 addressed to President flenshaw. In part, the letter
said that care should be taken not to route trails or publish maps
with trails leading into private property until rights-of-way have
been acquired; construction of an emergency helicopter landing area was
a vital part of the plan and should receive a high priority; that
the Board should review the total. concept of the Plan, its purpose and
Meeting 85-06 Page 5
its impact a-nJI answel- it is desira',Ae to have a most emphasized site.
oreposed Master Plan on the
The letter i"_iestionec! impact of,
site and' t1--le area, incluciiic, feeder roads. The letter
stated that the South Sk,,,?Iine Association recomamended that before the
parking lots or buildings such as the environmental center and eques-
trian center are constructed , a study be completed in the form of an
Environmental Impact Report or a traffic study to establish the level
of existing use in the area and to assess the added impact of each of
the major attractions proposed for the Preserve .
Deborah Wright , 517 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, recommended that
camping be made available for the physically limited on the Preserve.
Richard Bullis, Quinta Ranch, Route 2 , Box 310, La Honda, recounted an
ownership history of the Preserve, stated that the Preserve should not
be developed and that he was against the Plan . fie said an Environ-
mental Impact Report should be done on the Plan , noting he felt there
were ten maybe and eight yes answers in the checklist. He expressed
his concern of any development occuring on the site within the bounda-
ries of the Skyline Scenic Corridor. Later in the meeting, Mr. Bullis
questioned the use of the pasture area , located on the western boundary
of the Preserve, and P . Miller stated he was recommending that the
pasture be reopened to grazing.
Rick Hawley, 1805 Fallbrook Avenue, San Jose stated the only objection
to the plan that he had was with the development of a trail into the
Lambert Creek area .
Larry Hassett , 22286 Skyline Boulevard , an adjacent neighbor of the
Preserve, quoted from a portion of the Skyline/Santa Cruz Mountain Area
Study prepared by the County of San Mateo that focused on the traffic
impacts in the Skyline Area . He noted that the District was in a posi-
tion to influence traffic on Skyline Boulevard and that it was appropriate
for the District to consider the impact it would have on increased
traffic levels by the development of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Pre-
serve. He stated that plans for other parks in the area also needed
to be considered since they too affected traffic levels. He stated
the District should limit parking on the Preserve, do a traffic study
before developing any parking lots , and locate trail heads for eques-
tr,ia' n use in the Valley to alleviate horsetrailers on the roads.
Charles Touchatt , P .O. Box 254 , Redwood City, stated he felt the County
traffic impact report read by Mr. Hassett had been ignored in the planning
process, that fire hydrants and protection should be a first priority
on the site, and that the plan was detrimental to the Skyline Scenic
Corridor. He said that staff had not proven that the Draft Master Plan
had no negative impact on the property itself , the surrounding community,
the highways, and the Skyline Scenic Corridor , and that an Environmental
Impact Report should be done on the Plan.
Harry Haeussler, 10911 Highland Circle, Los Altos , stated he was pleased
that the District was going to develop some park-like facilities, but
urged that the development occur more quickly than proposed in the
Draft Master Plan. He stated that each phase should be completed and
evaluated prior to beginning the next phase.
Bob Brown, a member of the POST Advisory Committee, stated that he
was pleased that existing buildings on the site were being utilized
and that no new buildings should be constructed and that he was suppor-
tive of the Plan and the staff recommendations .
Meoting 85-06 Page 6
Nat Sherril-I , 1185 Skyline Boulevard, Woodside, an adjacent neighbor
to the Preserve and a r,.-temLer of the POST Advisory Committee, stated
he was impressed by the number of items originally proposed that were
no longer a part of the plan based on public input and said it ought
to be a good plan. In a letter dated March 25, 1985 , that he as a
member of the Board of Directors of the South Skyline Association wrote
to the Board , he urged that the construction of the helipad facility
be expedited .
Jean Rusmore, speaking in behalf of the Midpeninsula Trails Council ,
stated that she, Greg Schafer, and Carolyn Lekburq of the Council had
reviewed the Draft Master Plan with District staff and support the
plan and its effort to provide accessibility to all for a variety of
open space purposes, while keeping the low-keyed, rural character which
is expected in an open space environment. The following suggestions
and comments were made in behalf of the Council : trails should be imple-
mented as early as possible; the Skyline Trail may need to be wider than
the proposed twelve foot width because of the multiple use proposed;
support including• the east and west Lambert Creek trails ' extension
for eventual. connection to parks west of the Preserve in order to spread
the impact of users over the site; encourage the development of loop
trails; offered input when trails are laid out on the Preserve; suggested
careful consideration of the kinds of use each trail would get to avoid
conflicts between trail users; supported the concept of a hikers '
campsite; suggested that the areas reserved for group campers ' cars
include parking spaces for overnight hikers; supported the concept of
"covered" housing, such as a hostel or hikers' but at least by Phase 3
of the Program; stated there may be a need for picnic tables on the
site, screened by vegetation and placed farther than planned from the
parking areas; and projected costs and space required for the visitor
or interpretive center are inconsistent with the site.
Kathy Blackburn, 20975 Valley Green Drive, 4200, Cupertino, a member
of the POST Advisory Committee, suggested that environmental groups be
allowed to use the A-frame initially and said that it would be unwise
for the District to rely too heavily on volunteer help for the imple-
mentation of the Master Plan. She said that additional staff support
may be needed to run the volunteer program and that the proposed Draft
Master Plan was a good plan.
Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road , Woodside, discussed traffic congestion prob-
lems on Skyline Boulevard on the weekends and said the Plan should
include full-time Ranger patrol on the site. He asked if an Environ-
mental Impact Report had been prepared and filed and whether the Plan
addresses the constraints of the Skyline General Plan Study. He re-
quested that the minutes reflect any objections voiced at the meeting
to the Draft Master Plan. In response, 1). Hansen stated that a Nega-
tive Declaration had been proposed instead of an Environmental Impact
Report and P. Miller stated that the Plan did not, point by point, address
the regulations and restraints of the Skyline General. Plan Study.
P . Miller stated he had met with the San Mateo County Planning Direc-
tor and other officials to review the Plan and that San Mateo County
had stated that the proposed Negative Declaration was appropriate for
the Plan.
William Obermayer , 22400 Skyline Boulevard , stated that Mr. Robert Quinn
should be allowed to remain in the house he currently resides in, located,
at the end of Diablo Road at the end of Peter ' s Creek. H. Grench
responded that the District purchased some property from Sandra Quinn,
Meeting 85-06 Page 7
Mr. Quinn ' s s3!;te_r , part of tll:e purchase agreement allowed
Ms. Quinn t")
-. strict i-,uy out a 1easehold that included
the house - :1 state3 tacit the Inad, been brought into a family
dispute anc that staff was xorkinci both parties involved to try
to resolve the situatici-j .
W. J. Scrich , Star Route 2 , 22330 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated
that the former Guenther. and Lohr properties should not be annexed to
the District .
Carol Doose, 22400 Skyline Boulevard , Box 21 , La Honda, stated she
felt the proposed Draft Master Plan had not changed from what was pre-
sented in July, that she disagreed with the location in the first
place, that the District should develop a variety of preserves with
different emphasis rather than focusing on one site, that she was con-
cerned about parking in the Scenic Corridor and in the Horseshoe Lake
drainage area, and that the Master Plan process had not gotten indivi-
duals who opposed the plan very far.
c3,-.irin , 1344 Sta-irilha�'iqh Stre(�,t, , R(l,dwr)(-)cl City , said the public,
informed at)(Dut env ironnirnta I oducatjoi,, and lei sure .
ublic test i :i,ony , P . Mi I 1 ,12r stated that he h,--id discussed
I L_L A i-0,pocts with various city and county officials and that no
individual had expressed any degree of negative concern regarding the
Plan ' s impact on traffic on Skyline Boulevard or other arterial roads .
He said he had not conducted adai.ly transportation survey on Skyline
Boulevard or Page Mill Road. P . Miller said that Phase 1 called for
65 parking spaces; Phase 2 added 25 spaces; and Phase 3 added 25 spaces.
D. Wendin stated his concerns about circulation and traffic created
by the proposed Master Plan, noting that he felt Phase 1 would not
generate a substantial increase in traffic, but that Phases 2 and 3
would. He stated that he would only support Phase 1 of the Plan and
that the Board should implement Phase I and then see what should be
done with Phases 2 and 3 .
N. Ilanko stated that she had the same reservations as D. Wendin for
Phases 2 and 3 .
R. Bishop stated he supported adoption of the entire plan, noting that
a general plan for the future was needed and that the Board would be
involved in implementation decision problems at each stage since develop-
ment funding would have to be approved each year.
H. Turner said that he supported adopting all three phases of the Plan,
but that he was only ready to implement Phase 1 . Ile said that the
youth hostel should be kept in Phase 3 , that he supported staff ' s argu-
ment concerning the hikers ' hut, that he favored including the stable
in Phase 3 and the deletion of the visitors information center. He
expressed his concerns about the multi-use trail and said that traffic
should be dispersed on the site.
K. Duffy expressed her support for the comments made by 11 . Turner and
said that horse carriages should be included in the Plan.
M e e,t I rl(1 8 Page 8
Motion :
at thc, 'Inca o_` a,',)prove the s t af F 1 s recommenda-
tion to apprcv,_- -.,A adopt �"ast-Lr Plan of the Skyline
Open Space Preserve with t-11"o proposed changes as outlined
in the staff reuQrt. R. B-isl—,)u seconded the motion.
Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved that the motion before the Board be
amended to include a youth hostel as an alternate in Phase 3
of the Master Plan. 11. Turnei. seconded the motion to amend.
The motion passed 6 to 0.
Motion to Amend : H. Turner moved that the motion before the Board be
amended to retain the equestrian center as a development alter-
native. K. Duffy seconded the motion to amend.
Discussion: R. Bishop spoke against the motion stating that
he felt there were other locations more appropriate for an
equestrian center and that the inclusion of an equestrian center
on Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve would be too much on the
Preserve.
The motion to amend failed to pass on the following vote:
Ayes: K . Duffy and 11 . Turner .
Noes : T. Henshaw, D. Wendin , N. Hanko, and R. Bishop.
Motion to Amend : D. Wendin moved that the motion before the Board be
amended so only Phase 1 be adopted with Phases 2 and 3 being
conceptual only. N. Hanko seconded the motion to amend .
Discussion: R. Bishop, H. Turner and K. Duffy spoke in favor
of adopting all three Phases of the Master Plan, noting that
it was important for future Boards to know that this Master
Plan was adopted as a long range plan, that the entire plan
would Ise. used as a guide to use in developing spdcific phases
of the Use and Management Plan for the Preserve, and that imple,
mentation of the plan would be dependent upon the budget
approval process. N. Hanko spoke in favor of the motion,
noting, that while she liked the general plan, she felt that
only Phase 1 of the plan should be adopted at this time so
that future Boards could decide whether it was appropriate to
adopt Phases 2 and 3 . D. Wendin spoke in favor of the motion
noting that by adopting all three phases of the Plan, the
Board would be making a statement that it intended to implement
all of the Phases. He stated that Phase 1 should be adopted
now, with the adoption of Phases 2 and 3 being left to future
Boards.
Discussion centered on the meaning of the word "conceptually"
in D. Wendin ' s motion.
II
Restated Motion: D. Wendin restated his motion before the Board to
state that the Board adopt Phase I of the Plan only, N. Hanko,
the motion ' s seconder , agreed with the wording change. The
motion to amend, as restated , failed to pass on the following
vote:
Ayes: N . Hanko and D. Wendin .
Noes: T. Henshaw, R. Bishop, H. Turner, and K. Duffy.
Motion to Amend: K. Duffy moved to amend the motion before the Board
to delete Item C regarding the exclusion of horse carriages from
the site from the staff report . 11 . Turner seconded the motion
to amend .
Meeting 85-06 Page 9
the motion to a,-, ,,-en0 failed to pass on the following vote:
Aves : K. Duffy and H. Turner .
Noes : T. Henshaw, D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop.
Motion to Table: D. Wendin moved to table the amended motion on the
table. 11. Turner seconded the motion. The motion to table
passed 6 to 0 .
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt the Negative Declaration
as presented . K . Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop spoke in favor of adopting the Negative
Declaration since he felt careful consideration had been given
to environmental concerns during the planning process. N. Hanko
stated she did not approve of the piecemeal approach to getting
permits for various projects and conducting necessary impact
studies in the Master Plan and would vote against the motion.
The motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes: T. Henshaw, K. Duffy , H. Turner, and R. Bishop.
Noes : D. Wendin and N. Hanko.
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the amended motion to adopt the Draft
Master Plan be removed from the table. H. Turner seconded
the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0 .
The amended motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes: T. Henshaw, K. Duffy, H. Turner and R. Bishop,
Noes : D. Wendin and N. Hanko.
III . CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the revised claims 85-06 of
March 27 , 1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5 to 0. N. Hanko was not present for the vote.
H. Grench stated that the litigation matter to be discussed in
Closed Session concerned Hassler and said that a land negotiation
matter, although not shown on the agenda, would also be discussed
during the Closed Session.
IV. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session at 10 : 30 P .M.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 : 00 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
CUdI,S No. 85-06
Meeting 85-06
Date Mrch 27, 1%
crIi):'r ti S =IO:r1C 0 'I S?AC : D:IS,i IC'
REVISED
Lm t: T'a:T
Description
106 218.31 Anvrigas Tank Rental and Field Supplies
B107 40.90 Bruce Barton Pu 4, Service, Inc. Pu,p Repair
9108 62.11 Nina C. Bechard Reimbursement--Private Vehicle
B109 225.00 Jams Boland Reimbursement--Conference Registration
B110 1,192.60 Boone Cook & Associates Plans for Rancho San Antonio Water
System
Bill 900.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Consultant Fee for March
5112 46995.00 California State L`niversity Registration for David Topley
113 ALL California Water Service Rancho San Antonio Water Service
3114 275.00 Galen Chaney Reimbursement--Chain Saw
B115 6.97 Coanunications Research Co. Radio Repairs
�116 339.44 Ross Conti, Tax Collector Property Taxes
g117 10.25 The Country AL-zianac Rental Adver-:i se*nent
9118 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Ser-Ace for Windmill Pasture
119 126.40 Alice Cummings Re;_mburser-.nt--Filni and Processing
120 210.00 Dennis Danielson Reirbursernent--Conference Registration
121 76.15 The Dark Room That_-o Processinnd
122 34.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Services
M3 50.20 Jean H. Fiddes Rvi buise zit--P.ental of Folding Chairs
124 397.94 First American Title Co. Title Insurance for Barlow Property
3125 12.43 General Telephone Company Telephone Book Listing
126 19.30 Graphistat, Inc. Fleeting; Brochure
�)127 46.21 Herbert Grench Meal Conference
128 29.40 Harbinger Communications Computer Service for Newsletter
129 37.19 Hubbard & Johnson Field Supplies
130 51.76 IBM Corporation Office Supplies
MI 56.02 Image Technology, Inc. Artwork Enlargement for Dooley Property
132 11.72 Keeble & Shuchat Photography Supplies for Portable Exhibit
133 3,355.00 M.B.W. Construction Company Coal Creek Building Demolition
5134 250.00 Michigan State University Tuition Fee for James Boland
135 72.71 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
5136 1,268.16 William P. rIirphy, Tax Collector Property Taxes
137 645.06 Orchard Supply Harare Field Supplies
138 5,304.60 Orrick, Herrington & Lutcliffe Bond Counsel Fee for. 1935 rlote-Issue
and Miscellaneous Expenses
Claims No. 85-06
M inq 85-06
M, n 27, 1985
AmiDu:it IN,a:r e PJE�TISED
Lk-scription
8139 82.97 Pacific Gas & Electric Corpa.-ly Utilities
8140 6.50 Peninsula Blueprint Service Drafting, Supplies
8141 30.00 Penhisula Proflame Propane Tank Rental
8142 6,230.91 Ph-Lerton's, Inc. Hassler Patrol Services- February
8143 253.12 San Mateo Times Advertisement
8144 63.90 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc. Typesetting for Traveling Display
8145 16.24 Skyline County Water District Water Service
8146 1,000.00 John H. Tallett Legal Fees for February
8147 4,963.75 ZM Associates Skyline Faster Plan
8148 787.82 Xerox Corporation Maintenance Fee for February and
8149 158.58 ZZZ Sanitation Co Supplies
any
Equip-zent Rental and Ilaintenance
8150 136.58 Petty Cash Office SuDolies, I-Teal Conferences,
Delivery Se----Ice-Ice and Private Vehicle
Expenses
April 24 , 1985
APPROVAL OF MI14UTES March 13, 1985
At the April 10 meeting, E. Shelley moved the approval of the
minutes of March 13, 1985. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
There was a subsequent motion, moved by E. Shelley and seconded
by R. Bishop, to table the above motion until the April 24 meeting
to allow members of the public to submit written statements to
the Board for review and consideration. Statements were to be
submitted if members of the public felt their statements made at
the March 13 meeting had been inaccurately reflected in the
minutes .
I have received no written statements for your review and
consideration.
Jean
Location for May 4 , 1985 Workshop
Las Lomitas School
229 Alameda de las Pulgas
Atherton
The space has been reserved from 8 : 00 A.M. to 12 noon.
` - ,a - .q, ♦x�r, Ar, q' �tr' 4s ?Va •• T o t s. {}:
••�',raol / � /� � k ��� ry � th Frt / �.�r ryr♦3 ,` , �,. Li�rrc� w I'�.y:_:y:::
rc�
MEWO �\ J �e r♦ff R ♦. //\\�q'Fi r�Ay 4F,� ,� �� � � s.c.ro,r..��Y .� r. J$..`.����4 `r• +era s� \:y'r+.::ti.:
- p, a' `fir <+. FrkY o w,r ,,,s a tr ' h�,y ,.a�/ :t`.J• � Y i `f 4 r: .'cD o'S r{:;;:}.
':•% (\ COUNTRY / Ly rrM1 ¢a• a yY ~ggyyD ?Y '4>cyr riQ rf9♦'r �. 8<+!i"� rp,� fr a Y+t!Ar? g r ry _ "�• l.t< �:-.:.
:�:}� r\ —co" r< ` ♦r'h• aF ♦w 4p ` ♦ ��q♦ 'k1r �`�'� / �agy'M kf �� FL<' Fp <�Fr�r y�y.:
isq^�� CLUe tq .�`' "� M I Cr�F♦J � 'rtr rrJr �o q /C��r.ti ��r - M,yys,:�# < f`� �} rqF x`�a •::•::•:
�y �� roe �C4D W�<o< \, /♦ ion♦♦a rH ♦ '�rpJir s 7 °rrgy qy♦M #' '.k at.'_:a qu h d D♦ /� .
:•'r.R � .fn,'�iirr i��//�• 4`� _•�+' ry � �°Jr r♦ q / /.s �,, rrb,y0.„I rato��� rFi t';, qy tq ♦e�r / * �fir•::�}�(
;:`♦` " y?'" •yparacRrE �\ /" / Oi � �: ` �/ � '� uca rp�/,� rhfy"tsr r. M.^ �:j.r°< �'r h"kr fi •x M.DOYf. !":a
'.'�'-� "0 �aatst /,�o d i"yy. � �r� 'R' 4i. r" 4$r7♦ � 'vo` La �'y'�,r♦'� .,os.. :,•:;:��:.
...�'� O\ 8 SOVIx• � Ct. ��e .. i � � .J y pq =-V �Tv Jam• � 14'.
• rtl�\r /cgrz Da eQ�� s\,trc F y r RgnRst� Los+� ' J eDq p ♦o:•:•.:•:
ExaDR �•, r. ,p ♦ '4}'.�-,y J x'�r`$i' < 4 � � `�a 1/ tr`� r
�. � o �J'� ,�b '� � ,�/♦i �,�:r•a'+Y 1F Jr � Jr t S /i s J o
•:.¢d o�a<� *g 1 r[Lq,t.' � � fr r,�x c;/.�•67v�(n+ ` 7 4tr ry�.� C a,,y ° �1 Ji L no + ,' - _--
7 y L
f♦ OC / 8' yr q♦ °qt♦L. '�Y'y 9 Jr rr W\. l ;RD. rw tJur
• �,� fit» R � arq w.,, < �J- 4 < t` yyDr C.ryrg4 r ry��' rf��eq� S' r♦,t`, l�i s
,..� wr ,_� '�J �� ri� � r ^`t+r t'rr ♦ :�°aqC.��'r,yam h, rhr � /w[sr ;:,:;:
FSASpecial Meeting Location
Ja r m ops r .` o♦ o urf,,,. c
LOMITAS SCHOOL �'�r,f u ,' o,, r DNDL\. �."� A,o a= 3•w�
fir'♦ � �r�r� r' ,/
- - 229 Alameda de las Pulgas ' - �.•� / '; o...t� M_ _ ,;:::•;
Atherton
� 4 a
\, o ,�`J', orAF�D �{ LAS LOMITASSCHOOL
4
!' Yppfr �C SNAROM H_ElGNrs
OLFs sNDSH.RDX! rLc RS
MENLO—
COUNTRY tCLUB JiR la s DR.x yJ
\ tt o REFUGE 1+�
Cano
fI a l l'w
LlNEAR U
SfA.CfUR6
Alameda de las Pulgas
r:
�•h< .F T.;:t"/;.tVF:AJ.4"1'J,.'F-.7.G.................. ..T.'.!.:........................:..................."..................::•:•:•:•
[[ :l:
WRITTEN CODMUNICATION DISTRIBUTED AT
MEETING 85-10, APRIL 24, 19P
Sandra ouc`latt
P. O. cB' oX 25L
�Redwoo6 City , 94064
Apr_.. 2 i 985
?. 0.S. D.
375 Distel Circle
o s ." 1 i o J
tea. 94022
Dear Members of the Board ,
The intention of the Portola Par" heights property Cwners
Association created and recorded in June 1971 is to promote a general
plan for the residential improvenen,t and benefit of all land and
,suture owners . _ike the previous owners , the District must make the
required payment, to the Association who has been responsible for the
nair.tanance , repair and upkeep of the private road to Skyline Bivd
and the locked gate for many years prior to District ownership . They
have also been the means for the promulgation and enforcement of all
regulations necessary to the governing of t;ie use and enjoyment of
this private road .
Pease assure the Association in writing they govern their
private road to Skyline Blvd and send a copy to ime . :f unable to do
so , please send a copy of a Memorandum of Legal Opinion that cieary
establishes the District ' s position .
Sinc _ ely ,
v
lzll�<
ndraTouchatt .
I
I I
I I E
1 I
1 • , r� .^ 1 � �NF
4LP
I
I
I 1 3 , 2 � •1 % / 4oq� I
• ' e I.
I I �•i 1 i ���o ...I
-- -I--------1---- ----
----- --� 1 I
9 8 7 i G j wr I t_J
• I
1 I J— I
I Gip � 1
I t �a�0`� ' r • I I
!2 11 10 Jy
• REsiaccrc I 1S I�- 1 `
oe 1 I
hiTN4 R[9oLiK! I I I •' r I 4�qo
j ----- 1 i 19 •
Po � 2I ZD 17 I • !o sc
sari I P • , I . I �d , ❑
I { 1 I D I I
�� I Z�r ; ♦ I I I I
22 � I • I
+ 1 1
I I 1 la*rww+
1 1 • nrr�s..nnra
OK sc"
1
1
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION distributed
at ME '_ng 8 5-10
Ap-L1 24, 1985
Pit.2 S �.a�✓ I u-r•.,J� / : pAl
R-: c.
ri
i
f —
r 7 ,
Ili f
i�
ij
I� f
li ..
i'
I: •
1
WRITI'EP' 714VI NICATION DISTRIBUTED
AT MEEE 85-10, APRIL 24, 1985
22400 Skyline Blvd
La Honda. Ca. 94020
Board of Directors April 21 , 1985
MROSD
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos
Ca. 94020
Dear Members of the Board,
Wel the undersigned do not wish to h our
or residences annexed into the MidpeninsulaeRegionalpOpe1e`' and
District. p n Space
Sincerely.
i
c
r
0
z
X dt 044 roj r D
N
n
rc As eraAX a "c.#4'o A I
�It t li co
p n
w I
/ m
o of �.
�� l . ., A r V AL /dO r T
/ 0
s fit c•�..�+ ,� �. �// ,tea P
co
N
0
V
O
O
v
0
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION m
Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1985 D
O
N ��
WRITTEN COMMUN'. PION
Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1985
A LAW COPPOPATWO1,
(415)494-3121
POST OFFICE BOX 705
PALO ALTO.CA 94302
April 17, 1985
David W. Hansen
Land Manager
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: District Claim to Use of Grandview Drive, etc.
Dear Mr. Hansen:
I have a copy, of your letter of April 5, 1985, addressed to "Members of Portola
Hills Subdivision." First, no such group of membership exists, and I am certainly
not a member Of Such a group.
Secondly, I would like to address your attention to the fact that I have received
no response to my letter to you dated March 26, 1985. To reiterate, I am the
owner of two parcels of property on Grandview Drive, Woodside between State
Highway 84 and Espinoza Road, including, approximately 1,400 feet of that private
road to the center thereof.
Some years ago The District acquired a landlocked parcel including a small
pond which parcel had been a portion of the Schilling Trust property of approxi-
mately 105 acres. The District's grantors had acquired the Schilling Trust property
and, by means of a "Judicial Subdivision" broke it,up into a number of parcels,
including the subject parcel which the District required. The District did not
go to the trouble of obtaining title insurance nor did the District go to the trouble
at the time it acquired the property of first ascertaining whether the parcel
really had any access. When I mentioned this more than a year ago you told
me that you had "been assured by Mr. Gano, one of the grantors, that such access
existed." That assurance, you told me, was a verbal one only. You did tell
me that you had ascertained that the District does have a recorded easement
by way of right-of-way over Grandview Drive and Espinoza Road. I asked you
to supply me a copy of that recorded easement and you assured me that you
would do so. You have not yet done so. I assume the reason for that is that,
upon more mature investigation you learned that no such recorded easement
exists. Similarly, of course, neither your grantor nor you (the District) have
acquired prescriptive rights to the use of Grandview Drive and Espinoza Road.
COMMUNICATION
WRITTEN CO ppR 18 1985
Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1985
22400 Skyline Blvd . Sox 22
_a Honda, Ca. 9a020
April 16,. 1985
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Distel Circle , Suite D- 1
Los Altos , Ca. 94022
Dear Board of Directors ,
I am writing in regards to the S,%yiine Ridge Master Sian , which
you adopted on March 27, - 985 . I urge you to direct stair to give
immeciate priority to fire prevention measures and estaolished an
adequate water system and fire hydrants in onase one as a first
priority .
I would also like to see staff directed to address the issues of
traffic and parking. Although these items were included in the study
oy 2M, 1 feel they still need to be addressed . Increased recreational
traffic is a hazard . if not mitigated in some fashion , which has yet
to be proposed , increased weekend traffic , especially along this part
of Skyline , will only lead to tragedy .
=t is hard for me to understand the justification of placing
parking lots within the Skyline Scenic Corridor . There are certainly
many more people who will be driving by who deserve to be able to
enjoy the beauty of the Skyline without the insertion of puolic
parking lots. .t would 5e appropriate to have staff prepare a special
study to investigate alternatives which would eliminate tnese parking
lots . The vocation is also in the Horseshoe Reservior watershed and
could '-)e a source of future pollution .
Sincerely ,
I
In response to the last paragraph of your April 5, 1985 letter I incorporate in
this letter, by reference, all the statements and all other matter contained
in my letter to you dated March 26, 1985.
In closing I again must emphasize that I am writing this letter. not as a "member
of Portola Hills Subdivision" but as a property owner on Grandview Drive.
Very truly yours,
Edward Nelson
EN/cI
cc: Don Langrock
Ms. Barbara Seitle
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Honorable Rebecca Morgan
Honorable Robert Naylor
--Mid-Peninsula Regional Open District Board of Directors
A r C
(415)494-3121
POST OFFICE BOX 70!,
PALO ALTO CA 94302
March 26, 1985
Mio-Peninsula Open Space District
375 Vistel Circle, Suite D-I
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Claimed Rights of MROSD over Grandview Drive, a private road in
Vi'oodside.
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 them-of.
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-
er
and I was assured by Mr. Britton that he would send to me suchdocu-
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
m', 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 o'fficers.*
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 a.ill keep me advised, ahead
of time of planned meetings, actions, etc.
Very truly yours,
L
Edward Nelson
El\/cl
cc: Don Langrock
{ WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 85-10
April 24, 1985
APR Y i Jc r,
3 7S-
Z-Z
4
V�
L) A�
daCC -4 P�
L 4ff,-4-1
d4,t
.�.. a n.�.,� .e.e�.. ��.u,�.• cam.. ,� .�
� 1,
vvx
—'e,t
- ,,,,n. ,-.� � r-� � ram' .,�,p .1�w^ys
� � ^� r� ter^ w �r~r
zc
MAOL4 j"4E.IOA
i
Box
Le X r Z
Cc
V
AI
11
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 18, 1985
Anthony G. Such
22306 Skyline Boulevard
La Honda, California 94020
Dear Mr. Such:
We have just received your letter dated March 29 , 1985 . I would
like to address here the first two issues which you raised in
your letter as it appears that you have misunderstood certain
District activities.
The LAFCO petition to which you referred in our firstparagraph
P Y Y
specifically_ excludes the Kevill , Goldwater, Such and Ayer
properties. Mr. Tannenbaum did attempt to contact all four
owners of the above mentioned parcels in order to ascertain if
you would voluntarily agree to be included in this annexation.
I Though he was able to speak to only yourself and Mr, and Mrs.
Kevill strong objections to being annexed were expressed by the
owners and for this reason annexation of your property as well
as the others has not been pursued.
Regarding the matter of eminent domain you assert in the second
paragraph of your letter that, "Your (the District' s) recent
mailing emphasizes that Eminent Domain has never been used. . .
The District has openly stated that eminent domain has been used.
The enclosed list of Resolutions of Necessity (condemnations)
considered by the Board of Directors since 1974 was made available
to the public at the workshop of March 30 , 1985 and last night 's
workshop.
Mr. Such, you expressed other concerns and ideas in your letter
and these will be added to the written comments which the Board
is considering during the public workshops on eminent domain,
the Brown Act, policies for acquiring lands outside of the Dis-
trict boundaries and policies regarding annexation. I have
enclosed additional relevant information which has also been
provided at the preceding two public workshops. Your interest in
the District is encouraged and please feel free to contact my
office should you have any further questions.
Since y,I
L. C aig ritton
Assistant General Manager
LCB• cac
Enclosures
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors,Katherine Duffy,Nonetle G.Hanko.Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
• 6 n n ] u 3 7 J - 0 - c 6 1 1 j J > ' 3
� - J � j ] 7 J 1 :1 -.. ♦ i J r i II W ..J l ]
u •� ] ; •r r t 1 a J > > D 1j ] T 1 ]
U 1 S r + 3 1 _ J A nJ all f- Jt :t _ _ •+ ] '9 1 +
G7 J , 7 + r t 6 J 7 + + It ;1 W
J t J U J i � -� 1 • •- j 7 J f 1 3
n
• t .J - ] L i : 1 f to ] ] O +J rd i - 1 1 J
t) \ ,J 3 1 7 l9 7 ] • .3 -J T ) I •, O .J .r �� J .l .J .J
J d J W •+ I n :; J i] ] •• i- .. :j J 7 , L
ri
J - i] • i i 1 t 'd 'S L7 IJ Ul -j t9 -J
z In 11
Li
-J (� I tU 5 i 3 i • 'i F- U r'I '� U rb S: 1 W 1
N �J ITJ J J ..� C :j U 0 0 J
e: t'J _1 : - p ... -f ! L l 1 , f. J - j .. (.) '� + N U �i 1
7 n m N (] In ., _J J !n W U 1 m •, ._ ) +J
1 C n W U I 't .r _ 7 .;..t I) r1t a lrl . r3 0 U
3 C'0 : x .. C U � '] 11 10 4 N W id .c :J N +J Irl 1
III aJ Z .' r,, •, .!
j: .• U , TJ n Z •+ N 4- •-+ iU rt [l 7 >\
•1 +_t 0) W G, 1 1 In ,J ,.� iJ to A + L .• �-! ((I tit 0
•! L " ••-%..• C ri Li l'J rt r- A i. III 11 0 to -4 In [1 in 4- 11 n -i i S:
J W .1 •+ i1 C d! (p CI W c W W 0 , r », w m 1 T 5 W +� D fJ +!
n :iup .J ', ;� n l n ., ro " .. ., u .c :. p11 p ,J
t I] c .• S: •, +J r t - 1J .0 +J 3 ., +J 1J T, 0 fJ
0 it '� u -Y. r� 3 In T� N .; U
t l + J] rIj v- m Ll lJ J 1 .c C :J. 17 1 6J »J J 4J
it rS +J +J ,0 +J f) f U LI CI +J to is
`^ U t'1 11 s C n I t +J in U • L1 tJ 'j L w N � U r+
S_ J F +, m cl t 7 _- rd tri i i I'll In :f
4 ,' U aJ 0 Ct 11 •� S- :; _ s. _{ = -- S: +J ., 4j U m to 0 1a
(J t] ♦! y +� A L In n IJ �+ .J 0 lJ rS +J -C
C.: _ I t; LI v u 10 +• >li i +J ib u m Li 4. - -+ 0 W L
0 i. [ Ll !i J 11 +J 11 +J S. T1 -, LJ 4j IS 4-' +J C c L 1b
(r Ic 0 J T! o , C l� t t�' P O u J m it t U c, +! � 171 N w A JC
. w ;I (•1 f, a .. [ 0 .. .,- r _ (, w t, F a c N to v
a: C Gt [J i. GI :J C] [1
C• N is b) 1 i U C, U 1] Q
•.+ f:, �� _ Li .. T' ., 1. t t t't (; +• 1` t': I,j (J - [1 +-! +� tll U CL •.
ki
t<l IC , 0 •' Z t I I Li ri 41 L (5 +- P.1 ni
11 - QI ... f I. + LI ti T' (.I - JJ C
a' fJ 1' rJ 0' 4 C >. Iti _ r., w 0 0. s_ Tr
11 +' i t l C 1, R f; �+ C + M C is Ll i� ._ ,.. +J 6t r I` U UI .L
GJ i ._ t LL r: U r ». 11 ', U L. V U — U LI Z' 6, QI ++
0 P. ( _ r, P.• t4 t i' m cr s' Q r• v ;� �( S. w it' V f ti , s n. (+
C'' 1 I f. f_ _ I: Z+ f= 4. S 1. a! U In . +- t t1 > I. ( (' III C ti
> L! » U I- C L, 4- [t r 13 � Rf ! L n L, , t O a tI m f:
[ ( I t. _ ri — L' C' at 0 V V :: 1 4: S CL r G G S ( i C If. L C. to
f f _ f ► + S UI 3 I +' Cn U L t;. + L LL m h UI 7 [. Lt. i S G } 1, . • C- L r•
I
1
Z :E
ld rl I rD 11
< :; 4 A
fl. CL
ru
:" -'0 W
77 u Ui 5 11)
In
71
ILI
k'J
O I 41
-13
U L
P- E.
c I
ki
h
,0 M-85-71
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS.CALIFORNIA W22
(415)985J717
April 23, 1985
To: The Committee on Eminent Domain Policy; District Counsel
From: Harry A. Turner t
Subject: Exclusion of Emi ent Domain from All Land Acquisition
Transactions
Position. There should be a moratorium period of two years during which
the District will not initiate an eminent domain proceeding. This
moratorium should begin soon and should extend to all discussions between
the District staff and landowners: the potential for use of eminent domain
and the prospect of a recommendation to the District Board for its use will
not be discussed.
Rationale. The rationale for this policy is different from the rationale
for prior recommendations to restrict or eliminate the exercise of eminent
domain against people living on land they love. In this case the objective
is to seek a relationship that is compatible with land use policy making
governments.
In the impartial LAFCO analysis of District powers (in 1972 and 1976) it
was stated, "The powers of the District include acquisition and disposition
of property, with right of eminent domain, ...(except that such actions
shall not interfere with city or county property or activities), ..."
(emphasis added). As we all know, the District has no zoning power and it
operates under legislative mandate to make only acquisitions that are
compatible with city and county master plans. It is also true that
proposed developments are scrutinized and controlled by CEQA processes and
the power of the county to withhold development permits. The county
planning staff and commission is an additional forum for the implementation
of the county's land use policies and guidelines. All of these facts lead
to a strong observation the the District's intended and appropriate role is
harmony with public land use authority.
We should also note that the mere existence of the eminent domain power is
a counter-productive incentive against the District's objectives.
Undeveloped lands beome more secure against its use when they are improved
with residences.
Recommendation. The District Board of Directors should adopt the following
eminent domain policies:
1 . The District shall not acquire land or interests in land by
exercise of the power of eminent domain. All land acquisitions
shall be from willing sellers.
Harb*rt A Ou"Ch,Ge+ at#4 Board of Dtreeton KattWlne parry.Nonette G Hankn,Te+rrut HentlNw.AtcMrd S Brshop,Edward G SnaiteY,Merry A Turner,Dante G Wend,n
Eminent Domain
2. The threat of eminent domain shall not be made.
3. These policies will expire after two years from the date of their
adoption unless they are re-adopted by resolution of the Board of
Directors in public session.
4. When developments are proposed that are incompatible with current
or prospective public open space, the District will present its
concerns to the appropriate government agencies.
5. In the event that these policies are rescinded, then the following
policies will take effect:
a. Residents, whether owners or tenants, will not be subject to
involuntary removal from the land on which they live.
b. Lands that are essentially in their natural state will not be
acquired by use of eminent domain proceedings except in those
extraordinary circumstances in which the public benefit
demonstrably outweighs the loss of individual property
ownership and in which no feasible alternative is available.
M-85-69
��w •Q
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CAUFORNIA 9Q22
(415)965-4717
April 24, 1985
To: The Board of Directors
From: Harry A. Turner afJ
Subject: land Acquisition Pl n
Position. Some uncertainties regarding our land acquisition guidelines
need to be clarified.
Rationale. We have received a reasonable request from George and Sarah
Dueker to exclude a small community of homes (25 parcels, 18 of which
contain homes) from the District's master plan.
There are other similar communities that are included in the master plan.
There are developable lands on the master plan which are unaffordable and
for which cities with zoning power have encouraged development.
District objectives within the LAFCO-mandated sphere of influence regarding
preservation of the Skyline Scenic Corridor have not been subject to public
scrutiny.
Recommendation.
1. Adopt a policy that will exclude the Dueker's and other communities
from development in the District's master plan.
2. Place the topic of "land acquisition plans" on a future Board agenda.
cc: George and Sarah Dueker
South Skyline Association
Portola Heights Association
Kings Mountain Association
Harbert A Grw%ch,Oenerat 1lanapw 8"fd of D+racrors Katho"ne Duffy,Norwtfe G.Hanao,Teets Henahaw,Rdctwo S.9'shop.Eowaro G Shefley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G W#"u
M-85-70
7 ' r
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1.LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 23, 1985
To: The Board of Directors, District Counsel
From: Harry A. Turner qV1
Subject: Compliance with the Brown Act
Position: An alternative method of compliance that risks increased land
acquisitions costs should be given a trial.
Rationale: Our publication of the properties list has produced conse-
quences that we did not foresee. If they had been forseen I doubt that the
District would have published it. Some other means of complying with the
Brown Act would have been devised.
Although our policies have not changed we have unintentionally and
regretably frightened many people. This effect alone is sufficient to make
us find another solution. A most important thin has changed, we have
frightened our friends and neighbors.
In addition, we have unintentionally selected a process that gives the
appearance of avoiding the spirit of the Brown Act. And, since the list
includes vastly more properties than the District has the capability to
acquire, it has given the appearance of not providing meaningful
information regarding District objectives.
One of our motivations was to serve the public interest by protecting the
District's negotiating position. Specifically, we accepted the argument,
"Not only would the District be exposed to opportunistic third parties,
good faith negotiations with landowners would suffer, since most owners
consider such discussions to be personal and confidential."
I believe that the general sentiment in favor of open processes requires us
to accept the proposition that "democracy is expensive" and to evaluate the
risks involved.
Recommendation. The District Board of Directors should take the following
corrective steps:
1 . Withdraw the previously published list. In addition, make request
forms available to any landowner who chooses to declare an
unwillingness to talk with the District's land acquisition staff.
Nsitbr+'t A Grsnch,Grua+sr 6Hryprsyr Board W orrectors rUtturine putty.Noositte G Harvko,Toone Htr,sMw,A>ctwd S Bishop Edwina G Srurtey.Harry A Turner,Denw G wandm
Compliance with the B a Act
2. Whenever the District Board intends to meet in closed session to
instruct its negotiators it shall
a. List the subject parcels and the names of their owners on the
published agenda; and
b. Orally announce in public session the parcels to be discussed
immediately prior to the beginning of the closed session.
3. Publicize these actions ci z
4. Write an explanatory letter to all landowners on the withdrawn list
whom the District has good reason to believe were offended by its
publication.
cc: Assemblyman Bob Naylor
Senator Becky Morgan
ERGENCY ITEM
85-68
-4% (Meeting 85-10
le April 24, 1985)
0 lqlqt I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 24 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Emergency Authorization to Purchase Materials for Rancho San Antonio
Water Project
Introduction: On October 10, 1984 you adopted the Use and Management Plan for
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve which contained the recommendation to
improve the sites' water system at an estimated cost of $15,000. An engineering
consultant was then employed to prepare plans and specifications for the project
that were used to obtain three bids from local vendors for project materials.
The bids were analyzed by staff and discussions were held with staff from the
City of Mountain View Recreation Department (an agency contributing to the project)
and the District's construction consultant to determine the lowest responsible bid.
By mutual agreement, it was recommended that the bid received from Roberts and
Brune, for the estimated amount of $12,906.73 be selected
Discussion: The three bids were difficult to analyze because of the incomparable
manner in which they were presented. The prospective vendors prepared them by
examining the engineer's plans and specifications which left certain decisions as
to necessary parts up to the vendors. It was therefore impractical to compare
cost totals because of the ambiguities in the material lists, so instead we looked
closely at unit prices and completeness of the materials lists. The following was
determined:
Vendor Comments
Roberts & Brune Moderate unit prices, most complete list,
most responsive to supplying parts and
advice
P.E. O'Hair Lowest unit prices, very incomplete list
McGuire Highest unit prices, sufficiently complete
list
It was then discovered that delivery by all three vendors could take up to four
weeks which became a concern because of the proposed project schedule. Since there
is a significant amount of trenching involved and the dry weather has accelerated
the hardening of the ground, the possible four week delay indicated the project
would be considerably more difficult to construct.
page two
We were then unexpectedly informed by Roberts & Brune that they had located
materials that would be delivered in one week. This prompted staff to proceed
with the order on April 21, 1985, even though the necessary authorization from
you had not been obtained. It is not to say, that this order cannot be cancelled
if you should decide not to authorize this purchase.
In addition, staff is requesting an additional $1,000 be authorized for the
project to allow for extra pipe to be ordered and on hand if it should be required.
This material can be returned to the vendor if not needed and the District will
be reimbursed.
The District will be responsible for full payment of all materials, but it should
be noted that the City of Mountain View will be reimbursing the District for
approximately 1/3 of the project cost.
Recommendation: I recommend that you select the material bid from Roberts & Brune
and authorize the Assistant General Manager/General Manager to purchase materials
for the Rancho San Antonio Water Project in the amount not to exceed $14,000.
M-85-65
(Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 18 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Disapproving Annexation Entitled "Sempervirens
No. 687-A"
Introduction: At your meeting of April 10, 1985 you considered a
report from H. Grench (R-85-24 dated March 26, 1985) regarding
Annexation of Certain Parcels in Santa Cruz County. After conducting
a Public Hearing on the topic, you considered a motion to adopt the
resolution ordering the annexation, and the motion failed.
Discussion: According to Government Code Section 56319 .1 , within
30 days following the conclusion of the hearing you must adopt a
resolution approving or disapproving the annexation.
Recommendation: In view of your action on April 10, 1 recommend that
you adopt the attached Resolution Disapproving the Annexation of Terri-
tory Designated as "Sempervirens Annexation No. 687-A" Into This
District.
RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Disapproving the Annexation of Territory
Designated as "Sempervirens Annexation No. 687-A"
Into This District
WHEREAS, on April 10, 1985 the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District held a duly noticed Pub-
lic Hearing regarding the proposed annexation designated as
"Sempervirens Annexation No. 687-A" , and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors, after discussion, defeated
a motion to adopt the 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,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the annexation of the
aforementioned territory is disapproved.
_ 1
M-85-66
(Meeting 85-10
April 24, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 19 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: April 17 Workshop Follow-Up
Discussion: At the conclusion of your April 17 workshop that
centered on the District ' s use of eminent domain and Brown Act
procedures, you determined that another workshop would be held
to continue discussing procedures in implementing amendments to
the Brown Act and to discuss policies regarding acquisition of
land outside the District' s boundaries and annexation of land.
The morning of Saturday, May 4 was selected (presumably contin-
gent upon finding a suitable meeting place) for the next workshop__ ,
since the Town of Portola Valley' s Multi-Use Room would not be
available. I will advise you of other possible meeting locations
on April 24 for a final discussion.
Recommendation: I recommend that you discuss the process for
consideration of amended procedures in implementing amendments
to the Brown Act. I further recommend that you schedule a Special
Meeting to be held at 9 : 00 A.M. Saturday, May 4 , 1985 at a loca-
tion to be determined.
i
M-85-64
(Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORA14DUM
April 17 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters Financial
Analvsis of Mountain View Site
Discussion: At your meeting of March 20 , 1985 (continued from the Regular
-Reeting of March 13 , 1985) , you considered an interim report on the per-
manent office space search (see report R-85-21 , dated March 8 , 1985) .
Attached to that report were previous reports on the same subject. If you
do not have conies of the pertinent background information, please advise
the office so we can make copies available. Because it was determined
that a final decision had not been made on whether the District should rent
or purchase office space, recommendations numbered one, two and four were
continued for staff -to provide more specific information on the City of
Mountain View site. Recommendation number three was approved (the locat-
ing of interim office location, with the Imperial Savings site being the
first choice) .
I have attached a financial analysis Prepared by Mike Foster specifically
considering purchase of the Mountain View site and building a permanent
office building vs . renting office space based upon the current rental
market. This analysis indicates that building facilities at that particu-
lar location becomes equal to renting about 8 years after commencement
and from then on increases its advantage. This was true even though a
fairly high (25%) vacancy rate was applied for unused space and a high
(20%) management cost was also applied. Additionally, the repair and
upgrading cost estimates may be high, especially in the earlier years.
Current office space is renting on a triple net basis and there may be
unknown costs associated with taxes , services and leasehold improvements.
Director Bishop asked that costs in terms of staff time associated with
the construction of an office building be considered. There would be
staff time associated with both negotiating a lease and setting up the
leased space for District use as well as negotiating a site purchase
and making the decisions on construction of an office building for
District needs. It is certainly true that more staff time would be
reauired to purchase and build rather than rent. Also, a committee of
the Board would probably be involved in the design and construction phase
of the project. However, the cost of construction inspections and over-
seeing of the project would be handled by the architect and is included
in the construction cost estimates at $100. 00 per sq. ft.
M-85-64 Page Two
It is my opinion that the staff time involved in purchasing a site,
planning for the construction and bringing the project to conclusion
can be accomplished within current staffing assignments. The architec-
tural and financial aspects could be handled by consultants which would
help to relieve pressure on staff time. I estimate that the staff time
costs would be on the order of $40 ,000 to $50 ,000 and would not be a
sensitive factor in the financial analysis.
Recommendation: The three recommendations which were continued from your
March 20 deliberations are as follows:
1) Staff would continue to work with the Committee which would monitor
progress and help to formulate recommendations to the full Board.
2) On a first priority basis , District staff would pursue the purchase
of the City of Mountain View site at the southwest corner of Bailey
and Latham streets. We would return to you with progress reports
and necessary hiring of consultants if any contract were to exceed
$10, 000.
4 ) on a second priorty basis , staff will continue to search for other
possible office site locations or land and/or buildings for lease
and/or purchase for permanent use.
The recommendation approved at the above referenced meeting was:
3) On an equal priority basis, staff would seek to secure an interim
office location, with the first choice being the Imperial Savings
site. A lease with option to purchase arrangement appears to be
the most advantageous situation from District perspective , if it
can be negotiated.
M-85-63
(Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1995)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 15, 1985
TO: H. Grench, General Manager
C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
FROM: M. Foster, Controller
SUBJECT: Financial Analysis of Office Space Alternatives (Mountain
View Site)
Per your request I have updated my office space financial analysis
using the new assumptions we discussed. My conclusion is that from
a strictly financial viewpoint, ownership is clearly superior to
renting.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Own: Buy land and construct building, sublease excess space
Rent: Rent office space
ASSUMPTIONS
1. District initially occupies 5, 000 sq. ft. and adds 1, 000 sq. ft.
every four years.
2. District can rent @ $1. 85/sq. ft. , (triple net) , increasing 15%
every three years .
3 . Leasehold improvements required for rental property = $50, 000 .
4. Land Cost = $350, 000
5. Building Size = 12 , 000 sq. ft.
6. Construction Costs = $100/sq. ft. = $1 . 2 million
7. District can sub-lease excess space @ $1 .75/sq. ft. increasing
15% every three years.
8 . Vacancy rate on excess space = 25%
9. Management cost = 20% of rental value
10. Repair & upgrading = $15, 000/year starting year 4 . (Fscalating
@ 6%/Year)
11. Land Appreciation = 8%/year
12. Building Appreciation = 2%/year
13 . Discount rate in cash flow analysis = 8% .
M-85-56
(Meeting 85-10
low April 24, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: M. Foster, Controller
SUBJECT: Appointment of Auditor for 1984-85 Fiscal Year
Background: For the last six years, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells (DHS)
has served as the District' s auditor. Each year DHS has performed its
services in a competent, professional manner and has regularly recom-
mended worthwhile improvements in our accounting practices and controls.
DHS ' s efforts last year were particularly noteworthy in getting us
through the audit on time despite the lack of stability in the accoun-
tant position. Because of the extra work in 1984 , DHS reports that it
realized only 42% of its standard rates.
Proposed Terms: DHS has estimated a fee of $6, 200 for the 1984-85
audit including examination, preparation and printing of financial
statements, a management letter containing recommendations for improving
procedures and controls, and providing on-going training and assistance
to our accountant. This represents a 10. 7% increase over last year' s
standard fees and appears reasonable compared to the competitive quotes
obtained last year and the increased level of service DHS now provides
during the year .
Recommendation: I recommend that the Board appoint Deloitte, Haskins
and Sells as the District ' s auditors for the fiscal year 1984-85.
i
V ill
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Asst. General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: 4/24/85
i
i
Meeting 85-11
DRAFT #1 DRAFT AGENDA ITEMS
Meeting Date : May 8 , 1985
1 i Name on . p
I� Category � Time Title Lead Report Status
I i (min.) Agenda Responsibility
OBWAR 1 5 Nolte Second Reading David � David
Possible Policy Statements is opi
2 6 Hanko Committee
Re\Use of Power of Em. Domain Turner l
I
NBWAR 3 5 Appt. of Peace Officer David David
I
4 5 Setting of Spec. �Meeting with Herb i Jean
San Mateo Cty Bd of Sups I
I (�
I
ty
tit
oee,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 22, 1985
Mr . Robert S. Zatkin
P.O. Box 620502
Woodside, CA 94062
SUBJECT: Bicyclists on District Open Space
Dear Mr. Zatkin:
I am writing this letter in reply to your note of April first regarding
allowing bicycles on District lands. You and I , in addition, have had
, an opportunity to discuss the matter on the telephone.
At the current time, the District allows bicycles on all lands except at
portions of Rancho San Antonio. In addition, our Board does not have a
policy regarding "mountain" or "all-terrain" bicycles. In fact, our ordin-
ance and policies do not discuss bicycles at all . Your reference to a
bicycle being a vehicle, while it may be defined as such, does not violate
our ordinance as it refers specifically to motorized vehicles in the ordin-
ance and I do not see any contradiction in this case.
Within the next few months, however, once we have completed our staff work
on trail standards, the issue of bicycle riding on District lands and other
trail uses will come before the Board. Ideally, the Board will make a
decision at that time regarding mountain bike use, new policies will prob-
ably be adopted, and the ordinance amended. We will keep your name on
file to let you know when these hearings will be to allow your input at
that time.
I have also attached an interesting article on the matter from the
bicyclist's point of view for your information.
Thanks for your letter and your support of the District.
Land
Ve truly ours,
David truly ours,
en
L T ��'j
and Manager
DWH:ds
Attachment
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
RUBFRT [ | ��L
J('� ^ SKY L| NE BLVU� , �O3U� |D[
(415) 851 23,8�
17 April 85
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
SUBJECT: Ml6pen\nsula Regional Open Space District,
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is providing
a much needed function on our peninsula. | applaud their
efforts in saving the green foothills and the baylands from �
rampant developament.
They should to continue to acquire lands BUT only from willing
� sellers and only within their voter approved district bounderles.
They should not try to coerce property owners to become willing
sellers by using threats of their power of condemnation.
Open space district
in addition the Ad;kx*r;kz% should annex land into their district
only by popular vote of the population in the area Rxp..R of the
proposed annexation.
Bob Fisse
Woodside
�
�
�
V
;iiD?cti,\� 1 7GIONAL OPEN SP.-SCE DISTRICT
. cJtTc D•1,1 GS a_
_FORNIA 9:022
V�
(G 15)9,5 a .,
.Mpril 19 , 1985
Mr. Edward Nelson
P.O. Box 705
Palo Alto, CA 94302
SUBJECT: District Access to Grandview Drive
Dear Mr. Nelson:
This letter is in reply to your letters of March 26 and April 17, 1985
regarding District rights over Grandview Drive to access s the Schilling
Lake area of the Thornewood Open Space Preserve.
To answer Your stateme
nt regarding .
not being informed of meetings regarding
the Grandview Road question, I can say unequivocably that you have been sent
the same information as all others interested in the matter who live in the
Grandview/Espinosa area adjacent to the District Preserve. This has included
notices regarding District Board meetings and the meeting held in January
1984 at the Langrock ' s house. I would suggest that you also confirm with
Mr . Langrock the 7 : 30 p.m. District/neighborhood meeting regarding the road
question to be held on April 25th.
.As Craig Britton and I have discussed wits you on the telephone and in per-
son, the rights the District claim are the same rights other subdivision
owners have in the neighborhood who cross your portion of the road to access
Highway 84 . I have enclosed again our legal intern 's opinions of those
rights to property owners of the Portola Hills subdivision_ Our interest in
using the road, as was stated at our December 1983 Use and Management Review
and January 1984 neighborhood meeting , is only to allow our rangers and
staff access to the Schilling Lake parcel for planning maintenance and se-
curity purposes and not to encourage or allow the general public to use
Grandview and Espinosa Roads . This appears to be your desire as well.
Hopefully, we can again discuss and resolve your concerns on the matter at
the meeting of April 25 if they have not already been resolved through
this letter,
^.. Sincerely yours,
n.,
David Wm. Hansen
Land Manager
DWH:ds
cc: Don Langrock
Barbara Seitle
San Mateo County Board
Of Supervisors
lion. Rebecca Morgan
lion. Robert Naylor
MROSD Board
Herbert A Gre-%h,General!tanager Board of Directors:Katherine Dilly,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A:Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
l �—
WRITTiN COMMUNICATTON
Meeting 85-10
April 24 , 1985
I
EARL G. L. GILLEY
110 ESCANYO WAY • PORTOLA VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 94025
Q-S041 qVa rbo,41L
i I
I
I I
I I
AM, ) C 94a22-
I
� I
�Gy1 � � Ye� ✓� V2�;Q�,
� r I
sty I.n� v Wrve--eQ be- wY 6;w c rim c-,z- -,fs�
kae- /A- xA4 .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION APR 2 � 198�
meeting85-10
April 24 , 1985 Z�,0, /yeti-
Le 0.,z
Z4
70
-Xro,44a d4 zolLe -4 -1141.
WRITTEN COMM00ICAT-
Meetiog 85-I0
April 24 , 1985
Burrell & Cleo Jackson
2819 Carson Street
Redwood City, CA, 94061
Teena Henshaw, President
� PNUSD Board of Directors
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos , CA. 94022
� Last Sunday we drove along Skyline Rlvd, and as we drove,
we commented on what has to be one of the loveliest views
� in the world - and especially this time of year. The
�
hills are emerald green , the wild flowers are in bloom,
and it was great to get away from the urban Sprawl .
�
�
Now we read that the San Mateo County Planning Commission
has overturned their own Planning Commission 's recommenda-
tion to reject the development of 235 acres on Russian
� Ridge' Unbelievab7e'.
� We strongly urge reconsideration Of the decision and
�
that every effort to keep it as open apace'
� Sincerely yours,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
WRITTEN Ca?,IL NICATIOP S u n n y v a Ca .
Meeting 85-06 March 21 , 1985
March 27, 1985
J
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Open ,Space District
375 Distel Circle
Suite D-1
Los Altos , Ca . 94 22
Dear Board Member
I was sorry oyread that you were subjected to abuse at your
recent beard meet .ng by a typcal selfish special interest g oup.
I hope that your tote not to condemn Ms. Dooley ' skproperty r presented
your true beliefs and that you did not panic because a bunch of
people were yelling at you . r
I actree that the Open Space District should respect the property
rights o residents of long standing in the mountains . Ms . 600ley,
however , `'is a different breed of cat . She is obviously one Of the
new richaristocracy of Silicon Valley , many of which would dike to
stake out their own little five acre mountain domain . If th s kind
of development is allowed to continue , there will soon be litle
left in the mountains for the hoi,' polloi to enjoy .
t fi
I rankly don ' t give a damn kvuhet .er Ms . Dooley ;ever get her
dream h me or her Christmas tree ,farm--but I do want to see ur
grandch ldren and great grandchildren have something left 0f their
natural herit e . The way�,the Santa Claw Valley is going , ou (we)
must sa e eve�y beautiful natural area that can be saved .
If Ms . Dooley ''s property , or any like it , is really ne essary
to pres rve the integrity of an open space area, Incourag you
to go a, ter ,it . You may have Ms. Dooley and a few f her Wends
screami� g at you , ,,but you will also have thousands of vallely
dwellers applauding your every move . A 20 year oldtract house or
a 1200y=sq. ft. condo will do for Dooley , as they are doing/for
thousands of other local residents .
Y 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 magY-ficent job an you have kept your ye onw the ball
at all `times . Y,nur concept of$kthe job to be done has been the
correc one , and you must not `let the Ms . Dooleys 6f the world
shout, you down.
Sincerely ,
Walt Marsh
511 Humber Ct .
Sunnyvale , Ca . 94087
M
a� s
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM* Craig Britton, Asst. Gen. Mqr.
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: April 19, 1985
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 16, 1985
Mrs. Marsha Quam
Star Route 2, Box 403
La Honda, CA 94020
Dear Mrs. Quam,
I was touched by your recent letter, and I particularly agree with your
statement that "it is extremely unkind to leave people uncertain, living in
a state of fear. . .." In order to address the principal part of your
concern, I am enclosing policies that I have proposed to reduce eminent
domain proceedingsby the District to a very rare event. Will you take a few
moments and prepare any comments or revisions that you think are
appropriate? I will carefully consider any revisions you care to propose.
Sincerely,
a
Harry Turner, Director
Ward 6
enclosure
cc: MROSD Directors
Hwbort A.Grtnch,Gantnl Mano9w Board of Drractors Kathtrina Duffy,Nonttta G.Hanko,Tttna H♦naharr.Richard S_Bishop,Edward G Shall",Harry A.Tunw,Damer G.Wendin
J
M-85-67
—ILI
%!or
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 17, 1985
To: Board of Directors
From: Harry Turner
Subject: Eminent Domain Policy
I have received an excellent proposal regarding eminent domain policy from a
constituent. it is enclosed for your information and consideration.
enclosure
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
f
M-85-67
Enclosure
It shell be the policy of the MkIpeninsu a Regional Open Space District
to limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain to those extraordinary
circumstances where the'public benefit demonstrably outweighs the lass of
Individual property ownership. Emphasis shall be placed on voluntary and
cooperative methods of achieving the Distrid's objectives.
In carrying out the land acquisition program of the District, the
staff shall advise landowners that they are under no compulsion to sell and
the it is the policy of the District to use the power d aminent domain only
in hotly um muuel cirmnstmoee. The landowner shell also be advised the
his/her optione are not limited to outright sole of the property but include
other voluntary forma of sal. These include:sale subject to a reserved life
estate; sal of a trait easement; sole of development or timber rights
(conservation easement); sale of a riot of firms refusal; or sale of an
option to purchase at some future date,such as the death of the landowner.
The use of the threat of eminent domain, whether under adversarial
or non-adversarial circumstances, shall be made only with the prior
approval of the Board in public session.
When no feesible voluntary alternative is available, and the public
benefit far outweighs the loss of individual property ownership, eminent
domain proceedings may be initiated by this Board When such proceedings
could result in the involuntary displa siment of individuals from their
personal residence, whether primary or s oondery, such Individuals shall
be assured of the right to retain use and occupancy of that residwce during
their lifetime.
Read at Apra_ 17, 1985 Special
K Meeting Workshop
y
L
N 0-P
E
T B
ti 0 TA
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
To : Board of Directors, MRCISD April 17, 1985
Re : District Policy on eminent domain
The South Skyline Association firmly believes that the MROSD policy
should be:
"Interests in land shall be purchased exclusively from willing
sellers."
Rationale: Because the District has the power of eminent domain it has,
almost from the beginning, developed a coercive approach to land acquisition.
If a property owner does not readily accept the District's offer, a threat
of eminent domain is used. Although the Directors have expressed the
desire that eminent domain be used only "as a last resort," the staff does not
appear to reflect this sentiment in its actions either with private
or public owners.
There are many other, more cooperative, methods of preserving natural
areas which have not been explored, simply because it is easier to use
the force of law.
We believe that in the long run the goals of the District can be
best accomplished by developing a good working relationship with the
Counties, other agencies and private property owners. Good relationships
cannot be achieved by coercion.
Janet Schwind
President
Read at April 1 1985 Special
K
Y Meeting Workshop
L
I N C,
E
T B
0
SANTA U CLARA
L
E
V
A SOUTH SKYLINE ASSOCIATION
R
D PEOPLE CONCERNED WITH THE BEAUTY AND THOUGHTFUL PLANNING OF THE SOUTH SKYLINE
April 17, 1985
To: Board of Directors, 1-20SD
Re: Implementation of Brown Act & amendments
The South Skyline Association has already made recommendations
regarding the List of Properties in a letter dated February 24, 1985.
We still ask for the List to be withdrawn. However, we certainly
do not wish to encourage the staff to stop communicating with the
Directors about potential acquisitions. We urge you to consider other
alternatives for implementation that meet these criteria:
1. Honor the public's right to know
2. Allow for Directors' input on potential acquisitions
3. Protect the seller's right to privacy when desired
4. Not jeopardize the property rights of the "whole" to protect
the few
If these criteria cannot be met under present law, additional legis-
lation should be sought.
It should be noted that if the District firmly adopted the "willing
sellers only" policy, the list of Properties would be almost innocuous.
The power of eminent domain and the List are incompatible.
Janet Schwind
President
22400 Sky ne Blvd . Box 21
La Honda, Ca. 94020
April 12, 1985
John Ward , Director
San Mateo County LAFCO
County Office Bldg.
Redwood City , Ca. 9QV65
Dear Mr . Ward ,
I wish to thank you and the commission for your letter to Santa
Clara County LAFCO requesting transfer of jurisdiction to San Mateo
LAFCO for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District annexations in San
Mateo County .
This letter was not considered to be of significant importance to the
commission as no representative from San Mateo was in attendance at
their April 10th meeting.
The annexation was considered to be " routine" and were it not for
two technical complications it would have beeii approved. It was
decided that the issue of transfer of_jurisdiction should be dealt ,
with separately from the annexation at hand , and that an informal
meeting with San Mateo LAFCO would be the best way to discuss the
matter .
There is great concern in the areas into which MROSD is expanding
without the people having ever been given the oppertunity to vote or
have representation on the board. The policys of the district allow
them to buy properties outside of the district and then annex these
properties into the district . In this fashion they obtain fingers and
corridores which extend out from the district and create inholdinSs
and pockets of priv'ate property which can then become subject to
aquisition pressures from the district.
MROSD is an aqusition district and they have the power of emminent
domain. Their expansion in the area, with no oppertunity offered for
popular vote , is threatening. Unlike other districts , there is no
specific plan in terms of properties to be aquired . They do not simply
get a piece of necessary property to satisfy a need, as might be done
for a water tower . Instead, once they aquire property , they feel the
need to aquire contigous properties and on and on. For many of the
residents who are in the district ' s sphere of influence, but not in
the district , there seems to be no alternative to being involentarily
gobbled up by the MROSD.
The extreme concern of the residents and property owners within
MROSD' s aqusition area has caused the board of directors to begin a
series of public workshops to address four important issues, including
annexations. The statement that the annexation at hand is 'routine"
should not be used to justify its approval as this "routine"
proceedure is part of that which is being questioned. It would sees ,
in light of such controversy, with public workshops being held and
important policy statements being considered by MROSD that it would be
appropriate to not approve or proceed with any annexations, especially
shoes in areas of controvercy.
Sincerely,
Carol J. Doose
cc . Santa Clara LAFCO
MROSD Board of Directors
z
I
22400 Sky. ine Blvd . APR 16 1985
Box 22 Star Route 2
La rlonaa, Ca 94020
April 114, 1985
San Mateo Co. _AFCO
Attn . John Ward , Director
County Office Bldg.
Redwood City, Ca. 94065
Dear Mr . Ward ,
Thank you 4or your letter lara _ArCO requesting
tney allow San wateo jurisdict 1 annexations in tneir
district. Unfortunately since no representative from San Mateo
was present at the meeting they felt there was no urgency and
the annexation at nand was routine . I hope a greater effort can
be made to Keep San m ateo annexations under the jurisdiction of
our local agency .
In this particular case 6 parcels oe-ng annexed to the
district are on the outskirts of a major subdivision , the only
access to these parcels is through this subdivision which is
outside district ooundrie and has no voting priveiedges or
representation .
-many landowners outside the Miapeninsuia Regional Open
Space District were not aware of the districts spnere of
influence. Private open space groups buying up -and in
cooperation with the district and teen annexing tnese ana
adjoining properties into the district is wrong. This causes
ajoining lana owners , and land owners negotiating with orivate
or public open space agencies to cooperate with the annexation
out of fear of the power of the condemning agency and/or for
personal gratuities , with no regard to the impact on the
community at : arge . It also leaves fingers of district land in
areas where no popular vote was allowed and there is no
representation for the impaetea lands .
:n accordance with the Constitution and the American
Democratic system the land owners and residents in the sphere
of influence area should be allowed to vote in unison to accept
or deny MROSD requested additions to the district, just as a
unified vote of the people created the district in Santa Clara.
`here should be a moratorium on district annexations until
the upcoming public workshops are done and revised policy is
establisned .
tnank you in anticipation of swift action .
Sincerely ,
I
Wiliiam J. Obermayer ,
-_esiey Wadsworth
Lana owners in Portola rleights
cc : LArCO Santa Cara
MROSD Board of Directors
Senator Becky Morgan
Assemblyman Bob Naylor
-- - Phyllis Cangemi
517 Lincoln Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94061
Phone: 415-363-2647
April 8, 1985
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Members of the Commission:
It has recently been brought to my attention that the San Mateo County LAFCO
has made a request to your agency for jurisdiction over the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to handle the matter of the District' s
request to annex 471 acres along Skyline Boulevard near the Santa Clara County
border. I am also aware that San Mateo County LAFCO would like to take over
all matters regarding District annexations in San Mateo County.
As director and founder of the Whole Access Project I quickly brought this
matter to some members of my advisory board. While we, as individuals, generally
agreed on a stand, it was not felt to be within the purview of our organization
to take a position on this issue. Therefore, this letter is being written
by myself as a private citizen. However, I would like you to know that the
contents have been agreed upon by members of my advisory board who were contacted
by phone at this late date.
I have read arguments from both sides involved in this request, and while
the SMC LAFCO makes some points, still it seems that the District argument
is more logical . For one, it would not appear that the Santa Cruz County
"precedent" is truly analagous to the San Mateo County situation. The taxpayers
of Southern San Mateo County voted in and have been involved in an intimate
way with the Open Space District for nine years. This is the opposite situation
in Santa Cruz County. It otherwise would have been ideal , in my view, to
have Santa Clara County LAFCO hold jurisdiction over at least Northern Santa
Cruz County annexations while consulting cooperatively with Santa Cruz LAFCO.
This is currently the case in San Mateo County dealings and is quite appropriately
so. Probably, the best argument is that it has been working.
I am aware that there is strong general , though often passive, support for
Y
ace open s b the residents of both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
p P
demonstrated this. I would also like to point out that
Studies done have e
the two District Directors in San Mateo County, Harry Turner and Dick Bishop,
have both recently been strongly challenged and have re-won their seats on
the Board with quite strong majorities. I feel that this certainly cannot
be an indication of widespread discontent w th the District' s activities.
Of course, no one can please all and we so-v times lose sight of the great
good being done when we are bombarded by (some media dramatizations of) the
criticism, of a few. There are many individuals and organizations in this
County, including mine, who are quite satisfied with the work of the Midpeninsula
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of Santa Clara
Page Two
Regional Open Space District. The results, 18,000+ acres in a little over
a decade are there for all to see. The richest or the poorest among us need
only look toward the West to benefit from this gift of open space. Many
of us are glad to see that the District has worked so diligently, and with
the financial skills to stretch the taxpayers' dollars, to acquire as much
of this precious open space before real estate prices become too high for
the public to bear. They have, apparently, been able to be so successful
in part as a result of a good working relationship with Santa Clara County
LAFCO. I hope that you will see fit to continue with the current arrangement.
I would like to add some information about the Whole Access Project. Our
organization, located in Redwood City, is working in cooperation with the
major Bay Area parks and special needs agencies, to improve the opportunities
for all people, including those with disabilities, to participate in the
outdoor recreation and nature experience. Our experience with the District
in this regard has been nothing but positive. In January and February of
1984, we gave a series of training workshops on whole access at Hewlett Packard
Company in Palo Alto. The sessions were attended by administrators and field
staff on both sides of the Bay, and from Marin to Santa Cruz, from county,
regional , state, and national parks. Attendance from all levels of the MROSD
organization occurred consistently throughout the entire series. We have
had numerous requests from them for our involvement in all of their development
plans with the goal of making open space accessible to all people. This
is especially commendable as real study was needed to develop trails that
would not be too steep for wheelchair users and other non-sure-footed hikers.
They have recently received a grant to create a one+ mile whole access trail
in primitive redwood land along Purissima Creek which we support and advised
on. They have also produced, through a consultant, a master plan that includes
three+ desirable whole access trails, and the appropriate restrooms, parking,
and interpretive access, which will make Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve
(in future years) a truly unique project.
As you may know, many organizations are now working to improve the lives
of people with disabilities'. Whole Access Project organization has been
formed with the belief that all people, regardless of their physical or mental
condition in life, need to have the opportunity to experience nature.
As an individual , I would like to see the wisdom of the voters who made the
choice to preserve open space protected. I , therefore, am supporting the
District' s request that you maintain your current position as the lead jurisdictional
agency (LAFCO) in San Mateo as well as Santa Clara Counties.
If I can be of help in any way, please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
Phyllis Cangemi
(Founder, WAP)
S+
14
A
Xr
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965 4 T 17
April 12, 1985
Portola Park Heights Property
Owners Association
c/o William J. Obermeyer
22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box 16
La Honda, CA 94020
Subject : Portola Park Heights Road
Dear Property Owners :
This letter is in reply to your March 21 letter to our Board
and subsequent notes from William Obermeyer received after the
meeting in our offices on April 2 attended by Obe, C. Touchatt,
C. Doose, David Hansen, and Craig Britton to discuss the road
and other issues pertaining to the Portola Park Heights area.
First, when we update the District' s Master Plan for your area
we will see if we can show the developed residential area as
grey and appropriately captioned. You will have an opportunity
to review the draft map before it goes to our Board.
Enclosed is the documentation requested at the meeting, including
title reports and a letter to Don Campbell regarding our mainten-
ance obligation for the road. As was stated at the meeting, the
District will continue to pay our required share for road repair
and maintenance. The ideal situation from our point of view, how-
ever, would be to have the District as a voting member of the
Association and have our road maintenance policies considered as
an alternative for a possible new agreement for the road. These
policies consider usage frequency of the road rather than lineal
frontage as a basis for shares . I have attached a copy of these
policies for your consideration.
Regarding the use of the road by hikers and equestrians, be they
Portola Park Heights residents or the general public, we do not
wish to perpetuate or encourage conflicts with the vehicular traffic
Herbert A.Grench,Genera/Manager Board of Directorsr Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Portola Park Heights
Property Owners Association
April 12 , 1985
Page two
accessing your lands. The road has never formally been signed or
designated as a trail, but we do show all roads as trails on most
of our property maps, and the route is certainly an ideal one for
recreational use crossing Long Ridge in a north-south direction.
Because the District owns underlying fee title to the road/trail
where it crosses District lands, it would not be overburdened by
allowing foot or equestrian traffic on the road . However, we would
like to eliminate any hazardous situations which might effect the
safety and welfare of the general public.
To alleviate the vehicle/pedestrian/equestrian conflicts, we pro-
pose that our planning staff meet with representatives of the
Portola Park Heights group and local South Skyline Association
members on-site to determine an ideal trail alignment which could
bypass the narrow switch-back sections of the road. Please telephone
David Hansen to set a date for this meeting. In the interim, we
would also like to sign the road to forewarn vehicle and non-vehicle
traffic of the potential conflicts. Regarding liability on the
road, the District carries liability insurance- policies to protect
the District for all District properties, including for roads and
trails. But we will have to obtain a legal response from our Counsel
on any insurance obligation we may have regarding your liability when
crossing District lands over access easements. This will be answered
in a separate reply from Stan Norton, the District' s Legal Counsel.
I would like to reiterate strongly that we desire to allow you con-
tinuing legitimate vehicular access over the District ' s Long Ridge
property, but hope you will consider as well the public ' s legitimate
recreational access to their lands. We hope you will participate
in the site use and management planning process in which we try to
balance various needs. I am sure that we can come to a reasonable
solution for all parties concerned.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
HG :ej General Manager
Enc.
cc : Vf4ROSD Board of Directors
Steve Wolf, South Skyline Assn.
Long Ridge Area Residents
Stanley Norton
0
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-11,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
April 9 , 1981
Mr. Donald M. Campbell
128'/0 Robleda Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re : Long Ridge Open Space Preserve - Portola Park Heights Road
Maintenance obligation.
Dear Don, -
The information submitted with your letter of February 20,
1981 has been forwarded to the District' s legal counsel for re-
view. However, in the interim, I have made a careful study of the
documents and have determined that if there is liability, it would
be based upon the formula established in Paragraph C2 .and C3. of
the "Deed and Covenants of Easement, " recorded in volume 5128 at
pages I through 6, official Records of San Mateo County. According-
ly, the lands of Humphrey and successors (Sec. 33 & 34 , T.7.S. ,
R. 3-W. and Sec. 31 T.8.S. , R. 3.W. ) would be liable for one-half the
maintenance costs; and the lands of Leynse, Stalling and Ashby and
successors would be responsible for the remaining one-half of the
maintenance costs, and . . . . "shall be apportioned betv.,cen and among
them and the lands now owned by them, on a pro rata basis - each
paying that proportion of the one-half maintenance costs , which is
determined by the ratio of the number of running feet of the center-
line of the within granted easement which is upon and over lands
ovined by them, as numerator, and the total number of running feet
1-C
the centerline of the within granted easement as denominator. "
At the time the maintenance costs were incurred the District owned
the former Bridgeman property, which according to our calculations ,
included the following road lengths :
a) 2421. 17 ' on both sides of the centerline at 10001a
b) 667. 511 to centerline only at 50%
Therefore:
MIZOSD length 2421. 17 + 667 . 51 ( . 5) = 2754 . 93 .28
;f Ctf_Length 9723. 79 9723. 79
Herbert A Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors KatherineDufty,Barbara Green,Nanette Fian"�' Richard Btshov Eck.vardG Shelley.Harry A Turner.Camel G.Wendin
Uonai6 M. Ca-,npbc!ll
4-9-81 page 2
Total maintenance costs enumerated in your letter are
$19, 224 . 58; accordingly, the indicated District participation
would be:
19,224 . 58 X . 28 $ 2, 691. 44
2
Would you please advise me by return mail if your revised
analysis agrees with my calculations. Also, there are several
matters associated with any payment the District might make which
need further investigation and clarification:
1) Our legal Counsel must still determine that the District
is legally obligated to pay for any maintenance cos%'--
*-S
under that agreement or for any other reason.
2) The District acquired the Smith Property (San Mateo County
Parcel No. 085-140-40) on March 4, 1981 . We disavow any
and all road maintenance obligations occurring prior to
District acquisition of the property.
3) Land management staff will still have to verify all work
performed and corresponding invoices submitted, to see
that the work was within the area of the road covered by
the maintenance agreement.
4) Since we were not involved in the original decision on
past maintenance items, we would like to know how these
decisions are made, and the extent of our votes (we
currently control 5 lots - 4 on Bridgemen; 1 on Smith . )
5) We' would like to be involved in all future discussions and
decisions pertaining to this road. Please advise us ol`
the necessary process.
6) Before considering any payment, we woula like to discuss
changing the formula because of our infrequent use. it
appears that this agreement was originally established
with development of all the properties in mind (as you
know, the Bridgeman parcel would have been div;-ded into
4 lots) , since the District will use this road' infrequently
(maybe once a day) , it is our desire to reduce our partici-
pation and make the formula more equitable (we only use
a short distance of the entire road) . Also, for our
purposes, dirt roads, ruts, etc. , do not create a problem
for District vehicles and we could live with a much lower
standard.
- Donald M. Campbell page 3
After you have considered the questions raised in this letter,
it might be advantageous g g to sit down and discuss the entire matter.
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
Sincerel
L. Cra g Britton,SR/WA
Land A�quisi.tion Manager
LCB:iy
cc: Stan Norton, Esq.
Herb Grench
Steve Sessions
cIADIS No. 85-08
Meetinq 85-10
:
MIDPENINSULA RIEGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 24, 1985
C L A I M S
# lanount Name Description
8199 11.20 AnvriGas Tank Rental
8200 40.00 Janes Boland Reimbursement--Partial Menbership, Dues
8201 30.00 Boone Cook & Associates Rancho San Antonio Water Project
8202 66.54 California Water Service Water Service
8203 65.79 Can-den Rentals, Inc. Equipment Rental
8204 43,725.60 Central Fence Company Los Gatos Creek Park Fence Project
8205 45.70 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Expense
8206 213.00 Communications Research Company Com-nunications Equipment Maintenance
8207 95.76 Crest Copies, Inc. Skyline Master Plan
8208 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Service for April
8209 26.63 The Dark Room Photo Processing
8210 108.52 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
8211 11.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Expense
8212 180.00 First American Title Company Title and Escrow Fees--Stour Property
8213 3,049.00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Quarterly Insurance Premiums
8214 25.33 The FrogPond Meal Conference
8215 91.91-111, Goodco Press Office Supplies
8216 78.67 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Professional Conference
8217 25.00 International Erosion Control Agency Mer6ership,
Association
8218 80.00 J & R Drilling Field Maintenance
8219 10,072.87 Jeffries Banknote Company Printing for 1985 Note Issue
8220 284.30 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. District Vehicle Expense
8221 442.00 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
8222 250.00 Charlotte MacDonald Professional Consulting Fee
8223 89.91 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
8224 11.45 Norneyls Office Supplies
8225 105.20 Stanley Norton February and March Expenses
8226 821.26 On-Line Business Systems, Inc. Computer Services for March
8227 421.80 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
p
8228 343.49 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8229 42.54 Pacific Hardware & Steel, Inc. Field Supplies
8230 6,654.22 Pinkerton's, Inc. Hassler Patrol Services for March
8231 112.00 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental
*Issued as an emergency check on April 15, 1985
vlt�ll'1J NO. 03-VO
Meeting 85-10
Date: April 24, 1985
# AmcUnt Name
Description
8232 738.04 S & W Equipment Co. Field Supplies
8233 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription
8234 203.42 San Jose Forest Products Field Supplies
8235 219.96 Santa Clara Artist's Foundry Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Plaque
8236 1,446.27 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc. All-Site Brochure Printing
8237 40.32 Sears, Roebuck and Company Field Supplies
8238 15.52 Skyline County Water District Water Service
8239 400.00 John H. Tallett Legal Services for March
8240 59.84 David Topley Reimbursement--Training Class
8241 47.70 Times Tribune Advertisement
8242 113.70 2M Associates Printing Expenses
8243 156.71 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
8244 115.62 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
8245 49.58 Xerox Corporation Office Supplies
8246 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
cL,A ms No. 85-08
Meeting 85-10
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 24, 1985
REVISED
# Amount Name Description
8199 11.20 AmeriGas Tank Rental
8200 40.00 James Boland Reimbursement--Partial Membership Dues
8201 30.00 Boone Cook & Associates Rancho San Antonio Water Project
8202 66.54 California Water Service Water Service
8203 65.79 Camden Rentals, Inc. Equipment Rental
8204 43,725.60 Central Fence Company Los Gatos Creek Park Fence Project
8205 45.70 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Expense
8206 213.00 Connwnications Research Company Conininications Equipment Maintenance
8207 95.76 Crest Copies, Inc. Skyline Master Plan
8208 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Service for April
8209 26.63 The Dark Room Photo Processing
8210 108.52 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
$211 11.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Expense
8212 180.00 First American Title Company Title and Escrow Fees--Stour Property
8213 3,049.00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Quarterly Insurance Premiums
8214 25.33 The Frogpond Meal Conference
8215 91.91* Goodco Press Office Supplies
8216 78.67 Herbert Grench Reimburserwnt--Professional Conference
8217 25.00 International Erosion Control Agency Membership
Association
8218 80.00 J & R Drilling Field Maintenance
8219 10,072.87 Jeffries Banknote Company Printing for 1985 Note Issue
8220 284.30 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. District Vehicle Expense
8221 442.00 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
8222 250.00 Charlotte MacDonald Professional Consulting Fee
8223 89.91 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
8224 11.45 Norney's Office Supplies
8225 105.20 Stanley Norton February and March Expenses
8226 821.26 On-Line Business Systems, Inc. Computer Services for March
8227 421.80 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8228 343.49 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8229 42.54 Pacific Hardware & Steel, Inc. Field Supplies
8230 6,654.22 Pinkerton's, Inc. Hassler Patrol Services for March
8231 112.00 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental
%',Issued as an emrgency check on April 15, 1985
Meeting 85-10
Date: April 24, 1985
SED
Amcunt game Description
a
2 2
8 3 738.04 S & W Equipment Co. Field Supplies
upp
i
8233 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription
8234 203.42 San Jose Forest Products Field Supplies
8235 219.96 Santa Clara Artist's Foundry Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Plaque
8236 1,446.27 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc. All-Site Brochure Printing
8237 40.32 Sears, Roebuck and Company Field Supplies
8238 15.52 Skyline County Water District Water Service
8239 400.00 John H. Tallett Legal Services for March
8240 59.84 David Topley Reimbursement--Training Class
8241 47.70 Times Tribune Advertisement
8242 113.70 2M Associates Printing Expenses
8243 156.71 Una Graphics Brochure Printing
8244 115.62 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
8245 49.58 Xerox Corporation Office Supplies
8246 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
8247 11,820.44 Keogh, Marer and Flicker Hassler Legal Fees and Costs (9/84-4/8' }
8248 156.22 Petty Cash Office Supplies, Private Vehicle Expen
Meal Conferences and Uniform Alteratic
CLAIMS No. 85-08
Meeting 85-10
MIDPENINSULA PR GIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: April 24, 1985
REVISED
C L A I M S
# Amount Name Description
8199 11.20 AmeriGas Tank Rental
8200 40.00 James Boland Reimbursement--Partial Membership Dues
8201 30.00 Boone Cook & Associates Rancho San Antonio Water Project
8202 66.54 California Water Service Water Service
8203 65.79 Camden Rentals, Inc. Equipment Rental
8204 43,725.60 Central Fence Company Los Gatos Creek Park Fence Project
8205 45.70 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Expense
8206 213.00 Comrnmications Research Company Comnnmications Equipment Maintenance
8207 95.76 Crest Copies, Inc. Skyline Master Plan
8208 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Service for April
8209 26.63 The Dark Room Photo Processing
8210 108.52 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
8211 11.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Expense
8212 180.00 First American Title Company Title and Escrow Fees--Stour Property
8213 3,049.00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Quarterly Insurance Premiums
8214 25.33 The Frogpond Meal Conference
� 8215 91.91%� Goodco Press Office Supplies
18216 78.67 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Professional Conference
8217 25.00 International Erosion Control Agency Menaership
Association
8218 80.00 J & R Drilling Field Maintenance
8219 10,072.87 Jeffries Banknote Company Printing for 1985 Note Issue
8220 284.30 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. District Vehicle Expense
8221 442.00 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
8222 250.00 Charlotte MacDonald Professional Consulting Fee
8223 89.91 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
8224 11.45 Norney's Office Supplies
8225 105.20 Stanley Norton February and March Expenses
8226 821.26 On-Line Business Systems, Inc. Computer Services for March
8227 421.80 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8228 343.49 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8229 42.54 Pacific Hardware & Steel, Inc. Field Supplies
8230 6,654.22 Pinkerton's, Inc. Hassler Patrol Services for March
8231 112.00 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental
*Issued as an emergency check on April 15, 1985
Meeting 85-10
ROE
April 24, 1985
SED
# Aric u t Name Description
8232 738.04 S & W Equipment Co. Field Supplies
8233 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription
8234 203.42 San Jose Forest Products Field Supplies
8235 219.96 Santa Clara Artist's Foundry Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Plaque
8236 1,446.27 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc. All-Site Brochure Printing
8237 40.32 Sears, Roebuck and Company Field Supplies
8238 15.52 Skyline County Water District Water Service
8239 400.00 John H. Tallett legal Services for March
8240 59.84 David Topley Reimbursement--Training Class
8241 47.70 Times Tribune Advertisement
8242 113.70 2M Associates Printing Expenses
8243 156.71 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
8244 115.62 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
8245 49.58 Xerox Corporation
Office Supplies
8246 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
8247 11#820.44 Keogh, Marer and Flicker Hassler Legal Fees and Costs (9/84-4/85 �
8248 156.22 Petty Cash Off-ice Supplies, Private Vehicle Expens-t
Meal Conferences and Uniform Alteration