HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850522 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-13 Meeti-nq 85-13
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 375 Distel Circle, D-1
May 22 , 1985 Los Altos, California
A G E N D A
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 24 , 1985; May 4 , 1985; May 8 , 1985)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(7 : 45) 1. Introduction of Docent Trainees -- D. Hansen
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 : 50) 2. Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use of
Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments,
Acquisition of Lands outside District Boundaries, and Annexation
N. Hanko, R. Bishop, H. Turner
NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 : 00) 3 . Resolution of Congratulations to William Penn Mott, Jr. -- T. Henshaw �
Resolution Congratulating William Penn Mott, Jr. on His Appointment
as Director of the National Park Service
(8 : 05) 4. Illegal Grading on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and
Proposed Amendment to the Fremont older Open Space Preserve Use and
Management Plan -- D. Hansen
(8 : 20) 5. Consideration of Public Negotiations for Possible District Interest
in Quinta Ranch (Lands of Bullis) -- C. Britton
(8 : 50) 6. Initial Implementation of Administrative Study -- H. Grench
(9 : 10) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation, Litigation and Personnel Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concerned with appears on the agenda
please address the Board at that time. otherwise, you may address the Board
under OraZ Communications. When recognized, please begin by stating your name
and address. Concisenss is appreciated. We request that you complete the forms
provided so your name can be accurateZy incZuded in the minutes.
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: May 28, June 4, and June 11. The purpose of the meetings
is to discuss preparation of the budget for the 1985-1986 fiscaZ year. The
meetings are subject to canoe Nation or rescheduZing. Contact the District
office to confirm date and time.
Page three
Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View, questioned the
Board about the use of District stationery by a member of the
Board to express a personal opinion. T. Henshaw stated she
would respond to Mr. Kavanaugh' s question later in the meeting.
N. Hanko requested additional information regarding Mr. Nelson' s
letter and the Espinosa and Grandview Road situation. D. Hansen said
he would be mailing an informational report on the matter.
T. Henshaw and N. Hanko expressed their support for the ideas
expressed in Mr. Wolf' s letter. T. Henshaw stated she would send a
letter of response to Mr. Wolf and would place an item on a future
agenda to discuss the traffic safety issues and what action the
District could take.
T. Henshaw stated the Board had been handed the following written
communications at the beginning of the meeting:
1) a letter, dated April 24, 1985 from Sandra Touchatt, P. O. Box 254,
Redwood City, requesting that the District assure the Portola Heights
Property Owners Association in writing that the Association governs
the private road to Skyline Boulevard and that, if the District is
unable to do so, a copy of a memorandum of legal opinion that - I
clearly established the District' s position be sent to the Association;
2) a letter, undated, from Cliff Jenkins, stating that he wanted to
withdraw his remaining property from consideration for annexation by
the District; and 3) a letter, dated April 21, 1985, from Cliff Jenkins,
Jim A. and Judi Lohr, Barbara Jo and Robert C. Quinn, 22400 Skyline
Boulevard, La Honda, stating that they did not wish to have their
properties or residences annexed into the District.
Bill Guenther, 22400 Skyline Blvd, La Honda, addressed the Board
and stated that he did not want his property included in the District' s
annexation.
T. Henshaw requested that staff report back to the Board on the use
of the Portola Heights Road and the District' s responsibilities
regarding the road. She requested that Legal Counsel prepare a legal
opinion for the Board on the matter and that the information be
presented to the Board in Public Session for consideration. The
material presented to the Board was to include a draft response
to the Association for Board review and consideration.
Discussion centered on the Midpeninsula Preserves 1985 annexation
and the impact of the communications from Mr. Guenther, Mr. Jenkins,
Mr. and Mrs. Lohr, and Mr. and Mrs. Quinn. C. Britton stated that
the Santa Clara County LAFCO would be discussing the matter at their
May 8 meeting, the same date as the .Board' s next meeting. C. Britton
noted that if the Board wanted to take any action concerning
annexation they would have to place it on the agenda as an
emergency item.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board add the annexation matter
to the agenda as an emergency item because of the impact
of the written communications received earlier in the
meeting and the timing of the LAFCO meeting. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
Page tour
IV. ADOPTION OF AGEND'
C. Britton requested that an emergency item, Emergency Authorization
to Purchase Materials for Rancho San Antonio water Project, be added
to the agenda under New Business with Action Requested. He said the
reason for the request was that the cost of materials involved ex-
ceeded $10, 000 and that the order had inadvertently been placed by
staff without Board authorization. He stated that the order could
be cancelled if the Board did not want to consider the matter as an
emergency item.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board add the item concerning the
purchase of materials for the Rancho San Antonio Water
Project on the agenda for the reasons stated by C. Britton.
K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 1
with N. Hanko voting against the motion.
T. Henshaw stated that the amended agenda, including the two
emergency items, was adopted by Board consensus.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Sandra Touchatt invited the members of the Board to tour Portola
Heights area on May 5. T. Henshaw stated that she had discussed
the tour with Mrs. Touchatt and that she would be attending on
May 5. R. Bishop and D. Wendin said they would also attend.
T. Henshaw said that the afternoon would include a tour with
representatives of the South Skyline Association.
T. Kavanaugh requested that his property not be talked about without
his being present and requested that his name be removed from the
listing of property owners.
J. Warren, 345 Swett, Woodside, said he was opposed to the eminent
domain moratorium proposed by H. Turner in his April 23 memorandum.
He distributed a copy of the Country Almanac to the Board in which
he had a letter to the editor about the District and apologized to
H. Turner about incorrectly referring to him as a Stanford attorney.
Mr. Warren asked if all District employees were required to sign a
disclosure agreement and asked if plans for the Skyline Ridge Master
Plan had been submitted to the San Mateo Planning Commission for
approval. He asked for comparables for the General Manager' s salary
for 1982 , 1983 and 1984.
C. Britton responded that only certain employees are required to
sign an employment agreement. D. Hansen explained the reasons the
Skyline Ridge Master Plan did not have to be submitted to the
Planning Commission. T. Henshaw said she would raise the question of
the General Manager' s salary comparables at a Budget Committee
meeting.
William Obermayer, 3200 Long Ridge Road, La Honda, said since there
was a good spring and well at the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve,
the installation of a water tank could provide fire protection.
He said that he is working on a map of the Portola Heights area
so that it could be marked on the Master Plan as a rural residential
community and that he felt the District was receiving biased legal
information regarding relocation aid to the Quinns.
Page five
C. Britton respondua that the District had bought the property from
Sandra Quinn and was not responsible for relocating her brother under
the terms of the agreement. He said he had been working with both
parties to reach some type of compromise .
Bob Fisse , representing the South Skyline Association, requested
information concerning the recall of directors. S . Norton responded
that the Elections Code included a section on recall.
VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Resolution Disapproving Annexation Entitled "Sempervirens
No. 687-A" (Memorandum M-85-65 of ApT17-1 1-8 , 1985)
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-30 ,
a 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. E. Shelley seconded the
motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
T. Henshaw requested that the cover letter to the Santa Cruz
County LAFCO that would accompany this resolution' detail the
reasons the Board had disapproved the annexation at its previous
meeting.
B. April 17 Workshop Follow-Up (Memorandum M-85-66 of April 19, 1985)
T. Henshaw stated the next public workshop would be held on
Saturday, May 4 and the Board would be receiving comments on
implementation of the Brown Act, acquisition of land outside the
District' s boundaries, and annexation of land. She stated the
Board consensus that the same format would be used as at the
April 17 workshop.
H. Turner stated that he, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop would be
meeting on May 2 at 8 :00 P.M. to work on their Committee assignment
of providing the Board with a range of alternatives regarding the
use of eminent domain. Discussion centered on whether the Committee,
meeting should be open to members of the public and whether the
public should be active participants or observers only.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve having the
Committee meeting scheduled for May 2 an open meeting
to members of the public for the purpose of observation
only. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: Discussion centered on the Committee' s exact
charge. D. Wendin subsequently stated that since the
Committee would be returning to the Board with a full
range of alternatives he did not feel it necessary for
the meeting to be open to the public. S. Norton stated
that since the Committee was not a standing committee it
did not need to be publicly noticed. H. Turner stated
his support for having public observers at the meeting.
Members of the public Jim Warren, Jay Thorwaldson, Beez
Jones, and Tom Kavanaugh expressed their support for the
Committee meeting being open to members of the public.
Robert Fisse and Charles Touchatt stated they did not feel
Page six
The Comm- -cee meeting should be not—ed and open to
members of the public.
The motion passed on the following vote :
Ayes: K. Duffy, D. Wendin, E. Shelley, N. Hanko, T. Henshaw
and R. Bishop.
Noes: •H. Turner.
T. Henshaw requested that the members of the Board receive a copy
of Open Meeting_ Laws.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board schedule a Special Meeting
to be held at 9 :00 A.M. Saturday, May 4 , 1985 at Las Lomitas
School, 299 Alameda de las Pulgas, Atherton for the purposes
of discussing implementation of the Brown Act, acquisition
of land outside the District' s boundaries, and annexations.
R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
T. Henshaw stated the Special Meeting would conclude at 11 : 30 A.M.
C. Search for Permanent District Office Headquarters - Financial
Analysis of Mountain View Site (Memorandum M-85-64 of April 17, 1985)
C. Britton reviewed the staff report noting that the financial analysis
indicated that building facilities at the Mountain View location
became equal to renting about eight years after commencement and from
then on increased its advantage. He stated that the additional staff
time required to oversee the design and construction of a new facility
could be handled at the current staff level. M. Foster discussed the
issuance of certificates of participation to finance the office con-
struction project and said such certificates would not count against
the additional debt covenant in the District' s 1982 and 1985 Note issue.
C. Britton stated the City of Mountain View would require an all-cash
payment for the property at the southwest corner of Bailey and Latham
Streets.
T. Henshaw stated the Cline School site on Ortega Street was for sale
and suggested buying the site and selling off part of the land.
T. Kavanaugh requested that all meetings of the Office Space Committee
be open to the public.
R. Bishop stated that as a matter of policy the District should
continue to rent its office space for the following reasons: more
flexibility when renting in terms of increases or decreases in the
amount of office space required; District's money should be spent on
acquisition; the amount of Board and staff time involved in con-
structing a new facility; creating the image of building a monument;
and the need for a construction superintendent during all phases of
construction.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the recommendations
in memorandum M-85-64 stating: 1) staff would continue to
work with the Committee which would monitor Progress and
help to formulate recommendations to the full Board, 2) on
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 ; staff is to return
with progress reports and necessary hiring of consultants
Page seven
if any cc.__-ract were to exceed $10, 6�o, and 4) on a
second priority 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.
K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin stated that from the policy and
political point of view, no Board members should vote in
favor of the motion if at a later date they were not
planning to support the idea of the District purchasing
the Mountain View site and constructing a facility.
The motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes : K. Duffy, D. Wendin , E. Shelley, T. Henshaw, and
11. Turner.
Noes: N. Hanko and R. Bishop.
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Appointment of Auditor for 1984-1985 Fiscal Year (Memorandum
-85-56 of April 19, 1985)
M. Poster stated that he was not recommending a change in auditors
for the coming audit. He said that Deloitte, Haskins and Sells'
estimated fee of $6 ,200 for the 1984-1985 audit was a 10. 70
increase over the previous year' s standard fee and appeared
reasonable compared to the competitive quotes obtained previously
and to the level of service provided by the firm. In response
to a question from E. Shelley regarding changing auditors,
M. Foster stated that it was easier to fool a new auditor and
that audit continuity was important.
Motion : N. Hanko moved that the Board appoint Delcitte, Haskins
and Sells as the District' s auditors for the fiscal year
1984-1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
passed 7 to 0.
B. Emergency Item - Midpeninsula Preserves 1985 Annexation
T. Henshaw stated that this item had been placed on the agenda as
an emergency item because of the written communications received
earlier in the meeting from the private landowners involved who
were withdrawing their consent to the annexation. She said the
Board needed to decide what it should do, as a result of the
letters, relative to the Santa Clara LAFCO meeting on May 8 at
which the annexation would be discussed.
Discussion centered on what actions the District could take,
including amending the application before LAFCO or asking for a
continuation and rehearing of the matter. Directors Duffy,
Bishop, Turner and Wendin said that the District should not
annex private land when the property owners do not consent to the
annexation.
Bill Guenther and Bill Sorich stated that Peter' s Creek should
be the natural boundary between the District and privately owned
land in the area. William Obermayer stated that the District
should not annex any land until the conclusion of the public
workshops.
Page eignt
Motion : D. Wendi. toved that the Board dire,, staff to amend the
annexation request before LAFCO to include only land
owned in fee by the District. R. Bishop seconded the
motion.
Discussion : Carol Doose stated that members of the public
should be able to address the annexation subject before the
Board took any action. D. Wendin responded the actual
annexation would not occur until after the public
workshops were completed since the Board could schedule
when they would be heard. N. Hanko stated she would vote
against the motion out of principle since she felt the
matter should be continued by LAFCO until the District' s
annexation policies were in place. In response to a
question from Jim Warren, S. Norton discussed the questions
regarding the enforceability of District ordinances on
non-annexed land. In response to a question from T. Kavanaugh,
T. Henshaw explained why Santa Clara County LAFCO had
jurisdiction in the matter.
D. Wendin stated that he supported N. Hanko' s decision,
noting that it was not necessary to amend the annexation
request until the public workshops were complete and that he
favored a continuance of the item.
E. Shelley spoke in favor of the motion since District-owned
land was involved.
Charles Touchatt said that the District should not buy land
outside of its boundaries.
H. Turner pointed out that if the Board did not decide to
amend the annexation, LAFCO could hear the matter and vote
in favor of it, thus annexing the private property.
The motion passed 7 to 0.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board direct staff to request
that LAFCO continue the matter until after discussions
resulting from the public workshop were complete. N. Hanko
seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop stated he would vote against the
motion since he did not feel there were objections to
annexing land owned by the District. E. Shelley stated
he would not support the motion.
The motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes: K. Duffy, D. Wendin, H. Turner, and N. Hanko
Noes : E. Shelley, R. Bishop, and T. Henshaw
C. Emergency Authorization to Purchase Materials for Rancho San Antonio
Water Project (Memorandum M-85-68_of April 24 , 1985)
D. Hansen stated that staff had inadvertently exceeded their purchase
authorization limit when ordering the materials for the water :
project, a part of the fire protection plan for Rancho San Antonio
Open Space Preserve that was approved in the Preserve' s use and
management plan. He noted that the order could be cancelled and
said that the City of Mountain View will be reimbursing the District
for approximately one-third of the project cost.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board select the material bid
from Roberts & Brune and authorized the Assistant General
Manager/General Manager to purchase materials for the
Page nine
Rancho San Antonio Water Project in the amount not to
exceed $14 , 000. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7 to 0, with N. Hanko stating that although
she voted in favor of adopting the motion, she felt that
staff should secure proper authorizations in advance in
the future.
VIII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
D. Wendin noted that Section 1. 43 of the Rules of Procedure stated
that a written communication could be placed on an agenda for action.
The members of the Board discussed procedural items they would like
discussed at the next Board meeting, and T. Henshaw stated that the
agenda item should cover distribution of written communications,
use of District stationery by an individual Board member to
express a personal opinion, and ways to shorten the length of a
meeting so that Closed Sessions do not end so late in the evening.
D. Hansen stated that he and H. Turner would be meeting at 7: 30 P.M.
on Thursday, April 25 at the Woodside Town Hall with the residents on
Grandview and Espinosa Roads to discuss access and the road
maintenance agreement. In reference to the written communication
item earlier in the evening he briefed the Board on the contacts he
had had with Mr. Nelson.
D. Hansen stated that the Los Gatos Creek Park fence is 90% complete,
but the entire project would not be completed for a couple of months
because of surveying being done to locate an elusive property corner.
C. Britton reported that the annexation matter before the San Mateo
County LAFCO had been continued for 60 days.
C. Britton reported on the May 21 field trip with the San Mateo
County Board of Supervisors. In response to a question from R. Fisse,
S. Norton stated that the District was not required to furnish
transportation for members of the public.
R. Bishop stated that he had represented the District at the 10th
anniversary celebration of the Santa Clara County Trails and
Pathways Committee.
E. Shelley requested that staff report on the reasons so many of the
trails at Edgewood County Park were closed to use.
S. Norton announced that the litigation matter to be discussed by the
Board in Closed Session concerned Hassler.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the revised claims
85-8 of April 24 , 1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion.
Discussion: In response to a question from T. Kavanaugh, C
Britton stated that Charlotte MacDonald had been hired as
a consultant and the amount on the claims list represented
the work she had done as a consultant on the budget. The
motion passed 7 to 0.
Page ten
X. CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to Closed Session at 10 : 37 P.M. The Board re-
convened to public session at 12 : 05 A.M. , Thursday, April 25, 1985,
to announce that the Closed Session would be continued to Friday,
May 3, 1985 at 1 : 30 P.M. at the District office for further discussion
of the Hassler litigation.
XI. CONTINUED CLOSED SESSION
The Board reconvened for the Continued Closed Session at 1:40 P.M. ,
Friday, May 3, 1985 at the District office. Directors Wendin,
Henshaw, Turner, Hanko, and Duffy were present.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2 :20 P.M. , Friday, May 3, 1985.
Jean Fiddes, District Clerk
Lea Brown, Secretary
CLAIMS No. 85-08
Meeting 85-10
MIDPENINISULI. P GIONAI, T Date: April OPEN 1 24 1985
1 SPACE DISTRICT p
REVISED
C L A I hi S
x Amount Dame 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 Communications Research Company Comnnmications Equipment Maintenance
�18207 95.76 Crest Copies, Inc. Skyline Master Plan
8208 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Service for April
II8209 26.63 The Dark Room Photo Processing
8210 108.52 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
8211 11.00 Federal Express
Special Delivery Expense
II8212 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 Fro _ and
� deal Conference �
,821.5 91.911, Goodco Press Office Supplies
8216 78.67 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Professional Conference
8217 . 25.00 International Erosion Control Agency Membership
Association
8218 80.00 J & R Drilling Field Paintenance
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 Dmpster 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
i
8229 42.54 Pacific Hardware & Steel, Inc. Field Supplies
5230 6,654.22 Pinkerton's, Inc. Hassler Patrol Services for Marc'
8231 112.00 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental
*Issued as an emergency check on April 15, 1985
Date: April 24, 19c.
REVISED
t�?�zrne Description
82 ,
32 738.04 S & tJ Equipment Co. Field Supplies
8233 8.25 San Francisco Exarminer 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/ ,
8248 156.22 Petty Cash Office Supplies, Private Vehicle Expo-:
Meal Conferences and Uniform Alterati;
i
I •
Fleeting 85-11
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MAY 4, 1985
WORKSHOP MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 9:55 A.M. at Las Lomitas School ,
299 Alameda de las Pulgas, Atherton, California.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette Hanko, Richard
Bishop, an Harry Turner.
Members Absent: Edward Shelley.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Jean Fiddes, Stanley Norton, and
Emma Johnson.
II . BOARD WORKSHOP
T. Henshaw stated minutes from the workshop of April 17, 1985, to be considered for
approval at the May 8 Regular Meeting, had been distributed and asked if any member of
the public wished to request any corrections. No corrections were requested.
1 . Continuation of Discussion Re ardinq Procedures in Implementing Amendments to Brown
Act Regarding Closed Session Discussions of Property Negotiations
Jay Thorwaldson - Said he is sensitive to the need for a degree of confidentiality in
land acquisition activities and believes Senator Keene should not have given the District
advice on how to circumvent the new law. He suggested that it would be ill-advised for
staff to use "less-than-a-quorum" exception to acquaint Board members with acquisition
matters. He said there is the appearance of the District being secretive and manipulative
and that there is a high level of mistrust of the District. He said the way out is to
establish a good set of policies and that a great deal of attention has to be paid to
implications of actions of the District. He suggested the District take the narrowly
defined exception to the Brown Act rather than the broad end, and a basic commitment to
open policies.
Jim Warren - Said it was his impression that the District went to Senator Keene, asking if
the publication of the list would be within the intent of the amendment. He echoed
Mr. Thorwaldson's proscription of using less-than-a-quorum meetings with the Board and
staff on land acquisition matters . He added his impression that the District is up-front,
manipulative only in that some feel threatened with condemnation, but agreed that the
District has an over-riding power over the lives of the people in the Skyline .area. He
suggested that staff contact Tom Casey in the San Mateo County District Attorneys office
who has been reviewing and making a presentation about Brown Act implementation to the
Board of Supervisors.
S. Norton - Commented he would welcome talking with Mr. Casey within the next few weeks.
H. Grench - Said the District had been concerned about the singular use of having to
announce what parcel would be discussed in Closed Session. He said that Senator Keene
was sensitive to the District's situation, felt the situation was unique, and amended the
bill to use the plural so that the District could announce more than one parcel but not
discuss all of them.
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
Meeting 85-11 Page two
D. Wendin - Noted that the Board has been studious not to enter into less-than-a-quorum
meetings.-
R. Bishop - Suggested that comments focus on alternatives to the current implementation
method that would accomplish the District's business. He said the idea of a 3-person
committee to confer with staff on land acquisition matters was unanimously rejected by
the Board and that the full Board should meet with staff on matters of acquisition. He
said an alternative would be to announce at each Board meeting which parcels would be
discussed in Closed Session, but that the biggest problem with this method would be
that some landowners want their negotiations to remain confidential . He said if parcels
to be discussed were announced, third parties could intervene in negotiations, bid against
the District, resulting in increased costs to the District and the public.
N. Hanko - Noted one alternative was for staff to obtain options of 10-60 days, so that
the price of the land would be established before the name appears on the agenda for
consideration.
D. Wendin - Said the problem with the option approach is that the Board would not have
been involved at an early stage in the acquisition process and staff would be acting on
its own. He said the problem is how to give direction to staff.
K. Duffy - Suggested keeping the list for the broad general plan area but removing resi-
dential enclaves and communities from the map and list. She said possible trail connection
or ranger residences would be discussed with involvement of the total community.
Janet Schwind - Asked if staff had determined how other open space districts implemented
the Brown Act amendments.
C. Britton - Responded that he had contacted other agencies and the information would be
distributed at a future meeting
Charles Touchatt - Cautioned against tying the Board's hands and said the list should have
been realistic and used sensibly and that names of people could have been removed from
the list when it was requested which would have been compassionate and would not have led
to distrust. He asked how many people want to have their negotiations with the District
secret. C. Britton responded that about half of the people who negotiate with him request
confidentiality.
Robert Hanko - Asked if the removal of a property from the list would preclude the Dis-
trict from putting it back on the list.
Charles Touchatt - Stated his belief that property owners should be able to change their
minds to be able to get their names back on the list.
Artemis Ginzton - Questioned whether property owners on the list could be given the formal
opportunity to decide if they wished to remain on the list.
Janet Schwind - Noted the problem with the list is that it threatens the ability to
sell a piece ofproperty, adding that inclusion on a more limited list would never allow
a piece of property to be sold, except to the District.
Jim Warren - Agreed with R. Bishop's concerns about third parties potentially escalating
the price of a parcel , but added that if developers outbid the District, then that is the
fair market value of the land. He said the Board should adopt a more explicit, reasonable
acquisition plan and sequence, and follow the plan. He suggested keeping the list but
doing away with the use of eminent domain. He noted he favors staff functioning as
"brokers", acquiring options for the Board to consider. He said announcements about
properties at the end of Board meetings are inadequate, that it should be done in public
forum to give the public an opportunity to know about it.
Jay,Thorwaldson - Said that many people would be disturbed if the District "gave away" its
power of eminent domain, that the issue is the protection of peoples' rights to live where
they are living. He added that the District should have a rational eminent domain policy
that recognizes the right people to live where they are now unless they take action to
create a subdivision Xichowould put them back on the list.
| ~
� ~
Meeting 85-11 Page three
Carole Do0s2 - Suggested that if the District did not buy land outside Of its sphere of
� 1Uf1uence, thS list would be reduced.
!
Dick Carter - A PorL0la Park Heights resident, said he lives outside of the District's
boundaries, and has no vote in District elections but he is on the list. He added that
he lives in a Timber Preservation Zone /TPZ\ and asked what the District's relationship
is with the State agency that demands he hire a private forester. �
C. Britton - Clarified that TPZ indicates timber p.Loductionzone and the State requires �
logging plans to be filed for parcels identified as land with harYe3tabl2 timber. ' He
added that there is no relationship between the State agency and the District, and that
the District is required by lax to notify the State when it proposes to buy TP7 land.
T. H2O5hJw - Explained that the Board would not take action during the workshop, but
f011oW-Up action, referring items to the Board Eminent Domain Policy Committee, would be
taken at the May 8 Regular Board Meeting.
D' Wendin - Asked for more discussion by the public to Jay Thorwald3Dn's earlier Sugges-
t1On that being On the list Of property owners and oOt8ntial eminent domain actions could
be related to whether Or not d property could be subdivided.
Jim Warren - Said the idea fails to address someone building more than one Unit On a single �
parcel that is not subdivided and remains under single ownership. He Said the Board may
� want to consider the possibilityrOf Saying that if a subdivision involves more than one �
�
family or division into more than two parcels in d ten-year period, then it goes back onto
� the list for potential acquisition. He said that almost any land is Capable of being sub-
divided except as it's restrained by ordinance. |
Charles T0uchOtt� - Voiced agreement with Mr. Warren" but added he feels the problem is
|
in large acreage parcels. |
�
� Carole Do0Se - Questioned the definition Of 5Vhd�V�Si0n, 3�VC2 �Om� f�0�l ��5 Split parcels
|
| ` |
for their children. She added that some land in private ownership is Open 8p8C8 that could /
�
� remain that way.
� K. DU - Stated her agreement with the Concept of private open space and said 8rrangg- |
� 0gnts Can be made with private owners. |
|
� N. Hanko - Noted that D. Wendin's proposal regarding the link between the list and eminent
UV0a1n is one alternative being discussed by the Committee.
H. Grgnch - Said the District has tried to acquire open space through conservation ease-
thus '
0�ntS allowing land to remain �n private OWngrShip
, , �
� T. Henshaw - Noted that when the Committee presents its recommendations to the Board,
the pub|1c will have additional opportunity to comment. She encouraged members of the |
� public to forward CONm2DtS to the Committee
or to the Board. �
Jay Tho ld Said the District and POST could help the landowners keep their land as |
�
� private open space by informing them of available options. He encouraged the Board to
make partners Of the people living in the area. i
|
Robert Hanko - Said there are two types of open space land: visual and recreational . He
cited an exception to the Brown Act granted to the Regents of the University of Cali-
fornia |
� f0rnid for acquisition of land and suggested the District may be granted an exception 6« /
the Legislature.
'
|
|
2. POlici R rdin of Land Outside District Boundaries
|
Robert FiSSe - (Written Communication read into the record by T. HeDshaw\ : Purchase land /
only with in the borders Of the District. Annex land to the District only by popular vote
of the electorate within the area proposed for annexation. ( If the area is
is approved h« |
the voters for annexation then the District can buy all the land it wants from willing
sellers in the new district area. ) �
'
�
�
Meeting 85-11 Page four ^ ~
William - Suggested the District could act on md '-Ur subdivision applications
(4-parcels ornmore) , rather than subdivisions being made for families. He said his idea
of private open space is that it is not necessarily for public trails or Use but the idea
that the owner will not subdivide or develop the property.
BobSuggested the District have contracts with landowners stating that OS long as
the land remains in open space, there would be some guarantee that the District would not
use eminent dnmJfO to acquire the property.
�
� No - Said that the Committee is investigating the contract concept, adding that it
� is beyond the power Of the Board to give up power of eminent domain in his opinion.
�
� Carole Doose - Suggested that the District get together with Other levels of government
� (federal , 5tate) to establish an act or zone for dealing with private open space, exempting
� parcels that are private open space from eminent domain procedures. She added that such
� a program should not be Under the control Of the District.
Charles hzuchatt - Stated his agreement with Ms' DooS2's Concept, adding that giving away
an easement was not the idea, that it would be merely a commitment to keep property as
Open space' He said the law could be changed if everyone is in agreement.
Artemis Ginzton - Cited a personal example of family land at Big Sur which could not be
divided among the 3 original-owner families because Of the Coastal Act, and that the
families cannot Use the land- She noted She didn't know how to write a policy that would
address specific problems and unique situations.
ROh2rt A b - Executive Director, Peninsula Open Space Trust stated that Under
8X1St1ng |uN, an easement does not have to mean public access to an iDdiVidUdl '5 property
and that the mechanism already exists, thus the law dO8G.nOt have to be changed.
Carole Doose - Said she was proposing a, 3tatewide program that would protect the land-
owners ' r1Thts with respect to Open space.
T. HCnShaV - Read, for the record, 8 petition which will be considered at the 8VOrd/S
May U, 1985 public meetiOg. The petition states: "Please stop all actions which include
(l ) use or threat of Use of condemnation, (2) buying land outside the district, and (3\
annexations until the public workshops are completed and policy revisions have been 's' h-
l1shed. x The petition was signed by 53 individuals.
H. Grench - In response to D. Wendin's request, summarized the procedures and rules
concerning annexations. He Said that up to the present, District annexations have had
a 10011) consent Of landowners involved. He said a sphere Of influence defines how far a
political boundary might expand in the foreseeable future and is primarily aimed at
sewer districts and cities. He said d recent court decision required that every U
-' ris-
dictinn have a sphere of influence, noting the District's sphere Of influence went beyond
the District's political boundaries in 3-4 places which were logical areas for the District
to expand to protect the Skyline 9C8DfC Corridor, trail and corridor connections, and in :
the case of Mt. UmunhUm, rounding out an area. He said the District's original boundaries
Were established according to topographical points, following mO '-Or ridge lines, as well
-
� as political considerations and existing jurisdictional lin2s' He said when the Sphere
of influence was created, there was an attempt to be more consistent with the mission of
the District. He said there are some people who live in the District's Sphere Of influence
who are not District voters.
N. Hanko - Said the founders of the District wished to avoid creating an impact on
school--districts, people who were in dire need to fund their school districts.
� - Speaking as a private Citizen, said the boundaries Of the District
were accommodated to existing political lines and didn't always make geographical sense,
citing Windy Hill and Langley Hill as examples . He added that the District is preserving
� Op2D space without destroying Com0UOiti85'
� William Obermo - Said he was not aware of the District's sphere Of iUf(UgDCe, and
expressel his opinion that the District is afraid to have a popular vote On the other side
Of 5kvline Boulevard. He agreed with Mr. FisSe/S idea of d popular vote and the District
� ' ~ Meeting 85-11 Page five
�
not buying property outside of its boundaries. He said the people along Skyline have no
i representation because of the way wards ore divided and compared the District acquisitions
� in the POrt0la Park Heights area to "fingers" of District land which affect surrounding
land.
| `
Jim War - Expressed his belief that the District has annexed Only with 100% consent �
| of owners involved but Said the District should take an entire logical area and determine
if the whole area wishes to be annexed by popular vote. He questioned the District's claim
of scenic corridor protection since Some District-owned lands are well Outside of the-
sphere of influence and are not visible from Skyline BUVleVard,
Carole DoOse - Stated her support of Robert Fisse's suggestion but felt the wording con—
cerning �
cerning voting was dmbigUOUS' She said a broad area should be given a chance to vote
before land purchases start taking place. She suggested it may be necessary to address �
the current boundary lines to create more logical boundary lines. �
�
Robert Hm - Observed there are two kinds of people: those who look at a landscape and �
| 58e beauty and those who see money' He said the people who see beauty d0 not want to �
� take away the power Of eminent domain. He said there are two classes of land: visual
� retention land and public access land; visual retention land could be achieved through
| contracts/agreements stating eminent domain would not be used Or land would not be
subdivided for a stated period of years. He said the two options for public access land
� would be purchases Or easements.
David Leeson - Said the annexation procedure Can be threatening Or accommodating and
| recommended the Board work to create a better public image, involving cooperation for
dDDeXdti0DS. He said the procedure of "checker-boarding" does not create a good impression. !
Barbara Weisner - Asked if the people vote to be annexed and assessed by the District.
H. GrShch - Replied that when private property is annexed into the District, the Dis-
trict receives a portion Of the property taxes but the taxes paid by the voter do not
increase. �
D. W d - Ask8d for public comment On how to deal with the 8Ulli5 property which is �
pOrtially within the District's sphere of influence but outside the District boundaries .
Janet Schwind - Said it may be Okay to acquire land if it is adjacent to MROSD boundaries �
but the p m comes with checker-boarding.
Charles Touchatt - Said the problem is people's fears that the District will keep On �
addiDg land and—won't leave the people alone.
Tony Such Suggested that POST or 5emp8rV1ren3 Fund buy land to keep for open space Until '
it 13 contiguous. He recommended the District not buy land unless the people are repre-
sented politi,Cdlly. /
�
Jim Warren - Stated his belief that there is nothing inconsistent with annexing the area |
� |
� first, then acquiring the Bullis property. He said if boundaries are illogically defined,
� they should be redefined in d logical manner.
|
� Carole Doose - Suggested Mr' 8ullis work with his neighbors and the District to get the
� item on a ballot fcr a vote Of the people, adding that the District should not checker- |
� b0ard or "creep". �
Janet Schwind - Stated acquisition is fairly harmless except for checker-boarding and
if the Di t wa-nt5 to acquire land outside of its boundaries it nm8t not be considered a /
t f t� District l th wh l f d h« l t
part u � unless e whole area � annexed -^ popular vote. �
|
Mary Alexander - Said the people feel the District has circumvented the rules.
|
Jim W Commenting on spot acquisitions inside Or outside District boundaries , |
stated that if such acquisitions are unplanned, they should not be made. He said the Dis-
trict should develop an orderly plan and then follow it rather than pursue "targets of |
opportunity".
|
Charles TOuchatt - Suggested POST could acquire land, give Or sell an easement and then put |
the remainder bdCk into private ownership.
|
l
M9etin9 85-11 page six
William Ob 3ug�, Aed M0}SD should change its at— cude and give people a vote an |
a new ward to represent the Skyline area.
T2py 5 h - SVoqeSted the District' s annexation applications should go to the pertinent �
� county involved. He said he has no representation in Santa Clara County [AF[0.
� �
� R0b Au Representing POST, Said that POST had notified landowners with 40+ �
acres of the Sphere Of influence, explaining reasons and implications , and inviting
questions and responses , but did not receive any responses from the public. He cautioned �
� against tying the hands of the District in iDStdOC2s where people want the District to
�
� acquire their land.
� C Expressed her opinion that LAFDO guidelines are not appropriate for an
� Open Space di3triCt and suggested the District's Legislative Committee U1V2 input for
� redirection for working with LAFCO' She said the Board should not use LAFCO as a free-for-
all for acquisition.
� Karen Mo - Stated her concern about being on the listing of property owners' She asked
� the Uistr1ct not to take land unless people are willing to sell and to purchase only within
District boundaries.
H. Grench - Clarified his response to B. Weisner, Saying his earlier answer was correct
Tor Santa Clara County, adding that for San Mateo County, the District would not get a
Share of the property tax by policy of the Board of Supervisors.
Stated that acquisition is a pWhl1C action and the pUbllc is given opportunities
to speak out and to express concerns, particuarly in eminent domain actions.
U. Qendin - Stated his opinion that acquisition outside of District boundaries is the major
problem, creating fingers and checker-board in-holdings. He Suggested the Committee
compile some ideas on a policy for acquisition outside District boundaries and return
for another public session.
R. Bishop - Said he would like the Committee to put dOWD some possible alternatives,
and—when they come up for adoption at d future meeting, further public input would be
sought and encouraged.
N. Hanko - Said the Board should bring in a planner to work with the people who live
in the Skyline area with the sole idea of protecting the communities With buffers, trails
going through the communities, and have them listed as communities exempt from land
acquisition plans of the District. She said if District boundaries are extended (with
minor exceptions) it should be done by a vote Of the entire District.
`
H. Turner - Stated the Committee should present alternative ways Of complying with the
UrDwn ACt after its work is finished with eminent domain. He stated his concerns r2gapdinc
lack of voting representation within the sphere Of influence and urged that all actions
� having to do with votes, acquisitions, annexation, etc. be done in a context Of sensi-
tivity to feelings of people in the area. He continued that every ten years there is d
� process for establishing ward boundaries and that he would like to have the Board address
the issue of a Skyline representative. He said that in the meantime, the VUblic should
| give their ideas and thoughts to representatives individually or collectively. He said
! the District has more to do regarding the sphere Of influence particularly along Skyline
and would like to have it on an agenda as 8 public participatory prnCe5s . He d-d2--
that hr srN p�� d lot of epit in d2letinn p:istin« cnmmunitipl; from the Master PI an.
D. Wendi-n - Stated, his Agreement with C. DOOS2/S statement that another workshop would
be desirable after the Committee C0Moiles a draft that can be addressed. He Said it was
imperative for members of the public to have ample review time of any draft policies beTmn2
the public workshop is held.
ADJOURNMENT
�
T. HenshaV adjourned the meeting at 11 :35 A.M.
� Emma ]ohVS0D
Secretary
Meeting 85-12
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MAY 8, 1985
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette Hanko, and Harry
Turner. Richard Bishop arrived at 7:40 P.M.
Member Absent: Edward Shelley
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes, Stanley
Norton, James Boland, Kerry Carlson and Emma Johnson
II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 17, 1985)
T. Henshaw stated that no one wished to make corrections to the minutes at the May 4
workshop. Director R. Bishop arrived.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of April 17, 1985. H. Turner seconded
the motion.
Discussion: Tom Kavanaugh, 1726 Spring Street, Mountain View said he would like
to correct C. Britton's statement on page 5 concerning 4-5 acres of wetlands that
C. Britton stated had accumulated a lot of trash. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that there
was "absolutely no trash on any of our property and that is a complete untruth by
Craig". He said he would bring some people to the next Board meeting who would
substantiate his statement. Since C. Britton was not present at the time,
T. Henshaw stated she would like to postpone the approval of the minutes until
C. Britton arrived.
R. Fisse, Star Route 2, Box 402, La Honda, said the spelling of George Dueker's
name should be corrected on page six.
Motion to Table: H. Turner moved that the minutes be tabled. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6 to 0.
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: T. Henshaw moved that an Item 6, Follow-Up for May 4 Workshop, be added to the
agenda since, by oversight, it had not be included on the agenda. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
E. Johnson stated the Board had received the following written communications:
1 ) a letter dated April 24, 1985 from George and Sarah Dueker, Box 401 , Star Route 2,
La Honda, notifying the Board that their property shown on the Master Plan Map Overlay
and accompanying list is occupied by the owner and is not now nor will it be for sale
in the foreseeable future;
2) letters from Mariquita West, P.O. Box 634, Los Gatos; J. Brenner, 10 Phillips Road,
Palo Alto; and Richard Blum, P.O. Box 620066, Woodside urging the District to purchase
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 _',
Meeting 85-12 Page two
the Russian Ridge property being threatened by subdivision development;
3) a letter from Senator Rebecca Morgan dated May 6, urging the District to adopt policies
that reassure residents of the area their right to be safe from condemnation and
supporting H. Turner's proposals outlined in his memo of April 23 concerning the Brown
Act; and
4) a letter from Richard Bullis dated April 28, 1985 expressing his wish to have all nego-
tiations with the District regarding Quinta Ranch be "public". He also asked for
acknowledgement of his letter of late March and notified the District of his unavail-
ability to accompany Mr. Clevenger on reappraisal of Russian Ridge Ranch.
T. Henshaw stated that the letter from Mr. Dueker should be considered after any policy
decisions regarding implementation of the Brown Act.
T. Henshaw suggested the Board negotiate with Mr. Bullis in public and agreed with H. Turr
consideration of Mr. Bullis' request should be put on a future agenda. N. Hanko said the
Board needs to decide how to deal with written communications, those received in the packe
and those received the night of the meetings. T. Henshaw asked that Mr. Bullis' letter be
placed on the next agenda for discussion and requested that he be notified to ascertain
that he would be able to attend the meeting.
T. Henshaw, noting that C. Britton had arrived, asked the Board if they wished to consider
the tabled minutes of April 17.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the minutes of April 17 be removed from the table. H. Turner
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Continued)
T. Henshaw explained to C. Britton Mr. Kavanaugh's exception to his statement on page 5 of
the minutes. C. Britton stated that he considers his statement to be true.
The minutes of April 17, 1985 were approved with the spelling correction as noted.
V1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
William Obermayer, 3200 Long Ridge Road, La Honda, stated he had three documents that he
wanted to address:
1 ) a letter from H. Grench to the Portola Heights Homeowners Association stating that
the District would try to find a trail alignment that would bypass the narrow switch-
back sections of the road. Mr. Obermayer said the Association would like to request
that the trail bypass the entire private road and if possible, be done in such a way
as to discourage use of Devil 's Canyon by the public;
2) a letter from H. Grench to C. Lazarus at LAFCO regarding annexation. Mr. Obermayer
asked if the residential part of the Quinn property, at least, could be kept with
other residential parcels, and added that the community would like to have a popular
vote regarding annexation; and
3) referring to an old map of Long Ridge Preserve, he said the Preserve should be attached
to the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. He called attention to arrows designating
trails which lead to private property.
Referring to the first letter, he asked that District policy of showing all roads as
trails on District maps be changed so that conflicts between hikers and drivers can be
avoided.
R. Bishop suggested that the question of road use by hikers be placed on a future agenda
after other Board members have had an opportunity to see the road.
H. Grench stated that staff is planning a field trip with the residents of the area to dis-
cuss the alignment of the trail and possible options and that an item should be placed on
the agenda after that trip. There was no objection to this approach stated.
Meeting 85-12 Page three
T. Kavanaugh asked that if his land at the end Of University Avenue in Menlo Park is
discussed under land negotiations, that it be done in public or taken off the list. He
suggested the District preserve as many trees as possible on the lot being considered for
a new district headquarters in Mountain View and that the District protect nearby residents
by not building a high structure.
Robert Fisse, representing the South Skyline Association, Star Route 2, Box 402, La Honda,
� asked if the District had polled other districts regarding implementation of SB 2216
� and whether the information is available. T. Henshaw responded that when the Committee �
� makes its report to the Board, the Survey will be available. A copy of the eminent domain
� survey was distributed.
�
� Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, distributed to the Board envelopes that contained �
� three items that Will be considered as written communications by the Board at its next �
regular meeting. The three topics were /l \ possible alternatives for condemnation, (2) �
� response to H. Turner's written proposals, and (3) the role of a general manager of a �
district such as MROSD' �
T. Kavanaugh questioned the Board about the meeting On May �' H. Cr�nCh replied that �t
�-. �
Was a continued Closed Session from the April 24 Regular Meeting to discuss the Hassler �
� litigation. He Said that after the conclusion Of the continued Closed Session, the Board
�
� held a press conference to announce the Settlement Of the Hassler litigation. �
Vll. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION RE |
�
A. .. �
� J. un/nno said that Kerry Carlson, the District's newest Ranger, had completed the
courses required under the California Penal Code to qualify him as a peace officer. |
Mr. Carlson and Ranger Aide Mari Russell were introduced'
� Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-31 , a Resolution of the |
� Board of Directors of the Midp9nin3ula Regional Mn�n Space District Appointing �
� Peace Officer. H. Turner seconded the motion.
' ` |
Discussion: Discussion centered V the f enforcement which District /
' n � 8�opg O �n rCe�en w � i
� - _-_-_ �_ - .---~~.~. ^~.^. ^~ ~ .. . ." ^ ". "
� Rangers have. J. Boland noted that Rangers have all the powers Of a peace
officer as it pertains to Open space lands and the District determines the |
� scope under which the Rangers operate,
|
� The motion passed 5 to O. |
�
VIII. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED |
�
� A. Final Adoption of the Interim Use and Management Plan for the Nolte Addition to the |
� .
.
ussian Ridge Open Space Pre—serve (Memorandum M-85-74, dated May —2,-1-98-5-T—
u. Hansen stated that escrow had closed on the 160 acre addition to the Russian RfHo� |
� Open Space Preserve and staff received no public comment on the acquisition since
- �
the initial hearing. |
� Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt the Interim Use and Management Plan |
contained in report R-85-20, name the property as an addition to the Russian
Ridge Open Space Preserve, and dedicate the property as public open space. �
H. Turner seconded the motion.
�
Discussion: R. FiSse asked if there is a schedule for annexation of the |
property to the District' H. GrpnCh replied that Staff of San Mateo County
LAFCO had suggested it be dolayed until Other annexation matters are resofveU.' |
The motion passed h to O.
B. Re uest for Referral to Legislative Committee--Brown A Closed Session/PersonnelException .(Memorandum M-85-79, dated May 2, 1985)
�
N. MaUkU noted that Board members had received—copies Of the State publication Open
Meeting Laws and that she had questions On Board procedures for determining salary
----
1nCreas r Board appointees after reading it. She said that it seemed logical for
the Legislative Committee to return to the Board with some procedures for implementing
Meeting 85-12 Page four
necessary changes regarding discussion of comparables and budgetary concerns that
should be discussed in public sessions.
D. Wendin suggested the procedures in question could be considered as part of the
agenda item on operating procedures after Legal Counsel gives an opinion as to the
applicability of the case cited.
S. Norton stated his opinion that the San Diego Union v. City Council case cited
applies to all public agencies. He said that qualifications, performance and whether
or not a salary increase is in order for Board appointees can be discussed in Closed
Session, but the amount of salary increase must be discussed in open session.
N. Hanko said there are gray areas in the interpretation as to whether comparables
are to be considered as public information. S. Norton responded that if the informa-
tion is gathered, then it is public but there is no requirement to obtain the comparabli
salaries. T. Henshaw, responding to J. Warren's request, assured him that the Board
is willing to provide all available comparable information for the General Manager's
position.
S. Norton agreed that the Board may continue the procedures used in the past for
General Manager appointees' salary increases .
N. Hanko expressed her satisfaction with the clarification of the issue. No
action was taken.
IX. OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUES�FED
A. Discussion of Various Operatinq Procedures (Memorandum M-85-72, dated May 2, 1985)
The Board discussed the following procedural items:—I-T-the-meaning—o—F the phrase "Any
member of the Board may place such written communication on the agenda for considera-
tion by the Board" from Section 1 .43 of the Rules of Procedure; 2) distribution of
written communications received the night of—aB6-aTd—meeting or not received in time
for a packet mailing; 3) Board communications (Board member directed to write a com-
munication in behalf of the Board, communication from a Board member to the full Board,'
and personal communication from a member of the Board to a member of the public) ;
4) responses to written communications , and shortening the length of Board meetings
so that Closed Sessions are not conducted at such a late hour.
Staff was directed, by Board consensus , to return with the following proposed amend-
ments to the Rules of Procedure (indicated in italics) for Board consideration:
1 ) Replace the word "pl�ace with the word "request" in the phrase from Section 1 .43
quoted above and include appropriate cross-references in Section 1 .43 to Section 1 .30
to clarify how a written communication could be added to the agenda as an emergency
item; 2) clarify how materials, including written communications, received on the
night of a Board meeting or after a packet mailing, are distributed to members of the
press and packet subscribers; and 3) draft a new item for inclusion in the Rules of
Procedure stating that all communications from a Board member to the public or to the
members of the Board be public unless it is clear in the document that it is the
opinion of the sender and distribution would then be at the discretion of the sender;
4) amend the Rules of Procedure to include a list of possibilities regarding how
written communication responses could be handled (e.g. refer communication to a commit-
tee, the staff, or a Director to respond or to prepare a response for Board
consideration. The Board agreed that the statement in number 3 above was the
tightest procedure they had discussed and that when they received the draft material ,
they would "chip away" at the statement.
T. Henshaw stated, after the discussion concerning' shortening the length of Board
meetings, that she would like to try scheduling one light agenda per month and that
on Board meeting nights she would at 9:30 P.M. discuss with the Board what items could
be continued to a future meeting so that Closed Session could begin by 10:00 P.M.
During the discussion, R. Fisse suggested that meeting materials not included in the
packet be placed in a separate section of the black box.
| -Meeting 85-12 Pape five
|
� X. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (Continued)
� C.
� '_--
linq of May 21 Special Meeting (Memorandum M-85-73, dated May 2, 1985)
� M. Gr2DCh said Ul | | UOVl3 from the San Mateo County LAFDO had dsked if some of their
Commission members could attend the meeting and he said they could ride on the hU5eS
if there was rUOm. He said an itinerary and estimates as to the time various sites
will be Visited will be available at the meeting place SU that members of the public
could follow the toUr.
Discussion centered On whether members of the public should be able to ride on the
buses 50 there was no question that no business was being conducted. H. GreDCh noted
that officials will probably fill the available vans for the tour, and S. N0rb}D added
that the District is not obliged by law to provide transportation for members Of the �
public. N. Hank0 stated she felt a member Of the public should be on each bus. �
�
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board schedule a Special Meeting at 2:00 P.M. On
Tuesday, May 21 , 1985 to convene at the ColTrans parking lot at the inter-
section of Woodside Road and Interstate 280 for the purpose of a field trip �
to tour District land with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. �
� R. Bishop seconded the motion. The 0Uti0O passed 8 to U, �
D. Follow-Up �
President M2nShaw stated it would be appropriate to diSCU5S follow-up assignments to
� the May 4 workshop. She noted the Eminent Domain Policy Committee had been charged �
with drafting procedures following the previous two workshops and asked Committee mem-
bers if they would be willing to consider the assignment for all the areas discussed, �
including Brown Act implementation, annexation, eminent domain, and acquisition Of
land outside District boundaries. �
Motion: D. NeDdin n0Y2d that the Committee be directed to draft d range of possible
procedures covering the implementation of the BrO\vD Act, dOn2XatiOD Of lands '
to District, and acquisition of land outside the District. H. Turner seconded
|
| the motion.
Discussion: T. HenShON said the Committee will present a range Of possible |
procedures for the Board and public to respond to at a special N0rkShOp.
Janet Schwind, 11825 Skyline Boulevard, Los Gatos asked that copies Of the |
proposals be available prior to the workshop. D. Wendfn suggested the �
Committee report be presented for tentative adoption at a Regular Board �
Meeting followed by a workshop which would ensure the public had time to
read and respond to the Committee's draft, With final adoption at a later |
Board meeting' N. HankO noted the Committee will preSent a list of alterna-
tives rather than develop final wording. |
�
The motion passed G to D.
�
XI. INFORMATIONAL �
R. Grench said he attended the Santa Clara County LAFCO hearing and that the annexation |
of South Skyline Ridge Preserves to the District was continued indefinitely. He continued �
that the Santa Clara County LAFCO was in favor of referring any San Mateo County annexa-
tions to the San Mateo LAFC0 immediately which could request 0 hearing and possible
jurisdiction in any individual case. He said that Santa Clara County Legal Counsel has
stated that LAFCO cannot give its authority Carte blanche to another LAFCO but jurisdiction �
could be considered 0 � �aS bv b i n �--^ a� s' �
T. Henshdw requested a future agenda item On the District's relationship With the two �
Local Agency Formation Commissions. |
H. 8r2nCh dnMOUDC8d that William Mott had been appointed Director of the National park
Service and asked if the Board wished to have d resolution Of C0DbratWldti0Ds prepared.
Board members responded in the affirmative. �
�
H. GreOCh dnDOWDCed that the Budget Committee meeting on May 14 should be cancelled.
Committee members and staff discussed rescheduling the May 21 Committee meeting to Monday,
May 20 at 4:30 P.M. or meeting on May 21 after the tour with the Board Of Supervisors.
Staff was directed to check with E. Shelley to determine his schedule.
�
�
�
Meeting 85-12 Page six ^
H. Gr2nCh said staff had decided it was not very useful to send a docent representative to
Florida LO receive the Friend Award and instead was suggesting an appreciation dinner for �
the docents from the Board or some Other activity. The Board agreed to put the matter DM
a future agenda When proposed plans were more formalized.
D. Hansen said the Hassler buildings had been demolished, and the Coal Creek structures
have been totally removed. He said he and H. Turner met with the Grandview Road residents
and that an agreement would be drafted regarding exchanging pVhljC aCC8Ss rights for road
maintenance costs to help alleviate the concerns Of the neighbors.
H. Turner said a second informal tour of POrtOla Heights for remaining Board members has
been tentatively set for June 8 from 10 A.M., to 3 P.M. T. HenshdN expressed her appre-
ciation to Janet Schwind and the TOUchattS for a fine, earlier tour.
T. Henshaw asked if the Sunnyvale 8dylOnds Trail is included in the Santa Clara CDUDtv
Five-Year Plan' Staff said it would have to report back on the status.
XII. CLAIMS
Motion: D. Nendin moved the approval Of Revised Claims 85-09 of May Q, 1985' R. Bishop
seconded the motion.
Discussion: T. Kavanaugh questioned the $99,000 to SorgdragCr Trucking Company.
H. GrpnCh said it is the first payment for the new Hassler work. The increased
dNOVnt was mostly due to increased dump fees, explained D. Hansen.
H. GrenCh said that N. Hdnk0 would be VD8bl2 to attend the Legislative Conference
and asked if another Director would be able to attend. K. Duffy said she may be
able to attend, J. FiddpS said Claim 8255 Should be approved for $lOO in the
� event K. Duffy decided to attend. D. Wendin and R. Bishop agreed that the
motion to approve the Revised Claims should include $108 for No. 8255'
The motion as revised passed 6 to 0.
� XlII, CLOSED SESSION
�, N0rLun announced that the litigation matter to be discussed in Closed Session was
covered under Government Code Section 54956.9, Subdivision b-1 , which States 8 point has
been reached where legislative body believes, on the advice of counsel , there is signifi-
cant exposure to litigation.
The Board convened to Closed Session at 10:20 P.M.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10:50 P.M.
Emma Johnson
� Secretary
�
�
�
�
CLAIMS No. 85-09
Meeting 85-12
MIDPE'NINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: May 8, 1985
gk;VISL"D
C L A I M S
I
9 Amount Name Description
`
1 8249 240.00 A-1 Septic Tank Service, Inc. Septic Tank Maintenance
8250 413.36 A T & T Information Systems Telephone Equipment Rental
8251 160.00 Blaming & Baker Associates, Inc. Subscription
� 8252 35.79 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8253 900.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Consultant Fee for April )
8254 -13.11 California Native Plant Society Book on Endangered Plants
8255 1-E347. California Park & Recreation
100.00 Conference Registration for
Society Legialative Conference v-Iet=e4Lank-o� Herbert Grench
8256 34.35 Clark's Auto Parts, Inc. Parts for District Vehicles
8257 130.47 Alice Cu m-lings Reimbursement--11ar y Overly and
Private Vehicle Expen
8258 277.40 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
8259 300.00 John Escobar
Reimbursement--Educational Assistancl
� 8260 501.00 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair
8261 117.74 Harbinger CoMrnmications Computer Charges for March
18262 235.20 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Service
8263 555.90 The Hub Ranger Uniform Expense
18264 127.12 IBM Corporation Office Supplies
118265 12.50 Jobs Available Subscription
�8266 260.00 p
Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
I!8267 60.85 Mobil Oil Corporation Fuel for District Vehicles
8268 94.24 National Mailing Services Fees for Spring Newsletter
'8269 125.10 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8270 261.18 Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. Field Supplies
5272 27 8.56 1,011. Pacific Bell Telephone Service
8 �
City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
3273 800.00 Department of Parks & Recreation Training Class for Lisa Varney 1
3274 17.55 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies
3275 101.10 Recreational Equipment, Inc. Ranger Uniform Expense
3276 101.08 San Francisco Water Department Hassler Water Service
3277 45.45 Schuerman Home Service Water Heater Repairs
3278 246.15 Shell Oil Company Fuel and Repairs for District Vehicles)
3279 90.95 Transcontinental Sales Co. Ranger Uniform Expense
-- -- --- - - ---
l:M.U11b too. OD_U9
Meeting 85-12
Date: May 8, 1985
�r a=2ount Name REVISEDDescription
8280 800.00 U. S. Postmaster Postage for Meter
8281 39.98 Lisa Varney Private Vehicle Expense
8282 94.71 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense
8283 468.07 Xerox Corporation March Maintenance Agreement
8284 150.00 ZZZ Sanitation Equipment Rental
8285 42.68 James Boland Film Processing and Field Supplies
8286 9,047.09 State Corq)ensation Insurance Fund Quarterly Premium
8287 99,000.00* Sordrager Truckingan
Cai»p Y Site Restoration--Hassler Health 1°
8288 109.28 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies,
and Xeroxing Supplies
*Issued as an emergency check on May 6, 1985
DJERASSI FOUNDATION The DJERASSI FOUNDATION RESIDENT The Foundation is located on the SMIP Ranch,
ARTISTS PROGRAM represents an international owned jointly by the Djerassi Foundation and the
working community for mature visual artists (in- family of Dr. Carl Djerassi, internationally known
Resident Artists cluding ceramicists and weavers), poets, writers, research scientist and Professor of Chemistry at
choreographers, and composers who have clear Stanford University. The 1,400 acre ranch,an hour's
Program direction, substantial accomplishment in their fields, drive from downtown San Francisco or thirty min-
and the ability to work in isolation. Invitations to utes from Stanford University, has a spectacular
at serve as"Djerassi Foundation Artists-in-Residence" setting of rolling range land and redwood trees in
are issued in response to recommendations by the Santa Cruz mountains overlooking the Pacific
established artists and others conversant with Ocean.There are small streams and miles of winding
SMIP Ranch contemporary art, literature, and music, as well as trails through the woods, hills and meadows for
by former artists-in-residence. Unsolicited appli- hiking.
cations (on special forms supplied by the Djerassi
Woodside, California Foundation) are also considered.
Partial view of SMIP Ranch overlooking Pacific Ocean
7
.v
� s -
w -4
•
S-_
-t..r
t ow i.' •1-0
t
K ra " '' , i✓ �„� ^j4,T+' dr 40.
Residency periods for invited artists generally range `
from one to three months during the period from
1 March through 30 November. The Foundation
provides living quarters in an eight-bedroom ranch -
house with five baths, living/dining room, kitchen, -
outside deck and balconies. Writers work in their
rooms; a small cottage is available for special pur-
poses. Studio space for other artists(together with
sleeping lofts for two artists) is located in a unique
12-sided barn within walking distance of the ranch
house. Studios are equipped with wood-burning Studio for large-scale sculpture
stoves. The Foundation is particularly interested in 4
providing space for the design and construction of
large-scale sculpture. Use of the land in developing
environment-related work is also encouraged, as
well as interdisciplinary work (e.g., cooperation of Interior view of choreography studio
composers with poets or choreographers). z-
In addition to studio and living space,the Foundation
12-sided studio building provides all food for the artists-in-residence with
dinner prepared and served at 7 p.m. Monday
through Friday. Artists are expected to prepare Artist's Residence
their own breakfasts, lunches,and weekend meals.
Each artist's work, work habits, and point of view
will be respected. Every effort is made to protect
the artist's privacy during working hours each day.
There are no visits to studios without direct invita-
t � tion, and no visits before 4 p.m. Occasional visitors
are welcome after working hours.
The quiet and freedom from interruption during a
residency at the ranch provide the impetus for Artists Residence
,, �,nr• Wit' ' artists to try new work in new directions or to com-
., '�► 1.
` �• sy -
--
IL'.. .r
a
Dining area of Artist's Residence
I
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 85-13
May 22 , 1985
i II
C-A d( C �a �l �-t SAS t G rn /C (��.2 l ��SS/ci , +
floc,,s2S
f T4
CAI
t1001AU ye Sore
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE 0-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
I
I
I
i
I
it
i
I
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Boardol Direct Aherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bi, idward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
t
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 85-13
May 22 , 1985
2325 BEAR GULCH ROAD
WOODSIOE.CALIFORNIA 94062
May 16, 1985
Mr. Harry A. Turner
Director
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Turner:
I understand that the list of property that may be of interest to the
l:ROSD in germs of eminent domain condemnation also includes the 1,400
acre SMIP Ranch which is owned by my son, by me and by the Djerassi Foundation -
a tax exempt operating private foundation. I would appreciate it if you
would send me a copy of that list and the accompanying policy statement.
We have always felt very strongly that our property should be kept in
as undisturbed a state as possible and we have had it in an agricultural
preserve agreement ever since we started to acquire the property over
twenty years ago. The enclosed brochure describes the activities of the
Djerassi Foundation which now owns over 600 acres and eventually will
also own all of my property. We felt that we had established a mechanism
to keep this property in undeveloped form in perpetuity, to use it for
important artistic purposes and at the same time to create and display
large scale outdoor sculptures. Our Foundation has been supported by
the National Endowment for the Arts, the San Francisco Foundation, the Irvine
Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and numerous private donors. Approximately
fifty artists a year pass through our facility with nine to ten artists
at any one time being in residence. In a matter of only a few years the
Djerassi Foundation has become one of the most important artists colonies
west of the Mississippi.
Given this background you can well imagine that our Board of Trustees
would fight tooth and nail any attempt to take over that property since
I can hardly conceive that the MROSD can come up with a societally more
beneficial use or take care as well of the property as we have been doing.
This applies to the property owned by the Foundation and that currently
owned by me and by my son.
I would appreciate a prompt reply.
You s din erely,
r
r
Car Djer si
enclosure
cc: 481 La Mesa Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025
WRITTEN COMMUNICAZ 4 MAY
1 s 1��5
Meeting 85-13
May 22 , 1985
May 16, 1985
Midpeninsula Open Space
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, Ca. 94022
Dear Board Members:
The following is an introduction and explanation as to why the issue
before you was actually undertaken.
In March 1985 I purchased a parcel of land in Saratoga, which is
located between Fremont Older and Stevens Creek County Park. The purpose
was to establish an Equestrian Center for public use, accessinq the Fremont
Older Preserve. I had previously been discussing the sale of an easement
to Midpeninsula across the northern boarder of my property, potentially
connecting two of the Open Space Preserves.
Continuing my discussions with the Midpeninsula staff, I was told
that the connecting trail being discussed might be built by Midpeninsula
at a much later date and an alternative would be to build it myself.
Through a gross misunderstandinq on my part, I built the trail in question,
basically clearing an existing trail for easier access. The clearinq was
done mostly on my property, with the last leg being cleared on Midpeninsula
land.
My intentions were to re-open the trail access, to Fremont Older by the
public using my facility an to save Midpeninsula the expense of clearing
the trail at a future date. I assumdd the end result would be mutually
beneficial . I was then contacted by Midpeninsula staff and made aware
of the intricate proceedings by which a trail is designed and built after
approval by the board members.
I have been locally in the Equine Industry for over twelve years and
have a oreat respect and obvious need for the concept of Open Space Preserves.
Without them I would not be able to operate my existing business. After being
made aware of the regulations I violated clearinq the trail , I offer my
sincere apologies to the board members.
To hopefully rectify my mistake, I have discussed with staff the pro-
posal in front of you today. I have offered at totally my expense to
modify the trail per Midpeninsula specifications and I have dedicated my
staff to assist in anyway we can. My hope is that you will understand
that my sole intention was to provide an improvement that would be equally
beneficial to Midpeninsula and myself.
I therefore, respectfully request that the board approve the proposal
to re-open this access trail , allowing me to pay the total charge for it' s
renovation. I believe it would re-open an access poriint to Fremont Older
that will allow the public to better enjoy the preserves that we all con-
sider so valuable.
Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Broo s
I
-Peninsula Citizens' Action
'4151151-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 85-13 85 May 6
May 22, 1985
Board of Directors Hand—delivered at May 8 Meeting
Midpeninsula Regional Open space District
375 Distel Cir. Suite D-I
Los Altos, CA 94022
Greetings,
This has two parts: The first part is a repeat of an earlier personal communication to
Nonette, Dick and Harry. The second part contains responses to the May 4th workshop, relative
to this now-repcated proposal.
The first part is an edited version (sadly, not spelling-checked) of a more informal letter
that I submitted to "the Committee" on April 17th. Given Director Dan's comments at the May
4th workshop, it seems appropriate to make this a formal communication to all of the MROSD
Board at this time.
Hypotheses: My reading of the Board, as of the mid-April meeting was as follows: I believe
that a majority of the Board has already moved to a position where they would adopt a policy
prohibiting condemnation of owner-occupied dwellings. I believe that a majority are also near or
past a position where they would adopt a policy prohibiting condemnation of any occupied
dwellings. For whatever value it may be, I would like to praise the fairness and equitability of
those of you who have moved to that position, and particularly praise the promptness with which
you have examined the pros and cons of the circumstances and made these — presumed
personal committments. It is a delight to find elected officials who illustrate such concern for
equitability and principle in what I know is a trying time.
Since I assume that Harry's stated position — that MROSD should not use condemnation
against occupied dwellings — can and will win the vote of a majority of the Directors, I will not
further address that issue — though, certainly, plenty of additional comments could be made
about it.
In all of this, I am also presuming that the Directors will follow Noncttc's publicly
expressed concern that a way be found to make "the condemnation policy" permanently binding
on future Boards — just as dedication binds future Boards. Hopefully, we all recognize that to
do less will be of little value to anyone.
On these assumptions, I will make no futher comments supporting those positions, though
certainly much more could be said in their favor.
Other-Than-Subdivision Proposals: What would happen if MROSD adopted a policy saying
that it will not use condemnation against property having occupied dwellings, but will feel free
to use it against any other property?
If I owned undeveloped land, I would immediately begin building, even if I had no plans to
build, prior to the District adopting such a policy. I have heard of at least two landowners who
are pursuing exactly that course, right now, for exactly that reason — until your recent
discussions, they had merely "planned to probably build, someday." Thus, such a policy encourages
— rather than discourages exactly what the District does not want.
OK — how 'bout expanding the policy to say that initiation of a building permit well may
trigger District acquisition, by force if necessary? This, also, is frought with problems: For a
starter, there is the ethical problem of telling landowners that they can own their land, and pay
taxes on it, only as long as they don't try to live on it. Secondly, there is some body of case law,
and perhaps statutory law, that might view this as inverse condemnation — which courts have
already rejected in much more tenuous circumstances, relative to planning policies.
I would like to propose a solution. But, first, I want to offer an observation, pertinent to
the proposal: If the District builds the 62,000 acre open space area that Herb proposed in his
1982 published statements (13,000 acres was "one fourth" of the planned total), spread over a 2-3
hour driving range, District rangers almost certainly cannot adequately protect it from harm by
a naive or malicious public. However — as is now the case, in the circumstance of much more
limited current public use — local residents can and will help protect it .. . simply as a matter of
self defense, if nothing else.
Therefore, it is desirable to have some local residents, presuming that the District cannot
afford many hundreds of rangers, and will be unlikely to afford them in the next decade or two.
Page 1
Thus, while the District certainly does not want to encourage construction of new single
dwellings, it should not look at them as being automatically unacceptable.
My proposal: Adopt a policy that condemnation will be considered and may be used only
under any one or several of the following circumstances:
1. If a formal subdivision plan is filed with the applicable planning jurisdiction to create
more than two parcels. (This would allow, for instance, a parent to create a seperate parcel for
their offspring — a situation currently prohibited in the SMC coastal zone, much to the distress
of many of the coastsides' old-line farming families — who would very much like to continue the
agricultural use of their family farm, but want room for their offspring to "keep 'cm down on
the farm."
OR
2. If more than one subdivision plan is filed within ten years for a given 1985 parcel.
(This would put speculators clearly on notice that such attempts to circumvent Part 1 by "2 by 2-
ing" would void their protection.)
OR
3. If there is a clear public necessity to connect two major District parcels, with the
following circumstances:
3A. There is a formally adopted District Plan to create a public Preserve that includes
some trail connecting the two disconnected parcels.
AND
3B. There is no voluntary means for acquiring land to connect the two parcels in such
a way that would allow the creation of such a trail, even a trail that is rather indirect in its
route. (Note: The trail need not be a short-cut, or shortest-distance or straight-line trail; few
Preserve users are concerned with such issues.)
AND
3C. Acquisition could be accomplished in such a manner as to acquire no more than —
say — a 100'-wide parcel that would connect the two District parcels, and be appropriate for the
publicly needed trail, and keep the trail at least — say — 1000' away from all structures on the
property owner's land.
If a #3 condemnation is used, as a matter of fairness, the District should grant the owner
the option of including any contiguous part, or all, of their property in the condemnation. Le.,
the District should not carve out a "prime part" of the land-steak, and leave the owner with the
grissle. This would address the circumstance of an owner, forced to give up part of their land,
wanting to either keep it all or give it all up. It would also address the circumstance of an
owner being forced to have their property split in two by the needed trail, and perhaps no
t
desiring to retain one of the two parts.
In a #3 circumstance, certainly an owner should also be offered a deeded easement
permitting them to cross the District part, if their land is divided in two.
Truly Friendly — Fair — Condemnation: Directors have a responsibility to the majority.
However, particularly in this state and nation, they also have a responsibility to the minority —
as is clearly being pursued in the creation and actions of your current Committee.
I would propose that — under the extreme circumstance of taking someone's land from them
by force — one of the District's responsibilities is to assure that, truly, "fair market value" is
paid for the property acquired by force.
This is normally assured by going through the expensive and antagonizing exercise of
formal condemnation proceedings. This serves no one well, is costly to everyone concerned, and
often generates adverse publicity for the District. I would like to suggest a reasonable
alternative:
There is a body of law built around the use of binding arbitration to address disagreements
between parties to a contract. Given that the District is forcing a landowner to give up their
land, it would seem only fair and reasonable that the District offer to pay the costs of binding
arbitration of the real fair-market-value sale price.
1. Since knowledgable advocates of the buyer and seller would be consulted in such an
arbitration, this would assure that the District was, in fact, honorably paying fair market value.
2. It would be far less expensive than a formal court proceeding.
3. The District's willingness to pay the costs of such out-fo-court arbitration would
encourage a seller to enter into such binding arbitration, rather than bearing their own costs of
formal court litigation.
4. But, most of all, it's the fair thing to do in this society, where government is expected to
exercise major self-restraint in its exercise of its powers and force.
page 2
i
Place Condemnation Authority in Hands of Neutral Party: Another idea is based on
fairness. (It is certainly not based in the reality of government agencys' joy of power.) The
District might admit that
(a) its Directors and staff are not neutral parties, and
(b) acquisition is its primary function, rather than a function incidental to some other goal.
Since the Directors are inherently advocates of acquisition, they can hardly maintain the
neutrality of judgement that is appropriate in considering public necessity for use of
condemnation force.
Therefore, that condemnation power should be turned over to a body of public officials who
are more likely to be truly neutral judges of the real public necessity. The most appropriate
bodies that come to mind are the governing bodies of the jurisdiction in which the forced
g g J
acquisition is desired — e.g. a City Council or County Board of Supervisors.
Admittedly, it would be a major move for a governmental agency to admit that it had too
much power, that it might sometimes fail to function as a fair and neutral body, and that it
should give up the powers that it might not always exercise in a neutral manner, however . . . I
urge you, as people of good will and high ethical principle, to give this very careful and fair
consideration.
Other thoughts:
Allow condemnation onlv where there is a s ecific well-defined Bard-ada ted
p O p
development or use plan that calls for the necessity of acquiring the property in auestion. Le.,
do the planning first; then the acquisition. (Can you name any other circumstance in which a
responsible adult would do less?)
Specify some reasonably explicit criteria defining "public necessity." Le., do not continue to
permit "public necessity" to be defined as nothing more than the "whims of the moment" of five
individuals.
Urge prompt action by your fellow Directors, to defuse the escalation that is currently
occuring, before damage (further damage?) is done to the District.
In the near future, I would like to propose a number of active outreach programs and
cooperativc efforts that I believe are feasable and mutually valuable, to be organized between
the District/staff/docents and the neighbors/landowners who are near District lands. We could
work together for everyone's common benefit, and we should.
I would like to help with this, and will turn my attention to this as soon as we get passed
this condemnation issue. In this, I firmly believe that — in most cases — we, who live here, are
this land's foremost caretakers. The vast majority of us respect the mountain's beauty and
nature, and are actively and knowledgably caretakers of it.
These are additional comments, added after the May 4th workshop:
The Artemis/Big Artemis/Big Sur Exception: Artemis pointed out that the above proposal would fail to
address the circumstance of the Big Sur property jointly owned by her family and two other
families. Most rules have exceptions. The above proposal still works. It specifies only that the
n i h context f more-than-two-parts subdivisi n within n
District may use condemnation m e eo to t o o to s
Y
ears• it doesn't saythe District must use it. In fact, it would be appropriate to append to the
above proposal a formal exception policy — permitting the Board to be able to grant an
exception to a landowner wishing to subdivide into more than two parts; an exception that would
guarantee no forced condemnation of any or all of those parcels. (I am not at all concerned that
the District would make unreasonable use of such an exception ability; I do not envision the
Directors ever being "pro-subdivision.")
Prior Restraint Prohibiting Subdivisions: I believe one of Dan's notions was that permanent
protection against condemnation should be granted only to those parcels that can never be
subdivided. Sadly, neither the District nor the landowner have much control over this.
Permitting subdivision is a whim granted only to City and County Planning Commissions. And, I
suspect that case law has struck down recorded deed restrictions that prohibit subdivision, in
perpetuity (I assume the District's legal counsel is researching this, as part of its charge to
inform the Directors of their legal alternatives.)
There should not be concern that a commercial subdivision could be completed prior to the
District being able to condemn. Most certainly, the wheels of Planning mills do not turn rapidly
page 3
I
in Peninsula county governments.
Additionally, I would expect that the Boards of Supervisors of both counties would look
favorably on a citizen-supported ordinance instructing their Planning Departments to notify
MROSD whenever a significant subdivision plan is filed — particularly if such an ordinance was
requested in the context of the District's restraining its condemnation powers.
Retaining nd mnati n for Larpter Parcels: Dan seems inclined to retain condemnation
authority for use against larger parcels — as I recall it, he suggested those larger than 160 acres.
This is more appropriate for a Parks District, than for an Open Space District. Certainly,
the District's destruction of Hassler has amply illustrated its million-dollar preference for 'open
space" rather than "park and public recreation" facilities.
If the District wishes to (a) stretch its limited tax dollars, (b) support the notion of
privately-held open space, and (c) support and encourage continued agricultural use of land for
farmingand grazing, then it should not retain condemnation force for use against large parcels
g g, f g g
for whch no commercial subdivision is proposed.
Please note that this does not keep a large parcel from being acquired for use as a public
park. It merely keeps the MROSD acquisition agency from acquiring it by force. If there was
cretY a Public necessity" for such an acquisition, then the Co
unty or State Parks Departments
could use their condemnation powers to acquire the property. These agencies do not have the
obviously biased view that their primary raison detre' is the acquisition of property.
Proposing Action-Format Policy: Please note that the policy I am proposing specifies the
w i fcondemnation in hich the District may take the action o — and the only circumstances yy
circumstances wherein such action may be taken. This contrasts with the alternative of trying to
say when the District will not use condemnation.
In a sense, those who own the several hundred thousand acres in the "target zone" for the
Midpeninsula Acquisition District, are asking for the District to issue some insurance that is
appropriate for this nation which does not have a history of massive government take-over of
Y
private land by force (except, of course, from that taken from the indians, English, French,
Spaniards, etc. ... hmmmmm). And, the best kind of insurance policy is an "all risk" policy that
names its few exceptions.
Who Pays Whom for Nonsubdivision/Noncondemnation Agreements: Someone proposed that
landowners should pay money to the District for MROSD to agree not to condemn their land if
they won't subdivide.
Our view is exactly opposite to this. Part of the historical value of land, since the
beginning of time, has been the opportunity to use it. If a landowner contracts not to subdivide
or develop their property — sort of a "non-development" easement, they are obviously giving up a
characteristic of their property that is provably of great value. That "easement" would be
granted explicitly for the benefit of the District's goals and for the general benefit to the public.
Valuable consideration should be paid to the landowner for any such easement or contract, just
as is normally done for any other easement that benefits someone other than the property owner.
To coerce such a contract or easement from a landowner — much less demanding that the
property owner pay money, to boot — by threatening condemnation if the contract is not given,
would be a blatant, reprehensible and absolutely intolerable example of blackmail by every
definition that word has ever had.
I urge the Directors to discard any further consideration of any proposal that landowners
give away their property rights for the benefit of others, without receiving fair payment for
such reduction in property value.
T kin o for our consideration of these comments, I remain,
Sin r y,
inWarren, founde
page 4
ar
Peninsula Citizens' Action
(415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062
INRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 85-13
May 22, 1985 85 May 7
Hand—delivered at May 8 Meeting
MROSD Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distcl Circle, #D-I
Los Altos, CA 94022
Greetings,
This provides a response to Director Harry Turner's recent written proposals. We consider
this to be an official written communication to the Board.
Harry's
v's proposal: "There should be a moratorium period of two years during which the
District will not initiate an eminent domain proceeding."
We wish to reiterate our position, outlined several months ago:
A ban on use of condemnation power that is limited in time — be it two months or two
years — is unacceptable to virtually everyone concerned about these issues. We well recognize
that, by definition, it offers only temporary protection. Fifty years ago, Chamberlain taught the
world the consequences of accepting the philosophy of "Peace in our time," when dealing with a
powerful and aggressive adversary — and his opponent hadn't even published a list of desired
acquisitions.
A ban on use of condemnation power — with or without a time limit — that is merely
adopted by the current Board without a statutory or contractual assurance of germanance, is
equally unacceptable. Most home-owners well recognize that the current Board or any future
Board could reverse such a policy at any time.
Our recommendation: Adopt a set of permanent restrictions on your powers of
condemnation, and seek to bind them by statute or legal contract. We already have opinions
from Sacramento contacts that legislative action would be prompt and cooperative, if the District
joined with concerned citizens in seeking statutory implementation of mutually acceptable,
District-adopted condemnation restraints.
Harry's proposal: Consider withdrawing the 695-Plus-Asterisks list.
Your list has stated your desires. Once stated, they are not refuted by withdrawing the list.
Your now-stated desires can be refuted only by a permanent prohibition on use of condemnation,
backed up by statute or binding contract.
Our position: We don't care whether you withdraw the list, or not. The shot has been fired;
the wound cannot be unmade.
Harry's proposal: "The threat of eminent domain shall not be made" [during the two-year
moratorium].
"The List," the threat has been made; it cannot be retracted merely by failing to repeat
it. Your List-Plus-Asterisks, coupled with your past actions and continuing staff attempts at
condcmnation and annexation in January, February and March, have made the threat. The only
means for withdrawing the threat is by substantive action that produces permanent, binding
restriction of your condemnation powers.
Our position: We don't care whether your representatives repeat the already-made threat.
(We suspect, however, that the staff has already vigorously erased the word from their public
vocabulary, or at least stored it in a "For Later Use" wishfile.)
Harry's proposal: If the moratorium on use of condemnation is rescinded, "Residents,
whether owners or tenants, will not be subject to involuntary removal from the land on which
they live."
This wording is disturbingly ambiguous. The Perham acquisition — in which forced
condemnation was initiated meets the proposal's criteria, since the elder Perham was granted
page 1
life tenancy in her ex-home that the District took by force. As stated, this proposal is
unacceptable to us — all the more so due to its false facade of protection.
Our recommendation: Unequivocably state proposed policies. in a way that cannot be
misinterpreted. To do less engenders justified criticism for remaining ambiguous, even after
complaints about the ambiguity — such as this one — have been formally stated. Under that
circumstance, the most adverse interpretation must be adopted by readers ... and writers.
Harry's proposal: "Exclude the Ducker's and other communities from development in the
District's master plan."
This implies a willingness to possibly exclude some selected, presumably more populated
communities from forced acquisition, while retaining the freedom to force acquisition of the
smaller minorities who occupy less populated areas. Even worse, it recommends to the Board that
the District exclude one community, without adopting any overall plan and set of criteria or
principles to use in selecting communities that will receive such a reprieve, and those from whom
it will be withheld.
Such a capricious "benefit to some" — without a plan, without formally specified and
adopted criteria, and without fair and equal treatment for all — is not acceptable to Peninsula
Citizens' Action, nor to most of the area's mountain and rural residents and community groups.
Our recommendation: Do not "exempt" any neighborhood until and unless you have formally
stated and adopted criteria and principles for such exemptions.
(PCA would view such "unprincipled" treatment of any community as being grossly
inequitable and inflammatory, regardless of the self-serving relief felt by the single community
receiving such special treatment. This certainly includes the community along our area of Swett
Road. Such action by MROSD would guarantee an immediate, massive direct-mail campaign by
us.)
Disturbing events: Until Harry's April 23rd and April 24th memos, we had the impression
that the Directors were moving towards a set of solutions likely to be mutually acceptable.
However, we have the strong impression that Harry knows the English language quite well, and
has ample ability to express himself accurately. We assume that he recognizes the above-noted
implications of his statements. We are seriously concerned that his ambiguities may have the
approval of a majority of the Board.
His written proposals — plus two verbal statements — have prompted serious concern on our
part. Regarding the verbal statements that have caused us concern:
1. Mort Levine, the Publisher of the Country Almanac, told us that — during a recent
conversation — Harry indicated he was seriously considering a proposal that the District entirely
give up its condemnation powers. Yet, the actual proposal, submitted after that conversation,
was to give up the condemnation habit for only two years — a radically different suggestion
(like giving up cigarettes ... for two hours). We are concerned that Publisher Levine had one
impression, while a far-different proposal was submitted to the District's decision-makers (and
copied to Mort).
2. During the April 24th Board discussion of the LAFCO matter, Harry alluded to, "giving
ammunition to our enemies." We are enemies, only of the use of force to take of our homes and
lands — as Harry surely knows. For a [presumed] middle-of-the-roader to refer to us as "our [the
Directors'] enemies" — without objection from any other Directors — seems to further imply that
the Board hopes to retain the power to take our homes or lands by condemnation.
We are seriously concerned that Directors might believe these proposals could have the effect
of:
(a) de-fusing the growing public outcry and opposition to the District's current condemnation
non-policies, by temporary fixes that can be easily reversed at some later date,
(b) discussing and discussing and discussing — providing the facade of action, but no substance —
hoping that our organization and resolve may decay over time, in the face of inaction,
(c) offering the illusion of protection, while — by ambiguous phrasing — retaining the right to
wield condemnation as you have done ten times in the past, and
(d) a divide-and-conquer tactic wherein some communities are assured of safety — at least,
temporarily. As with Chamberlain, the Third Reich provided ample illustration of such a tactic
in its land acquisition efforts, taking one area at a time, while assuring others of their
[temporary] safety.
Concluding the WW 11 analogy (Bitburg remains in the news): Germany's major thrust was
grabbing land to build their vision of a better world. Your troops are massed on our border, and
page 2
+1
ou've already shot down ten of our fellow landowners. You have done nothing to withdraw
from this hostility, except tell your warriors to sheath their bayonets — for the moment. Even as
we have been negotiating, your General has aimed at condemnation and annexation targets at the
rate of one per month.
If this offends you, please note that it was one of your own, generally more temperate
members — not any of us — who first characterized our relationship as one of "enemies" to
whom "ammunition" should not be given.
We urge the Directors to give favorable consideration to our recommendations regarding
Harry's proposals. Thanking you for your attention to these comments, I remain,
Sincerely,
Jim Warren, founder
page 3
Jim Warren
(415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062
VIRI- TTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 85-13 85 May 8
District Directors May 22 , 1985
Midpcninsula Regional Open Space District Hand-delivered at May 8 Meeting
375 Distel, #D-I
Los Altos, CA 94022
Greetings,
This concerns Herb Grcnch's performance as the District's General Manager, and the ever-
so-handsome compensation package he receives. It is raised because numerous long-time District
observers have suggested that Herb may be the source of many of the problems that are now
surfacing.
In these comments, I am assuming that Herb exercises excellent control over his staff — that
recommendations to the Board and public statements by staff almost always have Herb's prior
approval.
WHO'S DIRECTING WHOM?
Many have alleged that — until the public outcry, this year — Herb has adroitly
manipulated the Board, using such ploys as incomplete information, limited lists of options,
"loaded" phrasing of proposals, perhaps inaccurate information, and — as Jay Thorwaldson
suggested — possible "traveling committees" (wherein he met with sub-quorum groups of the
Directors, one after another, "selling" them on his proposals out of sight of the public. Only you
Directors can evaluate whether this occurcd.).
To illustrate his success in this manipulation, District critics point to the fact that, until this
year, the Board has apparently approved of every condemnation and annexation proposal Herb
has submitted. However, consistant Board approval of a Manager's proposals is not necessarily a
criticism — a competant and astute administrator should earn almost complete cooperation from
his Directors.
I have no personal observations of what happened prior to 1985. However, I have certainly
seen what I consider to be attempts at such manipulation in his/staff's actions, this year:
Dooley condemnation . . . for a bicycle trail: Consider the flacid rationale that over-riding
public necessity required condemnation of the Dooley parcel for, in part, a bicycle trial. At best,
the rationale was ludicrous. At worst, it was ill-concieved and illustrated poor judgement
regarding the political and public relations impact of such reasoning.
It was an example of providing "any of rationale" to get the Board to accept his proposal —
no matter how frail and deficient the rationale might be.
Either he is accustomed to an obedient Board, or he evaluates the Board members as being
unreasonably naive, or he arrogantly offered inadequate support for his recommendation.
Whatever it was, it was an example of poor judgement, inappropiatc for an $83,000+/year
Manager.
Santa Cruz annexation antics: He proposed more flawed logic — plus incorrect information
(and lack of information) — for the Santa Cruz County annexation.
He said the District couldn't protect its property unless it was annexed. False: Your agents
can protect your 90 acres — whether its in a 495-acre area of untouched Santa Cruz County, or
its in Humboldt, or in downtown Los Altos. They just can't exercise full police powers.
Similarly, Simpervirons can also [continue to] protect their turf.
He said you only had two options approve the annexation, including the delicious Bar-Y,
or reject the whole works. In fact, you and he — had at least three other options: You could
have asked for a rehearing, or a continuation, or you could have rejected it and returned in
another several months with a new application.
The fact that — he said — he didn't know about the possibility of a rehearing was, at best,
naive. The first thing one does, when receiving an undesired decision from a governmental
agency, is to seek routes for rehearings and appeals. After 13 years of dealing with other
agencies, he should have known this.
The fact that he failed to aggressively argue for the Board's 100% policy before the Santa
Cruz LAFCo illustrates a variety of shortcomings in a manager who is supposed to represent you
and defend your adopted policies.
page I
The fact that he failed to neutrally present all of your alternatives to you, severly smacks of
manipulation. You should not continue to tolerate it.
ONGOING POOR JUDGEMENT
The Open Space District is a luxury — it not a bed-and-butter governmental necessity. It
certainly has its detractors — who have been around long before the current outcry. As such, its
continuation and growth depends on astute, polished public relations. Its General Manager must
have significant P.R. abilities — or, you must have a p.r. budget that would please the DoD.
Herb has amply illustrated a poor public relations sense in a number of key
recommendations to you. To the extent that he "persuaded" you to adopt these unwise
recommendations — or failed to fully warn you of the extent of the adverse publicity
consequences — he has served you and the District poorly. These include:
The List-Plus-Asterisks: Directors keep saying you had to adopt the list in January. We
keep pointing out that you absolutely did not have to adopt such a list. All you had to do was
what all other agencies are doing to meet the Keene ammendment — identify parcels prior to
conducting closed discussions of negotiations for those identified parcels. This could have been
an interum policy, given you "breathing time" in which to work out a more viable
implementation of the Keene ammendment — or seek Keene's cooperation in quietly modifying it
for your benefit. This is what Herb should have recommended.
Grench and his staff (and you) should surely have forseen the furor that publication of
such a list would — or at least could ... and did — create. This was a monumental p.r, blunder,
proven by the consequences with which you are now dealing.
More importantly, it seems to illustrate an intolerable arrogance — as is amply illustrated by
responses from virtually legislator, publisher and reporter who knows about it.
The Hassler Hassle: I won't make any statements or allegations — I'll simply ask questions.
Was the fury and bad press generated by your approval — and obstinate, continuing support —
of Herb's desire to destroy every one of the Hassler buildings worth the result? Could the
District have done better things with the several hundred thousand dollars of legal fees? Could
it have found better uses for the $700,0004400,000 it is spending on the demolition?
Did Herb prepare you for the likely consequences? Did he predict how the San Mateo
County Supervisors would surely react to the attempted bull-dozing, after an apparent agreement
to talk things over?
Did he suggest some alternatives — e.g., give the Arts Council one building and rip the rest?
Did he suggest waiting for a year or two, to see if things would cool off?
Did he inform you of your hired Historian's report? Did he compare Hassler's condition
and historical value with that of Thornewood or Fremont-Older? Did he evaluate how such a
comparison could be used by District critics?
If he failed to fully evaluate the likely consequences, and failed to carefully and fully report
your alternatives to you, then ... how competant is he to serve as an $83K+ General Manager of a
publicity-sensitive agency?
MANAGEMENT
Bah humbug! It's almost time to leave for the Board meeting, so I must wrap this up
without completing it.
Continuing the issue of Herb's competancy to serve as General Manager, I was going to
question his management practices. In this, I was going to raise the issue of the several out-of-
court — or out-of-office — settlements of sex discrimination claims, the selection of the previous
Acquisitions Manager and the circumstances of his departure, the attempted burial of huge
amounts of concrete [five photos, enclosed] on the Coal Creek Preserve (that was aborted by the
County), etc.
COMPENSATION
I was going to expand on my queries — initiated at the last Board hearing — regarding
Herb's Cadillac compensation package. (I would like to thank Nonette for her prompt
presentation of her proposal for what appears to be court-mandated open discussion of the level
of compensation of the General Manager, presumably responding to my April 17th queries.)
In this, I was going to make comparisons to other top administrators of public agencies on
the south Peninsula and in the Bay area. This would include City Managers, Parks & Rec
Directors, and other Parks and Open Space District General Managers.
Comparisons would be made by number of staff, size of district properties, complexity of
district properties, size of operations budget being managed (excluding the huge baloon of
page 2
acquisition funds), performance of key responsibilities (e.g. accurately apprising the Board of
their alternatives and of the likely consequences of recommended choices, management that
avoids sex discrimination charges, and public relations that maintains a positive image of the
District), and comparisons of professional training and experience for public administration and
public relations.
I would have also compared other top managers in the areas of extra special retirement
contributions, and "administrative leaves" stacked on top of legitimate vacations (next thing you
know, Physics Ph.D. Grench will want a sabatical).
In the issue of compensation, I would certainly raise the cry — repeatedly voiced to us by
several Directors — that you have a responsibility to make best use of limited public funds in
your trust, and "buy" the most for the least cost. I believe you could find equivalent talent to
manage a 22-staff District for $10,000 or $20,000 less, or get a much better manager, public
relations specialist and Board advisor for the $83,000+ you are paying for 1984-1985.
This letter is not written to "shoot down" Herb. It is written to ask that you very carefully
evaluate how well — and how poorly — Herb is now serving the District's goals. If he is a key
source of the growing District problems, then you should correct his inadequacies or replace him
. presumably with a handsome "golden handshake" and a trail or preserve named after him for
the good service he has performed for the District in the past.
Whomever the General Manager is, he must be able to change and grow to meet the current
and future needs — all of them — of the District and the "cause" of Open Space.
Th ing you for your attention to these comments, I remain,
Sinc rely
Warren
P.S. —
I would like to mention that I have received consistantly eexcellent and patient cooperation
in my several contacts with Craig Britten, David Hanson, and Jim Borland. (I have had
essentially no contact at all with Herb.)
page 3
WRITTEN COB, .4ICATION
Meeting 85-13
May 22 , 1985
Judy Viles
444 Saratoga Ave.
Apt.#34K
Santa Clara, CA 95050
May 20, 1985
Mid Peningila Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Board Members:
This letter is in regards to Stevens Creek Ranch, presently
located at 11050 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, CA.
We, the public, have enjoyed Stevens Creek Ranch as club
members and regular renters for the past year.
We have found Stevens Creek Ranch to be the best suited for
us in this area for serious equestrians, regular renters, and
family oriented horseback riders.
The staff of Stevens Creek Ranch has presented to us outstanding
Western and English riding lessons, emphasizing the safety skills
essential to good horsemanship. The Breakfast Rides and Day Camps
have been of prominent quality and favorable to our children.
We would like to continue using the Stevens Creek Ranch facilities
without interruption and therefore seek your assistance in enabling
us to do so.
Please allow Stevens Creek Ranch to access Mid Peninsula Public
Property immediately so that we may continue to enjoy their
outstanding services.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens
ele
475 �vrtt(�Flb c '1�tn' VLNAA-
C/OMDt ?.1. c A -5004'
ui -it
Continued: RE: Stevens Creek Ranch
10. �. - `M(f xa� �59 S� f�5�or,� f+ut
ta.L1/0- 70 S by in Yoe(.
11.
12.
13. _eC IsL�Qil'If��
14. mG e�
15. VJ
lo�K�It�K.II
16.
- -197oS
17. �h 11 r P s• Van E77��✓
l 12 <o LDn�bra.ncl` C �-
Sa r% 3�s�1 l a s t Z C
18. .J Q�4 CU f1
6,5-1 A
19. <� lu
3��'I SLc>P �✓�
oe M-85-85
5C
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 16 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: 1985 Special Parks Forum
Attached is information regarding the annual Forum which the Mid-
peninsula Regional Open Space District co-hosted last year. If any
of you may wish to attend, please bring the matter up at the May 22
Board meeting for Board authorization. Funds are available in this
budget category.
S 6 i9
DAMES J.POMPO,Director AY[' [�, ((��
`., DAVIDWILLI L. P.SH, Controller
Deputy Dire 3 O 5 O P L N O D J C O T B U I L D I N G
DAVIO L.WAHL, Controller
ROBERT L.BRYAN,Secretary DETH01T , MICHIGAN 48276 (313 ) 961 -5865 OR 1 -800-552-6772
COMMISSIONERS
DAMES B.COSGROVE,Chairman
JOHN C.HERTEL, Vice-Chairman
JAMES CLARKSON, Treasurer
1985 SPECIAL PARKS DISTRICT FORUM CLIFTON W.HELLER
HARRYE.LESTER
June 12 through I5 , 1985 JEANETTES.WEISS
g THOMAS S.WELSH
TO: Special Parks District Forum
FROM: William P. Sherman
SUBJECT: Registration/Accommodations/Advance Agenda
Your response to the 1985 Forum has been overwhelming! At this time we
have commitments from about 80 people including spouses.
ACCOMMODATIONS: We have reserved a block of 50 rooms at the Holiday Inn, Detroit
Metropolitan Airport. These rooms will be held until. May 25. Reservations made
after May 25 will be on a space available basis. Each room has two beds. You are
to make your own reservations by calling (313) 728-2800. Indicate that your
reservation is for the Special Parks District Forum.
Single Occupancy Double Occupancy
Wednesday and Thursday $66 each night $74 each night
Friday and Saturday $44 each night $44 each night
Transportation from the airport is provided by Holiday Inn by using the Holiday
Inn phone located in each terminal baggage area.
REGISTRATION: Forum Cost - $75.00 per member attendee
$25.00 for spouse
Make checks payable to: Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority
Please enclose a list of those who will be attending, providing both the first
and last names along with titles. Advise everyone that dress for all occasions
will be casual .
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION TOPICS:
I. Park Security
a) Contract with local Sheriff
b) Contract with private security guard
c) Self-operate
d) Other
II. Ageing Facilities
a) 5,000 locker dressing room for beach/pool
b) Outdoor roller rink - high accident facility
Olt
DELHI•DEXTER-HURON•HUDSON MILLS-HURON MEADOWS-INDIAN SPRINGS-KENSINGTON•LAKE ERIE
LOWER HURON-MARSHBANK-METRO BEACH•OAKWOODS•STONY CREEK-AND WILLOW M P ETRO ARK S
II
Page 2
AGENDA: Note: All programs/tours include spouse
June 12 (Wednesday) Arrival
6:00 - 9:00 p.m. Registration/Hors d'oeuvres & Refreshments
8:00 p.m. Welcome/Orientation
June 13 (Thursday)
8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Coffee/rolls/juice
9:00 a.m. Tour Buses
9:30 - 11:30 a.m. Oakwoods Metropark
Programs: Voyageur Canoe Experience
Indian Slide Program
Long Shore/Swim Basin Study
Noon - 3:30 p.m. Lake Erie Metropark
Lunch and Refreshments
Programs: Great Wave Pool Dedication (Bring swim suit)
Activities Area - Planning
4:30 - 8:00 p.m. Kensington Metropark
Programs: island Queen (tentative)
Farm Visit
Steak Fry
8:00 p.m. Buses return to Hotel
June 14 (Friday)
8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Coffee/rolls/juice
9:00 a.m. Tour Buses
10:30 - 11 :30 a.m. Wolcott Mill Metropark
Program: oncept evelopment - Planning
Noon Stony Creek Metropark
Lunch
Program: Agency Reports/Update
21 Agencies to date (limit 5 minutes please)
3:00 p.m. Metro Beach Metropark
Programs: Park Tour - Trackless Train
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS
I. Park Security - Oakland Co. Parks & Recreation
II. Ageing Facilities - Metro Beach Metropark
Facility/Boardwalk tour/small groups or on own
6:00 p.m. Refreshments/Bar-B-Q
8:00 p.m. "Macombers" - Entertainment
9:00 p.m. Buses return to Hotel
June 15 (Saturday)
8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Coffee/rolls/juice
9:00 a.m. Tour Buses
10:00 a.m. Metroparks - Toledo Area - Host
Programs: Wildwood Preserve Metropark
Horse Ranger Patrol
Nature Art Center & V. I.P. Headquarters
Manor House - Lunch
1:30 - 4:00 p.m. Tour Metroparks
5:00 p.m. Portside Marketplace - Dinner on your own
7:30 p.m. Buses return to Hotel
Page 3
EARLY ARRIVALS:
Bring your golf clubs and play our Willow Metropark Golf Course.
We will provide transportation and tee times and have you back in
plenty of time for our Social Hour.
Noon for 18 holes and 2:00 p.m. for 9 holes. Advance notice
please.
Jim Pompo and I look forward to seeing you. If you have any
questions, please call .
Yours truly,
William P. Sherman
Deputy Director
WPS:mma
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
Play 16, 1985
TO: Legislative Committee and Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: CPRS Legislative Conference
Attached is the CPRS Legislative Report distributed at the recent
conference. The Legislative Committee may wish to hold a meeting
to discuss in particular the various liability bills.
Other conference materials are also attached.
The referenced conference material is available
for review at the District office.
CALIFORNIA PARK AND RECREATION SOCIETY
LEGISLATIVE REPORT
As of May 13, 1985
AB 47 (Vicencia) Income taxes: deductions. SUPPORT
(3/14/5 am)
• Pending Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee.
Measure would allow personal income tax deduction for contributions made
to California Seniors' Fund, State Children's Trust Fund, United States
Olympic Committee, California Election Campaign Fund, Endangered & Rare
Fish, Wildlife, & Plant Species Conservation & Enhancement Account in
the Fish & Game Preservation Fund.
AB 200 (McAlister) Liability. SUPPORT
• Hearing 5/21/85, Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Measure would provide that an owner who has an interest in real property
shall not be liable for any injury that occurs upon that property during
the course of or after the commission of any specified felonies committed
by the injured person.
AB 230 (McAlister) Liability. SUPPORT
(3/13/5 am)
• Hearing 5/21/85, Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Measure would provide that in an action for damages for personal injury,
property damage, or wrongful death, if the plaintiff has sustained an
indivisible injury as the result of the negligence or wrongful conduct
of two or more other persons, and also as a result of the intoxication
of the injured person, a defendant whose comparative fault in causing
the injury is less than the comparative fault of the injured person, is
only liable for that portion of the damages attributable to that de-
fendant's comparative fault.
AB 300 (Harris) Liability. SUPPORT
• Hearing 5/21/85, Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Measure would provide that an owner of real property shall not be liable
for any injury that occurs upon that property during the course of or
after the commission of any specified felonies.
M 0 R E. .
TERNES-HOUS TON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
AB 618 (Herger) Vandalism. SUPPORT
(3/25/5 am)
0 Hearing 5/20/85, Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Measure would provide that vandalism, causing damage, defacement, or
destruction in the amount of $1,000 or more would be punishable as
either a felony or a misdemeanor depending upon the dollar amount of
such damage.
AB 952 (Tucker) Health Occupations Council . OPPOSE
(5/9/5 am)
0 Pending Assembly Ways & Means Committee.
Measure would create the Health Occupations Council in the Office of
Statewide Health Planning & Development to provide a review process for
licensure of health care professionals.
AB 1053 (Clute) Comparative fault: public entities. SUPPORT
(4/23/5 am)
6 Held Under Submission in Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Measure would have provided in an action for personal injury, property
damage, or wrongful death as result of wrongful conduct of 2 or more
persons, damages would be apportioned among tortfeasors, and the public
employee/entity tortfeasor would be liable for only the percentage of
damages allocated to it. No further action anticipated on this measure
this session.
AB 1194 (Ferguson) Subdivision Map Act: in-lieu fees. OPPOSE/AMEND
0 Pending Assembly Local Government Committee.
Measure would drastically alter the method by which calculations of land
dedication or in-lieu fees in connection with subdivision map applica-
tions are calculated; would prohibit cities, counties, and other local
public agencies, when arriving at the amount of its in-lieu fee require-
ment, from including parkland acreages which they do not own, in their
formula. CPRS Legislative Chair and advocates have met with author and
are preparing background documents as requested by author.
AB 1240 (Konnyu) Zoning. SUPPORT
0 Pending Assembly Local Government Committee.
Measure would enact legislative declaration regarding the interest of
local governments in preserving residential neighborhoods.
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES 0 R E. . .1
Governmental Affairs counseling
AB 1264 (Rogers) Waterfowl habitat. SUPPORT
• Pending Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee.
Measure would declare it to be state policy to promote improvement or
restoration of public and private lands which provide habitat for waterfowl .
AB 1386 (Agnos) Aging: designation of contributions on income SUPPORT
(5/9/5 am) tax returns.
9 Hearing 5115/81 Assembly Ways & Means Committee.
Measure would extend current authority of taxpayers to designate con-
tributions to California Seniors' Fund on their tax returns through the
1111 taxable year.
AB 1456 (Clute) Fairs: California Park & Recreation Facilities Act OPPOSE
of 1984.
0 Hearing 5/13/85, Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee.
Measure would specify District Agricultural Associations, Citrus Fruit
Fairs and County Fairs to be eligible for grants under the 1984 Park &
Recreation Bond Act.
AB 1583 (Clute) Mobilehome Parks Act. WATCH
(4/23/5 am)
0 Hearing 5/15/85, Assembly Ways & Means Committee.
Measure would permit governmental entities to elect to have the Mobile-
home Parks Act apply to their recreational vehicle parks, or camping
areas which they own, operate and maintain.
AB 1629 N. Waters) Sales and use tax exemptions: youth organizations. SUPPORT
0 Pending Assembly Ways & Means Committee.
Measure would exempt from sales and use tax, food products, nonalcoholic
beverages and other tangible personal property sold by any nonprofit
organization, youth group sponsored by a school district, or other
organization the primary purpose of which is to provide a supervised
program for youth or to promote good citizenship in youth, as specified.
AB 1759 (Bradley) Land use: dedication & in lieu fee requirements. OPPOSE
(4/17/5 am)
0 Hearing 5/14/85, Assembly Local Government Committee.
-3- M 0 R E
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
Measure would require a cost and benefit analysis regarding any school
or community park or recreational facility to be constructed using
developer fees.
AB 1762 (Bradley) California Coastal Commission: abolition. OPPOSE
• Pending Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Measure would abolish the California Coastal Commission and require each
local governmental entity wholly or partly within the Coastal Zone to
comply with the Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies.
AB 1978 (Naylor) Schools: waivers of laws. SUPPORT
• Hearing 5/22/85, Assembly Ways & Means Committee.
Measure would eliminate current procedure which has allowed some school
districts to obtain a waiver from first offering surplus property to
other public entities.
AB 2020 (Margolin) Beverage containers : refund value. SUPPORT
• Hearing 5/14/85, Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Measure would impose mandatory deposit on beverage containers.
AB 2083 (Allen) Subdivisions: park or recreational facilities. OPPOSE
• Pending, Assembly Local Government Committee.
Measure would give a subdivider a credit against in lieu fees for the
value of a day care facility constructed within the development.
AB 2198 (Felando) OPPOSE
0 Hearing 5/21/85, Assembly Education Committee.
Measure would repeal provisions requiring school districts to first
offer surplus property to other specified public entities prior to sale.
AB 2325 (Stirling) School facilities: master plans: state funding: OPPOSE
(4/16/5 am) developer fees.
• Pending Assembly Education Committee.
Measure would establish a specified schedule for developer fees, which
would preempt all local procedures and requirements relating to developer
fees.
-4- M 0 R E. . .
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
i
AB 2340 (Agnos) Public agencies: surplus property. OPPOSE
(4/26/5 am)
0 Pending Assembly Education Committee.
Measure would revise existing priorities prescribed for the sale of
surplus school property by requiring such property first be offered for
development of low and moderate income housing. Author will not pursue
approval of this measure during 1985 and is currently attempting to
develop amendments which may eliminate our concerns.
AB 2538 (Ferguson) Local agency fees. OPPOSE
(4/22/5 am)
• Pending Assembly Local Government Committee.
Measure would limit fees to be imposed by local governments to amounts
actually incurred to furnish the governmental service rather than the
amount reasonably required to provide the service.
SB 44 (Garamendi ) Public buildings: California Percent-for-Art in SUPPORT
(3/13/5 am) Public Buildings Program.
• Pending Senate Appropriations Committee.
Measure would repeal existing law as of July 1, 1987, and create the
California Percent-for-Art in Public Buildings Program, expressing the
intent of the Legislature that this program provide quality art works
for public appreciation in public places; provisions to become operative
on Julys
1 1987.
SB 45 (Garamendi) Arts education: California State Summer School SUPPORT
(3/21/5 am) for the Arts.
s Pending Assembly Education Committee.
Measure would revise existing provisions of law governing the California
State Summer School for the Arts; requiring an appointment of a Director;
to .provide for operation and governance of the summer school , to develop
a statewide application and audition procedure, and to distribute
information regarding the summer school program to all school districts
in the state.
SB 75 (Foran) Joint and several liability. SUPPORT
(4/15/5 am)
• Pending Senate Floor.
-5 M 0 R E. . .
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
Measure would provide that in an action for personal injury, property
damage or death where an indivisible injury was caused by 2 or more
persons, the damages shall be equitably apportion. Allocation of damages
would not apply to intentional injuries as specified.
SUPPORT
SB 84 (Torres) Day care centers.
(4/29/5 am)
• Pending Senate Appropriations Committee.
"Clean-up" bill to SB 1754 of 1984 Session setting major restructuring
of Child Care statutes. This bill had major misinterpretation of time
frame for under 4 years, nine months care programs. Author amended bill
to remedy problem. Clarifies care under public recreation programs;
deletes duplicatory provisions of law relating to licensing/permitting
of day care centers; enables local agencies to pursue any available
remedies to seek reimbursement for costs mandated by State.
SB 172 (Maddy) Personal income tax: charitable deductions. SUPPORT
(2/25/5)
0 Pending Assembly Revenue & Taxation Committee.
Would make the deduction under the Personal Income Tax Law for direct
charitable contributions permanent.
SB 249 (Presley) Taxation: charitable contributions. SUPPORT
(3/14/5 am)
• Pending Senate Approriations "Suspense" File.
Measure would re-enact state personal income provisions by increasing
for an indefinite period the rate for miles travled to 20,¢ per mile for
the first 15,000 miles and 12� per mile for miles in excess of 15,000
miles, in any taxable year.
SB 303 (Roberti ) Extended day care services. WATCH
(4/29/5 am)
0 Pending Senate Appropriations "Suspense" File.
Measure sets extended day care programs in State Department of Education.
Superintendent to adopt rules, regulations and set standards. Requires
Superintendent to enter into contractural agreements with public and
private agencies for delivery of services; requires funding plan; re-
imbursement rates; fees schedule. Superintendent sets qualifications for
eligible agencies. $50,000,000 appropriation for program participation
apportionments.
-6-
M 0 R E
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
SB 340 (Robbins) Off-highway motor vehicles : signs. SUPPORT
• Hearing 5/21/85, Senate Judiciary Committee.
Measure would make any person who maliciously removes or alters off-
highway motor vehicle markers or signs guilty of a misdemeanor if such
action results in an adverse environmental impact.
SB 341 (Mello) Multipurpose senior services. SUPPORT
• Pending Assembly Aging & Long Term Care Committee.
Measure would permit the Department of Aging to make advance payments to
local governmental agencies in order to ensure the effective operation
of multipurpose senior services programs.
SB 433 (Bergeson) Public liability. SUPPORT
(5/6/5 am)
• Pending Senate Judiciary Committee.
Measure would provide that public property shall be considered to exist
in a natural condition and unimproved state notwithstanding the per-
formance of public services related to the property, or the presence of
improvements so long as the primary cause of the condition that caused
the injury or damage was a natural force.
SB 614 (B. Greene) Disturbing the peace: radio. SUPPORT
• Pending e Y
Senate Judiciary Committee.
Measure would make it a misdemeanor for any person to play a radio in a
loud and unreasonable manner in a public place.
SB 639 (Carpenter) Liability: public entities.
SUPPORT
• Pending Senate Judiciary Committee.
Measure would provide in an action for personal injury, property damage
or wrongful death where an injury was caused by 2 or more persons, the
total damages would be equitably apportioned and the public entity/
employee tortfeasor would be liable only for damages allocated to it.
SB 646 (Mello) Arts education: Local Arts Education SUPPORT/AMEND
• Hearing 5/13/85, Senate Appropriations Committee.
-7- M 0 R E. . .
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs counseling
Measure would establish the Local Arts Education Partnership Program
with the objective of developing a locally based approach to arts
education improvement by using existing community arts resources to
strengthen basic arts skills in the state' s public schools.
SB 648 (Mello) Local Arts and Aging Program. SUPPORT
0 Hearing 5/20/85, Senate Appropriations Committee.
Measure would establish the Local Arts for the Aging Program to provide
funds for grants to local agencies to make use of the artistic talent of
older persons.
SB 710 (Watson) Sales and use taxes. SUPPORT/AMEND
0 Pending Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee.
Measure would create the County Sales Tax Cleanup Fund and impose a tax
rate of 1% on sale of aerosol paint containers. Money to be allocated
to counties for purpose of cleaning up or repairing property which has
been defaced with paint.
SB 717 (Montoya) Eminent domain. OPPOSE
0 Pending Senate Local Government Committee.
Measure would restrict existing law regarding eminent domain by elimina-
ting the power to acquire any privately owned business, as specified, in
order to continue the business without consent of the owner.
SB 730 (Seymour) Taxation. WATCH
(4/24/5 am)
0 Pending Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee.
Measure would permit public entities to impose special taxes if approved
by a majority of voters rather than by two-thirds of the voters.
SB 756 (L. Greene) Subdivisions. WATCH/STUDY
(5/6/5 am)
0 Hearing 5/20/85, Senate Appropriations Committee.
Measure would exempt lot line adjustments; prevent the County of "remainder"
parcels; and otherwise change various standards and procedures for the
approval of subdivision maps.
M 0 R E. . .
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs counseling
SB 805 (Presley) Wildlife and natural areas conservation: bond issue. SUPPORT
(4/16/5 am)
• Pending Senate Appropriations "Suspense" File.
Measure would, if approved by the voters, enact the Wildlife and Natural
Areas Conservation Act of 1986 authorizing issuance of bonds in the
amount of $85,000,000, for the conservation, enhancement, restoration,
and protection of unique, fragile, and endangered wildlife and natural
areas and other wildlife habitat, as specified.
SB 806 (Presley) Community Parklands Program: bond issue. SUPPORT
(4/16/5 am)
• Pending Senate Appropriations "Suspense" File.
Measure would, if approved by the voters, authorize bonds in the amount
of $100,000,000, for the rehabilitation, improvement, or restoration of
deteriorated roads, utilities, and other structures and facilities
within existing parks and recreational areas; neighborhood, community,
and regional parks, beach and public accessways to beaches; historical
sites and structures; recreational areas and facilities; hiking, bi-
cycling, and equestrian trails.
I
SB 887 (Seymour) School sites: sale or lease: zoning. OPPOSE
(4/8/5 am)
• Pending Assembly Local Government Committee.
Measure would specifically prohibit a city or county, prior to a school
district's sale or lease of a surplus school site from rezoning the site
to open-space, park or recreation, or similar zoning classification
unless the adjacent property is so zoned or is so requested or agreed to
by the school district.
SB 1098 (Roberti) Arts Council . SUPPORT
(4/23/5 am)
• Pending Senate Floor.
Measure would add 2 members to the Arts Council , provide that the
Speaker of the Assembly and Senate Rules Committee shall each appoint
one of the 2 new members.
SB 1112 (Mello) Solid waste: litter control : recycling. SUPPORT
(4/16/5 am)
• Pending Senate Appropriations Committee.
-g M 0 R E. . .
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs counseling
I
Measure would enact the Recycling and Clean Cities Act of 1985 to
encourage local agencies to become involved in a statewide network of
litter control programs. The California Waste Management Board would be
authorized to grant funds to local agencies for the purposes of such
programs.
SB 1165 (Marks) California Environmental Protection Program. OPPOSE
(4/30/5 am)
• Hearing 5/20/85, Senate Appropriations Committee.
Measure would make substantial changes in existing eligible projects
funded by the California Environmental License Plate Fund, including
deletion of purchasing parklands, coastal accessways, and the enhance-
ment of resources.
SB 1371 (Keene) Liability. SUPPORT
• Pending Senate Judiciary Committee.
Measure would provide that an owner of real property, including a public
entity, shall not be liable for an injury upon that property during the
course of or after the commission of any specified felonies, or any
attempt to commit any of those felonies.
SB 1443 (Rosenthal) Public liability. SUPPORT
• Pending Senate Judiciary Committee.
Would provide that in actions against a public entity or employee for
damages caused by land failure, the public entity/employee would only be
severally liable for noneconomic damages.
SB 1454 (R. Greene) Local agencies: fees.
OPPOSE
(4/29/5 am)
• Pending Senate Local Government Committee.
Measure would limit park in-lieu fee dedications to the estimated
reasonable cost of providing the service.
SCA 27 (Seymour) Taxation. WATCH
• Pending Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee.
Measure is "companion measure" to SB 730 (above) , authorizing measure to
become a ballot measure.
_10- M 0 R E
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
SJR 6 (Marks) Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues. SUPPORT
(2/21/5 am)
• Hearing 5/14/85, Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Measure memorializes the President and Congress to enact legislation
allocating an equitable share of revenues from Outer Continental Shelf
oil and gas development off California's coastline to the state and to
earmark an equitable portion of those revenues to affected local governments.
The following measures have been removed from CPRS Watch List:
AB 148/Papan
SB 35/Dills
SB 502/Dills
TERNES-HOUSTON & ASSOCIATES
Governmental Affairs Counseling
A.
CALIFORN!A PARK & RECREATION SOCI;11Mt AR 7Y
BOARC.OF DIRUCTORS May 2, 1985
PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT ELECT
V,ci`PH E,S I'D`E N T TO 1985 Legislative Conference Delegates
SECRETA�Y/� FROM:
REA URER Robert G. Overstreet, Federal Legislative Coordinat��
T AS PRE IDENT
.14V(HA V,
SUBJECT: LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND REDUCTIONS
Macar
NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVE
P'TA""I SOUTHERN REPRESENTATIVE
It is imperative that California Representatives to Congress hear
DISTRICT I DIRECTOR from constituents regarding the need to continue the Land and Water
, N� A bA%,-
M,wl, Conservation Fund and specifically, the State side of the fund.
OISTFUCT'li DIRECTOR
Contact your local congressman and Senators Cranston and Wilson
DISTRICT III DIRECTOR immediately. Also, begin to cultivate individuals in your community
PL, RAN"TE!
who you know to be personally known and respected by your Federal
DISTRICT IV DIRECTOR
representatives. These might be individuals who are associated with
DISTRICT V DIRECTOR the local park and recreation agency and were active on the campaign
committee to elect the Federal legislator. It will take some time,
DISTRICT VI DIRECTOR
HIL HAnD but support of this kind is imperative if we are to be successful in
DISTRICT VII DIRECTOR saving the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
DISTRICT Vill DIRECTOR
MiK[,AtAV(),, The 1986 budget res
olution before the Senate (S CON RES 32) does call
sar DISTRICT IX DIRECTOR
for $150 million for Federal land acquisition, but it excludes any
JACK NAK..N,SHIState-side funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. While
DISTRICT X DIRECTOR
jACK KLIDRON
A".",�,_ this resolution must be reconciled with the House version, adminis
DISTRICT XI DIRECTOR tration is putting strong pressure on both the Senate and the House
ViKt EAkpllb I
DISTRIC'TUX"I'I'LIRECTOR to end the entire Land and Water Conservation Fund. Important actors
'ED ScHqOIEDLR on the House side include: Sydney Yates (D-111 . ) , Chair of the House
DISTRICT XIII DIRECTOR Appropriations Sub-Committee on the Interior; Bruce Vento (D-MINN. ) ,
JESE 111)"
Chair of the National Parks and Recreation Sub-Committee; and John
DISTRICT XIV DIRECTOR
BOB WFALL Breaux (D-LA. ) , Chair of the Fisheries and Wildlife Sub-Committee.
DISTRICT XV DIRECTOR
JOSEPH COHBET-
0e;a-
ADMINISTRATORS SECTION The National Recreation and Park Association has continued to lobby
GAP'DAV'S for $125 million for the State side of the Land and Water Conserva-
i""'Ye'
EDUCATORS SECTION DIRECTOR
GE%t LAV"t tion Fund, even though this is $50 million more than Representative
S,,0'el"
STUDENT SECTION DIRECTOR Vento requested. Letters of support for State-side funding of $125
JIFF BAR" million in the Land and Water Conservation Fund should be sent out
D,,wn"RECREATION SUPERVISORS' now. Letters should be from individuals as well as agencies. Urge
SECTION DIRECTOR
CHRHSTINE ADAMS
Buenppa,i, members of your councils, boards and commissions to write immediate-
THERAPEUTIC SECTION DIRECTOR ly. Hand written letters are as effective as typed letterhead.
LANNY KNIGHT
Reealey
COMMERCIAL SECTION DIRECTOR
LYNN JAMIESON RGO/lm/767
San LUIS ObISPI
PARK OPERATIONS SECTION DIRECTOR
CHRIS JAPVI
Anane�m,
ARMED FORCES SECTION DIRECTOR
RON PINEDA
Mather AF6
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Ot T"-'- NATCNA, RFCP:_:A710N 8, PARK 4-,SS-_'C;AT!0i','
#--ATION SOCIETY
IR
CALIFORNIA PARK & R C-E R-
I& 140C) K STR-'-'--7 SJ11TE 3)2 - SACRAMEN7--J',
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT May 2, 1985
PF S;A I UE�IPERT-ELECT
VICE-PRESIDENT
HE NP,A(; NA
TO: 1985 CPRS Legislative Conference Delegates
SECRE7ARY/TREASURER E:�i EN BROWN[
PAST PRESIDENT FROM: Robert G. Overstreet, Federal Legislative Coordinator
SAN'CRAVi'Oii,
Manes NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVE
DAMES RAYVON�, SUBJECT: FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE
P'12'In"
SOUTHERN REPRESENTA71VE
P"Y1E[%wH tt
to
DISTRICT I DIRECTOR
JAIIO�l iL,N� Attempting to capitalize on our successful State legislative
I W'VD"
DISTRICT 11 DIRECTOR ECTOR process, your help in establishing a Federal Legislative Hotline
I"ERTfor the State of California is being requested. To do this,
DISTRICT III DIRECTOR
each of us must provide names of individuals who are willing to
DISTRICT IV DIRECTOR be a contact person in their Congressional Districts. It will
STEVE UrfWLINu
C �'Prt,,- be the duty and responsibility of each of these contact people
DISTRICT V DIRECTOR
CHUCK MORGAN to forward information and/or solicit support from their federal
M"Cec
DISTRICT VI DIRECTOR legislators. The contact person should be an individual who
R I CHARD Bur,,UN
sann", will know how to "reach" his or her Representative and who has
DISTRICT VII DIRECTOR
MIKE STALLING, the interest and enthusiasm to do it. These individuals should
Keene Vill DIRECTOR be professionals in the field. That is not to say that their
MIQ A LAMO
San Lu,�00,5D" resources, most likely, will not include lay individuals in the
DISTRICT IX DIRECTOR
JACK NAKWSHI community. It is to say that we are looking for the continuity
C ve,C,JV
DISTRICT X DIRECTOR of the system that a professional , C.P.R.S. member will provide.
JACK Ku I RON
Anane,DISTRICT XI DIRECTOR
MIKE FARR I am requesting that each of you forward to me the names, phone
,Iuca,pa
DISTRICT XII DIRECTOR numbers, and addresses of individuals you are able to confirm
I E 1,SCHROEDER
EI Capn for this important effort. This Hotline system will be utilized
DISTRJESSECT XIIIDUF DIRECTOR
P to react to or act on requests from NRPA, from the newly formed
DISTRICT XIV DIRECTOR Trilition of California, Texas and New York and/or from the
BOB MLFAL,
Giend"' C.P.R.S. Specific contact with federal legislators serving on
DISTRICT XV DIRECTOR
JOSEPH CORBET-, key committees in the House or the Senate is necessary if we are
Deian,
ADMINISTRATORS'SECTION DIRECTOR to stay on course with our national legislative agenda.
GARY DAVIS
EDUCATORS SECTION DIRECTOR
GENE LAMKE Immediate attention to this request is important to our success.
San D'ev
STUDENT SECTION DIRECTOR Major fiscal decisions are now being made on programs that
JEPF BARR
Downev directly affect your agency. Please respond no later than the
RECREATION SUPERVISORS'
SECTION DIRECTOR end of May.
CHRISTINE ADAMS
Buena Park
THERAPEUTIC SECTION DIRECTOR
LANNY KNIGHT RO/rn/W
Reecliev
COMMERCIAL SECTION DIRECTOR
LYNN JAMIESO N
San Luis ODISDn
PARK OPERATIONS SECTION DIRECTOR
CH R IS J APVI
Anaheim
ARMED FORCES SECTION DIRECTOR
RON PINEDA
Mather AFB
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AFFILIATE OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION 8,, PARK ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA PARK & RECRE-ATION SOCIETY
at 140("-) K S711_4i-P S�J! 3()2 SAC f AM LNT" Q't_Rj, " 1","t' 4ZI� 254,J
HAND OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT C.P.R.S . CONFERENCE
M H,A RYON
1, ,e
PRESIDENT-ELECT Leg LsLatLon ' 8 5
I,!,DAV:1, Sacramento Convention Center
V,CE.PAESIDENT May 15, 1985
SEC R F TAR Y/I 4�AS U RF R
PAST PRESIDENT
OAM )OD
NORTHERN REPRESENTATIVE 7 : 30 a.m. Check In
4,�1, Placer/Yuba Rooms
SO.,EEN KEPRESENTATIVE
.[,""i" i
ISI RI T 8 :00 a.m. Breakfast with Legislators
DC I WRECI OR
Placer Yuba Rooms
Otl,' RIET DIRECTOR
D I S I A I'DTT 11I1D'1'II'LC T 0 R INVOCATION: REVEREND WILBUR A. KORFHAGE
CIS TRIC I IV DIRECTOR
WELCOME : MICHAEL FENDERSON
IanC.P .R. S . President
DISIRICI V MEMOS SENATOR ROBERT PRESLEY
T V' �IRECTOR WSTRIC H' Chairman of the Senate National
Resources and Wildlife Committee
WSTRICT VIII DIRECTOR
A M
I�STRHCV IS GIRIECTOR WILLIAM S . BRINER
State Parks Director
MST Rl CT X MEW 08
m�,, I
A,0,1,�'�
DISTRICT X�04RECTOR 9 : 15 10 : 30 a.m. KARE ANDERSON
Political Commentator Producer
'DIFTPICT X
of the syndicated program,
DLS IRICT R41'DIRECTOR "Inside Sacramento
DISTRICT kiVIDIRECTOR
W 10 : 30 11 :00 a.m.
H(b Capitol Briefing
CTXV�DIRECTOR Ternes-Houston
ADMINWAA10AS SECTION DIRECTOR
11 :00 a.m. - 12 : 15 Walk-thru State Capitol
EDUCATORS SECTION DIRECTOR
"n rpn,, 12 : 15 1 :45 p.m. Lunch
STUDENT SECTION DIRECTOR
, HAW, Placer/Yuba Rooms
I
RECREATION SUPERMORS
SECTION DIRECTOR
ADAM",
P&r
THERAPEUTIC SECTION DIRECTOR SPEAKER : DAN WALTERS
ANN,
PoLLtLcaL CoLumnLst
COMMERCIAL SECTION DIRECTOR
�wN% Sacramento Bee
S,in L
PARK OPERATIONS SECTION DIRECTOR
ARMED FORCES SECTION nmwog
DA
Vamu AF8
EXK'011�E COUNOL
1 : 45 MINI WORKSHOPS
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Bob Overstreet
C.P.R.S . Legislative Committee
Parks & Recreation
City of San Buenaventura
SENIOR CENTER BOND ACT
FUNDING PROCESS
Robert Aguallo , Deputy Director
State of California
Department of Aging
and
Nita Morrow, Analyst
Department of Aging
or
Ken Swinford, Manager
Department of Aging
CHILD CARE LEGISLATION
Joel Witherell , Director
Community Services
City of El Cerrito
JOE TERNES - TERNES & HOUSTON ASSOCIATES
DEANNA MANNING
Director
City of Irvine
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUGMENTATION FUND
LEGISLATION
Donald McMurchie - CARPD Counsel
Ralph Heim California Advocates
i
M-85-83
(Meeting 85-13,
May 22, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 15 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; J. Nicholas ,
Coordinator of Volunteer Programs
SUBJECT: Introduction of Docent Trainees
Our 1985 winter/spring class of docent trainees is completing training
sessions which began in February. At the end of the course, they will
have completed sixty hours of training in the classroom and on the trails .
They have heard presentations by several staff members , including the
Land Acquisition Manager, Public Communications Coordinator, and Opera-
tions Supervisor. Trainers have included docents and also members of the
community with special expertise. The trainees have hiked some of the
trails of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve , Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve, and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, including the Picchetti
Ranch Area, learning the cultural history, the flora and plant communities ,
and the geology of the preserves. Part of the training included partici-
pation in a class on geology of the Bay Area for District docents at
Foothill College.
On May 22 some of the trainees will be here to observe a Board meeting and
to be introduced to the Board. We will be pleased to add to our group of
District docents these 22 new docents :
Gary Allen Anne Lewis
Beverly Azevedo Lee Lynch
Fran Bell Armando Martinez
David Benezra George Moffatt
Lee Blake Virginia Overstreet
Lee Cristy Clifford Preston
Mike Garrison Marie Schleiter
Julie Ginze Carolyn Seger
Bob Hoffman Suzanne Shipley
Al Kluska Barbara Tooley
Ann Knopf Billie Wess
M-85-87
(Meeting 85-13
May 22 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 17, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use
of Eminent Domain Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments,
Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries, and Annexation
The Committee, consisting of Directors Bishop, Hanko, and Turner,
will have met three times by May 22 and expects to have its report
ready to present at that Board meeting .
The Committee does not intend any action to be taken on May 22 except
to schedule a special Board meeting at another location similar to
the workshops (except perhaps not in exactly the same format) to hear
public comments and have discussion on the policy alternatives to be
presented.
Attached are data compiled regarding other park agencies ' policies
regarding use of eminent domain.
EMINENT DOMAIN POLICIES May 2, 19$5
Ever Used
Agency Written Policy Informal Policy For Parks
EBRPD None Used as sparingly as possible. Yes *
(Used only for most critical parcels) (One pending)
(One recommended)
MPRPD None In-holdings, case-by-case basis. Yes
(Adhere to State law) Ease of acquisition is a major
consideration.
Santa Clara County None No condemnation for last 4 years. Yes
(Adhere to State law)
San Mateo County None No acquisition money for parks, Yes
(Adhere to State law) therefore no condemnation.
(Previously used only when
exhausted other methods to
acquire critical parcels.)
Marin County None Condemnation not used for parks No
or open space. (CSD's have used)
Contra Costa County None No funds for parks acquisition. Yes
State of California None Condemnation used as last resort Yes
(Adhere to State law) on case-by-case basis. (About 10 pending)
Tahoe Conservancy See attached Government Code Sec. 66907.5 See formal policy. Only been in
business for
5 months.
Coastal
Conservancy State law Purchase only from willing No
sellers.
r
* Used approximately 25 times overall
{
t
l
i
GOVERNMENT CODE § 66907.6
§ 66907.3. Agreements relating to services and lands
The conservancy may designate or enter into an agreement with any public agency to provide real
estate services and assign authority to execute agreements for the acquisition or disposal of real
property or interests therein.
(Added by Stats.1984,c. 1222, p.-, § 17, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1984; Stats.1984, c. 1239, p, -,
§ 17, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1984.)
1984 Legislation. Effect of addition of section by two or more acts at the
I Former§ 66907.3 was repealed by Stats.1984,c. 1222,p. same session of the legislature, sae Government Code
-,§ 16,urgency,eff Sept. 17, 1984; Stats.1984,c. 1239, § 9603.
p. - § 16.5. urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1984. See, now,
§ 66907.4.
$ 66907.4. Application of Property Acquisition Law
(a) Acquisition of real property or interests therein under this title,when the value is in excess of
two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) per lot or parcel, is subject to provisions of the
Property Acquisition Law (Part 11 (commencing with Section 15850) of Division 3 of Title 2).
(b) Except as set forth in subdivision(a),acquisition of real property or interests under this title is
not subject to the Property Acquisition Law. However, the conservancy may request the Public
Works Board to review and approve specific acquisitions.
(Added by Stats.1984, c. 1222, p.-, § 17, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1984; Stats.1984, c. 1239, p.
§ 17, urgency, eff. Sept. 17, 1984.)
1984 Legislation. Derivation Former § 66907.3, added by Stats.1973. e.
Effect of addition of section by two or more acts at the 1064,p. 2120,§ 3.
f same session of the legislature, see Government Code '
!I 19605.
I
i § 66907.5. Eminent domain
The conservancy may request the State Public Works Board to exercise the power of eminent
domain pursuant to the Property
P rt Acquisition Law FPart 1 Y1 (com
mencing mencin with
( g Section 15850) of
Division 3 of Title 2), if the requirements of Section 66906.4 are met and the conservancy finds that
all reasonable efforts to acquire the property have failed and that the action is necessary to remove
an impediment to an otherwise voluntary acquisition or is needed to achieve the purposes of other
related acquisitions.
(Added by Stats.1984,c. 1222, p.-, § 17, urgency,eff.Sept. 17, 1984; Stats.1984,c. 1239,p,;
§ 17, urgency,eff. Sept. 17, 1984.)
1984 Legislation. Effect of addition of section by two or more acts at the
Former§ 66907.3 was repeated by Stats.1984,c. 1222,p. same session of the legislatury see Government Code
§ 18,urgency,W.Sept.17,1984; Stats.1984,c. 1239, § 9605.
It. -, § 18, urgency, etf. Sept. 17. 1984. Sce, now,
§
6690&
$ 66907.6. Option to purchase land
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,the conservancy may enter into an option to purchase
lands in fee or lesser interest. F
(Added by Stats.1984,c. 1222,p.-,§ 17, urgency,eff.Sept. 1? 1984• Stats.1984,
§ 17 urgency, fts.1984,c. 1239,p.
ur --,
g y, eff. Sept-Sep 17, 1984.)
1984 I.egfslatlon Effect of addition of section by two or more acts at the
Former§ 66907.6 was repeated by Stats.1984,c. 1222,P. same session of the legislature, see Government Code
--,§ 18,urgency,eff.Sept.17,1984; Stats.1984,a 1239 § 9605.
p. § 18,urgency,eff Sept. 17, 1994.
Asterisks • • indicate deletions by amendment
97
I
x7i+M.e iy�'b
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 21 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Ad Hoc Committee to Formulate Alternative Policies :
Harry Turner, Dick Bishop, Nanette Hanko
SUBJECT: Use of Eminent Domain
Dear Colleagues :
The Committee makes no recommendation regarding policies, how-
ever,
ever, presents a list of possible policies for full Board
consideration. Some policies stand alone, while others are
related. Alternative policies for Eminent Domain are grouped
P g P
(such as 3a, 3b, 3c) . Please note that some alternatives are
compatible with one another, and "Issues" have been recognized.
Also attached is a separate policy on arbitration, and an Agree-
ment" which could implement policy #9 of Eminent Domain.
We recommend that the Board consider the Eminent Domain Policy
and that the workshop format be continued. Wednesday, June 5 at
7: 30 P.M. is a suggested date and time.
Once the Board has chosen from the list of policies , the Committee
is willing to redraft them into more concise and compatible form.
i
DRAFT 5/15/85
POSSIBLE POLICIES ON
USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
1 . Interests in land shall be purchased only from willing sellers.
2. If owner has clearly indicated a willingness to sell property, but there
is an irreconcilable difference of opinion on the price to be paid for
the property, based on an appraisal which the District has obtained from
a professional appraiser, the District may utilize eminent domain to
acquire the property, subject to all legal requirements .
Issue: How is "clearly indicated" to be demonstrated by staff?
3a. In negotiations or discussions with landowners , District staff shall not
threaten eminent domain.
3b. In negotiations or discussions with landowners, District staff shall not,
without prior Board approval , threaten eminent domain.
3c. If the subject of eminent domain is raised, District staff may explain
relevant law and District policies.
4a. Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an occu-
pied parcel developed to its legal density.
4b. Eminent domain may not be used by the District for the partial acquisi-
tion of an occupied parcel , unless there is a subdivision initiated or
a division of ownership of contiguous land under one ownership on May 1,
1985 .
4c. Eminent domain may be used by the District for the partial acquisition
of the undeveloped portion of an occupied parcel , provided:
A. the residence and surrounding lands of reasonable size shall be
exempt, and
B. the owner shall be entitled to retain such easements as are needed
for reasonable access and use of property.
5. Eminent domain may be used when requested or consented to by the land-
owner.
6 . Eminent domain may be used only in those instances where all reasonable
attempts at voluntary negotiations fail and the parcel in question is
central to the open space program of the District, and where there are
no feasible current or prospective acquisitions that would achieve the
District's objective.
7 . Notwithstanding any other provisions of these policies, eminent domain
may be used to acquire improved or unimproved land:
A. If a subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is
recorded to create more than one additional parcel or ownership, or
B. if more than one (1) subdivision application is filed or division of
ownership is recorded within ten (10) years for any contiguous land
under one ownership on May 1 , 1985 .
8 . Eminent domain may be used to acquire a portion of improved property to
connect two or more District parcels , subject to legal requirements and
the following conditions :
page 2
A. The District Board finds that the property is necessary to provide
a trail connection between the parcels, and
B. The District has been unable by voluntary means to acquire land to
connect the parcels with a safe and useful trail , including somewhat
longer and less convenient trail routes , and
C. The land for the connecting trail shall not ordinarily exceed 100
feet in width, and shall be as far from any existing residence and
as close to the property line as practicable, and
D. The owner shall have the opportunity to designate any additional
portions of his/her land which may be included by the District in
the acquisition, and
E. The owner shall be entitled to retain an easement over the land
acquired by the District, where necessary, for access to the land
retained by the owner.
Issue: This policy applies to improved property only. If applied
to unimproved property, above requirements should be modified.
9. The District shall encourage open space easements or contracts with
landowners to assist in the continued preservation of private open space
lands.
Issue : Application of contract apply to vacant and/or occupied land?
10 . Policies pursuant to restraint of the use of eminent domain shall be
adopted by ordinance, legally noticed and freely publicized.
Definitions :
a. occupied. . .six months a year minimum
b. improved. . .includes occupied legal or legally non-conforming residences
and excludes trailers, mobile homes , and temporary structures.
SUGC-qTED POLICY RE: ARBITRATIO" Draft/5/15/85
. ...... — .. Page 3
In all cases in which eminent domain proceedings
have been commenced, the District shall offer to arbitrate
the issue of reasonable value, in a binding arbitration, under
the following rules and procedures:
1 . Within ten days after the adoption of a resolu-
tion of necessity, the District shall notify the property
owner of its offer to arbitrate.
2 . The owner will have thirty days after receiving
notice in which to accept or reject said offer. If said offer
is not accepted in writing by the owner within thirty days, the
offer to arbitrate shall be deemed rejected and withdrawn, and
the matter shall proceed as a court case, as provided by law.
3 . If the offer to arbitrate is accepted in writing
within said thirty day period, arbitration shall proceed as
provided by law.
4 . There shall be three arbitrators. The District
and the owner shall each appoint an arbitrator, and the two said
arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator. If they cannot
agree, the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the Presiding
Judge of the Superior Court of the County in which the subject
land is situated.
5 . Each party shall pay the fees and expenses. of the
arbitrator which it appoints, and each party shall pay half of
the fees and expenses of the third arbitrator.
6. Arbitration shall then proceed according to the
provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
7 . The arbitration award shall have the same effect
as a judgment of a court of law in an eminent domain proceeding,
CCP. part 3 , Title Vll. Chapt. 11
ere
► 0 MWITrnt
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
May 6, 1985
To: Members of Eminent Domain policy Committee
From: Stan Norton, Legal Counsel
Subject: Example of Possible "Contract" with Property
Owner for Restraint on Use of Eminent Domain
Having talked further with board members and
members of the public I think I now have a better idea
of what at least some of you have in mind when you
speak of a "contract" assurance against the use of
eminent domain by the District. I had had the impression
the District was being asked to unilaterally "give up"
its power to use eminent domain as to certain areas or
parcels and to bind future boards to that commitment,
which I think as a general proposition would be legally
difficult.
The enclosed draft, which I think would be legal,
would on an individual landowner basis have the District
forego use of eminent domain in exchange for the owner' s
agreement to do things which could further the District' s
open space goals; for example, the owner would agree not
to subdivide, not to rezone to greater density, not to
disfigure the land, etc. It differs from an open space
easement in that the owner retains all his private rights
in the land, including the right to decided to develop,
with the only "loss" being a loss of immunity against
condemnation. Unlike an open space easement, however, he
would not receive a real property tax break.
The enumeration of the "prohibited" activities
listed in the agreement would have to be carefully thought out.
I think a standard form available to all property owners
would be preferable to an approach which contemplated
negotiating separate, different agreements with each owner.
Also, the agreement would not have to describe all
of the owner' s property, particularly in the case of larger
parcels. By negotiation the owner and the District could
agree to "immunize" only a certain described portion of the
property of greatest concern to the owner.
I don' t know how many owners would actually use the
agreement, particularly if the board decides to adopt some
version of a policy restricting the use of eminent domain as
applies to, for example, occupied residences, but it does
provide one more way of assuaging fears about the threat of
eminent domain.
5/6/85 draft
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at California,
between Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a
public open space district ("District") and
J, ("Owner
Address
This agreement is made with respect to Owner' s
property described on Exhibit A affixed hereto and by
reference made a part hereof ("Property" ) .
1) District agrees that District shall not acquire
the Property (?or any portion thereof/or any interest
therein) by means of the exercise of . District' s power
of eminent domain so long as:
(Examples) a) owner shall not subdivide the Property,
i. e. , create from the Property one or more additional
lots or building sites, or seek to do so.
b) owner shall not obtain a rezoning of the
Property, or seek to do so, and the city or county having
jurisdiction shall not rezone the Property to allow
greater density than is allowed by the present zoning,
which permits residential building sites.
c) No commercial timber harvesting, except
as allowed by TPZ, etc.
d) No quarrying.
e) No substantial reconfiguration of land (grading,etc.
f) etc.
2) In the event of the occurrence of any of the
above events this agreement shall without further action
by either party terminate and be of no further force or
effect. The termination of this agreement does not
necessarily mean the District will use eminent domain
to acquire the Property.
3) Unless otherwise earlier terminated, this
agreement shall be in effect for ten years , and
shall be renewable by mutual consent.
4) This agreement shall bind and inure to the
benefit of the parties and their respective executors,
administrators , assigns, transferees and successors of
every kind.
Dated:
ATTEST: DISTRICT
By
District Clerk President
OWNER
-2-
Daft 5/20/85
RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF
AGREEMENT REGARDING DISTRICT'S
USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND AUTHORIZING
PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE SAME
Resolved, etc.
1) The board of directors of the MROSD does
hereby approve the form of agreement regarding the
District' s use of eminent domain affixed hereto,
marked Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof.
2) The general manager and his authorized
representatives are hereby granted discretion to
determine, in consultation with the contracting property
owner or his authorized representative, the extent of
the property to be covered by and described in the
agreement.
3) Upon the president' s being satisfied that
the agreement as presented by staff is in conformity with
District policy and this resolution, and upon certification
by District legal counsel to that effect, the president of
the board of directors is authorized, on behalf of the
District, to enter into the agreement with any owner of
[occupied residential] real property within the District' s
sphere of influence and to execute the agreement on behalf
of the District. Upon execution by the property owner and
the president, the agreement shall be binding on the
parties in accordance with its provisions and for the,
term set forth therein.
4) Any property owner who has requested an
agreement from the District and who is aggrieved by any
determination with respect thereto by the staff or the
president may appeal said determination to the board of
directors by filing notice of appeal in writing with the
District Clerk within 10 days of the owner' s obtaining
knowledge of the determination. The hearing on the
appeal shall be placed on an agenda and heard by the
board within 30 days of the filing of the notice of
appeal. The hearing on the appeal may be continued with
the consent of the property owner and the board as
reflected in the minutes of the meeting.
5) Any decision of the board of directors upon
the appeal shall be final and binding on all parties
claiming to be aggrieved thereby.
6) The staff shall submit to the board of
directors not less often than quarterly a list of properties
and ownerships that have entered into agreements during
the reporting period.
-2-
M-85-88
(Meeting 85-13
o May 22 , 1985)
0eWWW
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 22 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Scheduling of Special Meeting to Discuss Eminent
Domain and Other Policies
The accompanying report of the Ad Hoc Committee suggests a meeting
for June 5. In addition to choosing the date (and perhaps an
alternative) , you may wish to indicate a preference for the geo-
graphical area in which to hold the meeting. Staff has tentatively
reserved the Town of Portola Valley ' s Multi-Use Room for June 5
from 7 : 30 to 10 : 30 P.M. in the event you decide to meet at that
location again.
Attached for your information is a compilation of how some other
agencies handle discussions of land negotiations .
CLOSED SESSION POLICIES -- LAND NEGOTIATIONS
Agency Written Policy Informal Policy How Operates
EBRPD Follow letter of the law None Publicly announce parcel and
owners
MPRPD Only for litigation None Discuss negotiations in open
session on basis of priority
list and status
Santa Clara County Follow law None Very seldom occurs, then
announce parcel
San Mateo County Follow law Not appropriate for
closed session
Marin County Only for litigation None Have generalized "shopping list"
and review status with Commission
not Board
Contra Costa County For litigation only Unnecessary
State of California Current law Don't run closed
sessions
Tahoe Conservancy Follow law Unnecessary Deal only with willing sell.
at appraised value
Coastal Conservancy Follow law None Incomplete information
M-85-82
4 AA, (Meeting 85-13
Aaw
Acr May 22, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 14 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution of Congratulations to William Penn Mott, Jr.
Discussion: At your meeting of May 8 , 1985 , you agreed that staff
should prepare a resolution congratulating William Penn Mott, Jr.
on his appointment as Director of the National Park Service (see
attached clipping) . The resolution is attached for your consider-
ation.
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Congratulating William Penn Mott, Jr. on his Appointment
as Director of the National Park Service.
I�
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CONGRATULATING WILLIAM PENN
MOTT, JR. ON HIS APPOINTMENT
AS DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SERVICE
WHEREAS, William Penn Mott, Jr. has dedicated more than fifty
years of his life furthering the cause of parks and recreation, and
WHEREAS, his long record of achievements are highly recognized
by conservationists throughout California and the entire nation, and
WHEREAS, William Penn Mott, Jr. , as General Manager of the East
Bay Regional Park District, was extremely helpful and encouraging to a
group of local citizens working to establish an open space district on
the mid-Peninsula; and
WHEREAS, as Director of the State of California 's Department of
Parks and Recreation, he approved the District ' s first grant application
for $100 ,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to assist in the
purchase of Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and
WHEREAS, William Penn Mott, Jr. has recently been appointed by
President Reagan as Director of the National Park Service;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Directors of
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does congratulate William
Penn Mott, Jr. on his appointment and wish him success in his continuing
career to further the cause of parks and recreation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District this 22nd day of May, 1985.
ATTEST: DIRECTORS:
District Clerk
New chief's plans for national parks
By Carl Irving S-1/YV.5 state parks director under Gov. Ron- Next week, Mott takes over man-
Examiner staff writer ald Reagan and is credited with hav- agement of the park service's &A
OAKLAND—The Californian go- ing persuaded Reagan to take a more properties in 50 states, Guam, Puerto
ing to Washington to run the National favorable view about parklands. Rico and the Virgin Islands. In an
Park Service says it may be time to "The time may come when a park interview, he floated other ideas that
take drastic steps to stem the human like Yosemite will be restricted to the might provoke a furor in this state.
trampling of Yosemite National Park. He thinks it might be time to:
extent that people in California use it
Seventy-five-year-old William •Create a national parkway in Big
Penn Mott, a feisty Republican with one week in a month, so everybody going there has a quality experience" Sur, similar to the successful Blue
,
strong conservationist tendencies, Ridge Parkway in the Great Smokier.
he said. Currently,Californians make
said he may limit Californians to one up nearly two-thirds of the annual A Big Sur Parkway, from Carmel to
week per month in the park. Morro Bay,could make that highway
"Yosemite is a national treasure visitors to Yosemite. "as exciting and as important as the
and we want to preserve it for future "At some point you have to say Blue Ridge Parkway,"which incorpo-
generations,"said Mott,who was once there have to be limits." —See Page A6,col. 1
Yosemite ryaJor attention
gets
—From Page Al Mott does not agree that grizzlies, sistency along the Merced River and
rates villages and other modest devel- wolves, eagles, mountain lions and smog and smoke have helped kill off
opments along the way. other predators should be eliminated native vegetation. Forests are dying
Big Sur residents have knocked from national parks to protect tourists and not being replaced. With nearly
down such proposals in the past with or ranchers. 14,000 people crowding seven square
arguments in favor of privacy and *Acquire 3 million acres of pri- miles on an average summer day,
free enterprise. But Mott, with 52 vately held land within national parks there are lines awaiting turns for ev-
years experience as a park specialist, and control use nearby that could af- erything from restrooms to taking
has some perspective on such matters. feet the parks.He is concerned about photographs from major viewpoints.
"Maybe we missed the boat at Lake proposed drilling for geothermal pow- Mott isn't against some amenities.
Tahoe,"he said with a note of sadness. er next to Lassen Volcanic and Yel- "I'm a backpacker but my wife likes
Many years ago,Mott helped prepare lowstone national parks, which could hotels,"he said.
a plan for a Lake Tahoe National eliminate their geysers. Sometimes commercial interests
Lakeshore. It was ignored,and urban "We have a national treasure in don't hurt,he said.In illustrating what
congestion mushroomed amid the Yellowstone and we can't afford to he hopes will be an example of how he
construction of casinos and other com- threaten that," he said. He favors re- plans to bring harmony between agri-
mercial development. sorting to court action and eminent cultural and conservationist interests,
•Save some of the magnificent domain,if necessary. Mott notes that cattle continue to
Southern California desert from dese- As to the "inholdings" — private graze in the foothills of Mount Diablo
cration by industry, developers and owners possess 1,800 acres in Yosemite in Contra Costa County.
hot rodders by getting the Bureau of alone—Mott thinks it's time either to Mott was instrumental in preserv-
Land Management to let go of it."This acquire them or obtain agreements ing the mountain from development
land is owned by the people, not bu- for long-term purchases, to ensure by adding acreage around the summit
reaucracies," said Mott. Included are their preservation. Logging, grazing, as state parklands.
wild desert areas south of Death Val- shopping centers and other forms of After graduating from the Univer-
ley,north of the Mexican border,west exploitation, he suggests, should not sity of California at Berkeley in 1933
of the Colorado River and east of the be allowed to threaten the major and joining the park service as a land-
San Jacinto Mountains. parks• scape architect or a month,Mott
•Get more inner-city people out to Mott makes clear he thinks many helped design some of of the West's
the urban parks, such as the Golden of these changes, which he considers` hnost cherished preserves, including
Gate National Recreation Area, by overdue, can be brought about i Crater Lake, Lassen and Sequoia na-
asking private enterprise to help out through better public relations."A lot tional parks and Death Valley Nation-
in these days of lean national budgets. of problems can be solved through al Monument.Later,before taking his
The GGNRA and Point Reyes tend talk that leads to mutual understand- state post under Reagan, he headed
to be enclaves for urban yuppies and ing." the East Bay Regional Park District.
suburbanites. Amtrak, the federally He recalls defusing an off-road ve-
run passenger railroad system,might hicle controversy in California by get-
be available in certain areas for week. ting drivers to agree to separate parks
end shuttles to beaches,Mott said- developed and funded with their help.
•Change responsibility for Red- Several state ORV parks, including
wood National Park and the Santa one near Hollister,now are used year
Monica Mountains National Recre- round,leaving other beaches and des-
ation Area through an administrative ert parks for those on foot.
tradeoff. Currently, there are state In his new job, Mott may be com-
and federal preserves in both areas, pelled to use his powers of persuasion.
making the parks a confusing, some- lie will be operating under the con-
times chaotic experience for visitors. straints of a proposed budget one-
Mott proposes that the National third leaner than this year's already
Park Service manage all of Redwood pared version.
National Park in exchange for letting Mott spoke as Yosemite announced
California manage the Santa Monica that for the first time incoming cars
area. He thinks he may be able to would be restricted to available
work this out with one of his former parking spaces over the Memorial Day
employees, James Briner, now state weekend. Last year,the valley,seven
park director. miles long and only one mile wide,
•Eliminate excess wildlife,such as experienced three hours of gridlock.
diseased and starving deer found in Yosemite had 2.8 million visitors last
parks such as Angel Island. Now that year,and the rate is up 10 percent so
predators aren't around to do the job, far this year. Overcrowding is a seri-
it may be time to draw the line on ous problem at other major parks as
such population problems.There have well.Yellowstone had 2.2 million visi-
been reports of starving elk and buf fa- tors last year. €
to in Yellowstone,wild pigs endanger- Botanists concluded long ago that
ing native vegetation in Hawaii Volca. crowds had caused irreversible dam- Tom Duncan
noes National Park and burros doing age in Yosemite.Millions of feet have WILLIAM PENN MOTT
the same in Death Valley. pounded the earth into rocklike con Lonq record of preservation
M-85-84
(Meeting 85-13 ,
May 22, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 15 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D. Woods ,
Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Illegal Grading on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and
Proposed Amendment to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Use and Management Plan
Introduction: On April 25 , 1985 , staff investigated a report of illegal
grading on the southern edge of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The
grading project, which was conducted under the direction of the adjacent
property owner, Mr. Kenneth Brooks, consisted of the reopening and realign-
ment of a deteriorated roadbed which parallels a creekbed that forms the
boundary between the Preserve and the Brooks ' property (see attached map) .
The majority of the grading was done on the Brooks ' property, but a portion
did extend across the creek and into the Preserve.
Prior to the construction, the District had been discussing with Mr. Brooks
the possibility of securing easements over the northerly portion of his
property to provide for permanent open space and a public trail connection
between the Fremont Older Preserve and Stevens Creek County Park and ulti-
mately the Picchetti Ranch Area. The proposed connection is one of the
alternatives being explored in conjunction with projects outlined in both
the Fremont Older Preserve and Picchetti Ranch Area Use and Management Plans.
As the resulting new road/trail on the Preserve is not part of the approved
Use and Management Plan, it has been closed to allow for site repair, this
review, and subsequent determination of action.
Discussion: On May 2 , 1985, staff met with the property owner to evaluate
the damage to District property and observe the work done on the prospective
trail easement. Mr. Brooks was informed that he had violated District ordi-
nances and planning procedures. He was told that a letter would follow sum-
marizing our concerns, outlining possible mitigation, and scheduling of a
review by the District Board of Directors (see attached letter, dated
May 6 , 1985) .
It is Mr. Brooks ' claim that he had permission from the District to construct
the trail on the Preserve and, because of the District's interest in a trail
easement over his property, he felt the project would be gladly received.
Staff , on the other hand, states Mr. Brooks was informed that design review
and approval by the District would be required before any construction could
occur on the Preserve.
The illegal grading consisted of an excessive road cut of approximately 10
feet in width and 10 feet in height, a grade in excess of 150 , partial
filling of the creekbed alongside the road cut and the placement of two cul-
verts in the creekbed. The manner in which the work was done is of great
Page 2 M-85-84
concern to staff due to our particular sensitivity to development in
riparian corridors . Any such development is normally done with the ut-
most care in protecting the integrity of the creek corridor and preventing
erosion. Had the planning process been adhered to, conditions would have
been placed on the project to minimize disturbance to the creek and riparian
vegetation by requiring a narrower trail pad (with occasional widening for
passing) , a bridge instead of culverts to provide unobstructed flow, and a
flatter trail grade to reduce potential erosion problems .
The following two alternatives for mitigation are being considered.
1 . The disturbed area of the Preserve could be returned to its original
state by removing the culverts , pulling the fill dirt out of the creek and
placing it on the roadcut, and reseeding the scarred surfaces. The cost,
estimated at $750-$1000 , should be borne by Mr. Brooks with a bond for this
amount posted prior to construction. This would essentially return the site
to its previous condition.
2 . The Use and management Plan could be amended to incorporate a new trail
access from this point under the following conditions :
a) The newly cut road on the Preserve be reconstructed according to
the specifications outlined in the letter to Mr. Brooks , dated
May 6 , 1985 .
b) The cost, estimated at $2900 , be borne by Mr. Brooks with a bond
required prior to construction.
c) Easements be granted to the District at no cost over the northerly
portion of the Brooks ' property for the purpose of providing pub-
lic trail access between the County Park and Preserve, and for an
open space easement 200 ' southerly from the centerline of the creek
for riparian protection.
It should be noted that the proposed easement was not initially included as
a consideration in discussions with Mr. Brooks , but after further evaluation,
is being considered as an integral part of this project. It is felt that
since there has been illegal access and grading that the mitigation should
benefit the public by providing public access .
Assuming alternative two is acceptable to Mr. Brooks and approved by the
Board, an additional recommendation should be added to the Use and Manage-
ment Plan to construct a trail connection from the terminus of the illegal
grading to the existing preserve trail located further up the hill . This
trail will be required to prevent equestrians from establishing their own
makeshift trails through the grassland. The estimated cost would be $800
and could be included in fiscal year 1985-1986 budget preparation.
Incidentally, Mr. Brooks was cited for the two ordinance violations noted
in D.Hansen' s attached letter and may be required to pay fines totaling up
to $170 . Slides of the damage done will be presented by staff at your
May 22nd meeting.
Recommendation: I recommend that you approve option number two discussed
in this report if Mr. Brooks is in agreement. If he is not, I recommend
that you authorize staff to proceed with option number one.
A_
A
1 tit
0
MII)PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965 4717
May 6 , 1985
Mr. Ken Brooks
Stevens Creek Ranch
11050 Stevens Canyon Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mr. Brooks :
This letter is in response to our meeting on May 2, 1985 and is meant to
reiterate the concerns we expressed regarding illegal grading on the Pre-
serve and to convey to you the action and mitigation necessary to rectify
the situation.
First of all , there have been a number of District ordinances and planning
procedures which have been violated. They include the following ordinances:
Sec. 603. 2 Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence,
for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights
or with the intention of interferring with, obstructing , or
injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the
owner of such land, his/her agent or by the person in lawful
possession.
Sec . 803 .1 Plants. No person shall damage, injure, collect, or remove
any plant or tree or portion thereof, whether living or dead,
including but not limited to flowers, mushrooms, bushes,
vines , grass, turf, cones and dead wood located on District
lands . (See also Penal Code Section 384a. )
In addition,, the District's planning process has been bypassed which re-
quires all proposed improvements, including trails, be considered as part
of each site plan. These plans are reviewed periodically by the Board of
Directors and actual implementation cannot occur without their approval.
In this case, where the improvement has been illegally made on District
land, the improvement cannot be utilized until the Board reviews such use.
It is our understanding that you believed you were acting in the best
interest of the District and under the auspices of a pending casement agree-
ment which you are currently negotiating with Craig Britton. The District
has expressed an interest in securing a public easement on the northerly
portion of your property to eventually provide a linking trail between the
County Park and the Preserve but, according to Mr. Britton, you were told
that, procedurally, you would be required to have design review by the
District before construction could occur on the Preserve.
Herbert A Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Te ena Henshaw.Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wenclin
Mi . Ken Brooks - 2 - May 6, 1985
The manner in which the work has been conducted is of great concern to us.
The District is particularly sensitive to development in riparian corridors
and only conducts such development with the utmost care given to protecting
the integrity of creek area and preventing erosion . Had the planning pro-
cess been adhered to, conditions would have been placed on the project to
minimize disturbance to the creek and vegetation by re
ui
ring a narrower
trail pad (with occasional widening for passing) , a bridge instead of cul-
verts to provide unobstructed flow, and a lesser trail grade to reduce
potential erosion problems.
On Friday, May 3 , 1985, the District 's Operation Supervisor, Jim Boland,
and our trails consultant, Gene Sheehan, visited the site for the purpose
of preparing a mitigation plan and a cost analysis. Below is a summary of
their proposal .
1) Existing culverts pulled and new 36" x 20
culvert installed $ 600
2) Pull fill out of creek and build trail pad
up 4 feet 800
3) Construct new 200 ' section of trail to avoid
existing steep section 400
4) Build headwalls around both ends of culverts 500
5) Equipment rental 600
$ 2900
To proceed with the mitigation measures and open the trail , we will be
requiring a bond in the amount of $3,000 to insure construction. Coupled
with this is a scheduled review of this project by our Board of Directors
on May 22, 1985. If approved, we would proceed to hire a contractor as
soon as possible.
If you have further questions regarding this matter we will discuss them
at our meeting on Thursday at 2:00 p.m.
Ver t my ours,
David Wm. ansen
Land Manager
DWH :ds
cc: H. Grench,
General Manager
C. Britton,
Land Acquisition Manager
V •.� - ,, . . , 111 i � a 1 � j ��� 1 � \_i � � - L � �, �
lr TP,
,. ..
��;` R �1� �,r•� I aff
� Y • s _ .� + ti .Wat r. m
AV OW,
i�_ ( __J f� /�J 1 '/ _ `l J J�� �� J _(_, \// /��r-.\� I/��� �*v � p�/ ' �X•, ,�-�z—'�J.�_• • i
c 6 )
/ ��l> I .� �0i..• (`'fL 'l; (n 11 . cU,� �;= _ 5�+_.� t ' 41N
LQ
a ter
P T CCHETT i IfI(�^ r033 :� 1 � .60041
i
-> •� ' t� �• 'J •'�+ � � /,ram J',�� S�� �-� f ` \i ..- •� • I
so
60
L `') I !=-• • � ( r� ��l„UJ,► \ •Jt �i► � , ��,HOMErv��r.�✓,�`!� • c•��� I ( ,�; J _ 1
STENS' REEK
COUNTY F �?I< )� '`,�' �k )� `\Ilr� ^J f r
• `;� �`� \ .P:,i ) �o`� . 't V�� �l� / 1�, SITE MAP (USGSam
) !
adp '� FREMONT OLDER
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
i-: ---- Existing Trail System
\j/� �1 •�>r '\• Leasehold Area
0�_\.\\ ` ��� ;� • \ �� 8D0��� Scale 1" = 1300
00 ' North
o 1 a --�
_ ,, i T , ■r!.�r,
M-85-86
(Meeting 85-13
May 22 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
May 16, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Public Negotiations for Possible District
Interest in Quinta Ranch (Lands of Bullis)
Background: At your meeting of May 8 , 1985 , you received a written
communication, dated April 28 , 1985 , from Mr. Richard E. Bullis requesting
that you negotiate in "public" for his Quinta Ranch property. As early
as January 30 , 1982 , the 56 acre Quinta Ranch property was offered to the
District. In order to reconstruct the history of the negotiations on
this property, which was discussed numerous times in Closed Session, the
following correspondence is attached for review:
1) 1/30/82 : Letter from Mr. Bullis offering the entire property to the
District for $1, 300 , 000 with a lease-back to Mr. Bullis at the fixed
rate of $1 ,000 per month for the balance of his lifetime.
2) 3/31/82 : Letter from C. Britton declining the offer, but suggesting
a trade of the Peters Creek area for the Quinta Ranch entrance area
(see attached map) .
3) 4/05/82: Letter from Mr. Bullis declining trade proposal.
4) 6/05/82: Letter from Mr. Bullis suggesting a more comprehensive trade
of land.
Many meetings took place from June 1982 through October 1983 to consider
H reasonable alternatives existed.
5) 10/21/83: Letter from Mr. Bullis offering to share the cost of an
appraisal.
6) 11/22/83: Letter from C. Britton suggesting alternative valuation
approaches , agreeing that the District would pay one-half of the cost
up to $3 , 000 for an appraisal , and forwarding a list of five accept-
able appraisers from which to choose.
7) 12/01/83: Letter from Mr. Bullis agreeing to pay up to $3 ,000 (or
one-half) of appraisal cost and selecting Floyd Clevenger to complete
the project.
8) 1/12/84: Letter to Mr. Clevenger from C. Britton for appraisal services
(District share $3 ,000) .
9) Appraisal (not attached) of Floyd D. Clevenger, MAI dated 1/27/84
estimating value of Quinta Ranch as follows:
a) With Williamson Act expiring in 1988 : $710 ,000 .
b) Ignoring Williamson Act: $700 ,000 .
c) Value of separate 6-10 acre area with all improvements: $400 ,000 .
M-85-86 Page Two
10) 3/13/84: Memorandum from W. Tannenbaum estimating enterprise income
from Quinta Ranch if the District were to acquire entire site.
11) 3/16/84: Letter from Mr. Bullis regarding his decision to "aggres-
sively" market the property.
12) 3/23/84: Letter from C. Britton declining on behalf of District to
purchase the entire Ranch, but suggesting the purchase of the 6 acre
Old Page Mill Road area and development rights on the open areas for
a total of $100 ,000 (the property could be subdivided into a total
of 3 sites depending upon basis of existing density, access and
other factors at the time of Williamson Act expiration - 9/88) .
13) 3/29/84: Letter from Mr. Bullis rejecting sale of a portion of
property as suggested, and offering to discuss other alternatives
including the purchase of a right of first refusal for $25 ,000.
14) 4/16/84: Letter from Mr. Bullis suggesting an alternative pricing
structure for purchasing the entire Ranch.
15) 5/04/84: Letter from C. Britton forwarding additional information
about MROSD and reiterating the original offer from the District.
16) 5/04/84: Letter from Mr. Bullis in answer to C. Britton's reiteration
of the Page Mill Road area and development rights purchase.
17) 5/11/84: Letter from C. Britton responding to the 5/4/84 letter of
Mr. Bullis regarding District's continued interest in the original
offer suggested.
18) 5/14/84: Letter from Mr. Bullis (treated as a confidential corre-
spondence to the Board of Directors at Mr. Bullis ' telephone request) ,
suggesting other solutions to the District's offer.
19) 5/25/84: Letter from then Board President D. Wendin verifying the
accuracy of the staff' s proposal and suggesting further discussions
with staff if Mr. Bullis had new ideas which would "substantially
reduce the District' s costs to complete a more ambitious project. "
20) 7/11/84: Letter of Floyd Clevenger regarding follow-up land tour
and consideration of questions raised by Mr. Bullis.
Since July 1984 , the Bullis communications have centered around his option
and proposed development of the Peters property on Russian Ridge.
21) 3/12/85 (receipt date) : Letter from Mr. Bullis offering new sugges-
tions for sale of entire Quinta Ranch. This letter was forwarded to
the Board as a confidential correspondence as requested by Mr. Bullis ,
but later made public as a part of his letter of 4/28/85 -- see note
in upper left corner.
22) 4/28/85: Above-referenced letter from Mr. Bullis requesting negotia-
tions be made "public. "
Recommendation: This term was placed on your agenda to discuss the possi-
bility of publically negotiating with Mr. Bullis for all or a portion of
the Quinta Ranch property at a future Board meeting. The following four
choices are possible alternative methods of proceeding:
M-85-86 Page Three
1) After reviewing the background material and recalling previous
Closed Session discussions on possible acquisition of this property,
find that District staff has fairly represented the Board' s position
and return the entire matter to staff for further negotiations if
requested by Mr. Bullis.
2) Conclude that meaningful negotiations are at an impasse, and that
no further negotations should take place in the foreseeable future.
3) Decide to place the possible acquisition of part or all of this
property on a future public agenda for discussion, but not to
negotiate publicly on price and terms.
4) Decide to place the discussion of possible acquisition of part or
all of this property on a future agenda, including public "negotia-
tions" with Mr. Bullis on price and terms.
'PIPA,VIS 'ALOM�IAVOI
1
4' �s
Quinta Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
January 30, 1992
Erbert Grench, General Manager
Catherine Duffy, President Board of Directors
Mid-Peninsula Open Space District
375 Distal Circle
Los Altos Calif. 94022
Dear Mr. Grench and Ms . Duffy:
As you know my 56 acre ranch is listed for sale with Sky-
wood Realty for $1, 500, 000. This is not an exclusive listing.
I offer the property to your District as a key to further expansion
towards linking your great acquisitions to Portola State Park and
the Sempervirons Grove.
Quinta Ranch does have the private Old Page Mill Road within
its south boundary, and the opening of this road past Lambert Creek
would be great for your public purposes. Also, this property "con-
trols" access from the Skyline to Old Page Mill Road and from the
Alpine Road down our roads and trails, which are just beautiful.
As you may know, we have planted almost 100, 000 trees on our prop-
erty over the last 20 years under the State F:.irestry supervision.
We planted Douglas fir and Coast redwood--not for cutting in my
lifetime.
The buildings on the ranch consist of my 2 bedroom house, ana
adjacent 1 bedroom guest house (unoccupied! ) , plus a great 2 bedroom
A-frame house with the floors and laundry. There is a pool, stables
with 5 box stalls, 5 tie stalls, a large 5000 square foot metal
barn with cement floor. There are caretaker' s quarters with 2 bed-
rooms (occupied by my employee) , a large riding ring, shops and
tack room. There is a fully enclosed berry garden, vegetable gar
den, fruit trees, green house, grape arbors and a green house plus
large enclosed bird ens and a 1 acre enclose
d duck P and.
P
We have a great modern water pressure system, automatically
fed by 4 year round springs and 2 wells, 30, 000 gallon storage, allg 9 ,
underground utilities , auxilliary power plant, 1000 gallon propane,
4000 gallon gasolin
e storage high pressure fire system, fencing and
paved drive.
I am offerring your district this property in its entirety
with all the equipment, including tractor, 4-wheel drive truck,
r
1
-2-
and tools, etc. , for $500, O)0 down and $200, 000 per year for 4
years at 8/ tax free interest, no commission and no encrumberances.
I would lease back the house I live in and guest house, the
caretaker' s quarters, tack room and 4 box stalls with provision to
pasture up to 4 horses. I would pay $1000 per month fixed rent.
Your District would maintain the water system and furnish water to
my quarters plus use of 500 gallon gasoline tank and propane tank.
I would wish a lease until my death with right to sublet if I
felt I had to move for health reasons. I am almost 63 years old.
The 2 bedroom A-frame house would be immediately available for
a ranger residence with a marvelous view of the Pacific Ocean and
the Skyline Ranch. There are no other tree farms, leases, gimmicks,
squatters, renters! You would have the total use of the ranch for
recreational purposes except for about 2 acres which I would pay
to use!
This offer is made for a nine month period, expiring November,
1982 and is not exclusive unless you wish to have an option for
that period for a $50, 000 fee, non-refundable. All costs of sale
would be shared equally, your attorney to draw contract similar to
Skyline Ranch sale general previsions , subject to approval by my
attorney, Curtis Berner, Esq. , 50 California Street, San Francisco.
a
I truly believe this proposal would be bene-ficial to both
parties, and I would be tickled to find your feelings to be the same.
If not, I would expect your great effort to maintain the privacy of
Quinta Ranch and a fair resolution to my present use of the "front"
pasture.
I look forward to your Board ' s visiting and inspecting the
property in all its pristine beauty!
Very truly yours,
I i�_�
5
Rich � S. Bulbs
President, Quinta Forestry, Inc.
:i/� D:701't D-1,L(IF, i
(4 15,1 17
1-;arch 31, 1982
Mr. Richard S. Bull-is
Quinta Ranch
c.�Lar Route 2 , Box 310
La Honda, CA 94020
Dear Mr. Bullis :
Thanh you for your letter of January 30 , 1982 , to Nir. Herb
Grench, General. Manager, and Mrs . Eatherino Duffy , President of
the Board of Directors , regarding the offer to sell- your 56 acre-
ranch to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. As you
can imagine , the discussions and planning necessary for a public
agency, such as this District, to determine the need to purchase
potential. open space lands, especially a parcel priced at
$1 ,500 ,000. 00 , must be deliberately and carefully considered. I
hope you will excuse the delay in answering your letter during the
time this process took place. It was also during thi-s .interim
period of time that the District ' s Land Manager , Mr. David Hansen,
had a chance to meet with you and follow up with a letter concern-
ing the management interface with the public lands adjacent. to
your property.
As explained to you by telephone , the District has a limited
budget and must try to spend its funds on undeveloped or minimally
developed property. In the long run, we have found that thi.s type
of approach obtains the most open space for funds expended. Your
parcel is certainly beautiful, lies adjacent to existing District
lands and would make an excellent addition to the Skyline Ridge OpQn
Space Preserve. Unfortunately , because of the improvements , the
average cost amounts to over $26 ,000 . 00 per acre , as contrasted to
the $3 ,000. 00 to $4 ,000. 00 average cost per acre for vacant lands
the District has recently purchased in the area. Mainly for this
reason, the District will have to decline your c, or to sell at this
time.
tlerb,+rt A 01i;1A,
Do,ordol D,tiVors K-i!-!nn;DoNy,bnrh2ra Grpc;i. G flx.ko' V:st":'r,Vu"I!J G Sha:Iey.t1arry A Turner,Uin,ef G Wendin
16charO S. BLOTi`-. Page Two
March 31. , .1-982-
I would hov:,,-:ver , like to reiterate that the District might be
in"C-e:t-estod in an excliz-ange of land -which would secure the Pago Mill
Poad and creek area for trtAi! District and give you the entry road
iind a(ljacon'C. grazing area to the south. If you are intores'Ced in
discu-ssing -,-,his mart:ter further please don 't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerell-y ,
1c� Britton, SR/W.F�
�
Land Ac�' isition Manager
LCB: iy
CC: Herb Grench
Katherine Duffy
David Hansun
Quinta Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
April 5, 1982
L. Craig Britton, SR/WA
Land Acquisition Manager -j-) e
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, Calif. 94022
Dear Mr. Britton:
Thank you for your letter of 31 March. You obviously
forgot your promise to me to send me a letter stating in writing
that "my property was outside of the Open Space District and,
as such, was not of interest to your District' s acquisition. "
Remember?
And I remind you that I was adamant that I would not trade
anything for the Page Mill Road on my south boundary.
I 'm not interested in the arithmetic of relative values of
the acreage you have acquired. I do think you make a glaring
mistake when you "buy" land for whatever dollar amount per acre,
yet forgo possession for 50 years, plus allowing the former
owner to rent 5 living spaces on your land in direct violation
of your own "regulations, " especially Sections 200. 2 and 200. 3 :
"However, District employees and lessees and
their employees shall abide by the laws of the
State of California, and all applicable county
and/or municipal ordinances . "
Or are you just exempt from the same one family zoning restrict-
tions that your neighbors must respect? It would seem that an
organization such as yours, supported by open space ecology minded
citizens and Green Foothills members should set an example and
not carry on the ghetto in the " family compound" next to me.
Yours for uprightness and consistency rather than hypocritical
expediency,
Rich S. Bullis
P. S . I have been a generous supporting member since inception
of Green Foothills .
CC : Wallace Stegner and Committee for Green Foothills
CC: Carry Burke, Planning Dept. , San Mateo County
June 5, 1982
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, #D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Dear Hansen & Britton & Grench:
Dear Sirs!
Let's be friends! Your last note was pretty abrasive.
I just tried with my little tractor to get weeds down along my 30-foot
right of way. Please use your big rig and put a good fire break along
your pasture fenc bane.
ine.
I don't want to pasture horses on your land if it offends
you so much.
I have moved "no-trespassing" signs to my line.
Peters and Norton are going to come up with proper legal
answers to my driveway and right of way.
Now, here is something to consider. We might trade my
woods, a couple of miles of beautiful trails, a great deal more than
200,000 more or less of Page Mill Road for my getting all pasture
including knoll to tree line, my having water rights to four springs
in woods and access to my present water system and access to Old Page
Mill over my present roads as trails. I would want out if Williamson
6-7 sites approved.
You might find Kenyon/Silva agreeable to selling his wooded
area on South side of Alpine and you would be right up to Grays Big Dipper
and Sempervirons and Portola Park with something super. Kenyon wants to
get out of Williamson and give sites "on top" to his younger generation.
Your loving neighbor,
Dick
~
Quinta 8eno6
Star 8nute 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
October 21, 1983
L. Craig Britton
SD/WA Land Acquisition Manager
Qidpeninsola Regional Open Space District
375 DiateI Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, Calif. 94022
Dear Craig:
�
I will participate in one half the cost of a professional �
appraisal after mutual agreement on the fee. Would you agree to
have Byron Cuonio �am o� �uo�a Cruz �m � e work? I �6n ou are
�
� familiar with him from your stint in Santo Cruz. I don' t know if
� he is M.I.A. , but he is eelI respected and qualified and not ezpouaine- �
� It was pleasant meeting with you Tuesday. I hope the District
� can see the value of Ou1ntu Ranch in its aim of acquiring the most �
�
� beautiful open space area for lucky future generations of the
public—aod that we can negotiate openly in good faith to reach �
an equitable solution to both our needs.
` .
�
Sincerely,
�
�
Richard S. Bmlllo
8S8:j6
�
�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CiFICLE.SUITE D-1.LOS ALTOS.CA_1F3?N:A 9-0'22
(415) 965-4717
Noveraber 22, 1923
Mr . Richard S. Bullis
Quint-a Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, CA 94020
Re: Appraisal of Quinta Ranch
Dear Dick:
I have discussed further the matter of an appraisal of your
property with Herb Grench, the District General Manager. Because
0--" the high value you place on your property, which is i:--proved
with numerous buildings, it is aoina to be a fficult for the
District to commit to buying even a major portion of your Ranch.
However, we are still willing to participate in an appraisal
and work with Peninsula Open Space Trust toward some method of
p-reservation or at least partial preservation of watershed areas .
It- could be that as a part of this process, a buyer might be found
for the improved Ranch -area, or even a buyer that could acquire
the entire ranch, and willingly offer open space and trail ease-
ments to the District.
In reviewing the material you have sent me and in checking with
the County, I don't feel the District could consider anv sub-
division proposal other than separating the 45-50 acre undeveloped
portion from the 6-1C acre Ranch area. Alt-hough a District appraisal
must ignore the Williamson Act restriction -for valuation purposes,
we cannot be involved in a subdivision which would defeat-- the
purposes of the Williamson Act. As a natter of fact, I doubt the
County would allow the District or anyone else to process such
a subdivision. I would therefore suggest that the appraisal
assianment include a valuation of the entire premises and an
a" ternate approach that would separate one normal i-proved site
(say 6-10 acres) from the balance of the property . Also, you
should remember that if a private buyer is -found for all or part
of" the Ranch, that person must adhere to the 'I-T'illiamson -:tct
contract as a valid restriction against the propert% . It- might
therefore be proper for the appraiser to consider an alternate
valuation method that actuallydiscounts t'---- final value of the
L
entire ranch if a subdivision approach is used.
Because of the many improvements on the property and th e;. complicated
rature of such an appraisal, I estimate that the appraisal fee
would be approximately $5, 000 and would reauire 60 tc 90 days for
completion . The District %..ould be willing to partic_ate
in the
a =aisal at up to one-half ol" the cost, nor- to exce;%-7
0 0 0
Page two
If you would also be willing to make such a coi-mmitment, -lease
sign, date and return the copy of this letter in -I-
k-he stamped
envelope provided. It would be understood that your pa-y-ment
would be made at the time of execution of the aD;raisal services
contract, which would be drafted to inform the aPnraisar that he
was workina for both parties .
The following is a list of appraisers in the area that I can
recor-ciend based upon personal exaerience, who are professionals
and produce a narrative appraisal
ppraisai report that can easily be
zrii followed fro empirical data to an unbiased opinion -of Fair
Market Value:
1 . Berliner & Kidder
(W. Jack Kidder, MAI and Val Domer, M.-NI)
151 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94302 326-8852
2. E. P. Brodd, MAI
920 Saratoga Avenue
San Jose, CA 95129 (408) 248-7821
3 . Floyd D. Clevenger, MAI
2363 Pruneridge Avenue
Santa Clara, 6A 95050 (409) 241-2787
4 . Kurt L. Reitman, MAI
151 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94302 328-3394
5.' Paul E. Talmage, MAI
151 Lytton Aven' ue
Palo Alto, CA 94302 321-1816
If vou agree, 1 could make arrangements to hire any one of these
consultants, or I could mail a proposal to each to obtain the
best bid on a competitive basis. It would be understood by both
parties that each is to receive a copy of the final product, and
that neither party is obligated to proceed with the purchase
transaction based upon the final opinion of value rendered by
the appraiser selected.
Thank you for your patience in this matte,k.
S�nc rely,
Land't.&_cq_uisitio_-_ :faraaer
LCB: jc
cc : Robert R. Augsburger
Approved and Accepted
Richard S. Bullis
�
Oulnta Ranch
�
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
December l , 1983
L. Craig Britton
�
Land Acquisition Manager
� Midponinnulu Regional 8ycn Spoce District
�
375 DimteI Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, Calif. 94022
Dear Craig:
Thank you for your letter of November 22nd. I would pay one half
of a comprehensive appraisal fee for OuinLa Ranch, not to exceed ¢6,000,
total.
I would agree that Floyd D. Clevenger, 8AI, be contracted. I
would lnniaL that both parties be privileged to consult with Mr.
Clavenger, Please hire him as you proposed and ascertain the time he
would take to complete the job. '
I'm oucc you would nlo6 him to have access to the complete files
of those purchases mu6c by your District in the immediate area.
- I look forward to working with Clevenger and you to further the
best and fairest result for both parties. |
S '
� Richard S. BuIUa
D3B:jb
� cc: Floyd D. Clevenger, M&Z
�
� Robert R. Augsburgec
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 OISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE 0-1.LOS A!TOS•CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4711
January 12, 1984
Mir. Fowl D. Clevenger
Clevenger Realty Appraisal Company
2363 Pr-=-:a_idge Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050
Re: Appraisal of Bullis Property
Dear ;t-. Clevenger:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I have enclosed three
copies of an Appraisal Service Contract for the appraisal of
the subJecL property. Please sign and return two copies (one
fully executed copy will be returned for your files) . This
contract is a little unusual as the District is sharing the
cost of the appraisal with the property owner, Mr. Bullis.
Therefore, our contract only reflects the District's one-half
share of the total appraisal fee.
I look forward to working with you on this project.
Sin * y.
L. ai' Britton, SR/WA
Lan Ac_uisition Manager
LCB:cac
Enclosures
cc: Richard Bullis
MEMORANDUM
arch 13 , 1984
TO: Craig Britton, LAM
ai
FROM: Bill Tannenbuam, RPR vt
SUBJECT: Quinta Ranch--Enterprise Considerations
Our tour of Quinta Ranch with Mr. Bullis last Friday raises a number
of enterprise-related questions. Rentable structures include the
main house, two cottages, a trailer and a number of barn outbuildings.
If the District purchases the property, estimated residential rents
would be in the range of:
$3000 - $3500 per month main house
600 - 800 per month cottages (2)
300 - 375 per month trailer
$4500 - $5475 per month total
From the standpoint of Enterprise, property management of Quinta
Ranch would be a substantial undertaking. The structures would
require a high level of maintenance, and tenants for the main house
might be difficult to locate. The outbuildings would very likely
remain unrented and underutilized . The pool, of course, would call
for special care.
The arrangement of the structures and the amenities might lend them-
selves to a group rental. An organization such as the YMCA or another
similar public service agency might be interested in the ranch as a
camp facility. In this way, the management concerns related to the
improvements could be presided over by such a group working in concert
with the District. A review procedure similar to the one we have been
using for the upper house at Rancho would be one way to select an
interested agency.
If the Quinta Ranch structures become a requisite part of any future
purchase agreement, I would suggest that the District actively solicit
a "partner" to utilize and manage the improvements. We might even
consider pursuing the acquisition with another public or private non-
profit group interested in taking over the building area.
^'
0uiota Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
� Lo Oo,da, Calif. 94020
�
March 10, 1984
TO: Board of Directors
� ybdpeoiosolm Regional Open Space District
�
�DOB' Richard S. Bulliu
� . '
�
�
SUBJECT: 0uinto Ranch
ATTENTION: Herbert Greoch, Qcocrul Manager �
Craig Britton, Assistant General Manager
�
� After studying the Clevenger appraisal, I decided to merchandise �
Q"into Ranch aggressively since I assume we would probably have disparate �
views as to its value.
�
I overlooked the problem of M,R.O,S,D. still standing in the background'
�
Prospects who mzc interested in buying Ch`lntn Ranch must be informed that
M.K.0.3.D^ is actively in the market buying all the land around Quinta Ranch �
� and that you have shown some interest in Ouinta itself.
�
� I think it is now reasonable to ask if /\x/ur intentions are honorable?'' �
It seems that it would be aloc to explore the possibility of selling all or
� port of Qointm to M.R,O.S.D. with a mutually profitable agreement or have a |
| "friendly parting of the xmye, "
! /
� Please respond by telling me if you are interested in any negotiations |
in the immediate future or that you will give me eoaurooue that you ere not �
� 'otarceted in buying any or all of Ooin(a now or in the future by negotiation �
�
� or condemnation. |
�
� Neither of "o will profit by a "Coylon" type sale, where I sell to "Smith" /
� and you almost immediately buy from "Smith" at o profit to "Smith." Nor do �
� we want on oZoccrpi" sale, where I come to you with an offer from "Smith,''
�
� /
� ou6 you have to fly into executive session to match "Smith' r/' offer and pay
a bonus to "Smith" to withdraw. /
It's o fair request that I know your official ioLeutiuuu Inow�. Z then !
can decide if I wish to sell to you or to another buyer who has the prospect |
of enjoying his purchase, or that my wife and I have the prospect of continu-
ing to Iinc here without further concern for your undisclosed intentions. .
|
I have satisfied myself that I can find u number of qualified prospects
at a reasonable asking price. I have been able to establish o present worth /
and project the assured potential exciting growth in value for Qoiota Ranch.
/
I'm ready to make on lnIonnod decision when I receive your response, /
hopefully without delay.
|
�
Sincerely, �
~�
|
i DSD: ib
V
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
March 23, 1984
Mr. Richard S. .Bullis
Q.,;4nta Ranch
Scar Route 2, Box 310
La Fonda, California 94020
Re: Quinta Ranch
Dear Mr. Bullis:
As we discussed, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
has a limited budget, and it is my job to acquire as much
public open space land, within budget constraints , as is rea-
sonably possible. This philosophy ordinarily excludes the
possibility of purchasing properties with extensive or valuable
improvements. For this reason the District cannot currently
consider purchasing your entire ranch, except on the basis
of a very attractive price (say 50% of market value on a bar-
gain sale basis), or extraordinarily liberal terms. In absence
of this occurring, the District has acquired unimproved por-
tions of such properties , or worked with the owners to restrict
further development in order to preserve the scenic resources
from the District's perspective. We would be interested in
working with you or a prospective purchaser of your ranch
(since you are actively marketing your property) toward this
type of cooperative effort.
The old Page Mill Road area at the lower easterly boundary of
your property would be highly desirable for a public trail to
connect with other portions of the road currently owned by the
District on the former Skyline Ranch property. The area
involved in such a purchase would amount to approximately six
(6) acres of land, which would leave you 50 acres remaining
in Quinta Ranch.
It would also be very desirable from the District's perspective
to limit further development (or subdivision) of the ranch, so
that it would remain a single, contiguous parcel owned and
operated as a gentleman's ranch or large estate, rather than
several separate individual homesites. It is my opinion that
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Toone Hemshaw,Richard S.Biahw.Edward G.Shelley,Harry X Tumer,Daniel G.%AaC4,ft
| - '
|
-2-
� ycoyerty' In addition to its being our primary asset, Jetty and I love
� the place and truly nia6 we could find a way to continue living here. We
[oeI that the value of the property will greatly increase, particularly an
| you reach your goals in land acquisition.
| Let's meet soon to discuss the different alternatives that might he of
interest to you; or let us know that we are mistaken as to your interest
| so that we can pursue our best interests oIooc. It 000I6 be very much
appreciated if you would pot in writing your verbal promise that M.8,0.S.D.
| would never condemn the property.
/
� We have had an encouraging response to our advertising of the property for
| sale. Would you be interested in purchasing the right of first refusal
for o consideration of $25,000?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Bullis �
�
� DSB:jb �
| '
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
||
�
|
�
�
|
|
|
|
!
|
|
|
/
' .
�
�
. Vu1nta Ranch
Scar Route 2, Box 310 |
|
La Uoodo , Calif. 94020
April 16, 1984
L. Craig Britton, SR/BA
Land Acquisition Manager
MidpeoiosvIa Regional Open Space District
375 Diatcl Circle , Suite d-1
Loa Altos, California 94022
�
� De 0uiota Ranch
ucwr Craig: �
My accountant and I thank you for the candid information which made it easy
for ua to cone op with o [air offer for both of us.
Vc xool8 propose o pucobooe of the entire 56 acres of the gvinta Ranch by
B,R.0.3,D. oil the following terms :
$750,000 total price
50,000 down payment
700,000 9�% tax exempt notes, 'payable annually,
principal and interest ($111^489)
subordinate to previous notes and
secured by Deed of Iroot,
' ~
Above terms would include o prepaid lease on 2 acres including our home and
A-frame on east side of our entrance road (map attached) for 30 years,
details similar to Wasserman and Quinn. We mould have no interest in all
structures and improvements on west side of entrance road. We would main-
tain the water system on hillside to east of us. You mould have the two
wells and large Lank. In case we ever decided to ,pmve and sell the remain-
ing lease term we would offer you "first refusal. " We would retain the right
to rent or lease for shorter terms in case we "lived abroad" now and then.
You could remove the /�)uinte" sign, put in your locked gate (with keys for us!).
You could nmounu approximately $39,080 mortgage balance with Donk of Americo
payable at 7�7, $581 per month, as port of your down paymeot.
We would expect reasonable cooperation in every straight forward tax saving
| consideration that would benefit us and not be o deterrent to you,
! I hand you this early so that any details could he settled before the Board
Meeting on Wednesday, April lO.
� Sincerely, *
!
|
Richard S. Dulli` a
� R3D:jb
)
�
�
4
111EG1,0*!`1!A1_ OP N SWACE DISTRIC"T
375 D;z�7_EL Cir3rLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFOR%IA 94-022
(415)9�5-41 17
"'av 4 , 1984
Richard S. Bull-
Ranch
—ar Route 2 , Box 31-0
La Eanda, Cal-iforn.,4
9 4 0 2:--,,
P..D: Qluinta Banch
Den_r Dick :
-Zs we discussec! by proposal of April 16 , 1984 to
sell a major. e Q portion of thy. a,-t Pancln to, the District exceeded
he t financial resources that the Di. strict could commit to this
nro-) The District has allread-,,, contributed $3 ,000 toi.,-ard an
appra-! sal of the property, and we are not convinced that the final
:11_cn of. value ($710 , 000) is incorrect. Additionally , your
hzave the
ire 'k-
he barns and riding rink,
-r,-1
c, e of that- area would conflict
wi-th your use of the adjoininci, home sit-e- and violate your privacy.
It would be preferable from the District' s standpoint to have you
retain a life-interest in the entire 6± acre developed area as
originally analyzed in the appraisal .
Although I responded to your offer by telephone the week following
your letter, my delay in forwarding this written response was to
allow time for a careful analysis by the Land Mana(Jement Section,
especially the potential for District and public use of the barn
and ridina rink area. The conclusions stated above are the result
of that analysis and are more detailed than our discussion.
After our telephone conversation , I received a note from you dated
April 20, 1984 requesting certain information ; accordingly, I have
enclosed the following:
1) A map showing the District ' s "sphere of influence. "
2) Memo of 4/1/83 from the Local Agency Formation
Commission of Santa Clara County discussing
sphere of influence, including definition and
policy.
3) A copy of the District ' s All-Site brochure showing
the current District boundaries .
Herb-rtA r.,P—h
Richard S. Bullies
May 4 , 1984
Page Two
4) Maps showing the five (5) latest District land
acquisitions. We do not have maps available that
show adjoining owners, I would suggest that you
contact the assessors office of the particular
county of interest.
I also understand that you were in the office the other day to
obtain additional information about District acquisitions in the
Skyline area. The District files for acquired lands are generally
available for public scrutiny. You are welcome to come into the
office and review any of these files you wish. Copies of informa-
tion in the files can be obtained by paper-clipping the documents
needed, with reproduction materials made available in accordance
with the Administrative Policy as enclosed.
You also mentioned certain Development Bonuses which would boost
the available density on your property to four (4) units. I have
enclosed a copy of the pertinent section of the County of San
Mateo regulations to which you must have been referring. It appears
that by taking advantage of a cluster bonus, you would have to
restrict 80 percent (45 acres) of your land through a recorded open
space or conserv
ation vation easemen
t de
dication. It is my opinion that
the clu
ster
er conc
ept t would help elp to further the
open space owls in
P
this area and might actually be one solution to our apparent
differences.
Although I continue to stand by the offer made in my letter of
March 23 , 1984 , I wonder how we can in good faith continue to
discuss our mutual interests and possible acquisition of portions
of your property, while you continue to contact other land owners
in the area to warn them of your concern about the District's
integrity. I might remind you that you approached the District
about selling your property, and none of our discussions have been
at our initiation. We would like to work with you toward a
mutually agreeable solution, but I feel a more forthright or
straightforward approach on your part would lead to better communi-
cations.
1
S' ce ely
. Craig Britto , /WA
Land Acquisition Manager
LCB:cac
Enclosures
P.S. I am returning your original aerial photograph herewith.
bcc: Harry Turner
0oio,a Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
May 4, 1984
Board of Dir,cwry
Midpcniosolo Regional Open Space District
375 Diurcl Circle , Suite D-1 �
Los Altoo, California 94022
Qenticpersnno:
We are enclosing copies of all correspondence directed to Y{,D.O.S.D.
and the one letter from you re : Quinto Ranch. We are afraid that events
will overtake us because we may have failed to communicate.
Be have ascertained that at least one knowledgable buyer ''with full |
� information of all the facts" is willing to pay $998,000 for our property and �
is in the yzmceoa of oohmlLtiog an offer and deposit. This buyer is clear
that they intend to justify their purchase by subdividing when the Williamson �
� contract expires.
� It would be o shame if we sold our property and ultimately the price to �
� you of preventing development pnolG skyrocket. Are you really intent on "deal-
ing with the nest owner" rather than us? If so, it 's really hard to understand
� the risk you seem to be taking!
/ -
| We have mode it clear we cannot accept your offer for the Page Mill nooeeo
and the "attached" restrictions on further development. We xia6 one last time
to make it absolutely clear that we are willing to discuss any reasonable
� Lcrma which includes a lease allowing us to live here on u 2 acre site. If
� you are short of funds we will be happy to entertain u deferred noIe as long
as our future was assured.
Please give us your answer as to your final position in writing promptly.
We believe we have certainly communicated npenly. It 's not too late yet.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Bullis
BSD:j6
. �
�
EF/
'All W,
1
11 to
N)w
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
May 11, 1984
Richard S. Bullis
Quinta Ranch
Star Route 2 , Box 310
La Honda, California 94020
Re: Lands of Bullis - Quinta Ranch
Dear Mr. Bullis :
The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District carefully considered your letter of May 4, 1984 and
the previous correspondence and discussions surrounding pos-
sible District Purchase of the Quinta Ranch property. While
the District would like to see the entire Ranch remain as
one large "estate" and would contribute $100 ,000 in the form
of the previous offer, it is not possible to make the sub-
stantial financial commitment you require to actually acquire
the property. Even extended terms do not lower the overall
cost, especially in relation to other commitments and desires
within the District boundary. Should you include more land
in the area you propose to retain on a life basis, which
would substantially reduce, the price to the District, we
would be glad to reconsider such a proposal.
S, ely,
ra g Britton, , R/WA
a
Land cquisitioition Manager
LCB:cac
bcc: Harry Turner
Herbert A.Grench,Generat manager Board of Directors:Katherine Dijtly,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Hanshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley.Harry A.Turner.Daniel G_VJendtn
---~
TO: Board Of Directors
| '
|
FROM: H. Gr2nch, General MaDac2r
CONFIDENTIAL WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Land Negotiations
Quinta Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 318 �
Ls Honda, Calif. 94020
. May 14, 1984
Board of Directors
8idyeoinevlo Regional Open Space District �
275 D1stel Circle` Suite D-I �
Los Altos, Cali[- 94022 �
. Dear Board:
Let's try to understand clearly what you desire po[e� last time!
�
� We will sell our Quinto 8onob at e 6oz8oio price and retain a fixed
� term lease on the improved site, t^o to ten acres, whatever you sia6. !
Or, we xill sell you the unimproved acreage--50, 45 or 40 acres--as
� you niah-
�
We believe it would be hard to reach a mutually agreeable price �
�
for an open apace easement. We will try if that's all that is left �
after considering the other two nptloon, �
�
� We feel a bit foolish pursuing this matter further with you, olt6mu8b �
| it would be a shame not to do so if there is a mutually agreeable
� solution we have not explored together. �
Sincerely, �
�
�
�
Blc rd S,~---llio -- ----` |
DSB:j6
�
�
�
�
t� .:475
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
May 25, 1984
Mr. Richard S. Bullis
4uinta Ranch
Star Route 2 , Box 310
La Honda, California 94020
Dear 1 r. Bullis :
Thank you for your letter of May
14 , 1984 in refe
rence
ce to
os .possible sale of your property to the District. The Board
of Directors feels that District staff has represented our
Position accurately 'rased upon a _review of all of the pre-
vious correspondence and. discussions . Alt'-.—gh the best
alternative from the District's standpoint continues to be
the open space easement proposal, if you have an idea that
would substantially reduce the District's costs to complete
a more ambitious project, I urge you to contact Craig Britton,
the District' s Land Acquisition Manager, I understand he
will be on vacation during the month of June, but would be
available for further discussions either before or after
that time.
Sincerely,
Daniel G. Wendin
President, Board of Directors
DGW:cac
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonelte G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Marry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
REALTY APPRAISAL COMPANY
FLOYD D. CLEVENGER, M.A.I., S.R.P.A., A.S.A. 2363 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE
RICHARD B. WITTMAN SANTA CLARA,CALIFORNIA 95050
LA%,%IRENCE E. WILLS, A.S.A., S.R.PA.
DAVID L. SNIVELY TELEPHONE(408)241-2787
MARSHA L. DENIS
July 11, 1984
Mr. Richard Bullis
The Quinta Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Ca. 94020
Dear Mr. Bullis:
Thank you for meeting with us and reviewing the Quinta Ranch report.
We understand all the points you raised. So that we may act on your points
we would request an engineering study within the framework of the San Mateo
County Zoning and Building Ordinance. With this study and subdivision cost
i
estimates, we can re-think the value as it relates to the Quinta Ranch.
We have enclosed the Evidence Code section we discussed.
Sincerely,
CL VENGER LTY APPRAISAL CO.
f�1�0
D. lev n er
Wills
LW:ng
enc.
cc: L. Craig Britton
No letter as Pahrenced was at to Mr. pl.,zlio '
letter of Appil 28. AN - Ued letter vae received at &
District office on Aorch 1, - _1985 bait was no; publicIR As-
tributed at At. Bullis ' request per a coiversutlion
with C. ilritton.
Quinta Ranch
Star Route 2 , Box 310
Ln lknda, Calif. 94020
torrd of Directors
Midpeninsuls U;ional Open Spac, Di UHL
375 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CoLif. 94022
Dear Board Qmhcrs: Attention: Craig Britton
I would like to acknowledge that Quinta Ranch is for sale to the M.R.O.S.D.
Quinta would be a fabulous addition to the Skyline Preserve with its
strategic position, beauty, forests and traits.
I would accept $400,000 cash and $400,000 in a note secured by a deed of
trust at 8% tax free interest with $50,000 principal paid at the end of the
first through eighth years. As a further condition I V.-OUld reserve an
assignable lease back of six acres covering my improvements plus water
system as a "family compound" for the balance of my life or 30 years, which-
ever is long, at one hundred dollars per year.
A second proposal would be the sale of 50 acres for $350,000 cash and
$350,000 deferred per the above terms.
These terms and offer will expire May Ist, 1985 and the offer is non-
exclusive. I would consider giving an exclusive option for one of the
above "deals" for $5,000 per month up to 12 months, or $60,000 to be
applied to purchase.
I would expect my selling price to increase progressively until the expiration
of the Williamson Act contract on Quinta Ranch. At that time I would sub-
divide my land into four or more parcels and would vigorously defend my right
to do so. Quinta is not in the boundaries of M.R.O.S.D. and condemnation would be
difficult. This paragraph is included not as a threat but to make clear our
future options.
I would appreciate on early clear reply stating M.R.O.S.D. 's position re
the acquisition of Quinta Ranch at this time or in the future. Such an
answer would clear the air and greatly relieve any uncertainties in my mind
regarding my land and my future.
Very truly yours,
_?
/*
Richard S. Bullis
RSB:jb
WRITTEN COMMUNTCAI I APR 2 q 1935
Meeting 85-12
May 8 , 1985
QUinta Ranch
Star Route 2, Box 310
La Honda, Calif. 94020
April 28, 1.985
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Opel, Space
0 District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, Calif. 94022
Dear Board Members:
I wish all negotiations with M.R.O.S.D. re Quinta Ranch henceforth be
"public. " It seems that someone who is willing to negotiate in good
faith, i.e. , a "willinc, seller," is put on the "back burner" as a low
priority acquisition. It is this type of negotiation that you publicly
espouse. Please acknowledge my letter of late March C> (copy attached).
On another subject, I will be unavailable until May 22 to accompany
Clevenger on reappraisal of Russian Ridge Ranch. lie has made no effort
C,
to contact me at any time.
Thank you for the cooperation received from your staff by Arthur Bliss
in determining the access to Peters' lo�-.-er parcel.
Very truly yours,
Richard S. Bullis
RSB:jb
cc: Colin Peters, Esq.
cc: David Byers, Esq.
R-85-26
(Meeting 85-13
AkMay 22, 1985)
44b I oe
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
May 16, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Initial Implementation of Administrative Study
Background: Your 1983-1984 Action Plan included the following key
project in the General Management and Program Support section: "Study
future staffing needs for administration" . Gary Foss, the District' s
Personnel Consultant, conducted the administrative staff study for
the purpose of reviewing the District' s four secretarial positions ,
the Accounting Specialist position, and the Administrative Assistant
position in terms of:
1. Work Assignments - Current and Proposed
2 . Work Processing - Current and Proposed
3 . Job Concepts - Current and Proposed
4 . Job Design - Current and Proposed
5. Organization Staffing Structure - Current and Proposed
6. Analyze Jobs as to Proper Job Classification and Pay
Range
7 . Recommend Proper and Timely Changes in Job Design and
Classification; Work Task Assignments; Organization
Structure and Pay Changes as Merited
The Accounting Specialist position was subsequently deleted from the
study, since review of that job was longer-termed, and a change in
staff occurred that would affect the job concept.
Mr. Foss began the study in June, 1984 , submitted his initial report
entitled "Administrative Study" on October 10, 1984 , and prepared an
Addendum, dated November 17 , 1984 , to the report. Both the Admini-
strative Study report and the Addendum are attached, as Exhibits A and
B, for your review.
Since the Administrative Study was not completed during the 1983-84
fiscal year, the 1984-1985 Action Plan included the following key
project: "Complete personnel needs , structure, salary, and benefit
studies and begin implementation, as authorized, of staffing changes
in accordance with a plan to be developed" .
Discussion: Need for the Study
During the past five years, the Administrative Assistant' s position
has experienced a significant level of growth and responsibility, and
correspondingly, an increase in workload. Due to this increase, the
current Administrative Assistant has been "spread too thin" , and addi-
tional support is required so that the various responsibilities and
R-85-26 Page 2
projects that fall within the scope of the administrative position can
be completed in a timely manner. In addition, the Administrative Assis-
tant position has had responsibilities that could fall within the scope
of a strengthened position. At the same time, the workload of the
Secretary to the General Manager has been so heavy that it has been
difficult for the Administrative Assistant to delegate more tasks to her.
I requested that Mr. Foss undertake his Administrative Study to deter-
mine what changes could be implemented to relieve the Administrative
Assistant' s workload. In addition, I felt that Mr. Foss should also
address how the District could best utilize its secretarial support
and the Secretary to the General Manager.
Study Method
The following is a summary of the process used by Mr. Foss in conducting
the study and by myself in gathering feedback on the reports he pre-
pared for my consideration:
1. Job Audit - Each employee involved completed a job audit questionnaire.
2. Personal Interview Audit - Mr. Foss interviewed each employee involved
to review the job audit questionnaire and gather other appropriate
information.
3 . Management Interview - Mr. Foss interviewed each manager involved.
Managers had previously reviewed appropriate job audits for their
respective employee (s) .
(Administrative Study report submitted by Mr. Foss)
4 . Management/Administrative Review - I met with C. Britton, D. Hansen,
C. MacDonald, and J. Fiddes to review Mr. Foss' report and to glean
questions, comments, and concerns regarding the study. I subse-
quently asked Mr. Foss to clarify certain sections or recommendations
in his report, and he submitted the Addendum of November 17 , 1984 .
5. Employee Review - Managers met with employee (s) involved to review
Mr. Foss' report. Employees reviewed the document and relayed ques-
tions, comments and concerns to their respective Program Leaders.
Employees also reviewed the shared secretarial responsibilities
task breakdown prepared by the Administrative Assistant.
6. Management/Administrative Review - Based on comments received
from employees involved, members of the management/administrative
staff continued their review and made recommendations to me regarding
how the administrative study should be implemented .
Implementation
Using Mr. Foss ' report as a guide, I am recommending the following at
this time:
1. Create Administrative Services Manager Position. While the current
Administrative Assistant would continue to be responsible for many
of her current job duties, she would become responsible for super-
vision of all internal personnel and administrative services and
would supervise the Accounting Specialist. The Administrative
Services Manager would also provide supervision of some functions of
of the Office Manager (Assistant District Clerk) .
Some or portions of the current Administrative Assistant ' s job
responsibilities would be channeled to the Office Manager/Secre-
tary to the General Manager, including various personnel-related
activities, review of packet items, preparation and review of claims,
payroll audits, and miscellaneous project work. The office manager/
Secretary to the General Manager would also function as the Assistant
District Clerk and would assist the Administrative Services Manager
R-85-26 page 3
with various clerk-related duties. The Administrative Services Mana-
ger would continue to function as the General Manager' s administrative
assistant, and would continue to receive various work assignments and
projects.
This promotion would make the Administrative Services Manager a
member of the District ' s management team who would, in conjunction
with the General Manager, have responsibilities for the General
Management and Program Support area.
I am recommending that you assign the Administrative Services Manager
position a range of Step Number 215-245, with a corresponding annual
salary range of $28 ,760 to $38 , 784 . This salary range is ten
points above the current Administrative Assistant' s salary range of
Step Number 205-235 (see Exhibit C 1984-1985 Salary Pay Plan) or
$26, 037 to $35, 093 annually. I feel that the 10 point difference
between the Administrative Assistant and Administrative Services
Manager positions is justified because of the level of management
responsibilities of the new position.
2. Create Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager Position. As
noted in Mr. Foss' report, the Office Manager would be responsible
for the coordination and supervision of a variety of functional
office tasks to be performed by members of the secretarial staff
and the future Receptionist. In addition, the Administrative
Services Manager would be assigning the Office Manager/Secretary to
the General Manager a variety of additional duties that will help
to relieve the Administrative Services Manager ' s workload.
The Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager would be
channeling some portions of her basic secretarial work, including
typing of correspondence, memos and reports, document reproduction,
filing, mailings, and distribution of checks to the person filling
the proposed Receptionist position, thus allowing her to focus more
of her work time on assignments delegated by the Administrative
Services Manager.
I feel that, with the addition of the Office Manager activities,
the position of Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager,
due to the confidential and management support activities involved,
should be made an exempt position. The Secretary to the General
Manager position is currently a non-exempt (hourly) position.
I am recommending that you assign the office Manager/Secretary to the
the General Manager position a range of Step Number 170 to 200 with
a corresponding annual salary of $18 , 378 to $24 ,772. This salary
range is 4 step points above the current Secretary to the General
Manager' s salary range. Mr. Foss had recommended a 2 to 4 point
differential. I strongly feel that the entire 4 step point differ-
ential should be applied at this time, rather than withholding a
part of the increase until the recommended Receptionist position is
filled on a regular basis. A four point adjustment will make a
promotion more meaningful and commensurate with the work and respon-
sibility the Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager will
have up to the point a permanent Receptionist is hired. After the
District has moved to new quarters and Mr. Foss' plan regarding
incorporation of a permanent receptionist position can be implemented
and we see what part of the Administrative Assistant' s workload is
shifted, I would want the Personnel Consultant to review this posi-
tion again to ensure that the position' s salary range is commensurate
with its duties and responsibilities.
R-85-26 page 4
3. Secretary, Public Communications. This secretarial position for
the Public Communications Program is currently a 3/4 time staff
position, and the Public Communications Coordinator position has
been increased to full-time (see memorandum M-85-21 of February 7 ,
1985) . Since the Public Communications Coordinator ' s position
is currently being filled, I am only prepared to make some interim
recommendations concerning the Program' s secretarial position so
that the new Coordinator will be able to review the situation and
provide input regarding his/her Program' s needs.
Because of the physical space limitations in our current office and
design of the reception room, I am recommending, at this time, that
the Secretary, Public Communications position be increased to a full-
time staff position entitled Receptionist/Secretary. About three
hours of the Secretary ' s average workday would be dedicated to the
receptionist and shared secretarial duties discussed in Mr. Foss '
report. This arrangement would allow the Office Manager/Secretary
to the General Manager to delegate portions of her work so that
she could take on tasks assigned by the Administrative Services
Manager. The person filling the position of Secretary, Public
Communications would then provide an average of five hours of support
per day to the Public Communications Program.
Depending on the size and physical layout ofth& District' s interim
office space, I will need to evaluate the feasibility of hiring a
permanent receptionist. In the event such a hire is possible, the
following are some alternatives that will need to be considered:
1) continue having the Secretary, Public Communications position
less than full-time; 2) make the Secretary, Public Communications
a full-time position; 3) restructure the type of support needed
in the Program; or 4) have the position remain the same with the
Secretary also serving as a part-time receptionist.
4. Receptionist. I am recommending that, once it is physically feasible
to hire a separate receptionist, a half-time typist/receptionist be
initially hired to provide telephone and reception room coverage
and to provide support for the Office Manager/Secretary to the General
Manager. The hiring of a part-time typist/receptionist will not only
relieve the Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager ' s work-
load, but will improve the efficiency and productivity of all secre-
taries. I am not intending at this time that the typist/receptionist
have the first responsibility for radio coverage. It should be
noted that this typist/receptionist position is one that will most
likely grow to a full-time position over a period of time, the length
of which I cannot estimate at this time.
5. Board Meeting Minutes. The members of the secretarial staff and the
Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager should take and pre-
pare all Board meeting minutes. Currently, the District Clerk is
taking almost50% of the minutes, with the remainder divided between
members of the support staff.
6. Changes in Function Dutes of Secretaries. Functional duties discussed
in Mr. Foss ' report will be assigned by the Administrative Services
Manager in accordance with input previously received from the secre-
taries and the members of the management staff. If any member of
the Board is interested in a more detailed explanation of the distri-
bution of functional duties, I will provide the information as
requested.
R-85-26 page 5
Financial Impacts: Section VI of Mr. Foss ' report addressed the cost
of the recommendations he was proposing. The maximum initial annual
cost of the promotional salary increases at this time for the employees
involved would be approximately $4700, as noted in Mr. Foss ' report.
Recommendation: I recommend that you:
1. Approve the creation of the Administrative Services Manager classi-
fication and assign it a salary range of Step Number 215 to 245
with a corresponding monthly salary of $2, 396. 68 to $3, 230.41;
2. Approve the filling of the Administrative Services Manager position
(the current Administrative Assistant would be promoted) ;
3. Approve the creation of the position of Office Manager/Secretary to
the General Manager, change the position from non-exempt status to
exempt status, and assign the position a new salary range of Step
Number 170 to 200 with a corresponding monthly salary range of
$11 1 531.57 to $2 , 064 . 40.
4. Approve the filling of the Office Manager/Secretary to the General
Manager position (the current Secretary to the General Manager would be
promoted) ;
5. Adopt the revised 1984-1985 Salary Pay Plan (Exhibit C) that includes
the positions of Administrative Services Manager and office manager/
Secretary to the General Manager.
6. Approve the interim increase of the Secretary, Public Communications
position from three-quarters time to full-time with the understanding
that a minimum of three hours per day would be dedicated to recep-
tionist duties and providing support to the Office Manager/Secretary
to the General Manager.
7 . Direct the General Manager to prepare new job specifications for the
Administrative Services manager and office Manager/Secretary to the
General Manager positions by revising the existing job specifications
for the Administrative Assistant and Secretary to the General Manager
positions.
EXHIBIT A
a
Foss & Associates
Management Consultants
DATE: October 10, 1984
TO: Herb Grench, General Manager
MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District
FROM: Gary C. Foss, Personnel Consultant
SUBJECT: Administrative Study
I
This report represents the culmination of my research and the conclusions
of my findings which are embodied in my recommendations . As presented in
my proposal for this project, this report is presented to you as a working
program to guide you and the Board of Directors in your decisions on how
to organize and structure your administrative staff. This report also
n
recomme d schanes i job assignments
g n � s gnments to address most of the issues
uncovered in my research.
The one key problem which faced me and will face you in making some of the
recommended changes relates to the fact that the District will soon relocate
their offices . This change will have some bearing on how work is distribu-
ted and if my recommendations need to be addressed now or when the office
is reclocated. I will note my suggested timing on each recommendation.
This report should constitute a staff recommendation to you for you to
analyze and then form your own recommendations to the Board for actions as
you deem necessary. I can help you refine recommendations contained herein
and assist you with presentations to the Board.
In essence, this report should be considered similar to an auditor's report
which stipulates to suggested changes in practices, systems or functions
based upon the evaluation of the District's financial health and recorda-
tion practices .
The District offices will undergo system changes when the offices are moved to
new facilities. These changes will involve telephone systems and reception
office layout to name a few. I will be able to assist you in these changes
since I have current knowledge of setting up office layouts and telephone
configurations..
I
1035 Russell Avenue/Las Altos, CA 94022/(415)965-8392
Administrative Study
October 10, 1984
Page Two
I . ISSUES
The following issues evolved from my review of data received plus
interviews of the administative staff and their respective supervisors.
A. Radio
There is a growth in usage due to increase in field staff and
increase in their activities ; general supervision of the pro-
ram and substitute coverage is a roblem• de
crease ecrease in secre-
ta
rial tarial productivity or secretarial duties due to increased
activity.
B. Telephone
The system needs to be modernized; there needs to be a central
area for the telephone to ring and calls to be dispursed; having
several phones ring and using a system of backup staff to answer
is confusing, cumbersome and highly unproductive plus possible
bad public relations due to mishandling of calls; supervision
of system is lacking; substitute staff to cover phone is not
systematic.
C. Pool Secretary Concept
There has been some interest in a pooled secretary concept. This
program will not meet District needs due to the small staff and
the need for more specialized knowledge by assigned secretaries
to cover their respective staff assignments. Pooled secretary
concepts are more successful when there are a lot of people doing
similar work and have varying workloads. The District is more
suited for the "Functional Task" concept whereby the appropriate
staff can be pooled to work on functional tasks as part of their
normal job assignment. This approach allows the District to gain
the greatest maximum use of their staff and keep overhead costs
as low as possible.
D. Office Manager Concept
Several functions need to be coordinated for purpose of productivity
and systematizing several functions such as office reception duties,
telephone, radio, word duplicating and purchasing. In order to
coordinate these functions and initiate "Functional Task" assign-
ments, an Office Manager concept should be fnitiated.
E. Word Processing/Computer
The contemplative use of word processing/computers will change how
the administrative staff will produce their work and may provide
some redistribution of some work. Other than this impact, there
should not be any other major impact; it is not recommended to have
a centralized word processing program as this has proved to be un-
productive for small offices.
Foss & Associates
i
Administrative Study
October 10, 1984
Page Three
F. Receptionist
Both now and in the future, the Receptionist position needs to be
established. This position can be half-time to begin with and be
tied with the Secretary, Public Communications. This will be the
least expensive way to provide consistent telephone, radio and
receptionist er i services ces to the public as well as staff. This addi-
tional half-time will directly increase productivity of the commu-
nication and land management secretaries . This function should be
supervised by the recommended Office Manager positon.
G. Supervision
Many functional tasks as have been noted above and which will
follow need clearer leadership/supervision. The recommendations
regarding clarification of task assignments and change in job
classifications along with job promotions further clarifies
supervisoriai responsibilities .
H. Public Relations
The Secretary, Public Communications, is not being effectively
utilized in that the assignment of telephone and receptionist
work thwarts flexible use of the time to do field work. Therefore,
this job needs to be clarified. There is the need for greater
reception area coverage so it is recommended that this become
a full -time position.
I . Supplier
The general purchasing and supply room program is in need of
direction and supervision. This has been covered in recommended
"Functional Task" assignments and job changes.
J. Board Room
This particular area/space needs to be better coordinated and
managed. The recommended changes are included in "Functional
Task" assignments and job changes .
K. Copier/Coffee Room
These two areas/spaces need the same attention as the Board Room
and have been so covered in this report.
L. Office Move
Several changes found in the report may be affected by the pending
change in office environment. If the recommendations in this report
appear to be questionable as to their current validity, I suggest
that no recommendation be rejected completely but rather be deferred
until after the offices have been moved and then reassessthese
recommendations.
Foss & Associates
Administrative Study
October 10, i 984
Page Four
M. Staff Increase in Land Management
Several recommendations are tied to anticipated growth in land
management. If this growth is slower than expected or possibly
still in serious doubt, then some recommendations like the
removal of the radio from the land management secretary should
be considered.
N. Board Minutes
It is recommended that the minutes of the Board be done by the
clerical staff and be continued on a monthly rotation or considera-
tion be iv t -
en o a six month rota
tion. S r over-
time 9 Some consideration for v
time and payment of incidental expense should be evaluated in the future
as it becomes more difficult to manage this particular assignment.
II . RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN
The following recommendations embrace both the concept of new classes
as well as the introduction of "Functional Tasks." Functional tasks
identify the need to make assignments to job classes which assist the
District in getting work done which may not be considered a normal job
for the position; e.g. , the Secretary to the Land Acquisition Manager
being responsible for the office supply purchasing and system maintenance-.
The following are the recommended job concepts:
A. Jean Fiddes - Manager, Administrative Services
B. Emma Johnson - Office Manager, Secretary to General Manager
C. Cecilia Cyrier - Secretary
U. Doris Smith - Secretary
E. Lea Brown - Secretary
F. Mary Lewis - Accounting Specialist
III . FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
MANAGER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Jean Fiddes
Function: Supervise internal administration services and systems
relating to Receptionist; word processing/computers ; word duplicating;
telephone systems, purchasing, office space; Board Room activities and
other related interal administrative systems. Oversees the accounting
and personnel systems; assists in the preparation and administration of
the budget; conducts elections; researches, writes and produces a variety
of administrative reports ; provides functional supervision of the Office
Manager and Accounting Specialist; performs other work as described in
the class specification.
Foss & Associates
| �
' .
. .
Administrative Study
October lO, 1984
| Page Five
SECRETARY TO GENERAL MANAGER, OFFICE MANAGEff
Emma Johnson
� Function: Secretary to the General Manager and provides secretarial �
assistance to the Manager and Administrative Services; maintains a
wide variety of administrative and personnel records for a highly �
confidential nature; organizes and supervises the purchasing of office
supplies and maintenance of same; trains new office clerical staff; �
coordinates the assembly, production and distribution of Board re- '
� lated material and functionally supervises secretaries, as needed, in
� this assignment; performs other work as described in the class specification.
�
�
� SECRETARY
Cecilia i
�
|
Function: Secretary to the Land Acquisition Manager and the acquisition �
� staff; id t to the Office Manager
maintains the word duplication equpment, supplies and facility by in-
suring the equipment is maintained, supplies are ordered and maintained
and the facility is properly maintained; organizes and maintains the
office kitchen and the utilization and maintenance of the Board meeting
room; orders and maintains an office supply system; perofrms other work
as described in the class specification.
assembly, production and distribution of Board material ; organizes and
SECRETARY
Dori s- --Smith
Function: Secretary to the Land Manager and the Land Management Office
and Field Staff; provides support to the Office Manager in assisting with
the assembly, production and distribution of the Board material ; provides
backup assistance on the radio and telephone and reception area; performs
other work as described in the class specification.
SECRETARY
Lea Brown
'
�
� Secretary U general staffassistant to thePublic [ i
cations Coordinator; keeps detailed records of program activities;
�
� initiates and processes mailings of public information items ; does txe/o
work involving photography, pickup and delivery
and/or distributed; work i h newspapers in placing public information
items; i h Office M� i providing" assist the ' ' ~^ ^~�^' ^ r' ~' ^g support in ~^^^"='y pro-
duction and distribution Of Board materials; provides telephone,
� reception-
ist and radio back-up on a scheduled basis; performs other work as
described in the class specification.
Foss & Associates
^ ENJOY A CAMPING WEEKEND
� WITH lRI3H, SCOTTI3H, I3RAELI AND INTERNATIONAL FOLK DANCING
At Cliff Jenkin's land near Palo Alto
NO CHARGE; BEGINNING-LEVEL INSTRUCTION AVAILABLE: MAY 25, 26, 27, 1985
� Dance and sleep under the stars; hike to the waterfall ;
� Swim in the pond; wade in the creeks ; I20 acres available
for hiking; dancing and cooking facilities available at
� the redwood deck, fires and smoking discouraged strongly
� in other areas; there are several quiet sleeping-camping
spots away from the deck,
BRING YOUR OWN FOOD, DRINKS, SLEEPING GEAR, FLASHLIGHTS, AND FOLDING CHAIRS.
BRING WARM CLOTHING, AS THE NIGHTS ARE CHILLY. SWIMMING APPAREL IS OPTIONAL
AT THE POND' THE POISON OAK IS RIPE THIS YEAR, 5O TAKE PRECAUTIONS! People
/ who play musical instruments or perform and/or teach folk dancing are welcome
to pursue their specialities' Please let US know.
Dancing begins at lO:UO AM Saturday and will continue until 4:00 PM Monday,
with appropriate breaks for fond. �
� PARKING ARROWS:
| �
� Red: back down; unload - for those people with kids who want to
spend the night near the deck, '
Blue: back up this road; for those who want to spend the night. �
Yellow: back into these slots; for those who may want to leave fairly �
soon. _
Green: overflow parking; unload at the deck, drive back to the mneen
arrow and park in the field, then walk back to the deck.
If you have any questions, please call Debbie or Cliff at 493-7305 (Palo Alto)
or 941-5005 (land).
�
� (please see over for map) �
�
�
|
�L�./�CiNs �1 gat CNC)
it
hA� � Go
10 - D- 3V
p le�ie le. t
Or
i v
kx k� �,
Grh
dI
14L30,4c Qto e- o.g M; le
A 4-
0
0
f ��
cr
Q
5 p�It 7S
i
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: May 22, 1985
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
8289 677.51 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles
18290 12.40 AmeriGas Tank Rental
� 8291 195.00 Associated Management Insitute, Inc. Seminar Registration--Alice Cummings
8292 1,222.62 Big Creek Lumber Company Field Supplies
8293 2,900.00 Louis Bordi Construction of Fire Breaks
8294 26.24 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
18295 133.08 California Water Service Co. Water Service
8296 58.84 Kerry Carlson Reimbursement--Uniform Expense
8297 121.54 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Equipment
. 8298 213.00 Communications Research Co. Radio Maintenance
8299 11.99 Crest Copies Inc. Blueprints
8300 24.34 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies
8301 30.00 Jean Fiddes Reimbursement--Partial Membership
Dues
8302 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--April
8303 395.90 Virg Harkins Sign Company Sign Frames
8304 61.96 , The flub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense
8305 127. 11 The Ed Jones Company Ranger Badges Expense
8306 10.65 Langley Hill Quarry Field Supplies
8307 569.97 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for District Vehicle
8308 135.00 McElroy's Towing Towing
8309 462.39 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
�8310 66.88 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies
�8311 55.08 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Expense
8312 395.31 On-Line Business Systems Computer Services--April
8313 202.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8314 203.44 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8315 20.76 Peninsula Blueprint Xerox Enlargement
8316 1,183.21 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
8317 12,126.09 Roberts & Brune Company Pipe for Rancho Project
8318 3,105.00 E. R. Sheehan Trail Construction
8319 196.60 John S. Shelton Company, Inc. Field Supplies
8320 1,031.70 Signs of the Times Signs
,8321 4,500.00 Skylonda Equipment Demolition of Coal Creek Structures
8322 13.36 Skyline County Water District Water Service
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
Date: May 22, 196
Amount Name Description
8323 100.00 John Tallett Legal Services--April
8324 1,980.72 Ticor Title Insurance Title Premium and Escrow Fee--Noltk
8325 171.14 Tools R Us Field Equipment
8326 41.37 David Topley Reimbursement--District Vehicle
Expense
8327 96.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Grench
8328 155.10 The Tufnut Works Field Supplies
8329 105.01 Union Oil Company of California Fuel for District Vehicles
8330 593.99 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
8331 410.63 Xerox Corporation April Maintenance Agreement
8332 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
8333 69.79 Kay Duffy Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
8334 89.88 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
Date: May 22, 19855
Amount Name Description
8323 100.00 John Tallett Legal Services--April
8324 1,980.72 Ticor Title Insurance Title Premium and Escrow Fee--Nolte:
8325 171.14 Tools R Us Field Equipment
8326 41.37 David Topley Reimbursement--District Vehicle
Expense
8327 96.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Grench
8328 155.10 The Tufnut Works Field Supplies
8329 105.01 Union Oil Company of California Fuel for District Vehicles
8330 593.99 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
8331 410.63 Xerox Corporation April Maintenance Agreement
8332 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
8333 69.79 Kay Duffy Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
8334 89.88 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
CLAIMS No. 8 5-10
Meeting 85-13
MIDPENINSULA RECIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: May 22, 1985
C L A I M S
?r Amount Name Description
8289 677.51 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles
8290 12.40 AmeriGas Tank Rental
8291 195.00 Associated Management Insitute, Inc. Seminar Registration--Alice Cummings
8292 1,222.62 Big Creek Lumber Company Field Supplies
8293 2,900.00 Louis Bordi Construction of Fire Breaks
8294 26.24 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8295 133.08 California Water Service Co. Water Service
8296 58.84 Kerry Carlson Reimbursement--Uniform Expense
8297 121.54 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Equipment
8298 213.00 Communications Research Co. Radio Maintenance
8299 11.99 Crest Copies Inc. Blueprints
8300 24.34 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies
8301 30.00 Jean Fiddes Reimbursement--Partial Membership
Dues
� 8302 500.00 Foss & Associates
Personnel Consulting Fee--April
' 8303 395.90 Virg Harkins Sign Company Sign Frames
Ii8304 . 61.96 , The Hub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense
8305 127.11 The Ed Jones Company Ranger Badges Expense
18306 10.65 Langley Hill Quarry
Field Supplies
'18307 569.97 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for District Vehicle
18308 135.00 McElroy's Towing Towing
�8309 462.39 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
18310 66.88 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies
8311 55.08 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Expense
8312 395.31 On-Line Business Systems Computer Services--April
8313 202.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8314 203.44 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8315 20.76 Peninsula Blueprint Xerox Enlargement
8316 1, 183.21 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
8317 12,126.09 Roberts & Brune Company Pipe for Rancho Project
8318 3,105.00 E. R. Sheehan Trail Construction
8319 196.60 John S. Shelton Company, Inc. Field Supplies
8320 1,031.70 Signs of the Times Signs
8321 4,500.00 Skylonda Equipment Demolition of Coal Creek Structures
8322 13.36 Skyline County Water District Water Service
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
Date: May 22, 1985
REVIS.ED
Amount Name Description
8323 100.00 John Tallett Legal Services--April
8324 1.1980. 72 Ticor Title Insurance Title Premium and Escrow Fee--Nolte
8325 171.1.4 Tools R Us Field Equipment
8326 41.37 David Topley Reimbursement--District Vehicle
Expense
8327 96.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Grench
i8328 155.10 The Tufnut Works Field Supplies
� 8329 105.01 Union Oil Company of California Fuel for District Vehicles
8330 593.99 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
8331 410.63 Xerox Corporation April Maintenance Agreement
8332 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
8333 69.79 Kay Duffy Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
'8334 89.88 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
,8335 300*00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Services for May
8336 123.51 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies,
Postage, Subscription, and Private
Vehicle Expense
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
MIDPENINSULA Rli",XIONAL OPEN' SPACE DISTRICT Date: May 22, 19F"
C L A I M S REVISED
r Amount Name Description
8289 677.51 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles
8290 12.40 AmoriGas Tank Rental
8291 195.00 Associated Management Insitute, Inc. Seminar Registration--Alice Cumming
8292 1,222.62 Big Creek Lumber Company Field Supplies
8293 2,900.00 Louis Bordi Construction of Fire Breaks
8294 26.24 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8295 133.08 California Water Service Co. Water Service
8296 58.84 Kerry Carlson Reimbursement--Uniform Expense
8297 121.54 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Equipment
8298 213.00 Communications Research Co. Radio Maintenance
8299 11.99 Crest Copies Inc. Blueprints
8300 24.34 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies
8301 30.00 Jean Fiddes Reimbursement--Partial Membership
Dues
8302 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--April
8303 395.90 Virg Harkins Sign Company Sign Frames
8304 , 61.96 The flub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense
8305 127.11 The Ed Jones Company Ranger Badges Expense
8306 10.65 Langley Hill Quarry Field Supplies
8307 569.97 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for District Vehicle
8308 135.00 McElroy's Towing Towing
8309 462.39 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
8310 66.88 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies
8311 55.08 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Expense
8312 395.31 On-Line Business Systems Computer Services--April
8313 202.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8314 203.44 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
8315 20. 76 Peninsula Blueprint Xerox Enlargement
8316 1,183.21 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
8317 12,126.09 Roberts & Bruno Company Pipe for Rancho Project
8318 3,105.0,1) E. R. Sheohaii Trail Construction
8319 196.60 John S. Shelton Company, Inc. Field Supplies
8320 1,031.70 Signs of the Times Signs
8321 4,500.00 Skylonda Equipment Demolition of Coal Creek Structures
8322 13.36 Skyline County Water District Water Service
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE 0-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
May 21 , 1985
Tony Look, Chairman
Trail Information and Volunteer Center
c/o Sempervirens Fund
P.O. Box 1141
Los Altos , CA 94022
Dear Tony:
We would like to express our thanks to the T.I .V.C. and specifi-
cally to you and David Sutton of the T. I .V.C. , and to Joel Hawks
of the Santa Cruz Mountain Trail Association for a successful
double Trail Day this year. The public and M.R.O.S.D, has gained
immensley from the well built trail connection at Long Ridge which
ties in with Hickory Oaks Ridge, as well as from the repair work
at our Coal Creek Preserve.
It appears our field staff is gaining increased confidence in
utlizing the T. I .V.C. and other volunteer support in aiding on-
going maintenance of the growing District trail system.
Please thank Dave especially for an organizational job well done.
We look forward to implementing future cooperative trail work
agreements for our Skyline Ridge and Purisima Creek projects with
the T.I .V.C.
Very truly yours,
ti
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ds
cc: D. Hansen,
Land Manager
ROSD Board of Directors
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
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
May 21 , 1985
David K afton, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Council on Gene Resources
2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 209
Berkeley, CA 94705
Dear Dr. Kafton:
I have read with great interest about the objectives of
the National Council on Gene Resources and of the proposed
program to conserve the Monterey pine and cypress, in
particular.
One of the goals of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District is to preserve areas within our District that are
hosts to threatened, rare, or endangered plant and animal
species. Although your study areas do not include our
territory, your program is very consonant with ours, and I
enthusiastically support your purposes.
Enclosed is some information about the District.
Sincerely yours,
A
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG: ej
Enc .
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
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
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE, SUITE D-1
LOS ALTOS,CA 94022
Y
J
%Doe
.w.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPFN SPACE DLSTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Gren ch General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: May 22, 1985
I
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
May 9, 1985
To: Members of the Board and Herb
From: Stan Norton, Legal Counsel
Subject: vacation Plans
I plan to be on vacation and away from the
area from June 24 through July 15, 1985 and trust
you will not demolish any historic buildings,
condemn any houses or otherwise need a lawyer during
that time.
i
i
t` tk
C~-
M-ry W. Henderson, Chairperson -2- May 10, 1985
Local Agency Formation Commis-
sion of San Mateo County
Do not hesitate to call me or Cathy Lazarus if you have any questions.
We appreciate your interest and the time you have devoted to this
matter .
Sincerely,
Zo o n
C ai person
c Santa Clara County LAFCO_ Commissioners
Cathy Lazarus, Assistant Executive Officer
�sHerb Grench, General Manager , MROSD
Local Agency Formation Commission
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Heddinq Street
San Jose, California 95110
_County of Santa Clara 299-4321 Area Code 408
California
May 10, 1985
Mary W. Henderson, Chairperson
Local Agency Formation Commission of San Mateo County
County Government Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear Ms. Henderson:
On May 8, Santa Clara County LAFCO considered your request regarding
jurisdiction over annexations to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District in San Mateo County in general and the Midpeninsula Preserves
1985 proposal in particular.
As you may know, the District has requested that the Midpeninsula Pre-
serves 1985 annexation be continued indefinitely. As a consequence, we
have deferred resolution of the jurisdictional issue until such time as
the proposal is ready to move forward once again.
We did, however , talk about the jurisdictional question overall and have
adopted the following procedures that we would like to pursue when and
if cross-county annexation issues arise in the future.
Because State law does not permit a blanket transfer of jurisdiction
from one LAFCO to another , proposals must be considered and acted upon
on a case-by-case basis. Currently, when annexation proposals affecting
San Mateo County are submitted to our LAFCO, they are routinely referred
to your County for review and comment by your Commission as well as for
technical certification of map and legal descriptions, assessed valua-
tions, and numbers of registered voters.
In the future, when such matters are referred to San Mateo, we would ask
that your Commission hold a public hearing on the matter to assess the
degree of controversy, if any, associated with the project. based upon
the public hearing , we would anticipate that you would forward to Santa
Clara County a recommendation for approval or denial, or, a request for
transfer of jurisdiction. After your input is received, the matter will
be agendized in Santa Clara County and our Commission, depending upon
your recommendation, will act upon the merits of the proposal or consi-
der the request for transfer of jurisdiction.
We hope your Commission will find this procedure satisfactory. Any com-
ments or ideas on these proposals or on methods for improving our cross-
county relationship would be greatly appreciated.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
April 27, 1984
Thank you for yo"r recent nlication for the ositior of
7
R&nger. I am pleased to in rm you that yoll/. are arnong the
applicants selected to partikc ate in the iriitial int,�yview
proc,ass on, May 8 and 9, 198,1 .
Intervie,;;,is will be conducted az t., District of-'ice at 375
Distel Circle, Suite D-1, Los Alltos, I Cal. --Forria --Fro-Tn 6 :00 A.M.
to P.N1. each day. EaC7.- last apl:,roximately
30 minutes. Please call M . j,rDar; C,", b t (415) 965-4742 on
or before Friday,
day, May 4, 19S4 -to ar—f your interview
t--:xr.e
look forward to seeing you on th ', 8th or h. A map showing
the location of the District off-4 is enclos d for Your
inf oriaati on.
Sincerely,
James Boland
Operations Supervisor
,rB:is
7-'nci
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
Y
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y.I.
DATE: May 17, 1985
EXHIBIT C
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
SALARY PAY PLAN
1984-1985
Present Monthly
- Salary Ranqe
Classification No. Min-Max
Senior Typist Clerk 145-175 1194-1610
Secretary 161-191 1400-1836
See retary-to-6 e nera i-Man agrT-- -1-6365-1965 -t4772z"&*
Accounting Specialist 166-196 1472-1984
Office Managerloopcl.y. "c : r. 770-200 1532-2064
Ranger 176-206 1626-2191
Real Estate Research Analyst 176-206 1626-2191
Associate Open Space Planner 181-211 1709-2303
Coordinator of Volunteer Prog. 186-216 1796-2421
Lead Ranger 186-216 1796-2421
Environmental Analyst 191-221 1888-2544
Open Space Planner 205-235 2170-2924
Operations Supervisor 211-241 2303-3104
Real Property Representative 211-241 2303-3104
Public Communications Coord. 208-238 2235-3013
Admi-n4trattye-Ass4stamt----------205-2352+76-2924
elmirxrt'trative Service8 Manager 276--P45 2097-3,?30
Land Manager* 248-278 3328-4486
Land Acquisition Manager* 248-278 3328-4486
*Range of 3% to 5% to be added to base salary as assigned
and approved by General Manager for assignments and performance
of the employee as Assistant General Manager.
Effective 7/1/84
|
| EXHIBIT B
|
| '
�
| ��'~ �� Associates
��`' Foss �� � xc»�����l��m~s
Management Consultants
ADDENDUM
�
ADMINISTRATIVE STUDY
/
November 17^ 1984
| The administrative report submitted VD October 10, 1884, has been reviewed
/ by the General Manager and his immediate staff. This review has resulted in
| several recommended/suggested refinements to the administrative study. The
|
consultant has received this input and has taken the recocnendations/sugges-
| tiVns under advisement.
|
| This addendum represents modifications/additions and/or deletions which the �
�
consultant believes can be made to the original report without cc�pr0misiDg �
or detracting from the intent of the original report. Not all issues raised
� have been addressed, only those which are believed to be merftous of change �
have been addressed herein. �
�
1 . The recommended salary for Manager, Administrative Services �
was to state the importance of the position. A lO� increase �
is just as strong as 12% or 13%. There is som.e concern over �
internal relationships of the Operations Supervisor and this
�
position.
.
�
Recommendation: Set this position's increase at lU/'� and
� monitor the salary in relationship to the full transition
' of work sharing with the Secretary to the General suianager,
Office Manager and the recommended Receptionist/Typist.
Also, survey these two positions as to level of respucsi-
bilities in the forthcoming salary survey, to see if any ex-
ternal data can help derive a more specific trend or pattern
�
� as to Mow these positions are paid internally.
� |
2. The recommended 2% for the Office Manager concept can be set
at 4%. The main issue is to insure that the work of the
Manager, Administrative Services be transfered to this position;
that the internal relationship with Ranger be clearly evaluated
during the next salary survey; and that the recVonended Typist/
Receptionist position be in place to receive work assignments
and be Supervised accordingly.
3. The. position of Manager, Administrative Services will require a
period of time to formally transfer many current duties in order
to bring about the full change in duties and a lessening of work �
assignments. This should be carefully addressed in the goals and
objectives of the incumbent with the support of the 'General Manager. |
|
|
|
|
1035RuaseU Avenue/LomA|toa, CAg4O22/(415)S85-8302
|
Addendum
Administrative Study
November 17, 1984
Page Two
4. The Receptionist position can be deferred until the nei
office is established and operating. Not hiring this
position now will slow the true growth and contribution of
the Office Manager and Manager, Administrative Services.
5. The Communication Aide position can be full-time, three-quarter
time, or half-time. The key issue is the consistency of a
set amount of time dedicated to public communications. At
a minimum, this time shouldbe half-time.
6. The Office Manager position, due to confidentiality and manage-
ment support, must become an exempt employee, thereby
eliminating overtime.
Foss & Associates
Study - October 10, 1934
Page Nine
V. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
A. Promote Administrative Assistant to MANAGER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
and increase pay by 12% to 13%. This should be done now.
B. Promote Secretary to the General Manager to include OFFICE MANAGER
and increase salary by 2%. Additional adjustment may be needed
after job has been solidified, which would be around salary review
time for the 1985-86 budget. This should be done now.
C . Change duties of the Secretaries as specified - to be done now.
D. Increase the Secretary (Communications) position to full-time.
This could be done now or when the District moves to the new offices .
E. Hire a half-time typist to cover the receptionist, telephone and
radio work load increase and to improve efficiency and productivity
of other secretaries . An alternative would be to add a full-time
typist and reduce the Public Communications Secretary to half-time.
This could be done now or when the District moves to new offices .
F. Move all Board minute-taking to clerical staff on a rotation basis.
Considerations of a permanent assignment to a Board Meeting Sec-
retary may be explored some time in the future; the use of clerical
staff, however, should begin now.
VI . COST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The approximate cost of these recommendations would be $4,700.00 in
promotional salary increases; $7,000.00 for a Typist Clerk half-time;
and $4,000.00 for an increase of ten hours per week (10) for the
Communications Secretary. If a full-time Typist Clerk is hired and
the Public Communications Secretary is reduced to half-time, the net
increase in budget would be $10,000.00 plus the $4,000.00 for promotions
or a $1 ,000.00 savings over the previous recommendation.
i
Foss & Associ
ates
� Study - October 10 1984
84
Page Eight
B. Modifications to Job Assignments
. . SECRETARY, LAND ACQUISITION
Duties clarified/modified
Four functional areas need to be organized and managed. This
position is in an ideal position to provide the necessary staff
assistance. The Board meeting room needs to be organized and
maintained, and so does the kitchen. This latter activity
is currently being covered. There is a need to consumate the
responsibility for purchasing of office supplies and the manage-
ment of the system. Again, this latter activity is basically
covered but more clarification is needed in how and when the
system is managed/maintained.
The word a r duplication program needs to have a more formal system
for its ' overall effectiveness . This position can organize and
maintain the supplies and overall facility. Also, this staff
person can order and maintain supplies, insure equipment is
properly cared for and assist in any larger duplication program
need. This latter point could mean the production of larger
reports by using outside assistance where needed.
. . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AIDE
Duties clarified/modified
This position is not being utilized productively and the need
for better work distribution for telephone, radio and reception-
ist activities needs to be clarified. The Communications Aide
position should be made full-time. Half of the work day should
be dedicated to receptionist, telephone, radio and public
communication office work. The other half of the day should be
dedicated to public communication work. The half of a day for
telephone, radio and receptionist duties should be assigned to
a new part-time/half-time experienced level typist clerk. As
more demand is placed on Public Communications by increased
open space utilization, the Communications Coordinator has to
have more assistance. At present, this position is basically
unproductive in the communication work due to the need to be
desk-bound by the telephone and working only three-quarters time.
. . SECRETARY, LAND MANAGEMENT
Duties clarified/modified
Anticipated increase in land management office staff and increased
volume of field work necessitates this position being relieved of
telephone and radio work. Increased field staff will increase
the radio traffic and make this job even more unproductive unless
something is done now.
Foss & Associates
i
Study - October 10, 1984
Page Seven
IV. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
A. Promotions
. . Administrative Assistant CHANGED to
MANAGER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
There is a significant need to have one person responsible for
internal administrative systems and activities . The receptionist,
telephone, radio, supplies, office equipment, computers, as well
as the coordination of the dedicated staff to these functions ,
needs to be coordinated. The District is not large enough to
assign these various functions to the available staff and have
their respective supervision absorb the responsibilities for
each of these functions It is more productive to assign the
various functions T o available
t v able staff and have the functions
managed/coordinated by one person. Because the work load for
this position can be extensive, the upgrading of the Secretary
to the General Manager to include office management will provide
for a sharing of the duties in terms of daily supervision over
the reception, telephone and radio activities . As the amount of
the District land grows and utilization increases, there will be
more field staff which increases radio work and more public calls
requiring an increase in telephone traffic.
. . Secretary to General Manager CHANGED to
SECRETARY TO GENERAL MANAGER/ OFFICE MANAGER
Daily coordination of internal office activities needs to be
clarified among the staff. There is a lack of understanding as
to who is responsible for what. The past informality of office
activities was appropriate but the increased demand for more
internal staff work from all staff members has placed a burden
on the secretarial staff. There is a significant need to
clarify job duties and supervisory responsibilities. The
current secretarial staff can -provide the necessary level of
work production (an exception is the receptionist work/function)
but their job duties must be more specific and supervisory
authority clear.
The Office Manager can be assigned to coordinate and supervise
various "functions/tasks? and thereby be responsible for daily
supervision of office staff assigned to perform the function/task.
It is important to note the "supervision" is over the function/task
not direct supervision of the employee assigned.
Foss & Associates
Administrative Study
October 10, 1984
Page Six
ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
Mary Lewis
Function: Provide accounting services as specified in the current
class specification; functional coordinates daily budget and payroll
matters with the Manager, Administrative Services.
Note: This employee was just hired when I began my study. Having
her complete a questionnaire to determine if there were any problems
or needs or a better design of the work or job, was premature.
Therefore, it is recommended that in six or nine months, this
position be given a thorough analysis .
NOTE: Each of the clerical staff job classification specifications
should be amended to include minute taking at the Board of Director's
meetings .
Foss & Associates
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
MIDPENIN, A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DI_ _AICT Date: May 22, 1985
C L A I M S REVISED
Amount Name Description
8289 677.51 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles,
8290 12.40 AmeriGas Tank Rental
8291 195.00 Associated Management Insittite, Inc. Seminar Registration--Alice Cumminj,,
8292 1$222.62 Big Creek Lumber Company Field Supplies
8293 23-900.00 Louis Bordi Construction of Fire Breaks
8294 26.24 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8295 133.08 California Water Service Co. Water Service
8296 58.841 Kerry Carlson Reimbursement--Uniform Expense
8297 121.54 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Equipment
8298 213.00 Communications Research Co. Radio Maintenance
8299 11.99 Crest Copies Inc. Blueprints
8300 24.34 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies
8301 30.00 Jean Fiddes Reimbursement--Partial Membership
Duei-
8302 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--April
8303 395.90 Virg Harkins Sign Company Sign Frames
8304 61.96 The flub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense
8305 127.11 The Ed Jones Company Ranger Badges Expense
8306 10.65 Langley Hill Quarry Field Supplies
8307 S69.97 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. Tires for District Vehicle
8308 135.00 McElroy's Towing Towing
8309 462.39 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies
8310 66.88 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies
.0.311 55.08 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Expense
8312 395.31 On-Line Business Systems Computer Services--April
8313 202.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8314 203.44 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities
831S 20.76 Peninsula Blueprint
Xerox Enlargement
8316 1,183.21 Peninsula Oil Company
Fuel for District Vehicles
8317 12,126.09 Roberts F, Brune Company
Pipe for Rancho Project
,8�1.8 3, 105.00 F. R. shceha11 Trail Construction
8319 196.60 John S. Shelton Company, Inc. Field Supplies
8320 1,031.70 Signs of the Times Signs
8321 4,S00.00 Skylonda Equipment Demolition of Coal Creek Structures
8322 13.36 Skyline County Water District Water Service
CLAIMS No. 85-10
Meeting 85-13
Date: May 22, 1985
Amount Name DescripREVISED
tion
8323 100.00 John Tallett Legal Services--April
8324 1,980.72 Ticor Title Insurance Title Premium and Escrow Fee--Nolte
8325 171.14 Tools R Us Field Equipment
8326 41.37 David Topley Reimbursement--District Vehicle
Expense
8327 96.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Grench
8328 155.10 'rho Tufnut Works Field Supplies
105.01 Union Oil Company of California Fuel for District Vehicles
j8330 593.99 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
�8331 410.63 Xerox Corporation
April Maintenance Agreement
8332 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental
8333 69.79 Kay Duffy Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
8334 89.88 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--CPRS Conference
Expense
335 300.00 Susan Cretekos Patrol Services for May
336 123.51 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies,
Postage, Subscription, and Private
Vehicle Expense