Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850626 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-16 f i Meeting 85-16 I 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 June 26, 1985 A G E N D A Los Altos, California (7:30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 22, June 5, and June 12, 1985) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (7:45) 1 . Acquisition Policies Pertaining to Use of Eminent Domain, Brown Act Compliance, Sphere of Influence Boundary, and Annexations -- Eminent Domain Committee (N. Hanko, R. Bishop, and H. Turner) (9:15) 2. Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve -- C. Britton Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Lands of Silver Dove Associates) (9:25) 3. Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for 1985-1986 Fiscal Year -- H. Grench NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (9:30) 4. Presentation of 1985-1986 Salary Survey and Adoption of New Salary Ranges - H. Grench ' (9:40) 5. Acceptance of Insurance Bid Coverage for 1985-1986 -- J. Fiddes (9:45) 6. Adoption of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 -- H. Grench a. General Manager's Report b. Controller's Report c. Budget Committee's Report Resolution Adopting Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 10:15 7. Annual Claims List for 1985-1986 -- M. Foster (10 :20) 8. Consideration of Letter from City of Palo Alto Encouraging Opposition to AB 2198 H. Grench (10:25) 9. Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Termination of Communications Lease -- C. Britton ! (10:30) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters) ADJOURNMENT i I ' ierbert 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 i ( ,. Meeting 85-13 d �3 f i � MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 22 , 1985 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7 :36 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, and Harry Turner. Richard Bishop arrived at 7: 43 P.M. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench , Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes , Stanley Norton, Del Woods , James Boland, Joyce Nicholas, and Doris Smith. II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 24 , 1985 Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board approve the minutes of April 24 , 1985. D. Wendin seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko requested the following corrections: on page one, Item B, the name June Genis had been spelled correctly in the minutes of March 13 , 1985; on page four, paragraph 8 , the first sentence should read, "C. Britton responded that only those employees dealing with land acqui- sition are required to sign an employment agreement" ; and on page six, paragraph one , the vote for the April 17 Workshop Follow-Up should read "Aye: H Turner; and Noes : K. Duffy, D. Wendin, E. Shelley, N. Hanko, T. Henshaw, and R. Bishop. " T. Henshaw stated that the second paragraph of Item C on page six should be corrected to say that she suggested the District look into buying the Klein School site and selling off part of the land. She noted the school ' s name had been misspelled. The minutes were approved 7 to 0 as corrected. B. May 4 , 1985 Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 4 , 1985 . H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko noted that on page six, paragraph ten, the word through in the first sentence should be changed to around. The motion to approve the minutes as corrected passed 6 to 0, with E. Shelley abstaining from voting because he was not present at the May 4 meeting. C. May 8 , 1985 Motion: D. Wendin moved that the minutes of May 8 , 1985 be approved. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board o/Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonetle G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley.Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 85-13 Pago two, ' H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko said the last sentence in paragraph 2 on page five should read: " N. Hanko stated she felt at least one member of the public should be on each bus so there would be no question as to any Brown Act violation. " The motion to adopt the minutes as corrected passed 6 to 0 with E. Shelley abstaining from voting because he was absent at the May 8 meeting. III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS D. Smith stated that the Board had received the following written communications : 1) a letter dated May 16 , 1985 from Kenneth W. Brooks, owner of Stevens Creek Ranch, 22599 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga, explaining his actions pertaining to building a trail on his property and across a portion of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve; 2) a postcard received at the District office May 15 , 1985 from Jerry Perkins regarding the acquisition of the Peters ' property; 3) three letters from Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, repre- senting the Peninsula Citizens ' Action, concerning condemnation of owner-occupied buildings and his responses to the May 4 work- shop, Director H. Turner' s written proposals regarding eminent domain, and the performance and compensation of the District's General Manager; 4) a letter dated May 20 , 1985 from Judy Viles, 444 Saratoga Avenue, Apt. 34K, Santa Clara, and 20 other indivi- duals asking that access be permitted to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve from Stevens Canyon Ranch; 5) a let-ter dated May 16 , 1985 addressed to Director H. Turner from Carl Djerassi , 2325 Bear Gulch Road, Woodside, concerning the inclusion of SMIP Ranch on the listing of property owners . H. Turner asked for instructions from the Board on how he should reply to the letter. The Board' s consensus was that H. Turner will prepare a draft letter to be reviewed by the Board President before mailing. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA T. Henshaw stated that the agenda was adopted by Board consensus. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bob Fisse, representing South Skyline Association, discussed a conver- sation he had had with Don Langrock, one of the residents of Grand- view Road, and suggested the District be generous in working out a road maintenance agreement. J. Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, referring to a written communi- cation he brought with him to the meeting, discussed four resolutions adopted by the Kings Mountain Association regarding eminent domain, protection of MROSD properties, limiting annexations and purchase of lands outside District boundaries. He urged as many Board members as possible to be present at the June 20 meeting of the Association. C. Touchatt, P .O. Box 254 , asked the Board to reconsider its position on transportation for the public on any future field trips taken by the Board, noting adequate transportation should be furnished for all concerned. J. Warren referred the Board to an editorial in the Country Almanac regarding District policies on the subjects of eminent domain and con- • Meeting 85-13 Page three demnation of property and asked for clarification on where the Almanac got the information that the District has never used eminent domain and that two-thirds of the District' s long-term land goals have been reached. R. Bishop stated he did not know where the Almanac got the information regarding eminent domain and H . Grench responded that there is no specific policy on acreage to be acquired, adding that the Basic Policy refers to protecting the maximum feasible amount of open space in the foothills and baylands . J. Warren urged the Board not to take the homes put up for the bond involved in the Hassler litigation. R. Bishop responded that the terms of the settlement of the Hassler lawsuit provide that the District will not proceed to enforce the bond put up by the Coalition to Preserve Hassler. H. Grench added that the District had been putting a lot of effort into helping Ms. Wiesner solve her problem with the bonding company. J. Warren expressed concern over rumored increased motorcycle traffic in the Purisima Canyon, particularly the lower portion, and he urged the District to hire sufficient staff to patrol the area. VI . SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Introduction of Docent Trainees (Memorandum M-85-83 of May 15, 1985) Joyce Nicholas described the training program for docent volunteers and introduced to the Board those trainees present at the meeting from the current 22-member docent class . VII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use . of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments , Acquisition of Lands Outside Boundaries , and Annexation - (Memorandum M-85-89 of May 1-7, 19-85) N. Hanko said that the Committee was not making any recommendations but was presenting a full range of ideas concerning the use of eminent domain for the Board to consider at a workshop-type of meeting. She said the Committee 's report included a recommended policy to deal with arbitration, a possible agreement that could be used to implement policy Alternative Nine which would provide for a longer term open space agreement. She said the Committee recom- mended that the Board hold a workshop June 5 at 7: 30 p.m. N. Hanko said the Committee expected to complete all its assign- ments and prepare a report for distribution at the June 5 meeting. Discussion centered on the procedure to be followed at the workshop and what action would be taken, if any. E. Shelley said the work- shop was not the place to take final action. T. Henshaw stated that the major portion of the workshop would be a Board discussion of the policy alternatives presented by the Committee. D. Wendin suggested that, to maximize the number of Board members present at the workshop, the June 12 Regular Meeting be switched to June 5 and the workshop be held June 12. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the June 12 Regular Meeting be re- scheduled to June 5 and that a Special Workshop Meeting be scheduled for June 12 to discuss all the policies that had been referred to the Committee. The motion was seconded by N. Hanko. Meeting 85-13 Page fo.ur Discussion : D . Wendin stated that it is important that all issi),:-, be addressed at one time because they all intcrdct. H. Haeussler, 1097 Highland Circle, Los Altos, stated his objections of rescheduling the normal Regular Meeting to the first Wednesday of the month. The motion passed 7 to 0 . The Board decided by consensus to hold the June 12 Special Meeting at the Portola Valley Multi-Use Room, if available, and restated that the procedures for the meeting will be to open the workshop with a lengthy discussion by Board members of the policy alterna- tives, after which time the meeting will be open for public comment- VIII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Resolution of Congratulations to William Penn Mott, Jr. (Memorandum M-85-82 of May 14 , 1985) Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-32, a 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. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . B. Illegal Grading on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and Proposed Amendment to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan (Memorandum M-85-84 of May 15, 1985) D. Hansen showed slides of the area in which illegal grading occurred in April of this year on the southern edge of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and reviewed the two options proposed. He said that a bond would be required in the amount of $2900 in order to renovate the site and that Mr. Brooks had indicated he would bear the cost of the bond. He said that staff would like to obtain an easement from Mr. Brooks for a trail across his property and a riparian easement on a portion southerly of the creekbed to provide protection for the future and noted the proposed easement had not initially been included in staff 's discussions with Mr. Brooks over site restoration. Kenneth Brooks referred to his written communication to the Board in which he explained his actions for the grading work , noted there is great demand from the public for the trail , and he would have to consider and discuss the possibility of donating an ease- ment to the District. Carolyn Lekberg, a member of the Midpeninsula Trails Council , read a letter from the Council 's Trails Committee which said this trail across Mr. Brooks ' property is the only viable alignment that ex- ists to connect the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve with the Picchetti Open Space Preserve, and encouraged the District to obtain the easement from Mr. Brooks . D. Wendin stated that staff should be directed to investigate the whole issue of the trail, its reconstruction on both properties, the question of the easement, and work out an equitable solution with Mr. Brooks. He noted that if Mr. Brooks is not accommodating, staff could return to the Board for further instructions. Mee,ting 85-13 Page five E. Shelley said it would be important before proceeding with recon- struction of the trail to ascertain first whether or not there would be an casement through the adjoining County Park property since a deadend trail could exist. He said it is necessary to see the whole trail plan before proceeding . Motion: R. Bishop moved that this matter be continued to a future date and that it be placed on the agenda after staff has reached a point of agreement with Mr. Brooks. The motion was seconded by H. Turner. Motion to Amend: E. Shelley moved to amend the motion to direct staff first come back to the Board with a proposed change to the Use � and Management Plan before coming back with a tentative agreement with Mr. Brooks . The motion to amend died for lack of a second. Discussion: D. Wendin stated he would support an amended motion if it were made clear that consideration of the Use and Management Plan was simultaneous with working out a tentative agreement with Mr . Brooks . Motion to Amend: E. Shelley moved to amend the motion to direct staff to return to the Board with a recommended change in the Use and Management Plan, including the inclusion of a trail relative to the County Park, simultaneously with the tentative agreement with Mr. Brooks . H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Brooks said he had already agreed to the plan as designed by staff, with the exception of the dona- tion of the easement, and would like to see the plan as outlined be approved as soon as possible. E. Shelley clarified that the intent of his motion was that a publicly useful trail was created. He said he wanted reasonable assurance that the trail would pass through the County Park. Barbara Beroney, Mountain View, said that the trail in question from the Stevens Creek Ranch goes right into the Fremont Older trail system and could be used right away; she said the easement might have to be tucked away for use later. D. Wendin said he did not favor the proposed amendment because the Use and Management Plan already adequately covers the issue. He suggested going ahead with the ori- ginal motion with the exception of asking staff for a status report on discussions with the County over the trail easement. He said there is a situation that needs to be remedied and that the District could not wait for a deci- sion from the County. The motion to amend failed on the following vote: Ayes - E. Shelley and N. Hanko. Noes - K. Duffy, R. Bishop, T. Henshaw, H. Turner, and D. Wendin. D. Wendin said he wanted to be sure that the original motion does two things : 1) includes a status report on Meeting 85-13 Page six current negotiations with the County, and 2) that negoti- ations include proper construction of the trail on the prospective easement, not just on District land. R. Bishop stated that he accepted these two provisos as part of the motion. The motion was passed 7 to 0 . T. Henshaw directed staff to return the matter to the Board at the June 5 meeting , and that this would be the first reading of the item. She said the Board would determine at the June 5 meeting whether a second reading was required. C. Consideration of Public Negotiations for Possible District Interest in Quinta Ranch (Lands of Bullis) (memorandum M-85-86 of May 22 , 1985) C. Britton reviewed the four possible options presented in the memorandum: 1) to find that staff has fairly represented the Board ' s position and return the matter to staff for further negoti- ations if requested by Mr. Bullis; 2) conclude that the negotiations are at an impasse and close the file; 3) place possible acquisition of part or all of this property on a future agenda, but not to nego- tiate publicly on price and terms; or 4) to negotiate publicly with Mr. Bullis on price and terms . Richard Bullis, Star Route 2, Box 310 , La Honda, discussed his dealings with the District staff and C. Britton, in particular, regarding the possible sale of Quinta Ranch to the District. D. Britton discussed some of his negotiations with Mr. Bullis. H. Grench said that, should the Board decide to have staff continue the negotiations, he would see that someone else is assigned to the negotiations if Mr. Bullis does not desire to negotiate with C. Britton. R. Bishop told Mr. Bullis that, after reviewing all the correspon- dence included in the packet, he believes that C. Britton has given the Board accurate reports of conversations with Mr. Bullis and that Mr. Bullis had been given accurate statements of the Board ' s discus- sions on the property. He said his own objectives in negotiating with Mr. Bullis on behalf of the District would be to acquire the rights Mr. Bullis has along Old Page Mill Road and, secondly, to pay Mr. Bullis a fair consideration for the development rights on his undeveloped property. R. Bishop stated his objections to conductinc negotiations in public because it is not feasible and business with Mr. Bullis should not be conducted in a different manner than with other property owners . H. Turner and K. Duffy spoke in favor of C. Britton continuing to negotiate for the property. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt Recommendation Num- ber One stating that after reviewing the background mater- ial and recalling previous Closed Session discussions on possible acquisition of this property, the Board 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. 11. Turner secondec the motion. Meeting 85-1.3 Page seven Discussion: N. Hanko stated that she felt C. Britton had presented both the Board ' s and Mr. Bullis ' s sides accu- rately and that she favors the idea of an easement of some type on Old Page Mill Road and said that an open space easement on much of Mr. Bullis ' s property would be an asset to the District. She said that Mr. Bullis could retain a life estate on the buildings, noting that the propertywith the buildings is too expensive. R. Bullis agreed with R. Bishop that the developed area of his property would not be appropriate for purchase by the District and suggested that thought not be given to the six acres of developed land but to the 50 acres of unde- veloped land. R. Bullis said he preferred recommendation three or four and said he did not wish to negotiate with either C. Britton, or H. Grench. T. Henshaw noted that continued negotiations would be at Mr. Bullis ' s request. The motion passed 7 to 0 . D. Initial Implementation of Administrative Study (Report R-85-26 of May 22, 1985) Motion : D. Wendin moved that this item be continued to the June 5 meeting . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 . IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS D. Hansen reported that the grading permit had been issued for Hassler. X. CLAIMS Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the revised claims 85-10 dated May 22, 1985. The motion was seconded by H. Turner. The motion passed 7 to 0 . XI . CLOSED SESSION S . Norton stated the Hassler bond would be discussed during the litiga- tion portion of Closed Session in response to a request from D. Wendin. The Board convened to Closed Session at 10 : 00 p.m. XII . ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 : 05 a.m. , Thursday, May 23 , 1985. Doris Smith Secretary CLAIMS No. 85-10 Noeting 85-13 141IDPENTNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: May 22, 19SS C 11 A 1 M S REVISED Arr;o u n t: Na:qe Description 8289 677.51 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles. 8290 12.40 AmcriGas Tank Rental 8291 195.00 Associated Management Insitute, Inc. Seminar Registration--Alice Cummin, 8292 1,222.62 Big Crock Lumber Company Field Supplies � 8293 2,900.00 Louis Bordi Construction of Fire Breaks 8294 26. 24 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference 8295 113*088 California Water Service Co. Water Service 8296 58.84 Kerry Carlson Reimbursement--Uniform Expense 8297 121.54 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Equipment I8298 213.00 Communications Research Co. Radio Maintenance I! 8299 11.99 Crest Copies Inc. Blueprints � 8300 24.34 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies 18301 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 Hub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense 18305 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 Carden 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 14rdware 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 Q Brune Company Pipe for IL-incho Project 8318 3, 105.Oo F. 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 18322 13.36 Skyline County Water District Water Service CLAIMS No. 85-10 Meeting 85=13 ' Date: thy 22, 1985 Ar,io un t- I Z E V I S.E 1) Name DeMrlption ,-323 100.00 John Tallett Legal Services--April $324 1,950.72 Ticor Title Insurance Title Premium and Escrow Fee--Nolte I R325 171. 14 Tools R Us Field Equipment 326 41.37 David Topley Reimbursement--District Vehicle Expense 027 96.00 The Travel Place Out of Town Meeting--Herbert Grench 1 1328 155.10 The Tufnut Works Field Supplies Y329 105.01 Union Oil Company of California Fuel for District Vehicles 330 593.99 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing 1331 410.63 Xerox Corporation April Maintenance Agreement I333 1332 58.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental 69.79 Kay Duffy Reimbursement--CPRS Conference Expense 1334 89.88 Herbert Grencb Reimbursement--CPRS Conference 11 Expense 335 300.00 Susan Cretehos Patrol Services for May 036 123.51 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies, Postage, Subscription, and Private Vehicle Expense, f " Meeting 85-14 � 4'1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 a REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS JUNE 5, 1985 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL Vice President Harry Turner called the meeting to order at 7 : 50 P.M. Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Teena Henshaw arrived at 8 : 00 P.M. Members Absent: Daniel Wendin and Edward Shelley. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes, James Boland, Stanley Norton, and Emma Johnson. II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 21, 1985) Motion: K. Duffy moved the approval of the minutes of May 21, 1985 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko stated that althoughshe was absent from the meeting , she would vote for approval if the other members of the Board were satisfied with their correctness. The motion passed 4 to 0. III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS E. Johnson stated the Board had received communications from the following : 1) Mrs . Florence Clementson of Menlo Park regarding an addition to Russian Ridge Preserve; 2) Richard Bullis of La Honda regarding Quinta Ranch and District policies; 3) Carolyn Lekberg, Marion Blukis and Jerry Cooley of. Midpeninsula Trails Council regarding a trail easement through the Brooks property; 4) Jim Warren, President of Kings Mountain Association regarding urgency resolutions for certain District activities and invitations to a June 20 Skyline area Community Meeting; 5) Bob Fisse of Woodside regarding land acquisition policies; 6) California Association of Park & Recreation Commissioners and Board Members regarding session application forms and questionnaires; 7) Michael Bena, Palo Alto, regarding a Brooks access to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve; and . 1 1 8) Palo Alto City Manager ' s office regarding Assembly Bill 2198 . H. Turner stated the Board ' s consensus that no action would be required for the communications from Mrs. Clementson and the Association of Park and Recreation Commissioners, that the Trails Council ' s and Mr. Bena' s letters would be addressed later in the related agenda item and that Mr. Fisse' s letter would be referred to Committee. N. Hanko requested that staff place the consideration of the letter from Palo Alto on the agenda of the next regular meeting of the Board. She noted the Board ' s past decision to refer the question of Quinta Ranch to staff. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendm Meeting 85-14 Page two TV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA H. Turner said the agenda was adopted by Board consensus . V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jim Warren asked for a response to the invitation to the June 20 Kings Mountain/Skyline Association Meeting. H. Turner stated that N. Hanko, H. Turner and R. Bishop will attend. J. Warren suggested two alternatives for the Bull-is question if it comes back to the Board. He noted for the record that he does not want any pressure he has applied on the Board to be for his own personal profit. He also suggested that the future eminent domain policy be placed as an initiative on the ballot, making District regulations and policies perma- nent, subject only to revocation by the public . Sylvia Ferguson of Midpeninsula Trails Council distributed invitations to the staff and Board to the Council ' s barbegue on July 28 . Teena Henshaw arrived at 8 : 00 P.M. H. Turner continued to chair the meeting. VT . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Initial Implementation of Administrative Study (M-85-91 dated May 29, 1.985) H. GrenEh-noted the office staff' s increased workload, especially that of the Administrative Assistant and Secretary to the General Manager. He said the new position of Administrative Services Manager in connection with a new receptionist position would help solve the overload at it-s highest position and that implementation of the study done by the District ' s personnel consultant would be done in stages due to c-lirrent staffing and office space limitation. Motion: R. Bishop mo,.-Dd that the Board approve the creation of the Administrative Services Manager classification and assign it a salary range of Step Number 215 to 245; approve the filling of the Administrative Services Manager position; 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 ranee of Step Number 170 to 200; approve the filling of the Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager position; adopt the revised 1984-1985 Salary Pay Plan that includes the positions of Administrative Services manager and office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager; approve the interim increase of the Secretary, Public Communi- cations position from three-quarters time to full-time with the understanding that a minimum of three hours per day would be dedicated to receptionist duties and providing support to the Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager; and 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. T. Henshaw Meeting 85-14 Page three seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0. B. Brooks Trail Addition to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan (M-85-93 dated May 31 , 1985) D. Hansen said that staff had met with Mr. Brooks and reached a tentative agreement on the trail and riparian easements on the Brooks property. He said Santa Clara County staff has indicated a need to do a comprehensive study of the archery range and he expects to hear further from them. D. Hansen indicated on the wall map the location of three potential easements , noting that route #1 in the northerly area running along an existing trail is the most ideal and straightforward. Mr. Brooks stated his willingness to grant the easement, particularly the one cutting along the northerly border. He added that timing of an agreement is important to his operation since he cannot move his facility until the District allows access and the trail is built. In the interest of time, the Board agreed to approve an agreement in concept, allowing staff to negotiate specifics that would satisfy the agreed upon conceptual aspects. H. Grench said that once Mr. Brooks signed an agreement, work could begin and the trail could be opened to the Fremont Older Preserve. The risk, he said, is that the Board might not subsequently approve the easement- , and the site would have to be closed again. Board members e.xpressed willingness to take that risk. D. Hansen said the trail could be started as early as June 17 . Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board authorize staff to prepare an agreement with Mr. Brooks embodying the concepts in the staff report, and start the trail work and open the site as soon as a written agreement is reached at the staff level with Mr. Brooks; that the Board tentatively adopt changes to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan discussed in staff report M-85-93; that staff be direct- ed to return to the Board with revised wording; and that the Board appoint T. Henshaw as Board liaison to staff in the event questions arise that need immediate decisions. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: Discussion centered on the expediency '6-f final adoption of the Use and Management Plan during the present meeting . K. Duffy noted that notification was made to the people on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve notification list for the previous meeting as well as tonight' s. Since there was no further public input, K. Duffy suggested the motion be amended to approve, rather than tentatively approve, the Use and Management Plan. Amended Motion: R. Bishop, as mover of the motion agreed to change the word "tentative" to "final" in his motion. N. Hanko, as seconder of the motion, agreed to the change. The motion as amended passed 5 to 0. Meeting 85-14 C. Second Report of Committee to Study District Policies Use of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuantto Brown Act Ar� m, Acquisition 6_fLa`_nds outside District Boundaries, ana -,- (M-85-95 dated—June 4 , 1985) N. Hanko said the Committee had met five times and had the charge from the Board. She added that the Committee �'Il accept any further charges from the Board after its revie�,, alternatives at the June 12 workshop. H. Turner explained that no Board decisions will be made at he workshop. R. Bishop said the Committee suggests the Board as much as possible at the workshop, perhaps adopting certain pp" in concept and directing the Committee to return with final wordi N. Hanko expressed her agreement. D. Tentative Adoption of the Proposed Revised Action Plan for the _ Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula -Regional Open space 5_1-I­striH for the 1985-:�6F�iscal­Year (R-85-27 dated— May 30, 1985) H. Grench enumerated the changes to the Plan incorporated into the report. Motion: X. Duffy moved that the Board tentatively adopt the proposed revised Action Plan for the implementation of the Basic Policy for the 1985-86 fiscal year. T. Henshaw seconded the motion . Discussion: N. Hanko suggested that "and" be inserted beta:% '"exotic" and '-'invasive" in the sixth key project and activi of the Planning, Design and Development Subprogram. Board members concurred. She suggested a process of public partic, pation be exercised when the Sphere of Influence is include( in the Master Plan update. H. Turner and R. Bishop concurrc that it would be an appropriate consideration when the consultant is hired . N. Hanko requested that ideas be sent to her now regarding the Good Neighbor Policy. Further discussion centered on the effect on the Action Plan of the Board policies currently under discussion and to be discussed further at the June 12 workshop. H. Grench said the items subject to change due to new policies could be marked with an asterisk. R. Bishop added that the adoption of the Plan is tentative and subject to policy decision, that when the Plan is con- sidered for final adoption, items marked with an asterisk could be tentatively adopted. The Board concurred. The motion passed 5 to 0. VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Proposed Amendment to General Manager Fvaluation Procedure and New Procedure Regarding Other _Board­Appointed6f— May 22, 1985) ficers (M-85-�­92 -dated N. Hanko said she was proposing changes to the procedures to comply with amendments to the Brown Act and that salaries and benefits of Board-appointed officers be listed separately in the budget. Meeting 85-14 Page five Motion : N. Hanko moved that staff return to the Board with proposed language consistent with changes in the law for the General Manager Evaluation Procedure and that the Board apply the requirements to a new procedure for the Controller and Legal- Counsel . H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: S . Norton reported that there had been newer amendments to the Brown Act and that he is trying to get information on what the exact effects are. He said he expects to return to the Board with alternatives used by other jurisdictions . R. Bishop recommended the issue be continued to a future meeting to consider the Legal Counsel ' s report on ( 1) options under the Brown Act as it now exists, with a possible policy decision by the Board and (2) ir�for- mation on how other cities are proceeding to conform with the Brown Act as it now exists. N. Hanko said she would withdraw her motion in favor of requesting an expedited report from Legal Counsel . Further discussion ensued on the sequence of Board appointee evaluations. H. Turner stated the Board ' s concurrence to proceed with Board appointees' evaluations following pro- cedures used in the past, but refrain from discussion of salaries until Legal Counsel submits his report and returns from vacation at which time a decision could be made as to procedure for salary discussions. Motion: N. Hanko moved that each Board-appointed officer ' s salary and benefits be listed separately in the budget. H. Turner seconded the motion. Discussion: T. Henshaw stated she would not vote for the motion as the action is unnecessary. The motion passed on the following vote: Ayes: K. Duffy, R. Bishop, H. Turner and N. Hanko. Noes: T. Henshaw. VIII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Grench reported the POST Committee involved in the Master Plan of Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve will be considering its role in the next phase and asked if any Board members would be interested in -attend- ing the meetings. H. Turner appointed T. Henshaw to be the Board repre- sentative, and R. Bishop asked to be advised of meetings in then- event he is able to attend. K. Duffy also expressed an interest in attending. , K. Duffy announced that Vince Garrod, who is the Board' s appointee to Peninsula Open Space Trust, was present in the audience. N. Hanko reported that three directors would meet with Portola Heights Homeowners Association and the South Skyline Association on Sunday, June 9 at 10 A.M. Meeting 85-14 Page six IX. REVISED CLAIMS Motion: R. Bishop moved the approval of Revised Claims 85-11 of June 5, 1985. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0. X. CLOSED SESSION S. Norton announced that the litigation matter to be discussed in Closed Session was the Aine case. The Board convened to Closed Session at 9: 40 P.M. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 : 35 P.M. Emma Johnson Secretary MIDIP-1-N I NSLIf,A izj'(;j S, -L Da li to: June 5, 1985 C 1, A 1 rl S REVISED Amount Nallic Description 8337 413. 36 A T & T Inforjiiat:ion Systems Telephone Equipment Rental 8338 48.00 Mona Bechard Reimbursement--Tuition 8339 900.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Consultant Fee for May 9340 194.05 California Business Systems Typewriter Repair 9341 90.68 Patrick Congdon Reimbursement--Books B342 63.56 Contemporary Engraving Co. , Inc. Name Badges 3343 1,269. 76 Creegan & D'Anuelo Los Gatos Creek Park Fence Plans 5344- 103.00 Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. Air Fare for Out of TownMeeting 3345 4,000.00 Dana Real Property Analysis, Inc. Appraisal Services 3346 117.67 Dennis Danielson Reimbursement--Uniform Expense 3347 168.82 Pete Ellis I)odge District Vehicle Repairs 3348 128.28 John Escobar Reimbursement--Uniform Expense and Office Equipment i349 218.37 Joan Fiddes Reimbursement--Equipment Repair 1 5350 337.00 First, American Title Guaranty Co. Preliminary Title Reports R35I . 102,208.86 First Interstate Ban], 1985 Note Issue Interest Payment ^3S2 353. 10 Foster Brothers Security Systems New Master Locks for Now Gates ,33S3 5.25 Foundation for Goverment Education Resource Material ?3S4 474.29 Iferbert Grench Reimbursement—Air Fare and Expenses !4355 for Out of Town Meeting 116.25 Mary Gundort Reimbursement--Art Supplies and Private Vehicle Expense ,43S6 20.96 Harbinger Communications Computer Services i�3S7 80.30 flenl9chold Motor Company Vail Rental.--Supervisors' Tour 1�358 72.00 Las 1,0111itas School District Room Rental �359 I'550.00 Charlotte I . MacDonald Consultingt' Services—News"10-tter !�360 9.67 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 361 30.90 Joyce Nicholas Reimbursement--Room Rental and Supplie 362 108.20 Stanley Norton April Expenses �363 9.41 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities �364 3.98 City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities �365 18.75 Peninsula Times Tribune Subscription �366 6,36-1.3F, Pinkerton's, Inc. , Hassler Patrol Services for April �367 4,857.20 Plant Insulation Company Hassler Asbestos Removal CLAIMS No. 85,-J Meeting 85.-14 Date: June 5 1'9 p,, REVISED A L a M e Descriptiarq 8368 741 ,03 Roberts & Brune Company Pipe for Rancho Project 8369 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription 8370 116.50 San Francisco Water Department Water Service for Hassler 8371 103.84 Scribner Graphic Press, Inc. Typesetting and Printing 8372 I's7s.00 E. R. Sheehan Trail Construction 8373 192.92 Shell Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 8374 120.00 Skyline Ranch Water Service 8375 150.00 The Trust for Hidden Villa Windmill Pasture Site Protection Expenses 8376 68.8S David Topley Reimbursement—Uniform Expenses 8377 726.42 Xerox Corporation Office Supplies 8378 117.08 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Office Supplies, Private Vehicle Expense and Field Supplies COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS WRITTEN COMMU,.-CATION Peninsula Conservation Center Meeting 85-16 2253 Park Blvd,, Palo Alto, California 94306 June 26 , 1985 Phone: 327-5906 or 328-5313 June 6, 1985 HONORARY PRESIDENT Wallace Stegner Members of the Board PRESIDENT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Len Erickson 375 Di stet Circle Suite D-1 VICE PRESIDENTS Los Altos, CA 94022 Marilyn Bauriedel David Bomberger Sandra Cooperman To the Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District: Ciddy Wordell SECRETARY We have followed the current meetings of your board with Betsy Crowder members of the public with interest and concern. TREASURER Barbara Behling The use of eminent domain is an important tool to be used under certain circumstances in which a party is trying to BOARD OF DIRECTORS Marron Blulkis exploit the special value of a piece of land to the District Douglas Fuchs for unreasonable gain. We think that the public would be Terry Lobdeil paying far too much for land unless the well-defined procedure Sara MacDwyer Marc McGee of eminent domain can be invoked to decide on a fair market Jett Miller value for the land in question. We urge you to retain the Hans Morawitz use of condemnation as a tool of last resort in special cases. Jerry Perkins Cindy Rubin Special care should be taken, however, to protect the right Jim Wheeler of residency of currently owner-occupied land. ADVISORY COUNCIL Donald Aitken In our view, most of the landowners and residents in the Pat Rarrentine hills are responsible landowners whose interest in the Betsy Bechtel preservation of the natural beauty of our foothills co- Chris Berka Robert Brown incides with the District's goals. Unfortunately, it is Mary Davey usually the people with a profit motive who are the most Walter Droste outspoken critics of the Board's actions. It is they who Barbara Eastman John Gilliland seek to reduce the legitimate powers of the Board for their Bob Girard own selfish gain at the expense of the public. The high Nonette Hanko Visibility of such critics should be balanced against the Lois Hogle Ellie Huggins many other beneficiaries of the Board's far-sighted policies Thomas Jordan Jr and actions who usually do not appear at public meetings. Bill Leland Sidney Lieber, Bob Mark We are in strong support of your past and present efforts Richard Merk Diana Miller Alan Newlan& Nils Nilsson George Norton Bob Reese ,Joan Pusmore, Isabel Sewell Jon Silver Frances Spangle John Stoddard Ruth I roetschler [Toward Wilshire LEGISLATIVE ATIVE ADVOCATES I- inda Filkind Lennie Roberts COORDINATOR A REGIONAL GROUP WORKING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Georgia Perkins Members of the Board Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 6, 1985 page two in the acquisition and maintenance of open space land in the foothills and the preservation of the key viewsheds of the skyline in its current undeveloped state. Sincerely, Hans Morawitz President Distributed at Workshop 1 June 12, 1985 EGERTON D. LAKIN 11656-1968) GEORGE H. NORTON• THOMAS D. REESE• WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FRANK A., SMALL THOMAS J. CAHILL Meeting 8 5-16 LEE S. PANTELL RICHARD H. ROSENTHAL JESSICA F. ARNER SHERRY O. HAWORTH June 26 , 1985 CAROL S. SOES ROBERT L. FLETCHER MARGARET W. PASHLEY CAROL B. SCHWARTZ J. A. TONY VILLANUEVA BONNIE FRANK NANETTE S. STRINGER SCOTT H. MILLER L AKIN SPEARS ANDREW M. SPEARS* OF COUNSEL A PR AL LAW CdiW A- 265 HAMILTON AVENUE • FIFTH FLOOR. PALO ALTO, CA • 94301-2588 TELEPHONE(41S)3267000 TELECOPIER(415) 329-8925 Attorneys at Law June 10 , 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Board Members: I am writing you as a representative of Save Skyline, an organization of 95 members particularly interested in the Skyline Ridge. We want to thank you for your careful reconsideration of your policies relating to land acquisition and the use of eminent domain in the Skyline area. We feel that you have done an excel- lent job in trying to make it clear to resident land owners that you do not intend taking their land. Our group would generally support your taking a position that you will not use the power of eminent domain to displace residing land owners. However, we do not think that you should be precluded from taking land when unique scenic areas are threatened with subdivision development. Obviously, it would be preferable to obtain any land through negotiation with the owner and we urge you to do that when it is at all possible. You ly, 0 NORTON GHN: lf i i I� WRITTEN COMMUNICATION / /j ��� D Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985 01. � j7 7 --F.l� la W ALTER A KERR 20i3o BOYCE LN SARATOGA, CA 95070 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-16 22400 Skyline Blvd . June 26 , 1985 La Honda, Ca 94020 April 26, 1985 Board of Directors MROSD 375 Distei Circle L-os Altos , Ca. 94022 Dear Members of the Board , A public agency such as the Midoeninsula Regional Open Space district , an aquisition agency, is meant to act in the best interest of the public . Just as public agencies are given the abwer of condemnation so are they hindered with the obligation to ?'c• special care of thole unfortunate people forced frc• their ,.- 1 ov aquisitions or other acts of the agency . The MR :0 has a legal and moral obligation to offer relocation bene °its to it Zuinn family , wno are being evicted from the home they oui . L } was purchased out from under them by the district . j s in the best interest of the public that these ll . es be up$radcd, not degraded. Public agencys are required to assist and care for those itoole unable to hire lawyers or who are so emotionally upset that cannot express themselves . ~r . Quinn , nis wire , child , and newborn baby , deserve respect , ssion and assistance . It is possible that this family has a .eea_ right to the prooerty their house is on . I suggest you ac Jiftly to elieve the pressures and �' anxieties which you been party in imposing upon this family . incerle , ��, ev Signatures to lettet of April 26, 1985 from 22400 Skyline Blvd. ex-, I I Simnatures to lette$ of April 26, 1985 from 22400 O-kyline Blvd. q 1 C� �---J Ag i f i i i I ���� WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985 R.A. u D.L. Pi ety 11895 Skyline Blvd. Los Gatos, Ca. 9503-10 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, Ca. 94022 Attn: Hoard Members June 10, 1985 Dear Board Members, I am concerned that our home might , one day, be acquired by MROSD through the use of eminent domain. While I believe that the District has no current interest in our small parcel , I am fearful that the situation could someday change, possibly shattering our dreams and having a disastrous effect on our long-term plans. My wife and I have endured many hardships-- financial , physical and spiritual-- in order to attain our dream of building our home and living in the Skyline area. It isn 't difficult to imagine our concerns when the possibility of us losing all that we've worked for arises. We love this land and believe that our use, both present and future, is in accord with the District 's goals_ In that light, we look favorably on the idea of a contract between a homeowner and the District assuring that the land will remain intact (i .e. not subdivided; remaining as open space) and, in return, assuring the homeowner that his family may live without the threat of losing their home through eminent domain. We looked over the draft of such an agreement , dated 5/6/85, that Mr. Norton created, and basically like it. Our concern , however , is its ten-year duration. When one considers that open space is intended to remain so for a long period, essentially forever , it seems that such an agreement should be appurtenant to the property, and be timeless as are mineral-rights and water-rights, or the lace thereof . Such an agreement has several mutual benefits. The District is assured that a parcel will not be further developed nor substantially altered. Furthermore, tax-paying caretakers oversee the land without any financial burden on the District or other taxpayers. The property owners are assured that they may make long-term plans without devastating "surprises" of eminent domain action. They may plant trees and shrubs with the realistic hope that their children and , perhaps, their grandchildren may one day enjoy the fruits of their labors. It appears that everyone can be a winner in such a situation. I certainly encourage the District to adopt a policy against the use of eminent domain. In addition to a general policy, however , the aforementioned agreement would be a worthwhile, mutual assurance that the District and an individual homeowner can coexist in a symbiotic relationship. P Sincerely, �� Robert A. Piety WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-16 June 26, 1985 Dana L. Armstronc 115 Chester J Menlo Park, CA 94025 June 4, 1985 Director, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos , CA 94022 Dear Sir or Madame: I have been observing the on-going discussion regarding the MROSD and its policies for some time , and I would like to add my voice to the discussion, I am completely in support of your agency and its goals . I feel that the MROSD is providing an invaluable service to the peninsula area. As the Santa Clara and San Mateo County floors come under increasing pressure from developers , I feel it is vital for agencies such as yours , and private groups such as Sempervirens Fund, to purchase as much land as possible to set aside for open space and public recreation, On the issue of whether you are spending too much of your budget on acquisition of lands rather than development, I believe that you should continue to spend the largest amount possible on purchasing acreage rather than developing existing holdings . There will be adequate time for "developing" park lands later, but I do not think we can delay on acquiring lands--for development pressures abound and some lands may be lost permanently. I do believe that you should pursue an aggressive public awareness campaign regarding the parks you now have (via newspapers etc. ) . Regarding the use of condemnation to acquire lands , I do not support its use. It is my understanding that MROSD has never actually used condemnation. Thus , it seems as though you would not give up something which you have used, and the public's fears could be greatly calmed if you were to (formally) abandon the power to get land via this process. Thank you for your time and keep up the good work. Sincerely , Dana L. Armstrong V' I I June 26 , 1985 - 9 :15 a.m. Richard Vassar 938 Clark Ave. , #12 Mountain View, CA 94040 424-2653 Mr. Vassar telephoned the District office with the following message for the Board of Directors : He stated his support for the District and said he believes the current approach the District is taking toward land acquisition is the right approach. He said he doesn 't think the District should reduce areas of acquisition as a result of pressure from land owners in the area, but that those areas now identified for further acquisition are fine. June 25, 1985 - 10 : 10 AM The following telephone call was received from Dr. Eva Blum addressed to the District' s Board of Directors for the meeting Wednesday, June 26 , 1985 . She and her husband , Dr. Richard Blum, wish to go on record as supporting the District. They are members of the South Skyline Association but do not agree with the Association' s stand pertaining to condemnation. Dr. Eva Blum said they are against undesirable development such as that proposed for the Bullis property. "We are very supportive of the goals and methods of the District and would like to lend our support, " she said. June 25 , 1985 - 2 :00 p.m. A telephone call was received with the following message for the District' s Board of Directors from Mike Roberts , 724 Cole Street, #2 , San Francisco, CA 94117 , (415) 954-2174 . He called to express his support for the District and to say that there is great public support for the District and its policies. However, he is very concerned regarding the current disposition of the District' s policies with regard to eminent domain. Should the Board decide to adopt more restrictive policies , it would set serious precedence for other districts which are in the process of forming, or are newly formed and currently acquiring properties. He stated that many other environmental groups are watching the District ' s discussions and are worried about the far-reaching effects the Board ' s decisions will have throughout the State. He said that the vocal minority which has been advocating changing the District' s policies does not reflect the majority of the public. He added that the District is doing a great job. | * ' � Written cormmicatior Meeting 85-I6 June 26, 1985 June 18, 1985 Star Route 2, Box 185 Alpine Road La Honda, C8 94020 � Dear Members Of the Board of Directors � Midp8niDSUld Regional Open Space District � � It is not Often that l have involved myself directly in District � business, but the nature (and gravity) of the present situation has � - � prompted my interest and reluctant involvement, in the hope that I CaO be Of some help in sorting out the various components of a complex � situation' A CdSe could be made (depending VD the VUtC0m2) that this situation is the third major "pivot point" in the District's history: The first was the formation of the District in Santa Clara County; the second was the annexation into San Mateo County. If this situation goes wrong, there could be serious ramifications for the District in terms Of scope Of powers, funding levels or even (an extreme scenario) continued existence. Thus I feel that the Board should Ch0OSe its steps with � 'great care and seek a reasonable, compromise solution to some Of the key issues. l will not attempt to assess how the District got into this pickle -- that has been done at workshops. The important thing is where the District goes from here, in my view- And because I an. convinced that there is good will on both sides, and good people with legitimate interests, l have spent more than a little time Considering the issues and what it might take to come up with a "win-win" scenario that would effectively meet the interests Of the District, the public and the property Owners and residents of the hill regions. At first glance, there seem to be three distinct "problems" facing the District: the eminent domain policies (or lack Of same) ; the "list"; and "Sphere Of influence" and annexation issues. But it seems to me that most of the concerns about the list and sphere of influence really follow behind the eminent domain question, and that if d good solution is found to that issue the other two will more or less take Care of them- selves' Underlying all is a major problem of trust, or rather distrust, of the District and its intentions' Much of this relates, l believe, to the virtual absence of any significant attempt to communicate with landowners � ("neighbors" Of District hill lands) by the District Board or Staff � unless the landowner had land the District wanted' � � � � � i -2- j But I also think that some of the distrust is correctly placed -- I believe that there is on the part of some staff members a wish that NO homes existed in the hill regions and a belief that they have a mandate to acquire all lands in the area for preservation as permanent open space. If this is not a policy of the Board, then I think it should be clarified and stated explicitly to the staff and public that the Board does not seek to evict or buy out hill residents. I also sense, based on a few years of observation of public agencies, some element of "fear" on the part of some persons in the district -- a feeling that there are "enemies" out there. This appears in the defensiveness or closedness of some staff responses and even to some extent in how the meetings are conducted -- a seeming desire to control rather than work with. I may be wrong in this, but it is a strong impression I have gotten. j Against this backdrop of beautiful scenery, fear and distrust (if such exists) , we come back to the question of policies relating to eminent domain. As part of my interest, I contacted Jim Warren Jr. , one of the more vocal "critics" of the district in recent months, to explore precisely what his concerns were. Expecting a clear-cut "enemy" of the District, I found instead someone who believed in the concept of the District and even supported some use of eminent domain, but who had deep concerns about how the District is carrying out its mission. In several extended discussions , we came up with a combination package that we feel would meet the bulk of District needs while providing guarantees for residents so they could feel secure in their homes. This so-called "Marren-Thorwaldson Compromise Plan" rests on two key issues, with a couple of peripheral questions in tow: 1) A limitation on the use of eminent domain by the District, to the extent that eminent domain could be used only on properties for which a subdivision application had been filed. 2) A guarantee that the policy would continue beyond the present Board and could not be altered by Board majority vote. The guarantee would take the form of a district vote, perhaps under some type of "friendly initiative" arrangement, as the present Board could not be expected to "tie the hands" of a future Board -- whereas voters certainly could. Peripheral questions of some importance include whether the District should be able to exercise eminent domain to acquire certain trail easements under tightly defined guidelines; and i4iether single lot splits should be allowed under some circumstances without triggering the "eminent domain" capability. ' l -3- It is my extremely strong conviction -- based on conversations with a number of persons on the hill , in the press and in other positions that the above is as modest a position that the Board is likely to encounter from this point on. A discussion of some of the main considerations relating to the key elements: 1) The filing of an application for subdivision is the anly precise legal step of which I can think that could trigger a policy. The District has a basic policy to encourage privately held open space, and I think the Board should examine the implications of that policy carefully. I believe the intent (although my memory grows dim) was to encourage maintainence of open space by landowners. But the District staff seems to have interpreted this as Peninsula Open Space Trust. Regardless of the intent, it seems logical at this point to re-examine the District basic policies with a view toward creating a place for property owners and residents in the "open space" mandate -- as many private landholders have been preserving their lands since long before the District was created. Moreover, prevention of intensive development has been a goal and practice of the District, and was part of the rationale for the forced acquisition of the Perham property -- one of the few cases of the District taking occupied property. The District has not had a practice of displacing residents heretofore, despite some "friendly condemnations" that provided tax advantages to the sellers. I understand there is an alternate proposal generated from some residents, namely the "willing seller" plan. This proposal would enable the District to use eminent domain whenever a property owner decided to put his or her property on the market, so that there would never be someone displaced who did not want to sell to someone. While the rationale for this seems well intentioned, I think the District should consider the ramifications or implications with great care. For one thing, it would place a major damper on all sales, but more significantly it would. likely cause a major increase in surreptitious transactions, such as through "contract of sale" arrangements, or quick, secret sales so the District would never learn the property was on the market until the sale was completed. Most importantly, it would create another wedge of distrust between the landowners and the District, and the rangers could be put in a position of keeping an eye out for land transactions (or spying, in the vernacular) that would be a negative influence on relations between rangers and residents. 2) I believe a guarantee of (more or less) permanence for the eminent domain policies is essential at this point. Had such policies been adopted earlier, this probably would not be necessary. But the distrust and in some cases anger directed at the District is at present too great for a mere ordinance to deflect or prevent further action related to this issue if the District fails to find a way to make such a guarantee. -`i- There are two ways in which someone could go about securing such a guarantee, or attempting to: (1) ask the state Legislature to encodify the policy into open space district enabling legislation; (2) seek a voter mandate adopting such a policy. The latter is much less risky, it seems to me, than the legislative alternative in that there is no chance for an unfriendly amendment to be tacked on. This is a local issue that I feel should be and can be resolved at home. The voter mandate question would have to be explored by Stan Norton or other legal adviser, but I believe that somehow that is possible to accomplish given an open and resourceful look at the possibilities. As for "tying the hands" of future boards, it seems to me this is done all the time by the District: whenever the District signs a long-term contract; whenever bonds are issued or loans taken out against future revenues; whenever indeed a decision is reached to acquire and dedicate a certain parcel of land. All of these foreclose options for future boards, and if a set of policies on eminent domain is reasonable and solid then why not allow the voters a chance to build it in to the District mandate? Again, I do not believe, based on my best information and judgment, that the scope of actions on these subjects is entirely up to the Board or District staff. I do not think people -- some of whom have already followed this matter for more than six months -- are going to quietly go home if the District fails to adopt policies that satisfy their concerns. If further polarization occurs, it is inevitable that more extreme positions will develop and generate more support than any moderate or compromise plan can engender. I have seen this process many times over the years, as have many of you on the Board. The moderate positions are simply swept away, or are drawn into the more extreme positions. In conclusion, I also believe that the District has a very narrow "window" where compromise is still possible. Many people feel they have waited long enough, and any delay of more than a few weeks (and the sooner the better! ) in developing a Board policy will begin to be viewed with increasing suspicion -- and independent actions of a more negative sort might develop. I am really concerned, folks, with the overall welfare of the District, and I do not make light of the decisions facing the Board at this point. But I do not think they are overwhelmingly complicated, either. Please pardon the occasional ramble in the above, and I hope these thoughts A elpful t some good people. rdaldson Written Comunication Meeting 85-16 June 26, 1985 MERR11,1, C. MORSHEAD, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 875 PORTOLA ROAD PORTOLA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 94025 June 21, 1985 TELEPHONE 415/851-2680 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, California 94022 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Directors: At your meeting on Wednesday, June 26, it is my understanding you will be considering the District's policy with regard to condemnation. As an owner of undeveloped land within the District, your actions are, of course, of interest. In the belief that what- ever action you take, your deliberations cannot be harmed by and may benefit from input from affected parties, I would like to offer the following. I do so in the belief that there are other landowners in your district whose motivations with regard to their properties may be similar to mine (although I am unable to cite any specific properties) . If there are, perhaps your policy, when adopted, might take these motivations into account. I might begin by saying that condemnation of my property in the foreseeable future would be most unwelcome to me. It is the,,why,, behind that feeling which I would hope could be taken into account in your policy. A number of years ago, I owned a home on an acre in a developed portion of Portola Valley as well as the property on which I now reside at 875 Portola. Road in Portola Valley. As you may know, it is commonly known as El Mirador Ranch. It stretches from behind the Town Center to Svline between Neal's Gulch on the east and Bull Run Creek and Old La Honda Road on the west. I sold my home in the developed area and moved to the property last referred to. I did so in the belief that the Town of Portola Valley had been set up to prevent the development of properties like that and that the zoning and other regulations of the Town would effectively prevent or at least make very difficult any development of the property. Having concluded that it was improbable that in the foreseeable future there could be any development of the property, it seemed to me that I might still benefit from it, from moving on to it, living on it, and enjoying it. That is what I have done. Like most homeowners, I have, and have come to enjoy, devoting a great deal of time and energy to maintaining the property. In having done so and in hoping to be able to continue to do so, it seems to me that in a very real sense Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 21, 1985 Page 2 with regard to this one particular piece of land, I am accomplishing for purely selfish reasons what your District is charged to accomplish with regard to the lands that it acquires. I can appreciate the use of condemnation to forestall changes in use of land deemed important by the District to have remain undeveloped. Human beings, being mortal, may be replaced by others whose motivations may differ fron their predecessors. However, they do seem to live long enough in terms of the time over which the District would accomplish its objectives, to justify in the ordering of its priorities, the District taking into account the probable motivation of one owner in owing a piece of land as against the differing motivations of another owner owning a different piece of land. Nor, it seems to me, must the District take the word of the owner of a piece of land as to what constitutes that owner's motivations. The motivations of at least some owners with regard to the reasons for holding land appear to me to be easily ascertainable from facts readily known in the community with regard to how that owner has acted with regard to the land in question. Such things as how long the owner has lived on it, whether the owner lives on it, whether the owner has taken steps toward devel- opment and similar facts are readily ascertainable. It may even be that the failure of the District to take into account such facts would constitute a failure by its people to perform their duties leading to a misuse of the funds of the District. With respect, I urge you to consider incorporating into any policy that you may adopt with regard to condemnation a differentiation in the priority of the need to condemn based on perceivable motivations of one landowner with regard to one piece of land compared to another landowner and another piece of land. Very truly yours, 1 C. s ead, Jr. MCM:mm I i i Written COI10 1Cation Meeting 85-16 June 26, 1985 J � I III J it I JOHN P.MARDEN 22100 ALAMITOS RD. SAN JOSE,CAL. 1 95120 I I I I� I I i I I I I I i '�------- --tom — —�— _—_ T_ - ._._ i i i'; i i i I I � fl� i V I 1 i I M �I i i i i i j � I i �� I .4` 1 I i i it li I I II 1 i� i �� � ----- THOMAS E. HARRINGTON WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985 June 18 , iyE85 Board of Directors mIDPENINSULA REGIUNAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 Distel Circle , Suite D-1 Los Altos , CA 94022 Subject : Condemnation Policy Gentlemen : I have read the "Alternative Policies " apparently worked out in workshop committee regarding condemnation. my copy came from the South Skyline Association. I recommend the District adopt this policy. It would do wonders for the District ' s image and seems a far cry from existing prac- tices , real or perceived . Very t ly yo rs , nomds t . rr ton 42U1 Page mill Road Los Altos , CA 94U22 TEH/kje 105 Fremont Avenue Los Altos, California 94022 (415)941-6900 Written Com cation -.ysida"F�s`h n Meeting 85-16 June 26, 1985 148 La Honda Road • Woodside, CA 94062 -� � Ol T ALTERNATIVE POLICIES 1. Interests In land shall be purchased only from grilling 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 his obtained from a professional appraiser,the District may utilize eminent domain to acquire the property,subject to all legal requirements. Issue:Now is `clearly indicated' to be demonstrated by staff? 3a. In negotiations or discussion with landowners,District staff shall not threaten eminent domain. 3b. In negotiations or discussion 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 occupied parcel developed to its legal density. 4b. Eminent domain may not be used by the District for the partial acquisition 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 zcquision 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 reuonable access d use of property. 5. Eminent domzin may be used when requested .-conz,)nted to by the landowner. 6. Eminent domain may be used only in those instances where all reasonable attempts at voluntary negotiations fall 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 an contiguous land under one ownership on May 1. 1985. 8. Eminent domain may be used to acquire a portion of improved prop,�rty to connect two or more District parcels,subject to legal requirements and the follow Z conditions: A. The District Board finds that the property Is necessary to provided 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 acquistion,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 publicised. Definitions: a. occupied ...six months a year minimum b. improve... includes occupied legal or legally non-conforming residences and excludes trailers, mobile homes,and temporary structures. -end- Before any of the above ideas are adopted.they will be more formally written in a cobcise fors. In addition,the Committee has submitted a sample policy on arbitration of reasonable value in cases of eminent domain. Also included is an example of a possible 10 year contract with property owners for restraint of use of eminent domain- to Implement propw ed policy • 9 above. Alterta7,tive policies on annexrtion, Brcrun tct, ud wit-cf-District purchzaes will be available WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985 184 Lockhart Lane Los Altos,CA 94022 June 24, 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Park District 375 Distel Drive Los Altos,CA 94022 Dear Directors: It is my belief that you will box yourselves into a corner if you give up MRPD's right of Eminent Domain. Plem do not give into the pressures of a small group of land owners. You job Is think of the district as a whole. Sincerely, Ruth Troetschler 1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIUL. Meeting 85-16 June 26, 1985 sw &�* SHERRILL CELLARS 1185 Skvline Hivd., Palo Alto Pot Luck Lunch P. 0. Box 4155. Woodside, CA 94062 July 14, 1985 1415)851-1932 Noon to 4pm Board of Directors MROSD Distel Cicrle Los Altos CA Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Directors, Staff members, Rangers, and Docents, We would like to invite you to join us, the Board of Directors of POST and the SSA Directors at a pot luck picnic at the winery on Sunday July 14, 1985. This will be a good opportunity for us to get together in a very informal way; to simply meet and chat without the pressures of formal meetings. Many of you have expressed curiosity about just what we do at the winery and this will be a chance to have the mysteries unraveled. We will provide wines and picnic tables. Bring what ever you wish and don't worry about whether it will fit . . . there will be plenty of variety. Please bring a dish of your choice for 8 or 8. We are located 314 mile South of the Skyline / Page Mill Rd. intersection on the Bay side of Skyline Blvd at 1185. Our big multi- colored cloth carp will be flying at the end of our driveway. Dress e very informal keeping in mind the tremendous range of should b y p g g weather we are likely to have in a space of a few hours. Be prepared for hot or cold! Of course you are welcome to bring a spouse or friend. Looking forward to seeing you, I I R-85-30 (Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 20 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ad Hoc Committee to Formulate Alternative Policies: Dick Bishop, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner SUBJECT: Acquisition Policies Pertaining to Use of Eminent Domain, Brown Act Compliance , Sphere of Influence Boundary, and Annexations Dear Colleagues: The Committee has completed its charge and is returning with language which consolidates what we believe to be policies acceptable to the Board. Paragraph 2 speaks to the concept of the use of arbitration, to eminent domain exemption contracts , and the encouragement of private open space preservation. If adopted, these concepts would be considered further by us at a future date. The Committee is recommending that the term of the contract be extended to 25 years . #4 of Eminent Domain includes two options for trail connections. Option #1 would be for improved property, and Option #2 would be for unimproved property. Or the Board may wish neither or both. Brown Act Implementation includes two options which pertain to retention or withdrawal of the list. R-85-30 Page Two R E V I S E D LAND ACQUISITION POLICIES It is the desire of the District to acquire open space land from willing sellers. 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 alternate acquisitions that would achieve the District' s objectives. In negotiations or discussions with landowners, the District staff shall not threaten eminent domain but will explain relevant law and District policy if the subject is raised by the landowner. The Board shall approve a brochure which shall explain such policy, include information on the use of arbitration, open space easements and contracts., and life estates , and will encourage eminent domain exemption contracts (see attached) and private open space preservation. In establishing routes for trails , the District shall plan in consultation with and respect the privacy of developed communities. EMINENT DOMAIN Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an occupied parcel that is not susceptible to further subdivision. The use of eminent domain shall not be considered except under the following conditions: 1. there is a request or consent by the landowner, or 2. the land is unimproved, and a. a subdivision application is filed or a division of ownership is recorded which creates more than one (1) additional parcel or ownership, or b. more than one (1) subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is recorded creating one (1) additional parcel within a ten (10) year period for any contiguous land under one ownership as of May 1 , 1985 , 3 . in the case of an occupied parcel , only the undeveloped portion may be acquired, provided that: a. the residence and surrounding lands of no less than minimum lot size under the existing zoning district shall be exempt, and b. the owner shall be entitled to retain such easements as are needed for reasonable access and use of the property. C. Acquisition of property under Policy No. 3 must meet the require- ments of Policy No. 2 . 4. a portion of (improved/unimproved) property is required to connect two or more District parcels , subject to legal requirements and the following conditions: 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 III R-85-30 Page Two REVISED LAND ACQUISITION POLICIES Ot os tje desore pf tje D It is the desire of the District to acquire open space land from willing sellers . Eminent domain may be used only in those instances R-85-30 Page Two LAND ACQUISITION POLICIES It is the desire of the District to acquire open space land from willing sellers. 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 alternate acquisitions that would achieve the District 's objectives. In negotiations or discussions with landowners , the District staff shall not threaten eminent domain but will explain relevant law and District policy if the subject is raised by the landowner. The Board shall approve a brochure which shall explain such policy, include information on the use of arbitration, open space easements and contracts,, and life estates, and will encourage eminent domain exemption contracts (see attached) and private open space preservation. In establishing routes for trails , the District shall plan in consultation with and respect the privacy of developed communities. EMINENT DOMAIN Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an occupied parcel that is not susceptible to further subdivision. The use of eminent domain shall not be considered except under the following conditions: 1. there is a request or consent by the landowner, or 2. the land is unimproved, and a. a subdivision application is filed or a division of ownership is recorded which creates more than one (1) additional parcel or ownership, or b. more than one (1) subdivision application is filed or division of ownership is recorded creating one (1) additional parcel within a ten (10) year period for any contiguous land under one ownership as of May 1, 1985 , 3. in the event that an occupied parcel is capable of further subdivision, only the undeveloped portion of such occupied parcel may be acquired, provided that: a. the residence and surrounding lands of no less than minimum lot size under the existing zoning district shall be exempt, and b. the owner shall be entitled to retain such easements as are needed for reasonable access and use of the property. 4. a portion of (improved/unimproved) property is required to connect two or more District parcels , subject to legal requirements and the following conditions: 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 R-85-30 Page Three 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. Policies pursuant to restraint of eminent domain shall be adopted by ordinance, legally notices 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 BROWN ACT IMPLEMENTATION Option #1 1. Retain list but delete the following as requested by owner: a. occupied residential parcels, or b. improved parcels , or C. any parcel. Option #2 1. Withdraw the current list and: a. list the parcels and owners ' names on the published agenda for the meeting' s Closed Session, b. orally announce at the beginning of the public meeting any emergency additions , C. minutes shall reflect the names and parcels of all such additions , d. written notice shall be given to the property owner which shall be mailed at least 5 days prior to the meeting at which the property is discussed. In all emergency situations , staff shall attempt to contact the property owner by telephone. 2. Policies adopted by the Board shall be publicized. Manner of publi- cizing shall be determined by the Board after the policies are adopted. 3. Write an explanatory letter to all landowners or tenants whom the District has good reason to believe were offended by the initial list. Definition: C. request --- District will make request forms available to any landowner R-85-30 Page Four ACQUISITION AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY The District shall limit its acquisition to lands wholly or partially within the District' s boundary and sphere of influence. Any significant extension of the sphere shall be approved by LAFCO and the voters of the entire District. ANNEXATIONS All annexations shall be according to State law and LAFCO procedures. Such annexations shall be approved by property owners of land to be annexed. The District may consider annexation of lands owned by the District or in which the District owns a legal right; and will consider annexation of parcels or land area initiated by LAFCO or by petition. Definitions: d. District boundary --- the legal boundary of the District, including the original District plus subsequent annexations. e. Sphere of influence --- an area somewhat larger in four places than the area within the District boundaries. Adopted by the Local Agency Formation Com- mission (LAFCO) as the places where extension of the District boundaries through annexation might logically occur in the foreseeable future. R-85-30 Page Five SUGGESTED POLICY RE: ARBITRATION 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 resolution 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 VII , Chapt. 11) R-85-30 Page Six D R A F T EMINENT DOMAIN EXEMPTION CONTRACT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made at California, between Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a public open space district ("District") and ("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 as 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 25 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 R-85-30 Page Seven D R A F T 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 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 reso- lution, 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. R-85-33 (Meeting 85-16 oe June 26 , 1985) 0 0"M MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 20 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Background: On May 22 , 1985 and June 5 , 1985 (see memorandum M-85-84 , dated May 15 , 1985 and M-85-93 , dated May 31 , 1985) you reviewed a Use and Management Plan amendment to allow a commercial trail connection from the private Brooks property to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve trail system. You approved a specific process by which illegal grading on District lands could be mitigated and the trail connection completed. Discussion: The property owners (known as Silver Dove Associates) and District staff have reached an understanding in the form of the attached proposed Agreement. Based upon your instructions, the initial trail work has commenced and by the time of your meeting, the work will have been completed. The salient terms of the Agreement are as follows: 1) The property owners have already deposited $2 ,900 with the District to pay for the illegal-grading corrective work, with the District paying the balance of the cost to connect the trail to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve trail system. 2) The owners will maintain the entire trail in accordance with District specifications as long as it remains a trail that only serves the Brooks property. 3) The owners have agreed to pay one-half of the cost of constructing the public trail to Lower Stevens Creek Park when and if the County of Santa Clara agrees to such a connection; at that time the owners and the District would share equally all trail maintenance costs. 4) The owners have agreed to grant the District a 100-foot wide Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement at the rear of their property to insure that no future grading is done and have also agreed to grant the District a Public Trail Easement across the rear of their property in the event Santa Clara County agrees to a future trail connection over County property. R-85-33 Page Two Recommendation: I recommend that you approve and adopt the accompanying -Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Lands of Silver Dove Associates) . I further recommend that these real property interests be named as an addition to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and that these interests be dedicated. RESOLUTION NO. 8 5 3 4 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT, AUTHOR- IZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHOR- IZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (FREMONT OLDER OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES) The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Agreement between Silver Dove Associates , a California General Partnership, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, dated June 19 , 1985 , a copy of which is attached hereto and by refer- ence made a part thereof, and authorizes the President or appropriate officers to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District. Section Two. The President of the Board of Directors or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance to any conveyance of any interest in said property. Section Three. The General Manager of the District shall cause to be given appropriate notice of acceptance to the seller. The General Manager further is authorized to execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to the closing of the trans- action. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this of June, 1985 , by and between SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES , a California General Partner- ship, hereinafter called "Stable Operator" or "Operator" and MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a Public District, here- inafter called "District. " WHEREAS , Operator is the owner of certain real property as described- in the Policy of Title Insurance Number 96-003787 from American Title. Insurance Company, dated March 29 , 1985 and designated Exhibit "I" , as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; said property hereinafter called "Subject Property" , and WHEREAS , District is the owner of adjacent lands commonly known as the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, hereinafter called "FOOSP" as shown on the map labeled Exhibit "II" , as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and WHEREAS , on or about April 25 , 1985 , Operator, being desirous of connecting the Subject Property to FOOSP with an equestrian trail to enhance Operator ' s co,-nercial stable graded on District lands without be.-Iefi-, of permit and in violation of District ordinances , and WHEREAS , District desires and Operator agrees that Operator shall pay for the reconstruction and repair of all grading damage done to FOOSP and thereafter, District shall allow Operator to have a commer- cial trail connection to FOOSP, hereinafter "Commercial Trail" , pro- vided that Operator gives District an Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement and Public Trail Easement in the form of Exhibit "III" , as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to ensure that further grading damage is not contemplated by Operator, and WHEREAS , Districi- at its sole cost and (,xpense shall construct the balance of said Commercial Trail within the boundaries of FOOSP pro- vided that Operator agrees to certain maintenance obligations and grantsto District the Public Trail Easement through the Subject Property (as a part of the easement described in Exhibit "III") for an eventual trail connection from FOOSP to Santa Clara County Lower Stevens Creek Park. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows : Agreement - Silver Dove Associates Page Two 1. Responsibility for Trail Construction and Repair a) Immediately, upon execution of this Agreement by Operator, Operator shall deposit with District Two Thousand Nine Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2 ,900 . 00) in cash or faithful Performance Bond, as acceptable to District, for repair and reconstruction of the area illegally graded by Operator on FOOSP and District shall thereupon complete the repair and reconstruction of said Commercial Trail as it effects the lands of District. b) Concurrently with the repair of the illegal grading as above mentioned, District shall , at its sole cost and expense, complete construction of said Commercial Trail to connect with the existing FOOSP trail system. c) Operator shall be responsible for and complete , at its sole cost and expense, the repair and reconstruction of any portion of said Commercial Trail as lies within the boundaries of the Subject Property. d) In the event that Operator and Distirct are successful in Inking the Commercial Trail with the Santa Clara County Lower Stevens Creek Park for a Public Trail from FOOSP to the County Park as contemplated by this Agreement, District shall construct said Public Trail and Operator and District shall share the cost of construction on an equal (50/50) basis. 2 . Res;DonsiJiDility for Trail Maintenance a) Following completion of the Trail in accordance with Para- graph 1 a) and b) above , Operator shall be responsible for any and all maintenance obligations for said Commercial Trail at District 's direction and in accordance with District specifications. Operator shall continue to be responsible for any and all trail maintenance on the Subject Property. b) In the event that the Public Trail is constructed as pro- vided in Paragraph 1 d) above, Operator and District shall share equally (50/50) all trail maintenance from the FOOSP trail system to the County Park trail system at District direction and in accordance with District specifications , - and said Commercial Trail and Public Trail designations shall merge and become one and the same and be forever known as a Public trail. 3 . Description of Deeded Property Interests Operator agrees to give to District and District agrees to accept from Operator an Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement and Public Trail Easement (Exhibit III) over a portion of the Subject Property located within the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Agreement - Silver Dove Associates Page Three 4. Timing of Easement Transfer and Recordation Operator shall execute, in a form acceptable for recordation, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement: the original Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement and Public Trail Ease-' ment (Exhibit III) and a Memorandum of this Agreement. The original Easement and Memorandum of Agreement may be recorded by District immediately upon approval by the Board of Directors as provided in Paragraph 11 hereinbelow. 5. Commissions District shall have no obligation to pay any real estate agent ' s' commission or other related costs or fees in connection with this Agreement. 6. Leases or Occupancy of Premises Operator warrants that there are no oral or written leases or rental agreements affecting any portion of the Subject Property where interests therein are being conveyed to District or any per- sons law ally occupying said property wherein said lessees or tenants or occupants shall be displaced as a result of the conveyance of this easement to District and operator further warrants and agrees to hold District free and harmless and to reimburse District for any and all costs , liability , loss or expense , _i -ncluding costs for legal services , occasioned by reason of ainy such lease , rental agreement or occupancy of the property wherein said lessees or tenants or occupants shall be displaceC' as a result of the conveyance of the easement as set forth herein (including, but not limited to relocation payments and expense provided for in Section 7270 et seq, of the California Government Code) . 7 . Survey In the event a survey is necessary for Operator' s use in the preparation of maps or legal descriptions for the conveyance of the easement as provided in this Agreement , said survey shall be conducted by and paid for by Operator . However, any survey requested by District solely for its own use shall be paid for by District. 8 . Rights and Liabilities of the Parties in the Event of Termination In the event this Agreement is terminated for any reason, all parties shall be excused from any further obligations hereunder, provided; however, District expressly reserves any rights and remedies which it may have against Operator by reason of a wrongful termination of this Agreement or by reason of the illegal grading and damage caused to FOOSP by Operator. Agreement - Silver Dove Associates Page Four 9. Operator ' s Warranties a) This Agreement and all other documents delivered by Operator to District now or at the close of this transaction have been or will be duly authorized, executed and delivered by Operator and are legal , valid and binding obligations of Operator sufficient to convey title to District, and are enforceable in accordance with their respective terms and do not violate any provisions of any agreement to which Operator is a party, or any articles , by-laws or corporate resolution of Operator. b Operator warrants that the interests in the Subject Property shall be conveyed to District free and clear of all and any recorded or unrecorded option rights or purchase rights held by any third party. 10. Miscellaneous Provisions 10. 01 Choice of Law. The internal laws of the State of Cali- fornia, regardless of any choice of law principles, shall govern the validity of this Agreement , the con- zt­­ction its s terms and the interpretation of the L _ _ rights and duties of the parties. 1-0. 02 Fees . If either party hereto incurs any inc]_;-,ding reasonable attorneys ' fees , in connection with any action or proceeding instituted by reason of any default or alleged default of the other party hereunder, the party prevailing in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable expenses and attorneys ' fees . 10. 03 Amendment and Waiver . The parties hereto may by mutual i-q—rf-Eten agreement amend this Agreement in any respect. Any party hereto may: (i) extend the time for the per- formance of any of the obligations of the other party; (ii) waive any inaccuracies in representations and warranties made by the other party contained in this Agreement or in any documents delivered pursuant hereto; (iii ) waive complicance by the other party with any of the covenants contained in this Agreement or the per- formance of any obligations of the other party; or (iv) waive the fulfillment of any condition that is - precedent to the performance by such party of any of its obligations under this Agreement. Any agreement on the part of any party for any amendment , extension or waiver must be in writing. Agreement Silver Dove Associates Page Five 10- 04 Ejal�ts Cumulative. Each and all of the various rights , powers and remedies of the parties shall be considered to be cumulative with and in addition to any other rights , powers and remedies which the parties may have at law or in equity in the event of the breach of any of the terms of this Agreement. The exercise or par- tial exercise of any right, power or remedy shall neither constitute the exclusive election thereof nor the waiver of any other right, power or remedy avail- able to such party. 10. 05 Notices . All notices , consents , waivers or demands of any kind which either party to this Agreement may be required or may desire to serve on the other party in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and may be delivered by personal service or sent by tele- graph or cable or sent by registered or certified mail , return receipt requested, with postage thereon fully prepaid. All such communications shall be addressed as follows : CPERATOR: Silver Dove Associates c/o Kenneth W. Brooks 22599 Mt. Eden Road Saratoga, CA 95070 DISTRICT: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3715 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , CA 94022 Attn: Herbert Grench General Manager If sent by telegraph or cable, a confirmed copy of such telegraphic or cabled notice shall promptly be sent by mail (in the manner provided above) to the addressee. Service of any such communication made only by mail shall be deemed complete on the date of actual delivery as shown by the addressee ' s registry or certification receipt or at the expiration of the third (3rd) business day after the date of mailing, whichev,,-,.r is earlier in- time. Either party hereto may from time to time, by notice in writing served upon the other as aforesaid; designate a different mailing address or a different person to which such notices or demands are thereafter to be addressed or delivered. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall excuse either party from giving oral notice to the other when prompt notification is appropriate , but any oral notice given shall not satisfy the requirement of written notice as provided in this section. Agreement - Silver Dove Associates Page Six 10. 06 Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be void or unenforceable by or as a result of a determination of any court of competent jurisdic- tion, the decision of which is binding upon the parties , the parties agree that such determination shall not result in the nullity or unenforceability of the remain- ing portions of this Agreement. The parties further agree to replace such void or unenforceable provisions of this Agreement with valid and enforceable provisions which will achieve, to the extent possible , the economic, business and other purposes of the void or unenforce- able provisions. 10. 07 Couterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts , each of which shall be deemed as an original , and when executed , separately or together, shall constitute a single original instrument, effective in the same manner as if the parties had executed one and the same instrument. 10. 08 V7 aiver. No waiver of any term, provision or condition of this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, in any one or more instances , shall be deemed to be, or be construed as , a further or continuing waiver of any such term, provision or condition or as a waiver of any other term, provision or condition of this Agreement. 10. 09 Entire Agreement. This Agreement is intended by the parries to be the final expression of this Agreement; it embodies the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties hereto; it constitutes a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof; and it supersedes any and all other prior correspondence, conversations , negotiations , agreements or understandings relating to the same subject matter. 10. 10 Time—of Essence. Time is of the essence of each pro- vision of this Agreement in which time is an element. 10. 11 Survival of Covenants . All covenants of District or Operator which are expressly intended hereunder to be performed in whole or in part after the close of the transaction or recordation of a conveyance of any interests in the Subject Property, and all representa- tions and warranties by either party to the other, shall survive the close of escrow and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective parties hereto and their respective heirs , successors and permitted assigns. Agreement Silver Dove Associates Page Seven 10 . 12 Assignment. Except as expressly permitted herein, neither party to this Agreement shall assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any third party without the prior written approval of the other party. 10 . 13 Further Documents and Acts. Each of the parties hereto agrees to execute and deliver such further documents and perform such other acts as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate and carry into effect the transactions described and contemplated under this Agreement. 10. 14 Binding on Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of its terms , conditions and covenants are intended to be fully effective and binding to the extent per- mitted by law, on the successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto. 10. 15 Captions . Captions are provided herein for convenience only and they form no part of this Agreement and are nc-'_ to serve as a basis for interpretation or construc- t--' .-,n of this Agreement , nor as evidence of the intention II of the parties hereto. 10. 16 Pronoun References. In this Agreement, if it be appro- 7cr, ate , the use of the singular shall include the plural , and the plural shall include the singular, and the use of any gender shall include all other genders as appropriate. 11 . Acceptance District shall. have until thirty (30) days following execution and delivery of this Agreement by Operator to approve and accept this Agreement and during said period this instrument shall con- stitute an irrevocable offer by Operator to give and convey the interest in the Subject Property to District for the considera- tion and under the terms and conditions herein set forth. Provided that this Agreement is accepted and executed by District, this transaction shall close as soon as practicable in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. 12 . Accrual The provisions hereof shall accrue to the benefit of and bind the respective heirs , devisees , assigns , or successors in interest of the parties hereto. Agreement - Silver Dove Associates Page Eight IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers . MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE OPERATOR: DISTRICT Silver Dove Associates, a California General Partnership APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Kenneth W. Brooks , Parnter Date: Stanley Norton, District Counsel ACCEPTED -7Off? RECOMMENDATI014: By: Richard Humphrey , Partner Date: L. Craig Britton , SR/Wt-,. Land Acquisition Manager APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: 'fi—resident , Board of Directors ATTEST: District Clerk Date: Policy No: 96-003787 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE A Premium $1 , 288. 00 Amount of Insurance $416 , 344. 68 Date of Policy March 29 , 1985 at 3: 08 p.m. Order Number 11561/8500375 1 , Name of Insured : SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership; BURT G. LOESCHER AND HELEN A. LOESCHER; BOB F . HELMS; JAMES REID AND JOAN REID 2. The estate or interest referred to herein is at date of this policy vested in: SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership 3. The estate or interest in the land described in Schedule C and which is covered by this policy is : A FEE AS TO PARCEL ONE, AN EASEMENT AS TO PARCELS TWO AND THREE SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage, nor against costs, attorneys ' fees or expenses , any or all of which arise by reason of the following : PART I All matters set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 (one) to 11 ( eleven) inclusive on the inside cover sheet of this policy under the heading I . Countersigned : By: Autho iz Signatory EX IM Form T-580 //80) Page ! of t9 I Pol- 1 No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE 8 PART IT 1 . General and Special Countv Taxes for the fiscal year 1985-86, a lien not yet due and payable, including personal property tax, if any. Taxes for the fiscal year 1984-85 have been paid , as follows: Bill No. 503-74-007 Code: 60-014 First Installment $150. 33 PAID Second Installment $150 . 33 PAID Exemption NONE Personal Property $3 , 200. 00 Taxes for the fiscal year 1984-85 have been paid , as follows: Bill No. 503-10-042 Code: 60-002 First Installment $1 . 20 PAID Second Installment $1 . 20 PAID Exemption NONE Additional amounts as may hereafter be assessed within the guidelines defined in Chapter 49 and 242 of the State of California Statutes of 1979. The lien of supplemental taxes if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 498 Statutes of 1983 of the State of California. 2. Easement for the purposes stated herein and incidents thereto, For A single line of poles Granted to The Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California corporation Recorded January 9 , 1926, in Book 208, Page 224, Official Records Affects An undertermined width 3 . Easement for the purposes stated herein and incidents thereto, For Transmission of electric energy Granted to The Pacific Gas and Electric Company , a California corporation Recorded December 28 , 1949, in Book 1899, Page 139, Official Records Affects Beginning at a point in the Southerly boundary line of said premises, from which an iron monument the Southwest corner of said premises bears North 74* 45 ' West 10. 4 feet distant, and running thence North 282. 9 feet; thence North 100 091 East 975 feet, more or less, to the Northerly boundary line of said premises. EAHILo- page '?- of L ? Poll-y No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED 4 . Easement for the purposes stated herein and incidents thereto, For Electrical conductors Granted to The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company Recorded October 6 , 1955 in Book 3299 , Page 118 , Affects Over the same parcel of land described in Exception #2 above 5 . Easement for the purposes stated herein and incidents thereto, For Pipe lines Granted to R. V. Garrod , et ux Recorded September 11 , 1957 , in Book 3886, Page 470 , Official Records Affects The exact location thereof is not disclosed therein. 6. The right to take 350 gallons of water per day from a reservoir situate on said land , as reserved in the Deed from Edwin L. Poor, et ux , recorded July 11 , 1958 , in Book 4119 , Page 630 of Official Records. 7 . Easements and rights contained in the Deed to Ralph S. Sims , et ux , recorded May 22, 1963 in Book 6033 , Page 312 of Official Records , as follows : I . The riaht to the use of, and necessary maintenance of, the access. road , dam, reservoir , pump, water lines , septic tank and drainage lines appurtenant thereto, and all other facilities now existing on the 37. 823 acre parcel of land adjacent to the North, together with the right to take 350 gallons of water per day from the present dam and reservoir situate partly on the 37. 823 acre parcel of land adjacent to the North, for domestic use and for watering the garden and trees. II . A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress and for the installation and maintenance of public utilities over a strip of land 50. 00 feet wide, extending from the Northerly line of Mount Eden Road , Northwesterly to the Northeasterly line of Parcel No. 1 hereinabove described, over the now existing ( 1963 ) roadway , as indicated on that certain PEcord of Survey of the land of E. L. Poor, et ux , the Map of which was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on July 18 , 1958 in Book 95 of Maps, at Page 28 , and lying all within the 37. 823 acre parcel shown upon said Record of Survey and being a portion of Section 34 T. 7 S. R. 2 W. M.D. B. & M . EXHIBIT Page ...33 of Poli No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED III . A non-exclusive easement for the installation and maintenance of a well , pipe lines and other appurtenances, including the right to enlarge, deepen or improve said well , over a strip of land 20 feet wide, the centerline of which begins at the most Northerly corner of that certain 1 . 50 acre parcel of land shown upon the Map of Record of Survey of the land of E. L. Poor, et ux , which said Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on July 18 , 1958 in Book 95 of Maps , at Page 28; running thence in a generally Northeasterly direction one hundred ( 100 ' ) feet, more or less, to the centerline of an existing well ; thence continuing in said same Northeasterly direction 10. 00 feet , to the terminus of said strip, and being a portion of Section 34 T. 7 S. R. 2 W. M .D.B. & M. the sidelines of said 20 foot easement being extended to intersect the Northeasterly and Northwesterly lines of said 1 . 50 acre parcel . 8 . Agreement for Taking of water from a reservoir Executed by Burt G. Loescher, et ux And between Ralph Sims, et ux On the terms and conditions contained therein , Recorded May 22, 1963 in Book 6033 , Page 314 , IX Official Records 9. Easements, rights, and conditions contained in the Deed to Malcolm R. Malcomson, et ux , recorded June 19, 1968 in Book 8161 , Page 66 of Official Records, as follows: I. Non-exclusive rights of way, as appurtenant to the parcel of land described as Parcel One in said Deed, or any portion thereof , for use as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds, pedestrians, and animals, over portions of the 37. 823 acre tract of land described in the Deed of Trust executed by Burt G. Loescher, et ux, recorded May 22, 1963 , Book 6033 Official Records , Page 324 in Section 34, T. 7 , S. R. 2 W. , M.D. B. & M . , described as follows: A. Over a strip of land 40 feet wide, the Northeast line of which is described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Northwest line of Mt. Eden Road distant thereon 118 feet Southwest of the most Southerly corner of 9. 996 acre tract of land described in the Deed to Jack Hoffman, et al , recorded August 19, 1965 , Book 7075, Official Records , Paqe 648; thence from said point of beginning Northwest 110 feet, more or less, to a point in the Southwest line of said Hoffman, et al , parcel , distant thereon N. 63* 05 ' 05" W. 45 feet from the most Southerly, corner of said Hoffman parcel; thence along the Southwest line of said Hoffman parcel , N. 63* 05 ' 05" W. 180 . 63 feet; N. 370 42 ' 35" W. 236. 24 feet and N. 130 02 ' 20" W. to the cEvXffFw of- n,ff existing ( 1968 ) road known as Giant Oak Road. - _ Page .. of Iq Poli, � NO: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED B. Over the existing road ( 1968) , known as Giant Oak Road, beginning at the intersection of the centerline of said existinq road with the Southwest line of said Hoffman parcel; thence along said existing road generally Northwesterly to a Giant Oak , and a like right of way over a strip of land , 40 feet wide, across said 37. 823 acre tract, so described in said Loescher Deed of Trust excepting therefrom the 9. 996 acre tract of land described in the Deed to Jack Hoffman, et al , recorded August 19, 1965 , Book 7075 Official Records , Paqe 648 , extending from said Giant Oak, South- westerly alonq a ridqe crossing said property to the Easterly line of said parcel one described in said Deed . NOTE: The rights of Malcolm R. Malcomson & EVonne E. Malcomson in Sections A and B above were relinquished in the agreement shown herein as Item No. #9. II. A non-exclusive easement, as an appurtenance to the parcel of land described as Parcel one in said Deed , or any portion thereof , for the construction, installation, repair, maintenance and replacement of a water storage tank on a portion of Section 34 T. 7 S. R. 2 W . , M.D. B. & M. , described as follows: Commencing at the most Southerly corner of the 9.996 acre tract of land described in the Deed to Jack Hoffman, et al , recorded August 19 , 1965, Book 7075 Official Records, Page 648; thence from said point of commencement along the Southwest line of said Hoffman parcel , N. 63* 05 ' 05" W. 225. 63 feet; N. 370 42 ' 35" W. 236. 24 feet and N. 130 02 ' 20" W . 604 .71 feet to an angle point in said line of said Hffman parcel ; thence S. 70* 15 ' W. 18 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence from said point of beginning S. 70* 15 ' W. 15 feet; thence S. 19" 45' E . 15 feet; thence N. 700 151 E. 15 feet; thence N. 190 451 W. 15 feet to the point of beginning . Together with the right of ingress and egress to said last above described parcel , over the right of way hereinabove set forth in Parcel Two herein and over the existing road extending Northeast from the Giant Oak referred to in said Parcel Two to said last above described parcel of land. EXHIBIT Page 'r- of Pol- _y No: 96-003787 i SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED III . A non-exclusive right of way 5 feet wide, as an appurtenance to the parcel of land described as Parcel One above, or any portion thereof for the installation and maintenance of underground water pipe line or lines over the 37 . 823 acre tract of land described in Deed of Trust executed by Burt G. Loescher , et ux , recorded May 22 , 1963 , Book 6033 Official Records , Page 324 , excepting therefrom the 9 . 996 acre tract described in Deed to Jack Hoffman, et al , recorded August 19, 1965, Book 7075 Official Records, Page 648 and extending from the 15 foot by 15 foot parcel of r descr ibed land described in Parcel Three above,o e, to Parcel el One desc i in said Deed. IV. The non-exclusive right, as an appurtenance to the Parcel of land described as Parcel One above or any portion thereof to take water from the Garrod-Loescher Reservoir as said reservoir is referred to and described in that certain Agreement between R. V. Garrod, et ux , and Edwin L. Poor, et ux , recorded September 11 , 1957 , Book 3886 Official Records , Page 470, but in no event to exceed one-tenth of F the annual volume in said reservoir, together with rights of way for installation and maintenance of underground pipe lines over the 37. 823 acre tract of land described in Deed of Trust executed by Burt G. Loescher, et ux , recorded May 22 , 1963 , Book 6033 Official Records, Page 324 , excepting therefrom the 9. 996 acre tract described in Deed to Jack Hoffman, et al , recorded August 19 , 1965 , Book 7075 Official Records , Page 648 , extending from said reservoir to said parcel of land above described as Parcel One in said Deed . V. The grantors and grantees herein are not to share in maintenance of pump and cost of operations until such time as they are using said reservoir and taking water therefrom. 10 . Land Conservation Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Williamson Act, with the County of Santa Clara, Executed by The County of Santa Clara and Burt G. and Helene A. Loescher Recorded February 25, 1975, Book B292 , Official Records , Page 256. Series No. 4952812 11 . The effect of that certain "Resolution Altering Boundaries of the Agricultural Preserve in the County of Santa Clara" , recorded April 1 , 1975 , Book B310, Page 43 , Official Records, which recites , in part, as follows: EXH1L31T T Page of I C) Pol,-:y No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART I , CONTINUED "Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara acting pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 , that the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto is added to the Agricultural Preserve within the County of Santa Clara. " 12 . An Agreement for Road Access, executed by and between Burt G. Loescher, et ux , and Malcolm R. Malcomson, et ux , dated September 3 , 1977, and recorded September 12, 1977 , in Book D131 , Page 371 of Official Records. Reference is hereby made to the Record for particulars. 13 . Option to Purchase the herein described property by Optionor Terry E. Bibbens and Sharon A. Bibbens Optionee Burt G. Loescher and Helene A. Loescher As disclosed by Abstract of Option Agreement which recorded August 28, 1978 in Book D913, Page 501 of Official Records. (Affects a portion of said land lying Southeasterly of Mt. Eden Road) Said option agreement was amended by instrument recorded March 29, 1985, Document No. 8566396. 14 . Easement for the purposes stated herein and incidents thereto For Public Street and road, and slope purposes Granted to County of Santa Clara Recorded October 17, 1980 in Book F666 , Page 14 of Official Records Affects A portion of said land adjacent to Mt. Eden Road. 15. The terms and provisions contained in that certain instrument entitled "Compromise Settlement and Mutual Release" , dated October 12 , 1982 and entered into by and between Jack Hoffman, Nancy Hoffman, William Henderson, Flora M. Henderson, Terry E . Bibbens and Sharon A. Bibbens, and recorded June 24 , 1983 in Book H663 , Paqe 280 , Official Records, which amont other matters , provides for easements as set forth therein, reference to which is hereby made to the record thereof for full particulars. EXHIBIT -r page.._'�...of q II Pol_ _y No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED 16. A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress, as granted Recorded March 1 , 1984 , Book I345, Page 24 Official Records Affects As follows: BEGINNING at the most Northerly monument shown in Detail "B" on the Record of Survey of the monument line of Mt. Eden Road recorded i October 6 , 1977 in Book 405 of Maps, Paqe 28, County of Santa Clara, said monument lying S. 560 061 03 E. , 42. 96 feet distant from the nearest property corner, common to that certain real property conveyed to Terry E. Bibbens and Sharon A. Bibbens by Grant Deed, recorded Auqust 28 , 1978 in Book D913, Page 491 Official Records, and that certain real property conveyed to Donald B. Curchod and Cheryl Curchod by Deed of Trust, recorded March 3 , 1978 in Book D501 , Paqes 384 to 389 , said monument being the True Point of Beqinnina . Thence alonq the approximate centerline of a driveway existing on August 28 , 1978 N. 74° 20 ' 37" W. , 49.94 feet; thence N. 37° 46 ' 40" W. , 13. 60 feet ; thence N. 03" 06' 40" W. , 24 . 70 feet; thence N. 22° 02 ' 00" E. , 104 . 63 feet; thence N. 07 ' 46 ' 31 " E. , 20. 89 feet; thence N. 13' 26 ' 44" W . , 32. 28 feet; thence N. 22° 39 ' 08" W. 24. 50 feet; thence N. 320 01 ' 06" W . , 93. 75 feet; thence N. 15" 55 ' 36" W. , 40. 44 feet ; thence N. 00° 35' 08" E. , 19 . 61 feet; thence N. 14° 54 ' 55" E. , 91 . 32 feet; thence N. 08' 01 ' 50" E. , 72. 84 feet to a Point of Departure; thence leaving the approximate centerline of said existing driveway N. W 08 ' 13" E. , 18 . 33 feet; thence N. 570 44 10 E. , 45. 45 feet; thence N. 37 32 10 E. , 23. 30 feet; thence N. 11 ° 44 ' 01 " E. , 31 . 59 feet; thence N. 04° 20 ' 45" E. , 82. 47 feet; thence N. 130 37 ' 07" E. , 21 . 16 feet; thence N. 07° 04 ' 55" E. , 56. 78 feet; thence N. 03° 52 ' 48" W. , 49. 48 feet; thence N. 020 23 ' 09" W . , 24. 02 feet; thence N. 160 44 ' 05" E. , 13. 00 feet to a point on the property line common to the aforementioned Lands of Bibbens and that certain real property conveyed to Jack Hoffman, et al by Deed recorded August 19, 1965 in Book 7075, Page 648 of Official Records ; thence S . 13° 02 ' 20" E. , 63. 00 feet along said property line and terminatinq at an existing 3/4 inch iron pipe property corner. EXHIBiT T Page & of ( q Pol y No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED Beqinning at the aforementioned Point of Departure in the approximate centerline of said existing driveway and continuing along the approximate centerline of said existinq driveway N. 22* 141 56" W. , 47. 54 feet ; thence N. 57* 05 ' 41 " W. , 40. 50 feet; thence N. 83* 49 ' 0311 W. , 34. 91 feet to 6 point on the property line common to the aforementioned Lands of Bibbens and that certain real property conveyed to Curchod by Deed recorded March 3 , 1978 in Book D501 , Pages 384 to 389 of official Records , said point lying S. 11 * 301 1211 F. , 246. 42 feet from a property corner. Such being the location of the centerline of a 24. 00 foot (more or less) wide easement, 12. 00 feet either side of center for ingress and egress and construction and maintenance of a standard paved roadway, drainage swales and appurtenant facilities thereof. Also the right to maintain adjacent slopes over and under and to the left and right of the hereinbefore described easement. 17. A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress, as granted Recorded March 1 , 1984 , Book 1345, Page 24 Official Records Affects As follows: Beginning at the Southernmost corner of that certain real property conveyed to Jack Hoffman, et al , by Deed recorded August 19, 1965 in Book 7075 , Page 648 of Official Records , containing 9 . 996 acres, more or less, said point lying in Mt. Eden Road ; thence following the Southwesterly property line of said 9 . 996 acre parcel N. 65* 05 ' 05" W. , 20. 70 feet to the Northerly line of Mt. Eden Road , 40 feet wide, as shown on the Record of Survey of "Monument Line of Mount Eden Road" , recorded in Book 405 of Maps , Paqe 28, in the County of Santa Clara , this being the True Point of Beginning . Thence continuing along the Southwesterly property line of said 9. 996 acre parcel N. 63* 05 ' 05" W. , 19. 21 feet , this point being the intersection of the common boundary of said 9 . 996 acre parcel (Hoffman-Henderson) and that certain real property conveyed to Terry E. Bibbens and Sharon A. Bibbens by Grant Deed recorded August 28, 1978 in Book D913, Page 491 , of official records, with the Northerly line of Mt. Eden Road , 60 ' wide, as recorded October 17, 1980 in Book F666, Pages 14 through 19 of official Records. Thence continuing N. 630 05' 0511 W. , 80. 00 feet; thence leaving said common boundary line N. 79* 59' 13" W. , 42. 15 feet; thence parallel and 12. 00 feet distant thereof said boundary N. 63* 051 05" W. , 67. 95 feet; thence parallel and 12. 00 feet distant thereof of said boundary N. 370 42 ' 35" W. , 241 . 51 feet; thence continuing parallel and 12. 00 feet distant of said boundary N. 13* 021 20" W. and terminating a distance of 60. 00 feet. EXHIBIT Pa9e --2-0f, Policy NO: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED Such being the location of the centerline of: A 24 . 00 foot, more or less, wide easement 12. 00 feet either side of center for ingress and egress and construction and maintenance of a standard paved roadway and drainage swale. Also a 40. 00 foot wide easement 20. 00 feet on either side of said centerline as a slope easement and easement for construction and maintenance of said 24. 00 foot wide roadway and for placement of underground public utilities. 18 . Rights of the public and the County of Santa Clara over that portion of premises lying within the lines of Mt. Eden Road , as the same may now exist. 19. Any unrecorded leases which may be disclosed by an inspection of the premises. 20. A Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness of the amount stated herein, and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof , Amount $220 , 000 . 00 Dated March 26, 1985 Trustor SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership Trustee PEELLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a California corporation Beneficiary SARATOGA RETIREMENT ASSOCIATES, a California unincorporated association Recorded March 29 , 1985 Instrument No. 8366389 Said deed of trust, among other provisions, requires the prior written consent of the lender to a sale or transfer of all or any part of the property encumbered by the deed of trust and allows the lender to declare all of the sums secured by the deed of trust to be immediately due and payable if such consent is not obtained. This policy does not insure aqainst loss or damage resulting from failure to obtain such consent from the lender. EXHIBIT :C Page L 0 Of Q Po. .Lcy No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE B PART II , CONTINUED 21 . A Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness of the amount stated herein, and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof , Amount $55, 749. 80 Dated March 27, 1985 Trustor SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES, a California General Partnership Trustee AMTITLE COMPANY, a California corporation Beneficiary BURT G. LOESCHER AND HELENE A . LOESCHER, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants Recorded March 29 , 1985 Instrument No. 8366390 Said deed of trust , among other provisions, requires the prior written consent of the lender to a sale or transfer of all or any part of the property encumbered by the deed of trust and allows the lender to declare all of the sums secured by the deed of trust to be immediately due and payable if such consent is not obtained. This policy does not insure against loss or damage resulting from failure to obtain such consent from the lender. 22. A Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness of the amount stated herein, and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof, Amount $101 ,212 . 97 Dated May 10, 1983 Trustor TERRY E. BIBBENS AND SHARON A. BIBBENS Trustee TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, a California corporation Beneficiary JAMES REID AND JOAN REID Recorded June 21 , 1983 in Book H652 , Page 328 Official Records Instrument No. 7720837 The Trustee in said Deed of Trust was substituted by instrument To Statewide Foreclosure Services , Inc. , a California corporation Recorded April 17, 1984 , Book I466, Page 662 Official Records The Trustee in said Deed of Trust was substituted by instrument To Statewide Foreclosure Services , Inc. , a California corporation Recorded April 17, 1984 , Book I466, Page 663 Official Records EXHIBIT T Page II o �j w Poi,cy No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE P PART II , CONTINUED The lien or charge of said Deed of Trust was subordinated to the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust referred to in Paragraph 4 of Schedule A, by instrument recorded March 29 , 1985, under Recorder' s Instrument No. 8366392 . The lien or charge of said Deed of Trust was subordinated to the lien or charge of the Deed of Trust referred to in Paragraph I of Schedule R , Part II , by instrument recorded March 29, 1985 , under Recorder' s Instrument No. 8366392 . Said deed of trust, among other provisions, requires the prior written consent of the lender to a sale or transfer of all or any part of the property encumbered by the deed of trust and allows the lender to declare all of the sums secured by the deed of trust to be immediately due and payable if such consent is not obtained. This policy does not insure against loss or damage resulting from failure to obtain such consent from the lender. 23 . A Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness of the amount stated herein, and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof, Amount $12, 600. 00 Dated March 27, 1985 Trustor SILVER DOVE ASSOCIATES, a California General Partnership Trustee AMTITLE COMPANY, a California corporation Beneficiary BOB F. HELMS , a married man Recorded March 29 , 1985 Instrument No. 8366391 Said deed of trust , among other provisions, reauires the prior written consent of the lender to a sale or transfer of all or any part of the property encumbered by the deed of trust and allows the lender to declare all of the sums secured by the deed of trust to be immediately due and payable if such consent is not obtained. This policy does not insure against loss or damage resulting from failure to obtain such consent from the lender. 24 . A lien due the State of California, Franchise Tax Commissioner, recorded July 19, 1983 , in Book H729 , Page 516, of Official Records. Dated : July 13, 1983 Certificate No. : 83194-001016 Against : Brooks, Kenneth Amount : $653. 46 EXHIBIT Page 1 --2-,Of Pol No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE C D E S C R I P T 1 0 N All that certain real property situated in the Unincorporated Area, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: BEGINNING at a 3/4 inch iron pipe set in the 1/4 Section line running North and South through the center of Section 34 , T. 7 S.R. 2 W. , and being distant thereon North 1488. 30 feet from the 1/4 Section corner between Section 34 T. 7 S . R. 2 W . and Section 3 T. 8 S .R. 2 W. , Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; said point of beginnina also being the Northwesterly corner of that certain 40 acre tract of land conveyed by Mt. Eden Orchard Vineyard and Land Company, a corporation to L.J. Chipman, by Deed dated February 27, 1894 and recorded March 1 , 1894 in Book 166 of Deeds , at Page 504 , Santa Clara County Records ; thence running S. 746 45 ' E. and along the Northeasterly line of said 40 acre tract of land 259 . 00 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe; thence leaving said line and running N. 60* 15 ' E. 361 . 50 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe; thence S. 290 451 E. 361 . 50 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe set in the Northeasterly line of said 40 acre tract of land ; thence running along said Northeasterly line of said 40 acre tract of land , S. 74* 45 ' E. 576 . 84 feet to the Northeasterly corner thereof and on the Westerly line of that certain 45. 46 acre tract of land conveyed by Annie D 'Oyly , a widow, to L. Frankie McLellan by Deed dated March 21 , 1904 and recorded March 23, 1904 in Book 277 of Deeds , at Page 249 , Santa Clara County Records , said corner also being the Southeasterly corner of that certain 39. 50 acre tract of land conveyed by Sarah E. Haskell , et vir, to John Blackwell , et al , by Deed dated January 26, 1894 and recorded February 5 , 1894 in Book 162 of Deeds, at Page 596 , Santa Clara County Records; thence running along the dividing line between said 45. 46 acre tract of land and said 39. 50 acre tract of land , said line being in the center of a ravine, N. 18* 571 E. 188. 00 feet , N. 00 211 E. 145. 46 feet , N. 570 521 W. 84 . 31 feet, N. 15* 13 ' W. 132. 52 feet and N. 4* W. 969. 77 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said 39. 50 acre tract of land , thence leaving the Westerly line of said 45. 46 acre tract of land and running along the Northerly line of said 39. 50 acre tract of land , said line being inthe center of a ravine or gully, N. 890 45 ' W. 42. 70 feet N. 72* 45 ' W. 96. 00 feet, S. 76* 451 W. 78. 90 feet, N. 710 301 W . 49. 80 feet, S. 82* 15' W. 59. 10 feet , N. 28* 151 W. 80. 80 feet, N. 58* 151 W. 122. 80 feet, S. 85* 30' W. 99. 10 feet, S. 82* W. 181 . 10 feet , N. 88* 30 ' W. 280. 30 feet, S. 55* W. 102. 40 feet and S. 48* W. 115. 60 feet to a point on the 1/4 Section line running North and South through the center of Section 34 T. 7 S. R. 2 W . , thence running South and along said 1/4 section line, 1101 . 54 feet to the point of beginning, and containing 37. 823 acres of land , more or less, and being a portion of the aforementioned 39.50 acre tract of land in the East 1 /4 of Section 34, Township 7 S.R. 2 W. , Mount Diablo Base and Meridian Surveyed July, 1958 by Creegan & D 'Angelo, Civil Engineers. EXHIBIT a:- Description, 1 of 5 Pages Page 13. of-IT PO- y NO: 96-003787 SCHEDULE C DESCRIPTION , CONTINUED lm R. Malcolmson, et portion conveyed to Malcolm Page 66 of Official EXCEPTING THERFROm that e 19 , 1968 in Book 8161 , ux , by Deed recorded Jun follows: described as fO 2 Records , action 34 , Township 7 South, Range e tract Of on Of the East half Of Section O the 37 . 823 acre on orr, et ux , A portion M. , and being a more or west , M.D.B. & p of Record of Survey ©£ land of E. L. Pordsf land shown on Ma . page 28 , Santa Clara County Records, file in Book 95 of Maps , less and described as follows' section line running North and 3/4 inch pipe in the 1/4 34 , at its intersection with BEGINNING at a of said Section which 37- 823 acre tract South through the center3 acre tractr ed July 11 , 1958 , 1 line of said 37 . 82 said 1 /4 the Southerly Loescher by Deed record o Helene A. hence North along S 2411 E. conveyed t Page 630; t was c( records, e N. 660 41 Book 4 119 official rec inch pipe ; thence 12 feet 50 feet to a 3/4 , 110 301 Is E. 454. 35 section line 4 a 3/4 inch pipe; thence S . to a 3/4 inch . 91 4701 E. 193 .77 feet ; thence S. 3 feet to iT)e 608. 4 pipe; thence S- 18 to a 3/4 inch 177 feet to a 3/4 inch P - , 1211 E. 2' 50, 3011 E. thence S , 38* 7 23 pipe; thence S •j90 . 98 feet to a 3/4 pipe; line of said 37. 8 69 0 20, 211 E. on the Southerl�Southerly line 226 , 5 feet 7 feet to a 3/4 inch pipe 108. 5 740 45' w . along said SOu acre parcel of hence N. corner Of the 1 . 5 ay 22 , 1963r acre tract; t the Southerly cOr d recorded M along to a 3/4 inch pipe at - Sims , et ux , by Dee N. 29 0 49, 4511 W . , inch land conveyed to Ralph S PaQe 312 ; thence N 4 feet to a 3/4 Official records, arcel 360. 3 ' 1 Olt, W . along 6033 Of� line of said 1 . 5 acre P 600 2b Book thence S. inch the Northeast corner thereof ; rcel , 361 feet to a 3/4 pipe at the Northerly said 1 . 5 acre pa tract; thence N* 74' the Northwest line of of said 37 . 823 acre nt of beginning. pipe in the Southerly line line 259 feet to the POi 45 ' W. along said southerly -1 et al, 1 portion conveyed to Jack Hoffman, ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that965 in Book 7075 , Page 648 Of Official recorded August 191 by Deed reco s follows: Records , described a 37 .823 acre Rec of that certain t the Northeasterly corner to Helene A. Loescherr poor, et Ux , �,k 4119 01 BEGINNING a d conveyed by Edwin L. I recorded July 11 , 1958 in Bo( 37.82 , tract of Ian 10 , 1958 and County Records , said7 by Deed dated July 't Page 630, Santa Clara cc) Record Of Survey Official Records , a n the Map of R Clara County Of of land being delineated uPO 28, Santa Clai acre tract file in Book 95 of Maps at Page the center of a ravine; thereof on aid Northeasterly corner being in the Easterly lines Of Records , s said ravine and running along 969.77 feet to an old 3 thence leaving sal land , S. 4* 001 E. at to a 3/4 inch said 37. 823 acre tract Of ' S. 150 131 E. 132. 52 feet 3 acre t. thence Easterly boundary Of said 37. 82 inch by 3 inch post; he Easte iron pipe at an angle in t 2 of 5 Page�l EXHIBIT Page 1 of Poli No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE C DESCRIPTION, CONTINUED tract of land in Mt . Eden Road; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of said 37. 823 acre tract of land , S. 200 151 32" W. 120. 00 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe in said road; thence leaving said Mt . Eden Road, N. 630 05 ' 0511 W . 225. 63 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe; thence N. 37* 421 35" W . 236. 24 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe ; thence N. 13* 02 ' 20" W. 604. 71 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe; thence N. 70* 15' E . 27. 00 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe; thence N. 34* 07 ' 35" W. 108 . 75 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe; thence N. 37* 401 47" E. 324 .64 feet to an angle point in the Northerly boundary of said 37. 823 acre tract of land in the center of said ravine; thence along the Northerly boundary of said 37 . 823 acre tract of land along the centerline of said ravine the following courses and distances; S. 71 * 30 ' E. 49. 80 feet; thence N. 760 451 E. 78. 90 feet; thence S . 72* 45' E. 96 . 00 feet; thence S. 890 451 S. 42. 70 feet to the point of beginning , being a portion of the Southwest one-auarter of Section 34 , Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and containing 9. 996 acres of land, more or less, according to the survey thereof made by Tonkin and Williams, Surveyors and Civil Fnqineers, San Jose, in July , 1965. BEING the same parcel as shown on the Record of Survey of the Land of Terry E. Bibbens, recorded November 14, 1979 in Book 453 of Maps, Page 41 , Santa Clara County Records. PARCEL TWO: A non-exclusive easement appurtenant to Parcel One above for construction of retaining walls and erosion control ditches, among other things, over that certain real property described as follows: BEGINNING at the most Northerly monument shown ' in Detail "B" on the Record of Survey of the monument line of Mt. Eden Road recorded October 6 , 1977 in Book 405 of Maps, Page 28, County of Santa Clara, said monument lying S. 56* 061 03" E. , 42. 96 feet distant from the nearest property corner, common to that certain real property conveyed to Terry E. Bibbens and Sharon A. Bibbens by Grant Deed , recorded August 28 , 1978 in Book D913 , Page 491 Official Records , and that certain real property conveyed to Donald B. Curchod and Cheryl Curchod by Deed of Trust , recorded March 3 , 1978 in Book D501 , Pages 384 to 389, said monument being the True Point of Beginning . Thence alonq the approximate centerline of a driveway existing on August 28 , 1978 N. 740 20 ' 37" W. , 49. 94 feet; thence N. 370 461 40" W. , 13. 60 feet ; thence N. 030 061 40" W. , 24. 70 feet; thence N. 220 02 ' 00" E. , 104. 63 feet; thence N. 07 ' 46 ' 31 " E. , 20. 89 feet; thence N. 130 261 44" W. , 32. 28 feet; thence N. 22* 39 ' 08" W. 24. 50 feet; thence N. 320 011 06" W. , 93. 75 feet ; thence N. 15* 55 ' 36" W. , 40. 44 feet ; thence N. 000 35 ' 08" E. , 19. 61 feet; thence N. 14* 54 ' 55" E. , 3 of 5 Pages ECG HIS11' _F Page I ®f Pol; No: 96-003787 SCHEDULE C DESCRIPTION, CONTINUED 91 . 32 feet; thence N. 08° 01 ' 50" E. , 72. 84 feet to a Point of Departure; thence leaving the approximate centerline of said existing driveway N. 410 08 ' 13" E. , 18. 33 feet ; thence N. 57° 44 ' 10" E. , 45. 45 feet; thence N. 37° 32 ' 10" E. , 23. 30 feet; thence N. 11 ° 44 ' 01 " E. , 31 . 59 feet; thence N. 040 20 ' 45" E. , 82. 47 feet; thence N. 13° 37 ' 07" E. , 21 . 16 feet; thence N. 07° 04 ' 55" E. , 56. 78 feet; thence N. 03' 52 ' 48" W. , 49. 48 feet; thence N. 02° 23 ' 09" W. , 24. 02 feet; thence N. 16° 44 ' 05" E. , 13. 00 feet to a point on the property line common to the aforementioned Lands of Bibbens and that certain real property conveyed to Jack Hoffman, et al by Deed recorded August 19 , 1965 in Book 7075 , Page 648 of Official Records ; thence S. 13° 02 ' 20" E. , 63 . 00 feet along said property line and terminating at an existing 3/4 inch iron pipe property corner. Beginning at the aforementioned Point of Departure in the approximate centerline of said existing driveway and continuing along the approximate centerline of said existing driveway N. 22° 14 ' 56" W. , 47. 54 feet; thence N. 570 05 ' 41 " W. , 40. 50 feet; thence N. 83° 49 ' 03" W. , 34. 91 feet to a point on the property line common to the aforementioned Lands of Bibbens and that certain real property conveyed to Curchod by Deed recorded March 3 , 1978 in Book D501 , Pages 384 to 389 of Official Records , said point lying S. 110 30' 12" E. , 246 . 42 feet from a property corner. Such being the location of the centerline of a 24. 00 foot (more or less) wide easement, 12. 00 feet either side of center for ingress and egress and construction and maintenance of a standard paved roadway, drainage swales and appurtenant facilities thereof. Also the right to maintain adjacent slopes over and under and to the left and right of the hereinbefore described easement. PARCEL THREE: A non-exclusive easement appurtenant to Parcel One above for ingress and egress over that certain real property described as follows: Beginning at the Southernmost corner of that certain real property conveyed to Jack Hoffman, et al , by Deed recorded August 19 , 1965 in Book 7075 , Paqe 648 of Official Records, containing 9. 996 acres, more or less, said point lying in Mt. Eden Road; thence following the Southwesterly property line of said 9 . 996 acre parcel N. 65' 05' 05" W. , 20. 70 feet to the Northerly line of Mt. Eden Road , 40 feet wide, as shown on the Record of Survey of "Monument Line of Mount Eden Road" , recorded in Book 405 of Maps, Page 28, in the County of Santa Clara, this being the True Point of Beginning . 4 of 5 Pages EXHIBIT :E- page Pa a (r, ©f l L Polic qo: 96-003787 SCHEDULE C DESCRIPTION, CONTINUED Thence continuing along the Southwesterly property line of said 9 . 996 acre parcel N. 63* 051 05" W. , 19. 21 feet , this point being the intersection of the common boundary of said 9 . 996 acre parcel (Hoffman- Henderson) and that certain real property conveyed to Terry E. Bibbens and Sharon A. Bibbens by Grant Deed recorded August 28 , 1978 in Book D913 , Paqe 491 , of official records, with the Northerly line of Mt. Eden Road, 601 wide, as recorded October 17 , 1980 in Book F666 , Pages 14 through 19 of official Records. Thence continuinq N. 63* 05' 05" W. , 80. 00 feet; thence leaving said common boundary line N. 79* 59 ' 13" W . , 42 . 15 feet; thence parallel and 12. 00 feet distant thereof said boundary N. 630 05' 05" W. , 67. 95 feet ; thence parallel and 12 . 00 feet distant thereof of said boundary N. 370 421 35"' W. , 241 . 51 feet; thence continuing parallel and 12. 00 feet distant of said boundary N. 13* 021 20" W . and terminating a distance of 60. 00 feet. Such being the location of the centerline of: A 24. 00 foot, more or less, wide easement 12. 00 feet either side of center for ingress and egress and construction and maintenance of a standard paved roadway and drainage swale. Also a 40. 00 foot wide easement 20. 00 feet on either side of said centerline as a slope easement and easement for construction and maintenance of said 24. 00 foot wide roadway and for placement of underground public utilities. JW: jmb 6-2-85 919/B5-22 5 of 5 Pages EXHIBIT J=- 'age 1 -1 of i This is nalther a plat nor a survey. It 'ss ! furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No Ilabillty Is assumed by reason i E) of reliance hereon. American Ti ` ranceCompany r,,++ I Ir g a A t v, I A o 4, �f z LL a S C a to i ka N = I / n t � a � N a O 1i / ATLL V M i I ' •t a it . O -H-lto r' ''• 's H }a IN urK _� J o I b .,.+ / � ! I c o o C l uCyr s. II ♦. : I �• EXHibi 4♦ ,� Page l 8 of o I I This is neither a plat nor a survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land Indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. NQ11pDIII ty v� 4 O►►Icc 0! COUNTT A33 SS R. t�f�;;,1 19 1r°' brl 2 0 0t / A C of reliance hereon. AmG~ican 7itia Ir�su;atIc;eCompany 503 10 i P T N S E. 14 SEC. 34, TWP. 7 S.- RG. 2 W. i O 1 _ f' �t '0 R.OS 405/I0 fAW rr ca I ROS l4Me- may/ R O S 403,ZS W �� I ;� �� .+\ �0 II } MT. EDEM r�pP W aw 7 T R.O.Sl/B.w7 3 1.36ACf1ET I = 200' i 63Ar.GR. Y I2 374C GR 2 31AC.NET II RQS??.LSO f � +b •� \ �t 1t�R0 4D � � ROS4r133 B K 26 i ooAc k q/ . 351 o I ,j, � / 11.•GAC.GR. •�st• 73AC.NET me tt st m 3.93AC.M. I II lY i.89AC. 1006C. _ 4 /I j I4 r. r r I I rt73 AC,{11. Mr 13.?SAC.OL r ns 16 42AC NET 13.i3AGNET s rM �7 Y 06 AC.MET jg ; %�•; rnIM OW40 T.- 1.00AC.N[Tr T 7 S -R 21alop 7p� t S l r T a S.-R.2 W Ras216137 2 pa . O ,R OS 433,I3 tAV Raoea� USE of \Gr" I P J tWJI/MARtA f fir' 1 "� / 0' 1 J s \A� i RD t `�_1 — r1 �' �,� s„BUBB ........ •• OF 0I S ••••. Y. OF k" oio 411 00, L / 'I 1 ♦ �, / Q is �> O00 of , it or /; P i C C N E T i i e00 of 00, 1� `�:�� 4600 00 1, _ �� \.— 000 STERNS REEK 1�g �� f • _ •� COUNTY 0-API< o . mp arrip e ��a ^�1 %)�� SITE ?IAP (USGS) • �\ - • \ \ '-- ✓ FREMONT OLDER " onto •' �- ��"1\\\\�46:'�\\,. OPEN SPACE PRESERVE _ } Ep EXISTING TRAIL SYSTEM •*' >\ • �: c" �`' . . . . .. SUBJECT PROPERTY ttr �z ImoI • Bop� _ „ _Scale 1 1300 , t North Oh tlYlf �' If� 7�7 ! tt t ft t e rt • A - + ■ �: r t� „ �ay�y.�•' ,L; i t / :-`a.v �nnaRl�a�lpi.�irR�t� AIti�i1�iGRi 11R't�.n �k t�11 A.P.N. 503-74-007 Recorded at the request of: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , California 94022 Attn: L. Craig Britton OPEN SPACE AND RIPARIAN CORRIDOR EASEMENT AND PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT Recitations 1. The undersigned, KENNETH W. BROOKS , Partner and RICHARD HUMPHREY, Partner, of Silver Dove Associates , a California General Partnership, hereinafter called "GRANTOR" are the owners of the fee simple estate in and to that certain real property herein- after called the "Subject Property, " situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and shown on the map labeled Exhibit "B" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2 . It is the desire of GRANTOR to grant to MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a public district, hereinafter called "DISTRICT, " an Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement on, upon, over, across and under said Subject Property pursuant to Chapter 6. 6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1, Division 1, Title 5 of the Government Code, and it is further the desire of GRANTOR to grant to MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, a Public District , a Public Trail Easement over the lands of GRANTOR described in Exhibit "C" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. GRANTOR and DISTRICT recognize the scenic , aesthetic and special character of the region in which their respective proper- ties are located, and have the common purpose of conserving the natural values of their respective properties by the conveyances of an open-space easement on, over, and across the Subject Property which shall conserve and protect the animal , fish, bird, and plant population and prevent the use or development of that property for any purpose or in any manner which would conflict with the main- tenance of the Subject Property in its natural , scenic, open and wooded condition. EX H I B I T--IJ-L— Noe Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Page Two and Public Trail Easement NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration , receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, GRANTOR hereby grants to District an open space easement, upon, over and across the Subject Property in perpetuity on the following terms and conditions : 1 . General Reservation of Use by GRANTOR GRANTOR reserves the right to use the Subject Property in any manner consistent with the stated purposes , terms , condi- tions , restrictions and covenants of this easement and with existing zoning and other laws, rules and regulations of the State of California and the County of Santa Clara , or the agency having jurisdiction, as such laws , rules and regulations may here-- after from time to time be amended. 2. Specific Reservation of Use by GRANTOR GRANTOR further specifically reserves the rights to do the following , subject to a design review by DISTRICT as further defined in Paragraph 3 herein, such rights in no way to be con- sidered as a limitation of the General Reservation of Use as described in Paragraph 1 above: a. Build fences and gates of a rustic nature and erect signs as necessary to maintain security of the property; b. Construct and maintain private trails for hiking and horseback riding within the easement area, including both internal trails and connecting trails with adjacent DISTRICT land; J C. Remove diseased and/or dead plants and trees and remove such timber as may be required for fire prevention, or public health and safety; d. Plant native species of plants; 3. Design Review by DISTRICT of Specific Reservation of Use by GRANTOR DISTRICT shall have the right of Design Review and Approval as herein defined with respect to any and all uses and improvements proposed for the Subject Property as reserved by GRANTOR in Paragraph 2 above. Design Review is intended to provide a process for review and approval by the DISTRICT of use and development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in order to assure that the proposed use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity and will be compatible with environ- mental and ecological objectives. EXHIBIT —TIE Page 2— of I Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Page Three and Public Trail Easement a. With regard to any proposed uses or construction of any improvements , including but not limited to trails , signs and fencing on the property described in Exhibit "A" , and specifically allowed under Para- graph 2 above, an application for design review shall, be made to the DISTRICT. The application shall include the following: (1) A site plan showing the location of all proposed trails, signs, fences, gates , planted areas, and other improvements or uses and indicating the proposed uses or activities on the areas . (2) Drawings or sketches showing the elevations of all proposed improvements , sufficiently dimen- sioned to indicate the general scale, height, and bulk of such improvements . b. Within 30 days from the filing of the application with the DISTRICT, DISTRICT shall review the site plan and drawings , and shall make its recommendations based upon the following objectives: with respect to siting of the fences , gates , signs and other improvements, removal of natural vegatation, grading, fencing types , and erosion protection: (1) To ensure use, construction and operation in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious , and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. (2) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. C. All such trails , fences, gates , planted areas , and other improvements shall be constructed or installed in accordance with the plans as approved by the DISTRICT, provided that the DISTRICT'S approval may be withheld for any reason. 4 . Limitations on Use by GRA NTOR GRANTOR covenants and agrees for themselves and their successors and assigns , except where contrary to the above described rights specifically retained , GRANTOR shall not do any of the following: a. Erect, construct, place, or maintain or authorize the erection, construction, placement or maintenance of any improvement, building or structure or any other EXHIBIT _T1 Page I of Open Space and Riparian Corridor. Easement Page Four and Public Trail Easement thing whatsoever on the Subject Property other than such improvements , buildings , structures , or other things existing on said property at the time of the granting of this easement, or as reserved by GRANTOR under Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Easement. b. Use or authorize the use of the Subject Property for any purpose except as open space. C. Use or authorize others to use the Subject Property or any portion thereof as a parking lot, storage area or dump site or otherwise deposit or authorize to be deposited on said Subject Property or any portion thereof temporarily or otherwise anything whatsoever which is not indigenous or natural to said Subject Property, except as reserved by GRANTOR under Para- graphs I and 2 of this Grant. d. Cover or cause the Subject Property to be covered in whole or in part with any asphalt, stone, or concrete or other material which does not constitute natural cover for the land, and shall not otherwise disturb the natural cover for the land. e. Fish, trap, hunt, capture, kill or destroy or authorize the fishing, trapping, hunting, capturing or destruc- tion of fish or aquatic life of the Subject Property except in conjunction with scientific research and/or for health or safety purposes. f. Hunt or trap or authorize the hunting or trapping of animal life on the Subject Property. Pursuant thereo, GRANTOR, their successors or assigns , shall not trap, kill , capture or destroy or authorize the trapping, killing, capturing or destruction of animal life on the Subject Propertyexcept under prior written per- mission of the County of Santa Clara for health and safety purposes only. g. Divide or subdivide the Subject Property or otherwise convey (other than under threat of condemnation) a portion of such property less than the whole to one or more parties or convey said Subject Property to two or more parties each of whom acquire title to'- less than the whole of the Subject Property. As used herein "party" means and includes any person, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity capable of holding title to real property. h. Cut, uproot or remove or authorize the cutting, up- rooting or removal of timber or trees or other natural growth found or located on said Subject Property except EXHIBIT Page of I Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Page Five and Public Trail Easement as may be required for fire prevention , elimination of diseased growth , or construction and maintenance of foot trails , or maintenance of the existing roadway. i. Excavate or grade or authorize any excavation or grading to be done or place or authorize to be placed, any sand, soil , rock, gravel or material whatsoever on Subject Property except for construction and main- tenance of foot trails and roadway (s) as provided hereinabove. j . Operate or authorize the operation on the Subject Property of any motor bike, trail bike , go cart, or other motor driven or motor powered vehicles except those motor vehicles reasonably necessary for the use of GRANTOR for the accomplishment of the purposes for which the Subject Property is used pursuant to the terms and conditions , restrictions and covenants set forth herein for the Subject Property. k. Place any advertising signs of any kind or nature on the Subject Property except for identification and directional purposes consistent with the use of the Subject Property as further provided herein. 1. Plant vegetation on the Subject Property except for approved soil management, erosion control , reforesta- tion and landscape screening; all vegetation so planted shall be native California vegetation indige- nous to the area. M. Excavate, grade or change the topography of the Subject Property except as allowed and approved in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof. n. Use or allow the use of firearms or dangerous weapons on the Subject Property except for personal protection and safety. 0. Use or authorize the use of fireworks or pyrotechnics on the Subject Property. p. Play or perform or allow the playing or performan'66 of loud and disturbing amplified music. q. Build, light or maintain, or authorize others to build, light or maintain any open or outdoor fire. r. Mine, extract, sever or remove , or permit or cause to be mined, extracted, severed or removed any natural resource found or located on, above, or under the of--LL. Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Page Six and Public Trail Easement Subject Property in a manner that would jeopardize or alter the natural scenic character of the property, or to otherwise engage in any activity on the Subject Property which would or may destroy the natural and scenic characteristics of the Subject Property. 5. Rights of DISTRICT The DISTRICT shall have the right to periodic inspection of the Subject Property with prior notification of GRANTOR who, on request, may receive in a timely manner a copy of the report of such inspection by DISTRICT. 6. Limitations on Use by DISTRICT The DISTRICT shall not utilize the Subject Property in any manner whatsoever, except as provided in Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9 of this Easement. 7. No Authorization for Public Trespass The granting of this easement and its acceptance by DISTRICT does not authorize and is not to be construed as authorizing the public or any member thereof to trespass upon or use all or any por- tion of the Subject Property or as granting to the public or any member thereof any tangible rights in or to the Subject Property or the right to go upon or use or utilize the Subject Property in any manner whatsoever, except as provided in Paragraph 9 hereinbelow (Public Trail Easement) . It is understood that the purpose of this easement is solely to restrict the use to which the Subject Property may be put so that Subject Property may be kept in its natural con- dition' subject to continued use by the GRANTOR for his/her purposes and uses and the public trail easement as further described below. 8. Enforcement GRANTOR grants to DISTRICT, the right, but not the obliga- tion, to enter upon the Subject Property for the purpose of removing any building, structure, improvement or other thing whatsoever con- structed, erected, placed, stored, deposited or maintained on the Subject Property contrary to the stated purposes of this easement or to any term, condition, restriction or covenant of this easement or to prevent or prohibit any activity which is contrary to the stated purposes , terms, conditions, restrictions or covenants of this easement which will or may destroy the natural and scenic characteristics of the Subject Property, subject however to thirty (30) days written notice to GRANTOR by DISTRICT before commencement of any action on the part of DISTRICT under this Paragraph. The stated purposes, terms , conditions , restrictions and covenants set forth herein and each and all of them may be specifi- cally enforced or enjoined by proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California. EXHIBiT page t_y of 1 ) Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Page Seven and Public Trail Easement 9. Public Trail Corridor Easement GRANTOR hereby conveys to DISTRICT a nonexclusive ease- ment for public pedestrian and equestrian access (as such access may be determined by DISTRICT from time to time) , and for vehicu- lar access solely for DISTRICT by its officers , agents , and employees for patrol and maintenance purposes (it being understood that DISTRICT shall have no right to restrict GRANTOR' S own use of said easement for pedestrian and equestrian access or for vehicular access by GRANTOR for compatible purposes) where necessary over, upon and across the land described in said Exhibit "C" . Said ease- ment shall be thirty (30) feet in width, with the actual trail being a maximum of ten (10) feet in width with a buffer of ten (10-) feet on either side which shall be left in a completely natural condition by both GRANTOR and DISTRICT. Said trail shall be con- structed by DISTRICT in accordance with the objectives of optimum trail alignment , maximum environmental protection and minimum esthetic and ecological disturbance, and to the extent practical shall stay within the 100 feet Riparian Corridor as described in said Exhibit -A" , recognizing that said trail will traverse and should be compatible with the surrounding natural area. In con- structing said trail , DISTRICT shall take such steps as are neces- sary to provide for public safety in accordance with applicable state and local laws. Said trail shall be maintained in accord- ance with that certain Agreement dated June , 1985 , a Memo- randum. of which is recorded contemporaneously herewith. 10. Mutual Indemnity Each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other from any and all claims arising out of activities conducted by or under the auspices of the indemnifying party. 11. Enforceable Restriction This easement and each and every term, condition, restric- tion and covenant contained herein constitutes an enforceable restriction pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of Article XIII of the California Constitution and Chapter 6. 6 (commencing with Section 51070) of Part 1 , Division 1 , Title 5 of the Government Code and shall bind GRANTOR and his/her successors and assigns and each and all of them and is intended to run with the land. EXH1131T--7ff- Fags 7 pf Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Page Eight and Public Trail Easement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives . j MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN GRANTOR: SPACE DISTRICT Silver Dove Associates , a California General Partnership By: By: President, Board of Directors Kenneth W. Brooks, Partner Date: By: Richard Humphrey, Partner ATTEST: Date: District Clerk Date EXHIBIT— Page of Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page I of 1 Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement Situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California and being a portion of the East half of Section 34 , Township 7 South , Range 2 West, M.D.B. & M. , more particularly described as follows: BEING A STRIP OF LAND 100 feet in width measured at right angles and - Southerly of the center line of the ravine or gully described as follows: BEGINNING at a 3/4 inch pipe in the 1/4 Section line running North and South through the center of said Section 34 , at its intersection with the Southerly line of that certain 37 . 823 acre tract conveyed to Helene A. Loescher by Deed recorded July 11 , 1958 , in Book 4119 Official Records, at Page 630 of Official Records of Santa Clara County (also as shown on the map of Record of Survey of Land of E. L. Poor, et ux on file in Book 95 of Maps at Page 28, Official Records of Santa Clara County) ; thence North along said 1/4 Section line 1101 . 54 feet to a point, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING along the Northerly line of that certain 39. 50 acre tract of land conveyed by Sarah E. Haskell , et vir, to John Blackwell , et al, by deed dated January 26 , 1894 and recorded February 5 , 1894 in Book 162 of Deeds, on Page 596 , Official Records of Santa Clara County, said line being the centerline of said ravine or gully N. 48* E. 115. 60 feet, N. 551 E. 102 . 40 feet, S. 880 30 ' E. 280. 30 feet, N. 820 E. 181 . 10 feet, N. 85' 30 ' E. 99 . 10 feet, S. 580 15 ' E. 122.80 feet, S. 280 151 E. 80. 80 feet, N. 82- 15 ' E. 59. 10 feet. EXHIBIT Page Open Space and Riparian Corridor Easement EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 1 oLr?r-.,p 0 GD �c L Exl5T> iHO -TFAIyFOA 1 EXHIBIT T Page 1 o of j PP Public Trail Easement EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 1 of 1 Public Trail Easement Being a portion of the East half. of Section 34 , Township 7 South , Range 2 West, M.D .B. & M. , more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 3/4 inch pipe in the 1/4 Section line running North and South through the center of said Section 34 , at its intersection with the Southerly line of that certain 37 . 823 acre tract conveyed to Helene A. Loescher by Deed recorded July 11, 1958 , in Book 4119 Official Records , at Page 630 of Official Records of Santa Clara County (also as shown on the map of Record of Survey of Land of E. L. Poor, et ux on file in Book 95 of Maps at Page 28 , Official Records of Santa Clara County) ; thence North along said 1/4 Section line 450 feet to a 3/4 inch pipe, being THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence from said TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING N. 54' E. 1150 feet, more or less, to a point in the Northerly line of that certain 39. 50 acre tract of land conveyed by Sarah E. Haskell , et vir, to John Blackwell , et al, by deed dated January 26 , 1894 and recorded February 5, 1894 in Book 162 of Deeds , on Page 596 , Official Records of Santa Clara County, said line being in the center of a ravine or gully, thence along the center line of said ravine or gully, S. 820 151 W. 59 . 10 feet, N. 28' 151 W. 80. 80 feet, N. 581 15' W. 122 . 80 feet, S. 85* 301 W. 99 . 10 feet, S. 821 W. 181 . 10 feet, N. 88' 30 ' W. 280. 30 feet, S . 550 W. 102 . 40 feet and S. 480 W. 115. 60 feet to a point on the 1/4 Section line running North and South through the center of Section 34 T. 7 S . R. 2 W. , thence running South along said 1/4 Section line, 651 . 54 feet to the true point of beginning. EXHIINT- Page 1 of • M-85-100 (Meeting 85-16 , June 26, 1985) 0 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM June 19 , 1985 a TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench , General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes , Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the- Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for 1985-1986 Fiscal Year Discussion: The Action Plan for the 1985-1986 fiscal year is being pre- sented to you for final adoption. You tentatively adopted the proposed Action Plan at your June 5 Board meeting (see report R-85-27 of May 30 , 1985) . Based on your discussion and actions at the June 5 meeting and a final staff review of the document, the following changes have been made in the Action Plan: 1) Open Space Acquisition Program, Negotiations Subproqram: The third Kev Project and Activity and the fourth Other Typical Project and Activity have been asterisked and a footnote has been added stating "May be sub- ject to change based on policy discussions currently in progress. " 2) Open Space Management Program, Planning, Design and Development Subpro- gram: The fifth Key Project and Activity has been asterisked and a footnote has been added stating "May be subject to change based on policy discussions currently in progress. " The word "and" has been inserted between the words "exotic" and "invasive" in the sixth Key Project and Activity. 3) General Management and Program Support: The words "if necessary and" have been added to the second Kev Project and Activity which relates to issuance of a note. The new wording clarifies that a new note issue would be issued only if necessary and if market conditions are favorable. In accordance with the program evaluation format you adopted in 1980 , staff will be returning to you early in the new fiscal year to review 1984-1985 Action Plan progress and to fine-tune the 1985-1986 Action Plan . That would be the appropriate time to make any changes in the Action Plan--result- ing from policy decisions made regarding the use of eminent domain, imple- mentation of the Brown Act, acquisition of land outside District boundaries, and annexation. Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Action Plan for Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the 1985-1986 Fiscal Year. ACTION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASIC POLICY OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR THE 1985-1986 FISCAL YEAR I. Open Space Acquisition Program II . Open Space Management Program III . Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Program IV. General Management and Program Support _. r Page one OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM Subprograms A. Negotiations B. Special Projects C. Enterprise Activities To Implement the BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE: The District will purchase or otherwise acquire interest in the maximum feasible amount of strategic open space within the District planning areas . 19 8 5-19 8 6 Page two Negotiations Subprogram Objective The objective of the Negotiations Subprogram is to provide for the acquisition of all real property rights necessary to secure a recreational greenbelt in the foothills and baylands , utilizing the major portion of the District ' s income. Key Projects and Activities 1. Eliminate the Previous Land Commitments backlog by completing the acquisition of the Mt. Umunhum. property. 2. Convert the budgeted funds in the New Land Commitments budget category into strategic open space lands at desirable prices (fair market value or less) including , where possible, private financing with favorable terms . 3. Work with Peninsula Open Space Trust to complete at least one acquisition project within the District' s Sphere of Influence that significantly furthers the District ' s overall open space goals.* Other Typical Projects and Activities 1. Initiate and maintain contacts with landowners , real estate appraisers and brokers , developers , architects , engineers , zoning and planning officials , and financial institutions. 2. Explore various alternative terms of purchase (options , install- ment purchases , defensible fee, etc. ) to offer advantages and incentives to landowners , as well as to the District. 3. Explore additional methods to protect open space lands for less than the total cost of fee acquisition (open space easements , acquisition of development rights , development dedication, exchange or sale of development rights , cooperation with private individuals and groups , etc. ) . 4. Institute eminent domain proceedings, in the extraordinary case, in the event negotiations fail to produce an agreement on terms of purchase where the parcel involved is key to the District' s program and in accordance with Board policy.* 5. Continually compile current information on real estate market activity, including ordering preliminary title reports on a timely basis for parcel availability potential. 6. Catalog information of special interest, such as deed restrictions, encumbrances , financing and tax considerations. This activity includes the establishment and continuation of a working relation- ship with title companies and other information sources. Required Staff Resources 55% of time of Land Acquisition Manager 35% of time of Real Property Representative" 40% of time of Real Estate Research Analyst 45% of time of Secretary - Open Space Acquisition *May be subject to change based on policy discussions currently in progress . **Position under review . 1985-1986 Page three Special Projects Subprogram Objective The objective of the Special Projects Subprogram is to establish and maintain a broad base for the acquisition program by coordinating District efforts with private and other public agencies , to develop additional acquisition revenue sources , and to provide the critical information necessary to a successful acquisition program. Key Projects and Activities 1. Complete the San Mateo County Baylands Reserve federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant and keep abreast of other grants available to the District. Submit at least one Land and Water Conservation Fund grant request and at least one 1984 State Parks Bond Act grant request. 2 . Seek and encourage agencies and groups to undertake sole or joint acquisition projects which will preserve additional open space such as the San Mateo County section of the Bayfront Trail . 3. Analyze, in conjunction with Open Space Management Program, par- ticular geographic areas of the District, such as the San Mateo County baylands north of Dumbarton bridge, to develop acquisition recommendations and project costs. Other Typical Projects and Activities 1 . Maintain a multi-year spending plan for land acquisition which optimizes use of cash and borrowed funds to accomplish acquisition goals within budget constraints. 2 . Encourage other agencies to apply for grants that will enhance overall open space goals. 3. Maintain a relocation assistance program utilizing staff and consultants as necessary. 4. Keep abreast of real estate market activity and maintain index where necessary for use in cost estimate and appraisal analysis. 5. Review agendas and minutes of other appropriate agencies. Review information on local , State and Federal regulations (e.g. , zoning, subdivision and urban services , and on restrictions or plans contained in general plan elements and other planning studies) . 6 . Investigate, as time constraints allow, the orderly disposition of title and legal encumbrances on District owned land (mineral and water rights , prescriptive easements , encroachments, etc-. ) . Required Staff Resources 30% of time of Land Acquisition Manager 15% of time of Real Property Representative * 30% of time of Real Estate Research Analyst 250 of time of Secretary - Open Space Acquisition *Position under review . 198,5-1986 Page four Enterprise Activities Subpjogr�am Objective The objective of the Enterprise Subprogram is to manage all the District' s revenue producing activities in such a way as to maximize income from Enterprise accounts consistent with Open Space Management policies and to explore new compatible activities. Key Projects and Activities 1. Administer all leases and rental accounts, updating rental rates and other lease conditions as opportunities arise, to maximize income consistent with Open Space Management policies. 2. Carry out maintenance and improvements to rental houses to keep buildings and grounds in a safe, sanitary, and attractive condition and to increase net rental income. 3. Prepare cost/benefit studies on a case by case basis as major repair (or improvement) and rental decisions arise. 4. Provide for interim caretaker/leasehold income for former Almaden Air Force Station at Mt. Umunhum when acquired. Other Typical Projects and Activities 1. Maintain all facilities utilized in the District' s enterprise program. 2. Enhance marketability of enterprise structures with long-term lease potential according to Board policy. 3. Administer Ranger-residency leases . 4. Investigate alternative lease arrangements for enterprise accounts , such as longer terms that would enhance net income to the District according to Board policy. 5. Investigate new enterprise proposals as initiated by other groups or individuals that would be compatible with District goals and objectives. 6. Modify existing agricultural leases in conjunction with Open Space Management studies (such as Russian Ridge Grazing Study) . Required Staff Resources 15% of time of Land Acquisition Manager 50% of time of Real Property Representative* 30% of time of Real Estate Research Analyst 30% of time of Secretary - Open Space Acquisition *Position under review. Page five OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Subprograms A. Planning, Design, and Development B. Operations, Maintenance, and Volunteer To Implement the BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE: The District will follow a land management policy that provides proper care of open space land, allowing public access appropriate to the nature of the land and consistent with ecological values. 1,985-1986 Page six Planning, Design and Development Subprogram Objective The objective of the Planning , Design and Development Subprogram is to provide short term and long range acquisition planning and the formula- tion and review of use and management plans, as well as overseeing the physical implementation of capital improvements such as site develop- ment and resource management, master and other special plans. Key Projects and Activities 1 - Develop, review, and coordinate the implementation of Board approved use and management plans in accordance with Relative Site Emphasis Policies, including commencement of planning studies for the site renovation of the Mt. Umunhum Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and design of public use facilities for the Hassler site. 2 . Continue the liaison efforts of multi-jurisdictional projects, specifically the planning and implementation of the Bayfront Trail an ., the Purisima Creek Redwoods open Space Preserve. 3 . Commence or continue implementation of the Master Plan for the Skyline Ridge open Space Preserve in cooperation with Peninsula Open Space Trust. 4 . Implement the plan for staffing changes for Open Space Management as approved by the Board of Directors. 5. Update District Master Plan and include full Sphere of Influence. * 6 . Complete policies for Board review and adoption and a general plan of action for Natural Resource Categorization and Management Plan- ning of District preserves. This will provide, with the aid of identified outside funding sources, for the preparation of site specific plans and decisions , including prescribed burning, grazing and other agricultural uses , control of exotic and invasive plant species, and controlled dog and other recreational uses . Other Typical .Projects and Activities 1 . Prepare appropriate portions of acquisition reports and grant applications. 2. Prepare environmental assessments, environmental impact reports, and negative declarations in accordance with CEQA requirements . 3 . Continue to plan and implement with California Department of Forestry prescribed burns on select preserves for wildfire protection . 4 . Under Board direction, implement grazing plans for select areas of District preserves, possibly including Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge, Windy Hill , and Long Ridge Open Space Preserves . 5 . Review other agency subdivision plans, zoning changes , general plan amendments, and environmental documents that my impact District lands. May be subject to change based on policy discussions currently in progress . 1985-1986 Page seven 6 . Continue to encauracje coop(--'rat development and management plans (for example, for trails) with other local jurisdictions and special interest groups such as equestrians. 7 . Gather input from user and special interest groups relating to site use and management with the aid of the Public Communications Program. 8 . Work with Open Space Acquisition group on review, monitoring, and other input regarding leases for Enterprise Subprogram and on land acquisition referrals. 9 . Develop and implement other specific Board-approved resource manage- ment plans such as site restoration and erosion controls. 10. Prepare specific construction plans and specifications for develop- ment projects and coordinate contracted services . 11 . Continue to implement volunteer student and intern programs and work with private organizations, whenever feasible, to accomplish special planning projects as well as to assist in formulating use and manage- ment plans. 12. maintain a standardized series of maps and special presentation materials for all District lands . 13 . Complete the development of trail use guidelines for the public and policies for Board approval . Required Staff Resources** 60% of time of Land Manager 85% of time of Open Space Planner 85% of time of Environmental Analyst 900 of time of Associate Open Space Planner 25% of time of Operations Supervisor 60% of time of Secretary - Open Space Management 50 of time of Lead Rangers (3) Note: May change upon completion and adoption of Open Space Management Staffing Study currently underway. 1985-1986 Page eight Operations, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram Objective The objective of the Operations, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram is to provide responsible stewardship of District lands by furnishing those public safety, maintenance, and resource protection services necessary for the effective management of these lands. An emphasis of this subprogram is to increase public education regarding natural features and awareness regarding proper use of these lands, as well as to mav-imize the volunteer support to aid in the physical implementation of capital improvements. Key Projects and Activities 1. Provide for security of buildings on Mt. Umunhum and complete structure demolition or renovation, under Board direction, of the buildings on Hassler, Mt. Umunhum, and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserves. 2. Implement at least one new site development project with Peninsula Open Space Trust utilizing volunteer support. Increase volunteer support by 30% by utilizing the Trails Information and Volunteer Center, the California Conservation Corps, and Peninsula Open Space Trust for site development and maintenance. 3 . Conduct a docent interpretive program, using Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, with outreach programs on other Preserves as guided by Relative Site Emphasis Policies. Continue to conduct spring wildflower walks at Edgewood. 4 . Evaluate success of written field policies, new field staff deploy- ment program, and field staff position changes and present any further proposed changes to the Board in spring, 1986. 5 . Conclude the Experimental Dog Program on four sites using improved methods of data collection for evaluation and decide on which sites, if any, the program should continue on a more permanent basis. Other Typical Projects and Activities 1 . Provide an active patrol program focused on educating the public in the proper use of wildland areas and on enforcing District ordinances. 2 . Continue to provide an active fire management program for all Dis- trict sites, including both fire prevention and suppression and assistance in implementing a prescribed burning program. 3 . Implement approved and funded portions of site Use and Management Plan recommendations as scheduled, concentrating on site protection and maintenance projects as the highest priority. -19 8 5-_1 9 86 Page nine 4 . Provide after hours call-out services for District sites, primarily through the operation of a ranger residence program. 5. Maintain all District lands and facilities to a standard of appearance and utility in accordance with approved use and management plans and field maintenance calendar. 6. Continue a volunteer trail monitor program, as approved, in conjunc- tion with the Midpeninsula Trails Council and the Trail Information and Volunteer Center. 7. Maintain District vehicles, equipment, and field operations offices. , 8 . Conduct a docent training program. 9 . Work with other agencies and organizations to encourage fiscal support and growth of the Trail Information and Volunteer Center pro- grams on District lands. 10. Complete implementation of approved resource management plans, in- cluding Long Ridge and Skyline Ridge grazing plans and Monte Bello and Sierra Azul restoration and erosion control plans. 11. Continue to monitor increased site use and patterns to provide docu- mented statistics for future Open Space Management decisions. 12 . Work with neighboring agencies to develop additional shared main- tenance and/or patrol agreements, including for the District ' s baylands properties. 13 . Implement a monitoring plan for the Black Mountain campground to measure impacts on staff, caretaker , and natural resources. 14 . Monitor trail use conflicts at Rancho San Antonio, Sierra Azul and Windy Hill Preserves and implement or revise trail use guidelines for these areas accordingly. 15. Monitor dog use compliance with MROSD regulations at the four experimental sites . Required Staff Resources* 40% of time of Land Manager 15% of time of Open Space Planner 15% of time of Environmental Analyst 10% of time of Associate Open Space Planner 75% of time of operations Supervisor 95% of time of Lead Rangers (3) 100% of time of Rangers (8) 400 of time of Secretary - Open Space Management 100% of time of Coordinator of Volunteer Program (1/2 time) 1000 of time of Ranger Aides (three part-time for eights months of the year) Note: May change upon completion and adoption of open Space Management Staffing Study currently underway. Page ten PUBLIC CODIMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM Subprograms A. Public Participation and Education B. Public and Private Liaison C. Media To Implement the BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE: The District will educate and make clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of the District, and will actively encourage public communications and involvement in District activities . 1985-1986 Page eleven Public Participation and Education Subprogram Objective The objective of the Public Participation and Education Subprogram is to generate greater public awareness , involvement, and support of the District through a continuing campaign to inform and educate the con-,.- stituency about the District' s sites, programs, and goals. Key Projects and Activities 1. Schedule one or two special events to encourage site use and to publicize District. Possibilities include photo contest, orien- teering, birding, geology day, etc. Consider also a big picnic with all the groups involved with the District. 2. Based on demographic data from GRC Survey and other information, target low awareness areas for special publicity about MROSD. 3. Continue to print and distribute the Openspace newsletter and/or other District publications in line with the consensus of the Board which followed the publications workshop. 4 . Expand program of public presentations and displays with new materials and participants, with emphasis on noontime presentations to business and industry (if these prove successful in 1984-1985) . 5. If feasible , try a pilot program of placing permanent MROSD "hand- out stations" in selected libraries or other public buildings in each county. 6 . Develop a "Good Neighbor" information and communication program in accordance with Board directives . Other Typical Projects and Activities 1. Publicize availability of District sites at a level consistent with the Board' s policy for the relative emphasis of District sites. 2. Publicize the Docent Program on selected District sites in accordance with the Board' s policy for the relative emphasis of District sites. .3. Publicize important public hearings to encourage public comments. 4. Explore the possibility of a bus tour for members of the public in order to encourage volunteerism and awareness of District lands. 5. Complete investigation of feasibility of initiating a fund development program with POST for the purpose of raising funds for newsletters, brochures, site development projects, etc. , possibly through a "gifts catalog. " 6. Gather input from user and special interest groups relating to site use and management with the aid of the Open Space Management Program. Required Staff Resources 400 of time of Public Communications Coordinator 40% of time of Public Communications Secretary 1985-1986 Page twelve Public and Private Liaison Subprogram Objective The objective of the Public and Private Liaison Subprogram is to inform other public agencies and private organizations about the District and to secure legislation to protect the District' s funding and otherwise aid in the accomplishment of the District' s goals. Key Projects and Activities 1. Accomplish priority items for fiscal year in District' s Legislative Program utilizing services of Legislative Consultant. 2. If interest continues, conduct another bus tour of District lands for public officials and key staff. 3. Hold a joint meeting with San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission. 4. Schedule Board members to make presentations sometime during the year to each city and county council , board and commission in their wards that wishes a presentation. 5. Send annual progress report to government officials throughout District. Other Typical Projects and Activities 1. Maintain regular contact with officials of other agencies and private organizations for the exchange of information, cooperation on special projects, and participation in special events such as conferences and seminars in order to inform the District staff and Board on current issues. 2. Continue to work with legislators , legislative committees, State and federal administrators, other agencies, private organizations, and interested citizens for information and action regarding State legislation and specific local issues. 3. Continue contact and cooperation with staff and officials of other regional park and open space districts for the purpose of exchanging information and technical expertise. 4. Maintain up-to-date address files of government officials, private organizations, interested groups , and citizens to be used for distribution of newsletter and other pertinent materials and iNfor- mation. Put mailing lists on District' s computer, if purchased. 5. Send information about the District to newly elected or appointed officials in a timely fashion. Required Staff Resources 20% of time of Public Communications Coordinator 40% of time of Public Communications Secretary Page thirteen' 1985-1986 Media Subprogram Objective The objective of the Media Subprogram is to inform the public as fully as possible about the District' s purposes and activities through news stories, features, and public service announcements in the press, and on radio and television. Key Projects and Activities 1. Create and maintain an up-to-date set of fact sheets on various aspects of the District' s activities for distribution to media people and others. 2. Complete production and distribution of series of public service announcements for airing on public access cable and commercial television. Other Typical Projects and Activities 1. Issue special news releases to announce unique projects or activities as appropriate. 2. Continue regular communications with the media in accordance with the District' s policy statement regarding open information and cooperation. 3. Continue to publicize the District in magazines , park and recre- ational publications, and environmental newsletters in accordance with Board policy. 4. Continue the regular reading, clipping, and circulating of news- paper and magazine articles, utilizing volunteer help whenever possible. Required Staff Resources 40% of time of Public Communications Coordinator 20% of time of Public Communications Secretary Page fourteen GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM SUPPORT To Implement the BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE: The staff of the District will administer the affairs of the District on behalf of the public so as to maximize accomplishment of the goals of the District within existing financial and other constraints. 1985-19�86 Page fifteen— General Management and Prp,�jram Supi�ort Objective The objective of the General Management and Program Support is to pro- vide overall coordination, direction, and administrative base for all District activities so as to maximize the accomplishment of the Board's Policies and directives . Key Projects and Activities 1 . Complete, at Board and staff level , all necessary planning and moving activities to ensure the District ' s relocation to different facilities by November 1 , 1985 , unless current deadline is extended. 2 . 1 ' if Iriarke Ling coxrditions are favorable, market a new note issue for the acquisition of land. 3. Provide necessary interpretation, coordination, direction, and -ad- ministrative base, including on-going review and updating of personnel-related matters for District ' s staff and programs , in order to carry out Board policies, Action Plan, and specific actions according to written and unwritten Board priorities. 4 . Continue to promote an atmosphere conducive to generating a crea- tive team effort, including at least one staff workshop retreat. 5. Complete implementation of microcomputer system. Other Typical Projects and Activities 1. Perform administrative and legal obligations as required by State law and manage District ' s main office. 2. Update Action Plan, prepare and monitor annual budget, and coordi- nate program evaluations for Action Plan progress. 3. Provide financial management and accounting, including investment of temporarily idle funds. 4. Administer all of District ' s personnel functions with assistance of consultant (s) , as necessary, and continue evaluation of overall organization structure and staffing requirements. 5. Implement restructuring of budget accounting system to make it more program and project oriented. Required Staff Resources Personnel below work on all programs : General Manager Legal Counsel (part-time under retainer) Controller (1/4 time) Administrative Services Manager Office Manager/Secretary to the General Manager Accounting Specialist (3/4 time) - To be reviewed to determine if should be more than 3/4 time position up to full-time position. Receptionist (approximately 15 hours per week) . R-85-28 (Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985) oe MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 17 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes , Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Presentation of 1985-1986 Salary Survey and Adoption of New Salary Ranges Introduction: The salary survey for the 1985-1986 fiscal year is in the process of being completed in accordance with the May 1979 comprehensive report on Salary, Fringe Benefits , and Personnel Systems prepared by Gary Foss , the District' s Personnel Consultant (see report R-79-13 of May 16 , 1979) . The process involved, survey results to date, and a gen- eral discussion ofyour policies regarding salary changes are included herein. As of the writing of this report, salary negotiations were still in progressfor two of the positions used as comparables at Santa Clara County, and I do not anticipate that this salary data will be available by June 26 . In addition, 1985-1986 salary information for management positions used as comparables at the Cities of Palo Alto, San Mateo, and Sunnyvale and at Santa Clara County is not available at this time. Discussion: A. Procedure : - The salary survey for the 1985-1986 fiscal year was con- ducted in the same manner as previous years , and the District "benchmark" classes of Secretary, Ranger, Real Estate Research Analyst, Open Space Planner, Public Communications Coordinator, and Land Acquisition Manager/ Land Manager were surveyed. The position of Administrative Assistant had been surveyed in previous years , but was deleted this year. The following governmental entities within the greater San Francisco- Oakland Metropolitan geographical area were contacted for salary survey information: City of Palo Alto City of San Mateo City of Sunnyvale City of Hayward County of Santa Clara County of San Mateo East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Municipal Utility District Pertinent information was requested from each organization about general salary changes or negotiations that had occurred since the District 's last salary survey or that were expected to occur in the future. R-85-28 Page 2 B. Salary Survey Data: The information for this year' s salary survey was gathered in the same manner as previous years (see report R-84-26 of May 31 , 1984 for details on the method used) . The attached Exhibit A, entitled June 1985 Salary Survey Data, provides a recap of general salary data gathered during the survey. Based on the data available at this time, the total range of salary increases at the eight comparable jurisdictions surveyed varies from a 2% salary increase (for the last six months of a two and one-half year contract) to an 8% salary increase. It should be noted that at the Cities of Palo Alto and Hayward, secretaries received total salary increases of 11% and 10 . 5% respectively since both organizations attached a 5% comparable worth adjustment to the general salary increase for this position. As noted at the beginning of this report, salary negotiations were still in progress for some of the positions used as comparables at Santa Clara County. In addition, management position comparables from the Cities of Palo Alto, San Mateo, and Sunnyvale and at Santa Clara County have not yet been adjusted. C. Salary Changes : According to your policies , you consider the following factors in making salary range changes : 1) the District ' s salaries with respect to the surveyed groups, 2) current trends in the private sector, and 3) the change in the cost of living. Each factor will be discussed in turn. It should be emphasized that it is a policy decision of the Board as to the relative importance of these three factors in setting wage scales. 1. Salary Survey Data: The attached graphs , entitled Salary Survey Comparables, show the array of comparable salaries for each of the six District positions surveyed. Current District salaries for each of the positions surveyed are plotted on the graph, as well as District salaries for zero point, four point (4. 10) , five point (5. 1%) , and six point (6 . 20) salary increases for reference. As I have emphasized in previous reports, it is important to remember that the use of comparables in setting salaries is not an exact science , since there is no perfect comparable for any posi- tion. Also, the District ' s salary structure takes into account various factors such as the relative importance, responsibility, and training needed for the jobs in each of the District' s programs, as well as the comparisons of those positions relative to the labor market. 2 . Private Sector Increases : Reliable data is very difficult to ob- tain on private sector wage increases in the Bay Area, since waqes are constantly fluctuating according to the market demands employers are having to meet in the filling of various staffing positions. According to Mr. Foss , general salary trends for the coming year R-85-28 Page 3 in the private sector for the peninsula electronics industry are as follows : FOR EXEMPT FOR NON-EXEMPT 7% "Range" Increases 6 . 3% "Range" Increases plus plus 1% "Merit" Increases 1. 5% "Merit" Increases 8% Total Adjustment 7 . 8% Total Adjustment For Year For Year Mr. Foss also reports that according to the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) , the trend for general company-wide changes for West Coast manufacturing and non-manufacturing firms is 4? % to 6% increase in average overall "range" structure. Private sector increases traditionally cover both merit and market- value increases. Employees are usually treated individually re- ceiving a share of an overall "pot" of money and not by formal salary range changes common to the public sector. Because of this difference, the comparison of public sector salary ranges to private sector salary ranges is not like comparing oranges to oranges . Rather, it is more like comparing oranges to tangerines , somewhat similar, but not exactly the same. Traditionally, salary range adjustments in the public sector are made in order to keep salary ranges competitive. You are only being asked to approve a salary range adjustment at your June 26 meeting. In addition to the salary increases being considered herein in connection with the July 1 salary range changes , each District employee can move through a salary range during the year by means of annual merit increase of up to 5. 1% based upon perfor- mance. Therefore, , with a recommended 5. 1% range adjustment, an employee could receive increases during the year totalling 5. 1% (for example, when the employee has reached the top of his or her range and is not eligible for a salary incentive award) to 10 . 5% (if the employee receives the highest merit increase possible) . This system is the same as that used throughout the public sector, but the District' s merit increase component is much more strictly based on specific performance evaluation than the civil service type of systems with their rather automatic steps through a given salary range. The total possible yearly adjustment numbers of 5. 1% to 10 . 5% for District employees are right in line with the 7. 8% and 8 . 0% totals for the private sector. 3 . Cost of Liy11: The San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area Con- sumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers is used by the District to track cost of living changes . According to information released in May, the above-noted CPI increased 4 . 4% from April 1984 to April 1985 , compared with 5. 5% for the same twelve month period last year. The following chart details CPI changes since 1979 , Board approved District range changes (all of which were across-the-board) , and what the overall 1980-1985 District increase would be based on a 4 , 5 , or 6 point salary increase. R-85-28 Page 5 Central to the benefits study will be the question of whether the Dis- trict ' s total benefits package has "lost ground" in light of the fact that five of the eight comparable public agencies surveyed pay all or a portion of their employees ' 7% contribution to PERS , in addition to the agency 's own PERS contribution. Although some organizations directly tie the payment of the employees ' 7% PERS contribution to salary, the District would continue to consider PERS part of the District ' s fringe benefit package. The study will also address possible alternatives regarding a cafeteria-style benefit plan so that the question regarding whether the District should convert to an acceptable cafeteria-style plan can be resolved. As you are aware, the idea of a cafeteria-style benefit. plan has been discussed since Mr. Foss completed his 1979 personnel and benefit study. The results of the benefit study and any recommended changes could have a financial impact on the District ' s budget; however, until the survey is complete and I have had an opportunity to formulate my recommenda- tions , there is no way of indicating the possible financial impact spectrum. At the current time , the District ' s basic benefit package includes medical coverage under either Blue Cross (enrollment frozen) , Kaiser, Take Care , or the Santa Clara County Health Plan for employees and their dependents. Dental coverage for employees and their dependents is also provided, as is basic and supplemental life insurance. Based on a District employee ' s salary, which is used to determine the amount of supplemental life insurance provided , and the medical plan in which the employee is enrolled , the District pays, based on 1984-1985 fiscal year premiums , between $113 and $355 per month per full-time employee for fringe benefits noted above. E. Internal Relationshil2s : At this time , I am not recommending any changes in the internal relationship of District positions. The recently adopted recommendations from Mr. Foss ' Administrative Study (see report R-85-26 of May 16 , 1985) did alter the internal relationships of District positions. However, in light of the evalu- ation of Open Space Management planning and field staffing needs currently in progress, it would be premature to make any internal relationship adjustments at this point. It is anticipated that the results of the Open Space Management staffing study, which is a 1985- 1986 key project in the Planning, Design and Development Subprogram, will be presented to you in the fall for consideration. F. Effective Date : In accordance with policy you adopted in June 1980 , any salary ranges changes you adopt for the 1985-1986 fiscal year would be implemented effective July 1 , 1985 . Recommendation: I recommend that you approve a 5 point across-the-board salary increase for General Manager appointees effective July 1 , 1985 by adopting the attached Salary Pay Plan table (Exhibit B) . SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES SECRETARY i MROSD POINT ADJUSTMENT SURVEY DATA ORGANIZATION 2300 2200 2158 EBM D 2100 —2076 EBRPD /2014 City of Hayward 2000 - 6 pt 2003 ='2010 City of Sunnyvale 5pt -- 1983 4 pt — 1964 1948 City of Palo Alto 1900 0 pt — 1886 — 1837 City of San Mateo 1800 1700 --- (16 83) * Santa. Clara County ____1640 San Mateo County 1600 *Current salary shown. Negotiations in progress. �I' i SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES RANGER MROSD POINT j ADJUSTMENT SURVEY DATA ORGANIZATION I 2600 2500 EBRPD- li --(2446) * ( Pub c Safety Officer. RE.F'EFEWE ONLY) 2400 � 2387 EBMUD 6 pt ____ 2326 2300 5 pt 2303 4 pt 2280 I 2200 0 pt — 2191 2100 ,•2094 City of Palo Alto .(2031)** Santa Clara County j2025 San Mateo County 2000 j I 1900 *Salary for Public Safety Officer--Reference Only. This is a stronger job classification than EBRPD Park Ranger ($2081) . **Negotiations in progress. SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES REAL ESTATE RESEARCH ANALYST MROSD POINT ADJUSTMENT SURVEY DATA ORGANIZATION 2700 2600 —2595 City of Sunnyvale 2500 I i I 2400 __.2403 EBRPD �f 6 pt ._. 2326 2300 5 pt — 2303 4 pt — 2280 12259 City of Palo Alto �2252 San Mateo County —` 2243 City of Hayward 2200 —.2210 City of San Mateo 0 pt — 2191 I —2127 Santa Clara County 2100 2000 SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES OPEN SPACE PLANNER MROSD POINT ADJUSTMENT SURVEY DATA ORGANIZATION 3300 3286 City of Hayward 3200 3100 6 pt 3104 5 pt— 3073 4 pt— 3043 3000 3011 County of San Mateo 0 pt— 2924 2900_ 2912 City of Palo Alto 2800 2700- 2649 EBRPD 2600 r SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR MROSD POINT ADJUSTMENT SURVEY DATA ORGANIZATION 3800 3600 (--3516)* City of Sunnyvale 3400 -----3 262 E9MUD 3200 6 pt— 3198 5 pt_._. 3166 4 pt_. 3135 3000 0 pt_ 3013 2800 _2649 EBRPD 2600 2400 *CUrrent salary. Surveyin progress. I SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES LAND ACQUISITION MANAGER MROSD POINT ADJUSTMENT SURVEY DATA ORGANIZATION 5200_ I 5000 f --4897 City of Hayward "(4818)* City of. Palo Alto j 4800 6 pt_ =4812 County of San Mateo t 4761 5 pt__.4714 ®4717 EBRPD I 4 pt—4668 4600 0 Pt.4486 4400-. 4200 — (4 097)* City of Sunnyvale 4000 3800 — (3811)* City of. San Mateo i *Current salary. I EXHIBIT B MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SALARY PAY PLAN Present Salary Range Proposed 5-Point Increase Monthly Annually Monthly Annually Step $ $ Step $ $ Classification No. Min-Max Min-Max No. Min-Max Min-Max Senior Typist Clerk 145-175 1194-1610 14 ,332-19 ,317 150-180 1256-1692 15,064-20 , 303 Secretary 161-191 1400-1886 16 ,805-22 ,652 166-196 1472-1984 17 ,664-23, 806 Accounting Specialist 166-196 1472-1984 171664-23j806 171-201 1548-2086 18,565-25, 021 Office Manager/Sec 'y. to Gen. Mgr. 170-200 1532-2064 18, 379-24 ,773 175-205 1610-2170 19 ,317-26 ,038 Ranger 176-206 1626-2191 19 ,511-26,298 181-211 1709-2304 20 ,505-27 ,640 Real Estate Research Analyst 176-206 1626-2191 19 ,511-26 ,298 181-211 1709-2304 20 ,505-27 , 640 Associate Open Space Planner 181-211 1709-2303 20 ,505-27f640 186-216 1796-2421 21,551-29 ,050 Coordinator of Volunteer Programs 186-216 1796-2421 21 ,551-29 ,050 191-221 1888-2545 22,652-30 , 531 Lead Ranger 186-216 1796-2421 21,551-29 ,050 191-221 1888-2545 22 ,652-30 , 531 Environmental Analyst 191-221 1888-2544 22 ,652-30 ,531 196-226 1984-2675 23 ,806-32 , 089 Open Space Planner 205-235 2170-2924 26 ,038-35 ,094 210-240 2281-3074 27 , 365-36 , 885 Operations Supervisor 211-241 2303-3104 27 ,640-37 ,253 216-246 2421-3263 29 ,050-39 ,152 Real Property Representative 211-241 2303-3104 27 ,640-37 ,253 216-246 2421-3263 29 ,050-39 ,152 Public Communications Coordinator 208-238 2235-3013 26 ,825-36 ,157 213-243 2350-3167 28,195-38 ,002 Administrative Services Manager 215-245 2397-3230 28 ,761-38 ,785 220-250 2520-3396 30 ,229-40 ,744 Land Manager* 248-278 3328-4486 39 ,941-53 ,833 253-283 3499-4715 41,977-56 , 579 Land Acquisition Manager* 248-278 3328-4486 39 ,941-53 ,833 253-283 3499-4715 41,977-56 ,579 *Range of 3% to 5% to be added to base salary as approved by General Manager for assignment of the employee as Assistant General Manager. R-85-35 (Meeting 85-16 44,0000� June 26 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 21, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes , Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of Insurance Bid Coverage for 1985-1986 Discussion: During the past few months , the firm of Flinn, Gray & Herterich, the District's insurance brokers, has sought competi- tive bids for the District's insurance coverage. The insurance specifications that you approved in 1983 (see memorandum M-83-59 of May 19 , 1983) were again used as the foundation from which bids were sought. As the attached letter of June 20 to J. Fiddes indicates , the nation's insurance industry is in a severe crisis , and the District' s premiums are being impacted by what has been happening in the industry in terms of operational losses . As of the writing of this report, Flinn, Gray & Herterich is still in the process of finalizing bid information for the fidelity, umbrella, and difference-in-conditions insurance coverage. This information is expected to be available at your June 26 meeting. The bid infor- mation that is available at this time is as follows : 1. Liability and Property Package - The District 's current carriers , INA (Insurance Company of North America) , a subsidiary of Cigna, has bid $16 ,659. If the District chooses to pay the premium on a quarterly basis the amount would increase to $17 ,259 (essentially equivalent on a present-value basis) . The $16 ,659 premium com- pares with $6826 for fiscal year 1984-1985 , a 244% increase. 2 . Auto Coverage - The initial bid from General Accident is for $9 ,427 , a 30% increase over premiums paid in 1984-1985. If additional credit can be applied, the premium quoted for 1985- 1986 may decrease. 3 . Fidelity - The estimated premium from Chubb for the District ' s fidelity bond is anticipated to increase 50% to $4 ,500. The exact premium figure for the fidelity bond coverage, as well as for the umbrella and difference-in-conditions insurance coverage will be presented to you at your June 26 meeting. IG&H JAMES P. OTRIEN FLINN, GRAY N.R."SKIP"MONTYRE & HERTERICH EDWARD A.MILLER, JR. 314 LYTTON AVENUE CHARI ES FLINNLYLE GRAY, CIVU PALO ALTO, CA 94301 FRANK HERTERICH J415f 328-7300 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION JOHN C.O'KELFE,CLU June 20, 1985 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attn: Jean Fiddes 375 Distel Circle, Suite D--1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Jean: During the past four years, insurance companies have suffered severe financial losses. The negative bottom line results have been caused by inadequate premium, levels and poor investment returns. Last year alone, insurance companies had operational losses of approxi- mately $22.5 billion. The in-pact has been felt severely througly)ut the marketplace. Many companies have failed, many are out of capacity and are not offering any new business, and rates are up in all sectors of the marketplace. In your case, because you are a public entity, most carriers will not provide coverage to you. The only sound market that we are aware of is CIGNA. They are strong financially, and are willing to provide the protection you require. I am sorry your rates have increased so drastically. We've attached some articles to expand on this letter. Reg '2Intyre (Note: Articles not attached in packet material) A LOCALLY OWNED AND INDEPENDENTLY OPERATED INSURANCE BROKER SINCE 1926 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Projected Premiums 1984 -- 1985 Package (Property & Liability) $16,659.00 M (Insurance Ccnpany of North America) ($17,259.00 - quarterly installments) Auto $ 9,427.00 General Accident (additional credits may be applied) Fidelity $ 4,500.00 (estimate) Chubb Umbrella & Difference In Conditions Indication to follow by 6/25/85 I I M-85-103 (Meeting 85-16 00*_ June 26 , 1985) 0 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM June 26 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes , Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of Insurance Bid Coverage for 1985-1986 Discussion: In my previous report to you (see report R-85-35 of June 21 , 1985) , I reported that the District' s insurance brokers , Flinn, Gray & Herterich of Palo Alto, were still in the process of finalizing the bid information for the District' s insurance coverage. All bid information is now available for your consideration and is as follows : 1 . Package (Liability and Property) : The District' s current carriers , INA (Insurance Co. of North America) , a subsidiary of CIGNA, has bid $16 ,659 . If the District chooses to pay the premium on a quarterly basis , the amount would increase to $17 ,259 . The $16 ,659 premium compares with $6826 for fiscal year 1984-1985 , a 244% increase. 2 . Auto: The initial bid from General Accident was for $9 , 427 which represented a 30% increase over premiums paid in 1984-1985 . However, the bid has been revised to $10 ,394 because the carrier bidding on the District ' s umbrella liability coverage is requiring not less than $1 million liability coverage in the District' s package, auto, and public entity difference-in-conditions coverage. The $10 ,394 bid is equivalent to a 44% increase in premiums . 3 . Fidelity: Chubb' s premium bid for the District' s fidelity bond is 4 , 500 , a 50% increase over the 1984/1985 premium. 4 . Umbrella Liability: St. Paul Surplus has bid $6, 250 for the District' s umbrella liability coverage. As mentioned earlier, their underwriting requirements have changed and their pricing will not allow them to drop down to less than $1 million liability coverage in the District' s pack- age and liability, auto, and public entity difference-in-conditions coverage. The $6250 figure is a 56% increase over the 1984-1985 premium. 5 . Public Entity Difference-In-Conditions Coverage: Great American has bid $2550 , a 155% increase over the $1000 premium paid in 1984-1985 . The increase is a reflection of the marketplace, as well as the in- crease of the liability coverage from $300 ,000 to $1 million. 6 . Volunteer Accident Policy: INA (Insurance Company of North America) has bid $182.50, the same premium as the 1984-1985 fiscal year. The attached sheet outlines the bid package from Flinn, Gray & Herterich for the District's 1985-1986 insurance coverage. The total bid packages equals $40 ,535 .50 , an 86% increase over premiums paid in 1984-1985 . Staff M-85-103 Page Two was informed that the above bids were the only ones Flinn, Gray & Herterich could secure for the District' s insurance coverage. Several companies re- fused to bid on the different coverage because of the District' s public agency status. In addition, insurance companies whose business future appeared uncertain were culled out. Mr. N. Ralph (Skip) McIntyre will be present at your meeting to answer any questions you have regarding the bid premiums and what has been happening to public entities in the insurance marketplace. The attached article sheds some light on the matter. Recommendation: I recommend that you accept the bid of $40 ,535.50 from Flinn, Gray & Herterich, based on the quotations from INA, General Accident, Chubb, St. Paul Surplus, and Great American insurance companies, for the District insurance coverage for 1985-1986 . MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1985 - 1986 COVERAGE COMPANY BID QUOTATION Package (Property and INA (Insurance Co. of $ 16 ,659 .00 Liability) North America) Auto General Accident $ 10 ,394 .00 Fidelity Chubb $ 4 ,500 .00 Umbrella Liability St. Paul Surplus $ 6 ,250 .00 Public Entity Great American $ 2,550.00 Difference-In-Conditions Volunteer Accident Policy INA (Insurance Co. of $ 182 .50 North America) TOTAL $ 40 ,535 .50 fan_Yrancisco Often a city Will settle out of At was ludicrous to us that we OG2,� court rather than risk a mammoth could be held liable for the acci. ��r Awards Blamed M k'` jury award. But that, too, results in dent," said Gary Dapper, city ad- High Injury r higher insurance premiums. ministrator for Morro Bay. "Our 1 Here are some examples: harbor people got medals of valor f rom the Coast Guard,and then(the ■The city of Fremont recently passengers)turn around and sue us paid$562,000 to settle cases brought for punitive damages." BCI �f1eS nsuranee osfs r by two drivers who sufferedperma- Other Bay Area cities—includ- o� nent injuries in separate wrecks. in Hayward San Rafael and Sara- The victims were allegedly drunk at g the time of the accidents, and city toga — have been hit by higher premiums in the past year,and oth- By Edward lu�ata in recent years. Under Foran's bill, officials admitted no liability, but ers soon face the fearsome prospect Civic budgets in the 13a} NOW INSURANCE RATES HAVE CLIMBED a city would be financial)}' Liable the}' decided to settle rather than face a costh court battle. of hunting for a new carrier. Insur Area are under assault by In only to the same degree that it is 1'reniont officials learneu tum ante premiums for the Golden Gate surance carriers that have paid Here is a sampling d cities andjointpower authorities(cities that form found to be at fault. last month that the city's insurance Bridge district will double July 1. dearly for a rash of personal insurance pools)and their higher liability premiums this year: injury suits aimsed at the"deepOld New pit. Vic Slevin, regional vice presl carrier wouldn't renew its$19.7 mil- Premiums for the county of Marie j ++ premium remium increase dent of the American Insurance As lion liahility coverage.Their frantic will triple. pockets of cities and other p p search fc,r a replacement was suc- public agencies. Fremont $44,000 $500,000 1036% sociation, said that the higher pre- ces.,ful,bLt the new policy is costing The 162 cities that responded to miums are"a trend that is definite- Fremont more than 5500,000 a year —- Cash awards paid by insurance Hayward 58,000 225,000 288% h'there."He said,"The villain is the firms for cities in auto accidents o legal system" that believes it must for the same coverage, 12 times Lodi 48,900 247,000 405/o g what the city paid last year. and other cases have jumped four- "take care of everyone who has fold since 1981, according to one San Rafael 40,000 135,000 238% been hurt." "I can't get any sleep at night," recent survey, and the insurance Contra Costa Cities Insurance said city risk manager Joe Tonda. companies are moving to cut their (14 cities in Contra Costa Many attorneys, however, ar. R7 aid City y losses. Several companies have County) 223,000 1,053,000 372% gue that the"deep pocket"doctrine Da P 50,000 last stopped writing municipal policies, should be preserved so that inno. year to settle a lawsuit brought by Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund the parents of a }youngster who while others are jacking up their (12 cities in Northwest cent accident victims can recover dashed out from behind a bus and premiums 400 percent or more. Colifornio) 110,000 360,000 2270,0 damages from any party that con F _ tributed to their injuries. was struck and seriously hurt by a I The cities have to pay the high- car. The cit}'s liability premium er rates or risk being hit by a judg- Source.leogveof California Cities,March 1983svrvey "Public entities and govern• doubled to$68,000,and risk manag• ment that leaves them penniless. ments must be responsible like any. er Michael Wilson fears a bigger a recent survey by the League of by forming their own insurance one else," said Peter Hinton, presi. increase when the city policy ex- "We're backed into a no-win sit- California Cities reported paying pools in which they jointly insure dent of the California Trial Lawyers pires in July. u tton," said Vacaville Mayor «il e19.1 million in 198354 in judgments each other and also hold policies Association,who pointed out that"a Liam Carroll, president of the and out-of-court settlements arising with insurance companies. But jury of taxpayers"reluctant to give ■A charter boat with 40 o school. League of California Cities. "When from"deepchildren left Morro Bay harbor on a all our legal resources are dried u Pocket"suits.Two years even these "joint power authori. away public money must be Bon- g p earlier, they had paid just ties"have not dodged the rising pre- vine.ed that the city shares blame Whale watching trip in February and lawsuits start wiping out our one-fourth that amount. miums• for"a substantial risk of danger"in 1983,despite warnings of dangerous general funds, there's not going to storm conditions from the city har- the accident. be much left of our cities." "It's certainly our experience bor patrol. The boat capsized, and that the number of suits is increas- For instance,l4 cities in Contra 1 P harbor police rescued everyone,but in and the size of judgments is Costa County are ex P Y� The soaring insurance costs g j g A2 petted to pay City officials, on the other the boat captain later died. add a new dimension to the increasing," 1 million this year for their group hand, say the jurors' sympathy of- so-called deep pocket syndrome. said Victoria Clark, policy, compared with $700,000 last ten lies with the victim. Several passengers and the communications director for the year. skipper's family sued Morro Bay An injured party can name a league. "They see(plaintiffs)who are in and the Coast Guard, claiming a r►nlnic•ipality, a company, or any Small and medium-sized cities Legislative relief is being pur- tragic circumstances, who may be Coast Guard harbor warning light "other entity with lots of money (a are being hit hardest because they sued in Sacramento, where a mea- quadriplegic or bedridden for life," damaged by the storm should have 1 "deep pocket")as a defendant in a must rely on policies with insurance sure introduced by state Senator said Connie Barker, a lobbyist for been working. The city spent t lawsuit.Under California law,if the companies. Most large municipals- John Foran, D-San Francisco, has the league of cities. "It's sad to look $90,000 to settle the claims and pay city is found to be in any way liable ties can pay off citizens'claims from cleared the Senate but faces tough at them and say you don't want to legal costs. and the other defendants are un- their own city treasuries. going in the Assembly.Similar bills, help them. Unfortunately,it's irre.l. able to pay their share of the dam- vehemently opposed by lawyers' e:ant to jurors that a city may have ages, the city can be forced to pay Sonic towns tried to fight back groups, have died there four times little or no liability." all the damages. R-85-34 (Meeting 85_16 June 26 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 21 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager CONTRIBUTORS: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager; D. Hansen, Land Manager; and J. Fiddes , Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 Overview: The most important aspect of the new proposed preliminary budget is that Open Space Management costs are proposed for large increases in operations and maintenance and site improvements--all this without increases which may result from the Open Space Management staffing study that is underway. The aim in the preliminary budget is to provide, first and foremost , responsible stewardship of the land. At the same time there will be continued expansion of visitor amenities. The coming fiscal year promises to be a very big one in terms of site development planning and implementation. The Open Space Acquisition budget, while still strong, has begun its predicted downward trend. The pie charts illustrate where funds come from and how the budget is allocated. Introduction: Each year, you approve an Action Plan and budget that guide the District' s activities during the coming fiscal year. You are being asked to consider and adopt a preliminary budget for the 1985-1986 fiscal year at your June 26 Regular Meeting so that the District will have a budget for the 1985-1986 fiscal year in place by July 1. After the Open Space Management Budget Guideline review and staffing study are completed and presented to you, the preliminary budget can be amended to implement changes. I expect this work to be completed by the end of 1985 . The preliminary budget for fiscal year 1985-1986 was prepared in a manner similar to that of previous years. Based on the Action Plan that you preliminarily adopted on March 20 and amended on June 5 , staff determined projected expenditures for the various District programs. The Budget Committee, composed of Directors Duffy, Henshaw, and Shelley, with Director Turner serving as an alternate for Director Shelley, reviewed the proposed budget by Program during a series of public Budget Committee meetings. This review included scrutinizing the proposed budgets by project expense groupings and by sub-accounts for the line items that are included herein. The proposed budget for 1985-1986 was also compared with the 1984-1985 budget and projected expenditures for 1984-1985. The District ' s Controller also reviewed the proposed budget material and met with the Budget Committee to discuss projected revenues , cash flow, and debt service; he will be reporting to you on these items at the June 26 meeting (see accompanying report R-85-31 of June 20) . In addition, the Budget Committee will report to you (see accompanying report R-85-32 of June 20) . SOURCES OF REVENUE TOTAL PRO=-R-Y TAX RELATED REVENUE $6,477,000 (83.0%) PRIOR YEARS REDEMPTIONS $280,000 (3.6%) TAX RELIEF SUBVENTIONS $468,000 (6.0%) SPECIAL DEBT SERVICE $733,000 (9.4%) f i II INTEREST $600,000 (7.7%) ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES $225,000 (2.9%) OTHER $99,000 (1.3%) GRANTS $396 000 (5. 1%) i \ \ \ BASIC PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION $4,996,000 (64.0%) ALLOCATION OF THE TAX REVENUE DOLLAR- PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS & GOVERNMENTAL LIASION (2.6 0 OPEN SPACE K NAGEMENT (23.7�) GENERAL MANAGEMENT & PROGRAM SUPPORT (10.4�) OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION (63.3�) TAX REVENUE DOLLAR INCLUDES BASIC PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION (NOT INCLUDING SPECIAL DEBT SERVICE TAX), PRIOR YEARS REDEMPTIONS AND TAX RELIEF SUBVENTIONS • ALLOCATION OF THE EXPENDITURE DOLLAR ACQUI SITION EXPENSES & ENTERPRISE (2.7�) COMMITTED LAND PURCHASES (2.00 GENERAL MANAGEMENT & PROGRAM SUPPORT (5.0�) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS & GOVERNMENT LIASION (1.2� I � � I I � ' I OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT r C11.4�� 1 I 'f DEBT SERVICE (39.0�) l' / NEW LAND PURCHASES (38.70) / I i I R-85-34 Page Two The attached four page summary of the proposed budget shows total proposed expenditures for each category by major line item for each of the District' s programs. Total proposed expenditures equal $11 ,895 ,350. By program, proposed expenditures breakdown as follows: Proposed Percent of Expenditures Total Proposed Budget Open Space Acquisition Program 1) Land and debt service $ 9 ,469 ,500 79.7% 2) Other expenditures $ 332 ,850 2 .7% Open Space Management Program $ 1 ,359 ,250 11 . 4% Public Communications and Govern- mental Liaison Program $ 148 , 050 1. 2% General Management and Program Support $ 595 ,700 5. 0% $11 ,895 ,350 100 . 0% An overview and explanation of each program' s proposed expenditures is detailed in discussion section below. The salary figures for each of the District' s Programs include a proposed 5 point (5. 1%) salary range increase for General Manager staff appointees. In the event you approve a different salary range change, the salary figures can be adjusted when the budget is presented to you for final approval later in the fiscal year. Since you have not completed your annual review of your Board appointees, the General Manager, Legal Counsel and Controller, no changes have been included in these budget figures at this time. Discussion: 1. Open Space Acquisition Program Funds available for new Open Space Acquisition projects for the 1985- 1986 fiscal year total $4 . 6 million, compared with $6 . 25 million (including the $5 million 1985 note issue) for fiscal year 1984-1985, an overall decrease of 43%. The Committed Land Purchases budget category has dropped to $234 ,000 (£or the acquisition of Mt. Umunhum) . A total of $93 ,000 has been included in the proposed budget for direct expenses relating to land acquisition, such as appraisals, site engineering, escrow fees, title insurance, and legal fees; this repre- sents a decrease of approximately 31% from the 1984-1985 budget figure. Site preparation expenses such as demolition are now carried in the Open Space Management budget section, since that group is responsible for the work. The Open Space Acquisition budget also includes approximately $4. 6 million for debt service (principal and interest payments) for retire- ment of notes and installment purchase contracts. This includes the District' s 1982 and 1985 note issues. R-85-34 Page Three Other line item budgeted funds proposed in the 1985-1986 budget are at approximately the same level as the 1984-1985 fiscal year. Funds are included for the Real Property Representative position, but, as noted in the Action Plan, no decision has been made to refill the position. In the event the position is not filled, staff will probably use some of the budgeted salary funds for consulting services to assist the Land Acquisition Manager in his work. The Enterprise Subprogram proposed budget totals $19,300 , and revenues to be received during the coming fiscal year are projected at $225 ,000 . 2. Open Space Management Program Traditional activities such as maintaining a responsible level of stewardship of the land and site development, in accordance with the Relative Site Emphasis Policy, continue to be the focus of the Open Space Management Program. However, as with the proverbial growing teenager, the program is experiencing some "bulging at the seams" in holding to the Open Space Budget Guidelines this year. This was also true in the last two fiscal years but is much more evident this year. This "bulging" is due to several factors, including the increasingly complex Use and Management site planning schedule and site amenities implementation program, the number of major site prepara- tion and development projects , the growing number of site facilities and remote acreage to maintain, and the general increase in site use by the public. It is clear that the existing guidelines were useful and have worked in keeping Open Space Management costs in check over the last six fiscal years but are now outdated. New guidelines must be forthcoming which allow an increased level of land management, but that again impacts the Open Space Acquisition Program. The field staff redeployment program which commenced implementation in the first half of this calendar year and the increase in field personnel have aided immensely in general site coverage and small project imple- mentation. Wear and tear on patrol vehicles has also been reduced. However, routine Ranger patrol and site presence is less than ideal in the more remote areas such as at Purisima Creek Redwoods and Hassler Open Space Preserves , the baylands , and District lands east of Highway 17. Site development projects and the Use and Management implementation schedule have been completed on schedule this year partly due to the new crew group working soley on construction projects but also due to the immense success of the Ranger Aide program over the year. Many site projects remain, however, in the existing Use and Management plans,, and they require careful fiscal scheduling and implementation not only over the next year but also the following several fiscal years. Planning staff members have been immersed in the Hassler and Novitiate site preparation projects and in prepariig an increasing number of reports for Use and Management site reviews , as well as acquisition reports and special District materials such as for annexations and the Brown Act amendments implementation. Several major development projects loom for implementation in the coming and following years which will require overall planning, engineering, and supervisorial support by the planning staff. A list of these major projects in order of apparent priority is attached as Exhibit "A" . It is quite evident that additional planning staff help is necessary to complete all the major and minor tasks now apparent and anticipated. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT "A" MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING PROJECTS 1985/1986 Sites and Priority At This Time 1) Purisima Creek Redwoods Trails, three parking $ 149,700 (Grant) Grant awarded. Proposition 18 Grant lots, special facilities, $ 16600 (POST) Most work done under , signs, gates, fences. contract. 2) Skyline Ridge Master Plan Implement portion of $ 29,000 Most work to be done Phase I Development. (other funding not yet under contract. determined. POST and/or grants) 3) Kennedy Trails parking lot Parking lot, fencing, $ 27,700 Project design commenced. gates, signing, Most work to be contracted. landscaping. 4) Hassler Planning --- In-house 5) Rancho facilities development New major trail $ 7,250 In-house trail project construction. rescheduled 2 years ago. Architectural work Building disposition (contract) . awaiting approval. 6) Mt. Umunhum Planning for site $ 20,000 Contract renovation/use. 7) Thornewood site development Trails, signing, small $ 3,900 Was rescheduled from two (excluded from budget) parking area. years ago. Still low priority. 8) Los Gatos Creek Park Trails, parking, signing --- In-house. (All projects require some in-house staff supervision and direction) R-85-34 Page Four The Budget Committee met three times in the past month to review Use and Management items on a site-by-site basis and other line items for this program and discussed the status of the growing Open Space Manage- ment budget. However, we were not able to discuss sufficiently in depth or propose to you revised budget guidelines at this time. The Open Space Management budget before you represents a holding budget to continue the program in a status quo manner until the Open Space Management staffing study is completed and further Budget Com- mittee meetings have been held. Staff expects to hammer out a revised budget, including multi-year planning under new guidelines. It is hoped that the Committee and staff work will be completed in time to present the new budget and guidelines to you in late fall of this year. I anticipate that staff will be back to you at an early date to request additional staffing help in this pro- gram. Most likely this will be to add a Ranger Aide position to help free up Rangers for patrol and site coverage in the more remote sites of the District. 1985-1985 Budget Projected spending figures for 1984-1985 show that expenditures will fall approximately $10 ,000 below the approved total budget figure. However, when two items not completed, the Kennedy Road parking area construction ($15 ,000) and the acquisition of computer equipment ($4 ,700) are deducted, budget expenditures actually exceed the approved budget figure by $10, 000 . The major unexpected cost is a substan- tial rise in Worker' s Compensation insurance expenditures for the Rangers as mandated by the State, Compensation Fund Proposed Fiscal 1985-1986 Budget 1) Planninq.If- Design and Development Subprogram - Staffing levels for this subprogram are strained at this time due to the number of major and minor site development projects going on and anticipated. Aside from the major projects listed in Exhibit "A" . over 500 items remain to be completed in the site Use and Management computer sheet listings of individual items. Those items were scrutinized and either included in this year' s budget or rescheduled to future years. It appears that a major overhauling of the Use and Management Plan review schedule and the actual implementation schedule of the specific site items is necessary this year to be more realistic in completing implemen- taion of these tasks. A sum of $15, 000 was identified as a con- tingency to hire contract planning and engineering help to aid planning staff this year. Money is also included in this subprogram to expand the District Master Plan ($11 ,500) , to commence imple- mentation of a portion of Phase I of the Skyline Ridge Master Plan ($29,000) , to complete the Kennedy Road parking area ($27 ,700) , and to complete the bulk of the Purisima Creek Proposition 18 Grant Project ($149 ,700) . 2) Operations, Maintenance and Volunteer Subprogram Staffing levels in the subprogram again remain the same as last year in this budget. But, as mentioned earlier, until the Open Space Management Staffing Study is completed and implemented and the Use and Management Plan implementation workload is resolved, R-85-34 Page Five site coverage will not be ideal in certain areas of the District. The salaries and benefits category in this subprogram has risen substantially this year (13. 2%) due to the fact that the eleventh and twelfth rangers added last year will be working for the com- plete year, and the fact that many of the rangers are nearing the top of their salary ranges. Salaries in this Subprogram make up well over 50% of the entire Open Space Management budget counted against the Guideline. The Skyline satellite yard will be budgeted for a full year this year and accounts for an increase in some utility and maintenance accounts. In addition, minor equipment replacements are antici- pated, but due to funding constraints, only one truck will be replaced at this time ($13,500) although the replacement schedule shows that two are due for replacement. An increase in the vehicle maintenance and repair account is shown to anticipate any vehicle problems with the older trucks and those four coming off warranty. Contingency items shown include an added Ranger Aide ($6200) , a half year of Ranger time with vehicleland site preparation expenses in anticipation of any substantial new lands acquired ($50, 000) . A sum is also iden"tified as contingency ($30 ,000) for contract security at Mt. Umunhum if a live-in caretaker or com- patible group are not found to secure the facilities on that site. Staff explored the hiring of a mechanic/heavy equipment operator this year but it was felt that this position would not be cost effective at this time. Finally, the Site Preparation account has been moved from the Open Space Acquisition to Open Space Management budget this year. The $210 , 000 figure shown is mainly for Hassler Open Space Preserve site renovation. Open Space Management Budget Policies Compliance The total budget for Open Space Management this year for items counted against this guideline is $892,600. This number exceeds the 1979-1980 based limit by $98 ,200 or 12 . 3% . However, if the total is compared to the rise in the property tax limit (9%) plus last year' s actual budget total counted against the Guidelines ($868 ,400) , it exceeds that limit by only $24 ,200 or 2 . 8% . The attached chart (Exhibit B) which illustrates this point. Items not counted against the limit set in the 1979-1980 Open Space Management budget policies total $466 ,650 . The fact that this fiqure has risen substantially over last year' s total of around $100 ,000 and is a larqe percentage of the actual line item budget shows the need to revise the Budget Guidelines . The following table shows how one would apply the budget guideline policies to the 1985-1986 Open Space Management Budget to determine a figure to be compared with the budget limit of the current Open Space Management Budget Policies. Amortization for trucks and previous site development is not in this calculation since the difference between positive and negative amortization factors is small compared with budget, and amortization is unnecessary. I � � [41 5511260), � I�OrOJ0 t3U(665-36 t�Gl; LII.IE, ITF-P JC- (1,3 rf4r)rUor--P 15UPOI� --r 60I,+4ttP AGArIuO-' (0�600) DG"rL IL- 15UDG� LIN. I-rw -("O�'�rl� (8�6 -rim) O II�IGLU1��5 I�" O COUM eO A&�kIT' GU I nF,L WE,67 C+100,00p V, TrIm GDU ry) AG COl {N �DcCo�cl (DUILI N�h I / TO ♦ ro ♦ ♦ 70 0 y �D ♦ •i o ♦ • IM GJ U � � AG U,4L J �LN17>✓UU� I �U17 UMI UM �D I� 41001 I 350 '81 -'S2 '132-a3 83-51 e - 05 it3 -86 R-85-34 Page Six Open Space Management Budget Factors for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 for Comparison with 1979-80 Budget Guidelines 1) Budget line item total (including general 5% salary increases) $1 ,359 ,250 Less 2) Property taxes $ 4 ,800 Less 3) Site preparation expenses 210 ,000 Less 4) Extraordinary capital improvement costs over $5 ,000 on individual preserves a) Kennedy Trails development 27 ,700 b) Rancho San Antonio capital improvements 7 ,250 c) Skyline Ridge development 29 ,000 d) Purisima Creek grant project 149 ,700 Less 5) Mt. Umunhum planning costs (contracted) 20 ,000 Less 6) Computer equipment and accessories costs 4 ,700 Less 7) District Master Plan update costs 13 ,500 Budget counted against the guidelines $ 892 ,600 3 . Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Program The proposed budget for the Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Program totals $148 ,050 and is 32% higher than the amount budgeted for the 1984-1985 fiscal year. The major reasons for this increase are new projects included in the Action Plan for the coming year. These projects and total projected costs are: A. Scheduling of one or two special events to encourage site use and to publicize the District -- $6 , 900. B. Targeting low awareness areas for special publicity about the District -- $5 ,400 . C. Initiating a pilot program of placing permanent District "Hand- out Stations" in selected libraries or other public buildings in each County -- $4 ,000 . D. Developing a "Good Neighbor" information and communications program in accordance with Board directives -- $1 ,450 for an informational brochure for landowners. The total projected funds for these four projects total $17 ,750 and represent 12% of the Program' s budget. Other major projects for the 1985-1986 fiscal year that have appeared in previous budgets are : E. Printing and distribution of Openspace newsletter and/or other District publications -- $17 ,800. F. Revision and printing of the All-Site Brochure - $8 ,000. G. Expanding the District's exhibit and display material $4 ,600 . R-85-34 Page Seven H. Hosting bus tours of District lands for public officials, if interest continues , and for members of the media -- $3 ,600 . I . Hosting special meetings, including one with the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission - $600 . Projects E through I total $34 ,600 and represent 23% of the 1985- 1986 proposed budget. All of the projects above total $52 ,350 or 35% of the proposed budget. Salaries and benefits for the Program' s Coordinator and Secretary (assuming a 5.1% salary range adjustment) represent 37% of the bud- geted funds. The remainder of the budgeted funds are for generally recurring Program expenses , with the exception of $5 ,500 that has been included for computer hardware, software, and furniture. The one contingency item identified in the Program' s proposed 1985-1986 budget is $3000 for consulting services to assist with the "Good Neighbor" program if necessary. The 1984-1985 budget for the Public Communications and Governmental Liaison Program of $112 ,050 will be underspent by approximately $16 ,000 or 14% . The major reasons for this are 1) approximately $5 ,000 not expended in salaries and benefits due to the vacancy in the Coordinator ' s position; 2) $4 ,500 not expended for computer equipment and software; and 3) some $4 ,000 budgeted for a major revision of the All-Site brochure which was not necessary and did not occur, but is budgeted to take place in the 1985-1986 fiscal year. 4 . General Management and Program Support The proposed 1985-1986 General Management and Program Support budget of $595 , 700 has jumped 48% from the Program' s 1984-1985 budget total of $401 ,600 . The major reason for this significant increase is lease- hold improvements associated with the move to a different office location. The leasehold improvements total $155 ,000 or 26% of the proposed budget and breakdown as follows : 1) Consultant Services $ 4 ,000 2) Basic Structure Renovation $ 100 ,000 3) Kitchen $ 4 ,000 4) Furniture $ 30 ,000 5) Telephone Equipment $ 17 ,000 It should be emphasized that the above figures are the best estimate of expenses that staff can make at this time since an interim location has not been secured and since it is unknown at this time how long the interim period will be (e .g. , one year versus three or four years) . The numbers are projected at the higher end of a cost spectrum because of all the unknowns involved and since staff felt it appropriate to budget the higher numbers in order to give a more realistic picture of what expenses could be involved. A minor item included in the budget for "the move" , but not included in the fixed assets category is reprinting expenses for District stationery, forms, business cards , etc. If the $155 ,000 leasehold improvements figure is subtracted from the budget' s proposed $595 ,700 total , the 1985-1986 proposed budget for General Management and Program Support is approximately 9 .7% higher than the 1984-1985 budget. However, $25 ,900 was included in the 1984-1985 budget for election-related expenses and no election expen- ses are included in the 1985-1986 proposed budget. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PRELIMINARY BUDGET BY PROGRAM (a) (1985-1986 Fiscal Year) Public Communi- General. Open Space Open Space cations & Management & Acquisition Management Governmental Program TOTALS Budget Cate2ory Pro ram Program Liaison Program Support (All Programs)_ REV=S Basic Property Tax $ 4,996,000 Allocation Debt Service Property Tax 733,000 Prior Years Redemptions 280,000 Tax Relief Subventions 468,000 Interest 600,000 Grants 396,000 Enterprise Activities 225,000 Other 99,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 7,797,000 RESERVES ($4,098,350) ` I i � r MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PRELIMINARY BUDGET BY PROGRAM 1985-1986 (b) Public Communi- Gcneral i Open Space Open Space cations & Management & Acquisition Management Governmental Program TOTALS Bud et Cate or Program Program Liaison Program Support (All Programs) E EXPENDITURES Debt Service-Land Interest $ 1,355,000 -0- -0- -0- $ 1,355,000 Principal 3,280,500 -0- -0- -0- 3,280,500 SUBTOTAL $ 4,635,500 -0- -0- -0- 4,635,500 I Salaries & Benefits Salaries I a) Gen. Mgr. Appointees $ 135,800 $ 531,750 $ 43,000 $ 86,200 $ 796,750 b) Salary Incentive Award; -0- -0- -0- 4,500 4,500 c) Cenral Manager -0- -0- -0- 66,300 66,300 d) Legal Counsel -0- -0- -0- 49,400 49,400 i e) Controller -0- -0- -0- 3,500 3,500 Benefits a) Gen. Mgr. Appointees 27,600 131,500 12,000 16,750 187,850 b) General Manager -0- -0- -0- 19,650 19,650 c) Legal Counsel -0- -0- -0- 4,100 4,100 ! d) Controller -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Directors' Fees -0- -0- -0- 16,800 16,800 SUBTOTAL 163,400 663,250 $ 55,000 $ 267,200 $1,148,850 k I i MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1985-1986 (c) PRELIMINARY BUDGET BY PROGRAM Public Communi- General Open Space Open Space cations & Management & Acquisition Management Governmental Program TOTALS Budget Category_ _ Pro ram Program Liaison Program Support (All Programs) _ Services & Supplies Legal Services $ 4,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ 11000 $ 5,000 Regular Outside Services 2,600 5,950 1,800 10,500 20,850 Land Option Fees 1,000 -0- -0- -0- 1,000 Contract Services 30,000 71,900 27,250 14,200 143,350 Election/Annexation -0- -0- -0- 1,500 1,500 Library & Subscriptions 550 850 2,000 300 2,700 Memberships & Dues 100 250 250 100 700 Rents & Leases 200 5,000 3,650 87,400 96,250 Utilities 150 14,900 -0- 9,800 24,850 Postage -0- 50 4,000 6,000 10,050 Printing & Duplicating 400 10,900 31,100 11,800 54,200 Audio-Visual Presentation -0- -0- 2,700 -0- 2,700 Insurance 3,800 11,400 -0- 6,000 21,200 Advertising 1,000 1,200 2,850 1,000 6,050 Maps and Aerials 400 850 -0- -0- 1,250 Private Vehicle Expenses 3,700 3,500 900 3,100 11,200 District Vehicle Expense -0- 59,050 -0- -0- 59,050 Conference/Mtg. Expenses 2,300 4,150 8,650 2,600 17,700 Training and Seminars 1,000 5,600 800 1,700 9,100 Maint./Repair Equipment 400 8,000 200 1,800 10,400 Conputer Expenses -0- ! -0- 400 1,600 2,000 Office Supplies/Sml. Equi . -0- 850 1,300 3,600 5,750 Field Supplies/Sml. Equip. 200 11,300 -0- -0- 11,500 Site Oper., Maint. & Repaii 9,200 49,950 -0- -0- 59,150 Property Taxes -0- 4,800 -0- -0- 4,800 r Miscellaneous 100 -0- 100 100 300 SUBTOTAL SERVICES & $ 61,100 $ 270,450 87,950 164, 00 , SUPPLIES MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PRELIMINARY BUDGET BY PROGRAM 1985-1986 (d) Public communi- General Open Space Open Space cations & Management & Acquisition Management Governmental Program TOTALS Budget Category Pra ram Program Liaison Program Support (All Programs) _ FIXED ASSETS CcmTdtted Land Purchases $ 234,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ 234,000 New Land Purchases 4,600,000 -0- -0- -0- 4,600,000 Site Acquisition Expense 93,000 -0- -0- -0- 93,000 Site Preparation � e -0- 210,000 -0- - -0- - 210, 000 Leasehold Improvements -0- -0- -0- 155,000 155,000 Structures & Improvements 1,100 188,700 -0- -0- 189,800 Field Equipment -0- 7,100 -0- -0- 7,100 Office Equipment 4,250 6,250 5,100 9,400 25,000 Vehicles -0- 13,500 -0- -0- 13,500 SUBTOTAL $4,932,350 425,550 5,100 164,400 5,527,400 T0TAL OF ALL EXPENDITURES $9,792,350 $1,359,250 $ 148,050 $ 595,700 $ 11,895,350 1 359 25 TOTAL I 3 0 148 050 EXPENDITURES $ 22,850 $ $ $ 595,700 $ 2,425,850 EXCLUDING LAND MTD DEBT SERVICES E i ! r RESOLUTION NO. 85-33 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-1986 The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows : Section One. The preliminary budget for the Midpenin- sula Regional Open Space District for the fiscal year 1985-1986 is adopted as set forth in Exhibit A. Section Two. In addition to this District' s allocation of property taxes collected corresponding to the maximum tax rate of one percent of assessed valuation for all agencies within each county, a property tax levy in the amount of $733 ,000 shall be made to pay fiscal year 1985- 1986 debt service sufficient to retire indebtedness incurred prior to June 6 , 1978 , pursuant to Public Re- sources Code Section 5544 . 2. Section Three. A total tax rate of ten cents (10(�) per $100 assessed valuation is adopted, or such lesser amount as may be allowable by law. Section Four. An adjustment to land acquisition funds shall be made to reflect any difference between actual revenue and budgeted revenue. Section Five. Monies are hereby appropriated in accord- ance with said budget. D. Services & Sul i-es 1. Legal Services $ 5 ,000 2. Regular Outside Services 20 , 850 3. Land Option Fees 1 ,000 4. Contract Services 143 ,350 5 . Election/Annexation 1, 500 6. Library & Subscriptions 3 ,700 7 . Membership Dues 700 8 . Rents & Leases 96 ,250 9 . Utilities 24 ,850 10. Postage 10 ,050 11. Printing & Duplicating 54 ,200 12 . Audio-Visual Presentations 2 ,700 13 . Insurance 21,200 14 . Advertising 6 ,050 15 . Maps & Aerials 1 ,250 16 . Private Vehicle Expenses 11 ,200 17 . District Vehicle Expense 59 ,050 18. Conference/Meeting Expenses 17 ,700 19 . Training & Seminars 9 ,100 20 . maintenance/Repair Equipment 10 ,400 21. Computer Expense 2 ,000 22. Office Supplies/Small Equipment 5 ,750 23 . Field Supplies/Small Equipment 11 ,500 24 . Site Operation, Maintenance & Repair 59 ,150 25 . Property Taxes 4 , 800 26 . Miscellaneous 300 SUBTOTAL $ 583 ,600 E. Fixed Assets 1 . Committed Land Purchases $ 234 ,000 2 . New Land Purchases 4 ,600 ,000 3. Site Acquisition Expense 93,000 4 . Site Preparation Expense 210 ,000 5. Leasehold Improvements 155 ,000 6. Structures & Improvements 189 , 800 7 . Field Equipment 7 ,100 8. Office Equipment 25 ,000 9 . Vehicles 13 ,500 SUBTOTAL $ 5 ,527, 400 TOTAL OF ALL EXPENDITURES $11 ,895,350 EXHIBIT A MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 I. REVENUES A. Basic Property Tax Allocation $ 4 ,996 ,000 B. Debt Service Property Tax 733 ,000 C. Prior Years Redemptions 280 ,000 D. Tax Relief Subventions 468,000 E. Interest 600 ,000 F. Grants 396 ,000 G. Enterprise Activities 225 ,000 H. Other Income 99 ,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 7 ,797 ,000 II . RESERVES ($ 4 ,098,350) III. EXPENDITURES A. Debt Service (Land) 1 . Interest $ 1,355 ,000 2. Principal 3 ,280 ,500 SUBTOTAL $ 4 ,635 ,500 B. Salaries 1. General Manager Appointees $ 796 ,750 2 . Salary Incentive Awards 4,500 3. General Manager 66 ,300 4. Legal Counsel 49 ,400 5. Controller 3 ,500 Benefits 1. General Manager Appointees 187 , 850 2. General Manager 19 ,650 3. Legal Counsel 4 ,100 4. Controller -0- Directors Fees 16 ,800 SUBTOTAL $ 1 ,148, 850 EXHIBIT A MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1.986 R-85-31 (Meeting 85-16, June 26 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 20 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: M. Foster, Controller SUBJECT: Controller ' s Report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 1985-1986 Budget The following cash flow projection shows the impact of the proposed fiscal year 1985-1986 budget on the District' s cash position. The District will begin the new fiscal year with an estimated cash balance of $8 .65 million. Together with anticipated revenues, this cash position is adequate to cover debt service, operating expenses , year-end reserve requirements and $5 . 2 million for land development and acquisition. No cash flow problems are expected. CASH FLOW PROJECTION Fiscal Year 1985-86 (Thousands) Beginning Cash $ 8650 Plus : Tax Revenue 6477 Grant Income 396 Interest Income 600 Rental Income 225 Other Income 99 Subtotal $ 7797 Minus : Debt Service $ 4636 Operating Expenses 1868 Leasehold Improvements 155 Site Development/Preparation 402 Land Purchases 4834 Subtotal $ 11895 Ending Cash $ 4552 Revenues 1 . Debt Service Property Tax Revenue of $733 ,000 is budgeted to cover the principal and interest payments required by the District pre-Proposi- tion 13 debt. 2. Regular Tax Revenue is estimated at $5.74 million - $4 .1 million from Santa Clara County (71%) and $1 . 7 million from San Mateo County (290) . This assumes increases in secured taxes of 112-% and 6% from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties respectively. R-85-31 Page Two 3 . Grant Income is projected at $396 ,000 . This includes $196 ,000 from SB 174 , $150 ,000 for the Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve develop- ment, and $50 ,000 in Land and Water Conservation funds. 4 . Interest Income is budgeted at $600 ,000 . This assumes an average investment rate of 9 .25% . Currently most of our cash is invested in the Santa Clara County pooled fund which is yielding about 10% . 5 . Rental Income is projected at $225 ,000 , up about 13% from this year. Associated direct expenses are budgeted at $19 ,305 . 6 . Other Income is estimated at $99 ,000 and includes $36 ,000 from the Hassler Assessment District and $23 ,000 from Sempervirens Fund. Reserves If all reserves and expenditures occur as budgeted, the District' s reserves will total $4 .5 million at the end of the fiscal year. This will be suffi- cient to cover the first half of the 1986-87 cash needs, including about $2 million for acquisition and/or development, and meet the reserve require- ments of our 1982 , 1985 , and Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve notes. Debt Service Debt service is budgeted at $4 .6 million. The five largest items are the 1982 Notes ($979 ,000) , the 1985 Notes ($734 ,000) , the Series A Notes ($513 ,000) , the Skyline Ranch Note ($348 ,000) , and the Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve Notes ($338 ,000) . A complete listing of note payments is provided in the Debt Service Annual Claims List. Debt Capacity At the end of June, the District will have approximately $17 .6 million of debt outstanding compared to an official debt capacity of about $27 million. However, the key constraint is the additional bonds test required by our 1982 Notes . In order to remain in compliance, the District cannot add more than $945,000 of new 1986-87 unsubordinated debt service . This means the District could issue approximately $5 million of new 10 year notes. If this debt capacity is not utilized during 1985-86 , the District could issue up to $10 million of new 10 year notes in 1986-87 . P-85-32 (Meeting 85-16 June 26, 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 20, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Budget Committee: Harry Turner (Alternate to Edward Shelley) , Katherine Duffy and Teena Lenshaw SUBJECT: Budget Committee Report for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 The Budget Committee met with staff in a series of meetings to review the proposed budget for the 1985-1986 fiscal year. As usual , most of the time was spent reviewing the Land Management budget and discussing in general the implications of large increases in that budget which continues to outgrow the guidelines used in the past. we thoroughly reviewed the initial "should do" budget (up 21% against guidelines not including staff contingencies) based on current Land Management plans and continuing projects . Finding nothing frivolous in that budget, we discussed the implications and the need for additional staffing to accom- plish the proposed tasks. Next we reviewed the list of cuts which bring that budget down to a 12% increase. We recognized this budget could also increase because of contingency staffing that may be necessary to keep up with the large number of new projects and onaoing field work. Although we feel these cuts do not have a negative effect on proper stewardship, they do have varying impacts on land use and, therefore, political con- siderations. In relation to this , there was a general discussion of the pressures on adequate stewardship; the number of Land Management projects, some of which were recently adopted; general increase in Public use; the new projects; and the implications this has on the requirements for increases in office staff and field personnel . The many planning and capital improve- ments projects were not Dared back at this time, Perhaps creating some inconsistency with budget available for staff and services resources. The foregoing led to a discussion of the following matters among others : 1 . budget implications of the Land Management Staffing Study now in progress, 2. the need for more progress in long-term budget planning and for projects and their impacts, 3 . the introduction into Use and Management Plans of a spending time- line, and 4 . the possibilities of change in timing of these Plans to alleviate staff workload. The Committee recommends that the Board: 1 . Adopt the proposed preliminary budget as a temporary working budget, also encourage the General Manager to request authorization to hire the contingency personnel which may be necessary to facilitate new projects and the field maintenance contained in this budget. R-85-32 Page 2 2 . Request the Budget Committee to continue meeting to evaluate and make recommendations on possible changes in the Land Management guidelines which now have been exceeded for three years in a row. This is to include a format for a multi-year capital improvements program and evaluation of expenditures not counted against current guidelines. 3 . Authorize the Budget Committee to review and make recommendations on the revised budget which will be brought to the Board upon com- pletion of the Land Management Staffing Study now in progress. 4 . Request that every effort be made by staff and Budget Committee to complete these tasks by the first of the year. R-85-29 (Meeting 85-16, Ilk or June 26, 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT I REPORT June 18 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: M. Foster, Controller SUBJECT: Annual Claims List for 1985-1986 In accordance with Section 1 . 53 of the District' s Rules of Procedures , this list of annual claims for the 1985-1986 fiscal year is submitted for Board approval . All items are in accordance with the budget being g presented for adoption. ANNUAL CLAIMS Item Description Amount Directors ' Fees $ 16,800 .00 Staff Salaries 920,450.00 Retirement Funds 86,600. 00 Group Insurance Premiums 82 100 .00 State-Mandated Insurance 40 100 .00 Office Rent 87,400.00 Management Vehicle Expense 5 ,400 .00 Expense Subtotal $ 1 ,238, 850 .00 Noteholder-Land Principal Interest 1 . Scott $ 12,500 .00 $ 406 . 25 2 . Hayes 17 ,500 .00 568 .75 3 . Burns 160 ,000 .00 28 ,800.00 4 . Mindling-Harrison 8 ,500 .00 3,060.00 5. Bell 10 ,500 .00 5 ,040 .00 6 . P.O.S.T. 100 ,000 .00 8 ,500.00 7. Garrod 145 ,000 . 00 11 ,600 .00 8 . Guadalupe Disposal 21 , 300 .00 10 ,224 .00 9 . Coplon 80 ,000 .00 6 ,400 .00 10 . Risley (Leverich) 1 ,581 .73 3 ,070 .07 11 . Bean 50 ,000 .00 10 ,000 .00 12 . Crist (1981) 37 ,100 .00 11 ,872 .00 13 . Catalano (Bertetta) -0- 9 ,120 .00 14 . Sorahan (Jeffries) 2 ,794 .51 1 ,212 . 29 15 . Sorahan (Thoren) 4 ,826 .20 2,094 . 20 16 . Skyline Ranch 300,000 . 00 48 ,000 .00 17 . Anderson 20 ,000 .00 3 , 200 .00 18 . Rose & Basich 76 ,243 . 20 11 ,436 . 48 19 . Basich 4 ,989 . 20 2,744 .06 20 . J. Allen 29 ,400 .00 4 ,410 .00 21 . K. Allen 29 ,400 . 00 4 ,410 .00 22. Van Vleck 2 , 750.00 660 . 00 R-85-29 Page two Principal Interest 23 . Rose $ 9 ,978 . 40 $ 1 ,496 .76 24 . Bell (Liebelt) 1 ,749 .34 10 ,314 .14 25. Truesdell (Rongey) 109 . 50 4 ,750 .50 26 . Zabel 15,000.00 8 ,550 .00 27 . Gano 35 ,000. 00 9 ,450 .00 28 . 1982 Promissory Note 600 ,000 .00 379 ,200 .00 29 . Crist (1983) 35 ,000 .00 11 ,200 .00 30 . Fernandez 81 ,430 . 00 24 , 429 .00 31 . Ertell 9 ,000 .00 5,670 .00 32 . Incerpi 30 ,000 .00 18 ,900 .00 33 . Bachtold 40 ,000 .00 11 , 250 .00 34 . Grossmith 3 ,850 .00 924 .00 35. Cho 100 ,000 .00 56,000 .00 36 . Jenkins 17 ,500 .00 3,937 .50 37 . Wilkins 170 ,000 .00 168 ,300 . 00 38 . Collett 55 ,000 .00 33 ,206 . 26 39 . Chesebrough 64 ,500 .00 18 ,060 .01 40 . Chesebrough 28 ,500 .00 7 ,979.99 41 . Barlow 9 ,500 .00 7 ,873 .13 42. Series "A" Note 460 ,000 .00 52,900 .00 43 . 1985 Note 400 ,000 .00 333 ,800 .00 $ 3 ,280 ,502 .08 $ 1 ,355 ,019 . 39 i LAND DEBT SERVICE SUBTOTAL $ 4 ,635,521. 47 TOTAL ANNUAL CLAIMS $ 5 , 874 ,371. 47 A detailed list of debt service obligations is attached. Recommendation: I recommend you approve the Annual Claims List as shown above for the 1985-1986 fiscal year. I I I I I i Page 1 of 4 DEBT SERVICE 1985/86 July 1, 1985 Close of Original Remaining Final Payable Open Space Preserve Payable to Escrow Amt,ofNote ' Rate o Terms Prin.7/1/85 Paym,Due 85/86 Principal Interest - r Coal Creek Rose,Basich 7/01/82, 381,216;. '8,0. 5 years; 171,54.7.20 7/02/87 87,679.68 76,243,20 ' 11,436,48 Basich 7/01/82 49,892,.7: '8.0 10 years' 36,171.70 7/02/92 7 733,.26 4,989�.20 2,744.06 J. Allen. 7/01/82 147,000.00 8,0 y y(e;Irs 66,1S0.00 7/02/87 33,810.00 29,400.00 4,410.00 K. Allen 7/01/82, 147,000. 8.0 S years 66,150.00 7/02/87 33,810.00 29,400.00 4,410.00 Rose 7/01/82 49,892. .8.0 5 years 22,451.40 i7/02/87 11,475.16 9,978.40 1,496,76 Fernandez 6/01/83 1,150,010. 6,0 7 years 407 150.00 ' 2/1S/90 ;105,859.00 81,430.00 24,429.00 El Sereno Scott 7/16/75 125,000. 6.5, 9 years. 12,500.00 11/3/85 12,906.25 12,500.00 406.25 Hayes 7/10/75 175,000. 6.5 9 years 17,500.0011/3/85 18,068.75 17,500.00 568.75 Fremont Older Garrod 8/26/80 725,1000, 8,0 5 years 145,000.00 8/26/85 '156 600.00 145,000.00 11,600.00 La Honda Creek Collett 4/30/84, 550,000. 7.0 10 years 495,000.00 5/01/94 88,206,26 SS 000.00 33,206.26 w , , , t r I 556,148.36, 44' 440' i,439,620e30 _ ,80 94,707.56 Page 2 or 4 DEBT SERVICE 1985/86 July 1 , 1985 Close of Original Remaining Final Payable Open Space Preserve Payable to Escrow Amt.ofNote Rate(') Terms Principal Paym.Due 85/86 Principal Interest Balance Forwarded 1,439.620,30 556,148.36 461,440.80 94,707.56 Long Ridge Bean ; 7/28/81 250,'000. 10.0 Ye:11•s 100,000.00 7/28/86 60,000.00 50,000.00 10,00C).00 (Rongey)Truesdell 8/13/82 59,698. 8.0 12 years 59,430.73 12/9/94 4,860.00 109.50 4,750.50 P 0 NChesebrough 12/30/83 26,008. 7.0 5 years 20,806.40 12/30/88 6,658.05 5,201.60 1,456.45 M.Chesebrough 12/30/83 143,246. 7.0 5 yearn 118,596. 80 12/30/88 37,950.98 29,649.20 8,301 .78 E.Chesebrough 12/30/83 148,246. 7.0 5 years 118,596. 80 12/30/88 37,950.98 29,649.20 8,301 . 78 P & NChesebrough 12/30/83 11,492. 7.0 5 years 9,193.60 12/30/88 - 2,941.95 2,298.40 64.7.55 M-Chesebrough 12/30/83 65,504 7.0 5 years, 52,403.20 12/30/88 16,769.02 13 100.80 3,668. 22 E.Chesebrough 12/30/83 65,504 7.0 5 years- 52,-403.20 12/30/88 16,769.02 13,100.80 S,00s. 2' Monte Bello Burns 12/02/77 1,600.000. 6.0 10 years 480,000.00 12/02/87 188,800.00 160,000.00 28,800.00 Trust Fund Purisima Creek Rcdoods Wilkins 4/20/84 1,700,000, 11.0 10 years 1,530,000.00 4/20/94 338,300.00 170,000.00 168,300.00 , Rancho San Antonio Cho 4/l/84 900,000 , 7.0 9 years . 800,000.00 ;4/15/93 156,000.00 100,000.00 56,000.00 4,781,051,�03 ! 1,423,1�48.36 �1 0341,550.30 388,598.06, Page 3 of 4 DEBT SERVICE 1985/1986 ,July 1, 198S Close of Original Remaining I"inaI Payable Open Space Preserve Payable to Escrow Amt.ofNote Rate (°) Ter•nis Principal Paym.Due 85/86 Principal Interest Balances Forwarded 4,781,051.03 1,423,148.36 ,1034,550.30 388,598.06 'Russian Ridge Coplon 3/19/81 400,0M 8.01 5 years 80,000,00 3/l9/86 186,400.+00, 80,000.00 6,400.00 Crist 12/9/81 259,'700. 8.0 '1it8,A00,.00 1/01/89 48,972.00 37,100.00 11 ,872.00 Crist 2/16/83 210,000. 8.0 140,000.00 1/01/89 .16,200.00 S5,000.00 1 1 ,.2,m).(10 i Saratoga Gap Zabel 10/5/82, 1S0,000, 8.& 10 years 11211'500.00 lb/02/92 23,550.00 15 000.00 8,550.00 Sierra Azul Mindling: 12/13/80 85,'000. 6.0 10 years ' 51,000.00 8/13/90 _ 11,SGO.QO. 8,500.00 3,060.00 Bell 7/22/80 105,000. 8.0 10 years 63,000.00 z/32/qQ '15,540.00 10,500.00 5,040.00 Guadalupe 1/14/81 213,000. 8.0 10 years 127,800.00 ; 1/14/91 31,524.00 21,300.00 10,224.00 (Risley)Leverich 5/13/81 50>000. 7.0 20 years 44,573.85 5/22/2001 4,651.80 1,581.73 3,070.07 (Sorahan)Jeffries 12/31/81 21,078. 10.0 8 years 13,380.72 7/01/89 4,006.80 2,794.51 1,212.29 (Sorahan)Thoren 12/31/81 36,407. 10.0 8 years 23,114.25 7/01/89 6,920.40 4,820.20 2,094.20 (Liebelt)Bell 8/02/82 133,726. 8.0 11 years 129,571,.96 7/25/93 12,063.48 1,749.34 10,314.14 Ertell 7/27/83; 90,000. ;7.0 10 years 81,000.00 7/27/93 14,670.00 9,000.00 5,670.00 Grossmith 4/01/84 19,250. 6.0 5 years 15 400.00 4/06/89 4,774.00 31850.00 924.00 Van Vleck 4/01/84 13,750. 6.0 5 years 11000.00 4/06/89 3,410.00 2750.00 660.00 A Barlow 7/01/85. 95,000. 8.5 10 years 95,000.00 i1/01/95 17,373.13 9,500.00 7,873. 13 1 1 , r 5,916,7S1',sal 1;754,763.'97 1,278,002..08 476,761 a89- Page 4 of 4 DEBT' SERVICE 1985/86 Jiily 1, 1985 Close of Original Remaining Final Payable Open Space Preserve Payable to Escrow Amt.ofNote Rate>(Q) "Perms Principal Paym.Due 85/86 Principal Interest Balance Forwarded 5,916,791).81 1,754, 763.97 1,278,002,08 476,761 .89 `Skyline Skyline Rnch2/01/82. 1,500,,000. S yQar.s 600,000.00 2/01/87 348,000.00 300,000.00 48,000.00 Incerpi 7/18/84 300,000. 7.0 10 years 270,000,00 . 7/18/93 48,900.00 30,000,00 18,900.00 Jenkins 6/01/84 70,000. 7.5 4 52,500.00 5/31/88 21,437.50 17,500.00 3,937.50 Thornewood Gano , 11/22/82 175,000. 9.0 5 years 1-05,000.00 11/22/87 .44,450.00 35,000.00 9,450.00 Windy Hill Post 1/29/81 500,000. 8.5 S years 100,000.00 2/01/86 108,500.00 100,0()0.()0 8,500.00 (Catalano)Bertetta 1/14/82 152,000. 6.0. 5 years 152,000.00 9/24/87 9,120.00 9, 120.00 Anderson 4/13/82 100,000. 8.0 5 years :410,000.00 4/13/8.7 23,200.00 20,000.00 3,200.00 Bachtold 3/30/84 200,000. 7.5 S years 160,000.00 3/30/89 51,250.00 40,000.00 11,250.00 Various Series A 7/31/77 4,600.000. 5.0 10 yearsl,380,000.00 7/15/87 512,900.00 460,000.00 52,900.00 Pd.by County 1982 ,Note 12!16/82 6,000.000 g.g 10 years4,800,000.0.0 12/15/92 979,200.00 600,000.00 379,200.00 j 1985 Note 3/05/85 4,000.00. 8.5 10 years4,000.000,00 12/15/95 733,800.00 400,000.00 a53,800,0() I 17,576.29J.B1 4,635,S21.47 3,,280,502.08 '1,3551019.39 M-85-101 (Meeting 85-16 June 26 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D•1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965.4717 MEMORANDUM June 20, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Letter from City of Palo Alto Encouraging Opposition to AB 2198 Introduction: At your June 5th meeting you considered a letter (at- tached) from the City of Palo Alto encouraging you to approve AB 2198 , authored by Assembly Member Felando, which would severely limit the applicability of the Naylor bill requiring below-market disposition of surplus school property to public entities. Discussion: Attached are copies of the most recent version of the bill, a legislative analysis of it, and Article 5 of the Education Code which the bill would amend. The attached materials can be reviewed to under- stand the issues and why the City of Palo Alto is concerned. Assembly Bill 2198 has been amended since the letter from Palo Alto was written by Ms. Rudin, but she has told me that the amendments do not mitigate the City' s opposition. In spite of reportedly strong opposition from the League of California Cities and others, the bill is now on its third (last) reading on the Assembly floor; therefore, opposition would presumably now be focussed on the Senate side. The schools are, of course, supporting the bill since it would give them more flexibility in surplus land sales and hold promise of higher monetary returns. It would be quite unlikely for this bill to impact directly the Dis- trict's ro acquisition ram in the foothill and bay land planning area. q program However, Section 2a of the District' s Basic Policy states that: The District will promote cooperation ion with and encourage e governmental agencies , private organizations , and individ- uals to preserve open space. " And Section 2d states that: "The District will propose and urge preservation of open space to other governmental agencies, such as the cities and the County which, unlike the District, have zoning powers to aid in the protection. It will also serve as an advocate for the protection of the area ' s natural environmental resources. The District will lend support to those groups which are urging other agencies to take actions consistant with the goals of the District" . Therefore, you do have the policy basis for taking a position on AB 2198 . Herbert A.Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin M-85-101 Page 2 Recommendation: If you wish to oppose AB 2198 , 1 recommend that you direct the General Manager to prepare a draft letter for the President to be sent by staff to the District ' s representatives and the relevant committees. I also recommend a "C" priority as appropriate for this bill under the adopted Policies for Handling Legislative Matters. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIC Meeting 85-14 June 5 , 1985 ca� of !,Clio P 0 BOX 10250 PALO ALfO, CALIFORNIA 94303 City Manager' s Office May 31, 1985 (415) 329-2512 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 A bill, AB 2198 (Felando) , has been introduced in the State Legisla- ture, which would repeal the "Naylor Act" . Section 39390 of the State Education Code, commonly known as the Naylor Act , allows cities and park districts to acquire a limited amount of surplus school sites for 25 percent of the property' s market value . No more than 30 percent of the school district ' s total surplus school sites acreage may be acquired at the "Naylor" price, and acquisitions are limited to property which has been used for playgrounds, playfields, or other recreational uses for eight years preceding the decision to sell. I am enclosing a copy of a letter from Leland D. Levy, Mayor of Palo Alto, to Byron Sher, our Assemblyman in the State Legislature . The letter explains why the City of Palo Alto believes it is so impor- tant to oppose AB 2198 . It is my hope that your organization agree with us that it is essential to preserve the Naylor Act, and you too will communicate with Assemblyman Sher and other members of the State Legislature. AB 2198 is likely to be heard on the Assembly floor within the next week. If I can provide any additional information to you, please contact me at 329-2512. Thank you. VICCI RUDIN Executive Assistant VR/cjl Enclosure r AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 30, 1985 , CALIFORNIA LEGISL.ATURU-1985--M REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2198 Introduced by Assembly Nlember Felando March 8, 198.3 An act to amend Seette t 39396 ef; to Y-epeltl Seet-ie* 3944e, of-, Sections 39396 and 39403 of, and to add Section 39396.1 to the Education Code, relating to schools. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2198, as amended, Felando. Schools: surplus property. Existing law limits the selling price of specified surplus j sclh"D_11 property to the cost of acquisition, as adjusted. This Ibill would revise that limit to be the fair market value i of the property, as defined, if the surplus school property is located in a school attendance area ivhich has had a declining enrollment of pupils, as specified. Existing law limits the right of a public agency to acquire surplus school property within its jurisdictional boundaries to an amount not in excess of 30% of the surplus school acreage, as defined, within those boundaries. This bill would remove that limitation with respect to the, acquisition of surplus school property, if the surplus school property is located in a school attendance area which has had a declining enrolhment of pupils, as specified. �4 Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows. I 1 SECTION 1. Section 39396 of the Education Code is 2 amended to read: l I 98 60 A11 219E —2— —3— AB 2198 i 39396, (a) hxcept as otherwise provided in 1 (e) Whenever a school district closes a school site and a 2 ��11)(11vision (b) or (e), the price at which land described 2 sells any land described in Section 39391 pursuant to this � Section 39391, excluding that portion of a school site 3 article to help pay only for capital outlay costs incurred 1 4 rctGiined by the governing board pursuant to Section 4 directly as a result of the transfer of pupils from the closed 5 39395, is sold pursuant to this article shall not exceed the 5 school to another school or other schools of the district, 6 school district's cost of acquisition,calculated as a pro rata 6 the sale price of the property determined pursuant to 7 cost of acquiring the entire parcel comprising the school 7 subdivision (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to 8 site, adjusted by a factor equivalent to the percontagt� 8 t1w additional costs incurred due to the school closure. 9 increase or decrease in the cost of living from tlic dates of 9 (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of lacv, this 10 purchase to the year in which the offer of sale is made, 10 section shall not apply to surplus school property, if they 11 plus the cost of any improvement to the recreational ind 11 particular school that provides educational services for 12 open-space portion of the land which the school district 12 the school attendance area in which the property is 13 has made since its acquisition of the land. In no event 13 located has had a declining enrollment of pupils within 14 shall the price be less than 25 percent of the fair snarl<et 14 either of the two years immediately preceding the ye<rr 15 value of the land described in Section 39391 or less than 15 in which the property is proposed to be sold. 16 the amount necessary to retire the share of local bonded 16 39396. 17 indebtedness plus the amount of the original cost of the 17 SEC. 2. Section 39396.1 is added to the Fducation 18 approved state aid applications on the property, 18 Code, to read: 19 excluding that portion of a school site retained by the 19 39396.1. (a) Except as otherwise provided in 20 governing board pursuant to Section 39394,at the time of 20 subdivision (d), the price at which land described in 21 the offer. 21 Section 39391, excluding that portion of a school site 22 These provisions shall apply to land that the school 22 retained by the governing board pursuant to Section 23 district acquired by gift or for consideration. 23 39395, is sold pursuant to this article shall not exceed the 24 (b) A school district that offers a portion of a school 24 fair market value of the land. For purposes of this article, 25 site for sale may offer such portion of property for sale at 25 fair market value of the land means the price a willing 26 its fair market value,provided the school district offers an 26 buyer and a willing seller would negotiate in an arm s 27 equivalent size alternative portion of that school site for 27 length transaction for the land, as if the land were zoned 28 school playground, playing field, or other recreational 28 at its highest and best use. In no event, shall the price be 29 and open-space purposes. 29 less than 25 percent of the fair market value of the land 30 (c) Land which is leased pursuant to this article shall 30 described in Section 39391 or less than the amount 31 be leased at an annual rate of not more than 1/20th of the 31 necessary to retire the share of local bonded 32 maximum sales price determined pursuant to subdivision 32 indebtedness plus the amount of the original cost of the 33 (a) of this section, adjusted annually by a factor 33 approved state aid applications on the property, 34 equivalent to the percentage increase or decrease in the 34 excluding that portion of a school site retained by the 35 cost of living for the immediately preceding year. 35 governing board pursuant to Section 39394, at the time of 36 (d) The percentage of annual increase or decrease in 36 the offer. 37 the cost of living shall be the amount shown for January 37 These provisions shall apply to land that the school 38 1st of the appropriate year by the then current Bureau of 38 district acquired by gift or for consideration. 39 Labor Statistics Consumers Price Index for the area in 39 (b) Land which is leased pursuant to this article shall 40 which the school site is located. 40 be leased at an annual rate of not more than 1/20th of the I Ali 219,S —,t — —5— AB 2198 1)nce det0rniined pursuant to subdivision 1 jurisdictional boundaries of that agency. OI this scctioii, adjusted annually by a factor 2 (c) For purposes of this section, "surplus school 3 cciui��alent to the percentage increase or decrease in the 3 acreage" of a school district means property which is 4 cost of living for the immediately preceding year. 4 owned by a district and not used for school purposes, 5 (c) The percentage of annual increase or decrease in 5 including, but not limited to, undeveloped property and p, 6 the cost of living shall be the amount shown for January 6 property which contains school buildings that are not in ?t 7 lst of the appropriate year by the then current Buy eau of 7 use as a result of a school closure and which is not subject 'Sp w 8 Labor Statistics Consumers Price Index for t1w ,t¢-(,a in 8 to any lease or agreement executed on or before July 1, 9 which the school site is located. .1 r t r 1J74, for a term in excess of six years, in which any city << 10 (d) Whenever a school district closes a school sil e awl 10 containing a population of less than 100,000 had use of the 11 sells any land described in Section 39391 pursuant to this 11 property for park purposes on January 1, 1981, and had 12 article to help pay only for capital outlay costs incurred 12 improved the property. 13 directly as a result of the transfer of pupils from the closed 13 g ' y P P (d) Nothing m this section shall be construed to deny 14 school to another school or other schools of the district, 14 local agencies the opportunity to purchase at full market p p 15 the sale rice of the property determined pursij:uit to 15 value. all or part of the 70 percent of the total surplus 16 subdivision (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to 16 school acreage which is not affected by this article. 17 the additional costs incurred due to the school closure. 17 (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this 18 S4,--6' 2- 394O; e the ''4�' e-ode is 18 section shall not apply to surplus school property, if the. 19eplec4 19 particular school that provides educational services for M 20 (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this 20 the school attendance area in which the property isA 21 section shall only apply to surplus school property, if the 21 located has had a declining enrollment of pupils within 22 particular school that provides educational services 1or 22 either of the two years immediately preceding the year " 1 23 the school attendance area in which the property is 23 in which the property is proposed to be sold. 24 located has had a declining enrollment of pupils within 25 either of the two years immediately preceding the year F: 26 in which the property is proposed to be sold. ? 27 SEC. 3. Section 39403 of the Education Code is 28 amended to read. 29 39403. (a) No more than 30 percent of the total 411 ¢_ 30 surplus school acreage owned by a school district may be k 31 purchased or leased by public agencies pursuant to this 32 article. 1 . 33 (b) The right of any public agency to purchase or lease 4 34 surplus school property pursuant to this article shall exist 35 only with respect to an amount of surplus school acreage , 36 within its jurisdictional boundaries which, when added to 37 the surplus school acreage within its jurisdictional '' 38 boundaries already purchased or leased pursuant to this 39 article, will not exceed 30 percent of the surplus school 40 acreage owned by the school district which is within the Date of Hearing: 05/21/85 AB 2198 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION TERESA HUGHES. Chairwoman AB 2198 (Felando) - As proposed to be amended after March 8, 1985 ASSEMBLY ACTIONS: COMMITTEE VOTE COMMITTEE VOTE Ayes: Ayes: Nays: Nays: SUBJECT: Schools: surplus property DIGEST Current law relating to surplus school playground and recreational property provides that a maximum of 30 percent of the total surplus acreage may be purchased or leased by public entities at less than fair market value, but no less than 25 percent of fair market value. If leased the property shall be leased at an annual rate of not more than 1/20th of the maximum sales price as calculated by the school districts cost of acquisition adjusted by inflation plus the cost of any improvements. A district could sell or lease the remaining 70 percent of surplus land at a fair market value. These provisions do not apply to any school district having more than 400,000 A.D.A. This bill would permit school districts to sell all or part of their surplus playground and recreational property at fair market value or conversely at less than fair market value, but no less than 25% of fair market value. Additionally the measure prohibits - the city or county having zoning Jurisdiction over school property to zone such property as open space, park or recreational where the school attendance area has declining enrollment. FISCAL EFFECT No impact on the state's general fund. COMMENTS 1. The proponents of this legislation have stated that school districts are in no position financially to sell valuable excess property at less than fair market value and that districts should not have to subsidize local park and recreation facilities at the expense of educating children. - continued - AB 2198 l AB 2198 Pa ge 2. Proponents also contend that local governing entities have down zoned school property to open space so that when school districts want to sell or lease the surplus property they must do so to the advantage of the local governing entity. Proponents further argue that schools are losing money to the cities and counties and are not obtaining needed revenue from potential purchasers who would buy the surplus property at fair market value if not for the open space zoning. 3. Opponents of the measure .are of the opinion that current provisions are a good balance between the interest of a school district and those of a local agency seeking to preserve open space, park and recreational facilities for the benefit of the common constituency. 4. Significant related measures are AB 1978 (Naylor) which provides for the 30% less than fair market value purchase option to be a non-waiverable item in the Education Code. AB 1978 passed this policy committee and is currently under consideration in the Ways and Means Committee. SB 887 (Seymour) which prohibits cities and counties from zoning property as open space unless adjacent property is similarly zoned. SB 887 is currently in the Assembly Local Government Committee. Jim Turner AB 2198 445-9431 Page mg �I f Discard Earlier Pocket Supplement J, 1985 POCKET SUPPLEMENT ISSUED IN JANUARY, 1985 COVERING LEGISLATION THROUGH THE 1984 SESSION OF THE 198344 LEGISLATURE DEERING'S EDUCATION SANTA COUNTYCODE �r NORTH CO��JTYANNOTATED OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ;? §§ 33000-45999 k' Annotated and Indexed by the Publisher's Editorial Staff �4 Note—An updated analysis of the Education Code appears at the d: beginning of the supplement to the first volume. Q� JAN 2 5 1985 1985 TM BANCROFT-WHITNEY Co, LA���A L l i, ^ " t'�_ Y 301 Brannan Street �J Cit\ San Francisco,California 94107 gw � IT-41 §39393 EDUCATION CODE EDUCATION CODE 39384,does not purport to regulate or set before sale or lease of excess school property. Accord- on or not lease, the governing board may Code, § in 1 the trial court properly granted a school district's Isle. preconditions decisions to close schools. Instead, its motion for summary Judgment in an action by an unin- ioperating schools, the governing board, entire thrust i a concern with involvement of use or dispo- corporated association for declaratory and injunctive re- sider which school would provide the wide community in decisions relating to the use or dispo- lief, damages, and mandate, seeking to challenge the P sition of excess school property. The only portion of district's decision to close certain schools, where the gist or individuals with exceptional needs, as 19384 which refers in any manner to"school closure"is of the complaint, which relied entirely on §39384, was lotion agency provides special educationnbd (b); -It is the intent of the Legislature to have the that, before a decision was made to close.a school, community involved before decisions are made about §39384 must be complied with, and its requirement of school closure." That precatory language is in no way "community involvement"had not been met. Burlingame implemented in the remainder of the statute which is Citizens for Neighborhood Schools v Board of Trustees specific in its directions and concerns acts to be taken (1982, Ist Dist)135 Cal App 3d 402, 185 Cal Rptr 306. ARTICLE 5 to lease real property Surplus School Playground, Playing Field,and Recreational Property [Added by Slats 1980 ch 736§2] §39390, Legislative purpose and intent ell real property pursuant to this article §39391, Application p whom the district acquired the property §39392, "School site'; "Governing board" 6. in writing, by certified mail,at least 60 §39393. Authority to sell or lease §39394. Priorities red to accord the former owner the right §39395. Retained portion price nor to offer to sell the property to §39396, Sales price §39397. Finding of community needs §39397.5.Plan for purchase by public agency ner,was repealed by Slats 1980 ch 1157§2. §39398. Maintenance and continuance of use following purchase or lease;Reacquisition §39399. Governing provisions ,9.5 §39400, Effect of failure to comply luired the site,the widow who had married the §39401 Exemptions designated by districts net after the district acquired the property,nor 39402 Alternatives ,ee of the former owner's estate was entitled § Code, §39369.5, subd. (a) to the right to §39403. Limitation on right to acquire surplus school property the property at the tentatively accepted bid §39404, Application restricted a (At J.) & Associates v Glendora Unified 39390.Legislative purpose and intent zt.(1980) 108 CAM444, 166 Cal Rptr 732 § The Legislature is concerned that school playgrounds, playing fields and recreational real property will be lost for such uses by the surrounding communities even where those communities in their planning process have assumed that such properties would be permanently available for recreational purposes. It is crsc which"conform to all terms and conditions intent of the Legislature in enacting this article to allow school districts to recover their investment in n the resolution." Since the resolution in ques- '.. such surplus property while making it possible for other agencies of government to acquire the property itioned the class of bidders so as to exclude and keep it available for playground, playing field or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes. hoots, rejection of a bid made by such school Added Slats 1980 ch 736§2. ',I compliance with the statute. Binet-Montesson, Nonuse payments not required:§39015. t Francisco Unified School Dist.(1979)98 CA3d 2�al Rptr 38. §39391.Application tg proposal This article shall apply to any school site owned by a school district, which the governing board ''Mans of this article, and no proposals are determines to sell or lease,and with respect to which the following conditions exist: all terms and conditions specified in the (a) Either the whole or a portion of the school site consists of land which is used for school playground, one year thereafter, or one year after the playing field, or other outdoor recreational purposes and open-space land particularly suited for conforming proposal, as appropriate, lease recreational purposes. d thereon, to any lessee, at a price not less ? (b) The land described in subdivision(a)has been used for one or more of the purposes specified therein btions agreed upon by the governing board ':• for at least eight years immediately preceding the date of the governing board's determination to sell or three years. Sections 39361, 39363.5, and lease the school site. five, shall not apply to such lease. (c) No other available publicly owned land in the vicinity of the school site is adequate to meet the 'officer or employee of the district, or any ! existing and foreseeable needs of the community for playground, playing field, or other outdoor v,and conditions of the lease. However,the !; recreational and open-space purposes, as determined by the governing body of the public agency which ajority vote, at a public meeting, approves @ proposes to purchase or lease land from the school district,pursuant to Section 39397. ;al, the governing board shall not take any Added Slats 1980 ch 736§2;Amended Slats 1981 ch 507§I. Amendments: i Gtipn of such proposal. 1981 Amendment- Substituted "purposes and open-space land particularly suited for recreational purposes" for "and fitted a proposal that does not conform with open-space purposes"in subd(a). intent to lease, and if such public entity " "Governing board" -r 39392."School site ; g rposal, that the governing board lease the § c with the provisions of this article. As used in this article, "school site" means a parcel of land,or two or more contiguous parcels,which is owned by a school district. "Governing board" means the governing board of the school district which owns the school site. Added Stars 1980 ch 736§2. June 12, 1980, ch 1354 §37.2, effective §39393.Authority to sell or lease I The governing board of any school district may sell or lease any school site containing land described in .renting vacant classroom space. Section 39391, and, if the governing board decides to sell or lease such land, it shall do so in accordance district to lease vacant classroom space in existing with the provisions of this article. egular school hours.64 Ops Ally Gen 769, Added Stars 1990 ch 736§2. 81 12 Ed C(de) 2 Ed Cade) §39394 EDUCATION CODE EDUCATION CODE §39394.Priorities §39397.5. man for purchase by Notwithstanding Section 54222 of the Government Code, the governing board, prior to selling or leasing (a) No public agency may put any school site containing land described in Section 39391, excluding that portion of a school site article unless it has first adopt retained by the governing board pursuant to Section 39395, shall first offer to sell or lease that portion of designate the surplus site or sit, the school site consisting of land described in Section 39391, excluding that portion retained by t he price established pursuant to thi governing board pursuant to Section 39395, to the following public agencies in accordance with the acreage as property which the a following priorities: article. Where the plan indicat,! (a) First, to any city within which the land may be situated. price established pursuant to th, and provide a description of the (b) Second,to any park or recreation district within which the land may be situated. metes and bounds. (c) Third, to any regional park authority having jurisdiction within the area in which the land is (b) Any property designated bo situated. purchase, pursuant to subdivisi (d) Fourth,to any county within which the land may be situated. provisions of this article. The governing board shall have discretion to determine whether the offer shall be an offer to sell or an (c) This section shall become c offer to lease. Added Stats 1981 ch 507§4,opera; An entity which proposes to purchase or lease a school site offered by a school district shall notify the §39398•maintenance and cont, district of its intention, in writing, within 60 days after receiving written notification from the district of Any land purchased or leased its offer to sell or lease. by such agency for playgroun(. Added Slats 1980 ch 736§2. which prior to its sale or leasc, §39395.Retained portion maintained for such use by thi In determining what portion of a school site shall be offered for sale or lease pursuant to this article, the thirds vote at a public hearing,!' governing board may retain any part of the school site containing structures or buildings, together with used, in which case the land such land adjacent thereto which, as determined by the governing board, must be included in order to purposes. The school district r avoid reducing the value of that part of the school site containing such structures or buildings to less prescribed in Section 39396, a� than 50 percent of fair market value. the deed or other instrument o Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2;Amended Stats 1981 ch 507§I land is no longer needed for Amendments: purposes, the public agency S'1981 Amendment:(1)Substituted"reducing the value"for"unreasonably reducing the market value";and(2)added to section, and the school district less than 50 percent of fair market value-. land. If the school district im school district may finance the §39396.Sales price the sale of the land by the sq (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or (c), the price at which land described in Section notice of its intent to reacquirl 39391,excluding that portion of a school site retained by the governing board pursuant to Section 39395, agency may use or dispose of t is sold pursuant to this article shall not exceed the school district's cost of acquisition,calculated as a pro For purposes of this section, rata cost of acquiring the entire parcel comprising the school site, adjusted by a factor equivalent to the which the land was acquired h percentage increase or decrease in the cost of living from the date of purchase to the year in which the Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2;Ame offer of sale is made, plus the cost of any improvement to the recreational and open-space portion of the Amendments: land which the school district has made since its acquisition of the land. In no event shall the price be M Amendment:Routine code m, less than 25 percent of the fair market value of the land described in Section 39391 or less than the amount necessary to retire the share of local bonded indebtedness plus the amount of the original cost of §39399.Governing provisions the approved state aid applications on the property, excluding that portion of a school site retained by The sale or lease of land by a the governing hoard pursuant to Section 39394,at the time of the offer. the provision-, of Article 2 (c1 These provisions shall apply to land that the school district acquired by gift or for consideration- with Section 39360), except provision or provisions of Art (b) A school district that offers a portion of a school site for sale may offer such portion of property for sale or lease. sale at its fair market value, provided the school district offers an equivalent size alternative portion of Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2. that school site for school playground, playing field,or other recreational and open-space purposes. (c) Land which is leased pursuant to this article shall be leased at an annual rate of not more than 1/i oth §39400.Effect of failure to ci of the maximum sales price determined pursuant to subdivision(a)of this section,adjusted annually by a Failure by the school district factor equivalent to thepercentage increase or decrease in the cost of living for the immediately preceding or conveyance of real properti year. Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2. (d) The percentage of annual increase or decrease in the cost of living shall be the amount shown for §39401. Exemptions designat January Ist of the appropriate year by the then current Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumers Price Notwithstanding the other pi Index for the area in which the school site is located. not more than two surplus s (e) Whenever a school district closes a school site and sells any land described in Section 39391 pursuant school site acquisition if the to this article to help pay only for capital outlay costs incurred directly as a result of the transfer of actively seeking to acquire si pupils from the closed school to another school or other schools of the district, the sale price of the site if the district is seeking property determined pursuant to subdivision (a)shall be increased by an amount equal to the additional percent or more. costsincurred due to the school closure. The exemption provided for Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2;Amended Stats 1981 ch 507§3. executed on or before July I Amendments: population for park purposes; 1981 Amendment: (1) Amended subd (a) by (a) adding -or (c)­ in the first sentence; and (b) substituting "the" for Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2; A4 "such"after"shall-and after"applications on"in the second sentence;(2)substituted"that"for"such"after-portion 1991 s, of in subd(b);and(3)added subd(c). §39402.Alternatives §39397.Finding of community needs 00 A school district having a scl The governing body of a public agency which proposes to purchase or lease land from a school district the land pursuant to the f pursuant to this article shall first make a finding, approved by a vote of two-thirds of its members, that concerning the disposition of public lands in the vicinity of the school site are inadequate to meet the existing and foreseeable needs of with the Priorities therein spi the community for playground, playing field,or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes. or part of the school site foi Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2. 82 (2 Ed Code) t2 Ed Code) EDUCATION CODE EDUCATION CODE §39402 §39397.5.Plan for purchase by public agency ing board, prior to selling or leasing (a) No public agency may purchase surplus school property from a school district pursuant to this ding that portion of a school site article unless it has first adopted a plan for the purchase of surplus school property.'The plan shall offer to sell or lease that portion of designate the surplus site or sites all or a portion of which the public agency desires to purchase at the Muding that portion retained by the price established pursuant to this article and shall designate at least 70 percent of the total surplus school i is agencies in accordance with the acreage as property which the agency does not desire to purchase at the price established pursuant to this hat the agency desires to purchase only a portion of a school site at the article. Where the plan indicates t 4p y price established pursuant to this article, it shall designate the percent of the property to be so purchased nay be situated. and provide a description of the general location of the property to be purchased,without designating the metes and bounds. hin the area in which the land is (b) Any property designated by public agencies as surplus school sites which the agencies do not wish to purchase, pursuant to subdivision (a), may be sold or leased by a school district without regard to the provisions of this article. offer shall be an offer to sell or an (c) This section shall become operative on April 1, 1982. Added Stars 1981 ch 507§4,operative April 1, 1982. by a school district shall notify the §39398.Maintenance and continuance of use following purchase or lease;Reacquisition itten notification from the district of Any land purchased or leased by a public agency pursuant to this article shall thereafter be maintained by such agency for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational and open-space uses. Land which prior to its sale or lease was used for playground or playing field purposes, shall continue to be maintained for such use by the acquiring agency, unless the governing body of that agency, by a two- or lease pursuant to this article, the thirds vote at a public hearing,determines that there is no longer a significant need for the land to be so tructures or buildings, together with used, in which case the land may thereafter be used for other outdoor recreational or open-space aoard, must be included in order to purposes. The school district may, at any time, reacquire the land at a price calculated in the manner such structures or buildings to less prescribed in Section 39396, and the rights of reacquisition provided in this section shall be set forth in the deed or other instrument of transfer. If the governing board of the public agency determines that the land is no longer needed for playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational and open-space purposes, the public agency shall offer the property to the school district for reacquisition under this sing the market value'%and(2)added"to section,and the school district shall notify the public agency within 60 days of its intent to reacquire the land. If the school district intends to sell the property within one year of the reacquisition date, the school district may finance the reacquisition of the land by lien against the proceeds to be obtained from the sale of the land by the school district. If the school district fails to give the public agency timely at which land described in Section notice of its intent to reacquire the property, or if it fails to exercise its right of reacquisition, the public ng board pursuant to Section 39395, agency may use or dispose of the property. Kt of acquisition,calculated as a pro For ur ses of this section, "cost of acquisition," as used in Section 39396, shall refer to the cost at 3justed by a factor equivalent to the F ,f purchase to the year in which the which the land was acquired the public agency. ' Added Stars 1980 ch 736§2;Amended Stars 1982 ch 466§29. tional and open-space portion of the Amendments: land. In no event shall the price be 1982 Amendment:Routine code maintenance. J in Section 39391 or less than the as the amount of the original cost of §393".Governing provisions portion of a school site retained by The sale or lease of land by a school district pursuant to this article shall be subject to,and governed by, er. . the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 39030) of Chapter 1 and Article 4 (commencing by gift or for consideration. with Section 39360), except to the extent that the provisions of this article are inconsistent with a ay offer such portion of property for provision or provisions of Article 2 or 4, in which event the provisions of this article shall govern such equivalent size alternative portion of sale tease. oval and open-space purposes. ;; Addedd Scats 1980 ch 736§2. annual rate of not more than thoth k §39400. Effect of failure to comply this section, adjusted annually by a' Failure by the school district to comply with the provisions of this article shall not invalidate the transfer living for the immediately preceding or conveyance of real property to a purchaser or encumbrancer for value. Added Stars 1980 ch 736§2. =ing shall be the amount shown for* §39401.Exemptions designated by districts >f Labor Statistics Consumers Price s Notwithstanding the other provisions of this article, any school district governing board may designate not more than two surplus school sites as exempt from the provisions of this article for each planned described in Section 39391 pursuant I school site acquisition if the school district has an immediate need for an additional school site and is rectly as a result of the transfer Of' actively, seeking to acquire such an additional site, and may exempt not more than one surplus school if the district, the sale price of the site if the district is seeking immediate expansion of the classroom capacity of an existing school by 50 an amount equal to the additional ! percent or more. The exemption provided for by this section shall be inapplicable to any school site which, under a lease executed on or before July 1, 1974, with a term of 10 years, was leased to a city of under 100,000 sentence; and (b) substituting "the" for population for park purposes, was improved at city expense, and used for public park purposes. rxtituted"that"for"such"after"portion? Added Sta(s 1980 ch 736§2; Amended Stars 1980 ch 1354 §37.23,effective September 30, 1980,operative January I, 1981. §39402.Alternatives or lease land from a school district A school district having a school site described in Section 39391 may,as an alternative to sate or lease of tr of two-thirds of its members, that the land pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this article, enter into other forms of agreement the existing and foreseeable needs of concerning the disposition of such property with any entity enumerated in Section 39394, in accordance tional and open-space purposes. with the priorities therein specified, including, but not limited to: an agreement to lease to such entity all or part of the school site for a specified term, with an option to purchase such properties at the end of (2 Ed Code] 12 Ed Code] 83 I §39402 EDUCATION CODS, EDUCATION CODE the term; an agreement granting to such entity a permanent open-space easement for recreational use Amended Stats 1980 ch 100§I over a portion of the leased site; and, if the lessee or a grantee under such an agreement is an entity having zoning powers, an agreement requiring such entity to rezone any portion of the property retained Amendments: by the school district in accordance with conditions specified in the agreement, to the extent that nflp Amendment*.Suf t afes or by rezoning in accordance with such conditions is in compliance with applicable laws of the state. par„graph. Added Slats 1980 ch 736§2. 19s2 Amendment:(t) Added and sufficient sureties or by a §39403.Limitation on right to acquire surplus school property •performance of in subds(bit (a) No more than 30 percent of the total surplus school acreage owned by a school district may be t.avr Revision Commission Con purchased or leased by public agencies pursuant to this article. 1982 Amendment—section 39< (b) The right of any public agency to purchase or lease surplus school property pursuant to this article Code Civ. Proc.§995.310(sur shall exist only with respect to an amount of surplus school acreage within its jurisdictional boundaries Selection of plan by governing which, when added to the surplus school acreage within its jurisdictional boundaries already purchased Review of 1982 Legislation. Is or leased pursuant to this article, will not exceed 30 percent of the surplus school acreage owned by the §39453 [Repealed by Stag: school district which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of that agency. Review of Selected 1979 Califs (c) For purposes of this section, "surplus school acreage" of a school district means property which is owned by a district and not used for school purposes, including, but not.limited to, undeveloped property and property which contains school buildings that are not in use as a result of a school closure and which is not subject to any lease or agreement executed on or before July 1, 1974,for a term in excess of six years, in which any city containing a population of less than 100,000 had use of the property for park purposes on January 1, 1981,and had improved the property. Former Article 9,consisting o (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to deny local agencies the opportunity to purchase at full Note,--Repral of Article 9,s* market value all or part of the 70 percent of the total surplus school acreage which is not affected by this §3947R Agreement to rs article. §39471, "Building" Added Stats 1981 ch 1113§9. §39472. Determination I Former Section:Former§39403,similar to the present section,was added by Stars 1980 ch 736§2,amended by Stats §39473. Compliance wit 1981 507§5 and repealed by Stats 1981 ch 1113§8. §39474. Maximum amc, §39404.Application restricted §39475. Exceptions to d This article shall not apply to any school district having more than 400,000 pupils in average daily §39476. Adherence to z attendance. §3947T Limitation on t Added Stats 1980 ch 736§2. §39478. Limitation as t( §39479. Repeal date ARTICLE 6 §39470.(Effective until Ownership of Fixtures in Territory Withdrawn From District (a) The governing board [Article 6,consisting of§§39420, 39421,was repealed by Stats 1980 ch 1 192§4.1 other space in operating Note—Stats 1980 ch 1192 also provides: §7.No right or obligation arising out of any provision of law repealed by this agencies,except private e act shall be abolished or impaired by the provisions of this act. governmental units, nont noncommercial firms, co §39420. [Repealed by Stats 1980 ch 1192 §4.1 school hours if the school See§35560. {b} The governing beard §39421. (Repealed by Stats 1980 ch 1192 §4.1 space to educational age See§35565. educational agencies. Added Stars 1982 ch 689§4 §39430.Authority to enter into community lease for extraction of gas Farmer Section:Former§3 Cat]or 3d Oil and Gas§198,Schools§184. 12.1980,and repeated by St §39431.Adoption and publication of unanimous resolution to enter into lease Note—Stars 1982 ch 689 for Cal Jur 3d Oil and Gas§198,Schools§184. SEC.5. The provisions of j Sale or lease of personal pro §39432.Prohibition of well-drilling on district land Sale or lease of instructional'. { Cal Jur 3d Oil and Gas§198,Schools§184, §39471.(Effective until' §39440 and following sections—general references: As used in this article, " Issuance of revenue bonds for construction of joint facilities:§17810. as agreed upon by the p Cal Jur 3d Schools§64. jointly occupied and use. §39450.Selection of plan;Approval;Bond Added Star Former Seec c 1982 chtion:Former er § §3 (a) After considering all proposals submitted, the governing board of the school district shall have the Note---See the Note follow' authority, subject to the provisions of Section 39451, to select the plan or proposal which best meets the needs of the school district and to enter into a contract incorporating that plan or proposal either as §39472.(Effective until submitted or as revised by the school district's governing board; provided, however, that the governing prior to entering into a board shall not approve any proposal nor enter into a lease or contract incorporating a proposal until the shall determine that th( governing board has submitted the proposal to the State Board of Education, and the State Board of not do any of the follow Education has approved such proposal. The State Board of Education shall, within 45 days of the date of (a) Interfere with the e submission,notify the governing board of its approval or disapproval. property or in any buils (b) The governing board shall require any person, firm or corporation with whom it enters into a lease or agreement pursuant to this article to file one of the following,as determined by the governing board: (b) Unduly disrupt the >) (c) Jeopardize the safet' (1) A bond for the performance of the lease or agreement. Addeo Stars 1982 ch 689§ (2) An irrevocable letter of credit issued by a state or national bank for the performance of the lease or Former Section:Former§ agreement. Note—See the Note fotlov e 84 (2 Ed Code] 12 Ed Code] v .t + t t M-85-102 (Meeting 85-16 oe June 26 , 1985) 0 Mm5c MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM June 20 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Termination of Communications Lease Background: On January 20 , 1977 , prior to the time the District acquired the Maurantonio-Gregory property (see report R-77-4 , dated January 20 , 1977) , the District entered into a lease agreement with Peninsula TV Power, Inc. , a California Corporation (D.B.A. as TCI Sunnyvale Cable TV) for continuance of a communication site lease. The Maurantonio-Gregory property was subsequently acquired by the District on March 15 , 1977 (see report R-77-7 , dated February 15 , 1977) , subject to that communica- tions lease. The term of the lease was for an initial eight year period with one five year option. Discussion: Although this particular communications site was rather unattractive and disturbed the visual quality of the Preserve, it was a pre-existing condition when the District acquired the underlying property and would have been costly and difficult to terminate. District staff has recently been successful in working with the management of Sunnyvale Cable TV and particularly Gregory Knox, General Manager, who have been very cooperative and understanding in trying to work with the District to improve the visual quality of the Preserve. As a result of these dis- cussions, a Termination of Lease agreement has been negotiated, and is attached. Generally the Agreement would provide for the following: 1) Sunnyvale Cable TV would remove all of its equipment from the site on or before July 31 , 1985 and in the event of any hold-over, the rent would be increased from $209/month to $600/month. 2) Since the lessees are not sure that they can continue to operate at current levels without this site, they would retain a 15 year right to renegotiate a lease with the District for the same or similar site, subject to certain restrictions. It would be staff ' s hope that this event would be unlikely, but if it did happen, the new site could be located on Black Mountain where there are already several communica- tion facilities. M-85-102 Page Two 3) It would be the District' s responsibility to demolish all permanent facilities including the fencing, the power and antenna rack poles, and the concrete block building. Open Space Management has inspected these improvements and feels that the fencing and poles could be salvaged for future District use; however, the building would have to be demolished and the site restored at an estimated cost of $1 ,000. Recommendation: I recommend that you approve the termination of this lease and authorize the President of the Board to sign the Termination of Lease agreement on behalf of the District. TERMINATION OF LEASE WHEREAS, Peninsula TV Power, Inc. , a California Corporation, D.B.A. TCI Sunnyvale Cable TV (hereinafter referred to as "Lessee") leases those certain premises (hereinafter referred to as "The Premises") situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara described in Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof for the purposes of erecting, maintaining and operating its antenna and relay station to receive and transmit television signals from the Midpeninsula Regional open Space District (hereinafter referred to as "Lessor") pursuant to that certain lease ( "Lease") dated January 10, 1977 , and WHEREAS , Lessor and Lessee have decided that it is mutually beneficial to both parties to have Lessee remove, in their entirety, all of Lessee' s improvements from The Premises and terminate the existing Lease, and WHEREAS , Lessor has agreed to grant certain re-entry rights to Lessee pursuant to the terms and conditions as stated herein. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND COVENANTED as follows : 1. on or before July 31 , 1985 , Lessee shall at its sole cost and expense remove from The Premises all equipment, fixtures, appliances , and antennas used in Lessee ' s business of receiving and providing television communication to Lessee ' s customers and to restore The Premises to a reasonable natural condition. Fencing, wooden support structures and concrete housing shall be left intact by Lessee and shall become the property of Lessor as of July 31 , 1985. In the event Lessor demolishes said property , all demolition costs and expenses shall be the responsibility of Lessor. 2 . Until July 1 , 1985 , Lessor agrees not to increase the monthly rent payment of $209 per month . Beginning August 1 , 1985 the monthly rent payment shall increase to $600 per month until the removal of improvements has been completed. 3. Lessor agrees that, in the event a situation arises which requires re-entry onto the premises by Lessee, Lessor will agree to negotiate with Lessee for a new Lease of the premises (including access thereto) or for a site similarly appropriate for Lessee ' s purposes. It is mutually understood and agreed that any improvements installed by Lessee under a new lease agreement would be subject to Lessor 's design review and approval Termination of Lease Page Two Peninsula TV Power, Inc. procedure which is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" as attached hereto and made a part hereof. It is further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the Lessor ' s obligation to negotiate for a new lease with Lessee shall expire fifteen (15) years from the date of termination of the existing Lease described herein. 4 . The date of termination of the Lease shall be coterminous with final removal date of Lessee' s property that date being July 31 , 1985. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Termination of Lease, has been duly executed in duplicate as of the day and year above first written. LESSOR LESSEE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Peninsula TV Power, Inc. , D.B.A. District TCI Sunnyvale Cable TV 9%, S By y PARKMAN ------ EXHIBIT "A" Those certain premises situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California , described as follows: "All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California , and being a portion of Parcel "A" as said Parcel is shown on that certain Record of Survey , a map of which is recorded in Book 184 of Maps at Page 48 , Santa Clara County Records , described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of said Parcel "A" , distant thereon North 0' 15 ' 00" East, 434 . 17 feet from the southeasterly corner of said Parcel "A" , said point being also the northeast- erly corner of that certain 4 . 500 acre parcel described in the Deed recorded in Book 6737 of Official Records at Page 433 , Santa Clara County Records; thence, along the northeasterly line of said 4 . 500 acre parcel , North 761 52 ' 40" West, 205 . 16 feet; thence , leaving said northeasterly line of said 4 . 500 acre parcel , North 01 151 001, East , 154 . 30 feet; thence South 89' 451 00" East, 200 . 00 feet to a point on the easterly line of sa id ad Parcel "A" ; thence southerly, along said easterly line of Parcel "A" , South 01 151 00" West, 200. 00 feet to the Point of Beginning:' • EXHIBIT "B" RIGHT OF DESIGN REVIEW As part of any future lease negotiated between Lessor and Lessee, Lessor shall have the right of Design Review and Approval as herein defined with respect to any and all improvements proposed to be constructed on the property described in Exhibit "A" . Design Review is intended to provide a process for review and approval by the Lessor of development in environmentally sensitive areas in order to assure that development will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives of the Lessor, particularly with respect to adjacent Lessor lands . (a) With regard to construction of any improvements on the property described in Parcel A, an application for design review shall be made to Lessor. The application shall include the following: (1) A site plan showing the location of all proposed antennas, satellite dishes , buildings , structures, planted or landscaped areas, paved areas, and other improvements , and indicating the proposed uses or activities on the site. (2) Drawings of sketches showing the elevations of all proposed improvements , sufficiently dimensioned to indicate the general scale, height, and bulk of such buildings. (b) Within 60 days from the filing of the application with Lessor, Lessor shall review the site plan and drawings , based upon the following objectives with respect to siting of the improve- ments, structure height, color and orientation, and exterior lighting and landscaping. Sound principles of environmental design shall be observed to ensure that design, construction and operation will be implemented in a manner that will be orderly , harmonious and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining undeveloped lands. (c) All such antennas , satellite disnes , buildings, structures, planted or landscaped areas , paved areas and other improve- ments shall be constructed or installed in accordance with the plans as approved by the Lessor , provided that the Lessor ' s approval shall not be witrihcld unreasonably. (d) All construction or installation work performed by Lessee or caused to be performed by Lessee in , on or about the premises shall comply in all respects to all applicable statutes , ordinances , building codes , rules and regulations , Right of Design Revei.w Page Two including but not limited to fire, safety , and construction standards of lawful governmental authority , and shall fur- thermore comply with Lessor ' s open space use and management guidelines then in effect. (e) Lessee shall notify Lessor at least twenty (20) days in advance of any construction on the premises , and Lessor shall be entitled to post on the premises notices of non- responsibility in favor of Lessor prior to commencement of any such construction. 0-dv* MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I. DATE: June2l, 1985 � I i I I I I 1 3 Cou-Ity Clerk 0.1 4 San-1 Clara Ccunty jut, 18 1985 5i 6 7 8 I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Ij 10 �l 11 HARRY E. AINE, JOHAN E. de RIJKE, ) and, HULBERDINA de RIJKE, ) 12 ) No. P 46272 Plaintiffs, ) 13 ) ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRERS VS. ) 14 ) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE ) 15 DISTRICT, CITY OF PALO ALTO, et ) al. , ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 I ) 18 The demurrers by the defendants, City of Palo Alto and 19I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to the complaint on file 20 herein are hereby sustained upon the grounds that said complaint does 21 not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for ease- 22 ments by necessity, easements by implication, and is barred by the 23 statute of limitations and/or the doctrine of laches, without leave 24 to amend. 25 DATED: This / 3 day of June, 1985. 26 HISMER B. THOMPSON i Judge of the Superior Court 3 "7 S 7J�a-� �—Ca, �u.��7J -/ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 June 3, 1985 Re: Your letter of May 16 Dear Dr. Djerassi: Enclosed is a copy of the list and the accompanying policy statement that you requested as well as background material. I regret that this Brown Act list has been erroneously interpreted as an eminent domain action list. Rather it is a list of all properties within the District's planning area for which it is conceivable that sellers may wish to enter into negotiations with the Open Space District. The adoption of a public listing from the assessors' records of properties within the District's planning areas was a procedure adopted pursuant to a change in State law regarding closed sessions of public agencies. A property named on the list can then subsequently be discussed in closed session, preserving the confidentiality of negotiations. Although much of the criticism surrounding the list centers on a possible threat of the use of eminent domain, the list was not so intended. It was merely intended to allow the Board to continue to instruct its negotiators in closed sessions, as was the case before the change in the law. These private sessions have predominantly concerned parcels on the market or offered for sale to the District. Eminent domain has played only a minor role in the 12—year history of the Open Space District's public acquisition program. I enthusiastically support your private mechanisms for the permanent protection of open space as I value private stewardship of open lands very highly. Since the Djerassi Foundation and family is doing just that, I cannot imagine that the District would be interested in spending its limited funds to acquire the property at a voluntary sale, much less by use of eminent domain. You are actively demonstrating some of the superior aspects of private stewardship over public ownership of open space. If you would like to have the SMIP ranch removed from the Brown Act list please direct your request to the District Board of Directors. We are currently considering a revision in our policy to accomodate such a request. If you do make the request, I will work to have the District comply with it. 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 Dr. Djerassi Page 2 Please feel free to contact me a work (415) 326-5782, or at home (415) 854-0384, if you have further questions. Very truly yours, Harry AV Turner, Director Ward 6 A .H T•g cc: MROSD Directors 2325 BEAR GULCH ROAD WOODSIDE,CALIFORNIA 94062 June 10, 1985 Mr. Harry A. Turner Director, Ward 6 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle Suite D-1 Los Altos, California 94022 Dear Mr. Turner: I appreciate your detailed response of June 3rd which allays most of my concerns. Would you please forward this letter in a formal manner to your Board of Directors at its next meeting so that it would serve as our formal request to have SMIP Ranch (approximately 1,400 acres owned by the Djerassi Foundation, the Dale Djerassi Revocable Trust, and the Carl Djerassi Revooble Trust) removed from the Brown Act list. Your s cerely, Carl Djerassi CD:ik cc: Dale Djerassi Department of Planning and Development Office of Plwming County Government Center,Ew,t 'Amo 70 West tleddw, ;n­t t County of Santa Clara San Jose, California June 7, 1985 R.W. Forsyth Director, Installations Planning Div. Naval Facilities Engineering Command P.O. Box 727 San Bruno, CA 94066-0720 SUBJECT: NAS Moffett Field Master Plan Draft-Feb. 1985 Dear Mr. Forsyth, The following are our comments on your draft Master Plan: 1. Trail On page E-41, you mention "various community groups have been demanding the construction of a public recreation trail segment along the Bay side of NAS Moffett Field". We believe your statement here and elsewhere understate adopted local policy regarding the trail and the Navy's role to this point as an impedment to the implementation of that policy. Santa Clara County has officially incorporated such a trail into its General Plan. The trail is mapped in the "Regional Parks, Trails and Scenic Highways" (map enclosed) element of the General Plan adopted in 1981. More than six paved miles of this Bayfront trail have been constructed from Palo Alto to the Moffett Field boundary. On the east side of the field portions of the trail in the County will be constructed in the near future. In emphasis of the regional trail aspect,in both San Mateo and Alameda Counties portions of trail are built or are planned which will eventually connect with Santa Clara County's trail section. The one bayside jurisdiction which has shown little evidence of cooperating in achieving this regional goal of achieving a bayf ront trail is the U.S. Navy at Moffett Field. We find the Navy's safety concerns for persons on a trail along the Bayfront less than convincing when its own personnel play golf within the supposed ESQD Arcs around its ordinance facilities. If the Safety concerns are shown to be indeed valid, we believe the Navy, as a member of the San Francisco Bay community, should consider providing alternate solutions which would enable closing this gap in the Bayfront trail. Moving the ordinance facilities or constructing a structure for a trail on the Bay side of the ESQD Arcs are possible approaches which should be pursued in cooperation with surrounding jurisdictions. An Equal Opportunity Employer The alternative of constructing the trail upon or near the inboard salt pond levee is fa" preferable to the use of the outboard salt pond levee. The inboard levee would provide a shorter route which would be easier to maintain and patrol and would not be subject to perodic disruption caused by Leslie Salt's levee maintainence operations. 2. Cultural The Navy should be aware that there are a number of State Registered Archeological Sites on the property. Paleontological finds have been made in the Mountain View Baylands marsh areas "next door" by the U.S. Geological Survey. There were, and may still be, a few historic structures on the Moffett property. Thank you for your attention to these matters. n5cereho, (A Hugh ugh Graham I Senio Tanner cc: Honorable Edward Zschau Honorable Don Edwards Honorable Norman Mineta Honorable Alan Cranston Honorable Peter Wilson Supervisor Legan Supervisor McKenna San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission California Coastal Conservancy Director of Planning, Director of Parks, City of Mountain View Director of Planning, Director of Parks, City of Sunnyvale U.S. National Wildlife Refuge Midpeninsula Open Space District Artemas Genzton, Chairperson-IGC Trails & Pathways Comm. Larry Norris, Santa Clara County Parks Dept. Jack Schoop, Director of Planning & Development Santa Clara County Don Weden, Senior Planner Santa Clara County Planning Dept. Art Ogilvie, Associate Planner HG/lms HG/Moff ett lms#1 ! .elands throughout Alameda and - -"- �3�` Contra Costa Counties. The Contra f � Costa Regional Trail system just received an award from District III of _ l: California Park and Recreation ' Society. AWARDS David R.Austin, associate professor of recreation and park administra- schi,nn+el Mielke Brosious tion at Indiana University, shared Franklin Park, IL, Park District has University. His experience inc the first-place award in the research ludes category of the American Camping recently made several additions and work with minor hockey in Mar- Association's annual writing contest. changes to its staff. Donna Schim- quette, MI,both as a clinic instructor Austin and David Szymanski of the mel assumed the position of and coach. Mary Brosious assumed University of Missouri are co- senior/adult coordinator. Prior to ac- the position of superintendent of authors of the winning article, cepting this position, she had recre ation. Prior to accepting this Burnout and Burnbright Among worked with the Northeast DuPage position, Ms. Brosious had worked Camp Staff;' based on research of Special Recreation Association, Ad- for 11 years in the park and recrea- staff serving campers with dis- dison, IL. Ms. Schimmel holds a tion profession. Her experience in- abilities, conducted at IU's Bradford master's in therapeutic recreation eludes a variety of positions with the Woods. The award was presented from Indiana State University,and is North Berwyn, IL,Park District,Fit- this past March in Atlantic City at a current member of NRPA NTR S, Hess Center, Champaign, IL, and the national convention of the the Illinois Park and Recreation As- Zion, IL, Park District. Ms. Brosious American Camping Association. sociation, and several local recrea- holds a bachelor's in recreation and Austin is president of SPRE. tion organizations. Michael Mielke park administration from the was appointed to the position of ice University of Illinois, and is a cur- arena assistant manager. Mielke has rent member of NRPA, the Illinois a B.S. in geography/earth science Park and Recreation Association, along with a secondary teaching cer- and several local recreation tificate from Northern Michigan organizations. I I� ^ RETIREMENT trict in 1964 as director of public in- formation. In 1967 he became assis- tant general manager, and in 1968 was promoted to his present post of general manager. He attended the University of Washington, graduat- Ward A. Stubbs, director of recrea- 1 degree ing in 1942 with a bachelors d tion in Cedar Falls,IA,was awarded in American government and four- the Richard J. Slattery Professional nalism.Subsequently he attended the Award by the Iowa Park and t ` Maxwell Graduate School of Recreation Ass ociation' Syracuse University in New York, on recently. The Trt�deat� Honmbeck receiving a master's in public admin- award is presented to the person istration in 1947. Trudeau has who has demonstrated outstanding Two top managers with East Bay received many professional honors, work with their local community, Regional Park District,Oakland,CA, including the Award of Excellence in and their everyday life must also ek- have announced plans to retire. 1983 from the National Society for ��lfi h outstanding, service in the leisurededicated , and Richard C. Trudeau, park district Park Resources, a branch of NRPA. vice profession and to the Iowa Park general manager since 1968, will Hornbeck,65,served in combat with and Recreation Association. retire this month after 22 years of the U.S. Army Air Corps during public service with the agency. World War Il. He studied forestry at Hulet Hornbeck, chief of :and ac- the University of Maine before the quisition since 1965, will retire this war, then earned a law degree at August. Retirement of Trudeau and Rutgers University afterwards. His ,S not be deaf Hornbeck will mark the end of more honors include the California Con- than 42 years combined service on servation Council Merit Award,and to the needs of the behalf of public parklands, including in 1981 the John Muir Conservation disabled for jobs. joint efforts that have helped open Award, and Walkers Award of President's Committee on thousands of acres of beautiful parks Merit. Hornbeck is recognized na- Employment of the Handicapped for public enjoyment. Trudeau, 64, tionwide as the architect of park dis- Washington,D.C.20210 joined East Bay Regional Park Dis- trict's trail system linking cities with 54 PARKS& RECREATION/DUNE 1985 ALTERNATI_ POLICIES 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 discussion with landowners.District staff shall not threaten eminent domain. 3b. In negotiations or discussion with landowners,District staff shall not,without prior Board approval,threaten eminent domain. 3e. if the subject of eminent domain is raised.District staff may explain relevant law and District policies. 4L Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an occupied parcel developed to its legal density. 4b. Eminent domain may not be used by the District for the partial acquisition 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 acquision 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 landowner. 6. Eminent domain may be used only in those instances where all reasonable attempts at voluntary negotiations fall 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 an 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: A. The District Board finds that the property is necessary to provided 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 acquistion,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. Def initions: a. occupied ...six months a year minimum b. improve ... includes occupied legal or legally non-conforming residences and excludes trailers, mobile homes,and temporary structures. - end- Before any of the above ideas are adopted,they will be more formally written in a concise form. In addition, the Committee has submitted a sample policy on arbitration of reasonable value in cases of eminent domain. Also included is an example of a possible 10 year contract with property owners for restraint of use of eminent domain - to implement proposed policy '9 above. Alternative policies on annexation,Brown Act,and out-of-District purchases will be available at the MROSD meetings. I :a4'.•.Y.t•. " ...................................................... .............:t-.4t..{t.V�.�..t4.: BLALLETIN; !ILITES JUKE 1985 BI_ALLETiN! t..t.... 14tt•.}tttttL•h:-n* 4 %4%ttttt4t4t•.t44ttttttttttttttttt'.4t4'.4•.4t4•.•.'.t•.t•.4•.4•.4•.•.4t•.t•.4Y.tt4•.•.4•.tti1'.t .tt•. •.ttttt.ttV.tV.Y.tY tt•. •.tV. •.tY.tY.Y.Y. '.'.•. •.tt•. •.t•. tttt•.tt:'.Y. '.t`. 1 F is{�.1 t i = E ��t::� t-11:a �� =:1�.�:t E� �Er:1: l.i�•�� A -,r'L, Joint Meeting witi� Open Space Directors & Kings Mountain Assn. County Supervisors listen, CHANGE IN PUBLISHED MEETING PLACE exchange ideas The location of the June 20th Business Meet i ng of SSA has on MROSD been changed. We will be holding a joint meeting at 7:.30 with the Kings Mountain Association at the Kings Mountain Fire Station , 13889 Sky! ine Bled. , Woodside (about 9 miles Agenda for June 20 th noreth of Route 84) . Several members of the Board of Directors of the Open Space 7:30 Introduction District and of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will be present to discuss issues involving the Open Space 7:45 Use of eminent domain District . CALENDAR OF EVENTS by MROSD June 11 2: 15pm Hearing on 2nd Units by San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, 8:43 Brown Act (public meetings) Supervisors Chambers, Redwood City June 12 2:00pm Conceptual Plan - Double R Ranch by 9:00 Impact on neighbors of San Mateo County Planning Commission , MROSD Supervisors Chambers, Redwood City ✓ June 12 7:30pm Open Space District Workshop on Proposed Policies at Por tol a Valley Town Hall , 9:15 Acquisition of lands outside 765 Por tol a Road, Portol a Valley District June 20 7:30pm SSA _Meeting with Kings Mountain Assn . at Kings Mtn . Fire House , Woodside 9,30 Annexation to MROSD July 14 3:00pm SSA Picnic at Scwind's Home June 26 7:30 p.m. Oven Space District Board Meeting on Policies 9:45 Sense of the Communities 375 Distel Circle. D-1. Los Altos pass resolutions FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL SSA PRESIDENT JANET SCHWIND AT (408) 867-9422 01 I `r SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE - SAN MATED CO. FINAL HEARING It is possible that San Mateo County will alIowi additional second units in the RM zone and extend second units into RE, RH and TPZ zones, If you are concerned about this ordinance , now is the time to express your opinion to the Board of Supervisors or attend the Hearing at 2: 15pm on Tues, June 11 at the Board of Supervisors Chambers in "I Redwood City. South Skyline Association Position: Allow 2nd units in all zones . No limit to total number of 2nd units in a zone . No f minimum distance from main unit . Limit size of 2nd unit to 'Y 900 square feet or 50% of the main unit up to 1500 square feet . -._ - �f ,An ✓ 5 L S c f ?ere � DOUBLE R RANCH HEARING (Ressian Ridge) As noted in the Calendar of Event.s.the San Mateo County Planning Commission will hold a hearing on (�� Fa-) the conceptual plan on June 12. According to San Mateo County Planner,George Miller. several �[J changes have been made to the plan, the main one being the positioning of the homesites more toward the west, so that they would not be seen from Skyline or the Va11ey. Also, application has been made 7 5y for 2 bonus units, bringing the total number of units proposed to 22. OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES- DISCUSSION JUNE 12 ADOPTION JUNE 26 ?l The Ad Hoc Committee of the MROSD Directors. consisting of Harry Turner. Dick Bishop. and Nonette Hanko has presented a list of possible policies for the consideration of the entire Board. Some of these policies stand alone,while others are related and are not mutually exclusive. They will form the main topic of discussion on June 12. Adoption of final policies could occur as early as tune 26 Here they are for your study before these meetings. Co"e r-d MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-11,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 June 12 , 1985 Mr. Frank Stramler, Awards Chairman National Association of County Parks & Recreation Officials 440 First Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Dear Mr. Stramler: I wish to express the District' s thanks for the honor that the Association has given us in recognizing the MROSD docent program. I regret that we will not be able to have a repre- sentative at the banquet to receive the award, but please pass on to the Association our thanks and appreciation. I have reviewed the banquet announcement copy; it is accurate and very good. Sincerely, Herbert Grench General Manager HG:ej cc : Lou Tsipis (Reservations) 4v1ROSD 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 V i I tttt► " MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: 11. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I . DATE: June 26, 1985 + •.�.� ram. _y.�.�.lm C MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 March 7 , 1985 Mr. & Mrs. Richard Bullis Route 2, Box 310 La Honda, CA 94020 Dear Mr. and Mrs. \Bullis: The District' s Board\of Directors considered your letter of February 20, 1985 reg° rding the parcel list at its meeting of February 27 . I amnswering on the Board's behalf. Copies of the list and map overlay are`{public records pur- suant to the Board ' s Resolytion No. 8j5-10 and are available r at nominal cost from the D " trict office. To save time I suggest you call the District' s Clerk, Jean Fiddes, in ad- vance of picking them up. I Am ad iced that the other information is not compiled as e�uested. You may wish to obtain this data from the Coun ,r ssessors ' offices . If you have any further question a to availability of District records, please call the Districts Legal Counsel , Stanley Norton. Sincerely, k Varry ' rner, President Board of Directors HT:ej cc: MROSD Board of Directors Herhert 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 JllU 4 1985 405 rl _ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 June 21 ,1985 Herb Grench General Manager Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Herb, I have received two requests from property owners to have their names removed from the Brown Act list: Anthony Such Wm. R. Estrada Il r Photocopies of their requests are enclosed. Sincerely, Harry Turner cc: MROSD Directors enclosures HAT:slb Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board o/Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin i /L,-v ' J�-WAt t _ l AMDAHL CORPORATION 1250 EAST AVENUE mciahl SO BOX 470 a E CAULIFORNIA 96086 PHONE 408-746-6000 TWX 910-339-9293 WM. R. ESTRADA II SENIOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER tyl Peninsula Citizens' Advocate 345 Swett Road Woodside, CA 94062 (415)851-7075 Property Acquisitions Manager 85 Jun 24 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, #DI Los Altos, CA 94022 Greetings, We would like copies of all correspondence that the District has sent to folks who voluntarily sold to the District, in which a MROSD representative suggested that eminent domain might be used or recommended — or might have been used or recommended — if the owners didn't sell, voluntarily. We have some copies of such correspondence; we are requesting copies of all of it. We would also appreciate any explanation or justification, in writing, of such letters. (This paragraph is not, in any way, meant to limit the coverage of the formal request stated in items I to 4, following.) The following is our formally-stated request: We request copies of some District records. This request is filed under the terms and conditions of the California Public Records Act, as amended, and — to the extent that any federal funds were directly or indirectly involved — under the terms and conditions of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, as amended. For the purposes hereafter, "MROSD" shall refer to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; "MROSD Agent" shall include but not be limited to any employee, consultant, manager, staff person, or other agent who acts or has ever acted on behalf of the MROSD; "Landowner" shall include but not be limited to any person, persons, companies, corporations, or other parties who have owned or now own real property in the State of California or have acted as agents thereof; and "Documents" shall include but not be limited to letters, correspondence, notes, written statements, documents and contracts, and all materials as defined as "Public records" and/or "Writing" in paragraphs 6252(d) and 6252(e) of the California Public Records Act. Please forward copies of all Documents fitting the following description: 1. The Documents contain any statement, suggestion, allegation or proposal that in any way implied or stated that eminent domain or any type of legal action might have been sug&cstcd, proposed or recommended or applied or otherwise pursued, that would have forced acquisition by MROSD of real property belonging to a Landowner. 2. The Documents were executed, signed or sent by any MROSD Agent. 3. The Documents were sent to any Landowner or agent thereof, where said Landowner did transfer some or all title and/or rights associated with real property to MROSD, before, upon, or following any date on any such Documents. 4. This request excludes any Documents pertaining to pending litigation for which legal action has been initiated but not consumatcd, and excludes any Documents supporting the acquisitions of the ten properties covered by the Resolutions of Necessity adopted by the MROSD Board of Directors, as listed in the 3/30/85 MROSD handout titled, "Use of the Power of Eminent Domain." We request that the copies of these Documents be furnished to us within 10 days after receipt of this request, as per Section 6256 of the above-noted Act which states, in part, "Each agency, upon any request for a copy of records shall determine within 10 days after the receipt of such request whether to comply with the request and shall immediately notify the person making the request of such determination and the reasons therefor." Thanking you for your attention to this request, I remain, Sincerely, Jim Warren, Editor & Publisher _d cc: MROSD Directors Ann Gibbons, Peninsula Times-Tribune MROSD Directors Attorney Tom Philp, San Jose Mercury San Mateo County District Attorney Marion Sofky, Country Almanac San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Jay Thorwaldson FOf2, 0FF/ ::://q - 4/,5-:r/Z >607/4,J 7-0 lt M"TwIlk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965.4717 June 24 , 1985 The Honorable George Deukmejian Governor, State of California State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor Deukmejian: The Legislature has approved the funding for the acquisition of Cascade Ranch for the Coastal Conservancy and State Parks Department as an addition to Ano Nuevo State Reserve. Cascade Ranch property is strategically located to provide links between three State parks, helping to provide a recreational greenbelt along the Santa Cruz Mountains along with the lands of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Our Board of Directors has voted to endorse the acquisition by the State and we respectfully urge your approval of the funding. Sincerely, Herbert Grench General Manager cc: v'MROSD Board of Directors Trust for Public Lands ds Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.turner,Daniel G.Wendin MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 June 24 , 1985 Richard S. Bullis Quinta Ranch Star Route 2 , Box 310 La Honda, California 94020 Re: Quinta Ranch Dear Dick: I hope the operation was a success and you're up and around soon. This letter is in response to a recent Board discussion relative to your memo of May 31 , 1985 (and our meeting of May 30 , 1985) . We have kept the memo as a confidential document as you and I agreed at our meeting; however, if you wish it "published" please advise me. The Board considered all of the options we have discussed and as result, I can offer the possibility of three alternatives: 1) The District would purchase the six-acre old Page Mill Road area and the remaining development rights over the balance of the property for $100 , 000 cash, or 2) The District would purchase the 50-acre vacant land area (leaving you the six-acre developed area , along with any necessary water rights) and pay you $300 ,000 ($100 ,000 cash down with the balance of $200 , 000 pay- able over 10 years at 7% tax-free interest) , or 3) The District would take a one-year option on the entire Ranch for $800 ,000 ($160 , 000 cash down with the balance of $640 , 000 payable over 10 years at 7% tax-free interest). . The option payment would be $25 ,000 applicable against the purchase price if exercised in the -first six months, declining by $5 ,000 for the next 5 months , and if exercised in the last month of the option, none of the option payment would be applicable. The District would be free to market all or a portion of the property during this option period. In the event the District exercised the option, you would be allowed to stay on for 120 days rent-free and then to move to other property that you already own or would purchase or rent. Herbert A Grench,General Manager Board of Directors Katherine Dutty,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Richard S. Bullis June 24 , 1985 Page Two The first two ideas do not represent any new material; however, suggestion 3 follows the only thought upon which we could agree-- that the entire ranch was worth $800 , 000. It would be the District' s intention to try to market the entire ranch in order to pursue suggestions 1 or 2 with another purchaser during the option period. Dick, please let me know if any of these ideas are of interest to you. 6an ere.ly, ig Britton, SR/WA d cc uisition Manager LCB: cac cc: MROSD Board of Directors ✓ I ALERT TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT CONDEMNATION FROM OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IS YOUR PROPERTY UNOCCUPIED UNDEVELOPED ? CAPABLE OF FURTHER SUBDIVISION ? NEAR A PUBLIC TRAIL OR PROPOSED TRAIL ? If your answer is yes to any of the above questions, you should know that the Open Space District his the power of eminent domain (condemnation). The District is in the process of revising its policies on eminent domain, and its Board of Directors is considering reserving this power for use on properties such as yours. On June 26 the Directors will decide whether to give up the power of eminent domain or to approve its use for undeveloped land - and/or unoccupied land - land which can be further subdivided - land needed to connect trails. The new policy, when adopted, would apply to rural land inside the District from San Carlos to Los Gatos, and also to some land outside the District. If your property is not currently in the District, it may be in the "Sphere of Influence" of the District. Land within the 'Sphere" may also be condemned. See map on this flyer. District Lists Individual Properties. District Planners have listed and mapped individual properties within the District and Sphere of Influence. These properties the Board may discuss acquiring at any time in a closed session. If you own more than 15 acres you are probably on this List. Action Needed Now. It is vital that you let your Open Space District Directors know your feelings about condemnation, especially regarding undeveloped lands, on or before their Board meeting on June 26. MROSD BOARD MEETING ON EMINENT DOMAIN POLICY Wednesday June 26 7:30 p.m. 375 Distel Circle, Suits D-1. Los Altos, CA For a copy of the List, Map and Policies, contact the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at (415) 965-4717 or at the above address. QM SPACE DISTRICT U59 EMU OF ORMNA110 Under California law all Regional Park and Open Space Districts are granted the power of eminent domain (condemnation). By scheduling a public hearing and passing a "Resolution of Necessity" by a two-thirds vote, the Board of Directors of the MROSD can condemn your land. There is no appeal process. If the matter goes to Court, the only action the Court may take is to set the selling price. District policy states that, 'The power of eminent domain will 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." Under this policy, the MROSD has voted to condemn ten times (a total of 1500 acres). The owners condemned include private individuals, The Novitiate (Catholic Church), and the City of San Francisco (Hassler Health Home). One condemnation proposed by the staff was voted down by the Board. In other instances, owners have agreed to sell to the District because they felt that they would be condemned if they didn't agree. WHAT IS THE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT? The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is one of several similar special purpose districts in California. It was formed by the voters in northwestern Santa Clara County in 1972 and expanded by vote to southeastern San Mateo County in 1976. Funding. It is funded primarily by property taxes. In 1984 the District received over S 5 miliion in tax revenue. Supplementary income is sought from donations, State and federal grants, bond issues, and loans. Purpose. "The District will function as an open space agency. Its primary purpose will be to preserve open space; traditional development of park and recreation areas will remain within the province of the cities and the County." Objective #1. "The District will purchase or otherwise acquire interest in the maximum feasible amount of strategic open space land within the District, including baylands and foothills." So far, the District has purchased 18,500 acres, mostly in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Governance. The District is managed by a general manager hired by an autonomous Board of Directors. The Directors are elected by the public according to districts, called wards. Present Directors are: Katherine Duffy, Saratoga ; Daniel Wendin, Los Altos ; Teena Henshaw, Sunnyvale ; Edward Shelley, Mountain View ; Nonette Hanko, Palo Alto ; Harry Turner, Menlo Park ; Richard Bishop, San Carlos. SANS FRANCISCO iMidpeninsula SAN BAY CAR LOS Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 WOODSIDE o G Los Altos, CA 94022 • Q ¢� �yQ� SUNNYVALE (415) 965-4717 v Herbert Grench, General Manager • Office Hours: Monday through Friday: 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon 1:00 p.m.-5:00 P.M. MIDPENINSULA <� • LOS GATOS Holidays excepted REGIONAL 2c� • OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 9��0 • A Sphore of Snfluenc& — Boundary of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 0 District open space preserves � . � CEJ\IMS 0b. 85-12 | Meeting 85-16 � MIDpEgIQSDL7\ RESZON&L OPEN SPACE DTSTBZC][ Date: June 26, 1985 � CLI\ I M3 # Amount Name Description 8379 739.32 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles 8380 110.34 Robert Barlow Road Maintenance 8381 2,316.50 Baron Welding & Iron Works Iron Gates 8382 28.28 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Equipment Supplies 8303 ly 44 Mona Dochnrd ^ Reimbursement--Ranger Name Plates 8384 1,081.8I Big Creek Lumber Co. Field Supplies � 838S 2,179.00 Louis D. Bordi & Son Field Supplies ~ | 8386 900,00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Advocate Fee for June 0387 144.30 California Water Service Co, Water Service 8388 21 .77 Camden Rentals, Inc. Equipment Repair Supplies � 0389 90.00 Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. Out-of-Town Travel--Herbert Grench 8390 1,000.00 Carmen, Weaver & Associates, Inc. Architectural Services 8391 56.01 [lazk's Auto Parts 8 Machine Shop District Vehicle Supplies � 8392 222.47 Communications Research Cu, Communications Equipment Maintenance uxyconw 8393 lS.00 The Country Almanac Subscription 8394 52.38 Cceegan & D'Aogolo Fence Plans--Novitiate 0395 300.00 Susan Cretckos June Patrol Services 8396 17.66 Crest Copies Blueprints 8397 1S2,86 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Tuition and Private Vehicle Expense 8398 50.91 Dennis Danielson Reimbursement--Books for Field Office 8399 I01.03 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies � 8408 17,07 Katherine Duffy Reimbursement--Telephone Expenses 8401 637.30 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Service 8 Repairs � 8402 5.47 E] Monte Stationers Office Supplies � 0403 31 .30 Jean [i6Jos Reimbursement--Meal Conferences � � 8404 166.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Preliminary Title Reports � 8406 300.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee -for May � 8406 70.20 The yroApnnd Noel Conferences � � 8407 496,24 Dno Gates Transmission, Inc. District Vehicle Repairs � 8408 14.00 Granhicstot, Inc. Artwork Enlargement 8409 232,80 Herbert Cronch Out-of-Town Meetings and �mxI � � Conference 8410 53.51 Mary Cundert Private Vehicle Expense Meeting 85-16 Date: June 26, 198-1; 8411 28.78 Harbinger Communications Computer Services for Newsletter 8412 432.00 W. Jeffrey Hoid Architectural Services 8413 175.00 History Club of Los Gatos Rental of Building and Deposit 8414 102.00 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Service � 8415 2,I69.31 Hubbard & Johnson Storage Sheds � 8416 137.76 The Hub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense 8417 3Sl.86 The B6 Jones Company Ranger Badges 8418 618.75 Keller and DusekiuK, Architects Hassler Site Renovation 8419 305,00 Lauren Langford 0nenspuce Newsletter Typesetting � 8420 81S.02 Lawrence Tiro Service, Inc. District VcblcIc Expense � 8421 8.56 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies 8422 335.47^ Cow Cost Appliances Appliances for Rental Residence 8423 287.5O Charlotte MacDonald Consulting Services for Newsletter 8424 12.00 Management Learning Laboratories Subscription � 8425 1,07S.00 McGinnis/McGinnis/McGinnis Biological Consultant Fees 8426 34.0S Robert McKibbiu Private Vehicle Expense � 8427 2,000.00 Metro Deal Estate Research Appraisal Services � 8428 600.84 Ciooy Mickel-son Design and Production of Newsletter 8429 224,05 0iczommdia^ Inc. Microfiche Services 8430 674.48 �iotoo's Lt=ber & Supply Field Supplies 8431 177.42 Mobil Oil Company District Vehicle Expense � 8432 73.00 Stanley R. Norton May Expenses 8433 28. 75 Nonoey's Office Supplies 8434 211495.75 Matt 0ovakwviok Construction of Firebreaks 8435 378.42 On Line Business Systems Computer Services for May 8436 183.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies 8437 8G3.43 Pacific Dell Telephone Expense 8438 207. 13 Pacific Cos & Electric Utilities ' 8439 97.58 Pine Cone Lumber Co. , Inc. Field Supplies 8440 2,615, 19 Piukorton's, Inc. Final Billing—Hassler Security 8441 67.41 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental 8142 1^770.00 Dennis Plank Construction Maintenance Work 8443 78.32 8ouchu Hardware Field Supplies | 8444 1^1I7.40 Roberts & Brune Company Materials for Water System 8445 374. 10 S & N Equipment Company Field Supplies 8446 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription ' CLAIMS No. 85-I2 � Meeting 85-I6 � Date: June 26, 1986 8448 100.00 Santa Clara County Forms 8449 154.08 Scribner Graphic Press Inc. Typesetting 8450 196.60 John Shelton, Inc. Culverts for New Long Ridge Trail 8451 17.20 Skyline County Water District Water Service 8452 171JO00.00 Sorgdrager Trucking Site Restoration--flassler Health Home 8453 108.00 The Travel Place Out-of-Town Meet ing--Herbert Grench 8454 18.60 Union Oil Company of California District Vehicle Fuel Amount Name Description 845S 300.00*+ United States Postmaster Postage for Bulk Mailing--Newsletter � 8466 800.08 United States Postmaster Postage for Meter � 8457 1,874.84 O. S. Rentals Equipment Rental � 8458 48.79 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense 8459 88,09 Ellis Wallace Private Vehicle Expense 8460 206.64 West Coast Shoe Company Ranger Uniform Expense � 8461 476.60 YolIos Equipment Sales field Equipment � 8462 lSQ.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental � 8463 12.08 Ameri8os Tank Rental | 8464 93.63 The Dark Doo::i Photo Processing 8465 350.00 Los Altos Garbage Dumnster Qoutul � 8466 175.00**+ United State-; Postmaster Postage for Bulk Mailing--Newsletter 8467 81.30 David Camp Reimbursement--FieId Supplies 8468 73.75 Roto-Rooter Sewer Service Drain and Sewer Services 8460 197,lS Bich Voss Materials 8 7.ruckio8,Iuo, Field Supplies and Delivery - ' � * Issued as an emergency chock on Juno 6, 1905 � ++ Issued as an emergency check on Juno 13, I985 'Issued as an emergency check on June Iy* 1985 | ----- - - - - - - - CTAIMS Na. 8S-12 Meeting . 85-16 MIDP1'.N_1NSLJLA IZEX;IONIA1, OPEN SPACE DISTR_rCT IX-Ite: June 26, 198S S C L A 1 14 REVISED ir Anto u i i t Name Description 8379 739.32 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles 8380 110.34 Robert Barlow Road Maintenance 8381 2,316.50 Baron Welding & Iron Works Iron Gates 8382 28.28 Bay Microfilm, Inc. Equipment Supplies 8383 19.44 Mona Bechard Reimbursement--Ranger Name Plates 8384 1,081 .81 Big Creek Lumber Co. Field Supplies 8385 2,179.00 Louis B. Bordi & Son Field Supplies 8386 900.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Advocate Fee for June 8387 144.30 California Water Service Co. Water Service 8388 21 .77 Camden Rentals., Inc. Equipment Repair Supplies 8389 90.00 Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. Out-of-Town Travel--Herbert Grench 8S90 1,000.00 Carmen, Weaver & Associates, Inc. Architectural Services 8391 56.01 Clark's Auto Parts & Machine Shop District Vehicle Supplies 8392 222.47 Communications Research Co. Communications Equipment Maintenance Expense ,8393 I5.00 The Country Almanac Subscription S394 52.38 Creegan & D'Angelo Fence Plans--Novitiate t395 300.00 Susan Cretekos June Patrol Services 8396 17.66 Crest Copies* Blueprints '8397 152.86 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Tuition and Private Vehicle Expense ,8398 50.91 Dennis Danielson Reimbursement--Books for Field Office S399 101.03 Discount office Supply Office Supplies 8400 17.07 Katherine Duffy Reimbursement--Telephone Expenses 8401 637.30 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Service & Repairs 8402 5.47 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies ,1S.07 8403 Jean Fiddes Reil"bursement-41cal Conferences 8404 166.00 First American Title Guaranty Co.- Preliminary Title Reports 8405 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee for May 6406 70.20 The Frogpond Meal Conferences $407 496.24 Ron Gates Transmission, Inc. District Vehicle Repairs 10408 14.00 Graphicstat, Inc. Artwork Enlargement 409 232.80 Herbert Grench Out-of-Town Meetings and Meal _ Conference L �410 53.S1 Mary Cundert Private Vehicle Expense Meeting Date: June 26, 193S Amo ii-n t Name REVISED Description 8411 28.78 Harbinger Communications Computer Services for Newsletter 8412 432.00 W. Jeffrey Heid Architectural Services 8413 175.00 History Club of Los Gatos Rental of Building and Deposit 8414 102.00 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Service 8415 2,169.31 Hubbard & Johnson Storage Sheds 8416 137.76 The Hub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense 8417 35I.86 The Ed Jones Company Ranger Badges 8418 618.75 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Site Renovation 8419 305.00 Lauren Langford Openspace Newsletter Typesetting 8420 815.02 Lawrence Tire Service, Inc. District Vehicle Expense 8421 8.56 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies 8422 335.47* Low Cost Appliances Appliances for Rental Residence 8423 287.SO Charlotte.MacDonald Consulting Services for Newsletter 8424 12.00 Management Learning Laboratories Subscription 8425 . 1,075.00 McGinnis/McGinnis/McGinnis Biological Consultant Fees 8426 34.85 Robert McKibbin Private Vehicle Expense 8427 2,000.00 Metro Real Estate Research Appraisal Services 81128 600.84 Ginny Mickelson Design and Production of Newsletter 1� 8429 224.05 Micromedia, Inc. Microfiche Services 8430 674.48 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies 8431 177.42 Mobil Oil Company District Vehicle Expense 8432 73.00 Stanley R. Norton May Expenses 8433 28.75 Norney's Office Supplies 8434 2,495.75 Matt Novakovich Construction of Firebreaks 8435 378.42 On Line Business Systems Computer Services for May 8436 183.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies 8437 853.43 Pacific Bell Telephone Expense 8438 207.13 Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities 8439 97.58 Pine Cone Lumber Co., Inc. Field Supplies 8440 2,615.19 Pinkerton'I s, Inc. Final Billing—Hassler Security 8441 67.41 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental 8442 1;770.00 Dennis Plank Construction Maintenance Work 8443 78.32 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 8444 1,117.40 Roberts & Brune Company Materials for Water System '8445 374.10 S & W Equipment Company Field Supplies 8446 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription CLAIMS No. 8S-12 Meeting 85-16 Date: June 26 1985 REVISED Amount Name Description 8447 48.15 David Sanguinetti Reimbursement--Ranger Uniform Expense 8448 100.00 Santa Clara County Forms 8449 154.08 Scribner Graphic Press Inc. Typesetting 8450 196.60 John Shelton, Inc. Culverts for New Long Ridge Trail 8451 17.20 Skyline County Water District Water Service 8452 171,000.00 Sorgdrager Trucking Site Restoration--Hassler Health Home 8453 108.00 The Travel Place Out-of-Town Meeting--Herbert Grench 8454 18.60 Union Oil Company of California District Vehicle Fuel 8455 300.00** United States Postmaster Postage for Bulk Mailing--Newsletter i 8456 800.00 United States Postmaster Postage for Meter 8457 1,874.84 U. S. Rentals Equipment Rental 8458 48.79 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense 8459 88.09 Ellis Wallace Private Vehicle Expense 8460 206.64 West Coast Shoe Company Ranger Uniform Expense 8461 476.60 Yolles Equipment Sales Field Equipment 8462 158.58 ZZZ Sanitation Company Equipment Rental 8463 12.00 Amerigas Tank Rental 8464 93.63 The Dark Room Photo Processing 8465 350.00 Los Altos Garbage Dumpster Rental 8466 175.00*** United States Postmaster Postage for Bulk Mailing--Newsletter �18467 81.30 David Camp Reimbursement--Field Supplies 8468 73.75 Roto-Rooter Sewer Service Drain and Sewer Services 8469 197.15 Rich Voss Materials & Trucking,Inc. Field Supplies and Delivery 8470 71.00**** B & Bee's Part Rents y Rental 8471 50.00 David Hansen Reimbursement--Partial Membership Dues 8472 87.73 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Printing Costs 8473 7,950.00 Sorgdrager Trucking Performance Bond for Hassler Settle- ment Agreement and City Permit �,774 182.30 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense, Meal Conferences, Photo Processing and Supplies Issued as an emergency check on June 6, 1985 Issued as an emergency check on June 13, 1985 ***Issued as an emergency check on June 19, 1985 ****Issued as an emergency check on June 25, 1985