Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850710 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-17 Meeting 85-17 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 July 10 , 1985 A G E N D A Los Altos , California (7 : 30) ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 12 , 1985 ; June 26 , 1985) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADOPTION OF AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (7 :45) 1. Recitation of Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag -- T. Henshaw OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (7 :50) 2 . Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont older Open Space Preserve C. Britton (8 :00) 3. Consideration of Letter from City of Palo Alto Encouraging Opposition to AB 2198 -- H. Grench (8 :05) 4. Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Termination of Communication Lease -- C. Britton (8 :10) 5 . Interim Solution of Long Ridge Road Use Conflicts -- D. Hansen OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED (8 :25) 6 . Further Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments , Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries , and Annexation Eminent Domain Policy Committee (8 :45) NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (8 :45) 7 . Thornewood open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan Review -- D. Hansen (9 :15) 8. Request to Aid Funding of Radar Gun for Skyline Boulevard Traffic Control -- D. Hansen (9 : 20) 9 . Scheduling of Special Meeting for July 15 -- H. Grench (9 :25) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters) ADJOURNMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP A public workshop will be held on Wednesday, July 17 , 1985 on the Use and Management Plan for the Kennedy Road Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. The workshop will be held at the History Club of Los Gatos , 123 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos and will begin at 6 P.M. The workshop will focus on parking area development for the Preserve and proposed updates of the sites Use and Management Plan. Meeting 85-16 �4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS JUNE 26 , 1985 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL Vice President Harry Turner called the meeting to order at 7: 40 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner and Richard Bishop (who arrived at 7 : 45 P .M. ) . Member Absent: Teena Henshaw. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench , Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes , Michael Foster, James Boland, and Emma Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A) May 22 , 1985 Motion: E. Shelley moved the approval of the minutes of May 22, 1985 . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0 . B) June 5 , 1985 Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of June 5, 1985 . H. Turner seconded the motion. D. Wendin said he would vote for approval even though absent from the June 5 meeting. E. Shelley abstained because he was ab- sent. The motion passed 5 to 0 . C) June 12, 1985 N. Hanko said the word it "unless" should be changed to provided" and "at which time" should be changed to "otherwise" in the fourth paragraph of Page Three, and in the following paragraph, "5" be changed to "5b" and "7" be changed to "6" . N. Hanko questioned the accuracy of the minutes concerning R. Bishop' s statement of Page 4 , Paragraph 4 . Since R. Bishop was not present at this time, H. Turner stated the consensus of the Board that approval of the June 12 min- utes would be held over until the next regular Board meeting. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS E. Johnson stated the following communications were received: 1) Letters regarding the District' s eminent domain and acquisition policies were received from: Hans Morawitz , President, Committee for Green Foothills; George Norton of Palo Alto; Robert Piety of Los Gatos; Dana Armstrong of Menlo Park; John Marden of San Jose; Linda Fischman of Woodside; Jay Thorwaldson of La Honda; Merrill Morshead, Jr. of Portola Valley; Thomas Harrington of Los Altos; and Ruth Troetschler of Los Altos. Page Two Meet f -1 6 2) Walter and Marianne Kerl wrote to express appreciati.,-,n ie open space and work the District has done, and Willi, -,i ­er and 85 others signed a letter regarding relocation o� ti in family. Nat and Jan Sherrill of Woodside wrote to if., ;.t rd and staff to a potluck picnic. 3) Phone messages regarding land acquisition policies wei r. °ed from Richard Vassar of Mountain View; Doctors Eva and Y,, 73lul of Woodside; and Mike Roberts of San Francisco. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA H. Turner stated the amended agenda was adopted by Board consolts= The Board agreed to hear Oral Communication after Item 1 . V. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED 1 . Acquisition Policies Pertaining to Use of Eminent Domain, Brown Act Compliance, Sphere of Influence Boundary, and Annexation (re port R-85-30 dated June 20 , 1985) - N. Hanko noted that page two of the Committee 's report R-85-30 had been revised. K. Duffy proposed that eminent domain proceedings not be possible outside the District' s planning area as part of the policy and th( modification of No. 1 in the draft policy to read "by the consent of a majority of landowners . " R. Bishop proposed that an objective standard be followed on the one additional parcel exemption to condemnation so that the Board does not have to make value judgments on speculative versus non- speculative subdivisions. He suggested a holding period of owner-- ship could determine speculation. D. Wendin said he favored the use of eminent domain in situations that are clearly speculative and agreed that a trigger is required. R. Bishop noted that the Committee favored a subdivision applica- tion as the trigger. N. Hanko noted action of the Board to start eminent domain depended on the landowner taking action if the trigger concept were adopted. Permanency of the eminent domain policy was discussed. Three possi- bilities were proposed: 1) contract, 2) public vote, 3) legisla- tion. R. Bishop suggested the contract be uniform, permanent, and open-ended. N. Hanko suggested that the duration and content of an agreement could be decided at a later time if the Board agrees to the con- cept of a contract and noted her disagreement with a provision that the agreement become null and void if a city or county having jurisdiction rezoned the property. R. Bishop said that since all Directors agree that the District should not use eminent domain against homeowners , the contract should be an implement for using the policy for some degree of permanency. He added there should be no time limit to the con- tract, and it should be terminated if a homeowner filed for a subdivision. D. Wendin said it appeared to him that a clear consensus of the Board is to retain the right of eminent domain for some cases in- volving subdivision of property. He reiterated that there is a need for some degree of permanence, that it should be open-ended and unilateral . Page Three Meeting 85-16 N. Hanko said she supported the open-ended concept. The Board agreed to a straw vote on the main issue of the eminent domain consideration. PROPOSITION : Should undeveloped, presumably not dividable land, be immune from eminent domain if it is held for longer than a period of time with some sort of trig- ger that makes it eligible? VOTE: Yes - 5 No - 1 K. Duffy, referring to 2 (a) of the draft eminent domain policy, said the subdivision of a piece of land would be a matter of judg- ment and speculative subdivisions could be critical . N. Hanko noted an amendment could change 2 (a) of the draft eminent domain policy to read "create one additional parcel" rather than "more than one additional parcel" . K. Duffy said she would like the Board to make a judgment on whether such subdivision is related to speculation or family need. R. Bishop stated an objective standard should be used because of the difficulty of establishing motives. H. Turner said the Board cannot use its time to inquire into aspects of the transactions. D. Wendin suggested that a holding period be considered as proof that the owner is not a speculator and that the Board should estab- lish a method for owners to divide property for family use and pre7 serve single family lots that are not occupied. PROPOSITION: Should a division that adds just one more lot be im- mune (from eminent domain) ? VOTE: Yes - 3; No - 3 . R. Bishop explained that even though a subdivision application would ordinarily trigger the possibility of eminent domain, there would be an exception for the division of a property into two lots but that such a division could take place only once in a ten-year period. E. Shelley said one problem would be acquiring land for trail con- nections because the District may not be able to get critical trail connections over large parcels of undeveloped property if a sub- division application were not filed and it would have to be volun- tary. D. Wendin said he would not support a policy of using eminent do- main for a trail connection unless the property is subject to the use of eminent domain. E. Shelley noted trail connections that are far enough away from the owner' s residence may be possible. K. Duffy noted that using eminent domain for a trail connection would be used only as a last resort. N. Hanko stated her position that whether the parcel is improved or unimproved, a very important trail connection may be desirable on a parcel that is large where a 20 foot trail or trail along a major road could be a great distance away from a dwelling. PROPOSITION: Would the District use eminent domain for a trail connection on an undeveloped, not dividable parcel Page Four meeting 85-16' that has been held for less than the holding period. VOTE: Yes - 2 No - 4 Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, said that implementation of any adopted policies could be done by Board ordinance, subject to notification of all landowners by certified mail if it is changed. Mary Ann Mark, 609 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, suggested that if land is subdividable, it should be subject to eminent domain. Robert McKim, 864 Cedro Way, Stanford, asked if contracts would be transferable to buyer. N. Hanko said that item 4 of the draft agreement discussed transferability of a contract. Sylvia Ferguson, 707 Continental Circle, Mountain View, reported statistics that East Bay Regional Park District used eminent do- main for trail purposes three times in their 50-year existence. Vince Garrod, 22600 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga, said the power of eminent domain should be retained and used with good judgment. Ernest Go tine of Atherton stated his y support of the right to use eminent domain. Wanda Alexander, 15879 Ravine Road, Los Gatos, representing the area s Homeowners Association, said residents are trying to keep their lands in open space, but added there is danger of further subdivision. She favored the District keeping its full powers of eminent domain. Janet Schwind, representing the South Skyline Association' noted the Association ' s reponses to the Eminent Domain Committee ' s report of June 20 : too complicated to understand; occupied parcels that are subdividable are more threatened than unoccupied parcels that are subdividable; use of eminent domain for trails would be misuse of that power. Referring to the draft policy on eminent domain, she said the Association favors option l (c) or 2, adding that if the list is retained, all those listed should be informed that they are on the list and given the opportunity to be deleted. The Asso- ciation favored contracts but noted the "etc. " in the draft needs to be defined or eliminated; agreement should be open-ended; and item 1 (b) should be eliminated. The Association would like assur- ance that all annexations will take place with permission of the property owners , and that respective LAFCOs will be so informed of the policy. She submitted a proposed District Land Acquisition Policy which explained the use of eminent domain. George Norton, a resident of Skyline Boulevard and a member of the South Skyline Association,, speaking for himself and 90 of his neighbors , said that the District should not give up powers of eminent domain when it is necessary, adding that it be used judi- ciously. William Obermeyer of Portola Park Heights noted that condemnation also occurs when the District imposes public road use on property owners ' access easements without compensation. Paul Storaasli, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated his opposition to the use of eminent domain when a clear definable need cannot be given, urged a holding period, and noted zoning changes are beyond the landowner ' s control . Page Five Meeting 85-16 Mark Evanoff urged the Board not to give up its power of eminent domain, which is a useful tool. Christine Pemberton, 18556 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga questioned the philosophy of "more is better" and discussed the difference between private and public ownership. Roy Eaton, 155 Swett Road, Woodside stated his opposition to the use of eminent domain in category D of the draft policy and to the concept of a holding period since it is not valid proof of intent. Barbara Green, representing Committee for Green Foothlls, said eminent domain is a special tool that should not be discarded and that the Board should not limit itself too much. She expressed concern that the trigger concept could lead to "game playing" . Jay Thorwaldson, Star Route 2 , Box 185 , La Honda, noted the broad impact of the Board 's decisions. He stated his concern about contracts, urging that the wording be simple and noted the contract precluded trail easement options where it may be needed. He said that he was concerned about the Board tying the hands of future Boards, noting this was a reason for voters to determine the policy involved. Bob Fisse, Star Route 2 , Box 310 , La Honda, said Skyline residents need the District and want to see it succeed, but questioned its success using present land policies. He said eminent domain is seen as a weapon by the residents and that the District has many other tools. John Anderson, Skyline Boulevard, said he is against the use of eminent domain for small parcels , but thinks large developments are a threat and eminent domain could be useful. Jim McCann, 1816 Park Avenue, V , San Jose, stated eminent domain should be used judiciously and is central to the continuing work of the District. Lynn Ericson of Los Altos stated he favored eminent domain use and that public pressure is a valid control for the misuse of that power. Don Aitkin, 20100 Skyline Boulevard, Woodside, said the Board should be prepared to use eminent domain in the public interest. Beez Jones , 16891 Stevens Canyon Road , Cupertino, said five Board members can make the final decision on instituting eminent domain proceedings and suggested another body make the approval. She suggested the reference to city and county zoning in l (b) of the draft agreement be deleted since it is out of the owners ' con- trol, She noted many property owners are under the Williamson Act and those properties should be exempt from the use of eminent domain. Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, 94062 , stated that filing a formal subdivision application is not necessarily costly. N. Hanko said she would like the Board to make some tentative approval during the present meeting and to have a formal vote when all Board members are present. Discussion focused on whether the Board members were prepared to take any formal action. Page Six M(­ ing Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Committee be dir, . � >vise the proposed policy and return at a meetin , 'it Board members are present. H. Turner secoi: Discussion: R. Bishop said the Committee h I( }n given direction by the Board on the questioi, --di- vision application being a trigger and asked raw vote. The motion on the floor passed 5 to 1 with N. i k voting no. PROPOSITION: Would the District forego the power of t until a subdivision application is filed ae where a major subdivision can be built from lot split? VOTE: Yes 5 No 1 H. Turner appointed D. Wendin to replace N. Hanko on the Eminent Domain Committee during her absence. The Board concurred with H. Turner's appointment. J. Thorwaldson pointed out that the Committee is now a serial committee and that meetings must be open to the public. The Committee members agreed to meet in public at 7 :30 P.M. July 1 at the District office. The Board concurred to attempt to have all Board members present when a final vote is taken on the eminent domain policy. H. Turner stated the Board ' s consensus that the Committee be asked to look at Brown Act policies again and modify them based on comments received in tonight' s meeting. He agreed that the Board would address the Brown Act policy and the other policies at its next meeting and then refer them back to Committee. The Board recessed at 10 :30 P.M. and reconvened at 10 : 45 P.M. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS William Obermeyer, Portola Park Heights , requested the District make some written response to the Portola Park Heights Homeowners ' Associa- tion's requests concerning public use of the road through Long Ridge to their community. H. Grench reported that the District' s Legal Counsel has begun to address the legal questions and has gathered the information but has not completed necessary research. He said until an alternate trail alignment is completed, the map of the area will be changed so that it does not show a trail along the road. D. Hansen said the question of signing must be addressed by Legal Counsel because of liability, but added he favors signing at the road warning hikers of vehicles on the road. R. Bishop proposed expediting as a priority a new trail so the road would not be used by hikers. Candice Stone, President of the Homeowners ' Association said that signing and liability are major issues to them. W. Obermeyer asked that signs be posted at the gate warning hikers that the road is closed. H. Grench reiterated that Legal Counsel must review the signing which is a very technical problem. Page Seven Meeting 85-16 D. Wendin stated he would like staff to find an interim solution to minimize liability issues and report back to the Board at the next regular meeting. H. Turner asked that staff assess resources available and feasibility of targeting a date for resolution of the issue. N. Hanko said that in addition to the short term solutions, long term solutions should be moving forward. Due to the lateness of the hour, H. Turner announced, with the Board's concurrence , that the following agenda items would be continued to the Board's next regular meeting: Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont older Open Space Preserve; Considera- tion of Letter from Palo Alto Encouraging opposition to AB 2198; and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Termination of Communication Lease. VII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (Continued) 2. Action Plan for the Implementation of the Basic Policy of the Ridpeninsula Regional Open Space District for 1985-1986 Fiscal Year (Memorandum M-85-100 dated June 19 , 1985) H. Grench stated the items in the plan that are subject to new emi- nent domain Policies have been marked with asterisks. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt the Action Plan for the implementation of the Basic Policy of the Midpenin- sula Regional Open Space District for the 1985-1986 Fiscal Year contained in the staff report. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. VIII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED 1. Presentation of 1985-1986 Salary Survey and Adoption of New Salary Ranges (Report R-85-28 dated June 17 , 1985) H. Grench summarized his report concerning the 1985-1986 salary survey and outlined the reasons he was recommending the Board approve a five point (5.1%) across-the-board increase for General Manager appointees effective July 1 . He noted that no changes in the internal relationship of District positions were being recom- mended at this time , but added the Open Space Management staffing study was currently in progress . Motion : R. Bishop moved that the Board approve a 5 point across- the-board salary increase for General Manager appointees effective July 1 , 1985 by adopting the Salary Pay Plan Table. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. 2. Acceptance of Insurance Bid Coverage for1985-1986 _(Report R-85-35 dated June 21 , 1985 and Memorandum M-85-103 dated June 26 , 1986) J. Fiddes provided updated price quotations to replace figures in the memorandum M-85-103 , noting the umbrella liability quote should be $7 ,539 .25 and public entity difference-in-conditions quote should be $5 ,349 . 20 , making a total insurance quotation of $44,623.95. She added that the great increases in premiums are due to uncertain market for public agencies. She introduced Skip McIntyre of Flinn, Gray & Herterich who noted that it is difficult to obtain coverage for public entities and congratulated the Dis- trict on its excellent liability management and claims record. Page Eight Meeting 85-16 Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board accept the bid of $44 ,623 .95 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 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. 3. Adoption of Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 (Reports R-85-34 dated June 21 , 1985 , R-85-31 dated June 20 , 1985, and A-85-32 dated June _20 , 1985) H. Grench noted that the budget presented is only preliminary and will maintain the status quo until the Open Space Management Budget Guidelines are reviewed and approved by the Board. He added that he may request approval for additions to the field staff before fall and noted a large increase in the number of planning and development projects. H. Grench said the land acquisition budget is similar to the current year's $5 million budget and normal growth is reflected inthe Public Communications Program budget. He added the General Admini- stration budget reflects the very large item of moving to new office space. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-33, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin- sula Regional Open Space District Adopting' Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 1985-1986 . R. Bishop seconded the motion. Discussion : H. Turner, who was an alternate on the Budget Committee, presented the Committee 's recommendations including adopting the proposed preliminary budget as a temporary working budget, encouraging the General Manager to request authorization to hire contingency personnel which may- be necessaiZ_v to facilitate new projects and the field maintenance contained in the budget, requesting the Budget Committee continue meeting to evaluate and make recommendations on possible changes in the Land Management budget guidelines which would include a format for a multi-year capital improvements, program and evalua- tion of expenditures not counted against current guidelines, review and make recommendations on the revised budget which will be before the Board upon completion of the Land Management Staffing Study, and requesting that every effort be made by staff and Budget Committee to complete these tasks by the first of the year. M. Foster, District Controller, said he did not anticipate any cash flow problems and would not be recommending any note issuance . H. Grench stated that the target date for submitting the amended budget to the Board would be by the end of the 1985 calendar year. The motion passed 6 to 0. Page Nine Meeting 85-16 4 . Annual Claims List for 1985-1986 (Report R-85-29 dated June 18 , 19-85) Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board approve the Annual Claims List included in the staff report. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. IX. CLAIMS Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve Revised Claims 85-12 of June 26 , 1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. X. CLOSED SESSION H. Grench stated that no litigation matters would be discussed during the Closed Session. The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 11 :55 P.M. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :05 A.M. Thursdav, June 27 , 1985. Emma Johnson Secretary CTAT14S no. 8 S-12 I-Ijeeting . 85-16 MID1'l ill. J1,11 RE'CUONAT, 01)j,1'L%1 SPACE DISTRICT Ultc: Jurie '26, I' C L A 1 1-1 S REVISED Ir A! Name D(!scription 6379 739. 32 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles 8380 110.3-1 Robert Barlow Road Maintenance 8381 2,316.50 Baron Welding & Iron Works Iron Gates B382 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 838S 2,179.00 Louis B. Bordi & Son Field Supplies 5386 900.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Advocate Fee for June 8387 144.30 California Water Service Co. Water Service !8389 21 .77 Camden Rentals, Inc. Equipment Repair Supplies 8389 90.00 Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. Out-of-Town Travel--Herbert Gr'encb asgo 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 R393 15.00 The Country Almanac Subscription 5394 52. 38 Creegan & D'Angelo Fence Plans--Novitiate 3395 300.00 Susan Cretekos June Patrol Services 3396 17.66 Crest Copies. Blueprints 397 152.86 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Tuition and Private Vehicle Expense 8398 50.91 Dennis Danielson Reimbursement--Books for Field Offi, B399 101 .03 Discount office Supply Office Supplies B400. 17.07 Katherine Duffy Reimbursement--Telephone Expenses 9401 637.30 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Service & Repairs R402 5.47 El Monte Stationers Office Supplies 7 8403 Jean !~idles ReimburSement-41aal Conferences 3404 166.00 First American Title Guaranty Co.- Preliminary Title Reports 3405 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee for May 3406 70.20 The Frogpond Meal Conferences 5407 496.24 Ron Gates Transmission, Inc. District Vehicle Repairs 3408 14.00 Graphicstat, Inc. Artwork Enlargement. 3409 232.80 Herbert Grench Out-of-Town Meetings and Meal Conference 1410 53. S1 Mary GLindert Private Vehicle Expense Meeting � 5-16 Date: June 26, 1985 AT-r,C) Name Description Description 8411 23. 78 Harbinger CORIT"un i cat ions Computer Services for Newsletter 8412 432.00 11. Jeffrey Heid Architectural Services 'I8413 '175.00 History Club of Los Gatos I Rental of Building and Deposit 18414 102.00 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Service 8415 2,169. 31 Hubbard & Johnson Storage Sheds 8416 137.76 The flub Schneiders Ranger Uniform Expense 8417 351.86 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 287.50 Charlotte.MacDonald Consulting Services for Newsletter 8424 12.00 Management Learning Laboratories Subscription 9425 . 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 i 8-1128 600.84 Ginny Mickelson Design and Production of Newsletter 8429 224.05 Micromcdia, Inc. Microfiche Services 8430 674.48 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies 9431 177.42 Mobil Oil Company District Vehicle Expense 8432 73.00 Stanley R. Norton May Expenses 8433 28.75 Norney's Office Supplies 3434 2,495.75 Matt Novakovich Construction of Firebreaks 343S 378.42 On Line Business Systems Computer Services for May 9436 183.02 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies S437 8 3.113 Pacific Bell Telephone ENI)eise $438 207. 13 Pacific Gas & Electric utilities 9439 97.58 Pine Cone Lumber Co., Inc. Field Supplies S440 2,615.19 Pinkerton's, Inc. Final Billing--Hassler Security 3441 67.41 Pitney Bowes Meter Rental 9442 1;770.00 Dennis Plank Construction Maintenance Work 34 4 3 78.32 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 0444 1,117.40 Roberts & Brune Company Materials for Water System $445 374.10 S & 11 Equipment Company Field Supplies 1 3446 8.25 San Francisco Examiner Subscription CLAIMS No. 85-12 Meeting - 85-16 Date: June 26, 1981, REVISED Amount Name Dcscription 8447 48. 15 David Sanguinetti Reimbursement--Ranger Uniform Expej 8448 100.00 Santa Clara County Forms ' 8449 154.08 Scribner Graphic Press Inc. Typesetting 196.60 John Shelton, Inc. Culverts for New Long Ridge Trail 84SI 17.20 Skyline County Water District Water Service 8452 171,000.00 Sorgdrager Trucking Site Restoration--Hassler Health 11(- 8453 108.00 The Travel Place Out-of-Town Meeting--Herbert Grencl 8454 18.60 Union Oil Company of California District Vehicle Fuel 8455 300.00** United States Postmaster Postage for Bulk Mailing--Newslettp 8456 800.00 United States Postmaster Postage for Meter 8457 1,874.84 U. S. Rentals Equipment Rental 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 ,3464 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--Newslett(, 3467 81.30 David Camp Reimbursement--Field Supplies 8468 73.75 Roto-Rooter Sewer Service Drain and Sewer Services 3469 197.15 Rich Voss Materials & Trucking,Inc. Field Supplies and Delivery 8470 71.00**** B & Bee's Party Ron-,:; -of-Foldiifg--Chair­§ - -- Rental, 8471 50.00 David Hansen Reimbursement--Partial Membership U 8472 87.73 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Printing Costs 8473 7,950.00 Sorgdrager Trucking C> Performance Bond for HaSSICr SCttlC ment Agreement and City Permit 1,**74 182.30 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 r y LY� av +trh `�•�.��. :*L. • .. . . . •..i�: . .. . ...(A* l♦ r..:�. . . i�y•�7�. . •. .I`a1" � • ,• A � ♦+�� \ p\l.• • v: =... . . -•�. :. w:.a. .w'.�`~j'JM�7 . •,..�w� I t � .-, -;MROSD BOUNDARY •MM•'•�v+•�w� .mow„ . . .`• I•J• . \`{ GOLDWAto tER,i; ".�'`"" . • +� i � ��j� ,w .';` _•,: : WL SUCH �.,'. ... IV 1<01 { r ti': r. �) GRAY . . . . . . . , :�,.-- ;:.. : . .... . . . . . . . .. L -�, rc , J` 1\ 10 ..t t.r. V • 1 • NER YSOR I CH r. r . • �...•�I ' 01 A NEEIV-Y'Y�1 i �,. 1 ', �, -� , ,��,:.•f; �• • • • •f', :�\� 1, NOBREGA ?^ �(�,�\ RE T FARLAMD•�'�`j- RODSiC �" �r�: VA . �: _ Ems, E:. . �� +o ��l�1,• T.� �.�.��'-�� HARTLEY .,.. : .•:�� .* 80 AC. ASSOC ^' I S W j SSETT :.�_;;, VIP ON .�� .� 44 � •` r✓. .,r',:�: )'. .�.�'`'• � 11�� ...�_i, �\ ice' ✓a.:�.i OF PAN r, ::.• �. .. XBON • (j' � Q— � C—Yl •.i" MUNSoil ON � � r! .s*s f • �.. �'e►r }_/ •. > , SANE THE .J �� STATE tREDWOODS ;i' ��� k'�oo��,�� NEGLEY' rIl SANTA CLARA _ BOY SCOUTS I moo ; SAVE TFiE NEAR 1,✓ 'ems � .l Sri �S• REDWOODS o, . +_r .: . •a\r� y/ i��. ��'lr�l,�;th•�."� J/•/-�; � 7,•^,.. ,•�+,.��'��� ` \ . Z — ,"•� LIB... - .al■^lrio�•J'■!'�'•1 ram.-t�•■r�r�.��a�lp '1' E_ �'. -� ��;j`ti r'=•� ---r/ ' OF INFLUENCE MROSD SPHERE ; >�•_ -• �. •. .._�r"r,�.lam _.n�:' a .\ _ _ �� •"�' � •�� 1_;�• .-� , � 1 TT.I= COMMUNICATION L Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 ZOZ1 Arbor Ave Belmont , CA 940OZ July 3, 1985 Teena Henshaw President, MROSD Board of Directors 375 Distel Circle, Suite D- 1 Los Altos, CA 940ZZ SUBJECT: Russian Ridge I live outside of your official boundaries but consider myself to be a supporter of the district and am an avid user of our open spaces. I also serve on the board of the nine county Greenbelt Congress which is a citizen coalition dedicated to preserving the natural greenbelt that surrounds the Bay and its urbanized areas. The Congress very definitely supports your activites to acquire land and provide public access to open spaces. The Congress considers public aquisition to be one of the better' ways to preserve greenbelt areas. I personally wanted to he supportive of you during the recent hearings over the use of eminent domain as a tool for aquir'ing open space. The difficulty was that there was a significant Greenbelt issue involved in the Caltrans / San Mateo County choice of a 4 lane inland bypass for Devil 's Slide. Trying to change that decision took too much of my free time. If I had been able to be at all of the public hearing-. that you held, I would have said at each one that you must not give up the tool that eminent domain provides. There will be important parcels where there is an unwilling seller, and -there will be important parcels where you cannot agree on a price. I would like to see you place no substantive restrictions on your use of eminent domain, since circumstances are often more ingenious than lawyers and even the most carefully crafted restrictions may force you to pass up an important opportunity some time in the future. An obvious case for eminent domain is the Peters Ranch parcel on Russian Ridge. We should have it because of its importance to the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve and its potential as a trail connection along the ridge. Please buy it for, us. Sincerely, C. I David C. Bomberger I I I 1 III WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 -QL,vim--► �' w� c, `c rf �'�oti�s� r Vo 0 �c C G- s kjc Crn � cn1 � Iy 2 CD ID 6 Cl � , f I , 0--nMMICATIONS i�ead at the June 26, 1985 u� Regdlar Meeting �p"P'all Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association 22100 Skyline Blvd, Box 16 La Honda, CA 9402O .Tune 26, 1985 District Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, #D1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear District Directors, In our letter of March 21, 1985, we expressed our concern that your use of our private access road as a public hiking trail created a dangerous nuisance for both the public user and local residents _ We have started working with your staff to locate an alternate trail; Dell Woods has been furnished a letter and naps indicating a possible alternative, copies are attached _ Subsequent conversations with District Directors have led us to believe that the Board is prepared to reverse this policy, discourage public use of this private road and allow for a buffer of undeveloped open space to seperate public and private use _ The PPHPOA requests that you take formal action to implement such a polic immediately _ The summer weather is increasing the probabily ity that a tragic mishap will occur _ We also reiterate our request that MROSO provide PPHPOA with written certification of liability insurance covering road usage _ Sincerely, Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association AL •, �i !`'V\!• },11',, N\I l^`..\;•i 1'.. . . .. . �..r? ..`, .. . . . �•�. \�.. �r�. :,.��: : :fir..�.;;: ;; -' , • (�. �• - �• nl: I : : -";MROSD BOUNDARY ' • . : . �_/ `f1 _ tl. ,� .. n' �. •' ►`.yam. ) T �� `� ^• ► ' ,�_�� � e�—!�;'��J '� .. � -�,��• :l' : . GOLDWi4TER•(.•Y� �r:�: ;`� L'� • SUCH .• „ . ,; J � �� ��� � � 'i .°'S�'•� , �'� Q� . : ; •��' . r �. . : : r\•{,fin•?2°•� �°- _ �� � �:..%"'' ,;1 r•�x;""cif. .JENK., .. , ,� !., �;Z GRAY , It s . 4 : aq Al KOR IN, �. -~SOR ICH l ;��, , . oV. ;� ....'� "`�•f tiVAUGHNS ,- NEERMAN - ;. // .;,' _ �.� ►' . I{`jjJ �• j: ;r�•f�^ �r ':�1': �'_ •�� L :/.`.��. �/�' -ir-� .���,/ _ '�r=:�ram'• Cr MA E BRE TEE l - MCFARLAND•�'^= RODSK - ��� = VAUG F~: . �, �r: /�, ,%,r� '��', -�. -�� •� �� -,�� �� - AGE•� EARMONTi �J 80 • ao EAR \.\� ST 1 f ' •` ..f ASSOC. �� `— - ,:r• f ��.Lam, HARTLEI( `.- ,-' STONE ► ���� W SBERG : ,- GOSSETT ,•" ( .( v�i� �.. .�' 1. �:' '\ \� - •��• .♦- 3T0 #may POST; j►r% LAN ;tt( 17 r'- • = I L TD �.I T, • • 7"„� '�. BONI , ,J E-1- GARROD MUNSON lit t `.{ •,, �� 'SAVE THE J ` STATE REDWOODS :' � `��— �� OF CA - )'> NEGLEY;\� • i �- I;1 ~u - s- '�-; '%'�`��' SANTA CLARX �.« � � / . � 1' .i ��� •S •v Soli`, 1 � �/y �- �0 SAVE THE ' �;. -:..!' �- _ BOY.. SCOUTS I , i; ►°- �_ -V" it '` NEAD'� (}};- REDWOODS 1 . �ix � 22400 Skyline Blvd. Box 16 La Honda, Calif. 94020 May 8, 1985 .Board of Directors MROSD 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, Calif. 94022 Dear Members of the Board, This letter and attached map are an attempt to identify the community of Portola Heights and gain assurances that the community will be allowed to remain a rural residential community. The main entranceway to this community is a private road which originates at a locked gate at 22400 Skyline Blvd, 2 1/2 miles south of Alpine Road. The following list of requests are being made to the Board of Directors of MROSD and to the San Mateo County Supervisors. 1 ) The community of Portola Heights, as outlined in purple, would like to be excluded from development and aquisition in the MROSD master plan. 2) The community would like assurances that it would be allowed to remain a rural residential community. 3) The community would appreciate a buffer zone of undeveloped open space to separate private and public use. This is shown on the map as green. 4) The community recognizes the districts need for a Skyline trail and request it cross our road in such a manner that it discourages public use of the private road, preferably on the Skyline side of the locked gate. Please recognize our community and grant our requests. Respectfully submitted by, The Community of Portola Heights cc San Mateo County Board of Supervisors P?rkHgf8P�s.Pro Vgr1v Owners Association F20819kv in, ox La Honda, CA 94020 March 21, 198S District Directors MidpeninsulaReyional Open Space District 375 Distel C,rc e, #01 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear District Directors, As elected representatives of the Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association <PPHPOR), we must take issue with the use of our community access road as a public hiking trail - While this letter is intended to promote a cooperative resolution to a potentially dangerous situation, we Must go on record as holding you fully responsible for any harm this hazard may cause _ Theroad in question is narrow, with steep blind corners and marginal surfacing . It is a private primary access serving a major subdivision of over thirty families - Con5i5tant with rural residential usage, it is at times very busy with heavy fuel and propane trucks, gravel trucks, septic cleaning and other heavy equipment - We have an easement across the Pacific School road, but have voluntarily limited our use of that road at the request of your staff _ Yourpolicy of representing our main road segment as a public hiking trail has created an attractive nuisance with dangerous possibilities - It obstructs the free passage of vehicles and could overburden the easement _ We request that you reverse this policy, cease distribution of MROSD literature describing our road front as a public trail and post signs directing public users to more suitable trails . We request that you provide certification of liability insurance naming PPHPOA as additionally insured by MROSD - Ue would appreciate your assistance in helping to keep our community roads safe for all users _ Sincerely, Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association J - MacNiven, W - Obermeyer, P - Storaasli 1-85-111 (Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 9, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance Shannon Mitchell, Nicole Smith, Julie Engle, and Kimberly Brown from Palo Alto Troop #2 will be in attendance at your July 10 meeting to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. The Leader of Troop #2 is Susan Mitchell. M-85-106 (Meeting 85-17 Ilk- July 10 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 2 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Brooks Trail Addition to Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Consideration of this agenda item (see report R-85-33 of June 20 , 1985) was continued at your June 26 meeting until July 10 due to the lateness of the hour. M-85-105 (Meeting 85-17 July 10 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORA14DUM July 2 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manaqer SUBJECT: Consideration of Letter from City of Palo Alto Encouraging Opposition to AB 2198 Consideration of this agenda item (see M-85-101 of June 20, 1985) was continued at your June 26 meeting until July 10 due to the lateness of the hour. Although this bill was ready for its third reading on the Assembly floor, sufficient opposition has been generated that the Assembly Local Government Committee requested an Interim Hearing on the bill. The bill did not go to this Committee in its original path through the Assembly. The author has placed the bill on the inactive file and can either agree to the Interim Hearing or can again place AB 2198 on the active file for a vote on the Assembly floor. An Interim Hearing would occur during recess. M-85-104 (Meeting 85-17 July 10 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 2, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Termination of Communications Lease Consideration of this agenda item (see memorandum M-85-102 of June 20 , 1985) was continued at your June 26 meeting until July 10 due to the lateness of the hour. R-85-37 (Meeting 85-17 oe July 10 , 1985) 0 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT July 5 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager SUBJECT: Interim Solution of Long Ridge Road Use Conflicts Introduction: At your meeting of June 26 , 1985 and at previous meetings you heard from various members of the Portola Park Heights community regarding resolution of trail use conflicts with residential vehicle traffic on the northern entry road of the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. You requested that staff return with an interim solution to the problem at your meeting of July 10 , 1985 . Discussion: On July 2 , 1985 the Land Manager met with Candace Stone , the newly-elected President of the Portola Park Heights Road Committee, to seek solutions to the conflicts . I propose the following interim solution as a balance toward minimizing use conflicts and maintaining public access to this lovely area of the Preserve: Upon concurrence by you, District Rangers will install temporary signs along the road which state: "Road Temporarily Closed to Hikers , Equestrians , and Bicyclists" . Those signs will be placed at the areas marked "S" on the attached map. In addition, the trail designation on the site map which is given out to the public upon request will be removed, with a note saving "Trail Realignment Under Con- struction" (see attached map) . The next step of the interim solution would be to have District Counsel approve cautionary signing for both the resi- dential traffic and public trail users for the road which would allow the public to use this route as a trail until the alternate trail is developed. This could entail requesting trail users to utilize the road shoulders and give way to vehicular traffic at all times. Vehicular traffic could be regulated to travel at a certain cautionary speed. When this signing re- placed the closure signing , the road could be reopened. If Legal Counsel can approve cautionary signing at a very early date, the first step would be eliminated. It would not be practical to have a Ranger be on hand to escort members of the public along the road, since the numbers are small and arrival times are random. A proposed more permanent solution will be returned to you. We hope this could occur at the first meeting in August. The proposed time table for all events would then be as follows : July 10 , 1985 Board approval of interim solution. by July 20 , 1985 Road closure signs installed, maps changed and alternative trail route (s) identified by planning staff with input from the neighbors . by July 26 , 1985 Install cautionary signing on roads and site maps. R-85-37 Page Two August 14 , 1985 Board preliminary approval of permanent solution to road/trail conflicts. August 28 , 1985 Second hearing on permanent solution. Fall , 1985 Bypass trail routes constructed. One option to the interim solution would be to install the road closure signs and not reopen the road utilizing cautionary signing while the per- manent solution was being implemented. This option would obviously be more desirable to the Portola Park Heights Association, but it would also exclude the public from one of the most beautiful areas of the Preserve. Staff is concerned with the request by the Portola Park Heights community to exclude the public from areas of Long Ridge surrounding the road (see letter and map of May 8 , 1985 attached) . The road safety problems aside, this area is one of the more beautiful and popular sections of Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, having views into Devils Canyon and being within the mature Douglas fir/redwood forest. Trails shown leading to this area should be continued on or joined in loops to continue to allow the public to use the area and not be dead-ended as shown on the map. In some cases the existing road may need to be crossed and, in fact, in the safer areas, the road verges utilized as a portion of the Preserve trail system. No neigh- boring existing Portola Park Heights residences come within a half-mile of the site ' s western boundary in this area. Recommendation: I recommend that you approve the proposed interim solu- tion and timetable to the Long Ridge Road problem as contained in this report. Normally, a change in the site Use and Management Plan would require a second hearing of the proposal before adoption. The expedited schedule assumes that there would be no second hearing on the interim solution before implementation, and you would have to waive the require- ment. qfl View Ft[�52 �rt01a r�l SKYLINE/RIDGE ► :� ,_ w. F -�- , tL5l U.te PRESERVE zf 4 s s \ avt.tUO - \-.'" - -. � ` C 1./ �� ,. /�� •, C =\6h 1.% ,� 2 r'I�vth:• :V Vermanente a cupertin LEI, 0/ CHEER� I Saratoo `� rti4 .t ESi SRN.4. DOGS ALLOWED HERE : � © ri PARKING AREA RA I L REALIGNMENT �� !� 1 x rest 11b mu <.. C 1 \ .I UNDER CONSIDERATION _ l( SKYLINE COUNTY PARK l j TE ) PROPER_TY: A Si T � J JIKOJI LONG RIDGE. ; PRESERVE r _ �y/ ` JJi/ Yam' \ - J� \ ^'ir. `1 �—� \. ( —) \ V' % •1 ` SARATOGA GAP ' r 1 _ /� �- PRESERVE SEMPERV I RENS FUND / `�I. (MROSD EASEMENT)! `J; _�I 1� aZ>o.V �,, PORTOLA STATE= _ z ,ARK 0 at LONG RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE SIGNING LOCATIONS Scale 1" = 2000' North =: [[ :.u:w.+.•�. / J. .,r, .1. �. 1 �\.. . jam.•- .....r... +.Tt.!" •:Y.t1:':'.'. 5 ti•:ti•: 22400 Skyline Blvd. Box 16 La Honda, Calif. 94020 May 8, 1965 Board of Directors MROSD 375 Distel Circle Los Altos, Calif. 94022 Dear Members of the Board, This letter and attached map are an attempt to identify the community of Portola Heights and gain assurances that the community will be allowed to remain a rural residential community. The main entranceway to this community is a private road which originates at a locked gate at 22400 Skyline Blvd, 2 1/2 miles south of Alpine Road. The following list of requests are being made to the Board of Directors of MROSD and to the San Mateo County Supervisors. 1 ) The community of Portola Heights, as outlined in purple, would like to be excluded from development and aquisition in the MROSD master plan. 2) The community would like assurances that it would be allowed to remain a rural residential community. 3) The community would appreciate a buffer zone of undeveloped open space to separate private and public use. This is shown on the map as green. 4) The community recognizes the districts need for a Skyline trail and request it cross our road in such a manner that it discourages public use of the private road, preferably on the Skyline side of the locked gate. Please recognize our community and grant our requests. Respectfully submitted by, The Community of Portola Heights cc San Mateo County Board of Supervisors WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 EGERTON 0. LAKIN (tSS6-1968) GEORGE H. NORTON- THOMAS 0. REESE* PRANK A SMALL THOMAS J. CAHILL* LEE S. PA14TELL RICHARD H. ROSENTHAL JESSICA F AR ER SHERRY 0. HAWORTH CAROL S SOES MARGARET W. PASHLEY ROSERT L. PLETCHER J. A. TONY VILLANUEVA CAROL B. SCHWARTZ NANETTE 6 STRINGER BONNIE PRANK SCOT H. MILLER ILAKIEN • SPEARS ANDREW M. SPEARS OF COUNSEL 'A ww AL--­- 285 HAMILTON AVENUE FIFTH FLOOR, PALO ALTO. CA - 94301-2588 TELEPHONE(4tS) 328-7000 TELECOPIER (415) 329-89215 Attorneys at Law July 8 , 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Directors: I am writing you on behalf of the Save Skyline organization, an ad hoc group of over 90 persons particularly interested in the the District ' s land acquisition policy on Skyline. We have reviewed your proposed "Land Acquisition Policies" Version 1 and Version 2 . Of the two, we prefer Version 1 because we feel that Version 2 requires too many subjective interpreta- tions. We also feel that families may well have speculation in mind, particularly after the death of the original holder. As we read your proposals, it appears that the District would be prevented from using the power of eminent domain on large unimproved parcels held for speculation (or any other purpose) until a subdivision application was filed. We do not think that your policy should be so restrictive as to prevent the District from considering the use of eminent domain in cases involving properties which could be divided into more than two lots . We hope that this was not your intention. We feel that you should have much broader discretion in very large parcels and should not have to wait for an actual subdivision filing. Your truly; )GPRGE H. NORTON GHN: lf cc: Herb Grench, District Manager WRITTEN Cr"-4UNICATION Meet_ 35-17 July lu, 1985 A�x -�2 3� �� xa. T11RU1111 CUTERAQUICORN Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 Quinta Ranch Star Route 2, Box 310 La Honda, Calif. 94020 July 7, 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Openspace District 375 Distol Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, Calif. 94022 Attention: Craig Britton Dear Board Members : In reply to Craig Britton' s letter of June 24, thank you. My operations were successful, and I have two complete knee joint implants, which Marc. great! Option 1 . I wish to withdraw consideration. Option 3: We would accept $800,000 for the whole place with a life estate. Option 2 : 11.gE ijkj, and probably the best compromise would be selling M.R.O.S.D. 40 acres with our retaining IRL future 10 acre building site, which would include the barns, 2 wells, large redwood tank, pressure water system, ring, garden, green house, tack room, box stalls, gas pump and 4500 gallon storage (all improvements on West of driveway) which would allow the addition of only one one-story rustic house. M.R.O.S.D. would have trail access to Alpine Road posture from Old Page Mill and all present trails, beautiful forest and both sides of Peters' Creek to Big Dipper gate. Price : $400,000. If you feel any "linkage" with Russian Ridge Ranch, then I would be happy to suspend negotiations for Quinta until that acquisition is resolved. Very truly yours, Richard S. Bullis RSB:jb '�M=Ia4 CCMMUNICATION Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 WALTER S. FERENZ ATTORNEY AT LAW 225 CABRILLO HIGHWAY SOUTH, SUITE 1070 HALF MOON BAY. CALIFORNIA 94019 (415) 726-4455 July 3, 1985 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 Distel Circle Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 RE: Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan Gentlemen/Ladies: My wife and I had planned to attend the June 27 meeting on the above matter, unfortunately we were unable to. Our home is on property adjoining or approximate to the preserve questioned. we are in general in agreement with providing additional facilities for enjoyment of the open space. Our concerns, on the other hand, are two-fold: 1. The provision of adequate staff to prohibit unlawful use of the premises. we have notice in the past three years on numerous occasions that the area is used for beer parties and target practice. 2. The other concern really deals with the County and that is the lack of any serious effort by the County to maintain and clean up litter on the Higgins Creek Purisima loop. We have noticed a substantial increase in the amount of traffic on this road in the last three years and believe that the proposed plan would add a substantial burden to the existing roadway system. We believe as part of the plan that the County should be committed to increasing its maintenance of the road, even in providing some improvement and perhaps most important providing litter clean-up which is now a serious problem. Very truly yours, WELTER S. FERENZ WSF:bw r WRITTEN COMM1jNICATION Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 v_ SinclairLewis Thomas Goodie6 550 Scott Ave. 41 A Redwood City 9 Red �� 4 i� Ff USA fr /224 14 CORRPIPONDENCE ? DD<t + S, hovent donp-fL-d -la ►e R.0.S,b s1'nc— I Aeard r'h4-t- 1W, R,04 S, DO you tine fhe �oower d� elMibeff"J". owvma 1'/7 t�;t P roperz�. 37,57 DI TZL C1 f2CL� As Q. 1,bartZ:ir-an I can no-t Svr7i� JD - . fhe u S-e o-F-fa>ce -fa ke a er -z/)S Pr°P `. �� Su:-procrram 84-85 84-85 85-86 85-86 Protect ( 9 ) 84-85 Projected Actual � Pror-,oscd Proposea T Bud et Ex;Derscs ' Expenses Buagct Coon iE• Notes 1& Cost Basics of Budgcted A^ -mts .aw Q _ ,,.�..•{(��G TYl_.,..��—�Thy /._Fc.v (� t •��y;i, 't' 451 TRAINING & SEMINARS ` 452 mAINTIIVAN'CE & REPAIR/ EQUIPMENT -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01 Field 02 office aoo 03 Shop/Yard 04 Fire - - - -- -- - -- _ - - - _ w _ _ _ _ - , 05 Radio - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99 Miscellaneous 4 COMPUTER EXP121SES Lq e) O v'- O1Software ��� ' a � ... - _ .. _ .. _ .. ... _ _ _ ... _ ... ... ... _ w __� _.r r w.r w ..� 4r w � w �_-.un r w.. .► wr w w �'" •SI w �� !�/ 1� Y w w• N A M /M F � � A M1 � O-W M Mr rm �W %_; ALIFORNIA Special Districts ASSOCIATION WRITM N COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-17 June 14, 1985 July 10, 1985 I Mid-Peninsula Regional j Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , CA 94022 Dear District: Because of your prior interest in Program CSDA, I am enclosing for your information a copy of the recent Annual Report. We again invite your district to become a member of Program CSDA. Very truly yours , CALtFORNIA SPECIAL DI TRICTS ASSOCIATION--PRO RAM DA Jl� DONALD W. McMURCHIE Administrator I DWM:eao Enclosure Program CSDA Administrator, Donald W. McMurchie• 1030 15th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-1030 OFFICERS President Philip Browning.Northern•Vice President.Art Holmes.Southern•Treasurer,Kenneth Aitken.Northern•Secretary.Betty Harrison-Smith,Northern MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Richard Cluphf.Central•Ralph Drown,Central•Larry Farr.Northern•Gordon Garland.Northern•Ralph Gifford.Central•Ben Grundy.Central •Louis Heitzig.Central•Bill Hollingsworth,Southern•Dennis Johnson,Central•Arthur Korn.Southern•Horace Massey.Central•Ron McClellan,Northern•Al Ricksecker,Central •Oliver Roemer.Central•Bill Boyle,California Fire Districts Association•Allen Hubbard.California Mosquito L Vector Control Association Ruben Siemens.California Public Cemetery Association•Edd Smith,California Association of Recreation 6 Park Districts Executive Director,David Nagler•Director of Education.lack Harris i8051 966-5147•Legislative Advocates,Ralph Heim.Loren Smith i916)44 1-5050 I � w Annual Report of Program CSDA The Special Districts Association's Self-Insurance Fund The California Special Districts Association formed Program CSDA in 1982 to provide dis- tricts an opportunity to save money through a well-planned self-insurance program. Program CSDA offers collective self-insurance for the payment of workers' compensation ben- efits on behalf of participating member districts.The premiums paid amount to only 80 percent of the premiums that would be charged by the state Compensation Insurance Fund. It is antici- pated that additional savings will be distributed to member districts through dividends. Program CSDA has now completed two-and-one-half years of operation in providing worker- compensation'coverage for member districts.The program now has 39 member districts, with a total annual premium in excess of$450,000. Among the advantages of Program CSDA: (1) A high level of claims management is obtained through Self Insurance Administrators, a claims firm with extensive experience in the administration of self-insurance programs for public agencies. (2) Risk-management services are provided to help reduce accidents and losses and to in- crease savings. (3) Administration of the program through the California Special Districts Association re- duces the sales and administration expenses incurred by insurance companies. (4) Program CSDA has purchased excess insurance which covers all claims in excess of $100,000. Claims of less than $100,000 are paid by the pooled premiums of member districts. (5) Program CSDA is administered by a committee, a majority of whose members are elected by the participating districts. (6) The procedures for participating districts are the same as present procedures through the State Compensation Insurance Fund except that Program CSDA takes the place of the insurance company. (7) Immediate savings are realized by your district through the 20 percent discount on your normal premium. We anticipate additional savings for your district in the form of divi- dends. This year's financial report reflects increases in premium receipts as new members join the program, in interest income, in the percentage of net revenues over total revenues and in cash reserves on hand. Following is the Annual Report of Program CSDA. FINANCIAL REPORT 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 (Audited) (Audited) (Budgeted) Revenues: Premium Receipts (Discounted) $213,815 $298,858 $390,000 Interest Income 8,230 22,628 54,500 Miscellaneous -0- 34 100 Total Revenues: $222,045 $321,520 $444,600 Disbursements: Insurance Polices $ 18,119 $ 23,752 $ 25,000 Excess Policy Fidelity Bond Directors/Officers Liability General Liability Claims Payments 89,246 109,202 115,000 Claims Management Fee 11,226 17,334 19,500 Administrative Fee(CSDA) 22,453 36,684 39,000 Various Meeting& Travel Expenses 4,105 2,889 3,500 Safety Service 1,991 3,125 3,500 Program Financial Audit -0- 600 1,000 Miscellaneous Expenses 498 416 500 Total Disbursements: $147,638 $194,002 $207,000 Balance: Total Revenues $222,045 $321,520 $444,600 Total Disbursements 147,638 194,002 207,000 Net of Revenues over Expenses $ 74,407 $127,518 $237,600 Cash Reserves on Hand $177,119 $338,895 $550,000 For more information on Program CSDA, contact: Donald W. McMurchie, Program CSDA Admin- istrator, 1030 15th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916)443-1030. (Submitted by Donald W. McMurchie, Program CSDA Administrator.) WR_ EN COMMUNICATION Distributed at 6/26/85 Board Meeting SOU TH ST A hVE A SSO CIA T16 June 26, 1985 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, D-I Los Altos, CA 94022 Re: Policies Dear Directors; The members of the South Skyline Association are encouraged by the great amount of time and soul-searching devoted to the policy discussion by the individual Directors of your Board. We feel that a consensus is taking place. Eminent Domain Upon studying the latest report of the Ad Hoc Committee dated June 20,we find several problems. First, it is too complicated to understand at a first reading. Second, occupied parcels, that are subdividable, are more threatened than unoccupied parcels that are subdividable. That is, an occupied parcel may be condemned while still undivided, but an occupied (or unimproved) parcel must have a subdivision filed before it can be considered for condemnation. We do not believe that this was the intent of the Committee. The third point of concern involves trails. The District properly establishes trails on the property that it already owns. However, it is not necessary to the goal of open space presevation to establish trail corridors, and therefore to use eminent domain solely for trails would be a misuse of that power. Retaining this use of eminent domain could lead to a proliferation of trail plans in order to acquire additional property from unwilling sellers. In order to remedy these problems, the Board of the South Skyline Association respectfully submits its version of a consensus policy for land acquisition (see attachment). South Skyline Association.p.2 June 26 Brown Act L------------ We believe that the Dis%..ct Board must preserve its right �, -Ateract freely with its land negotiators. From our point of view, either Option V l.c. or Option # 2 are acceptable. If the list is retained as in Option # 1, all those fisted should be informed that they are included on the fist and -C given the opportunity to be deleted. Annexations We would like assurance that all annexations will take place with permission of the property owners, and that the respective LAFCO s will be so informed of this policy. Contracts Regardless of the policies eventually adopted, some property owners would be greatly assured by having a contract available to them. It would also give some shape to District planning, if the intentions of such property owners were known. To make the contract a desireable tool, several changes would be necessary: (1) the etc. needs to be defined or efi% at , V) the agreement should be m9oft A— automatically fenewable-494;%1-427 eq- and (3) eliminate Item I.b. This provision would allow cancellation of the contract by an outside uncontrollable action, and is unnecessary if Item I.a. is included. Again, we appreciate the Committee's continued efforts. We, also, will continue to work toward consensus until these issues are resolved. Sincerely, Janet Schwind, president 11825 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 -_IND ACQUISITION POLICIES It is the intent of the District to acquire land in a manner that is of mutual benefit to all parties. To further this intent, all potential sellers shall be presented, at the outset, with a Board approved brochure containing the following information: all alternative methods of acquisition options for private preservation of open space District policy on eminent domain EMINENT DOMAIN It is the policy of the MROSD to consider using its power of eminent domain only under these two conditions: 1. There is a request or consent by the landowner, or 2. After the initial application for a major subdivision has been filed for land which has significant value as open space. The following exemptions will apply: a. the residences and surrounding lands of no less than minimum lot sizes under the existing zoning shall be exempt, and b. the owner shaft be entitled to retain such easements as are needed for reasonable access and use of the property. 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. Proposal from South Skyline Association June 26 , 1985 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Dis' buted at June 26 Boai- Meeting R. A. & D.L.Piety 1IB95 Skyline Blvd. Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3�75 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, Ca. 940222 Attn: Board Members June 251, 1985 Dear Board Members, After reading the Report , dated June 20, 1985, from the "Ad Hoc Committee to Fot-frodatf- Alternative to the MROST) Roar(l , T Fti. 11 have two major concerns. First , I believe that eminent domain should only be considered in case of a major development and I 'm especially against its use for trails. After all , your charter is to acquire and maintain opltq_fspace, which doesn 't mean you must immediately create trails linking all lands. Consider a situation where two large land parcels, owned by MROSD, are separated by a private inholding. I can certainly see the temptation to acquire the connecting land through whatever means necessary, but please view it in a different light. By owning the two large parcels, you are already assured that the land will remain as open space. If the private land owner refuses to sell , consider the isolated parcel as open-space land, a wildlife refuge, until such time that you find a willinq seller to sell you the connecting land. After all , the land will still be there in a year. . . in 5 years. . . in 50 years! Why be in such a rush to develop trails that you must force an owner from his land? Surely, a trail is not like a freeway and can thus meander through a less-direct route, or be postponed, and still you will ultimately achieve your goal . The immediate development of the parcel is not worth the grief of the landowner. Please, be compassionate and patient. Secondly, a fair land-acquisition policy will allay most homeowner 's fears. For the remaining, few paranoid homeowners, a simple contract, much like your proposed draft , will ease their fears and assure your goals of open-space preservation. Such a contract, however , should be longer than the proposed 25-year duration. With both the homeowner 's and the Board 's interests assured, I feel the duration should be indefinite. Both parties would thus have achieved their goals' If a time-limit must be set , allow the contract to be unilaterally renewed by the homeowner, thus laying his fears to rest. At worst , allow the 25-year contract to be annually renewed, always giving a homeowner and his family 25 years of notice, similar to the process in Williamson Contracts. Please remember , the Board is assured of an open-space parcel and the homeowner is assured of a non-threatened existence, plus, all the time paying taxes and caring for the land. I sincerely appreciate the efforts the Board has made in reaching a mutually acceptable land-acquisition policy. I thank the Board, in advance, for their consideration of the ideas expressed herein. Sincerely, Robert A. Piety SFr / , ��:� • �• • • •.• -:.• . • • .-� � ._-. '-� / / 'S.:,_=t .� : ��: ��.:. : :5.:,►.: . : ';- ,MROSD � BnUNDARY � (, T.-M-U-JIL GOLDWATER;: .,y�_..� D) Vi .\ • T . . ..... 1 AYER k� • �, l s GRAY,, ,�) , • . �;�' •,.. . . .,,. . ; . : . G- ✓� 1 ;i IN SO.R I CH lu NEERMAfll , �' ; . •;,� - _S �. ��' �l: . LEYIla • ��: '• . __, r' MCFARLAND•�'^` � ORODSK VAU jSCE'01 , . 1 EARMONT, ` ��_ :- _'. _ . • ASS �� •-' �" - - `"� T :/:r.�.�,�1 ; � HAR'i`LEY� ••�• ��,%'�.'' *:�. OC•.� , v i . :�r..• .t� 7 T STONE •-- W BER i (� J� 1;{GOSSETT . ` Alf S, • . E 11 ✓ + •\� ?�JII'- f,�_11 �f ' �• \\ ,��? • •a' -� �• G"" 1 „ , ,;•�� � ,, of �•• 1 ,/ �J ,; r ,J •..`,i • '•: LJ � ri% v*/� .,l 1 r'� y`J Imo'�� � "'� �\\I �_ �' �.•� � �- • .� •�i•���' am -R•` { .g, �� SAVE THE r STATE '' �• = �, J'`,^ ` f l " J j F:EDWOODS ��� OF CA NEGLkY! BOY SCOUTS SAVE � •THE ' l - J °o -� REDWOODS o�I NEAR' �`_� �' ►�% � �<` "'f- �;. ,�`' • •_ •\,a,V`y/ � J( .� r.���;i•�:f1 J:'•!.' �i.��Y- �: , -/- r��� '•t'TrT. 1-�� ��r_..�. �ti• f1�` T —=f `---�/ ^`'MRO�SD` SPHS�PHHERE bF INFLUENCE"= -�' WRII'TED1 COA�A 'ION Meeting 8_ July 10, 1985 ------ 1 Ljk,Q. ,M q,(4P- p ✓ v x'k fjA Imo• _ w " L40 U �S WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 s Drs�� G'r�e�e s Aa ns l 4 �5�oaa2 L T�,e�7 ,-., /V ��✓ /�U/s���v �i�G c- o��rci F. u.. ... .. .,._ _ ... a _.. _.. ___. ,.. „ .._ _... ._._ _..._ __. ,....., ..... ..... ,....w....n .... „�a. ',. i I � � _... _. _.. .. M-85-108 (Meeting 85-17 oe July 10 , 1985) 0 Omww MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 3 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors From: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Further Report of Committee to Study District Policies Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Procedures Pursuant to Brown Act Amendments , Acquisition of Lands Outside District Boundaries , and Annexation Introduction: At your meeting of June 26 , 1985 the Eminent Domain Committee presented its second report as a follow-up to the June 5 Board discussion (see report R-85-30 dated June 20 , 1985) . Straw votes were taken on eminent domain policy alternatives, and the Committee was asked to narrow and refine the policies based upon the votes and discussion. The Committee was also asked to look again at the Brown Act implementation policy alternatives in light of the direction the Board was heading on the eminent domain policies. Director Wendin was appointed as a replacement to Director Hanko who was going on vacation. He joined Directors Bishop and Turner on the Committee. Discussion: The Committee met in public session on July 1 . The Committee offers the attached policy alternatives for your consider- ation. There are two optional versions each for the eminent domain and Brown Act implementation policies. Bold type and underlining are used to highlight changes from the previous Committee report language. The Committee also asked that Mr. Warren 's attached letter of July 1 to the Committee be forwarded to the full Board. Recommendation: The Committee is placing this item before you on the July 10 agenda for presentation, discussion , and public exposure only, but not for Board action to adopt policies . LAND AC UISITION POLICIES Version I (Any unimproved lot, with trigger, trail only if subject to eminent domain) It is the desire of the District to acquire open space from willing sellers within the planning areas designated in the District's Master Plan. Eminent domain may be used only in those instances where all reasonable atteml voluntary negotiations fail and the property in question is necessary to the open space program of the District; and where there are no feasible current or prospective alternate acquisitons that would achieve the District's objectives. In neliotiations or discussions with landowners, the Distict staff shall not threa en eminent domain but will explain relevant law and District policy if the subject is raised b the landowner. The Board shall approve a brochure which shall explain this policy, include information on the use of arbitration, open space easements and contracts, and life estates, for example, 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 _improved property that is not susceptible to further subdivision. In addition the use of eminent domain shall not be considered except under the following conditions: 1. there is a request or consent by those owning more than SOX of the fee interest in the property; 2. the property is unimproved and a subdivision application is fi or was pending as of May 1 . 1905) or a division of ownership is made, or an aDDIIJER-ion for a building_permit is filed, . the property is impr oved a subdivision application is f i I ed—T-or pending as of May 1, 1905) or a division of ownership ut only the unimpr property may be acquired, provided that: a. the improvements 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. in a propert.y that is susceptible to subdivision or is portion is required to connect two or more publicly owned pa rk or open space parcels, subject to legal requirements and the following conditions: Land Acquisition Policies 1 Draft - 30 June 85 a. the District Board finds it necessary to provide a trail connection between the parcels, and b. the District has been unable b voluntar means to acquire land to connect the parcels with a save and usual trail, including significantly longer and less convenient trail routes, and c. the land for the connecting trail shall not ordinarilq 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 pursant to restraint of eminent domain shall be adopted by ordinance, le ally noticed and freely publicized in a manner designed to reach the Ntention of all property owners within the District's planning areas. Definitions: a. improvement --- legal or legally non-conforming residenees, excl ind trailers, mobile homes, and temporary structures. b_ improved --- containing at least one impLqygmenL c. property --- an assessors parcel Land Acquisition Policies 2 Draft - 30 June 85 ------ ------------------------------ LAND AC USITION POLICIES Version 2 (Change Version 1: exempt lot splits and single lots, both if not for speculation, but use objective standard) It is the desire of the Distict to acquire open space from willing sellers within the lanning areas designated in the District's aster Plan. Eminent domain ma be used only in those instances where all reasonable attet , voluntary negotiations fail and the property in question is necessary to the open space program of the District- and where there are no feasible current or prospective alternate acquisitons that would achieve the District's objectives. In nogtiations or discussions with landowners, the Distict staff shall not threa en eminent domain but will explain relevant law and District policy if the subject is raised b the landowner. The Board shall approve a brochure which shall exp�ain this policy, include information on the use of arbitration, open space easements and contracts, and life estates, for example, and will encourage eminent domain exemption contracts ee 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 improved property that is not susceptible to further subdivision. In addition, the use of eminent domain shall not be considered except under the following conditions: 1. there is a request or consent by those owning more than 50X of the fee interest in the property; 2. the property is unimproved and a subdivision application is or was a-9 ending as of K _A,_1985Y—ora division of ownership is made, or an application for a building_permit is filed;_provided that unimproved properties shall he exempt _ from eminent domain if: 0. not susceptible to subdivision, and not held for speculation (P-1-Opmr—tu held bg members of the some family for More than five years is deemed not to beheld for or b. susceptible to subdivision, and the division is into only two properties and is not done for speculation ion ten uear period, one division into two of a property held members of the same family formore than five gears is deemed not to be done for speculation); 3. except as provided below at the end of this section, the property is improved and a subdivision application is filed (or Wo q8j�5o`ra division of ownership s g as of May-!, L Land Acquisition Policies 3 Draft - 30 June 85 ------------- made but onlythe unimproved portion of the property may he acquired, prov7ded that. a. the improvements 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. The imp_ property shall be exempt from eminent domain if the division is two on I t 0 pfoperties and is not--done-For 9 t speculation. During any ten year period, one division into two of a property held by members of the some family for more than five years is deemed not to be done for speculation. 4. in a prop susceptible to subdivision or. if not susceptiproperty which is suscep _T6tI (_ np[oved butff not hefor specu on as provided in paragraph 2 above), a portion is required to connect two or more publicly' owned park or open space parcels, subject to legal requirements and the following condition,;: a. the District Board finds it necessary to provide a trail connection between the parcels, and b. the District has been unable bq voluntarq means to acquire land to connect the parcels with a safe and useful trail, including significantly 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 n te 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 pursant to restraint of eminent domain shall be adopted by ordinance, le ally noticed and freely publicized in a manner designed to reach the aRention of all propertyDistrict's planning areas. owners within the Definitions: a. improvement --- legal or legally non-conforming residences, excluding trailers, mobile homes, and temporary structures. b. improved --- containing at least one improvement. c. property --- one or more contiguous assessor's parcels under common ownership Land Acquisition Policies 4 Draft - 30 June 85 ----------- ORL-A ACT IMPLEMENTATION 1. OPTION ONE: Withdraw the current list. OPTION TWO: Continue to maintain a list of properties which the District's negotiator is authorized to discuss with the Board in closed session but (chose among the following a_include on] properties for which those owning more than 50Z of the lie jnte[p§j request to remain on the list- b. delete properties for which those owning more than 5OX of the fee interest request to be removed from the list if the property is: .(I) an property improved p rtU _ _ Q) an improved property not susceptible to subdivision Q) _g_property not susceptible to subdivision an9_pfopgrtU 2. For those pr operties not on the list which are to be discussed at a closed session: a. list the properties and owners' names on the published agenda for the meeting's Closed Session if known at the time the agenda is distributed, b. orally announce at the beginning of the public meetin any properties to be discussed which were not included in the agenda following the District's Rules of Procedure as to addition of items to the Agenda, c. include in the minutes the names and identification of any proper y_pu 1 i shed in or added to t h e agenda, d. if the landowner s) is not al ready aware that his/her DroDertgiven to the owner(g) of recoEd:, which shall be mailed at least 5 dagys prior to the meeting at which the property is to be discussed, or, if approved by the Board following the District's Rules of Procedure as to addition of items to the Agenda, such notice shall be given as soon as practicable bif—or—por after the meeting. 3- This policy shall be publicized in a manner to be determined by the Board-a?T—erlhe policy is adopted. 4. The Board shall cause an explanatory letter to be written to all landowners or tenants whom the District has good reason to believe were offended by the initial list published by the District. Land Acquisition Policies - Other 1 Draft - 30 June 85 Definitions: a. request --- the District will make request forms available to any landowner. b- P-Eap-gatu --- one or more continguous assessors parcels under common ownership 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 sicInificant extension of the sphere of influence shall be approved by the LAFCO having jurisdiction and the voters of the entire District. ALTERNATE: The District shall limit its acquisition to lands wholly within the District's boundar and sphere of influence. Any extension, of the sphere of influence shall to approved by the LAFCO h6vJ,ng_j,u,risdi cti on. 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 b� the District or in which the District owns a legal interest: and wil consider annexation of properties or land area initiated by LAFCO or by petition. Land Acquisition Policies - Other 2 Draft - 30 June 85 Jim Warren (415)851-7075 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062 85 Jul 1 to: The Ad Hoc Directors' Committee re: phrasing of eminent domain policy alternatives This is not an advocacy proposal — it is proposed only as a clean and simple set of policy statements that reflect the apparent intent of at least most of the Board. The following definitions will apply to this ordinance: "Owner" shall refer to any person, persons or organizations that own a "Parcel" of real property. "Division" shall refer to any act that results in (1) a city, town or county Planning Department or Planning Commission giving formal consideration to subdividing a single Parcel held by an Owner into two or more Parcels, or (2) a division of ownership of multiple contiguous Parcels that were held by a single Owner on July 1, 1984. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereinafter refered to as the "District," shall not consider nor initiate nor exercise its powers of eminent domain except under one or more of the following conditions: 1. The Owner voluntarily submits a written request or consent for such exercise of eminent domain. In the case of the Owner being composed of more than one person or organization, such written request or consent shall not be valid unless it is executed by all of the parties that compose the Owner. 2. An Owner voluntarily performs a Division of a Parcel held by that Owner. [Note that, by the definition, this may or may not actually result in a subdivision.] Allowing leniency on a case-by-case basis. This would allow the Board to thwart commercial developers, but still allow the Board to permit owners to pursue limited subdivision — e.g. for distribution to family, heirs, or friends — without placing the subdivided parcels in jeprody. It is an alternative to the old "2.b." which remains difficult to clearly phrase. 3. Any Owner wishing to pursue a Division may petition the District, requesting that the District extend the protection against exercise of eminent domain that applies to the original Parcel or Parcels to the newly created Parcels or contiguous Parcels under proposed for seperate Owners. The District Board of Directors, by simple majority, may extend the protection of this ordinance to the new Parcels or seperated ownerships by finding that such a Division is consistant with the adopted goals and policies of the District. Once extended to such new Parcels or seperately-owned Parcels, the District may not thereafter apply Section 2, above, to those Parcels due to this accepted Division. On the issue of possibly reserving eminent domain power for trail easements: The Committee might ask the Board to provide guidance by discussing the following issue and voting on the indicated motion: MROSD has a basic policy stating, 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." Does this mean that the District should consider the development of trails — which are inherently for recreational use — as being an unimportant function for the District? Or, is it so important that the District should retain eminent domain for this purpose? Motion: The District should considers the development of recreational trails to be central to the District's purpose and wishes to retain the power of eminent domain for acquisition of such trails, where deemed essential. page I I�I� Please consider the following modifications to the old Section 4, that would be adopted if the above vote supported forced trail acquisition: 4.b. [strike "somewhat" at the bottom of the page, in "somewhat longer and less convenient ..."] 4.c. [rephrase it to be less subject to argumentative intrepretation and to have explicit limits: the land for the connecting trail shall not exceed 50-fect in width, and shall be a minimum ot� 500-feet from any existing structure, [Notes: 50 feet is more than enough width for any reasonable riding or hiking trail. 500 feet from all structures (a) protects barns, windmills,stables, etc., as well as protecting homeowners from public intrusion, and (b) is only about two or three times the width of many of the suburban lots of most Bayside developments — i.e., it isn't very much distance to allow between home and a "public recreational thoroughfare."] Protection for existant dwellings. This presumes that the District is willing to forgo the taking of small parcels (i.e., under 40 acres, as suggested by Dick Bishop, several weeks ago.) If eminent domain is exercised to acquire a Parcel from an Owner without the consent of the Owner, and the Parcel has one or more habitable dwellings, then, for each such habitable dwelling, the District will permit the Owner to define an area of land up to forty acres in size surrounding each dwelling, that the Owner may retain and that the District may not acquire by exercise of eminent domain. [Notes: "Minimum-sized lots" is vague,differently defined in different jurisdictions, and well may be undesirable in some instances to the District —e.g., San Mateo County has a 160-acre minimum in some of its planning zones. The Committee might wish to offer the Board several alternative minimum sizes, e.g. 20 acres, 25 acres, 40 acres, 50 acres, and 100 acres. However, a land salesman once said, "Never offer a prospect more than three alternatives; otherwise, they will never make up their minds."] The clock hands race. Nuf sed. Thank you for your attention to these suggestions, and thank you for your extensive, contientious efforts on these matters. We do appreciate it. Jim page 2 r t _ Z 1� ! � l 1 ► � WRITYEN COMMUNICATION JUL n j 1 Meeting 85-17 July 10, 1985 J (�Ai i �}S %?A-)d L-LW E /2E-LTbOjZ WHO oPPoS t /4NC( bCVEZ-OF'W E--N-(- CAJ A AvD u2G E MR4! SQ Ta A cGau'f-(L� IFR1.; Pkc> AP—e �4 PALL Q) AT -/-7jE"`f UAL Uzi bucc.� a--S /i?/- / 7 d LATT RI Cr C!k U t W S 7ANC ES.2/J Cj Hsc.A To lqc H.rE�EF- A 1-11-&14E2 PR,� rO2 774TZ PRO P&72V,l 19S &�v R)CD HE- 6F=�: W, E p/—SO S u PPD2T TNE` 64Sc- UF- -04c- Po w� ©r= Em-r-IjEwT Dc�pqqj�y .E-X CEYr oN oc o ueEk occ u QED L,-IAvD 4 T7Z}V19ZD �� /y?��.SD •AND �1�� 6�'E�BCLT NEI�fI,B�. ARE WEB a kGgtirzi%o ^0 v2�PV VLWML-- A&O 4fiq 3 C4PPO RTfVO 6 VEZ A�L C>F -- -- f_r- ti. i rn S D -IC TzM(L -ME CC)nJCEpT- Cf W—I-W LA IU Cb SO C LCLS TZ) AtU UCEAIIJ I2 6I-SS E 7T 7-07 7Nc)-S E 10 HO L- UE IU 7TFc' 4 s C _q J�.Sco� III �I 4 R-85-36 (Meeting 85-17 ee July 10 , 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT July 5 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench , General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D. Woods , Open Space Planner; M. Gundert, Associate Open Space Planner SUBJECT: Thornewood Open Space Preserve Use and Management Plan Review Introduction: The Use and Management Plan for Thornewood Open Space Pre- serve was last presented to you at your October 12 , 1983 meeting (see report R-83-41 , dated October 3 , 1983) . The Use and Management Plan with subse- quent amendments was returned to you for final adoption at your October 27 , 1983 meeting (see memorandum, M-83-125 , dated October 14 , 1983) . I . Site Description and Use There have been no additions to the 101 acre preserve since the last review. The boundaries are La Honda Road (Highway 84) on the north and west, Martin Creek on the southeast, and private property on the remain- ing sides. A 4 .5 acre undeveloped trail easement connects the preserve to Wunderlich County Park to the northwest. The site continues to be very lightly used due to the limited access and lack of a trail system. The barbecue area is available on a permit basis through the lessee. There have been three requests since the lease took effect. The lease calls for a maximum required issuance of 12 permits per year (9 of which are to be between June and October) . II . Planning Considerations Thornewood Open Space Preserve is considered an unemphasized site on the District' s Relative Site Emphasis Plan as amended at your January 9 , 1985 meeting (see memorandum M-85-02 , dated January 3 , 1985) . As such, Use and Management Plan reviews generally occur on a two year cycle. The next review for Thornewood Open Space Preserve is anticipated for early 1987 . The Thornewood Site Committee, comprised of one Board member, Harry Tur- ner, one staff member , and a representative of the lessee, toured the property in May, 1984 . The Committee was formulated to oversee the res- toration progress on the lease area . The Thornewood House renovation is well underway with the exterior of the main structure painted and renovation of the interior of most of the main house complete. The lessee has also installed a new foundation under the previously collapsing cottage adjacent to the main house walk- way and has substantially renovated this structure (see attached Thorne- wood Lease Timeline and Lease for historic restoration of Thornewood, report R-82-44 , dated November 5 , 1982) . Completion of Category I Im- provements is slightly behind schedule due to the urgency of reconstruc- R-85-36 Page Two tion of some Category II foundations. A Site Committee tour will be scheduled this summer to ascertain how the lease is progressing under the original timetable. At this time progress appears satisfactory. The Thornewood site is within the Town of Woodside. Development of a small parking area will be carried out in accordance with the Town ' s ordinances , including permit procedures. III . Use and Management Plan The following revised Use and Management Plan includes the existing Plan as contained in the last review and final adoption (report R-83-41 and memorandum M-83-125) and new recommendations now being proposed. A. Access and Circulation At the present time, there is no parking on the Preserve, and visi- tors must either be dropped off at the gate and walk in or gain access with permission, as required by adjacent property owners. Funds were originally proposed in the draft 1985-1986 budget to com- mence trail and parking lot construction for this preserve. However, budget and staff workload constraints dictated that these projects be scheduled next year. Existing Use and Management Recommendations 1 . The 4 . 5 acre public trail easement has been acquired and dedi- cated. It is not anticipated that the trail will be constructed until a plan for the area, including a connecting trail with Wunderlich Park, is designated. Status : Prior to construction of the connecting trail , the trails planned within the lease area should be constructed, and further study completed on a safe highway crossing point. 2 . The Lease provides for three trails on the property, which would bypass the lease area and connect to the lake and barbecue area. The uppermost bypass and connection to the barbecue area will be constructed in the coming year. Status : The project was rescheduled because of the need at other more emphasized sites for construction funding priorities . Fun- ding of $2000 will be included in the fiscal year 1986-1987 bud- get preparation. 3 . A three to four car parking area should be constructed immediately inside the entrance gate from La Honda Road on the east side of the driveway. Construction may involve removal of three or four trees, grading, and the import of fill material . Since the gates are kept locked for the residents ' security, and due to the small size of the planned parking area, use of the parking area should be on a permit basis. Prior to construction of the parking area, the proposed trails on the site would be built. Status: The project was rescheduled because of the higher funding priority need at other more emphasized sites. Funding for the project is estimated at $1750 and will be included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget preparation. 4 . District staff is investigating possible District patrol and pub- lic use rights on Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road. This should be completed in November, and a further meeting will be held with R-85-36 Page Three interested adjoining property owners . The matter will then be returned to the Board with recommendations. The Use and Manage- ment Plan will not call for encouragement of public access via these roads. Status : Meetings with the interested neighbors were held in January 1984 and March 1985 . According to the District ' s legal interpretation of the District' s and public ' s easement rights, the District maintains the same rights as the other property own- ers (see atttached memorandum dated November 29 , 1985) . In the District ' s case, this translates to patrol rights and to public access rights if the easement is not overburdened. Staff has not and will not encourage public access via these roads. The legal opinion reflecting the District' s rights on the road were forwarded to the neighbors , and a written response was received and is attached (see letters dated March 26 , 1985 and March 29 , 1985) . It was agreed at the March 1985 meeting that the District would draft an agreement with neighbors and landowners with property contiguous to Grandview and Espinosa Roads that would state that the District would not publicize or encourage public access to Thornewood Open Space Preserve via Grandview or Espinosa Roads, and that District access would only be for the staff. In exchange, the group agreed that the District would not have to share in road maintenance costs. Originally the District was willing to share in road maintenance costs but the neighbors were not encouraging this in that they questioned the District' s right to any form of access on Grandview or Espinosa Roads . This agreement is in rought draft form awaiting input from Dis- trict Counsel before forwarding to the neighbors. A legal ques- tion regarding the District's actual right in allowing the public to use the Preserve is also under review. Neighbors have ques- tioned this right due to language in the C.C. &Rs of the original subdivision of which Thornewood is a part. 5 . Until clarification of access to the Schilling Lake area via Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road is completed by staff, patrol will be accomplished across Espinosa Road through the life es- tate inholding. Espinosa Road is overgrown beyond the life es- tate area and should be brushed and vegetation removed to facil- itate patrol access. Status: Following the District' s legal opinion on the road rights , patrol was reinstated. Espinosa Road on the Preserve was brushed this spring to facilitate a through foot patrol route. Because of the sensitive natural conditions of this route, access for heavy patrol vehicles is not preferred in the vicinity of the pond and the former road will not be regraded at this time. B. Signing Existing Use and Management Plan 1 . The lease boundary should be signed to acquaint visitors with the Preserve and explain the lease area. Signs will be installed in conjunction with the trail construction. Status: Costs are estimated at $200 , and funding will be included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget preparation. R-85-36 Page Four 2 . The barbecue area should be signed to explain the permit use requirements to visitors . Status: Cost is estimated at $125, and this signing will be implemented in conjunction with other signing on the Preserve. Funding will be included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget prep- aration. 3 . Upon completion of the trail system, the necessary trail direc- tional and regulatory signs should be installed. Status: Trail signs for the lease bypass trail will be installed upon trail completion. Cost is estimated at $100 with funding to be included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget preparation. 4 . The parking area should be clearly signed to delineate the ac- tual parking area. In addition, the driveway should be signed to keep visitors from entering the lease area. Status : This project was rescheduled along with the parking area construction. Cost is estimated at $100, and funding will be included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget preparation to coor- dinate with the parking area construction. 5. A Preserve Boundary sign should be installed at the Grandview/ Espinosa access to Schilling Lake. Status : The sign has been installed. C. Brochure There is currently no brochure available for the site. However, an 81," x 11" map of the Preserve is available from the District office. Existing Use and Management Recommendations 1 . Upon completion of the trail system and parking area, a brochure should be completed for the site. Status : Funding for $250 will be included in fiscal year 1986- 1987 budget preparation for brochure preparation. D. Structures andImprovements As the barbecue area becomes more popular, there will be the need to improve the water system. Presently the water is not potable, and there is a provision in the lease to connect to the local domes- tic water system. New Use and Management Recommendation 1 . The water system will be improved to bring potable water to the barbecue area. The cost is estimated at $750 and will be in- cluded in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget preparation. 2. Fencing and a gate will be installed a short distance beyond the parking area if a problem persists with vehicles entering the site via the driveway. The estimated cost is $1000 and will be included in fiscal year 1986-1987 budget preparation if necessary. E. Visitor and Site Protection The Rangers patrol the site and exercise use of the easement through the life estate and on Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road on a regu- lar twice-monthly basis. Patrol of the site will increase when the parking area and trail system are complete. R-85-36 Page Five Recommendation: I recommend that you tentatively adopt the Revised Use and Management Plan recommendations contained in this report. The second reading of this Use and Management Plan will be scheduled for your second meeting in August. At that time, it is hoped that neighborhood approval of the Grand- view Road agreement will be complete so that it can be presented to you for final approval . III �I li II'� II III 12 EXHIBIT A - SITE MAP (USUJ) 28 �, °�L$ '{ O Park• •)° l+.y�� 7,.; -�^ •o Z.6• c,r•nQ :i • x... 1.7 116 Woodside THORNEWOOD PROPERTY �: f4° 1" = 2000' North WUDEALCM9 �' ♦ L PARK L k Sr Fy/c� •t•Ws£n. 11 Sly tonda '�♦ " �'� Fl-- 1 Portola • �, �♦ `,� •( MNLT J Valley \\•• , °) • 41 IPA 6 ��oo- 5oa ��• �, t ��� X. 00 NI Vl OP WUNDERC!ICk COUNTY ARK, SearWD Jle •C�J /�� �' a •r HSstoncalMarkerr,.a _ �� � ����� �� �7 :� AA: p. - }- t 0 16 n � dl /. ii ' XaseIil 1/OOF � - 1 woo n , 9 0 r �� � r� � �����_ � - �q� �:V ;\ - � a � �• ���,ti � �'pe������-'�� �'�" _(j`��-. ���-- � C� 'V 1. 72 a t T10 � o \ SCItULin � 1 0 Vi a+ VA �I�; =A_ r� Lak +s - GRANDVI EW DR. ` .ram ♦ i�.,, �! A�11 _� \p'-- `� 0,\0 h•% 1. �J=1 \ �' ' 110, 1 r .R ♦ - l/ ° ter �� o t. .P , 4 �q f \e ` •`4 6 ),� ': \ er p'' "'�♦ SV LO1 da �•.�7. r �-�-[x- µ ,cam,-�a -� rWa .Wat �7•.. ! �••• `% rE00 •• c �, � C �r :i 26 - o l'� �f' \•� �' I / %PQr�ol •al ekzr '..y rF�r. .\.. �� ' �'�`;s,'i-,e;.0 . '�`,?,::::�./r. �i '� � r1 er .�. ,�t!� i� � � r •i ••- {: , i'- :1} THORNEWOOD LEASE TIMELINE MONTH/YEAR LEASE PROVISIONS PUBLIC USE 11/82 Lease Signed 11/82 Thornewood Committee Disbanded 11/82 Site Review Committee Formed 12/82 Lease Term Begins Barbecue area available by permit, maximum of 12 times per year (9 of which are to be June - October) . 12/84 Renovation to be complete on Category I improvements. * 12/85 Renovation (or demolition) of Tours of Category I and Cate- Category II improvements . gory II improvements to be held a maximum of twice per year. 6/86 Renovation of grounds and gardens to be complete. Category I Improvements The main house, flagstone patio and fountain, brick patio, driveways and parking area. Category II Improvements Two car garage, auxiliary residential structures and all other buildings and improvements located within the home area. R-82--44 (Meeting 82-24 November 10, 1982) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT November 5, 1982 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench General Manager PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Lease for Historic Restoration of Thornewood Background: The District acquired the historic Thornewood property by gift from the Sierra Club Foundation on October 31 , 1978 (see report R-78-32, dated September 131 1978) . Because of the historic and unique architectural nature of the iirorovements , District staff sought out methods for private rehabilitation which included an outright trade of the home and site on a long-term lease. The success of the Fremont Older restoration and public input led the Board to call for private restoration proposals on a lease basis according to Board adopted parameters . on June 27 , 1981 (see report R-81-33 , dated June 18, 1981) , the Board selected the Gano proposal and directed staff to negotiate a 17-year lease based upon the general criteria proposed by the Ganos. On October 14 , 1981 (see memorandum M-81-101 , dated October 8 , 1.981) , the Board approved the Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property which provided the basic vehicle to exchange the 17-year lease of the Thornewood site (and improvements) for the Gano's Schilling Lake parcel. That agreement included two contingencies: 1) that the lake parcel is a legally subdivided lot, and 2) that the leasehold area is a parcel capable of being leased. Use and Management Considerations Although no formal use and management recommendations have been considered by the Board, several items of discussion and direction by the Board regarding use and management have influenced the lease: 1 . The barbecue area, although a part of the leasehold premises, would be available for public use on a permit basis from the Ganos up to 12 times per year (nine incidents of use to be scheduled in the summer and fall months from June through October) . Also, if greater public use of the barbecue area t is desirable, the District can reassume control over this area and allow greater public use. 2. Althou gh h the leas ehold area is larger than originally anticipated d 13 . 4 acres rather ( e than 3.4 acres) , 10 acr es of the leasehold site are called the Open Space Area, and the District will con- tinue to exert almost 100% control overthe area. The trail I needs, as originally identified by staff, are incorporated into the lease which allows the "upper" trail , "lower" trail, and "spur" trail through the barbecue area. R-82-44 Page two 3 . Two home tours would be allowed each year, but an over-subscribed tour could be continued to the following day. 4 . Maintenance of the main road would be the responsibility of the lessee (shared with whatever legal responsibility the life estate holder may have) unless the District chose to allow the general public to use the road, in which case the District would take over the road maintenance. 5 . The District would be allowed to provide one water hookup to lessee 's domestic system (the lessee is required to connect to the Skyline County Water District ) for a public drinking water source. This line should probably be installed at the time the connection is made by the Ganos and run to the barbecue area (additional safety in the event of fire) . 6 . The lessee is required to operate the existing water system in conjunction with the life estate holder, but can abandon the system and be relieved of any obligations with respect to the District' s interest in the system. As the plans and specifications for the renovation are completed by the lessee, staff will prepare a use and management study to make specific recommendations for the staging of trail construction in accordance with the Relative Site Emphasls Policy. Lease Terms Staff has been negotiating with the prospective lessee since October, 1981 , when you approved the Exchange Agreement- Some of the more critical lease provisions are as follows : 1 . The leasehold premises include the 3 acre Home Area, the .4 acre Barbecue Area, and the 10 acre Open Space Area, for a total of 13.4 acres. 2 . The lease term is for 17 years, terminating on November 30, 1999. 3 . The renovation of the improvements will occur over a 3.5 year period, with the house renovation being completed after 2 years . The renovation will take place under the direction of a 3-person Review Committee composed of one Board member, one staff member and one person appointed by the Ganos. 4 . Public access will include the District constructed and main- tained trails, lessee permit use of the Barbecue Area, two public tours of the renovated improvements, and general public use of the Open Space Area. Public use of the road will be limited, unless the District elects to take over all road maintenance. 5 . District ordinances will apply only to the Open Space Area and surrounding Open Space Preserve unless the District takes over the Barbecue Area, and then District ordinances would also apply to that area. 6 . The lessee would assure all obligations oil the District as currently imposed by the Stipulated Judgment between the Sierra Club Foundation and life estate holder. R-82-44 Page three 7 . The lessee is required to connect the main house to Skyline County Water District water service and provide District with the opportunity to supply one connection for public drinking water. 8. The lessee is to provide a broad range of insurance coverage, including liability and extended coverage. 9 . Included is a straight-line buy-out formula based upon lessee' s investment in the renovation. Buy-out will not be operable ' until after eight years and then requires a six month notice by District. 10 . Additional lease clauses necessary are included to protect both the District and the lessee . This lease conforms to the adopted lease parameters, except that you requested three public tours originally. The initial proposal by the Ganos included only one such tour. The final lease provides for two public tours, both of which could be extended for a second consecutive day if they become popular. The Barbecue Area provisions conform to the parameters, and the renovation meets the District proposed criteria. The exchange transaction also included t-'-,-e sale of the "Schilling Lake" parcel to the District, and approvLl of this lease would allow the parties to close escrow on this transaction. Letters from Woodside are attached which provide the necessary information for staff to conclude that the lake parcel is currently a legal site. Also, by making the leasehold area in excess of 10 acres, both the Ganos and District staff are convinced -hat the leasehold site is I legal under current Woodside zoning. Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving Lease Agreement for Historic Preservation (Thornewood Property) . I further recommend that you instruct staff to return with a use and management plan which conforms to this lease at the time the Review Committee makes its presentation to the Board upon the initial renovation plan. I also recommend that you appoint one Board member to the Review Committee. It would be my intention to designate David Hansen as the staff member on that committee. �1'•.�M�le�}�rr■�'�� L,w�A■1• ■ i■���Y���r.■�. . r i K■■.■/ A ���� r ���f.A■ if i■�f� !1 ■ M a a a le M J rs less i' is ■ r .� .� Engr Sta To La Honda � Miss • lA 97 4- 68 Y C mole .\ r ai'r 1 � C 1 1 C F�roposed �\ G �rail� QC•-3 ' Lands of .-s -�- Clne 'was S�-i3"i�w t ? 1 E' -v _ . — La Honda Road z.� I■lei •-�� S�1'�n';, + � [ �r r �• � ir.Ic'. ?C � ,I\ E ze �� tc.c� Espinosa c \ Road 1 Sit"l i�t � 'I'm Open Space p Area ■ (10 acres; ` c arbecue t ile �i / 5 by Cr RAO Area IDS \ Sq (0. A acres) 1 Home I c 1 Area I (3 acres) ' 1 u 1 1 I S/ r T✓ ■ � k ibp' To San Gregorio �' t�'r.��C1 THORNEWOOD r Leasehold Premises sy 4a9le �� — • - Proposed Trails le ---� Leasehold Boundary ----- Access Road '� Scale 1"=200 ' North C R hIIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE.SUITE 0-1.LOS ALTOS.CALIFORNIA 9u022 V-15)955.4717 March 8, 1984 Mr. Don Langrock 271 Grandview Drive Woodside, California 94061 Re: Thornewood Property (Schilling bake) -- GrandviewDrive/ Espinosa Road Access I Dear Mr. Langrock: Please excuse the delay in forwarding the legal analysis of the District's rights to Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road. The District' s Legal Counsel, 11r. Stanley R. ?.orton, has reviefred the entire msatter and feel j;av r`-i ase of the information can �. only serve to help clarify t"e ;,4 S_ _c= t�,e parties. +s posit, o:: and hopefully lead to a mutually agreeaiale sclutica to the concerns of all � After you, your road committee and neighbors have had a chance to review this material, I would look forward to meeting with � you for further discussion. i L. rai s Britton, SI Land Acquisition I•Yanager LCB:cac Enclosures cc: Stanley R. Norton, Esq. David Hansen, Land Manager, MROSD Edward Nelson, Esq. Herbert A.GferN•_ Ganer_r t/rn�;x Eaa•d of D�:ecros:KsMerins Duffy.Nanette G Haako Tnan.,u,.,.►,., a..n>.w a o:..__ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM November 29, 1983 TO: C. Britton, land Acquisition Manager _ FROM: S. Hurst, Legal Intern SUBJECT: Rights over Grandv iew 1 Drive and Espinosa ad --P.o Access to Schilling Lake 0UESTT_O'NS FF. SE'RiTED: 1. What, are the District's rights over Grandvi e:; Drive and Espinosa Road Tor. access to the Schilling LakePa.:cel? • 2. I= the 'District has rights over Grandview and Espinosa., what is the scope of those ricnts? STATEMENT OF FACTS: On June 28, '1310, Julian Thorre f; ?bt a subdivision rtap of Portola ' Hills with the County of San Mateo. This subdivision map was re-- conded in Map Book 7 at Page 20 , San Mateo County. Included in this nap and designated as lot "B" is the District's Schilling Lake Parcel. This Parcel was originally purchased frost the Portola Investment Company, Julian Thorne's holding company, by August Schilling on May 4, 1921. The deed was recorded on May 9, 1921 in Book 12 at Page 89 of the Official Records of San Mateo County. The Parcel is described in the deed as Parcel B delineated on that certain map entitled "Map of Portola Hills San Mateo County, Cali- formia" recorded in Map Book 7 at Page 20, San Mateo County_ The original subdivision map, as recorded, includes the roads cur- rently known as Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road. Grandview Drive was originally known as El Corta Madera Road and appears as such on the subdivision map. These roads were never dedicated to the public and the recitals on the subdivision map expressly state the Grantor's intent that they be used for private purposes only. Today, the Portola Hills subdivision is Located within the town limits of Woodside. Entrance to the subdivision is had via Grand- view Drive at its intersection with La Honda Road. La Honda Road was built by the County of San Mateo in 1914 under the supervision of one Ne;.rmann, County Surveyor. Since La Honda was built after the Portola Hills map was filed it does not appear on the subdi- vision map. eights over Grandvie4,, rive and Espinosa P.oad NovemLber 29, 1983 Pace Two Since Espinosa Road and Grandview Drive are -Private road maintained by a road corzrnittee made up of the PorltolHills they are land owners. In the Spring of 2983 the Grandview-Espinosa RoadCommittee expressed concern that the District might inv' g �.t Schillingllin th La ke � e �ke ub ' g Pa lie oat Parcel via Grandview i o t.Y:e District representatives met dew and Espinosa. At the time, w' ttee _wi th h _ the belie.:. that the District had recorded easements over eGrandviecrressed t and r Espinosa for ingress and egress to the SchillingLake recorded instruments do not exist. Parcel. Such D_7S1USSI0L 1- . that are the District'A rights over Grandview Drive Road for access to the- Schilling Lake parcel? and Expinosz. The Califorri.a Supreme Court in Dani i e-son v- Sykes stated; it is a thoroughly established state that when one ,,. Proposition in this lays o_` a -Tact of land into lots and streets and sells the lots by reference to a map which exhibits the lots and streets as they lie wiL.th, relation to each other, the purchas- ers of such lots ?gave a pri a_e easement- streets Opposite their in the � PP -espeMtive lots, for ingress and egress and for a:Iy use procar to'-aprivate - and that this private ease=e L lind way, +� pendent of the fact of .dedication totnublic1 use, - I and is a private appurtenance to the lots, of which the owners cannot be divested excepted by due proc- ess of law. 157 Cal, 686, 689 (1910) . In. Danielson the Plaintiff and Defendant purchased lots within a subdivision from a colmmon Grantor. The deeds to these lots described there by reference to a subdivision map. The map included streets within the subdivision constructed a fence across an alleyway adjacent to hi. The Defendant s l access to all but himself. The Plaintiff sued to enjoin the Defend- ant's obstruction of the alleyway claiming an easement over the alley based on its presence on the subdivision map. The trial court ruled for the Defendant but the supreme court rev holding that the Plaintiff had an easement by virtue of h alleyway's presence on the subdivision map. Id. at 692. The court furtherjlay ruled that subsequent' q deeds to -10t7s—,turi thin With them easements for the streets depicteduon thech a usubdvisionar.�a Id. at 690, p The notion of easements by reference to maps has had wide application in California since Danielson See, e. 628 (1957) ; Bradley v. Frazier Park Play r�ounds,v110rCat, 48^Cal. 2d (19�52) ; Day V. Robison, 131 Cal. pPp. 2dg6� 2-2(1955) . 1. App_ 2d 436 If Rights over Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road November 29, 1983 Page Three The District is the successor-in-interest to August Schilling. Schilling purchased what is now the Districtos Schilling Lake Parcel in 1921 from the Portola, Investment Company_ The Portola Investment Companv was Julian Thorne's holding company_ Julian Thorne sub- divided his large parcel in 1910 under a subdivision map filed with the Co=-,*y of San Mateo. August Schilling's original deed -to the Schilling Lake Parcel describes the parcel by reference to the map filed by Julian Thorne. Espinosa Road and what is now Grandview Drive appear on the subdivision nap filed by Thorne in 1910- These facts are clearly analogous to those in Danielson- As in Danielson, the original deed from the one who _subdivided the land. Julian Thorne, describes the parcel by reference to the recorded s,,:bd.-*Lvlslon reap. The subdivision nuapmincluded roads- In Danielson the court held that all land oWliers in the subdivision had easements over the roads by virtue of their being described by reference to the nap within the deeds. Danielson at 692. As such, Since the District 's Schilling Lake Parcel was described in the original deed to August Schilling by reference to the sub- division ran, the District has an easement for ingress and egress to the parcel over all roads withi i n the subdivisions by virtue of the Danielson rule of easements by reference to ::naps. This of course includes easements for ingress and egress over Espinosa Road and Grandview Drive. 2. If the District has rights over Grandview and Espinosa, ghat is the scope of those rights? The District has the right to use Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road in any manner consistent with the uses the other owners in the sub- division have inade of these roads. That is, any employee, agent,, guest or invitee of the District may use these roads for ingress and egress to the Schilling Lake Parcel if authorized to do so by the District. The District's use of this easement is limited to the extent that it may not overburden the easement or extend its use to serve non-dominant property. • Just as any other land owner. in Portola Hills may extend an invita- tion to the public to attend a party or open house on his or her property, the District may extend an invitation to its constituency to visit the Schilling Lake Parcel. However, as with all owners in the subdivision, such an invitation may not: constitute an over- burdening of the easement. Overburdening is defined by the courts on a case by case basis. in the past, courts have held that ten fold increases in traffic or extending roads to serve non-dominant property constitutes an over of an easement. f Riahts over Grandview D:.ive and Espinosa Road Nove_ber 29 , 1983 Page Four CQ`7CLUSI©N The District has an easement for ingand Lace Parcel over Grandview Drive andress EspinosaeRoads to its Schilling was "created by the Doctrine of easements by reference Tto maps ahis tnthe time August Schilling purchased the parcel from the Portola Invest- rent Company in 1921- ny employee, agent, guest or invitee of the District may use the roans to gain access to the Schilling Lake Parcel with the authoriza- tion o= the District. The District Mav not overburden the easement- incir_consistem with tho i by using it in ways Di.str.ic t x uSe :by o`he land owners in the subdivison. y ro4 exter_d t'rz eas=-e n proper t to serve non-dominant ty. urther consideration right be gi ; a to the question of public presc_ip..?ve rights over Grantdvie;o Drive and Espinosa Road_ The - public has apparently used both road without inter;erence s for some sixty or more years f_ott she ?ortola Hills residents_ representatives, in their priva�� ray District on many vehicles, have driven these roads ,r occasions without inter=o=cnce, year that a . si'g - _ It has only been in the past designating a - w Drive as a private road has been posted at its intersection with La Honda Road. 1 Since the District has an easement over Grandview Drive and Espinosa Road, the question of public pr not examined escriptive rights in these roads was. Decisions as to whether the District should champion such public causes are reserved for its Board of Directors_ a r MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIPCLE, SUITE 0-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 March 22 , 1985 Gait. Lapierre 265 Grandview Road Woodside , CA 94062 SUBJECT: District use plans for the Thornewood Coen Space Preserve Dear MS . 7apierre: I have enclosed the current use a-d- 7_=:-eaaeinent adopted by our Boar:f in 1983 for the Thorn:-,�c­%f 7--serve as -,.e discussed on the telep'-cne today. As you can sa-= , reiterates that we are not enccl-raging any public use on r'-� Preserve which would entail public access via Grandview or Roads w1jether the public has rights on those roads or not . fact, in the final report dated October 14 , 1983, under A. ! , '- -e statement is made that 'the use and management plan will not c .1 , ---or encouragement of public access via those roads . ' The internal trails and Highway 644 entry parking facilities men- tioned in the plan were not funded For the 1984-'85 fiscal year, but will probably be included for the upcoming year. Again, as I mentioned to you, none of these facilities are tied to public access via Grandview or Espinosa Roads. Our rangers have been regularly patroling the Schilling Lake end of the Preserve for the last year and will continue to do so, I believe benefiting both District and neighbors alike. Thank you for your inquiry. I hope to see you at our April 10th Board meeting when the Thornewood use and management plan is reviewed. /-N Verb truly yours , David Wm. Hansen Land Manager DWH:ds Attachments cc : Don Langrock Herbert A Gre-ch.General Manager Board of D,rectofs Katherine MAIN-Nanette G_H;,nkn T,­w NAR 2 9 1985 EDWARD NELSON INC. A LAW CORPORATION (4f5)494-3121 POST OFFICE BOX 705 March 26, 1985 PALO ALTO.CA 94302 Mid-Peninsula Open Space District 375 Vistel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Re: Claimed Rights of MROSD over Grandvie,,v Drive, a private road in Woodside. Gentlemen: I am the owner of two parcels of property on C-andview Drive, A'oodside, between State Highway 84 and Espinoza 'Road. 7_ 1LIG- i--C iITI-,, apprc_-- ,ately 1400 feet of that private road, to the cente-7 tre:,e-of. I have advised your Mr. Hansen, your Mr. and M-. Harry Til-ner of that fact. In 1983 and again in 1984 1 r- yOur fir. Hansen. and Mr. Britton, respectively. Mr. Britton and, ,again "'r. Hansen alt-vised me that the District had acquired and ownedrecor-_ed easements over my prop- -a c. erty, and I was assured by Mr. Britton th-­, he 7,ou-Lf send to me ss ri docu- mentary evidence. I also requested to be al_`-,., ssu in writinc- of any meetings ' at which the District would raise the access 0e_ V 'p r,v__ -70p Both Mr. Britton and Mr. Hansen assu,-e`4 MS 11.",al lwculd be so a dv isederty.. To date I have received no such notificat-i-In from the District. Today I was advised by Mr. Langrock, a neighbor, that the District intends to hold a meeting on Wednesday April 10, 1'9'85 at 7:30 p.m. to discuss "the use of Grandview Drive for..." by the District. The purpose of this letter is to memorialize the foregoing and to state clearly my position as owner of approximately one half of the road of Grandview between La Honda Road and Espinoza. I am unequivocally opposed to the use of that portion of the roadway by the District, any employees of the District or any of the constituents of the District. I do not object to the use of that portion of the roadway by Deputy Sheriffs or by Park Rangers acting in their capactities as peace officers. It is my belief that the District failed to investigate the nature of the prop- erty which it acquired some years ago and failed to ascertain the existence, if any, of any ingress to and egress from that parcel. It may be, although 0 1 do not express an opinion on that question that the District might have I ' a claim ag ainst a nst its raptors for having g g sumo been misled, if, in fact, they were reasonablymisled. If, on t, he other hand as it appears at this time the District simply p y acquired the property with the intent to bull doze its way over the rights of property owners then, in such case the District has no equities going for it at all. I will appreciate it if in the future the District will keep me advised, ahead of time of planned meetings, actions, etc. Very truly yours, _ Edward Nelson EN/cl cc: Don Langrock March 29, 1985 Mr. David W. Hanson Land Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos , California 94022 Re: Rights of MROSD Over Private Roads in Portola Hills Subdivision, Woodside, California Dear Mr. Hanson: This responds to your memoran,f-_-:n -"ated Nove-Itter 29, 1983 by S. Hurst, legal intern (hereinafti_er %­ur memo" ) , and other pertinent correspondence, memoranQa ;­3 reports c-27 the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space (hereinafter "District" ) on the subject of t'!-,- 71� i ,- ­_Sr__rict ' s rights over private roads in the Portola Hills Subdlvis_` ^n. We have consulted a land use attorney who has reviewed these documents , researched the applicable law and advised us as --o oar rights . By this letter we will respond to each cf points discussed in your memo and set forth our c0mmitte== I s Position on this issue. Nature of the District ' s Access Rights. Your memo is correct when it states the all purchasers of lots in a recorded subdivision possess private easements in the streets opposite their respective lots for ingress and egress. Although this is not an unqualified right, as far as the District is concerned and for purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the District, as a lot owner within the Portola Hills Subdivision, retains reasonable ingress and egress rights for its patrol vehicles. The question then becomes what is the scope of these rights? Scope of Private Easement Rights. Your memo correctly acknowledges that a lot owner may not "overburden" an easement or extend its use to serve non-dominant property. The author of the memo then goes on, -however, to assert that : Just as other landowners in Portola Hills may extend an invitation to the public to attend a party or open house on his or her property, the District may extend an invitation to its constituency to visit the Shilling Lake parcel . I r Mr . David W. Hanson March 29, 1985 Page Two We disagree completely with this conclusion and its reasoning. A private landowner ' s right to invite guests to his or her property is in no way analogous to a public entity' s rights to "extend an invitation" to the public at large. it should go without saying that private homeowners retain the right to invite guests to their homes for any number of reasons without being characterized as overburdening a private road easement. We disagree that the District ' s public users are to . be treated in the same manner as the guests of private home- owners. Under this type of reasoning, virtually any private road could be opened to the public by the mere act of a public entity acquiring a parcel within a residential subdivision and characterizing its constituency as "guests. " This would wreak havoc on the well established distinctions between private and public roads in California, with the attendant riches and responsibilities. The original subdi--J_der of the Portola Hills Subdivision and all later residents o-f the subdivision never intended nor envisioned such a bizarre situation as this, and, in our opinion, California courts wcu d reIect it out-of-hand. The community feels that the roads are inappropriate for public use as they are narrow, steep, and ha,.-e nc sidewal'ks for our children or for pedestrian use. Public Prescriptive Rights . ThE last raragraph of your memo states that "the public" has use"' ar�­dview/E,'spinosa for sixty or more years and that "District reprasentatives , in their private vehicles , have driven these roads on many occasions without interference. " Both of these statements are demon- strably false . The public has never used Grandview Drive and/or Espinosa Road. Grandview and Espinosa are deadend roads. With respect to signing of the road, it is untrue that Grandview Drive was posted as a private road only within the last year . Many "no trespassing" and "private road" signs have been posted over the years. From the time of its original construction, the road has periodically been barricaded with a locked chain at various locations . Conclusion. For the above reasons, the undersigned community members hereby inform the District, its Board of Directors and staff, that (1 ) Grandview/ Espinosa is not now and has never been a public road; (2 ) the public has no rights in Grandview/Espinosa, prescriptive or otherwise; and (3 ) the undersigned will vigorously resist any effort by the District to Mr . David W. Hanson March 29, 1985 Page Three open up Grandview/Espinosa for use by the public for access to the Thornwood Preserve, either on a regular or "selected event" basis. Verb- truly yours , a -L2 I Ap 1� cc -Ms . Barbara Seitle , Assemblyman Bob Naylor Woodside Town Council State Senator Becky Morgan San Mateo County Board of Supervisors EDWARD -NELSON A LAW CORPOR^T;f v (415)494-3121 POST OFFICE BOX 705 PALO ALTO, CA 94302 April 17, 1985 i David W. Hansen APR 18 193S Land Manager Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, CA 94022 Re: District Claim to Use of Grandview Drive, etc. Dear Mr. Hansen: I have a copy of your letter of April 5, 1985, addressed to "Members of Portola Hills Subdivision." First, no such group of membership exists, and I am certainly not a member of such a group. Secondly, I would like to address your attention to the fact that I have received no response to my letter to you dated March 26, 1985. To reiterate, I am the owner of two parcels of property on Grandview Drive, Woodside between State Highway 84 and Espinoza Road, including approximately 1,400 feet of that private road to the center thereof. Some years ago The District acquired a landlocked parcel including a small pond which parcel had been a portion of the Schilling Trust property of approxi- mately 105 acres. The District's grantors had acquired the Schilling Trust property and, by means of a "Judicial Subdivision" broke it up into a number of parcels, including the subject parcel which the District required. The District did not go to the trouble of obtaining title insurance nor did the District go to the trouble at the time it acquired the property of first ascertaining whether the parcel really had any access. When I mentioned this more than a year ago you told me that you had "been assured by Mr. Gano, one of the grantors, that such access existed." That assurance, you told me, was a verbal one only. You did tell me that you had ascertained that the District does have a recorded easement by way of right-of-way over Grandview Drive and Espinoza Road. I asked you to supply me a copy of that recorded easement and you assured me that you would do so. You have not yet done so. I assume the reason for that is that, upon more mature investigation you learned that no such recorded easement exists. Similarly, of course, neither your grantor nor you (the District) have acquired prescriptive rights to the use of Grandview Drive and Espinoza Road. I i In response to the last paragraph of your April 5, 1985 letter I incorporate in this letter, by reference all the statem ents and all other matter contained in m letter to you ou d i4I y dated arch 26 1985. In closing I again must emphasize that I am writing this letter, not as a "member of Portola Hills Subdivision" but as a property owner on Grandview Drive. Very truly yours, Edward Nelson EN/cl cc: Don Langrock I Ms. Barbara Seitle San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Honorable Rebecca Morgan Honorable Robert Naylor Mid-Peninsula Regional Open District Board of Directors M-85-109 I (Meeting 85-17 oe July 10 , 1985) 0 mm MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 5 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; J. Boland, Operations Supervisor SUBJECT: Request to Aid Funding of Radar Gun for Skyline Boulevard Traffic Control Introduction: You reviewed the attached letter from Steve Wolf , a Lonq Ridge Preserve neighbor, at your April 24 , 1985 meeting regarding the speeding and safety problems on Skyline Boulevard which have resulted in several traffic deaths and injuries this spring in the general Skyline area. Staff has been in touch with Mr. Wolf and Nat Sherrill , the South Skyline Association representative on the matter, and together have formulated a plan of action to help alleviate the problem. Discussion: The South Skvline Association and other area homeowners have been in touch with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) on the speeding problem on Skyline and the CHP has indicated that they have had problems with enforcing the law, especially in ticketing motorcyclists traveling at excessive speeds. This is due to the limited chase capabilities of the CHP vehicles in following a speeding motorcycle over a sufficient distance at which speeds can be recorded, and which will stand up in court for prosecution. Funds are not available in the CHP budget for radar guns which would almost guarantee enforceable speeding tickets. The CHP has indicated that if the Skyline Boulevard community were to help in funding a radar gun for the Skyline Boulevard patrol that this would in fact be utilized, and speeding problems would begin to dissipate if radar were used consistently over time in that area. The South Skyline Association has voted to fund up to $1000 for the purchase of a radar gun and has asked the District to do likewise. Total cost of the gun is approximately $2500. Staff is agreeable with this request. Others who could be involved include San Mateo and Santa Clara County Parks Departments , the Kings Mountain Association and other affected Skyline homeowners groups from Highway 92 to Highway 9. The District, as the major landholder, owns or manages approximately 13 miles of Preserve frontage in this corridor. District Rangers have spent an inordinate amount of time as first-response units to the scenes of accidents along Skyline Boulevard. This has involved intense first response work levels where death and major injuries have occurred and much time later to write reports on all inci- dents to which they responded. If the program is successful , the proposed $1000 District contribution could aid greatly in lowering District staff time on emergency traffic problems to allow them to concentrate on their primary land management job duties . It would also aid District-site- visitors ' safety. M-85-109 Page Two Recommendation: I recommend that you approve a $1000 maximum contribution to acquire a radar gun for the California Highway Patrol in conjunction with other Skyline Boulevard groups and individuals to aid in bettering public safety along the Skyline Boulevard corridor provided the South Skyline Association requests contributions from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties , the Kings Mountain Association, and other Skyline Boulevard groups. In the event that more than $500 is raised, the District 's and South Skyline Association' s shares would be lowered proportionately. The District con- tribution will only be made if there is agreement that the gun will be used consistently overtime in the area mentioned previously in this report. I am very pleased that the District may be able to begin to implement its "Good Neighbor Program" in such a cooperative, practical way. � - � �S � s> - , LX jam. 2 c 77� 4-17 " '- 777-77,-- )-v2 "Td tj'7 C4 � � � x -V7q Q A VC 0-2 (? ? 437 2fl-14 �rs *"q, 71� i M-85-107 (Meeting 85-17 iv4o'loe July :10, 1985) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 2, 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Scheduling of Special Meeting for July 15. Discussion: Due to vacation schedules and potential land acquisition agenda i ems that require the approval of at least five Directors, it is necessary to schedule an additional Board meeting in July. Consider- ing schedules, it appears that Monday, July 15, would be the best date. Recommendation: I recommend that you schedule a Special Meeting for Monday, July 15, 1985 beginning at 7:30 P.M. at the District Office to consider the acquisition and other agenda items that are ready at that time. du'Si4 b. h, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 5 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: The Word Gets Around Increasingly, District sites are becoming known to the public. Attached are two articles in print, one from the Peninsula Times Tribune and one on the Museum Scene publication of the City of Walnut Creek. 1 Striii(;TRIUROM ALA uJ er-y-L-I -2I3 j r'V Open space district becomes wiser . Editorl*09 The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space But instead of limiting the list to those in the hills and marshlands, sparing unique thought of someday developing them. But District is learning the hard way the value of properties under current consideration, it parcels from development pressures the public should retain the right, as it has keeping in close contact with the people named all possible parcels, a move which through eminent domain if necessary. through virtually every other public agency, most impacted by its decisions.The district, defeated the whole point of the disclosure District directors are now trying to res- to place the broader public interest above formed by the voters in 1972 to acquire and and infuriated the landowners.Now owners pond to property owner concerns by the individual private interest and pay a fair manage open space, has come under sharp have mobilized to pressure the district developing a new policy limiting the use of market price for land. attack lately by the landowners along directors(who are elected by voters of cities its condemnation power to when the owner We support the open space district's pro- Skyline Boulevard who fear their land may between San Carlos and Cupertino) to seeks to subdivide his or her property, to posed eminent domain policy as a means of be next. withdraw the list and refrain from using its undeveloped parcels, and to land needed establishing better understanding with the The fears are a result of the district's power of eminent domain, the rig to con- for trail connections. All other purchases, affected land owners, but we hope it will in policies, and not the work of over-active demn property and buy it at fair market under the proposed plan, would require the no way impede the district from ac- imaginations. Last year the district publish- value. consent of the land owner. complishing its critical mission of acquiring ed the addresses of all properties it might The open space district has made some Eminent domain is an essential power for unique open,space. conceivably acquire, an enormous list public relations blunders over the years, a land acquisition agency, and we strongly which had no bearing on the actual priority with this most recent episode being among support its careful use.The district has only or liklihood of purchase. The list was put the worst. But errors in presentation must had to use condemnation proceedings in 10 out, in theory, to respond to new re- not interfere with the important mission instances over its 13 years, and in only one quirements of the state Brown Act man- this agency pursues. Residents of the case did the owner light the established , datingpublic agencies to make public the �-- P g P Midpeninsula sent a clear and wise message market value. We're sympathetic to the location of any land being considered for over a decade ago when they voted to tax fears of those who have owned large, at- purchase. themselves in order to purchase open space tractive parcels for many years with the III - �., ROBERT D.INGLE,Senior Vice President and Executive Editor JEROME M.CF.PI1OS,Managing F,41itor JENNIE BUCKNER,bfanaging Fditor/Aftermoon ROB ELDER,Editor DEAN R.BARTKE,Senior Vice President �w JOHN B.HAMME'T,Senior Vice President EUGENE L.FALK, Vice President;Operations KATHY YATES,Assistant to the Publisher/Director of Finance TIMOTHY J.ALLDRIDGE,Director of Corwurner hfarketing TONY BIDDER RONALD G.BEACH,Classified Advertising Director RICHARD R.FETSCH,Director of Circulation Operations President and Publisher ROBERT C.WILLIA.4LSON,Display Advertising Director Editorials Monday,July 1, 1985 6B W. , hose space? "T""%OR most of its 13 years, the Midpenin- and it has used its eminent domain powers sula Regional Open Space District has precisely 10 times. Only one case went to been a low-profile, low-budget public trial, and it was settled before being submit- agency, quietly buying up bayside marsh ted to the jury, according to district general lands and undeveloped mountain tops for the manager Herb Grench. In all the other cases, enjoyment of everybody. the only issue in dispute was the sale price. That's increasingly worth doing as Indus- District policy, understandably, is to seek a •tries and homes devour the last open space on friendly buy-out rather than condemn any- the Santa Clara Valley floor. body's land. It's cheaper to dicker than go to court. But preserving space — for hiking trails, bicycle paths or picnicking in a mountain The district doesn't have unlimited funds. It meadow — is likely also to become increas- collects about $6 million a year in property , in 1 expensivel and taxes(about $17 from the owner of a $100,000 g ypolitically touchy from home), and spends about $4.6 million buying now on. open space and $1.4 million developing and Alerted by the publication of a list of prop- maintaining it for public use. The state and erties the district would like to acquire, land federal governments have contributed about owners from San Carlos to Los Gatos have $4 million in the past 13 years. organized to resist being bought out. They Clearly, the Midpeninsula Regional Open roalize that as the valley fills up, their rnoun- Space District is not about to become a threat tain property becomes increasingly valuable, to private property and the free enterprise for development'or private enjoyment. system,much less gobble up all the remaining And that, of course, is also why public open space around. At today's prices, $4.6 preservation of open space is increasingly million will allow the district to buy about 850 desirable. Few of the district's critics dispute acres a year. its underlying premise. What they object to is Finally, and most importantly, the district the district having — and using — its power is run by a seven-member, elected board of of eminent domain, the ability to condemn directors which is, in fact, sensitive to public property and buy it at fair market value. pressure. Last March, the board voted not to In fact that power has been used sparingly. go ahead with its 11th condemnation; Rose- The district encompasses about 300 square mary Dooley, whose five mountain acres the miles in southern San Mateo and northern district wanted for a bicycle shortcut, simply Santa Clara counties. Since being formed by kicked up too much fuss. voters in 1972, it has bought and preserved That's how a democracy is supposed to almost 19,000 acres, in 120 individual parcels, work. oe 0 Oww< MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 8 , 1985 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Survey The Executive Summary of this most interesting survey published by SRI International is attached. If any of you would like to review the complete document, please let me know. 61 International I June 15. 1985 Dear Opinion-leader: Enclosed are the results of the San Francisco Bay Area Land Use Planning Survey in which you participated last fall . This survey is part of a longer report I prepared for SRI International entitled "Perceptions and Actuality: Land Use Planning, Economic Growth, and Environmental Quality in the Bay Area, with Emphasis on Santa Clara County." j SRI International sponsored this research to improve its awareness of public policy concerns in the Bay Area. Information collected through this project will help decision-makers better understand how different constituencies view local planning efforts and assist SRI in its work consulting with the private and public sectors. The project had several goals: * To determine how selected Bay Area residents perceive environmental quality and economic growth. * To compare their perceptions with data on environmental and economic trends. e * To establish which issues Bay Area residents felt were most important now and which would be most important in the future. * To test the hypothesis that the current local planning system can be reformed to provide a better system for managing land development and conservation. The land use survey supports this hypothesis. It shows that Bay Area residents are very dissatisfied with the deteriorating quality of life in the region; that they associate man of the r Y problems with ine ffective and uncoordinated local land use plannin • and that regional planning to local planning.9�A window of prefer county-wide and ' opportunity exists for initiating a statewide land use ballot F .lct m . I easur e ai m.d at assuring that lacal plans comply with already established regional planning goals. i I'd like to thank you again for participating Y tt 9 p cipating in the survey and hope you find the results useful . If you have any questions about this project, or would like to discuss Bay Area land use issues further, please call me at home at (805) 964-3941 . Sincerely, Michael D. DeLapa Land Use Consultant SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave. • Menlo Park,CA 94025 • i415 326-6200 TWX: 910-373-2046• Telex: 334 4.36 Facsimile: (415)326-5512 J SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LAND USE SURVEY JUNE 1985 Prepared for SRI International by Michael D. DeLapa Current Address: 163 B. North Kellogg. Santa Barbara, CA 93111 Phone: (805) 964-3941 * Respondents believe th e e avail ability t of hou sing Y is the largest 9 current land use problem in the Bay Area, but highway and road capacities are a close second. Toxic waste disposal is identified as the third most significant land use problem. Over 40% of all respondents list sewer and* water capacities and air and water quality as large current problems. * Respondents feel highway and road capacities will be the most significant land use problem in the Bay Area ten years from now. They feel the availability of housing and toxic waste dispoal will continue to be significant problems. * Respondents rank the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission highest among a variety of local and regional planning agencies in terms of representing their interests in land use planning. The Regional Air Quality Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board are ranked second and third highest respectively. County planning departments rank lowest. * A significant majority (72%) of all respondents prefer a land use planning and zoning structure other than the existing local structure. A plurality (31%) favor multi—county planning. * A significant majority of respondents favor coordinating local land r use planning with other regional and state planning (85%) and establishing regional planning goals (84%). A large number (68%) favor a statewide requirement for protecting prime agricultural land. Most respondents (68%) also oppose a state government role in approving local land use plans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the summer of 1984 I conducted a survey of approximately 200 business, government, and community leaders in the Bay Area. The survey focused on land use issues in the nine county region. giving special attention to Santa Clara County. Respondents included local elected officials, elected state and federal representatives. the chief executive i officers of major Bay Area companies, environmental leaders, and other opinion leaders involved with land use planning. The survey was part of a larger study of the relationships among land use planning, economic growth, and environmental quality in the Bay Area, and the effects of current land use plans on the high technology industry in Santa Clara County. Important findings from the survey are summarized below. f The Bay Area- An overwhelming majority (86%) of all respondents are satisfied with the quality of life in the Bay Area, but a significant number (71%) feel the region's environmental quality is deteriorating. * Nearly half of all respondents (47%) feel environmental quality is more important than economic growth, while a small number (19%) feel vice versa. The remainder (33%) feel the two are equally important. In contrast to their own attitudes about economic and environmental interests. a significant number of respondents feel their local governments consider economic growth more important than environmental quality. E * A significant majority of respondents (63%) feel Santa Clara County should control job or housing growth. Of those respondents favoring housing or job growth controls, a plurality (41%) prefer limiting the number of new jobs by zoning less land for industry. CONCLUSION Survey respondents enjoy living in the Bay Area but are dissatisfied with the current local land use planning framework. They view housing, traffic congestion. and toxic waste disposal as the most significant land use problems facing the region. They believe that individual cities and counties acting without a regional strategy will not be able to develop coordinated plans that address these issues. Viewed with the findings of other recent public opinion polls, this s study suggests that there is significant political support for reforming land use planning in the Bay Area. A statewide land use ballot measure to establish a system for assuring local government compliance with regional planning goals may be the most feasible and effective way form to re the . local planning structure. A survey of Southern California opinion leaders would be useful to assess attitudes toward planning in other highly populated areas of the state. Santa Clara County: * While a significant majority (720/0') of respondents feel the quality of life in the county is good or excellent, an even larger number (79%) feel the quality of life is deteriorating. * Highway and road capacities are ranked as the most significant current land use problem in the county. followed by the availability of housing and toxic waste disposal . More than 40% of all respondents also identify solid waste disposal, sewer and water capacities, and air and water quality as large or very large current problems. * Highway and road capacities. the availability of housing, and toxic waste disposal are ranked as the three largest land use problems in the next ten years. * Respondents identify the quality of life image in the county as the factor having the most positive effect on economic growth in the county. They believe the lack of housing has the most negative effect. * Asked to rank Santa Clara County and the cities of San Jose. Santa Clara, Mountain Vier, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Horgan Hill , and Gilroy in terms of balancing economic growth and environmental quality, respondents feel the city of Los Altos leans furthest toward environmental quality and the city of Santa Clara leans furthest toward economic growth. I y MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: F.Y.I . DATE: July 5, 1985 Subproaram �c�,` �_c_c l ; t 84-85 84-85 85-86 85-86 Pro j ec t ( 10 ) 84-85 Projected tactual Proppoosed Proppgc�sed Budact Expenses Expenses Budget Ccntin. Notes & Cost Basis of Budgeted Tan nts 454 OFFICE SUPPLIES/ -O 3�0 - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - S"}1-1LI, EQUIPME14T 6C)c //5 _ O1 Office Equipment ($100 or less) (DO �d O / � � F�'ce_(:�,s.•. /.i<-<'.� :� , 02 Office Supplies 03 Drafting Supplies - 04 Photographic Supplies 45 FIELD SUPPLIES/ SMALL Ff)UIPNLF'NT -- 01 Field Eq ip t men ($100 or less) 02 Field Supplies Consumables __ 03 Uniforms (Standard) 04 Uniforms (Protective Cloth) 05 Shop Supplies (Constunables) s 06 Shopp Equipment ($1000 or less) P- Fire Fighting Equipment 08 Law Enforcement Eg ipment -- -- -- - - ►- -- -- w -- _ -- _ -- 09 Miscellaneous f r w.r w w w � w, h ti w rwr w w M w • .w •w r✓ w Fr "Mr ♦w Ww •h fa~ "W } Big Questions Loom for Council on Accreditation SEUIS NEWS ACCREDITATION, From Page 3 is expensive and time consurnin g, many park and recreation profession- als feel the benefits outweigh e is far outwei g h the Softball tball Delivers e iVerS Big BL1CkS in M1C111gaI1 drawbacks. For example, the accredi- Softball_ will inject. nearly $20 mil- Michael Wise, a professor at Vir- tation process provides written stan- lion into Michigan's economy this ginia Commoinwealth University, de- dards for the park and recreation pro- summer,reports a study by the Michi- veloped a comprehensive program fession;a gauge for effectively measur- gan Recreation and Park Association. featuring sessions on organizing and ing a program's strengths and weak- With 740 tournaments scheduled for operating a comittee, goal setting, nesses; justification for seeking indi- amateur players throughout the sum- team building, and mastering corn- vidual faculty and increased salaries; mer, MRPA estimates $19,865,340 munication skills, among others. The and a system that helps assure equity will be spent on softball-related ac- institute offered 1.7 CEU's. for the park and recreation program in tivities in the state. The 40 participants represented 28 competition with other programs at an The 740 tournaments on which park and recreation agencies, with no institution. MRPA based its estimate represent more than two from one agency. All approximately 60 percent of the total five of the state's geographic districts Seeking COPA Approval number of tournaments expected to be were represented at the institute. played in the state this season. "The strength of any volunteer or- There's little question that the park Slow pitch continues to be the most ganization is in the leadership," said profession'sand recreation popular event for men, women and Wise. "And it is the responsibility of tion program would be strengthened coed play,with nearly 96 percent of the the current leadership to ��develop a considerably with approval by the 740 tournaments slated for slow pitch. new generation of leaders. Council on Postsecondary Accredita- The 740 tournaments are expected With its Leadership Training Insti- tion. to draw about 236,800 participants. tute,the Virginia Recreation and Park "COPA approval would legitimize The economic impact, MRPA says, Society appears to be doing just that. and enhance the credibility of not only will be accrued as follows: $888,000 in 000 the NRPA/AAL,R accreditation prag- transportation costs; $8.8 million in ram but of the entire entry fees; $688,200 in umpires fees; A study by three Colorado State Ifni- ," profession as $114,700 in scorers fees $367,040 in versity researchers indicates that Col- well, said council chairwoman Dunn. game Baas $8.5 million in housing ex- oradans place a higher dollar value on "Philosophically, it's crucial that we ' et COPA approval." penses; $55,500 in trophies; $229,400 the intangible benefits of wilderness g The council amajor hurdle in grounds crew fees;and$8 million in than on their merits as recreation in its pursuit of COPA recognition food and beverage outlays. areas. p 6 when in May 1984 COPA's committee These figures, MRPA points out, The study,based on a survey of more on recognition approved the final represent only weekend tournaments than 200 households, reports that the items in the pre-application process, lasting one to four days. If the play of average family would be willing to commonly regarded as the most dif- local teams and leagues were figured spend about$19 a year to preserve the ficult obstacle in the long process of in, MRPA estimates the total easily state's 2.6 million acres of wilderness would surpass $50 million. and $14 a year to keep such areas gaining recognition. available for recreation. The final step in the application pro- O O O The researchers tion. rd Walsh, cess involves the demonstration ofcap- The Virginia Recreation and Park John Loomis and Richard Gillman— credity,ting including development of es; Society recently completed its first estimate that Colorado's wilderness crediting standards and procedures, Leadership Training Institute with 40 areas are worth about$42 million per in field tests of procedures and materials, participants representing a cross sec- year to residents of the state for both including supervised trial evaluations tion of current and potential society preservation and recreation. for accreditation and assessment of re- members. They say the 4 percent of the state's spouses by institutions and programs; The primary objective of the three- land set aside as wilderness should be evaluation of proficiency in conducting day institute, said chairman Jim worth nearly$2 billion to the nation as accreditation processes;and de s Greiner, was to "provide participants a whole over the next 50 years—and ration of the stability of its personnel sonnel and financial resources. with leadership skills they can use in probably more, as the population con- all phases of their lives—home,work, tinues to grow and alternative recre- community, and profession." ation areas become more crowded. "We also wanted to open doors to in- The survey indicated that Colora- dividuals who for whatever reason felt dans value wilderness for several they couldn't become a part of the reasons, with the preservation of leadership structure of VRPS," water quality, air quality and wildlife Greiner said. habitat ranked first, followed by the "Additionally,we wanted to develop satisfaction of knowing that future a trained leadership base for the fu- generations will have such areas. ture of the state society and the profes- Opportunities for recreation were NEXT. sion," he said. listed fifth in order of importance. Therapeutic recreation certification. 10-Dateltile ?+;,,r, A ; 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-i,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 July 5, 1985 Jim Warren, Editor and Publisher Peninsula Citizen's Advocate 345 Swett Road Woodside, California 94062 Re: Request for Records Dear Mr. Warren: We are in receipt of your letter of June 24, 1985 (received on June 25, 1985) requesting copies of certain District records. Since the main thrust of your request deals with records concerning the District's legal powers (eminent domain) , the correspondence to which you refer involves the District 's Legal Counsel. or litigation files under his control . Also, you have asked for docu- ments focusing on a general subject, rather than referencing particular projects or acquisitions. Without more specific information on your requests, this would entail reviewing the contents of more than one hundred files, making it too time consuming for us to retrieve. Except for a few of the earlier acquisi- tions (before my time) when a condemnation clause was sometimes included in the Option Agreement, I am not aware of any such letters, or documents in our files. As you know, occasionally such a letter was sent (one that I know of has been circulating in the Skyline area) , but the District has not retained copies as they were not generally germane to our files or information required for any future District purpose. If you would be so kind as to wait until July 15, 1985 when Stan Norton returns from his vacation, he will be able to respond directly to your requests (at least within the 10 days you mention) , includin a determination on any material that may be contained in his litigation files. I . c ely, C . i L A quisition Manag- r LCB:cac cc: MROSD Board of Directors Stanley Norton, Esq. Santa Clara County District Attorney San Mateo County District Attorney San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Ann Gibbons, Peninsula Times-Tribune Tom Philp, San Jose Mercury Marion Sofky, Country Almanac Jay Thorwaldson 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 Jut) 5US 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, #Dl 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 1 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 suggested, 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 consumated, 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." Th ing ou for your attention to this request, I remain, Since y J' Varren, ditor &;P /Iiher cc: MROSD Directors Ann Gibbons, Peninsula Times -Tribture Santa Clara County District Attorney Tom Philp, San Jose Mercury San Mateo County District Attorney Marion Sofky, Country Almanac San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Jay Thorwaldson CLAIM No. 85-13 Meeting 85-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: July 10, 1985 REVISED C 1, A I m S # Amount Name Description 8475 444.31 A T & T Information Systems Telephone Equipment Rental 8476 12-50 Mona C. Bechard Reimbursement--Professional Membership 8477 369.90 James Boland Reimbursement--Special Park District Forum 8478 7,325-00 Louis Bordi Road Repair, Site Maintenance, and Consultation Service 8479 250.64 California Water Service Company Water Service--Rancho San Ant8nio 8480 213.00 Communications Research Company Communications Equipment Maintenance 8481 8.47 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Service 8482 4,760.00 Fairview Construction, Inc. Grading and Road Repair 8483 125.00 First American Title Ins. Co. Title Services 8484 22.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Services 8485 160.56 Foster Brothers Security Systems,Inc. Key Duplication 8486 2,484.54 General Electric Company Portable Radios and Accessories 8487 5.00 Graphicstat, Inc. Artwork Enlargement 8488 48.33 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Meal Conferences 8489 100.00 Hodnick Design Consulting Services 84910 105.77 The Hub Schneider's Ranger Uniform Expense 8491 5,403.25 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Site Renovation 8492 255.23 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help 8493 2,424. 75 M and M Builders Supply, Inc. Field Supplies 8494 151 .76 McCauley Tool & Supply Field Supplies 8495 24.00 Munday & Collins, Inc. Overhead Projector Rental 8496 141.11 National Mailing Services Openspace Distribution 8497 51.39 Joyce Nicholas Private Vehicle Expense 8498 30.11 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Repairs 8499 675.46 Pacific Bell Utilities 8500 20.40 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 8501 2,271.00 Dennis Plank Construction Deck & Carport Construction-13130 Skyline 8502 6,476.80 Plant Insulation Company Hassler Asbestos Removal 8503 20.24 Precision Engravers, Inc. Ranger Nameplates 294.9� ------!ftobert- d rite eto 8505 101.08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service for Hassler 8506 1,301 .54 Shell Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 8507 23.10 Doris Smith Private Vehicle Expense 8508 1,269.62 2M Associates Skyline Ridge Master Plan REVISED CLAIMS No. 85-13 Meefing 85-17 Date: Jul 10, 1985 Ariount Name Descri-pt Ion 8509 282.92 Uno Graphics Fremont Older, Picchetti and Saratoga Cap Brochures 8510 59.86 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense 8511 45.40 Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc. Subscription Renewal 8512 71.47 West Coast Shoe Company Ranger Uniform Expense 8513 71.24 Western Fire Equipment Field Supplies 8514 391 .20 Xerox Corporation May Maintenance/Service Agreement 8515 6,657.90 Brauer Grading Grading and Road Repair 8516 20.00 John Escobar Reimbursement--Fuel 8517 110.00 Owner Builder Workshop Fees - R. McKibbin 8S18 8S3.11 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles --Clara-County. 8S20 50.00 South Peninsula Veterinary Emergency Services for Bobcat Emergency Clinic 8521 1,000.00 Sempervirens Fund Contract Services with T.I.V.C. 8522 1,200.00 A Tool Shed Equipment Rental 8523 2,755.25 Case Power & Equipment Equipment Rental 8524 32.08 Jean Fiddes Private Vehicle Expense 1 8525 500.00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--June 8526 685.00 Real Estate Register Microfisch 8527 47.56 Lea Brown Private Vehicle Expense 8528 47,597.87 Sorgdrager Trucking Hassler Site Renovation 8529 52.94 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense* , Heal Conference< and Film Processing CLAIMS No. 85-13 Meeting 85-17 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DIS'I'RICIP Date: July 10, 1985 C L A I M S Amount Name Description 8475 444.31 A T & T Information Systems Telephone Equipment Rental 8476 12.50 Mona C. Bechard Reimbursement--Professional Membership 8477 369.90 James Boland Reimbursement--Special Park District Forum 8478 7,325.00 Louis Bordi Road Repair, Site Maintenance, and Consultation Service 8479 250.64 California Water Service Company Water Service--Rancho San Antonio 8480 213.00 Communications Research Company Communications Equipment Maintenance 8481 8.47 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Service 8482 4,760.00 Fairview Construction, Inc. Grading and Road Repair 8483 125.00 First American Title Ins. Co. Title Services 8484 22.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Services 8485 160.56 Foster Brothers Security Systems,Inc. Key Duplication 8486 2,484.54 General Electric Company Portable Radios and Accessories 8487 5.00 Graphicstat, Inc. Artwork Enlargement 8488 48.33 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Meal Conferences 8489 100.00 Hodnick Design Consulting Services 8490 105. 77 The Hub Schneider's Ranger Uniform Expense 8491 5,403.25 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Site Renovation 8492 255.23 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help 8493 2,424.75 M and M Builders Supply, Inc. Field Supplies 8494 151 .76 McCauley Tool & Supply Field Supplies .8495 24.00 Munday & Collins, Inc. Overhead Projector- Rental 8496 141 .11 National Mailing Services 2penspa(;e Distribution 8497 51.39 Joyce Nicholas Private Vehicle Expense 8498 30.11 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Repairs 8499 675.46 Pacific Bell Utilities 8500 20.40 Pacific Gas ,& Electric Company Utilities 8501 2,271.00 Dennis Plank Construction Deck & Carport Construction-13130 Skyline , 8502 6,476.80 Plant Insulation Company Hassler. Asbestos Removal d 8503 20.24 Precision Engravers, Inc. Ranger Nameplates 8504 234.97 Roberts & Brune Co. Reducer for Rancho Project 8505 101.08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service for Hassler 8506 1,301.54 Shell Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 8507 23.10 Doris Smith Private Vehicle Expense 8508 1,269.62 2M Associates Skyline Ridge Master Plan CLAIMS No. 85-13 Meeting 85-17 Atno tin t Name Date: Jull10, 1985 D escript .n 8509 282.92 Uno Graphics Fremont Older, Picchetti and Saratoga Cap Brochures 8510 59.86 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense 8511 45.40 Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc. Subscription Renewal 8512 71.47 West Coast Shoe Company Ranger Uniform Expense 8513 71.24 Western Fire Equipment Field Supplies 8514 391 .20 Xerox Corporation May Maintenance/Service Agreement 8515 6,657.90 Brauer Grading Grading and Road Repair 8516 20.00 John Escobar Reimbursement--Fuel 8517 110.00 Owner Builder Workshop Fees - R. McKibbin 8518 853.11 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 8519 100.00 Probation Department, Santa Forms Clara County 8520 50.00 South Peninsula Veterinary Emergency Services for Bobcat Emergency Clinic 8521 1,000.00 Sempervirens Fund Contract Services with T.I.V.C. 8522 1,200.00 A Tool Shed Equipment Rental 8523 2,755.25 Case Power & Equipment Equipment Rental 8524 32.08' Jean Fiddes Private Vehicle Expense 8525 500.00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--June 8526 685.00 Real Estate Register Microfisch ClAII-Is 1\,O. 85-13 Meeting 85-17 MIDPENTN), .,A RRGIONAL 011,LN SPACE-. D1,31'RICT Date: July 10, 1985 C L REVISED Ir Artiount Name --------�­ Description 8475 444.31 A T & T Information Systems Telephone Equipment Rental 8476 12.50 Mona C. Bechard Reimbursement--Professional Membership 8477 369.90 James Boland Reimbursement--Special Park District Forum 8478 7,325.00 Louis Bordi Road Repair, Site Maintenance, and Consultation Service 8479 250.64 California Water Service Company Water Service--Rancho San Ant6'-nio 8480 213.00 Communications Research Company Communications Equipment Maintenance 8481 8.47 Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Service 8482 4,760.00 Fairview Construction, Inc. Grading and Road Repair 8483 125.00 First American Title Ins. Co. Title Services 8484 22.00 Federal Express Special Delivery Services 8485 160.56 Foster Brothers Security SYstems,Inc. Key Duplication 8486 2,484.54 General Electric Company Portable Radios and Accessories 8487 5.00 Graphicstat, Inc. Artwork Enlargement 8488 48.33 Herbert trench Reimbursement--Meal Conferences 8489 100-00 Hodnick Design Consulting Services 849.0 105.77 The Hub Schneider's Ranger Uniform Expense 8491 5,403.25 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Site Renovation 8492 255.23 Kelly Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help 8493 2,424.75 M and M Builders Supply, Inc. Field Supplies 8494 151 .76 McCauley Tool & Supply Field Supplies 8495 24.00 Munday & Collins, Inc. Overhead Projector Rental 8496 141.11 National Mailing Services Open space Distribution 8497 51.39 Joyce Nicholas Private Vehicle Expensd 8498 30. 11 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc . Tractor Repairs 8499 675.46 Pacific Bell Utilities 8500 20.40 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 8501 2,271-00 Dennis Plank Construction Deck & Carport Construction-13130 Skylin 8502 6,476.80 Plant Insulation Company Hassler Asbestos Removal 8503 20.24 Precision Engravers, Inc. Ranger Nameplates Red 8505 101.08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service for Hassler 8506 1,301 .54 Shell oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles 8507 23.10 Doris Smith Private Vehicle Expense � 8508 1,269.62 2M Associates Skyline Ridge Master Plan REVISED CLAIMS No. 85-r13 - --)tint Name Meeting85-17 A mc Date:.July 10, 1985 Deserlpti-on 8509 282.92 Uno Graphics Fremont Older, Picchetti and Saratoga Gap Brochures 8510 59.86 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense 8511 45.40 Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Inc . Subscription Renewal 8512 71.47 West Coast Shoe Company Ranger Uniform Expense 8513 71.24 Western Fire Equipment Field Supplies 8514 391 .20 Xerox Corporation May Maintenance/Service Agreement 8515 6,657.90 Brauer Grading Grading and Road Repair 8516 20.00 John Escobar Reimbursement--Fuel 8517 110.00 Owner Builder Workshop Fees - R. McKibbin 8518 853.11 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles -- VX1.VV Depal M-1011t, sajit7a .-:Gl-ara--County 8S20 50.00 South Peninsula Veterinary Emergency Services for Bobcat Emergency Clinic 8521 1,000.00 Sempervirens Fund Contract Services with T.I.V.C. 8522 1,200.00 A Tool Shed Equipment Rental 8523 2,755.25 Case Power & Equipment Equipment Rental 8524 32.08 Jean Fiddes Private Vehicle Expense 8525 500.00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--June 8526 685.00 Real Estate Register Kicrofisch 8527 47.56 Lea Brown Private Vehicle Expense 8528 47,597.87 Sorgdrager Trucking Hassler Site Renovation 8529 52.94 Petty Cash Private Vehicle Expense* , Heal Conferenc and Film Processing