HomeMy Public PortalAbout19851211 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 85-32 Meeting 85-32
AM
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-i,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday BOARD OF DIRECTORS 375 Distel Circle, D-1
December 11 , 1985 Los Altos, California
AGENDA
(7:30)* ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (November 13, 1985; November 20, 1985)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD BUSINESS
(7 :45) 1 . Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for the Saratoga Gap Open
Space Preserve -- D. Hansen
(7:50) 2. Scheduling of Board Review of Draft Eminent Domain Policies -- D. Wendin
(8:00) 3. Proposed Two Phase Planning Process for the Hassler Property -- H. Grench
(8:20) 4. Serialization of Note Held by Alan Hosking -- C. Britton
(8:25) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation , Litigation and Personnel Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an .item you'tce concerned with appeau on the agenda,
you may addte�ss the Board at that time. Othetw.i�se, you may additas the Board
under Otat Communications. When tcecognized, pteas e begin by stating your name
and addta s. Conc ins en",s is appreciated. We tequat that you complete the AoAm
pto vtded Aso that your name and add ",s can be accutatet y .tnct sided .in the minutes.
* Times are estimated. Agenda is subject to change of order.
NOTE: The Regular Meeting of Decemember 24 has been rescheduled to December 18.
I
Herbert A.Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 85-30
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965-4717
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ROVEMBER 13 , 1985
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7 :37 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw,
Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, and Harry Turner. Richard Bishop
arrived at 7 : 55 P.M.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench , Craig Britton, David Hansen,
Jean Fiddes, Mary Hale, James Boland , Stanley Norton, and Cecilia Cyrier.
II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 23 , 1985
Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the minutes of October 23 ,
1985 . T. Henshaw seconded the motion.
Discussion: K. Duffy noted that at the bottom of page 2
following the first motion, the minutes read: "K. Duffy
stated she wanted to be informed of staff action taken to
resolve the questions concerning the property line and
parking for the Preserve. " Discussion centered on how such
a request would be handled by staff and whether the Board
members as a whole had wanted to be informed of staff ' s
action in the matter.
T. Henshaw, with the Board ' s concurrence , said that the
minutes should be amended to read: "Staff should report back
to the Board regarding action taken concerning the property
line and parking for the Preserve. "
K. Duffy indicated that on page 6 , under Informational
Reports , her concern was the location of the parking lot
entrance to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve and
that it was a dangerous entrance. She requested the words
"and dangerous" be added after the word "find . "
The motion to approve the minutes as amended passed 5 to 0 ,
with E. Shelley abstaining because he was absent at the
October 23 meeting .
III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
C. Cyrier stated the Board had received the following written communi-
cations:
1) a letter from Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos ,
dated October 30 , requesting that staff be directed to study the
possibility for off road vehicle trails on various preserves;
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directofx Katherine Duffy,Nonetle G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 85-30 Page 2
2) a letter from Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside dated October
30, complaining about notification procedures for the October 30
Eminent Domain Policy Committee Meeting;
3) a letter from Lorna Jean Nelson, received October 29 , expressing
her thanks to District staff in the recent preparation of a term
paper on the District and urged that eminent domain be infre-
quently used; and
4) a letter from Mark Schneider, 1355 Circle Drive, San Marino,
dated October 27, which contained comments and observations about
the District written after his attendance at a recent Board meeting.
The Board discussed Mr. Haeussler 's letter, and T. Henshaw referred
the letter to staff, directing that staff report back to the Board on
any off road vehicle studies that have been conducted by San Mateo
and Santa Clara Counties.
N. Hanko stated that she had already called Mr. Warren to discuss the
notification timing for the October 30 Eminent Domain Committee meeting.
Since Mr. Haeussler was in the audience and Director Hanko had already
responded to Mr. Warren, no written responses were required for these
written communications . Staff was directed to acknowledge the letters
from Ms . Nelson and Mr. Schneider.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
T. Henshaw stated that the agenda was adopted by Board consensus.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Martin Barbe, 1231 Vicente Drive, Sunnyvale discussed his concerns
about District maps for the Preserves and ways in which the maps
could be improved.
T. Henshaw requested that staff study the suggestions offered by
Mr. Barbe as new brochures are planned, suggested staff contact Mr.
Barbe for suggestions as maps are updated, and requested staff report
back to the Board on proposed changes to District maps.
VI . OLD BUSINESS WITHACTION REQUESTED
A. Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for the
Picchetti Ranch Area of the Monte Bello Op
en Space Preserve
(Memorandum M-85-164 dated November 7 , 1985)
D. Hansen stated that staff has not received any additional public
comments and that a revision of the financial aspects of the grant
application had been made before the grant application was sub-
mitted on November 1.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt the Revised Use and
Management Plan for the Picchetti Ranch Area of the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: In response to H. Haeussler 's question,
staff indicated that equestrians can enter the Picchetti
Meeting 85-30 Page 3
Ranch Area via the bend on Monte Bello Road; but noted
horses are not allowed in the winery complex area.
H. Grench stated that Knox Mellon had mentioned that
the State was favorably impressed with the grant appli-
cation and that Mr. Mellon felt partial funding seemed
promising. K. Duffy and T. Henshaw asked to whom and
where supporting letters for the grant could be sent.
The motion passed 7 to 0.
B. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure (Re art R-85-52 dated
November 4 , 1985 and Report R-85-53 of November 13 , 1985)
H. Grench stated a second report, R-85-53 , relating to this agenda
item had been distributed concerning two further potential changes
regarding written communications and Directors ' compensation .
H. Grench pointed out the following correction to Report R-85-52 :
on page 6 of the proposed resolution, the first word of the
seventh line from the bottom of the page should begin with "or"
rather than "of" and should read: "or all the attachments excluded. "
H. Grench reviewed each section of the Rules of Procedure for
which changes were being considered. No changes were made in
the proposed wording of Section 1 . 14 , 1 . 22 , 1 . 24 , 1 .27 , 1 .28 ,
1. 30, 1 . 40, 1. 41, 1 .47. T. Henshaw stated the new agenda order
contained in Section 1 .40 would be tried on an experimental basis.
Section 1 . 10 Regular Meetings: N. Hanko requested the word "must"
in the last sentence be changed to "shall . " D. Wendin said the
wording "on the evening preceding a holiday" was misleading because
it could refer to Columbus Day , etc. , and the intent was for
Thanksgiving and Christmas .
Motion: H. Turner moved that the words "a holiday" be replaced
by Thanksgiving and Christmas eve. N . Hanko seconded
the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
Section 1. 32 Subscription to Meeting Materials : T. Henshaw
stated it was the Board's consensus to include "Board candidates"
in the list of those for whom subscription fees would be waived.
Section 1 . 45 Written Communications: H. Grench, referring to
report R-85-53 , said he was recommending that the underlined
wording in the section at the top of page 2 be added. D. Wendin
suggested that since a response of some kind is desirable the
wording should be changed to "or shall determine that an adequate
response has been made. " T. Henshaw stated the Board 's consensus
to use D. Wendin' s wording.
Motion to Table: D. Wendin moved that the balance of this agenda
item be tabled until the completion of Item 3
on the agenda . N. Hanko seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7 to 0.
Meeting 85-30 Page 4
VII . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Proposed Addition to Sierra Azul Olen Space Preserve, Mt. Umunhum
Area (Baldwin-Wallace College Property) (Report R-.85-53 dated
November 8 , 1985)
C. Britton pointed out the location of the 988 acres proposed
acquisition on the wall map, indicating that the Bald Mountain
non-contiguous parcel was incorrectly delineated on the map
attached to the report. He said that the larger portion of the
proposed acquisition was located between Hicks Road and the
summit of Mt. Umunhum on the east facing slope of the Sierra Azul
and that the property includes portions of the Rincon and
Guadalupe Creeks and connects with District owned lands around
the summit of Mt. Umunhum. He said that patrol access to the
property is via Woods Road. He stated the terms of the purchase
agreement called for a payment of $830 , 000; $800 , 000 in cash for
the property at close of escrow and an additional $30,000 payment
to N. A. Lefmann Associates for real estate brokerage services.
D. Hansen showed slides of the property and reviewed the use
and management recommendations contained in the staff report.
He noted that staff did not intend to encourage public access
to the site at the current time.
H. Grench noted that the recommendations called for discouraging,
but not prohibiting, public use at this time.
K. Duffy indicated that the report did not address 'Patrol
of the property, and said that since this was such a large site
she would like to see this item addressed. D. Hansen stated
that it is not feasible to increase District patrol in the area
at the present time and was investigating the possibility of
caretaking assistance. D. Wendin said he was in favor of a pos-
sible caretaking arrangement in this large of an area.
Mr. and Mrs. Warren Hergerton, 23631 Hicks Road, Los Gatos;
Rick Estrada, P.O. Box 153 , New Almaden; and Loren McQueen,
2633 South Bascom Avenue, Campbell stated that extensive patrol
in the area should be provided because of existing problems
involving use of drugs, four-wheel drive vehicle usage, firearms,
and late night partying.
D. Hansen said the area would be patrolled on a limited schedule
for the present time and that staff was working on providing for
a resident Ranger in the area. H. Grench stated public use of
the area would not be encouraged but that patrol and use of the
area by responsible preserve users may help to alleviate some
of the problems not only on the site but on adjacent road areas
as well.
K. Duffy and N. Hanko reiterated their concerns for adequate
patrol of the site, and K. Duffy suggested staff meet with
representatives from the Sheriff ' s Office to discuss problems
in the area.
Meeting 85-30 Page 5
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-50 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of
Purchase Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute
Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and
Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other
Documents Necessary to Closing of the Transaction (Sierra
Azul Open Space Preserve - Baldwin-Wallace College, an
Ohio Non-profit Corporation) . E. Shelley seconded the
motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board tentatively adopt the
Interim Use and Management Plan recommendations con-
tained in the report, with the addition of a section
on patrol and caretaking, name the property as an addi-
tion to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and indicate
its intention to withhold the property from dedication.
E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
VIII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (Continued)
C. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure (Report R-85-52 dated
November 4 , 1985 and Report R-85-53 of November 13 , 1985) (Continued)
No changes were made in the proposed wording for Section 1 .47 ,
1. 50, 1 . 46, 1 . 60, 1 . 81 , 2. 00 and 2 .50 .
1. 95 Communications From Individual Directors : N. Hanko requested
that the word "written" be inserted in the first sentence so that
it would read "Any written communication from a
T. Henshaw stated the Board ' s consensus to include N. Hanko' s
request.
2. 30 Compensation of Directors and Payment of Expenses: H. Grench
referring to report R-85-53 noted SB 601 had been signed by the
Governor and would allow the Board to change Section 2 . 30 of the
Rules effective immediately.
T. Henshaw stated that she would like the Board to consider
allowing Board members to receive up to $300 per month in compen-
sation for three, rather than two Board meetings. She said she
felt this increase was justified since Directors work very hard
and attend many meetings which do not qualify for compensation.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board amend Section 2 . 30 by
changing two to three in line five. T. Henshaw seconded
the motion.
Discussion: Discussion focused on whether the question
of increased compensation should be included in the
budget formulation process , as a separate agenda item,
and expanded to include attendance at Board Committee
meetings with compensation for such meetings set at a
lesser amount to a maximum amount per month.
Meeting 85-30 Page 6
Motion to Amend: N. Hanko moved to amend her motion to place
the topic of Compensation of Directors on a future
agenda at the wish of the President. T. Henshaw
seconded the motion. The motion to amend passed 7 to 0.
Discussion focused on whether attendance at a Meeting dedicated
solely to a Closed Session would qualify for compensation effec-
tive immediately. T. Henshaw stated she felt the change should
be addressed as part of the entire compensation question and
should not be treated separately.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board accept Section 2.30 as
prepared by staff on the third page of report R-85-53,
effective immediately. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes: E. Shelley, R. Bishop, H . Turner, D. Wendin,
and N. Hanko.
Noes: K . Duffy and T. Henshaw.
H . Grench said a motion to pass the Resolution as presented was
needed and the motion should adopt the proposed Resolution as
Presented in report R-85-52 , with the amendments made during
the meeting, including the substitution final page of the
Resolution as presented in report R-85-53 to cover the change
made in Section 2 . 30.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt Resolution 85-51
a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Amending the District 's Rules
of Procedure with the amendments as H. Grench had just
stated. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
passed 7 to 0 .
IX. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED (Continued)
B. Conference Reports (memorandum M-85-163 dated October 31 , 1985)
H. Grench reported on his attendance at the National Recreation
and Park Association's annual conference held in Dallas , Texas
and his tour of two Federal preserves in Texas.
He said the highlight of the conference was the session on land
stewardship at which he spoke and showed slides of District
preserves. He said the purpose of the session was to discuss
planning for and protection of natural qualities of parks and
open space lands and to assure diversity of habitat while being
alert to human carrying capacity.
M. Hale showed the Board the Hennepin County Park Preserve District 's
audio-visual presentation on the role and purpose of that District.
C. Britton reported on the Western Governor' s Conference, spon-
sored by the Trust for Public Land, on Creative Acquisition held in
Denver, Colorado and showed slides he had taken. He said the
Meeting 85-30 Page 7
sessions of interest to him included corporate contacts , tax-
benefit approach, and a case studies approach where ideas were
shared and exchanged. He said he had talked with Santa Clara
County Supervisor Dianne McKenna about various District projects
and reported that she is very supportive of the District. He
said representatives from Trust for Public Land had indicated
their interest in doing a project in Santa Clara County.
C. Rescheduling of November 27 Regular Meeting to November 20
(Memorandum M-85-162 dated October 21 , 1985)
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board reschedule the November
27 Regular Meeting to November 20 . T. Hensahw seconded
the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0 .
H. Grench polled the Board for a possible Special Meeting date
in early December. Thursday , December 5 appeared to be the best
date in terms of Board attendance, and H. Grench stated that he
would come back to the Board at the November 20 meeting to
schedule the Special Meeting if it was necessary.
X. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench thanked the Board on behalf of the staff for the Staff
Appreciation Party and shared some photographs from the party with
the Board.
D. Hensen reported on the Kennedy Trails Parking Lot Workshop held
in Los Gatos on November 6 . K. Duffy asked that staff evaluate the
local roadside parking possibilities in the area.
J. Fiddes distributed a draft of the revised speaker's form to be
used at Board meetings for Board review and input.
D. Wendin reported on the passage by the Cupertino City Council to
open St. Joseph Avenue to traffic , rather than using an electric card
device type gate, when the planned El Camino Hospital Continuing Care
Center facility is built. He asked that staff contact the City
Managers of Los Altos and Cupertino , hospital representatives, and
County staff to ascertain the impact the opening of St. Joseph Avenue
to hospital traffic will have on the Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve and parking areas for the Preserve.
XI . CLAIMS
Motion: H. Turner moved the approval of Revised Claims 85-22 dated
November 13 , 1985 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7 to 0 .
XII . CLOSED SESSION
S. Norton announced that litigation matters to be discussed during
Closed Session fell under subdivision (b) (1) of Government Code
Section 54956 . 9. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 10 : 25 P.M.
XIII . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 :15 P.M.
Cecilia A. Cyrier
Secretary
CLATI-IS No. R 5-2 2
k4eeLing 85-30
T-" ;,L, IX-tte:November
11-1 01'EN cl>ACE: DIISTRICT
C T A I M REVISED
Description
8858 540.27 Ervin Alves Union Oil Jobber Fuel for District Vehicles
8859 454-39 AT&T Inforration Systems Telephone Equipment
8860 51 .02 Bancroft-Whitney Company Resource Documents
8861 433-35 Baron Welding and Iron Works Field Supplies
],-,IQ*44 afj-;
8862 Mark R. Bristow
Private Vehicle Expense
8863 352.09 L. Craig Britton Reimbursernent--Professional 'Conferenj 1
8864 1 ,000.00
California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Advocate Fee for October:
8865 80.00 California Parks & Recreation Annual t1lembership--Herbert Grench
Society, Inc.
8866 88.00 State of California Annual Dam Fee
Department OF Water Resources
8867 342.64 California Water Service Company Water Service
8868 23.26 David Camp Reimbursernent--Field Supplies
8869 135-58 Phyllis Cangemi Reimbursement--Auto Repairs
8870 3,960.00 The CEIP Fund Legal Intern Salary
6871 26.27 Clark's Auto Parts and Machine Shop Truck Parts
8872, 107.83 ' Patrick Congdon Private Vehicle Expense
8873 29-50 Crest Copies Inc. - Bluelines and Map Duplicates
8874 32.00 Alice Cummings Historic Photographs of Picchetti
8875 350.00 D and D Contracting Services Rental Equipment
8876 40.45 Emergency Vehicle Systems District Vehicle Parts
188,77 830,000.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Land Purchase--Baldwin-Wallace
8878 166.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Preliminary Title Report
8879 4,254.90 First American Title Insurance Co. Title Insurance--Hoskin and POST
I8880 368-33 Foster Brothers Security Systems, inc. Field Supplies
8881 41 .82 The Frog Pond Meal Conference
�3882 338.63 William Glass Trucking Field Supplies and Delivery
883 25.00 Golden State Report Subscription
41 -57 Goodco Press
45 1 ) Office Supplies
�8885 50-,2; The Hertz Corporation�8886 39, 131 .8 Car Rental
9 Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, Dr. Legal Services--Hosk.ing Acquisition
8887 251 .66 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Services
B888 62.96 Hubbard and Johnson' Field Supplies
3889 16.00 The Hub Schneider's Uniform Expense
3890 5,973.29 Keller- and Daseking, Architects Site Renovation--Hassler
.L"11-13 mo. n)-Zz
. , Ucctirig 85-30 -
Datc: November i], 1985
KEV|�ED
A oo��� �a��
Description
--------------'
_
8891 12.00 Lauren Lang�or_-� Typesetting
8892 111 .00 Marshall end S..."if-L Valuation Analysis Service
8893 78. 14 Marie KcGoug� Reimbursement--Computer Class and
Private Vehicle [xpens
8894 1D-O.5O Ginny Michelson Brochure Artwork
���� 60.94 Midas Muffler Shop District Vehicle Repair
�8896 89.40 M/ntwn's Lumber and Supply Field Supplies
8897 D-8.UO _ Mobil Oil Credit Corporation Fuel for District Vehicles
�8898 55.82 Monogram Sanitation Field Supplies
8894 316. 19 Monta Vista Carden Cent�r Field Supplies
83O0 137. 15 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. ` Parts for District Vehicle
890l 109. 15 Stanley Norton Expenses for September '
8982 592~ 12 Pacific Bell
Telephone Services
8903 254. 17 Paciflc Gas and Electric Company Utilities
83O4 24. 11 City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
3405 1 , 129.99 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
8906 22.50 People for Open Space Resource Book
"17,19D} 19.89 Rancho Hardware and Garden Shop . Field Supplies
B908 73.63 Reef |o6ustrics, _Inc, Field Supplies
8909 761 .30 Ro10-Rooter Sewer Service Sewer Maintenance
3910 101 .08 Dan Francisco Water Service Water Service
8911 170,00 Santo Clara County Radio Dispatch Services
Department of General Services
8912 228.98 Scribner Graphic Press Office Supplies
8913 1 ,264.87 She] ] Oil Company Fuel and Repairs for District VehYc?
8914 1 ,761 ~75 S.igns of the Times '
Signs
5975 160.00 Special Districts information Subscription
Service
8916 H.380 OO John H Tallott
. Legal Services
3917 27,92 Tools-K-UsEquipment Repair �
B918 214.50 The Times Tribune Advertisements
B919 205. 16 The Tufnut Works
Field Supplies
8920 ��8.D7 ` Union 8i | Company Fuel for District Vehicles
U921 290 q� Unm Graphics, Brochures '
B922 280,00 Sandy Voorhees ` Keim6ursenmnts--Seminars
3923 41 .O8 Ellis Wallace Private Vehicle Expense
�q26 �3 �3 �
- Del Woods�_ . "^."� s Private Vehicle Expense �
����
LLIAIN p NO. 05-Zz--
Meeting 85-30
Date: November 13, 19,-"
Amount REVISED
DescripLion
8925 79.69 Yardbird EqLi-' p7'=,-jt Sales Equipment Parts
8926 163.,55 Discount office Supply Office supplies
8*927 13.21 El Mont. Stationers Office Supplies
8928 234.70' Jean Fiddes Reimbursement--Professional Conferen,,,
8929 500-00 Foss and Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--October
8930 361 -50 Herber*t Grench Reimbursement--Professional Conferenc
8931 382.50 Bureau of Governmental Research Professional Conference--Del Woods —i
and Services
8932 188.58 Petty Cash Mary Gunde�-�:
Meal Conferences, Drafting .-and
Office Supplies, Xeroxing and
Private Vehicle Expense
Meeting 85-31
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965.4717
RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NOVEMBER 20 , 199-5
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Teena Henshaw called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.
Members Pres-ent: Katherine Duffy, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley,
and Richard Bishop. Nonette Hanko arrived at 7 : 37 P.M.
Members Absent: Harry Turner and Daniel Wendin.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen,
Jean Fiddes , Mary Hale, Stanley Norton, Del Woods, James Boland,
Mary Gundert, and Joan Combs.
II . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were no written communications.
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
T. Henshaw stated that the agenda was adopted by Board consensus.
V. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Revised Use and Management Plan for Saratoga Gap Open Space
Preserve (Report R-85-54 dated November 15, 1985)
D. Hansen pointed out the Preserve on the wall map, and stated
there had been no additions to the Preserve since the last use
and management review. He noted the circular trail system,
which incorporates Sempervirens property, to create a trail
connection between Long Ridge and Saratoga Gap Preserves.
D. Woods discussed two trail projects planned for next year,
one in cooperation with Santa Clara County, which would complete
the trail connection within Skyline County Park and link the
Table Mountain area with Charcoal Road. He said the second
project is to acquire a better trail connection across Skyline
Boulevard either south or north of the existing Charcoal Road
crossing. He stated that a better connection would allow for
safer equestrian access to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve and
Charcoal Road. Ile said staff has requested that CalTrans in-
stall a pedestrian crossing sign on Highway 9 opposite the
Preserve, and noted that staff is also requesting crossing signs
at the Charcoal Road and Grizzly Flat trail crossings. He said
a framed map and regulatory sign planned for the Preserve will
be placed after a regional map is designed encompassing the
entire trail network of the area.
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Meeting 85-31 Page two
Discussion centered on the need for signing at the Grizzly Flat
parking area. D. Woods noted that the parking area under dis-
cussion relates mostly to Long Ridge Preserve rather than to
Saratoga Gap. He said Long Ridge Preserve may be given a
higher ranking when the Board considers the site emphasis
ranking of Preserves at a future meeting.
K. Duffy said the District should be less timid in signing
its entrances.
D. Woods stated that the septic systems for the rental structures
on the Preserve were not up to code, and that an engineering
study would be conducted to determine the cost of repairs.
He said the structures would be boarded up if repair costs
were estimated to exceed $10, 000. He stated that staff wished
to pursue the County' s possible interest in the structures
before making a final determination regarding their disposition.
D. Woods said that a new brochure including connecting trails
on Long Ridge Preserve and Skyline County Park is scheduled
for completion in the near future.
Tony Look, representing Sempervirens Fund, stated that the
Skyline Boulevard crossing as shown on the current map is not
a viable situation, as it does not present a good line of sight.
He noted that the property opposite the present Preserve
parking area is currently being considered for acquisition by
Sempervirens for a visitors ' center and historical site.
Motion : N. Hanko moved that the Board tentatively adopt the
Revised Use and Management Plan for Saratoga Gap
Open Space Preserve as contained in the staff report.
R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0.
B. Authorization to Enter into Lease for Short-Term Office Space
(—Memorandum M-85-166 dated November_ 14 , 1985)
C. Britton reviewed the leasing terms of the two office sites
under consideration by staff. He said he felt that, on both
a financial and a functional basis, the Old Mill Office Center
was superior to the Los Altos Office Center. He said that
staff was asking the Board to negotiate a lease and to give
the President the authority to execute the lease after it had
been approved by the General Manager and the District' s Legal
Counsel. He noted that the cost of special tenant improvements
would be the responsibility of the District, and said that
staff was recommending that the Board give staff the authority
to spend up to $25, 000 on "pass-through" costs covered in the
contract. He reported that he had obtained an extension on
the District' s current office space lease until February 28 , 1986.
Discussion centered on the location and access to the Old Mill
Office Center. C. Britton said the owners have agreed to
improve the signing and make changes in landscaping to help
mitigate problems in locating the building.
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the Board select the Old Mill
Office Center as the more desirable location for the
District office headquarters , based upon the com-
parison contained in the staff memorandum, and that
the President of the Board be authorized to execute a
lease on behalf of the Board based upon the terms
Meeting 85-31 Page three
outlined in the staff memorandum, including up to
$25, 000 up-front for tenant improvements. N. Hanko
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0.
C. Scheduling of December Meetings (Memorandum M-85-165 dated
November 14, 1985)
H. Grench said that only two meetings will be necessary in
December, and said the second Regular Meeting needed to be
rescheduled since it fell on a holiday.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board reschedule its
December 25 Regular Meeting to Wednesday, December 18,
1985 at 7 : 30 P.M. at the District office. N. Hanko
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0.
VI. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench reported on the Page Mill Road Trash Clean-Up Event to
be held on Saturday, November 23, 1985, which is primarily a
publicity event to promote AB 2020, the "Bottle Bill. " He urged
Board members to attend the event, if possible.
H. Grench reported on the Greenbelt Congress semi-annual meeting
which he attended, and in which he participated as co-leader of
a workshop on land acquisition techniques.
H. Grench reported on his Hassler tour with San Carlos City
Administrator Warren Shafer.
Tony Look reported on Sempervirens' campaign to acquire two parcels,
one in Castle Rock surrounded by State Park land, and the second
along the Skyline to the Sea Trail at Waddell Creek and Highway 1.
C. Britton reported that Peninsula Open Space Trust had recently
closed escrow on the 80 acre Negley parcel, leaving only a 100
yard gap between Long Ridge Open Space Preserve and Portola State Park.
The Board further discussed the function of the Office Space
Committee and its role in reviewing office space plans.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Office Space Committee be
charged with reviewing office space plans, leaving it
to the Committee' s discretion to decide what items
needed to be discussed by the full Board. R. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0.
VII. CLAIMS
Motion: N. Hanko moved approval of Revised Claims 85-23. E.
Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0.
VIII. CLOSED SESSION
S. Norton announced that litigation matters to be discussed in
Closed Session fell under subdivision (b) (1) of Government Code
Section 54956. 9. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 8 : 30 P.M.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 9 :20 P.M.
Joan Combs
Secretary
�
CLAIPIS 0o. 8 5-23 �
Meetinq 85-3l
MIDPENI0SDL& REGIONAL O9C0 SPACE DISTRICT Date: Nov. 26, 1985
REVISED
C � I\ I y� �
�
� Amount Name Description �
8934 213-00 Communications Research Company Radio Maintenance
8936 3�4:0� Pete Ellis Dodge District Vehicle Repair
8938 35~51 Harbinger Communications Computer Services
8939 25.00 David Ingram Inc. Appraisal Report Copy
8940 580.00 Los Altus Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
8941 98.69 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies
8942 141 .00 Robert McQuillan Equipment Service and Repair
8943 784.98 On Line Business Systems, Inc. Computer Services
8944 160,00 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
8945 414.70 Real Estate Data, Inc. Assessor's Microfiche
8946 200.00 Robert L. Russell and Associates Graphic Design
8947 5,625,00 Santa Clara Valley Water District Reseeding of M1 Umunhum
.
8( 13.74 Skyline County Water District Water Service
8949 150 0O^ `
. Skyline Ranch Water Service
8950 1 ,54 . S & W Equipment Company Equipment Supplies
8951 +758J�9' Tax Collector, San Mateo County Property Taxes
8952 1 ,297.21 Tax Collector, Santa Cruz County Property Taxes
8953 60.O0 Gayle A. Van Brucklin Word Processing
8954 386.45 Xerox Corporation Office Supplies
8955 106.96 ZIZ Sanitation Company Sanitation Services
7/ .65 Del Woods Reimbursement--Film
8961 162,39 Patty Cash Office Supplies, Meal Conferences
Subscription and Private Vehicle
Expense
' .
_
�
�
�
WRITTEN COMMUNICATT'''^T
Meeting 85-32
Dec . 11 , 1985
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
1094 Highland Circle RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF
Los Altos , C p 1 i f 94022 _ Board President Ackno:+ledge/?espond
_ Director Acknoaledez/Respond
Staf Ace:no.:ledge Respond
Draft Response Attached
_ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
November 20, 1985 Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directive(s)
Other _
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional. Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D
Los Altos , CA 94022
During your meeting of November 13, the matter of patrol
in the Sierra Azule area arose because of current problems
in the area.
Currently, as I understand , there are only eleven (11 )
rangers covering the MROSD properties - some 20, 000 acres.
These properties are very disbursed, and often difficult
to get to one from another due to poop roads or lack of
roads . And most of the properties lie considerably off
of the roads, and to my knowledge most of your patrols
are done in vehicles . Accordingly, there is very little
patrol coverage of areas not readily visible from the
roadway.
i
During the above meeting problems of drugs and guns , along
with personal assault, on or near the lands to be purchased
were brought up. This puts considerable responsibility
in your laps, as was brought up in the meeting.
Often only armed patrols are the only means of controlling
some of the above situations . Yet MROSD rangers are not
armed and would very well be ineffective in some instances .
I recommend that you provide for a large increase in the
number of rangers emply ed to insure more adaquate patrols
of' your grreatly increasing properties.
I further recommend that you provide for the arming_ of all
rangers while on patrol duties .
✓+' �J'GY YyC..h �
G
Harry Qi. Haeussler. Jr,
RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF WRITTEN C OMMU N I CAT T '
Board President Acknowledge/Respond Meeting 8 5-3 2
_ Director Acknowledge/Respond Dec. 11 , 1985
le Staff Acknowledge Respond
_ Draft Response Attached INGEBORG KUHN
Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft 315 Stanford Avenue
Response for Board Consideration per Palo Alto, CA 94306
Board Directive(s)
Other
November 10, 1985
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Cr., D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Monte Bello Open Space
Gentlemen:
I had written to you once before on this subject and you provided a gracious reply. I
had complained about the lack of sufficient trail signs and you informed me that at the
time of my writing (last year) you were in the process of installing additional signs.
Last week I again hiked in this area and did indeed find additional signs, which is help-
ful. However, there is one spot (there may be others I haven't come across yet) where a
sign is urgently needed. I will make every attempt to describe to you just where it is;
this; is somewhat cumbersome since I am not able to tell you this by giving you certain
distances from one point to -nother. Like I said in my last letter to you, IT WOULD BE
EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND BENEFICIAL IF, AT CERTAIN KEY POINTS, THE DISTANCE (MILES OR KM)
WOULD BE POSTED. It is impossible to pace oneself not knowing the distance from one
trail junction to another - I personally find this not only helpful but also view it as
a certain safety device; most State Parks seem to have updated their signs accordingly.
Alright, starting out from the Page Mill Parking Lot and heading toward the Saratoga Gap,
after a good 2-hour (possibly more) hike one comes to a fork and no one knows which of
the two trails go where. Below is a sketch which might help you identify the place.
7
' So with
•ks 4,2C -�o cross a er+ k
�` pert
S0 #109Q 6n0 Trot Troti
I also, again, got lost because I felt the signs where not clear. Returnining on Saratoga
Gap trail I arrived at a sign reading - I believe - Indian Creek Trail, Page Mill Parking,
etc. Since Iwanted to head back I took the Page Mill arrow, however, to my chagrin I ended
up on t§e Black Mountain Trail which, as you know, is STEEP] I hardly made it home that day
because this involuntary side trip turned out to be too much for me after having hiked four
hours already. Again, an indication of miles would have been very helpful.
Thank you for your kind attention to his.
Sincere
RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF
W--TTEN COMMUNICATION
3 'resident Acknowledg 1Respond Meeting 85-32
Di. _nor Acknowledge/Respond Dec. 11, 1985
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
Draft Response Attached
Jim Warren Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
(415)851-7075 Board Directive(s) 345 Swett Road, Woodside, CA 94062
Other
85 Nov 18
Nonette Hanko & MROSD Board of Directors
MROSD
375 Distel Cir., #D-I
Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Directors & Nonette,
I am submitting this request as a written communication to the Board — and a request of
you personally, Nonette, because of the good working relationship we have developed over the
past year regarding open space issues. I would appreciate both of you taking whatever action
you 6e1 is appropriate to assure that this request is implemented, to the extent you feel it is a
reasonable request. If it is less than fully implemented, I would appreciate being so-informed.
Request that I be Kept Informed
As a concerned citizen, as the President of the Kings Mountain Association, and as a
somewhat-validated* "representative" of many of the Peninsula's mountain and rural residents, I
request that adequate steps be taken to assure that I receive timely information regarding Board
and Committee ruminations on the issues of eminent domain and community outrcach/good
neighbor efforts.
In particular, I would appreciate receiving timely copies of all future proposals, papers,
written communications, ordinances, form contracts minutes, and any other written materials
that pertain to MROSD eminent domain policy, restraint and use, or pertain to any
outreach/neighbor efforts that may be initiated.
If possible, it would be helpful for them to be dated (e.g., the copy I received of "Land
Acquisition Policies — Version 4" was undated).
Major and Minor Concerns
Based on Version 4 (which was not available for examination and analysis prior to the
Committee meeting in which it was discussed and somewhat modified):
For Section 1 — "Improved property, not subdividable": The District is considering retaining
trail condemnation powers, even for improved, non-subdividablc parcels. It is assumed that trail
condemnation will not be used if trail routes — even "significantly longer and less convenient" —
can be found. Retaining trail condemnation power for improved, non-subdividable parcels
would, then, certainly not seem applicable to smaller parcels; it would be concievably applicable
only to larger parcels.
If this is the case, then I urge the Board to adopt a size minimum (25 acres, 40 acres, 50
acres, 100 acres — some minimum) that absolutely protects smaller, improved non-subdividable
parcels from condemnation. Among other things, this would surely serve the District, in that it
would defuse some District critics who fit that category and arc concerned only with their own
self-interest. There is inadequate justification for retaining condemnation power for such small
parcels.
For Section 2 — "Unimproved property, not subdividable": The District appears likely to
retain the right to force acquisition of such parcels if they are not clearly in a District-dcfined
developed community and are "clearly threatened with development." Since they are not
subdividable, then the only possible "development" would be the owner choosing to build a home,
barn or other structure on their non-subdividable parcel.
For whatever value it may be, I strongly oppose use of condemnation to take property that
is not being subdivided and is not needed for a currently-essential. limited-width trail. However,
this issue will apparently remain open to study and modification, pending completion of the
District's new Master Plan. This delay — and, certainly, any condemnation effort — will give
the opportunity to take the issue to the District's constituency.
In the meantime, I urge the Directors — at the least — to adopt a size minimum that
absolutely protects each smaller, unimproved non-subdividable parcel from condemnation due to
the owner and property taxpayer deciding to build a home — at least until the District completes
a planning process that states what parcels even small ones) that it simply must own to fulfill
its open space mission. Adoption of such self-restraint is unlikely to cost the District many
desirable lots — unless the Master Planning takes longer than it needs to take. To leave such
parcels at risk places an unjust cloud over them, given the District's past expression of its
page
possible acquisition interests.
For Section 3 — "Improved, subdividable property": One part states that, aside from essential
trail routes, condemnation may be used only if "the property is clearly threatened by
development." Another part says "Only the unimproved portion of the property may be acquired
[by force,."
If "threatened by development" means "threatened with subdivision", then it should be
revised to so state. If "development" remains, then by customary meaning, it might include
construction of a barn, remodeling of a home, construction of an in-law apartment, or any other
"development." I urge the Board to limit its condemnation-trigger to subdivision that would imply
significant increase in structures; not mere "development" that is undefined (in Version 4) and
may mean any kind of construction.
There is somewhat of an implication — but not a clear statement — that the clause
concerning taking "only the unimproved portion" explains what might be taken if anything is
taken. However, it could also be interpreted as an independent statement — that, regarding
improved, subdividable property, "only the unimproved portion of the property may be acquired."
I feel that is absolutely essential that the Board remove this unnecessary ambiguity and make the
intent of this statement clear.
For Section 4 — "Unimproved, subdividable property": Again, the key phrase is "clearly
threatened with development," using the undefined term that normally applies to any
construction. And, again, I state my strong opposition to using condemnation in any context
other than clear threat of extensive subdivision of need for immediately-essential trails. I urge
the Board or Committee to modify this, replacing ambiguous "development" with defined
"subdivision."
Regarding Section 7 — "Publicity": This concerns notification of most of the likely-
interested parties prior to any attempt to modify any part of this proposed self-restraining
ordinance. I proposed approximately this, as a reasonable alternative to a ballot initiative or
state legislative effort, to assure that this ordinance either endures, or that most interested
parties will be aware of any proposal to change it.
I am submitting this request as a matter of permanent District public record, via this
written communication to the Board. I request of each MROSD Board member — as a matter of
good faith and ethical statement of personal intent — that you notify me promptly, if you believe
anything less than the following:
If a majority of the MROSD Directors ever choose to formally consider modifying this self-
restraining ordinance Y legally this Section 7 will ethically and le all mandate that MROSD, at the least,
mail time) written notification of such considerations to at least 500 or 600 of the property
y P P Y
owners of the Skyline area, at least to a large majority of those listed in reasonably current
Assessor records.
Many of us believe that the statement of Section 7 clearly mandates such a "broadcast
" f notices to easily identifiable Sk line-area property owners. In this
mailing" of man hundreds o Y Y P R Y
g Y
request for your response to me, I am asking nothing more than that you — as individual
Directors, whom 1 sincerely believe do have strong ethical senses — inform me and other
concerned property owners if your individual interpretation of Section 7 would allow
modification discussions without such a large, broadcast mailing.
In this, I herewith state that (a) the requirement for a large, timely "broadcast mailing"
seems clearly implied by the phrasing of Section 7, (b) it is reasonable for readers to assume this
is the intent of each MROSD Director who votes for the proposed ordinance, and (c) if any
Director's intent is otherwise, their moral and ethical fortitude will cause them to respond to this
request, notifying me and other concerned property owners that our interpretation of their intent
is inaccurate.
Awaiting Binding Board Actions
Long months ago, I thought the Board had voted for principles that I — and many of us —
felt were an equitable balance between public and private interest and property/open space
protection. Later, we found those "principle votes" were sometimes interpreted as "straw votes,"
and readily modified or reversed at later meetings.
It seems that most of what can be said — pro and con — has been said. Given the
nonbinding character of some of the earlier votes, many of us are now merely quietly awaiting
the adoption of binding decisions by the Board. Please do not misinterpret smaller audiences or
less public testimony as a lessened public interest, for such is not the case.
And Now, for the Good News
Herb didn't quite do cartwheels, and Stan didn't quite hoot for joy, ... but I did contribute to
page 2
their obvious pleasure by mentioning that MROSD Director meetings are scheduled for the same
Wednesday evenings as my new college Trustee meetings. Not to worry, however — I
guarantee that I am, and will remain, interested in open space ventures — though I will have to
depend on my Skyline neighbors, other District "watchers," and cooperative District Directors to
keep me informed of District considerations, plans and projects.
Hopefully, all of us have learned that it is important to keep likely-concerned citizens
informed. It is worth the time, expense and effort — if for no other reason than to avoid
misinformation and adverse over-reaction. It is certainly a lesson I have learned, from
participation on one side of representative government, and it is a lesson I am now carrying to
the other side.
Aside from this vexing and difficult issue of eminent domain, I am also particularly
interested in remaining involved in issues surrounding the design and implementation of an
aggressive community outreach program and good neighbor program. We in the Skyline area are
open ace's most natural allies and — with few exceoptions — its strongest protectors, day-in
and day-out. Let us stand on one anothers' shoulders; not on each others' toes. (In this, of
course, I do not consider that public ownership is a necessary nor sufficient condition for
protection of the Peninsula's unique mountain beauty and open space.)
More Citizens' Advocate Issues
Due to numerous events, I am planning on producing more issues of the Peninsula Citizens'
Advocate. At long last, perhaps in January, 1986, I will get around to publishing PCA#4 that I
planned for January, 1985, but withheld from publication. Some of the topics prompting such
publication include:
— the culmination of SMC Grand Jury examinations of building inspection practices,
— the SMC Planning Director's agreement to pay San Francisco $82,000 in the context of
threatened civil and criminal prosecution for violating SF planning policies,
— the SMC Planning Department's ongoing refusal to significantly involve Skyline and coastside
residents and property owners in its planning for their communities,
— a desire to offer extensive, verifiable statements and data, advocating and supporting
responsive candidates for contested local offices in 1986,
— a desire to publicize community college offerings and benefits, and
— a plan to publicize MROSD offerings, issues, projects and policies.
I look forward to your providing the basis for making most of that open space publicity
positive — for I, as do you, strongly support the equitable maintenance of public and private
open space.
Thank you for your attention to these comments and requests. Looking forward to our
continued communication and cooperative efforts, I remain, Sincerely,
Jim rren
—Although I received 37.5% of the county-wide vote, 58.0 of the south Skyline and southcoast voters supported my bid for
college trustee, as did 86.5 of north Skyline. These were among the few areas where I even outdrew the incumbent president of the
board who was also well known for having sought a state senate seat, last year.
It would appear that I have broad support from the Peninsula's mountain and rural residents; certainly, it is unlikely that
computer involvement earned that Skyline/southcoast vote.
P.S. —
I noted a call in the Country Almanac, not too long ago, for volunteers to repair some of the
whole access trials and/or facilities of the San Mateo County Parks. Apparently, their budget
precluded their maintaining what they had built.
You may remember that SMC Sup. Anna Eshoo seemed critical of MROSD whole access
efforts — that I later applauded in the same hearing. Seems like she might tend her own shop.
cc: Jay Thorwaldson
South Skyline Association
Portola Heights Association
and others
Page 3
i
Y
V 7
11a,�
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT -
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE 0.1.LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415)965.4717
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING
The Eminent Domain-Policy Committee will have a meeting on Wednesday,
November 6, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the District office. The public is
invited to attend.
A G E N D A
1 . Eminent Domain Policy - Finalize Submittal to Full Board
2. Brown Act Implementation - Discussion of Current Draft
3. Acquisition and Sphere of Influence Boundary - Discussion of Current
Draft
4. Annexation Policy - Discussion of Current Draft
5. Eminent Domain Exemption Contracts - Discussion of Current Draft and
Further Direction to Staff
/ D
J
F y= -
03 7-11414 kEo /V oV, 1 IVIVD
/-'0 a-M IV"_ lTE /0 613 L t e 114 F E TIN G ..
/U 0-f
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
JACK ANDERSOH
Calling All
Clam Watchers
AVE YOU watched any clams late- '
?
H 1 . Listene dtoa n • mussels. If •ou
1 y y a
.have,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
go
rants to know all the fascinating details
ency proposes to spen $9 mil- nalysts said the survey was too long and
tionwide survey to de "Hine' that it violated the Paperwork Reduction
' wildlife observat' ha its, Act. They argued that the $9 million,
nning in Janua Census Bu- which is to come from excise taxes on
I telephone hunting and fishing equipment, should
sible natt lovers��ask be returned to the states instead.
questio
UUGET policy official Gail Coad
"Were there any oce lions. when wrote to Interior Department offi-
you enjoyed seeing or hearing wildlife cials: "We have now concluded that the
while on a trip?Did these include turtles, survey is far too long and contains nu-
frogs, lizards and snakes? Insects and merous questions of little or dubious val-
spiders,— crabs,clams,mussels,etc.?" ue."
The 75-page questionnaire doesn't What she was too polite to mention
go into the technique of dam watching. was the widespread feeling among the
Presumably it is akin to watching grass budget office staff that the survey was
-grow. just plain silly.
DIDN'T anyone object to the clam- But Coad's decision to kill the pro-
' watchers survey?Certainly. jest was overruled by her boss, Robert
Bedell, after he got a letter from Fish
When flabbergasted cost-cutters at and Wildlife Director Bill Horn.The sur-
the budget office protested strongly that vey also had the support of a review
the survey was a dreadful waste of time panel that included officials of the Agri-
money,they were overruled. culture Department and the Environ-
mental
The budget cutters tried every way Protection Agency... .
they could to spike the project. Budget The review panel brushed aside the
budget-cutters' complaint that the ques-
tionnaire .was too long, saying the re-
spondents will"probably enjoy'reliving'
Fe
SST ReSuffs ARe N experiences" and thus wouldn't mind
" T' TOO SHOT!! the hour or so it will take to recall their
adventures with clams and mussels. Be-
sides,the panel noted,the Fish and Wild-
life staff had put forth a "tremendous"
effort on the questionnaire,and it would_
be a shame to have it go to waste.
Agency officials also say the survey
is nothing new. Similar surveys have
been conducted every five years since
1955.
Today's column is by Jack Anderson and
Joseph Spear.
RESPOtiS
�ACTI(�"-_PROPOSED By STAFF
WRITTEN COMMUNICAT I Board President Acknowledgel?e,pond
Meeting 8 5-3 2 Director
-Ackno-aledg lRespond
Dec. 11 , 1985 Staff Acknowledge/Respond
Draft Response Attached
Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
UPDATE Board Directive(s)
b! ocher _,qO F�,*Q "SE;
SANTA CLARA VALLEY f�z
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT AV'} 1 L A a I-
November 1, 1985
EPA presented the Draft Stage I Report for the Santa Clara Valley IEMP on
October 11 to the Intergovernmental Coordinating Committee- and on October 25
to the Public Advisory Committee. A copy of the briefing packet distributed at
the ICC meeting is attached.
In conjunction with the ICC and PAC, the IEMP has established the following
schedule for review of the Draft Stage I Report and initial activities for
Stage II. Included on this schedule are tentative carp
letion dates for two
related studies: (1) the draft Institutional Analysis of agencies and groups
active in toxics issues in Santa Clara; and (2) the occupational Exposure
Analysis.
October' - December Briefings/discussions on draft report and Stage II options
with various groups
November Begin Peer Review
November 8 ICC Meeting: Discuss draft report;
Preliminary discussions of Stage II options
November 15 Comments due for discussion of air analysis on November 22
November 16 Field hearing on Superfund, IEMP, by House Committee on
Public Works and Transportation
November 22 PAC meeting: Discuss air analysis in draft report;
Preliminary discussions of Stage II
December - ICC Meeting
- Camrents due for discussion of drinking water analysis
at December PAC meeting
- PAC meeting: Discuss drinking water analysis in draft
report; Discussions of Stage II
December 31 Deadline for final comments on draft Stage I report
January 1986 Plan for revision of Stage I report
Draft workplan for Stage II
February 1986 Draft Institutional Analysis
Occupatio6al Exposure Analysis
February or March Final workplan for Stage II
April Final Stage I report
RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSEDBY STAFF " IVIEN COMMMICATION
Board President Acknowledge/Respond Meeting 85-32
Director Acknowledge/Respond Harry H. Haeussler, Jr. Dec. 11, 1985
V Staff Acknowled Respond 1094 Highland Circle
Draft Response Attached Los Altos , Calif. 94022
Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directive(s)
Other 7zkAm T-10 December 5, 1985
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
355 Distel Circle, Suite D
Los Altos , CA 94022
Your interpretation and response to SB2116(The Brown Act)
was so at variance with what I deemed appropriate that I
wrote to Assemblyman Ernest Konnyu asking for the legis-
lative opinion of the matter. After some delays, I fin-
ally received a copy of the California Legislative Counsel
(CLC) reply to Assemblyman Konnyu, A copy is attached.
I gave a copy of this to Director Dan Wendon at the Nov 25
Emlient Domain Policy Committee meeting. However, it is of
such importance that I feel it should be made an official
part of an open board meedng - thus this letter.
0 page 2 of the CLC reply, OPINION NO. 1 regarding your re-
solution which establishes the so called "Hit List", is
quoted:
"The resolution, as described in the Facts, does not meet
the requirements of Section 54956.8 of the Government
Code. "
There is much discussion in the CLC reply, and lawyers might
arsrue fore*er about interpretations of The Brown Act.
In the interest of public harmony and timely public openness,
I urge you to revise your response to The Brown Act by:
1. Cancel your present resolution and its so called
"Hit List".
2. Make your Identification of real property or real prop-
erties and the person of persons with whom Your negot-
iator may negoiate in the Board Meeting agenda of the
meeting immediatly prior to the closed session.
yih,
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
encl.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA O
P W
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Sacramento, California
MAY 2 0 1985
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu
4164 State Capitol
Ralph M. Brown Act: Land Negotiations - #7402
Dear Mr. Konnyu:
FACTS
You have informed us that the board of directors of a
regional open-space district has adopted a resolution to
implement Section 54956. 8 of the Government Code relative to land
negotiations. The resolution identifies "the possible real
property or real properties which future acquisition negotiations
may concern" and "identifies the names of the owners of the
parcels as shown on the most recent assessment rolls" of certain
counties. The resolution identifies who within the district is
authorized to negotiate with the current owners regarding the
purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of the properties. The
resolution states in pertinent part, as follows:
"Nothing herein shall be construed to
show an intent by the Board of Directors, or
of the District, to acquire any, some or all
of the parcels of property . . . The purpose
of this Resolution . . . is only to establish
the Board' s policy for meeting in closed
session in appropriate circumstances
The Board of Directors hereby reaffirms its
policy that the District' s decisions to
acquire land, or interests therein, shall be
made in an open public meeting, after
announcement in the District' s publicly issued
agenda. "
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 2 - #7402
Additionally, the General Manager ' s comments to the
Board of Directors recommending adoption of the resolution are as
follows:
"It must be emphasized that the map and
list do not represent parcels the District
intends to acquire; it represents no more than
a compilation of parcels which may properly be
discussed in closed session. The effort has
been to be as complete as possible in mapping
parcels within the District' s planning area
rather than to make any judgements about
specific parcels, the potential acquisition of
which would depend upon the many factors
listed in the Master Plan document. "
Finally, you have referred us to a constituent ' s letter
that refers to the resolution as " . . . a list published once and
then not mentioned perhaps for years . Under the adopted policy
it may be weeks or even years before the negotiations are
discussed. People who are listed feel as if they are on a 'hit'
list, and as neighbors of [the district] are nervous and on pins
and needles as to their future in their homes. "
QUESTION NO. 1
Does the resolution, as described in the Facts , meet the
requirements of Section 54956 . 8 of the Government Code?
OPINION NO. 1
The resolution, as described in the Facts, does not meet
the requirements of Section 54956. 8 of the Government Code.
ANALYSIS NO. 1
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Ch. 9 (commencing with
Sec. 54950) , Pt. 1 , Div. 2, Title 5, Gov. C. *) generally requires
that meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies be open to
the public, and that their deliberations and actions be conducted
openly (Secs. 54950 and 54953) . The board of directors of a
regional open-space district (Secs. 5500 and 5537, P.R.C. ) is a
legislative body of a local agency for purposes of the act (Secs.
54951 and 54952) .
Hereafter all section references are to the Government Code .
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 3 - #7402
Section 54956 .8, which became effective on January 1,
1985 (para. (1) , subd. (c) , Sec. 8, Art. IV, Cal. Const. ) ,
provides as follows:
1154956. 8. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this chapter, a legislative body
of a local agency may hold a closed session
with its negotiator prior to the purchase,
sale, exchange, or lease of real property by
or for the local agency to give instructions
to its negotiator regarding the price and
terms of payment for the purchase, sale,
exchange, or lease.
"However, prior to the closed session,
the legislative body of the local agency shall
hold an open and public session in which it
identifies the real property or real
properties which the negotiations may concern
and the person or persons with whom its
negotiator may negotiate.
"For the purpose of this section, the
negotiator may be a member of the legislative
body of the local agency.
"For purposes of this section, ' lease'
includes renewal or renegotiation of a lease.
"Nothing in this section shall preclude a
local agency from holding a closed session for
discussions regarding eminent domain
proceedings pursuant to Section 54956. 9. "
You have informed us that the resolution of the regional
open-space district, as described in the Facts, is intended to
implement Section 54956 . 8 . As stated in the Facts, the property
described in the resolution is quite broad in scope and does not
set forth parcels the district intends to acquire. As suggested
in the constituent' s letter the resolution appears to be an
effort to comply with Section 54956 . 8 on a one-time basis,
authorizing its negotiator to meet in closed session at any time
in the future when the district should seriously decide to
purchase, sell, exchange, or lease some real property. The
statement of the General Manager described in the Facts is that
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 4 - #7402
the effort of compiling the map and list accompanying the
resolution is to be "as complete as possible . . . rather than to
make any judgements about specific parcels. " Furthermore, it
states that the map and list represent "no more than a
compilation of parcels which may properly be discussed in closed
session. "
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that
statutes are to be given a common sense construction in
accordance with the apparent purpose and intention of the
lawmakers--one that is practical rather than technical , and that
will lead to a wise policy rather than to mischief or absurdity
(City of Costa Mesa v. McKenzie, 30 Cal . App. 3d 763, 769-770;
see also County of Alameda v. Kuchel , 32 Cal . 2d 193, 199) .
Where a statute is i�useptible two contructions, the one that
leads to the more reasonable result will be followed
(Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Adams, 32 Cal. 2d 620 , 630-631) .
Applying these rules of statutory construction in this
instance, the first paragraph of Section 54956. 8 provides an
exception to the open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown
Act for a closed hearing of a legislative body to give
instructions to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of
payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real
property prior to the purchase, sale, exchange or lease. The
second paragraph of Section 54956. 8 places a condition on this
closed session by requiring that prior to these private
negotiations that the legislative body hold an open and public
session in which it identifies the real property or real
properties which the negotiations may concern and the persons
with whom the negotiator may negotiate.
In this regard, we think the open and public session
described in the second paragraph of Section 54956. 8 is to be
construed to operate in conjunction with the articulated purposes
of the closed session "to give instruction . . . regarding the
price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or
lease of real property. " In our opinion, the closed session
contemplated by Section 54956. 8 is one which occurs after the
local agency' s legislative body has a reasonable expectation or
interest in entering into a real estate transaction involving one
or more properties and is at the stage of decision-making where
price and terms of payment will be negotiated. It would appear
that by authorizing the closed session the Legislature intended
to alleviate those aspects of the act which place local agencies
at a competitive disadvantage in real estate transactions. The
open meeting requirement of Section 54956. 8 provides a notice to
the public and individual property owners that a real property
transaction may be entered into and yet leaves the sensitive
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 5 - #7402
discussions relative to the strategy and tactics of the
transaction in a closed session.
It is a settled rule of statutory construction that
exceptions to the general rule of a statute be strictly construed
(Dufton v. Daniels, 190 Cal. 577, 580; National City v. Fritz,
33 Cal. 2d 635 , 636) . This rule has recently been applied to the
act in a different context to construe the Ralph M. Brown Act
liberally in favor of openness (San Diego Union v. City Council,
146 Cal . App. 3d 947 , 955) . Thus, we think that the resolution
subject to this inquiry, which broadly authorizes closed meetings
with a negotiator for future negotiations that the local agency
may or may not engage in and with respect to property the
legislative body, at the time the resolution is adopted, has no
reasonable expectation or intention of purchasing, selling,
exchanging, or leasing, is an overbroad construction of Section
54956. 8.
As a practical matter, we think a resolution like the
one here could not provide any effective notice to the concerned
property owners if the closed sessions the resolution authorizes
are held years in advance. over a period of years real property
can of course change owners . We see no reason why the
Legislature would want to preclude effective notice, nor do we
see why a procedure which provides contemporaneous notice would
place excessive burdens on a legislative body.
Finally, there is no indication from the language of
Section 54956. 8 that the Legislature contemplated a procedure
like the one used by this regional open-space district. In our
opinion, a more reasonable construction of Section 54956. 8
requires that when the local agency is ready to give instructions
to its negotiator on the price and terms of payment for a real
estate transaction, it holdsan open meeting identifying the real
property or properties involved and the person or persons with
IIIwhom the negotiator may negotiate.
Accordingly, we conclude that the resolution, as
described in the Facts, does not meet the requirements of Section
54956. 8.
QUESTION NO. 2
Does the language "prior to the closed session, " as used
in Section 54956 . 8, prohibit a regional open space district from
holding the open and public session described in that section at
a time substantially before the closed session?
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 6 - #7402
OPINION NO. 2
The language "prior to the closed session, " as used in
Section 54956 . 8, does not prohibit a regional open-space district
from holding the open and public session described in that
section at a time substantially before the closed session.
However, as discussed in Analysis No. 1 and this analysis, in
some factual settings the holding of the public session at a time
substantially before the closed session may be violative of the
requirements of Section 54956 . 8 .
ANALYSIS NO. 2
In Analysis No. 1 , we set forth Section 54956. 8 and
discussed its applicability as a part of the Ralph M. Brown Act
to a regional open-space district. In Analysis No. 1 we also
discussed the second paragraph of Section 54956. 8 which provides
as follows:
"However, prior to the closed session,
the legislative body ZY the local agency shall
hold an open and public session in which it
identifies the real property or real
properties which the negotiations may concern
and the person or persons with whom its
negotiator may negotiate. "
It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that,
except when clearly otherwise intended or indicated, words in a ,
statute should be given their ordinary meaning and receive a
sensible construction in accordance with the commonly understood
meaning thereof (City of El Monte v. city of Industry, 188 Cal.
App. 2d 774 , 780) .
Applying this rule to this question, "prior" is defined
to mean " . . . earlier in time or order: preceding temporally,
causally, or psychologically . . . " (Webster' s Third New
International Dictionary, Unabridged, page 1804) . Thus, we think
the language "prior to is indefinite and would generally
encompass any open and public session earlier in time to the
closed session. Had the Legislature intended a more precise time
for the public meeting held before the closed session it could
have certainly so prescribed.
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 7 - #7402
As discussed in Analysis No. 1 , Section 54956. 8 does
require the persons, with whom the negotiator would be
negotiating, to be identified in the open and public session.
Thus, pursuant to the requirements of Section 54956 .8, the public
session could not be held at a date so distant that the owners of
the real property subject to the negotiation would not be
identified because of changes of ownership during the intervening
period. Furthermore, as discussed in Analysis No. 1 , we think
Section 54956. 8 contemplates a public session where real property
would be identified that the local agency has a reasonable
expectation or interest in acquiring, selling, leasing, or
exchanging. We concluded in Opinion No. I that the resolution,
described in the Facts, is violative of the statute because of
its lack of specificity and because it precludes effective notice
to concerned real property owners. Thus, depending on the facts
and circumstances, we think a public session held at a time
substantially before a closed session could be violative of the
act.
However, in some instances it might take a long period
for a negotiator to get all of the information necessary to
commence a real property negotiation. For example, questions
could be raised about legal restrictions on the use of the
property or some intervening event could occur requiring a
lengthy analysis by some expert. On the other hand, if the
purpose of the long-term indefinite time period is to prevent
effective notice to property owners of the closed sessions and of
the possible real property transaction, we think a court could
find the practice in violation of Section 54956.8. Section
54956. 8 provides no definite time period so we think each
instance would have to be analyzed in its factual context in
accordance with the Legislature' s apparent purpose and intent in
enacting this provision.
Accordingly, we conclude that the language "prior to the
closed session, " as used in Section 54956. 8, does not prohibit a
regional open-space district from holding the open and public
session described in that section at a time substantially before
to the closed session. However, as discussed in Analysis No. 1
and this analysis, in some factual settings the
Honorable Ernest L. Konnyu - p. 8 - #7402
holding of the public session at a time substantially before the
closed session may be violative of the requirements of Section
54956. 8.
Very truly yours,
Bion M. Gregory
Legislative Counsel
By
Michael H. Upson
Deputy Legislative Counsel
MHU:dse
7
M-85-169
(Meeting 85-32
Adw December 11 , 1985)
%10F
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 4 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager; M. Gundert,
Associate Open Space Planner j
SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Revised Use and Management Plan for
the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve
I
Introduction: The proposed revised Use and Management Plan for Saratoga
Gap Open Space Preserve was presented to you at your November 20 , 1985
meeting (see report R-85-54 , dated November 15 , 1985) . Final adoption
of the Use and Management Plan was delayed until your December 11 , 1985
meeting to allow for public comment.
To date, staff has received no additional public comment.
Recommendation: I recommend that e-
ou adopt the revised Use and Manage-
ment p g
ment Plan for the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve as contained in
report R-85-54.
II
I
'-85-55
Meeting 85-32
Dec. 11 , 1985)
i
i
Date:2 December 1985
To: Board of Directors
Midpenisula Regional Open Space District
From:Eminent Domain Committee(Hanko,Bishop,Wendin)
i
Subject: Scheduling of Board Review
Your Eminent Domain Committee has completed its work on the initial draft of the Eminent Domain
portion of the Land Aquisition Polices(Version 7 attached). We ask that you schedule a Board
meeting for public discussion and tentative adoption of this portion of the polcies. We are not
recommending discussion of the polies at this time. Instead,they are presented now o give you and
the public adequate time for review before they are next considered.
We also ask that you consider when and how you wish to consider the remaining policies(Brown
Act,Aquisition of land outside the District and Annexation). The committee has additional work to
do on these;they have not been considered since the last Board discussion in August.
The draft document has been rearranged to give each of the subjects its own section. The preamble,
however,was left with only minor clarifying changes. It is useful to read the Definitions(Section
1 a)first because many of the policy statements depend on the wording of the definitions.
The committee attempted to draft language which implemented the response to the qumestionwe. Only
in two areas were there majorities of less than five to two,and in a third no consensus was stated in
earlier meitirgs. j
I
1. Non-subdividable unimproved property. No two Board members had the same
approach. The committee is proposing further study in this area by Staff,with working
guidelines to be in effect during the study period. Staff has estimated that this would
take about one year,requiring revision of our Master Plan..
2. Special treatment of institutional or commercial entities. There vas no clear consensus to
treat these owners the same as others on the issue of threat of development. The draft
implements the majority(4-3)position,namely giving the same treatment,but the
committee felt that the subject had received little attention by the Board during the public
i
hearings. Alternate language is included.
3. Eminent Domain Exemption Contracts. In view of outside counsel's expressed doubt
about the enforcibility of these Contracts,this subject requires further discussion. j
i
Staff will be presenting its ideas on publicity for the policies ea the 18 Dec 85 meeting. The goal of i
Section 8 on Publicity is to reach all larui owners. However,a more pragmatic standard may need to
I
be considered.
%HR AC MSMON VOUVARS
Version 7
4 Dec 85
It is the desire of the District to acquire open space from vffiirkg sellers. Eminent domain may be used only
within the planning areas designated in the District's Master Plan in those instances where all reasonable
attempts at 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 acquisitions that would achieve the
District's objectives.
Properties within the District's sphere of influence outside the District's boundaries shell be treated as being in
the planning areas designated in the District's Master Plan. This provision shall remain in effect until the
District's Master Plan has been amended to include or exclude such properties from such planning areas.
In negotiations or discussions with landowners,the Distict staff shall not threaten eminent domain but will
explain relevant law and District policy. The Board shall approve a brochure which shall explain this policy,
include information on the we of arbitration,opens easements and contracts,and life estates,for
example,and will encourage eminent domain exemption contracts where applicable(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.
LJ81 OF INININT DOMAIN
1. Improved p1ppArt9 not subdivAable
Eminent domain shall not be used to acquire all or any part of an improved property that is not susceptible
to further subdivision,except as provided in Section 5(Trails)below.
2. U lLm_pw v d pwp ty ivitable
S_ _ Ir _, not subd__
Eminent domain stag not be used to acquire all or any pan of an unimproved property that is not
susceptible to further subdivision if the property is in a clearly defined developed community,except as
provided in Section 5(Trails)below. Further,until such time as the District has completed a revision of
its Master Plan and established a standard or standards which identify such properties or calagories of
property that will not be subject to eminent domain,all other unimproved property not susceptible to
further subdivision shall be subject to eminent domain only vhen.the Board has determined at a public
hewing that the property is clearly threatened by development or degradation of natural resources,except
as provided in Section 5(Trails)below. These exceptions to the we of eminent domain shall not apply 10
properties wherein more than 50%of the fee interest is held by insitutiortal or commercial entities.
3. ILap roved,,subdJivMable Propsrty
Except as provided in Section 5(Trails)below,eminent domain may be used to acquire all or any put of
an improved property which is susceptible to further subdivision only when the Board has determined at a
public hearing that the property is clearly threatened by development or degradation of natural resources..
Only the unimproved portion of the property may be acquired,provided that:
a. the improvements and appurtenant structures,and surrounding lands of no less than minimum lot size
under the existing zoning district,shall be exempt,and
b. the owner 3W be entitled to retain such easements es are needed for reasonable access and we of the
I�Iproperty.
OPTION LANGUAGE FOR (1): if 50%or lems of the fee intenst of the p ptrity 3
held by iwitutional or commercial exafts, the iu gMyemeats 04-spp-MMM44-t
sLrMturex, ud su_aolgjag kgg of so less than,minimum lot size ender at-txLa %
g9i&g district, sb&U be exempt, and
—---------
4. Unimproved, subdividable pmperiy.
Except as provided in Section 5(Trails)below,eminent domain may be used to acquire all or any part of
an unimproved property which is susceptible to further subdivision only when the Board has determined
at a public hearing that the property is clearly threatened by development or degradation of natural
resources.
OPTIONAL ADDITION: , or if more than 50%of the fee interest of the p is hold j
by insitutioml or commercial entities
5. Trails
If a portion of a property is required to connect two or more publicly awned park or open space parcels,
eminent domain may be used,subject to legal requirements and the following conditions:
1 a. the District Board finds it necessary to provide a trail connection between the parcels,and
i
b. the District has been unable by voluntary means to acquire land to connect the parcels with a safe and
useful trail,including significantly longer and less convenient trail routes,and
a
c. the land for the connecting trail shall not exceed 50 feet in width,and shall be as far from any existing
structure and as close to the property line as practicable,and
d. the owner shall have the opportunity to designate any additional portions of hisrher land which may
be included by the District in the acquisition,and
'i
e. the owner shall be entitled to retain an easement over the]and acquired by the District,where
necessary,for access to the land retained by the owner.
G. Road access for paten pMpo. seA
Notwithstanding any other provision of this policy,the District may consider the use of eminent domain to
perfect rights in an existing road for use for patrol purposes.
7. Consent of owners
1
Notwithstanding any other provision of this policy,the District may consider use of eminent domain when the
owners of more than 50%of the fee interest in the property request or consent to such use.
8. Pubiieity
Policies and proposed changes purusant to restraint of eminent domain shall be adopted by ordinance,legally
noticed and freely publicized(before and after any changes)in a manner designed to reach the attention of all
property owners within the District's planning areas.
i9. Eminent Domain Exemption Contrasts
Owners of all of the fee interest in a property exempted from eminent domain under these policies may require
the District to enter into an Eminent Domain Exemption Contract in the form attached.
OPTIONAL LANGUAGE: in a fora to be adopted by the Board.
i
I
{
10. D tfinitkoas
a. improvement---legal residences,excluding trailers and temporary structures,meeting the applicable
Uniform Housing Code. To qualify a mobile h orne mint have a permit as a
permanent residence.
b. improved---containing at least one improvement.
c. property--- one or more contiguous a&wsors parcels under one ownership.
d. susceptible to further subdivision---divided or dividable into two or more legal building sites under
applicable zoning regulations(including pre-existing legal but non-
conforming building sites).
e. institutional or commercial ownership---including,but not limited to,private or public agencies or
schools(except public schools),churches,invest-rent partnerships and
corporations,excepting individual or immediate family ownership through a
family trust,partnership or corporation whose purposes are not primarily
dedicated to land speculation andlor development investment).
f. clearly threatened by development---activities which may be considered by the Board in making its
determination may include,but not be limited to,fibre of a subdivision
application,preliminary concept plan or other document relating to �
subdivision of property,or filing,a division of ownership,or filing an
application for zoning change for increased density.
g. clearly threatened by degradation of natural.resources---activities which have or could cause
significant degradation of natural resources,including but not limited to any
commercial removal of vegetation,firewood,timber,minerals,soil,rock,
e f unique biological or
gravel or wulelife;the partial or fatal destruction o any unul g
botanic habitat andlor geological formation,the personal exploitation of the
property by clearing of vegetation and natural cover of an am larger than
one i acre or the removal or moving of dirt andlor rock in excess of 100
cubic yards,or the annual removal of firewood in excess of five(5)cords
or the removal of any heritage tree(24"in diameter or larger at breast
height);however,generally excluding such activities required for public
health and safety.
I t. P—OcbjQiw of ft BO"d.
These policies are intended solely for the guidance of the Board of Directors of in the exercise of its discretion
and are not intended to give rise to private rights or causes of action in individuals or other persons. The
Board of Directors shall be the final arbiter as to any question of interpretation of these policies.
3
i
i
I
i
M-85-168
(Meeting 85-32
oe December 11, 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
November 20, 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: 11. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Two Phase Planning Process for the
Hassler Property
Introduction: At your October 23, 1985 meeting you considered a
report from me regarding a Proposed Planning Process for the
Hassler Property (see attached memorandum M-85-151 dated October 2 ,
1985 and attached page of the October 23 minutes) . The key
unusual item in the proposal is the proposed formation of a Public
Advisory Committee to act as a resource and support group to help
the site planners solve public access , parking, and other problems
and to explore other opportunities to optimize the value of the
site as a- low-intensitv recreational resource, the open space,
natural values of which are to be emphasized.
You directed that staff return "with a more formal two phase
planning proposal along the lines outlined in the staff report. "
Although there were various ideas expressed by Directors as to
what might be included in the first phase, no Board action was
taken on these ideas. The present report is in response to
the Board directive.
Present Status of the Site: The site has been open to the public
since October 31. A letter and map to the assessment district
membership, the San Carlos City Council, and the San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors and a press release have been prepared for
distribution after Open Space Management staff has met with the
head of the Redwood Center to iron out problems connected with
public access through the Center' s area.
Discussion: It is important to keep in mind the relationship
between what is included in the first phase and the role of a
Public Advisory Committee for phase two. The more phase one
includes, the less there is left (and the more difficult the
remaining issues) for phase two. Also, the more that is included
in the first phase, the longer it will take to implement this
phase. I am suggesting, for the purposes of discussion and
further direction, the following plan of action:
Phases : The following is a list of key items that would be allo-
s�-ated to two phases of planning and implementation.
Phase I
1. Parking along Edmonds Road near the Redwood Center and
at the CalTrans Vista Point
2. "Parking for Preserve" signing at the Edmonds Road
parking area
M-85-168 Page two
3. Signing from the Edmonds Road parking at entrance to the
Redwood Center and along the way to get people to the top
of the hill
4. Additional signing at the Vista Point access
Note that it is contrary to CalTrans and federal policy
to allow such access from a Vista Point; we need to find
out if the policy can be waived. Nonetheless, historically,
people have continually cut or gotten through the CalTrans
wire fencing there (as well as the District' s chain link
fence ! )
5. Trail from Edmonds Road entrance to top of hill along
existing road to Vista Point end of ridge
6. Pursue additional parking possibilities at the Cordilleras
Center and on the Hetch Hetchy right of way at the base
of the hill and implement if feasible
7. One new canyon to ridgetop trail loop either in the west
or east canyon, and possibly as a volunteer project
Since this would be a new trail, it could be left to Phase II.
8. Remove the chain link fence near the Vista Point, and
other unnecessary fencing on site
9. Install an explanatory map sign atop the hill in the
vicinity of the former buildings site showing (1) existing
trail and access; (2) the additional trails proposed in
the canyons, from the CalTrans Park-IN-Ride lot at
Edgewood and 1 280, along the westerly ridge, and connections;
(3) the proposed linkage to Edgewood County Park; (4) identi-
fication of the neighboring lands and facilities such as
the Redwood Center, Cordilleras Center, Hetch Hetchy
right-of-way, etc; (5) the San Francisco watershed lands;
(6) the natural resources represented on the site; and
(7) an invitation to become part of the planning process
10. One public workshop
11. Possible use of a temporary generic site name to begin
phasing out use of "Hassler" name , or simply name it after
George Seager as has been suggested (note conflict with
attached current naming policies) .
Phase II
1- Hire the planning consultant
2. Form the Public Advisory Committee
3. New proposed trails to include a west ridge trail along
1 280, a trail in the canyon not implemented in the
first phase, and connecting ridge-to-canyon trails
4. Neighborhood access point (s)
5. Parking on at least one of the following: Hetch Hetchy
right-of-way, the Park-IN-Ride lot, the Vista Point,
behind the Redwood Center
6. Complete trail signing
7. Site brochure
8. Public workshops, tours, and considerable publicity
9. Public contest to determine site name , unless named in Phase
M-85-168 Page three
Advisory Committee Membership: Taking into account the October 23
Board discussion and my subsequent conversation on-site with the
San Carlos City Administrator, the original Public Advisory Committee
make-up could well be revised to include (1) a third appointment
by the MROSD Board of a member of the general public and (2) appoint-
ment of two residents of the assessment district rather than
specific representatives of the Brittan Heights Condominium Association
and Crestview Park Homeowners' Association, because these associations
include in their memberships only part of the residents of the assess-
ment district. Rather than the associations making appointments,
nominations could be made by the associations or other assessment
district members, and the appointments made by the MROSD Board.
Since the Crestview Park Homeowners' Association includes about 40%
of the make-up of the assessment district, a nomination by that
association would obviously have a lot of weight.
Timing: The initial Use and Management Plan will be before you in
late January or early February 1986 at which time Phase I items
will be finalized. Either a public workshop or an extended time
period for the second reading (or both) will allow public input
to the Phase I planning of the site and a Phase II timetable and
plan of action. The site remains llth on the list of 27 sites
in the Relative Site Emphasis Plan as having moderate emphasis
for site development.
Recommendation: I recommend that you modify the lists of probable
components of phases one and two as you see fit and approve them
and the process, and give general direction to staff to include
those lists, as modified, as the basis for the planning process.
I further recommend that you tentatively adopt for purposes of
future discussion the revised composition of the Public Advisory
Committee as given in the original report of October 2 with the
modifications suggested herein. Your potential decisions to
create the Committee and determine its composition could be made
at the time of adoption of the first phase Use and Management Plan.
The decision to create a committee merits considerable thought
and debate on the benefits and disadvantages.
M-85-151
(Meeting 85-29
October 23 , 19 85)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
October 2 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT : Proposed Expanded Planning Process for the Hassler Property
Introduction: For some time now I have been giving thought to the
planning process for the Hassler property. The attached Proposed
Planning Process for the Hassler Property outlines what I have in
mind , at least as a starting point for your discussion. The heart
of the proposal involves expanding the, District ' s planning process
through formation of a Public Advisory Committee to aid a planning
consultant in preparing a plan for your consideration. The make-up
of this Committee is just one aspect of the proposal that is cer-
tainly open to discussion and revision.
Recommendation: I recommend that you review and discuss the attached
Proposed Planning Process for the Hassler Property and give direction
as to changes , if any, you would like made.
There is no tight time deadline for coming to a final decision, and
you may wish to take two or three meetings discussing it. However,
since staff had intended to start the normal planning process early
in 1986 , and since it will take time to select a consultant, a
decision by the end of November would be helpful in order to expedite
either planning process .
PROPOSED PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE HASSLER PROPERTY
I . Purpose : Develop a Use and Management Plan for the Hassler property.
II . History: The Hassler site has a unique history with the District,
involving unprecedented public support for the acquisition, a
very difficult acquisition process, and a proposal for use of the
buildings that was the most Politically difficult proposal to evaluate
and act upon in the District' s history. It is in the context
of this history that planning will occur.
III . Current Planning Status : At the time of acquisition, the Board
of Directors adopted an Interim Use and Management Plan that
allows public access (but not promotion of site use) when the
buildings and appurtenances are removed. The buildings have been
removed, and the regraded area will be seeded. When the seeding
is completed and two storage tanks are removed, the site will
be open to the public, but access will be hampered by lack of
parking and a confusing entrance situation. Site opening is
expected to occur in late October. The existing trail system can
be marked, and other signing can be provided to make the site as
accessible and usable as possible during preparation of the plan.
The Initial Use and Management Plan is currently scheduled to be
developed by staff in early 1986 with at least one public workshop.
It is an expansion of this I normal planning process that is the
subject of the present proposal.
IV. Reasons for Special Study: The Hassler site is the closest
District hillside —preserve to the District' s population center in
San Mateo County. Public transportation runs close to this
Preserve. Edgewood County Park is just across the road,
affording opportunities for trail linkages, joint patrol, and
planning of complementary site uses. In order for the site to be
utilized optimally, a number of access, parking, patrol , wildfire
prevention, and adjoining use conflict problems need to be solved.
Although the site has been envisioned to be of low key recrea-
tional character which emphasizes hiking and nature study in a
natural setting, the problem solving and site use opportunities
in the context of the history of the property merit special atten-
tion and broad Public involvement.
V. Elements of Proposed Planning Process:
A. Consultant to be hired to do the plan under staff direction
B. Phased implementation plan to be drafted
1. Phasing may be dependent upon other land or rights in
land to be acquired
2. Phasing may be dependent upon availability of grants
3. Phasing dependent upon budget allocations for this
project in the context of all projects
C. Planning approach to be for a moderately emphasized site, as
already adopted by the Board, but more intense uses that are
proposed would be evaluated also
D. Eighteen months to be allocated for the formulation of the
plan (time from start of consultant' s contract to final
adoption by the Board)
M-15-151 Page four
supported the acquisition of this property and those who
have expressed an interest in its future
E. Plan a special one-day public event (with ideas from the
Public Advisory Committee and the consultant) --'to formally
introduce the site to the public
M-85-151
Page three
E. Study to recommend possible additional land or rights in land
which should be acquired and possible funding sources
VI . Public Involvement
A. Public Advisory Committee to be invited to work with consultant
1. Appointment by MROSD President of an MROSD Director
2. Appointment by San Carlos City Council of Council or
staff member
3. Appointment by San Mateo County Board of Supervisors of
a Supervisor, or a member of Parks and Recreation Commission
or a staff member
4. Appointment by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
of a Commissioner or staff member
5. Appointment by Brittan Heights Condominium Association
of a member
6. Appointment by Crestview Park Homeowners' Association
of a member
7. Appointment by Midpeninsula Trails Council of a representative
8. Appointment by MROSD Board of Directors of two members
of the general public
B. Committee will act as a resource to consultant, a liaison with
groups represented, and a potential support group for implemen-
tation of final plan
C. Initial field trip for Committee , MROSD Board,
other groups and public agencies , and general public
D. Field trips as necessary for Committee
E. Meetings for the general public during preparation of the plan
F. Second field trip when preliminary draft plan is ready
VII . Public Relations , Media Coverage and Promotion
A. Arrange media coverage of meetings and field trips
B . As soon as possible, create an interim generic name for
the site so that we can begin to provide a new identity
to distinguish this important new property as part of
MROSD ' s system
C. Create wider public interest through a contest to name the
site, with a nice prize to the winner
1. Need to establish criteria for a name, such as simplicity,
ease of pronunciation (by radio/TV announcers) and quick
recognition by the public
2 . Publicity for the winning name and the person who wins
the contest
D . Plan a special Saturday or Sunday event (as early as Spring 1986
weather allows) for "Friends" of the site. Mail special
invitations to individuals , agencies and organizations who
MINUTES OF OCTO 23 , 1985 BOARD MEETING Page Five
F . Public Resourcos Code (Memorandum M-85-156
H. Grench reviewed the reasons for the
-1ge t t would allow financial signatories to be desig-
--solution,
N . Hanko moved that the proposed amendment be included
in the current Legislative Program with a "B" priority.
R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0 .
G. LPErEc2c2csed Exp
ansion Planning Process for the Hassler Property (Mem-
orandi_un M-85-151 dated October 23 , 1985) - H_ Grench reviewed his
prcposed expanded planning process for the Hassler property and
M. Hale reviewed the public relations aspect of the outline, sug-
gesting the potential for public involvement in establishing a new
name for the site and using this opportunity to reach a new segment
of the population .
N.hanko stated she felt there was a need for more balanced regional
representation on the proposed Public Advisory Committee and added
the Board of Directors should appoint three , rather than two, mem-
bers of the general public .
R. Bishop supported the name change idea, noting that if current
rules could be changed , the site should be named after former
Director George Seager. He suggested that a two-phase planning
approach be user' which would, in Phase one, have the site minimally
developed and t_- open the site to the public as soon as possible.
He said his phase one would include signing some trail development,
and parking atop the hill . He noted that phase two of the planning
'process could provide for more elaborate planning for the site.
Discussion centered on Public access to the site, trail routes
which could be developed, parking facilities for the Preserve, and
public participation in site development planning.
R. Bishop stressed that he would like initially to see a simple Use
and Management Plan for the Preserve and that it be open to the
public as soon as possible. D. Hansen noted that the site is sche-
duled to be opened to the public November 1 , 1985 and that a Use
and Management Plan review was scheduled for the site in early
1986 . T. Henshaw and N. Hanko stated their desire to tour the
area.
D. Wendin stated his position that development of the Preserve
should be in two phases with phase one being the normal use and
management planning with added emphasis on public relations and
phase two calling for more planning for the site, as was done for
Sk,,-line Ridge.
Motion : D. Wendin moved that the Board direct staff to return
with a more formal two phase planning proposal along the
lines outlined in the staff report. R. Bishop seconded
the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench highlighted the reasons he had
recommended the more detailed planning study process that
incorporated significant public participation.
The motion passed 5 to 0 .
low
Supersedes M-75-152
aye
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Site Naming and Gift Recognition Policies
Adopted By
Board of Directors
February 8 , 1978
Discussion: All District names (and signs ) should be kept as
simple and functional as possible. At the time of acquisition
the Preacquisition Reportu will indicate a temporary name for the
parcel(s ) . At the time the Site Use and management Plan is pre-
sented, an open space preserve name wrill also be recommended. for
Board approval . In almost all cases "open space preserve" is
appropriate as part of the name; however,, there may be circum-
stances when another des!-nation may be used. In some cases a
temporary name may be retained until the next review. Upon
approval of the Site Use and 71ana,r,,ement Plan, other name's indi-
cated on the report mar) w gill also be officially recognized for
District public us-e . -In recognition of [rifts , names of trails,
use areas and other features will be added with Board approval
as outlined in the Gift Recognition Schedule and Supplement
(attached) . Nonfunctional memorial plaques shall be discouraged,
but rather gift and memorial names should be incorporated on
functional signs or on the District brochures and maps .
Large geographical units called planning areas will be determined
by staff and designated by number on a map for staff and Board
use in the planning and review process . No Board involvement or
decision is necessary .
Naming: Following are recommended and non-recommended names :
A. Open Space Preserve . This designation is applied in general
to acquisitions of the District . The name -applied to each
open space preserve should be general enough to remain suit-
able if the site is enlarged, but specific enough to give its
location some significance . Each planning area may contain
one or more open space preserves . Additions to an open space
preserve need not be contiguous, but at the same time con-
tiguous parcels need not have the same preserve name. In the
case of contiguous preserves former parcel lines need not be
inain'eained but rather a functional map designation shall be
used for planning and identification purposes .
1 . Recommended names :
(a) Geographical features of broad, general significance.
(b) Historical persons, uses or events broadly associated
with the area.
2. Non-recommended names :
(a) Living or recently deceased individuals.
(b) Designations which are too general.
(c) Present or former Board of staff members of the
District, living or deceased.
B. Trails, Use Areas and Topographical Features. This designation
refers to specific locations, land formations, trails, natural
and physical features, staging areas and portions of open space
preserves .
1. Recommended names :
(a) Geographical , botanical or zoological identification.
(b) Historical persons, uses, owners and events associated
with the location.
(c) Donor or donor designated--to indicate District
appreciation for gifts .of real property, personal
property or money, as outlined in the Gift Recognition
Schedule and Supplement.
(d) Honorary or memorial - honor specific individuals or groups.
2 . Non-recommended names :
(a) Board or staff members of the District, living or
deceased, except when considered two years after
death or five years after retirement from District
services.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board adopt the above
proposed Policies regarding site naming. It is also recommended that
the Board acTbpt the attached Gift Recognition Schedule and Supplement.
-2-
AA_ M-85-170
(meeting 85-32
0 December 11 , 1985)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
December 6 , 1985
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: C. Britton, Land Acauisition Manager
SUBJECT: Serialization of Note Held by Alan Hosking
Background: On August 15 , 1985 (see report R-85-42 dated August 13 ,
.
1985) you approved the master agreement for acquisition of the Hosking
property. Associated with that acquisition, the District issued four
notes as follows:
1. $488 , 000 80/5 years
2. $478 , 000 8%/5 years
3. $478 , 000 9%/10 years
4 . $750 ,000 80/10 years
The first three notes provided for resale in the open market and required
the District to bear the cost of fractionalizing and serializing the
notes to make them more saleable. The $750 , 000 note did not have this
provision.
Discussion: Alan Hosking has now approached the District about mar-
keting the $750 , 000 note, realizing that the District would ordinarily
resist such a proposal . Stone and Youngberg has found one buyer for
the entire amount of the note and would only require that the District
reissue the note into 10 - $75 ,000 notes, each due in successive years.
This would mean that the District would not be required to process or
issue any more checks than currently recruired under the terms of the
note. Also, in order to overcome the resistance on the part of the
District to renegotiating any portion of the note, Mr. Hosking has
agreed to pay all costs associated with the reissuing of the note (in
this case a very modest amount, probably under $500) , and is willing
to Derform certain site security and improvement projects on the lands
acquired and the lands under option. I have attached a copy of a letter
from Mr. Hosking indicating the work to be performed. Open Space Man-
agement staff feels that these projects are highly desirable for site
protection and estimates the value to be approximately $10,000 if the
District completed the projects. The gate installation will also help
to reduce the off-road vehicle intrusion onto District land from the
option area which has been a concern of some of the neighbors.
Recommendation: I recommend that you approve the reissue of the
$750 ,000 Hosking note into 10 notes each maturing in successive years
until 1994, approve the sale of these notes by Stone and Younberg as
proposed, and authorize the Board President and Secretary to execute
the 10 replacement notes as required by law.
December 3, 1985
L. Craig Britton, SR/WA
Land Acquisition Manager
Midpeninsula Regional open
Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Re: Sale of Notes
Dear Craig:
As we discussed, I request that the District approve a one-time
sale of the $750 , 000 note issued to me as a part of the recent
land purchase transaction on Skyline Boulevard. I understand
that this note does not provide for a breakdown or other modi-
fications that would make these notes readily marketable. I
also understand the District ' s hesitancy in processing such a
proposal through the Board of Directors because of the staff
time involved and the cost to the District; however, in order
to help mitigate these problems , I am willing to do the
following:
1) 1 will pay all costs, including any attorney or
printing fees , associated with the modification
of the notes . Also, if in the opinion of the
District, a note paying agent is necessary to
simplify payment and collection, I will also pay
those costs.
2) After discussing site security and protection with
the Ranger staff, I will complete certain projects
on the option parcels (Exhibit A) at my cost • (which
will help control any off-road vehicle traffic and
will benefit the District directly if the option is
exercised) :
a) Using specifications provided by the District,
I will fabricate and install six (6) pipe gates
at the locations shown on the attached map.
Prior to actual installation, I will meet with
the District planning staff on site to identify
the precise location of each pipe gate. Gate
design specifications will be provided to me
within two weeks of this letter.
L. Craig Britton
December 3 , 1985
Page Two
b) Using the flagging placed by the District, I
will provide for the installation of approxi-
mately 60 water bars on portions of the public
easement and fee title dirt roadways shown on
the map.
c) At the same time I spread base rock on my
driveway, I will spread and compact a suffi-
cient amount of base rock across the new road
cut on the District's public easement.
I would appreciate submittal of this note sale transaction at
your December 11, 1985 Board Meeting and if it is so approved,
I will complete the above enumerated projects on or before
February 28 , 1986 .
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Ar
Alan HosKing'
- ...-�.\ I/•_ .- _. .. __. ..-mot _ —___ �� rr��_. r��
EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
�' �'' ✓� Y�J `"\ SCALE 1" — 20001 �NORT-I
r
.Wa r i
a a
\/a lea ue._
• Nater �s� �.I. ` 8
8M /��inB mtn. vrY4er---' �. 1 �QHill
KI-
+ I o ie00 10
�Cc
booIV
j/ /�` o,it � `� .-. \� � _ \ l \�"r%LC w �l r f� � ��,�•`I\
.1600 'X j }
- EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK -rtiti , `sr' 00�1 �Ra
OPEN SPACE PRESS 16 p `
1
/'' '2164
I 11 (!" -spy
0 , f11 f_ ��--- LANDS OF 1(�— •,a\.:c
`ALAN HOSKINC RANCH, lINC, !1 �zo9? r�
�` I _�
J Oro,
c
.131
r- I I C 7 \ _ i�: n'. _ u. -1_ i. I — y• 'i— Jy 'li_�'n >
a�
MIDPENINSULA REG
i
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUIT# .,» 1
MIpPEtiI1SU1 A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
Grenc;�, General Manager
December 4 1985 FRO.,N' H.
SUBJECT: F-Y-I- I
DAT L: Decesmber 6, 1985 ;
#
Honorable Dominic Cortese
Chairman, Assembly Local
Government Committee
State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblyman Cortese :
On July 10 , 1985 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District took a position in opposition
to AB 2198. We feel that it is important to preserve the
Naylor Act which allows park agencies to acquire limited
amounts of surplus school lands at less than current market
value. The Naylor Act is already a workable compromise
between the legitimate interests, of the school districts in
obtaining needed revenue and the park agencies , also with
limited budgets , who wish to continue or expand recreational
activities on school sites.
On behalf of this District' s Board of Directors , I urge you
to oppose substantive weakening in the Naylor Act by way of
AB 2198 or other legislation.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
HG:ej General Manager
cc: Assembly Local
Government Committee Members
MROSD Board of Directors
R. Heim
Vicci Rudin
Herbert A.Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
December 11, 1985
Board Members:
Janet Schwind called the office this afternoon and requested, after
checking with various residents in the Skyline area, that the
dedicated meeting to discuss the draft eminent domain policies not
be set for January 8 because of holiday conflicts and limited
public notification time. She felt January 22 would be a more
appropriate date (her first choice) and that January 15 (her second
choice) would also be OK.
Jean
C LAINLS No. 8 5-2 4
Meeting 85-32
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: December 1 1 , 1985
C L A I M S
TM Amount Name Description
18962 454.39 AT&T Information Systems Telephone Equipment
18963 165.00 A-Tool Shed Machine Rental
, 8964 31 .00 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8965 1 ,000.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Advocate Fee for November
8966 125.87 Alice Cummings Private Vehicle Expense
8967 10.86 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Parts
8968 301 .99 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
8969 166.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Preliminary Title Report
8970 125.00 First American Title Insurance Co. Preliminary Title Report
8971 34.53 Jean Fiddes Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8972 58.59 Herbert Grench Reimbursement--Meal Conferences
8973 5.30 GTE Directories Service Corporation Telephone Listing
8974 50.00* Hidden Villa Room Rental
8975 175.00 Hodnick Design Design Consulting
8976 132.00 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Service
8977 3,421 .63 Holtzmann, Wise & Shepard, Dr. Legal Services--Hosking
8978 127. 12 International Business Machines Office Supplies
8979 1 ,810.50 J P Tractor Corporation Machine Rental
8980 125.00 J & R Drilling Drilling for Soil Sample
8981 2,074.69 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Site Renovation
8982 334.64 Curtis Lindsay, Inc. File Cabinet
8983 8.00 Town of Los Altos Hills Agenda Subscription
8984 78.41 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
8985 50.00 National Association of County
Park and Recreation Officials Membership Dues--Herbert Grench
I'I8986 145.00 National Recreation and Parks
Association Seminar--James Boland
18987 36.80 Stanley R. Norton Expenses for October
8988 840.34 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
8989 291 .60 .. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Utilities
8990 10.66 Rancho Hardware and Garden Shop Field Supplies
8991 296. 18 Clyde Robin Seed Company Seed Mix
18992 101 .08 San Francisco Water'Department Water Service
8993 6.00 Santa Barbara County Trails Council Resource Material
8994 170.00 County of Santa Clara
Department of General Services Radio Dispatching Services
CLAIMS NO. 85 24
Meeting: 85-32
Date: December 11 , 198
# Amount Name Description
8995 861 .85 Shell Oil Company Fuel and Repairs for District Vehicle;
8996 782.82 Signs of the Times Signs
8997 1 ,500.00 George Sipe] Associates Personnel Consulting Fee
8998 26.31 Tools R Us Shop Tool
8999 116.00 The Travel Place Seminar--Del Woods and Mary Gundert
9000 800.00 U. S. Postmaster Postage for Meter
9001 87.54 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense
9002 48.90 Warren, Gorham and Lamont, Inc. Real Estate Law Book
9003 416.50 Western Governmental Research
Association Seminar--H.Grench,J.Fiddes & D.Hanse,.,
9004 84.05 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
9005 150.00 Dun & Bradstreet Seminar--Mary Hale
9006 500.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee for Novembe.-
%Issued as emergency check on November 26, 1985
t
Y
[
u\Zys No. B5-24
�
|
� '__-_�'^ 85-33
MIDf �0Z0�DLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: December ll , l985
REVISED
C L AI y0 S
r Amount Name Description
8962 454-39 AT&T Information Systems Telephone Equipment
8964 31 -00 L. Craig Britton Reimbursement--Meal Conference
8965 1 ,000.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Advocate Fee for November
8966 125.87 Alice Cummings Private Vehicle Expense
8967 10.86 Clark's Auto Parts District Vehicle Parts
301 -99 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
8969 166.00 First American Title Guaranty Co. Preliminary Title Report
8970 125.00 First American Title Insurance Co. Pre liminary Title Report
8973 5,30 GTE Directories Service Corporation Telephone Listing
974 50,00+ Hidden Villa Room Rental
� 975 175.00 Hodnick Design Design Consulting
978 192.00 Honeywell Protection Services Alarm Service
8977 3,621 ,63 Hultzmann, Wise & Shepard, Dr. Legal Services--Hosking
8978 127, 12 International Business Machines ' Office Supplies `
979 1 ,810.58 J P Tractor Corporation Machine Rental
80 125.00 J & R Drilling ' Drilling for Sol] Sample
8981 2,074.89 Keller and Daseking, Architects Hassler Site Renovation
� 982 334.64 Curtis Lindsay, Inc. File Cabinet
8983 Altos 8.00 Town of Los A| t Hills s Agenda Subscription
0984 78.41 Mobil Oil Company Fuel for District Vehicles
8985 50.00 National Association of County
Park and Recreation Officials Membership Dues--Herbert Grench
8986 145.00 National Recreation and Parks
Association Seminar--James Boland
8987 36.80 Stanley R. Norton Expenses for October
88 848.34 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
89 291 .60 Pacific Gas and Electric 'Company Utilities
8990 10.66 Rancho Hardware and Garden Shop Field Supplies
gl 296. 18 Clyde Robin Seed Conqpan' Seed Mix
2 101 .08 San FrancYsco Water Department Water Service
98 6.00 Santa Barbara County Trails Council Resource Material
994 170.00 County of Santa Clara
Department of General Services Radio Dispatching Services '
�
�
ULo/n) NU. o)-Z* '
Meeting: 83-32
Date: December 11 , 1995
v REVISED
# Aiomzot Nam Description
8995 861 .85 She] ] Oil Company Fuel and Repairs for District Vah7cle� �
8996 782.82 Signs of the Times Signs �
8997 1 ,500.00 George Sipe] Associates Personnel Consulting Fee
8938 26.31 Tools R Us Shop Tool
l96-O0
8999 f�6�BH The Travel Place Seminar--Del Woods and Mary Gundert
9000 8OO.00 U. S. Postmaster Postage for Meter
gDOl 87.54 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense
9002 48.9O Warren, Gorham and Lamont, Inc. Real Estate Law Book
9003 416,50 Western Governmental Research
Association Seminar--H~Grench,J,Fi6des C D.Hans^
9804 84.05 Del Woods Private Vehicle Expense
9005 150.00 Dun Bradstreet Seminar--Mary Hale
9006 500,00 Foss Associates Personnel Consulting Fee for Novem6
9007 177.07 Petty Cash Office Supplies, Meal Conferences,
Xeroxing, Private Vehicle Expense,
Film and District Vehicle Expenses
�
�
� *Issued as emergency check on November 26, 1985
�
�
'
^'
'