The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19910626 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 91-20 Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 91-20 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS A G E N D A 7 : 30 P.M. 201 San Antonio Circle Wednesday Building C - Suite 135 June 26, 1991 Mountain View, Calif. (7 :30) * ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 1 , June 11 and June 12, 1991) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -- Public** ADOPTION OF AGENDA (7 : 45) PUBLIC HEARING 1 . Amendment to Legal Description for Proposed Ringo Property Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - C. Britton Resolution Amending Legal Description (Exhibit "A") As Attached to Resolution No. 90-03 (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Ringo Property) (7 : 55) BOARD BUSINESS 2. Adoption of Benefit Revisions in District 's Fringe Benefit Plan for Non-Represented Employees - J. Fiddes (8:10) 3. Catastrophic Leave Program - J. Fiddes (8:15) 4 . Amendments to Rules of Procedure - H. Grench Resolution Amending Section 1. 45 of the Rules of Procedure Resolution Amending Section 2.60 of the Rules of Procedure (8 :20) *** 5. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Gastronics Incorporated Property Addition to the Mt. Umunhum Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - N. Hanko 6. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and 201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-1 35 • Mountain View,California 94040 • Phone:(415)949-5500 • FAX:(415)949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Richard Bishop 6. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Deka Associates Property Addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve N. Hanko 7 . Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Peninsula Open Space Trust Property Addition to the Cathedral Oaks Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - N. Hanko 8 . Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Johnson Property Addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve N. Hanko 9. Scheduling of July 9 Special Meeting - N. Hanko (8:25) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -- Directors and Staff CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION (Litigation, Land Negotiations, Labor Negotiations, and Personnel Matters) ADJOURNMENT -*NOTE: Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concerned with appears on the agenda, the Chair will invite you to address the Board at that time; on other matters you may address the Board under Oral Communications. An alternative is to comment to the Board by a Written Communication, which the Board appreciates. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to 3 minutes. when recognized, please begin by stating your name and address. We request that you fill out the form provided so that your name and address can be accurately included in the minutes. Denotes Express Item NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The Trails Camittee vill meet Tuesday, July 16, 1991 at the District office beginning at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will be to develop Trail Use Guidelines. Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 91-20 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS A G E N D A 7 :30 P.M. 201 San Antonio Circle Wednesday Building C - Suite 135 June 26, 1991 Mountain View, Calif . (7 : 30) * ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 1 , June 11 and June 12, 1991) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -- Public** ADOPTION OF AGENDA (7 : 45) PUBLIC HEARING 1 . Amendment to Legal Description for Proposed Ringo Property Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - C . Britton Resolution Amending Legal Description (Exhibit "A" ) As Attached to Resolution No. 90-03 (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Ringo Property) (7 : 55) BOARD BUSINESS 2. Adoption of Benefit Revisions in District ' s Fringe Benefit Plan for Non-Represented Employees - J. Fiddes (8:10) 3 . Catastrophic Leave Program - J. Fiddes (8 : 15) 4 . Amendments to Rules of Procedure - H. Grench Resolution Amending Section 1 . 45 of the Rules of Procedure Resolution Amending Section 2. 60 of the Rules of Procedure (8 :20) *** 5. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Gastronics Incorporated Property Addition to the Mt . Umunhum Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - N. Hanko *** 6. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and 201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-135 . Mountain View,California 94040 • Phone:(415)949-5500 • FAX:(415)949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Richard Bishop Management Plan for the Deka Associates Property Addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve N. Hanky 7 . Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Peninsula Open Space Trust Property Addition to the Cathedral Oaks Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - N. Hanky 8 . Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Johnson Property Addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve N. Hanky 9 . Scheduling of July 9 Special Meeting - N. Hanky (8: 25) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -- Directors and Staff CLAIMS CLOSED SESSION (Litigation, Land Negotiations, Labor Negotiations, and Personnel Matters) ADJOURNMENT *NOTE: Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concerned with appears on the agenda, the Chair will invite you to address the Board at that time; on other matters you may address the Board under Oral Communications. An alternative is to comment to the Board by a Written Communication, which the Board appreciates. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to 3 minutes. When recognized, please begin by stating your name and address. We request that you fill out the form provided so that your name and address can be accurately included in the minutes. Denotes Express Item NOTICE OF PUBLIC NVETING The Trails Comittee will meet Tuesday, July 16, 1991 at the District office beginning at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will be to develop Trail Use Guidelines. Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 91-16 WORKSHOP SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 1 , 1991 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 9:05 A.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Richard Bishop, Robert McKibbin, Teena Henshaw, Ginny Babbitt, and Betsy Crowder. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes, Michael Foster, John Escobar, Joan Combs, and Emma Johnson. II . Strategic Planning for the Nineties (Report R-91-66 dated May 14 , 1991) N. Hanko stated the purpose of the workshop was to have a study session on the Strategic Planning for the Nineties document that was developed by staff. She added that the Board would not be taking final action on the proposals at this time and that the public would have an opportunity to provide input to the Board at later regular meetings . She introduced Geoffrey Ball of Geoffrey Ball and Associates who was the facilitator for the workshop. Geoffrey Ball said the purpose of the workshop was to review the District 's current situation and future objectives so that staff has clear direction from the Board as to allocation of resources and future policy regarding the emphasis among program areas , and to establish priorities and timelines for future plans . H. Grench summarized the reasons for creating a plan for the nineties, noting that the District is on a collision course between the desire to complete the greenbelt, provide access to the public, increase visibility of the District to the public, and provide better stewardship of District lands. He said that it is not possible to do all these things with current funding, that time is short for completing the greenbelt, and that extra funds are needed for the greenbelt ' s completion. Discussion centered on what the greenbelt is . H. Grench said it is preservation of continuous , contiguous lands that are not now developed in the foothills and baylands. He added that all this land does not necessarily have to be owned by the District. K. Duffy said that open space does not always have to be available for public use, as long as it is preserved as open space. 201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-1 35 - Mountain View,California 94040 - Phone:(415)949-5500 - FAX:(415)949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,G i nny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Richard Bishop Meeting 91-16 Page 2 N. Hanko asked how close to the urban area are the greenbelt fringe, the District boundaries, and the sphere of influence. C. Britton said the greenbelt is part of the life experience in the area and that trails are not necessary on all preserves it ' s important enough that the greenbelt exists for viewshed. D. Hansen added that it is not always necessary to acquire fee title to the land. R. McKibbin noted that the greenbelt is a way to contain growth and development. N. Hanko asked if the greenbelt should provide public access . G. Babbitt said the greenbelt could be appreciated visually as well as for its accessibility. N. Hanko said that the public's perception of the greenbelt at the time the District was established was that it would be accessible to the public. K. Duffy and T. Henshaw said what the public perceives now is the important point. N. Hanko said that additional funds and public perception of the greenbelt are important. G. Ball summarized that public support is a result of the public's perception. Discussion followed on public support. N. Hanko said public support is unknown, that the District has not conducted a survey n how well-known the District is or what the public perception is . N. Hanko said that a strategy to develop more public funds must include education of the public. C. Britton suggested that a funding measure is one way to educate the public about the open space district. N. Hanko added that a survey is important to find out if the public is willing to support a funding measure. J. Escobar suggested there may be a perception by the public that there is enough open space, that it may be easier to gain support if the public perceives that the District has not been successful yet. T. Henshaw said that users are strongest supporters and there should be a tie-in with how the land will be used. R. McKibbin said that because of a funding shortage, there is less land accessible for public use. He said a new funding source could overcome some past weaknesses such as accessibility, completing the greenbelt, education, and development pressures. N. Hanko added that decreased funding is an important factor in the present dilemma. T. Henshaw said that many groups are competing for funds. C. Britton added that exponentially increasing land values are a factor. N. Hanko asked if the public would support a tax increase. K. Duffy suggested that very positive reasons for a tax increase would have to be presented. Meeting 91-16 Page 3 R. McKibbin said that during the last few years the District ' s land management program has been competing for funds for development of the preserves with the land acquisition program and there must be a way for the two programs to be complementary. G. Babbitt noted that even beyond public outreach, the open space not only provides a visual backdrop, but also provides local education for appreciation and stewardship of the land. K. Duffy said preservation of open space is the message necessary for fundraising, not focusing only on the users . R. McKibbin stated that accessibility is the key. T. Henshaw noted that it is a "balancing act" between long term preservation of the greenbelt and at the same time giving access to the public. B. Crowder added that there is a large user public who now feel that the preserves are getting overcrowded and that may be one way to get support for expansion. R. McKibbin noted that successful ballot measures in Cupertino and Los Altos Hill reflect the need and desire for open space, and could be considered a survey of public support. G. Ball noted the discussion was focusing on either more preservation or public access. C. Britton said the keys are timing and balance of development on the preserves so that people support the programs and yet not destroy the ecosystems . He added that what is needed is enough people who want to use the land to support the District and preserve as much capital as possible to acquire land. He said that District land can always be developed and that he sees no problem with the present balance. G. Ball noted the discussion was centering on the need for more funding to complete the greenbelt, and to do that additional funds are needed which requires public support, and for public support, access to the land by visual and active users is needed. He said he was also hearing that money needed to develop and manage the land reduces the funding for acquisition to complete the greenbelt. R. Bishop said it is important to consider the balance the Board wants between acquisition, access, and development . Edward Shelley, 2406 Villaneuva Way, Mountain View, questioned whether going to the users for support to complete the greenbelt is the driving force or if the main pressure for development is the use itself. He said historically the pressure for development has been for recreational development itself , to provide access for its own right, noting that if completing the greenbelt is primary and all other actions are in support of that , there would be a different strategy than what there is now. N. Hanko said the need to emphasize development is to include the public, not only to support a funding measure but because providing access to the public is one of the basic policies, adding that access should exist on its own, not necessarily tied to seeking additional funds . Meeting 91-16 Page 4 Further discussion followed regarding the proportion of the budget spent on acquisition versus management. G. Ball called a recess at 10:25 A.M. The meeting reconvened at 10: 50 A.M. G. Ball proposed that the group discuss the options for each basic policy objective and chart them, based on importance (1 - important; 2 , 3 - very important; 4 , and 5 - critically important) on a timeline divided into now, 1-2 years , 3-4 years, and 5+ years categories. (See attached Exhibit A depicting options the Board voted to place on the importance-timeline chart during the workshop. ) 1 . BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE The District will purchase or otherwise acquire interest in the maximum feasible amount of strategic open space land within the District, including baylands and foothills. C . Britton reviewed where the District is now. He said the main critical issue from an acquisition standpoint is that the District has essentially used up all of its debt capacity, with potential acquisition of 50, 000 acres of land still remaining to complete the greenbelt. He said there will be a shortfall of approximately $150 , 000, 000 in today' s dollars to acquire that land. He said the most critical issue is where to get the money if the Board' s highest priority is to complete the greenbelt. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option 1 Place a supplementary funding measure on the ballot for consideration by District constituency. Option 2 Support current efforts to place a statewide initiative on the ballot in 1992 that is similar to Proposition 70 placed before the voters in 1988 . The Board agreed that timing is crucial on Option I and that it has the highest priority. H. Grench said the initiative (option 2) is something the District will be working for regardless of whether the supplementary funding measure is on the ballot. C. Britton noted that Option I could provide all the money needed whereas Option 2 would provide about one-third the amount needed. H. Grench noted that this effort is currently on hold, that the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) is holding back on an initiative at this time, and that there is no hope of the District getting $70, 000, 000 from an initiative in June, 1992. R. Bishop noted that a Prop 70-type initiative, if it could be a viable movement, would be better because of a successful precedent, and that under Option 1 , the money has to be repaid by the District whereas with Option 2 the state repays the debt . He Meeting 91-16 Page 5 proposed the District encourage PCL to proceed with their original plans. He said the administration's plan appears to be a Dark acquisition plan but all financial responsibility would have to be assumed by the local districts . N. Hanko stated she felt that it may not be necessary for the District to repay the debt under Option 1 , that it could be a sales or parcel tax, and stated her opinion that option 1 is an important option. She added that it is necessary for the District to work with the governor and legislature. N. Hanko said that when the District was established a survey was done to determine support among the voters, and that she would be opposed to a ballot measure unless there were assurances that the vote would be affirmative. R. McKibbin asked how the District can get local funding if it is not available from the state. He added that a 505% vote, rather than the present 66%, is a crucial issue, and that the District needs to lobby legislators toward the 50% vote. R. Bishop agreed that a 50% vote is crucial . He added that if Option 1 is adopted Illli it should be subject to the timing so that a bond issue is not submitted to the voters until after the law will permit a win by a 50% majority. H. Grench said a benefit assessment district does not require the 2/3 vote. G. Babbitt asked if. the Board agreed that a funding measure needs to be studied and the implications considered. Tom Karnofel , representing Local 715 of the S.E.I.U. , said the union supports any decision of the Board to seek more revenue and that Local 715 has a political apparatus that would like to be part of the task force to promote Option 1 or Option 2, such as mailings , phone calls, and walking precincts. G. Ball showed how he would move a card with the option noted on it up slowly from "important" to "critically important" and Board members would raise their hands when they felt it was at the right point. When four Directors ' hands were up, that would be the "vote. " He explained that the timeline would be set similarly, moving from now to later. The Board voted to place Option 1-1 in the high-4 range and in the immediate-now range. The Board voted to place Option 1-2 in the high-4 range and in the immediate-now range. Option 3 Although limited to only a few specific areas, use benefit assessment districts to help fund acquisition of sites with unusually high neighborhood benefit. Meeting 91-16 Page 6 Option 4 Increase pace of acquisition subsequent to passage of funding measure. The Board agreed not to prioritize Options 3 and 4 . Option 5 Continue to concentrate on acquiring land which is under threat of development. R. McKibbin said that if there is no new funding, the District may need to re-prioritize properties that are considered for acquisition but that it should be done also if funding is acquired. G. Ball suggested that staff develop principals and strategy that address the limited resources. C . Britton said the strategy for twenty years has been to consider properties that are currently available, while being aware of what is being developed. N. Hanko questioned whether the Board wants to change its policies regarding acquisition of lands outside the sphere of influence or in the sphere but outside District boundaries . The Board agreed that it is an issue that needs to be considered at a future time. K. Duffy questioned whether there is anything wrong with the present priorities . E. Shelley noted that the Board has had a policy to reserve funds for critical properties. Penny Durham, PO Box 4035, Menlo Park, said she would like to see maximum flexibility in acquisitions . T. Henshaw said the Board would like to pursue at a later time the issue of acquisition of land outside District boundaries and outside the sphere of influence. N. Hanko added the Board should discuss whether District boundaries should be expanded. There was strong agreement for T. Henshaw 's proposal and that it should occur as soon as possible. G. Ball , summarizing the Board ' s discussion, added two options for placement on the chart: Option 1-10 - land purchase priority determination and Option 1-11 - acquisition of land outside District. The Board voted to place Option 1-10 at the top of the critically important range and in the immediate-now range. The Board voted to place Option 1-11 in the high-4 range and in the mid-now range. The Board agreed to consider Options 6, 7 , 8 , and 9 together. Option 6 Continue to encourage local government to make sound decisions on land use. Meeting 91-16 Page 7 Option 7 Increase board and staff efforts to engage in speaking opportunities to present the District ' s program and need for funds . Option 8 Increase District Director political contacts for support of District programs, proposed funding measures, and cooperative acquisition projects. Option 9 Encourage and support local open space acquisition efforts which advance District goals . R. McKibbin suggested that Option 6 is not keyed to acquisition and could be discussed under the second basic policy objective. Other members of the Board concurred. Speaking about Option 7 , T. Henshaw said there is an increased need for the Board to become more involved in the political arena outside the Board room. Referring to Option 8, she said the option emphasizes examining the charge the Board gives to the general manager in terms of use of his time. She added that the Board has to consider what the general manager is asked to do and what his role is . K. Duffy noted that Option 8 is looking at commitment from the Board of Directors and not the general manager. D. Hansen noted that Board members have done a lot of speaking engagements in the past. There was agreement by Board members to increase their speaking to build support for additional revenues and the District in general , with back-up support by the staff and realistic in amount of time. N. Hanko added that Directors must speak as a single voice regarding what the District supports and needs in the way of taxing measures. The Board agreed to examine who on staff has responsibility for different political liaison activities and possibly opening up avenues for additional support in political areas. The meeting recessed for lunch at 12 : 00 and reconvened at 12 : 48 P.M. 2. BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE: The District will work with and encourage private and other public agencies to preserve, maintain, and enhance open space. H. Grench noted that this policy overlapped with other programs . He said that the Board and staff need to consider the benefits to the District as weighed against staff time and costs. H. Grench reviewed some cooperative projects which have been accomplished with non-profit agencies, as well as cities, counties, and the state. He noted that available staff time is a limiting Meeting 91-16 Page 8 factor for many projects, and that the opinion of District staff is frequently sought by other agencies. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option 1 Allocate more Board and staff time to enhance contacts with public and non-profit agencies. Option 2 Enter into cooperative management agreements to gain more efficient use of staff . Option 3 Enhance joint planning for adjacent preserves and parks. Option 4 Foster more planning on a regional scale among the District and park agencies . N. Hanko suggested encouraging joint projects with cities and counties for acquisition and development of sites. C. Britton noted that cooperative management agreements between agencies are becoming more prevalent. T. Henshaw suggested including environmental groups and organizations in joint projects. R. McKibbin said that the general plans of cities are generally development-heavy, and that staff time needs to be spent to give input into cities ' general plans . H. Grench said that a great deal of attention should not be given to projects that do not have a direct impact on the District. N. Hanko suggested that Board members could be more directly involved in projects in their particular wards. G. Ball noted .that the major issue for Options 1 , 2, and 3 appeared to, be the availability of staff time, and that the Board had indicated a desire to maintain contacts with other agencies and to build new directions. K. Duffy said that she envisions the District operating in a legislative influencing role, and that the District needs to monitor projects while not necessarily participating. Discussion centered on the level of activity desired. T. Henshaw stated that the District needs to be more proactive rather than reactive. K. Duffy noted that many agencies and cities seek the District ' s advice and input. J. Escobar noted that staff is sometimes required to react on short notice, and that better relationships need to be formed concerning short-term projects. G. Ball summed up the discussion by stating that the Board had indicated a desire to work more closely with cities, counties, and agencies, and that a mechanism is needed to build good working relationships and maintain sufficient contacts. The Board voted to place Options 2-1 , 2, 3, and 4 in the important category in the mid-now range. Meeting 91-16 Page 9 3. BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE: The District will follow a land management policy that provides proper care of open space land, allowing public access appropriate to the nature of the land and consistent with ecological values. D. Hansen stated that District lands are becoming increasingly popular and that many site improvement grant programs need to be completed. He said that staff was concerned with protecting sites while continuing to serve the public, and that safety and liability factors need to be considered. He said that other problems included overuse of some sites, the importance of monitoring trail use, and the need for better signing. J. Escobar noted that some preserves are nearing too high a use level , and that the District needs to consider long term preservation. He suggested the possibility of limiting the number of permitted activities on the preserves . He reported that 84 injury accidents had occurred since January 1989, mostly bicycle accidents . He said that the critical issue was how much the District was willing to spend to manage the preserves. Discussion centered on what makes particular sites most popular. J. Escobar said that the most heavily used preserves were close to urban areas, i .e. , Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, and St. Joseph's Hill Open Space Preserves , which account for nearly 80% of visitor use. C . Britton noted that close-in properties are the most expensive to acquire. E. Shelley stated that there may be a risk of not buying the maximum amount of open space land, and that the preserves were not intended to be substitutes for county parks. Trevor Burrowes, 1920 Cooley Avenue, #2, East Palo Alto, said that acquisition of open space land near the bay was needed in his community, and that acquisition of these close- in lands would help people to acquire respect for open space and help--- to alleviate pressure on more distant preserves. G. Ball suggested discussing options in the following groupings: Options 3-1 , 2, and 13; Options 3-5, 6, 7 , 8 , and 11 ; and Options 3-3, 4 , and 9. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option 1 Identify those critical factors, immediate and long term, that need to be addressed for proper stewardship of District lands. Option 2 Develop and implement an open space management organizational structure and staffing plan to meet the District ' s needs in the nineties. Option 13 Review existing management policies to evaluate site use restrictions or closures, including landbanking, as potential methods to reduce or limit impacts to resource, funding, and management needs. Meeting 91-16 Page 10 Discussion centered on the definition of "proper stewardship. " Dennis Danielson, Route 2, Box 317 , La Honda, noted that the District ' s enabling legislation requires adequate police and fire protection. N. Hanko stated that staff should be provided with the proper tools to accomplish necessary tasks. D. Hansen said that he believed that the District generally provides proper stewardship, although there was inadequate patrol in some areas and some resource degradation caused by overuse. E. Shelley stated that the question to be decided was whether or not the District wanted to encourage more public use of the preserves . R. McKibbin suggested that planning should be the first step, followed by management of the land. Discussion centered on the underlying issues of stewardship: usage control , public safety, staffing needs , growth in usage, and acreage, and how to maintain the quality of stewardship as acreage and use increase. H. Grench suggested that the Board rate the present level of stewardship. Using a scale of A, B, C, D, and F, the majority of the Board rated District stewardship at a C level (or C+ or B-) . R. Bishop said that he felt this rating was acceptable in view of the District ' s acquisition policy, and that a higher level of stewardship would be at the expense of acquisition. T. Henshaw stated that she considered that field staff had a strong commitment to land stewardship, and that rangers and open space technicians often felt stretched too thin. R. McKibbin said that the office staff was also spread too thin, particularly planning staff. Discussion centered on consideration of closures of some open space areas (option 13) . D. Hansen noted that the District ' s unwritten policy is to keep all lands open to the public. J. Escobar stated that staff had never viewed closing an area as a realistic possibility. R. McKibbin noted that the Conservation Management Unit (CMU) designation was useful , and that staff could request the Board' s permission to close an area. The Board voted to place option 3-1 (examine level of stewardship care of land) at a mid-four level and in the now range. The Board voted to place Option 3-2 (open space management organizational. structure and staffing) at a high-four level and in the mid-now range. Option No. 5 Develop a volunteer foot, equestrian, and bicycle patrol program to provide a greater presence on District land and assess costs and benefits of staff bicycle or equestrian patrol . option 6 Evaluate and utilize existing local volunteer organizations to complement , enhance, and structure the District 's programs. Meeting 91-16 Page 11 Option 7 Utilize the docent program to present a greater variety of interpretive activities and educational opportunities to a broader cross-section of the District's constituency (e.g. , Junior Rangers, Whole Access activities, other youth programs) . Option 8 Support increased volunteer activities with the staffing necessary to organize and manage the activities . Option 11 Explore alternative methods and funding to provide for site maintenance needs. Consider an Adopt-A-Trail or other similar programs to encourage citizen and corporate involvement. J. Fiddes noted that volunteers require a significant amount of staff support. G. Babbitt suggested that a staff bicycle patrol be considered before a volunteer bicycle patrol , and B. Crowder concurred. Tom Karnofel , 13640 Burke Road, Los Altos Hills, said that he was concerned with liability problems inherent in volunteer patrols . H. Grench clarified that the volunteer patrols were intended to act as eyes and ears only, with no enforcement powers . E. Shelley stated that he felt it was most important that volunteer patrols represent user groups, thus providing peer enforcement. The Board voted to place Options 3-5, 6, 7 , and 11 in the two category and in the low-now range. Option 10 Develop and implement a comprehensive risk management program that includes continuing training for planning and field staff on identification and mitigation of liability problems . Option 12 Implement a maintenance management plan for District preserves. Discussion centered on the importance of allocating staff time to development and implementation of comprehensive risk management. The Board voted to place option 3-10 in the four category and in the mid-now range. The Board concurred that no discussion of Option 12 was necessary, as it involved an internal matter to be handled by staff. Option 3 Develop comprehensive resource restoration plans , following adoption of resource management policies, seeking funding to help prepare and implement the plans . Option 4 Adopt and implement Trail Use Guidelines regarding physical trail standards, designation of trail uses, safe use of trails, signing, public education, etc. it Meeting 91-16 Page 12 D. Hansen said that while critical issues regarding resource management were addressed in use and management plans, an overall resource management policy was needed. H. Grench noted that Option 3 could be divided into two parts: 1) adopting resource management policies, and 2) developing implementation plans. D. Hansen noted that the resource management policies were currently in draft form. C . Britton stated that the resource management plan would probably be ready for presentation to the Board in September, 1991 . The Board voted to place Option 3-3 in the two category and in the September or low-now range. The Board concurred that implementation of trail use guidelines (option 4) was already being addressed, and that the present schedule was acceptable. Option 9 Increase efforts to utilize adjacent state, county, and city parks staff to aid in District site management through reciprocal management agreements and planning studies. T. Henshaw said that this option tied in with Options 2-1 , 2, 3, and 4 that had previously been addressed and placed in the important, mid- now range. Discussion centered on the staffing implications of implementing this option. The Board recessed for a break at 2: 50 P.M. and reconvened at 3:00 P.M. 4 . BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE The District will educate and make clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of the District, and will actively encourage public communications and involvement in District activities. H. Grench presented an overview of the program, noting that there are possibilities for expansion. He said that the key issue to be considered was implementing a strong marketing program to publicize the District ' s concept of open space as well as the facilities the District owns and maintains. He said this marketing program should involve public outreach as well as public communications. He recommended grouping the options for discussion as follows: Options 4-1 , 7 , 8, 10; Options 4-3, 6, 9; and option 4-4. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option 1 Establish a program to garner the public support needed if a funding measure is to be approved by the voters . Meeting 91-16 Page 13 Option 7 Increase public outreach efforts and resources to secure support of local citizens and politicians through editorial and news articles explaining the District ' s position on local events. Option 8 Position the District as a model of land preservation nationally through placement of District-written articles in national publications, including professional magazines of American Society of Landscape Architects , American Institute of Planners, California Parks and Recreation Society, National Recreation and Parks Association, etc. Option 10 Actively involve the District in Open Space America and regional open space efforts . N. Hanko said that she felt that the Public Communications section of the Basic Policy was not being realized at this point, and that not enough information is being disseminated to the public. R. McKibbin stated that new goals and directions need to be established for the Public Communications program, with adequate staffing to implement these goals . H. Grench asked if the Board wanted to get into a more comprehensive program or simply put a different emphasis on various components of the program. N. Hanko said that she felt the entire Board should be involved in establishing an outreach program and better public communications . She said that she felt this was a top priority for consideration, and that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss what needs to be done. Discussion centered on the desirability of forming a Board committee to help plan the District ' s 20th Anniversary in 1992 . She said that another issue that needed to be raised was promoting a funding measure. K. Duffy noted that the publications program has been upgraded, and that the 1990 International Open Space Conference had fully engaged Public Communications staff for nearly a year. She said that everyday contacts and public education needed to be addressed. Ernie Ramires, 525 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, commented on the inaccessibility of some District lands to the public. Discussion centered on the need for a public survey to determine whether a funding measure might pass. G. Ball redefined Option 4-1 as the need to conduct a public survey to determine public support for a funding measure. The Board voted to place Option 4-1 in the critically important category and the immediate-now range. G. Ball stated the Board ' s consensus that agreement on Option 2 was of paramount importance, and suggested that the Board address this option first. R. McKibbin noted that Option 2 covered most of the other options , and the Board concurred. Meeting 91-16 Page 14 DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option 2 , Establish a comprehensive public outreach program, including increased public information about the benefits of open space protection, the District 's accomplishments, and need for continued support. Option 3 Publicize need for sensitivity to preserve the ecological values, animal and plant life, on District preserves. Option 5 Increase specific public outreach and awareness programs to protect District preserves from threats of adjacent development . Option 6 Publicize a public youth environmental education and participation program that will concentrate on involving organizations such as the Environmental Volunteers, Boy Scouts , and Audubon Society, and teachers at the elementary school , high school , and college levels. Option 9 Focus publicity and special events on those sites where more use can be readily accommodated. Option 11 Examine possibility of special publication to increase public awareness and support. Option 12 Develop multi-cultural programs and publications . H. Grench said that a full public outreach program would have staffing implications, which might involve staff reassignments. T. Henshaw said that she favored a more comprehensive Public Communications program, which would put more emphasis on public outreach, education, and distributing publications to a larger audience. J. Fiddes stated that a more comprehensive public outreach program might include the docent and volunteer programs . N. Hanko noted that the docent-led hikes and walks were very popular with the public, and that additional staff might be considered in order to give more support to the docent coordinator. Discussion centered on the necessity to upgrade site signing and preserve maps . G. Babbitt noted that field staff also had a great deal of public contact and should be requested to provide feedback. J. Escobar concurred that field staff provided a major portion of public outreach. K. Duffy said that a primary focus of the District should be to reach members of the public who are not already friends and allies. Meeting 91-16 Page 15 The Board voted to place option 4-2 in the critically important category and in the mid-now range. Option 4 Commit additional time of general manager, Board, and staff to political liaison at local , state, and federal levels . R. McKibbin stated that he would like to see the Board more involved in developing a strategic legislative plan. T. Henshaw stated that the Board needs to be more involved with state legislators at the local level , and suggested meeting with legislators early next year to discuss various projects and funding sources. She recommended that the District 's Legislative Consultant Ralph Heim be asked to advise Board members on working with legislators. Discussion centered on planning for the District ' s 20th Anniversary. N. Hanko stated that she would like Board involvement in the planning. H. Grench noted that the Public Communications Coordinator had drafted a list of possible 20th Anniversary activities. N. Hanko said that it was important for the Board to see the list soon in order to begin planning. The Board voted to place Option 4-4 in the very important (3) category and in the low-now and high in the one to two year range. 5. BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE The staff will administer the affairs of the District in behalf of the public so as to maximize accomplishment of the goals of the District within existing financial constraints. J. Fiddes introduced the General Management and Program Support section, stating that staffing needs must be evaluated, particularly in terms of direction to the general manager. H. Grench said that he will return to the Board with recommendations on staffing, depending on priorities . She said the recommended actions involve enhanced support to District staff and support required by the Board. She said there needed to be a decision by the Board in terms of the general manager' s functions, including being the District ' s primary political liaison. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Option I Reorganize, and augment if necessary, District staff to meet Strategic Plan goals. Option 2 Set into motion a plan to augment current District funding. Option 3 Increase Board involvement in potential liaison with federal , state, and local officials. Meeting 91-16 Page 16 Option 4 Establish a comprehensive staff development and training program. Option 5 Involve the District via Board members and staff in regional planning underway for the midpeninsula area. H. Grench stated that he will return to the Board with staffing recommendations depending on priorities set by the Board. G. Ball stated the Board ' s concurrence that Option 3 had been discussed in the previous section. J. Fiddes noted that Option 4 was an internal staff matter. Discussion centered on the desirability of allocating more of the General Manager' s time to political liaison and the possible creation of an Assistant General Manager position. G. Ball stated the Board' s concurrence to replace the word "Board" with "general manager" in Option 3. The Board voted to place Option 5-1 in the critically important category and in the mid-now range. The Board voted to place Option 5-3 in the very important category and in the mid-now range. T. Henshaw requested President Hanko invite G. Ball to return at an appropriate time to help the Board prioritize items discussed at the current workshop. N. Hanko asked staff to review the option priorities set by the Board and return with the components and ramifications of implementing them, including timing, staffing, funding, and change of present actions. H. Grench stated that staff could return to the Board in August with the information requested to continue the strategic plan formulation process . Motion: N. Hanko moved that Geoff Ball be engaged to return as facilitator of the workshop to set priorities. B. Crowder seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 2 on the following vote: Yes: N. Hanko, B. Crowder, R. Bishop, G. Babbitt, and T. Henshaw. No: R. McKibbin and K. Duffy. The meeting adjourned at 4 :03 P.M. Recording Secretaries Joan Combs Emma Johnson 1-10 Land Purchase Priority Determination 4-2 CRITICALLY 5-1 Comprehensive IMPORTANT Public outreach Reorg. to community Prgrm Implement 5 4-1 EStrategic Plan Public Survey for Funding Measure 1-1 1-11 3-2 Supplemental Acquisition Organizational Local Funding Outside Structure Measure District 4 3-1 Examine Level of Stewardship 3-10,12 (care of land) Comprehensive Risk Mgmt Prog. Allocate staff time 1-2 Statewide Funding 5-3 Sources Gen Mgr's Poli- tical Liaison VERY Activities IMPORTANT 3 4-4 Politicdl Liaison ' Contact Legis. NOW 1 2 YEARS 3 4 YEARS 5+ YEARS 3-3 Resource Mgmt. (Sept) 3-5,6,7,8,11 2 Volunteers IMPORTANT f - - - - - - - 2-1,2,3,4 #09 Work w/cities; O.S.Mgmt Expand Inter- agency Land Purchase Priority Determination 4-2 CRITICALLY IMPORTANT 5-1 Comprehensive Public Outreach Reorg. to Community Prgrm Implement 5 4-1 Strategic Plan Public Survey for Funding Measure 3-2 Supplemental Acquisition organizational Local Funding Outside , Structure Measure District 4 3-1 Examine Level of Stewardship 3-10,12 (care of land) Comprehensive Risk Mgmt Prog. Allocate staff time 1-2 Statewide Funding 5-3 Sources Gen Mgr's Poli- tical Liaison VERY Activities IMPORTANT 3 4-4 Politicdl Liaison . Contact Legis. NOW 2 YEARS 3-3 Resource Mgmt. (Sept) 3-5,6,7,8,11 2 Volunteers IMPORTANT I - - - - - - - - 2-1,2,3,4 #09 Work w/cities; O-S-Mgmt Expand Inter- agency 3 - 4 YEARS 5+ YEARS i Open Space _. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 91-17 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 11 , 1991 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 7 :35 P.M. Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Robert McKibbin, Katherine Duffy, Teena Henshaw, Ginny Babbitt, and Richard Bishop. Member Absent: Betsy Crowder. Others Present: George Sipel and Kathy Economos. II. CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to Closed Session to consider personnel matters . III . ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10: 45 P.M. Nonette Hanko Recorder 201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-135 Mountain View,California 94040 Phone:(415)949-5500 • FAX:(415)949-5679 Genera!Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Richard Bishop" f Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 91-18 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 12, 1991 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. I Members Present: Ginny Babbitt, Richard Bishop, Kay Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Teena Henshaw, and Robert McKibbin. Member Absent: Betsy Crowder. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes, Mary Hale, Del Woods, Mary Gundert, John Escobar, David Sanguinetti , and Deborah Morvay-Zucker. II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 8 , 1991 Teena Henshaw stated that the minutes should be corrected to indicate she was not present at the beginning of the meeting to tour the new office building, but that she was present when the meeting reconvened at 7 : 40 P.M. at the District office. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 8, 1991 as corrected. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. May 22, 1991 Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 22, 1991 . G. Babbitt seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0 . May 28, 1991 Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 28 , 1991 . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. May 30, 1991 Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board approve the minutes of May 30, 1991. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. Discussion: N. Hanko stated that the second paragraph of page three should be corrected to include the Board' s direction for the use of birds in the development of the designs. The motion to approve the minutes as corrected passed 6 to 0. 201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-135 • Mountain View,California 94040 • Phone:(415)949-5500 • FAX:(415)949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Richard Bishop Meeting 91-18 Page 2 I III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS N. Hanko stated that the Board received a letter from the California History Center & Foundation and that staff would follow up with a response for the District 's participation in its program. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA N. Hanko stated that the agenda was adopted by Board consensus . V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Determination of Public Necessity for Proposed Vidovich Property Addition to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Report R-91- 68 dated June 5, 1991) - N. Hanko gave a brief history of the formation of the District and its purpose to acquire the maximum, feasible amount of open space to provide a greenbelt in northern Santa Clara County and southern San Mateo County. She stated that the District had acquired 34 , 000 acres .of land. She introduced the members of the Board of Directors and outlined the procedure for the public hearing. She asked S . Norton, District legal counsel , to instruct the Board concerning the to e considered in listening to thepublic legal factors b g testimony. S. Norton explained that most public agencies , cities , counties , and special districts have the power of eminent domain that is normally exercised after extensive negotiations and an inability to reach an agreement. He stated that the code of Civil Procedure of the State of California regulates the use of the power of eminent domain and that all of its procedures , including three main requirements, must be followed in conjunction with its use prior to a local agency using the power of eminent domain. He stated that first requirement is that the Board must make three findings: (1) that the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (2) that the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and (3) that the property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project. He stated that the findings were in the resolution to be considered and were covered in greater detail as applied to this case in pages three to five of the staff report. He stated that the second requirement is that the owner is provided a right to a public hearing, that he is required to receive written notice of the hearing, and that he has a right to appear and be heard, and finally, that five affirmative votes would be needed to pass the resolution. Meeting 91-18 Page 3 N. Hanko confirmed that notice was delivered to Mr. Vidovich. She asked H. Grench, general manager, to introduce the report. H. Grench introduced the staff present at the meeting and gave the order of staff presentations. C . Britton described the general location of the property as adjacent to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, southerly of Stonebrook, westerly of Olive Tree Lane and Ravensbury Avenue. He stated that the entire property covers 358 acres, including the 78 acre quarry area and stated that the area of the property being considered included 280 acres. On a map, he pointed out the Measure B line which he said would be referred to in greater detail later in the presentation. He gave a background of District involvement with the property when, years ago, H. Grench visited the property with George Neary, the owner of approximately 800 acres including the subject property. He explained that the District had conversations with the principals throughout the entire series of transactions leading to the acquisition of 450 acres by Westlake Development and its transfer of 375 acres to Chijin and Aiho Cho, and the reversion of 358 acres to George Neary in a judicial foreclosure. He stated that the in 1984 the District purchased the 375 acres of the the Westlake development property from the Chos for $1 . 5 million dollars. He reviewed of the history of use by the public on the former Neary property. He stated that in 1986 John Vidovich, De Anza Properties, purchased a 60% interest in the property for $3 million. He stated that an agreement was reached with the District concerning the apparent boundary line of a portion of the land previously thought to be owned by the District and that, subsequently, the District's previous tenants of the High Meadow Stables were removed by Mr. Vidovich and that the stables have remained vacant. He noted Mr. Vidovich's intention to subdivide and develop the property with site plans showing 80-lot and 43-lot subdivisions and stated that the District ' s main interest has been the upper ridge of the property. He explained that a citizens ' group, R.U.R.A.L. , put Measure B on the 1989 ballot in Los Altos Hills, which was approved by voters, limiting the property to a density no greater than the county density and separating the quarry development area from the upper ridge area, thus creating the "Measure B line. " D. Woods stated that since Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve opened 15 years ago, people had used the trails connecting Rancho San Antonio, Duveneck Windmill Pasture, and Black Mountain until the trails were barricaded five years ago. He explained that the District has done its best over the years to apply its Good Neighbor Policy, not showing trail access to Meeting 91-18 Page 4 the property, identified as private on District maps. He stated that the public has persistently encouraged District staff during the past 15 years to explore ways to ensure the continuation of that trail use on the property. He also explained the District ' s stewardship program that emphasizes protection of the resources and the visitors ' experience. He stated that stewardship involves review of the surrounding lands to ensure that the resource remains protected and that development plans of the surrounding lands will not be adverse to the resource. He stated that through this review process the District has become very familiar with the property and has worked to find ways to reduce visual impacts and institute trail use on the property, particularly neighborhood access and regional access to the preserves beyond Rancho San Antonio. D. Woods summarized the staff 's conclusions that the property' s vital importance is in providing a scenic backdrop to the south bay cities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Cupertino; in providing major trail access between Rancho San Antonio and the thousands of acres of open space in the foothills; in providing neighborhood access and protecting scenic values and the wilderness experience within Rancho San Antonio; and in providing accessible open space along the urban fringe where there is now a great deficiency. He located the property on a map and pointed out the importance of its location as a link from Rancho San Antonio to the 10,000 contiguous acres and public trail system to 5, 000 acres within Castle Rock and Big Basin State Parks that provides a continuous , trail to the coast. He stated that the property provides a key segment of the trail from Rogue Valley to Windmill Pasture that continues to Black Mountain and beyond and to Hidden Villa. He stated that the site includes a prominent ridge visible from the north and east and particularly from the Interstate Highway 280 corridor. Using slides as visual aids, he pointed out that the impact of development on the site would be the visibility of houses, roads , and driveways from important trails in the preserves, the elimination of important and scenic trail connections, degradation of the preserve ' s natural resources from grading, introduction of urban-type pollutants and vegetation, and loss of natural watershed and wildlife habitat. D. Woods also reviewed the staff 's use and management plan recommendations, including signage, maintenance of patrol roads, removal and replacement of gates and barriers, removal of buildings and debris at the stables site, and restoration or realignment of trails. Meeting 91-18 Page 5 C. Britton stated that since passage of Measure B the specific lot density of the property became definable and that in negotiations, the District agreed with Mr. Vidovich to pay for an appraisal, including an engineering determination of lot density. He explained that he could not approve the appraisal due to flaws in the lot yield analysis and in the appraisal process and that the appraised value was more than twice what he considered to be the fair market value of the property and therefore what the District would offer to pay. He stated that the agreed upon appraisal process included a 30 -day limit from the date of receipt of the appraisal, ending June 15, during which Mr. Vidovich was barred from selling any portion of the property. He explained that Mr. Vidovich had indicated he was considering the sale of individual lots to other parties and that this would have jeopardized the potential for District's acquisition of the entire property. He indicated that the District's filing of eminent domain action did not preclude the possibility of a negotiated settlement and that he hoped a settlement would be reached. H. Grench summarized reasons of necessity for recommending eminent domain action. He referred to pages three through five of the staff report. He stated that since the report and the accompanying resolution were written an addition had been made to the resolution to include the date of the offer letter to Mr. Vidovich, June 10, that the legal description had been amended to include parcel seven and that copies of the changes were given to the Board. He restated the recommended actions given in the report. N. Hanko explained the order of process of the public hearing and stated that those wishing to speak would each be allowed three minutes to address the chairperson. The Public Hearing was declared open by N. Hanko at 8:28 P.M. She then asked if Mr. Vidovich or his representative were present and would like to address the Board . Neither Mr. Vidovich nor his representative spoke and apparently were not present. Howard Martin, M.D., 2500 Hospital Drive, Mountain View, commented that a United States Geologic Survey study noted serious sedimentation problems with the upper watershed area of Permanente Creek that could be aggravated by over development. He added protection of this watershed to the reasons already stated for the District's acquisition of the property. Robert Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, representing the Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee, stated that the subject Meeting 91-18 Page 6 property has been on the committee' s master path plans to permit non-vehicular traffic from the town to the open space district. Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos, stated that the only advantage to acquiring this property is that there are trails that are already made. He stated that he is philosophically opposed to eminent domain but that if the Board exercised this action he asked the District leave the old quarry alone as a historical site. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, Los Altos Hills, representing CIT Reasonable Development, stated that the people of Los Altos Hills voted for Measure B to keep the lot density down and that with John Vidovich on the county planning commission and the commission about to redo the general plan she thought that this action would be the last chance to preserve the property and its native plants. She strongly urged the Board to try every possible way to acquire the property. Ry Smith, 23230 Ravensbury Avenue, Los Altos, representing R.U.R.A.L. , said he hoped that after 15 years of working on this effort the time had come to preserve this land. He stated that RX.R.A.L. has seven hundred members in the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills area. He commented that the vote of the people of Los Altos Hills is a clear indication that the people want the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to take over this property and do everything possible to preserve it. Susan Smith, 23230 Ravensbury Avenue, Los Altos, representing Citizens for Reasonable Development (Measure B) , spoke of the popularity of Rancho San Antonio illustrating the demand for open space in this area and the need to commit the Vidovich property to meet the growing demand and usage. Robert Johnson, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, Council Member, Town of Los Altos Hills, delivered and read a letter from Mayor William Siegel, stating that the town council passed a resolution strongly supporting the acquisition of the Upper Neary Quarry lands by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Christine Cole, 23219 Ravensbury Avenue, Los Altos Hills, representing Full House Farm, presented a map highlighting trails on the property and pointed out the trail connection between Rancho San Antonio and Hidden Villa and stated that there is no other way to link these areas. She stated that the provision of trail loops for shorter hikes is very important. Meeting 91-18 Page 7 Hal Feeney, 11030 Mora Drive, Los Altos, stated that he is a frequent user of Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and urged the Board to connect Rancho San Antonio and Windmill Pasture. Judith Kleinberg, Watson Court, Palo Alto, stated that Committee for Green Foothills strongly urged the open space district to take immediate action to preserve the Vidovich property for three reasons: 1) the committee deems the property to be a public asset in the area of diminishing assets of this sort; 2) this property is important as a link of existing open space; and 3) this property and its contiguous properties have historically been treated as public land. She added that the threat of development of the ridge demands an immediate and permanent solution to protect and preserve the greenbelt, and that the District needs to guarantee that this property will forever be in the public trust. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos, reiterated the importance of trail linkage between Rancho San Antonio and Windmill Pasture. She also referred to U.S.G.S. report 89-4130 in which it was noted that the soils and vegetation of the west fork of Permanente Creek are ill-suited to development because of active and inactive land slides, gullies, and unstable stream banks that are subjects of considerable study for the concerns of sedimentation and downstream flooding. Dave Bauer, 21597 Flintshire Street, Cupertino, stated that Rancho San Antonio is a major contributor to the quality of life of the people of this area and that development of the property is not in the interest of the people of this area. He added that he enthusiastically supported the proposed addition of this property to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Ed Shelley, 2406 Villanueva Way, Mountain View, stated that he had hoped the property would be acquired sooner as he felt it was the key property in the District and encouraged the Board to take eminent domain action, adding that the Board had not only the power but the responsibility to do so. Penny Lave, 1 No. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, representing the Los Altos City Council, reaffirmed the resolution passed by Los Altos City Council July 1988 in support of the acquisition of this property. She stated that the citizens of Los Altos have also demonstrated their concerns about the watershed. Chris Romano, 1253 Golden Way, Los Altos, representing the ti California Oaks Foundation, stated that this acquisition would Meeting 91-18 Page 8 be an opportunity for restoration of the leather oak and blue oak in the area. Valerie Koble, 881 Parma Way, Los Altos , representing Creeks of Los Altos, spoke in support of the acquisition of the Vidovich land to preserve the ridgelines, creek headwaters, and wildlife. Peter Schubart, 261 South Castanya Way, Portola Valley, formerly a resident of Los Altos Hills, stated that the acquisition of this property should be viewed with the same importance as the acquisition of windy Hill for its panoramic value to Portola Valley. He added that he supports eminent domain action for the acquisition of the property. Brenda Butner, 14565 Harvard Court, Los Altos Hills, a member of the California Native Plant Society, commented that more development in the area will introduce new plants that will invade the native landscapes. Mark Winitz, 1638 Corte Via, Los Altos, representing the Trail Center, stated that his organization includes about 2,000 members who are hikers, runners, trail builders and has followed the issue of trails on the property since 1986. He added that the Trail Center' s enthusiasts heartily support the District ' s move to acquire the land as a critical link, one of the most critical pieces of land in the District ' s sphere of influence. J. Fiddes called upon four more potential speakers who decided not to speak. They, instead, submitted written statements in support of the acquisition. Terry McDaniels, 10417 Lone Oak Lane, Los Altos Hills, Chairperson, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, Town II of Los Altos Hills , stated that this ridge is of environmental concern to the entire bay area. N. Hanko asked if there were others who wished to speak and again asked if Mr. Vidovich or his representative were present. There were no respondents. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Public Hearing be closed. R. McKibbin seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. N. Hanko declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:00 P.M. K. Duffy asked staff what they intended to do with the dam and the pond. D. Woods responded that it would have to be inspected in the District's normal safety inspections. Meeting 91-18 Page 9 R. McKibbin stated, as director of the ward in which this property is located, that it has been the vital missing link of not only local , but also of regional importance. He urged the Board to vote to acquire the Vidovich property now. G. Babbitt thanked the participants in the public hearing, which showed strong support for the acquisition, and thanked the staff for providing a detailed report to the Board. T. Henshaw stated that many people of Sunnyvale are users of Rancho San Antonio and former users of the Vidovich property. She added that she would support a motion to adopt the resolution. R. Bishop that Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve is one that the District is especially proud of because it is a wild area that is close and convenient to many homes. He added that it is important to protect the wild character of this preserve by acquiring this property and preventing development that would diminish the quality of the preserve. K. Duffy stated that the decision to take eminent domain action is not an easy one and she thanked the participants in the hearing for their comments and for their support of the acquisition. N. Hanko briefly restated the findings on pages three through five of the staff report as those necessary to take eminent domain action. She added that the need is great to protect Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve from being overloved by its 400,000 users by expanding the preserve. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt Resolution 91- 24, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Finding and Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Properties for Public Use, to wit, for Public Park, Recreation and Open Space Purposes, Describing the Properties Necessary Therefore and Authorizing and Directing its Retained Legal Counsel to Do Everything Necessary to Acquire All Interests Therein (Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve - Vidovich Property) . R. McKibbin seconded the motion. Discussion: C. Britton reminded the Board that the date June 10 was added to the amended resolution and that parcel seven was added to the legal description. The motion passed 6 to 0. Meeting 91-18 Page 10 Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations contained in this report, including naming the property as an addition to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and indicate its intention to dedicate the property as public open space. R. McKibbin seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. VII. BOARD BUSINESS A. Final AdoDtion of the Comprehensive Use and Manaqement Plan for Windy Hill Open Space Preserve - N. Hanko asked that the Board review the List of Conditions for Conditional Use Permit, Exhibit A, of the staff report. Referring to condition number 2 of the list, she asked the staff if they have a procedure for reporting problems between different user groups and the District. D. Woods responded that he is working on a form to be used for this purpose. K. Duffy asked for clarification that the item refers to problems between user groups and not problems between user groups and the District. D. Woods stated that the item addresses the concern that information about conflicts between user groups will be given to the District. K. Duffy suggested that the condition be changed to "2. MROSD shall establish a mechanism for reporting problems between different user groups. " N. Hanko, in reference to condition number 5, asked staff what rules may be established by the commission to make it less cumbersome for the District to obtain permission to have organized group activities on the preserve. M. Gundert responded that the condition was made in response to a request for a specific group activity and the perceived need to establish a minimum number of users in an activity that would require approval by the Portola Valley Planning Commission. She said that staff identified two groups that use the preserve annually, Peninsula Open Space Trust for Kite Day and the Banana Classic that uses Windy Hill as a rest stop. She stated that the planning commission gave blanket permission to allow those uses . She added that the commission has not yet established rules to permit other uses and that District staff will work with them to establish rules for obtaining permission at the town staff level . Discussion followed concerning this requirement. N. Hanko stated that the District should cooperate with the Town of Portola Valley in establishing rules. C. Britton recalled earlier discussions with Portola Valley and recommended that the Meeting 91-18 Page 11 District work with the condition. D. Woods added that District staff has proposed a joint permit application procedure. There was a brief discussion about the deposit to cover the town's anticipated costs required in condition number 10. Motion: R. McKibbin moved that the Board adopt the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Windy Hill Open Space Preserve as contained in report R- 88-141 . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. B. Final Adoption of the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Report R-91-69 dated June 6, 1991 Motion: R. McKibbin moved that the Board readopt the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Measure Monitoring Checklist as contained in report R-91- 60 and adopt the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve as contained in report R-91-60. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. C. Proposed Annexation of Land in Santa Cruz County (Report R-91-67 dated May 24, 1991) - N. Hanko stated that this annexation will make the District the only three-county district in the state. H. Grench stated that the proposed annexation includes all the land in Santa Cruz County within the District ' s sphere of influence, except for the Boy Scout property, for a total of 770 acres. He added that the annexation has the consent of 100% of the included property owners. N. Hanko asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Motion: R. McKibbin moved that the Board adopt Resolution 91-25, a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Requesting Initiation of Annexation Procedures by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (Midpeninsula Preserves 1991- Long Ridge) . G. Babbitt seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. Meeting 91-18 Page 12 VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS J. Escobar reported a running accident at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve and a solo bicycle accident on Whittemore Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve. He stated that the bicycle accident was reported initially as occurring on Skyline Boulevard. He stated that the Jikoji cutoff trail bridge has been completed at the dam and the trail has been widened and opened to bicyclists and horses to divert traffic away from Jikoji's private property. D. Sanguinetti reported rescue of a dog with its head stuck in a hollow log at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. IX. CLAIMS Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board approve Revised Claims 91-11. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. X. CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to Closed Session at 9:54 P.M. to continue its evaluation of Board appointees. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn the meeting at 11:09 P.M. Deborah Morvay-Zucker Recording Secretary AMPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FACT SHEET INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT • PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5500 ET SEQ. • SEVEN MEMBER, ELECTED BOARD • FORMED NOVEM 3ER, 1972 BY VOTERS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY • ANNEXED BY VOTERS INTO SAN MATEO COUNTY IN 1976 DATA • NORTHERN SANTA CLARA AND SOUTHERN SAN MATEO COUNTIES • 327 SQUARE MILE TERRITORY • 16 CITIES PLUS UNINCORPORATED AREA • 550,000 POPULATION • 34,000 ACRES OF LAND • 24 OPEN SPACE PRESERVES • 50 EMPLOYEES • SHARE OF 1% TAX = 1.6% • 1991-92 PROPERTY TAX = $9A5,000 • $49,000,000 OUTSTANDING DEBT I MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT EXPENDITURE ALLOCATION FOR 1991-1992 (TOTAL = $24,703j71) SITE PLANNING& OPERATIONS (9.6%) DEBT SERVICE (20.0%) SITE DEVELOPMENT(3.0%) COMMUNICATIONS (1.5%) .......... GENERAL MANAGEMENT(3.2%) OFFICE IMPROVEMENT(2.0%) ACQUISITION EXPENSES (2.1%) NEW LAND PURCHASES (58.7%) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR 1991-1992 (TOTAL = $1%730,000) GRANTS (5.2%) INTEREST(4.6%) ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES (2.1%) OTHER(2.6%) S PROPERTY TARE 47.1% NOTES ISSUED (22.8%) SALE OF LAND (15.7%) AMPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT i FISCAL PROBLEMS • SHORTAGE OF FUNDS TO DO ALL OF: COMPLETE GREENBELT PROGRAM ($125,000,000 SHORTFALL) PROVIDE FULL PUBLIC ACCESS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PATROL AND MAINTENANCE INCREASE VISIBILITY OF AGENCY • REDEVELOPMENT INCREMENT LOST 1989-1990 $224,000 I • TAX ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION COSTS $136,000 III Santa Clara V I4 Water District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266.0271 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Special Districts Presentation Santa Clara County Local Government Task Force OVERVIEW OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS FINANCE June 14, 1991 �� recycled paps I. OVERVIEW WHAT IS A SPECIAL DISTRICT? Legally constituted governmental entities that are neither cities, counties, redevelopment agencies or school districts or any agency of the state for the local performance of governmental proprietary functions within limited boundaries [California Government Code Sec. 16271(d)] -1- SPECIAL DISTRICTS INCLUDE AGENCIES FOR FINANCING OR CONSTRUCTING FACILITIES State Controller, for reporting purposes, also includes the following entities when compiling information on special districts: + A public entity, agency, board or commission provided for by a joint powers agreement. + A nonprofit corporation formed through a joint powers agreement, or formed to construct a facility subject to an agreement with a local public entity, or wholly owned by a public agency. _2_ AUTHORITY More than 200 different statutory authorizations exist for special districts. Approximately 128 of these statutes were legislated for a single special district to satisfy a particular geographic need. For example, in the area of flood control and water agencies over seventy specific authorizing statutes have been enacted. The peak of this approach to special districts occurred in the 1950's. SPECIFIC AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER AGENCIES NUMBER OF STATUTES ENACTED IN CALIF. 35 -- 30 25 20 F 15 I 10 5 1910'S 1920'S 1930'S 1940'S 1950'S 1960'S 1970'S 1980'S DECADE SPECIAL DISTRICTS A California Invention? The Wright Act passed in California in 1887 established first two irrigation districts. The Turlock Irrigation District was established by popular vote June G, 1887. By 1895, forty-nine Irrigation Districts had been established throughout California. -5- POWERS COMMON TO OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS UNDER STATE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES • Autonomy and continuous life • Ability to sue and be sued • The right to acquire or own interest in real and personal property; and authority to: • Exercise the right of eminent domain • Appoint and employ a work force • Employ counsel • Enter into and perform contracts • Adopt a seal In addition, some have: • Statutory power to adopt ordinances under which violations are punishable, and • Authority to issue bonds. -6- BY CONTRAST TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SPECIAL DISTRICTS: • Boundaries may fall within city or county limits, may be multi-city or multi-county in scope, and may be contiguous or non-contiguous. • Functions may be limited to one or it may be permitted to perform multiple functions. • Governing body may be the Board of Supervisors (36%), a City Council (3%) or independently appointed or elected members (61%). GOVERNING BODY CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS BOARD OF SUFER, CITY COUNCIL 36% 3% 00 APPOINT. OR ELECTED 61% 1988-89 CONFUSING NUMBERS California Special Districts as recorded by the State Controller's Office appear to have increased 18% on the past 18 years from less than 4,500 in 1972 to over 5,000 in 1989. During the five years prior to Proposition 13, special districts did record a 26% growth in the aggregate. However, Special Districts other than those used for financing or constructing facilities {JPA or NPQ have actually declined 1.5% since 1981. Although the number of true special districts is declining, many activities of these dissolved districts have been consolidated into other districts, or several districts might combine one new district. -9- CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADJUSTED GROWTH TREND FOR TOTAL NUMBER CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS DOES NOT INCLUDE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, NUMBER NUMBER TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES. B000 __ _ _ 6000 _ ___ ,IQrur_POWFR.O AUTHDRI TIES-AND NONPROFIT I-QRP 6000 4000 4000 3000 3000 I 2000 O 2000 1000 0 _ — 1000 1972 1989 FISCAL YEAR o -- SPECIAL DISTRICTS 1981 1989 FISCAL YEAR 18-YEAR INCREASE 18%o EIGHT YEAR DECLINE 1.5% H. OVERALL FINANCIAL CONTEXT LATEST REPORT OF STATE CONTROLLER FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 i • 5,175 Special Districts • Operating under 205 different statutory authorities • Reported revenues/proceeds of $12.9 billion and expenses/expenditures of $10.6 billion. • Property tax revenues of $1.9 billion A 6.9% increase from the previous year and comprising 14.6% of total revenue/proceeds. -11- SPECIAL DISTRICTS ACTIVITIES ARE CATEGORIZED AS ENTERPRISE OR NON-ENTERPRISE Special District enterprise activity: * Activity in which operations are accounted for in a manner similar to a private enterprise • The acquisition, operation, and maintenance of government facilities and services are entirely or predominantly self-supported by user charges rather than tax revenues. Non-enterprise activity: 0 Activity which has an accounting system organization on a government fund basis. • This type of district activity usually relies on property tax as a major source of revenue. -12- SPECIAL DISTRICTS REVEL AND EXPENDITURES Property taxation is the funding source most commonly used by special districts. Following passage of Proposition 13, special districts' property tax revenue was reduced from $898 million in 1977- 78 to $374 million in 1978-79. Besides losing this revenue, local agencies also lost the flexibility to raise property tax rates because Proposition 13 prohibited new property taxes and limited growth in property tax revenue to a 2% inflation cap. After the decline in 1978-79, taxes have remained at about 15% of special district revenues. -13- SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND PROPERTY TAXES TAX PORTION OF REV. TAXES REVENUES $BILLIONS PERCENT OF THE TOTAL $ 14 Property taxation is funding 125 source most commonly used $ 12 by special districts. After decline in late 1970's - 20 $ 10 taxes have stabilized at about 15% of revenues. $8 15 $6 10 $4 5 $2 $0 i 0 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 FISCAL YEAR I ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES Enterprise activities have just about doubled revenues and expenses since 1981. Electric enterprises' revenues increased over 350% and now account for 16% of the enterprise revenues compared to 7% in 1981. The decreases in share size principally affects hospitals and transit. -15- ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES REVENUES & EXPENSES 12 $BILLIONS 10 - 8 CN .% 4 - 2 - 0 -- REVENUES EXPENSES 1980-1 1988-9 1980-1 TO 1988-9 ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES _ - _ -REV S-IR80 - 1 _ D 1988- 9 HOSPITAL 16% WATER 29% WATER 30% HOSPITAL 18% AIRPORT 1% \ AIRPORT 1% ELECTRIC 7% ELECTRIC 16% HARBOR 2% ;' /WASTE DISP. 17% HARBOR 1% TRANSIT 26% WASTE DISP. 16% 1980-1 TRANSIT 20% 1988-9 i NON-ENTERPRISE SPECIAL DISTRICTS REVENUE For General Purpose, non-enterprise activities, revenues have increased 116% and expenditures 118% from 1981 to 1989. A comparison of revenue sources for non-enterprise special districts from 1981 to 1989 shows that the biggest change statewide is a reduction in government aid. Charges for services and assessments have been the revenue sources relied upon to make up for that decrease. The largest charge in governmental aid has been reductions in federal aid other than for construction which has been only partially offset by greater State aid for construction and other purposes. GENERAL PURPOSE ACTIVITIES REVENUES & EXPENSES $BILLIONS 3 2.5 - 2 1.5 / 0.5 0 REVENUES EXPENSES 1980-1 ® 1988-9 1980-1 TO 1988-9 REVENUE PROFILE OF NON - ENTERPRISE SPECIAL DISTRICTS REVENUE SOURCE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS LICENCES, PERMITS N O ' INTEREST i GOV T AID �� FISCAL YEAR CHARGES ® 1980-1 OTHER 1988-9 0 10 20 30 40 50 PERCENT OF TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL AID FOR NON--E-N-TERPEUSE-SP-ECIAL--D]-STRICTS O THER GOVT AGENCIES 23% -�� $111.9 OTHER GOVT AGEN $124.9 STATE 16% $77.6 r FEDERAL 15% $44.2 4401 Ai STATE E o 13 4.2 k FEDERAL 61% $ $294.2 1989 1981 ($MILLIONS) III. SANTA CLARA C4UNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS NUMBER AND TYPE OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS In 1989 the State Controller reported 61 special districts in Santa Clara County compared to 56 in 1980-81. Thirteen of the 61 are accounted for as enterprise activities. The County has more self-insurance, financing and construction of facilities, and government services special districts than in 1980-81. Library and Health activities have also increased. -22- SANTA CLARA COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS ACTIVITY CEMETARY FIRE PROTECTION ... .. FLOOD CONTROL HEALTH LIBRARY LIGHTING LOCAL & REG PLANNING � MEMORIAL w RECREATION & PARK RESOURCE CONSERVATIO STREETS & ROADS SELF INSURANCE FINANCE & CONST FAC GOVT SERVICES HOSPITAL � 1980-1 TRANSIT WASTE DISPOSAL 1988_9 WATER UTILITY _ 0 5 10 15 20 NUMBER 1980-1 AND 1988-9 REVENUE SOURCES A comparison of non-enterprise special districts' revenue sources at the state level with those in Santa Clara County shows that in fiscal year 1988 89 our local special districts relied more on assessments and governmental transfers than on charges for services. The general purpose districts obtain about one-third of their revenues from property taxes. -24- COMPARISON OF COUNTY AND STATE SPECIAL DISTRICTS REVENUE SOURCES REVENUE SOURCE 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 TAXES ,y ASSESSMENTS TRANSFERS �o CHARGES - OTHER San to Clara Coun ty 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 special districts have PERCENT elied on assessments and transfers more SPECIAL DISTRICTS than Charges when SANTA CLARA CO. ® CALIFORNIA compared to districts j statewide. NON ENTERPRISE FY 88-89 IV. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FINANCES REVENUE SOURCE Santa Clara Valley water District will get about one-fourth of its revenue from property taxes this fiscal year and about one-third from charges for water. Comparing this year with ten years ago, it is clear that both property taxes and water charges make up less of the District's revenues. Flood control benefit assessments, NPC debt financing and government reimbursements now provide more revenues than ten years ago. -26- SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 1990 -91 REVENUE TREATED WATER CHRGS —---- - 21% GROUND WATER CHRGS 13% FC. ASSESSMENTS 14% NON-PROFIT CORP 13% GOWT REIMBURSEMENT / 6% _ ' PROPERTY TAXES INTEREST 26% goo OTHER 1% SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 REVENUE GROUND WATER CHRGS 19% TREATED WATER CHRGS GOV'T REIMBURSEMENT 18% 0% N co INTEREST i 23% OTHER —__ __--'" PROPERTY TAXES 3% 37% REVENUE PROFILE SCVWD 1980 - 1 AND 1990 -91 REVENUES REVENUE SOURCE PROPERTY TAXES FC. ASSESSMENTS TREATED WATER CHRGS N GROUND WATER CHRGS NON-PROFIT CORP GOV'T REIMBURSEMENT � I INTEREST � � 1990-1 OTHER � � 198G-1 0 10 20 30 40 50 PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES Most of the expenditures for this fiscal year have been budgeted in the construction function for the Water District which operates a large capital improvement program for both the water utility and flood control program. -30- Santa Clara Valley Water District Fiscal Year 1990 - 1991 Expenditures by Function Operations 19.6% ...........::::::.......... Governmental 1.3% .................................:::: ........................................... .................................................. ........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................... ................................................................. .................................................................. .................................................................. ................................................................... ................................................................... ................................................................... .................................................................. Maintenance 8.1% Administration 2.8% Construction 61.4% Santa Clara Valley Water District Fiscal Year 1990 - 1991 Expenditures by Program Flood coovoi 49.2% District 2.6% Water Utility 48.2w, FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM The Water District's construction program in the flood control area alone has been the largest in the State since 1981 in terms of additions to fixed assets. i i i I -33- FLOOD CONTROL CONSTRUCTION IN CALIFORNIA 1981 TO 1989 SCVWD FLOOD CONTROL FLOOD CONTROL ADDITIONS TO FIXED ASSETS ADDITIONS TO FIXED ASSETS FISCAL YEAR DISTRICT 81 SCVWD led the Mate SANTA CLARA =� 82 LOS ANGELE3 83 7 out of the 84 last 9 years. FRESNO -- - 85 ORANGE I 88 RIVERSIDE SCVWD increased 88 VENTURA 1 flood control assets 1 8 ALAMEDA more than other district 89 0 b 10 16 20 25 30 0 20 40 80 80 100 120 140 $ MILLIONS $ MILLIONS ADD TO FIXED ASSETS ADD TO FIXED ASSETS LAND, STRUCTURES&IMPROVEMENTS LAND,STRUCTURES&IMPROVEMENTS FIVE YEAR REVENUE PATTERN A more detailed review of Water District revenue patterns over the past five years indicates that: Property taxes have risen slightly. Flood control assessments revenues were doubled in 1987. Treated water charges have produced the greatest increase in revenues for the water utility. Groundwater charges have not increased revenues. Bonds were utilized in 1986 and since then NPC financing (CUP) has also been utilized. Government reimbursements have been increasing. Interest revenues have declined. -35- FIVE YEAR REVENUE PATTERNS SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT $ MILLIONS PROPERTY TAX F.C. ASSESSMENT - TREATED WATER CHRG =_--�--3 gp GROUND WATER GHRG � 89 - -- - - � 88 NPC/BONDS E-1 87 GOVT REIMBURSEMENT [_] gg INTEREST OTHER 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 i MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES 1986 TO 1990 VI. CONCLUSIONS The legal-political setting: "While elective local governments in most other parts of the world are one-layer multipurpose governments integrated in a hierarchy of levels (state or province and central or federal), in the United States there are four different layers of overlying local governments in one urban area: county g � P governments, municipal governments, school boards and elective boards of special districts." Politics of Land, 1973 Sa nta Clara Co unty has about 110 localentities in the county which is about average for all counties in the State of California. However, Santa Clara County is very low in special districts as compared to most large urban and agricultural counties. -37- LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES NUMBER OF ENTITIES 1 TO 25 26 TO 50 51 TO 75 76 TO 100 101 TO 125 w 126 TO 150 4° 151 TO 175 176 TO 200 201 TO 225 226 TO 250 251 TO 275 276 TO 300 301 TO 325 , _ _ _ �_ _ 1 _ _, • LOS ANCiELES 659 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 COUNTIES IN CATEGORY CITIES, SCHOOL & SPECIAL DISTRICTS i Special districts in California are about one fourth of the financial picture at the local level not counting school i districts. Enterprise special districts are by definition designed to i i provide facilities and services to be paid by user charges. -39- LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL PROFILE SPECIAL DISTRICTS 22% ---,,,,SPECIAL DISTRICTS 25% 10.6 COUNTIES 42% 12,9 22.2 CITIES 33% o % � 4 16.5 //�� COUNTIES 5% � 22.2 CITIES 33% 17.4 REVENUES BUDGETED APPROPRIATIONS 87-88 -CITIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS 88-89 -COUNTIES Comparing non-enterprise special districts' revenue sources with those of other local government entities shows that special districts are more like cities than they are like counties or schools. i -41- SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES ARE MORE LIKE CITIES THAN COUNTIES OR SCHOOLS COMPARISON OF REVENUE SOURCES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OTHER OTHER OTHER OTHER SERVICE CHFG 16% 8% 1Q� Eg, - TAXES TAXES TAXES 19% SERVICE CH 31% 34% � / TAXES � 34% SERVICE CH / / / INTERGOV'T 38% / 41% N 67% / INTERGOV'T INTERGOV'T 73% INTERGOWT 12% 11% COUNTIES CITIES SCHOOLS K-12 SPECIA_ DISTRICTS '987-88 1CG87-88 1988-89 1987-88 I ESTIMATED REVENUES BY SOURCE I i Since passage of Prop. 13, many non-enterprise activities have had tax support decline then level off as a lower proportion of their revenues. Fees, assessments and charges for current services have been utilized by special districts to cover costs and make up for losses in government aid from the federal and state levels. This has expanded the number of special districts that act like enterprise activities. In 1988-89 only cemetery, fire, lighting, memorial, pest control and recreation and parks relied on property tax contributions for over forty percent of their revenues. -43- PROPERTY TAX CONTRIBUTION TO SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUES TYPE OF DISTRICT AIR POLLUTION AMBULANCE CEMETARY DRAINAGE FIRE FLOOD CONTROL HEALTH RECLAMATION LIBRARY F LOCAL PLANNING � M PAR KING PEST CONTROL POLICE RECREATION & PARKS SOIL CONSERVATION STREETS TELEVISION WASTE DISPOSAL ANIMAL CONTROL SELF INSURANCE GOVERNMENT SVCS 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENT OF REVENUES CALIFORNIA 1988-9 I p►en Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-76 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991) REPORT June 17, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of Benefit Revisions in District' s Fringe Benefit Plan for Non-Represented Employees Recommended Actions: 1. Set, effective July 1, 1991, the base single medical premium coverage rate at $154.13 per month and the base family medical premium coverage rate at $354 . 41 for the District ' s non-represented employees. 2. Authorize payment of any additional rate increase amount above contribution levels currently paid by any non-repre- sented employee from July 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991. 3. Amend the Board-adopted District Fring e Benefit P Plan policy g P Y to include basic vision care coverage. Discussion• The District's Fringe Benefit Plan requires that the Board set annually the base single premium rate and the base family premium rate for basic medical insurance coverage for General Manager appointees. Exhibit A, entitled District Fringe Benefit Plan, shows the July 1990 to June 1991 and the July 1991 to June 1992 premiums for the District ' s medical plans. I recommend that the July 1991 to June 1992 base single rate be set at $154.13 per month and the base family premium rate be set at $354.41 per month for the District' s non-represented employ- ees . These rates are consistent with Board policy and previous Board implementation of policy. This single base rate would cover the entire cost of the Kaiser and Takecare premiums . The base family rate would cover the entire cost of the Kaiser plan for a family. R-91-76 Page two I am again recommending that the District pay the increase in a current employee' s current medical contribution for the period from July 1 through September 30. The month of September contin- ues to be the open enrollment window for employees to change health plans . Payment of any medical premium increases through September for the District' s non-represented employees would be consistent with the recent contract approved for the District ' s represented employees . A vision care plan was implemented in mid-April for the Dis- trict' s non-represented employees to coincide with the implemen- tation for the rangers, open space technicians, and mechanic equipment operator. The District Fringe Benefit Plan policy, adopted by the Board of Directors on July 8 , 1987 , requires modification to incorporate the vision care provision and to state the premium is to be paid by the District. Your Budget Committee reviewed the new medical premiums and base premium rates on June 3, 1991 and concurred with my recommenda- tions. Staff met with the District' s non-represented employees on June 13 to review and discuss the proposed 1991-1992 base rates. DISTRICT FRINGE BENEFIT PLAN EXHIBIT 8I A ---------------------------- MEDICAL PLANS ------------- July 1990-June 1991 July 1991-June 1992 Percentage Monthly Annually Monthly Annually Increase SantaClara County (----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------( Preferred 100 Plan I ( 11 Single (2)* I $225.70 I $2,708 ji 302.53 1 $3,630 j 34.0% I Family (3) I $378.35 I $4,540 11 508.56 $6,103 1 34.4% I Kaiser i-----------------�j----------- -----------------j1------------------'--------------Ii Single (9) I $124.41 I $1,493 11 145.89 I $1,751 ( 17.3% I Family (3) ( $303.97 ( $3,648 II 354.41 I $4,253 I 16.6% I I i II I 1 I Takeca re I-----------------I-----------------11-----------------I------------------I-------------- i 1 II I I I Single (14) I $133.63 1 $1,604 $154.13 ( $1,850 j 15.3% j Family (10) ( $325.92 $3,911 jj $364.41 $4,373 ( 11.8% I I I I! I 1 I----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I * Figure in parentheses indicates the number of General Manager appointees enrolled in each plan as of May 1, 1991. BASE SINGLE PREMIUM RATE FOR JULY 1990-JUNE 1991: $133.63 BASE FAMILY PREMIUM RATE FOR JULY 1990-JUNE 1991: $303.97 RECOMMENDED BASE SINGLE PREMIUM RATE FOR JULY 1991-JUNE 1992: $ 1 5 4.1 3 RECOMMENDED BASE FAMILY PREMIUM RATE FOR JULY 1991-JUNE 1992: $ T 54_41--, DENTAL PLAN Premium for July 1991-June 1992 is $53.90 monthly. (7.5% increase) The July 1990-June 1991 monthly premium was $50.14. 100% of premium to be paid by MROSD. Adopted by Board of Directors July 8, 1987 DISTRICT FRINGE BENEFIT PLAN ---Eff , each regular full-time District employee shall be entitled to receive the following fringe benefits: Basic Medical Insurance Coverage Choice of plans provided by the District. The District will provide basic medical insurance coverage for all employees and dependents at the District's expense;the Board of Directors shall set a base single premium rate and a base family premium rate for medical plan coverage each year as part of the budget approval process. If the premiums for the medical plan selected by the employee exceed the base premium rates adopted by the Board,the employee shall be responsible for paying the difference in the cost of the premiums through bi-weekly payroll deductions. i If an employee can prove that he or she is currently covered under a private or a spouse's medical plan, basically equivalent to that provided by the District, the employee is eligible to apply one-half of the base single medical premium amount, as approved by the Board of Directors, to 1) optional benefit costs and premiums and 2) the District's deferred compensation program in his or her name. Basic Dental Coverage Choice of plan(s) provided by the District. The District will provide basic dental insurance coverage for all employees and their dependents,and the base premium, as approved by the Board of Directors ,will be paid by the District. If an employee can prove that he or she is currently covered under a private or a spouse's dental plan, basically equivalent to that provided by the District, the employee is eligible to apply one-half of the base dental premium amount, as approved by the Board of Directors,to 1)optional benefit costs and premiums and 2}the District's deferred compensation program in his or her name. Vision Care NEW Choice of plan provided by the District. The District will provide basic vision care coverage for all employees and their dependents, and the base premium, as approved by the Board of Directors,will be paid by the District. Basic Life Insurance Choice of plan(s)provided by the District and premiums to be paid by the District. Optional Benefits Choice of optional benefits to be provided by the District. Related costs and premiums to be paid by the employee. Effective October 1 , 1987,the District's optional benefits shall include supplemental life insurance, long-term disability insurance, and accidental death and dismemberment insurance. Medical, dental, and basic life insurance benefits for regular part-time (one-half time or greater) employees shall be administered on a pro-rata basis. The District's fringe benefit plan shall be administered by the General Manager or his designee. The District's Board of Directors maintains the right, as governing authority, to modify the fringe benefit plan at any time. Proposed changes shall be subject to review and comment by District employees prior to Board adoption. Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-77 (Meeting 91-19 June 26 , 1991 ) REPORT June 17 , 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Catastrophic Leave Program Recommended Action: Adopt the attached Catastrophic Leave Program for all District employees . Discussion: A District-wide Catastrophic Leave Program is attached for your review and approval . The program is designed to assist a District employee who has exhausted paid time credits due to a serious , catastrophic or debilitating illness , injury or condition. The program allows other District employees to make grants of time to the employee so that he/she can remain in paid status for a longer period of time , thus partially reducing the impact of the illness, injury or condition . As part of the recent contract negotiations with S .E. I .U. Local 715 , the District agreed via a sideletter to implement a Catastrophic Leave Program, tailored after San Mateo County' s program, by July 1 , 1991 . The District ' s non-represented employees had also expressed an interest in establishing such a program. Local 715 approved the proposed program as presented, on June 13 , 1991 , and all non-represented District employees were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. Four employees felt that donating employees should be eligible to receive their donated time back if it is unused or not needed by the receiving employee. This feature is not included in the recommended plan. Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Catastrophic Leave Program Purpose The Catastrophic Leave Program is designed to assist District employees (called receiving employees) who have exhausted paid time credits due to a serious, catastrophic or debilitating illness, injury or condition of the employee. This program allows other District employees (called donating employees) to make grants of time to that employee so that he/she can remain in a paid status for a longer period of time, thus partially reducing the financial impact of the illness, injury or condition. The grants of time donated to the receiving employee are converted to sick leave for use by the receiving employee. CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING EMPLOYEES There are four criteria for eligibility as a receiving employee. The receiving employee must : 1 . Be a regular full- or part-time District employee; 2. Exhaust all available paid leave time, including sick leave, vacation, personal leave, holiday or holiday bank time, and compensatory time off; 3 . Have a sustained, serious or debilitating illness, injury or condition which may need to be verified by a doctor ' s report; 4 . Be prevented from returning to work for at last 30 days and have applied for a disability leave of absence without pay. To apply to be a receiving employee under the Catastrophic Leave Program, an employee completes an Application for Catastrophic Leave.. The application is submitted to the Administrative Services Manager for approval . An employee may be asked to submit supporting medical documentation (i .e. , a statement from his/her doctor) with the application. Approval or rejection for participation must be made by the Administrative Services Manager within two weeks after the completed application is submitted. An employee may be asked to verify his/her status for continuing eligibility for the program. If an employee ' s application is approved to be a receiving employee, the Administrative Services Manager will meet with the employee or his/her family members to determine the degree to which the employee ' s catastrophic illness , injury, or condition is to be kept confidential . The Administrative Services Manager will distribute a Donation of Accrued Time Credits form to all full-time and part-time District employees so they can specify donations they wish to make to the receiving employee. Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Benefits available to a receiving employee participating in the program will be treated as though the additional sick leave credited to him/her belongs to him/her. For as long as a receiving employee remains in a paid status, seniority, sick leave and vacation accrual and all benefits will continue as though the sick leave were his or hers. The total credits received by the employee shall normally not exceed three months; however, if approved by the General Manager, the total leave credits received may be up to a maximum of six months. CONDITIONS FOR DONATING EMPLOYEES Donations must be made to a specific person on a form signed by the donating employee and submitted to the Administrative Services Manager. All donation information will be considered confidential . A donating employee can, if he/she chooses, inform the receiving employee of the donation made. Employees may donate the following types of accrued time credits : ° vacation time • personal paid leave time ° holiday bank time compensatory time off (non-exempt employees) sick leave -- one hour of accrued sick leave may be donated for every three hours of other types of accrued leave time Donations must be made in one hour increments . There is no limitation on the number of hours that may be donated. The donations will be converted to sick leave time and credited to the receiving employee' s sick leave time balance on an hour-for-hour basis . The pay the receiving employee receives will be at his/her own rate of pay. Under any circumstance, donations, once made, are forfeited forever by the donating employee. If the receiving employee returns to work, any time the donating employee (s) has contributed will remain with the receiving employee and not revert to the donating employee (s) . In order to donate, a Donation of Accrued Time Credits form must be submitted to the Administrative Services Manager for processing. Open Space A ............ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CONFIDENTIAL APPLICATION CATASTROPHIC LEAVE PROGRAM Name: El I am a full- or part-time regular District employee; F-1 I have sustained a serious or debilitating illness , injury or condition El I have exhausted all paid time off or will do so by D I will be unable to work for 30 days and have applied for a leave of absence without pay for medical reasons . I, request to participate in the District ' s Catastrophic Leave Program. I am making this request be6-ause I have a serious illness or condition. (Please describe the qualifying condition below. If necessary, as requested by the Administrative Services Manager, please supply medical verification of the condition described below. ) Signed: Date: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- F-1 Approved F-1 Denied Date: Administrative Services Manager Reason for Denial : Open Space CONFIDENTIAL MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DONATION OF ACCRUED TIME CREDITS CATASTROPHIC LEAVE PROGRAM Donating Employee ' s Name: Name of Employee to Whom You Are Donating Credits: Please check below the type of accrued time you are giving and the number of hours you are giving: 0 Vacation: Number of hours : ED Personal Leave Time: Number of hours : ❑ Holiday Bank Time: Number of hours: El Compensatory Time Off (non-exempt employees) Number of hours : El Sick Leave: (You may contribute 1 hour for every 3 hours of other types of leave) : Number of hours: I understand that once I have given this accrued time to the receiving employee that I will not, under any circumstance, be permitted to receive this time back. My signature below constitutes my authorization to deduct the above time from my records and credit them to the employee identified above. Signature: Date: Upon completion, please forward this donation form directly to the Administrative Services Manager for processing. Open space ---------------------------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-62 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991 REPORT June 18 , 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager and J. Fiddes, District Clerk SUBJECT: Amendments to Rules of Procedure Recommended Actions: 1) Adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Amending Section 1 . 45 of Rules of Procedure 2) Adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Amending Section 2. 60 of Rules of Procedure Discussion• Section 1 . 45 - Written Communications In February, 1989 you amended your Rules of Procedure to designate the Wednesday preceding a Board meeting, rather than the Thursday, as the deadline for receipt and inclusion in the packet of a written communication not related to an item on the agenda (see report R-89-32 dated February 2, 1989) . Section 1 . 45 of the Rules of Procedure currently states in part: "All written communications, unless they related to an item on the agenda, must be received no later than 5: 00 P.M. on the Wednesday preceding a Board meeting in order to be distributed with the agenda and supporting materials and considered by the Board at the forthcoming meeting. " The system of attaching a staff-prepared draft reply to a written communication not related to an item on the agenda is designed to facilitate your review of the correspondence, as well as your pre-meeting review of the proposed response. The 5:00 P.M. receipt deadline on the Wednesday preceding a Board meeting, though significantly better than the previous Thursday deadline, continues to present timing difficulties to staff in terms of preparing draft replies for inclusion in the packet. I recommend that the Wednesday receipt deadline for all written communications that do not relate to an item on the agenda be changed to Tuesday. The primary reason for the proposed change is to allow staff additional time to prepare draft replies for written communications for inclusion with your packet material . R-91-62 Page 2 I feel that it is often important to include a draft response, since written communications may contain misinformation that needs immediate correction when the letter is read by the Board, press , or public. A draft response also contributes to efficient disposition of matters addressed in a letter. I also propose for Board consideration that the following language be added to Section 1 . 45: If , in the opinion of the General Manager, a written communication should not be distributed with the agenda and supporting material without a draft response, which has yet to be prepared, the written communication may be distributed later, but no later than at the forthcoming Board meeting. This language provides staff with flexibility to deal with exceptional situations , such as a written communication response requiring extensive research or a different packet mailing schedule due to a Friday holiday. In such case, the written communication and proposed draft response would not be mailed with the packet material for the forthcoming Board meeting, but would be presented for your review at the meeting itself. If you are not comfortable with this language, it could be modified or deleted from the attached resolution. Section 2.60 - Certificates of Acceptance At your meeting of November 8 , 1989, you amended your Rules of Procedure by adopting Resolution 89-51 to enable the general manager to accept the acquisition of minor interests in and easements upon land (report R-89-153 dated October 31 , 1989) . It was not suggested at that time that the general manager be authorized to accept full fee title to any parcel of land no matter how minor because your policy is for the Board to consider acquisitions in a public meeting prior to actual purchase, except in the most unusual circumstance. In order to provide protection of District interests , the normal procedure is for staff to obtain an option on property to be considered for acquisition so that publicly announcing a proposed acquisition by means of a published agenda would ordinarily not jeopardize an intended land purchase. Staff has always been concerned about acquisitions that would have to come to the Board first, where any member of the public, agenda subscriber or not, might be able to interfere with a District intended purchase. There are several types of transactions that would ordinarily come before you without the security of a prior option. These transactions might include: 1) an option requiring a significant option payment that is more than the $25, 000 general purchase authorization for the general manager; 2) purchase of lands from other• governmental agencies; 3) foreclosure, trustee or estate sales , or auctions; 4) transactions where the owner insists that the District execute the purchase agreements first, without benefit of an option; and 5) tax defaulted purchases . In the current proposal , any transactions in these categories that exceed a $25, 000 payment would still require prior Board authorization in either open or closed session. However, in the case where a property is valued at less than $25, 000, the general manager could determine that it was in the District ' s best interest to acquire the property directly, without prior Board authorization. Such authority would only need to be exercised when a property might be lost if such action was not taken. R-91-62 Page 3 Therefore, I recommend that you adopt a new policy for properties valued at $25, 000 or less, where the general manager determines that the District might lose the potential acquisition and there is insufficient time to notify the Board ahead of time. In such case, the general manager would be able to proceed with such acquisition with adoption by the Board of the use and management plan in public session after close of the transaction. This procedure would be accomplished by amending Section 2. 60 of your Rules of Procedure regarding Certificates of Acceptance to include a provision for general manager approval of fee acquisitions under certain circumstances. Several safeguards would be built into this additional procedure: a) The general manager finds that the acquisition of such low-value real property is consistent with District policy; and b) The general manager finds that the District is unable to obtain a binding option on the property to secure it pending Board approval of the acquisition at a public Board meeting and that without this security completion. of the acquisition might be jeopardized; and c) The cost does not exceed the general manager' s authority as provided in Section 5549 (b) of the Public Resources Code and as approved by the Board of Directors from time to time; and d) After close of the transaction, the general manager will cause a public report to appear on a Board agenda within a reasonable period of time for approval of the preliminary use and management plan. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 1 . 45 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Paragraph 2 of Section 1 .45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is hereby amended to read as follows: All written communications, unless they relate to an item on the agenda, must be received no later than 5:00 P.M. on the Tuesday preceding a Board meeting in order to be distributed with the agenda and supporting materials and considered by the Board at the forthcoming meeting. If, in the opinion of the General Manager, a written communication should not be distributed with the agenda and supporting materials without a draft response, which has yet to be prepared, the written communication may be distributed later, but no later than at the forthcoming Board meeting. Written communications not directly related to an item on the agenda received after the 5:00 P.M. Tuesday deadline may be distributed with the agenda and supporting materials and considered by the Board at the forthcoming meeting if , in the opinion of the General Manager, time is of the essence for consideration of the written communication by the Board. Written communications directly related to an item on the agenda will be accepted for distribution up to 3:00 P .M. on the day of the meeting. Written communications directly related to an item on the agenda but received after 3:00 P.M. on the day of a meeting must be accompanied by thirty copies for distribution in order to be considered by the Board as written communications at the meeting. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING SECTION 2.60 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Section 2 . 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional open Space District is hereby amended to read as follows: Certificates of Acceptance. In accordance with Government Code Section 27281 , Certificates of Acceptance for deeds or grants conveying any interest in or easement upon real estate to the District for public purposes shall be executed as follows: (1) The President of the Board of Directors or other appropriate officer is hereby authorized to consent and accept on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District deeds or grants conveying any interest in or easement upon real property to the District for public purposes and to execute a Certificate of Acceptance as evidence thereof as required by law; or (2) The General Manager is hereby authorized to approve the acquisition of a minor interest in or easement upon real property and accept on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District deeds or grants conveying any such minor interest in or easement upon real property to the District for public purposes and to execute a Certificate of Acceptance as evidence thereof as required by law, subject to the following: a) The General Manager finds that the acquisition of such minor interest in or easement upon real property is consistent with District policy; and b) The cost does not exceed the General Manager ' s authority as provided in Section 5549 (b) of the Public Resources Code and as approved by the Board of Directors from time to time; and c) The General Manager informs the Board of Directors of the action or proposed action within a reasonable period of time; or (3) The General Manager is hereby authorized to approve the acquisition of low-value fee interests of real property and accept on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District deeds or grants conveying any fee title interest to the District for public purposes and to execute a Certificate of Acceptance as evidence thereof as required by law, subject to the following: a) The General Manager finds that the acquisition of such low-value real property is consistent with District policy; and b) The General Manager finds that the District is unable to obtain a binding option on the property to secure it pending Board approval of the acquisition at a public Board meeting and that without this security completion of the acquisition might be jeopardized; and c) The cost does not exceed the General Manager ' s authority as provided in Section 5549 (b) of the Public Resources Code and as approved by the Board of Directors from time to time; and d) After close of the transaction, the General Manager will cause a public report to appear on a Board agenda within a reasonable period of time for approval of the preliminary use and management plan. Be it further resolved that this Resolution supersedes Resolution 89-51 , adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on November 8 , 1989. Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-71 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991) REPORT June 14, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY & PREPARATION: C. Britton, Acting Land Manager; C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Johnson Property Addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Recommended Action: 1. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Johnson property addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, including the naming, as contained in report R-90- 83 . 2. Indicate your intention to dedicate the property as public open space. Discussion: At your July 9, 1990 meeting, you approved the acquisition of the .34-acre Johnson property addition to Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve (see report R-90-83 dated July 9, 1990) . You also tentatively adopted the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the addition, including naming the property as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and indicated your intention to dedicate the property as public open space. In accordance with your adopted Land Acquisition Notification Procedures, final adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was deferred until after close of escrow to allow further time for public comment. Escrow on the property closed on June 12, 1991. Staff has received no further public comment. 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite C-135 • Mountain View, California 94040 ® Phone: (415) 949-5500 - FAX: (415) 949-5679 Ceneral Manager:Herbert Crench Board of Directors:Richard Bishop,Betsy Crowder,Katherine Duffy,Nonette Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Robert McKibbin,Edward Shelley Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-72 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991) REPORT June 17, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY & PREPARATION: C. Britton, Acting Land Manager; C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Peninsula Open Space Trust Property Addition to the Cathedral Oaks Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Recommended Action: 1. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the POST (former Menuhin) property addition to the Cathedral Oaks Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, including the naming, as contained in report R-91-55. 2. Indicate your intention to dedicate the property as public open space. Discussion: At your May 8, 1991 meeting, you approved the acquisition of the 23-acre POST property addition to the Cathedral Oaks Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (see report R-91-55 dated April 23, 1991) . You also tentatively adopted the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the addition, including naming the property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and indicated your intention to dedicate the land as public open space. In accordance with your adopted Land Acquisition Notification Procedures, final adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was deferred until after close of escrow to allow further time for public comment. Escrow on the property closed on May 31, 1991. Staff has received no further public comment. 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite C-135 , Mountain View, California 94040 m Phone: (415) 949-5500 - FAX: (415) 949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Richard Bishop,Betsy Crowder,Katherine Duffy,Nonette Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Robert McKibbin,Edward Shelley Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-73 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991) REPORT June 17, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY & PREPARATION: C. Britton, Acting Land Manager; C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Gastronics Incorporated Property Addition to the Mt. Umunhum Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Recommended Action: 1. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Gastronics Incorporated property addition to the Mt. Umunhum Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, including the naming, as contained in report R-91-54. 2. Indicate your intention to withhold the property from dedication as public open space at this time. Discussion: At your May 8, 1991 meeting, you approved the acquisition of the 160-acre Gastronics Incorporated property addition to the Mt. Umunhum Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (see report R-91-54 dated April 24, 1991) . You also tentatively adopted the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the addition, including naming the property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, and indicated your intention to withhold the land as public open space at this time. In accordance with your adopted Land Acquisition Notification Procedures, final adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was deferred until after close of escrow to allow further time for public comment. Escrow on the property closed on June 3, 1991. Staff has received no further public comment. 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite C-135 - Mountain View, California 94040 - Phone: (415) 949-5500 - FAX: (415) 949-5679 Ceneral Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Richard Bishop,Betsy Crowder,Katherine Duffy,Nonette Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Robert McKibbin,Edward Shelley Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-74 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991) REPORT June 17, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY & PREPARATION: C. Britton, Acting Land Manager; C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Deka Associates Property Addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve Recommended Action: 1. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Deka Associates property addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, including the naming, as contained in report R-91- 50* 2. Indicate your intention to dedicate the property as public open space. Discussion: At your April 241, 1991 meeting, you approved the acquisition of the 205-acre Deka Associates property addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve (see report R-91-50 dated April 10, 1991) . You also tentatively adopted the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the addition, including naming the property as an addition to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, and indicated your intention dedicate the land as public open space. The former property owner was responsible for removing all debris and items of personal property from the site by July 30, 1991. Five thousand dollars was withheld in escrow to ensure that the clean-up is done in a timely and satisfactory manner. The clean-up was completed by the owner before the close of escrow. Staff inspected the premises and the funds have been released. In accordance with your adopted Land Acquisition Notification Procedures, final adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was deferred until after close of escrow to allow further time for public comment. Escrow on the property closed on May 31, 1991. Staff has received no further public comment. 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite C-135 , Mountain View, California 94040 - Phone: (415) 949-5500 - FAX: (415) 949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Richard Bishop,Betsy Crowder,Katherine Duffy,Nonette Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Robert McKibbin,Edward Shelley Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-78 (Meeting 91-19 June 26, 1991) REPORT June 18 , 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: C. Britton, Land Acquisition Manager SUBJECT: Amendment to Legal Description for Proposed Ringo Property Addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Amending Legal Description (Exhibit "A") as Attached to Resolution No. 90-03 (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Ringo Property) Discussion• At your meeting of January 24, 1990, you adopted Resolution No. 90-03 determining the public necessity for the proposed Ringo property acquisition as an addition to the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (see report R-90-13 dated January 10, 1990) . It was subsequently determined that there was an error in the legal description attached as Exhibit "A" to the resolution. In order to perfect documentation as a part of the legal process, it is necessary for you to correct this error by amending the original resolution. The original resolution was adopted by you after a public hearing in accordance with state law. Therefore, staff has been advised by Legal Counsel to amend the Resolution of Necessity using the same procedure. The claimed owners of the property have received notification of this hearing by certified mail, although they have not officially requested the opportunity to speak at the hearing as of the date of this report. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING LEGAL DESCRIPTION (EXHIBIT "A" ) AS ATTACHED TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-03 (SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - RINGO PROPERTY) WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District passed and adopted that certain Resolution No. 90-03 on January 24, 1990, Finding and Determining That the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Properties for Public Use, To Wit, For Public Park, Recreation and Open Space Purposes, Describing the Properties Necessary Therefore and Authorizing and Directing Its Retained Legal Counsel To Do Everything Necessary to Acquire All Interests Therein (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Ringo Property) , and WHEREAS, it was subsequently discovered that the legal description which was attached to said Resolution as Exhibit "A" is in error. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby amend Resolution No. 90-03, dated January 24, 1990 , to replace the legal description contained therein with Exhibit "A" as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby ratify and confirm said Resolution No. 90-03 in all other respects . "EXHIBIT A" All that certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California; further described as follows : Parcel One• The Southwest % of the Northwest X of Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. Parcel Two• A non-exclusive easement ten feet in width for the installation and maintenance of a water line and related equipment and for the incidental rights of maintenance, repair, and replacement of said water line and related equipment (the obligation for which shall be on grantees) . The easement shall be located along the west property line of the Northwest X of Township 9 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. Parcel Three• Together with those certain water rights as set forth in that certain Grant Deed by and between Joan Lee Sharp, and Frank and Rita Freitas , husband and wife, as community property, recorded on May 8 , 1984 in Book 1521 of Official Records, Page 276 . APN 562-22-032 Open Space 5 -we MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-91-75 (Meeting 91-19 June 26 , 1991) REPORT June 17 , 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager SUBJECT: Scheduling of July 9 Special Meeting Recommended Action: Schedule a Special Meeting for Tuesday, July 9 , 1991 beginning at 6 : 30 P.M. at Romic Chemical Corporation, 2081 Bay Road, East Palo Alto. The purpose of the meeting is to tour Romic ' s chemical recycling facility, learn about its operations and impacts on the District ' s adjacent Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, and to tour portions of the preserve. Discussion: At your May 22 meeting, Rhonda Rigenhaven, Community Relations Manager for Romic Chemical Corporation , invited the Board to tour Romic' s facility. The tour is now scheduled for 6 : 30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 9. A map is reproduced on the back showing directions to Romic Chemical Corporation. In July 1990 , you approved a Permit-to-Enter for Romic Chemical Corporation to install a monitoring well at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve . The purpose of the well was to obtain samples as required by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (see report R-90-79 dated July 5, 1990) . Romic Chemical is seeking to amend the current permit to allow the installation of additional monitoring wells . i C7 Bay Road II Y r0- ro L } hfgh day ror Open Space a MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager DATE: June 26, 1991 SUBJECT: F. Y. I . Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT June 19, 1991 i Maria Bautista California History Center De Anza College 21250 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Bautista: Thank you for your May 21, 1991 letter regarding the California History Center's upcoming exhibit. The District would be pleased to participate in the exhibit. I understand that Carleen Bruins, the District's administrative assistant, attended the meeting at the history center on June 13. Although we cannot make a financial contribution, we can offer a tour of the Picchetti winery and the Fremont Older house as you suggested at the meeting. Please contact Carleen Bruins when you are ready to arrange the tours, or if you need information about the District's historic sites. We are looking forward to working with you on this project. 4fS' rely, Cr g Britton Assistant General Manager i cc: Board of Directors Herb Grench 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite C-135 - Mountain View, California 94040 - Phone: (415) 949-5500 • FAX: (415) 949-5679 Genera(Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Richard Bishop,Betsy Crowder,Katherine Duffy,Nonette Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Robert McKibbin,Edward Shelley Open Space ................. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT June 17, 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nellis Regnart Road Homeowner's Association 22322 Regnart Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Fremont Older Open Space Preserve - Private Trail Encroachment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nellis: This letter is regarding the recent construction of a private trail on Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The trail connects private open space lands owned by Regnart Road Homeowner's Association to an existing public trail on the preserve. A portion of the new trail was constructed on District land without permission or approval by our Board of Directors. This constitutes a violation of the following sections of District Ordinance 83-1: Sec. 603 .2 Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interferring with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of such land, his/her agent or by the person in lawful possession. Sec. 803 . 1 Plants. No person shall damage, injure, collect, or remove any plant or tree or portion thereof, whether living or dead, including but not limited to flowers, mushrooms, bushes, vines, grass, turf, cones and dead wood located on District lands. In our letter of December 20, 1990 (copy attached) , we outlined the process for granting permission to build a trail on District property. We have received no response from you. As stated in the letter, proposed trails must be addressed in the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for each preserve. These plans are reviewed periodically by the District's Board of Directors. Implementation of the plans cannot occur without Board approval. This includes all new trail construction. Because this trail has been illegally built on District land, it cannot be opened for use until it is approved by the Board and properly constructed. The Fremont Older Use and Management Plan was reviewed and approved by the Board in November 1990.,- Since the next plan review will not be scheduled for several years, a written request for an amendment 201 San Antonio Circle, Suite C-135 - Mountain View, California 94040 • Phone: (415) 949-5500 • FAX: (415) 949-5679 General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Richard Bishop,Betsy Crowder,Katherine Duffy,Nonette Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Robert McKibbin,Edward Shelley to the plan will be necessary if you wish to pursue neighborhood access into the preserve. Please address your proposal to the District's Board of Directors with a copy to me. You have until June 28th to initiate this planning process. If you do not comply with this request, District rangers will be directed to close the illegal trail. It will remain closed while the staff and Board consider the proposed use. Assuming this use is approved, a realignment of the trail may be necessary to meet District standards. We will contact you as soon as we receive your written proposal. Si erely y�o"c'L.L r KS-1119 Britton Acting Land Manager cc: Board of Directors Herb Grench, General Manager Stan Norton, Legal Counsel Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT December 20-, --1990t- Mr. and Mrs . Robert Nellis 22322 Regnart Road Cupertino, California 95014 i Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nellis , I District staff has reviewed your telephone request to construct a neighborhood access trail from property owned by the Regnart Road Homeowner' s Association to the existing trail system located on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve . It is recommended that this request be submitted in writing to our Board of Directors as a proposed amendment to the Use and Management Plan for Fremont Older. Requests of this nature, as a matter of policy, are considered within the context of a comprehensive use and management plan. New trails constructed on a preserve are categorized as a significant change in land use which requires approval by the Board of Directors . Staff has investigated the" Teaj'`dd aI3:gnm-e-nt"`antt over the steepness of the trail . If you are to proceed we will require a realignment li nment that meets District standards . Assuming such an alignment is desirable from your viewpoint, then we can 'n a n amendme nt to the Use and Managment with pr eparing arl _ proceed wz p p g i Plan. This will have to be scheduled on a future Board agenda. In addition, an agreement may be necessary to spell out signing and management responsibilities for the trail. Unfortunately, this process could have been expedited if the proposal had been presented to the Board and staff when you spoke at the recent public review of the preserve Use and Management a ent review Plan. Becau se of a rather busy use and man gem schedule , we may not be able to submit an amendment for a few months . You and your neighbors should know that any further brush clearing of District land will be considered a violation of public ordinances. Upon notification from you, we will continue workingthrough hrou h our Board of Directors . to re solve ve this issue Sincerely rr yours , !f � 1, avid Hansen, Land Manager cc: Katherine Duffy 201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-135 • Mountain View,California 94040 Phone:(415)949-5500 FAX:(415)949-5679 J U N 1 1991 Valerie Kobal Creeks of Los Altos 881 Parma Way Los Altos, Ca.94024 6-13-91 Herb Grench, General manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 201 San Antonio Circle Old Mill Office Center, Bldg. C, Ste. 135 Mountain View, Ca . 94043 Dear Mr. Grench: We want to commend you and your staff on the excellent presentation on the public necessity for the proposed Vidovich property addition to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. In contrast to the documents of many governmental agencies , your staff 's work was a masterpiece of clarity and logic and provided the public as well as the Board with easy access to the facts. We are mailing a copy of the document to Steven Herrera of the Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, for his information in the water right application of Mr. Vido- vich, an application which Creeks of Los Altos and the City of Los Altos have protested. Creeks of Los Altos was very pleased by the vote to take legal action to acquire these vital lands. We feel very fortunate to be served by a public agency with such vision and foresight. Sincerely, Valerie Kobal -------------- i Claims No. 91-12 Meeting 91-20 Date: June 26, 1991 REVISED MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 846 136.16 Allen Equipment Company, Inc. Fire Equipment 847 53.50 Arne Sign & Decal Company, Inc. Vehicle Decals j 848 11000.00 Geoff Ball & Associates Facilitation of Strategic Plan Workshop i i 849 38.95 Matthew Bender & Company Resource Documents 1 850 187.21 Big Creek Lumber ny Redwood Beams 851 2,026.25 Binkley Associates Engineering Services 852 198.95 Bridge Radio Services, Inc. Radio Installation 853 28.63 California State Library Resource Documents Foundation 854 73.00 California. Water Service Company Water Service 855 2,171.20 Cannis Consulting Engineers Consulting Services 856 34.03 Central Stationers Office Supplies j 857 267.94 Clark's Auto Parts/Machine Shop Vehicle Parts 858 595.00 Aruette Coleman Reimbursement-Termite Inspection and Carpeting 859 70.00 Bernadette Congdon Equipment Dust Covers 860 348.86 Conservatree Paper Company Office Supplies 861 500.00 Toni Corelli Plant Inventory 862 96.00 Steve Covarrubias Re ursementi--Uhiform Expense 863 84.02 L. N. Curtis & Sons Field Equipment 864 23.50 Dittmer's Genet Meats Local Meeting Expense 865 202.50 The Dublin Group, Inc. Training Registration--M. Dole 866 2,000.00 Earth Systems Consultants Geotechnical Engineering Services 867 91.00 Albert Faria Reimbursement-Training Registrationsi 868 20.00 Federal EWress Corporation Express Mail 869 65.00 First American Title Guaranty Reomveyance Fees Company 870 527.00 First American Title Insurance Title Policy Company 871 68.00 David B. Fisher Legal Services 872 567.64 Foothill Safety, Inc. Safety Uniform Expense 873 197.62 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Field Supplies 874 103.55 He hold Motor Company, Inc. Vehicle Rental 875 285.51 The Home Depot Field Supplies 876 222.00 J and J Water Trucks 'Water Service 877 2,500.00 J. Thomas Jakaby Construction Services 878 503.68 Konica Business Machines Maintenance Agreement 879 1,635.90 Meyers, Nave, Riback & West Legal Services 880 193.75 * MicroAge Equipment Repairs 881 366.84 Minton Is Lumber & Supply Field Supplies t 882 35.25 No 's of Mountain View Office Supplies 883 44.41 Northern Energy Propane Fuel 884 26.74 Office Club Office Supplies 885 520.07 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies 886 2,816.44 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 887 1,952.66 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Architectural Services 888 84.72 Peninsula Blueprint, Inc. Bluelines 889 50.94 Warren Phillips Reimbursement-Field Supplies *Emergency check issued on June 14, 1991. i Claims No. 91-12 Meeting 91-20 Date: June 26, 1991 REVISED bUMPENINSULA REGIONALOPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description _ 890 736.26 Rays Repair Service Vehicle Repairs 891 1,521.48 Santa. Clara County Sheriff's Patrol Services Department 892 3,000.00 Seafirst Bank Tender Agent Fee 893 13.63 Sears Field Equipment 894 13.00 Shell Oil Company Fuel 895 684.25 Spencer Associates Engineering Services 896 7,856.59 The Steinberg Group Architectural Services 897 980.00 Fjtqard A. Tunheim Consulting Services 898 1,765.00 Valley Title Company Preliminary Reports and Title Policy 899 453.55 Valley Tool & Manufacturing Field Equipment Company 900 175.00 Suzanne Weller Music for Docent Recognition nt 901 356.20 Western Allied Company Air-Conditioning System Repairs 902 285.00 West Valley Park Management Club Training Registration—Rangers 903 140.58 The Workingman's rum Uni form niforra 904 87.78 Yardbird Equipment Company Equipment Repairs and Parts 905 8,900.00 Mike raticm Demolition Foxier it Property 906 48.95 Lauren McGuire Private Vehicle Expense 907 225.00 Computer Resource Center TrainingRegistration---E.J 908 414.56 Petty Cash Equipment Repair, Field and Office Supplies, Local Meeting Expense, Film and Developing, Suboriptions, and Private Vehicle Expense i III '' Claims No. 91-12 Meeting 91-20 Date: June 26, 1991 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Amount Name Description 846 136.16 Allen Equipment Company, Inc. Fire Equipment 847 53.50 Arne Sign & Decal Company, Inc. Vehicle Decals 848 1 ,000.00 Geoff Ball & Associates Facilitation of Strategic Plan Workshop 849 38.95 Matthew Bender & Company Resource Documents 850 187.21 Big Creek Lumber Company Redwood Beams 851 2,026.25 Binkley Associates Engineering Services 852 198.95 Bridge Radio Services, Inc. Radio Installation 853 28.63 California State Library Resource Documents Foundation 854 73-00 California Water Service Company Water Service 855 2,171.20 Cannis Consulting Engineers Consulting Services 856 34.03 Central Stationers Office Supplies 857 267.94 Clark's Auto Parts/Machine Shop Vehicle Parts 858 595.00 Annette Coleman Reimbursement-Termite Inspection and Carpeting 859 70.00 Bernadette Congdon Equipment Dust Covers 860 348.86 Conservatree Paper Company Office Supplies 861 500.00 Toni Corelli Plant Inventory 862 96.00 Steve Covarrubias Reimbursement--Uniform Expense 863 84.02 L. N. Curtis & Sons Field Equipment 864 23.50 Dittmer's Gourmet Meats Local Meeting Expense 865 202.50 The Dublin Group, Inc. Training Registration-M- Dole 866 2,000.00 Earth Systems Consultants Geotechnical Engineering Services 867 91 .00 Albert Faria Reimbursement-Training Registrations 868 20.00 Federal Express Corporation Express it 869 65.00 First American Title Guaranty Reconveyance Fees Company 870 527.00 First American Title Insurance Title Policy Company 871 68.00 David B. Fisher Legal Services 872 567.64 Foothill Safety, Inc. Safety Uniform Expense 873 197.62 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Field Supplies 874 103.55 Hengehold Motor Company, Inc. Vehicle Rental 875 285.51 The Home Depot Field Supplies 876 222.00 J and J Water Trucks Water Service 877 2,500-00 J. Thomas Jakaby Construction Services 878 503.68 Konica Business Machines Maintenance Agreement 879 1 ,635.90 Meyers, Nave, Riback & West Legal Services 880 193.75 MicroAge Equipment Repairs 881 366.84 Minton's Lumber & Supply Field Supplies 882 35.25 Norney's of Mountain View Office Supplies 883 44-41 Northern Energy Propane Fuel 884 26.74 Office Club Office Supplies 885 520.07 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies 886 2,816.44 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities 887 1 ,952.66 Page & Turnbull , Inc- Architectural Services 888 84.72 Peninsula Blueprint, Inc. Bluelines 889 50.94 Warren Phillips Reimbursement--Field Supplies *Emergency check issued on June 14, 1991 . ------------- Claims No. 91-12 Meeting 91-20 Date: June 26, 1991 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 890 736.26 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs 891 1 ,521 .48 Santa Clara County Sheriff's Patrol Services Department 892 3,000.00 Seafirst Bank Tender Agent Fee 893 13.63 Sears Field Equipment 894 13.00 Shell Oil Company Fuel 895 684.25 Spencer Associates Engineering Services 896 7,856.59 The Steinberg Group Architectural Services 897 980.00 Edward A. Tunheim Consulting Services 898 1 ,765.00 Valley Title Company Preliminary Reports and Title Policy 899 453.55 Valley Tool & Manufacturing Field Equipment Company 900 175.00 Suzanne Weller Music for Docent Recognition Event 901 356.20 Western Allied Company Air--Conditioning System Repairs 902 285.00 West Valley Park Management Club Training Registration—Rangers 903 140.58 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expense 904 87.78 Yardbird Equipment Company Equipment Repairs and Parts 905 8,900.00 Mike Tobar Excavation Demolition - Former McNeil Property 906 48.95 Lauren McGuire Private Vehicle Expense