Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19980708 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 98-16 Re i I al Open k ice gloll MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-16 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS BOARD OF 121RECTORS AGENDA* 6:30 P.M. 330 Distel Circle Wednesday Los Altos, California July 8, 1998 PLEASE NOTE*** 630 P.M. Closed Session Start 77me 730 P.M. Public Meeting Start 77me (6:30) ROLL CALL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CLOSED SESSION The Closed Session will begin at 6:30 P.M. At 7:30 P.M., the Board will adjourn the Special Meeting Closed Session to the conclusion of the Public Meeting, and at the conclusion of the Public Meeting, the Board may reconvene the Special Meeting Closed Session. 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) A. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v. Esperson-Rodrigues Development Company, et al. San Mateo County Case No. 405148 B. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v. Ireland Santa Clara County Case No. CV772320 C. Moshell v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District San Mateo County Case No. 402473 2. Conference With Real Pmpea Negotiator - Government Code Section 54956.8 Real PmW,,Ay: Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number: 085-160-013 Negotiating Parties: Dennis J. Nead, et al. Under NeLyotiations: Instructions to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 * Phone: 650-69 1-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@opensl)ace.org - Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Orrectots;Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr, David 1.Smernoff, Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L Craig Britton Meeting 98-16 Page 2 (7:30) PUBLIC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—Public ADOPTION OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR—B. Crowder APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 20, 1998 (Consent Item) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS BOARD BUSINESS (7:45) 1. Regional Open Space Study Final Review; Review the Revised Draft Basic Policy Document, Including Changes Made at the May 6 Workshop, and Proposed Policy Language for Three Issues; Review the Greenbelt Financial Implications Model; Authorization for the General Manager to Contract for Reproduction of the Map and Related Text for Public Distribution; Comment on and/or Confirm the Potential Next Steps in the District's Advance Planning Program; and Determination that the Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) —R. Anderson (9:15) 2. Approval of 6% Salary Adjustment and 3% Meritorious Pay Award for the General Manager, Inclusive of a Cost of Living Increase, Retroactive to March 9, 1998 Resolution Amending the General Manager's Employment Agreement to Reflect an Adjusted Salary of$104,088.60 and a 3% Meritorious Pay Award Totaling$2,945.90 3. Authorization for the General Manager to Execute a Purchase Contract with Mission Valley Ford for One Small Dump Truck at a Cost of$42,887.56 (9:20) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS --Directors and Staff REVISED CLAIMS (Consent Item) 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: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during oral communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to 3 minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. ***All items on the consent calendar shall be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. Regional Open ace t 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PROPOSED AGENDA ITEM Closed Session with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS '. 1. Move that the Board determine that, based upon the facts set out in this report, there is a need to take immediate action on the item of business set forth in this agenda report and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Meeting of July 8, 1998. 2. Move to convene into closed session after revised claims and prior to adjournment for the purpose of discussing closed session item A: Conference With Real ProWrty Negotiator - Government Code Section 54956.8 Real Property: San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 064-380-020; 067-240- 020; 067-300-020; 067-320-010; 066-140-040; 066-140-030; 066-140-010 Negotiating Parties: First Skyline Corporation; ARW Company; Alan Walden Company; Peter Donnici. Negotiator: Craig B. Etlin, Esq. Under Negotiations: Instructions to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. DISCUSSION Over the last several months District staff has been touring and investigating the potential of acquiring this high-priority ridge top property located along Skyline Boulevard in San Mateo County adjacent to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve and Burleigh Murray State Park. Because the property is part of a complex estate settlement, the representative of the estate indicated that unless a serious offer were presented by a third party, there would be more than adequate time for District consideration and potential negotiations. However, I was just informed by telephone Tuesday, July 7, 1998 by Craig Etlin, attorney for the estate that a written cash offer to purchase this property has been received by the estate and if the District wants to be considered as a possible purchaser, the representatives of the property owners must receive the District's "best" proposal by this Friday, July 10, 1998. District staff has compiled much of the necessary information relative to a purchase offer but needs immediate authorization from the Board regarding the price and terms of a purchase offer in order to submit the offer on Friday, July loth. Prepared by: Craig Britton, General Manager Contact person: Same as above 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org . Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz General Manager:L.Craig Britton i Regional OpefJice ------------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-11 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 20, 1998 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL President Betsy Crowder called the meeting to order at 6:12 P.M. Members Present: Mary Davey, David Smernoff, Pete Siemens, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder, and Ken Nitz. J. Cyr arrived at 7:55 P.M. Members Absent: None Personnel Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, John Escobar, Deirdre Dolan, Randy Anderson, Del Woods, Jodi Isaacs, Mary de Beauvieres, and Malcolm Smith. H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—None. III. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1—Discussion of Issues Related to the Feasibility of Expanding the District by Annexation to Establish a System of Oven Space Preserves Parks- and Beaches on the San Mateo County Coast in Coordination with Existing and Planned District Preserves and Trails, to Include Discussion of Potential Elections, Policies_ Advisory Committee. Public Opinion Polling. and Related Subjects. B. Crowder stated that the object of the Board was to decide with the help of the public whether to proceed with an annexation proposal. She referred to a memo from C. Britton outlining the proposed order of business. C. Britton referred to the Board report of February 11 (Report R-98-23)which contained background information. He said staff was seeking direction from the Board as to what they wanted to do next—go forward with the annexation or look into it further. He outlined workshop topics as contained in his memo to the Board dated May 20 and referred to S. Schectman's memo regarding the time line for the annexation. N. Hanko said her memo of April 22 also listed issues for discussion. She asked that financing, impacts on the existing District, and unfinished tasks of the ad hoc committee and Board be added to that list. She also requested that"Procedure" be added to Item IV.A., Annexation. 330 Distel Circle , Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 'hone: 650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosrl@openspac:e.org Web site:www.openspace.org Bo,lyd or Oirector5.Pote Siemens,Miry C. Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonett{:Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.NItZ •(,enerdf M in,i yer.L.Craig Britton Meeting 98-11 Page 2 Harry Haeussler said he had been a constant critic of the Board's actions in past. He talked about the 1974 law change which he said happened without voter approval for the District to change it's name to open space and annexation of part of San Mateo County and parts of other Santa Cruz County under the guise of sphere of influence. He asked if they were really going to have some parks over there and who would pay for it. N. Hanko informed him that the law that created MROSD was specific and that language had to be used. She said they assumed people read the ballot argument that made it very clear that the district had an agreement with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors not to do parks. She said the annexation in San Mateo had been voted on. Mr. Haeussler said his question was about the people in the District voting on the annexation. B. Crowder said they did take a poll in the District and the existing District was overwhelmingly in favor of preservation. Zoe Kersteen-Tucker urged the Board to move forward with a vote in November. She said people are waiting to start working. She encouraged them to start looking at campaign funding and to spend time working on agricultural policies that bring together agricultural and environmental interests. She said the State Farm Bureau and the Farmland Trust should probably be represented on an advisory committee. Ms. Kersteen-Tucker said she thought there was a press to move forward as quickly as possible. D. Smernoff suggested the use of a matrix showing the main issues and policy intent. B. Crowder brought attention to the timelines prepared by S. Schectman and Peggy Coats. C. Britton said the latest the Board could put something on the November ballot is at the June 24 meeting and the election would cost approximately $18,000. P. Siemens said he was looking at a time line to phase in some other policies including agriculture. N. Hanko asked for more detail about the funding vote. S. Schectman said Proposition 218 requires special taxes to get a 2/3 vote. There is an argument that a territory that has not been annexed can only have an advisory election. She said it is difficult to say whether an advisory vote on funding would satisfy the law. LAFCO can as a condition of approval of the annexation instruct the District to have an election in the area to be annexed. She said the District could have a funding vote or could go through the annexation procedure and not have one. S. Schectman said LAFCO would certainly consider the advisory vote as an expression of support of the area to be annexed; but if there were a sufficient protest they would require another election on annexation. She said there could be an advisory vote on whether they want to tax themselves. C. Britton said a District-wide election would cost approximately $400,000 and the District currently has$80,000 budgeted for elections in four of the seven wards in November. Meeting 98-11 Page 3 Fran Pollard, El Granada, said she hoped the Board would put this issue on the November ballot. She said they need the District on the coast side. She said they passed Proposition 20 to save the coast 25 years ago and are now fighting the battles again. Jim Rourke, Pescadero, said he thought the District would have to make the tax rate very clear. He said he fully supported the concept and the way the District is going about its business in a professional manner. He talked about the concept of removing development rights then selling or leasing the land back to the same people who have owned it and have not shown proper stewardship. He said topsoil is rapidly disappearing because of some farming practices on the coast. He presented a binder he had prepared regarding restrictions that should be put in place if the District acted. C. Britton said staff doesn't know much about farming and would have to be educated from h District had not decided how farmland will be reserved. scratch. He said thep Mr. Rourke said he was more concerned about the large tracts that POST has already bought and the who have been farming that will continue. He said he thought farming practices could people be modified. He said there is a responsibility on behalf of the District to make sure proper farming methods are carried out. B. Crowder said the District will be working on its policies and would like to know about the best agricultural practices. P. Siemens agreed, stating that there should be strong requirements to preserve farmland. Kit Dove, El Granada, San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee, encouraged the Board to move ahead. He asked them to add as a resource MALT (Marie Agricultural Land Trust). She thought the Mid-Coast Park Lands would like to participate on the advisory committee and added that the Monterey Sanctuary may have an interest in sharing their point of view. He suggested that the District consider land by zoning designation rather than whether it is rural or urban. Nancy Maule, Montara, shared a public notice that a neighbor brought to her regarding a lot line adjustment on McNee ranch. She said they need the District's help. Ms. Kersteen-Tucker added a different perspective based on comments about MALT. She said one of the problems is that farmers feel they are already burdened with regulatory agencies and she was sure they would be opposed to another regulatory group. C. Britton said he thought the District would have other workshops as the District considered agricultural practices. There will be a tour conducted by the Farm Bureau. He expressed concern about rushing into policy development. He also mentioned that the District has nQ regulatory powers. Chuck Kozak, Montara, asked if the Board decided to go with the advisory vote, would they also begin the annexation process. C. Britton said that is a decision the Board would have to make. Staff is recommending that the Board pass the resolution approving going to an advisory vote. B. Crowder said she thought the ad hoc committee was anxious to move ahead. Meeting 98-11 Page 4 P. Siemens said he liked the idea of getting the process going and thought staff could start the paper work. C. Britton said staff is recommending a follow up telephone survey and they could bring a contract for Board approval to the next meeting. N. Hanko said she thought the poll would be very important because a lot of people were undecided. She said she would like to see an updated poll. Mr. Kozak talked about the process of developing policies that will be exclusive to the coast and agreed that they did not want to rush. He said it was very important however to be working on policies for agricultural lands and eminent domain. He thought an advisory group consisting of a small working core of five or six people with input from other agencies should be formed. Discussion followed regarding the funding. P. Siemens said the current assessment within the District is about $50 for a$300,000 property. Whether or not to extend the regular tax rate into the new area will be one of the things under discussion. He said each Board member probably has an idea of how we will pay for this. N. Hanko said the poll showed strong support in the existing District for acquisition on the coast at a cost of about $10-12 a year per parcel. M. Davey said the assessment of agricultural and commercial properties might be different than for residential. C. Britton said a per parcel tax is the most common to put in place; if the Board decided on a funding vote they could test these options through a poll. Discussion followed about merging parcels. C. Britton said there is a difference between a legal lot and an assessor's parcel. Mr. Rourke said it must be explained clearly. N. Hanko said the District is not legally required to go to the existing District for an advisory election, which saves $400,000. She said we can administratively begin the annexation process without a vote on the coast, but she did not think the Board would do that. As far as an election for funding, she said the District would have to philosophically look at the coast and say this area is so important to the existing District we should give annexation a chance. Then we have to see if we can do some financing in the entire area. Harry Haeussler said he thought it was a waste of time and the District doesn't have enough money now for the operations and planning departments. Don Johnson, Half Moon Bay, said the survey needs to be phrased so they get a good answer regarding the eminent domain question. He asked if the District would revise their seven wards so that coast side will be represented. N. Hanko answered that they would be required to do that. M. Davey said according to the law the District can have no more than seven wards. They will have to design the wards to best represent voters. N. Hanko said there has to be an equal number of voters in each ward. Meeting 98-11 Page 5 When asked their opinion regarding eminent domain, the audience as a group responded, "keep it." P. Siemens said the District likes to buy from willing sellers. He didn't know if they needed to change their policy. N. Hanko said she thought the advisory committee should look at the policy and perhaps exempting active ranching or farming. She said she would want to be sure that they considered how well managed the lands are. C. Britton said the reason the District was doing a telephone survey on the coast is to find out how the convent issue might have changed opinions. M. Davey said they need advice but she thought they should keep eminent domain as a final resort to protect endangered open space from development. P. Siemens said if they look at their policy very carefully they probably would not need to change it but probably ought to put in clarification. He said they need to look at agricultural, eminent domain, and acquisition policies. NOTE: I Cyr arrived at 7:55 P.M. P. Siemens said the Board needs to look at a policy that says the District is not spending any of the existing funds. We will annex but wait until we have new sources of money. Paul Perkovic, Mid Coast Community Council, said it would be very important to be clear how the eminent domain policy applies to the current District and how it would apply to the annexed area. S. Schectman said the Board could adopt an ordinance setting forth whatever regulations they wished but could not change the enabling statute. N. Hanko said they have used eminent domain for friendly purposes, too. C. Britton described a case where it had benefited the property owner for the District to invoke eminent domain. Nancy Maule said she could not imagine the Board would let eminent domain go out of their hands because they would lose an opportunity to get a precious piece of property. C. Britton said he thought the question was how do you develop policy that answers questions regarding the family farm vs. the person who will subdivide land with profit as the only motive. Dick Curtis, Half Moon Bay, member of the Planning Commission, said the Board should be aware that eminent domain is a hot issue on the coast. Mr. Kozak said he would not encourage giving up anything in order to win an election. He said it would be important to sell the District for its preservation of open space and agricultural uses. He commented that the District needs to have policies like eminent domain to make that work. He Meeting 98-11 Page 6 said it needs to be made clear that the District is working on agricultural policies. RECESS: 8:25-8:40 P.M. N. Hanko said the District used to have a site emphasis plan which showed which areas were going to be developed and which would be left as they were. She thought the coast might lend itself to this kind of plan. C. Britton said he thought it would be important to look at what other agencies are doing and what our niche would be. It would be necessary to look at what the District would provide there in terms of public access. April Vargas, Montara, said she appreciated what the District has done and that they are willing to look at hard issues. Regarding polling, she asked how soon they envisioned doing it and when results would be available. She said the results would be invaluable in crafting a campaign. K. Nitz asked how this poll would be different from the other one. C. Britton said the original poll took 20 minutes and this would be about half that long and would ask new questions about the convent. It would only be on the coast and probably target 250 people. The cost would be $8,'700. M. Davey said the committee had discussed the poll at some length and agreed this would be a good comparison. It is a way to get information on how effective education has been and the effect of the convent situation. D. Smernoff asked if there were any questions about other preservation methods. People might feel there are too many organizations. Perhaps there are other preservation methods on the coast rather than annexation. He asked if voters were aware of the difference between the District and other organizations and if property owners were willing to have another agency with eminent domain have jurisdiction over their property. C. Britton said the Board would approve the final ballot language on June 24. Mr. Kozak said that aside from preserving agricultural land and providing public access to open space lands, there are some extremely sensitive and undisturbed native habitats on the west side of the ridge. B. Crowder said she personally thought there should be as few trails as possible. C. Britton said an extension of the Regional Open Space Study would be important. He did not think there needed to be the same density of trails on the coastside. Katherine Green, Mountain View, talked about preservation of rare and endangered species and asked if there had been a study of what is there. C. Britton said the District staff had met with the Nature Conservancy and they have identified unique areas. He said part of the District's program is to look into those possibilities and encourage that kind of study. Meeting 98-11 Page 7 N. Hanko said she would like to see the advisory committee continue if the vote is successful. C. Britton said he thought the residents would desire some kind of an advisory group on the coast because they live there and we don't. K. Nitz asked if they should make having a permanent advisory committee for the area part of the advisory vote. N. Hanko said if there is an opportunity she thought they ought to include that information and any other information that makes it clear in the ballot arguments. with coup counsel and their position is that S. Schectman said she had been having discussions t county g arguments for and against the measure should be filed as they usually are. S. Schectman said if the Board decides to go forward, the Board would take a preliminary look at what the resolution and measure might look like on June 10. There is a 75-word limit. Once the Board adopts a resolution calling for an advisory vote, the Board and staff can no longer be involved in terms of spending staff time unless it is developing policy. S. Schectman said the Board can it its entirety sign the ballot argument in favor of the measure; they are the proponent. They can adopt a resolution supporting the measure. She said the District can disseminate neutral factual material on the measure. M. Davey brought up four items she thought Board should act on this evening. C. Britton informed them the Board could not take formal action on them at this time. The items were as follow: • Authorize staff to implement public opinion poll • Proceed with advisory vote on November 3 • Convene an advisory committee • Proceed with preparation for annexation of coast, those tasks that we can do now. By consensus, Board members agreed to move forward with formal consideration of these items at June Board meetings. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary JEAN RUSMORE X. 36 Berenda Way, Portola Valley CA 94028 (650) 854-4306 jeanrusmore@worldnet.att.net June 18, 1998 Betsy Crowder, Chairman MROSD Board of Directors 333 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Betsy I was surprised and concerned about several things at last night's Board meeting, the most important of which are two: 1. Cost of the long, tedious process that has consumed planners and participants'time over these last five years. I certainly believe in involving the public in the planning process. But I also respect the abilities of experienced, professional staff people. Both the Senior Planner Mary, and the Superintendent of Operations John, have demonstrated their commitment and ability to do a good job for the District. I'm very sorry that your Board chose to override their recommendations. I would be interested in knowing the proportion of District dollars spent on Use and Management Plans and how this particular Plan compares to other Preserve Plans. 2. Disregard for staffs reasoned, reasonable, and long-thought-out recommendations--does your board always begin the planning process all over following public discussion and staff reports? I'm writing this because I care very much for the District, for its staff, and its mission. I felt discouraged after last night's meeting. Sincerely, i can Rusmore cc: Craig Britton Board Members RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF Board President Acknowledge/Respond Director Acknoyledge/Respond Staff Acknowledge/Respond Draft Response Attached Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Response for Board Consideration per Board Directive(s) No Response Necessary Regional Open ace DRAFT RESPONSE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION Ms. Jean Rusmore 36 Berenda Way Portola Valley, CA 94028 Subject: El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Draft Trail Plan for Study Area 2 Dear Ms. Rusmore: The District's Board of Directors reviewed your June 17, 1998 letter concerning the trail use plan for Study Area 2 at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve at their regular meeting last night. While El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve draft trail plan was reviewed and discussed by the Board at their June 17, 1998 meeting, no action was taken. Instead, it was returned to staff for additional review with a Board ad hoc committee. Your letter will be forwarded to staff and the Ad Hoc Committee for their consideration. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle e Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 * Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 * E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org * Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz -General Manager:L.Craig Britton Scott Boyd, 01:57 PM b/24/98 , Our support for the MROSD advi Return-Path: scott@montara .com - - Date• Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13 • 57 • 45 -0700 RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY SYAPP To: mrosd@openspace . org Board President Acknowledge/Respond From: Scott Boyd <scott@montara .com> Director Acknowledge/Respond Subject : Our support for the MROSD advisory vol Staff Acknowledge/Respond Cc: midcoast-l@lists . sanmateo.org Draft Response Attached X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Res once ter Board Consideration per P Board DireCtivs(a) June 24 , 1998 No Response Necessary To: The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 650. 691 . 1200 Fax: 650. 691 . 0485 e mail : mrosd@openspace.org From: Scott and Michelle Boyd P.O. Box 370553 Montara, CA 94037 e-mail : scott@montara.com re: Establishing a Coastal Advisory Committee Agenda Vote on Extending the MROSD Boundaries to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board; We heartily endorse MROSD' s advisory vote on extending MROSD boundaries to the coast . Chuck Kozak' s letter for the Coastal Alliance couldn' t have said it much better. We and our family welcome your efforts with open arms . It seems that developers are seeing how far they can stretch the rules at every opportunity to convert ag land, open space, and even park land into developed parcels . The pressure on our remaining resources is enormous. It ' s time to make open space a priority on this side of the hill, and to strike a balance in the way that we grow our communities . We have no expectation that MROSD will have any magic bullets to automatically buy every undeveloped parcel in sight, or even that such a magic solution would be beneficial . Rather, we hope that MROSD can help make the acquisition and ongoing maintenance of open space a common occurrence. People all up and down the Peninsula come to this special place in large part because of the open spaces and tremendous natural resources . We are confident that very few of those visitors have any idea that the open spaces they see today are unlikely to be open spaces in the future. We know, for example, that our young daughter cried for half an hour when Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 Scott Boyd, 01:57 P. ,/24/98 , Our support for a MROSD advi she first learned that the land between Montara and McNee Ranch State Park was likely going to be developed. Until then, all we knew was that she liked walking in the meadow. We had no idea how deeply it would touch her. To be sure, we felt the same way but didn' t show it . She was the one who honestly showed how she felt . We normally try to stay away from dragging in emotional stories on issues like this, but we were the ones who had to sit with her and try to comfort her for that period. It touched us deeply, too. MROSD' s participation in the prioritization of open space on the coastside will help not only directly through acquisition of lands, but also by providing an able and competent open space management organization to manage lands acquired by other open space groups . Land purchased for open space doesn' t stay open space without a reliable land management organization, and MROSD has proven itself over the years in serving the existing district. We believe that by working together we all can make the most of the available resources to extend the legacy afforded us by such historical actions as the Coastal Bond Act . A good deal of land was purchased for public use and open space back then, but the job wasn' t finished due to lack of funds . Now is the time to get back to work, to find and preserve those portions of the coastside that we wish to leave as a legacy to future generations . Our children will thank us . Sincerely, Scott and Michelle Boyd Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 2 Chuck Kozak, 12 : 33 A— 6/24/98 , Re: MROSD Meetii., 6/24 Return-Path: cgk@montara .com X-Sender: cgk@hax.com Date : Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00 : 33 : 13 -0800 To: "Coastside Discussion List" <Midcoast-L@lists .sanmateo.org> From: cgk@montara .com (Chuck Kozak) Subject : Re: MROSD Meeting 6/24 (Long) Cc : mrosd@openspace.org X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org At 5 : 05 PM 6/23/98 -0700, Michael Murphy wrote : > Open space versus empty space. . . . . Before we all rush to our checkbooks to supply Mr. Murphy with his six-figure campaign budget, let ' s examine some of the facts, or in this case, the lack of facts : Is there any substance to the claim that the actions (i .e. , the recent Coastal Protection Initiative) of these "empty space advocates" (cute term, btw, but cheap) has had any effect on the number and acreage of active farms in the rural coast? What I 've seen is a strengthening of the LCP and zoning regulations that further maintains the rural and agricultural character of the area. This was done through umpteen public hearings before the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Coastal Commission, "in the full night of day" as Supervisor Nevin might say. Is there any substance to the claim that anyone' s home is at stake here? What appears to be at stake is unnecessary subdivision and over-development . * Perhaps it is a good idea to remember that this will be an _ADVISORY_ ADVISORY— vote - this does not automatically make annexation to the district happen. There is still a lengthy and complex LAFCO process to go through afterwards, with public hearings and various mechanisms to force challenge votes, if necessary, that would be binding. The point of this advisory vote would be: This is the MROSD, this is what it does and how it does it . Do we want this on the coast? If so, what does the MROSD need to change to make it work? What do we need to change to make it work? Do we want to do that? Another item on the 6/24 agenda is the formation of an coastal advisory committee after the election, to work on the identified issues with identified valid stakeholders on how the district might function effectively on the coast . For the district to forswear or predetermine policies or regulations for the coast before the election in response to threats of unsubstantiated opposition would not only be premature and contrary to its charter and responsibilties, but a possible violation of state campaign laws . If this were an election that would result in jack-booted district rangers swooping down on Mr Mruphy' s property and turning it into some sort of eco-disneyland for rich tree-huggers, I could understand his concern. But Printed for open space District <mxosd@openspace.org> Chuck Kozak, 12 : 33 6/24/98 , Re: MROSD Meet3.. _ 6/24 (Long) let ' s stay real here. This is an advisory vote for the coast to see if they want MROSD to help them protect rural lands . And instead of vowing a nasty campaign (certainly not my intention - those with dirt are the first to sling it) , let ' s see one with full public debate and exposure of the facts so the citizens of the coast can decide what they want. chuck Printed for open Space District <mr sd@ ens ace.or s> 2 Tiat Duff, 09:29 AM 6/24/98 , Coast Expansion Measure Return-Path: tim@montara.com Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:29 : 41 +0100 To: mrosd@openspace.org From: Tim Duff <tim@hax.com> Subject : Coast Expansion Measure X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org June 23, 1998 To: The. Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 (650) 691-1200 FAX: (650) 691-0485 email : mrosd@openspace.org From: Tim Duff PO Box 370575, Montara, CA 94037 Voice & FAX: (650) 728-2948 email : tim@montara.com Re: 6/24/98 Agenda Items for Coastal Advisory Committee and Expansion of District Boundaries to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board: I support your motion to establish a Coastal Advisory Committee and to put the the District expansion to the coastside on the November, 1998 ballot. Recent polls show that nine out of every ten coastal residents believe it is important to preserve open space on the coast and nearly two-thirds support the extension of the district boundaries to include the coast '. An advisory measure to guage voter support for the district ' s proposed expansion to the area is an appropriate next step to take. In addition to funding the acquisition of significant sensitive habitat lands along the coast, and protecting agricultural lands through the purchase of easements and development rights, the district ' s management capabilities would be extremely valuable for existing public lands in need of effective stewardship. As a resident of the coastside, I enthusiastically welcome your district' s efforts to create open space management and acquisition opportunities here on the coast and encourage your fellow board members to support . motions on tonight ' s board agenda to take the proposed next steps in that direction. Sincerely, Timothy Duff Printed for open space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 t Kathryn Slater-cart o9:31 AM 6/24/98 Our supr.,rt for the MROSD advi Return-Path: kathryn@montara.com X-Sender: kathryn@hax.com Date : Wed, 24 Jun 1998 09:31 : 52 -0700 To: mrosd@openspace .org From: Kathryn Slater-Carter <kathryn@hax.com> Subject : Our support for the MROSD advisory vote Cc: "Coastside Discussion List" <Midcoast-L@lists . sanmateo.org> X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org June 23, 1998 To: The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and members of the Board of directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 650 . 691 . 1200 Fax: 650. 691 . 0485 e mail : mrosd@openspace.org From: Ed, Kathryn, Kacie and Will Carter P.O. Box 370321 Montara, CA 94037 e-mail : kathryn@montara.com re: Establishing a Coastal Advisory Committee A� Benda Vote on Extending the MROSD Boundaries to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board; We applaud your support of community efforts to expand the MROSD to the San Mateo Coast. As long time residents of the MIdCoast we have seen County policies move from protection of the unique Coastal community and environs to allowing exploitation of it . It appears that incentives are given to farm marginally in order maximize development potential . The County is now interpreting the LCP in a most limited and shortsighted manner. The community needs the opportunity to vote for alternatives PP Y to the current administration of the LCP. Kathryn Slater-Carter Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 Merry Ann Moore, 05:01 AM 6/23/98 , Addition of the San Mateo midc Return-Path: merryann@concentric.net Errors-To: <merryann@concentric.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05 : 01 : 18 +0100 From: Merry Ann Moore <merryann@concentric.net> Organization: Moore Creative To: "Hon. Betsy Crowder" <mrosd@ open space.org> Subject : Addition of the San Mateo midcoast to MROSD X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org June 23, 1998 The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 I am writing regarding two items on your agenda for tomorrow' s meeting. I attended the recent hearing in Half Moon Bay on MROSD' s tentative plans to expand to the coastside. I strongly support the possibility of MROSD expansion to the San Mateo coastside. A coastal advisory panel composed of ranchers, ag interests, environmental activists and local elected officials to lay out appropriate policies tailored to this unique region is absolutely essential for long-term success . This panel should include representatives from Montara and other unincorporated areas . Please adopt this resolution. I also strongly support your proposed motion to place the Advisory Vote for Coastal Expansion on the November 3, 1998 ballot. Moreover, I fervently hope that expansion of the district will take place as promptly after that date as possible. Time is of the essence in getting greater protections for threatened open space here. Thank you for considering my views . Sincerely, Merry Ann Moore P.O. Box 371179 Montara, CA 94037 650-728-8703 merryann@concentric.net p. s . Please give this email letter the same weight as a hard copy letter; I correspond almost solely by email. Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 �r Mary Hobbs, 10: 01 PM 6/23/98 , Advisory vote Return-Path: mary@hax.com Date : Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22 : 01 : 54 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: mary@hax.com (Unverified) To: mrosd@openspace .org From: Mary Hobbs <mary@hax. com> Subject : Advisory vote X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org June 23, 1998 To: The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 650 . 691 . 1200 Fax: 650. 691 . 0485 e mail : mrosd@openspace.org From: Mary Hobbs, P.O. Box 69, Moss Beach, CA 94038 email : Mary@hax.com, phone: 650 728-5012 re: Ballot measure to extend the MROSD to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board; I am a member of the Coastal Alliance Steering Committee / Open Space Task Force, and also a member of the MidCoast Community Council and chair of its Parks and Recreation Committee. Hardly a day goes by without a local discussion of a priceless parcel of land here on the coast that is threatened with development and that we wish we could purchase as public land. The thought of the MROSD expanding its boundaries to the coast is a dream come true for us, and I am pledged to support the ballot measure to pursue this dream. Not only can you provide funding, but you have an excellent track record on maintanence of open space as well . I urge you to take the next step and place this measure on the ballot. Thank you all for the hard work you have already put into this effort. Yours Sincerely, Mary Hobbs Mary Hobbs Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 i Dennis Coleman, 02 : 38 AM 6/24/98 , Support for Putting MROSD ExInn - Return-Path: coleman@coastside.net X-Sender: coleman@coastside.net (Unverified) References : <v03lO2800blb4f9O8770e@ [206 . 184 . 243 . 66] > <12fccd30 . 358eba4d@aol .com> Date : Wed, 24 Jun 1998 02 : 38 : 03 -0700 To: mrosd@openspace. org From: Dennis Coleman <coleman@coastside.net> Subject: Support for Putting MROSD Expansion on Ballot Cc: "Coastside Discussion List" <Midcoast-L@lists . sanmateo.org> X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org Dear MROSD Board Members : There would be no need for MROSD: - If profiteers ever showed even a little voluntary restraint; - If the needs of the many ever really outweighed the needs of the few; - If LCP loopholes were not constantly sought out and abused by the good ole boys; - If existing government was not the best money could buy; - If the baloney was not being sold one slice at a time; - If overdevelopment was the exception and not the rule; - If take the money and run was not the prime directive; - If we had not been lied to so many times; - If the greed gene was not so dominant in so many wannabees; - If people weren't being paid to say what they' re saying. Unfortunately, none of these statements has ever been operative on the Coastside, at least for very long. Sooner or later, the Coastside has an unproud history of being of exploiters, by exploiters and for exploiters . That ' s because so many can make a living doing it, and so few can make a ,living preventing it . Just because manipulation of people and places is possible and profitable in the short term doesn' t make it responsible and conscienable in the long term. You help level the playing field. Current Coastside development trends are such that MROSD could not possibly make the prognosis worse here, even if you tried, and you don' t have a , history of doing that. I say just do it again. Thanks for considering this input. Dennis Coleman, Half Moon Bay City Council JPrinted for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> Murenove,Inc. V(650)726-8494 M16/23/98 0 4,37 PIVI D 2/3 R - COAST ADVISORY COUNC 2 100 LOBITOS CREEK ROAD HALF MOON BAY. CA 94019 (4 15) 726-8495 Michael Murphy Chairman June 23, 1998 Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 via fax (650) 691-0485 Dear Directors: Open space versus empty space. Those of us who have chosen to live on the rural coast obviously want open space. We do not want to live in urban areas. We are willing to put up with long drives over second-class roads, frequent power outages and high property taxes to live on large parcels of land in an agricultural community. Another group of people who do not live in our area want empty space. They want few houses to be built, and have succeeded in blocking new housing to a level far below the Local Coastal Plan. They want those houses hidden away from each other, so we cannot see our neighbors. They want to squeeze farmers out, and have succeeded in driving down the number of farms virtually every year. The recent Local Coastal Plan amendments are an additional burden that will accelerate the demise of farming. A war between the residents and the empty space advocates has been underway for many years. Now, MROSD is being lured into this war. You are being asked to annex an area you don't understand, under policies you have not yet defined, over the opposition of well-financed opponents who feel their very homes are at stake. This Board has an obligation to act responsibly, not only towards its current and intended constituency, but also to its own self-interest—preserving the reputation and power of MROSD for future Boards and future generations. There are three responsible actions you can take tonight: 1. Postpone an advisory vote on annexation until clear policies can be worked out for dealing with the unique coastal area, especially in the area of eminent domain. Get all the stakeholders on board and agreed before you expose this Board to a humiliating election loss. 2. Proceed with an advisory vote in the area specified, but forswear eminent domain in the annexed area. Then work out a policy on eminent domain with coastal residents and put it to the coastal voters later, in a separate election. 3. Proceed with an advisory vote including eminent domain, but limit the southern boundary of the area to the Half Moon Bay city limits. Then work out a policy on eminent domain with rural coast residents and have a second advisory vote later, in a separate election, on the area from the Half Moon Bay city limits south to the Santa Cruz County line. There is one irresponsible action you can take tonight and that is to approve the language as written. Without an acceptable eminent domain policy, we residents will have to fight you on every front. That means an expensive, nasty campaign for all of us(we are now looking at a six-figure budget and are prepared to go higher), a renewed focus at the Murenove,Inc. 4(650)726-8494 C1 16/23/98 C94:37 PM p3/3 State level to eliminate a it domain as a power available to MR and ward-by-ward campaigns to replace cur,__.,Board members with people committe, ipen space and opposed to eminent domain. 1 It should take no more than a year to work out an acceptable eminent domain policy that would allow this Board to have an election triumph in 2000(or even 1999, if financially reasonable). You have a long list of stakeholders that need to be consulted and brought to a position of supporting MROSD. Give us a chance to work with you instead of fighting you, and we will all win. It is the intelligent, reasonable thin to do and virtuall everyone Y g g y ry but the empty spacers will applaud a decision to postpone or limit the election as described above. Very truly yours, Mze" M"4 Duane Bay, 09: 01 P? ?1/98 , Expanding MROSD daries to Return-Path: dgbay@tribal . com X-Sender : dgbay@mail . tribal . com Date : Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21 : 01 : 57 -0700 To: mrosd@openspace .org From: dgbay@tribal . com (Duane Bay) Subject : Expanding MROSD Boundaries to Coastside X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org I wholeheartedly endorse expansion of the district. Please let me know what I can do to help. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the June 24th meeting to voice me support for this measure personally. 4At a future meeting I would appreciate the opportunity to address the board breifly to raise a question of social equity regarding the impact of growth aboundaries on housing costs, and to offer an opportunity for working toward a just response to this impact . Regards, and keep up the great work, Duane Bay Councilmember East Palo Alto Duane Bay Tel 408-461-3100 ext 225 VP Administration Fax 408-461-3090 Tribal Voice <mailto:dgbay@tribal.com> 1 Victor Square <http: //www. tribal .com> Scotts Valley, CA 95066 This was inc d 'lu ed .in FYI s. to ress'su r exp ppo t for the advisory measure. Item 2 will be addressed as a written communication and the response will be reviewed at .the Board's'July 8 Regular Meeting. Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> I Midcoast Community Council P.O. Box 64 Moss Beach.CA 94038 (650)728-2129(voice and fox) MMK=ontars.com(WEB Page) Serving 12.000 residents MidPemnsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 FAX: 650-691-0485 June 23, 1998 Dear MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District Board, On June 10. 1998,the MidCoast Community Council voted unanimously(with one member absent)cm the following resolution: "Be it resolved that the MidCoast Community Council recommends that MROSD place on the November 1998 ballot an advisory vote for the citizens fo the San Mateo County Coastside, as to whether MROSD should expand its District boundaries and annex the San Mateo County Coast." The Mid Coast Community Council is an elected body that is advisory to the County Board of Supervisors. The Council represents the communities of El Granada,Princeton, Miramar, Moss Beach,and Montara. Yours sincerely,David Spiseiman Chair Cc: Councilwoman Mary Hobbs, Midcoast Community Council Supervisor Richard Gordon, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors FROM CPEGsonic FAX SYSTEI- PHONE NO. 4157128368 Jun. 24 1998 07:24AM P1 • �vyl z3/99� 741C .tiJia�Pa,�►1wa ryaa.ftl Dreg. PA6.i;f mu N-ffei h/e, yevP 4011ePs /A s,rpli-P k9 '"C ��rferv' •f 000peAsPsie ���etn-r�sr e�► �i�t Sa��f�f�o .I f�l�/i' CIIn!l�ta�F� All wad f" +e� tolers�- � �iy1ri,ce- erg �jc v-ado;kt-s w �yr � ion y �Jiss�lw o,*C �c oti T, I/or c�• .jX �e e-e- E A Grate ate,Cc[• 9s/a/d� Joan Tharp, 05:37 Pb. 4/22/98 , Support for expai..aion to coast Return-Path: joan_tharp@hp.com Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17 : 37 : 52 -0700 From: Joan_Tharp <joan_tharp@hp.com> To: mrosd@openspace.org Subject : Support for expansion to coast X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org TO: Betsy Crowder, president Board of Directors FROM: Joan Tharp P.O. 741 El Granada, CA 9401$ I 'm writing to ask that the MROSD board place on the November ballot an advisory vote for coastside residents to express their interest in the district expanding its boundaries to the midcoast . I 'm also writing to let you know I strongly support the expansion to the midcoast . I believe the only way to preserve what ' s left of the midcoast is to have it under the protection of the open space district. The county has no interest in protecting open space. It is more than happy to help developers do whatever they'd like, so that hotels and homes in the unincorporated areas will provide taxes 'for the rest of the county that lives over the hill . In addition, population growth in the state will continue to threaten our remaining open spaces . There' s very little time left . I 'm happy to volunteer and send money to campaign for expansion of the district to the midcoast. Thank you for all the hard work and resources you've put into this issue to date . Best regards, Joan Tharp Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 Bernchrisp@aol.com, _.,:45 AM 6/23/98 Coastal Lnclusion Return-Path: Bernchrisp@aol .com From: Bernchrisp@aol .com Date : Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11 : 45 : 49 EDT To: mrosd@openspace.org Subject: Coastal Inclusion X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org MROSD Board of Directors 23 June 1998 Greetings -- Please add our names to the list of those who strongly support the mission of MROSD and who welcome the chance to support local inclusion in the District . We will do what we can to help. Regards -- Bern Smith Chris Powell bernchrisp@aol .com PO Box 1583 El Granada CA 94018 Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 John & Jule Lynch, lv: 12 AM 6/23/98 , MROSD Bo—ara Meeting-June 24, _1 Return-Path: lynch@coastside.net X-Sender: lynch@coastside.net (Unverified) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10 : 12 : 29 -0700 To: mrosd@openspace .org From: John & Jule Lynch <lynch@coastside.net> Subject : MROSD Board Meeting-June 24, 1998 . Cc: hmbreview@hmbreview.org, midcoast-l@lists . sanmateo.org X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org June 23, 1998 To: The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and members of the Board of directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 650. 691 . 1200 Fax: 650. 691 .0485 e mail : mrosd@openspace.org From: John F. Lynch 2098 Touraine Lane Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-1451 Voice 650 . 726. 9189 Fax: 650. 726. 9280 e mail : lynch@coastside.net re: Establishing a Coastal Advisory Committee Agenda Vote on Extending the MROSD Boundaries to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board; As a member of the Coastal Alliance Steering Committee and its Open Space Task Force, I thoroughly concur with the thoughtful and appropiate comments made by Chuck Kosak. It goes without comment that there will be naysayers, and special-interest individuals and groups that will try to dissuade you from taking action on the two referenced items listed above on June 24, 1998 . Please do not be dissuaded from going forth with the advisory vote to expand the district to the coastside . It is much too important an issue not to present it the coastside voters this coming November for their approval/disapproval . This is democracy in action. Now for a little levity. Just like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, you' ll be fondly remembered as being the **quiding light" in your efforts to preserve our coastal lands for the many, many future generations to come. JPrinted for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> JUN 23 '9e 11:13AM COASTAL CONSERVANCY P.2/2 Coastal Conservancy June 22,1998 The Honorable Betsy Crowder,President Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 Dear Ms. Crowder, I am writing to express the Coastal Conservancy's support for placing a measure on the November ballot to consider expanding the Midpeninsula,Regional Open Space District's jurisdiction to include the coast The Districts presence in the region would contribute greatly to efforts to protect coastal resources. In particular,the District's capacity to manage open space lands will be a very welcome addition to an area in which traditional land managers,such as the State Department of Parks and Recreation,have become overburdened. The Conservancy looks forward to working with you and your staff,should a successful ballot measure bring the District out to the coast. Please feel free to contact Carol Arnold,our Central Coast Coordinator,if we can provide any assistance as you deliberate future involvement in the region.Carol can be reached at(510)286-4173. Sincerely, William Ahem Executive Officer 1330 Broadvwxy;I I th Floor OAW4 California 94612-2530 510-286.1015 Fox.510.286,0470 C a I i f o r n i -a S t a t e C o a s t a I C o n s e r v a n c y MIDCOAST PARK LANDS 1 Plssn 6v Lead SAeurr%M#a Cmanwin dndRieprrrtiw Ch tie San Mom QN01 y Clot June 23, 1998 The Honorable Betsy Crowder.President and Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsnla Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 RE: Advisory Vote for Coastal Expansion Doer Ms.Crowder. Midcoast Park Lands supports placing the Advisory Vote for Coastal Expansion on the November 3, 1999 ballot and the related resolution to form a Coastal Advisory Panel,should this advisory vote be approved. We are delighted and appreciative that MROSD is considering annexing the San Mateo County coastal area.This region has large tracts of open space that offer wonderfirt and unique recreational opportunities. However then tracts are much too expensive and large for small nonprofit gmups on the coast,such as ours,to acquire and maintain. The resources and talent of MROSD are needed to preserve these open spaces for the enjoyment of all. Midcoast Park Lands,which incorporated as a nonprofit in 1997,is dedicated to promoting land stewardship,conservation, and recreation on the San Mateo County coast. We will be operating and maintaining the 40-acre Quarry Paris in El Granada under an agreement with the County of San Mateo. Sincerely, Jim Blanchard Chair (650)726-9645 P.O. sox 1734 kL GRANADA, CA 94018 RECEIVED JUN 2 3 199g Mi'DPENINSULA REGIONAL June 21, 1998 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT The Honorable Betsy Crowder, President Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear Madam President and Board Members, I want to thank the Board for your efforts on behalf of the San Mateo County Coast and your willingness to work with area residents to help us shape the future of this incredible place which we call home. A measure on the November ballot will: 1) allow Coastside voters to decide how we want to move forward into the 21st century and 2) suggest at least one vehicle to help us arrive there with much of our open space still intact. I urge the Board to support an advisory vote on District expansion to the Coast on the November 3 ballot. Thank you. (�C4 Je Olson P.O.Box 370483 Montara, CA 94037-0483 650-728-8462 Jun-22-98 08: 37A Vide- Rrts 8att.St . 415 3 3331 P.01 June 22, 1995 To: The Hon. Betsy Crowder,President,and members of the Board of Directors Midpeniusula Regional Open Space District 3:30 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 (6-50)691-1200 FAX: (6_50)691-048.5 email:mrosdCOVopenspac e.org From. Chuck Kozak Coastal Alliance Steering Committee PO Box 917. Moss Beach, CA 94038 Voice&FAX:(650)728-8Z19 email:cgktg)montara.com re: Agenda Items for(iJ241'98:Coastal Advisory Committee and Vote for Expansion of District Boundaries to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board: Thank you for the opportunity to address these items on your agenda.Over the past 14 months,the Coastal Alliance Open Space Working Group has had the pleasure of helping the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in whatever way we could in their work to explore the preservation of Open Space resources on the San Mateo County Coast.We would li ke to express our appreciation of your efforts,and of the time and resources your board,the Ad Hoc Committee,and the District Staff have put into this task. And we appreciate the diligence,professionalism,honesty,and open-mindedness you brought to this process. We whole-heartedly endorse your motion to establish a Coastal Advisory Committee to the District from the San Mateo Coast.There is much we need to learn from each other for the Open Space effort to work for the greatest benefit of the coastal communities.And we also whole-heartedly endorse the motion to put the idea of the District expansion to the coast on the November, )996 ballot.The citizens of the coastal conmtunities must be heard on this issue-it is too important to allow it to be derailed by pressure from special-interest groups that would deny this subject a full hearing and debate in a public campaign. The open spaces,areas of wilderness,natural habitats,farms and ranches-from the mountain ridges, through creeks and rivers,to the coastal Muffs-these are more than just a backdrop to our lives;they are central to the very character and quality-of-life of the San Mateo Coast.They arc a treasure not just for its, but for the entire Bay Area and beyond.An the stewards of this treasure,it is imperative we preserve these for generations to come. We appreciate your dedication to this preservation,and we look forward to continued work with the District. Thank you again for your efforts and hard work. i Chuck Kozak For the Steering Committee of the Coastal Alliance The Coastal Alliance is a multi-issue,grassrmos organization cmnpri.sed of representatives frorol environmental groups ranging from Pesc:adera to Pcuifica.Our rreissiun is to protect the quality of life and natural envircmment ulon,g the Sun Muter coyest,anal to fuc.•ilitate communication and erwperatirn among groups anti intlividwils who.share this vision. cc:HMB Review,San Mateo County Times,Mid(*oast Discumion Ust June 22, 1998 The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President And Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Spada District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Re: Preserving Open Space on the Coast Ladies and Gentlemen: We strongly support the concept of putting on the San Mateo County November ballot an advisory vote on whether the MROSD should expand Its borders to include the coastside. We have worked through Coastsiders for Safe Bkoways and the San Mateo County Trails Advisory Committee to preserve coastal access for the public and very much support any efforts to preserve what open space remains on the coastside. Although we do have some reservations on the issue of using imminent domain in the process, we still basically support any efforts to save our open space. Sin el OHN HERNANDEZ TERRELL HERNANDEZ 2912 Pullman Avenue Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 i0 30dd VS8S ZZTL-i69-0S9 9Z:60 966L/EZ/90 Jun-23-98 09: 51 av-1ene Patton 415 "--9-2670 P.01 Pacifica Land Trust P. O. Box 988 Pacifica, CA 94044 June 23, 1998 The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA. 94022-1404 Re: Getter of Support to Place the Advisory Vote for Coastal Expansion and to Include the Pedro Point Headlands in the Expansion Area Dear President Crowder: I am pleased to write this letter of support to the District to encourage the Board to place the advisory vote for Coastal Expansion on the November ballot. Although the City of Pacifica will not be included in the expansion area,the property known as the Pedro Point Headlands could be included. As I am sure you are aware,the Pacifica Land Trust,with the assistance of local community groups from both sides of the Devils Slide Area,was instrumental in placing this property into public open space. We remain as the interim manager until an organization such as yours is able to assume the role of permanent manager. Making the decision to place this vote on the November ballot takes a great deal of courage. We commend you for taking on the challenge and we look forward to working with your organization as a partner dedicated to brokering quality open space parcels into public ownership. Sincerely, Arlene M. Patton President Cc: David Carmany, City Manager City of Pacifica Christopher Kroll,Project Manager California State Coastal Conservancy Chuck Kozak Coastal Alliance 314 Third Street RECEIVED P.O. Box 371142 J U N 2 2 1998 Montara, CA 94037 N110PENINSULA REG;11' I. . (650) 728-2661 OPEN SPACE Q;STF'C i* June 19, 1998 The Honorable Betsy Crowder, President Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear President and Board Members: About two years ago, I moved to the Coastside (Montara) from Palo Alto. I enjoyed hiking at Windy Hill and other MROSD areas. All these areas are inland, however. As I look around the Coastside, there are so many places where open space preservation would matter a great deal, providing hiking and habitat preservation. This is especially crucial because the Peninsula population is growing. More recreational areas are needed, but all land will be under pressure for housing development. I urge you to put the Advisory Vote for Coastal Expansion of the Open Space District on the November 1998 Ballot. Thank.you for all you have done so far to investigate include the beautiful Coastside lands in the district. Sincerely, Meredith Angwin t J U N 2 2 1998 MIDPENINSULA REGIOI AL PO Box 370057 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Montara, CA 94037 June 19, 1998 Ms. Besty Crowder, President Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear Ms. Crowder -- Thank you for the work you and your colleagues have done in investigating annexing part of coastal San Mateo County into the District. I support the proposed advisory vote on the annexation and look forward to a chance to cast my vote in favor this November. From Montara Mountain, once threatened by Caltrans bulldozers, to Cascade Ranch, now being plowed under, we see that our best lands are constantly under threat. I am thankful that the District is willing to help save some of the best of the rest. Since ely, Ann rrister PS: I really enjoy hiking in Purisima Creek Redwoods preserve, the nearest District land to my house. RECEIVED JUN 2 2 1998 OPEN SPACE DISTRVI PO Box 370599 Montara, CA 94037 June 19, 1998 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Honorable Directors: I write in support of your proposed ballot measure and advisory vote on the District's expansion to the San Mateo County coast. I plan to support the ballot measure and would welcome the cooperation of the District with other groups working to preserve some of the best of our coastside. Groups like POST, for example, can buy land but the District is much better equipped to manage it. i cer , -- Don nson B VanderWerf IM 712-1082 M06/19/98 04:56 PM June 19, 1998 Barbara and Bill VanderWerf P.O. Box 1574 El Granada, CA 94018 (650)726-3123 Betsy Crowder, President Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Dear Betsy, We heartily, enthusiastically and without reservation welcome the inclusion of the San Mateo County Coast within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. We thank you,the board and the staff for the incredible amount of work you have done to research and prepare the November 3 ballot initiative. We look forward to voting"Yes" on November 3. Thank you, Barbara and Bill VanderWerf it danny.moses@sfsierr, 1:01 AM 6/22/98 , Ballot ,asure , Return-Path: danny.moles@sfsierra. sierraclub.org From: danny.moses@sfsierra . sierraclub.org Date : Mon, 22 Jun 98 11 : 01 : 28 -0800 To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Subject : Ballot measure X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org To: Hon. Betsy Crowder, President Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Dear Ms . Crowder, As a resident of the San Mateo Coastside since 1979, I 've watched with dismay as the ever encroaching presence of inappropriate development has threatened the semi-rural nature of Coastside life. I urge you and the Board of MROSD to place a measure expanding the District on the November ballot, thus enhancing the prospects for saving our beautiful Coastside. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniel Moses Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 40 Bps terra@ aol.com, 10. .,1 PM 6119198 , Coastal Open Space --- Return-Path: Bpsterra@aol . com, From: Bpsterra@aol .com Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22 : 31 : 08 EDT To: mrosd@openspace.org Subject : Coastal Open Space X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, and members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear Madam President and Directors : Having followed the discussion for the past year, count me as a strong advocate of having the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District put expansion of the district onto the San Mateo County coastside on the ballot in 1998 . have no problem with the expansion including the eminent domain authority you now have in the current district. There are constant challenges to open space on the coast in spite of the county' s General Plan and our Local Coastal Plans. The district could be an important agent for preserving vital natural areas and open space values . Carl May P.O. Box 371077 Montara, CA 94037 IPrinted for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> W Chris Thollaug, PM 6/20/98 , SMC Coast Ai, Aation Advisory Return-Path: Chris@montara .com X-Sender: chris@hax. com Date : Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20 : 06 : 32 -0700 To: mrosd@openspace .org From: Chris Thollaug <Chris@montara .com> Subject : SMC Coast Annexation Advisory Vote X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org June 20, 1998 The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open .Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear Madam President and Board Members : I am writing to urge youto proceed with an advisory vote regarding annexation of the San Mateo County Coast. As an active participant in community affairs I have a great deal of optimism about how the local constituency would respond, to work on the campaign as well as vote in support . As an activist on the Devil ' s Slide Tunnel Initiative I know that there is a solid core of coastsiders who will get involved in a grassroots effort to promote annexation. Given the projections for growth in this area it is vital that the provisions of the LCP which protect our open space and agricultural land be buttressed with an aggressive program of land acquisition. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Chris Thollaug Suzanne Stephanik PO Box 371018 Montara, CA 94037 (650) 728-7107 [Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.orcj> i Gina Holmes, 04 :41 PM 6/21/98 , Expansion of boundries to coas Return-Path: gholmes@NetWizards .Net X-Sender: hsg@NetWizards .Net (Unverified) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16 : 41 :35 -0700 To: mrosd@openspace.org From: Gina Holmes <gholmes@NetWizards .Net> Subject: Expansion of boundries to coast X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org To the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors : We are 10 year residents of El Granada, and we would like to express our strong support for the District ' s expansion to the coastside of San Mateo County. The Director' s are well aware that this is a unique and incomparably beautiful area, and we believe it would benefit from the preservation your organization could provide. We understand that the Director ' s are considering a motion to place an advisory vote for coastal expansion this November' s ballot and forming an advisory panel regarding operations and policies on said expansion, and we would like to express emphatic support for both of these agenda items We also know that the District has put forth enormous time and effort regarding this issue, and we would like to express our gratitude and support. Thank your for you consideration. Sincerely, Gina. Holmes & Harvey S . Gaylin Printed for Open space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 April Vargas, 11 :56 _Q 6/21/98 , Ballot Measure ror District Ex Return-Path: april@montara.com Return-Receipt-To: <april@hax.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 23 : 58 : 02 -0800 To: mrosd@openspace .org From: April Vargas <april@hax.com> Subject : Ballot Measure for District Expansion X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org June 21, 1998 The Hon. Betsy Crowder, Pres . Members of the Board of Directors MIdpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear Madam President and Board Members, I am writing in support of placing an Advisory Vote for District expansion to the San Mateo County coast on the November 3 ballot . As an unincorporated area, the Coast has been limited in its ablility to make decisions which directly affect the future of the area. While Supervisors Ted Lempert and now Rich Gordon have represented us exceedingly well, local . residents want to play a more direct role in determining the fate of one of the most unique and valuable natural assets in the world -- our coastline and its surrounding open space. Casting our ballots on November 3 will be an important step towards greater self-determination and regional co-operation. Best regards and thanks for your continuing efforts to preserve open space. Sincerely, April Vargas P.O. Box 370265 Montara, CA 94037-0265 650-728-5215 april@montara.com Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 Regional Open , . ace -------------� MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DRAFT RESPONSE PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION Dear Supporter of Open Space: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the District's possible annexation of a portion of the San Mateo County coast. We appreciate hearing from you and value your observations on this issue. Your comments were reviewed by the Board of Directors at their June 24 meeting. At that meeting, the Board of Directors unanimously approved placing an advisory measure on the November 3, 1998 ballot to ask San Mateo County coastal voters if they would like their area annexed into the District. This advisory measure will be voted on only in the coastal area of San Mateo County, south of the City of Pacifica. This measure does not involve any increase in taxes, and any annexation, if it takes place, would not involve any increase in taxes. If an annexation takes place, then the District may consider placing a funding measure, requiring a two-thirds majority vote, on a future ballot. The Board recognizes that the San Mateo County coastline is a national treasure, and that the District is in a unique position to take a lead role in land conservation from Skyline to the coast. Such an expansion would enable the District to participate in land acquisition, purchase of development rights and conservation easements, farmland preservation, and management of public lands in the coastal area of San Mateo County. The Board also authorized staff to proceed with some of the technical groundwork in preparation for a possible annexation. In addition, the Board passed a resolution declaring its intent to form a coastal advisory committee after the November election to review certain policies and make recommendations for revisions. Again, thank you for writing and sharing your feelings about the potential annexation. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder President, Board of Directors BC/mcs cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 * Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAI& Board President Acknowltdge/Respld Director Acknowledge/Respond Staff Acknowl*dge/Resiond June 17, 1998 Draft Response Attached Staff to baDirctedto Prepare Draf t R :Pd'a7 for Board 1: aideratIu Per Board rtiv*(a)No Response Necessary Midpeninsula Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 Fax: 650-691-0485 To the Board; This letter is written to urge your support of the ad-hoc committee's revised proposal from the April 28, 1998 special meeting,regarding El Corte de Madera Creek OSP study area 2. As an avid hiker and cyclist, and a member of the Sierra Club and ROMP, I am very concerned about keeping the preserve in as natural a condition as possible. I understand the concerns include cost of maintenance and your general guidelines for trail slopes (which could be due to maintenance costs as well as safety issues). For maintenance of the limited number of "natural" trails in the area I urge you to continue to use alternatives to the trail machine, such as ongoing use of volunteers. Even though machine-cut trails fill in over time, they're not the same as a natural trail. Regarding trail construction guidelines, I've not seen similar restrictions on width and incline anywhere else during hikes on our continent or others, even in areas such as Yoseng re, which see high use with not-so-experienced hikers. Managers of other areas,including multi-use areas, seem to feel comfortable that steeper, less smooth, narrower trails can be used safely and maintained without undue scarring of the land. By retaining challenging trails with natural features, we not only preserve the character of the preserve but also leave trails more enjoyable to hikers and cyclists. Please support the ad-hoc committee's revision to the staffs proposal. Sincerely, Linda Palmer 369 La Hcrran Dr. Santa Clara,CA 95051 409-241-1129 lkpaimer@ix.netcom.com TOTAL P.01 :F Regional Open . ice DRAFT RESPONSE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION Ms. Linda Palmer 369 La Hen-an Drive Santa Clara, CA 95051 Subject: El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Draft Trail Plan for Study Area 2 Dear Ms. Palmer: The District's Board of Directors reviewed your June 17, 1998 letter concerning the trail use plan for Study Area 2 at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve at their regular meeting last night. Unfortunately, your letter was received too late for the Board to consider the night of the meeting on this issue. While El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve draft trail plan was reviewed and discussed by the Board at their June 17, 1998 meeting, no action was taken. Instead, it was returned to staff for additional review with a Board ad hoc committee. Your letter will be forwarded to staff and the Ad Hoc Committee for their consideration. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail.mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton UUZ I C o1fiffie rce Coln(,o vp -UCHARD V. TRFAKL RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STOP Board President Acknowledge/Respond 510 Pine Lane Director Acknowledge/Respond ow ledge/Rospond Los Altos, CA402 Staff Acknovl:d::/R::pond (65 ) 440 FA (60 Draft Rospons Attached Staff t: 1%1)1z:ct.d to Draft (E-mail: rtreakieCDcalifornia.com one Board Consideration per Board Dir!ct vt a) No Response Necessary June 17, 1998 MROSD Board Distel Drive Los Altos, CA BY FAX Re: El Corte de Madera trails Dear MROSD Board Members: I attended the last meeting on the subject trails but am unable to attend tonight's meeting. I'm a long-time financial Supporter of the MROSD and an avid hiker who occasionally rides his mountain bike in the El Corte de Madera Preserve, The conclusions reached at the last meeting, Le- to make the Sierra Morena Trail multiple use. leave the lower portion of the Devil's Staircase open below the Sierra Morena Trail, and to modify some of the steeper sections of Totem Road made great sense to me- I hope those suggestions are adopted by the Board. I've noticed a tendency over the Past Couple of years for you folks to widen trails in many fiD of the preserves. It seems to me that that is counter productive in that it detracts from the hiking experience. Roots and rocks and turns make a hike a hike rather than a stroll in the woods. Nothing wrong with a stroll in the woods but most strollers don't go too far into the woods. It would seem to me that this Penchant for widening the trails is also unappealing to the cyclists as well, and maybe even more dangerous. It is hard to go too fast when you're trying to negotiate an uneven surface whereas the boulevards you're creating seem to encourage speed. That isn't good for us hikers I was impressed with the people in the audience that spoke out at the last meeting. They seemed to be earnestly interested in keeping the preserves in a condition where they would appeal to all manner of users. It also seems clear that the more natural trails might well require less in the way of maintenance. Sincerely, Regional Open ., ace 1 1 DRAFT RESPONSE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION Richard V. Treakle 510 Pine Lane Los Altos, CA 94022 Subject: El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Draft Trail Plan for Study Area 2 Dear Mr.Treakle: The District's Board of Directors reviewed your June 17, 1998 letter concerning the trail use plan for Study Area 2 at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve at their regular meeting last night. Unfortunately, your letter was received too late for the Board to consider the night of the meeting on this issue. While El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve draft trail plan was reviewed and discussed by the Board at their June 17, 1998 meeting, no action was taken. Instead, it was returned to staff for additional review with a Board ad hoc committee. Your letter will be forwarded to staff and the Ad Hoc Committee for their consideration. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos CA 94022-1404 • Phone:65 - 1-0 69 1200 it FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton JUN 1 r '98 02:47'P11 PQC E GLC;v_ DEVL PA P. Roche i GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT-PALM ALTO FAX MESSAGE C4 URGENT ❑ CONFIDENTIAL DATE: _ Number of pages: �. TO: /�11 �r+,a y (_row jr-s FROM: KARL KNEW PHONE: f PHONE: 650-354.7007 FAX: FAX: 650.852.1613 DEPT.: DEPT-: 7075 GDPA MGMT (In replying to this FAX please include the phone number of the person you are replying to) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: c-CC4C. niorlT` � u OCA--- r)� c�r�W4 s Rom, orb * A � c � r RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAPT Board President Acknorledge/Re_spond SA9dpa98\taxc-over.doc- Director Acknovledg./&..pond \y' Staff Acknovledg./Respond Draft Response Attached Staff to 6e Directed to Prepay. Draft Rea posse for Board Co nsid.rat ion per Board DSrect1v (.) No Response Necessary Regional Open ice DRAFT RESPONSE PREPARED BY STAFF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION Karl Kneip Roche Global Development Dept. 7075 GDPA Management 3401 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject: El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Draft Trail Plan for Study Area 2 Dear Ms.Kneip: The District's Board of Directors reviewed your June 17, 1998 letter concerning the trail use plan for Study Area 2 at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve at their regular meeting last night. Unfortunately, your letter was received too late for the Board to consider the night of the meeting on this issue. While El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve draft trail plan was reviewed and discussed by the Board at their June 17, 1998 meeting, no action was taken. Instead, it was returned to staff for additional review with a Board ad hoc committee. Your letter will be forwarded to staff and the Ad Hoc Committee for their consideration. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle 9 Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 * Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 - E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org o Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz o General Manager:L.Craig Britton PP sees RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF Board President Acknowledge/}spond Director Acknowledge/Respond Beck & Dave 12 : 48 AM 6/18/98 No Subject Y J =� Staff Atknovled ge/aespood Draft Response Attached Return-Path: rgray@thegrid.net Staff to be Directed Prepare Draft Response for Board Consideration per X-Sender : i644357@mail . thegrid.net Board Directive(s) Date : Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00 : 48 : 16 -0700 No Response Necessary To: mrosd@openspace .org From: Becky & Dave <rgray@thegrid.net> X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org Board, MROSD: I would take this moment to add a couple of comments about last night ' s Board meeting. It was clear from the discussion that some members of the Board were not familiar with the details of the trails in question or Study Area 2 of ECdM in general . I would like to ask that, in the future, when trail issues arise, each and every Board member visit and walk the area (s) in question. In last night ' s case, this extra leg work would have surely prompted and definitive result to the issues at hand, no matter what the outcome . Furthermore, it would have clearly eliminated some of the apparent possibilities that arose and help lend useful the hard work of the ad hoc committee . In some cases, suggestions were made that would have resulted in cyclists being forced to use Skyline, a practice that will lead to fatalities effectively as a result of a Board decision. Would you like to wake up in the morning to read an obituary of a mother of two killed riding the road from gate 3 to gate 1 at ECdM and realize that it would have easily been preventable? Visiting the area is particularly important when conflicts of interest between a user group and Staff exist . This is an important aspect of the Board' s role in serving the community and can not be effectively done without an information source that is independent of the Staff. I would also like to ask, that meeting information (time, date, and content) be disseminated widely well before the meeting date . This is fundamentally an issue of fairness . As it turned out, some members of the audience (coincidentally acquaintances of a Board member) appeared to have had access to the information well before others as they had type written statements prepared that dealt with the specifics of the Staff' s heretofore unpublished recommendations . This information should, at a minimum, be placed on your Web site when it goes to the Board. Placement in office the day of the meeting is not sufficient to achieve Ian open discussion. One last point is that I would like to encourage the Board members to become well informed on the state of the art in trail use and management science . Issues, such as user conflicts, have been well studied and documented. Although the articles are dry, they are understandable. The emotional responses of different user groups need their proper context to be fully understood. I will be happy to provide you some lead references if it will help. Thank you for your consideration. David Oare Regional Open , . -ice DRAFT RESPONSE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION Mr. David Oare <rgray(&thegrid.net> Dear Mr. Oare: Thank you for your comments about the June 17 meeting on the Study Area 2 Trail Use Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The three Ad Hoc Committee members (myself, David Smemoff, and Jed Cyr) have walked every trail segment within Study Area 2 along with the task force and staff. We became very familiar with all of the trail segments under discussion at the meeting. Most of the remaining Board members visited the preserve prior to the meeting to acquaint themselves with the more controversial trails under discussion. I'm sure you can understand how difficult it is to keep abreast of all issues concerning 43,000 acres and 250 miles of trails. Instead, we concentrate our efforts on the most significant aspects of such issues. The decision to hold a special meeting for this trail use issue was decided at the Board's regular meeting of June 10. On Friday, June 12, copies of the agenda were sent to all adjoining land owners to the preserve and members of the District's mailing lists pertaining to this issue (the mailing lists total over 200 people). In addition, the agenda was posted at the trailheads to the preserve. Copies of reports are available upon request. As an added service, staff posts the agenda information on the District web site; however, workload priorities and technical difficulties can sometimes prevent this from occurring immediately. We are trying to improve that process. To be certain of obtaining the staff reports and other packet information, you might consider subscribing to the Board packet. For an annual subscription fee you can receive either all Board meeting agendas ($20 per year) or the full packet of agendas and staff reports ($220 per year). The agendas and packet materials are mailed on the Friday prior to the Wednesday meeting. You may also subscribe to the agenda by e-mail (no charge), currently subject to the same technical and workload limitations noted above. Please contact the District office if you would like to initiate a subscription. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors cc: Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF +s& Board President Acknowledge/Respond Director Acknowledge/Respond Staff Acknowledge/Respond Draft Response Attached Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft Return-Pat rg ray@ theg rid.net Re,pon,arac for iHoard Consideration per X-Sender: i644357@mail.thegrid.net B oa r d Di t —(9) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 10:49:36 -0700 No Response Necessary To: mrosd@openspace.org From: Becky& Dave <rgray@thegrid.net> Subject: Sierra Morena Trail, ECdM X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org Dear Ms. Hanko and Mr. Siemens, I would like to take a moment of your time to address some of your concerns as expressed during the recent MROSD Board meeting concerning the El Corte de Madera Use and Management plan. The issue that I would like to address is trail conflicts. This issue has been studied scientifically and I would be happy to supply copies of the papers to you, if you would like. Quite frankly, I must honestly state that I find it unpleasant to encounter hikers while riding my bike on trails. I know that few cyclists speak of this, but many feel the same way. Often, despite pleasant greetings and overt attempts to be friendly, a significant segment of the hiking population appears to resent my presence on the trail. The consequences of this range from unpleasant demeanor to hikers who actively block passage of cyclists on trails. This happens despite my dismounting and making room for the hikers to pass. The presence of hikers on the trails disrupts the peaceful serenity and rhythm of my visits to the preserves. Although minor, the hikers presence on trails represents a safety hazard to cyclists that equals or exceeds the danger to the hikers (consider near misses). I actively avoid riding in areas heavily frequented by hikers. This being said, 1, like most cyclists, respect the right of access of all users to the preserves so I am happy to tolerate the presence of this segment of the trail using community. Thus, it comes with great sadness that I hear talk of turning trails in El Corte de Madera into hiking only trails. This comes in the face of thousands of hours of trail work performed by members of the cycling community in El Corte de Madera. It comes with the knowledge that miles upon miles of hiking and equestrian only trails exist directly across Skyline in the Huddart, Wunderlich, and Phelger areas. Furthermore,the Bald Knob area of the MROSD's nearby Purisima Preserve contains still more miles of trails of hiker only trails that are visited by only a handful of visitors a day. It also comes with the realization that taking away access to Sierra Moreno will force scores of cyclists to continue to ride Skyline, a highway with poor visibility and no shoulders where the consequence of collisions are often fatal. The current usage of El Corte de Madera is currently about 80%cyclists. It has often been stated the more hikers are expected when the new parking lot is built. I ask you whether you honestly feel that the absence of a parking lot is currently keeping hikers away. Does this make sense? I can assure you that opening some trails in Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve to cyclists would result in a much Regional Open ace .....................I............................... MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DRAFT RESPONSE PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION David Oare 1622 Ralston Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 Re: Hiker conflict with bicycle use on trails Dear Mr. Oare: Thank you for your e-mail of June 20 concerning trail use at El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve and bicycle/hiker conflicts in general. Your letter was reviewed at the Board's regular meeting last night. Your letter will be included with other correspondence received on the issue and referred to the Trail Use Policy review process which is being initiated soon, and to the El Corte de Madera trail planning process, which, due to other priorities, won't be revisited until fall of 1998. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors BC/bra 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 * E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz *General Manager:L.Craig Britton greater influx of cyclists than the construction of a parking lot in El Corte de Madera will increase the visitation by hikers. I ask you to carefully consider these thoughts. The cycling community is a valuable ally in the preservation of open space and it would be a shame if they were turned into opponents. Thank you for your attention. Could you please do me the favor of sending me an acknowledgment of the receipt of this letter? Sincerely, David Oare 1622 Ralston Ave Belmont 94002 Regional .' MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-98-93 Meeting 98-16 June 24, 1998 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Final Review of Regional Open Space Study GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ' 1. Determine that the Regional Open Space Study is statutorily and categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the findings contained in this report. 2. Review the revised draft Basic Policy document, including changes made at the May 6 workshop, and proposed policy language for three issues, as outlined in this report. 3. Review the greenbelt financial implications model. 4. Authorize the General Manager to contract for reproduction of the map and related text for public distribution. 5. Comment on and/or confirm the potential next steps in the District's advance planning program outlined in this report. BACKGROUND On May 6, 1998 you held a special public workshop to provide an initial review of the final draft products of the two-year Regional Open Space Study project (see report R-98-59).This report presents the revised products for your final approval, which would conclude the two year study process. The Regional Open Space Study is intended to illustrate a concept of what may be desirable as a future greenbelt on the Peninsula. The study is not intended as a commitment to fund, approve, or implement any specific acquisitions or improvements, but as a tool for ongoing study and discussion as the District pursues its open space preservation mission. DISCUSSION Basic Policy. At the May 6 workshop you reviewed key planning issues raised during the public participation process, confirmed that some were addressed in existing policy language, lic lan ua e, some would be addressed in other current or future planning studies, and reviewed proposed �I 1:30 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 « E-mail: mrosd@opensi)ac(,.org - Web site:www.opensl)ace.org Board of 0irecto s_Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, David T.Smernoff, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz - General Mdmiger:L.Craig Britton R-98-93 Page 2 amendments to the draft Basic Policy text to respond to several key policy questions. Attachment 1 lists the Basic Policy issues and your direction from the May 6 workshop. Three Basic Policy issues were left to be resolved at the end of the May 6 workshop: 1) wording under Objective 1, Policy c, regarding eminent domain; 2) clarification of "basic" low-intensity open space use versus "special" use; and 3) clarification of agricultural use policies. In addition to the specific wording changes directed at the May 6 workshop, staff has offered new wording in the attached draft (Attachment 2) for your consideration. Although it is not absolutely necessary that the Basic Policy be finalized for the study map to go to print, it would be highly desirable to complete the policy review that was begun two years ago. Financial Implications Review. One of the key objectives of the study was to examine the financial implications of the potential future greenbelt. To accomplish this, the lands and facilities for the assumed District and "others" portions of the envisioned greenbelt were quantified and the costs were roughly estimated based on past and current costs for acquisition, improvement, and management. The overall estimates for lands and facilities are shown in the following chart. These estimates are based on many assumptions, and should only be considered as one of many possible study scenarios (the portion of the potential lands and facilities that would be the District's vs. "others" is not delineated on the map - only assumed in terms of quantities). Lands and Facilities on Regional Open Space Current Additional Total Study Map (12/5/97) 1. Lands protected by the District 42,037 acres 35,100 acres 77,137 acres 2. Acres managed by the District 37,188 acres 31,695 acres * 72,288 acres * 3. Acres easements monitored by the District 3.623 acres 3.405 acres * 3.623 acres * Total 2 & 3 40,811 acres 35,100 acres 75,811 acres Other protected open space land contiguous to 31,516 acres 5,227 acres 36,743 acres District Trails managed by the District 248 miles 354 miles 602 miles Trails managed by others (not estimated) 35 miles (not estimated) Staging areas managed by the District 13 20 33 Staging areas managed by others (not estimated) 5 (not estimated) * Assuming same proportion of 35,100 acres would be easements -- amount not yet determined. R-98-93 Page 3 At a public workshop in October 1997, a preliminary version of a financial analysis of the implications of completing the greenbelt was reviewed by the Board. Starting with current budget categories and levels, and assuming that the ratio of staff to lands and facilities would be kept relatively close to current levels, this graph showed that the District could not afford to complete and manage its assumed portion of the envisioned greenbelt over the next 25 years without substantial additional funding. Since October, staff has updated the estimates to be consistent with the study map as it was revised. The financial model has been refined to be more realistic by evaluating trends in District spending and tax revenues over the past eight-year period and factoring these trends into the 25-year study period. The financial model (Attachment 3) has been reviewed by the District's Controller and correlated with his projections of the District's future financial picture. The objective at the July 8 meeting is to explain the basic structure of the model, give an overview of the future conditions it indicates, and, if desired, identify scenarios or assumptions that the Board would like to see evaluated in the future. The analysis started by subtracting land purchases and separating debt service from past spending. Cost trends were separately calculated and "stacked", working from the bottom of the graph to the top, as follows: Operations salaries, other Operations spending, other administrative spending, and capital improvements (subtracting major facilities). This provides an overall operating spending total comparable to the adopted 6% budget guideline. Debt service was then added on top of these costs. These separate, "stacked" trends, shown as shaded areas on the graph, were then projected over the next 25 years. Projected revenues in the categories of tax revenue, interest income, and other income (primarily enterprise rents and leases) were shown as lines on the graph. The difference between cost and revenues indicates the general debt capacity available for land acquisition. Preliminary results of the analysis (Attachment 3) 1. Historical Trends: a. Showed growth rate in number of Operations staff of 1.53% per year vs. 8.61% increase in salary cost; judged to be unrealistically low. Reflects a major reorganization of staff and review of salary structure - an atypical situation. b. Alternative scenario analyzed in which the number of operations staff grows at 3.61%, with 5% additional cost increase for inflation and pay increases. c. Operations "other" costs: 2.35% d. Other administrative spending (including "other" staff): 2.23% e. CIP (not incl. major facilities $580K/yr (for future used $600K inflated at 2.9% per C.P.I.) R-98-93 Page 4 f. Cumulative spending increase: from 4.34% to 6.38% over 25 years * Major facilities are not specifically identified in the financial model, but are considered to be covered by the fact that grant income is also not counted (estimated by the Controller at $200K/year). 2. Land Purchase Funding: (Attachment 4) The District Controller prepared several future scenarios for 25 years based on cost and revenue assumptions, to show money available for land purchase. The attachment shows projected land purchase funding under two different tax growth rates (4% and 5%) and four different rates of expense growth ("historical trend", 6%, 7% and 8%). Projected land purchase funding is shown by year and totaled for 25 years. A present value of the total (assuming 5% per year land price inflation) is shown below the total. The historic revenue trend is shown in the graph, which confirms that 4% is a reasonable, conservative assumption. Over the past 5 and 10 years the average increase in tax revenue has been 4.3%, while over the past 15 years tax revenues have increased 5.2%. 3. Analysis of Operations Staff Resources: (Attachment 5) Based on the estimates of the amount and timing of funding available for land acquisition in the Controller's Historical Trend (HT) scenario, and the projections of Operations staff growth prepared for the graph, an analysis of Operations staff resources relative to land and facilities was prepared (see Attachment 5). This shows a ratio of Operations staff to acres managed, number of staging areas, and miles of trails at five year intervals: a. First number based on Operations staff increasing at 1.53% per year. b. Number in parentheses based on Operations staff increasing at 3.61% c. Acres acquired are based on 5% annual increase in cost per acre. d. Facilities added based on "building out" the facilities shown on the Study map. e. Assumed a ten year delay in building trails and staging areas on new lands. f. Assumed 8 staging areas planned on existing land would be built over next 10 years, then remaining 12 staging areas in proportion to additional land anticipated to be added to reach projected total of 33 staging areas. R-98-93 Page 5 g. Trails similar to above: additional 7.7 miles of trail per year on existing land for first 10 years, then additional 7.9 miles of trail for every 1,000 acres purchased (proportional to completing all Study map trails). 4. Overall Indications: a. The model, and the analysis performed by the Controller, illustrate the dramatic influence of changes in spending or revenues on capacity to fund new land purchases. Over 25 years, just a 1% difference in expense growth makes an approximate $30 million difference in the present value of land purchase funding. As a rule of thumb, each increase of$100,000 in the permanent level of expenses reduces the amount of new debt that can be issued to buy land by $1.2 million (a factor of 12-to-1). b. At the end of 25 years (and assuming 4% tax revenue growth and expense growth at "historical trend"), 9,770 acres of the District's total 35,100 acre portion of the future greenbelt will remain to be purchased (a "funding gap" of$35 million in present dollars, compared to a total estimated "price tag" of$119 million in present dollars). In order to fill this funding gap, the District would need an additional $2.5 million per year revenue over 25 years. c. As shown in Attachment 4, many acres are acquired late in the 25 year period -- maybe too late! Each of the columns in Attachment 4 shows heavy land purchase funding in 2016-2019. This is because the debt service on existing debt drops significantly in 2017. Based on discussion with bond underwriters, it should be possible to refinance some existing notes beginning in 2010 and move forward a large portion of the 2016-2019 funding into the 2010-2015 timeframe. However, this may still be too late to save the land. The 5 year and 10 year totals and present values (PV) in Attachment 4 illustrate the relatively low near-term funding capacities in the various scenarios. d. With 1.53% rate of Operations staff growth, ratio of staff to facilities gets significantly worse at each milestone (from current 2.3 staff per staging area to 1.3 staff per staging area). f. With 3.61% rate, the future staff/land and staff/trail & miles ratios are better than at present, but the staff to staging area ratio is slightly worse. g. If expense growth cannot be held under the 6% per year rate assumed in the budget guidelines, then the land purchase funding gap is much larger than assumed above. At 4% tax revenue growth and 6% expense growth, only 45% of the 35,100 additional acres can be funded -- a gap of$70 million in present dollars. In order to fill this larger gap, $5 million per year of additional revenue would be needed. 5. Questions not yet addressed: a. Impact of growth of resource management subprogram. Scenario of "real" growth R-98-93 Page 6 from approximately $150K per year to $1 million per year over 25 years (EBRPD model) is 8.5% real growth versus 1.53 or 3.61. b. The potential increase in the overall number of parking spaces in the Study is over two times higher than the increase in the number of staging areas. This is based on an assumption that future lots would tend to be larger than the average current parking area. This is consistent with a gradual long-term trend in increased visitation to District lands. Thus, even if the ratios of staff to land, staging areas, or trail miles are consistent with present levels, available staff relative to public use would be lower than current levels. How should this be considered in assessing the adequacy of future staffing? c. Is the estimate of future land protection cost up to date? The Acquisition Program should review it in light of the recent surge in real estate development in the Bay Area. d. Is the $600K per year inflated at 2.97 CPI adequate to build and maintain facilities? Of past CIP spending, how much was for "new" versus repair and replacement? (Requires detailed project-by-project research.) e. Other comments from Board, public, staff? No decision-making is anticipated based on the financial model. Like the study map, the financial model is a tool for further study as the District pursues its open space preservation mission, and as conditions and near-term objectives change. Study MV Finalization The study map has been revised in response to Board comments at the May 6th workshop and staff and public comments that were reviewed at that time. Staff is preparing a layout of the text that is proposed for the reverse of the map. The text for the reverse of the map will be derived from previous reports on the project and other existing documents that have been reviewed by the Board, including: • The Regional Open Space Study's objectives • Background on the Study process • The adopted Mission Statement • Basic Policy language about the Master Plan and the Study • Definitions and clarifications about the map and the areas and features depicted • Description of the financial model, its objectives, and general implications • Basic information about the District typical to other publications • Photographs of District lands for aesthetic interest and to highlight the subject Because the Regional Open Space Study is intended to be a companion document to the Master Plan, the finished document is proposed to have a similar format, except that it will feature full color. Staff requests your authorization on July 8 to print the map for public distribution, which is budgeted at $5,000. This amount will provide approximately 5,000 copies, plus two R-98-93 Page 7 large mounted display maps. Staff proposes to mail the first few hundred of the finished maps to the agencies, organizations, and members of the public who participated in the study workshops, and make the others available to interested parties upon request. Conclusions and Next Steps If accepted by the Board, the recommended actions in this report will complete the two year study process and the assignments originally given to staff. In addition to the planning and public communications tools provided by the Study map and the financial model, the process has supported the development of a more detailed, geographic information system (GIS) computerized map series to help in the inventory, planning, and management of District lands and facilities. A database of representatives of the agencies and organizations that are actively involved in or concerned with open space preservation on the peninsula has been compiled, along with a list of individuals who are interested in the subject. These tools will hopefully be actively used by the District and to share or coordinate with other agencies. Near term next steps in the District's overall advance planning program could focus on consideration of planning questions through the use of the financial model and other discussions, as anticipated in the "Regional Open Space Priorities" project in the 1998-1999 Fiscal Year Work Program, including: 0 Adjustments or alternatives to the financial analysis scenarios. 0 Other research to refine the analysis. 0 Continue to analyze spending, staffing, purchasing, and building trends to update the financial model. 0 Review more detailed 5 and 10 year "targets" - leading to a Strategic Plan. 0 Discuss policies or guidelines for staff service levels, land acquisition, building improvements, leading toward a phasing plan for opening and improving sites. Based on confirmation from the Board, staff will return later this year with a suggested agenda and schedule for continued discussion of advance planning objectives. CEQA iance Project Description The Regional Open Space Study is intended to illustrate a concept of what may be desirable as a future greenbelt on the Peninsula. The study is not intended as a commitment to fund, approve, or implement any specific acquisitions or improvements, but as a tool for ongoing study and discussion as the District pursues its open space preservation mission. It provides a clarification and progress report on the existing mission of the District. It will consist of: • A graphic map showing a conceptual plan for a completed open space greenbelt on the San Francisco peninsula, highlighting potential lands to be acquired and potential improvements to be completed by the District and other agencies. R-98-93 Page 8 0 A rough estimate of the cost to acquire the land, build the improvements, and maintain and manage the resulting greenbelt. 0 Revised and updated Basic Policy of the Midpf,,—ninsula Regional Open Space District and an overall Mission Statement for the District. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15262 provides that a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15262 is applicable because the Regional Open Space Study has no legally binding effect on the District's activities or on any other party. It is a feasibility and planning study, and does not approve or implement any specific acquisitions or improvements. The potential land acquisition activities envisioned under the project are also categorically exempt from CEQA due to their open space preservation purpose based on several CEQA sections: Section 15313 exempts acquisition of land for fish and wildlife conservation purposes, . . . and preserving access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve the land in its natural condition." Section 15316 exempts ". . . acquisition or sale of land in order to establish a park where the land is in a natural condition . . . and either: a) The management plan for the park has not been prepared, or b) The management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition . . . CEQA will apply when a management plan is proposed that will change the area from its natural condition. . ." Section 15317 exempts ". . . establishment of agricultural preserves. . . . or the acceptance of easements or fee interests in order to maintain the open space character of the areas." Section 15325 exempts transfer of ownership of interests in land in order to preserve open space-" Prepared by: Randy Anderson, Senior Planner Mike Foster, Controller Contact persons: Same as above Attachment 1 Basic Policy Issues From Regional Open Space Study Workshops With Board Direction from 516198 Workshop Issue 1: Focus acquisition priorities on completing existing preserves and buying key parcels with unique natural resources ahead of commitment to completing the maximum possible greenbelt. This issue covered by use of word "strategic" and footnoting Acquisition Policies. Issue 2: Expand the District's mission to protecting open space on the San Mateo County coast. Currently under consideration by separate Board study process. Issue 3: Clarify the District's role on the Bay -- take a position of helping, but not owning or managing Baylands? Maintain existing policies. Investigate potential for joint management agreements with San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Preserve and other agencies. Issue 4: Constrain the rate of public access and associated costs to provide more funding for acquisition. Existing language in Basic Policy is sufficient. Interpret through future Regional Open Space Priorities project. Issue 5: Clarify policy, process, priorities, and plans for the rate, order, and ultimate extent of access and improvements that will be provided. Address in future Regional Open Space Priorities project, and Phasing Plan for Opening and Improving Sites. Issue 6 & 7: Concerned types of facilities - not Basic Policy. Issue 8: Designate "wilderness areas" with little or no developed trails or facilities, and "sensitive habitat areas" with seasonal or permanent limitations on public access, such as docent-led access only. Address in Trail Use Policy Review. Issue 10: Determine whether bicycles, dogs, horses, and other "special" uses have more significant impacts on land, wildlife, or management cost than "basic" pedestrian access, and whether the District needs to take a different approach in managing their use. Possibly schedule separate Board policy discussion or address in Trail Use Policy Review project. Issue 11: Further define the term "natural" in the District's Mission Statement -- i.e. do we want successionary processes such as brush invasion into grassland to continue?Address in Resource Evaluation Procedures project,future review of Resource Management Policies. 1 I Issue 12: Further define the District's agricultural use policies. Revised policy text presented for review in 6130198 Basic Policy draft; are further defined in Resource Management Policies, 10.1 - 10.3. Agricultural use policies for the San Mateo Coast should be considered under that separate study. Issue 13: Clarify when and how the Regional Open Space Study will be used and updated. Addressed by edits in 6130198 Basic Policy draft. Issue 14: Provide more overall guidelines for developing and managing the preserves -- to avoid micro-management and micro-planning. Address in future Open Space Use and Management Policies Revision. Issue 15: Consider operations and management cost impacts more carefully when planning trails and other improvement projects. Determine the acceptable standard of care. Review overall long-term trends as part of R.O.S.S. project. Address in future Open Space Use and Management Policies Revision. Staff comment: Need to clarify statements about use of eminent domain. Revised policy text presented for review in 6130198 Basic Policy draft. 2 Attachment 2 Basic Policy Revision Drag 6/30/98 .......... -... INTRODUCTION MISSION STATEMENT "...to try to save for everyone, for the hostile and indifferent as well as the The District's mission is: committed, some of the health that flows down across the green ridges from the To acquire and preserve a regional Skyline, and some of the beauty and greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; refreshment of spirit that are still available protect and restore the natural environment; to any resident of the valley who has a and provide opportunities for ecologically moment, and the wit, to lift up his eyes sensitive public enjoyment and education. unto the hills." -Wallace Stegner OBJECTIVES Open space: • Is land area that is allowed to remain in 1. Open Space Land Preservation: The or return to its natural state. Open District seeks to purchase or otherwise space lands may include compatible acquire interest in the maximum feasible agricultural uses. area of strategic2 open space land within the District, including baylands and • Protects areas of scenic beauty and foothills. The District seeks to link its preserves natural habitats necessary to open space lands with federal, state, sustain plant and animal life, especially county, and city parklands and native and endangered species. watershed lands. • Offers opportunities to the public for education, recreation, and renewal of Policies spirit. District Purpose • Enhances public safety by preventing development of areas prone to a. As an open space agency, the District's landslides, earthquake damage, primary purpose is to preserve open space. flooding, and wildland fires. Development of traditional park and recreation facilities is the responsibility of • Establishes boundaries for urban the cities and counties.3 growth, provides a respite from urban living, and enhances regional quality of life. In short, open space is "room to breathe."' Strategic Emphasis t tom' +i i�t...+p�ti sp as b. The District uses its available resources .ta primarily to acquire or otherwise preserve ci p land outside the id h Urban Service Arearimboundaries of cities that has regionallyr significant open space value and that mightgu' lost to development be 1 if the District fails to act.' I ' i z ........ ......... .. _... y The District's goal is to acquire lands pr'i,. l# td within its own boundaries and Sphere of i `"''.>''' ` U tst P ......... ..... ................................. Influence. Acquisitions outside the i4 �tgttA�[tSlt District's boundaries will be considered only if exceptional purchase opportunities arise that clearly support the District's Master Plan, Regional Open Space Study mission.' d. To guide the District's open space Open Space Acquisition preservation efforts, the District produces a master plan and a regional open space c. The District acquires land most often study. The master plan sets forth through fee simple interest (outright guidelines for District acquisitions and ownership). Options and installment shows the relative desirability of potential purchases may be employed to this end. open space land acquisitions. The regional To conserve funding for preservation, the open space study shows the general extent District may seek to preserve open space of lands and public access improvements without outright ownership of the land. existing and under consideration to The District may act as a land bank through complete the District's greenbelt mission. acquisition of less than fee interest to Both documents are subject to periodic accomplish the same results with less review and modification by the Board of immediate expenditure of the District's Directors after public hearings. The funds. Examples include acquisition of a Regional Open Space Study is subject to remainder interest following a life tenancy; periodic technical updates. Both documents open space, conservation, or scenic are submitted to the counties, cities, and easements; and purchase and leaseback other conservation-oriented local, state, and arrangements. The District actively strives federal agencies and organizations for to acquire open space through gifts and review and comment in order to encourage matching grants. Gifts of land with life coordination with their planning and tenancy are encouraged. Other creative policies. open space preservation techniques are explored and utilized when possible.' ey : tpv t geologic features, restoration efforts, the 2. Open Space Management: The ability to plan and implement trails, District follows management policies that parking, restrooms, mapboards and signs, ensure proper care of the land, that and identification and mitigation of provide public access appropriate to the potential safety hazards.12 nature of the land, and that are consistent with ecological values and public safety.9 Because of the District's commitment to maximum open space preservation efforts, expenditure guidelines shall be established Policies for the amount of funding available for recreational improvement projects and Resource Management restoration activities." a. The District protects and restores the Agricultural, residential, and other limited natural diversity and integrity of its revenue producing uses of the land may resources for their value to the limit public access in certain areas. Where environment, and the public, and provides appropriate, access may be provided on a for the use of the preserves consistent with permit basis. resource protection.'o The District strives to provide public access Public Access and Constraints to its lands to everyone, regardless of place of residence, physical abilities, or b. The District provides public access to economic status. (See Access Plan for the open space lands for low-intensity Persons with Disabilities) recreational uses. The District's highest priority is acquiring land to complete the Recreational Use and Improvements greenbelt and to protect natural resources on open space land. Public access will be c. Improvements on District lands are provided gradually to ensure that the higher generally limited to facilities (ie: parking priorities of acquisition and resource areas, trails and patrol roads, restrooms, protection are maintained." mapboards, and signs) for low-intensity recreational uses. Low-intensity recreation Developing facilities and managing public avoids concentration of use, significant use activities while protecting natural alteration of the land, and significant resources and providing for public safety impact on the natural resources or on the may require limits on access to some open appreciation of nature."' space lands. Areas found to be vital wildlife or plant habitats are designated as ...34"o refuge areas, and in these areas access will ................ be severely restricted. In addition to . .....Xi: _$0 )l protection of sensitive natural resources, .......... factors that may delay or limit access ............ ....... ...... include the carrying capacity of the land, is ate ............. ............. ......... r "` ` st' e _ + them on District lands. ....... ... ......:. ........... 5 E Public Safety ...... ........... Y a Sy to :fie d. The District monitors and manages its preserves to provide a safe environment for sest� , ? sy b visitors and neighbors.ls Cultural Resources e. Historic structures and sites will be ` `"" considered for protection b the District # xr ...... P Y where they are associated with lands y+at +s� ►£ lq.� et:.. 3,�� s acquired for overall open space values. t1€{ 3g; Due to the high cost of evaluating, gUStlltS, drg' r cl€ g: managing, and restoring such facilities, the >`'' ".< < " District depends on rant assistance ...._ b .,....., ..1 ......... Pe g d. of ,,,,_,,: tt public-private partnerships, and outside g p � Ag. p# . assistance to support these activities. Sites f ;; ttt€g ttp are evaluated for archaeological resources rttet , p � prior to any new use or improvement which ' .: s �t . ," 34kttg: t�li #tkg might impact the site. Archaeological ...............4 _ resources are evaluated, protected, and made known to the public as appropriate to P ensure their reservation. 16 Special use facilities i.e. nature centers '`""""S ''""` i`lie 1� � ( _.... __..... ..._lam _.... .. .. historic structures, picnic tables, or auiw�.ue� ap .sPace ,, backpack camps), and special use activities g qv , i.e. lar a hang gliding ( g recreation events g g g, �. �1 or off-leash dog areas), are considered on a '�� tlklM case b case basis. In some cases special Y P� Old. PaVOMt.MCI gun use activities may require a permit. These :; aq ges, :>�x �; :I ��'UrOe types of uses may be allowed when they do not monopolize significant areas of natural :.:::.: P act natural or land do not significantlyimpact 11 R+ tpvpg QI1 aesthetic resources, and provide benefits x �QC1U.M..t3 f _ such as environmental education, heritageptS, i resource protection, or public enjoymentI ,. y.lted � t- and appreciation of nature. The cost of ,slgtx "ut. .tt a attd, management and exposure to liability of these types of facilities and activities may .�.b 4 .. ' ... be a factor in deciding whether to permit �tq. s ,. .prYa ► ets : � t� or resource management projects. Research 3. Inter-Agency Relationships: The District works with and encourages d. The District supports the development private and other public agencies to of scientific knowledge about natural and preserve, maintain, and enhance open cultural resources and management space. techniques through cooperative arrangements with educational and scientific institutions, and by supporting Policies research on which to base its management and improvement decisions. Such studies Cooperation shall not unreasonably restrict public access or significantly impact the environment. a. The District cooperates with and encourages cooperation between Advocacy governmental agencies, community organizations, and individuals to preserve e. In order to better plan, acquire and open space.' operate a regional greenbelt of open space preserves and trails, and to further k cooperate in this effort with other The District works cooperatively with other jurisdictions, the District may encourage governmental agencies and community and advocate preservation of open space by organizations to facilitate development and other governmental agencies. The District management of recreation facilities and of may support and encourage community public use. The District ensures that such groups, non-profits, and other conservation development is consistent with protection of oriented groups in their efforts to urge important natural values of the open space. other agencies to take actions which will help accomplish the purposes and goals of Participation the District. b. The District participates in the public review processes of land use plans of other agencies and development proposals that 4. Public Involvement: The District affect the District's mission. educates and makes clearly visible to the public the purposes and actions of the District, n iv n public Joint Projects ist ct, and actively encourages pub c input and involvement in the District's c. The District explores and engages in decision-making process and other joint projects to maximize the opportunities activities." for preservation of open space. Examples include interagency land management g Y g agreements, joint planning or research studies, and joint acquisition, improvement, Policies preserve neighbors, to take into account their perspectives, to fully address their Public Information concerns, and to engage and involve them in the process of making decisions a. The District works through a variety of regarding the preserves of which they are means and media to inform the public of neighbors. Active management, patrol, the District's goals and objectives, its short maintenance, and public education are and long-term plans, the critical need for provided to minimize threats to public open space preservation, and the safety, fire hazards, litter, noise, erosion, appropriate use of District lands. This unsound use of the land, disturbance of information is disseminated as widely as wildlife and vegetation, and trespassing.'$ possible throughout the District. Land- owners and potential donors are adequately Participation informed of the District's purpose and goals, and of the possible methods of e. The District seeks to involve the public preserving land as open space. in the operation and decision-making of the District and in general planning for Meeting Procedures acquisition and future use of open space lands through special workshops, b. The District diligently follows the committees and task forces, and public provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act outreach activities. Through staff and regarding open meeting procedures, and volunteer programs, the District provides will be guided by its enabling legislation ecological and environmental education and under the state Public Resources Code, fosters public appreciation of open space Article 3, Division 5, Chapter 3, Section values. 5500. The District encourages and welcomes public participation at its Volunteerism meetings and make its actions, intents, and decisions clearly visible to the public. f. Through its volunteer programs, the District encourages active public Public Input participation in the maintenance, restoration, and protection of its natural c. The District encourages and welcomes resources. In addition, volunteers assist the communication from the public by being as District in scientific research, and accessible to the public as possible and by providing cultural, historical, and regularly soliciting public comments about environmental education opportunities to what the District should be accomplishing the public. and how it should proceed.20 Neighbor Relations d. In both the day-to-day conduct of its business and in the long-range planning for public open space preserves, the District makes every effort to cooperate with These policies are intended sole or the guidance po ly.f 5. Administration. The staff of the Board in the exercise of its discretion and are administers the affairs of the District on not intended to give rise to private rights or causes behalf of the public so as to maximize of action in individuals or other persons. The Board accomplishment of the goals and shall be the final arbiter as to any question of objectives of the District within existing interpretation of these policies. It is not the purpose financial constraints. of these policies to adopt any legal requirements. Failure to comply with these policies shall not affect the validity of any action taken by the District. Policies Cost Constraints a. Because the District is committed to maximum preservation efforts, administrative expense growth is limited by following an average annual operating expenses growth guideline, and by utilizing the help of other governmental agencies, private entities, contractual services, and volunteers.a' Professional Organization b. The District employs a highly capable and professional staff and provides them with the facilities and resources needed to run an efficient and responsible organization. Board of Directors c. The Board of Directors is the governing body of the District and determines all questions of policy. The District is divided into seven geographic wards of approximately equal populations, each za represented by an elected Board member. FOOTNOTES: 1. Open Space Acquisition Policies, Pg 3 21. Average Six Percent Growth Guideline for District Operating Expenses and Annual 2. Open Space Acquisition Policies, Pgs. 2-6. Budget. 3. Master Plan/Open Space Acquisition 22. Public Resources Code, Section 5537 Policies, Pg. 3; Land Acquisition Policies, Pg. 3, Par. F. 4. Master Plan/Open Space Acquisition Policies, Pg. 6. 5. Land Acquisition Policies, Pg. 3. 6. Land Acquisition Policies, Pgs. 5 - 10. 7. Polices Regarding Use of Eminent Domain, Ordinance No. 86-1. 8. Open Space Acquisition Policies, Pgs. 9, 10. 9. Resource Management Policies 10. Resource Management Mission Statement 11. Resource Management Policies 12. Resource Management Policies 13. Average Six Percent Growth Guideline for District Operating Expenses and Annual Budget 14. Resource Management Policies 15. Good Neighbor Policy, District Land Use Regulations 16. Resource Management Policies 17. Resource Management Policies, Goals 10 and 11. 18. Good Neighbor Policy, Public Notification Policies, District Land Use Regulations 19. Rules of Procedure, Notification Policies, Land Acquisition Policies, Pgs. 15, 16 NOTE: The public may obtain policy documents by contacting District office during regular 20. Public Notification and Good Neighbor business hours Monday through Friday 8:30 am policies. to 5:00 pm. Attachment 3 Ross Study Financial Analysis $35,000,000 Present 5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years $30,000,000 ; PAST YEARS FUTURE YEARS , Total Income(tax,other+interest) $25,000,000 ; gtlrer Inconrc(plus tax revenue) ; $20,000,000 growth $15,000,000 DeIN Service 6%District Budget ; $10,000,000 ; �e District CIP Guideline:$600,000 @2.97%growth lhrerall Administrative Spending @223%growth $5.000,000 7 Actual CIP Spending ins odw than Salaries Q2.35%growth Operafbns Salaries�.E7%growth N QI M a, 01010 0 O N M O N N th m OI O O) OJ O O O O O O O O N N N s rn rn rn rn _rn m_ rn m_ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N M a in f0 n M M O N C] O V) 0 1 M O N M O N O r ;3 m O N O O M 01 01 O O O O 01 O O O O O O O O O O N N N 0� 0I Q1 m m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Years Page 4 Attachment 4 LAND PURCHASE FUNDING ($M) 6115198 Tax Growth @ 4-5%, Expense Growth @ Historical Trend & 6-8% 4% TAX GROWTH 5% TAX GROWTH YEAR HT 6% 7% HT 6% 7% 8% 98-99 11 .3 11 .3 11.3 11 .3 11 .3 11 .3 11 .3 99-00 20.0 12.5 6.5 20.0 12.5 12.5 12.0 00-01 2.0 9.0 4.0 4.0 01-02 1 .0 0.5 0.8 02-03 5.5 5.5 5.0 5 YR TOTAL 39.8 23.8 18.3 46.6 32.8 27.8 23.3 PV 37.5 23.2 17.9 43.7 30.9 26.8 22.7 03-04 04-05 8.3 3.6 19.0 8.3 5.3 05-06 0.5 06-07 07-08 7.0 3.6 5.6 5.8 3.8 10 YR TOTAL 55. 1 31.0 18.8 71.2 46.9 36.9 23.3 PV 48.2 28.6 18.3 61.5 40.8 33.2 22.7 08-09 7.2 7.2 4.5 09-10 5.5 0.5 10-11 1 .0 0.7 18.0 8.0 1 .2 1 .2 11-12 12-13 6.0 11 .8 7.0 0.7 13-14 0.5 0.5 14-15 6.0 9.6 9.7 6.5 15-16 16-17 27.5 25.0 18.0 35.0 35.0 25.0 25.0 17-18 27.5 22.0 1 .5 35.0 35.0 23.5 6.0 18-19 23.0 20.0 0.5 35.0 24.0 24.0 19-20 1 .8 2.2 0.8 4.0 1 .2 2.0 1 .8 20-21 6.2 1 .0 0.7 15.0 12.0 8.0 0.8 21-22 0.5 0.8 2.5 0.5 1 .2 22-23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 160.1 102.7 40.3 244.3 187.0 134.0 58.6 PRESENT 91.6 56.61 27.1 135.4 99.9 72.8 37.4 VALUE @ 5%/YR Attachment 5 Operations Staff Resources (Note: first staff ratio is with 1.53% growth in Operations staff, second ratio(parentheses) is with 3.61% growth. PAST 's "- PRESENT " 5 YEARS Year 1990/1991 Year 1997/1998 Year 2002/2003 31,809 acres 36,637 acres actively managed 47,205 acres actively managed 27 operations staff 42,014 acres preserved 32 (30) operations staff 1,178 acres per operations staff 30 operations staff 1,475 (1,311) acres per operations staff 1,400 acres per operations staff 287 trail miles(8.9 (8.0) per operations staff) 248 trail miles(8.3 per operations staff) 17 staging areas(1.9 (2.1) staff per staging area) 13 staging areas(2.3 staff per staging area) 10 YEARS 15 YEARS Year 2007/2008 Year 2012/2013 50,218 acres actively managed 52,133 acres actively managed 35 (43) operations staff 38 (51) operations staff 1,435 (1,168) acres per operations staff 1,372 (1,022) acres per operations staff 325 trail miles (9.3 (7.6) per operations staff) 408 trail miles(10.7 (8.0) per operations staff) 21 staging areas(1.7 (2.0) staff per staging area) 25 staging areas(1.5 (2.0) staff per staging area) 20 YEARS 25 YEARS Year 2017/2018 Year 2022/2023 59,185 acres actively managed 62,449 acres actively managed 41 (61) operations staff 44 (73) operations staff 1,444 (970) acres per operations staff 1,274 (855) acres per operations staff 432 trail miles(10.5 (7.1) per operations staff) 447 trail miles (10.2 (6.1) per operations staff) 29 staging areas (1.4 (2.1) staff per staging area) 33 staging areas(1.3 (2.2)staff per staging area) Regional en .. R-98-92 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-16 July 8, 1998 AGENDA ITEM _2 AGENDA ITEM Approval of Salary Adjustment and Meritorious Pay Award for the General Manager and Approval of Amendment to General Manager's Employment Agreement AD HOC BOARD APPOINTEE EVALUATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 1. As a result of the Board's evaluation of the General Manager's performance for the period of March 10, 1997 through March 9, 1998 and compensation review for the position, the Ad Hoc Board Appointee Evaluation Committee recommends a 3% meritorious pay award based on the General Manager's current salary and a 6% salary adjustment, inclusive of a cost of living increase, retroactive to March 9, 1998. 2. Adopt the attached resolution amending the General Manager's Employment Agreement to reflect an adjusted salary of$104,088.60 and a 3% meritorious pay award totaling $2,945.90. DISCUSSION The Board conducted its annual evaluation of the General Manager's performance and compensation for the position at its June 17 and June 24, 1998 meetings. The Ad Hoc Board Appointee Evaluation Committee, composed of Directors Crowder, Nitz, and Siemens, was instructed to serve as the District's negotiator and was directed by the Board to meet with the General Manager to review his compensation. The Committee recommends, based on the General Manager's past performance and the results of its local agency salary survey, that the Board approve a 6% salary adjustment for the General Manager, retroactive to March 9, 1998, the anniversary date for his Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement called for an annual salary review and contemplated a determination of an adjustment each anniversary date. Therefore a retroactive date for this adjustment is appropriate. This salary adjustment includes a cost of living adjustment, as well as a salary adjustment to bring the position's total salary closer in line with local agencies of comparable complexity. The attached salary survey for the General Manager position (see attachment A) was completed in June 1998 and used by the Committee in making its recommendation to the Board. The General Manager's adjusted salary would be $104,088.60. Based on the Board's review of the General Manager's performance during the evaluation period, the Committee recommends that a 3% meritorious pay award ($2,945.90) be granted the General Manager. Submitted by: Ad Hoc General Manager Evaluation Committee (Directors Betsy Crowder, Ken Nitz, and Pete Siemens) Contact person: Director Betsy Crowder 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos CA 94022-1404 Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org Web site:www.openspace.org H wrd M 0irectors:fete Siemens,Mary C. Dave led Cyr, David I.Smernotf, Nonette HanEo gBets Crowder, Kenneth C. Nitz g Britt _. �.. � � y, y y �General Manager:L.Craig Britton rACHMENT A General Manager Position - Salary and Benefits Survey, 1998 Positions Sorted by Salary ........... .......... ............ Santa Clara Valley Water District General Manager $ 159,180 13.85% $ 22,045 $ 181,225 Palo Alto City Manager $ 154,643 14.09% $ 21,789 $ 176,432 Mountain View City Manager $ 139,984 10.50% $ 14,698 $ 154,682 Sunnnale City Manager $ 138,029 14.34% $ 19,788 $ 157,817 Last Bay Kegional Park District General Manager $ 136,588 15.25% $ 20,830 $ 157,418 Menlo Park City Manager $ 108,384 14.01% $ 15,185 $ 123,569 Los Gatos Town Manager $ 108,360 14.70% $ 15,932 $ 124,292 Los Altos City Manager $ 106,884 13.21%1 $ 14,119 $ 121,004 MROSD Proposed 6% General M!n�er $ 104,089 14.05% $ 14,624 $ 118,713 Director ot Parks& Marin County Recreation $ 103,123 15.31% $ 15,788 $ 118,911 Director of Pa-r-Fs-K-- San Mateo County Recreation $ 98,244 9.02% 1 $ 8,862 $ 107,106 MROSD General Manager $ 98,197 1-14.05% $ 13,799 $ 111,996 -D-ir-e-ct-o-r-ol Parks & Santa Clara Count x Recreation $ 93,552 14.72% $ 13,771 $ 107,323 Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District General Manager 1 $ 85,000 116.76%1 $ 14,2441 $ 99,2441 effective 7/13/98 Salary Retirement Total Average Salary/Benefits (excluding MROSD) $ 119,331 $ 16,421 $ 135,752 h:flpeggy/staff/salary survey.xis RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING 1998-1999 SALARY ADJUSTMENT AND MERITORIOUS PAY AWARD FOR THE GENERAL MANAGER AND APPROVING AMENDMENT TO GENERAL MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula.Regional Open Space District entered into an Agreement, dated March 9, 1994, with L. Craig Britton, employing him as the District's General Manager; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for an annual review of the General Manager's performance and an annual compensation review; and WHEREAS, the Board has completed its annual review; and WHEREAS, the Board desires to adjust the General Manager's compensation to include a 6% salary adjustment, inclusive of a cost of living increase, retroactive to March 9, 1998, increasing his salary to $104,088.60 per annum; and WHEREAS, the Board, based on its annual review of Britton's performance, desires to grant him meritorious pay of 3% or $2,945.90 over and above Britton's salary in recognition of his performance during the previous year of service; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District do authorize the President of the Board of Directors to execute the attached fourth amendment to the General Manager Employment Agreement on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to increase the General Manager's salary to $104,088.60 per annurn based on a 6% salary adjustment, retroactive to March 9, 1998. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does grant the General Manager by adoption of this resolution 3% meritorious pay award in the amount of$2,945.90 over and above the General Manager's salary. Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement General Manager WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula. Regional Open Space District entered into an Employment Agreement ("Agreement"), dated March 9, 1994, with L. Craig Britton employing Britton as the District's General Manager; and WHEREAS, the Agreement was last amended on April 23, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for an annual review of the General Manager's performance and an annual compensation review; and WHEREAS, the Board has completed its annual review and desires to adjust the General Manager's current compensation to include a 6% salary adjustment, inclusive of a cost of living increase, retroactive to March 9, 1998, increasing his salary to $104,088.60 per annum; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Agreement shall hereby be modified as follows: 1) Effective retroactively to March 9, 1998, Section 3(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) Salary. As compensation for the services to be performed hereunder, Britton shall receive a salary at the rate of$104,088.60 per annum. District's Board of Director's (the "Board") shall review Britton's performance and salary annually. It is further agreed that in all other respects the Agreement is hereby ratified and reaffirmed. In witness whereof, the parties have executed the Amendment this day of 1998. By: Betsy Crowder, President L. Craig Britton, General Manager Rqqlonal Open me R-98-91 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-16 July 8, 1998 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Purchase Dump Truck GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with Mission Valley Ford for one small dump truck at a cost of$42,887.56. DISCUSSION At your May 27, 1998 meeting you authorized staff to solicit competitive bids for one small dump truck (see report R-98-61). Staff's estimated cost was $45,000. After finalizing specifications, staff solicited competitive bids from truck dealers throughout the Bay Area. Bid packets were sent directly to five truck dealers in the Bay Area and a notice was placed in the San Jose Mercury News. Only one truck dealer, Mission Valley Ford, submitted a bid. Bid packets were sent to the following truck dealers. 1) Mission Valley Ford $42,887.56 (including tax) 2) Fremont Ford No Bid Received 3) Capitol Dodge No Bid Received 4) Serramonte Ford No Bid Received 5) Anderson Chevrolet No Bid Received Mission Valley Ford's bid met the District's specifications and was the only responsive bidder. Staff verified that Mission Valley Ford's bid was competitive by comparing it with the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). Mission Valley Ford's bid was 13% below the MSRP. Mission Valley Ford has been the low bidder on past truck bids for the District. Staff has found Mission Valley Ford to be a qualified and responsible truck dealer. The approved fiscal year 1998-1999 budget included $45,000 for the purchase of this vehicle. Prepared by: David Topley, Support Services Supervisor Contact person: Same as above 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Phone: 650-091-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 o E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, David T.Srnernoff, Nanette Nanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton Claims No. 98-13 Meeting98-1G Date: Ju|yG. 1988 | Revised � K8|DPEN|NSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 4380 150.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services 4381 290.79 ADT Security Services Alarm Services 4382 238.42 Ajax Portable Services ReatroonnRenta|-Ruaninn Ridge 4383 391.66 All Laser Service Laser Jet Maintenance and Parts 4384 500.00 Association of Bay Area Governments Annual Dues 4385 5.80 AT & T Telephone Service � 4388 539.20 Bailey's Uniform Boots � 4387 62.62 Barron Park Supply Company Plumbing Repair Parts � 4388 105.00 BiU'n Towing & Recovery Vehicle Towing � 4389 2'150.00 Louis Burdi General Engineering Skyline Grading Services 4390 40.38 California Native Plant Society Resource Document 4391 259.90 California Water Service Company Water Service 4392 131.86 Kerry Carlson Reim buroernont.'Unifnrnn Boots 4393 38.12 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Fire Pumper Parts 4394 160.56 Cole Supply Co.' Inc. Janitorial Supplies 4395 50.00 CompurunSyatemo Video Driver Repair 4386 230.87 Cnoton VVho|mue|o Field and Office Supplies 4387 204.86 Custom Alignment Vehicle Maintenance 4398 385.00 Daily Express, Inc. Dozer Delivery Charge 4398 766.24 Dillingham Associates Landscape Architects Sauoo| Pond Oeok {k ECM Parking Area 4400 224.00 Economy Business Machines Typewriter Repairs 4401 54.98 Emergency Vehicle Syotornn Vehicle Spotlight 4402 2'435.63 Empire Equipment Company Dozer Rental 4402 123.07 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Dust Mask & Fire Suspenders � 4403 20.83 Foster Brothers Security Systems Key Duplication 4404 246.68 Matt Freeman Vehicle Expense 4405 58.84 G & K Services Shop Towel Service 4406 129.35 Gumdco Press Incorporated Volunteer Recognition Event Invitations 4407 71.12 GTE Wireless Cellular Phone Service 4408 39.00 Half Moon Bay Review Annual Subscription 4409 30'060.00 Jens Hansen Company Windy Hill Public Access Project 4410 6'397.58 JedaPub|ioahunu Map and Brochure Printing 4411 188.36 °1 Kelly-Moore Paint Co.' Inc. Paint Supp|ien-Deer Hollow Farm 4412 273.03 Lab Safety Supply Fire Safety Supplies 4413 81.39 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock 4414 2'245.28 Lanier VVnddvvide. Inc. Copier Leases 4415 410.00 Los Altos Garbage Company Debris Box 4418 389.10 Lucent Technologies Telephone Maintenance Contract 4417 65.43 Brian W1o|nne Reimbursement--Bike Tool 0t 4418 242.01 K8C| Telephone Service 4419 126.41 K8etrnK8obi|eCommunioodonn Radio Repairs � 4420 2'367.43 K0|oro Accounting Solutions Computer Consultant 4421 284.80 °2 City of Palo Alto Monte Bello Backpack Camp Permit 4422 26.00 City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities 4433 90.00 Paul K8cKovven Reimbursement--Postage for Invitations 4424 185.71 Peninsula Blueprint, Inc. B|ue|inon' Maps and Prints 4425 726.48 PIP Printing Printing Services 4428 20.98 Precision Engravers Seasonal Name Tag Engraving 4427 127.46 Pringle Tractor Company Replacement Window for Tractor Page Claims No. 98-13 MemtngB8-1G � Date: July 8. 1998 � Revised K8|DPEN|N8ULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT � Amount Name Description 4428 4.65 Rancho Cobbler Uniform Supplies 4429 386.87 Rich's Tire Service Tires 4430 3,642'37 Rny's Repair Service Vehicle Maintenance and Repair 4431 188.20 Russ Enterprises Sign Decals 4432 1'000.00 °3 Russian Convent of Our Lady of Vladimir, Inc. Right of First Refusal Payment 4433 403.24 San Francisco Newspaper Agency Recruitment Advertisement 4434 454.12 San Jose Mercury News Recruitment Advertisement & 8ubaoriptio 4435 300.00 Santa Clara Co. Dept. of Environmental Health Haz Mat Permit 4438 84.31 Second Cup Board Meeting Expense 4437 253.86 Shell Fuel 4438 283.53 SkyvxondTreding Post Diesel 4439 192.08 Malcolm Smith Vehicle Expense 4440 20.00 °4 Sonoma County Public Health Lab Tick Testing 4441 776.15 Stuuovvido Safety & Signs, Inc. Signs 4442 116.91 Summit Uniforms Uniforms 4443 974.25 Taater & Etc. Sign & K8ep Graphics 4444 33.93 Turf & Industrial Equipment Company Tractor Maintenance Supplies 4445 862.96 Tires by Wheel Works Tires 4448 82.54 Michael Williams Vehicle and Business Meeting Expense 4447 800.00 Roberta Wolfe Recording Services 4448 93.93 Doug|aaVu Vehicle Expense 4449 331.21 Del Woods Reim burnennant—ComputerMonitor 4450 55.82 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Supplies 4451 R 181.28 Brendan Downing Reim burnonnont—UnifornnBoots 4452R 1'000.00 Town of Porto|oVaUey Retainer for Town Planner & Engineer 4453R 367.28 Petty Cash Vehicle Expense, Local Business Meeting Expense, Training /& Seminar Expense, UPS Postage, Office Supplies, Docent Supplies, Uniform Expense, Field Supplies 8/ Computer Supplies °1 Urgent Check Issued June 25' 1088 °2 Urgent Check Issued July 1' 1998 � °3 Urgent Check Issued June 24' 1998 � °4 Urgent Check Issued June 2M' 1998 � � � � TOTAL 86'915.06 � Page 2 Claims No. 98-13 Meeting 98-16 Date: Ju|yM. 1998 � K8|DPEN|N8ULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT � # Amount Name Description 4380 150.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services 4381� 290.79 ADT Security Services Alarm Services 4382 238.42 Ajax Portable Services Rostnoomn Rental--Russian Ridge 4383 391.66 All Laser Service Laser Jet Maintenance and Parts � 4384 500.00 Association of Bay Area Governments Annual Dues 4385 5.80 AT & T Telephone Service 4386 538.20 Bailey's Uniform Boots 4387 63.02 Barron Park Supply Company Plumbing Repair Parts 4388 105.00 BiU'm Towing & Recovery Vehicle Towing 4389 2'150.00 Louis Bordi General Engineering Skyline Grading Services 4390 40.38 California Native Plant Society Resource Document 4391 258.90 California Water Service Company Water Service 4382 131.86 Kerry Carlson Reimbursement--Uniform Boots 4393 38.12 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Fire Pumper Parts 4304 160.66 Cole Supply Cu.' Inc. Janitorial Supplies 4385 50.00 Cornpurun Systems Video Driver Repair 4380 230.87 Comtco VVho|ooa|e Field and Office Supplies 4387 204.86 Custom Alignment Vehicle Maintenance 4398 385.00 Daily Express, Inc. Dozer Delivery Charge 4398 766.24 Dillingham Associates Landscape Architects Souua| Pond Denk@ ECM Parking Area 4400 224.00 Economy Business Machines Typewriter Repairs 4401 54.98 Emergency Vehicle 8yotenno Vehicle Spotlight � 4402 3'435.63 Empire Equipment Company Dozer Rental 4402 133.07 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Dust Mask & Fire Suspenders 4403 20.83 Foster Brothers Security Systems Key Duplication � 4404 340.68 Matt Freeman Vehicle Expense 4405 58.64 G & KServices Shop Towel Service � 4406 128.35 Goodoo Press Incorporated Volunteer Recognition Event Invitations � 4407 01.08 GTE Wireless Cellular Phone Service � 4408 39.00 Half Moon Bay Review Annual Subscription � 4408 30'060.00 Jens Hansen Company Windy Hill Public Access Project 4410 6'397.58 JadaPub|iootiona Map and Brochure Printing 4411 188.36 °1 Kelly-Moore Paint Co.' Inc. Paint Supp|iou-Doer Hollow Farm � 4412 273.03 Lob Safety Supply Fire Safety Supplies � 4413 81.39 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock 4414 2'245.29 Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Copier Leases 4415 410.00 Los Altos Garbage Company Debris Box 4410 389.10 Lucent Technologies Telephone Maintenance Contract 4417 05.43 Brion Malone Reim buroemnont-BikeTool Kit 4418 242.01 W1C| Telephone Service 4419 126.41 MotroK8obi|eConnmunicatiunm Radio Repairs 4430 2.367.43 Micro Accounting Solutions Computer Consultant 4421 284.88 °2 City of Palo Alto Monte Bello Backpack Camp Permit 4432 35.00 City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities � 4423 96.00 Paul &4cKuvvan Reim burmennent-'Postage for Invitations � 4424 195.71 Peninsula Blueprint, Inc. B|ue|ineo' Maps and Prints 4425 726.48 PIP Printing Printing Services � 4426 20.88 Precision Engravers Seasonal Name Tag Engraving � 4427 127.46 Pringle Tractor Company Replacement Window for Tractor Page Claims No. 98'13 � Meeting 98-16 �Omd�� Ju|y8 1998 � . � k8|OPEN|NSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Amount Name Description � 4428 4.65 Rancho Cobbler Uniform Supplies � 4429 386.87 Rich's Tire Service Tires 4430 3'042.37 Roy'u Repair Service Vehicle Maintenance and Repair 4431 188.20 Russ Enterprises Sign Decals � 4432 1.000.00 °3 Russian Convent ofOur Lady ofVladimir, Inc. Right of First Refusal Payment 4433 403.24 San Francisco Newspaper Agency Recruitment Advertisement � 4434 454.12 San Jose Mercury News Recruitment Advertisement & Subucripnio 4435 300.00 Santa Clara Co. Dept of Environmental Health Hor Mat Permit 4436 84.31 Second Cup Board Meeting Expense 4437 253.86 Shell Fuel 4438 283.53 SkyxvondTrading Post Diesel 4439 192.08 Malcolm Smith Vehicle Expense 4440 20.00 °4 Sonoma County Public Health Lab Tick Testing 4441 776.15 Statewide Safety & Signs, Inc. Signs 4442 116.91 Summit Uniforms Uniforms 4443 974.25 Tmoter & Etc. Sign & K8op Graphics 4444 33.93 Turf8^ Industrial Equipment Company Tractor Maintenance Supplies 4445 662.86 Tires hy Wheel Works Tires 4446 92.64 Michael Williams Vehicle and Business Meeting Expense 4447 600.00 Roberta Wolfe Recording Services 4448 93.93 Dou0|aoVu Vehicle Expense 4449 331.21 Del Woods Reim bursernent—Connput*r Monitor 4450 55.82 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Supplies °1 Urgent Check Issued June 25' 1998 °2 Urgent Check Issued July 1' 1898 °3 Urgent Check Issued June 24' 1998 °4 Urgent Check Issued June 2G' 1998 TOTAL 65'249.58 Page 2 � � � � � Regional Ope ., f' ... _ . MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. Britton, General ManageEj�_ DATE: July 8, 1998 SUBJECT: FYI 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd@operispace.org Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mar C.Dave Jed Cyr, David T.Smer� ' y y, y Hoff, Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. NPtz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton At ace ICI ion l r f. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM July 8, 1998 TO: Board of Directors x FROM: C. Britton, General Mangaer 'd SUBJECT: Board Meeting Minutes Status I apologize for the delay in the pubishing of your May and June Board Meeting Minutes. Due to the extra Board Meetings that were scheduled during the months of May and June and increased workloads during that same time, the publishing of your Board Meeting Minutes have run behind. You can expect to receive the minutes to your May 27, June 10, June 17, and June 24 Meetings in your packet for the July 22 Meeting. We have the greatest staff that this wonderful District could hope to have on their team and staff has been doing an outstanding job in keeping up with the additional workload your requests have generated! 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:6.50-691-048.5 - E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org Wet)site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors.Pete Si<n ens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, David T.Smernoff, Nonette Nanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton CEll 0 JUL 8 ' • Peninsula Open Space Trust `--PENINSULA REGION4 p p OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Board of Directors June 30, 1998 Allan F.Brown Patricia A.Compton Vince S.Garrod Sukey Grousbeck Christina A.Holloway Melvin B.Lane Betsy Crowder Dianne McKenna President, Board of Directors Norman E.Matteoni David W.Mitchell Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District F.Ward Paine 330 Distel Circle William Karie Thomson Los A:tcs, CA 94022-1404 Anne M.Westerfield Advisory Council Robert Augsburger Dear Ms. er: James E.Baer Eleanor Boushey Sheldon Breiner,Ph.D. Thank you for writingto California's state Senators and House of rein Robert V.Brown Representatives urging their continued support for the fiscal year 1998 Land William H.Clark,M.D. and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations and mentioning Sue Crane Lois Crozier-Hogle POST's Bair Island project. Laurence Dawson Herbert J.Dengler Peggy Dennis The LWCF has been important in preserving our parks and open space J.Philip Di Napoli lands with not only funds which have gone directly to the District but with Phyllis Draper Clarence J.Ferrari,Jr. $10.5 million secured for the Phleger addition to the Golden Gate National David L.Fletcher Recreation Area and another$9 million, if successful, in the protection of Thomas W.Ford Rosemary Hewlett Bair Island! We all have many reasons to support this important program. Patricia L.Hooper Mary P. g.D. Suzanne B B- The release of the LWCF appropriations will allow all of us to have greater .King Robert C. Kirkwood success in our mission to protect land and open space for the benefit of the Robert W.McIntyre George M.Marcus public along the Peninsula of San Francisco. Jacqueline Mayer Robert H.Miller Gordon E.Moore,Ph.D. Bette Moorman Janet Morris Susan P.Orr Paul O.Reimer Barbara Doyle Roupe Sincerely, Alexander H.Schilling,Jr. Fritz Snideman Geraldine F.Steinberg Rosemary Young Lea Zaffaroni Audrey C. st Executive Director Executive Director Audrey C.Rust 3000 Sand Hill Road,4-135 Menlo Park,California 94025 Tel: (650)854-7696 Fax: (650)854-7703 www.openspacetrust.org Recycled Paper In a letter to planners,Lennie Roberts of mit(CDP)process,which would submit the Committee for Green Foothills wrote, the plan to additional scrutiny.He contends . 'Non-agricultural parcels are required to be that this project is a land decision,and that n :.,mall as possible,and when used for resi all land divisions,including lot line adjust- ' . 1/ dential purposes,shall not exceed five acres ments,require a PAD use permit.Under • and aMule b size.. We understand the applicants may musty zoning regulations,A said,'a land be attempting to create'agricultural'parcels division which requires a PAD pcttnit also I r of forty acres or so in size.It will be diffr- requires a coastal development permit.' cult to demonstrate the viability of such in his staff report,Herzberg pointed i parcelsde out that the parcels under both the current There are a lot of towns across America Said Byers,'The parcels would be large and the proposed configuration are legal built on old farmland.Subdivisions spring enough for people to use for farming on a parcels,and'the applicant could proceed up in the pasture lands of old farms,and pan time basis,who is going to farm on a with applications to develop any of the � ..provided city limits extend towards,to,and beyond five parcel? Forty acres and a mule,he existing legal parcels...P (they) fields where crops once grew and livestock said has long been the historic unit of self- could support a water well,a septic leach grazed. sufficiency in agriculture. field,and have safe or adequate access."No There are also a lot of farmers sitting on Furthermore,Byers pointed out that additional lees would be created by the per land that's barely viable for farmi rO id- and if an development were ro- nB.P under the Williamson Act,"agricultural land P�1. 7• P P ing de facto open space to an increasingly shall be presumed to be in parcels large posed for the lots in the future,a CDP crowded urban population.With bills to enough to sustain their agricultural use if would required at that time. pay,heavy competition from south of the the land is(1)at least ten acres in size in the Michael Murphy,deputy county counsel border,and real estate prices skyrocketing, case of prime agricultural land,or(2).at for San Mateo,added that a 1992 court many of them are looking to unlock some of least forty acres in size in the case of land case,San Dieguito Partnership v.City of the wealth trapped in their land. which is not prime agricultural land.' San Diego,found that a county or city's This scenario is playing out locally at Raw responded,'Look,the PAD ability to review lot line adjustments is r; McNee Ranch,in tbe shadow of Mortara requires that if you are creating nonag strictly limited.The case,he said,'held Mountain.on June 10.the San Mateo Cozen- parcels,they must be five acres or less.They that the only limit on the number of t Planning Commission unanimously parcels that m be included in a lot line Y y ng want forty acres.They must demonstrate Pazc may r# denied an application for a lot line adjust- these forty acres would be viable.They did adjustment is that the adjustment not result E i ment that would rcconfi re seven parcels greater lm P present the data relating to the Williamson in the creation of a ater number of t f r +t east of Highway Cme in Montan.Birth the Act,which says forty acres is viable.But parcels than originally existed' r y applicant and the planners agree,however, 71x proposal,Murphy said,is not*Cate, `r 1 PP P Y.re these are not Williamson Act parcels." that decision was far from the last word on While Byers claims the proposal would gorically precluded'by any state or local ` i y the proposal. optimize agricultural use on the parcels, regulations,and there is no"express limita- ' The agricultural viability of the lots is a Herzberg called the applicant's agricultural tion on the minimum size of an agricultural crucial factor.ltx Local Coastal Plan analysis inadequate,saying,"The applicant parcel.' requires that agriculture be optimized on makes no serious attempt to determine the A final issue raising concern for some w' v�, z � C� r ,t:;vim •t. the parcels,and proponents and opponents agricultural viability'of the parcels. is the applicant's proposal to transfer dcnsi- f sharply disagree as to how'to best achieve Montara's Chuck Kozak said bluntly, tr credits among the parcels Density credit �3 �► kr �`tP✓ • }� that goal. -These are forty acre estate parcels,twenty transfer is generally permeated as a means q David Byers,the attorney for the apph- minutes from San Francisco,with ocean to preserve some valuable attribute of I : .�r�� cants,said that forty-acre parcels would Pro. views.No farmer is ever going to be able to developable land,such as agricultural vide for agricultural use by their individual afford what these will go for.' potential or open space,by allowing tht + i s owners,including small-scale farming or Another contentious issue is the process development rights attached to that land v. livestock grazing.'We think'that fundamen- itself-'The lot fine adjustment process is his- be transferred to another parcel. tally our design is a dramatic improvement torically used for minor changes between Can credits be transferred from land < over the existing parcel configuration,"he lots,such as'I built my fence on your land zoned RN to land zoned PAD?Herzberg I•J� said. by mistake and creed to move the lot line said no in his staff report.but Byers con- County planner Bill Rozar responded, over,'or in a situation where I've been farm- tends that's not true.'The Master Lord 'The applicants said this is better than what ing my neighbor's field for years and we Division allows you to transfer from RM to s+ is there now,but we have to go by what the want to make it legal.'said Kozak.'This is PAD;he said. zoning district calls for.When you move lot not a lot line adjustment,this is a change in Byers has appealed the commission's lines around,you have to come up with the land use,' denial to the Board of Supervisors,and flat- same or better potential for agriculture. Coastal Commission planner Jack Urb- ly stated,'We're entitled to this develop tyV They need to maximize existing�'- R and Po ten- stet expressed concern over the process as merit.They don'[deco'it.Seven parcels on tial ag use of the parcels They did not justi- well,questioning whether this proposal real- 848 acres hardly looks like dense develop s ` .. wznt to promote on the rat. U ooze ,y � fc the type of design as being consistent ly u a lot line adjustment,and whether it's me P a8 with the Planned Agricultural District(PAD) even proper for lot line adjustments to be site,this is the only economically viable and Resource Management(RM)zones.' exempt from the coastal development per- way to do it.' f' Page 7—CoasiViews,July 1998 Recy*Jf im J k , ace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT July 2, 1998 Town Council Town of Portola Valley 765 Portola Road Portola Valley, CA 94028 Re: Portola Road Staging Area Construction, Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Honorable Council Members: Thank you for your consideration at your June 24 meeting in allowing the District relief until September 30 from the condition of having the utility undergrounding completed for the Portola Road Staging Area. The District is doing everything in its power to expedite the completion of the project and to ensure that the project is completed according to the conditions of the Town permit. You have no doubt observed the dramatic progress over the past two weeks. District staff, Town staff, Town Trail Committee representatives, and the contractor met on site Thursday, July 2 to review progress and clarify specific conditions in order to complete all punch list items by July 15. We understand that your staff will give you a specific update at your July 8 meeting. We ask for your consideration once more. If, in spite of our best efforts, one or more punch list items cannot be completed before July 15, we respectfully request that our invitational dedication ceremony on site be allowed to occur, provided we close the lot again until the punch list items have been completed. Although this situation would be undesirable from the District's standpoint, it would avoid the logistical headaches of canceling and rescheduling the dedication ceremony. We assure you that completing all aspects of the staging area and opening to the public is our highest priority. Your consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Betsy Crowder, President Board of Directors BC/bra 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 - E-mail: mrosd<xoperispace.org Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,David L.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder, Kenneth C. Nitz - General Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional I MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. Britton, General Manager DATE: July 2, 1998 SUBJECT: FYI 330 Distel Circle « Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Phone: 650-691-1200 it FAX. 650-691-0485 - E-mail. mrosdQopenspace.org Web site.www.openspace.org Board at Directors.f ete Siemens,ns 3� Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr, David T.Smernoff, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz -General Manager.L.Craig Britton Regional Open ace 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT July 9, 1998 Honorable Duane Bay Member, East Palo Alto City Council 1 Victor Square Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Email: dgbay0tribal.com Dear Councilmember Bay: Thank you for your June 21 correspondence. The District's Board of Directors appreciates hearing from you and values your observations on the coastal annexation issue. Your comments were reviewed by the Board and taken into consideration at their June 24 meeting. At that meeting, the Board unanimously approved placing an advisory measure on the November 3, 1998 ballot to ask San Mateo County coastal voters if they would like their area annexed into the District. This advisory measure will be voted on only in the coastal area of San Mateo County, south of the City of Pacifica. The measure and any annexation do not involve any increase in taxes. If an annexation takes place, then the District may consider placing a funding measure, requiring a two-thirds majority vote, on a future ballot. The Board also authorized staff to proceed with some of the technical ground work in preparation for a possible annexation, and passed a resolution declaring its intent to form a coastal advisory committee after the November election to review certain policies and make recommendations for revisions. In your correspondence, you mention that you would like the opportunity to speak to the Board regarding the impact of growth boundaries on housing costs. The most appropriate forum for you to address an item such as this, which is not agendized, would be during the public communications portion of any upcoming Board meeting. The Board meetings begin at 7:30 p.m., with the public communications period being very early in the meeting. Here is a list of the next few Board meetings: July 8, July 22, and August 12. Please feel free to attend any of these meetings, and the Board will welcome your comments. Again, thank you for writing, and for your kind words of support. 4incere. n General Manager LCB/mcs cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton f zoekt@pacbell.net, 06.,e3 PM 6/24/98 letter in a_,�port of expansion Return-Path: zoekt@pacbell .net From: zoekt@pacbell .net Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18 : 23 : 12 -0700 To: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District <mrosd@openspace .org> Subject : letter in support of expansion X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org June 24, 1998 To: The Hon . Betsy Crowder, President, and members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 650 . 691 . 1200 Fax: 650 . 691 . 0485 e-mail : mrosd@openspace .org From: Zoe Kersteen-Tucker 776 Buena Vista St . Moss Beach, CA 94038 650 . 728 . 2823 Fax: 650 . 728 .2307 e-mail : zoekt@pacbell .net re : Establishing a Coastal Advisory Committee Vote on Extending the MROSD Boundaries to the San Mateo Coast Dear President Crowder and Members of the Board; Let me begin by offering thanks for the dedication and commitment to excellence Members of the Board and District staff have brought to the study of expanding the district to include the coast . Your long-standing commitment to protection of the peninsula's greenbelt is ample evidence that you will work hard to preserve of the Coast for one and all . Around the Bay Area, we are all feeling the effects of population increase. The land use decisions being made to accommodate this new growth have broad implications for the future of the region. All too often, our local governments cleave to the pressure and legal threats put forth by self-interested landowners, real estate developers and speculators . The resulting mindless suburban sprawl strains our schools, our roads, our air and water quality, and gobbles up farmland and open space at alarming rates . Nowhere is this more evident than the coast--the final frontier for development in San Mateo County. The financial incentive to develop the coast is tremendous and even with constant vigilance, existing land use regulations are diluted and misinterpreted, one development at a time . Now is the time to move ahead with district expansion to the coast . We simply can not afford to wait any longer. I urge you to place an advisory vote on the November ballot asking Coastsiders if they want coastal lands to be annexed into the district's boundaries . With your presence on the coast, land trusts like the Peninsula Open Space Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 zoekt@pacbell.net, 06..e3 PM 6/24/98 letter in L—,,port of expansion Trust, Half Moon Bay Open Space Trust, Midcoast Parklands and Coastside Preservation and Recreation will have a crucial open space management capability that our overburdened County and State Park system can no longer provide. In addition, district presence would certify, highlight, and underline commitment to open space and agricultural protection on the coast . I also ask that you establish a Coastal Advisory Committee upon approval of the November ballot measure . The coastside represents a unique blend of rural, agricultural and urban lands . Coastal policies must be carefully crafted to preserve and enhance the character of the coast . Furthermore, this process must not be rushed and it must be contingent upon the results of the November election. Formulating policies for the coast prior to an election, as some have suggested, is a waste of time and simply makes no sense . I welcome the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 's presence on the Coast, the sooner, the better. Respectfully yours, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 2 Lorraine Feather, 10:ew PM 6/24/98 We need you _.i E1 Granada! Return-Path: plume@gte.net Date : Wed, 24 Jun 1998 22 : 20 : 18 -0700 From: Lorraine Feather <plume@gte .net> To: "mrosd@openspace.org" <mrosd@openspace .org> Subject : We need you in El Granada ! X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org The MROSD is an organization whose presence we would welcome with enthusiasm here on the Midcoast . We ' re facing a crisis and your help would mean a lot . Sincerely, Lorraine Feather Tony Morales P.O. Box 2794 EG, CA 94018 http: //www.magicisland. com/el/ (Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 Regional Open . ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT June 29, 1998 Mr. Brian Aronstam, Editor Palo Alto Weekly 703 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94302 Dear Mr. Aronstam: The Palo Alto Weekly's June 24 issue contained an article describing the extraordinary efforts of the Peninsula Open Space Trust(POST). As the President of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD), I'd like to thank you for providing your readers with an overview of this remarkable organization that has done so much for land conservation throughout our community. I would like to offer some clarification in regards to the District. The subhead on the cover of that issue refers to "Peninsula Open Space District,"which should say, "Peninsula Open Space Trust." By way of explanation for your readers,the MROSD is a public, taxpayer-funded government agency formed by voter initiative in 1972 that acquires, preserves, and manages open space land on behalf of the public. On the other hand, POST, as you mention, is a private non-profit land trust, born out of the District. Both organizations appreciate the public being made aware of the distinction. The Open Space District extends from the City of San Carlos to the Town of Los Gatos, and has preserved nearly 43,000 acres of diverse open space in 23 open space preserves. Funding for the District is provided by a small share of the annual total property tax revenues collected within District boundaries. The District permanently protects wildlife habitat,watershed, and a variety of ecosystems,restores damaged natural resources, and provides trail improvements for passive recreational use by the public. Our goals are to acquire a continuous greenbelt of protected open space lands for public use and enjoyment,and to preserve open space for future generations to enjoy. One key way of accomplishing these goals is to work closely with private non-profit agencies such as POST in order to maximize the preservation of public open space lands. The District is divided into seven geographic wards,each represented for a four year term by an elected Board member. The Board holds public meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:30 p.m.,at the District offices,and the public is invited and encouraged to attend and participate in the District's decision-making process. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton June 29, 1998 Mr. Brian Aronstam Page -2- Again, thank you for educating the public about POST and the fine work that organization does. I hope that I have clarified the roles of both POST and MROSD for your readers, and illustrated how we work together towards common goals, using some different tools. Without POST and the District working together, we would not have nearly the amount of beautiful, unspoiled open space in our community that we enjoy today. Sincerely, aeWwZ-t- Betsy Crowder President, Board of Directors BC/mcs cc: MROSD Board of Directors Audrey Rust, POST r REGEWE.. JUN 2 4 19�E MIDPENINSULA REGib, OPEN SPACE DISTR!C i P.O. Box 67 El Granada, CA 94018 22 June 1998 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Please add mine to the expressions of support you are receiving to add the coastal area of San Mateo County for possible District annexation. I can only paraphrase the oral comment I made at the District ' s recent meeting in Half Moon Bay: If there ' s no agency willing and able to work to preserve local open space, how do those who want it retained expect that to happen? I would also like to go on record as having no quarrel with the District ' s exercise of its power of eminent domain, providing it is used in as logical and sensitive a manner as possible. Sincerely yours, ;�- 7 (Ms ) K. Chris e Vogel ft%%tez Pacifica Land Trust P. O. Box 988 Pacifica, CA 94044 June 23, 1998 J U N 2 4 1998 The Hon. Betsy Crowder, President, KDPENINSULA REGIONALOPEN SPACE DISTRICT Members of the Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA. 94022-1404 Re: Letter of Support to Place the Advisory Vote for Coastal Expansion and to Include the Pedro Point Headlands in the Expansion Area Dear President Crowder: I am pleased to write this letter of support to the District to encourage the Board to place the advisory vote for Coastal Expansion on the November ballot. Although the City of Pacifica will not be included in the expansion area, the property known as the Pedro Point Headlands could be included. As I am sure you are aware, the Pacifica Land Trust, with the assistance of local community groups from both sides of the Devils Slide Area, was instrumental in placing this property into public open space. We remain as the interim manager until an organization such as yours is able to assume the role of permanent manager. Making the decision to place this vote on the November ballot takes a great deal of courage. We commend you for taking on the challenge and we look forward to working with your organization as a partner dedicated to brokering quality open space parcels into public ownership. Sincerely, t Arlene M. Patton President Cc: David Carmany, City Manager City of Pacifica Christopher Kroll, Project Manager California State Coastal Conservancy Chuck Kozak Coastal Alliance ■Overview:Site provides information tracts children near and far.I put up a tun- ( --p 1 ay on activities that people can do with their nel,a broad walk isort of a wide balance dogs.Focus is on how owners can create beam), a collapsed tunnel (imagine a obstacle courses that increase a dog's agili- o HUGE bar jumps,aattached to a barrel),sev-e of tires suspend- ed Rav g Fun WI&Your D09 ty and obedience. ■URL:www.dog-play poles) in a frame, a series or poles ( ++ poles)and a small table or platform.m. All All :1 ■Site mission:To broaden the experi- this my dogs watch with eager attention, ence of dogs,improve their behavior and waiting for their turn." 6 enhance relationships between dogs and s When started: Almost three years owners. ago. ■Name:Diane Blackman n Hits:At least 3,000 a day. ■ Day job: Blackman, 42, does tele How financed: Out of Blackman's phone customer service for Pleasanton pocket. f^ software company PeopleSoft Inc. She p sav Favorite link:The Dog Agility Page � � _ "' +�f UM,Mace for dogs lives in Oakland. ■ What's on the site: Details on 32 at www.dogpatch.org/agility. things you can do with your pooch, in- ■Quote:Blackman:"The more people eluding flyball, search-and-rescue train- play with their dogs,the better behaved ing and weight-pulling exercises.Links to they are and the more other people will other dog activity sites and resources on want to play with them." animal-assisted therapy.Users can send in their questions and feedback. Pogemoster profiles Bay Area people behind ooches and their ow ■Sample:"When I go to the local park interesting Web sites.To suggestasite,e-mail Diane Blackman walked a dog across a seesaw apparatus.Her Web site,Dog•Play,lists activities for p to practice, I set out equipment that at- csoidcgsfgote.com. .inn•rwrP Pit hs•r wnv t i><P u..nro nro.,i.,n��srnr.e �mi,o Moore-a ouriv tellow wan a rFarty r rw ..r ��"�• "—' " Regional Open , ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT June 26, 1998 Mr. George White Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Proposed Remodel and Addition of Roskos-Selover Property Dear Mr. White: I would like to comment on the proposed remodel and addition to the Roskos-Selover residence on Page Mill Road. I visited the project site with Mr. Selover on May 22, 1998 and expressed our interest in the project as it relates to the District's adjacent 274-acre Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. The Roskos-Selover property is one of several small parcels located between Page Mill Road and the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. These parcels have relatively small to moderate- sized homes which are characteristic of this rural area. Although the homes are visible from Page Mill Road and the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, the scale of existing development is in keeping with the surrounding area. I believe the compatibility of the residential and open space land uses is a result of sound planning and zoning ordinances in the Palo Alto foothills. Recently, the foothills in the midpeninsula region are experiencing an increase in large-scale residential development. Design and building these large homes in a manner that maintains the rural character of the area is a challenge. Particular attention needs to be given to careful siting of structures, low profiles, earthtone colors, non-reflective surfaces and, most importantly, landscaping to screen the structures from public viewing areas. In the case of the Roskos-Selover residence, we are encouraged to see the applicants have taken steps to address our concerns over existing and potential visual impacts their project has on the District land. The existing structure is highly visible from the Page Mill Trail located to the north and west of the site. Desirable aspects of the site plans include maintaining the height of the addition to that of the existing structure and use of materials and colors that are designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape. In regards to the landscaping plan, initial steps have been taken to visually screen portions of the residence from the trail. We have expressed to Mr. Selover our interest in seeing the landscape plan include additional plantings along the north and west boundary to improve the visual barrier between the public trail and residence. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd®openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton In reviewing the plans for the proposed remodel and addition, the potential impacts of the project on the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve are being examined collectively with the possibility of other similar projects occurring on the adjacent and nearby small private parcels. It is our understanding the proposed development exceeds regulations set forth in the zoning ordinance and should only be permitted if the project can be adequately mitigated. In our opinion, this will be achieved if there is an overall reduction in existing and future visual impacts on the Preserve. In summary, although we would prefer the proposed addition not exceed the size permitted by the zoning ordinance, we are committed to working with the applicants to improve the existing and proposed visual impacts on the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. Sincerely, Del Woods, Senior Management Specialist cc: Scott Selover James Ryan, 08:41 AM b/25/98 , MROSD Web Site Return-Path: el_jim@worldnet .att .net From: "James Ryan" <el jim@worldnet .att .net> To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Subject : MROSD Web Site Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08 : 41 : 18 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4 . 71 . 1712 . 3 X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace . org Members of the Board, I want to take a few minutes to compliment you on the MROSD website. It is well thought out, complete, and beautiful . The information is where I expect it to be and usually always timely. Over this past winter, I visited your man pages on occasions to check on g Y conditions . The website kept me well informed. Please pass on my regards to Ms Rutledge, Ms Blackman and the staff. Sincerely, Jim Ryan (Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 � lYt VACATIONS I TELEVISION Under the Sun, s Much Ado Under the Knife About Nothing EINFELD'S"PROVING TO BE t M ICKEY MOUSE MEDICINE more than just the master of has a new meaning in i Florida,where vacation pro- a domestic domain.When the Florid and hospital ion pro- final episode airs this week,the r motors are catering to a new world will be watching.In Is- niche:medical tourists.Most of ratc fans will wake r 7 a.m.to tour packages catch the finale:In France, theprescriptive to p g ; ., where critics have compared are designed to lure lucrative .'� Jerry to Woody Allen,they'll be international patients who glued to the tube at 2 a.m.In the don't depend on restrictive in- s 90 countries where it's distrib- urance plans to pay the bills. to � "Families can arrange their va- be must-see T B the Sei TV.V.B expectedut even as the cations and take care of their be m he same series wins applause abroad, health problems at t week's p not everyone found last wee time,"says Carmenza Gonzalez episode fimny.It drew com- of Florida Hospital,one of ' `�'�� plaints,not laughs,from some more than a dozen medical fa- ,t` cilities trying to combine holi- Latino activists after Kramer Get off the streets:Hit i he mountains,but don't forget your helmet accidentally set fire to the Puer- to Rican flag,sparking a mini- riot execs apologized.Show ex and proRECREATION Rollerblading Is Going Downhill ratherthanssed to syndicate teat.he ode rather than syndicate it. 1 N-LINE SKATERS AREN'T the clunky,big-wheeled blades. T stuck to smooth pavement Despite the all-out campaign, - anymore.This summer they can some retailers doubt off-road Rest,relax a nd recuperate take on dirt trails—or potholed skating will break out of a niche streets—with all-terrain skates market.For now the only ex- and hospital stays.Among by Rollerblade and Roces.To ex- treme thing about the sport is its _ t days Y Y P the amenities offered to poten- give off-road skating a boost, price.At up to$500 a pair,says tial patients:condos close to Rollerblade has teamed up with a Colorado shop owner,"its ap- key attractions and shuttle ski resorts to lure skaters to the peal is strictly to danger-loving Getting read service to top theme parks. slopes,where they can try out executives." g yfor the Sein-off t JAPAN TRENDS "We've never smudged any- thing that didn't sell well,"says Tapping Into ( � Bad Vibes? Barbara Corcoran of the Corco- ran Group�ganhatt se Be- The Kids Call a Smudger. fore smud ' her house Vancouver,"The X-Files"star T SOME POINT,ALL KIDS 'F YOUR FENG SHUI'D APART- Gillian Anderson said It felt AT their parents to quit bug- ment is still giving offbad "creepy."Does it really work? ging them.But in Japan,they vibes,try smudging it.A Native Who knows.But take comfort American ritual,smudging in the idea that,as Santoro says, mean it literally.Overprotec- five Japanese moms and dads, cleanses negative energy built "we are one with our spaces." worried about bullies and other up by former tenants, schoolyard dangers,are now deaths or just poor monitoring their kids with tiny design.For about electronic listening devices. $200 an hour,New The new wireless apron strings rental units are available for York smudger Eleni come in the form of a credit- about$70 for 20 days.And Santoro will channel card-size UHF transmitter that for the truly paranoid parent, in and balance your can be concealed in a knapsack, there are also a number of pri- space's energy with a and a receiver that allows par- vate detective agencies that combination of bells, ents to easily eavesdrop within have begun to offer"children incense and medita- a 300-meter radius.The cost of research." tion.Some real-estate concern is a few hundred dol- Lucy HOWAso and ARLYN TOE o IIAS brokers use the ritual lays if you purchase a bug,but CiAJILAN with bureau reports tohelp sellhomes. Santoro lets your home's bygones begone CLOCKWISE FROM TOP:KENN ETN D.GREER, 8 N E W S W E E K MAY 18, 1998 DAVID HUME KENNERLY,MELISSA KAY COHEN. DAVID GOLDIN,NO CREDIT L_ STENMRPK COPPORRTION TEL. : 1-415-851-4403 Jul 01 ,98 12 :58 No .005 P .01 ROY & BVI T'Y-ANM S MNMARK IWVs Mtn. 12970 Skyline Blvd., Woodside, CA 94062 (650) 851-8190 fax (650) 851-4403 July 1, 1998 MidPeninsula Regional ©pen Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022.1404 via fax (650) 691.9485 Ladies & Gentlemen: We thank you for all you did to rectify the situation on Kings Mtn, with regard to the Russian Convent structure. We are not happy that this compromise was reached but we are realists and know there was little else you could do. I am sure it wasn't fun fielding all those calls and letters from an irate Public. We have one other comment to make and wonder at this point if you would have any influence upon one aspect of the ultimate design of the property that will be built. It seems to us that it's rubbing salt in the wound when the Convent is allowed to build a church building so incongruous with the site Itself. A 40 foot gold onion shaped dome protruding from the redwoods on the mountain is a pretty horrifying thought. This architecture would fit in well in Red Square in Moscow but will stick out here like a sore thumb. is there no way a compromise can't, be reached on this point? Again, we thank you for all you have done in doing your best to protect our beautiful county. We will always remember your efforts. Very sincerely, Don Mayall and Caro, �,., :26 PM 6/30/98 , Re: MROSL, -onvent Settlement Return-Path: seleve@netcom. com Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20 : 26: 35 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Mayall and Carolyn Curtis <seleve@netcom. com> Subject : Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement To: Open Space District <mrosd@openspace. org> X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace . org Thanks for sending the news of the settlement. It certainly looks like an excellent compromise. As for the attached points setting the record straight, I regret that this sort of thing is necessary, but understand that it is . Looks as though certain people can' t abide the idea of an Open Space District, & were using this opportunity to foment hysterical fears among landowners . Too bad you have to put up with this sort of thing, which the attachment did admirably. Regards, Carolyn Curtis Printed for Open Space District mrosd@openspace.org> 1 Terri Molakides, 07 : 1- PM 6/30/98 , Re: MROSD/Coi—ant Settlement Return-Path: molakides@email .msn. com From: "Terri Molakides" <molakides@email .msn. com> To: "Open Space District" <mrosd@openspace . org> Subject : Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19: 11 : 04 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4 . 72 . 2106 . 4 X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace. org I appreciate the information being sent to me. However, I do not appreciate the stand the Board took on this issue and will not vote to retain any of the current members in the future. Printed for Open Space District mrosd@openspace.org> 1 CHAD HUSBY, 12 : 11 AM . , 1/98 -, Re: MROSD/Convent _ettlement Return-Path: ar430@tcnet . org Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00 : 11 : 09 -0400 (EDT) From: CHAD HUSBY <ar430@tcnet . org> To: Open Space District <mrosd@openspace. org> Subject : Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org Dear Mr. Britton, Thank you for this most encouraging update. Also, for responding to people ' s misunderstandings, with the facts . May your group continue to be blessed in your efforts . Sincerely, Carol Husby iPrinted for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 j Julia Adkins-Kaufma, vo:59 PM 6/29/98 Our lady ..i Vladimar Property Return-Path: juliannak@webtv.net X-WebTV-Signature : 1 ETAtAhRg5Cetf81Y5QNIkgBIdcTlvvkkmwIVAIkAjldwhKlWDUPpDXbt2juTTteC From: juliannak@webtv.net (Julia Adkins-Kaufmann) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18 : 59 : 40 -0700 (PDT) To: mrosd@openspace .org Subject : Our lad of Vladimar Property 7 Y P Y X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org Thank you very much for keeping me apprised of the progress of this matter. I am pleased that the parties involved were able to reach a solution through negotiation and comprise. Good luck to all in finalizing these proposals . Julia CPrinted for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 George Wooster, 07:29 %M 6/30/98 , Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement Return-Path: George@drainpro.com Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07 : 29: 55 -0700 From: George Wooster <George@drainpro. com> Reply-To: George@drainpro.com Organization: Drainpro To: Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> Subject : Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement References : <199806291927 .MAA05417@proxy4 .ba .best.com> X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Convent-MROSD dispute . I suppose it is rather cynical of me to remember that negotiations resumed after pressure from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors -- is this not the same county where there is talk of expanding the sphere of influence of MROSD onto more farmland? I can' t help but wonder which abandoned farm will be the next "pristine" land to be acquired. Regards, George Wooster Printed for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 _ __ __ David Miller, 02 : 42 PM 6/29/98 , Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement Return-Path: hdm@heartport .com X-Sender: hdm@mailhost.heartport .com Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14 : 42 : 48 -0700 To: Open Space District <mrosd@openspace .org> From: David Miller <hdm@heartport.com> Subject : Re : MROSD/Convent Settlement X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace.org Craig Britton : Thanks for taking the time to prepare the email update on the Convent situation as well as the fact sheet which accompanied it . It ' s nice to know that you are making an effort to keep interested parties informed of your actions regarding the Convent . I 'm pleased that you were able to effect a compromise with the Convent which avoided the continuation of the eminent domain proceedings and which provides benefits to all the involved parties . I look forward to the conclusion of this process which will give MROSD significant additional open space at a reduced cost, yet preserve the property rights of the Convent and allow them to build their retreat . Dave Miller David Miller Heartport Inc. 200 Chesapeake Dr. Redwood City, Ca . 94063 (650) 482-4293 Fax (650) 482-4439 email : hdm@heartport .com web site: http: //www.heartport . com/ JPrinted for Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> 1 i R. Woelfel, 12:46 PM o/29/98 Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement Return-Path: woelfel@kryptos . Stanford.edu X-Sender: woelfel@lanelib. stanford.edu Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12 : 46: 18 -0700 To: Open Space District <mrosd@openspace.org> From: "R. Woelfel" <woelfel@kryptos .Stanford.edu> Subject : Re: MROSD/Convent Settlement Cc: woelfel@kryptos . Stanford.edu X-Rcpt-To: mrosd@openspace .org I wish to express my gratitude to the Open Space District for arriving at a compromise settlement with the Russian Convent of Our Lady of Vladimir. I believe this settlement to be in the best interest of all parties involved. Randall Woelfel 1945 Latham, Apt . #16 Mountain View, CA. 94040 Printed for Open Space District mrosd@openspace.org> 1