Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800827 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 80-18 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 Regular Meeting Board of Directors M I N. 0 T E S August 27 , 1980 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Green at 7 :31 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green, and Nonette Hanko. Members Absent: Edward Shelley, Richard Bishop, and Harry Turner. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Steven Sessions, Jean Fiddes, Charlotte MacDonald, Del Woods, Pat Starrett, Suzanne Shipley, and Stanley Norton. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 13, 1980 J. Fiddes noted the minutes should read that the meeting was called to order at 7 :44 P.M. , and B. Green stated the Board reconvened for the public meeting at 10:03 P.M. , not 10:30 P.M. as noted on Page Two. Motion: N. Hanko moved the approval of the revised minutes of August 13 , 1980. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Fiddes indicated there were no written communications. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA B. Green stated the agenda was adopted by Board consensus. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Harry H. Haeussler, Jr. , 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos, urged the Board to acquire trail rights between the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and the Windmill Pasture area or property not suitable for development in order to allow the two open space areas to be contiguous. He distributed a letter, dated August 29 , 1980 , to the Board on this topic. VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Review of Use and Management of Planning Area VII (El Sereno and Costanclan Way Open Space Preserves) S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-46 , dated August 5 , 1980 , on the use and management recommendations for Planning Area VII ,which consists of the El Sereno and Costanoan Way Open Space Preserves, and showed slides to illustrate various aspects of the report. K. Duffy stated she did not realize there was access to the El Sereno Open Space Preserve from Bohlman Road. D. Woods responded that Bohlman Road is a public road but since it passes through a private homeowner' s yard, the staff does not show it as an access road to the Preserve. N. Hanko asked if camping might be allowed on the El Sereno Open Space Preserve in the future since people seemed interested in camping on private property adjacent to the Preserve. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 80-18 Page Two S. Sessions responded the District would probably not want to encourage the type of camping occurring on the neighboring property and did not know about the availability of water for camping use. H. Haeussler stated it was very difficult to read the maps distributed by the District for its preserves and asked if it would be possibler to provide information that allowed the public to locate the preserves more easily. N. Hanko responded the Board and staff had discussed the provision of maps at their Site Emphasis Workshop and asked for an update on what follow-up action had occurred on items discussed at the workshop. H. Grench responded that the provision of maps was related to the entire site emphasis question and stated staff would be listing resolution of the site emphasis question as a priority item for--this year at the proposed September 20, * 1980 Program Evaluation Workshop. Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the use and management recommendations as contained in the staff report of August 5, 1980 on Planning Area VII. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Picchetti Ranch Area Proposal Parameters S. Sessions introduced report R-80-48 , dated August 20, 1980, and reviewed the proposed parameters that would be used to solicit proposals for possible uses of the Picchetti winery complex. He noted the parameters had been prepared by staff and reviewed by the Picchetti Winery Committee. Discussion centered on the wording of the proposal parameters, public access to the site , the possibility of the leasehold area being greater than the minimum 40+ acres, and the appropriateness of in the words "highly desirable" and "desirable" in the statements listed under . Desirable Characteristics for Proposals. N. Hanko expressed her concern about having the entire site fall under a lease operation and stated that, while she would consider such a proposal which included the maintenance and operation of an area greater than the minimum leasehold area without District involvement, she did not consider it a desirable proposal. D. Wendin stated the inclusion of the words "highly desirable" and "desirable" could be misleading to a potential proposal submitter and suggested that if a factor was highly desirable, then perhaps it should be made a proposal requirement. The following changes, additions, and deletions were made and agreed upon by the Board to the Parameters for Picchetti Ranch Proposals attached to report R-80-48. Specific Requirements for Proposals 2. Leasehold Area A. Delete the words "including the entire site" 3. Public Access A. Delete the words "controlled" and "including the buildings" and insert the words "perhaps limited" after the words "public access" . 5. Financial Delete the words "financial involvement" and insert the word "expenditure" . Meeting 80-18 Page Three Desirable Characteristics for Proposals 1. Permitted Uses A. Delete the words "It would be highly desirable for the" and the word "to" . B. Delete first "the" and the words "would be desirable" . C. Delete the words "would be desirable" . D. Delete the words "would be highly desirable" and insert the words "or agriculture" at the end of the phrase. E. Delete the words "It would be highly desirable for the" and insert the words "by outside groups" at the end of the phrase. 2. Maintenance and Operation Delete the words "including the entire site" and "would be in the first phrase. Delete the word "specific" desirable" p P in the second phrase and insert the word "above" . 3. Amenities Delete the words "even if not required, would be desirable in order to provide for public enjoyment of the entire site" . Beez Jones, 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, asked about the current status of the trail leading from the pull-off parking area on Stevens Canyon Road and the barbed wire fence at the start of the trail. S. Sessions responded the trail is over-grown and washed out in places and that the Picchetti Use and Management Plan called for the trail to be improved. He did not know who had installed the barbed wire fence and said he would have to check with other staff members. N. Hanko requested that S. Sessions report back to the Board with information on the placement of the barbed wire fence. Motion: B. Green moved that the Board of Directors approve the Picchetti Ranch proposal parameters as amended and authorize staff to solicit proposals. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. K. Duffy requested that staff report back to the Board on what steps were being taken to solicit proposals for the Picchetti Ranch. D. Wendin requested that a typed version of the amended proposal parameters be distributed to Board members with the summary of the meeting. VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Use and Management Review of Planning Area VI (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve) S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-47 , dated August 20, 1980, on the use and management recommendations for the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, Planning Area VI, and showed slides to illustrate various aspects of the report. K. Duffy requested that the report indicate that the $2000 for the upgrading of the roadway between the parking lot and the hayfield was the District' s share of the upgrading costs, since the costs should be shared with Prospect Road residents. S. Sessions reported that staff had denied a request from an individual on Regnart Road to cut down dead apricot trees on the Preserve. D. Wendin asked about access to the Preserve from the planned Seven Springs Ranch development area. Meeting 80-18 -age Four S. Sessions responded that the original development proposal had included a ten acre park for the City of Cupertino and a public parking area, but these features had been dropped in later plans. He noted that staff was outlining what they felt should be ad- dressed in the Environmental Impact Report, specifically a public parking area and trails to the Preserve. H. Grench suggested that K. Duffy talk with Cupertino council members and planning commissioners about regional and local access to the Preserve. Beez Jones expressed her concern about the types of signs, such as "Dead End" and "Not a Through Road" , that led to the Preserve' s parking area at the end of Prospect Road. D. Woods noted that Preserve neighbors had lobbied for such signs to be installed. D. Wendin requested the addition of an Item 7 to the New Use and Management Recommendations which stated that staff was requested to make a recommendation on providing directional signs from the location of Prospect Road and the Rolling Hills side street to the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve parking lot by or before the workshop meeting of September 20. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board adopt the use and management recommendations contained in the report and as amended. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. N. Hanko asked about the status of follow-up from the Site Emphasis Workshop and stated that she felt it was important to discuss signing and distribution of material at the workshop of September 20. D. Wendin responded that a Board committee had been formed to focus on follow-up from the site emphasis workshop,and he suggested that N. Hanko arrange for that committee to meet in the near future. Motion: D. Wendin moved that Item 7 on the agenda be moved forward to be considered at the current time. K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Use of the Picchetti Winery Buildings Closed Area by the Public K. Duffy reviewed memorandum M-80-63 , dated August 22 , 1980 from Director Hanko and herself,regarding the immediate need for the Board to reaffirm the District' s position that the closed area at Picchetti was available to responsible groups, in light of the adverse press the District had received on the matter. She noted that the original intention of the Board was for the closed area around the buildings to be open by permit to responsible groups. N. Hanko reiterated that the Board had agreed in 1977 to allow groups to get a permit to enter the closed area and nothing had been stated publicly to change this policy. D. Wendin requested that staff comment on the controversy. S. Sessions responded that the issuance of permits to enter the closed area had ceased without the Board' s authorization since individuals, who had originally been part of a group allowed to enter the area, had been returning to the closed area without a permit. He noted that responsible groups, by permit, could be allowed in the closed area, and further, issuance of permits would not be terminated by staff without prior Board approval. Meeting 80-18 Page Five Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board reaffirm its policy that permits will be issued for use of the closed area at Picchetti by organized groups, such as art clubs, whose use entails observation of only the exterior of the buildings. K. Duffy seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin requested that staff return to the Board with a report before terminating any District permit procedure. B. Green suggested that staff examine permit wording,and N. Hanko suggested that the extension of a permit be considered when permits were discussed. N. Hanko sug- gested the permit users be invited to attend and parti- cipate in the meeting discussing District permits. D. Wendin stated he was willing to support the current motion, but he did not like the idea of opening an area to one kind of group and not to individuals who may want to be in the closed area, and he stated that the District' s permit policy needed to be discussed at the Board level. The motion passed unanimously. H. Grench asked for clarification on the assignments remaining for the Picchetti Winery Committee with regard to this matter. B. Green stated the assignment. to the Picchetti Winery Committee re- garding use of the closed area had been completed, and that the full Board should discuss the issue of the Districtis permit policy within the timeframe of the next four Board meetings. The Board recessed for a break at 9:45 P.M. The Board reconvened for the public meeting at 9 :55 P.M. C. Proposed urban Forestry Grant Application S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-80-61, dated August 20, 1980 , regarding the application for California Urban Forestry Grant funds in the amount of $10,000 for Phase II of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan. He noted the grant, if awarded, could be terminated if the Board did not authorize the implementation of the Phase II controlled burn. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board authorize staff to apply for California Urban Forestry Grant funds and authorize the General Manager to enter into necessary grant con- tracts for Phase II of the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan to be implemented in the fall of 1981, with the implementation subject to the successful completion of Phase I of the controlled burn and the Board' s authorization to implement Phase II. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unani- mously. D. Addition to Urban Open Space and Recreation Program Towards Acquisition of Edgewood State College Site H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-80-60, dated August 19 , 1980, regarding the application for grant funds in the amount of $89 ,343 under the Roberti-Zlberg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program for the acquisition of the Edgewood State college site. He noted this additional amount would increase the available grant funds for the Edgewood site to $364 ,961 and that only about $118,000 of the total purchase price would come from the District's general funds. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-39, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving the Application Meeting 80-18 Page Six for Grant Funds under the Roberti-Zlberg Open Space and Recreation Program. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. E. Memorandum of Understanding with Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-80-59, dated August 20, 1980, regarding the request for Board approval for the District to enter into a mutual assistance agreement with the Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department in order to allow each agency to respond and render aid and assistance as needed when patrolling adjacent lands. He noted the Memorandum of Understanding would assist in the joint management of the Rancho San Antonio County Park. B. Green stated she was in favor of the mutal asssistance agreement based on present circumstances, but would not favor the agreement if the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors authorized Santa Clara County rangers to carry guns. S. Norton responded that the agreement could be terminated by either party at any time by giving 30 days written notice and said that under the agreement rangers are covered for liability and Worker' s Compensation by their employing agency. Motion: B. Green moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to enter into a mutual aid agreement with Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department by signing the Memorandum of Understanding. K. Duffy seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Wendin submitted that the Board approve the agreement and requested that staff give a periodic report on mutual aid being rendered, including the number of times each agency was responding. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Grench, re erring to the 1930/81 grant funds available under the Roberti-Zlberg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program, said the current year' s allocation was greater than the 1979/80 allocation, even though total funds Statewide were the same, because the State law had been changed to include the District's population in San Mateo County. H. Grench reported Wendy Lieber was leaving the Ranger staff to take a job with the State and stated that, unless the Board had an objection, he was planning to fill this vacant Ranger position. B. Green stated the Board' s concurrence on the filling of the position. H. Grench asked the members of the Board if there were any conflicts with the date of Saturday, September 20 for the Program Evaluation Workshop. He noted staff had been working on the various evaluations and that this first workshop would be part of an evolving process. He stated the workshop would be publicly noticed so interested members of the public could attend. H. Grench stated that the Palo Alto Planning Commission would be considering a change in the Planned Land Use and Open Space Plan map designation on September 3, 1980 that would change the designation of District land within Palo Alto to Publicly Owned Conservation Lands. He said District staff was recommending that only dedicated District land be included and that it was his inten- tion to register no objection to the proposed change, as long as the Struggle Mountain parcel was not included. Meeting 80-18 Page Seven S. Sessions said staff would be reporting to the Board on September 10, 1980 on the Monte Bello parking lot location study and en- couraged Board members to visit the proposed site before the meeting. C. MacDonald reminded Board members to turn in any contributions for the Openspace newsletter immediately and said the District' s large exhibit would be on display in San Mateo County' s Hall of Justice. J. Fiddes stated that staff was planning to drop the line "Agenda Item No. " from the right-hand corner of packet reports and memoranda in order to allow a more efficient system for reproducing packet material if the members of the Board had no objection. After discussion, the- Board agreed to the deletion on a trial basis. S. Norton reported the District had filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate against San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties on Tuesday, August 26, 1980 to resolve the question of whether the District could levy a tax to cover its pre-Proposition 13 indebtedness. IX. CLAIMS B. Green questioned Claim 1368 to Union oil, asking whether it was a private or District vehicle expense. H. Grench responded that the Revised Claims List should be corrected to read that Claim 1368 was a District vehicle expense. K. Duffy stated that Claim 1346 in the amount of $8 .29 was for mileage she incurred when asked to use her car to transport other Board members on a staff-arranged land tour, but the mileage did not include the round trip from her home. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Revised Claims, C-80-15, dated August 27, 1980, be approved as amended. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 10 : 30 P.M. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10:55 P.M. Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk