HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800924 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Me Ong 80-21
AA.
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 U T E S
September 24- 1980
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Green at 7 :34 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steven Sessions,
Jean Fiddes, Kathy Blackburn, Pat Starrett , Eric Mart, Dennis
Danielson, and Stanley Norton.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 10, 1980
D. Wendin requested that the word "application" in his motion
at the bottom of Page Two be changed to "plan" since the idea was
to create a trail network plan around parking lot L and submit as
much of the plan as required to the City of Palo Alto.
B. Green stated the revised minutes of September 10 , 1980 were
approved by consensus.
III. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
B. Green referred to the September 10, 1980 letter from William H.
McFarland, Chairman, Conservation Fund Committee, Contra Costa
Hills Club, noting the Club had made a $100.00 donation to the
District. She stated the gift had been acknowledged.
There were no additional written communications.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGE14DA
B. Green noted the agenda was adopted by consensus.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto expressed his concern regarding
the inadequacy of trail signing on District properties and pointed
out Wunderlich County Park as an example of a facility with good
signing.
S. Sessions noted the District was installing new signs that included
distance notations.
B. Green asked if the trails planned for the Monte Bello development
plan would be named trails.
S. Sessions responded he would have to check with staff and report
back to the Board on this question.
VI. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Thornewood Lease Parameters
S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-53 , dated September 17, 1980, on the
lease parameters for the Thornewood house and the surrounding lease-
hold area. He noted that the parameters did not include information
on public access to the barbecue area and the grounds since the
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
L
Page Two Meeting 80-21
Thornewood Grounds Committee had not yet met.
R. Bishop stated that since the Thornewood Grounds Committee had not
met, he and H. Turner would, if the Board concurred, make individual
statements on the use of the grounds and barbecue area, rather than
a Committee report so as not to delay Board action on the item.
D. Wendin responded he did not concur with R. Bishop' s proposed
action, noting the Committee had been given a specific charge
by the Board and was to have held a public meeting on the
matter. He also pointed out that he did not want to see the Board
adopt a position that was not acceptable to a possible lessee or
the Ganos.
N. Hanko indicated she would be comfortable with recommendations
on the minimum level of public use of Thornewood' s barbecue area
and grounds when the Thornewood Committee of the Sierra Club was
comfortable with the recommendations.
Jan Matser, 359 Tyrella Avenue, No. D. , Mountain View, speaking on
behalf of some of the members of the Thornewood Committee, stated
they liked the lease parameters, but wanted the barbeque area
and front lawn open for public use. He said they would not insist
on tours of the house' s interior. In response to a question from
N. Hanko, he said the barbecue area and front grounds should be
open to the public at all times, but it was not desirable to put
in a parking area.
William MacDonald, 1947 Woodside Road, Redwood City, another member
of the Thornewood Committee, stated he felt that the buildings
should be demolished since the Thornewood house did not have
any specific historical or architectural significance. He felt a
simple, three-sided structure to be used by the public should be
constructed at the site.
Tom Gano,
Box 59, Star Route, Woodside, stated Francois Richard
had expressed a desire to help the Ganos reconstruct the gardens
if the Ganos acquired the property and said his primary interest
in the house was the architecture. He asked when he would be
allowed to make a presentation to the Board on his proposal for
Thornewood.
S. Sessions stated Mr. Gano would be able to make his presentation
to the Board when other proposals were presented.
J. Fiddes read the comments of Mrs. Joan Thomas , 730 Lemon Street,
Menlo Park, who was not able to attend the meeting. She noted
Mrs. Thomas felt strongly that the Thornewood house and grounds
should not be leased to a private individual. She suggested the
District invest money in the refurbishment of the house and use
it for a possible ranger residence or rent the house and
grounds for wedding receptions.
H. Grench stated staff would return to the Board in two weeks with
a revised schedule of when Thornewood proposals would be presented
to the Board and the second meeting in November does not appear realistic.
T. Gano asked if the recommendations the Thornewood Grounds Committee
would make to the Board on the barbecue and grounds area would
apply to both a lease or ownership arrangement.
Page Three Meeting 80-21
Directors Duffy, Wendin, and Shelley indicated they felt the
criteria adopted by the Board on the public use of the barbecue area
and grounds would apply to a lease or ownership arrangement.
N. Hanko requested J. Matser check with the members of the Sierra
Club Th6rnewood Committee to see if they were comfortable with
an exchange of land arrangement if the barbecue area were to
remain open to the public.
W. MacDonald questioned the legality of exchanging three acres of
land.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board express its intent to to ac-
cept the Thornewood lease parameters as presented, subject
to the report of the Thornewood Grounds Committee. The
motion was not seconded and was subsequently withdrawn
by D. Wendin.
B. Green stated the Board' s consensus that the parameters presented in
the staff report were acceptable to the Board.
D. Wendin stated he felt it was the intent of the Board to have
the parameters apply equally to an exchange proposal or a lease
proposal, but that did not mean that a proposal had to meet all
the requirements. He noted that these were requirements in the
sense that they reflected what the District wanted to see done
at Thornewood.
N. Hanko suggested the word "requirements" be changed to "criteria"
in the parameters to avoid confusion on the part of proposers. The
Board concurred with this change.
K. Duffy stated the wording for the provision of tours was confusing
and suggested the statement read: "Provision for at least four
District-sponsored "open houses" , all of which be tours of the
grounds and exterior of the Thornewood house per year. Two of these
tours will include portions of the interior of the Thornewood house" .
The Board concurred with the suggested change.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board table the agenda item to
the next Board meeting. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Board recessed for a break at 8 :45 P.M.
The Board reconvened for the public meeting at 8 :55 P.M.
B. Summary Review of Use and management Plan for Planning Area X
(Stevens Creek Sh ore Tine Nature atuY r�ea
S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-52 , dated September 17 , 1980,
regarding Planning Area X, noting there were no changes in the
status of the recommendations contained in the acquisition report
for the Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area. He stated
he had not yet received the necessary documents from the Santa
Clara Valley Water District for the access easement along the Stevens
Creek channel, but noted access was guaranteed by a resolution
passed by the Water District. He reviewed the proposed Bayfront
Trail System, noting discussions were taking place on the possibility
of moving the Crittenden Bridge in order to allow for direct crossing
from Mountain View Shoreline Park and for better surveillance.
B. Green noted that if there was any impact on the bird nesting
areas outside the levee, appropriate areas should be closed to
the public during certain months of the year.
Page Four eeting 80,2.1
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board reaffirm and adopt the use
and management recommendations contained in staff report
R-80-52 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
VII. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Review of Santa Clara County 1980 County General Plan
N. Hanko introduced memorandum M-80-70 , dated September 24 , 1980,
on the changes proposed on the draft Santa Clara County General
Plan by the Board' s Santa Clara County General Plan Review Com-
mittee. She reviewed the changes for the pull-out section on Parks
which were outlined in the memorandum.
R. Mark felt the map should include a trail connection between
Henry Coe Park and Grant Ranch and areas northward.
The Board agreed with R. Mark'srequest and under section 2 of part
A included "Consider trails between Henry Coe Park and Grant
Ranch and northwards" .
N. Hanko requested that the word "page" in each section of part
A be changed to "P" since it referred to parks.
N. Hanko reviewed the recommended changes for the pull-out section
on Land Use, noting that the development policy on density for
resource conservation areas was not clearly worded, and the Committee
had questioned whether a development of 160 acres or larger should
be exempt from any or all policies that applied to smaller develop-
ments.
Discussion centered on how to interpret the density section and the
Board concurred that the exemption for developments of 160 acres or
larger should be questioned.
D. Wendin stated he did not feel any building size should be exempt
from any of the density criteria and requested the deletion of
the words "or all" in section 2 of part B. The Board concurred with
this deletion.
N. Hanko noted the Land Use map did not properly delineate the urban
service boundaries and the resource conservation areas and should
be corrected.
B. Green stated Baylands parks and open space should be appropriately
colored on the map and the Board added the statement "Color in
Baylands parks and open space" to section 4 of part B.
H. Grench noted the area above Sanborn Park to Highway 9 should be
colored as proposed park area on the Parks map and the Board added
this statement to section 2 of part A.
K. Duffy indicated the Recreation and Culture and Transportation
sections in the draft plan were not consistent in stating that
public transit service should be provided to major regional parks
so that individuals need not depend on private autos for access to
recreation.
The Board agreed to include part C in the Committee' s report
stating that a seventh policy should be added to the Public Transit
Policies on T1 that read "public transportation service to major
regional parks and open space areas shall be provided " . They also
indicated that this policy statement should be consistent and added
to the Public Transit policies listed on page 45.
Page Five eeting 80-21
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the Committee report on
the draft Santa Clara County General Plan as amended
and directed the President to send a letter to the
Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission detailing
the Board' s comments and proposed changes. E. Shelley
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Arming of Santa Clara County Park Rangers
B. Green introduced the agenda item by noting some Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors were interested in hearing the District' s views
on the issue of arming County park rangers and stated the Board
of Supervisors decision would impact the District because of the
recently executed joint powers agreement.
S. Sessions stated it was necessary to look at the role definition
of a ranger when discussing the issue,and if the County were to
arm rangers, it was necessary to consider the users ' association
between County rangers and District rangers, probably in terms of
a negative impact.
E. Mart discussed the possible negative and positive impacts that
the arming of County rangers might have on the District and the
ranger staff, noting that any impacts would depend on how thoroughly
the County studied the issues of why and how it was arming rangers,
as well as how well an arming plan was implemented. He added that
the arming of rangers should be approached as a management issue.
B. Green stated that, rather than arming its rangers, the County
might want to consider asking the Sheriff' s Department to increase
its patrol in troublesome areas. She noted that if the Board felt
strongly on the issue of arming or not arming County rangers,the
Board should relay its position to the Board of Supervisors since
the District' s input might affect the Board of Supervisor' s deci-
sion.
E. Shelley noted the Board was not an authority on the matter and
should not advise the Board of Supervisors as to what actions they
should take.
B. Jones , 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, stated the Board
should not take a position on whether or not the County should arm
its rangers , but could address the issue of the effect the
County ' s decision might have on the District.
H. Turner said the Board should approach the question in terms of
what the possible consequences might be to the District,and a letter
to the Board of Supervisors could point out the complexity of
evaluating all the relevant factors before making a decision on the
arming of rangers.
R. Bishop noted the Board should not take a stand on the issue without
being informed of all the information surrounding the issue.
D. Wendin stated the issue was what would happen after the Board of
Supervisors made their decision. If they decided to arm the rangers,
the Board would have to know the effect on the joint powers agreement.
He suggested the Board limit its comments to its desire to be
directly involved in the planning around areas where the joint powers
agreement was applicable, if the County decided to arm its rangers.
N. Hanko felt the County should also be asked to undertake an
extensive study on the need to arm its rangers.
Page Six leeting 80-21
Motion: D. Wendin moved the following: Because the District has
a joint powers agreement with the County, there will be
an impact on the District of any decision to arm County
rangers. The District requests direct involvement in the
planning for implementation of such a decision in areas
where the joint powers agreement is applicable. K. Duffy
seconded the motion.
Discussion: E. Shelley felt the Board should have more in-
formation on a potential plan to arm rangers in case the
Board might want to make a recommendation on whether County
rangers should be armed. He noted this applied to areas
covered by the joint powers agreement.
Amended Motion: D. Wendin amended his motion to add
tne statement that before any decision is made to arm
rangers in areas covered by the joint powers agreement,
the Board would like to participate in the planning. K.
Duffy did not concur with the amendment to the motion
and D. Wendin subsequently withdrew the amendment to
the motion.
E. Shelley felt the motion should include a statement
that if the County decided to arm rangers in areas covered
by the joint powers agreement, the District should be
directly involved in the planning for implementation of
such a decision. D. Wendin and K. Duffy agreed with
this addition.
Amended Motion: D. Wendin amended his original motion to state
that: Because the District has a joint powers agreement
with the County, a decision to arm County rangers will
impact the District. Before the County decided to arm
rangers in areas where the joint powers agreement is
applicable, the District requests direct involvement in
the planning for implementation of such a decision.
K. Duffy seconded the amended motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
The Board directed B. Green to relay the Board' s action to the
Board of Supervisors prior their meeting of September 29, 1980.
The cover memorandum on this agenda item was M-80-68 , dated
September 18, 1980.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A. Report on Volunteer Program
Kathy Blackburn, Coordinator of Volunteer Programs, presented a
progress report on the District' s volunteer activities from
September 1979 to September 1980, noting that a total of 3313
volunteer hours had been involved and that 2755 people had been
serviced. Activity areas included interpretation, trail (clean-up
and site walks) , outreach, office and training. She noted the
1980-1981 volunteer program would focus on the quality of the
volunteer program and the personal experience of the docents.
K. Duffy suggested that efforts be focused on getting various
types of volunteer groups to do trail work on District preserves.
The members of the Board congratulated K. Blackburn on the excellent
job she had been doing for the District.
B. Review of Permit Procedures and Liability Implications
Motion: N. Hanko moved that this agenda item be continued to the
meeting of October 8 , 1980. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Page Seven leet�ng 80-21
IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
C. Britton reported the Edgewood State college site agreement had
been approved by the County Of San Mateo, and the agreement would
be on the September 29 agenda of the State Public Works Board.
He noted the District' s portion of the acquisition cost was on the
Revised Claims to be approved by the Board.
D. Wendin requested a clarification on the signing to take place on
Prospect Road and asked if directional sians to the Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve would be located near the "Road End" and "Dead
End" signs. S. Sessions responded that directional signs would
be placed at each of these locations.
N. Hanko presented a report on the Arastra property, noting that
the Palo Alto City Council had indicated it was their intent to
dedicate a minimum of 438 acres south of Arastradero Road or a
comparable 438 acres. She noted the use of 77 acres of the property
was still in question.
S. Sessions reported there had been a 1/3 - 1/2 acre fire at
Rancho San Antonion Open Space Preserve on Saturday, September 20,
and a District Ranger and some joggers in the area had been able
to get the fire under control before the Fire Department arrived.
H. Turner asked for a status report on the possible gift of a strip
of land between Willow and Marsh Roads from Cal Trans . N. Hanko
responded C. Britton had been requested to look into the possible gift,
and as yet, he had not reported back to the Board.
R. Bishop announced a meeting of the Thornewood Grounds Committee
had been set for Saturday, September 27 , 1980 beginning at 9 :00 A.M.
He noted the form of the meeting would be a field trip and discus-
sion, and interested persons should meet at the entrance to the
Thornewood property. He said the charge of the committee was to
recommend to the Board the minimum level of public use of the
grounds and the barbecue area.
X. CLAIMS
R-OTIZ—n: E. Shelley moved the approval of the Revised Claims,
C-80-17, dated September 24, 1980. B. Green seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 11:25 P.M.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :44 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF
� I
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 20, 1980
K. Duffy requested the inclusion of the statement "These actions
should be noted in the progress report"to the tenth paragraph
w on Page Three. C. MacDonald requested that the minutes reflected
j her r;�sponse to D. Wendin' s statement beginning at the bottom of
Page Eight and continuing to Page Nine. Her response should
read "Before undertaking an effort to measure the effectiveness
of publicity efforts, she needs to know what 'effect' was desired
by the Board. "
R. Bishop stated the revised minutes were adopted by Board consensus.
B. September 24, 1980
J. Fiddes requested the addition of the statement "H. Turner abstained"
to the recording of the vote on the motion regarding the adoption
of the Committee report on the draft Santa Clara County General
Plan as amended and the direction that the President send a letter
to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission detailing
the Board's comments and proposed changes (Page Five) .
R. Bishop stated the corrected minutes were adopted by Board consensus.
I