HomeMy Public PortalAbout19801008 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 80-22
A
A10,
or
0 ...
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Board oT Directors
M I N U T E S
OEtZ;b—er-8—, 198T0
I . ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Vice President Richard Bishop
at 7 :35 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Edward Shelley,
and Richard Bishop. Harry Turner arrived at 8 : 40 P.M.
Members Absent: Barbara Green and Nonette Hanko.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steven Sessions,
Charlotte MacDonald, Jean Fiddes, and Stanley Norton.
II. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 7 :36 P.M.
The Board reconvened for the public meeting at 7: 50 P.M.
III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Se2tember 20, 1980
K. Duffy requested the inclusion of the statement "These actions
should be noted in the progress report"to the tenth paragraph
on Page Three. C. MacDonald requested that the minutes reflected
her response 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.
IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Fiddes directed the Board' s attention to a letter, dated October 5 ,
1980 , to H. Grench from Margaret McCaffery, 777-119 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, regarding Mrs. McCaffery's opposition to any division
of the Thornewood property.
V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
H. Grench requested the addition of an agenda item eight, Appointment
of a Secretary Pro Tempore, since N. Hanko, the Secretary of the
Board ,was not present at the meeting.
R. Bishop stated the revised agenda was adopted by Board consensus.
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 80-22 e Two
VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications .
VII . OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Offer to Purchase Hassler Health Home Property
C. Britton reviewed report R-80-56 , dated October 3, 1980, regarding
the need to execute an Offer to Purchase Agreement for the
Hassler Health Home property which would be taken under consi-
deration by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of
San Francisco. He noted the terms of the agreement called for
a purchase price of $2 ,240,000 and that a $10, 000 deposit was
required by the Offer to Purchase Agreement. He drew the Board' s
attention to Clause 7 of the agreement which limits the District's
profit should there be a voluntary sale of the property within
the 10 years following close of escrow. He added that the District
would contribute approximately $800 ,000 towards the purchase
price, while approximately $1.1 million would be from a Land
and Water Conservation Fund Grant and $300 ,000 from the Hassler
Assessment District.
Motion: R. Bishop moved the adoption of Resolution 80-40 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpenin-
sula Regional Open Space District Approving of Offer
to Purchase Real Property, Authorizing Officer to
Execute an Offer to Purchse Agreement and Authorizing
� General Manager to Cause to Give Appropriate Notice
g
to Offeree (Hassler Health Home Property) . E. Shelley
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Fred Endicott 3336 Brittan Avenue San Carlos asked C. Britton
whetherb he thought the Offer to Purchase would e approved b
g PP Y
the Board of Supervisors and what the acquisition timeframe would
be .
I
C. Britton responded the District would have to wait to hear the
response from the Board of Supervisors and that San Francisco
would have 90 days to approve and accept the agreement, and, if
approved, escrow would have to close within 60 days thereafter.
B. Program Evaluation Workshop Follow-up
H. Grench reviewed report R-80-73, dated September 29 , 1980,
regarding the follow-up for the September 20 , 1980 Program
Evaluation Workshop. He noted that changes for the Open Space
Acquisition, the Open Space Management, and the Public Communi-
cations/Governmental Liaison Programs Key Projects and Activities
were included in the report.
K. Duffy noted that item 3 of the Operations, Maintenance and
Volunteer Subprogram's 1979-1980 Key Projects and Objectives
did not include a progress statement on the development of
docent interpretive programs for other sites.
S. Sessions responded that a statement "Interpretive program
outlines were prepared for other sites" could be included in
the progress, and the Board concurred by consensus with this
inclusion.
Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the staff's changes
in the 1979-1980 and 1980-1981 Key Projects and
Objectives as amended. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
i
I
Meeting 80-22 je Three
H. Grench requested that the Board discuss the effectiveness
of the workshop as to meeting the workshop' s stated goals and
as to whether the goals or format should be modified in the
future.
E. Shelley responded that a full response to H. Grench 's request
could not be provided since only four Board members were
present.
Discussion centered on the staff' s evaluation of the workshop
and comments included the need to resolve the site emphasis
policy question, the desire for more positive statements on
the objectives and projects for the Open Space 'Nanagement
Program, and that the staff time spent in preparing for the
workshop was worthwhile and productive.
R. Bishop stated that because of the limited timeframe for
the workshop and the fact that, he felt, the Board and staff
had been in-tune on key projects and activities , there was
not a great deal of Board discussion and comment at the
workshop.
K. Duffy, referring to the portion of the report listing items
requiring follow-up by the Board and staff, said she felt the
list was not complete and that items such as level of emphasis
for District sites and levels of responsible stewardship
should be included.
D. Wendin agreed that the Board had discussed other items at
the workshop but there had only been consensus for follow-up
action for the items listed in the report which included 11need
for the Site Emphasis Committee to meet and determine policy
questions that must be addressed by the full Board; 2) need for
a policy guideline of publicity, including brochures, distribution
of Openspace newsletter and radio-TV coverage; 3) need to discuss
the suggested Ranger ride-along program as an agenda item at
a future Board meeting; and 4) need to plan for the consolidation
of open space management policies.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board adopt the statements
of topics requiring follow-up outlined in memorandum
M-80-73, Program Evaluation Workshop Follow-up.
E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
C. Thornewood Lease Parameters and Proposal Schedule
R. Bishop, referring to the October 2 , 1980 memorandum from the
Thornewood Grounds Committee, reported that he and H. Turner
had concluded that the front lawn area of the Thornewood house
should be excluded from the public access area and that the
lease parameters should include the statement that public access
would be provided to the immediate barbeque area and a trail
connection between the proposed upper trail or alternate lower
trail . He noted they also recommended the trail plan include
an open meadow area that has a view of the bay and that is
adjacent to the upper trail.
S . Sessions reviewed memorandum M-80-74 , dated October 2 , 1980,
which outlined Board action to date and included the recommenda-
tions of the Thornewood Grounds Committee. He showed slides of
the Thornewood property and of the meadow area that had been
Ir
Meeting 80-22 Page Four
proposed as a rest area along the suggested trail route. He
pointed out on a wall map the suggested trail route from
Wunderlich Park and the alternative lower trail.
Sam Jones , 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, noting that staff
had stated that the house would not be visible from the barbecue
area, suggested that the trail system be designed so there would
be a spot where people could see that house, which he felt was
one of the main features of the property.
H. Turner arrived at 8 :40 P .M.
R. Bishop stated the Thornewood Grounds Committee felt that the
barbecue area could be used by people as a rest stop, but fires
would not be permitted. He noted that a locked, metal plate
could be placed over the barbecue pit to prevent people from
starting a fire, and the plate could be removed if groups had
permission to have barbecues at the location.
Tom Gano, Box 59, Star Route, Woodside stated he had arrived
at a different conclusion than the Committee had, and he felt
that by allowing free and open use of the barbecue area, the
District would be creating a mini-park. He said it would be
impossible to keep people off the front lawn of the Thornewood
house, that a liability problem would be created for the house
and its contents, and that the value of the house would decrease
because of the loss of the barbecue area and the location of
the trail spur. He noted that,since the barbecue would be non-
functional, people would not have free and open use of the
barbecue pit, and he suggested that limited access to the
area be allowed three to five times a year through a permit
process .
D. Wendin stated that, although he did not favor excluding the
barbecue area from the leasehold area, such action was necessary
for the solicitation of lease proposals to continue or for future
consideration of the Gano proposal.
H. Grench noted the Board had made no determination as to the
conditions under which the barbecue area would be open to the
public and said such recommendations would be made in future
use and management plans for the area.
F;. Turner noted that members of the Sierra Club' s Thornewood
Committee had been interested in having the barbecue area as
a rest stop.
J. Fiddes read a message to the Board from Barbara Felix,
443 Old La Honda Road, Woodside, regarding Mrs. Felix' hope
that the Thornewood property, including the house, be kept
open to the public and her suggestion that the site could
be used as a youth hostel .
Joan Thomas, 730 Lemon Street, Menlo Park, expressed her
opinion that the Thornewood grounds should remain open for
public use and that it was unthinkable that the property could
be leased. She suggested that a use fee could be charged people
entering the site.
Meeting 80-22 Page Five
Jan Matser, 359 Tyrella Avenue, No. D. , Mountain View, said
he was leased to see the project leaning towrd a leasehold
P P 7 g
arrangement rather that the type of proposal suggested by
Mr. Gano, and he said he hoped the lease would be for as
short a time as possible.
Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board adopt the lease parameters
for Thornewood contained in the staff report. K. Duffy
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion centered on the proposal schedules outlined in the
staff report, and H. Grench recommended the Board adopt Proposal
Schedule A in order allow potential leasees proper time to
develop their proposals.
D. Wendin stated that he did not feel it necessary to wait until
the first meeting in January to discuss any proposals submitted
if they were due at the District on December 5. He said a
special Board meeting could be called if necessary to review
the proposals.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that staff be authorized to solicit
proposals utilizing the Thornewood lease parameters
with the only firm date being that the proposals are
due at the District office no later than 5 P.M. on
December 5 , 1980. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: R. Bishop stated he would vote against the
motion since he felt people should be allowed more
time to submit proposals. K. Duffy noted it would
probably have to be necessary to schedule a committee
meeting of some type to consider the proposals before
presenting them to the entire Board. D. Wendin noted
the Board, at the December 10 meeting, could plot out
the future staff and Board action for proposals sub-
mitted. The motion passed on the following vote:
AYES: D. Wendin, E. Shelley, H. Turner, and K. Duffy.
NOES : R. Bishop.
D. Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration for the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan
S . Sessions reviewed report R-80-55, dated October 2 , 1980 , re-
garding the Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration
for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire Management Plan.
He noted that the City of Palo Alto had declared that the
District was the lead and responsible agency for the project,
and that, based on the Initial Study (an environmental impact
assessment) prepared for the project, staff had determined that
a Negative Declaration was warranted for the fire management
project, and therefore, the project did not require the prepara-
tion of an Environmental Impact Report.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the Negative
Declaration for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Fire Management Plan and authorize staff to file a
Notice of Determination with the respective County
and City clerks stating that the District had deter-
mined that the project would not have a significant
effect on the environment and that pursuant to the
Meeting 80-22 Page Six
provisions of C.E.Q.A. , no Environmental Impact Report
had been prepared. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin requested that the minutes reflect
the fact that a Notice of Determination of this Negative
Declaration had been sent to adjacent property owners
of the project site. The motion passed unanimously.
H. Turner was not present for the vote.
VIII . OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A. Review of Permit Procedures and Liability Implications
S. Sessions reviewed report R-80-51, dated September 17, 1980,
regarding the District' s current permit procedures. He noted
that the Rangers were informed when special permits were issued.
S . Jones suggested that the District have more open parking
and more open access areas so that people living in the cities
would not be prevented from enjoying the open space lands
because they did not have the proper permit and could not
get such a permit on the weekends.
E. Shelley noted that permits were only required by the District
in a few unique areas.
K. Duffy asked if it was possible to park on Monte Bello Road
near the entrance to the Picchetti Ranch area and walk into
the area without a permit.
S . Sessions responded that permits were only required in the
Closed Area surrounding the winery buildings, but noted that
No Parking signs had been posted on Monte Bello Road. He stated
he would have to check to see how often the road was patrolled.
IX. NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Summary Review of Use and Management Plan for Planning Area
VIII (Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve)
S . Sessions reviewed report R-80-54 , dated September 30 , 1980
which outlined, in summary form, the use and management re-
commendations for the Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve, the
District's eighth planning area. He noted that for clarity, staff
was recommending the naming of the individual sites within the
Preserve as the Kennedy Road area, the Limekiln Canyon area, the
Mt. Thayer area, and the El Sombroso area.
Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the amended use and
management recomendations for the Manzanita Ridge Open
Space Preserve contained within the staff report and
the approval of the naming of the individuals sites
within the Manzanita Ridge Open Space Preserve as the
Kennedy Road area, the Limekiln Canyon area, the
Mt. Thayer area, and the El Sombroso area. K. Duffy
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
X. NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A. Public Hearings for Land Acquisition
The Board, by consensus, decided to reschedule this agenda item
to a future meeting when more Board members were present for
the discussion. H. Grench said he would place it on the agenda
after S. Norton returned from vacation.
B. Appointment of a Secretary Pro Tempore
R. Bishop stated that a Secretary pro tempore needed to be appointed
for the meeting since N. Hanko was not present.
Motion: R. Bishop moved that K. Duffy be appointed Secretary
pro tempore for the meeting. E. Shelley seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 80-22 Page Seven
XI . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench reported he had attended the October 6 Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors meeting at which portions of the
draft 1980 General Plan relating to the land use element had been
considered. He noted he transmitted the Board' s comment on the
confusing statement involving the development policy on density
for Resource Conservation Areas and stated that the Board of
Supervisors had retained the 20-5 density formula, although they
had somewhat changed the shape of the 20-S curve. He stated
that Sam Jones, a Stevens Canyon landowner, had questioned the
Supervisors about the fact that the green line, representing
possible parklands, in Stevens Canyon appeared wider than it had
in previous plan maps . H. Grench noted that, unless otherwise
instructed by the Board, he would reiterate the Board' s policy
that the trail along the 14001 hillside contour in Stevens Canyon
was desirable as a short-term, solution to connect Upper and Lower
Stevens Creek Parks , but that the District saw acquisition along
Stevens Creek as being in the long-term interest of the public, and
the County should be acquiring lots along the creek when they were
placed on the market. The Board members had no objection.
Sam Jones noted he was afraid that the County might condemn land
in the canyon and noted that if a trail were put in the canyon
it would have several "choke" points and would probably not be
able to be used in the winter months.
E. Shelley left the meeting at 10 :05 P.M.
H. Grench reported the District' s Personnel Consultant, Gary Foss,
had been working on the General Manager ' s salary survey and
the draft of the rules and regulations manual during the past
couple months .
S. Sessions, in response to a question asked at a previous meeting,
reported that the trails included in the Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve Development Plan were to be named. He stated that, as
requested by the Board, staff had asked that the District' s ap-
plication for a parking lot to be located in Area G be removed
from the October 20 , 1980 agenda of the Palo Alto City Council,
but had requested that the approval of the trails plan be consi-
dered by the Council at their meeting of the 20th.
C. Britton stated the State Public Works Board had considered
the acquisition of the Edgewood site by San Mateo County on
September 29 , 1980 and had approved the acquisition. He noted
that it was hoped that escrow would close on Friday, October 10 .
XII . CLAIMS
Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of the Revised Claims
C-80-18 , dated October 8, 1980 . H. Turner seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 10 :12 P.M.
xIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10 : 35 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk