HomeMy Public PortalAbout19801210 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 80-27
c
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
December 10 , 1980
I. ROLL CALL
The m—eeting was called to order by President Barbara Green
at 7 : 40 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley, Harry Turner, Nonette Hanko, and Richard Bishop.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steven Sessions,
Charlotte MacDonald, Stanley Norton, Jean Fiddes, and Jennie George.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 27 , 1980
N. Hanko requested the first sentence of paragraph five on Page
Two be corrected to read "N. Hanko reviewed minutes of previous
Board meetings for the Board members present, noting that the
Board had not approved any development on District property" .
B. Green stated Board consensus of this correction. The revised
minutes were adopted by Board consensus.
B. November 12 , 1980
R. Bishop requested that paragraph five of Page Six be corrected
to read "R. Bishop noted the need for the members of the staff
to be involved in all future planning for the County park with
the County staff in order to try to maintain the characteristics
of the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve that currently
attract people to the area" .
N. Hanko requested the first sentence in paragraph five, Page
Seven, Item X be corrected to read "N. Hanko said the Board had
not given its final approval for the Monte Bello Development Plan,
but noted the plan could be amended to exclude the parking lot in
order to proceed with the rest of the plan" .
Motion: R. Bishop moved the adoption of the minutes of November
12, 1980 as amended. B. Green seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
C. November 24 , 1980
Motion: R. Bishop moved the adoption of the minutes of November
24, 1980 as presented. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
III ATIONS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
B. Green noted the Board had received several letters relating
to specific agenda items and requested they be deferred until
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 80-27 je Two
such items were discussed. The Board concurred. B. Green
acknowledged receiving a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Richard Powell,
11140 Mora Drive, Los Altos, expressing concerns about the
development of Santa Clara County park adjoining Rancho San Antonio
Open Space Preserve. B. Green asked the General Manager to respond
and that the Powell' s name be included in a list of those persons
who will be notified of agenda items relating to this matter.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda as presented.
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no oral communications.
VI. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. Resolution of Appreciation
B. Green introduced former Santa Clara County Supervisor Geraldine
Steinberg and read a Resolution of Appreciation Commending Supervisor
Geraldine Steinberg for Her Assistance to the District and to the
Environment of the County of Santa Clara.
Motion: N. Hanko moved adoption of Resolution 80-49. B. Green
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion: Ms. Steinberg thanked the Board for their
appreciation of her efforts and for their support on many
issues and said that she had introduced her successor,
Becky Morgan, to H. Grench, B. Green and N. Hanko that
afternoon and they had exchanged concepts and ideas .
B. Review of 1979-1980 Legislative Session and Prospects for 1981
H. Grench introduced Robert Beckus of California Advocates, Inc. ,
the District' s legislative consultant from Sacramento, and referred
to memorandum M-80-94 , dated December 3 , 1980.
I
R. Beckus said he felt the District had been very fortunate in
getting as much accomplished as it had during the 1979-1980 legisla-
tive session, and he considered it a very successful year. He
reviewed various legislative procedures and explained how he had
represented the District' s interests in the Edgewood college site,
the Bear Creek Redwoods Park project as well as AB 3299 , SB 664 , and
the State Park Bond bill. He informed the Board that before they
could get a clear view on what monies were going to be available in
1981, the legislature would have to select chairmen for the Ways
and Means and Finance Committees and said he felt it will be a more
conservative legislature than last year.
VII. The Board recessed at 8 : 04 P.M. and reconvened at 8 :14 P.M.
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
G. Steinberg invited anyone interested to attend the Santa Clara
County Parks and Recreation Department' s tree planting ceremony
at the Rancho San Antonio County Park at 1:00 P.M. on Sunday,
December 14.
B. Green announced the Legislative Co
mmittee meet eet on
December 17 , 7 : 30 P.M. at the District office.
IX. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Status of Thornewood Lease Proposals
B. Green reviewed the following letters addressed to the Board
concerning the Thornewood House:
Karen B. Devich, M.D. , 2101 Forest Avenue , Suite 116 , San
Jose, stating she feels that the house and all associated
Meeting 80-27 1- Three
buildings should be removed from the property, either
by being torn down or moved to a different location;
Carol S. Lillibridge, of Kara, 457 Kingsley Avenue,
Palo Alto, supporting a study to determine the feasi-
bility of the Thornewood estate being transformed into
a hospice. She also requested the Board delay any de-
cisions until such a study can be completed; Jeanne Ewy,
Executive Director.and Marla Namboothiri, Home Care
Coordinator, Midpeninsula Health Service, Inc. Home Health
and Hospice, 457 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, asking the
Board to consider delaying any decisions regarding the
settlement of the Thornewood estate until May 1981 so that
a feasibility study regarding the use of the estate for a
free standing, in-patient facility can be completed;
Reverend Richard B. Ford, Trinity Parish, Menlo Park, re-
questing a delay until May 1981 on any decisions regarding
the Thornewood estate so that a feasibility study may be
completed; and Mrs. John B. Lagen, President, Mission Hospice,
Inc. of San Mateo County, 530 El Camino Real, Suite B,
Burlingame, requesting a feasibility study of an in-patient
facility.
S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-80-97, dated December 3, 1980
noting that twenty-seven parties had requested copies of the
lease parameters and had toured the Thornewood house and grounds.
He referred to the Summary of Thornewood Proposals he had dis-
tributed to the Board indicating there were ten proposals to
consider: one exchange proposal, seven lease proposals, and two
community-use proposals. He advised that all the proposals present-
ed followed the parameters set forth and the proposers have agreed
to historical, architectural and interior restoration.
D. Wendin, referring to the proposal that included the option to
renew beyond the 25 year period, asked Legal Counsel if it is
possible for the District to grant an option to renew the 25 year
lease in advance.
S. Norton replied that it was not possible; however, he said a
lease can be self-renewing every year for 25 years, but not at a
25 year initial term.
R. Bishop asked Olive Mayer, former councilwoman from the Town
of Woodside, if the Thornewood property was zoned for single family
dwellings.
Ms. Mayer replied that Woodside had recently passed a new zoning
ordinance and she was not sure how the Thornewood property was
zoned. She noted that under the old ordinance it was zoned as
open space.
S. Sessions informed the Board that he had notified both the
American Youth Hostel and Hospice organizations that they would
have to meet the appropriate permit criteria set forth by the
Town of Woodside. He said that he felt that AYH was currently
in a position to discuss their proposal and that the hospice
proposal was a request for the Board to delay all action until
May 1981.
E. Shelley asked if a decision time had been mentioned to the
proposers in the proposal requests. S. Sessions replied no date
for returning with a decision on a proposal has been mentioned.
Meeting 80-27 je Four
D. Wendin remarked he would like to see the Board move ahead with
reasonable dispatch and felt the Board should appoint a three-
erson committee that would meet at a public noticed meeting in early
anuary with the applicants and return to the Board on January 14 with
• recommendation schedule as to how the Board should proceed to reach
• final decision. He clarified it would not be a reommendation on
which proposal to choose.
Artemis Ginzton, 28014 Nahoma Road, Los Altos Hills, representing
AYH, said they needed a definite feeling about what they are
really going to be involved in before they could recommend having
a hostel at Thornewood to the AYH Board or the District. She said
they had not made a detailed review of the building and did not
know if there was any use in proceeding with the process if the
Town of Woodside is going to turn down a hostel proposal.
Tom Gano, Espanosa Road, Woodside, said, as he understood the
criteria for the proposal, that responsibility for various reviews
was to be undertaken by the proposers during this period of time
that the solicitations went out and the December 5 deadline for
submittal and he said the deadline should not be extended for any
group within the fine time period.
Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos, said he felt the
Board should proceed swiftly with the matter since the two groups
proposing to use the Thornewood house should have gone through the
necessary investigative procedures based on the parameters.
Motion: D. Wendin moved that the President be authorized to
appoint a three-person committee which would be charged
with reviewing the proposals that have been submitted
by the December 5 deadline and to meet in publicly noticed
meetings to review those proposals and to hear from each
proposer. The Thornewood Proposals Review Committee shall
return to the Board on January 14 with a recommendation on
how the Board should proceed. E. Shelley seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
With the concurrence of the Board, B. Green appointed Directors
Turner, Wendin and Shelley to the Thornewood Proposals Review
Committee.
Motion: R. Bishop moved to disband the Thornewood Grounds
Committee and the Thornewood Proposal Committee.
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
B. Green confirmed that the proposers will be notified of all meetings.
B. Green inquired about the responsibility of responding to the
written communications presented relating to Thornewood.
R. Bishop suggested that they be notified by staff that the matter had
been referred to the Thornewood Proposals Review Committee and be
advised in the same letter of the committee meeting dates.
S. Sessions suggested that staff proceed in contacting the proposers
advising them that the District is concerned about the zoning and
use permit and for them to contact Woodside and obtain an informal
reading on the type of operation they are proposing.
Meeting 80-27 ige Five
B. Status of Picchettii Proposals
S. Sessions reviewed memorandum M-80-92 , dated December 2, 1980,
noting that seven proposals had been received. He said staff had
reviewed them and was now asking the Board to request the Picchetti
Proposal Committee to set the earliest possible meeting date for
reviewing all of the proposals that have been submitted.
H. Turner withdrew from the Picchetti Winery Committee,and with
the Board' s concurrence,B. Green appointed N. Hanko as his re-
placement.
E. Shelley asked if there was any proprietary information in any
of the proposals and if it had been made clear to the proposers
that their proposals would be made public.
S. Sessions replied that one of the Thornewood proposers had re-
quested that some proprietary information be kept confidential.
B. Green remarked that eventhough they are public noticed meeting
she thought it was quite in order for a proposer to meet privately
with the committee if they so desired.
B. Green stated the Board' s consensus that the Thornewood Proposals
Review Committee and the Picchetti Winery Committee be publicly
noticed meetings.
Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Picchetti proposals be referred
to the Picchetti Winery Committee for review and recom-
mendation. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Board agreed by consensus that the proposers be contacted
immediately and requested to submit references as soon as
possible on their proposals.
C. Issues and Questions from Site Emphasis and Program Evaluation
Work hops
N. Hanko presented memorandum M-80-93 , dated December 2 , 1980,
from the Site Emphasis Committee that outlined the issues that
should be addressed by the Board as a whole. She recommended
the Board schedule a Special Meeting for addressing these issues.
D. Wendin noted that the issue of permits which he felt is a
major area of concern, had not been mentioned by the committee.
R. Bishop said the committee didn' t intend to limit the Board' s
discussion and said any issues could be added.
D. Wendin felt the Board should discuss the site emphasis issues
before the February 4 Program Evaluation Workshop.
H. Grench responded it would be helpful to have the Special Meeting
prior to the workshop, but that it was not critical for developing
key projects for 1981-1982. However, he said he would like to have
some of these issues resolved before the tentative Action Plan process
begins.
Motion: B. Green moved that in January 1981 the Board schedule a
Special Meeting to discuss policy issues raised by the
Site Emphasis Committee. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Meeting 80-27 ,ge Six
D. Proposed Change in Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Fire
Management c e u e
S. Sessions presented memorandum M-80-90, dated December 1, 1980,
noting that he had received a request from the District' s fire
management consultant and the California Department of Forestry
to alter Phase I of the plan to allow grass areas lA and 5A to be
burned in the Fall/Winter of 1980 and to allow brush areas 1B, 5B,
and 2A to be burned in the Spring of 1981.
Motion: K. Duffy moved adoption of the recommendation in memorandum
M-80-90, of revising Phase I Monte Bello Fire Management
Plan to allow grass areas IA and 5A to be burned in Fall/
Winter of 1980 and to allow brush areas 1B, 5B, and 2A to
be burned in Spring of 1981. N. Hanko seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
E. Use of Structures on Russion Ridge Open Space Preserve, Mt.Melville
Area
S. Sessions presented memorandum M-80-89 , dated December 1, 1980,
noting that the structures were secured, but staff had not been
able to provide for caretaker presence on the site by renting
trailer space. He added that a recommendation on the ultimate
disposition of the structures called for the resolution of some
site emphasis policy questions and a review of the rangers resi-
dence program.
Motion: B. Green moved adoption of the recommendation as contained
in the memorandum, deferring action on disposition of the
use of the structure in the Mt. Melville area until staff
is able to consider possible use and authorizing the con-
tinuation during this period of the present secured and no
caretaker status with the structures. K. Duffy seconded
the motion.
Discussion: H. Grench received an affirmative response
from the Board to his question of whether staff could move
a caretaker on to the property under a rental contract
within the interim conditions, as previously approved
by the Board. The motion passed unanimously.
F. Assessment of the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Vehicle
Access Bridge
S. Sessions presented report R-80-67 , dated December 5, 1980, noting
there was a question as to the structural integrity of the St. Joseph' s
Avenue bridge over Permanente Creek. He said that staff has reviewed
the situation and he personally felt that the bridge was a sound
structure. However, in view of the fact that it will continue to be
a primary access bridge to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and
Deer Hollow Farm until the County of Santa Clara completed the vehicle
bridge off of Cristo Rey Drive, staff felt it would be beneficial to
have a determination of the bridge' s structural adequacy done by a
professional engineering firm. He noted that this inspection would
cost the District approximately $500.
K. Duffy questioned why staff was asking for Board approval to spend the
$500.
H. Grench replied that staff wanted to make clear the fact that the
District, and not the City of Mountain View, would be paying for
this evaluation.
K. Duffy remarked that she hoped if staff did receive a negative report
Meeting 80-27 ge Seven
concerning the structural integrity of the bridge that any repairs
would be done immediately without the need to return to the Board
for further approval.
Motion: B. Green moved authorizing staff to have an engineering
evaluation made of the bridge at a cost of approximately
$500 in District funds. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
G. Declaration of Election Results
B. Green presented memorandum M-80-95, dated December 3,1980.
Motion: N. Hanko moved approval of the declaration of the 1980
General Election results for District Directors in Wards,
3 , 4, and 7 as provided by the County Clerks of San Mateo
and Santa Clara Counties. E. Shelley seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
X. OLD BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
A. Progress Report on Signs Along Skyline Boulevard
S. Sessions presented memorandum M-80-96 , dated December 3, 1980,
reporting that staff had met with representatives of the State De-
partment of Transportation in Sacramento and Cal Trans officials
had agreed to replace the larger "No Parking" signs from Highway 9
along Skyline Boulevard with a smaller version, to insure that all
sign posts were of the least abtrusive variety, and to remove excess
signs to a "happy minimum". He noted that a newer type of inter-
national no parking sign would be sent to the District for evaluation,
and that staff had learned that Cal Trans was not in a position to
help with the issue of a more aesthetic scenic highway sign, as
p .1 -
such signs are a Federal, not a state, determination.
R. Mark said he felt that the "No Parking" signs adjacent to District
lands should have already been removed, requested that the District
continue to pursue the sign question (including legislative action) ,
and requested a copy of the correspondence file relating to this
subject, in addition to copies of future correspondence between the
District and the state.
H. Grench replied that that file is public information and Mr. Mark
could review it.
E. Shelley said he did not want to put an extra burden on staff to
send Mr. Mark copies each time correspondence was mailed.
K. Duffy asked for clarification on whether or not the District is
asking for all "No Parking" signs adjacent to District property to
be removed.
S. Sessions replied that if an area within the Cal Trans right of
way was wide enough for safe pull-out area and which had been posted
as 'No Parking" that would have a "Limited Parking" sign,
Motion: R. Bishop .moved that staff report back to the Board in 90
days on the state' s progress in reducing the total number
of signs along Skyline Boulevard and in converting "No Park-
ing" signs to "Limited Parking" signs. N. Hanko seconded
the motion.
Meeting 80-27 Page Eight
Discussion: S. Norton advised that it's not the sign that
determines where the No Parking zone is; it' s the regulation
or law that has been duly passed that determines what
specific areas are No Parking or Limited Parking. He added
he was not aware that the District has any jurisdiction over
whether there could be parking adjoining District sites.
He said that taking down No Parking signs adjoining District
property that does not legalize parking in that area unless
the regulation for that area is also changed. D. Wendin
requested the minutes reflect the staff' s understanding of
what needed to be done. S. Sessions replied (1) that the
staff would note exactly which signs and mileage markers
needed to be replaced or removed, and (2) that staff would
follow up with San Mateo County on the question of legal
parking areas. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Long Term Office Space Needs and Location
H. Grench presented memorandum M-80-98 , dated December 4 , 1980 and
explained that due to the length of the December 10 agenda and the
need to have at least a thirty minute discussion on the matter,
staff was asking for Board approval to defer this item.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the matter of long term office space needs
and location be deferred until early 1981. R. Bishop
seconded the motion.
Discussion: B. Green inquired if the Board feels that
staff sh ld actively research the possibility of making
a purchase of property for office space. H. Grench re-
plied he intends to review previous materials which have
been presented to the Board and summarize those dis-
cussions of the subject. He is not planning on any new
research at this time. R. Bishop suggested that the point
of the discussion should focus on whether the present
office space is or is not adequate. The motion passed
unanimously.
C. Updating of Master Plan for New Printing
H. Grench presented memorandum M-80-91, dated December 1 , 1980 ,stating
that he, C. MacDonald, and D. Woods reviewed the text and map of the
Master Plan and that the only policy question dealt with the Port
of Redwood City lands; however, he wasn't recommending any changes
in the port marshland area, and it should remain green on the map.
N. Hanko asked if there had been any recent rezoning on this property
and would staff be watching this area and report back to the Board.
H. Grench replied that staff monitors the newspapers, and agendas
and minutes relating to this area and has not heard of any rezoning.
N. Hanko requested that should any activity arise it be reported
to the Board.
Motion: E. Shelley moved adoption of Resolution 80-50 Amending the
Meeting 80-27 Page Nine
Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Date for Program Evaluation Workshop
H. Grench presented memorandum M-80-87, dated November 17, 1980, re-
questing the Board formally set the date for the Program Evaluation
Workshop.
Motion: E. Shelley moved adoption of the recommendation in the
memorandum to set February 4, 1981, 7 :00 P.M. to 10 :00
P.M. at the District offices as the date for the Program
Evaluation Workshop. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
E. Cancellation of Second Regular Meeting in December
H. Grench presented memorandum M-80-88 , dated November 12 , 1980,
suggesting the meeting of December 24 be cancelled and possible
alternative dates be discussed in the event a second December meet-
ing was required.
Motion: E. Shelley moved for cancellation of the second Regular
Meeting in December. H. Turner seconded the motion.
Discussion: The dates of December 19, 22, and 26 were
mentioned as possible meeting dates. The Board left it
to the President' s discretion to call a Special Meeting
if necessary. The motion passed unanimously.
XI. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench reported that Gary Foss had been working during the past
two months on the District' s benefits system and the two new posi-
tions of Open Space Planner and Environmental Analyst/Writer.
H. Grench said he attended a meeting of Santa Clara County Adminis-
trators where they discussed the allocation formula for the Prop. 1
funds. He said the group, including himself, voted to recommend
to their legislative bodies a 60%-40% formula (cities to regional) ,
but within the regional allocation there would be a 60% county - 40%
district split.
H. Grench, on behalf of the staff, thanked the Board for the Christmas
party they gave for the staff.
H. Grench announced that Nancy Leis, secretary to the Land Acquisition
group, was leaving December 30 and said he was planning to refill
the position unless there was objection. There was no objection.
C. Britton reported that he and S. Sessions met with Carl Shoof
and discussed possible caretaker duties he could perform- for the
District at Cooley Landing.
S. Norton reported, as requested by the Board, he had explored the
possibility of a joint exercise of powers approach or other mechan-
isms for dealing with the City of Palo Alto. He said he did not
feel that a joint exercise of powers approach is particularly appro-
priate and explained when this type of approached is used. He sug-
gested one possibility might be the City of Palo Alto forming a
standing committee (usually staff level people) to discuss and re-
view problems common to both agencies. He added this approach has
Meeting 80-27 Page Ten
drawn some criticism from the Council and Planning Commission. He
advised he did not feel the idea would appeal to the City in the
District' s case. Another approach he mentioned was perhaps persuading
the City to amend its open space zone provisions to in some manner
treat open space districts separately. Another possibility would be
for the City to delegate the review process to its staff either with
or without an appeal procedure. Another possibility would be to have
a procedure for clearing, at a conceptual level, what the District had
in mind that it would ask the City to approve before there is a major
investment of time and money. He said he doubted if the last method
would be very successful. In summary, he said he did not think that
the District is going to have enough ongoing business with Palo Alto
to warrant spending a lot of time in erecting some kind of procedural
edifice.
R. Bishop concurred with S. Norton stating he felt it is proper that
councils and planning commissions are reluctant to give up their
powers that they are elected to exercise. He said the District should
proceed on a case by case basis and try to work with city staff people
in formulating their work.
D. Wendin responded, if it turns out that the District decides to
emphasize public use on Monte Bello Ridge, it is going to have to
have a better mechanism for planning and developing that site. He
urged pushing forward and exploring with the City of Palo Alto pos-
sible ways to reduce the risk of being turned down after a lot of
time planning has taken place.
N. Hanko offered to contact Palo Alto officials and recommend back
to the Board some mechanism that might work for the District.
H. Turner said he would like to hear from N. Hanko as soon as possible
on this matter . She said she would report back to the Board.
S. Sessions reported that staff is on standby for implementation of
the Monte Bello burn program. N. Hanko said she would like to be
contacted when the burn is started.
S. Sessions reported that the Monte Bello Area parking lot location
preliminary design work is finished. There are 39 parking spaces
on the one-half acre site, and the lot requires minimum grading and
slopes back to Page Mill Road.
S. Sessions announced that vandals had torn down 2,500 linear feet
of the fencing on Page Mill Road. N. Hanko requested a report back
to the Board on this matter which would give replacement costs
broken down into staff time and material costs.
S. Sessions reported on Rancho San Antonio County Park dedication
and tree planting ceremony and said the planting plan only involved
the access area through the County park from Cristo Rey Drive back
to the vehicle bridge that was omitted. He reviewed the County' s
landscape plan and said he had a copy of the plan if anyone wanted it
for detailed information. He said he had met with Santa Clara
County park staff regarding operations, maintenance and management
and the County is going to take a more active role in the management
of that facility. The County has made a request to the District
for the construction of a fence and gate where the road comes on
Meeting 80-27 Page Eleven
to District property next to the tennis courts. He clarified that
the County would build it and it would be on District property.
D. Wendin suggested that the Board adopt by consensus the erection
of a temporary barrier at the property line to prevent unwanted
vehicles from crossing that property line. B. Green remarked the
Board wants to be able to have a choice in any decisions for anything
proposed for the site. The Board agreed by consensus. S. Sessions
reported that Santa Clara County is going to allow dogs on the
developed portion of Rancho San Antonio County Park under a leash
law situation.
S. Sessions reported the City of Mountain View has begun developing
a mini-master plan for Deer Hollow Farm.
S. Sessions reported he had met with staff from Hidden Villa to
exchange information regarding camping on Windmill Pasture and Black
Mountain. The Hidden Villa staff will be returning with specific
requests as to their needs.
S. Sessions announced the District has three cords of firewood for
sale at $25 per one quarter cord, and anyone desiring wood should
contact the Land Management staff.
S. Sessions reported that two of the District rangers were involved
in the rescue of a 13 year old boy who became lost on El Sereno
Open Space Preserve.
D. Wendin asked if there had been any communication from Santa Clara
County in response to the Board' s letter opposing rangers carrying
firearms and the current status of the County rangers using guns.
B. Green replied that the planning process was for a three month
training session, to begin in January 1981 and finish in April, for
the first half of the County rangers and the other half in 1982. H.
Grench asked S. Sessions to relate any discussions regarding arming
rangers in Stevens Creek Park or any other places where it might
impact the District's operations. S. Sessions explained the mutual
assistance agreement the District has with Santa Clara County. D.
Wendin asked if the County had consulted with the District, as requested
in the Board' s letter in coordinating their planning for arming
rangers. B. Green replied they had not and everything appears to
be in very preliminary stages. H. Grench suggested that the District
staff coordinate with the County staff expressing the Board' s con-
tinued concerns as previously expressed in the original communication.
XII* CLAIMS
Motion: E. Shelley moved adoption of the revised claims (C-80-22) ,
dated December 10, 1980. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 11:00 P.M.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :35 P.M.
Jennie George
Deputy District Clerk
CORRECTIONS TO'MINUTES OF f - ?6 -.�2
_j .�.. moo. .... �.. .....».. � ».+... ..r.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 10 , 1980
E. Shelley requested that the words "and mileage markers" be
deleted from S. SF"ssions' statement at the end of the Discussion
paragraph at the fop of Page Eight since he felt the Board did
not intend for mileage markers along Skyline Boulevard to be
removed.
K. Duffy noted S. Norton's response on Page Three relating to
the subject of granting. an option to renew the 25 year
Thornewood lease in advance should be clarified and recommended
the following revised wording, "S. Norton replied that it was
not possible since an option is an obligation beyond the allowed
25 year period; however he said a lease could be renewed each
year or periodically thereby extending the term 25 years forward. "
li
B. Green stated the revised minutes were approved by Board consensus .
I
I
I