Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19850327 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 85-06 A. A- Ad!r Adpw MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MARCH 27 , 1985 MINUTES I . ROLL CALL President Teena Henshaw called to order the Special Meetina of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7 : 40 P.M. at the City of Mountain View' s Adobe Building, 157 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Teena Henshaw, Nonette Hanko, and Harry Turner. Director Richard Bishop arrived at 7 : 47 P.M. Member Absent: Edward Shelley. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes, Del Woods, Alice Cummings, Mary Gundert, Charlotte MacDonald, John Escobar, Dennis Danielson, and Stanley Norton. II. DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE J. Fiddes stated the Board had received the following written communi- cations regarding the Draft Master Plan: 1) a letter, dated March 18 , 1985, from Ken Hanley of Conservation Earth, urging the use of the Preserve as an educational setting and proposing the use of the A-frame structure as a headquarters for a non- profit conservation program; 2) a letter, dated March 25, 1985 from Phyllis Cangemi, Acting Director, Whole Access Project, 517 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, stating that the overall plan was a balanced and sensible use of the Preserve, that they were pleased to see whole access loop trails in the Plan, that they assumed that whole access would be provided at any appropriate facilities, including toilets, showers (if there are any) , parking and interpretive material; 3) a letter, dated March 23 , 1985, from Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill Road, Los Altos Hills, stating in part that people who live near the Preserve or on Page Mill Road had not been involved in the development of the Draft Master Plan, that public comments regarding the development of the area had not been taken into consideration, that the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve should not have been selected as a site for potential development because of the traffic impact on Page Mill Road, and that the proposed Draft Master Plan was too grandiose. He questioned whether traffic and accident problems on Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard had been studied and whether an Environmental Impact Report had been prepared for the Plan. He urged the Board to vote only for the most minimal development of properties at the end of Page Mill Road and to use the money saved to study which of the District' s preserves should be developed, and how. Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 85-06 page 2 T. Henshaw commented on the process leading to the formulation of the Draft Master Plan and H. Grench introduced Christy Holloway, the chair of the Peninsula Open Space Trust' s Advisory Committee for the Master Plan process. Ms. Holloway briefly discussed the role of the Committee and the work it had done and introduced those members of the 16-member Advisory Committee who were in the audience. Patrick Miller of 2M Associates reviewed the process that had been followed to solicit public input to formulate the Draft Master Plan, noting that over 200 individuals had commented on the Plan, and he provided an overview of the four basic worksteps in the Master Plan process. Using slides and maps to illustrate his verbal report, P. Miller reviewed the contents of the Draft Master Plan for the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve that his firm had prepared. He discussed the development por- tion of the Draft Master Plan, including 1) access facilities (vehicular entrance; parking; signage; trails; including the Skyline Trail , whole access trails, hiking and equestrian trails, hiking trails only, and carriage trails; trail control gates; sanitary facilities; benches; and camping faci.lities; (including a hikers ' camp and a group camp) ; 2) educational use facilities (visitor contact points; environmental education center utilizing existing ranch buildings; a new environmental education building; a picnic area and a plant propagation area; interpretive trails (including Alpine Loop Trail and observation Blind; Old Page Mill Road Trail; Horseshoe Loop Trail; Vista Loop Trail ; and Mosaic Loop Trail; and an astronomy observation area) ; 3) manage- ment facilities (Ranger residences, maintenance facilities, fire suppres- sion facilities, water supply and emergency medical service) . He stated that alternatives included in the development portion of the Draft Master Plan included signage, a hiking trail down Lambert Creek, a youth hostel , a hikers ' hut, an equestrian center, a visitor information center , an organizational building and an emergency water supply system. He clarified that these were included as future develop- ment options since they needed further study before implementation or that implementation hinges on an agency or group other than the District. P. Miller reviewed the management portion of the Draft Master Plan, outlining in detail the twenty-six various activities, within defined management zones, that would take place to realize the overall habitat enhancement, resource management, educational and access qoals of the Preserve. He stated that two Ranger residences would be located on the site at the former ranch manager' s house and at the former Incerpi house; that a maintenance area would be located behind the upper barn; that fire hydrants would be placed at key points; and that an emergency helicopter landing site was proposed. He noted that management alterna- tives included in the plan concerned the tree farm and a third live-in ranger on the site. P. Miller discussed the phasing of the Draft Master Plan, noting Phase 1 covered one to three years; Phase 2 covered three to eight years; and Phase 3 covered eight years and beyond. In summarizing the Draft Master Plan, P. Miller stated that Phase 1 called for: developing an entrance to the site, gates, a helipad, two parking areas, signage, development of an all-purpose trail and a whole access trail , revegetation of the burned portion of the Christmas tree farm, one picnic area, and two restroom facilities. Phase 2 calls for an Meeting 85-06 page 3 additional parking area, development of the Horseshoe Lake Trail , development of a group camp site to be utilized first by volunteers, expansion of the trail system, and a second Ranger residence on the site. Phase 3 calls for a third Ranger residence on the site, completion of the trail system, a fourth parking area and another picnic area. He stated that alternatives in Phase3 included a youth hostel, the hikers' hut, the equestrian center, and the visitor information center. He noted that pertinent costs for the development proposed was included in the Draft Master Plan document. D. Hansen, referring to report R-85-23 of March 21 , 1985 presented the staff ' s report on the Draft Master Plan. He said that staff was recommending adoption of the Draft Master Plan essentially as is with the following exceptions: development alternative section #3 . 2 .4 . (pages 25 and 26 of the Draft Master Plan) should be eliminated from the Plan as alternatives, but the following elements should be included in the timeframe noted: signage, Phase 3; hiking trail down Lambert Creek, Phase 3; organization building, Phase 1; and emergency water supply system, Phase 1 . He stated that the following other proposals should not be included within the 20 year timeframe of the Master Plan; youth hostel, hikers ' hut, equestrian center and visitor information center. D. Hansen stated staff ' s concerns regarding potential use conflicts on the Skyline Trail , the exclusion of horse carriages from the site; the assignment of Resident Rangers and Rangers on the site, the implementation of Phase 1 items in the Plan, the continuation of the POST Advisory Committee as an Implementation Advisory Committee that would work with the District Board or a Board committee and District staff in setting funding and implementation priorities, and the inclu- sion of several items in the Plan despite the fact they may trigger policy questions because they are facilities (trash cans, picnic tables, construction of an environmental education center) which have not been built or considered on District sites in the past. D. Hansen stated that 2M Associates had completed an Initial Study checklist and supporting documentation and a summary table explaining all yes and maybe answers in the Initial Study for the proposed Draft Master Plan. He stated that staff was recommending that the Board adopt a Negative Declaration for the Draft Master Plan, noting that the State Office of Planning and Research had confirmed that a Negative Declaration should be used on a conceptual master plan if the Initial Study warrants it. He stated that later when specific plans are developed which may have the potential to significantly affect the environment, another Initial Study should be done to decide if a Negative Declaration is still appropriate or if a focused Environmental Impact Report is necessary at that time. He stated that items of potential concern on the Initial Study checklist had been adequately researched and miti- gation measures recommended by the consultant. D. Hansen stated that the Draft Master Plan, the Initial Study and the draft Negative Declaration had been sent to the County of Santa Clara, the County of San Mateo, the City of Palo Alto, and CalTrans, the four responsible agencies involved in the project for comment. The Negative Declaration was also posted on site and sent to 23 other individuals and interested organizations. He said that the County of Santa Clara and CalTans had made no comments to date and that the City of Palo Alto via a telephone call was in agreement with the conclusions of the Initial Study and did not have any concerns regarding the proposed Master Plan, with the exception of the alternate proposal to connect to Palo Alto ' s water system. He said the County of San Mateo had responded in a letter Meeting 85-06 Page 4 dated March 26, 1985 from Senior Planner Deborah S . Nelson stating that "although a Negative Declaration appears to be the appropriate environmental document for the Master Plan, the following additions are recommended to the analysis provided in the Initial Study: First, there should be some overall discussion of total development within the preserve related to grading, coverage, increased runoff, etc. Although impacts either individually or incrementally are not signifi- cant, they should be identified. Second, projects within the Resource Management District will require Resource Management District Permits and where applicable Building Permits and Grading Permits . Third, by operation of law, those MROSD lands previously in Timber Preserve Zone are presently not zoned at all . Former TPZ lands will need to be rezoned to Resource Management (RM) . " R. Bishop, referring to the proposed Negative Declaration, questioned whether the grading of roads and construction of trails could create a situation that could affect the water sources on the Preserve. P. Miller stated that the trails had been laid out to follow the site ' s contours to minimize siltation problems and that given the soils types on the property, he did not foresee any problems if the trails were properly built. He stated that the Draft Master Plan included water moni- toring stations at key creek locations. In response to a question from H. Turner regarding conflicts in the plan for use of the A-frame structure, D. Hansen stated that staff did not support use of the structure as a youth hostel since additional building would be required for this type of use. D. Wendin questioned what would happen if the Board adopted the Master Plan and what budget implications were involved. H. Grench responded that the Board would be adopting an overall Use and Management Plan for the site; however, because of timing and budgetary implications, the Board would have to consider the matter again after decisions were made on what portions of Phase 1 were to be implemented and what funding would be required. He noted that the Master Plan was different from a regular Use and Management Plan, noting that POST' s Committee would hopefully continue to work with the Board and staff. He said that because of timing, contingency items would probably have to be included in the 1985-86 budget preparation process. K. Duffy stated that she would like to keep a youth hostel in the Master Plan as an alternative. N. Hanko said she agreed with K. Duffy, adding that she did not favor additional building for that purpose. T. Henshaw called for comments from the public on the proposed Draft Master Plan. Phyllis Cangemi, 517 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, stated she was generally supportive of the plan, expressed concern about the ideal open space experience where people would be spread out over the Pre- serve, said multi-use trails could create problems; and stated there should be safe access to whole access trails. Janet Schwind, representing the South Skyline Association, read a letter dated March 27 , 1984 addressed to President Henshaw. In part, the letter said that care should be taken not to route trails or publish maps with trails leading into private property until rights-of-way have been acquired; construction of an emergency helicopter landing area was a vital part of the plan and should receive a high priority; that the Board should review the total concept of the Plan, its purpose and Meeting 85-06 Page 5 its impact and answer why it is desirable to have a most emphasized site. The letter questioned the impact of the proposed Master Plan on the site and the surrounding area, including feeder roads. The letter stated that the South Skyline Association recommended that before the parking lots or buildings such as the environmental center and eques- trian center are constructed, a study be completed in the form of an Environmental Impact Report or a traffic study to establish the level of existing use in the area and to assess the added impact of each of the major attractions proposed for the Preserve. Deborah Wright, 517 Lincoln Avenue, Redwood City, recommended that camping be made available for the physically limited on the Preserve. Richard Bullis, Quinta Ranch, Route 2, Box 310, La Honda, recounted an ownership history of the Preserve, stated that the Preserve should not be developed and that he was against the Plan. He said an Environ- mental Impact Report should be done on the Plan, noting he felt there were ten maybe and eight yes answers in the checklist. He expressed his concern of any development occuring on the site within the bounda- ries of the Skyline Scenic Corridor. Later in the meeting, Mr. Bullis questioned the use of the pasture area, located on the western boundary of the Preserve, and P. Miller stated he was recommending that the pasture be reopened to grazing. Rick Hawley, 1805 Fallbrook Avenue, San Jose stated the only objection to the plan that he had was with the development of a trail into the Lambert Creek area. Larry Hassett, 22286 Skyline Boulevard, an adjacent neighbor of the Preserve, quoted from a portion of the Skyline/Santa Cruz Mountain Area Study prepared by the County of San Mateo that focused on the traffic impacts in the Skyline Area. He noted that the District was in a posi- tion to influence traffic on Skyline yline Boulevard and that it was appropriate for the District to consider the impact it would have on increased traffic levels by the development of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Pre- serve. He stated that plans for other parks in the area also needed to be considered since they too affected traffic levels. He stated the District should limit parking on the Preserve, do a traffic study before developing any parking lots, and locate trail heads for eques- tria' n use in the Valley to alleviate horsetrailers on the roads. Charles Touchatt, P.O. Box 254 , Redwood City, stated he felt the County traffic impact report read by Mr, Hassett had been ignored in the planning process, that fire hydrants and protection should be a first priority on the site, and that the plan was detrimental to the Skyline Scenic Corridor, He said that staff had not proven that the Draft Master Plan had no negative impact on the property itself, the surrounding community, the highways, and the Skyline Scenic Corridor, and that an Environmental Impact Report should be done on the Plan. Harry Haeussler, 10911 Highland Circle, Los Altos , stated he was pleased that the District was going to develop some park-like facilities, but urged that the development occur more quickly than proposed in the Draft Master Plan. He stated that each phase should be completed and evaluated prior to beginning the next phase. Bob Brown, a member of the POST Advisory Committee, stated that he was pleased that existing buildings on the site were being utilized and that no new buildings should be constructed and that he was suppor- tive of the Plan and the staff recommendations. Meeting 85-06 Page 6 Nat Sherrill, 1185 Skyline Boulevard, Woodside, an adjacent neighbor to the Preserve and a member of the POST Advisory Committee, stated he was impressed by the number of items originally proposed that were no longer a part of the plan based on public input and said it ought to be a good plan. In a letter dated March 25, 1985 , that he as a member of the Board of Directors of the South Skyline Association wrote to the Board, he urged that the construction of the helipad facility be expedited. Jean Rusmore, speaking in behalf of the Midpeninsula Trails Council , stated that she, Greg Schafer, and Carolyn Lekburg of the Council had reviewed the Draft Master Plan with District staff and support the plan and its effort to provide accessibility to all for a variety of open space purposes, while keeping the low-keyed, rural character which is expected in an open space environment. The following suggestions and comments were made in behalf of the Council : trails should be imple- mented as early as possible; the Skyline Trail may need to be wider than the proposed twelve foot width because of the multiple use proposed; support including the east and west Lambert Creek trails ' extension for eventual connection to parks west of the Preserve in order to spread the impact of users over the site; encourage the development of loop trails; offered input when trails are laid out on the Preserve; suggested careful consideration of the kinds of use each trail would get to avoid conflicts between trail users; supported the concept of a hikers ' campsite; suggested that the areas reserved for group campers ' cars include parking spaces for overnight hikers; supported the concept of "covered" housing, such as a hostel or hikers ' but at least by Phase 3 of the Program; stated there may be a need for picnic tables on the site, screened by vegetation and placed farther than planned from the parking areas; and projected costs and space required for the visitor or interpretive center are inconsistent with the site. Kathy Blackburn, 20975 Valley Green Drive, #200, Cupertino, a member of the POST Advisory Committee, suggested that environmental groups be allowed to use the A-frame initially and said that it would be unwise for the District to rely too heavily on volunteer help for the imple- mentation of the Master Plan. She said that additional staff support may be needed to run the volunteer program and that the proposed Draft Master Plan was a good plan. Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, discussed traffic congestion prob- lems on Skyline Boulevard on the weekends and said the Plan should include full-time Ranger patrol on the site. He asked if an Environ- mental Impact Report had been prepared and filed and whether the Plan addresses the constraints of the Skyline General Plan Study. He re- quested that the minutes reflect any objections voiced at the meeting to the Draft Master Plan. In response, D. Hansen stated that a Nega- tive Declaration had been proposed instead of an Environmental Impact Report and P. Miller stated that the Plan did not, point by point, address the regulations and restraints of the Skyline General Plan Study. P . Miller stated he had met with the San Mateo County Planning Direc- tor and other officials to review the Plan and that San Mateo County had stated that the proposed Negative Declaration was appropriate for the Plan. William Obermayer, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, stated that Mr. Robert Quinn should be allowed to remain in the house he currently resides in, located at the end of Diablo Road at the end of Peter' s Creek. H. Grench responded that the District purchased some property from Sandra Quinn, Meeting 85-06 Page 7 Mr. Quinn' s sister, and that part of the purch&,se agreement allowed Ms. Quinn to require the District to buy out a leasehold that included the house. He stated that the District had been brought into a family dispute and that staff was working with both parties involved to try to resolve the situation. W. J. Sorich, Star Route 2, 22330 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, stated that the former Guenther and Lohr properties should not be annexed to the District. Carol Doose, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, Box 21 , La Honda,, stated she felt the proposed Draft Master Plan had not changed from what was pre- sented in July, that she disagreed with the location in the first place, that the District should develop a variety of preserves with different emphasis rather than focusing on one site, that she was con- cerned about parking in the Scenic Corridor and in the Horseshoe Lake drainage area, and that the Master Plan process had not gotten indivi- duals who opposed the plan very far. Gloria Sarin, 1344 Stambaugh Street, Redwood City, said the public needed to be informed about environmental education and leisure. During the public testimony, P. Miller stated that he had discussed traffic impacts with various city and county officials and that no individual had expressed any degree of negative concern regarding the Plan' s impact on traffic on Skyline Boulevard or other arterial roads . He said he had not conducted adaily transportation survey on Skyline Boulevard or Page Mill Road. P. Miller said that Phase 1 called for 65 parking spaces; Phase 2 added 25 spaces; and Phase 3 added 25 spaces. D. Wendin stated his concerns about circulation and traffic created by the proposed Master Plan, noting that he felt Phase 1 would not generate a substantial increase in traffic, but that Phases 2 and 3 would. He stated that he would only support Phase 1 of the Plan and that the Board should implement Phase 1 and then see what should be done with Phases 2 and 3 . N. Hanko stated that she had the same reservations as D. Wendin for Phases 2 and 3 . R. Bishop stated he supported adoption of the entire plan, noting that a general plan for the future was needed and that the Board would be involved in implementation decision problems at each stage since develop- ment funding would have to be approved each year. H. Turner said that he supported adopting all three phases of the Plan, but that he was only ready to implement Phase 1 . He said that the youth hostel should be kept in Phase 3 , that he supported staff ' s argu- ment concerning the hikers ' hut, that he favored including the stable in Phase 3 and the deletion of the visitors information center. He expressed his concerns about the multi-use trail and said that traffic should be dispersed on the site. K. Duffy expressed her support for the comments made by H. Turner and said that horse carriages should be included in the Plan. Meeting 85-06 Page 8 Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board approve the staff ' s recommenda- tion to approve and adopt the Draft Master Plan of the Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve with the proposed changes as outlined in the staff report. R. Bishop seconded the motion. Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved that the motion before the Board be amended to include a youth hostel as an alternate in Phase 3 of the Master Plan. H. Turner seconded the motion to amend. The motion passed 6 to 0 . Motion to Amend: H. Turner moved that the motion before the Board be amended to retain the equestrian center as a development alter- native. K. Duffy seconded the motion to amend. Discussion: R. Bishop spoke against the motion stating that he felt there were other locations more appropriate for an equestrian center and that the inclusion of an equestrian center on Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve would be too much on the Preserve. The motion to amend failed to pass on the following vote: Ayes: K. Duffy and H. Turner. Noes: T. Henshaw, D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop, Motion to Amend: D. Wendin moved that the motion before the Board be amended so only Phase 1 be adopted with Phases 2 and 3 being conceptual only. N. Hanko seconded the motion to amend. Discussion: R. Bishop, H. Turner and K. Duffy spoke in favor of adopting all three Phases of the Master Plan, noting that it was important for future Boards to know that this Master Plan was adopted as a long range plan, that the entire plan would be used as a guide to use in developing spdcific phases of the Use and Management Plan for the Preserve, and that imple- mentation of the plan would be dependent upon the budget approval process. N. Hanko spoke in favor of the motion, noting, that while she liked the general plan, she felt that only Phase 1 of the plan should be adopted at this time so that future Boards could decide whether it was appropriate to adopt Phases 2 and 3 . D. Wendin spoke in favor of the motion noting that by adopting all three phases of the Plan, the Board would be making a statement that it intended to implement all of the Phases. He stated that Phase 1 should be adopted now, with the adoption of Phases 2 and 3 being left to future Boards. Discussion centered on the meaning of the word "conceptually" in D. Wendin' s motion. Restated Motion: D. Wendin restated his motion before the Board to state that the Board adopt Phase 1 of the Plan only, N. Hanko, the motion ' s seconder, agreed with the wording change. The motion to amend, as restated, failed to pass on the following vote: Ayes: N. Hanko and D. Wendin. Noes: T. Henshaw, R. Bishop, H. Turner, and K. Duffy. Motion to Amend: K. Duffy moved to amend the motion before the Board to delete Item C regarding the exclusion of horse carriages from the site from the staff report. H. Turner seconded the motion to amend. Meeting 85-06 Page 9 The motion to amend failed to pass on the following vote: Ayes: K. Duffy and H. Turner. Noes: T. Henshaw, D. Wendin, N. Hanko, and R. Bishop. Motion to Table: D. Wendin moved to table the amended motion on the table. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion to table passed 6 to 0. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board adopt the Negative Declaration as presented. K. Duffy seconded the motion. Discussion: R. Bishop spoke in favor of adopting the Negative Declaration since he felt careful consideration had been given to environmental concerns during the planning process. N. Hanko stated she did not approve of the piecemeal approach to getting permits for various projects and conducting necessary impact studies in the Master Plan and would vote against the motion. The motion passed on the following vote: Ayes: T. Henshaw, K. Duffy, H. Turner, and R. Bishop. Noes : D. Wendin and N. Hanko. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the amended motion to adopt the Draft Master Plan be removed from the table. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. The amended motion passed on the following vote: Ayes: T. Henshaw, K. Duffy, H. Turner and R. Bishop, Noes: D. Wendin and N. Hanko. III . CLAIMS Motion: D. Wendin moved the approval of the revised claims 85-06 of March 27 , 1985. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0. N. Hanko was not present for the vote. H. Grench stated that the litigation matter to be discussed in Closed Session concerned Hassler and said that a land negotiation matter, although not shown on the agenda, would also be discussed during the Closed Session. IV. CLOSED SESSION The Board recessed to Closed Session at 10 : 30 P .M. V. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11 : 00 P.M. Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk