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