Coastside Horse Council Opposed to GGNRA’s Unilateral Plan to Decimate Horse Boarding on the Rancho Corral de Tierra in San Mateo County

PRESS RELEASE and LETTERS.  From the Coastside Horse Council to/from GGNRA.

March 18, 2024

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Coastside Horse Council Opposed to GGNRA’s Unilateral Plan to Decimate Horse Boarding on the Rancho Corral de Tierra in San Mateo County, California

Montara, CA  The Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) has released a plan without any significant community engagement that would reduce horse boarding on the Rancho Corral de Tierra (RCDT) from about 220 to at best 40 horses.  This would be disastrous to the vibrant local horse culture on the San Mateo County Coast. The land covers over 3800 acres, stretching from Pacifica to El Granada, and is actively enjoyed by equestrians, hikers, bicyclists, and dog walkers.

GGNRA has admitted that the plan lacks sufficient input from the constituents impacted or any published public comment. The Coastside Horse Council (CHC) believes developing a plan without formal public involvement is pre-decisional and violates the National Environmental Policy Act. The RCDT has four boarding/training centers that currently host a variety of programs for the public, including summer camps, clinics, trail rides, lessons, and an adaptive riding/job training program.  The proposed plan titled RANCHO  CORRAL DE TIERRA COMPREHENSIVE SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN, January 2024 proposes eliminating two boarding stables and consolidating and significantly downsizing the other two.  GGNRA has posted signs at these stables that say they are working ranches, but their plan calls for “reimagining” one of these working ranches into an “educational” working ranch with little if any horse boarding facilities.

GGNRA has attempted to quell public fury over their plans by telling the CHC that the plan is an early draft and that more community involvement will be sought in redrafting it.  However, that community involvement has yet to be scheduled and GGNRA has repeatedly postponed meetings with the CHC.  Recently, Caltrans, who appears to be working on behalf of GGNRA, arrived at one of the four ranches without prior notice. They were inspecting the area for a potential trailhead and a parking lot that is part of the draft plan for removing that ranch.  This alarming incident has further eroded the horse community’s trust in the GGNRA.

The CHC has asked GGNRA to show its good faith by withdrawing the inadequate draft plan and truly engaging the Coastside Horse Council and the community at large to draft a new plan that accommodates the needs of the equestrian community, including keeping horse boarding at its current levels.

The Coastside Horse Council remains committed to constructive dialogue with GGNRA but emphasizes the need for transparency, accountability, and genuine collaboration in addressing critical issues affecting the community and the environment.

For media inquiries, please contact: [Larry De Young, Executive Director of the CHC, 650-224-2579, [email protected].]

Letter to GGNRA

To: David Smith, Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Building 201, Fort Mason, San Francisco, CA 94123-0022

February 29, 2024

Dear Superintendent Smith,

We are writing to you as Coastside residents and active users of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area on the Peninsula. First off, congratulations on your appointment as GGNRA Superintendent and welcome (back) to the Bay Area. We hope there is an opportunity to meet you in person in the near future.  

For more than a decade we have been deeply involved in the planning, upkeep and stewardship of Rancho Corral de Tierra. We live in the close by communities of Montara, Moss Beach, Pacifica, El Granada and Half Moon Bay, and we have been using and taking care of this land for generations. 

We are reaching out because we feel there has been a lack of transparency and inclusion in developing the Master plan for Rancho. As recently as January, the NPS project team had publicly proclaimed that it will “collect community feedback, develop project goals, and share draft planning alternative scenarios in the fall of 2022” and the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy’s 2023 year-in-review fundraising letter highlighted inviting “nearby communities to help us co-create a bright future for this relatively new national park site in San Mateo County.” 

This is odd because we have all attended and participated in every policy and planning meeting held by the GGNRA since Rancho was acquired by the National Park Service in 2011. We are certainly not aware of any recent community meetings or outreach by the GGNRA or Parks Conservancy for “co-creating” the future of Rancho, beyond fundraising pleas by the Parks Conservancy. In the past, we had always been included in such planning.  

As background, almost every day we hike, bike, walk our dogs, bird watch, ride and board horses, maintain facilities and buildings, and conserve and care for Rancho. As ongoing volunteers, we are extensively involved with rebuilding bridges, clearing brush and debris from trails, restoring habitat, designing and installing trail user etiquette signs, and holding workshops for bicyclists, dog walkers and equestrians to become better acquainted with best practices for sharing recreational space and multi-use trails with all throughout Rancho. Coastside DOG of San Mateo County has been providing and maintaining multiple dog poop bag stations and trash cans on Rancho’s Montara and Moss Beach trails. Volunteers empty the bins weekly and fill the dog bag stations as needed. 

Hundreds of our residents have participated in countless policy, land use and community meetings with the GGNRA about Rancho for 13 years. As you may know, GGNRA Rangers and our communities did not get off on the best foot due to a law enforcement tasing incident with a resident who was walking one of his two terrier dogs off-leash in 2012, about one month after the GGNRA took over management of Rancho. The case had to be resolved in federal court. And there were other rough patches along the way, such as the ill-fated dog management planning process and the sudden removal of healthy Monterey cypress and pines along popular trails at Rancho without any public notice. 

Nevertheless, we have continued engaging with the GGNRA for the Rancho Master planning process and thought we had turned over a new leaf and were moving forward as community collaborators with the GGNRA. However, our spirit has been broken after learning about recent developments in the planning process that are both concerning and troubling. 

It appears significant steps in the Master plan have taken place with select stakeholders at the exclusion of many of us who had attended previous meetings and were signed up specifically, as previously directed by GGNRA staff, for alerts and notifications by GGNRA in order to be part of this process. 

These are some of our concerns:

• There are multiple websites and pages about the GGNRA Rancho Corral de Tierra Master Planning process, yet not a single project manager or roles of designated GGNRA staff are listed. We no longer know who to contact with questions or how to get involved with the plan (https://www.nps.gov/goga/rancho.htm). We have not heard from the GGNRA staff who were part of the Rancho Master planning team in years.
• The Rancho website has sparse documents despite apparent planning that has been undertaken for the past several years. None of us have been contacted or asked to participate in any such activities, despite having previously provided our contact information to GGNRA staff for this very purpose. 
• It appears that the Parks Conservancy is handling significant parts of the Master planning process and is managing a separate website, “Rancho Corral de Tierra Comprehensive Site Management Plan.” A message on the NPS Rancho web page instructs people to read the Rancho “Full Plan” with a link that clearly states you are being directed to an outside website, warning that its privacy policies are different from the National Park Service (https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ad24cf36200a4f198003f1d6a4402faa).
• Planning maps on the “Rancho Corral de Tierra Comprehensive Site Management Plan” site show that “diverse” and “natural” zones have already been designated at Rancho with examples of “potential activities.” How were these zones created and by whom? Why are certain recreational activities listed and other common ones not? 
• By chance we recently stumbled upon a survey by the Parks Conservancy asking the community for “honest feedback” about Rancho. What is the GGNRA’s involvement in this survey, if any, and how is it being distributed and being used in the planning process, if at all? (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/79899Y3?fbclid=IwAR1Tjh_K2XivFxGWlG10ediDxgxxA0mmVRlrcbQpDgQifoGXhmipoQsl58c.)
• In February, much to our surprise, multiple documents – some in response to a FOIA request – were posted on what appears to be a separate GGNRA webpage with Rancho planning documents (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?parkID=303&projectID=5957). Most striking is the Parks Conservancy’s “Rancho Community Engagement Summary 2022-2023” that states the “[S]urrounding community members and existing/adjacent park users are vital stakeholders in the successful planning for restoration, trails, recreation, and long-term stewardship.” The document is stunning for what it lacks: engagement with existing/adjacent park users. Would you be willing to share the materials distributed and the data collected at these events, how they pertain to planning at Rancho, and whether you feel this is representative of park users? 
• Has NPS ceded any part of the Rancho planning process to the Parks Conservancy or other agencies or groups? It’s important for the community to understand the structure, responsibilities and roles of all agencies, parties, consultants and stakeholders in this process, as well as funding. 
• The Parks Conservancy has been sending fundraising pleas citing community outreach as a 2023 highlight and asking its members what activities they like to do at Rancho and illustrated a series of activities with cartoons that “depicted what some of your favorite activities might look like in Rancho.” (“GGNRA: 2023 highlights from the parks,” December 22, 2023, email from Christine Lehnertz; “How do you like to enjoy the parks?,” December 12, 2023, email from Audrey Yee). 
• It’s difficult not to interpret these fundraising letters, and other Parks Conservancy activities, as anything less than part of the Rancho planning process yet it appears they are only being used with Conservancy members and other select groups. Quite frankly, we question the appropriateness of seeking feedback for the Master planning process being combined with fundraising appeals. 

While we appreciate the work and resources committed by both the GGNRA and the Park Conservancy to improve Rancho, we very much want to play an active role and have a voice in the process, and we are disappointed that the future of Rancho is being planned without our active participation. 

We cannot stress this enough: it’s paramount to fully engage with the community and that we understand the process, structure, responsibilities and roles of all in the Master plan, as well as funding. 

Our commitment to and passion for Rancho goes well beyond just providing our ideas and honest feedback. We are important stakeholders who have given a lot and want to continue doing so with a hands-on approach to improving Rancho. Our families live and work here, we know this land just as well as anyone, if not better, and we have constructive ideas for how resources and spending can truly improve Rancho for diverse recreational use and wildlife and habitat protection. Our involvement needs to be more than just feedback – we expect to participate, and for our ideas to be carefully considered and put to use.

We hope that our voices are being heard and that this feedback will lead to clarity and significant changes in transparency and inclusion for the planning at Rancho. Again, if there is an opportunity, we would appreciate meeting you and directly discussing these widespread concerns in our community. 

Sincerely,

• Nancy Meyerott, equestrian, Half Moon Bay 
• Hilary Srere, dog owner, former board member, Coastside DOG, Montara 
• Jim Sullivan, Danny Sullivan, bicyclists, dog owner, Half Moon Bay
• Michael Simms, bicyclist, El Granada
• Steve, Jeanne Salisbury, bicyclists, dog owner, Pacifica
• Kenneth H Ju, bicyclist, dog owner, Moss Beach
• Tom Spinardi, bicyclist, dog owner, El Granada
  Mike Buncic, bicyclist, Half Moon Bay
• Bill Bechtell, dog owner, former board member, Coastside DOG, Montara
• Rick Bennett, bicyclist, dog owner, Pacifica

Response from GGNRA

More on the GGNRA on Coastside Buzz

Author: Coastside Buzz

Me