Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20201021 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-24SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, October 21, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* A G E N D A Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended all contrary provisions of the Brown Act. THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY 1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/84315688929 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 84315688929). 2.Members of the public may provide written comments by submitting a public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment •Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls for public comments. •Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is closed. •All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the board of directors meeting. •Electronic comments on agenda may only be submitted via the public comment form. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted. Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting. 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District’s website at www.openspace.org. All written comments submitted in accordance with the guidance posted on the District’s website will be read into the record. Meeting 20-24 Rev. 1/3/20 1. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Parking, Trailhead, and Public Access Recommendations to Forward into the Feasibility Study Phase (R-20-115) Staff Contact: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning and Melissa Borgesi, Planner I, Planning Planning and Natural Resources Committee’s Recommendations: 1a. Direct the General Manager to proceed with feasibility studies of the parking, trailhead, and public access recommendations as presented by the La Honda Public Access Working Group, with any modifications requested by the Board of Directors. OR 1b. Direct the Planning and Natural Resources Committee or La Honda Public Access Working Group to reconvene to respond to Board of Directors requests for additional information. AND if Recommendation (1a) is approved, either: 2a. Determine that the La Honda Public Access Working Group has fulfilled its charge and direct the General Manager to dissolve the group and issue a special recognition for their dedication and contributions, and keep members on the project notification list to solicit their individual input as part of future Committee and Board meetings on the project. OR 2b. Direct the General Manager to return to the Board for consideration and approval of a revised La Honda Public Access Working Group charter, purpose, and term to extend their work through the Feasibility Study Phase. AND if Recommendation (2a) is approved: 3. Approve the draft March 5, 2020 La Honda Public Access Working Group meeting summary since the Working Group will no longer meet as a body to approve their last meeting summary. ADJOURNMENT INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. Director Reports ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Rev. 1/3/20 Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on October 8, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-115 Meeting 20-24 October 21, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Parking, Trailhead, and Public Access Recommendations to Forward into the Feasibility Study Phase PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1a. Direct the General Manager to proceed with feasibility studies of the parking, trailhead, and public access recommendations as presented by the La Honda Public Access Working Group, with any modifications requested by the Board of Directors. OR 1b. Direct the Planning and Natural Resources Committee or La Honda Public Access Working Group to reconvene to respond to Board of Directors requests for additional information. AND if Recommendation (1a) is approved, either: 2a. Determine that the La Honda Public Access Working Group has fulfilled its charge and direct the General Manager to dissolve the group and issue a special recognition for their dedication and contributions, and keep members on the project notification list to solicit their individual input as part of future Committee and Board meetings on the project. OR 2b. Direct the General Manager to return to the Board for consideration and approval of a revised La Honda Public Access Working Group charter, purpose, and term to extend their work through the Feasibility Study Phase. AND if Recommendation (2a) is approved: 3. Approve the draft March 5, 2020 La Honda Public Access Working Group meeting summary since the Working Group will no longer meet as a body to approve their last meeting summary. SUMMARY On June 26, 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) formed the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) to evaluate parking and trailhead access options at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) that meet Board-directed goals and objectives (R-19-85). This project supports Measure AA portfolio 05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration R-20-115 Page 2 and Conservation Grazing Projects in the Board-approved 2014 Open Space Vision Plan, which ranked public access to the currently closed middle or central area of the Preserve as one of the top 25 priority actions. The PAWG met almost monthly between August 2019 and March 2020. Moderated by an external facilitator and supported by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff, these public meetings covered project orientation, site tours, site alternatives, use options, and iterations of options, culminating with the selection and formal vote of final PAWG recommendations. To meet the Board-approved project goals and objectives, the PAWG opted for a range of different sites rather than one singular location. The final recommendations disperse visitor access, amenities, and uses across several sites: (1) near the existing Sears Ranch parking area, (2) one mile north from the Sears Ranch parking area, in the interior of the Preserve, (3) at Preserve Gate LH07 off Highway 84, and (4) an area north of the Red Barn and tucked behind existing trees. On July 28, 2020, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) unanimously voted to forward the PAWG’s recommendations to the full Board (R-20-81). BACKGROUND Project Background At the June 12, 2018 special meeting on the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan (R-18-64), the Board directed the General Manager to put the project on hold to evaluate alternative parking options and establish a citizens advisory committee. The Board approved the composition of La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) on April 9, 2019 (R-19-39) and formed the PAWG on June 26, 2019 (R-19-85) with the following members. Kicking off on August 22, 2019, the PAWG worked with a facilitator and District staff to assess various sites and options to meet the Board-directed project goals and objectives listed below. • Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. • Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn. • Provide safe public access. • Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses. • Include amenities that facilitate environmental education. • Protect scenic views of and from the site. Member Type Member Board Directors (non-voting) Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Curt Riffle, Ward 4 La Honda area representatives Ari Delay Karl Lusebrink Kathleen Moazed Ward 6 stakeholders Lou Bordi Barbara Hooper Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7 stakeholders Ward 1: Melany Moore Ward 2: Art Heinrich Ward 3: Willie Wool Ward 4: Sandy Sommer Ward 5: Andie Reed Ward 7: Denise Philips R-20-115 Page 3 A summary of the process and recommendations follows. The PAWG’s Recommendations Report and Appendices (Attachment 1 – Recommendations Report) include more detail and documentation of the process, meetings, public comments, and recommendations. PAWG Process District staff developed a workplan for the PAWG, which envisioned a series of six to eight meetings, including opportunities for site visits to various locations in the Preserve and along Highway 84 (Attachment 4 – Attendance, Communications, and Homework). To assist in moderating the meetings and guiding the process, the District procured a facilitator, MIG, Inc., with senior project manager Lou Hexter as the lead facilitator, assisted by associate Ana Padilla. PAWG meetings conformed to the Brown Act, with public notification of the time, location, and agenda provided in advance. There were opportunities for public comment at each meeting, and members of the public were invited to, and attended, the two site tours as well as all regular PAWG meetings. The District spent the first two PAWG meetings on August 22, 2019 and September 12, 2019 providing background context for the project, including the 2012 La Honda Creek Preserve Master Plan, which laid out the overall vision and anticipated access points for the Preserve. The District held site tours on October 19, 2019 and November 16, 2019 to visit various locations, including areas suggested by PAWG members. Staff developed a naming convention to identify the different sites (Attachment 2 – Site Options Map) and provided the group with typical site assessment criteria with which to evaluate each site. The first tour included visits to the Event Center (Site A), the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot (Site B1), a flat area near a former residence one mile into the Preserve from the existing Sears Ranch Road lot (Site C1), and two locations suggested by a PAWG member near the Red Barn (Sites E1 and E2). On their second tour, the PAWG visited locations suggested by PAWG members, including Preserve Gate LH07 (Site D) and two additional sites near the Sears Ranch Road area (Sites B2 and C2). The second tour culminated in a 1.5-hour, 2-mile round trip hike from Site C1 northward along a closed portion of existing road to a gate near La Honda Creek just below Site D. PAWG members had the opportunity to experience the distance, natural scenery, and topography from the former residence area to the vicinity of La Honda Creek as part of this hike. On both tours, PAWG members used site assessment forms to record their observations. During the December 12, 2019 and February 6, 2020 meetings, PAWG members shared their observations of each site’s attributes, citing how well they thought each location performed relative to the Board-directed project goals and objectives. At these meetings, the PAWG discussed additional sites – one near the Sears Ranch Road parking lot (Site B3) and two near the Red Barn (Sites E3 and E4). District staff also presented a list of “other options and iterations” that included limited access and a geographic distribution of uses across several sites (rather than accommodating all desired uses at one location). At the conclusion of the February 6, 2020 meeting, the District project team provided three example combinations of sites, with varying degrees of access and a geographic distribution of uses, as different “sample suites of options.” These combinations illustrated examples of how to package a suite of distributed uses, limited access, and sites into potential proposals that could be advanced to PNR and to jumpstart PAWG discussions of what other combinations might appeal to the group. In between meetings, the PAWG completed homework assignments, which included reviewing background materials, visiting and observing different sites, and documenting their individual R-20-115 Page 4 assessments of the locations under study (Attachment 4 – Attendance, Communications, and Homework). There were also opportunities for members to suggest their own ideas for potential access locations; in particular, Sites B2, B3, C2, D, E1, E2 and E4 were suggested by PAWG members for consideration. Site E3 was offered by District staff after they discovered the site as a possible location while obtaining video footage of the Red Barn area. The PAWG evaluated how limited access and distributed use options could work for each site to meet the project goals and objectives. The PAWG considered public input as they comprehensively evaluated each of the following sites (for additional details, please refer to Attachment 1 – Recommendations Report and Appendices): 1. Former Event Center – south end of Preserve Site A – vicinity of existing equestrian permit parking area 2. Sears Ranch Road parking lot Site B1 – expansion of the existing lot Site B2 – area opposite existing lot, across driveway Site B3 – area at Gate LH15 3. Sears Ranch Road interior area – one mile north of existing lot Site C1 – open area (site of former residence), past first interior gate Site C2 – former corral area adjacent to Site C1 4. Preserve Gate LH07 – south of the Red Barn Site D – area at gate and parallel to highway 5. Red Barn area Site E1 – knoll west of existing ranger residence Site E2 – former corral area west of and downhill from Red Barn Site E3 – area south of and downhill from existing ranger residence Site E4 – area north of existing ranger residence The PAWG evaluated the following limited access and use distribution options: • Access via permit only (would not apply to sites already open to the public) • Access via docent-led activities (would not apply to sites already open to the public) • Distribution or separation of uses among various sites o Educational or interpretive elements o Picnic or family-oriented elements o Restroom access o Equestrian access o Dog access At its March 5, 2020 meeting, the PAWG considered the three sample suites of options offered by the District, along with other suites proposed by PAWG members, prepared as part of their homework assignment before the meeting. PAWG discussions about the suitability and challenges associated with specific sites within each suite, along with nominal voting to identify preferred locations, led to the removal of some sites from further consideration and an emerging R-20-115 Page 5 “hybrid” suite of potential sites and access options. The PAWG deliberated and voted on the final recommended suite to forward to the PNR for its consideration (Attachment 3 – draft March 5th meeting summary). PAWG Recommendations The PAWG arrived at a key finding and principle that no one location could meet all of the project goals and objectives and provide all of the desired access and functions. Thus, the PAWG began to discuss “suites” or combinations of options, that is, a set of uses, amenities, and parking and trailhead access facilities distributed across multiple locations. As described above, staff presented this concept early in the deliberations, and the specific recommendation of the PAWG flowed from an evaluation of the potential uses, amenities, and facilities at each location under study. The PAWG identified the sites that the majority of the group felt warranted further evaluation in the feasibility study phases. Voting members of the PAWG voted (7 in favor; 2 opposed) to advance the following recommendations to the PNR for consideration in the feasibility study phase that together, taken as a whole, meet the Board-directed project goals and objectives: • Sites B2 or B3 – Sears Ranch Road Lot: Parking for equestrian trailers and future expansion for additional vehicles (size to be determined by physical and other constraints) when use of existing lot exceeds its capacity • Sites C1 or C2 – Sears Ranch Road Interior: Picnic, family-friendly, equestrian- serving and interpretive amenities (type, location, and quantity to be determined during feasibility study phase) • Site D – Preserve Gate LH07: A small parking lot (size to be determined by physical and other constraints during feasibility study phase) with trailhead access and restroom facilities • Site E3 – Red Barn Area: A small parking lot (size to be determined by physical and other constraints), with limited access (specific constraints to be determined during feasibility study phase; potential options include permit only/docent-led only conditions) On July 28, 2020, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) met to consider the PAWG recommendations. PNR unanimously voted to forward the PAWG recommendations to the full Board for consideration along with additional relevant project information to help further inform Board discussion on this item. DISCUSSION At the July 28, 2020 PNR meeting, as part of the unanimous vote to forward the PAWG recommendations to the full Board, PNR provided the following feedback and requested that additional information be provided to the full Board for consideration (Attachment 7 – draft July 28, 2020 PNR meeting minutes). The feedback covered a range of topics, including future Preserve trail implementation, Bay Area Ridge Trail connections, and other site considerations. R-20-115 Page 6 PNR Comments Site Options PNR expressed support for the B sites, particularly the PAWG’s recommendation for Sites B2 or B3. If the Board selects Site B3 to move forward to the feasibility phase, PNR suggested reaching out to the La Honda Elementary School to discuss any concerns due to the site’s proximity and visibility to the school. PNR agreed with the PAWG that both sites could potentially accommodate equestrian parking. PNR members agreed with the PAWG’s recommendation for the C sites as a location for equestrian amenities (e.g. water trough, hitching post) and picnicking (e.g. benches/logs and/or picnic tables). They did not support parking or vehicle access at these sites and would like to remain sensitive towards the grazing and calving operations in the area. PNR expressed enthusiasm about Site D at Preserve gate LH07. Although Site D is a small site, the enthusiasm stemmed from the location, shade, wide shoulder access off Highway 84 and the site’s ability to provide access to the middle portion of the Preserve. PNR supported the PAWG’s recommendation for a small parking lot with trail access and a restroom at this location. They also stressed the importance of protecting nearby La Honda Creek. PNR supported the PAWG’s selection of Site E3, noting it is nicely shaded with vegetated screening to limit views from the highway, and preferred a small parking lot with permit access over docent-led only access. The majority supported the E sites to be further studied, and all agreed traffic safety, including ingress and egress, would need to be carefully evaluated during the feasibility study phase. In addition to their comments on the sites, PNR requested that a map identifying the distances between each site be provided to the full Board (Attachment 8 – Site Distances). Near-Term Options Both the PAWG and PNR recognized that opening any new parking area(s) requires lengthy planning, public engagement and permitting processes. PNR agreed to forward the PAWG’s near-term public access options to the full Board to also advance into the feasibility study phase. The near-term options are described in detail within the PAWG Recommendations Report (Attachment 1 – Recommendations Report and Appendices) and summarized below. • Add signage at the existing pull-out along Highway 84 near the Red Barn with information about current public access at the Preserve (e.g. existing parking areas and accessible trails) and/or interpretive information on the Red Barn and history of the property’s use as a ranch. • Allow opportunities for docent-led hikes north of the Harrington Creek Trail along the existing ranch road that leads towards La Honda Creek within the currently closed area of the Preserve. • To expedite opening access to the closed area of the Preserve, prioritize projects providing new trail connections between the Allen Road vista point and Sears Ranch Road parking lot to the Red Barn area (note that trail scouting from the Sears Ranch area to the Red Barn and Allen Road areas are underway). R-20-115 Page 7 Bay Area Ridge Trail PNR requested that a map identifying the location of the future Bay Area Ridge Trail (Ridge Trail) within the Preserve (Attachment 9 – Bay Area Ridge Trail) be provided to the Board as part of their deliberation. The 2012 La Honda Creek Master Plan anticipates Ridge Trail users staging at the Red Barn area to access a future multi-use trail extending through the middle portion of the Preserve to the Upper La Honda Creek (Allen Road) area and continue westward, ultimately connecting to El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve. The Master Plan also envisions the Ridge Trail heading eastward from the Red Barn area to eventually connect to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. Future Phases of Trails at La Honda Creek Preserve PNR expressed an interest in the status of the phased trail implementation identified in the 2012 Master Plan. In winter 2019/20, the District trails crew conducted preliminary trail scouting and completed initial site investigations of potential trail alignment options within the Preserve. Working with Natural Resources staff, crew identified known environmental and physical constraints such as the presence of sensitive species like Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), wetland and riparian areas, landslide areas, steep slopes, non-rated bridges for access, pastures for cattle grazing, and etc. Attachment 10 depicts potential trail segments for connecting the lower, middle and upper portions of the Preserve. Based on the preliminary site evaluations, staff identified possible trail routes connecting Allen Road to Sears Ranch Road shown in areas A, B, C and part of area D (Attachment 10 – La Honda Trails). During the scouting of area D, staff determined that a future multi-use trail segment closest to Highway 84 was infeasible due to sensitive resources and challenging permitting constraints. Staff is therefore evaluating alternative trail routes to create a multi-use loop from the Sears Ranch Road area as described in the Master Plan that will connect to Harrington Creek Trail, linking the middle and lower areas of the Preserve. In addition to the long-range trail scouting efforts described above, staff has completed the design and is currently securing permits for a one-mile, easy access loop trail off the existing Harrington Creek Trail, which would provide a family-friendly amenity with convenient access from the Sears Ranch Road parking lot. District staff is targeting construction to start in Spring/Summer 2021. Discussions on which trail(s) to advance next are underway. Bicycle and Dog Access PNR expressed interest in how bicycle and dog access are contemplated in the Master Plan. As trails are developed, the Master Plan identifies the opening of select trails to bicycles and dogs on leash, pending resource agency consultation and approval (Attachment 10 – La Honda Trails). The Master Plan identifies bicycle use on page 62 as follows: • Open the ranch road that extends from the Sears Ranch Road parking area to the northeastern boundary of the former Driscoll Ranch area to bicycles (near Gate LH07). • Construct a new multiple-use trail west of La Honda Creek in the northeastern corner of the former Driscoll Ranch area (near Gate LH07) to establish a loop trail that will be R-20-115 Page 8 accessible to visitors traveling on bicycle who enter from the Sears Ranch Road parking area. • Open the ranch road that extends from the northeastern boundary of the former Driscoll Ranch area (near Gate LH07) to the Red Barn to bicycles; this multiple-use trail extension will provide visitors traveling on bicycle a connection between the Town of La Honda and the Red Barn. • Open the Bay Area Ridge Trail alignment to bicycles once this trail is established and at least one safe through-connection (an extension of the official Ridge Trail beyond the Preserve boundary) is secured. Two connections, one to the east and one to the west, are ideal to fulfill the larger goal of a continuous Ridge Trail alignment that encircles the Bay Area. The Master Plan calls for dog access at two locations within the Preserve, trails north of the vista point in the northern area of the Preserve and a loop trail near the Sears Ranch Road entrance. The District expanded on-leash dog access to northern La Honda Creek in October 2018. The easy access loop trail currently under permit review near Sears Ranch Road could potentially allow dog access in the future and will be further studied and discussed with the grazing tenant. Grazing/Calving Operations PNR noted Site C2 as a calving area and requested more information on where cattle calving occurs and how having more people or vehicles around may disturb calving operations. District staff spoke with the grazing tenant, who provided more information on the calving operations. Calving season is between September 1st and November 1st, and the calves are born in the pastures on the east side of the Harrington Creek Trail as it heads north from the Sears Ranch Road parking area. Site B1 is located within the pasture closest to the parking area. Once calves are bigger, the cows and calves move to further into the Preserve, to a pasture in the vicinity of Site C2. There the cattle will congregate near water trough and the shade of existing trees. The C sites are a natural congregation area for the cows and calves due to shade and water nearby. Picnicking in the C2 location should not be an issue, but the grazing tenant recommends the placement of benches or picnic areas away from water troughs and areas where cows commonly lie down or “loaf”. Vehicle access to the C Sites would be much more disruptive than visitor use such as picnicking and interpretive signage. Signage can be used to educate preserve visitors that, as with any grazing area open to the public, people should avoid approaching or coming between a calf and its mother. Creek Restoration Projects If public access is provided at Site D (Preserve gate LH07), a bridge replacement over La Honda Creek will be needed to safely provide trail users access from the potential parking area to the interior trail network. PNR asked if there is any opportunity for creek rehabilitation when replacing the bridge. Natural Resources staff indicated that a bridge replacement would be designed to address sedimentation issues (from stream bank erosion) that may currently exist and improve hydrology. In addition, ecological enhancements that can be incorporated within the project's footprint include vegetative buffer zones, invasive species management, native seed dispersal, or use of bioswales. Collision Information When discussing safe access, PNR requested information on highway collision data, including injuries and fatalities. California Highway Patrol provided collision data from 2009 to 2019 on R-20-115 Page 9 the 15-mile section of Highway 84 from Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) to Highway 1, which showed 308 reported collisions (about 20.5 per mile), 12 fatalities and 36 severe injuries. District GIS staff mapped the Highway 84 collision data and the PAWG received these maps as part of project background information (Attachments 11, 12, and 13). For comparison, from 2009 to 2019, the 26-mile section of Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) from Highway 92 to Highway 9 experienced 1,126 collisions (about 43.3 per mile), 23 fatalities and 83 severe injuries. PNR recommended that the District engage with the California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, and other stakeholders during the feasibility study phase to discuss how Highway 84 corridor could be made safer. Board Actions for Consideration Board Acceptance of Recommendations On October 21, 2020, the Board of Directors will consider PNR’s unanimous support to accept the PAWG Public Access Recommendations and direct the General Manager to proceed with the feasibility studies. The General Manager would subsequently work with staff to secure the services of technical experts to incorporate public comments received to date in conducting the feasibility studies, analyzing opportunities and constraints for each recommendation, identifying design considerations/solutions or fatal flaws, and preparing high-level conceptual plans for feasible improvements. During this phase, District staff will also outreach and engage the California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, and other stakeholders to discuss measures for improving highway safety along Highway 84. PAWG Charge and Special Recognition The PAWG has successfully fulfilled its Board-approved purpose and charge to work with the District in identifying parking and trailhead options to further study that meet Board-approved project goals for opening public access to the middle area of the Preserve. As the Board considers PNR’s recommendations, the Board may opt to forward any final questions or requests to either the PNR or PAWG for feedback. If there are none, the Board may then opt to conclude and dissolve the PAWG, and direct the General Manager to work with staff on issuing a special recognition for their dedication, thoughtful engagement, and contributions. PAWG members would be invited to remain on the project notification list to receive notices of future public meetings to provide their individual comments. Alternatively, the Board may request to have the PAWG continue into the feasibility study phase. If the desire is to have the PAWG continue, the Board may direct the General Manager to prepare a new purpose and charge for Board review and approval. The General Manager would also need to confirm member interest for continued participation and follow a process to fill any vacant seats, which may extend the project schedule (original PAWG formation required 6 months to develop the structure and an additional 6 months for recruitment). Board Approval of Draft March 5, 2020 PAWG Meeting Summary PAWG meeting summaries prior to March 5, 2020 were reviewed and approved by the PAWG at each subsequent PAWG meeting. The March 5, 2020 meeting summaries have yet to be formally approved since there has been no subsequent PAWG meeting scheduled. If the Board is concluding the services of the PAWG, the General Manager recommends having the Board formally approve the PAWG meeting summary, relying on confirmation from the two Board PAWG liaisons for the accuracy and completeness of the summary, as well as knowing that this summary was reviewed, edited, and deemed complete by the PAWG Chair and Vice-Chair. R-20-115 Page 10 Lessons Learned Recognizing the new approach of the PAWG process for complex public access projects was a pilot effort, PNR expressed interest in reviewing the lessons learned with the full Board. District staff have documented many lessons learned and recently sent a survey to the PAWG members to receive their feedback. The feedback was unexpectedly delayed due to the disruptions and impacts of the August lightning wildfires and evacuation orders that affected many communities. District staff will present the lesson learned findings in early 2021 after all the feedback is collected and compiled. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action has no immediate fiscal impact. Funds to initiate the feasibility study phase are included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget. Funds for future years budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW PNR reviewed and considered the PAWG’s recommendations on July 28, 2020 (R-20-81), consistent with the review process approved by the Board, and the draft PNR minutes are attached (Attachment 7). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notice was provided to residences along the Highway 84 area between Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) to Highway 1, Preserve grazing tenants, neighbors living adjacent to the Preserve, and parties interested in the Preserve, the Red Barn, and the La Honda Creek Master Plan. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As stated in the 2012 La Honda Creek Preserve Master Plan and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, additional environmental review will be conducted for a new staging area (or areas) at the appropriate time. Environmental review would begin once the project description is further defined. NEXT STEPS Pending Board direction, the General Manager will direct the District project team to advance the project into the feasibility study phase. Alternatively, if the Board requires additional information, the Board may refer questions to PNR or PAWG for review and feedback. If there are no follow-up questions and if supported by the Board, the General Manager will direct staff to dissolve the PAWG and issue a special recognition thanking the Working Group for their contributions. Working Group members would be added to the Preserve notification list to continue following and providing individual input during the next phases of work. Alternatively, the Board may request that the PAWG continue and its charter and term expanded to include the feasibility phase. Note that the expanded PAWG purpose and charge would R-20-115 Page 11 require Board approval and the District may need to fill vacant seats if existing participants opt to conclude their services. Attachments 1. La Honda Public Access Working Group Recommendations Report and Appendices 2. Site Options Map, Aerials and Photographs 3. PAWG Draft March 5, 2020 Meeting Summary 4. PAWG Attendance, Communications, and Homework Summary 5. July 28, 2020 PNR Meeting Public Comments (received after March 5, 2020 and prior to July 16, 2020) 6. July 28, 2020 PNR Meeting PAWG Communication (received after March 5, 2020 and prior to July 16, 2020) 7. July 28, 2020 PNR Draft Meeting Minutes 8. Site Distances Map 9. Bay Area Ridge Trail Map 10. La Honda Creek Preserve Trails Map 11. Highway 84 Collisions Map 12. Highway 84 Collisions Map Enlargement – Sears Ranch Road 13. Highway 84 Collisions Map Enlargement – Red Barn area 14. Public Comments (received after July 16, 2020 and prior to October 8, 2020) 15. PAWG Comments (received after July 16, 2020 and prior to October 8, 2020) Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Melissa Borgesi, Planner I, Planning Contact person: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Melissa Borgesi, Planner I, Planning Graphics prepared by: Nathan Grieg, Data Analyst II Francisco Lopez Tapia, GIS Technician Attachment 1 – Recommendations Report La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study La Honda Creek Public Access Working Group Recommendations Report THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Recommendations Report | A Recommendations Report JULY 2020 La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study La Honda Creek Preserve Public Access Working Group Contents 01. Introduction.............................................................................1 02. Process ....................................................................................5 Purpose and Charge ..........................................................5 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................6 Membership .......................................................................7 PAWG Meeting Process ......................................................8 Decision Making Process ...................................................12 03. Assessment of Sites and Other Access Options ...................15 Limited Access and Distribution of Use Options .............41 04. Recommendations .................................................................43 Other Considerations for the PNR Committee ................45 05. Conclusion ..............................................................................47 Appendices .......................................................................................49 A. Inventory of Meeting Documents B. Meeting Agendas and Summaries C. Public Comments received through March 5, 2020 D. PAWG Communication through March 5, 2020 E. Key Decisionmaking Information F. Site Assessment Summaries and Forms G. General Information Documents District Mission “To acquire a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” District Coastside Mission “To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” Recommendations Report | 1 In August 2012, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board adopted the La Honda Creek Master Plan, which provided stewardship and public access prescriptions for the entire Preserve over a thirty-year period. Opening the central or middle area of the Preserve (the Red Barn area) to the public was part of the first phase of Master Plan implementation and was a high priority confirmed through the public engagement process for the Board- approved 2014 Open Space Vision Plan and supported by voters with the 2014 passage of Measure AA. The public access improvements for the Red Barn area are part of the La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects, which ranked as one of the top 25 priority actions in the Vision Plan. Preliminary site planning and analyses to develop conceptual design options began in late 2016. On June 12, 2018 the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) held a public meeting to discuss conceptual plans for creating new public access to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) at a site along Highway 84 near the Red Barn. Roughly 100 community members were in attendance, with close to 1,000 represented on a petition, with most expressing opposition to the District’s proposals. Key concerns centered around safe ingress and egress from the highway, as well as visual impacts on the pastoral views of the Red Barn and its surroundings. The District’s Board of Directors (Board), in response to these concerns, initiated a community process to engage and convene a group of citizens from throughout the District with strong representation from the local community to investigate and evaluate a series of options to provide public access to the currently closed, middle or central area (Red Barn area) of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (see Figure 1). The goal for this group, named the La Honda Public Access Introduction01 Above: PAWG members and District staff visited potential access locations on a couple of site tours. 2 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group S t a r woo d D ri v e Kebet Ridg e R o a d Allen Road Allen Lookout La Honda Road La Hond a Ro ad O l d Pearson's Pond Spani s h Ranch C re e k POST Conservation Easement Djerassi Resident Artists Grand M o rse Ln. CDF Ray's Peak Bea r S e a r s La Honda Driscoll RanchesEvent Center POST Conservation Easement Redgate Ranch R anch R o a d Sky Londa Co a s t a l P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e Stillheart Retreat Center 35 Old L a Honda Rd. Former Folger Ranch Gulc h Road Bo gess Creek Harringto n Creek La Honda Creek PG&E Line Clos de la Tech Winery Former Sears Ranch Former Wool Ranch (1037 ft.) BearGulc h R d . Redwood Cabin Red Barn White Barn Former Dyer Ranch Former Driscoll Ranch Area Former Weeks Ranch 84 84 84 35 Harrington Creek Mind Kingston Creek W eeks Creek Alp ine C r e ek Langley Creek Woodhams Creek Woodruff Creek D e n nis M a rtin Creek McCormick Creek L a Honda Creek Madera Creek Bull Run C reek Mindego Creek Mar t i n C LH11 LH12 LH13 LH07 LH02 LH10 LH01 LH05 LH04 LH06 LH03 TW02 CM05 CM06 0 Map Projection: UTM Zone 10N, NAD 1927 Data Sources: USGS,County of San Mateo, and MROSD Map Printed November 2007 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Figure 4: Preserve Areas SOUTHERN LA HONDA CREEK AREA CENTRAL LA HONDA CREEK AREA NORTHERN LA HONDA CREEK AREA Southern La Honda Creek Area Central La Honda Creek Area Northern La Honda Creek Area includes former Dyer Ranch and Redwood Cabin includes former Weeks Ranch and Red Barn includes former Driscoll Ranch El Corte de Madera Creek Roads Unpaved Ranch / Patrol Road Existing Paved Road Highway Figure 1: Preserve Areas (excerpted from the 2012 Master Plan, Exhibit 2-4: Preserve Areas) Recommendations Report | 3 Working Group (PAWG), was to identify what sites or access options warrant further evaluation in a subsequent feasibility study phase. Recommendations from the group would be forwarded to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee for consideration before advancing final recommendations to the Board for approval. This report describes the PAWG process—how it was organized and implemented over an eight- month period—and the resulting conclusions and recommendations that emerged from its deliberations. Following these sections is a set of Appendices that provide information that served as input to and output from the PAWG’s considerations. La Honda Creek Master Plan Vision Statement “…The stewardship of this public open space preserve shall be the highest priority, followed by the practice of ecological agriculture and ranching, and finally improved trail connectivity and access…” “Focus will be placed on protecting and enhancing the Preserve’s diverse plant, wildlife, and native habitats; protecting and interpreting the historical and cultural features that are reminiscent of past uses; continuing ranching activities and preserving scenic rangeland landscapes characteristic of rural San Mateo County; lending to the viability of agriculture on the Coast; expanding the available access and interior trail connections within the Preserve; and building connections to surrounding open space lands and Coastside communities.” PAWG members and District staff study the characteristics of a potential public access location. Recommendations Report | 5 ” PURPOSE AND CHARGE The PAWG was officially formed by the Board in June 2019 and held its first meeting in August 2019. Specifically, the Board charged them… … to work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve (Preserve), consistent with the April 9, 2019, Board-approved project goals and objectives. Feedback from the Working Group will inform the options to be reviewed by the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee, and the recommendations the PNR Committee forwards to the full Board for their review and consideration. The Board will make final policy decisions informed by input from both the Working Group and PNR to determine which option(s) will move forward into the environmental review (California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA) phase. “ Process02 Above: PAWG members begin their meeting process with an orientation to the project. 6 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group »Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Provide safe public access »Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Protect scenic views of and from the site PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Board established the following goals and objectives for the La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study and reconfirmed them during the formation of the PAWG. The PAWG focused on these goals and objectives during its assessment from various alternative sites and access options. The La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve affords visitors with spectacular views to the coast. Recommendations Report | 7 Type Representation and Appointment Members Board Directors (non-voting liaisons) »Represent policy interests of the Board. »Appointed by the 2019 Board President. Excludes Directors currently serving on the 2019 PNR Committee. Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Larry Hassett, Ward 6 La Honda area community representatives »Represent local community interests and local perspectives. »Ideally reside in the Town of La Honda or in relative proximity to the Preserve or the Highway 84 corridor. »Recruited through an application process. Selected and appointed by the full Board. Ari Delay Karl Lusebrink Kathleen Moazed Ward 6 stakeholders »Represent more localized Ward 6 interests and perspectives. »Appointed by the Director of Ward 6. Lou Bordi Barbara Hooper* Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7 stakeholders »Represent the regional interests and perspectives of each Ward. »May be residents of the ward and/or represent regional stakeholder interests (e.g. hiking, bicycling, or equestrian uses, and/or education, conservation, recreation, agriculture, or multi-generational access). »One stakeholder appointed by each Director of Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Ward 1: Melany Moore Ward 2: Art Heinrich Ward 3: Willie Wool Ward 4: Sandy Sommer Ward 5: Andie Reed Ward 7: Denise Phillips* MEMBERSHIP Each Board Director appointed a representative from his or her ward to serve on the PAWG, except for the Ward 6 Director, in whose ward the project is located, who appointed two representatives. The Board also interviewed candidates of the La Honda community to fill three additional seats specifically held to represent the local community. In addition, the Board president appointed two Board Directors to serve as non-voting members of the PAWG and provide Board perspectives to the group. The PAWG is composed of thirteen members as described below. *Barbara Hooper was elected Chair, and Denise Phillips was elected Vice Chair at the PAWG’s September 12, 2019 meeting. 8 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group PAWG MEETING PROCESS District staff and the facilitation consultant team supported the PAWG through a series of seven working sessions over eight months. The PAWG’s meetings were governed by the Brown Act, and two public comment periods offered opportunities for members of the public to provide the PAWG feedback at the beginning and end of each meeting. All agendas, meeting summaries, presentations, and materials provided to the PAWG were posted on the project website. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings, PAWG members worked in between meetings to review project materials and complete homework assignments that documented their impressions and ideas regarding the various site and use options. They also cumulatively spent significant time on their own visiting site locations to gather impressions of the suitability of the locations and also to observe road and traffic conditions along Highway 84. PAWG members actively participated in setting the meeting format and process, periodically requesting additional information from the District project team (see Appendix A for list of meeting materials), suggesting homework assignments for the entire group, and recommending new sites to visit and study. In addition, the PAWG as a group reviewed and provided feedback on the meeting summaries, with the Chair and Vice-Chair reviewing the PAWG Recommendations Report and draft meeting summary following the last scheduled PAWG meeting on March 5, 2020. The summary table below shows the dates, locations and topics covered in the series of meetings. A detailed description of each meeting follows. (See Appendices for meeting agendas and summaries, meeting material inventory, handouts and homework.) Meeting Date and Location Topics 1 August 22, 2019 District Office Orientation 2 September 12, 2019 District Office Project Background and Process Overview 3 October 19, 2019 La Honda Elementary School Site Tour #1 4 November 16, 2019 La Honda Elementary School Site Tour #2 5 December 12, 2019 District Office Discussion of Site Options 6 February 6, 2020 La Honda Elementary School Discussion of Site Options 7 March 5, 2020 District Office Discussion of Suite Options; Development of Recommendations Recommendations Report | 9 Meeting 1: August 22, 2019 At its initial meeting, the PAWG reviewed the project goals and objectives, the group’s purpose and charge, ground rules and operating procedures, and the anticipated work plan and schedule through the summer of 2020. To support their discussions throughout the process, the District project team gave each member a binder with background materials on the PAWG, the District, the Preserve, and the previous Red Barn public access project. To ensure that the PAWG’s work would be aligned and consistent with the District’s mission and previous planning and policy documents, District staff provided a background presentation highlighting many of the relevant background and policy documents. The 2014 Districtwide Open Space Vision Plan, for example, articulated 25 priority action portfolios, and among these was one related to Upper La Honda Creek. This set of objectives was incorporated into the voter-approved Bond Measure AA. Of particular significance to this process was the District’s La Honda Creek Master Plan that was completed through a public planning process between 2004 and 2012. For homework, in addition to familiarizing themselves with the binder contents, the PAWG decided to individually stop at a pull-out area near the Red Barn site over a weekend before the next meeting to observe traffic conditions on Highway 84 – with most observing for about an hour during the midday and early afternoon hours. Meeting 2: September 12, 2019 Working from the background materials passed out on August 22nd, the District project team presented an overview of the District, the District’s typical planning and environmental review process, assessment criteria used to evaluate sites for public access potential, the 2012 La Honda Creek Master Plan and the earlier Red Barn site planning process, and existing site conditions at the Preserve. The PAWG selected a Chair and Vice-Chair – Barbara Hooper and Denise Philips, respectively – to work with the District project team on the format and topics of subsequent PAWG meetings. Along with additional background information, the District project team passed out four existing site conditions maps to the PAWG to prepare for the upcoming site tours. Additional information included collision data from February 2009 through June 2019 provided by California Highway Patrol, and extrapolated and plotted on a map by the District’s Geographic Information Systems’ team; general information on the Bay Area Ridge Trail provided by the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council; and an initial assessment of the Event Center and Sears Ranch Road sites, which was a Board-directed task from the June 12, 2018 meeting on the Red Barn project. In response to a PAWG request for additional background on the Red Barn public access project, the District project team also provided links to all the reports and minutes from previous 2016, 2017, and 2018 public meetings on the project. Meeting 3: October 19, 2019 October and November site tours allowed the PAWG to observe the conditions of Highway 84, consider the access opportunities into the Preserve from Highway 84, and look for and assess sites that could accommodate potential parking areas. PAWG members debrief after one of the two site tours. 10 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group The first tour in October included stops at the three sites raised during the June 12, 2018, meeting: (1) Event Center, (2) the Sears Ranch Road parking lot, where the tour also stopped at a location suggested by a PAWG member one mile north into the Preserve, and (3) the Red Barn site, where a PAWG member suggested two specific areas as potential parking alternatives to the original conceptual plan site. As the PAWG toured each site, they used site assessment forms to document their observations in the context of the project goals and objectives and turned these in ahead of the next meeting to be shared with the rest of the PAWG. The District project team answered questions throughout the tour and documented answers as part of the meeting summary. As homework, the District project team asked the PAWG to suggest other sites to visit during the November site tour. Information passed out to the PAWG included different access alternatives that members of the public had raised during the previous Red Barn site planning process. In response to PAWG requests for additional background information, the District project team provided a map showing the distance from the Event Center to the Red Barn area using existing roads, a map identifying existing traffic signs along Highway 84, and data on the number of permits requested for the Allen Road and Event Center permit only parking areas. Meeting 4: November 16, 2019 The second tour included sites suggested by PAWG members: (1) Preserve Gate LH07 and (2) two additional sites next to and one mile north of the Sears Ranch parking lot. To give the PAWG a sense of the future trail experience, the tour also included a one-mile hike starting one mile from the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and into a closed area of the Preserve located to the northeast, heading toward La Honda Creek and the Red Barn. As the PAWG toured each site, they used site assessment forms to document their observations and turned these in ahead of the next meeting to be shared with the rest of the PAWG. The District project team answered questions throughout the tour and documented answers as part of the meeting summary. For the December meeting, the District project team asked the PAWG to reflect on the sites visited on the tours and be ready to discuss the group’s observations. Meeting 5: December 12, 2019 The District project team shared additional information compiled in response to PAWG questions received during prior meetings. A representative from the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council provided an overview of the Bay Area Ridge Trail at the request of a PAWG member. The District project team presented summaries of October and November tour site assessment comments submitted by PAWG members, and the PAWG further shared their perspectives of the sites visited and discussed each site’s characteristics and how well a location met the project goals and objectives. Using the PAWG’s Gradients of Agreement voting system (see Decision Making Process below), the facilitator guided the scoring process and documented voting members’ individual scores of each site. District staff briefly presented a list of “other options and iterations” focused on offering limited access via permits or docent-led activities and on distributing uses among several PAWG members listen intently to a staff presentation. Recommendations Report | 11 sites to prompt the PAWG to think of other ways to provide access besides a full service parking and trailhead area at one location to meet all the project goals and objectives. As homework, the PAWG discussed re-visiting the area behind the ranger residence at the Red Barn site and also decided to visit two new sites: (1) an area by a shed below the existing ranger residence at the Red Barn site and (2) a flat, grassy area adjacent to Preserve Gate LH15 along Sears Ranch Road past the La Honda Elementary School and before the existing lot. The District project team also asked the PAWG to start considering what combinations of sites and options to discuss further with the goal of ultimately deciding on what recommendations to forward to the PNR Committee. Later in January, the District project team shared a traffic memo prepared by professional transportation consultants (see Appendix A for list of meeting materials provided to the PAWG) in response to an earlier PAWG request about potential traffic calming measures for the highway. Meeting 6: February 6, 2020 The PAWG continued deliberations from its December meeting. As before, the District project team presented summaries of the site assessment comments submitted by PAWG members about the two new sites suggested in December. The PAWG further shared their views of the two new sites and discussed each site’s characteristics and how well they met the project goals and objectives. District staff provided more detail about the “other options and iterations” briefly presented in December and provided examples of how these might be applied at each site. The suggested additional limited access and use distribution options included: »Access via permit only (would not apply to sites already open to the public) »Access via docent-led activities (would not apply to sites already open to the public) »Distribution or separation of uses among various sites • Educational or interpretive elements • Picnic or family-oriented elements • Restroom access • Equestrian access • Dog access The District project team also presented three example combinations or “suites” of sites, limited access options, and distribution of uses that could be packaged to meet the project goals and objectives. The PAWG agreed that more time was needed to consider the three example suites of options and to think of other combinations as homework. In addition, a PAWG member suggested a final site for the PAWG to consider, in the Red Barn area adjacent to and north of the existing ranger residence, for the group to visit and assess. The PAWG determined that a meeting in March was necessary to continue deliberations. Shortly after the February meeting, the PAWG Chair and Vice-Chair requested that the PAWG also score the limited access and use distribution options using the Gradients of Agreement voting system. Meeting 7: March 5, 2020 Prior to continuing discussions from the February meeting, the PAWG received a presentation from Renée Fitzsimons, program manager of the District’s Interpretation and Education Program, to learn more about how the docent program could be potentially leveraged to offer access. Following this informational presentation, the PAWG continued its deliberations from its February meeting, reviewing PAWG member scores for each site. The group discussed and scored the new location at the Red Barn suggested in February and shared their perspectives on the limited access and distributed use options. The PAWG spent the remaining half of the meeting sharing their views on six suites or combinations of site alternatives and access options, three of which were the samples previously presented to the group in February and three of which were suggested by PAWG members. The ensuing discussion resulted in several sites being removed from further consideration by the group, use parameters being specified for the remaining sites, and the formation of a new, seventh suite that the PAWG ultimately advanced as their recommendation to the PNR Committee. 12 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group DECISION MAKING PROCESS The ground rules and operating procedures (see Appendices) for the PAWG established that the group would strive to make decisions and recommendations through a consensus-based process, consensus being defined as general agreement by all members present when a decision item was on the meeting agenda. The Chair and/or Vice-Chair presided over the meetings, which were facilitated by District staff and MIG consultant Lou Hexter. Guided by the facilitator, the PAWG signaled their level of support for sites and suites using a scoring system based on the Gradients of Agreement described to the right. Gradients of Agreement 1 I can say an unqualified “yes” to the recommendation. 2 I find the recommendation acceptable. It appears to be the best of the real options available to us at this time. 3 I can live with the recommendation, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4 I do not fully agree with the recommendation, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5 I do not fully agree with the recommendation. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6 I do not agree with the recommendation and I will work actively to oppose it. A vote of 1 and 2 was considered supportive of a proposal, a vote of 3 and 4 was considered neutral and therefore willing to accept the proposal, and a vote of 5 and 6 was considered not supportive. A unanimous vote was not required, a majority of the voting members being sufficient to reach a decision. PAWG members pose for a photo at a trail gate near La Honda Creek. Recommendations Report | 13 District staff member takes a walk around the Red Barn during one of the site tours. Recommendations Report | 15 Assessment of Sites and Other Access Options 03 The PAWG concentrated their work in three geographic areas of the Preserve. »Event Center area in the southern end of the Preserve »Sears Ranch Road area about 3.5 miles east of the Event Center »Red Barn area about 4 miles north of Sears Ranch Road Within these geographic areas, the group evaluated 11 individual sites in 5 general locations (see Site Options Map on the next page). Event Center area—south end of Preserve »Site A: area near existing permit area trailhead and tunnel to Preserve Sears Ranch Road parking lot area »Site B1: expansion of the existing lot »Site B2: area opposite existing lot across driveway »Site B3: area at Gate LH15 Sears Ranch Road interior area— one mile north of existing lot »Site C1: open area (site of former residence), past first interior gate »Site C2: former corral area adjacent to C1 Preserve Gate LH07—south of Red Barn area »Site D: area at Gate LH07 and extending parallel to highway Red Barn area »Site E1: knoll west of existing ranger residence »Site E2: former corral area west of and downhill from Red Barn »Site E3: area south of and downhill from existing ranger residence »Site E4: area north of existing ranger residence Above: PAWG members discuss and ask questions at one of the potential access locations. 16 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group D C1 B1 B2 B3 A C2 E2 E3 E1 E4 The following section summarizes the Working Group’s assessment of each location’s suitability to meet the project goals and objectives. A summary table of comment themes is shown following each narrative. The PAWG’s individual assessment forms are provided in the Appendices, except for Site E4, which the PAWG discussed together on March 5, 2020 instead of filling out site assessment forms. Site Specific Options Recommendations Report | 17 ASSESSMENT OF SITES The location is at the southern end of the Preserve and is connected by an existing tunnel to the main Preserve on the north side of Highway 84. Currently used for permit only equestrian parking and as an interim field staff office outpost, the site will be the subject of a future site planning effort as a standalone project and will need to be incorporated into the 2012 La Honda Creek Master Plan. Because the Event Center location will be the subject of a future effort, and since it is relatively far from the area under study, the PAWG overall did not consider it integral to providing access to the middle, closed portion of the Preserve. That said, the PAWG felt that the site had great potential for general public access, and thus supported continuing its use as a permit lot for equestrian visitors and urged that a multi-use access parking area and trailhead be developed at this site in the future. Event CenterSite A 18 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Equestrian use here could help reduce need for equestrian vehicle access in the central area (iii)* »Site is already flat, paved and has buildings (ii) »Public access for hikers, cyclists, and dog walkers (in addition to the access already available to equestrians via a permit) in this site would allow visitors to enjoy the central portion »Tunnel could allow visitors to explore either side of the preserve »Doesn’t provide easy access to the central part of the Preserve (iiii) Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Does not affect Red Barn (iii) »Beautiful as is and reflects the rural character of the area »Plenty of parking »Event Center itself is not attractive Provide safe public access »Safe public access could be feasible (iiii) »Tunnel creates excellent trail access across Highway 84; make sure it’s structurally sound »The tunnel needs improvements (iii) »Pulling off Hwy 84 would need to be addressed (ii) »Has its own vehicular access problems Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »There’s not much direct effect (iiii) »Well-suited to parking and horses »Other activities such as hiking, biking, and dog walking, etc. could be implemented »Maintain rodeo and training facilities »Concern about how the site would keep hikers »Maintenance issues/costs »Agriculture/rodeo uses separate Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Good place to do this (ii) »Potential to display information about agriculture, equestrians, rodeo, etc. (ii) »Information about the Red Barn could be provided here to encourage visitors to explore the trails »Plenty of area for signage »Loop over to White Barn could be interesting »Near La Honda Oil Fields »Concentrated equestrian use and location at an end of the preserve – not a likely location »Depends on what Midpen wants Protect scenic views of and from the site »Views from both sides of the Event Center (ii) »There’s not much direct effect (ii) »Not that scenic (iii) Other considerations »Amend the Master Plan to include consideration for Event Center (and Driscoll Orchards) uses (ii) »Great staging area for the Driscoll Ranch part of the Preserve; when new trail options open, consider this for more than equestrian use »Density study needed for conformance with Highway 84 Scenic Corridor regulations Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Recommendations Report | 19 ASSESSMENT OF SITES Site B1 is the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead that opened to the public in 2017 and one of two locations that the Board of Directors on June 12, 2018 directed staff to assess for their potential to meet the project goals and objectives. This parking lot’s observed use is currently under capacity but expected to increase once more trails open in the Preserve or if additional uses are allowed from this location per the 2012 Master Plan such as bicycle access, equestrian trailer parking or dog on leash access. Expansion may be possible if more of the open grassy area is graded to flatten more area for parking and circulation. This location would allow the District to leverage its existing investment in parking, restroom and interpretive facilities, and the lot currently has capacity. Some equestrian parking could be accommodated here, but the PAWG preferred one of the nearby options. There is some question about how much future use is expected and how much additional traffic capacity Sears Ranch Road can accommodate. Expansion of this lot with regular vehicles spaces may be appropriate if use increases in this area of the Preserve, which may result from new trails or expanded uses per the 2012 Master Plan, e.g. bicycle access, dog use or equestrian trailer parking. Site B1 Sears Ranch Road Area Expansion of Existing Lot Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »More parking here for equestrians »Reducing/deleting equestrian parking at central area would improve traffic safety getting into/onto 84 »Can add some parking »Biking, and dog access could be added »Would support increased use in this underutilized section »Doesn’t make central area (iiiiii)* »Doesn’t fulfill parking needs 20 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Does not affect Red Barn (iii) »Agricultural needs would add to the character »Vistas reflect the rural character »Sensitive to what is already here »Very peaceful and remote »Additional paved area would not be in keeping with rural character »Needs bathroom and trash can Provide safe public access »Access is safe (iiiiiii) »Easy, safe driving and parking access »posted speed limit and stop signs »Impact on school grounds. »Fences separate visitors and cattle »Road needs improvements Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »Grazing and hiking activities complement each other (iii) »No additional impact on grazing »Opportunity to inform public about the essential role of grazing in fire fuel management. »Parking would use pasture area (ii) Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Good place to do this (iiii) »Could inform visitors about the history, geography, wildlife, Red Barn and agricultural use in the site and region (iii) »Could incorporate a loop to the ponds »Depends on what Midpen wants »Not a particularly compelling site Protect scenic views of and from the site »Views are nice (iii) »Tucked away from the public (ii) »There is a structure already »Parking/amenities would be visible from within the preserve »At some point a larger staging area becomes out of scale for the rural setting Other considerations »Would serve additional trails planned for the area »Location is very near the La Honda Store where one can buy food and drink for picnics »Consider gravel lot instead of asphalt; better for horses »Add oak trees for screening »Possibility that roadway would need to be widened to accommodate additional capacity; could result in higher costs to the District Recommendations Report | 21 ASSESSMENT OF SITES Site B2 is an open, grassy area opposite the drive from the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead. The area is large enough to potentially accommodate equestrian trailer parking and additional vehicular parking if the existing lot begins to exceed its capacity. PAWG members felt this area could accommodate equestrian trailer parking in particular, as well as serve as overflow from the existing lot. The main concern here was the potential impact of a developed lot on views of a white barn and pond located in the distance to the west. Site B2 Sears Ranch Road Area Site West of Existing Parking Lot Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Could provide access for equestrian parking and users (iii)* »Seems like a natural place to expand access toward the central area (ii) »Is central if one considers the overall acreage of the Preserve and the trails currently in use »Does not meet this objective (iiii). »Long hike to reach central area »Only equestrians and cyclists would consider this to be a staging area for the central Preserve 22 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Would expect it to be designed to blend in to surrounding area »Consider gravel surfacing for lot, especially since it is better for horses »Additional paved area would be intrusive and not in keeping with rural character Provide safe public access »Very safe access (iiiiiiiii) »Would provide safe access if the road could be widened to two lanes (ii) »Concern that additional capacity would require roadway widening Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »Minimal grazing impacts (iiiii) »Education of the public has been good and should continue »Would require additional fencing and gates »Concern about noise and fumes from cars Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Almost unlimited potential for environmental education (iiii) »Potential to access Sears Ranch ponds »Only modest improvements needed, since there are amenities at the nearby existing lot Protect scenic views of and from the site »Plenty of views that could be enhanced by a well- designed parking lot and other amenities (iiiii) »Avoids visual impact on Red Barn (iii) »Would be out of view from the town of La Honda »Would detract from existing views of the barn and pond (iii) Other considerations »Maybe appropriate for equestrian trailer parking – consider as permit only to keep it small »Prioritize equestrian parking on graded, unpaved surface »Allow for car overflow from current lot »Could accommodate a building or public bathroom »Plenty of space for picnics »When more access to the southern portion is needed, this would be a good place for parking Recommendations Report | 23 ASSESSMENT OF SITES This relatively open and flat site is at Preserve Gate LH15 on Sears Ranch Road, past the La Honda Elementary School and before the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead. PAWG members felt this area also could accommodate equestrian trailer parking quite well and would preserve views of the barn and pond compared to Site B2. The main concern at this location was the potential impact on the La Honda Elementary School, and the members felt that any proposed development of this site would need to involve consultation with the school. Site B3 Sears Ranch Road Area Gate LH15 Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »New access close to existing lot »Potential for access »Doesn’t establish new public access close to the central portion of the preserve (iiii)* »Better than Event Center, but lower than many others being considered Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »A good location: next to the school, which is already developed, away from Highway 84 view, and well hidden from within the Preserve (ii) » Not in proximity to Red Barn (iii) »May not be desirable because of proximity to La Honda Elementary School (iii) Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions 24 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Provide safe public access »Provides safe access (iiiiiii) »Plenty of room for horse trailers to turn around »Narrow section of road might need to be redesigned to accommodate traffic »Might be hazardous for students’ access to the school Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »Limited impact to grazing (iiiiii) »May not be desirable because of proximity to La Honda Elementary School »Some fences Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Site is large enough to include many amenities for environmental education »Little opportunity for environmental education (ii) »This site has no view to the rest of the Preserve, which would make it less than inspiring for educational use »Already have interpretive signage at existing lot nearby (ii) Protect scenic views of and from the site »Site is concealed well (iii) »Protects views of the White Barn and the Red Barn »Nice, but not nearly as nice as other locations being considered (ii) Other considerations »This site seems redundant given the parking lot just beyond it at the top of the hill (ii) »Perhaps used for equestrian parking, and it would preserve the views over towards the pond area from the top of the hill (the existing parking lot) »Its proximity to the school raises questions in my mind. Are there any issues associated with locating a public access site so close to an elementary school? Recommendations Report | 25 ASSESSMENT OF SITES This location is approximately one mile north into the Preserve from the existing parking lot, accessed by the Harrington Creek Trail which takes hikers into an area currently used for conservation grazing. Paving and adding general or equestrian vehicle traffic on a road currently used as the main trail was seen as problematic by many PAWG members; some were concerned about the conflicts with grazing activities; and District staff expressed concern about the challenges in patrolling and monitoring an area so far away from a public road. Some felt a full-service parking area in this location offered good access to multiple trails, opportunities for picnic and interpretive facilities, and closer access to the central portion of the Preserve. Site C1 Sears Ranch Road Area Former Residence Area Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Could accommodate equestrian access (ii)* »Biking, and dog access could be added »Would support increased use in this underutilized section »Closer access to the Red Barn »Can add some parking »Doesn’t provide access to central area (iii) »Introduces vehicles and their conflicts well into the Preserve »More visible from within the Preserve Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Does not affect Red Barn »Agricultural needs would add to the character »Vistas reflect the rural character »Very peaceful and remote » Intrusion of fencing an additional one mile into the Preserve »New paved area would not be in keeping with rural character Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions 26 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Provide safe public access »Access is safe (iiiii) »Easy, safe driving and parking access »There are posted speed limit and stop signs »Farther away from highway 84 »Could build parallel trail to separate pedestrians and vehicles »Brings more Preserve users in contact with traffic (ii) »Impact on school grounds Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »Opportunity to inform public about essential role of grazing in fire fuel management »Grazing and hiking activities complement each other »Grazing access more difficult (iiii) »Parking would reduce pasture area (ii) »Access more difficult for hikers wanting to go from one side to the other Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Good place to do this (iiii) »Could incorporate a loop to the ponds »Could provide education about calving grounds »Better to provide this in the perimeter »Depends on what Midpen wants »Not a particularly compelling site Protect scenic views of and from the site »Parking can be hidden from public view (iii) »Views are nice (ii) »Views are expansive enough that a visitor center would not detract »Visible from higher points within the preserve »Would impact the area Other considerations »Would serve additional trails planned for the area »Location is very near the La Honda Store where one can buy food and drink for picnics »Consider gravel lot instead of asphalt; better for horses »Concern about cost of fencing and road improvements Recommendations Report | 27 ASSESSMENT OF SITES Site C2 is located adjacent to Site C1 within a former corral area along the Harrington Creek Trail as it turns westward. Considerations of this location are the same as for Site C1, though some felt that tucking improvements into this former corral area would be preferable because there would be less visual impact from other parts of the Preserve. Site C2 Sears Ranch Road Area Former Cattle Corral at Former Residence Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Would expand visitor access closer to the central area (iiii)* »Would provide a large area for equestrian parking »Gentle terrain good for ADA access »Does not meet this objective (iiii) »Additional parking one mile from current area is redundant; would not greatly reduce hike distance to Red Barn area Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Design to fit working ranch »Concern about bringing parking this far into the Preserve as a disruption to the rural character (iii) »Paved road and lot are not in keeping with rural character (ii) Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions 28 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Provide safe public access »Very safe access (iiiiii) »Sears Ranch Road is well paved and already in use »Would provide safe access if the road could be widened to two lanes (ii) »Extension of road could potentially create more pedestrian conflicts within the Preserve »Concern about theft and vandalism risk Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses » Minimal impact on grazing activities and other uses »Education of the public about sharing space with cattle has been good and should continue »High impact on grazing activities (iiii) »Would reduce pasture for grazing and increase fencing and accommodate cattle crossing gates Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Almost unlimited potential for environmental education (iiiii) »The cattle calve here – a great opportunity for education »Immediate vicinity is not particularly compelling for environmental education »This would draw more traffic into the central part of the Preserve Protect scenic views of and from the site »Equestrian and visitor parking could be somewhat hidden from view (iii) »Plenty of views that could be enhanced by a well- designed parking lot and other amenities (ii) »Fairly well screened from surrounding Preserve (ii) »Avoids visual impact on Red Barn »Views and sense of remoteness would be impacted by parking (iii) Other considerations »Separate hiking/biking/equestrian/dog walking trail from roadway (ii) »When more access to the southern portion is needed, this would be a good place for parking. »Plenty of room for other amenities, such as a restroom »Consider a loop trail around hilltop residence site »Could provide a safe refuge for visitors and local residents of the La Honda community »Added cost of potentially widening SRR and creating a mile of new road. Recommendations Report | 29 ASSESSMENT OF SITES Preserve Gate LH07 is about one mile south of the Red Barn area. A flat area inside parallels Highway 84 behind a fence and a stand of eucalyptus trees. A private property is adjacent to the south and an access road from the gate passes through it for a short segment before returning to District property and La Honda Creek. There is currently no public access over this segment crossing private property. There was a great deal of interest in this location because it provides access relatively close to the Red Barn area without interfering with views. The PAWG envisions the potential for a small parking lot, potentially limited permit use only, with some amenities, such as a restroom and trailhead with signage. The site does require ingress from and egress to Highway 84 for visitors heading eastbound and westbound on the highway, and the group understands that further traffic analysis is needed to evaluate safety concerns and to understand if improvements may be made to provide safe access. There is also some concern for habitat and creek impacts at this location. Site D Preserve Gate LH07 30 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Feasible for some parking; maybe permitted access and docent-led activities (iiii)* »Good alternative »Appropriate for limited access »May be difficult terrain for mobility-challenged people Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Minimizes visual impact on Red Barn (ii) »Would support the rural character »Could be designed appropriately »Screen parking from the highway »Use material other than asphalt Provide safe public access »Moving the driveway to the north may help make this location acceptable (ii) »Line of sight is good »Limited access might be acceptable »Possible pocket turn lanes could enhance safety »Concern about collision data at this location (iii). »Concern about Highway 84 traffic danger, especially speeding motorcycles (iii) »Would need traffic calming measures »Does not provide safe access in current configuration Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »No impact on grazing (ii) »Minimal conflicts with existing uses »Best balance between public access and grazing activities and other uses »Not sure (ii) Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Some potential for interpretive signs (iiiii) »Redwood groves nearby would make a nice destination »Opportunity for forest habitat, salmonid spawning or wildlife corridor interpretive signs »Seems suited to parking and trailhead access only (iiii) »Views from the site are limited, making explanation of the area a little more difficult Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Recommendations Report | 31 ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Protect scenic views of and from the site »Forested area is a nice contrast to open views »Retain trees and bushes as much as possible (iii) »Best protection of scenic views of and from the site »No real scenic views here Other considerations »No equestrian trailer parking here (iii) »Good parking potential »Highway noise needs to be addressed »Good access to trails going to upper and lower portions of the Preserve »Also has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing »Continue to discuss roadside parking in excess Caltrans right-of-way west of LH07 »This site is within a “sensitive natural resource area” per the Natural Resources Considerations map »Minimize visitor impact to pristine creek 32 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Site E1 is located on an open knoll behind an existing ranger residence. Utility poles extend past the house into the knoll. The site is not visible from Highway 84, although it is visible from the trail system in the northern area of the Preserve. The PAWG acknowledges that the Red Barn area is the site closest to the middle portion of the Preserve, though there are differences of opinion about whether any access option in this area should advance to the feasibility study phase due to the traffic concerns along Highway 84. A main concern raised was whether parking or other improvements would impose visual impacts on the Red Barn and immediate surroundings. This location (and Site E4) offers good distancing from the Red Barn and a sense of connection to the Preserve; however, a number of members voiced concern about the potential disruption to the occupied ranger residence. While the site is well- screened from the Red Barn and from the highway, some members noted its visibility from the northern area of the Preserve currently accessed via a permit lot at Allen Road. Site E1 Red Barn Area Site Behind Ranger Residence Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Best access to the central part of the Preserve (iii)* »Consider for permitted access and/or docent led activities (ii). »Attractive alternative to parking at the Red Barn »Excellent location for hiking or visiting the Red Barn »Not sure Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Recommendations Report | 33 ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Mostly out of sight of the Red Barn and 84 (iiiiii) »Preserves the character of the Red Barn (iii) »Ranger’s house could be repurposed for bathrooms, bulletin boards, historical interpretation, visitor’s center »Add picnic tables and pond »Removed from traffic noise and views »Could preserve natural character if constructed to blend with current road- bed materials »Need a context sensitive design »Hard to say if the site will be preserved »Design elements detract from the rural character and Red Barn (i) »Would detract from existing residential purpose »If built farther away from the residence would be a blot on the landscape Provide safe public access »Feasible for parking area (iii) »Road safety could be improved with properly engineered warning signs, turning lane(s), etc. (iii) »Might use negotiated easement with adjacent property driveway »Driveway alignment and turning movements are the biggest issues »Docent-led hikes and/or permit access could potentially provide safe public access as there could be a limited number of visitors allowed per day (like the Allen Road access point) »Visitors could be given very specific guidelines about how to enter and leave the site, as well as warnings about traffic hazards »Access to and from Highway 84 would be dangerous (iiiii) »Parking would need to be more concentrated elsewhere (ii) »Collisions have occurred in the area Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »This area seems to be workable with grazing activities (iiii) »Grazing helps make the area picturesque »Minimal conflicts with existing uses »Opportunities for observing grazing activities around the Red Barn area »Current leaseholder might be willing to reduce grazing footprint around here? »Some impact on current operation and ranger housing (iii) 34 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Good place to do this (iii) »Locating other buildings out of sight »Buffer from the Red Barn »Opportunity to add short interpretive loop to the Red Barn »Education about grazing, bats, regional trails, steelhead in La Honda Creek, historical pond »Informative signage could highlight the history of the area as long as it did not interfere with the Ranger Residence »A great location to provide easy public access (including ADA) to educational amenities planned for the Red Barn area »Depends on what Midpen wants »Not a good location for amenities Protect scenic views of and from the site »Red Barn’s tourist attraction is visual; area around Barn could remain as-is (iiiii) »Not visible from the 84 stretch »Lots of existing screening »Can have a context-sensitive design »Best of the Red Barn locations; there is a sense of being in the middle of the preserve as soon as you arrive » It is visible from within the Preserve »This site is on a prominent high point that could be viewed from many locations »Designing and installing vegetation to shade and shield this location would be a challenge »Driveway is visually intrusive; consider another alignment »A simulation of the parking and outbuildings would help visualize the impacts Other considerations »Reduces La Honda neighborhood traffic concerns (ii) »Great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing »More easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area »Opportunity for historical signage and pit toilets »Use existing ranch roads where possible » Impinges on the ranger residence too much; residential opportunities are very important to attracting good candidates for this job »The field immediately North and adjacent to this top-of-the hill site would be preferable for parking because it is lower elevation, screened from view from the trails by trees, and further from the ranger residence Recommendations Report | 35 ASSESSMENT OF SITES This site is located in a former corral area west and below the Red Barn and is visible from the Red Barn itself. The PAWG unanimously determined that this location due west and downhill from the Red Barn was too impactful on the enjoyment of the Red Barn area and any development here should be withdrawn from the PAWG’s consideration. Site E2 Red Barn Area Corral Area Below and West of Red Barn Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Best access to the Central part of the Preserve (iii)* »Consider for permitted access and/or docent led activities »Hikers start off from there, other visitors can rest or take short hikes »A short granite loop trail in this area with limited ADA parking spaces would provide ADA access Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions 36 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Walking in front of the Red Barn is a very special experience and should be limited to docent-led groups so that it can continue to be a historic site reflecting the rural character of the region. »Leave it fairly untouched, with parking out of view and no obvious amenities »Would destroy the rural appeal of Red Barn (iiiii), specifically grading »Hard to say if the site will be preserved »Noise and view of traffic disturbs the quiet; would not want to picnic here Provide safe public access »Road safety could be improved with properly engineered warning signs, turning lane(s), etc. (ii) »Midpen has done its due diligence to study the traffic and will work to make the site acceptably safe given the primary goal of opening up central access (ii) »Driveway alignment and turning movements are the biggest issues »Going to and from the area from Highway 84 would be dangerous (iii) »Collisions have occurred in the area »Equestrian parking would need to be more concentrated elsewhere Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »This area seems to be workable with grazing activities. (ii) »Minimal impact on existing uses »Not sure »Impacts current infrastructure Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Good place to do this (ii) »Opportunity to add short interpretive loop to the Red Barn »Education about grazing, bats, regional trails, steelhead in La Honda Creek, historical pond (ii) »Buffer from the Red Barn »It is noisy (ii) »Exposed to view »Not sure; depends on what Midpen wants Protect scenic views of and from the site »Peaceful views, visual icon »Can have a context-sensitive design »Minimal development here » Impact on the scenic view and rural character would need to be mitigated (iiiii) »Driveway is visually intrusive; consider another alignment Other considerations »Great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing »Reduces neighborhood traffic concerns »More easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area »This is not a center of activity for the Preserve. Recommendations Report | 37 ASSESSMENT OF SITES This site located next to an existing shed south and downhill from the ranger residence. It represents an opportunity to provide a small parking lot and trailhead access in an area with natural screening from the Red Barn and from the highway. This would allow relatively easy access for people with disabilities to enjoy the amenities of the Red Barn area. The majority of the PAWG felt that limiting access to permit- only or docent-led hikes only access could help minimize the highway safety concerns by lessening the number of trips into and out of the area. Of all the Red Barn Area sites, this location received the highest level of support, though the group emphasized that traffic safety would need to be addressed to make this site ultimately viable. Site E3 Red Barn Area Area Near Shed Below Ranger Residence 38 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »New access »Provides good access (iiii)* »Excellent location to begin a hike or visit the Red Barn area »Favorite location Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Potential to complement character of Red Barn (ii) »Well screened by trees (iiii) »Allows the public to get a close-up view of the Red Barn and the views (iii) »Shielded from Hwy 84 (ii) »Does not reflect rural character of the site nor the Red Barn (iii) Provide safe public access »Like E1 would require traffic calming and signage on Highway 84, as well as widening the pull-in area (iiii) »Caltrans can advise re: vehicular access from Highway 84 »Does not provide safe public access (iii) Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »Limited impact on grazing (iiiii) »Less concern about impact on ranger residence »Current leaseholder might be willing to reduce grazing footprint around here? »Wetland pond restoration possible »Might interfere with grazing Include amenities that facilitate environmental education »Could provide amenities (iiiiiii) »Consider interpretive boards (historical, ranching, agricultural uses) and directional signs & maps »A great location to provide easy public access (including ADA) to educational amenities planned for the Red Barn area »Maintain the existing corral structure though the grazer may be willing to relocate his corrals »Perhaps the fencing could be repaired and retained and some education element could be located inside the corral »An inspiring setting »Any new buildings would detract from scenic views and rural character Protect scenic views of and from the site »Potential to hide facilities and minimize view impacts around Red Barn (iiiii) »This area is better hidden from inside the Preserve than the ranger house area (ii) »Not quite as good as the location behind the ranger residence, but still an incredible and safe view »Does not protect scenic views (iii) »Parking would be visible from Highway 84 Other considerations »Use existing ranch roads where possible Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Recommendations Report | 39 ASSESSMENT OF SITES This site is located directly north of the existing ranger residence in an open grassy area not visible from the Red Barn. The PAWG felt that a parking lot here would be less intrusive on the ranger residence than Site E1, but some members still had concerns about impacting the residence. Traffic safety continues to be a concern here, as is the view to this location from the vista point accessed from the Allen Road permit lot. This location did not receive the same level of support as did Site E3. Site E4 Red Barn Area North of Ranger Residence Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve »Likes the site – addresses central access. »Red Barn is the most central as defined by the Board. Addresses access for people who want to stop for a quick trip. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn »Addresses aesthetic issues at Red Barn »E4 better than E3, can be better hidden from Red Barn views »View from Allen Road trail system vista point a potential issue Provide safe public access »Feasibility study may be able to control traffic to make Highway 84 safer »Small driveway on curve »Does not address safety issues at Red Barn (iii)* Summary Table of PAWG comments presented on December 12, 2019 (see Appendices for individual assessment forms) *Note: The parentheses after some comments indicates the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions 40 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group ASSESSMENT OF SITES Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses »E4 intrudes into rolling pasture Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Protect scenic views of and from the site »Supports E4 more than E1, less visible from surrounding trails. »Difference between E1 and E4, how exposed it is from surrounding views. Can see E1 from vista, not sure if people could see E4 location. »E4 is more hidden from the road and passerby’s than E3 »View from Allen Road trail system vista point shows Ranger residence like a sore thumb. Parking lot next to it will not improve the view »E4 is too exposed Other considerations »Too close to Ranger residence »May have some slope problems that make it difficult, but engineering may be possible Recommendations Report | 41 LIMITED ACCESS AND DISTRIBUTION OF USE OPTIONS In addition to considering how the above individual sites could best to accomplish the project’s goals and objectives, the group delved into a range of what were generally described as “other options and iterations” that looked at distributing uses, facilities, and trail access across a range of sites rather than accommodating them all at one location. District staff provided more detail and outlined examples of how these limited access and use distribution options might be used at each site. The suggested limited access and use distribution options included: 1. Access via permit only (would not apply to sites already open to the public) 2. Access via docent-led activities (would not apply to sites already open to the public) 3. Distribution or separation of uses among various sites • Educational or interpretive elements • Picnic or family-oriented elements • Restroom access • Equestrian access • Dog access The PAWG’s site assessment work helped identify which locations were more suitable for one or more of the limited access or use distribution options, and how to ultimately package them in a final recommendation to the PNR.PAWG Member Art Heinrich and Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan discuss opportunities and challenges at one of the site tour locations. 42 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group Recommendations Report | 43 A key finding and principle developed from the PAWG discussions was that no one location could meet all of the project goals and objectives, and provide all of the desired access and functions. Thus, the PAWG discussed “suites” or combinations of sites; that is, a set of uses, amenities, and parking and trailhead access facilities distributed across multiple locations. As described above, the concept was floated early in the deliberations, and the specific recommendation of the PAWG flowed from an evaluation of the potential uses, amenities, and facilities at each location under study. While discussing six different suites of options at their March 5, 2020 meeting, the PAWG identified a seventh suite, combining the sites and elements that the majority of the members felt warranted further evaluation in the feasibility study phase. The group is advancing this suite, described on the next page, as their recommendation to the PNR Committee. Recommendation04 The PAWG discussed “suites” or combinations of sites; that is, a set of uses, amenities, and parking and trailhead access facilities distributed across multiple locations. Above: A beautiful afternoon at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. 44 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group The PAWG voted—7 in favor, 2 opposed, with members Ari Delay and Sandy Sommer absent and not voting—to advance the following suite of options to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee for consideration in the feasibility study phase: D C1 B2 B3 C2 E3 Site B2 or Site B3 – Sears Ranch Road Area (existing lot) Opportunity for additional parking for equestrian trailers and future expansion for vehicles when use of the existing Sears Ranch Road lot exceeds its capacity (size to be determined by physical and other constraints) Site C1 or C2 – Sears Ranch Road Area (interior) Suitable location for picnic, family-friendly, equestrian- serving and interpretive amenities only (type, location, and quantity to be determined during feasibility study phase) Site D – Preserve Gate LH07 Location for a proposed small parking lot (size to be determined by physical and other constraints) with trailhead access and restroom facilities Site E3 – Red Barn Area Location for a proposed small parking lot (size to be determined by physical and other constraints), with limited access (specific constraints to be determined during feasibility study phase, but potential options include permit only/docent-led only conditions) Recommendations Report | 45 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PNR COMMITTEE In addition to the above suite of options assembled and recommended by the PAWG, other PAWG members raised different ideas for PNR Committee consideration (see Appendices). A PAWG member suggested near- term solutions to allow interim expanded public access while longer term options were pursued in the feasibility study phase and in the subsequent site planning, environmental review, and design process. The submitted list of near- term suggestions is included in the Appendices for the PNR Committee’s consideration and feedback. One suggestion to allow public access for hikers at the Event Center is not possible at this time due to the existing use permit conditions set by the County of San Mateo that only allow the limited uses at the site that existed prior to District ownership. Expanding uses and adding parking involves an extensive site planning effort and fulfillment of the County’s permitting requirements to increase use at the site. As part of the process, the District would need to amend the La Honda Creek Master Plan and complete environmental review for the additional planned site improvements and public uses for the Board’s consideration and approval. Other suggestions listed below may be feasible as near-term actions and would require further study if the Committee recommends forwarding them to the full Board with the PAWG’s recommendation. »Add signage at the existing pull out along Highway 84 near the Red Barn with information about current access at the Preserve or interpretive information on the Red Barn and history of the property’s use as a ranch. »Allow opportunities for docent-led hikes north from Harrington Creek Trail along the existing ranch road that leads towards La Honda Creek and the currently closed area of the Preserve. »To open access to the closed area of the Preserve more quickly, prioritize projects providing new trail connections from the Allen Road vista point and Sears Ranch Road parking lot to the Red Barn area (note that scouting for a trail alignment from the parking lot to the Red Barn area is already under way). Another PAWG member suggested a phased approach for providing public access to the Red Barn site (see the submitted proposal in the Appendices). If the Board directs staff to consider this suggestion, the District could initially restrict access to a limited number of vehicles via permit and docent-led activities only. Limited access would be through existing driveways and gates that are currently used by the ranger and grazing tenant. If the feasibility study phase identifies viable improvements to meet safety requirements and reduce speed on the highway, the District could re- visit plans for increased public access and a developed parking area open to the general public. Staff currently does not recommend moving forward with a larger public access plan for the Red Barn area due to overall traffic safety and access concerns related to Highway 84. 46 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group Photo Credit: Randy Weber Recommendations Report | 47 The PAWG worked diligently and respectfully to fulfill its charge. There was a great deal of information provided, considered and generated through the eight-month process, and ultimately this group, representing the broad constituency of the entire District, came to a strategic approach for providing public access to the middle portion of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. These recommendations will be reviewed by the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee, which will determine if additional analysis by the PAWG is warranted, or whether the recommendations will be forwarded to the full Board of Directors for policy action. Conclusion05 Above: Fencing indicates areas of the preserve dedicated to grazing. 48 | La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Public Access Working Group Recommendations Report | 49 Appendices A. Inventory of Meeting Documents B. Meeting Agendas and Summaries C. Public Comments received through March 5, 2020 D. PAWG Communication through March 5, 2020 E. Key Decisionmaking Information 1. PAWG Scores for Individual Sites (3-5-2020) 2. PAWG Scores for Limited Access and Use Distribution Options (“Other Options and Iterations”) (3-5-2020) 3. PAWG Scores for Site E4 Limited Access and Use Distribution Options (3-5-2020) 4. Proposed Suites #1-5 (3-5-2020) 5. Proposed Suite #6 Near-term Options (3-5-2020) 6. PAWG Submission of Suite (2-17-2020) 7. PAWG Submission for Near-term Options (3-1-2020) F. Site Assessment Summaries and Forms 1. Summary of Site Assessments (A, B1, B2, C1, C2, D, E1, E2) (12-12-19) 2. Summary of Site Assessments (B3, E1-re-visited, E3) (2-6-2020) 3. PAWG Tour Assessment Forms (12-12-19) 4. PAWG Tour Assessment Q&As (12-12-19) 5. PAWG Site Assessment Forms (2-6-20) 6. PAWG Hwy 84 Traffic Observations (12-12-19) G. General Information Documents 1. PAWG Purpose Charge Rules and Operating Procedures 2. PAWG Member Bios 3. Master Plan Exhibit 2-4: Preserve Areas 4. Master Plan Figure 11 Trails 5. Vision Plan Portfolio 5 Summary 6. Vision Plan Portfolio 7 Summary 7. Site Considerations Map – Topographic 8. Site Considerations Map – Ownership/Management 9. Site Considerations Map – Natural Resources 10. Site Considerations Map – Trails 11. Site Assessment Criteria (9-12-19) 12. Elevation Gain and Distance to Allen Road Map THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK AAppendix INVENTORY OF MEETING DOCUMENTS THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 of 3 La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study PAWG Meeting Materials The below index lists all the documents and materials shared with the PAWG and posted online on the project website (32TUhttps://www.openspace.org/la-honda-public-access-working-groupU32T). August 22, 2019 PAWG Meeting August 22, 2019 meeting agenda Draft purpose and charge/ rules and operating procedures August 22, 2019 work plan PAWG member bios PAWG meeting binder materials Red Barn/Highway 84 locational map for PAWG traffic observations homework August 22, 2019 PAWG PowerPoint presentation September 12, 2019 PAWG Meeting September 12, 2019 meeting agenda August 22, 2019 draft meeting summary PAWG communications email with Barbara Hooper Chair and vice-chair duties September 12, 2019 work plan Final purpose and charge/ rules and operating procedures Barbara Hooper provided supplemental materials Red Barn project background links PAWG meeting binder materials California Highway patrol traffic incident report September 12, 2019 PAWG PowerPoint presentation October 19, 2019 PAWG Meeting – Site Tour October 19, 2019 Meeting Agenda PAWG communications email with Karl Lusebrink Map of Highway 84 speed limit signage Permit counts for Allen Road and Event Center September 19, 2020 draft meeting summary PAWG communications email with Lou Bordi PAWG communications email with Andie Reed Supplemental Materials o Alternatives suggested by members of the public o Elevation gain map Sears Ranch/Red Barn/Event Center o LHC site tour 1 guide map. o Blank site tour 1 assessment form Page 2 of 3     Roberts Rules Guidance Memo  October 19, 2019 PAWG PowerPoint Presentation November 16, 2019 PAWG Meeting – Site Tour  November 16, 2019 Meeting Agenda  October 19, 2019 draft meeting summary  October 19, 2019 draft meeting summary Q&A  Elevation map Sears Ranch/Red Barn/Event Center/Allen Road  LHC site tour 2 guide map  Blank site tour 2 assessment form  Master Plan Preserve Areas Exhibit 2-4  November 16, 2019 PAWG PowerPoint presentation December 12, 2019 PAWG Meeting  December 12, 2019 Meeting Agenda  October 19, 2019 draft meeting summary  November 16, 2019 draft meeting summary  Bay Area Ridge Trail Memo  PAWG completed site tour 1 and 2 assessment forms  Site tour 1 and 2 assessment form questions  PAWG Highway 84 traffic observations  Permit counts for Allen Road and Event Center activities specific to the Event Center  Additional information o Cal Trans right of way link o Video Footage  View of corral area from Red Barn  Lower Red Barn - Corral area  Lower Red Barn - In corral area  Lower Red Barn - Road from corral area  Site tour 2 hike - Trail down to La Honda Creek  Site tour 2 hike - Trail up from La Honda Creek  PAWG communications email with Kathleen Moazed  PAWG homework maps and blank assessment form for Red Barn behind Ranger residence, Red Barn near white shed and Preserve gate LH15  PAWG assessment summary for all sites  Public comments  December 12, 2019 PAWG PowerPoint presentation February 6, 2020 PAWG Meeting  February 6, 2020 meeting agenda  December 12, 2020 draft meeting summary  Map of site options  PAWG completed assessment form for Red Barn behind Ranger residence, Red Barn near white shed and Preserve gate LH15  PAWG assessment summary for all sites (including new sites added)  Other Options Table  Sample Suite of Options Table  Ari Delay’s Site Tour No. 1& 2 Assessment Forms  Barbara Hooper Provided Supplemental Materials Page 3 of 3     Highway 84 Traffic Letter  Public comments  February 6, 2020 PAWG PowerPoint presentation March 5, 2020 PAWG Meeting  March 5, 2020 Meeting Agenda  February 6, 2020 draft meeting summary  PAWG Scores for Sites  E4 Assessment and Score Forms  PAWG Scores for Other Options and Iterations  Suites 1-5  Suites Narrative Feedback  PAWG communications email regarding the San Francisco Chronicle article  PAWG communications email with Karl Lusebrink regarding site E4  E4 Assessment and Score Forms REVISED  Scores for Other Options and Iterations REVISED  Suites 1-5 REVISED  Suites 6 Near-term options  Barbara Hooper - near term options  Suites Narrative Feedback from Sandy Sommer  Map of Site Options  Public Comment  March 5, 2020 PAWG PowerPoint presentation THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BAppendix MEETING AGENDAS AND SUMMARIES THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Thursday, August 22, 2019 Meeting starts at 6:30 PM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1.Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board- approved project goals and objectives. 2.Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 6:30 LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □Lou Bordi □Ari Delay □Art Heinrich □Karl Lusebrink □Barbara Hooper □Kathleen Moazed □Melany Moore □Denise Phillips □Andie Reed □Sandy Sommer □Willie Wool □Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 1.Welcome and Introductions 2.Working Group Business Kick Off and Orientation 1.Review and approve work plan and schedule 2. Review and approve ground rules and operating procedures Public comment 9:30 ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on August 19, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 3 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting (PAWG or WG) MEETING SUMMARY August 22, 2019 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 ROLL CALL Tina Hugg called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group to order at 6:32 p.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors (Non-voting members)  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Working Group Members  Lou Bordi, Ward 6 Representative  Ari Delay, La Honda Community Representative  Art Heinrich, Ward 2 Representative  Barbara Hooper, Ward 6 Representative  Karl Lusebrink, La Honda Community Representative  Kathleen Moazed, La Honda Community Representative  Melany Moore, Ward 1 Representative  Denise Phillips, Ward 7 Representative  Andie Reed, Ward 5 Representative  Sandy Sommer, Ward 4 Representative  Willie Wool, Ward 3 Representative District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Luke Mulhall, Planning Administrative Assistant  Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager  Melissa Borgesi, Planner I  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter, Ana Padilla WORKING GROUP BUSINESS General Manager Ana Ruiz welcomed everyone to the initial meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG or WG) Meeting. Ms. Ruiz introduced Midpen staff and MIG consultants Lou Hexter and Ana Padilla, as the Working Group facilitation team. She also recognized District Board Directors Curt Riffle and Larry Hassett who will be serving as non-voting members of the Working Group and will be providing periodic updates Page 2 of 3 to the full Board of Directors. Ms. Ruiz thanked everyone for volunteering their time and energy to the project and stated the purpose of the kickoff meeting is to acquaint everyone with their colleagues and with the process ahead of them. The goal of the Working Group is to identify recommendations for public access in the central part of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, as part of the La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study. Ms. Ruiz reminded everyone the Working Group is subject to the Brown Act, meaning all meetings are noticed and open to the public, the discussions and decision-making process must be transparent, and there are opportunities for public comment at each Working Group meeting. Director Curt Riffle and Director Larry Hassett introduced themselves and offered their perspectives on the importance of the Working Group process in helping the District develop the best possible opportunities for public access to the La Honda Creek Preserve. Mr. Hexter presented a brief overview of the meeting agenda, followed by Ms. Hugg, who reviewed the Working Group’s purpose and charge. She noted that the PAWG will be providing input to the Midpen Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee who will be reporting any recommendations to the full Board for their review and consideration. The Board will make final policy decisions informed by input from both the WG and PNR to determine which option(s) will move forward into the environmental review phase. There was a question about whether the PAWG will be coming up with physical designs for public access, and the response was that the Group’s recommendations will be more for preferred location and siting of access rather than detailed designs. Working Group members introduced themselves, describing their background, their reasons for becoming involved in the project, and what their hopes are for this process. Mr. Hexter took notes of key themes on a wall graphic (attached). Members described a desire to achieve access that: makes sense, is safe, is inviting to both visitors and locals, offers education regarding the area and its ecosystems, promotes stewardship, and provides a scenic, aesthetic, and has an intentional design to benefit the local, regional, and visiting communities. The Working Group then reviewed the PAWG Workplan and Schedule, including the proposed topics for each session, which are intended to provide guidance. The Working Group members expressed appreciation for the two scheduled site visits. Working Group members Kathleen Moazed and Barbara Hooper commented on the importance of PAWG members experiencing highway conditions in the summer rather than waiting until the first scheduled site visit in October. They suggested PAWG members visit the Highway 84 corridor near the Red Barn pullout prior to the September 12 PAWG meeting. The purpose of this homework would be to observe traffic conditions and driver behaviors to gain an understanding of some of the challenges related to these issues. Staff agreed to prepare a communication regarding the homework, including a map of the area, and distribute it to the PAWG so observations could begin the following weekend. Kathleen Moazed offered a motion to adopt the workplan and schedule, with the amendment of including as a homework assignment to visit the Highway 84 corridor to observe traffic conditions on a weekend before the September 12 meeting. The motion was seconded by Denise Phillips. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Hexter then reviewed the ground rules and expectations for WG member participation. A member inquired when meeting materials would be sent prior to the meetings. Staff indicated that the intention is that meeting materials will be sent a week in advance. Additional clarification regarding PAWG member communications outside official meetings was provided. In order to adhere to the Brown Act, there is to be no discussion between Adopting the Workplan and Schedule Ayes – (11) Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Willie Wool, Sandy Sommer, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips Noes – (0) Abstentions -- (0) Absent -- (0) Non-Voting - Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Page 3 of 3 and/or among PAWG members regarding matters pertaining to this project, and discussions with members of the public must be strictly informational; i.e., no opinions or official positions on topics may be shared with other PAWG members outside of the publicly noticed meetings. WG deliberations need to remain transparent to the public so that they can provide comment. Members asked a variety of questions regarding the procedures, including a description of and time commitment for the Chair and Vice Chair duties. Midpen staff estimated an additional two hours for preparation before the meeting, then potentially one to two hours after the meeting to debrief with the project team. There was a longer discussion regarding the public comment period, since this section was written follow Midpen’s typical process for its public meetings. One WG member proposed having public comments at the beginning of the WG meetings to allow members of the public, who have traveled a long distance, to speak to the WG if they need to leave before the end of the meeting. Another suggested that the WG Chair or Vice-Chair could call for public comments at any time. To make sure there are other ways to provide input, the group was also informed the public may provide written comments by mail or email; further guidance can be found on the project website. After the discussion, Denise Phillips motioned to adopt the Ground Rules and Operating Procedures, with an amendment to include two public comment periods, one at the beginning of the meeting and another to be held at the discretion of the WG Chair. The motion was seconded by Willie Wool. By unanimous vote the Working Group approved the Ground Rules and Procedures, as amended. Adoption of the WG Ground Rules and Operating Procedure Ayes – (11) Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Willie Wool, Sandy Sommer, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips Noes – (0) Abstentions -- (0) Absent -- (0) Non-Voting - Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Melissa Borgesi, planner with Midpen, offered a description of the binders provided to each of the PAWG members, which contain a variety of materials to assist members prepare for Working Group meetings. Additional materials are available online or as hard copies by request. Between each of the PAWG meetings, members will be asked to complete additional work or preparation in order to make each session as productive as possible. The homework due September 12 is to get familiar with the binder and, as described earlier, to visit Highway 84 in the vicinity of the Red Barn and the community of La Honda to observe traffic flow, violations, and modes of transportation. A debrief of these observations will be added as a discussion topic on the September 12 agenda. In the future, if a WG member has information to share, it should be transmitted to Midpen staff, who will then distribute it to the rest of the WG members and post it on the website. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments were made. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hexter adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group at 9:01 p.m. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Thursday, September 12, 2019 Meeting starts at 6:30 PM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1. Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. 2. Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 6:30 LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □ Lou Bordi □ Ari Delay □ Art Heinrich □ Karl Lusebrink □ Barbara Hooper □ Kathleen Moazed □ Melany Moore □ Denise Phillips □ Andie Reed □ Sandy Sommer □ Willie Wool □ Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □ Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview 2. Working Group Business 1. Public comment 2. Recap Working Group purpose and charge / Feasibility Study goals and objectives 3. Select Working Group Chair and Vice-Chair 4. Review and approve August 22, 2019 meeting summary 5. Receive background information on District mission, Strategic Plan, Vision Plan, Measure AA 6. Receive background information on planning and environmental review process 7. Receive background information on La Honda Creek Master Plan 8. Receive background information on site conditions 9. Items for next meeting 10. Previous homework discussion 11. Next steps: New homework / October 19 site tour 12. Public comment 9:30 ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the beginning and at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to two minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on August 19, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 5 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Sept 12, 2019 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM MEETING SUMMARY ROLL CALL Lou Hexter called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) to order at 6:33 p.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors (Non-Voting Members)  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Working Group Members  Lou Bordi, Ward 6 Representative  Ari Delay, La Honda Community Representative  Art Heinrich, Ward 2 Representative  Barbara Hooper, Ward 6 Representative  Karl Lusebrink, La Honda Community Representative  Kathleen Moazed, La Honda Community Representative  Melany Moore, Ward 1 Representative  Denise Phillips, Ward 7 Representative  Andie Reed, Ward 5 Representative  Sandy Sommer, Ward 4 Representative  Willie Wool, Ward 3 Representative District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager  Melissa Borgesi, Planner I  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter, Ana Padilla WELCOME MIG facilitator Lou Hexter presented a brief overview of the meeting agenda, followed by a review of project goals and objectives. Page 2 of 5 PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments were made. WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Mr. Hexter and staff reviewed the PAWG Chair and Vice-Chair responsibilities including the expectation that the Chair and Vice-Chair will coordinate with the project team through various briefings and debriefings. Four Working Group members indicated an interest in serving as Chair: Sandy Sommers, Denise Phillips, Barbara Hooper, and Ari Delay. Chair (Most votes), Vice-Chair (2nd most votes) Barbara Hooper (5) Denise Philips (3) Sandy Sommer (2) Ari Delay (1) Abstentions (0) Absent (0) Non -Voting - Curt Riffle, Larry Hassett Barbara Hooper was voted as Chair with five votes, and Denise Phillips was voted as Vice-Chair with three votes. Ms. Sommer moved and Mr. Delay seconded a motion to approve the August 22, 2019, PAWG Meeting Summary. Approving the August 22, 2019, PAWG Meeting Summary Ayes (11) - Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Sandy Sommer, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (0) Non -Voting (2) - Curt Riffle, Larry Hassett The PAWG unanimously approved the motion. General Manager Ana Ruiz presented background information on the District’s mission, Strategic Plan, Vision Plan, and Measure AA. She pointed out the District’s goals for the next 40 years and the list of the 54 priority areas the District would like to improve. The Measure AA Expenditure Plan provides funding for the top 25 priority areas, including the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Planning Manager Jane Mark provided background information on the planning and environmental review process, noting the La Honda Creek Master Plan process was one of the District’s first long-term planning efforts. The Master Plan process included an exploration of various sites and visions for parking and trailheads to understand how the Preserve would be used by locals, visitors, equestrians and dog walkers. Ms. Mark described the various portions of the Preserve, including Conservation Management Units (CMUs), which are designated areas that restrict public access in order to conserve and protect sensitive habitats. Page 3 of 5 Following Ms. Ruiz and Ms. Mark’s presentations, the Working Group asked questions and shared general observations and comments. Mr. Bordi spoke about the prior Red Barn meetings and mentioned the La Honda community’s passionate response to the Red Barn project. He characterized the main concerns as road safety and preserving the natural state and viewshed of the Red Barn. Ms. Sommers commented that she felt the Master Plan was well done because access points to the preserve were spread out to distribute use. Ms. Moazed commented that the community is incredibly passionate about the Red Barn site, and Mr. Lusebrink suggested that the community supported the Master Plan but had concerns about the last Red Barn conceptual design presented at the June 12, 2018 public meeting. Senior Planner Tina Hugg presented information on current site conditions, which will be considerations in the upcoming work to find potential public access points. Ms. Hugg stated the goal for the project, per the Master Plan, is to provide access to the central portion of the Preserve without encroaching in the CMU areas. Ms. Moazed asked how far the Allen Road access point is to the central part of the preserve. Staff explained that it will depend on the actual trail alignment, but it is about 10 miles. The District presented a set of site assessment criteria used to assess the feasibility of a potential parking area and trailhead location, and specifically for this project, provides access to the center area of the preserve. Staff described the criteria, explaining that sites may not be able to meet all criteria to the degree that PAWG members would prefer. This set of criteria will be referenced during upcoming site tours. Ms. Moazed asked what activities will be accommodated at the access points the PAWG will be analyzing. Midpen staff explained that potential uses will be considerations for the PAWG, along with the District’s goal to provide access to the center of the Preserve. As a follow up, it was asked if the site analysis can consider the expansion of existing parking lots. Staff explained that if the PAWG agrees on this recommendation and it could create access to the center of the preserve, this option can be studied further. Tina Hugg provided information from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) regarding traffic incident reports along State Route 84 (SR84) from Skyline Road to Sears Ranch Road. Ms. Moazed requested the numerical or statistical data that is represented in the maps. The PAWG also requested similar data from CALFIRE, and Mr. Delay volunteered to help with obtaining this data for the incident reports. Chair Hooper opened the floor for agendizing items for the next meeting. Mr. Delay proposed the group look at other access points during the first tour, and staff explained that access points suggested by the PAWG would be visited during the second site tour. Mr. Bordi reiterated the Preserve needs more access and inquired if the District has prioritized safety and included it as a criterion. Ms. Ruiz stated that while on the site tour that the PAWG can consider a variety of ideas, e.g., “What is safe now? Are there other areas that could be safer? What is necessary for a new site?” Additionally, there are other iterations of previously presented ideas that may also work. Ms. Wool asked whether California Highway Patrol (CHP) could provide injury and fatality reports. Page 4 of 5 Chair Hooper thanked the District for the opportunity to share information with the community and bring their perspectives to the PAWG. She wished to submit three documents for distribution to the PAWG, including letters with references to alternative access points, details about the community petitions, and traffic documents from CALFIRE, CHP, and Caltrans. Director Riffle asked the District if they could access an engineer's opinion in recommending parking and safety improvements. Ms. Sommer shared her opinion that it will be necessary to tame the highway and change the paradigm from traveling from point A to B, because currently the road is not meant to be a leisurely drive. Mr. Lusebrink asked what kind of assessment is necessary with the Red Barn. The District stated that Caltrans usually will not provide input without project plans to review, but the PAWG can potentially consider other projects as case studies. Mr. Hexter suggested that perhaps there could be a presentation of the type of traffic safety tools that might be available on the roadway. Mr. Delay stated that the group knows that focus is in the center in the Preserve but hopes the PAWG can go in with an open mind and should not focus solely on the Red Barn site. Next, Mr. Hexter opened the discussion regarding the previous homework, which was to observe traffic conditions along the SR84 corridor, especially in front of the Red Barn. The PAWG members described their observations with several noting the following: - The traffic was calmer and tamer than expected. - Illegal maneuvers, such as U-turns and illegal passing, were noted. - The drivers were generally well behaved and civilized. - Motorcyclists were generally the worst behaved. - The lack of passing lanes and pullouts make it difficult for drivers to pass slower vehicles. - Drivers seem to approach the drive with different mindsets: leisurely drive to take in scenery or a means for getting from Point A to Point B. Causing different types of driving behavior. - Expressed concern regarding the safety of cyclists. NEXT MEETING HOMEWORK The October 19 site tour will begin at 9:00 am from La Honda Elementary School. PAWG members requested permits for Driscoll and Allen Roads. Staff reported PAWG members may now get a permit for Driscoll Road, and Allen Road is already open via permit. Chair Hooper requested the records of permits at each access location to date. Ms. Ruiz added that access at the Allen Road location is limited to a specified number of vehicles by an agreement with property owners along this private road. Ms. Sommer reminded the group that she is unable to attend the tour but previously spent time in the Preserve. Page 5 of 5 PUBLIC COMMENT No speakers present. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hooper adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group at 9:20 pm. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Rd La Honda, CA 94020 Saturday, October 19, 2019 Meeting starts at 9:00 AM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1. Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. 2. Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 9:00AM LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □ Lou Bordi □ Ari Delay □ Art Heinrich □ Karl Lusebrink □ Barbara Hooper □ Kathleen Moazed □ Melany Moore □ Denise Phillips □ Andie Reed □ Sandy Sommer □ Willie Wool □ Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □ Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview 9:30AM 10:30AM 2. Working Group Business 1. Public comment 2. Review and approve September 12, 2019 meeting summary 3. Driving tour a. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – 4155 Sears Ranch Road, La Honda, CA b. Red Barn – 150 Jeep Trail, Redwood City, CA 11:40AM 12:10PM c. Event Center – 5710 La Honda Road, La Honda, CA d. La Honda Elementary School – 450 Sears Ranch Rd, La Honda, CA 4. Closing comments 5. Public comment 1:00PM ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the beginning and at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to two minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on October 15, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 4 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Rd La Honda, CA 94020 October 19, 2019 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM MEETING SUMMARY UROLL CALL Chair Barbara Hooper called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group to order at 9:00 a.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors (Non-Voting Members)  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Working Group Members  Lou Bordi, Ward 6 Representative  Ari Delay, La Honda Community Representative  Art Heinrich, Ward 2 Representative  Barbara Hooper, Ward 6 Representative  Karl Lusebrink, La Honda Community Representative  Kathleen Moazed, La Honda Community Representative  Melany Moore, Ward 1 Representative  Denise Phillips, Ward 7 Representative  Andie Reed, Ward 5 Representative  Sandy Sommer, Ward 4 Representative  Willie Wool, Ward 3 Representative District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner  Melissa Borgesi, Planner I  Luke Mulhall, Planning Administrative Assistant  Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager  Michael Jurich, Land & Facilities Manager  Aaron Peth, Planner III  Xucan Zhou, Planner II  Chris Barresi, Area Superintendent  Haven Lund, Ranger MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter, Ana Padilla Page 2 of 4 UPUBLIC COMMENTU No public comments were made. UWORKING GROUP BUSINESS Chair Hooper asked for a motion to approve the September 12, 2019 La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG or WG) meeting summary. The PAWG requested that contextual language be added to Ms. Moazed’s comments describing the community's passion to preserve the Red Barn site. Ms. Wool moved to approve the summary with the suggested additional context; Ms. Moore seconded. The WG unanimously approved the motion. Approving the September 12, 2019, PAWG Meeting Summary, as amended Ayes (11) - Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (1) - Sandy Sommer Non -Voting (2) - Curt Riffle, Larry Hassett Planner I Melissa Borgesi explained the purpose of the tour is for members to observe each of the three potential public access sites (Attachment 2). PAWG members were instructed to record their observations according to the project objectives and criteria on a provided worksheet. Senior Planner Tina Hugg explained the tour logistics and route, which includes stops at the Sears Ranch Road trailhead area, the Red Barn area, and the Event Center (formerly Driscoll Ranch). General Manager Ana Ruiz reviewed the project goals and objectives. At the Sears Ranch Road trailhead area, the PAWG drove a loop within the existing parking lot and noted potential expansion opportunities there. The group proceeded about one mile into the preserve, stopping at the “former residence/dog kennel” area for observations about possible development of parking and trailhead infrastructure there. At the Red Barn area, the PAWG viewed two locations: one just beyond the existing ranger residence north of the Red Barn and another in the area west and downslope of the Red Barn. At each location, District staff described site constraints and opportunities and highlighted the need for working with the grazing tenant to ensure continued grazing operations with minimal impacts, among other issues. One member reminded fellow PAWG members that the site tour is a time for members to observe and gather information rather than to share opinions or advocate for a particular site. At the Event Center (formerly Driscoll Ranch) at the southernmost end of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve), the group walked through the tunnel under Highway 84 and viewed the connection to the equestrian trail that leads to the Harrington Creek Trail in the lower Preserve. Page 3 of 4 While traveling to each site, District staff answered basic questions about the preserve and distinguished which land is owned by the District and which is privately-held. Staff shared the questions and responses at each site, and that list is included as Attachment 1 to this summary. Following the tour, the group returned to La Honda Elementary School for a debrief. The PAWG members shared their initial impressions of the site visits. One PAWG member expressed that the site visit should be seen as an opportunity to objectively gather information and not to lobby for any given site. At the Sears Ranch Road area, some members felt the existing parking lot and “former residence/dog kennel” area are viable opportunities, noting the sense of quiet and remoteness with safe access. Being close to the calving operation provided an agricultural connection and opportunities for equestrian staging and uses were benefits. At the Red Barn, PAWG members noted the intrusion of noise and the traffic along that stretch of Highway 84. Some suggested parking in the area adjacent to the ranger residence or allowing parking by permit access only as alternatives to building a parking lot visible from the highway. Though driveway access from Highway 84 would still be a concern, some PAWG members suggested a parking area behind the ranger residence would retain the corral intact near the Red Barn. PAWG members suggested there is an opportunity for an interpretive center at the location. The PAWG discussed the availability of space, opportunities to access and interpret the agricultural history of the Preserve, and the visual appeal and the regional draw of the barn and corral. PAWG members inquired about the possible impact of development of the site on the former pond and potential wetlands area. Providing docent-led hikes via special permit was also suggested as an alternative to developing the Red Barn site. At the Event Center, a member proposed separating visitor uses, such as equestrian uses and hiking uses to prevent potential conflicts. Proposed uses would need coordination with the grazing tenant whose cattle use the site and tunnel. Another mentioned equestrian access was better at the Sears Ranch Road area, as the trails from the Event Center are steep. There was a desire to see hike-in access from the Event Center. It was mentioned by a PAWG member that long stretches of Highway 84, including at this location, can be used as passing zones, and can cause hazardous conditions for safe highway access. The PAWG discussed opportunities for developing an education center at the Event Center and for increasing revenue-generating events, such as rodeos. The PAWG members also shared overall general comments from the site tours, such as building smaller parking areas across multiple sites instead of building one large parking area. UNEXT MEETING HOMEWORK To prepare for the November 16 site tour, District staff asked the PAWG to submit additional suggestions for possible site locations to tour by October 31. Once staff receives the information, staff will determine the feasibility of visiting the proposed locations. Staff reminded PAWG Members to submit the data they collected from their traffic observations at the Red Barn (homework from August 22, 2019 PAWG meeting) and their completed observations worksheet from the current site tour by October 23. The Board liaisons recommended that the PAWG members visit other District parking lots. They also suggested visiting the Allen Road permit parking area and the upper La Honda trails for an understanding of the northern extent of the preserve. Members should request a permit from District staff to visit the Page 4 of 4 Allen Road permit parking. In addition, members can visit the El Corte de Madera parking lot at Gate CM00 before the November site tour to see a lot not visible from the highway. UPUBLIC COMMENT A member of the public, who also went on the site tour, commented the Red Barn site is sacred to the community and thanked the District for including the public in the site visits and for a great experience. UADJOURNMENT Chair Hooper adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group at 1:00 pm. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 5 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting MEETING SUMMARY October 19, 2019 Attachment 1 – Questions and Answers Sears Ranch Road Stop 1. Is there only one road going to the former residence area (located one mile north of the existing Sears Ranch parking lot)? There is only one road accessing that site from the existing parking lot. Other ranch roads branch out from that road into the Preserve. 2. Is the Sears Ranch lot an option for the Working Group to consider? Part of the Board of Directors’ (Board’s) direction provided on June 12, 2018 was to assess expansion of the existing lot as one alternative to the Red Barn site. 3. Is dog use allowed at Sears Ranch parking area? Dog use is not currently allowed in the area near the Sears Ranch parking lot. Per the 2012 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan (La Honda Master Plan), dogs- on-leash uses would be evaluated for a new loop trail near the Sears Ranch parking lot. As part of this new trail use evaluation, the District would need to coordinate with the grazing tenant to avoid impact to the grazing operation’s cows and calves. 4. Will the trail continue to be a trail? The road/trail that is currently open to the public will continue to be the Harrington Creek Trail. This trail connects the Sears Ranch parking lot to the rest of the Preserve and will remain a trail. 5. Can you explain ranching uses? The District entered into a lease with a grazing tenant who currently runs a calving operation in the area. The area near the Sears Ranch parking lot is a highly productive pasture for the cattle. Conservation grazing is a tool to help manage vegetative fuel loads and remove invasive weeds that would otherwise require time-consuming manual removal or chemical application. 6. Is the fencing for the pedestrians, to keep them away from the cows? Why isn’t there fencing on both sides of the road? Page 2 of 5 The fence is not to keep hikers away from the cattle; it is used to manage the cattle’s access to different pastures. The cattle pass from one pasture area to another through gates in the fences. Hikers are expected to leave gates as they find them – open or closed, so as not to interfere with the grazing tenant’s operation. The District provides information to educate people how to conduct themselves around cattle. https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/hiking-among-grazing-animals 7. Would expanding the existing lot or adding a new parking area at the Sears Ranch location require widening the driveway for two-way vehicle access? The District would need to consult with the County of San Mateo (County) on the level of roadway improvements required for the existing driveway if an expansion to the existing lot or new parking area were proposed. Based on prior communications with the County, expansion of the Sears Ranch parking lot, including additional equestrian parking, would likely trigger the need to widen the road. This includes the section of road leading from the Sears Ranch parking lot to the La Honda Elementary School parking lot. 8. Would the access road need more fencing if the former residence area is used as parking? A new parking lot would need to be outside the grazing area, similar to how the existing lot is situated. If the existing road were used to access a new parking area in the interior of the Preserve, it would need to be fenced to separate cars from the cattle. Currently vehicular traffic is restricted to tenant and District vehicles. 9. How long are the grazing leases? The terms of grazing leases vary. The lease for this area of the Preserve was for five years with a five-year option to extend. 10. Are there plans for trail access in these pastures? Yes, the La Honda Master Plan proposes additional phases of trails. The District is currently working on Phase II trails in the vicinity of the Sears Ranch parking lot, and staff will coordinate plans with the grazing tenant. 11. Will there be equestrian parking at Sears Ranch Road Parking lot? If the parking lot were expanded, accommodating equestrian parking would be studied. 12. Could there be an alternative parking site in the flat area near the road to the residence (tucked into trees) across from the Sears Ranch Road parking lot? If this location is an alternative recommended by the PAWG and PNR and approved by the Board, it would need to be further analyzed and evaluated. 13. What are the impacts to productive pastures and calving operation? Minimally, additional fenced off access roads and parking lots within the Preserve will take away productive grazing acreage from the cattle operation, impact how the cattle Page 3 of 5 are moved on and off the site, and limit how the cattle can move from one side of the access road to the other. The grazing tenant may identify more impacts than those listed here. 14. Is the grazer local? The grazing tenant is local to the Central Coast area. In addition to this lease, the tenant has leases in the East Bay and Santa Clara County. 15. How does the District choose a grazing tenant? The District issues a Request for Proposals. The selection process considers applicants’ experience, capacity, history, and knowledge, including natural resource management issues, and also considers District policies related to grazing. 16. What was the reason for tearing down the former residence? When the house was structurally evaluated, it was found to lack a foundation and the walls and flooring were severely degraded. In addition, it was not built to code. It was deemed not feasible to repair the structure. Red Barn Stop 1. How would public access here work with grazing operations? For any public access proposal in the Preserve, the District would need to work with the grazing tenants to avoid impacts to their operations. 2. Has the area behind the ranger residence been studied before? No in-depth study of the area has been done. If this location is an alternative recommended by the PAWG and PNR and approved by the Board, it would need to be further analyzed and evaluated. 3. With the bat roosting in Red Barn, does that mean there’s no public access inside the barn? Yes, there is no public access inside the Red Barn. In addition, a buffer around the exterior of the Red Barn would be established with California Department of Fish and Wildlife input to protect the roosting bat habitat from nearby activities. Any proposed public uses would have to be located outside of this buffer. 4. If the Red Barn site were a permit parking lot, would it still need access through the driveway? At this time, access to the Red Barn area would still need to be accessed through a driveway onto Highway 84. It would have to be determined whether a new driveway would be required for a permit lot or whether the existing driveways could be used. A permit parking lot would limit the number of vehicles that would be using the parking lot and entering and exiting the highway. Page 4 of 5 5. Are there plans to paint the Red Barn? Yes, painting the Red Barn is on the District’s work plan in the upcoming year. Event Center Stop 1. Why is the Event Center trail equestrian only? The Event Center accommodates many uses on site, such as grazing operations, District field office, and equestrian activities, that do not currently need a use permit from the County. Expanding the use at the site would require a use permit from the County, which is a lengthy process necessitating the development of a site plan for the property. Site planning would be a future effort for this location and would also require an amendment to the La Honda Master Plan. 2. Is the Event Center an option for the Working Group to consider? Part of the Board’s direction provided on June 12, 2018 was to assess public access at the Event Center site as one alternative to the Red Barn site. 3. Is the Event Center open to the public? Consistent with the historic equestrian uses on the property, the Event Center is currently open to equestrians only. A future site planning process would include establishing uses for the site among other considerations involved in planning a property prior to opening it to the public. Any new uses, such as hiking and biking uses, would be evaluated during that site plan development and this area would be added to the overall La Honda Master Plan, which was completed before the property was acquired. The District would then obtain a use permit from the County during implementation of the site plan, prior to opening the site to the public. 4. The trail past the tunnel under Highway 84 is steep and not ideal for hikers or equestrians – would there be a potential for less steep trail? Where terrain allows, the District prefers to build trails that average 8% in steepness to improve the hiking experience. It is possible that there is a less steep trail alignment from the tunnel area and that would take further analysis and work with the District trail design and construction experts. There are two nearby residences that would have to be considered as well. Preserve Gate LH07 (drive by location) 1. Is there a flat area at Gate LH07? There is a small, narrow, and somewhat flat area just inside the gate to the north. It will require additional analysis regarding the type of site improvements, which may require safety measures, tree removal and grading. 2. Could there be a small permit parking lot here? Page 5 of 5 It will take further study but potentially this site could accommodate a small parking lot. 3. Are there traffic issues at this location based on prior traffic reports? Based on the April 26, 2007 Evaluation of Access Constraints and Opportunities Along Highway 84 prepared for the La Honda Master Plan, there are traffic safety issues at this location. The evaluation offered potential solutions to address those issues. It will take further study and coordination with Caltrans to verify what highway improvements are feasible and permissible in this location. General Questions 1. What is the definition of the center of the Preserve? The central area of the Preserve is shown on a map labeled “Exhibit 2-4 Preserve Areas” in the La Honda Master Plan (attached here as Q&A Exhibit). The southerly edge runs approximately east and west from Preserve Gate LH07. The northerly edge runs east and west approximately 0.75 miles north of the Red Barn area. 2. Would the District be willing to purchase the adjacent property south of the Red Barn? The District is willing to purchase property on a willing seller basis if the property would benefit natural resources or public access or address other needs that the District may have. 3. Is there a residence at the adjacent property south of the Red Barn? There is a residence on that property. 4. What is a CMU? Highly unique and sensitive areas can be designated as Conservation Management Units (CMUs). They are managed for resource protection, conservation, and viewshed values. General public access is not allowed in CMUs. 5. Who manages the CMUs? The District manages the CMUs. 6. Is Allen Road not an option? Expansion of the Allen Road parking area and an increase in use are not feasible due to a prior agreement with neighbors along this private road that limits vehicular access to ten vehicles per day. 7. Will Caltrans ever put in a bike lane on highway 84? Caltrans District 4 has recently completed a Bike Plan. Bicycle lanes on Hwy 84 do not appear to be proposed per the mapping tool provided by Caltrans online. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=91f1bb4eb7ff418092977b 762b459d01 Project Description and Background Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-8 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan IS/MND EExhibit 2-4 Preserve Areas Oct. 19, 2019 Meeting Summary Q&A Exhibit !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P (CM09) (C M 0 6 ) (CM05 ) (LH03) (LH01) (LH11) Ray's Peak 1,037' Vista Point ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 O l d L a Honda R o a d Bea r G ulchRoad To Pescadero S e a r s R a n c h R o ad Sta r H illRd. La H o n d a Ro a d C i e l o Tr a i l V irginia M i l l T r a i l G o r do n Mi l l T r ai lTimberview Trail H a r r i n gton Creek Tra i l Folger R a n ch L o o p T r a i l L a w r e nce C reek Tr ail B l u e Blossom Tr a i l 0.2 0.51.4 L aH o n d aCr e e k Langley Creek San Greg ori o Creek W o o d r u f f C r e e k Harring t o n Creek E l C o r te de Madera Creek L a w r e n c e Cree k B o g e s sCre e k Woodhams Creek Weeks Creek 16 0 0 600 400 200 80 0 2000 18 0 0 600 400 2000 14 0 0 160 0 1400 1200 800 6 0 0 600 600 400 1000 800 200 0 180 0 100 0 120 0 80 0 800 800 1 0 0 0 600 800 80 0 800 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVEEL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE THORNEWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Private Property Private Property Private Property LA HONDA Cielo Trail Coho Vista Loop Trail Red Barn H a rrin gto n Creek H a r r i n g t o n C r e e k Trail H a r r i n g t o n C r e e k Tr a i l 3.2 1.3 1. 1 1.2 ÄÆ84 Private Property Private Property Private Property LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE A l l e n Road ÄÆ84 L a Ho n d a R o a d Private Property The only vehicle access to northern La Honda Creek Preserve is by permit on Allen Road. No parking outside of Preserve gate. No access from Skyline Boulevard. (See individual Preserve brochure for more details) (See individual Preserve brochure for more details)Big Tree Equestrian parking by permit only. Permit only equestrian trail. CLOSED AREA 400 600 80 0 80 0 600 8 0 0 4 0 0 600 80 0 100 0 1000 8 0 0 8 0 0 1000 0.3 180 0 2000 Sk y l i n e B o u l e v ard 600 White Barn To San Gregorio To Windy Hill Open Space Preserve 0.5 Folger Ranch Loop Trail is closed seasonally. Attention Hikers and Equestrians: Grazing is an important tool for grassland management. Cattle on trail in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Additional information is available at www.openspace.org LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE (LH10) La H o nd a Ro ad La Hon d a C reek San G r e g ori o C reek This is a working ranch. Visitors must stay on designated trails. No access or parking on Hwy 84. ! (Pr i v a t e ) Permit Only ÄÆ35 Spring Board Trail $01 $02 0 . 3 No Through Access C o h o Vist a Trail 0.7 1800 1600 © MROSD 10/1/201801 Mile 01 Kilometer In case of emergency, call 911 or 24-hour Ranger Dispatch at (650) 968-4411. For your safety, and the protection of the preserves: The preserve is open from dawn until one-half hour after sunset; La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Map Legend Midpen Preserve Closed Area - No Public Access Other Public Land Other Public Land - Restricted Access Private or Leased Land - No Public Access No Public Entry in Midpen Water Areas Road Vehicle Driveway !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!Equestrian Only !!!!Hiking, Equestrian Hiking, Bicycling, Equestrian !P Trail Junction ##Numbered Trail Junction Gate (#) Parking Lot Equestrian Parking Restroom Point of Interest Notable Flora Tunnel Other Public or Private Building Residence Auto burglaries are increasing; Take valuables with you and lock your vehicle. Pack it in, pack it out- please do not litter; Please leave natural features, plants, and animals undisturbed; I For More Information Visit www.openspace.org or call (650) 691-1200 Dogs on Leash Permitted on Designated Trails Bicycles not permitted in this Preserve       4FBST3BODI3PBE stop 3FE#BSO stop &WFOU$FOUFS stop PPP!!!!!!(LH11)(LH(L(L((((L 11)))) SSSSSSS eeeeeeeee aaaaa Tr a ii l R Ba 00000000000 00000000 00 000000000000000 PPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EquEquEquueeeeeeq by by by by byby pe MileileMileileileile d a ngleyy C angl Cr/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/DD/D/D/D/D +++R+R++R+R+R+R+RQGQGQQGQGQGQGQGQGQGDDDDD+++R+R+R+R+R++R+RQGQGQGGGQGQGQGGGGDDDDDDDDDgglleeeeyyyy (O(O W(O(O(O(O(O(O(HPHPHPHPHPHPHQHQHQHQHQHQQWDWDWDWDWDWDDU\U\U\U\\\U\\\U\\\\\\ 6F6F6F6F6F6F6FKRKRKRKRKRKRKRRORORORORORO6F6F6F6F6F6F6FKRRKRKRKRKKRRORORORROR /D +RQGD &UHHN 3DUNLQJ )HDVLELOLW\ 6WXG\ /D +RQGD 3XEOLF $FFHVV :RUNLQJ *URXS 6LWH 7RXU   2FWREHU   Oct. 19, 2019 Meeting Summary Attachment 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Rd La Honda, CA 94020 Saturday, November 16, 2019 Meeting starts at 9:00 AM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1. Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. 2. Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 9:00AM LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □ Lou Bordi □ Ari Delay □ Art Heinrich □ Karl Lusebrink □ Barbara Hooper □ Kathleen Moazed □ Melany Moore □ Denise Phillips □ Andie Reed □ Sandy Sommer □ Willie Wool □ Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □ Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 9:00AM 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview 9:25AM 10:30AM 2. Working Group Business 1. Public comment 2. Review project information 3. Review and approve October 19, 2019 meeting summary 4. Driving tour 10:50AM 11:40AM 12:30PM 1:00PM 1:20PM 3:00PM 3:10PM 3:40PM a. Preserve Gate LH07 – adjacent to and north of 10699 La Honda Road, La Honda, CA b. Lunch Break – La Honda Elementary School – 450 Sears Ranch Rd, La Honda, CA c. Sears Ranch Road – 4155 Sears Ranch Road, La Honda, CA a) Site #1 – west of existing parking area b) Site #2 – approximately one-mile north of existing parking area c) Hike from Site #2 d. La Honda Elementary School – 450 Sears Ranch Rd, La Honda, CA 5. Closing comments 6. Public comment 4:00PM ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the beginning and at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to two minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on October 15, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 4 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Rd La Honda, CA 94020 November 16, 2019 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM MEETING SUMMARY UUROLL CALL Chair Barbara Hooper called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG or WG) to order at 9:00 a.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors (Non-Voting Members)  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Working Group Members  Lou Bordi, Ward 6 Representative  Ari Delay, La Honda Community Representative  Art Heinrich, Ward 2 Representative  Barbara Hooper, Ward 6 Representative  Karl Lusebrink, La Honda Community Representative  Kathleen Moazed, La Honda Community Representative  Melany Moore, Ward 1 Representative  Denise Phillips, Ward 7 Representative  Andie Reed, Ward 5 Representative  Sandy Sommer, Ward 4 Representative  Willie Wool, Ward 3 Representative District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner  Melissa Borgesi, Planner  Luke Mulhall, Planning Administrative Assistant  Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager  Michael Jurich, Land & Facilities Manager  Meredith Manning, Senior Planner  Xucan Zhou, Planner II  Chris Barresi, Area Superintendent Page 2 of 4 MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments were made. WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Chair Hooper asked for a motion to approve the October 16, 2019, meeting summary. The PAWG requested changes to the meeting summary and asked staff to bring a revised version of the summary to the next meeting. Ms. Sommer made the motion, and Denise Phillips seconded. The WG unanimously approved the motion. Requesting a red-lined version of the October 16, 2019, meeting summary for PAWG approval at the December 12, 2019, meeting. Ayes (11) - Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Sandy Sommer, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (1) - Curt Riffle Non-Voting (1) - Larry Hassett Planner I Melissa Borgesi explained the PAWG would be visiting three potential public access sites (Attachment 2) that were requested by PAWG members and instructed the group to record their observations according to the project objectives and criteria on a provided worksheet. Senior Planner Tina Hugg described the agenda for the tour, which included a stop at Preserve Gate LH07 south of the Red Barn area, stops at and near the Sears Ranch parking lot area, and a hike from the former residence area a mile north of the existing parking lot that the PAWG visited on October 19, 2019. Staff reminded PAWG members to reserve conversations about the project to times when the entire group is together with members of the public, in order to provide members of the public the opportunity to hear the PAWG’s discussions. At Preserve Gate LH07 along Highway 84, about a mile south of the Red Barn, the PAWG walked around the area, and staff described its proximity to the central portion of the preserve and La Honda Creek to the west and the potential for future trail connections to the preserve trail system. The group also noted the highway conditions and considered the sight lines and width of the Caltrans right-of-way in this area. While at this location, the PAWG observed bicyclists, motorcycles and vehicles using Highway 84. The group walked further south toward a section of Highway 84 with a wider Caltrans right-of-way shoulder adjacent to a private property currently for sale. The PAWG viewed two options in the Sears Ranch Road area: at the existing parking lot and near the former residence area one mile north of the lot (for map, see Attachment 2). Using the existing parking lot as an example, District staff discussed typical site improvements associated with new District parking lots including the use of pavement instead of gravel, ADA-accessible vault toilet restrooms, accessible parking spaces and path of travel to the restroom, trailhead infrastructure, signage and, where there are grazing operations, fencing that separates pasture areas from the parking lot. Staff discussed the Page 3 of 4 requirement to separate cattle from parking areas to avoid conflicts with vehicles and protect the cattle, and the need for more fencing around the entry drive and new parking area if one were constructed further into the preserve. The group looked at a potential site west of the road and existing parking lot. The PAWG walked around this site, observing the flat area where additional parking, including potentially equestrian parking spaces, could be accommodated. Near the former residence one mile north into the preserve, visited by the PAWG during the October 19, 2019 site tour, the PAWG explored another potential site located in a former corral area downhill and to the west. The existing Harrington Creek Trail borders this site on the north and east sides. To give the group a sense of what the trail distance and experience might be, the PAWG hiked about a mile northeast from this location into the Preserve along an existing ranch road that could potentially be used to connect to the Allen Road area in the north of the Preserve. This area is currently closed to the public. The group turned around at a gate near La Honda Creek, a spot which is just below and west of the Gate LH07 site the group visited earlier. At each location, Midpen staff described site constraints and opportunities, highlighting the need for accommodating ranch operations and discussing other issues that would need to be analyzed if any of these sites were included in the future feasibility study phase. Staff answered questions at each site, and that list of questions and answers is included as Attachment 1 to this summary. Following the tour, the group returned to La Honda Elementary School to share and discuss their initial impressions of the site visits. Regarding Gate LH07, some members expressed concern about the speed of traffic along this segment of Highway 84. Many members enjoyed the space and the trees at this site, as well as its relative proximity to the central area of the Preserve. Others mentioned this location could provide a good staging area and offered potential for trail connection in many directions. Other comments included the noise intrusion from highway traffic and the fact that a part of the existing road goes through private property. At the Sears Ranch Road area near the existing parking lot, some members liked the flat, safe and easy access. They believed that there would be room for all user groups – hikers, bikers, equestrians, etc., and the area could even serve as a refuge site for Preserve users in case of wildfire. Other members saw opportunities for environmental education in this location, with existing amenities of the barn and pond on the site. Some members expressed concern that this location is far from the central area of the preserve, and there would be impacts on the viewshed here. At the old corral located one mile north of the Sears Ranch Road parking lot and west of the former residence area, some PAWG members liked that this area serves as a “hub” for converging trails and that it is flat, safe and “out of sight.” One member saw the opportunity to accommodate equestrians here and another suggested there could be an interpretive center and picnic tables in this area. Others suggested capacity at this location could be adjusted based on seasonal demand. Other comments related to the long access road impacting grazing operations and existing hiking trails, and some felt the location was too remote. Following discussions of sites toured, PAWG members shared their observations of the parking facilities at Allen Road and at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve, which had been suggested at the Page 4 of 4 previous meeting as worth visiting as examples of parking and trailheads offered by the District. Members described the El Corte de Madera Creek facilities as very nice, well-screened from the road, with an appealing character including trees and a split-rail fence. The lot accommodates 65 vehicles plus 4 equestrian trailer stalls. At Allen Road, which is limited to 10 cars by permit only, members appreciated the remote feel, the trees, the views and easy access to trails. NEXT MEETING HOMEWORK PAWG members were reminded to submit their impressions from this current site tour on the site assessment worksheet by Wednesday, November 20. PUBLIC COMMENT Nigel Webb indicated the Gate LH07 location was better than the Red Barn site. Although it would provide access to the central area of the Preserve, he believed that any access from Highway 84 would still be dangerous. He felt that any access point on Sears Ranch Road would be preferable and indicated a preference for parking facilities at or near the current parking lot rather than locating a parking lot a mile further into the preserve. Mr. Webb also wanted the District to accommodate all user groups, including those with on-leash dogs. Cindy Crowe-Urgo preferred the Sears Ranch Road access point as it could accommodate all user groups. Ms. Crowe-Urgo expressed concerns regarding safety for any access onto Highway 84 and regarding possible overflow parking onto the shoulder of Highway 84. Lynette Vega preferred both Sears Ranch access points as they would be minimally intrusive to the community. She felt these sites did not have parking and safety issues like the Red Barn and Gate LH07 sites. Ms. Vega asked the PAWG to take into consideration the impact of the project on the La Honda community regarding traffic, safety, trash, etc. Ms. Borgesi read aloud written comments provided by Sharon Dooley. Ms. Dooley supported public parking near the Sears Ranch parking lot because there is traffic control (stop sign) on Sears Ranch Road at the junction with Highway 84. Regarding the Red Barn, she expressed concern regarding overflow parking along the highway and the possible loss of the quiet character of the area. Eva Knodt urged the group to look for the least disruptive solution that preserves scenic views and allows people to enjoy the beauty. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hooper adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group at 4:00 pm. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 3 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting MEETING SUMMARY November 16, 2019 Attachment 1 – Questions and Answers Gate LH07 Stop 1. For the area where Caltrans’ right-of-way is wider, is there an opportunity for roadside parking? Caltrans has historically not permitted new roadside parking areas. However, when the project moves into the feasibility study phase, District staff will approach Caltrans for input on highway improvements being considered including the potential for roadside parking. 2. Would roadside parking encourage meet up locations for race car enthusiasts? Caltrans has historically not permitted new roadside parking areas. It is not known how such areas would be used if they were allowed by Caltrans. 3. Is the steepness of Sears Ranch Road a factor for horse trailers? There is no issue for a larger horse trailer and truck to navigate Sears Ranch Road to the existing lot or to a potential parking area near the former residence, located a mile north from the existing lot. There is visibility, and the road is fairly wide with gradual turns and no steep drop-offs. 4. Does the road from Gate LH07 connect to the ranger residence at the Red Barn? The road does not directly connect to the ranger residence at the Red Barn. 5. When will the Red Barn be painted? Painting the Red Barn is on the District’s work plan in the upcoming year. 6. Can the road at Gate LH07 become a trail? If the Gate LH07 location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, and approved for further study by the Board, District staff would study how to use the existing road to access the Preserve. There is no public access on a section of the road that passes through private property adjacent to Gate LH07, but there may be a way to construct a trail to the road where it passes back onto District property. Page 2 of 3 7. Does the District purchase private property? The District is willing to purchase property on a willing seller basis if the property would benefit natural resources or public access or address other needs that the District may have. 8. Could a lot at Gate LH07 be a secondary lot and not a primary lot? It is possible for the PAWG to propose a small parking lot at Gate LH07 as part of a package of options that together provide a variety of ways to meet the project goals and objectives. 9. How would emergency vehicles access Gate LH07? If the Gate LH07 location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee, and approved for further study by the Board, conceptual design layouts for the proposed parking lot would be prepared in the feasibility study phase and would be planned to accommodate emergency vehicles. 10. Does the property south of Gate LH07 where the Caltrans’ right-of-way appears wider connect to District lands? That property is bordered on the west, north, and south by another private property, so it does not directly connect to District lands. Sears Ranch Road – Area West of Parking Lot 1. Is expansion of the Sears Ranch parking lot still being considered? It is possible for the PAWG to propose an expansion to the Sears Ranch parking lot as part of a package of options that together provide a variety of ways to meet the project goals and objectives. 2. When will there be access to the pond visible from the existing Sears Ranch parking lot? Other District project teams are working on expanding the trail system in the Preserve following the future phases of trails identified in the 2012 La Honda Master Plan. Direct access to the pond is not currently in the Master Plan, but there are opportunities for other future trails from the Sears Ranch parking lot trailhead. Sears Ranch Road – Former Corral Area near Former Residence Area (one mile north of existing parking lot) 1. If a parking lot is built in this location, would the District keep the existing Sears Ranch parking lot? The District would retain the Sears Ranch parking lot. 2. Is there equestrian access at the existing Sears Ranch parking lot? Page 3 of 3 There is currently no equestrian access at the Sears Ranch parking lot. A change of use to include equestrian access at this location could be an option to explore. 3. Is there another ranch road that goes to the Event Center? The Harrington Creek Trail connects to the Event Center and contains the only bridge crossing over Harrington Creek. Hike Northeast to La Honda Creek (2.2 miles round trip) 1. Where does the central area of the Preserve (as defined in the 2012 La Honda Master Plan) begin? The PAWG hiked 1.1 miles from the former residence area to a gate beyond which La Honda Creek and a road back up to Gate LH07 and Highway 84 are located. At that gate, the group was standing at the southern edge of the central area of the Preserve that was identified in the master plan. 2. When will the area the PAWG hiked through be open to the public? Other District project teams are working on expanding the trail system in the Preserve following the conceptual trail routes shown in the 2012 La Honda Master Plan. Depending on the complexity of the terrain and length of a trail, the District would require at least a couple of years to plan, design, permit, and construct a new trail. !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P (CM09) (C M 0 6 ) (CM05 ) (LH03) (LH01) (LH11) Ray's Peak 1,037' Vista Point ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 O l d L a Honda R o a d Bea r G ulchRoad To Pescadero S e a r s R a n c h R o ad Sta r H illRd. La H o n d a Ro a d C i e l o Tr a i l V irginia M i l l T r a i l G o r do n Mi l l T r ai lTimberview Trail H a r r i n gton Creek Tra i l Folger R a n ch Lo o p T r a i l L a w r e nce C reek Tr ail B l u e Blossom Tr a i l 0.2 0.51.4 L aH o n d aCr e e k Langley Creek San Gregori o Creek W o o d r u f f C r e e k Harring ton Creek E l C o r te de Madera Creek L a w r e n c e Cre ek B o g e s sCre ek Woodhams Creek Weeks Creek 16 0 0 600 400 200 80 0 2000 18 0 0 600 400 2000 14 0 0 1600 1400 1200 800 6 0 0 600 600 400 1000 800 200 0 180 0 100 0 120 0 80 0 800 800 1 0 0 0 600 800 80 0 800 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVEEL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE THORNEWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Private Property Private Property Private Property LA HONDA Cielo Trail Coho Vista Loop Trail Red Barn H a rrin gto n Creek H a r r i n g t o n C r e e k Trail H a r r i n g t o n C r e e k Tr a i l 3.2 1.3 1. 1 1.2 ÄÆ84 Private Property Private Property Private Property LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE A l l e n Road ÄÆ84 L a Ho n d a R oad Private Property The only vehicle access to northern La Honda Creek Preserve is by permit on Allen Road. No parking outside of Preserve gate. No access from Skyline Boulevard. (See individual Preserve brochure for more details) (See individual Preserve brochure for more details)Big Tree Equestrian parking by permit only. Permit only equestrian trail. CLOSED AREA 400 80 0 80 0 600 8 0 0 4 0 0 600 80 0 100 0 1000 8 0 0 8 0 0 1000 0.3 180 0 2000 Sk y l ine B o u l e v ard 600 White Barn To San Gregorio To Windy Hill Open Space Preserve 0.5 Folger Ranch Loop Trail is closed seasonally. Attention Hikers and Equestrians: Grazing is an important tool for grassland management. Cattle on trail in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Additional information is available at www.openspace.org LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE (LH10) La H o nd a R o ad La Hon da Creek San G re g ori o C reek This is a working ranch. Visitors must stay on designated trails. No access or parking on Hwy 84. ! (Pr i v a t e ) Permit Only ÄÆ35 Spring Board Trail $01 $02 0 . 3 No Through Access C o h o Vist a Trail 0.7 1800 1600 © MROSD 10/1/201801 Mile 01 Kilometer In case of emergency, call 911 or 24-hour Ranger Dispatch at (650) 968-4411. For your safety, and the protection of the preserves: The preserve is open from dawn until one-half hour after sunset; La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Map Legend Midpen Preserve Closed Area - No Public Access Other Public Land Other Public Land - Restricted Access Private or Leased Land - No Public Access No Public Entry in Midpen Water Areas Road Vehicle Driveway !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!Equestrian Only !!!!Hiking, Equestrian Hiking, Bicycling, Equestrian !P Trail Junction ##Numbered Trail Junction Gate (#) Parking Lot Equestrian Parking Restroom Point of Interest Notable Flora Tunnel Other Public or Private Building Residence Auto burglaries are increasing; Take valuables with you and lock your vehicle. Pack it in, pack it out- please do not litter; Please leave natural features, plants, and animals undisturbed; I For More Information Visit www.openspace.org or call (650) 691-1200 Dogs on Leash Permitted on Designated Trails Bicycles not permitted in this Preserve 3UHVHUYH*DWH/+   600  6HDUV5DQFK5RDG$SSUR[PLOH QRUWKRIH[LVWLQJSDUNLQJDUHD 6HDUV5DQFK5RDG:HVWRIH[LVWLQJ SDUNLQJDUHD   PPP!!!!!!(LH11)(LH1(L(L(LL 1) SSSSSS eeeeee aaaaa Tr a iiii lllll oo ngleeyy nglyy/D//D/D/D/DD/D/D/DD/D/DD +R+R+R+R+RQGQGQQGGQGDDDDDDDDD+R+RR+R+R+R++QGQGQGQGQGQGDDDDDDDDDDDDg (O(O(O(O((OHPHPHPHPHPHPHQHQHQHQQHQQWDWDWDWDDWDWDWDU\U\U\U\U\U\U\U\\\\\\\\ 6F6F6F6F6F6F6FFKRKRKRKRKRKRKRRORORRORORRR66F6F6F6F6F6KRKRKKRKRKRRRRRORRR La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study La Honda Public Access Working Group Site Tour #2 - November 16, 2019 8008 HH a 2 Nov. 16, 2019 Meeting Summary Attachment 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Thursday, December 12, 2019 Meeting starts at 6:30 PM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1. Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. 2. Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 6:30PM LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □ Lou Bordi □ Ari Delay □ Art Heinrich □ Karl Lusebrink □ Barbara Hooper □ Kathleen Moazed □ Melany Moore □ Denise Phillips □ Andie Reed □ Sandy Sommer □ Willie Wool □ Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □ Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 6:30PM 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview 6:40PM 2. Working Group Business 1. Public comment 2. Review and approve prior meeting summaries 3. Bay Area Ridge Trail presentation 4. Discussion of options a. Event Center b. Sears Ranch Road areas c. Gate LH07 d. Red Barn areas e. Other options/iterations 5. Closing comments 6. Public comment 9:30PM ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the beginning and at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to two minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on December 6, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 5 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 December 12, 2019 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM MEETING SUMMARY ROLL CALL Vice-Chair Denise Phillips called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) to order at 6:35 p.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors (Non-Voting Members)  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Working Group Members  Lou Bordi, Ward 6 Representative  Ari Delay, La Honda Community Representative  Art Heinrich, Ward 2 Representative  Barbara Hooper, Ward 6 Representative  Karl Lusebrink, La Honda Community Representative  Kathleen Moazed, La Honda Community Representative  Melany Moore, Ward 1 Representative  Denise Phillips, Ward 7 Representative  Andie Reed, Ward 5 Representative  Sandy Sommer, Ward 4 Representative  Willie Wool, Ward 3 Representative District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner  Melissa Borgesi, Planner  Luke Mulhall, Planning Administrative Assistant  Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager Page 2 of 5 MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter, Ana Padilla PUBLIC COMMENT Joel Gartland, a District resident, hiker, cyclist, and Bay Area Ridge Trail Volunteer, asked the group to think about the bigger picture in creating more multi-use connections to link Silicon Valley to the Golden Gate. He requested the District continue its good work on staging areas as well. Sue Kelso, a District resident and Bay Area Ridge Trail Volunteer, expressed her excitement to have new trails for connections along the bay and looks forward to new connections in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve). WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Senior Planner Tina Hugg and Meeting Facilitator Lou Hexter reviewed the PAWG’s goals and objectives, including providing the process for Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee and Board of Directors review of potential access options and consideration of the options for further study. Director Riffle affirmed the PAWG is tasked with doing a preliminary assessment of which sites or options they feel merit further study, and the PAWG members must do so with an open mind in order to advance the discussion. Vice-Chair Denise Phillips asked for a motion to approve the October 16, 2019, meeting summary. Kathleen Moazed thought part of the October 16 meeting summary had some redundant language about the description of one of the sites. Vice-Chair Philips thought that it was important to have the repeated language so to accurately reflect the meeting’s discussion. Ms. Moazed also asked if the section describing the wetlands area can be restated to be clearer. Melany Moore made a motion to approve the amended minutes, and Ari Delay seconded the motion. The majority of the PAWG approved the motion. Approval of October 19, 2019, PAWG Meeting Summary Ayes (10) - Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Sandy Sommer, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (1) - Kathleen Moazed Abstentions (0) Absent (0) Non-Voting (2) - Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Vice-Chair Denise Phillips asked for a motion to approve the November 16, 2019, meeting summary. Page 3 of 5 Ms. Moazed thought that Sharon Dooley’s comment about the traffic concerns needed more clarification to indicate that Ms. Dooley is concerned about overflow parking at the Red Barn site specifically. Mr. Delay made the motion to approve the amended minutes, and Barbara Hooper seconded the motion. The PAWG unanimously approved the motion with the proposed edits to more clearly reflect Ms. Dooley’s comment. Approval of the November 16, 2019, PAWG Meeting Summary Ayes (11) - Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Sandy Sommer, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (0) Non-Voting (2) - Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle The Bay Area Ridge Trail Council (Council) provided a presentation about their goals to complete a 550- mile regional trail encircling the San Francisco Bay and the role the Preserve plays in closing gaps within the trail. The Bay Area Ridge Trail is currently 70% complete in San Mateo County with the Preserve containing one of the last remaining gaps. Liz Westbrook, Trail Director of the Council, described how San Mateo County is unique because it has bayfront, ocean front, and redwood environments and currently contains the longest continuous stretch of publicly available trails in the southern portion of the trail. The Council is currently working to close gaps near Purisima Creek and El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserves and wants to support the PAWG in creating access and connections in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. One of the PAWG members recalled during the development of the La Honda Creek Preserve Master Plan that the District would provide bicycle access once there are connections on both sides of the Preserve, and asked how important is it to provide access or a trailhead to the central area of the Preserve. District staff confirmed the Master Plan includes the goal of providing access to Bay Area Ridge Trail users at a central area trailhead, previously identified at the Red Barn. Following the Bay Area Ridge Trail presentation, Mr. Hexter asked each PAWG member to state any opportunities or flaws for each site that the group had visited, which are summarized below. A. Event Center – Several PAWG members acknowledged this location does not provide convenient access to the center of the Preserve. Many believe there is an opportunity to update the facility and structures, provide future public access here, and expand multi-use recreation. PAWG members viewed this location as being especially appropriate for equestrian users but would also like to see it as a staging area for hikers and bikers. There are opportunities for trail users to see ocean views. B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Expansion of Existing Lot – Some of the PAWG members expressed that the location is too far south from the central area of the Preserve and discussed the potential for increasing the current capacity of the lot as demand grows. Others commented that this location is a nice, safe facility and does provide Preserve access. PAWG members noted that there is safe Page 4 of 5 access from Highway 84. Some expressed the location could be better screened from properties that overlook the site. B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area – Some of the PAWG members indicated the location is too far south from the central area of the Preserve. Several members liked this area for staging for equestrian users and their trailers. One member suggested this could be a viable location as a safe refuge in the event of a community evacuation. As with option B1, members noted there is safe access from Highway 84. C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) – Some members thought options C1 and C2 provide acceptable access to the central area of the Preserve; however, other members did not agree. The site may have potential for an educational facility or interpretive center and offered good Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access and opportunities for low-intensity recreation and seasonal usage. Members thought it was a safe access point but were conflicted about bringing cars further into the Preserve. One member suggested opening this location only during high-demand times. Some were concerned about access to this remote location for rangers and first responders. Some were also concerned with the compatibility with the existing cattle grazing. C.2 Sears Ranch Road - Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) – Some members indicated that the main advantage to this location over option C1 is the ability to screen parking facilities from the trail area. Some members felt that vehicle parking should be kept at the perimeter (options B1 and B2), and this location would be good for picnic and interpretive facilities. D. Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) – Most PAWG members indicated that the site would provide central access to the Preserve. Many thought it was worth exploring as an opportunity to access trails and suggested this location for a smaller lot, potentially with limited permit-use only. Members expressed concerns about ingress/egress safety related to Highway 84 and about negative impacts on the wildlife and creek habitat. E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence – PAWG members agreed that the site would provide access to the central part of the Preserve, but many expressed concerns that access from Highway 84 would be dangerous. Some members suggested that any parking lot should be small, accessed by using permits or docent tours, so people can view the Red Barn. E2. Red Barn – Area Down Slope from Red Barn – Similar to option E1, PAWG members agreed that the site would provide access to the central part of the preserve but were concerned about safe access from Highway 84. Most members were concerned about building any staging facility near the Red Barn due to aesthetic impacts. The majority of the group indicated that this option should not be considered. Following these discussions, interest was expressed in conducting another site tour to investigate an additional option suggested by Karl Lusebrink near Gate LH15 and to return to the area behind the ranger residence near the Red Barn. It was decided that PAWG members interested in viewing these sites could contact the District to arrange for permitted access. Page 5 of 5 NEXT MEETING HOMEWORK The next PAWG Meeting is at La Honda Elementary School on February 6, 2020 and PAWG members should begin considering what suites of options they are interested in discussing further. In advance of the next meeting, PAWG members can also visit Gate LH15 and request permits to re-visit the area behind the ranger residence at the Red Barn site. Due to the change in the February 6, 2020 meeting location, the District will mail out meeting notices. PUBLIC COMMENT Sharon Dooley, a La Honda community member, shared her concerns about traffic safety along Highway 84. She expressed that having smaller lots along the highway could create overflow issues and make the road unsafe. She was concerned about a lack of traffic enforcement. Bob Rosenburg, a La Honda community member and retired firefighter, described how access off Highway 84 is unsafe. He stated that while the area near the Red Barn would provide central access, ingress and egress from the Highway 84 is not a good idea. Bob Dooley, a La Honda community member, asked the PAWG to look for a location with safe access. He suggested the District consider restoring the pond next to the Red Barn and stated that any parking in the Red Barn area would need to be small and strategic. Mr. Dooley supported one of the Sears Ranch Road options due to safe access from the highway and urged the District to conduct a traffic study. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Phillips adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group at 10:06 pm. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Rd La Honda, CA 94020 Thursday, February 6, 2020 Meeting starts at 6:30 PM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1. Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. 2. Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 6:30PM LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □ Lou Bordi □ Ari Delay □ Art Heinrich □ Karl Lusebrink □ Barbara Hooper □ Kathleen Moazed □ Melany Moore □ Denise Phillips □ Andie Reed □ Sandy Sommer □ Willie Wool □ Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □ Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 6:30PM 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview 6:40PM 2. Working Group Business 1. Public comment 2. Review and approve prior meeting summary 3. Discussion of options a. Gate LH15 b. Red Barn area – shed area c. Other options/iterations 4. Discussion of recommendations 5. Closing comments 6. Public comment 9:30PM ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the beginning and at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to two minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on January 31, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 6 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting La Honda Elementary School 450 Sears Ranch Rd La Honda, CA 94020 February 6, 2020 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM MEETING SUMMARY ROLL CALL Chair Barbara Hooper called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group to order at 6:31 p.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 La Honda area representatives  Ari Delay  Karl Lusebrink  Kathleen Moazed Ward stakeholders  Ward 1: Melany Moore  Ward 2: Art Heinrich  Ward 3: Willie Wool  Ward 4: Sandy Sommer  Ward 5: Andie Reed  Ward 6: Lou Bordi  Ward 6: Barbara Hooper  Ward 7: Denise Phillips District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Luke Mulhall, Planning Administrative Assistant  Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager  Melissa Borgesi, Planner I  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter, Ana Padilla Page 2 of 6 Chair Barbara Hooper called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. Facilitator Lou Hexter reviewed the objectives and agenda for the evening and reminded the group of the productive discussion held at the December meeting, which captured members’ impressions of the various site locations. Senior Planner Tina Hugg reviewed the PAWG’s workflow and meeting schedule, noting that the PAWG will be providing a recommendations report to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) with potential access options that could be pursued in a feasibility study in the next phase. Ultimately, the PNR will forward its recommendations to the Board of Directors for consideration and action. PUBLIC COMMENT – 1 No public comments were made at this time. WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Chair Barbara Hooper asked for a motion to approve the December 12, 2019, meeting summary. Sandy Sommer suggested that “currently” and “publicly available” be added to the Bay Area Ridge Trail presentation described on page 3, paragraph 4, to state that San Mateo County “currently contains the longest continuous stretch of publicly available trails.” She also suggested adding "some were also concerned with the compatibility with the existing cattle grazing" for option C1 Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence. Andie Reed made a motion to approve the meeting summary with Sommer’s edits, and Denise Phillips seconded. The PAWG approved the motion. Approval of October 19, 2019, PAWG Meeting Summary Ayes (10) – Lou Bordi, Ari Delay, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Sandy Sommer, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (1) – Ari Delay Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Mr. Hexter provided an overview of the sites under consideration and summarized the key ideas and comments submitted by PAWG members about two potential sites suggested as part of the December 12th meeting. PAWG members visited these sites individually prior to the PAWG’s February 6th meeting. B3. Gate LH 15 – Some PAWG members commented that the site is not close to the center of the Preserve. Many PAWG members thought the site would be well suited for equestrian use and is well hidden from view from both the Preserve and Highway 84. PAWG members also shared comments related to the site’s proximity to the La Honda Elementary School, with some sharing concerns about increased vehicle traffic and visibility from the school and others commenting that it offers a safer access point to the Preserve. Some supported having separate lots for equestrian use and hiking use. PAWG members noted the site has ready access to utilities. Page 3 of 6 E3. Red Barn Shed area – PAWG members agreed the site would provide access to the central part of the Preserve. Some also noted that the site would be tucked away from view from the Preserve and Highway 84, and potentially be further screened with foliage. Others were concerned about views to it from Highway 84. Additional comments related to the site’s good views out to the Red Barn and Preserve and concerns about the close proximity to the Red Barn. All PAWG members expressed concerns about safe access from Highway 84, suggesting that having the site as part of a suite of options would require additional traffic and engineering studies during the feasibility study phase. A couple members suggested a permit only lot or access via a docent-led activity while another suggested that a permit lot could offer access to the site for those with disabilities who cannot hike there. Some suggested a phased approach, starting out small first, and studying further potential traffic calming measures. Concerns were raised about the ability to modify the highway, which Caltrans oversees. An alternate site north of the existing ranger residence, named E4, was proposed as homework for the Working Group to visit individually with a permit and assess before the Working Group’s next meeting. Ms. Hugg provided an overview of other options and iterations that could offer different ways to provide access and meet project goals such as providing permit only access, holding docent-led activities, or spreading out amenities or uses over multiple sites rather than just one site. Mr. Hexter suggested that these could then be combined with sites under consideration in suites of options to recommend forwarding to the PNR. PUBLIC COMMENT – 2 Mike Bushue, Equestrian Trail Riders’ Action Committee, stated that any of the “E” sites (near the Red Barn) would not be a good solution. He preferred Gate LH15. He asked about the possibility of recommending additional sites, as he knows a property for sale off Highway 84. Sharon Dooley, a La Honda community member, inquired whether “E2” is still under consideration. Mr. Hexter responded that based on the PAWG’s discussion, the group did not appear supportive of this site. Ms. Dooley expressed concern about high traffic speeds on Highway 84. Eva Knodt, a La Honda community member, was surprised that the “E” options are still being considered. She said that if one of these options were chosen, the safety problem would need to be resolved. She asked if there is a proposal to make it safer. Nigel Webb, a La Honda community member, participated on the site tour and thought that the ingress would be difficult for site “D”, and it is not a safe access point. He stated that the “E” sites are very dangerous and not functional. Lynette Vega, a La Honda community member, went on the tour and thought site “B2” was a better option and was more spacious for equestrians. She stated the “E” Sites should not be considered. Rick DeBenedetti, a Woodside resident and equestrian, stated that requiring permits for “E” sites would not make them safer, and the “E” sites would not be able to accommodate trailers. He also said that having an access point at the “C” sites would allow an equestrian to ride from Sears Ranch to the Red Barn area in about two hours. Page 4 of 6 Lilia Lopez, a La Honda community member, stated she lives around the bend near to the Red Barn, and that it is very dangerous. She stated the area needs more enforcement and none of the “E” sites should considered. Keith Simon, a La Honda community member and cyclist, stated the straight stretch of Highway 84 is used for illegal passing, and the “E” sites should not be considered. Peter Marchi, a San Gregorio community member, stated that safety should come first, and the “E” sites should not be considered. Rita Jaramillo, a La Honda community member, was no longer present to provide verbal comments but provided a written comment about keeping the Red Barn off limits. Ed Haazes, a Woodside resident, was no longer present to provide verbal comments but provided a written comment about traffic concerns on the highway. WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Senior Planner Tina Hugg and Meeting Facilitator Lou Hexter described the scope of the recommendations the PAWG will make, which will include a site, sites, or combination of sites and options that members feel are deserving of further consideration as part of a future feasibility study. To gauge members’ support for the various sites under consideration, Mr. Hexter reminded the PAWG of the voting guidelines established for the process, which allowed for the expression of support along the following scale: The polling adhered to the following scale: 1. I can say an unqualified “yes” to the recommendation. 2. I find the recommendation acceptable. It appears to be the best of the real options available to us at this time. 3. I can live with the recommendation, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4. I do not agree with the recommendation, but I am willing to live with it so the CPAC process can move forward. 5. I do not agree with the recommendation and I would like the CPAC to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6. I do not agree with the recommendation and I will work actively to oppose it. The sites under consideration are: A. Event Center B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area - Expansion of Existing Lot B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area B3. Preserve Gate LH15 C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) C.2 Sears Ranch Road - Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) D. Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence E2. Red Barn – Area Down Slope from Red Barn Page 5 of 6 E3. Red Barn – Shed area The results of the voting were: A B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D E1 E2 E3 BORDI 2 6 1 1 5 1 3 6 6 6 DELAY Absent HEINRICH 6 3 3 2 5 5 1 6 6 4 HOOPER 1 5 1 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 LUSEBRINK 1 2 3 2 6 6 4 3 6 3 MOAZED 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 6 6 MOORE 2 4 1 4 1 1 5 6 6 5 PHILLIPS 3 2 3 3 6 6 3 2 6 2 REED 2 3 5 2 6 6 1 6 5 1 SOMMER 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 4 6 2 WOOL 6 5 4 3 6 6 3 6 6 1 Total # of 1-4 scores 7 6 9 9 3 4 7 3 0 6 Total # of 5-6 scores 3 4 1 1 7 6 3 7 10 4 The vote confirmed site E2 is not supported by the PAWG and likely will not be included among its recommendations. Understanding that one site may not fulfill all of the project objectives, District staff next presented a list of potential “suites” of options for the PAWG to consider. These are combinations of the sites and other options/iterations, and the samples presented by District staff are meant to be starting points for discussion. The PAWG may suggest additional configurations and uses for each site being considered by the PAWG. Regarding Sample Suite #1, a PAWG member asked about adding hiking access at sites A and B3 to the configuration. Another suggested including a picnic area in the redwood grove at site D as an iteration to be included in one of the suites. Another suggestion including creating a “hub and spokes” staging area and trail configuration at sites C1 and C2. The PAWG agreed additional time is needed to consider sample suites and develop their own suites of options, which will be completed as homework. The PAWG agreed an additional meeting is needed for March 5, 2020 to prioritize PAWG recommendations for consideration by the PNR. Chair Hooper asked when the future trails will be completed. District staff stated that the goal is for the next phase of trails to be completed by 2024, assuming that no issues arise. PUBLIC COMMENT - 3 Maryann Chwalek, a La Honda community member, asked when the trail at Sears Ranch will open because there is an interest to go on the trail. District staff reported the Sears Ranch trail is in the planning phase. Karen Read, a San Jose resident, thanked the PAWG and District staff for their work, time and commitment. She appreciated the PAWG and District staff are hearing the community’s concerns regarding safety on Highway 84. Page 6 of 6 Alex Roa, a Bay Area Ridge Trail consultant, thanked Midpen for its support, resources, and processes. He said that the Bay Area Ridge Trail organization will support access to the Preserve and will support any iteration. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hooper adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group at 9:37 pm. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Thursday, March 5, 2020 Meeting starts at 6:30 PM* The purpose and charge of La Honda Public Access Working Group is as follows: 1. Work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve, consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. 2. Provide feedback and recommendations to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee who will then forward its recommendations to the full Board who will make final policy decisions. A G E N D A 6:30PM LA HONDA PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP ROLL CALL MEMBERS: □ Lou Bordi □ Ari Delay □ Art Heinrich □ Karl Lusebrink □ Barbara Hooper □ Kathleen Moazed □ Melany Moore □ Denise Phillips □ Andie Reed □ Sandy Sommer □ Willie Wool □ Larry Hassett, Ward 6 Board Director □ Curt Riffle, Ward 4 Board Director ADOPTION OF AGENDA 6:30PM 1. Welcome / Agenda Overview 6:40PM 2. Working Group Business 1. Public comment 2. Review and approve prior meeting summary 3. Overview of District Interpretive and Education Program 4. Recap of prior meeting discussion 5. Public comment 6. Discussion and selection of recommendations to be forwarded to Planning and Natural Resources Committee 7. Closing comments 9:30PM ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP: The Chair will invite public comment at the beginning and at the end of Working Group business. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to two minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Working Group by a written communication. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Tina Hugg, Senior Planner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group was posted and available for review on February 28, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner CAppendix PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH MARCH 5, 2020 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ,of 1'{/ 1~ LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE '7(k I PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP h,vv Midpeninsul a Regional Op en Space Distri ct V e,vl) a \ Comments may be submitted Name: Address : Phon e: C) Y\& j U! o l,{,""{_ -[). V go via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Bo x, Or mailed to : Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Dis trict 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 ________ EMAIL: _______________ _ Comments: ________________________________ _ <'.A.ivClt \U, \4. r LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ~ Mi dpeoITT solaRegi ooal Opeo Sp aoo Di strict PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP BJ Comments may be submitted Nam e: Address: Phon e: via email to : thugg@open spa ce.org Droppe d in th e Comments Bo x, Or maile d t o: Tina Hu g g, Proj ect Planner Midpeninsul a Regional Op e n Sp ace Di strict 300 Di stel Circl e, Lo s Altos, CA 94022 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE i Midpeoios,laRegiooa1opeospaoornslrict PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments, may be submitted Name: Address: Phone : via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE i M,dpeaiosola RegiooalOpeo Space rn ,trict PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROU p Comments, may be submitted Name: Address: via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Bo x, Or mailed to: Tina Hug g, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Lo s Altos, CA 94022 Ph one: (c; c;t-> 0 I j ~ c:r°>-={ EM A IL: -.....LL-'---='--'--'-'=...i_:..~.µ:,.,,.=-.,_,__.::........s.:~,..__- Co mm e nts :_~-------,-----------~-""'------+---- ~ II LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Mid peninsula Regional Open Space Distri ct Name : ~ J-4dE27E. \/'.'.~::;.,...@ Comments, may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace .org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Proje ct Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Di ste l Circle, Lo s Altos, CA 94022 Address: ?o ;#())CM~ ,,<.'A 9'/&c.)ZJA {J&-C/1/d 2 D ~ /-J$. ts& € • 9 D s _,.. /2:5 LJ-1-0~ ~ • Mid pen ins ula Regional O pe n Space District Name : Addre ss: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments. may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace .org Dropped in the Comm ents Bo x, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Proje ct Planner Midpe ninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Di stel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 / 5~· ~ • Mid peninsula Reg iona l Open Sp ace District t \f\ Nam e: Address: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments, m ay be submitted vi a e m a il to : thugg@ope nspace .org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to : Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Reg ional Open Space District 300 Di stel Circle, Lo s Altos, CA 94022 Phon e: --------EMAIL : ______________ _ Comments : _________________________ _ LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE i M;dpe,;o,"laReg;ooa lOpeoSpeoe D;strict PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments, may be submitted Name: Address: via email to : thugg@openspace .o rg Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Di strict 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 )URP:XIRR 7R7LQD+XJJ0HOLVVD%RUJHVL &FZHE 6XEMHFW/D+RQGD&UHHN&RPPXQLFDWLRQV>@ 'DWH6XQGD\'HFHPEHU30 ydZE> Name John Rosenberg MD Email * Zip Code *94020 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list? Yes Questions or Comments?Please, please do not use the red barn area for parking or access. I’m a retired ER doctor and have lived here 46 years, and that spot is notorious for vehicular accidents, especially motorcycles. I cannot imagine horse trailers pulling in and out with people zipping around that corner. And a parking lot there would be an aesthetic tragedy, ruining such a pretty spot. And, speaking of aesthetics, please restore the red color to the red barn. That washed out rust look has never been attractive. Thanks for keeping the open spaces open and natural John Rosenberg )URP:XIRR 7R7LQD+XJJ0HOLVVD%RUJHVL &FZHE 6XEMHFW/D+RQGD&UHHN&RPPXQLFDWLRQV>@ 'DWH)ULGD\1RYHPEHU$0 ydZE> Name Rita Jaramillo Email * Zip Code *94020 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list? Yes Questions or Comments? I do not like the idea of creating a redundant new parking lot at “the residence site” on Harrington Creek trail. •The 0ne mile ranch road is a popular brief walk and jog road after work on week days. Don’t want to hike from one lot to another. • Having a lot one mile in doesn’t provide much more access which was a goal. • I just hiked from Folger Loop trail down Harrington Creek Trail towards Sears Ranch Road and realized I’d be staring at a parking lot as I wind down the trail from above. Not very inspiring. It would be an eyesore. • Driscoll was an event center, the space is ideal for large groups and can accommodate limited mobility groups and small children. Good spot for small loop, picnic area, and interpretive or visitor center. • Leave Weeks Creek LH07 to the wildlife. Humans and dogs would disrupt. Consider connecting Allen Road trail to Harrington. Trail the group hiked from “residence site” to the right and up to the gate could veer left or North away from weeks creek and connect to Allen Road by trails that by pass Red Barn. Leave the Red Barn on its own. Humans don’t need to hike to it. Hikers want to hide. Those that don’t or can’t can go to Driscoll. Leave Red Barn as icon it is undisturbed. Thanks, )URP&\GQH\%LHEHU 7R7LQD+XJJ0HOLVVD%RUJHVL 6XEMHFW5(/D+RQGD&UHHN&RPPHQWV4XHVWLRQV 'DWH:HGQHVGD\2FWREHU$0 ,ĞƌĞLJĂŐŽ͘ ϭϬͬϮϯͬϮϬϭϵ ϵ͗ϯϲ ŶĚLJ ĞůŬ ϵϰϯϬϭ zĞƐ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǁŽƌŬŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŽƉĞŶƵƉŵŽƌĞŚŝŬŝŶŐͬũŽŐŐŝŶŐƚƌĂŝůƐŝŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĐůŽƐĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ͘ ϭϬͬϯͬϮϬϭϵ ϭϭ͗ϭϵ >ŝnj tĞƐƚďƌŽŽŬ ϵϰϭϮϵ zĞƐ >ŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽƐĞĞŝŶŐĂƉůĂŶƚŽŽƉĞŶƚŚĞZŝĚŐĞdƌĂŝůŝŶhƉƉĞƌ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬ͊dŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌƉƵƚƚŝŶŐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŚŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŐƌŽƵƉ͘ ϵͬϲͬϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϭϳ DĂƌŝĂ WĞƚĞƌƐŽŶ ϵϰϬϮϬ zĞƐ /ůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞZĞĚǁŽŽĚdĞƌƌĂĐĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽĨ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂ͘sĞƌLJŚĂƉƉLJƚŽƐĞĞƚŚĞ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞ ƵƉĚĂƚĞƐ͘ &ƌŽŵ͗dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐфƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϵϭϬ͗ϬϬD dŽ͗LJĚŶĞLJŝĞďĞƌфĐďŝĞďĞƌΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх͖DĞůŝƐƐĂŽƌŐĞƐŝфŵďŽƌŐĞƐŝΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗Z͗>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬŽŵŵĞŶƚƐͬYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ dŚĂŶŬƐ͕LJĚŶĞLJ͘tŚĞŶǁĞƌĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƐĞŶƚ͍ dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐ͕W>͕^> ^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ ƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐ DŝĚƉĞŶŝŶƐƵůĂZĞŐŝŽŶĂůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ϯϯϬŝƐƚĞůŝƌĐůĞ͕>ŽƐůƚŽƐ͕ϵϰϬϮϮ W͗;ϲϱϬͿϲϵϭͲϭϮϬϬͲ&͗;ϲϱϬͿϲϵϭͲϬϰϴϱ ǁǁǁ͘ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐͮƚǁŝƚƚĞƌ͗ΛŵƌŽƐĚ &ƌŽŵ͗LJĚŶĞLJŝĞďĞƌфĐďŝĞďĞƌΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϱϲD dŽ͗dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐфƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх͖DĞůŝƐƐĂŽƌŐĞƐŝфŵďŽƌŐĞƐŝΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬŽŵŵĞŶƚƐͬYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ KŶůLJƚŚƌĞĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞZĞĚĂƌŶŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŝŶ:ƵŶĞϮϬϭϴ͘ůůǁĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŶŽƚƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘ >ĞƚŵĞŬŶŽǁŝĨLJŽƵŶĞĞĚĂŶLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘ ŶĚLJ ĞůŬ ϵϰϯϬϭ zĞƐ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǁŽƌŬŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŽƉĞŶƵƉŵŽƌĞŚŝŬŝŶŐͬũŽŐŐŝŶŐ ƚƌĂŝůƐŝŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĐůŽƐĞĚĂƌĞĂƐ͘ >ŝnj tĞƐƚďƌŽŽŬ ϵϰϭϮϵ zĞƐ >ŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽƐĞĞŝŶŐĂƉůĂŶƚŽŽƉĞŶƚŚĞZŝĚŐĞdƌĂŝůŝŶhƉƉĞƌ>Ă ,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬ͊dŚĂŶŬƐĨŽƌƉƵƚƚŝŶŐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŚŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŐƌŽƵƉ͘ DĂƌŝĂ WĞƚĞƌƐŽŶ ϵϰϬϮϬ zĞƐ /ůŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞZĞĚǁŽŽĚdĞƌƌĂĐĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽĨ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂ͘sĞƌLJ ŚĂƉƉLJƚŽƐĞĞƚŚĞ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬdƌĂŝůŚĞĂĚƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ͘/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚ ƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞƵƉĚĂƚĞƐ͘ &ƌŽŵ͗LJĚŶĞLJŝĞďĞƌ ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϰϴD dŽ͗dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐфƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх͖DĞůŝƐƐĂŽƌŐĞƐŝфŵďŽƌŐĞƐŝΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗&t͗>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ΀ηϮϭϲ΁ :ƵƐƚƌĞĂůŝnjĞĚƚŚĂƚŝĨƐŽŵĞĂĚĚƐĂĐŽŵŵĞŶƚŽŶƚŚĞ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂĞŵĂŝůůŝƐƚǁĞďƐŝŐŶͲƵƉƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƐƚŝůůďĞŝŶŐƐĞŶƚƚŽ>ĞƐůŝĞŚĂŶ͘/͛ůůĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĂƚƚŽĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽƚŚĞƚǁŽŽĨLJŽƵĂŶĚůŽŽŬďĂĐŬƚŽƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŵŝƐƐĞĚ͘ LJĚŶĞLJ &ƌŽŵ͗tƵĨŽŽфŶŽͲƌĞƉůLJΛǁƵĨŽŽ͘ĐŽŵх ^ĞŶƚ͗tĞĚŶĞƐĚĂLJ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϵϵ͗ϯϳD dŽ͗ůĐŚĂŶΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐ Đ͗ǁĞďфǁĞďΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ΀ηϮϭϲ΁ ydZE> Name Andy Belk Email * Zip Code *94301 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list?•Yes Questions or Comments?Interested in the work needed to open up more hiking/jogging trails in the currently closed areas. From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg;Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#222] Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:59:26 AM EXTERNAL Name Maryann Chwalek Email * Zip Code *94020 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list? Yes Questions or Comments? I attended the Working Group meeting and tours on Sat. 11/12/19. Just wanted to share my thoughts on this by way of public comment. Hope this is the place to do that! Loved the hike from the current LHCOPP north toward the access gate LH07 on Rt. 84.. Would love to see that developed now: could be accessed by hikers from the current parking lot on Sears Ranch Rd. (This lot never seems to be crowded, as far as I can tell as a local). Liked the idea of smaller access points at various locations, such as a small lot by preserve gate LH07; possibly permit only depending on traffic considerations. The idea of further parking accessed from Sears Ranch Rd. / educational opportunities is interesting to me, including expansion of current lot, or an additional lot near the gate. Also I have not been to the Driscoll site, but that could be included here as well. What about the idea of developing some trails that could be accessed north from the current lot at Sears Ranch Rd.? That would give more options for hiking from that lot. Putting parking lots off the highly traveled Rt. 84 by the Red Barn, or on sections of the road with curves, higher speeds /potential for accidents on an already busy section for public safety and our responders does not seem a wise choice, in my view. Thank you for this venue for public comment! Maryann Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name : Address: Ph one: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to : thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Co mments:_~~:,---------------,--------.--~--- AJ v oca.te. £0,-B4~ Areo... tLo.3e Tro,IJ J enera.U.~ bu.du.&1,.9 Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP EMAIL: Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 ------------------------ Comments: __ -.----T't':---------------------- From:Jg To:Tina Hugg;Liz Westbrook Subject:Written comments to LHC PAWG Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2019 3:00:05 PM Hello PAWG. A quick note to elaborate more than two minutes allowed at your last meeting. As mentioned, I've been involved with the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council for ~20 years, as a volunteer, and at various times, a staffmember and Board Director. More importantly, I'm a 25 year Districtresident (Ward 5) and huge fan. As a hiker and cyclist, one of the best ways to enjoy and celebrate Midpen's achievements is a long multi-preserve outing, through the connected network of trails and protected lands. I've long envisioned a great adventure of riding up to Skyline, turning right, and riding theRidge Trail into San Francisco, mostly off-road. Only a couplesignificant gaps prevent this. Even greater would be a multi-day tripbetween San Jose and San Francisco, mostly on trails away from traffic.Only a handful of gaps prevent this. To speak more grandly, only a smallnumber of trail gaps remain to connect Silicon Valley and the GoldenGate via the Ridge Trail (and beyond, to Novato!) La Honda Creek OSP is one of those gaps. I've seen millions of dollars spent to create this preserve, and I've celebrated each acquisition. I have visited via Allen Rd, and it is wonderful, the views to the coastover the central part of the preserve stunning. Yet the trails into andacross this heart of the preserve are not yet there. Safe and appropriate staging areas are crucial, of course. So please, keep on with the good work you are doing. The amount of thought and detail I witnessed in only the first half of your 12/12/19 meeting was impressive. As you continue, please keep in mind the larger goals, enabling public access to the interior of our 2nd largest Preserve, and helping connect LHC to the preserves nearby. For a while, the RidgeTrail Council used the tag line "Connecting People, Parks and OpenSpaces.' Thanks for your work, support and partnership in doing exactlythat. appreciatively, Joel Gartland P.S. I visited yesterday, from Allen Road. If you have not been to upper /+&,KLJKO\UHFRPPHQGLW )URP 7R &F 6XEMHFW 'DWH $WWDFKPHQWV 7LQD+XJJ 5REHUW'RROH\ 0HOLVVD%RUJHVL 5(6XSSOHPHQWDO3XEOLFZULWWHQFRPPHQWE\5REHUW'RROH\IRU'HFPHHWLQJ/D+RQGD3XEOLF$FFHVV ZRUNLQJJURXS )ULGD\-DQXDU\$0 UHGEDUQKLVWRU\SGI ĞĂƌDƌ͘ŽŽůĞLJ͗ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĞŵĂŝů͘/ƚǁŝůůďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝƚƐĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚŝƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞŝŶƚŚĞƉĂĐŬĞƚ ďĞŝŶŐƐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞtŽƌŬŝŶŐ'ƌŽƵƉĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌ&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϲ͕ϮϬϭϵŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉŽƐƚĞĚŽŶůŝŶĞ͘ dŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂůƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞƚŚĂƚLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƐŚĂƌĞĚĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵĞƌƉŽŶĚĂƚ ƚŚĞZĞĚĂƌŶƐŝƚĞ͘ƐLJŽƵŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚ͕ƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƉŽŶĚĂƚƚŚĞZĞĚĂƌŶǁĂƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚ ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĞĨĨŽƌƚ͘ƚƚŚĂƚƚŝŵĞ͕ŝƚǁĂƐĚĞĞŵĞĚŝŶĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞƉŽŶĚĞdžŝƐƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϴϰǁĂƐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐǁŝƚŚ ƌĞƐƚŽƌŝŶŐĂƉŽŶĚƐŽĐůŽƐĞƚŽĂďƵƐLJƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚĨĂƌĞĂŶĚĐůŽƐĞƚŽƉƵďůŝĐƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉŽŶĚǁŽƵůĚ ĂƚƚƌĂĐƚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂŶĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶƉŽƐƐŝďůĞŵŽƌƚĂůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚƌĞĂƚĞŶĞĚĂŶĚĞŶĚĂŶŐĞƌĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂƌĞĚͲůĞŐŐĞĚĨƌŽŐĂŶĚ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽŐĂƌƚĞƌƐŶĂŬĞ͘ dŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞǁĂƚĞƌƌŝŐŚƚƐĨŽƌĂƉŽŶĚŝŶƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ >Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞŚĂƐƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƐƚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉŽŶĚƐŽĨĂŶLJWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ ǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐďŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŵƉůĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚĨŽƌǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐĂŶĚĞŶũŽLJĂďůĞ ĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨĂƌƚŚĞƌŝŶƐŝĚĞƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚĂǁĂLJĨƌŽŵďƵƐLJƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐ͘ KǀĞƌƚŚĞůĂƐƚƐĞǀĞƌĂůLJĞĂƌƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŚĂƐǁŽƌŬĞĚŽŶƉŽŶĚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƚ>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬ KƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕ǁŚĞƌĞϮϱƉŽŶĚƐ͕ĂďŽƵƚŽŶĞƋƵĂƌƚĞƌŽĨĂůůƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐƉŽŶĚƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚŝƚƐ ůĂŶĚƐ͕ĂƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ͘ĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůůLJǀĂůƵĂďůĞƉŽŶĚƐĞdžŝƐƚĨĂƌƚŚĞƌŝŶƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚŚĞ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛ƐĨŽĐƵƐ͘dŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŚĂƐƌĞƐƚŽƌĞĚĨŝǀĞƉŽŶĚƐĂƚƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚŝƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĨƵƚƵƌĞ ƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƐŝdžƚŚƉŽŶĚ͕>ŽǁĞƌdƵƌƚůĞWŽŶĚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂƐŚŝŐŚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůǀĂůƵĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨ ƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉŽŶĚƐĂƚƚŚĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŶŽĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉůĂŶƐƚŽĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĂŶĞǁƉŽŶĚ͘ ƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚŝƐƐŚŝĨƚŝŶŐŝƚƐĨŽĐƵƐƚŽƌĞƐƚŽƌŝŶŐŽƚŚĞƌŚŝŐŚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚLJƉŽŶĚƐĨŽƌǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ŚĂƐǁĂƚĞƌƌŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚŝŶŽƚŚĞƌƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚLJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͘ ZĞŐĂƌĚƐ͕ dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐ͕W>͕^> ^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ ƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐ DŝĚƉĞŶŝŶƐƵůĂZĞŐŝŽŶĂůKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ ϯϯϬŝƐƚĞůŝƌĐůĞ͕>ŽƐůƚŽƐ͕ϵϰϬϮϮ W͗;ϲϱϬͿϲϵϭͲϭϮϬϬͲ&͗;ϲϱϬͿϲϵϭͲϬϰϴϱ ǁǁǁ͘ŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐͮƚǁŝƚƚĞƌ͗ΛŵƌŽƐĚ  &ƌŽŵ͗ ^ĞŶƚ͗&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϭϬ͕ϮϬϮϬϰ͗ϬϵWD dŽ͗dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐфƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх͖DĞůŝƐƐĂŽƌŐĞƐŝфŵďŽƌŐĞƐŝΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗^ƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůWƵďůŝĐǁƌŝƚƚĞŶĐŽŵŵĞŶƚďLJZŽďĞƌƚŽŽůĞLJĨŽƌĞĐϭϮ͕ϮϬϭϵŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ>Ă ,ŽŶĚĂWƵďůŝĐĐĐĞƐƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŐƌŽƵƉ  ydZE>  Madam Chair and members of the working group: Please accept my attached supplemental comments following your December 12, 2019, meeting in Los Altos. In my testimony that evening I referenced my oral Comments from a May 2018 meeting of the Board in La Honda. After the meeting in Los Altos I remembered that many of you were not present at the earlier meeting to hear my comments regarding the Pond that existed east of the Red Barn. I thought I would take this opportunity to provide you with a copy of my testimony and pertinent excerpts from the two District Commissioned Historical reports that support the assertions made in my testimony. It is my hope that you will understand the equal importance of the Pond Restoration while continuing to preserve the historical Red Barn and surrounding property. Thank You Robert Dooley 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU June 4, 2018 Board of Directors, I am sharing my views and asking some questions regarding the Red Barn Public access plan (agenda item 6) from the May 9, 2018 meeting. First I wo ul d like to thank the staff for providing the reports the Trust commissioned and used in designating the historical significance of the Red Barn area and justification for its preservation. These documents are entitled Historic Resource Evaluation August 2016 and The Histo r y of the Weeks Ranch at La Honda. After reviewing these documents over the last few weeks I became more aware of, in my opinion, one of the most significant features of this historic site. I knew that the Red Barn and adjacent corrals were built by the pioneering Weeks Family in the period between 1892 and 1923. What I did Not know was that the pond that existed immediately east of the Red Barn appears on maps as early as 1868 (pg 8 History of the Weeks Ranch). That pon d was filled in after 1960, according to the report, by the McDonald family. On the cover page of the Historic Resource Evaluation is a picture taken on June 21, 2016 (the height of summer) during possibly one of the most extreme droughts this state has ever seen. It shows the Barn and in the forefront is the old pond area. It is distinctive in that while all the grass around it is brown, that area where the o ld pond used to be is Gree n . My experience from driving regularly by the barn on Highway 84 is that it is always green, year around. In May of 2017, at a meeting at the Red Barn area with MidPen staff where they presented the initial proposal for this project to a number of local residents and concerned neighbors, one of the neighbors with a long family history in the area asked if th ey were going to restore t h e original pond. My recollection of the answer to her question was that it was sensitive habitat with all sorts of creatures and grasses peculiar to such a wetland. It was also pointed out by Mid Pen Staff, at the time, that the area was fenced off to protect the sensitive area from cattle. 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU On Page 24 of the report it states that the pond was home to "willow trees along the banks and reportedly a haven for frogs". It goes on to say "Its location is still evident marked by grasses and Reeds that grow there". On the final sentence on page 25 of this report, I quote, "Restoration of this pond would be appropriate to consider both for its wildlife habitat and for its value as an historic landscape feature of the ranch". There are many photos of the Barn and the Pond laced throughout this report ranging from 1904 until the present. My question is ... In that your mission here and in all the property you manage and control is to preserve, protect and restore the natural environment, Why is the restoration of this critical area not being addressed? Not only is it not being addressed but according to the plan being presented it apparently is being slated to have the dirt fill entry ramp and road constructed over it and paved. This seems inconsistent with your stated mission. I believe Joni Mitchell said it best" They paved paradise and put up a parking lot" It is not too late to address this and Restore the Pond. Thank you, Robert Dooley Update January, 2020 Beginning in the spring of 2018 the District opened the gate to the aforementioned sensitive habitat area and mowed the green grass down to 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU approximately 8 inches in height. This was a departure from their previous position that this was sensitive habitat and home to all sorts of previously protected plants, grasses, animals and amphibians. Despite this mowing the area remained green even though the surrounding fields and hills were dry and brown. 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU History of the Weeks Ranch at La Honda Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve 150 La Honda Road , Woodside, California Prepared By: :"lancy Elizabeth Stoltz, AIA . AI CP A pril 1, 20 02 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU Alth o11gh nu pho10i:ru11hs of lhc RQbinson Weck, mnch hou.o;e were lucatcd dcpicting 11 Juring his family ·~ time of resi,kn.:c. ,·il'n I shtl\\, "hm is bclu:vcJ 10 bc hh house and b:1rn. Th ... house was toc~tcd in appr,1,imntcly th.: same place as thc snmllcr red ranch hou~e on the ,he today . Thi.' house in the ..:cmcr W:i!. built luter b) his ~on . Bun Weck~. a:, Ins family rcsid..:ncc Th.: bnm is located near tlli: former pond . Thn u£h u·~ t~n wing is (lb,cu rc d by vegem11on in the photogmph. the rooflim: or 1hc barn uprear:, to be ~ymmctncal upon clo;;c inspection. ~ 1NUbl., f8/£ars on ma ~ of the pr_Qpc ll):.11s 1:arly a It was lilted in sometime ofter J.!l@.. l ie Ja1e ,, cons1ttrl!lf8 ,iJf11ic house ,s pro a I) somcw ere •tween :ind f ~ic pcnod during which RobinM>n \Vce t..s is kno\\ n to ha"e owned the land. TI1c oriainal house , located closer to the creek as d~picted on mups doting back to I 855. reponcdly bum~J down in I S88 . h wos not unusual for a family 10 huild a mon: spad,ius house ,md COO\cn 1hc ongin:11 to som1: other purpose . Even on the mnp of I S6R the original 0111: hnct bco:n descrih.!d as "Old Hou~.::· Busin ess Vent url'b of Robinson Weeks ,\ primary and essential ac 1ivi1y in the count y durmg this dccad1: wa~ road construct ion. eiihcr sponsored and paid for directly by the C:oun1y. or hy priv:uc corporation1o formed to build turnpikes. or 1011 rnuJ~. Although n road of son~ had c:\1s1i;d cunnccting Redwood City wi th Pc::;cudcro for some 1ilm:. it ,~:is principally II logging roaJ. unsuitable for coach traffic and. no doubt. requiring numerous fords nt the slreums 3long the rou1c. Rnnchcr5 hud also built priva t.: ru ad s connecting their properties but these did not provide continuuu, rou1cs of lrll\ el. Accor di ng 10 loco I 11ew~pap1:r accounts. the Scarsv11le and La I lond11 Turnpike Co. wa~ incorpora1cd on November :?S. I ~7-1. with capillll stock or SI 0,000. '" The pmpOl>cJ roaJ wa, to connect the se trl e1m:m or Scn r~vilk on the hny side south of Woodside. to Ln I londa. (Scun,villc is now under u lake by that name on the S13nford University campus). Tht' Cl>ntr:ict to i:onstruc1 the road was given 10 R. J. Weeks 1111d was commenced in March of ll!75 .'' Despite some financial problems with the stockholders of the comp.,ny. the road wa.~ completed as far as Lu Honda b)' early J 876. ' The mute is esscnunlly the same al. that of Old Ln llonda Kood und would have cut through the Wcel.s ranch in its larger incnm,11ions, though tod ay the ran.:h is lncatcd only on the ,w,t ~1dc of the ro;1J . Although the turnpike wai; only a linl. in the Redwood City and Pcsc:1dcro romc. the cnurc mute becmn,: known as the Redwood City and Pc sca dero Turnpike due to the nccc,sity of paying a wll along it. The section of rood from 'inn Gregorio C:reek ninn,ng ~outh to Pcscadcro Creek was built at pubhc expense, nu1hori1ed b) rht: Board of Supervisors. The rcmaining link in the rolllc "·~~ fin3lly completed in lute 1877. As with other toll roads in th e County. the turnpike \\3S made public and toll fu:c wh..-n it wu~ rnkcn rwcr hy the county less than a year lat,·r . The pric e of 52,500 was much ks~ than th.: rurponcd value of the capi1:1l stock.''' With tho: newly improved roads came C\pand~d st agecoach sen i.:c. Stugeconch service was prO\'ill.:d by the Knights line . up,:rnted h) Simon Knight s and his son. Waller. from 1866 10 1906. Scn·icc terminakd at Scar..\'illc until 1 S6H, then \las ublc: 10 expand 10 S:1n Gregorio , ia the King·, 'vluunrnin route and soon aficr on to P.:scaLkro. Com rtcuon nfthc S1:nrs\'ilk and La lino.ta Turnpik e bm11gh1 ,rngccoaeh scrvicc 1<11hc .. Sccmc Koutc .. along Old la I lond.1 Road and r:hl the \\\ck:< r.mch.'1 Robinson Weeks dccidcd tu build a huicl .. for the accomnwda11un of th <! trmding publit·:·:, rhc ho tel wa~ evidently .:ompktcd by 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION RED BARN STAGING AREA LA HO~DA C R E EK OPE::-i SPACE PRESERVE, UNINCORPORATED SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNI A MlDPENlNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DlSTRICT LS A Augusl 2016 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU S 1a1e of California -Tbe Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PAR.KS AND RECREATIO N C ONTINU ATION SHEET Page 21 or22 Recorded by: Michael Hibma P Sa. Photograph (Continued) P rimary # IIRI # Tr in omia l R e,;ource Name: Red Baro Date: August 3, 2016 Red Barn, La llonda Creek Open Space Preserve. Circa 1920 image of RM Barn and pond in foreground. View west from modem la Honda Road/State Rout e 84. Photo councsy Midpcnil1.•ula Regional Open Space District. DPR S23L (1/95) 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU The sm:ill ranch house thm b.:camc the Glass residence wus b111h by thr \V('cks family during thc tirst quart.:r of th,· twentieth cc11tU1)'. pmh:ibl) ~omctink' bct~s'Cn 1905 and l •>20 . It wa~ clearly not the principal residenc e for the Burt Week$ family. llowcvcr. ii m3 y haw provided housint: for ranch workcr.:< or l!\'cn u1hcr family member,;. It b a ,cm:iculnr style rnnch hou5" that \\:h common to the rcgion ;ind similar 10 the hou~cs locaic,I ncur th e origi nal Weeks dairy. The hui ld ing ha~ a part ial lini shcll basement,, ith rourcd concrete walls :ind floor. Accoflliny 10 Mr.,. Sil\·a, this room I\ as n:ponedly u~cd by lhc \\ieeks famil y for processing of milk and dairy produc ts for family use . The su b1crru~un concreh: walls would have provided the constant coo l temperature s needed for tha1 pu11111S.:. Reports that 1his ra nch hou s.: served us ;1 stop 011 th e s1ugccouch line could not be conlirmcd. Such a use is very unlikdy given 1hc c,timatcd date of construction of 1hc building. The Knights Lin.: stngc, wh ich opcnned along Old Lu lfonda Rond betw een Redwood City. Pcsc:adcm um.I San Grcgori<1, ceased ,lpcratiuns on July 31. l'l06. uccording to local historian Gilb.:n Richa rd ~.•: T he Mc Dona ld fa mil~ Somctnnc in the early 1960s, Jack and Mari on Glass ,old the propcny 10 Edith Chamberlin fie ld . who murri cd William ~kDonalc.l . Th~ Mcbonalds raised beef catt le on the ranch and View 17 : E:as 1 Elc,·alion of Munch Hou se (by author) lli,tory ur, he Wr,•ks Ran t h 2002 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU :\lldp('nins ul u Regio nal Open Space Dis1rict The Dis1ric1 acqu1n:J lhc rJnch limn lhc EJ1th l\1cl)onald tru~I in I 111)0 ,1> J major aJdii i,lll 10 1hc adJnccm I.a Honda Creek ()pen Space l'n:scrv.: lond~ 11, thc 1101th. Dis1m:1 crews have rcccnlly compk1cd stub1fa.nion 11·orl.. 011 lhe found.u1on un 1he wc,1 side of the ham ,~here the 1or ot 1hc b,ml.. ho~ eroded away o,·cr tht year.,. 1tb1ork phutogrnphs or th,· ham mdicatc 1h11t ult hough 11 wos s ited initially at the top ot the bank on a kl't!I silt!. con~i derJble erosion of the bank ha~ occum:d. Th.: relative dales of photograph s can be c~timarcd by 1he progrc~, or erosion of this bank . l'rcw members have also completed o rcstoration1recons1ruc1ion of lhl.' cupoln II hich ha~ now hcen restored to the ham roof. The ham w.is rl.'-molcd in the tirst 4uurter of :?002 wllh cedn r s hing le,. similur in appeuruncc Ill its original wuo<l ~hingks. Pn:parati on~ un: u1ukrwuy to paint the barn in lhi.' spring :ind main1c:nnncc anJ rcpai~ c,f the fences ure undcrwa~. with 1h~ Distri~t c,·.:w, assisted by volunteers 1.iko: many fum1 buildings. the barn h3S b<!c.>111<.' lln uttrncriw hnhirnt for ba1s ant.I owls which. no t.loubl, will continue to rcsi1k in 1heir :idopt.:d hubitat . ~~ the historic rirnil ..ru.i ul1 1.1l.;..arp~iatc: 1,, consiJcr ;.,th for it, filldllfi;Jl:ibit:11 and tor Ttu,1Tiic'a!> an h1s1onc an cal!£Jcaturc ofihc ru ntli llislur) 11f lh,· lh'l'k~ R11ndt 3PCFSU%PPMFZ&NBJM"UUBDINFOU State of California -The Resources Agency DE PARTMENT OF PAR.KS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Pag, 19 of22 Recorded by: Michael Hibma PSa. Photograph (Continued) Primary # lIRl # Trloomlal Resource Name: Red Barn Dat e: August 3. 20 16 Red Barn. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve . Cin:a 1900 image of Red 8nm. north fac;adc , ,•iew ~out h. Ph oto counesy Midpcninsula Regional Open Space District. Red Barn. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Circa 1920 image of Red Barn (at lcfi) and fonn er Weeks house (at right). View -w-est from vicinity of modem La Honda Roa d/S tate Route 84 . Note cupola on Red Barn roof. Photo councsy Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District . DPR 523L (1/95) Mid peninsula Regional Open Space Distri ct Name: Address: Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Di strict 300 Distel Circle, Los A ltos, CA 94022 Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Phone: EMAIL: Comments: '"1tlfi: 12-tD<.~ '.JR.A(£...1,$(12:r) CtOAL Ir,..., l,4 Htfr->l)A. I S :ro CJl.:0\:1E? A M,Ul-11 -\JSE-: 1~A:t L--lorv,-J\:l.....:].\C ,..J ::tH l.oy. H 7tl~ '7tA:-t,{\ ~ ~ '"1r\k1. Y.l VS> ~ 5 11> ~ ~f evz.-fott},b"-.1 aF 1l1er ~~~g 1 ,,.wo ~~ou-~e fZ--T. Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone : LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Com ments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Comments: ______ ~---..---~ f\t.ze-5s K7 ~ r _ · ~s LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE i PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP • :.· Mid peninsula Regi onal Open Space Dis trict Comments may be submitted Name: Address: Phone: Comments: via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Pia nner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 C.:rn-J-----.--A-n_u_~_+ __ l\_u_h~l-<_'-______________ _ Mi d peninsula Regiona l Open Space D i strict Name: Address: Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP EMAIL : Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Pia nner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 ------------------------ Comments : ----------------------------- ------ LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Mid peninsula Reg i onal Open Space Dis t rict Name: Address: Phone: Comments : Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 5 /ez c/'l,7 EMAIL: ---------------- -~-;.---,,-.,,..,,,-A-k'"+_ :-(i -~ -s:-~-;;"""'~---------------- LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District 'Name : Address: Phone : Comments: ' I EMAIL: Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 ------------------------ ----------------------------- LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: Comments may be submitted v i a email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Pia nner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Comments: ___________ _ LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: Comments : Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 -----------.----------=------------r-72>~.t:: 77/-E U JIJ:t,-d'.&'.t: <JG" cY2 C2/Z //(_/ ,&-@ · f ~ Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: Comments: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: Comments: Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner M idpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 ----::_....--+------,::--.?'i'"------=--+---+---+-------.:+-----=-t--::--........,....----:-t:------,i--=-i-- ~ • Mid peninsula Regional Open Sp ace District Name: Address: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Pi a nner Midpeninsula Reg i onal Open Space Di strict 300 Distel Circle, Los A ltos, CA 94022 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE I PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP • :.· Mid penins ula Regional Open Space Di s trict Name : Address: Phone : Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: T i na Hugg, Project Pl anner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Di strict 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Comments:. ____________ _ )URP:XIRR 7R7LQD+XJJ0HOLVVD%RUJHVL &FZHE 6XEMHFW/D+RQGD&UHHN&RPPXQLFDWLRQV>@ 'DWH7KXUVGD\)HEUXDU\30 ydZE> Name Stephen Jones Email * Zip Code *94062 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list? Yes Please let us know your comments about projects at La Honda Creek. We have lived on Bear Gulch Road West near the Allen Road entrance for 40 years, and we love the old Rocking Martini barn. Please do not create a large paved area adjacent to it. We were very concerned about the previous plan to pave over a sensitive habitat that used to be a watercourse and is now a wetland, important for local endangered species. We think the current arrangement at Dyer Ranch is excellent, with access limited to only 10 permits per day. We much prefer the central parking access to be created off Sears Ranch Road, for traffic safety and environmental reasons. And limit that access as well to 10 permits per day. The Red Barn should not be made a "destination" site, but rather should be an integral component of a widely varied open space experience, accessible by foot/horse/bicycle, but not by powered vehicles. Perhaps an MROSD interpretive center could be made an adjunct of the elementary school, but not at the barn. &ƌŽŵ͗,ĂŶƐ>ƵĞŵĞƌƐ ^ĞŶƚ͗^ĂƚƵƌĚĂLJ͕&ĞďƌƵĂƌLJϴ͕ϮϬϮϬϮ͗ϭϰWD dŽ͗dŝŶĂ,ƵŐŐфƚŚƵŐŐΛŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘ŽƌŐх Đ͗,ĂŶƐ>ƵĞŵĞƌƐ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗>Ă,ŽŶĚĂƌĞĞŬKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞWƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ ydZE> Hi Tina, I attended last Thursday evening's meeting but did not stay long enough to submit my comments. I thought I may provide them to you via e-mail. I always want to mention how much I appreciate the good work the MROSD does, especially given the wide variety of tasks it has to managed with the available staff it has. Here are my thoughts / suggestions: - Open the currently closed parts of the preserve prior to establishing the second parking space. Given that any hiker in good condition will have no problem hiking the central and upper parts from the recently established parking lot near the La Honda Elementary School. Given that (that's what I think to remember) the trails were already laid out at the time (I think it is about 1 1/2 years ago) when the parking lot was proposed to be at the Red Barn, but was abandoned due to majority opposition. - As I think to understand the plan is to open only the Central Part of the Preserve in addition to the 2017 opened lower part. I suggest that MRSOD open the entire Preserve, i.e. the upper Part as well. I want to note that one of your board members (didn't get her name) at Thursday's meeting certainly increased people's interest in that part by describing how beautiful it is up there. Right now it can only be visited by permit and via Allen Road. - Provide a trail link from the upper part to the Corte Madera OS preserve which is adjacent to the La Honda Creek Preserve. - Think of providing a trail link from Wunderlich Park to the La Honda Creek Preserve. The two open spaces are pretty much only separated by HWY 35. Maybe an easement might be required to connect the two open spaces. We all enthusiastically supported the June 2014 AA measure. One of the priority of AA is to provide links. I don't want to sound critical, but I have to say I haven't seen much of that Linking. I appreciate that I had the opportunity to submit these points to you. I would be happy to talk to you over the phone or via a visit to your office. I may have a couple more ideas (guess that's all you need given what you already confronted with). Thanks Tina for your good work. Good trails to you Hans )URP 7R &F 6XEMHFW 'DWH %DUEDUD+RRSHU 7LQD+XJJ0HOLVVD%RUJHVL %DUEDUD+RRSHU )ZG5HG%DUQ :HGQHVGD\)HEUXDU\$0 yd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rom:Maryann Chwalek To:Tina Hugg;Melissa Borgesi Subject:La Honda Public Access Working Group - Public Comment Date:Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:24:15 AM EXTERNAL Hi Tina and Melissa, Sorry to be late on this public comment for the upcoming meeting! I searched on the site last week and did not see a link. Hope it is OK that I emailed you directly. I attended the last meeting and made a brief comment about gaining access to the trail north from the Sears Ranch parking lot. Just want to underscore what a nice hike this was the day the group took a field trip toward Preserve Gate LH07!! It would seem a win-win to open this trail so that there are more immediate hiking options from the Sears Ranch parking lot. Also, the hike that day was not long and was at a leisurely pace. So, building on the comment above, opening a trail or trails north past Preserve Gate LH07 would be another win for hikers using the Sears Ranch lot. As an example, I have hiked 6 to 8 miles from the Purissima-Redwoods parking lot on Skyline, and one could easily do more (I’m guessing they do!). Wondering how many miles it would be to walk from the Sears Ranch lot to the area closer to the Red Barn and/or Allen Road permit only lot? It would be interesting to note mileage for different trail routes that could be accessed now from the Sears Ranch lot. While I don’t know all the Mid-Pen sites for hiking, I’m guessing most have trail options. On another note, every time I drive on Rt. 84 in either direction I consider what it would be like to turn into a parking area near the Red Barn or LH07. Each time, my first thought is - risky, and at times downright scary (and I am well familiar with 84 as a La Honda resident of many years). It was the safe choice for the Mid-Pen tour to LH07 to go up to Alice’s Restaurant to turn around, so as not to cross traffic. I can imagine what the already overpacked corner at Alice’s would be like if that became the route of choice for hikers. Just also want to thank you for your careful attention to this project, as well as all the other wonderful hiking areas we have to enjoy now! Best regards, Maryann Chwalek From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Wufoo Tina Hugg;Melissa Borgesi web La Honda Creek Communications [#231] Monday, March 2, 2020 4:46:08 PM EXTERNAL Name Lynnette Vega Email * Zip Code *94020 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list? Yes Please let us know your comments about projects at La Honda Creek. Dear Members of the La Honda Public Access Working Group** Many La Honda residents who attended the February 6th meeting at La Honda School were surprised and alarmed to see that parking near the Red Barn was still a consideration. At the June 12th, 2018 MROSD meeting in La Honda, well over one-hundred people attended to primarily argue against any parking near the Red Barn for a number of reasons. Any cars coming out of site E1, E2 or E3 are potential traffic hazards for drivers heading either east or west. When one person from the La Honda subcommittee suggested putting in a “round-about” as a way to mitigate traffic congestion, it was apparent to anyone who lives here that she has never spent a weekend day near the Red Barn to experience the flow of traffic. In fact, when we spent a day exploring the different site considerations, in order to get there from the school, the van driver had to go all the way up to Alice's Restaurant in order to safely turn around. Better options have been presented and we ask that you consider those and forget, once and for all, parking near the Red Barn and just leave it as it currently is. This is how you "preserve the rural character" of a place rather than exploit it. Sincerely, Lynnette Vega () Eva Knodt () Nigel Webb () Angie Quinn () Cindy Crowe-Urgo () LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ~ M;dpen;nsola Regional Open Space Dlstdct PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP m Comments may be submitted Name: Address: Phone : via email to: thugg@openspace .org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Comments : ___________________________ _ ~ • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Name: Address: Phone: Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 t ~l ttr-\a"-~ ----------------- ________ EMAIL: ______________ _ Comments: f r '(_ t> \ --r s e f\.. l". j Q. .. 1 A-, ... <,_°',~:,('._ Trac\ 60(l(t / LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE i PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP • :.· Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Comments may be submitted Name: Address: Phone: via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Comments: ____________ _ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 J Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Distri ct Name : Address : Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace.org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Name: Address: Phone: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE PUBLIC ACCESS WORKING GROUP Comments may be submitted via email to: thugg@openspace .org Dropped in the Comments Box, Or mailed to: Tina Hugg, Project Planner Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 300 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Comments: ____ ~-----------,---------------- 1:J) A,L[,?J N daq_s 0:0 \ga._cA._ THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK DAppendix PAWG COMMUNICATION THROUGH MARCH 5, 2020 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK From:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:FW: Thank you... Additional Homework - Traffic Observations Date:Monday, August 26, 2019 2:43:02 PM Attachments:LHC Addtl Homework Requested - Traffic Observations 20190822.pdf Good afternoon all, Below please find comments submitted by Barbara Hooper, member of the La Honda Public Access Working Group, that she asked to be forward to the full Board of Directors. I also attached the Traffic Observations Homework she references. Please note that this comment is from Barbara Hooper as an individual and not a representative of the full working group. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Jen From: Barbara Hooper <barbthooper@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 1:37:39 PM To: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org>; Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Cc: Luke Mulhall <lmulhall@openspace.org>; Barbara Hooper <barbthooper@gmail.com> Subject: Thank you... Additional Homework - Traffic Observations EXTERNAL Melissa and Tina- It was nice to meet everyone at the LH Public Access Working Group meeting on Thursday. I look forward to the upcoming meetings. Thank you for composing and sending the Traffic Observations Homework to the Working Group so quickly. I think it will be very helpful for WG members to view the traffic patterns on Highway 84 at the Red Barn pullout at this time of the year. As I sit on my patio in La Honda with the roaring sounds of motorcycles speeding through town on Highway 84 in the background, I am wondering if the MROSD Board members may want to take the time to visit the Red Barn pullout as outlined in the Traffic Observations Homework in the coming weekends. Some of the Board members are new and even if the members have visited the site in previous years, it seems that traffic has increased in recent times and we hear more sirens and emergency vehicles summoned to the area these days. Since the LHCOSP access study is an important MidPen project, the Board may want to refresh themselves with the local environment and community concerns. Is this something you could communicate to the Board, or would it be better for me to reach out to them directly? Thanks for all of your work on this project. Regards, Barb Melissa Borgesi Planner I mborgesi@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:58 AM Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> wrote: Dear Working Group, It was a pleasure to meet and get to know you at last nights working group kick off meeting. Along with reviewing the background binder, the group agreed to an additional homework assignment to observe traffic on Highway 84. Attached are the observation parameters agreed upon in the meeting. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Tina Hugg or me. We look forward to our next meeting. Have a great weekend! Best regards, La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study Additional Homework from August 22, 2019 PAWG Meeting Observing Highway 84 Summer Traffic Conditions To observe traffic conditions on summer weekends when Highway 84 traffic volumes are the highest, the Working Group agreed to do additional homework and individually visit the pull out near the Red Barn over a weekend prior to the next PAWG meeting on September 12th and observe highway traffic conditions. Observations would follow the parameters agreed upon and described below. Observation parameters: • Primary location: Red Barn pull out (shown below) • Optional additional location: Town of La Honda at the intersection of Highway 84 and Sears Ranch Road (keep heading west past the Red Barn site) • Any Saturday or Sunday before September 12th PAWG meeting • Stay minimally for an hour • Any time between 12 noon and 5 pm Working Group should note: • Types of vehicles • Relative speed of vehicles • Bicycles and motorcycles • Which direction the vehicles are moving • Speeding or traffic violations, e.g. illegal passing From:Tina Hugg To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Subject:LHC PAWG - A Reed Email to Working Group Date:Friday, October 18, 2019 9:28:47 AM Attachments:20180612_RedBarnSitePlan_R-18-64.pdf Dear Working Group: Please see Andie Reed’s email below that she asked be passed on to the group. Responses to her questions follow: Lou Bordi is referring to his own proposals. The District has not suggested any proposals beyond what was shown for the Red Barn site on June 12, 2018. Yes, Event Center is on the tour tomorrow. The meeting minutes for all Red Barn related meetings were provided as links on September 12th. Here are links to the May 9, 2018 and June 12, 2018 meeting minutes. The links appear to work on this end, but let us know if they do not work for you. June 12, 2018 was the meeting when the Red Barn project and alternatives were put on hold and formation of a working group was proposed. Thank you. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Andie Reed Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 9:03 AM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Cc: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> Subject: Re: LHC PAWG - L Bordi Letter to Working Group EXTERNAL Hi Tina and Melissa, Can you pass this along to the working group? Thanks very much. Thanks for passing along Lou's outline and photos. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's site visit. And thanks to Lou for sharing all his work. Are these actual proposals he is referring to, or is this Lou's method of summarizing his thoughts? I've spent time in the lower LHC area and the site, and up and down 84, and haven't yet found Driscoll event center, so Lou's photos are helpful. Might we see Driscoll tomorrow? I studied the Alternatives that were presented spring of 2018, so I understand how strongly folks feel about retaining the Red Barn's natural state and also how 84 is very whizzy through this area, a combination that makes the Alternatives unattractive (my opinion). I attach the 3 Alternatives presented last year, for anyone's use who hasn't seen them (e.g. those of us who weren't in on the original meetings), since they are often referred to. The links I'd received via email didn't open, so I found these by going onto to the Mid Pen website (as Tina and Melissa suggested) and clicking Board Meetings, and scrolling down to archives. These drawings are from the May 9, 2018 and June 12, 2018 meeting notes. Eventually, I would also like to read the minutes of the meeting where these are pushed aside in favor of having a working group start over with a year-long analysis and providing feedback, but I don't have that meeting date. Could you please provide? I appreciate that Mid Pen listened to the neighbors and other public input and we have this opportunity to study further options. I am always struck by how the Red Barn shows up on the horizon as one makes that last turn in the road. Looking forward to getting out there tomorrow! Thanks, Andie On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:12 AM Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> wrote: Dear Working Group, Please find below an email from Lou Bordi who requested it be distributed to the Working Group ahead of the October 19th site tour. This email will be posted online shortly with the materials that have been sent to the group last week. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Lou Bordi Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 7:32 PM To: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org>; Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Subject: Letter to Working Group EXTERNAL Hello Tina and Melissa, I put together some information I'd like to share with the working group. Can you please distribute this to everyone before the next meeting on 10/19? Thank you, Lou Hello Working Group and Staff, I've made multiple trips to the three proposed locations for access/parking lots. I would like to share my findings, thoughts and opinions with you. I took people with with me for their input and opinions as well. I went with no time restraints or formal meeting so I could focus on the project itself. It would be great if as many people as possible could do the same. Not only do you see how beautiful it is but you really get a feel for the bigger picture. It also really helps to see the project first hand. Talking about it from the office fails miserably by comparison. I'm sure you will thoroughly enjoy it if you get a chance to go. The board of directors voted unanimously (after public outcry to save the Red Barn in it's natural state and unsafe access concerns) to create a working group to explore all the possibilities for a safe access/parking lot for LaHonda Creek Preserve. The working group itself has an obligation to turn in our recommendation in the best interest of the public for a safe and rewarding experience. Working group and staff, please bear with me if at times I get a little too serious, adamant about the details and the significance of the bigger picture. I've done these type of projects for a long time and have a real passion for it. I think it's a great opportunity for all of us to come up with a best possible recommendation for a safe and fantastic user experience at the LaHonda Creek Preserve for all user groups. I was impressed by how tame the cattle were at the Sears Ranch Road Access. It says a lot about the rancher's management practices. It's in cattle's nature to become on guard and uptight when they see a dog. Cattle do not distinguish the difference between a dog on a leash or off-leash. What my priorities are based on for recommendation: 1. The safest access off Highway 84, period. 2. Keeping the preserve in its most natural state possible (minimal impact) 3. Being creative, working with the natural setting to achieve ultimate results. 4. Cosmetically appealing. 5. Achieve its intended purpose with minimum side effects. 6. Fantastic experience for all user groups (which all the above makes possible). Sears Ranch Road Proposal #1 PROS: 1. Safest access of all locations off Highway 84 (some pruning recommended). 2. Longest sight plane off Highway 84. Zero construction necessary to exit Highway 84. 3. Only access off Highway 84 with a 35 MPH speed limit. 4. La Honda Public School is located on Sears Ranch Road. I have never heard of any problems with access. 5. Vast landscapes! You feel like you've gone somewhere remote and inspires you to explore. 6. Stunning views in all directions. You can see all the way to the coast, back to Skyline and all the beauty within the perserve itself. 7. The view of the two barns and large ponds are beautiful. 8. Being removed from the highway, you rarely hear man-made noise. 9. Great location for interpretive center and picnic area about 200 feet from parking lot (former ranch site). 10. Parking lot tucked out of sight. 11. Ranger residence on-site. 12. Existing road from Sears Ranch Road to parking lot (improvements needed). 13. Large existing flat spot for parking lot, with plenty of room for all user groups. 14. The most central located of all proposed sites (based on acreage and distance). See ownership and management conditions map given to us at 9/12/19 meeting. Proposed site is close to former residence. 15. New trails could leave parking lot in multiple directions. 16. Existing water and power on site. 17. You can enjoy the great views of the Red Barn from the pullout. CONS: I don't really see any cons to this site. It is such a beautiful site and offers so much for all user groups. This captures one of the remote feelings of Sea... One of the barns at Sears Ranch Road.JPG Sears Ranch Road Proposal #2 PROS: 1. All access PROs are the same as Sears Ranch Road #1 2. The majority of PROs are the same as Sears Ranch Road #1 CONS: It's not quite as magical as Sears Ranch Road #1 Red Barn Proposal PROS: 1. Iconic Red Barn and corrales. 2. Rich history of the Red Barn. 3. Has a nice place for interpretive center and picnic area. CONS: 1. Unsafe access off Highway 84. 2. The proposed plan show large retaining walls and fill coming off Highway 84 and the paved road leading to the parking lot passes in front of the Red Barn. It looks very unnatural and not very attractive. This project would change the feel and visual appearance of the Red Barn location to say the least. 3. The old corrals will be removed to make way for the parking lot. 4. Due to the location right on the edge of Highway 84, users will be exposed to traffic and motorcycle noise. (Not an ideal environment for having a picnic or enjoying the interpretive center.) 5. Limited views. 6. The trail from the parking lot leads in only one direction. 7. Building the parking lot at the Red Barn would be a public relations disaster. After the last Red Barn meeting, the vast majority of the public left under the impression that the working group would look for alternative locations. 8. It's not the most central location. 9. The grass shown in the attached photo of the Red Barn is a riparian area. See page 47 of "La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan". This is what I found on my visit to the Red Barn on 9/28/19. After talking to some locals, this is not an uncommon occurrence. There is zero shoulder on Highway 84. (See attached image). Car crash by Red Barn.JPG This is not an uncommon occurrence Red Barn and riparian area.JPG Driscoll Ranch Proposal PROS: 1. Beautiful, forested back-drop. 2. The Driscoll Ranch Event Center is very large. 3. Offers great access to the lower portion of La Honda Creek. CONS: 1. Needs improvement for safe access. 2. Heading west bound on Highway 84, making a left onto Driscoll, the sight plane is a little short. 3. Probably best suited as a secondary parking lot. Driscoll Ranch.JPG Email is not my favorite choice of communication by any means. I think we will be hard pressed for time at the site-meeting so I thought this would be best. I appreciate your taking the time to read this. Thank you, Lou RED BARN PUBLIC ACCESS AREA: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 3 DEC. 2017 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 1 ONE WAY ACCESSIBLE PATH CONNECTING TRAILHEAD AND BARN RESTROOMS EXISTING STRUCTURE RANGER HOUSE MAINTENANCE VEHICLE PARKING VEGETATIVE SCREENING ONE WAY (3) EQUESTRIAN PARKING SPACES T W O W A Y ONE WA Y A B TWO WA Y INTERPRETIVE AREA (1) DROP OFF LOADING SPACE TRAIL HEAD / STAGING AREA BUS PARKING (22) PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES RESTRICTED ACCESS SIGNAGE RESTRICTED ACCESS SIGNAGE RESTRICTED ACCESS SIGNAGE ENTRY SIGNAGE (3) ADA PARKING SPACES (N) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES BIOSWALE BIOSWALEBICYCLE PARKING DISTRIBUTED PICNIC AREAS (E) DRAINAGE (E) CULVERT WATER TROUGH DRIVEWAY VEGETATED RETAINING WALL EQUESTRIAN STAGING AREA SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD DAYLIGHTED CULVERT / BIORETENTION AREA BARN PICNIC AREA VEGETATED RETAINING WALL SPEED TABLES ON E W A Y RED BARN AGRICULTURAL ACCESS ROAD RELOCATED CATTLE CORRAL 18’ FENCED CATTLE PATH TO PASTURE Attachment 2ATTACHMENT 1 RED BARN PUBLIC ACCESS AREA: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 3 DEC. 2017 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 2 ONE WAY ACCESSIBLE PATH CONNECTING TRAILHEAD AND BARN EXISTING STRUCTURE RANGER HOUSE VEGETATIVE SCREENING O N E W A Y TW O W A Y A B ONE WA Y INTERPRETIVE AREA (1) DROP OFF / LOADING SPACE BICYCLE PARKING RESTROOMS EQUESTRIAN STAGING AREA TRAIL HEAD / STAGING AREA BUS PARKING (26) PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES RESTRICTED ACCESS SIGNAGE RESTRICTED ACCESS SIGNAGE RESTRICTED ACCESS SIGNAGE ENTRY SIGNAGE (4) ADA PARKING SPACES (N) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES BIOSWALE BIOSWALE (3) EQUESTRIAN PARKING SPACES CENTRAL PICNIC AREA (E) DRAINAGE (E) CULVERT WATER TROUGH DRIVEWAY VEGETATED RETAINING WALL SECONDARY ACCESS ROAD DAYLIGHTED CULVERT / BIORETENTION AREA VEGETATED RETAINING WALL SPEED TABLES RED BARN AGRICULTURAL ACCESS ROAD RELOCATED CATTLE CORRAL 18’ FENCED CATTLE PATH TO PASTURE Attachment 2ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 2ATTACHMENT 1 RED BARN PUBLIC ACCESS AREA: LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 3 DEC. 2017 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 3 - PHASE 2 MODIFICATIONS (5) ADDITIONAL PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES (6) ADDITIONAL PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES REMOVE (3) PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES EXTENSION ACCESS ROAD O N E W A Y RELOCATED INTERPRETIVE AREA (17) PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES Attachment 2ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 2ATTACHMENT 1 From:Karl Lusebrink To:Melissa Borgesi Cc:Jane Mark Subject:Re: Red Barn traffic and questions Date:Monday, September 23, 2019 12:35:54 PM Attachments:Pasture West of the Red Barn.png EXTERNAL Hi Melissa, Thanks for the info. A small pasture about the same size as the corral area near the residence would be really out of sight in the treasured pastoral barn views. Although the driveway is still a big issue, if resolved with low visual impact, much of the access could follow existing graded roads. (Yellow on photo). But we should look at all possibilities. Even maybe a lease agreement with an adjacent landowner(?) Thanks, Karl On Sep 23, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> wrote: Hi Karl, The Working Group should definitely view this pasture area west of the Red Barn on the site tour and discuss the viability of its location. This pasture location had a number of factors to consider, such as: (a) grade changes to access the site and longer driveway access to this site which would require additional grading and engineering; (b) excluding area from the tenant’s pasture that is currently used for cattle grazing; (c) potential wetlands and impacts in this pasture area; (d) still requiring a new driveway which was a significant issue for the community, and (e) associated increased project costs with these modifications. We hope to discuss these and other factors at the site tour when we view this location next month. Attached is an image of the general location of the pasture. Thank you, Melissa Borgesi From: Karl Lusebrink <24karl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 9:35 PM To: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> Cc: Jane Mark <jmark@openspace.org> Subject: Re: Red Barn traffic and questions EXTERNAL Thank you Melissa. That would put it beyond the small hill above the corral and out of view from the roadway and the barn itself, I think. Why has it been dismissed as an option, or, if it is still viable for evaluation could you mark it on a photo? And perhaps we see it on the field trip and think about how to access it. Thanks, Karl On Sep 20, 2019, at 4:03 PM, Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> wrote: Hi Karl, I’m following up on your question regarding the location of the pasture West of the Red Barn. The pasture location is set back into the interior of the Preserve, West of the existing corral. Thank you, Melissa Borgesi From: Karl Lusebrink <24karl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 8:12 PM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org>; Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> Subject: Red Barn traffic and questions EXTERNAL Hi Tina and Melissa, I understand now it's best to email you for clarifications prior to a meeting in case public notification or agenda update is warranted before discussion. Thanks for looking for info about common traffic speed and hazardous turn mitigation road modifications, signage, etc that might be applicable near the Red Barn or wherever the driveway is situated (and I hope it doesn't take much of your time). Other than that, I had one other question after reading binder materials. . Memo "Red Barn Public Access Site Plan" of June 2018 in binder section 10 advised either approval of Alternative 3 or consideration of three options; (A) Pasture West of Red Barn, (B) Sears Ranch lot expansion, (C) Driscoll Event Center lot. What is the location of the pasture that was considered when Alt. 3 was put on hold? Maybe near the Residence, or near the emergency landing zone on the property? Also, the PDF of Barbara's docs attached to your email this evening didn't open on my PC. Regards, Karl <Pasture West of the Red Barn.png> From:Kathleen Moazed To:Melissa Borgesi Cc:Tina Hugg Subject:Re: PAWG December 12th Meeting Materials Date:Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:49:13 PM EXTERNAL I would like to ask that the artistic renditions of the alternatives for the Red Barn that you showed the community at the meetings in La Honda be made available to the PAWG. I'm specifically referring to the pictures that were shown on the screen, with the proposed parking lots, roadway and depictions of what it would look like with cars on a road in front of the Red Barn, not just the paper handouts entitled "Alternative 2" etc. If you could be ready to show it on the large screen on Thursday, I think it would really help the PAWG members who are not from La Honda see what it is that local residents are concerned about. many thanks, Kathleen On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 4:04 PM Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> wrote: Dear Working Group, In preparation for next week’s meeting at 6:30 pm on December 12th at the District’s administrative office (330 Distel Cir, Los Altos), please find the following attached meeting materials. 1. LHC Mtg Agenda Brown Act 2. LHC Mtg 10-19-19 Draft Summary v2 3. LHC Mtg 11-16-19 Draft Summary 4. Bay Area Ridge Trail memo 5. Site Tour Assessment Forms (site tour 1 & 2) 6. Questions from Site Tour Assessment Forms (site tour 1 & 2) 7. Highway 84 traffic observations 8. Parking Lot Usage – Sears Ranch, Allen Road and Event Center 9. Additional Information 1. Caltrans right-of-way maps link 2. Videos – Corral area below Red Barn and trail to La Honda Creek 10. Public comment Melissa Borgesi Planner I mborgesi@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter:@mrosd Dinner will be provided at 6:00 pm. Please remember to bring your binders and reusable water bottles. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Tina or me. Best regards, -- Kathleen Moazed 415.933.7582 mobile From:Tina Hugg Cc:Melissa Borgesi; Tina Hugg Subject:PAWG - Additional information for 2/6/2020 meeting - Responses to B Hooper email Date:Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:55:59 AM Dear Working Group: For your information and consideration, the following are responses to Barbara Hooper’s email below. The presentation is posted. Note that presentations are posted online usually a few days after meetings. We can print a packet of December 12th materials for anyone who would like one. Please let us know by the end of this week. Trail scouting for the next phase of trails is under way. There is no set timeline yet. Barring any unforeseen issues delaying the project and pending scouting, planning, design and permitting, construction may be completed in 2024. Note that the District office will be closed from December 23 through January 1. Happy holidays! Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Barbara Hooper <> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 10:58 AM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Cc: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> Subject: Re: PAWG - Homework for 2/6/2020 meeting EXTERNAL Tina- Thank you for the homework information and detailed maps. I look forward to visiting the additional sites. Will MidPen be adding the powerpoint presentation from the December 12th meeting to the LH PAWG website? It would be helpful to have the details that were referenced in the meeting, as well as the updated project schedule and estimated timeline available to the PAWG team and the public. I did not take a hard copy of the December 12 packet that you made for the meeting. If there is an extra set available, I'd be happy to come by the MidPen office to pick it up. Would it be possible to share the status of the new trails that are being planned for LHCOSP with the PAWG? I believe it was mentioned that some of the trails on the LHCOSP MROSD 8/29/2019 map are being modified. Are there estimated timeframes for the opening additional trails? I very much appreciate all of the detailed work and coordination that you and Melissa are doing for this project. Regards, Barbara On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:55 PM Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> wrote: Dear Working Group, There are additional sites to visit as homework before the February 6, 2020 meeting when the group will discuss them. Attached is a new site assessment form to note your observations. Please email your form to Melissa or me by January 20th so that we can include it in the February 6th meeting materials. Red Barn Area – Two Sites In addition to revisiting the area behind the ranger residence (E1) as suggested by Melany Moore, there is site south and below the ranger residence among the trees (E3) that the group may want to visit. See the attached map for information on where to go and where to park. Please fill out the online form for a permit and select “Allen Road Entrance” (because there is no Red Barn option) and “Educational Field Trip.” Please provide 48 hours’ notice to give us time to notify the ranger living in the residence. Please also limit your group to yourself and one other person and follow the permit conditions and other instructions that may be provided by Visitor Services staff. There is a combination lock on the gate (LH06) with green tape on it. The lock needs a little pushing and pulling to open it. Instructions and the code will be sent with the permit. Sears Ranch Area – Preserve Gate LH15 – One Site While in the area, you can also view the site suggested by Karl Lusebrink, which is Gate LH15 on Sears Ranch Road past the La Honda Elementary School but before the preserve parking lot (B3). The site is visible from the gate. See the attached map. Please exercise caution when exiting and entering the highway. Have a wonderful holiday season and new year! Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From:Barbara Hooper To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:Barbara Hooper Subject:Information for LH PAWG to consider Date:Friday, January 24, 2020 2:22:01 PM Attachments:B. Hooper - LH PAWG information to consider for LHCOSP access.docx EXTERNAL Tina and Melissa- Thank you for all of the documentation you have provided for the PAWG as we consider options for access to the LHCOSP. I have been following this project for a few years and appreciate the background and detail we have received in the project binder and at each PAWG meeting. That being said, I'd like to share some items with the PAWG which stand out to me which members may want to consider as we discuss which parking and trailhead options should be forwarded to Midpen's Planning and Natural Resource Board Committee for consideration. As a follow up to my comments during the PAWG meeting on December 12, 2019, regarding the Red Barn, public feedback, and traffic studies and collision information, I have attached summary information on those items, as well as other items to consider. The first-page highlights eight items and the following pages include additional details. There are weblinks in the word document so that additional information can be accessed easily. My preference was to save the Word doc as a pdf but I wasn't able to do that on my computer today. Thanks, in advance, for sharing this e-mail and the attached document with the PAWG. Regards, Barbara Information the LH PAWG may want to consider while evaluating La Honda Creek Preserve public access options: 1. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan: a. Preserve Vision Statement i. The Preserve will … serve as a picturesque backdrop of the Coastal foothills … and surrounding community, both present and future. ii. Focus … on … the historical and cultural features that are reminiscent of past uses; continuing ranching activities and preserving scenic rangeland landscapes characteristic of rural San Mateo County. b. Historic and Noteworthy Structures – Red Barn i. The Red Barn … is the most prominent Preserve monument and an important local landmark visible from Highway 84. ii. The District will… protect and enhance the historical significance of the site, ...address potential restoration of the adjacent former pond, …ensure that future improvements … enhance the rural character of the Red Barn. 2. Public Feedback a. MROSD Board Meeting in La Honda, June 12, 2018 - 136 people attended, 33 people spoke in opposition to proposed access at the Red Barn on Highway 84 b. Petition submitted to MROSD, June 12, 2018 - 893 opposition signatures c. Comments at Board meetings, e-mail, voicemail, and letters 3. Traffic Studies and Collision information a. Data from: California Highway Patrol, CalTrans, San Mateo County Sheriff b. “The collision rate and injury rates on the SR 84 segment along the project frontage are higher than the statewide average for similar facilities.” 4. Measure AA Ballot Language: protect and preserve scenic beauty 5. MidPen Coastside Mission: protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character 6. County-designated scenic corridor - where LHC Open Space Preserve is located on Highway 84 “Public views within and from Scenic Corridors shall be protected and enhanced, and development shall not be allowed to significantly obscure, detract from, or negatively affect the quality of these views.” 7. Good Neighbor Policy: The District will make every effort to cooperate with neighbors, to take into account their perspectives, address their concerns, and engage and involve them in the process of making decisions regarding the public preserves. 8. Definition of preserve: maintain, conserve, protect and care for BTH – LH PAWG backgound information 1* LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE MASTER PLAN – revised June 2012 Page 14 Preserve Vision Statement The vision statement for La Honda Creek OSP is consistent with the District’s overall mission statement and the mission for the Coastside Protection Area. It also responds to the desires and issues raised by members of the public, including environmental organizations seeking the protection of the natural resources, trail user groups asking for expanded access and additional trails, and local communities hoping to connect directly to the Preserve to expand their local recreational opportunities. The vision presents a long-term picture for the landscape, management, and use of the Preserve, and serves to guide all aspects of the Master Plan. The goals, objectives, and actions listed hereafter are all tools to realize this vision, which states: La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve is rich with unique ecological, historical, and cultural resources. The Preserve will continue to serve as a picturesque backdrop of the Coastal foothills and will serve as an example of how the District harmoniously blends recreational and ranching uses for the benefit of the land, wildlife, and surrounding community, both present and future. The stewardship of this public Open Space Preserve shall be the highest priority, followed by the practice of ecological agriculture and ranching, and finally improved trail connectivity and access. Focus will be placed on protecting and enhancing the Preserve’s diverse plant, wildlife, and native habitats; protecting and interpreting the historical and cultural features that are reminiscent of past uses; continuing ranching activities and preserving scenic rangeland landscapes characteristic of rural San Mateo County; lending to the viability of agriculture on the Coast; expanding the available access and interior trail connections within the Preserve; and building connections to surrounding open space lands and Coastside communities. Page 54 Historic and Noteworthy Structures Figure 10 shows the location and characteristics of the three most important cultural assets found at the Preserve. Red Barn -The Red Barn area is part of the former Weeks Ranch, to which Ronald J. Weeks and his family moved in the 1850s (Stoltz, 2002). None of the initial buildings from the ranch, which included a residence, agricultural buildings, and a hotel, are still standing. The Red Barn was built around the turn of the twentieth century and has undergone few major alterations (Stoltz, 2001; 2002). It is the most prominent Preserve monument and an important local landmark visible from Highway 84. In 2002, the District completed a restoration project for the Red Barn that involved structural repairs, re-roofing, and re-painting as well as reconstructing a lean-to on the north side of the barn, which was previously destroyed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. -The District will hire a qualified architectural historian to formally evaluate the Red Barn for possible inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, with the input of a preservation architect, the District will prepare a detailed site specific plan that will include management practices to protect and enhance the historical significance of the site while incorporating public access and interpretation. The site specific plan will address a number of priorities, including: use and maintenance of the Red Barn; potential upgrades and use of an existing garage for environmental education; potential restoration of the adjacent former pond; use and maintenance of the corrals; parking; trailheads; picnic areas; special events; interpretation; the Red Barn as bat habitat; and the re-introduction of grazing. The site specific plan will incorporate design guidelines to ensure that future improvements in this area correspond to and enhance the rural character of the Red Barn. -The District will also prepare a maintenance plan for the Red Barn that includes a timeline for future repairs such as re-roofing and re-painting, and specifies appropriate work timeframes so as to not disturb existing resident bat colonies. -The Red Barn area offers a number of exciting interpretive opportunities that are discussed in detail under the Environmental Education and Interpretation section. Because there is a high potential for archaeological finds at this site, public access improvements and other projects involving landscape modification shall be conducted with sensitivity and in accordance with the Environmental Protection Guidelines as listed in Appendix C. 2* Public Feedback to MROSD - MROSD Board Meeting in La Honda, June 12, 2018 o 136 people attended o 33 people spoke in opposition to Red Barn access on Highway 84 - LH petition submitted to MROSD, June 12, 2018 o 893 opposition signatures gathered in less than one month;  526 signatures from La Honda, San Gregorio, Pescadero, and Loma Mar – 28% of the total population (1,898) of these communities  Other San Mateo county signatures: • 106 - Woodside (Skyline) • 45 - Half Moon Bay, El Granada, Moss Beach, Pacifica • 117 – San Carlos, Belmont, Portola Valley, San Bruno, Redwood City, Menlo Park, Burlingame, San Mateo  Santa Clara County: 63 - Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Campbell, Los Gatos  Santa Cruz County: 12 – Santa Cruz, Aptos, Boulder Creek, Davenport  Other: 31- San Francisco, Berkeley, Gilroy, Newark, Fremont, misc. - Communications submitted to MidPen • Letters, e-mails, voice mails, and public comments at meetings through June 8, 2018: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180612_RedBarnSitePlan_R-18-64.pdf  pages 24-77  Mayall letter – April 27, 2018 – page 61  McReynolds letter – June 7, 2018 – page 69 3* Traffic Studies and Collision Information - MidPen LHCOSP Traffic Studies – PAWG binder, section 8 Interim Transportation Circulation Technical Memo for Red Barn – February 3, 2017 (W-Trans) - The collision rate and injury rates on the SR 84 segment along the project frontage are higher than the statewide average for similar facilities. - California Highway Patrol (CHP), CalTrans, and Sheriff information o CHP Traffic Incident data from MROSD LH PAWG – 9/12/2019 meeting LHC PAWG - Supplemental Materials CHP Traffic Incident #190913AL.pdf Report run on: 7/31/2019 - Total Count: 308 collisions #190913 2009 - AV. 2017/2018/2019 COLLISIONS ON SR 84 BETWEEN SR 35 AND SR 1, SAN MATEO COUNTY, 51 pages o B. Hooper comments / letter – 6/12/2018, MROSD Board meeting  Concerns about increased traffic to Highway 84 area • CHP officers are not assigned to specifically patrol traffic on Highway 84 from Highway 35 to Highway 1. " County Sheriff monitors this area for crime but not traffic. Both agencies do respond to incidents as requested. " This is the exact stretch of road where MidPen proposed to add a driveway with cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. �� Traffic documentation on Highway 84 from Highway 35 to Highway 1: �� CHP  for previous 5 years to date, provided 32 pages of collision records and recorded traffic violations (drunk driving, excessive speeds, wrong side of road, etc.) which increased from 21 in 2013 to 37 in 2017. �� CalFire  responded to 84 traffic accidents from January 2016 to date  May 2018. �� California Department of Transportation  from 2013 through 2016 reported 101 injuries and 7 fatalities. 4* MEASURE AA  from MROSD website 11/25/19 BACKGROUND Measure AA is a $300 million general obligation bond approved in June 2014 by over two-thirds of District voters. Proceeds from bonds, which will be sold in a series over approximately the next 20-30 years, will be used to: " protect natural open space lands " open preserves or areas of preserves that are currently closed " construct public access improvements such as new trails and staging areas " restore and enhance open space land, which includes forests, streams, watersheds and coastal ranch areas BALLOT LANGUAGE, AS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS To improve access to hiking and biking opportunities, protect and preserve redwood forests, natural open spaces, the scenic beauty of our region and coastline, critical wildlife habitat, restore creeks to protect water quality, and reduce forest fire risk; shall Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District be authorized to issue up to $300 million in bonds, at a tax rate not to exceed $3.18 per $100,000 of assessed value of property owned, with expenditures verified by an independent citizen oversight committee. 5* COASTSIDE PROTECTION  from MROSD website 11/25/19 YOUR COASTSIDE OPEN SPACE Midpen is celebrating 15 years of partnership with the Coastside community. Since our boundaries expanded to include the San Mateo County Coast in 2004, Midpen has protected more than 11,000 acres of natural and agricultural lands that contribute to the area s rural identity, natural beauty and quality of life. MIDPEN COASTSIDE MISSION To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. COASTSIDE PROTECTION AREA In the 1990s, as development pressure threatened the Coastside s scenic beauty, rural character and agricultural heritage, Coastsiders expressed their support for extending the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District boundaries to include the San Mateo County Coastside. In 2004, the coast to ridgeline, from Montara to the San Mateo Santa Cruz county line, officially became Midpen s Coastside Protection Area. Our Coastside Protection Area Service Plan, which we spent more than seven years developing in collaboration with Coastside residents and agricultural community, guides our work in the region. 6* County-designated Scenic Corridor MidPen LHC Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study Site Development Assessment Criteria - September 12, 2019 Table 2. Project Goals and Objectives - Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn o Design aesthetic should acknowledge rural nature and ranching history of the Preserve. - Provide safe public access - Protect scenic views of and from the site o The Preserve is located on Highway 84 which is County-designated scenic corridor. The project should be compatible with the aesthetic of the surrounding and rural environment. Access to San Mateo County definition: https://planning.smcgov.org/documents/san-mateo-county-scenic-corridors San Mateo County | Scenic Corridors Public views within and from Scenic Corridors shall be protected and enhanced, and development shall not be allowed to significantly obscure, detract from, or negatively affect the quality of these views. Vegetative screening or setbacks may be used to mitigate such impacts. Development visible from Scenic Corridors shall be so located and designed as to minimize interference with ridgeline silhouettes. Access to SMC Scenic Corridor map: https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/GP_Scenic_Corridor.pdf 7* GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY– from MROSD website 11/25/19 The purpose of the Good Neighbor Policy is to establish guidelines and principles for ensuring good relationships between the District and its neighbors. In both the day-to-day conduct and in the long-range planning for public open space preserves, the District will make every effort to cooperate with neighbors, to take into account their perspectives, address their concerns, and engage and involve them in the process of making decisions regarding the public preserves. • Download Good Neighbor Policy 2/9/2020 Art’s Comments on 2//2020 La Honda Creek Sample Suites of Options Sample Suite #1 This suite comes pretty close to my best solution. Some comments: D – Site D is the best alternative for providing parking, interpretive info and restrooms in the central area in terms of minimizing effect on the Red Barn scenic views/rural character. B1 Sears Ranch – I think locating equestrian access here is good but I don’t have a strong opinion on which B-series site to use as all appear to have advantages/disadvantages - although B3 does seem to work well for equestrians, and I like the fact that it is out of sight yet near existing parking/restroom improvements. E3 Red Barn – E3 seems the best location for parking/interpretive uses near the Red Barn. Limited access here is a good idea but I don’t have a preference between docent and permit access. • Even limited use at this location is dependent on use of existing driveway; vehicular access next to Red Barn re-opens the central debate on public access to this site. Sample Suite #2 Suite 2 remains a pretty good solution, although Suite 1 would remain my favorite so far. D – Permit only access here would allow use of D/LH07 even if general vehicular entry is not as safe as desired; it’s a step back from Suite#1 but it still provides parking in the central area. • Might still want to provide restrooms here or at the E site, as users from other entry points would appreciate them, too – it’s a big preserve. B2 Sears Ranch – I think locating equestrian access here is good but I don’t have a strong opinion on which B-series site to use as all appear to have advantages/disadvantages - although B3 does seem to work well for equestrians, and I like the fact that it is out of sight yet near existing parking/restroom improvements. E1 Red Barn – Limited access here is a good idea and E1 is not a terrible location, but E3 seems a better place for improvements because it is (or can be) screened so well. • I don’t have a preference between docent and permit access. • Even limited use at this location is dependent on use of existing driveway; vehicular access next to Red Barn re-opens the central debate on public access to this site. Sample Suite #3 The problem with Suites #1 and #2 is their dependence on a safe vehicular access design off 84. If further design (or Caltrans) finds that to be un-doable, some version of Suite #3 is a realistic fallback. I voted a strong 5 against use of the C sites so I surprised myself by this realization – but lacking this alternative, the next logical suite would have to include more activities at the E sites, which seems to be going backwards. C1 Sears Ranch – This site, while not my favorite due to its location within the preserve, does undeniably improve access from Sears Ranch into the central area of the preserve. As I recall, C2 is screened a bit better from view from within the preserve, and I would prefer the best-screened location. B3 Sears Ranch – I think locating equestrian access here is good but I don’t have a strong opinion on which B-series site to use; all appear to have advantages/disadvantages - although B3 does seem to work well for equestrians, and I like the fact that it is out of sight yet near existing parking/restroom improvements. E3 Red Barn – E3 seems the best location for parking/interpretive uses near the Red Barn. • I don’t have a preference between docent and permit access. • Even limited use at this location is dependent on use of existing ranger house driveway; vehicular access next to Red Barn re-opens the central debate on public access to this site. • Might want to include restroom for use by users from other entries – it’s a long way back to Sears Ranch. General observations Rock/gravel parking areas is a good idea at any of the sites. If permit access to an E area is via the existing ranger house gate, a non-gated entry for bikes would be appreciated. This would allow west bound cyclists on 84 (and from OLH Road) to get off 84 and onto (future) preserve cycling trails at this point. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study New Suite for PAWG Consideration – submitted by Sandy Sommer, 2/17/2020 Provide public access staging at the following locations, as described. See attached map for depiction of overall preserve system. Site Description A – Event Center Initially equestrian permit access only. Following planning study, consider for full hiking and equestrian access using Hwy 84 tunnel. Add a restroom, picnic, and family- oriented short trail loops. Potential for dog access, pending better understanding of habitat sensitivity. B1 – Sears Ranch Road area – Existing staging area Keep as is – no expansion. B3 - Sears Ranch Road Area – Gate LH15 Develop as equestrian permit lot. C1 - Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area AND C2 - Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral at Former Residence Area Develop the general C1/C2 area as the central staging “hub” for the La Honda Creek OSP. Extend the paved road to this point. Include: • Restroom • Picnic area • Family access with short, easy access trails • Education and interpretive features Provide “spoke” trails radiating outward, including towards the Red Barn and middle preserve. D - Preserve Gate LH07 Develop as small staging area with restroom and trailhead. Include family / picnic as a short trail loop in redwood groves below. Later, add interpretive signage about creek, and upgrade creek bridge to allow connection to the Red Barn area. Potential Ridge Trail staging area. E3 - Red Barn Area – Area Near Shed Below Ranger Residence Initially, permit and docent access only, for a limited number of vehicles. Minimal improvements. Use existing driveways and gates. Provide with clear access instructions. Initiate a feasibility study of Highway 84 speed reduction and safety modifications. If roadway speeds can be reduced to acceptably safe levels, consider area for full public access. Potential Ridge Trail staging area. EXTEND ROAD potential regional trail potential regional trail potential regional trail short and long trail spokes from hub D: OPEN ALLEN RD: PERMIT B3: EQUESTRIAN PERMIT A: PERMIT NOW, OPEN LATER C1/C2: CENTRAL HUB, OPEN E3: PERMIT NOW, OPEN LATER new trail network (routes for concept only) new trail network (routes for concept only) From:Tina Hugg To:Melissa Borgesi; Tina Hugg Subject:PAWG - San Francisco Chronicle article Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:47:15 PM Attachments:SFChronicle_StienstraFeb2020LHC.pdf A Reed SF Chronicle.pdf K Lusebrink SF Chronicle.pdf Dear Working Group, Attached for your information is Tom Stienstra’s article on La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve from this past Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle. Thank you to Andie and Karl for sending us a PDF and link to it (their emails and questions to us are attached and below are our responses). The article may generate interest and use in the Preserve for a short time, as we have observed similar results from other articles about the District’s preserves. Interest then generally wanes and returns to baseline use. Providing diverse access points and expanding trail opportunities can increase interest and use at a preserve on a more permanent basis. Mr. Stienstra did not contact anyone at the District for this article and we were unaware that it was being written. Had we been consulted, we would have suggested that he mention the Working Group and share what the group has been doing for the last seven months. He described the future phase as including access near the Red Barn somewhere on Highway 84 between Sky Londa and La Honda. Since his description was general and since this stretch of Highway 84 has largely been the focus of the Working Group’s attention, our Public Affairs staff and we determined that we did not need to ask the Chronicle to make a correction to the article online. Access at the Red Barn itself is not a foregone conclusion, as the Working Group still has to consider options and make recommendations, as does the PNR, and the Board needs to approve options to move into the feasibility study phase. As the group has discussed, access may take different forms, and even then, as part of the feasibility study phase, options need to be further evaluated by qualified civil and traffic engineers against engineering standards for safe access. Safety is the paramount consideration to providing access at any Preserve, and options not able to offer safe access would be deemed infeasible. The El Corte de Madera Creek parking lot on Highway 35 north of Alice’s Restaurant and south of Caltrans’ Skeggs Vista Point is a nearby example of the District’s safety considerations. The Board closed a Preserve gate to prevent informal crossings over Highway 35 from Wunderlich County Park to the Preserve when traffic studies conducted to find a driveway location for a future parking area concluded that this particular spot did not have adequate sight distances. The Board directed staff to find a pedestrian crossing and a driveway location that met sight distance requirements or the parking area project would stop. A new driveway location was found north of the closed gate, and a pedestrian crossing was found 1.4 miles further north. This crossing adds distance for hikers in Wunderlich to reach the Preserve, but ensures that people cross where sight distance requirements are met. The parking area project moved forward, and District staff have not received reports of issues with either the driveway or crossing. The Working Group process has been a unique opportunity for District staff, members of the public, and the Board to experience together the challenges and opportunities to finding access to a Preserve. We hope that by participating in this effort, the group learns and shares their knowledge of what this work entails and the District’s commitment to providing safe access and offering that access as broadly as possible. Many thanks for the time you have all invested so far. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From:Andie Reed To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Subject:Today"s Chronicle Date:Sunday, February 16, 2020 8:26:32 AM Attachments:StienstraFeb2020LHC.PDF EXTERNAL This was an interesting read in this morning's Sunday SF Chronicle. Wonder if it will increase usage? Certainly will spike interest. He refers to future plans, but leaves it unspoken that all 6,100 aren't currently accessible. You can send it around to PAWG if you think it's useful. Thanks, Andie -- Andie Reed CPA Fi d ql ft i d ql = E q lh 6,b .f i a!EaErIc to € c a CJ )qz Ub UF fr l tra $p.a adot Ii g g I i* l g l i i l i , g g g i i i l fi 'i i i i gl g i l g g l g g Et r n o o H F tE ; ; 3 3 3 S 3E sH d N m EE *$ * 3 F i t9 N H N lE qe i e e e It -h - p r R iE Eq i l f r E q .! NH f r F N N ,t 8 3 ge s e s s E ct c t c t c i c i c i {^= E _g g, - - -- E* -e € 5 5 * X fi q* ? .d ' . I ' i i 5 d ;f f ;$ f g $ 3i i g g g $ fi f i * * r i e t i l t e n sF l 1 aE + I n E E[ E ' q i i l i f$ F $ E r Fn i l 3 il * i f i E i f , g ' E a H Fq i $ q ss q af r # i ia e - p 9 f r H E = = Bi B ' 1 4 ; g gi l 4E f g i : ,H q s m 3 * i l t * g i f i g E 3 E f i s f l f i t r F $ n i f r t f r L r , O U U U U OU U C to h @ o i $ i c TN N M N S N F T +o N o n 6 s N < \s s h s h s @ r d a. , -. 5 - E f, H = H R S X d P nm t s o n o N o r \s m s s @ o n r E, - - t rF - B- e - - . e g E; ' E s c € Hr i <_ l = = i J > = = > 33 F r $ A g E r i f l l $$ fr ; q ? qs i i l : H E i [q .l l g g g f i g f l $ g l l g iq P ds E g f i ; tE 3: ft t: . ; 5 = l * iF s1 * i6 3 i F f i ?q f SF 3 F f ;g i l il H$ 6i 4 iq f i ; ; $ rB il F $ l F i l E i F f E B$ g i a t g l $ 8 1 $' + tE 3 i i 5 fs H *F Fd = E s E ;. * a AE ti E a f l F Fg s , p' e gB ; 3 5 8 FE $ ia A ei * l e g g; $ i$ 3R + ' 5 ti ?q F E E q q E E g@ H m O @ @ O F ih S $ R $ S $ F e .- ' * i - I - E E E Ee € t E F a e € a -. - . - H . - A E \o H s o @ @ N F fi R g 3 t s E 3 S 33 . - A f i . E E 3$ 3 f i F I H S E R Dd o @ d m r m $ $F h n n 6 h o F t8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 io c i c i d c i c i c i c ,\ o @ 9 @ s 6 0 € sE d E E g B S - H. - . A E E - . no s $ @ o o @ o SN F P } D B B E -E . H A H . H . H . t s @F m @ @ 6 $ m n dF R S h b B E E Eq q q e q q E s €o o $ 6 N r @ @ SS X S S S S S S nt s t s F 6 @ @ @ € , S v r o g .9 = ! 4 : € E - h gg f E aB E F n . FE EE p i EE =z d d d d d a i ; U)o z o-F a)3 o o 6' , r! .{a [J l| l o € From:Karl Lusebrink To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi; Barbara & Terry Hooper Subject:Fwd: article in san francisco chronicle about la honda preserve Date:Monday, February 17, 2020 9:21:27 AM EXTERNAL Hi Tina, Melissa, and Barb. Last night I had an opportunity to talk with a few locals about LHCOSP, their impressions of the February 6 meeting, etc. As the forwarded message below shows, Eva is concerned that the decision making process might not be transparent. She cited the linked SF Chronicle article which states that the next phase “will include” access built at the Red Barn, as if it’s a foregone conclusion. I assume the author doesn’t know about the PAWG effort and pending feasibility studies of site options. But this little mistake can undermine Midpen’s credibility in the minds of those skeptical that governing agencies take their best interests into account. I’m sure you’ve heard similar opinions voiced in other preserve development scenarios. How do you reassure people that feasibility studies are scientifically valid and that safety and aesthetics influence planning as much if not more than a bias to build? Thanks Karl Begin forwarded message: From: eva knodt Date: February 16, 2020 at 8:29:41 PM PST To: Subject: article in san francisco chronicle about la honda preserve Hi Karl, here is the article. Sunday getaway to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve - SFChronicle.com If you scroll down to the section “the future” it appears to present the 84 access as a “fact”. They could have said “may” or indicated that the access is still under discussion. Let me know if my impression is correct and if so, please pass it by your working group and if it is indeed an overstatement send a letter to the editor. I think it is important for the morale of this working group and the La Hondans who show up at these meetings to know that it is not merely a rubber stamp of plans that will be implemented regardless. My impression is increasingly that they let the working group and the public express concerns and then write them down and file them away with no consideration. "The future: The next phase of opening the preserve will include access near the Red Barn along Highway 84 (between Sky Londa and La Honda) and access for mountain bikes and horseback riding." Thank you for all you do there! I don’t think i’d have the tooth for it. Please send this on to Barbara as as well, i do not have her email. Send a brief conformation you got this email. thanks, eva https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/Sunday-getaway-to-La-Honda-Creek- Open-Space-15058591.php From:Tina Hugg Cc:Melissa Borgesi; Tina Hugg Subject:RE: PAWG - Please read - Homework for March 5th Date:Thursday, February 20, 2020 4:54:38 PM Dear Karl: Thank you for your email about site E4 (the area north and adjacent to the ranger residence at the Red Barn site) and the other Red Barn site options. We are sharing answers to your questions with the entire Working Group as they pertain to the overall process and next steps. To make sure that we are all on the same page with District terminology, we would like to first explain how the words “recommend” and “approve” technically convey different and specific meanings to District staff. To clarify, the PAWG is advisory to the PNR, so the Working Group will recommend (rather than approve) sites or options to the PNR for review and recommendation. The PNR will then recommend what sites or options to advance to the full Board for review and approval. The Board is the decision-making body that will approve what sites or options move into the feasibility study phase. So, if a site, whether at the Red Barn area or elsewhere, receives the PAWG’s recommendation, the PNR’s recommendation, and the Board’s approval, that site would move into the feasibility study phase. The District project team would then need to develop enough parameters about the parking area and its expected use to be able to evaluate overall feasibility including safety, so we would hire a design team with qualified engineers to develop a conceptual parking layout and trailhead based on the site’s characteristics (access points, shape, topography, existing vegetation, etc.). Its size and type of expected use, e.g. permit lot, would inform the traffic engineer’s work in calculating the anticipated number of trips per day, analyzing existing conditions with proposed conditions, and suggesting design changes to improve access and safety. If safe access cannot be achieved, the site would be considered infeasible. However, remember that there are other factors that could also render a site infeasible, e.g. no viable connection to the rest of the trail system, excessive grading, costly infrastructure requirements, etc. Refer to the site assessment criteria (page 4) that were passed out in September. The feasibility study phase would go through a public process where findings from technical analyses and evaluations would be shared with the PNR at public meetings as the PNR considers the viability of an option or options. Only after feasibility is established would a project move forward in the planning and design process which would include environmental review (California Environmental Quality Act), which is also a public process, and more detailed technical design and engineering. Permitting, bidding, and construction follow later. Thank you. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Karl Lusebrink < > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 4:36 PM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Cc: Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> Subject: Re: PAWG - Please read - Homework for March 5th EXTERNAL Hi Tina. Thanks for getting the group a chance to visit E4 if they’re interested. When we first went together to E1 it seemed like E4 could be considered part of the same site, but later discussion emphasized the hilltop area of E1 being visible from trails. When I went back and visited with the Ranger I realized the drive to E4 wouldn’t need to come very near the house and that the lower area near the trees has different traits than E1 on the hilltop. Visibility-wise it’s better but the sloped surface is challenging. But before designing a lot, if any of the E sites gets PAWG approval I guess the feasibility study will do analysis of speed, accidents, and traffic calming options and then determine whether the two current driveways may be sufficient for light volume permit use vs. the need for a new driveway. Because if you determine all driveway options are too risky there’s no point in engineering a parking lot. Is that how it works? Have a good weekend. Karl On Feb 14, 2020, at 8:34 AM, Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> wrote: Karl: Thank you for your homework and suggested site. I noticed E4 on our first site tour. I had categorized it with the ranger residence area since it is so close by and we would have probably added the area to the ranger residence option if it advanced into the feasibility study phase. However, we can call out E4 as a separate option to distinguish it. If the grading worked out, the position lower down from the driveway and house could potentially provide a visual and physical barrier between the residence and parking area as well as from the rest of the Preserve. We will think about how to share this with the PAWG ahead of the March 5th meeting. Tina Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Karl Lusebrink <> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 9:02 PM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Subject: Re: PAWG - Please read - Homework for March 5th EXTERNAL Here is the homework assignment, Table of agreement with specified site use possibilities. The way I ranked level of support for Permit use is similar to how I'd rank each new site overall, as my comments show. On it I referred to an alternative to E1, so I included a separate page proposing the alternative with a diagram. It's the area just north of E1, which I tried to describe in the meeting when the projector quit, and Lou asked if I was proposing a new site "E4". I am. Please tell me if anything is unclear. I'll assess the sample suites of solutions before the meeting, too. Thanks, Karl On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:26 PM Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> wrote: Dear Working Group, Chair Hooper and Vice-Chair Phillips request that everyone please be prepared for the March 5th meeting by reading the materials from the February 6th meeting and other meeting materials ahead of time to make the March 5th meeting as productive as possible. https://www.openspace.org/about-us/meetings/pawg-20200206 In addition, the Chair, Vice Chair and Project Team have modified the homework for next time. They would like you to review the attached table of Other Options and Iterations and score the uses suggested at each location. Please use the attached Word file to provide your scores to Melissa and me by Monday, February 17th. Type in a number (1 through 6) to indicate your level of support for each suggestion. See the Decision Making Process/Gradients of Agreement document attached. Add ideas to make options more appealing in the row named PAWG Member Comments. The goal is to discuss and arrive at sites, options/iterations, or combinations of sites and options/iterations to forward to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. Thank you for all of your hard work. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd B. Hooper – NEW Sample Suite Option – 2/27/2020 LH PAWG La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Sample Suite • B1 Sears Ranch–Expansion of existing OR B2 Sears Ranch–Site west of existing parking area -- equestrian (and over-flow) parking – gravel or dirt lot -- multi-use access – hikers, cyclists, equestrians, dogs on leash • E1 Red Barn–Area behind ranger residence OR E4 Red Barn-Area adjacent/north of residence --docent-led hikes from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation. --interpretive sign on grazing for docent-led visits and those entering area from Allen Road and Sears Ranch Road trails --minimally improved • D Gate LH07 --docent-led hikes from via MidPen provided transportation. --minimally improved --interpretive signage, e.g. about creek • A Event Center --multi-use access – hikers, cyclists, equestrians, dogs on leash --interpretative signage about ranching, grazing, rodeo history Considerations: 1. Establish new public access in central portion a. D, E1, and E3 could provide docent-guided access to visitors and hikers b. B1 and B2 could provide access for equestrians, hikers, and cyclists 2. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the Red Barn a. B1 and B3 – rock (instead of paving) parking area and add hitching posts b. D – rock (instead of paving) parking area where it is currently located; shielded from highway c. E1 and E4 – minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of paving) parking area d. A – rock (instead of paving) parking area 3. Provide safe public access a. B1 and B2 – located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84 b. E1, E4, and D – MIdPen provided transportation could ensure safe ingress/egress; see Note.* c. A – consider highway/driveway location access on both sides of Highway 84 4. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses a. Design all sites for least impact at each site i. B1 and B2 – design of the parking area ii. E1 and E4 – design of the trail connection, parking area, and access iii. D - design of the trail connection iv. A – design of the trail connection, parking area, and access 5. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education a. All can potentially accommodate interpretive features depending on the theme highlighted. *Note: Safe ingress and egress access to D Gate LH07, E1 Red Barn, and E4 Red Barn on Highway 84 was demonstrated in our MidPen site tours on October 19, 2019 and November 16, 2019. MidPen drivers took the time to drive to Alice’s Restaurant at Skyline Blvd. to safely enter the driveways and then exited to the west to return PAWG groups to La Honda. For each of those sites, safe access is: When heading WEST on Highway 84, ENTER the driveway by making a right-hand turn. Then, EXIT the driveway, by making a right-hand turn to continue heading west on Highway 84. It is NOT safe to: ENTER the driveway when heading EAST on Highway 84; a vehicle would need to make a left-hand turn, cross the double yellow line, and cross traffic heading west. To EXIT the driveway to head EAST on Highway 84, a vehicle would need to make a left-hand turn, cross the double yellow line, and cross traffic heading west. From:Barbara Hooper To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:Barbara Hooper Subject:LH PAWG - near term options to consider Date:Sunday, March 1, 2020 8:16:04 PM Attachments:B. Hooper - LH PAWG - Near Term options to consider.docx EXTERNAL Tina and Melissa- I'd like to share some possible near term options for LHCOSP access with the PAWG. Please forward the attached document to the PAWG members and include it with the other items for LH PAWG March 6th Meeting. Thank you, Barbara 1 Near Term options for LH PAWG to consider B. Hooper 1. Near Term options to consider a. E1 Red Barn i. Docent-led hikes from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation b. Red Barn pull-out area (which already exists) i. Information about access to LHCOSP c. A Event Center i. Permit only for hikers (in addition to equestrians) ii. Docent-led hikes d. B1 Sears Ranch i. Docent-led or Permit hiking towards the La Honda Creek area (via La Honda Creek Loop Trail where the PAWG hiked on the November 16, 2019 Site tour) 2. PAWG and LHCOSP access considerations a. Provide access to Central Section b. Be open-minded and think “outside the box” to consider new public access c. Lower Section access is not utilized to capacity as noted in Sears Ranch Road parking lot usage data d. MidPen may approach CalTrans regarding SR84 traffic mitigation and/or road modifications for access to LH06 or LH07. However, these options may not come to fruition and/or may not be approved in a reasonable timeframe to maximize public access to LHCOSP in the near term. 3. MidPen could create access to the Central Section by completing new trail access to Red Barn as soon as possible. a. Prioritize opening trails from: i. Allen Road Vista Point to Red Barn ii. Sears Ranch Road to Red Barn b. This would provide access in Central Section for hikers (and perhaps, equestrians and cyclists) from Allen Road and Sears Ranch Road. c. Docent-led hikes could be provided from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation. 4. MidPen could encourage increased public use of LHCOSP a. Provide Permit Parking for hikers at the Event Center location. i. Access for visitors to see a spectacular view of the ocean via a 1.2 mile hike (2.4 miles RT) on the road that equestrians currently have access to. Additionally, hikers could access the Folder Ranch Loop Trail and Harrington Creek Trail. ii. As was noted in the MROSD Permit Parking Information, December 12, 2019, permits for the Event Center access were only issued 10 times in 2019. iii. If Permit Parking for hikers could not be added immediately, perhaps the Event Center could be a Permit Parking “pilot” location. Then, MROSD could get feedback from hikers regarding the access and trail conditions. iv. Currently, hikers need to hike 3.2 miles (6.4 miles RT) from Sears Ranch Road to see a view of the ocean. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK EAppendix KEY DECISIONMAKING INFORMATION THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 of 1 Sites Under Consideration – Level of Support Score Summary March 5, 2020 On February 6, 2020, voting members of the PAWG scored sites under consideration to indicate their level of support. Ari Delay was absent but was asked by Chair Barbara Hooper to score the sites later. Mr. Delay’s scores were received on February 26, 2020 as noted below. Karl Lusebrink suggested a new site, E4, north and adjacent to the ranger residence at the Red Barn site for the PAWG to individually visit and assess, but this table does not include site E4, which has not yet been discussed by the PAWG. Per the PAWG’s Rules and Procedures, scores 1 – 4 indicate support while scores 5 – 6 indicate no support. A majority is reached when at least 6 of the 11 voting members either support or do not support an option. These are highlighted in the table as gray cells. The sites under consideration and scored on February 6, 2020 are: A.Event Center B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area - Expansion of Existing Lot B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area B3. Preserve Gate LH15 C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) C2. Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) D.Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence E2. Red Barn – Area West and Down Slope from Red Barn E3. Red Barn – Shed Area below Ranger Residence PAWG Member A B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D E1 E2 E3 Bordi 2 6 1 1 5 1 3 6 6 6 Delay 1 5 2 6 3 1 5 6 6 6 Heinrich 6 3 3 2 5 5 1 6 6 4 Hooper 1 5 1 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 1 2 3 2 6 6 4 3 6 3 Moazed 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 6 6 Moore 2 4 1 4 1 1 5 6 6 5 Phillips 3 2 3 3 6 6 3 2 6 2 Reed 2 3 5 2 6 6 1 6 5 1 Sommer 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 4 6 2 Wool 6 5 4 3 6 6 3 6 6 1 # of 1-4 scores 8 6 10 9 4 5 7 3 0 6 # of 5-6 scores 3 5 1 2 7 6 4 8 11 5 Page 1 of 8 Other Options and Iterations – Level of Support Scores March 5, 2020 As homework from their February 6, 2020 meeting, voting members of the PAWG were asked to provide scores to indicate their level of support for Other Options and Iterations, which are organized by site. These other options and iterations offer different ways to provide access and meet project goals such as providing permit only access, holding docent-led activities, or spreading out amenities or uses over multiple locations rather than locating them all at one site. Per the PAWG’s Rules and Procedures, scores 1 – 4 indicate support while scores 5 – 6 indicate no support. A majority is reached when at least 6 of the 11 voting members either support or do not support an option. These are highlighted in the table as gray cells. The options and iterations include: • Permit access only • Docent-led activities • Distribution of uses o Education/interpretation o Family/picnic o Restrooms o Equestrian access o Dog access The sites under consideration are: A. Event Center B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Expansion of Existing Lot B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area B3. Preserve Gate LH15 C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) C2. Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) D. Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence E2. Red Barn – Area West and Down Slope from Red Barn E3. Red Barn – Shed Area below Ranger Residence E4. Red Barn – Area North and Adjacent to Ranger Residence Following is a summary table indicating the majority support or no support status for each Option and Iteration when compared to each Site. This is followed by tables showing scores for each site and by PAWG members’ score sheets. Page 2 of 8 Level of Support Summary for Other Options and Iterations Option or Iteration A B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D E1 E2 E3 E4 Permit only Docent led hikes Distribution of Use: Education/ Interpretation Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Distribution of Use: Restrooms Distribution of Use: Equestrian Distribution of Use: Dog access Legend: Majority supportive Majority not supportive Blank indicates that options was not applicable or there was insufficient data Page 3 of 8 A – Event Center Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 1 1 1 1 1 4 Heinrich 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hooper 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 Lusebrink 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 Moazed 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 Moore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Phillips 2 2 1 3 1 1 6 Reed 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 Sommer 1 1 4 3 3 1 2 Wool 6* # of 1-4 scores 9 9 9 8 9 9 8 # of 5-6 scores 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Blank, N/A, or 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 * Willie Wool voted 1 on permits but stated in her comments that it is "too far away." The District changed her score to 6 to be consistent with her other responses and notified her. B1 Sears Ranch Road – Expansion of Existing Lot Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 4 3 1 5 1 Heinrich 1 1 1 1 1 Hooper 1 3 1 3 1 Lusebrink 1 5 2 3 1 1 1 Moazed 1 1 1 2 2 Moore 1 1 6 6 1 Phillips 2 2 2 1 1 1 Reed 4 4 3 1 Sommer 4 4 1 4 2 Wool 6 6 3 6 3 3 6 # of 1-4 scores 2 1 10 8 8 8 9 # of 5-6 scores 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 Blank, N/A, or 0 8 8 1 2 2 1 1 Page 4 of 8 B2 Sears Ranch Road Area – Site West of Parking Lot Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 2 3 1 3 4 Heinrich 1 1 1 1 1 Hooper 1 3 1 1 1 Lusebrink 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 Moazed 1 1 1 1 2 Moore 1 1 6 1 1 Phillips 2 2 2 1 2 1 Reed 4 5 5 1 Sommer 4 3 1 3 2 Wool 6 6 3 4 3 1 6 # of 1-4 scores 2 1 8 7 8 9 9 # of 5-6 scores 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 Blank, N/A, or 0 7 8 2 2 2 1 1 B3 Sears Ranch Road Area – Preserve Gate LH15 Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 5 4 1 6 6 Heinrich 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hooper 6 6 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 3 5 4 5 1 1 1 Moazed 2 1 3 1 1 2 Moore 6 6 6 6 6 Phillips 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 Reed 6 4 5 3 1 Sommer 1 4 6 1 1 2 Wool 6 6 3 6 3 1 6 # of 1-4 scores 5 1 8 3 7 7 6 # of 5-6 scores 5 2 2 6 1 3 4 Blank, N/A, or 0 1 8 1 2 3 1 1 Page 5 of 8 C1 Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 2 1 6 2 4 Heinrich 4 2 1 1 4 1 Hooper 5 1 3 1 6 1 Lusebrink 6 5 3 4 4 5 5 Moazed 3 1 1 1 3 2 Moore 1 1 1 6 1 1 Phillips 6 4 3 6 1 6 1 Reed 6 6 6 6 1 Sommer 5 1 1 1 6 2 Wool 6 6 3 3 3 1 6 # of 1-4 scores 4 1 9 7 7 5 8 # of 5-6 scores 6 2 1 2 2 5 2 Blank, N/A, or 0 1 8 1 2 2 1 1 C2 Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral at Former Residence Area Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 1 2 6 2 1 Heinrich 4 2 1 1 4 1 Hooper 5 1 3 1 6 1 Lusebrink 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 Moazed 3 1 1 1 3 2 Moore 1 1 1 6 1 1 Phillips 6 4 3 6 1 6 1 Reed 6 6 6 6 1 Sommer 5 1 1 1 6 2 Wool 6 6 3 3 3 1 6 # of 1-4 scores 4 1 9 7 6 5 8 # of 5-6 scores 6 2 1 2 3 5 2 Blank, N/A, or 0 1 8 1 2 2 1 1 Page 6 of 8 D Preserve Gate LH07 Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 5 1 1 1 6 1 Heinrich 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Hooper 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 1 4 1 2 1 6 5 Moazed 5 5 3 4 3 6 2 Moore 4 1 1 1 1 6 4 Phillips 3 2 3 3 2 6 Reed 3 1 3 4 1 6 1 Sommer 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 Wool 1 2 3 1 1 6 6 # of 1-4 scores 7 8 9 8 9 1 5 # of 5-6 scores 3 2 1 1 1 9 4 Blank, N/A, or 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 E1 Red Barn Area – Site Behind Ranger Residence Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 6 5 1 1 6 1 Heinrich 4 2 2 4 1 1 1 Hooper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 3 5 2 4 6 6 2 Moazed 6 6 3 6 6 2 Moore 6 5 4 4 6 1 Phillips 1 1 1 1 6 1 Reed 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Sommer 5 5 4 3 1 5 6 Wool 1 2 3 1 1 6 6 # of 1-4 scores 4 3 8 6 4 1 6 # of 5-6 scores 6 7 2 3 3 9 4 Blank, N/A, or 0 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 Page 7 of 8 E2 Red Barn Area – Corral Area Below and West of Red Barn Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 6 5 1 1 6 1 Heinrich 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hooper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 Moazed 6 6 3 6 3 2 Moore 6 Phillips Reed 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Sommer* 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Wool 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of 1-4 scores 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 # of 5-6 scores 6 7 4 5 4 5 4 Blank, N/A, or 0 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 * Sandy Sommer voted 1 to indicate support for removing E2 from consideration, so the District changed her scores to 6 to represent her intention and notified her. E3 Red Barn Area – Area Near Shed Below Ranger Residence Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 6 5 1 1 6 1 Heinrich 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 Hooper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 2 4 1 2 6 6 2 Moazed 6 6 3 6 6 2 Moore 6 5 4 3 6 1 Phillips 1 1 1 1 6 1 Reed 1 1 3 1 5 6 4 Sommer 1 1 1 2 1 5 6 Wool 1 2 3 1 1 6 6 # of 1-4 scores 6 6 9 7 4 1 7 # of 5-6 scores 4 4 1 2 3 9 3 Blank, N/A, or 0 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 Page 8 of 8 E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Docent Education Picnic Restrooms Equestrian Dog Bordi (No Submission) Delay 5 6 4 3 4 6 4 Heinrich Hooper 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 1 1 2 3 5 5 Moazed 6 5 4 4 4 6 6 Moore 5 1 1 1 1 6 1 Phillips 1 1 1 1 6 1 Reed 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 Sommer 3 3 3 3 6* 6 6 Wool 3 3 2 5 3 6 6 # of 1-4 scores 5 6 8 7 4 0 3 # of 5-6 scores 4 3 1 2 3 9 6 Blank, N/A, or 0 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 * Sandy Sommer voted 1 on the restroom use but indicated that she is supportive of no restroom at this site due to the existing driveway. The District changed her score to 6 to represent her intention and notified her. Site E4 Assessment and Score Forms March 5, 2020 At the February 6, 2020 PAWG meeting, during discussion of sites under consideration, a fourth site at the Red Barn area was suggested. Site E4 is north and adjacent to the ranger residence at the Red Barn site. The PAWG members were invited to individually visit, assess and consider this location using the Other Options and Iterations assessment and scoring form. The members noted below provided their scores, which are attached to this cover sheet. PAWG Members E4 Assessment Forms Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich - Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle - Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments If E4 were to be among our recommendations, it should be permit- only. E3 remains best choice in this area. Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Docent hikes would be fine; preferred from E3. Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 Andie Reed Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments Not an ideal place for amenities; limited access because of ranger house and shared driveway. Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments E3 is a much better site for gathering and staging for hikers and docents. Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 5 PAWG Member Comments Public comment and site safety conditions should preclude this site from consideration. Possibly use as a handicap access only to red barn ? Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Public comment and site safety conditions should preclude this site from consideration Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 Ari Delay Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Public comment and site safety conditions should preclude this site from consideration Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 PAWG Member Comments Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Barbara Hooper Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Traffic and public safety concerns. See Note 1 below. Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Traffic and public safety concerns. I may be in favor of this option if visitors of Docent-led hikes arrived in MROSD provided vehicles. Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 Barbara Hooper Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments In favor of interpretive signage for hikers accessing area from Sears Ranch Road and Allen Road trails. Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Equestrian use in the area okay if the visitors arrived via a trail originating at the Event Center or Sears Ranch Road. Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. Notes: 1. The only relatively safe ingress and egress access to LH07 and LH06 (the driveway to behind the Ranger Residence) on Highway 84 was demonstrated in our MidPen site tours on October 19, 2019 and November 16, 2019. It seems highly unlikely that visitors arriving to the areas for Docent-led hikes or Permit parking only would be as careful as the MidPen drivers who took the time to drive to Alice’s Restaurant at Skyline Blvd. to safely enter the driveways and then exited to the west to return us to La Honda. a. For each of those sites, safe access is: i. When heading WEST on Highway 84, ENTER the driveway by making a right- hand turn. ii. EXIT the driveway, by making a right-hand turn to continue heading west on Highway 84. b. It is NOT safe to: i. ENTER the driveway when heading EAST on Highway 84; a vehicle would need to make a left-hand turn, cross the double yellow line, and cross traffic heading west. ii. EXIT the driveway to head EAST on Highway 84; a vehicle would need to make a left-hand turn, cross the double yellow line, and cross traffic heading west. Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments This area is hidden from view from the highway so would not impact any views and would be further from the ranger residence. Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments There is a lot going on here – the Red Barn, the bats, grazing, the gateway to the rest of the preserve, so it will be a popular site. It makes sense to offer docent led hikes here to educate visitors. Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 Denise Phillips Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments Given how much there is at this location, it makes sense to offer up some kind of education or interpretive info, whether that is via signage or docent led hikes. A gathering area would be great, but the size of the area may be a constraint. Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments Given that this site is a bit lower down the slope there would not be the views to overlook, but picnic tables would be a nice addition to the site. Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) PAWG Member Comments That’s a bummer. Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Same concerns apply about long trailers trying to enter/exit over Hwy 84 Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments I assume this is not currently in the LHMP as there is no lot here. If this lot gets developed, could this be considered (like site B2)? As a launching site to the central portion of the preserve, many visitors would love to come here to hike with their dogs. Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Karl Lusebrink Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments E4 has lower impact to residence and less obtrusive in views from surrounding hills than E1. Permit can include specific highway entry safety instructions. Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments Low volume, controlled access use is appropriate Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 2 Karl Lusebrink Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments Signage ok, other amenities may fit at nearby E3 Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Minimal infrastructure perhaps suitable at nearby E3. Keep visitors back from 100 ft. buffer around barn. Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) na PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 5 PAWG Member Comments Unlikely due to poor highway access Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 5 PAWG Member Comments Fenced dog run area elsewhere Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments As a local accustomed to these roads, I was still nervous about entering and exiting this site. For those unfamiliar with Hwy 84, it could be quite dangerous. Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 5 PAWG Member Comments I have the same reservations as expressed for permit only access, but perhaps feel slightly better with having a docent on site to coach visitors on how get in and out of the Preserve at this site as safely as possible. I would limit the access to 6-8 spaces. Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. Kathleen Moazed Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 PAWG Member Comments While I don’t like the use of this site along Hwy 84 at all, if it were located here I see no problem with these amenities being added here. Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 PAWG Member Comments While I remain opposed to the use of this access point on Hwy 84 for safety reasons, if access is located here it seems a nice spot for picnicing. Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 PAWG Member Comments Seems a moot point if no pump truck can access the site. Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments It would be very dangerous to have larger and slower moving horse trailers accessing the preserve at this site. Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 4 PAWG Member Comments I am agnostic on this, I leave it to the MidPen Master Plan Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 5 PAWG Member Comments I am not in favor of Permit only lots & I do not believe this is a safe access point on Highway 84 Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 Melany Moore Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments If a safe access is determined to be feasible, then i am strongly in favor of family use Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments I am concerned that mIDPEN SHOULD have some Restrooms available Porta- Potties are a great alternative & this should be considered, otherwise people will just use a ‘bush’ :)) Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments This is not a safe access point for Equestrians Use. The Highway curves at the access point ( I think) Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments Dogs on leash should be considered, especially with the increase in Mountain Lion sightings/ activity Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 – Sandy Sommer E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Does not relate as well to Red Barn. Support as first phase. Suggested second phase: get creative to reduce speeds on Hwy 84, with hope of full site access in the future. This area is important to Ridge Trail continuity Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Support as first phase. In long run, prefer that this site is fully open – eventually no docent needed. This area is important to Ridge Trail continuity. Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. Sandy Sommer Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Good vistas to upper preserve and west Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 1 PAWG Member Comments Support no restroom with use of existing driveway. Still hope for full site access in the future. This area is important to Ridge Trail continuity Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Agree – space limitations for equestrian staging Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments Concerned about habitat sensitivity Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework: Level of Support for March 5, 2020 E4 Site Assessment (Adjacent to and North of Ranger Residence at Red Barn) Please indicate your level of support, using the scale of 1-6 as described in the footnote. If you would like to share ideas for what would make this element more appealing at this site, you may do so in the comments section. Option E4 Red Barn Area – Area Adjacent to and North of the Ranger Residence Permit Only Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments This site would mar the view from Upper La Honda Vista Point and provide too few spaces. Docent-led hikes Potential 10-15 spaces. Some site development (grading, retaining walls potentially). Use of existing driveways. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Not a fan Distribution of Use: Education/Interpretation Potential for additional amenities related to education, e.g. gathering area, additional interpretive signage. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 2 Willie Wool Page 2 of 2 Gradients of Agreement 1: I can say an unqualified “yes” to the proposal. 2: I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3: I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4: I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5: I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6: I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. PAWG Member Comments I favor education Distribution of Use: Picnic/family Potential. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 5 PAWG Member Comments No shade, sloped. Distribution of Use: Restrooms No. Pump truck access limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 3 PAWG Member Comments Oh, darn! Distribution of Use: Equestrian Low potential. Space limitations. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments People first Distribution of Use: Dog access Not currently in the La Honda Master Plan. PAWG Member Level of Support (1 – 6) 6 PAWG Member Comments People and wild animals first. Page 1 of 4 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study March 5, 2020 Suites of Options #1 through 5 Original emailed February 28, 2020 REVISED March 2, 2020 per B. Hooper in red text and bold on page 4 At the PAWG’s February 6, 2020 meeting, District staff presented three samples suites of options for discussion. These are combinations of both Sites under considerations and Other Options and Iterations that provide access in a different way than through a general public parking lot. The sites under consideration are: A. Event Center B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Expansion of Existing Lot B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area B3. Preserve Gate LH15 C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) C2. Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) D. Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence E2. Red Barn – Area West and Down Slope from Red Barn E3. Red Barn – Shed Area below Ranger Residence Suites #1 - 3 – these sample suites prepared by the District were provided at February 6, 2020 meeting for the PAWG’s consideration Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sample Suite #1 • D Gate LH07 - small lot with restroom and trailhead, interpretive signage, e.g. about creek • B1 Sears Ranch – Expansion of existing lot - equestrian only • E3 Red Barn – Area by shed below ranger residence - permit only - clear access instructions - minimally improved - interpretive sign on grazing - limit # of cars depending on day (potentially more permits issued on weekday because less traffic on Highway 84 vs weekend) Sample Suite #2 • D Gate LH07 - permit lot with no restroom • B2 Sears Ranch – Site west of existing parking area - equestrian parking • E1 Red Barn – Area behind ranger residence - docent only - clear access instructions - minimally improved Sample Suite #3 • C1 Sears Ranch – Former Residence - gravel lot • B3 Sears Ranch – Gate LH15 - equestrian parking • E3 – Area by shed below ranger residence - permit only - clear access instructions - minimally improved - interpretive sign on grazing - limit # of cars depending on day (potentially more permits issued on weekday because less traffic on Highway 84 vs weekend) Page 2 of 4 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Considerations: • D and E3 could provide access for hikers and bicycles • B1 could provide access for equestrians. Considerations: LH07 (requires replacing the bridge) • D and E1 could provide access for hikers and bicycles • B2 could provide access for equestrians. Considerations: • C1 could provide access 1 mile further into the Preserve. • B3 could provide access for equestrians. • E3 could provide access for hikers and bicycles Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Considerations: • D – Locate parking area in an area to minimize visibility from the highway, using vegetation as screening • B1 – Rock (instead of paving) parking area and add hitching posts. • E3 – Minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of pave) parking area and access. Considerations: • D – Locate parking area in an area to minimize visibility from the highway, using vegetation as screening • B2 – Rock (instead of pave) parking area and add hitching posts. • E1 – Minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of pave) parking area and access. Considerations: • C1 – Minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of pave) parking area and access. • B3 – Rock (instead of pave) parking area and add hitching posts. • E3 – Minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of pave) parking area and access. Provide safe public access Considerations: • D – Consider highway/driveway location improvements • B1 – Located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84. • E3 – Have controlled access to and from Highway 84. Considerations: • D – Have controlled access to and from Highway 84. • B2 – Located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84. • E1 – Have controlled access to and from Highway 84. Considerations: • C1 – Located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84. • B3 – Located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84 • E3 – Have controlled access to and from Highway 84. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Considerations: Design all sites for least impact at each site • D – Design of the trail connection. • B1 – Design of the parking area. • E3 – Design of the trail connection, parking area and access. Considerations: Design all sites for least impact at each site • D – Design of the trail connection. • B2 – Design of the parking area and access. • E1 – Design of the trail connection, parking area and access. Considerations: Design all sites for least impact at each site • C1 – Design of the parking area and access. • B3 – Design of the parking area and access. • E3 – Design of the trail connection, parking area and access. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Considerations: All can potentially accommodate interpretive features depending on the theme highlighted. Considerations: All can potentially accommodate interpretive features depending on the theme highlighted. Considerations: All can potentially accommodate interpretive features depending on the theme highlighted. Protect scenic views of and from the site Consideration – • D – Use of vegetation – locate the lot in an area best shielded by vegetation. • B1 – Rock parking area • E3 – Designed to be hidden from highway view– could be a small lot (10 cars) closer to the shed to be out of view. Consideration – • D – Use of vegetation – locate the lot in an area best shielded by vegetation. • B2 – Rock parking area • E1 – Far removed from highway view. Add vegetation for screening from within the Preserve. Consideration – • C1 – Rock parking area • B3 – Rock parking area • E3 – Designed to be hidden from highway view– could be a small lot (10 cars) closer to the shed to be out of view. Page 3 of 4 Suites #4 - 5 (NEW) – suggested by PAWG members Sandy Sommer and Barbara Hooper Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sample Suite #4 • A Event Center - Following planning study, consider for full hiking and equestrian access using Hwy 84 tunnel. Add a restroom, picnic, and family-oriented short trail loops. Potential for dog access, pending better understanding of habitat sensitivity. • B1 Sears Ranch -Expansion of existing lot - Keep as is – no expansion. • B3 Sears Ranch – Gate LH15 - Develop as equestrian permit lot. • C1 Sears Ranch – Former Residence and/or C2 Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral at Former Residence Area - Develop the general C1/C2 area as the central staging “hub” for the La Honda Creek OSP. Extend the paved road to this point. Include: o Restroom o Picnic area o Family access with short, easy access trails o Education and interpretive features - Provide “spoke” trails radiating outward, including towards the Red Barn and middle preserve. • D Gate LH07 - Develop as small staging area with restroom and trailhead. Include family / picnic as a short trail loop in redwood groves below. Later, add interpretive signage about creek, and upgrade creek bridge to allow connection to the Red Barn area. Potential Ridge Trail staging area. • E3 – Red Barn -Area by shed below ranger residence - Initially, permit and docent access only, for a limited number of vehicles. Minimal improvements. Use existing driveways and gates. Provide with clear access instructions. - Initiate a feasibility study of Highway 84 speed reduction and safety modifications. If roadway speeds can be reduced to acceptably safe levels, consider area for full public access. Potential Ridge Trail staging area. Sample Suite #5 • B1 Sears Ranch–Expansion of existing OR B2 Sears Ranch–Site west of existing parking area - equestrian (and over-flow) parking – gravel or dirt lot - multi-use access – hikers, cyclists, equestrians, dogs on leash • E1 Red Barn–Area behind ranger residence OR E4 Red Barn-Area adjacent/north of residence - docent-led hikes from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation. - interpretive sign on grazing for docent-led visits and those entering area from Allen Road and Sears Ranch Road trails - minimally improved • D Gate LH07 - docent-led hikes from via MidPen provided transportation. - minimally improved - interpretive signage, e.g. about creek • A Event Center - multi-use access – hikers, cyclists, equestrians, dogs on leash - interpretative signage about ranching, grazing, rodeo history Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Considerations: • Terrain, highway, creek, and property ownership limit direct access options in central preserve area. Compromise needed. • C1/C2 offers the only realistic site for a somewhat central major preserve access and staging point. • D could provide small staging and hiking access to central preserve. With bridge repair and short trail connection, could provide workable full public access to Red Barn area. Also supports alternative Ridge Trail route. • E3 could allow permit use at Red Barn site in the near term, accommodating hikers, bicycles and a future Ridge Trail connection. The feasibility study could provide specific technical information to support decision making regarding future options beyond permit access. Considerations: • D, E1, and E3 could provide docent-guided access to visitors and hikers • B1 and B2 could provide access for equestrians, hikers, and cyclists Page 4 of 4 *Barbara Hooper’s note: “Safe ingress and egress access to D Gate LH07, E1 Red Barn, and E4 Red Barn on Highway 84 was demonstrated in our MidPen site tours on October 19, 2019 and November 16, 2019. MidPen drivers took the time to drive to Alice’s Restaurant at Skyline Blvd. to safely enter the driveways and then exited to the west to return PAWG groups to La Honda. For each of those sites, safe access is: When heading WEST on Highway 84, ENTER the driveway by making a right- hand turn. Then, EXIT the driveway, by making a right-hand turn to continue heading west on Highway 84. It is NOT safe to: ENTER the driveway when heading EAST on Highway 84; a vehicle would need to make a left-hand turn, cross the double yellow line, and cross traffic heading west. To EXIT the driveway to head EAST on Highway 84, a vehicle would need to make a left-hand turn, cross the double yellow line, and cross traffic heading west.” Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • D – Locate parking area to minimize visibility from the highway, using vegetation as screening • E3 – Minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of pave) parking area and use existing driveways for access. Considerations: • B1 and B3 – rock (instead of paving) parking area and add hitching posts • D – rock (instead of paving) parking area where it is currently located; shielded from highway • E1 and E4 – minimal improvements – no restroom, rock (instead of paving) parking area • A – rock (instead of paving) parking area Provide safe public access Considerations: • A - Carefully locate driveway access based on sight lines. • B3, C1/C2 – Located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84. • D - Carefully locate driveway access based on sight lines • E3 – Have controlled access to and from Highway 84. Considerations: • B1 and B2 – located on a road off Highway 84, not affected by traffic on Highway 84 • E1, E4, and D – MidPen provided transportation could ensure safe ingress/egress; see Note.* • A – consider highway/driveway location access on both sides of Highway 84 Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Considerations: Design all sites for least impact at each site • B3 – Design of the parking area and access. • C1 / C2 – Design of the parking area and access. Could include cattle crossing gates at road. • D – Design of the trail connection. • E3 – Design of the trail connection, parking area Considerations: Design all sites for least impact at each site • B1 and B2 – design of the parking area • E1 and E4 – design of the trail connection, parking area, and access • D - design of the trail connection • A – design of the trail connection, parking area, and access Include amenities that facilitate environmental education All can potentially accommodate interpretive features depending on the theme highlighted. • D - offers unique opportunity for environmental education regarding the creek Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • All can potentially accommodate interpretive features depending on the theme highlighted. Protect scenic views of and from the site All are less visible from surroundings than existing Sears Ranch staging (B1) • B3 – Rock equestrian parking area • C1/C2 - Location is shielded by terrain and vegetation. • D – Shielded by vegetation. • E3 – Designed to be hidden from highway view– could be a small lot closer to the shed to be out of view. Considerations: • B1, E1, E2, D and A – rock parking area • D – current parking area is partially shielded by vegetation, more could be added • E1 and E4– far removed from highway view, add vegetation for screening from within preserve • A – shielded by vegetation Page 1 of 2 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study March 5, 2020 Suites of Options #6 The sites under consideration are: A. Event Center B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Expansion of Existing Lot B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area B3. Preserve Gate LH15 C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) C2. Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from the existing lot) D. Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence E2. Red Barn – Area West and Down Slope from Red Barn E3. Red Barn – Shed Area below Ranger Residence Suite #6 (NEW) – suggested by PAWG member Barbara Hooper – Near Term Options Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Suite #6 Near Term options to consider • E1 Red Barn - Docent-led hikes from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation • Red Barn pull-out area (which already exists) - Information about access to LHCOSP • A Event Center - Permit only for hikers (in addition to equestrians) - Docent-led hikes • B1 Sears Ranch - Docent-led or Permit hiking towards the La Honda Creek area (via La Honda Creek Loop Trail where the PAWG hiked on the November 16, 2019 Site tour) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Considerations: MidPen could create access to the Central Section by completing new trail access to Red Barn as soon as possible. • Prioritize opening trails from: o Allen Road Vista Point to Red Barn o Sears Ranch Road to Red Barn • This would provide access in Central Section for hikers (and perhaps, equestrians and cyclists) from Allen Road and Sears Ranch Road. • Docent-led hikes could be provided from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation. MidPen could encourage increased public use of LHCOSP Page 2 of 2 • Provide Permit Parking for hikers at the Event Center location. o Access for visitors to see a spectacular view of the ocean via a 1.2 mile hike (2.4 miles RT) on the road that equestrians currently have access to. Additionally, hikers could access the Folder Ranch Loop Trail and Harrington Creek Trail. o As was noted in the MROSD Permit Parking Information, December 12, 2019, permits for the Event Center access were only issued 10 times in 2019. o If Permit Parking for hikers could not be added immediately, perhaps the Event Center could be a Permit Parking “pilot” location. Then, MROSD could get feedback from hikers regarding the access and trail conditions. o Currently, hikers need to hike 3.2 miles (6.4 miles RT) from Sears Ranch Road to see a view of the ocean. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Provide safe public access Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Protect scenic views of and from the site La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study New Suite for PAWG Consideration – submitted by Sandy Sommer, 2/17/2020 Provide public access staging at the following locations, as described. See attached map for depiction of overall preserve system. Site Description A – Event Center Initially equestrian permit access only. Following planning study, consider for full hiking and equestrian access using Hwy 84 tunnel. Add a restroom, picnic, and family- oriented short trail loops. Potential for dog access, pending better understanding of habitat sensitivity. B1 – Sears Ranch Road area – Existing staging area Keep as is – no expansion. B3 - Sears Ranch Road Area – Gate LH15 Develop as equestrian permit lot. C1 - Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area AND C2 - Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral at Former Residence Area Develop the general C1/C2 area as the central staging “hub” for the La Honda Creek OSP. Extend the paved road to this point. Include: • Restroom • Picnic area • Family access with short, easy access trails • Education and interpretive features Provide “spoke” trails radiating outward, including towards the Red Barn and middle preserve. D - Preserve Gate LH07 Develop as small staging area with restroom and trailhead. Include family / picnic as a short trail loop in redwood groves below. Later, add interpretive signage about creek, and upgrade creek bridge to allow connection to the Red Barn area. Potential Ridge Trail staging area. E3 - Red Barn Area – Area Near Shed Below Ranger Residence Initially, permit and docent access only, for a limited number of vehicles. Minimal improvements. Use existing driveways and gates. Provide with clear access instructions. Initiate a feasibility study of Highway 84 speed reduction and safety modifications. If roadway speeds can be reduced to acceptably safe levels, consider area for full public access. Potential Ridge Trail staging area. EXTEND ROAD potential regional trail potential regional trail potential regional trail short and long trail spokes from hub D: OPEN ALLEN RD: PERMIT B3: EQUESTRIAN PERMIT A: PERMIT NOW, OPEN LATER C1/C2: CENTRAL HUB, OPEN E3: PERMIT NOW, OPEN LATER new trail network (routes for concept only) new trail network (routes for concept only) From:Barbara Hooper To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:Barbara Hooper Subject:LH PAWG - near term options to consider Date:Sunday, March 1, 2020 8:16:04 PM Attachments:B. Hooper - LH PAWG - Near Term options to consider.docx EXTERNAL Tina and Melissa- I'd like to share some possible near term options for LHCOSP access with the PAWG. Please forward the attached document to the PAWG members and include it with the other items for LH PAWG March 6th Meeting. Thank you, Barbara 1 Near Term options for LH PAWG to consider B. Hooper 1. Near Term options to consider a. E1 Red Barn i. Docent-led hikes from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation b. Red Barn pull-out area (which already exists) i. Information about access to LHCOSP c. A Event Center i. Permit only for hikers (in addition to equestrians) ii. Docent-led hikes d. B1 Sears Ranch i. Docent-led or Permit hiking towards the La Honda Creek area (via La Honda Creek Loop Trail where the PAWG hiked on the November 16, 2019 Site tour) 2. PAWG and LHCOSP access considerations a. Provide access to Central Section b. Be open-minded and think “outside the box” to consider new public access c. Lower Section access is not utilized to capacity as noted in Sears Ranch Road parking lot usage data d. MidPen may approach CalTrans regarding SR84 traffic mitigation and/or road modifications for access to LH06 or LH07. However, these options may not come to fruition and/or may not be approved in a reasonable timeframe to maximize public access to LHCOSP in the near term. 3. MidPen could create access to the Central Section by completing new trail access to Red Barn as soon as possible. a. Prioritize opening trails from: i. Allen Road Vista Point to Red Barn ii. Sears Ranch Road to Red Barn b. This would provide access in Central Section for hikers (and perhaps, equestrians and cyclists) from Allen Road and Sears Ranch Road. c. Docent-led hikes could be provided from Red Barn via MidPen provided transportation. 4. MidPen could encourage increased public use of LHCOSP a. Provide Permit Parking for hikers at the Event Center location. i. Access for visitors to see a spectacular view of the ocean via a 1.2 mile hike (2.4 miles RT) on the road that equestrians currently have access to. Additionally, hikers could access the Folder Ranch Loop Trail and Harrington Creek Trail. ii. As was noted in the MROSD Permit Parking Information, December 12, 2019, permits for the Event Center access were only issued 10 times in 2019. iii. If Permit Parking for hikers could not be added immediately, perhaps the Event Center could be a Permit Parking “pilot” location. Then, MROSD could get feedback from hikers regarding the access and trail conditions. iv. Currently, hikers need to hike 3.2 miles (6.4 miles RT) from Sears Ranch Road to see a view of the ocean. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FAppendix SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARIES AND FORMS THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 1 A.Event Center Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve •Equestrian use here could help reduce need for equestrian vehicle access in the central area (iii)* •Site is already flat, paved and has buildings (ii) •Public access for hikers, cyclists, and dog walkers (in addition to the access already available to equestrians via a permit) in this site would allow visitors to enjoy the central portion •Tunnel could allow visitors to explore either side of the preserve •Doesn’t provide easy access to the central part of the Preserve (iiii) Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn •Does not affect Red Barn (iii) •Beautiful as is and reflects the rural character of the area •Plenty of parking •Event Center itself is not attractive Provide safe public access •Safe public access could be feasible (iiii) •Tunnel creates excellent trail access across Highway 84; make sure it’s structurally sound •The tunnel needs improvements (iii) •Pulling off Hwy 84 would need to be addressed (ii) •Has its own vehicular access problems Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses •There’s not much direct effect (iiii) •Well-suited to parking and horses •Other activities such as hiking, biking, and dog walking, etc. could be implemented •Maintain rodeo and training facilities •Concern about how the site would keep hikers •Maintenance issues/costs •Agriculture/rodeo uses separate Include amenities that facilitate environmental education •Good place to do this (ii) •Potential to display information about agriculture, equestrians, rodeo, etc. (ii) •Information about the Red Barn could be provided here to encourage visitors to explore the trails •Plenty of area for signage •Loop over to White Barn could be interesting •Near La Honda Oil Fields •Concentrated equestrian use and location at an end of the preserve – not a likely location •Depends on what Midpen wants Protect scenic views of and from the site •Views from both sides of the Event Center (ii) •There’s not much direct effect (ii) •Not that scenic (iii) Other considerations •Amend the Master Plan to include consideration for Event Center (and Driscoll Orchards) uses (ii) •Great staging area for the Driscoll Ranch part of the Preserve; when new trail options open, consider this for more than equestrian use •Density study needed for conformance with Highway 84 Scenic Corridor regulations La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 2 B1. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve • More parking here for equestrians • Reducing/deleting equestrian parking at central area would improve traffic safety getting into/onto 84 • Can add some parking • Biking, and dog access could be added • Would support increased use in this underutilized section • Doesn’t make central area (iiiiii)* • Doesn’t fulfill parking needs Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • Does not affect Red Barn (iii) • Agricultural needs would add to the character • Vistas reflect the rural character • Sensitive to what is already here • Very peaceful and remote • Additional paved area would not be in keeping with rural character • Needs bathroom and trash can Provide safe public access • Access is safe (iiiiiii) • Easy, safe driving and parking access • posted speed limit and stop signs • Impact on school grounds. • Fences separate visitors and cattle • Road needs improvements Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses • Grazing and hiking activities complement each other (iii) • No additional impact on grazing • Opportunity to inform public about the essential role of grazing in fire fuel management. • Parking would use pasture area (ii) Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • Good place to do this (iiii) • Could inform visitors about the history, geography, wildlife, Red Barn and agricultural use in the site and region (iii) • Could incorporate a loop to the ponds • Depends on what Midpen wants • Not a particularly compelling site Protect scenic views of and from the site • Views are nice (iii) • Tucked away from the public (ii) • There is a structure already • Parking/amenities would be visible from within the preserve • At some point a larger staging area becomes out of scale for the rural setting Other considerations • Would serve additional trails planned for the area • Location is very near the La Honda Store where one can buy food and drink for picnics • Consider gravel lot instead of asphalt; better for horses • Add oak trees for screening • Possibility that roadway would need to be widened to accommodate additional capacity; could result in higher costs to the District La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 3 B2. Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve • Could provide access for equestrian parking and users (iii)* • Seems like a natural place to expand access toward the central area (ii) • Is central if one considers the overall acreage of the Preserve and the trails currently in use • Does not meet this objective (iiii). • Long hike to reach central area • Only equestrians and cyclists would consider this to be a staging area for the central Preserve Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • Would expect it to be designed to blend in to surrounding area • Consider gravel surfacing for lot, especially since it is better for horses • Additional paved area would be intrusive and not in keeping with rural character Provide safe public access • Very safe access (iiiiiiiii) • Would provide safe access if the road could be widened to two lanes (ii) • Concern that additional capacity would require roadway widening Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses • Minimal grazing impacts (iiiii) • Education of the public has been good and should continue • Would require additional fencing and gates • Concern about noise and fumes from cars Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • Almost unlimited potential for environmental education (iiii) • Potential to access Sears Ranch ponds • Only modest improvements needed, since there are amenities at the nearby existing lot Protect scenic views of and from the site • Plenty of views that could be enhanced by a well-designed parking lot and other amenities (iiiii) • Avoids visual impact on Red Barn (iii) • Would be out of view from the town of La Honda • Would detract from existing views of the barn and pond (iii) Other considerations • Maybe appropriate for equestrian trailer parking – consider as permit only to keep it small • Prioritize equestrian parking on graded, unpaved surface • Allow for car overflow from current lot • Could accommodate a building or public bathroom • Plenty of space for picnics • When more access to the southern portion is needed, this would be a good place for parking La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 4 C1. Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve • Could accommodate equestrian access (ii)* • Biking, and dog access could be added • Would support increased use in this underutilized section • Closer access to the Red Barn • Can add some parking • Doesn’t provide access to central area (iii) • Introduces vehicles and their conflicts well into the Preserve • More visible from within the Preserve Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • Does not affect Red Barn • Agricultural needs would add to the character • Vistas reflect the rural character • Very peaceful and remote • Intrusion of fencing an additional one mile into the Preserve • New paved area would not be in keeping with rural character Provide safe public access • Access is safe (iiiii) • Easy, safe driving and parking access • There are posted speed limit and stop signs • Farther away from highway 84 • Could build parallel trail to separate pedestrians and vehicles • Brings more Preserve users in contact with traffic (ii) • Impact on school grounds Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses • Opportunity Inform public about essential role of grazing in fire fuel management. • Grazing and hiking activities complement each other • Grazing access more difficult (iiii) • Parking would reduce pasture area (ii) • Access more difficult for hikers wanting to go from one side to the other Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • Good place to do this (iiii) • Could incorporate a loop to the ponds • Could provide education about calving grounds • Better to provide this in the perimeter • Depends on what Midpen wants • Not a particularly compelling site Protect scenic views of and from the site • Parking can be hidden from public view (iii) • Views are nice (ii) • Views are expansive enough that a visitor center would not detract • Visible from higher points within the preserve • Would impact the area Other considerations • Would serve additional trails planned for the area • Location is very near the La Honda Store where one can buy food and drink for picnics • Consider gravel lot instead of asphalt; better for horses • Concern about cost of fencing and road improvements La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 5 C2. Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve • Would expand visitor access closer to the central area (iiii)* • Would provide a large area for equestrian parking • Gentle terrain good for ADA access • Does not meet this objective (iiii) • Additional parking one mile from current area is redundant; would not greatly reduce hike distance to Red Barn area Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • Design to fit working ranch • Concern about bringing parking this far into the Preserve as a disruption to the rural character (iii) • Paved road and lot are not in keeping with rural character (ii) Provide safe public access • Very safe access (iiiiii) • Sears Ranch Road is well paved and already in use • Would provide safe access if the road could be widened to two lanes (ii) • Extension of road could potentially create more pedestrian conflicts within the Preserve • Concern about theft and vandalism risk Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses • Minimal impact on grazing activities and other uses • Education of the public about sharing space with cattle has been good and should continue • High impact on grazing activities (iiii) • Would reduce pasture for grazing and increase fencing and accommodate cattle crossing gates Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • Almost unlimited potential for environmental education (iiiii) • The cattle calve here – a great opportunity for education • Immediate vicinity is not particularly compelling for environmental education • This would draw more traffic into the central part of the Preserve Protect scenic views of and from the site • Equestrian and visitor parking could be somewhat hidden from view (iii) • Plenty of views that could be enhanced by a well-designed parking lot and other amenities (ii) • Fairly well screened from surrounding Preserve (ii) • Avoids visual impact on Red Barn • Views and sense of remoteness would be impacted by parking (iii) Other considerations • Separate hiking/biking/equestrian/dog walking trail from roadway (ii) • When more access to the southern portion is needed, this would be a good place for parking. • Plenty of room for other amenities, such as a restroom • Consider a loop trail around hilltop residence site • Could provide a safe refuge for visitors and local residents of the La Honda community • Added cost of potentially widening SRR and creating a mile of new road. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 6 D. Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve • Feasible for some parking; maybe permitted access and docent-led activities (iiii) • Good alternative • Appropriate for limited access • May be difficult terrain for mobility- challenged people Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • Minimizes visual impact on Red Barn (ii) • Would support the rural character • Could be designed appropriately • Screen parking from the highway • Use material other than asphalt Provide safe public access • Moving the driveway to the north may help make this location acceptable (ii) • Line of sight is good • Limited access might be acceptable • Possible pocket turn lanes could enhance safety • Concern about collision data at this location (iii). • Concern about Highway 84 traffic danger, especially speeding motorcycles (iii) • Would need traffic calming measures • Does not provide safe access in current configuration Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses • No impact on grazing (ii) • Minimal conflicts with existing uses • Best balance between public access and grazing activities and other uses • Not sure (ii) Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • Some potential for interpretive signs (iiiii) • Redwood groves nearby would make a nice destination • Opportunity for forest habitat, salmonid spawning or wildlife corridor interpretive signs • Seems suited to parking and trailhead access only (iiii) • Views from the site are limited, making explanation of the area a little more difficult Protect scenic views of and from the site • Forested area is a nice contrast to open views • Retain trees and bushes as much as possible (iii) • Best protection of scenic views of and from the site • No real scenic views here Other considerations • No equestrian trailer parking here (iii) • Good parking potential • Highway noise needs to be addressed • Good access to trails going to upper and lower portions of the Preserve • Also has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing • Continue to discuss roadside parking in excess Caltrans right-of-way west of LH07 • This site is within a “sensitive natural resource area” per the Natural Resources Considerations map • Minimize visitor impact to pristine creek La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 7 E1. Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve • Best access to the central part of the Preserve (ii)* • Consider for permitted access and/or docent led activities. • Attractive alternative to parking at the Red Barn • Not sure Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn • Mostly out of sight of the Red Barn and 84 (iiiiii) • Preserves the character of the Red Barn (iii) • Ranger's house could be repurposed for bathrooms, bulletin boards, historical interpretation, visitor's center • Add picnic tables and pond • Removed from traffic noise and views • Need a context sensitive design • Hard to say if the site will be preserved Provide safe public access • Feasible for parking area (iii) • Road safety could be improved with properly engineered warning signs, turning lane(s), etc. (ii) • Might use negotiated easement with adjacent property driveway • Driveway alignment and turning movements are the biggest issues • Access to and from Highway 84 would be dangerous (iiii) • Parking would need to be more concentrated elsewhere (ii) • Collisions have occurred in the area Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses • This area seems to be workable with grazing activities (iiii) • Grazing helps make the area picturesque • Minimal conflicts with existing uses • Some impact on current operation and ranger housing (iii) Include amenities that facilitate environmental education • Good place to do this (iii) • Locating other buildings out of sight • Buffer from the Red Barn • Opportunity to add short interpretive loop to the Red Barn • Education about grazing, bats, regional trails, steelhead in La Honda Creek, historical pond • Depends on what Midpen wants Protect scenic views of and from the site • Red Barn's tourist attraction is visual; area around Barn could remain as-is (iiiii) • Not visible from the 84 stretch • Lots of existing screening • Can have a context-sensitive design • It is visible from within the Preserve • Driveway is visually intrusive; consider another alignment • A simulation of the parking and outbuildings would help visualize the impacts Other considerations • Reduces La Honda neighborhood traffic concerns (ii) • Great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing • More easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area • Opportunity for historical signage and pit toilets La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Summary of Tour Site Assessment Comments *NOTE: The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions: (ii) = 2 mentions Page 8 E2. Red Barn – Area Down Slope from Red Barn Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve •Best access to the Central part of the Preserve (iii) •Consider for permitted access and/or docent led activities •Hikers start off from there, other visitors can rest or take short hikes •A short granite loop trail in this area with limited ADA parking spaces would provide ADA access Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn •Walking in front of the Red Barn is a very special experience and should be limited to docent-led groups so that it can continue to be a historic site reflecting the rural character of the region. •Leave it fairly untouched, with parking out of view and no obvious amenities •Would destroy the rural appeal of Red Barn (iiiii), specifically grading •Hard to say if the site will be preserved •Noise and view of traffic disturbs the quiet; would not want to picnic here Provide safe public access •Road safety could be improved with properly engineered warning signs, turning lane(s), etc. (ii) •Midpen has done its due diligence to study the traffic and will work to make the site acceptably safe given the primary goal of opening up central access (ii) •Driveway alignment and turning movements are the biggest issues •Going to and from the area from Highway 84 would be dangerous (iii) •Collisions have occurred in the area •Equestrian parking would need to be more concentrated elsewhere Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses •This area seems to be workable with grazing activities. (ii) •Minimal impact on existing uses •Not sure •Impacts current infrastructure Include amenities that facilitate environmental education •Good place to do this (ii) •Opportunity to add short interpretive loop to the Red Barn •Education about grazing, bats, regional trails, steelhead in La Honda Creek, historical pond (ii) •Buffer from the Red Barn •It is noisy (ii) •Exposed to view •Not sure; depends on what Midpen wants Protect scenic views of and from the site •Peaceful views, visual icon •Can have a context-sensitive design •Minimal development here •Impact on the scenic view and rural character would need to be mitigated (iiiii) •Driveway is visually intrusive; consider another alignment Other considerations •Great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing •Reduces neighborhood traffic concerns •More easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area •This is not a center of activity for the Preserve. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study December 12, 2019 Homework – Three Sites: Summary of Site Assessment Comments   *NOTE:  The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions:  (ii) = 2 mentions  Page 1  B3.  Gate LH15  Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve  New access close to existing lot   Potential for access   Doesn’t establish new public access close  to the central portion of the preserve (iiii)   Better than Event Center, but lower than  many others being considered  Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn  A good location: next to the school,  which is already developed, away from  Highway 84 view, and well hidden from  within the Preserve (ii)   Not in proximity to Red Barn (iii)   May not be desirable because of  proximity to La Honda Elementary School  (iii)  Provide safe public access  Provides safe access (iiiiiii)   Plenty of room for horse trailers to turn  around   Narrow section of road might need to be  redesigned to accommodate traffic   Might be hazardous for students’ access  to the school  Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses  Limited impact to grazing (iiiiii)     May not be desirable because of  proximity to La Honda Elementary School   Some fences  Include amenities that facilitate environmental education  Site is large enough to include many  amenities for environmental education   Little opportunity for environmental  education (ii)   This site has no view to the rest of the  Preserve, which would make it less than  inspiring for educational use   Already have interpretive signage at  existing lot nearby (ii)  Protect scenic views of and from the site  Site is concealed well (iii)   Protects views of the White Barn and the  Red Barn   Nice, but not nearly as nice as other  locations being considered (ii)    Other considerations   This site seems redundant given the  parking lot just beyond it at the top of  the hill (ii)   Perhaps used for equestrian parking, and  it would preserve the views over towards  the pond area from the top of the hill  (the existing parking lot)   Its proximity to the school raises  questions in my mind.  Are there any  issues associated with locating a public  access site so close to an elementary  school?  La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study December 12, 2019 Homework – Three Sites: Summary of Site Assessment Comments    *NOTE:  The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions:  (ii) = 2 mentions  Page 2  E3.  Red Barn – Area by Shed below Ranger Residence  Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Supports Concerns Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve  New access   Provides good access (iiii)   Excellent location to begin a hike or visit  the Red Barn area   Favorite location    Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn  Potential to complement character of  Red Barn (ii)   Well screened by trees (iiii)   Allows the public to get a close‐up view  of the Red Barn and the views (iii)   Shielded from Hwy 84 (ii)   Does not reflect rural character of the  site nor the Red Barn (iii)  Provide safe public access  Like E1 would require traffic calming and  signage on Highway 84, as well as  widening the pull‐in area (iiii)   Caltrans can advise re: vehicular access  from Highway 84   Does not provide safe public access (iii)  Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses  Limited impact on grazing (iiiii)   Less concern about impact on ranger  residence   Current leaseholder might be willing to  reduce grazing footprint around here?   Wetland pond restoration possible   Might interfere with grazing  Include amenities that facilitate environmental education  Could provide amenities (iiiiiii)   Consider interpretive boards (historical,  ranching, agricultural uses) and  directional signs & maps   A great location to provide easy public  access (including ADA) to educational  amenities planned for the Red Barn area   Maintain the existing corral structure  though the grazer may be willing to  relocate his corrals   Perhaps the fencing could be repaired  and retained and some education  element could be located inside the  corral   An inspiring setting   Any new buildings would detract from  scenic views and rural character  Protect scenic views of and from the site  Potential to hide facilities and minimize  view impacts around Red Barn (iiiii)   This area is better hidden from inside the  Preserve than the ranger house area (ii)   Not quite as good as the location behind  the ranger residence, but still an  incredible and safe view   Does not protect scenic views (iii)   Parking would be visible from Highway 84  Other considerations  Use existing ranch roads where possible   La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study December 12, 2019 Homework – Three Sites: Summary of Site Assessment Comments    *NOTE:  The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions:  (ii) = 2 mentions  Page 3  E1.  Red Barn – Area Behind Ranger Residence (Re‐Visited)  Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion  Supports Concerns  Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve  Best access to the central part of the  Preserve (iii)*   Consider for permitted access and/or  docent led activities (ii).   Attractive alternative to parking at the  Red Barn   Excellent location for hiking or visiting the  Red Barn      Not sure   Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn  Mostly out of sight of the Red Barn and  84 (iiiiii)   Preserves the character of the Red Barn  (iii)   Ranger's house could be repurposed for  bathrooms, bulletin boards, historical  interpretation, visitor's center   Add picnic tables and pond   Removed from traffic noise and views   Could preserve natural character if  constructed to blend with current road‐ bed materials        Need a context sensitive design    Hard to say if the site will be preserved   Design elements detract from the rural  character and Red Barn (i)   Would detract from existing residential  purpose   If built farther away from the residence  would be a blot on the landscape  Provide safe public access  Feasible for parking area (iii)    Road safety could be improved with  properly engineered warning signs,  turning lane(s), etc. (iii)   Might use negotiated easement with  adjacent property driveway   Driveway alignment and turning  movements are the biggest issues   Docent‐led hikes and/or permit access  could potentially provide safe public  access as there could be a limited  number of visitors allowed per day (like  the Allen Road access point)   Visitors could be given very specific  guidelines about how to enter and leave  the site, as well as warnings about traffic  hazards   Access to and from Highway 84 would be  dangerous (iiiii)   Parking would need to be more  concentrated elsewhere (ii)   Collisions have occurred in the area  Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses  This area seems to be workable with  grazing activities (iiii)   Grazing helps make the area picturesque   Minimal conflicts with existing uses   Opportunities for observing grazing  activities around the Red Barn area   Current leaseholder might be willing to  reduce grazing footprint around here?   Some impact on current operation and  ranger housing (iii)  Include amenities that facilitate environmental education  Good place to do this (iii)   Locating other buildings out of sight   Buffer from the Red Barn   Opportunity to add short interpretive  loop to the Red Barn   Education about grazing, bats, regional  trails, steelhead in La Honda Creek,  historical pond   Informative signage could highlight the  history of the area as long as it did not  interfere with the Ranger Residence   A great location to provide easy public  access (including ADA) to educational  amenities planned for the Red Barn area     Depends on what Midpen wants   Not a good location for amenities  La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study December 12, 2019 Homework – Three Sites: Summary of Site Assessment Comments    *NOTE:  The parentheses after some comments indicate the number of similar mentions:  (ii) = 2 mentions  Page 4  Protect scenic views of and from the site  Red Barn's tourist attraction is visual;  area around Barn could remain as‐is (iiiii)   Not visible from the 84 stretch   Lots of existing screening   Can have a context‐sensitive design   Best of the Red Barn locations; there is a  sense of being in the middle of the  preserve as soon as you arrive     It is visible from within the Preserve   This site is on a prominent high point  that could be viewed from many  locations   Designing and installing vegetation to  shade and shield this location would be  a challenge   Driveway is visually intrusive; consider  another alignment   A simulation of the parking and  outbuildings would help visualize the  impacts  Other considerations  Reduces La Honda neighborhood traffic  concerns (ii)   Great potential for a regional trail (Ridge  Trail) staging area and crossing   More easily accessible to those unfamiliar  with the area   Opportunity for historical signage and pit  toilets   Use existing ranch roads where possible   Impinges on the ranger residence too  much; residential opportunities are very  important to attracting good candidates  for this job   The field immediately North and  adjacent to this top‐of‐the hill site would  be preferable for parking because it is  lower elevation, screened from view  from the trails by trees, and further from  the ranger residence          Site Tour Assessment Forms December 12, 2019 (updated)   The PAWG conducted two site tours on October 16, 2019 and November 19, 2019. PAWG members were asked to record their observations according to project goals and objectives on assessment forms provided by the project team. The members noted below provided their assessments, which are attached to this cover sheet. PAWG Member Assessment Form Site Tour #1 Assessment Form Site Tour #2 Lou Bordi - - Ari Delay Submitted Submitted Art Heinrich Submitted Submitted Karl Lusebrink Submitted Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Submitted Kathleen Moazed Submitted Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Submitted Larry Hassett - - Curt Riffle Submitted Did not attend tour   La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites COMMENTS BY ART H. Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve More parking here for equestrians/cyclists (who can gallop or pedal to the central area) could reduce what is needed in central area – but doesn’t make central area parking need go away completely. But reducing/deleting equestrian parking at central area would improve traffic safety getting into/onto 84. I don’t see any real advantage to this site. The existing parking is already away from outside view and allows expansion. Use of this area introduces vehicles and their conflicts well into preserve, and where they would be more visible from within the preserve. This area is away from the red barn and the noise of 84, which is much better than close to the barn for many uses. Although this area would be out of sight from 84 it would be visible from within parts of the preserve. Umm, where is “down slope”?? Unless LH07 proves viable (I retain some hope) the red barn site is almost certainly the only place with vehicle access to the central area. If this is a necessary entry, keep it minimal. See notes below. Concentrating equestrian use here could help reduce need for equestrian vehicle access in the central area, but otherwise there’s not much direct effect. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Not applicable, except as it reduces need for parking at central area. Of course any improvements at this site would affect the rural character here, but it seems to be tucked in a corner of the preserve. Not applicable, except as it reduces need for parking at red barn area. Improvements here would be mostly out of sight of the red barn and 84, so could preserve the character of the barn itself. Ok, let’s be honest: almost any construction in this area is going to damage its rural character. Best case, just stay out of the area. It’s a long way to the red barn, so it makes no difference. Provide safe public access Access here seems quite safe, although I’d like to hear from equestrians about towed vehicle safety. One-lane road is problematic now – but signalization to control one-way-at-a-time traffic is cheap and effective these days. Same comments as existing lot – though extension of road would bring more preserve users in contact with traffic, which isn’t good. Access seems to necessarily be from 84 at the driveway location determined in the earlier studies, so doesn’t differ from access to the red barn area itself – see comments next column. I don’t really see the big safety problem with the driveway location from past studies – for me, the scenic view & rural character issues are the problem. Safety would be improved by providing parking elsewhere for equestrians/large slow vehicles. This site has its own vehicular access problems but, again, redirecting equestrian traffic from the central area would improve traffic situation at the red barn/84 driveway. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Seems to work well now, so don’t see a problem. Extension of the fencing along the road and around lots would make grazing access more difficult – and would do the same for hikers wanting to go from one side to the other. This location would seem to work ok with public grazing. Presumably it would require fencing, but that does not seem insurmountable. This area seems to be workable with grazing activities. Couldn’t tell from what we could see. Probably doesn’t matter to the central area. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Seems like a good place to do this – it’s easy to get to from 84 & fairly central to the preserve - but resulting increased traffic would probably make one- lane road widening necessary. Environmental education that required structures and increased traffic would be better located at the perimeter of the preserve rather than inside it. If there’s a hike to the talk, it’s a nice place. This seems like a good place for educational amenities – especially if it requires a structure. The existing house is nearly invisible so that bodes well for locating other buildings out of sight. Surprisingly, the red barn area was awful for the little talk we had there – noisy and exposed to view and traffic - so it is a bad spot for open gatherings and visually a bad place to add facilities. Just stay away and let the bats enjoy the place! This doesn’t seem like a likely spot for this use, considering concentrated equestrian use and location at an end of the preserve. Protect scenic views of and from the site This area is tucked away from the public, so is out of view by passersby. More parking/amenities would be visible from within the preserve, but it is at a fairly high point in that area, so is not too bad. The flat area that is ideal for parking would also be visible from higher points within the preserve. It is out of sight from outside the preserve, but so is the existing area. It is visible from within the preserve, but not from the 84 stretch, which provokes the most emotion. See notes in next column for driveway/84 appearance. If this is the location necessitated by vehicle access, mitigate problems as well as possible - see notes below. Changes here would have no effect on views of central area. Notes: 1) Philosophical shift needed: Keep the red barn as a visual icon and hiking/pedestrian destination but not a center of activity for the preserve. 2) There are three options, really: 1 – Do nothing - no access in central area; 2 – Find central area access away from barn; 3 – Provide access at red barn and mitigate damage as much as possible. a) Doing nothing not attractive because three existing access points are too far for pedestrian/hiking access to central area (but probably ok for cyclists & equestrians.) b)Finding access away from the barn centers on LH07 so far; no other parts of 84 seem remotely possible. Worth looking some more, though. c)If access at red barn is inevitable: concentrate parking & equestrian access at Sears Ranch as possible; route access driveway behind barn to avoid big box store appearance; locate parking away from barn; locate education functions at Sears Ranch or Ranger Residence; accept that the solution may not be as efficient, and it will likely be more expensive. Tina and Melissa:  here's my observations from Saturday, Oct 19, 2019 Tour.Andie Reed La Honda Creek ‐ Parking Feasibility Study, Site Tour #1, Oct 19,2019 Project Specific Site Assessment Sears Ranch Rd Parking Area Red Barn Event Center Criterion Expansion Establish new public access in the 1. agricultural needs of lessee (cattle)1. the parking area behind ranger's house 1. great location mainly because it is already central portion of La Honda Creek add to the character and would be is great; can't be seen by hwy 84 "de‐naturalized", that is, it is flat, paved, Open Space Preserve intruded by fencing out 1 mile into preserve 2. could ranger's house be repurposed has buildings, not much to preserve.    past current parking lot for a further parking lot.      for bathrooms, bulletin boards,2. the Event Center itself is not attractive, Design elements to reflect the    lot.    historical interpretation, visitor's but could do with tables, benches, signage rural character of the site and the 2. first mile of hike not boring (despite    center?  Out of view is attractive.3. Definite improvement would be to Red Barn someone's observation)3.leave Red Barn with 50‐foot buffer, add picnic      allow hikers to go under tunnel to connect 3.add parking spaces to current & make tables and pond (?), benches, and signage     up with Harrington and Folger (and other) Provide safe public access room for equestrian uses would increase leading to trailheads and other information    trails. use to more activities 4.Red Barn's tourist attraction is visual; 4. Could be mostly aimed at equestrians; Balance public access with grazing 4. probably needs  road improvements (very area around Barn could remain as‐is.great accessibility. activities and other uses narrow from school to parking lot)5. Red Barn immediate area is noisy; let 5. Safety factor pulling off of hwy 84 would 5. Easy, safe driving and parking access hikers start off from there, other visitors need to be addressed, but if it has been used (see road comment above), bathroom can rest or take short hikes; leave it as a rodeo site for all those years, it's important, needs trashcan.fairly un‐touched; parking out of worked before. 6.adding more trailheads at sharp left    view and no obvious amenities 6.Seems pretty well suited to parking and turn one mile out; adding right, north turn 6.parking would be in‐and‐out; same access horses; access for long‐hikers. into middle would increase use by (no roadway in front of Red Barn) long‐hikers to Red Barn, other trails & shared  with equestrians.  Doesn't need much. 7. Not all trails/roads/horse trails need to lead to the Red Barn; it can be one icon in the whole lovely ranch preserve. Summary:  all three locations are prime spots for use to get access to the public, but not all three for all uses.  Distinguish and promote which uses for which staging areas.      Goal:  to expand public access where appropriate and ecologically and culturally sensitive; can't provide one area for all users in one place, but all can lead to middle area. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Barbara Hooper Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This seems like a reasonable place to expand access to the central area. Perhaps equestrian, biking, and dog access could be added here in addition to the current hiking. Loop trails and trails towards the Red Barn and Upper LHC could provide additional options for visitors which would encourage people to visit more frequently and increase use in this under- utilized section of LHCOSP. Additionally, educational facilities could inform visitors about the history, geography, wildlife, and agricultural use in the site and region. The comments included in the Expansion of the Existing Lot apply to this area as well. Additionally, this site would have closer access to the Red Barn. The plot of land seems feasible for parking. However, ingress and egress from the area to and from Highway 84 would still be dangerous. This area may be an ideal site for permitted access and/or docent led activities. As this area was observed from above, it is hard to understand how this could area be accessed. Also, there may be concerns about safe access from Highway 84. Although this is located in the southern portion of LHCOSP, public access for hikers, cyclists, and dog walkers (in addition to the access already available to equestrians via a permit) in this site would allow visitors to enjoy the central portion as there are already trails from the Event Center that lead to the central area. Many people have wondered why this access is not available currently to hikers as there is a wonderful 4.6 mile loop trail here, and people could also hike to and from the Sears Ranch site. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn The vistas here are spectacular and naturally reflect the rural character of the area. Information about the Red Barn could be provided here to encourage visitors to explore the trails towards the Red Barn. The comments included in the Expansion of the Existing Lot apply to this area as well. Also, although cars would be driving further into the preserve than the current access parking, some of the areas we saw here for parking could be more hidden from public view. This site could preserve the natural character of the region if constructed to blend with the current road-bed materials. The benefit of this location is that the Red Barn site and grazing can be observed without disrupting the historic scenic views in existence now. Perhaps this site could be utilized for access. However, without actually walking on the proposed site, it’s hard to say if it would preserve the rural character of the Red Barn site. This site is beautiful as it stands now and reflects the rural character of the area. Information about the Red Barn could be provided here to encourage visitors to explore the trails towards the Red Barn. Provide safe public access Safe public access has already been proven at this site as it is located away from Highway 84 and is accessible via an intersection that has been established for many years. The posted speed limit on Highway 84 for entering La Honda is 35mph and there are stop signs at La Entrada Road and Sears Ranch Road as they intersect Highway 84. Low traffic speeds and notifications are posted going up to the Sears Ranch Road parking lot so that the public is aware that the La Honda Elementary School is nearby. This area, too, would be safe as it is further away from Highway 84. Safe public access may be an issue as traffic studies have included line of site concerns and vehicles exceeding the speed limit in this location. Additionally, as noted in the CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 – Enlargement A map, collisions have occurred at this entry/exit point LH06. Permit access and/or docent led hikes could potentially provide safe public access as there could be a limited number of visitors allowed per day (like the Allen Road access point). Visitors to the site could be given very specific guidelines about how to enter and leave the site, as well as warnings about traffic hazards. The comments included in the Area Behind Ranger Residence apply to this area as well. As this site was historically used for rodeo events, it would seem that safe public access could be feasible. There are entry points on the north and south side of Highway 84 so perhaps access and parking could be designed to safely utilize both areas. The tunnel could allow visitors to explore either side of the preserve. Access for more types of activities from this site could increase the use of LHCOSP and attract visitors from the Peninsula who are not familiar with the coastal trails and rural area. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Since the Sears Ranch Road parking was established when the LHCOSP was opened, the grazing activities and hiking paths have complemented each other. Hikers have been educated through MidPen brochures about not approaching the grazing cattle and how to proceed safely through the area. Other activities such as horseback riding, biking, and dog walking could be implemented here as well with proper guidelines for the public and/or various paths delineated for specific uses. The comments included in the Expansion of the Existing Lot apply to this area as well. If the access road extended to more parking here, perhaps a hiking (equestrian, biking, and or dog walking) trail parallel to the access road could be established so as not to conflict with motor vehicles. Grazing activities have been thriving here. Markegard belted cows are a beautiful site to see in front of the picturesque Red Barn. If the public had parking access at this point, perhaps they could observe the Red Barn and cows from afar and be given access to trails below the Red Barn and towards the upper portion of LHCOSP and in the heart of the central portion heading towards Sears Ranch Road. Need to walk the actual site to make a comment. Not sure how this would affect current Markegard and/or other contract grazing. Since the Event Center parking was established, it appears that the grazing activities and equestrian paths have complemented each other. Equestrian visitors have been educated through MidPen brochures about how to coexist with the grazing cattle and how to proceed safely through the area. Perhaps other activities such hiking, biking, and dog walking could be implemented here as well with proper guidelines for the public; various paths could be constructed and delineated for specific uses. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education This would be an excellent location for environmental education. Facilities like those at the Arastradero Preserve could be included. Additionally, the local Coastside schools (ie: La Honda Elementary, Pescadero Middle and High Schools, Cabrillo School District schools in Half Moon Bay) would have the opportunity to access and benefit from a preserve in their area. The comments included in the Expansion of the Existing Lot apply to this area as well. Educational facilities or informative signage could highlight the history of the area as long as it did not interfere with the Ranger Residence. Need to walk the actual site to make a comment. This could be an excellent location for environmental education. Facilities similar to those at the Arastradero Preserve could be constructed. Additionally, the local Coastside schools (ie: La Honda Elementary, Pescadero Middle and High Schools, Cabrillo School District schools in Half Moon Bay) would have the opportunity to access and benefit from a preserve in their area. Protect scenic views of and from the site If the trails already planned by MidPen from this area towards the Red Barn are constructed, the public would be able to experience the Red Barn as the protected, historic, grazing site that it currently is and has been for years. The comments included in the Expansion of the Existing Lot apply to this area as well. This location would be closer to the Red Barn and parking or educational facilities could be constructed to blend into the environment in contrast to the current parking area where the parking is located on top of a rise in the landscape. Views from this site would be very attractive looking down towards the Red Barn, westward toward Sears Ranch Road, and in the direction of the Allen Road access point. Care should be taken to construct roads and parking of a substance other than asphalt to reflect the rural atmosphere. Need to walk the actual site to make a comment. Views from both sides of the Event Center site are desirable as Highway 84 is not visible. Hiking access from here would open additional trails for hikers who would be able to utilize a 2.2 round trip trail to see views of the coast (at the southern intersection of Folger Ranch Loop Trail and Harrington Creek Trail) or the 4.6 mile loop (from the Event Center, up Harrington Creek Trail and return on Folger Ranch Loop Trail back to Event Center). Currently, visitors need take a 6.4 mile round-trip hike from the Sears Ranch Road parking to see coastal views. Notes: 1. I’d be interested in learning more about the grassy area between Highway 84 and the Red Barn where a pond had been located in previous years. This could be an opportunity for historical and environmental education for the public. 2. Walking in front of the Red Barn was a very special experience and should be limited to docent-led groups so that it can continue to be a historic site reflecting the rural character of the region. 3. I was surprised about how much the traffic noise sound flowed into the area in front of the Red Barn when we walked there. That said, it would be nice for general public to be away from the traffic noise and the view of traffic so that they could have a more peaceful natural environment to enjoy when walking, biking, or horseback riding. This could be accomplished at the site behind the ranger residence. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study - Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 - Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Curt Riffle - 10/29/19 Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road -Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not close enough to true central area (this is considered in the southern portion); I believe this would be a 4.5-mile hike (one way) to the Red Barn area which is too long for most hikers. Great area to provide equestrian parking. Closer to Red Barn area but still 3.5-mile hike (one way). I believe this is still too long for most hiker to access central and upper portion. Great area to provide equestrian parking. Best location for access to central and upper portions of LHC OSP. Best location for access to central and upper portions of LHC OSP. Worst location. Too far south and west to allow access to central and northern sections. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Not applicable Not applicable Excellent location to provide agricultural educational center at the Red Barn. Somewhat concerned about the amount of grading required for access road and parking area Not applicable Provide safe public access Very safe. Somewhat concerned about impact on school grounds. Very safe. Somewhat concerned about impact on school grounds (visitors stopping at parking lot to use pinic tables, play structures, etc.) Not as safe as other options and will require traffic engineering. I am open to the possibility that road safety could actually be improved with properly engineered warning signs, turning lane(s), etc. Not as safe as other options and will require traffic engineering. I am open to the possibility that road safety could actually be improved with properly engineered warning signs, turning lane(s), etc. Safe but not as safe as Sears Ranch Road Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Would impact grazing activities since expansion would use more of the pasture area Highly impact current grazing operation especially in a very productive pasture area. Seems to be out of the current cow/calf pasture area. Driveway may impact corrals/loading infrastructure now at Red Barn. Seems to be out of the current cow/calf pasture area. Driveway may impact corrals/loading infrastructure now at Red Barn. Concern about how the site would keep hikers, MROSD maintenance, and agriculture/rodeo uses separate. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Signage could be located here Signage could be located here Excellent opportunities for signage and displays in Red Barn area. Excellent opportunities for signage and displays in Red Barn area. Plenty of area for signage. In additional agriculture, could also display information about equestrian, rodeo, etc. Protect scenic views of and from the site Views are OK but not as scenic as by Red Barn area Views are slightly better than Sears Road parking area, but still not as scenic as Red Barn area. Excellent especially if parking is located away from immediate Red Barn area but still allowing pedestrian access. Concerned that parking may be viewed from road and ruin view. Not much in the way of scenic views from this site (worse actually). La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Does not address this project goal. Does not address this project goal. Fulfills primary goal of central access. Fulfills primary goal of central access. Does not address this project goal. It does, however, seem like an good location for equestrian parking. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Since the parking lot is already there, any expansion would need to be sensitive to what is already there. I’m not sure it makes sense to go to the expense to create a public site 1 mile deep into the preserve when one already exists that could potentially be expanded. Would help hide at least some of the parking from the roadway to preserve site lines and retain rural feeling of the site. Has potential as satellite parking reduce the # of parking spaces closer to the RB itself. Depending on grading needs, this could be an ideal location to locate parking to preserve site lines. Those grading needs could be significant, however. Not near the Bed Barn, but Driscoll Ranch has its own history and whatever Mid-Pen would do there would need to reflect that. Provide safe public access Does provide safe public access. Does provide safe access. I believe it’s possible to achieve acceptably safe access to the area working with Caltrans to re-sign and re-stripe the roadway. I respect and defer to the expertise of the traffic surveys and Caltrans to determine what is considered to be safe. I believe it’s possible to achieve acceptably safe access to the area working with Caltrans to re-sign and re-stripe the roadway. I respect and defer to the expertise of the traffic surveys and Caltrans to determine what is considered to be safe. It is a sharp right turn heading from the West, and a somewhat blind left turn heading from the East. Again, working with Caltrans, I feel it could be made acceptably safe. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Given that a parking lot exists there already, it seems like public access and grazing activities are already in balance. Any expansion may need to take into account existing grazing habits and be designed accordingly. Challenges with potentially widening the road so that it’s 2-way, pedestrians sharing road with vehicle traffic, and new fencing needed to protect cattle from vehicles (as well as overly curious Preserve visitors). It seems like there are fewer grazing issues here given that the existing grazing operation has stated that smaller corrals in a different location would be acceptable. Given its proximity to the Red Barn, this location seems like a good fit for public access as It seems like there are fewer grazing issues here given that the existing grazing operation has stated that smaller corrals in a different location would be acceptable. Given its proximity to the Red Barn, this location seems like a good fit for public access as Would need to work with grazing operation to ensure whatever is developed here protects the existing grazing operation as it seems more extensive than the other sites. well. Equestrian parking access has been deemed unsafe given the traffic and having horse trailers trying to turn in and out onto Hwy 84. well. Equestrian parking access has been deemed unsafe given the traffic and having horse trailers trying to turn in and out onto Hwy 84. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education What does Mid-Pen hope to have in terms of education? Instructional signage located around the parking area? Anything more substantial would necessitate building additional structures. What does Mid-Pen hope to have in terms of education? Instructional signage located around the parking area or by the roadway that people would be walking along? There seems to be more room here to incorporate educational design elements. It would depend on what Mid-Pen has in mind, but it feels like there is certainly room to include educational elements. There seems to be more room here to incorporate educational design elements. It would depend on what Mid-Pen has in mind, but it feels like there is certainly room to include educational elements. Lots of room to incorporate educational elements here. Protect scenic views of and from the site Since the structures already exist, this doesn’t seem to be an issue Anything erected here would change the existing landscape and alter scenic views. Any construction here would need to be carefully designed to protect and preserve the remote feeling of the site. The Red Barn is an icon in the area, and I appreciate the desire to protect the area around it. Given Mid-Pen’s mission (using taxpayer dollars) I feel the development of this site (if it is the agreed upon solution) can be handled in a sensitive manner that will respect and showcase the importance of the area. The Red Barn is an icon in the area, and I appreciate the desire to protect the area around it. Given Mid-Pen’s mission (using taxpayer dollars) I feel the development of this site (if it is the agreed upon solution) can be handled in a sensitive manner that will respect and showcase the importance of the area. Given how the site is lower than the roadbed, no site lines would be impacted. Notes: When the board determined “central access” as a priority, how did the Board define “central” in this instance? Some WG members have differing definitions of “central”. Our job as WG members job is not to redefine the Board’s designation of project goals and priorities. There has been discussion about parsing out various functions to various sites, i.e. equestrians at the event center, more parking at Sears Ranch Road, etc.. I think this makes sense, but none of that addresses the goal of central access to the Preserve. It’s too far to assume folks will hike from the event center up to the RB (~9miles) or even from Sears Ranch Road (~4 miles). That’s not really access in the spirit of the word. I understand the concerns about traffic in the area, but I believe Mid-Pen has done its due diligence to study the traffic and will work to make the site acceptably safe given the primary goal of opening up central access. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 - October 19, 2019 Assessment of tour sites Notes: Karl Lusebrink Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Rd. Parking Expansion Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in central LHCOSP Can modestly expand parking, but not entirely meet expected central preserve demand. Can slope change at proposed driveway be accomplished to handle turn radius of bus- length vehicles without invading the wetland/meadow, with the access road running close to the embankment, out of sight of the highway? Alternative access via easement agreement with neighbor. Distant from central preserve. Initially steep grade. Public education center may fit here. Design elements reflect rural character of site Simple, uncontroversial design with room to expand a little. Simple parking near residence would need no extra design or disguise. Parking in small (20 car?) nodes instead of all at one large lot. Handicap accessible behind corral and trees, near auxiliary building. Alternative, limit access to permit only, like Allen Rd. Maintain availability of rodeo/training facilities. Provide safe public access Gate area with low road noise feels tranquil and safe. Fenced areas and pasture rotation separate visitors from stressful cattle lifecycle activities (breeding, calving, round- up). Alternative entry/exit might use negotiated easement with Glass Ranch, driveway to North, at pullout beyond Old LH Rd., with a short connecting road to the residence area. Speeders pass on straight road sections. Explore skylight shafts in road easement to light the tunnel. Balance access with grazing and other uses Inform public about essential role of grazing in fire fuel management. Compatibility of cattle with wildlife. Ensure working corrals moved to behind barn do not impact Weeks Creek water quality. Keep cattle out, allow wildlife corridor along creek. Explore making round-up corral-to-truck activity public educational event. Humane ranch meat source, vs. polluting factory farms. Amenities for environmental education Signs about fuel mgmt. and calving in nearby pasture. Implications for visitors of trails being working ranch roads. Maternity roost of pallid bats deserve isolation from human noise and activity. Greater than 50 ft. buffer. Interpretive and other facilities away from barn. Emphasize equestrian culture, rodeo history, grass-fed cattle, compatible with wildlife habitat. Protect scenic views of and from the site Current parking done well! Don't over-do expansion. Parking and access roads out of view from roadway. Trails from parking to barn vicinity. Plenty of parking. Well situated below road, near agricultural land use. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve There is plenty of room here to expand the existing parking lot, the land is nearly flat and such an expansion would not be seen from La Honda or Hwy 84. Establishing a new parking lot here is very feasible -- there are several nearly flat areas and one would be nearly out of sight of hikers. May need to put in an additional fence along the road. Possible, but not ideal. I’m not certain it would be invisible to passers-by on Hwy 84. I would have to see a schematic of it to know. The worst possible solution as it would destroy the aesthetic appeal of the Red Barn. Not sure why the Red Barn is considered “central” to the Preserve. Not nearly as ‘central’ to the Preserve and access is a little steep. Also, use of the tunnel would have to be modified to safely accommodate hikers, etc. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn I would need to see schematic and artist depictions to be able to render a judgement on this alternative I have yet to see a design from Mid Pen that preserves the rural character of the Red Barn area Provide safe public access Excellent public access to Sears Ranch Road from Hwy 84. The Road is already well used and is wide, with a broad turning area and provides good sight lines along the highway. Excellent public access to Sears Ranch Road from Hwy 84. it is already a well used road, and is wide and provides good sight lines. There is no safe way to enter the Red Barn area from Hwy 84. Especially hazardous for larger vehicles, multiple vehicles. This proposal is a non-starter in terms of safe public access. No amount of feasible highway modification could render this area safe for an entrance or exit to the Red Barn area. Ingress and egress from the Driscoll driveway provides a better sight line than the Red Barn, but that straightaway is also a popular passing area for cars & motorcycles, so a little dangerous. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Yes, this can be done and is already being done Yes, this can be done and is already being done Likely to be possible, I don’t know enough from our site tour to know Likely to be possible, I don’t know enough from our site tour to know Use of the tunnel by multiple parties, including cattle, cyclists, hikers and equestrians would be problematic and need to be substantially modified. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Yes, this can be done and is already being done Yes, this can be done and is already being done Not likely, amenities would have to be built and should only be considered if they are completely invisible to passers-by on Hwy 84 No, any amenities built in this area would be vehemently opposed by too many visitors and locals to make this a feasible proposition Yes, this can be done and is already being done Protect scenic views of and from the site Excellent possibility of protecting views as the existing parking lot etc are already unseen from La Honda or Hwy 84. Also an excellent option. Small possibility that this could preserve the scenic view but impossible to know without seeing an artist’s rendering first This option would completely destroy the scenic views of the site. Yes, scenic views could be maintained as much of it is already below the road level. Notes: It is very unclear to me what is meant by MidPen staff when they speak of the Red Barn being “central” to the Preserve and there appears to be some considerable difference in perspective between local residents and MidPen staff as to what constitutes the “central” part of the Preserve. To local residents, including those of us who work in and around these hills every day, it is not just mileage but access and local history that make the Sears Ranch Road area feel much more central than the Red Barn. It seems to me that this will be a critical component of our considerations of the options to provide access to the “central” part of the Reserve. With respect to the Red Barn, I was surprised at how visible and noisy the constant motorcycle and car traffic on Hwy 84 is when you are actually standing at the Red Barn. It is not very peaceful and I would be reluctant to picnic there if I wanted to have a quiet respite in the country. On the other hand, Sears Ranch Road is very quiet and peaceful. You hear absolutely no noise but the sounds of nature and it feels wonderfully remote, even though you are just 3 minutes from busy Hwy 84. The views are incredible from that site. Another bonus for the Sears Ranch Road is that you are very near the La Honda Store where you can buy food and drink for picnics. Lastly, I would note that since the public learned of this Site Tour, I have heard considerable surprise and deep dismay that the Red Barn was on our Tour as residents thought that this option was “off the table”. We will have to contend with ongoing and vigorous local opposition to having the Red Barn still in consideration. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 — October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives — Assessment of Tour Sites scm‘A- em-14\i4-6‘ .0‹ elus e. ] F4)1460- ecz-6\m _i\\a � � �� � N-*s 6169 b efitti--1;o- 12-re,,-c4freApir Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn as\s.s--lico_D/ vso 0 S& p q -04-A. Provide safe public access „„r_ \16 ` Q„4,1°'f .. T S\45-ivit. ' 4 Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses ,f\J11-A, G ,,IpS so j64s-ircoi_xy\)m).--W-3-rofk\)Ec -t ortosic-:im elt-e-NzA6‘, Nu\) - \36 - r{ FC Include amenities that facilitate environmental education �� �� , ,(_0(,_,(_0(,_ p / �� ti c 0 pp /_ Protect scenic views of and from the site ÷ e it.kc Caw 'J 'S 4 a, X 16 Coo-fh-4 s B f t- 16 e tt44' wv�U-1 L u S t NA, [.0vsoicR, )0 '<b fAA Notes: 4-6057 8 sk-L " g t, ' , \' it Qe-. J r, -act. mjiRek 'To wrtitse, 92 \ c ,-r ASJ\-=C IAA 1, Cite C)<E3k-k = -4.4( Sct_5. t jo-4 s 1rSb ' 6 ;J E ( e. , AJ cA u�ss m e"I-aWy S 56 m S66-ss Its 6:€19-; 6frelt to pre Sandy Sommer’s Notes La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Very long hike to reach central area of preserve and Red Barn - does not seem to meet goals. Only equestrians and cyclists, who can more quickly cover the distance, would really consider this site to be a substitute for a staging area in the central preserve. Right now, the demand for an expanded parking lot is just not there – it would need to be tied to additional trail access options. Very long hike to reach central area of preserve and Red Barn - does not seem to meet goals. Only equestrians and cyclists, who can more quickly cover the distance, would really consider this site to be a substitute for a staging area in the central preserve. Right now, the demand for an expanded parking lot is just not there – it would need to be tied to additional trail access options. The cattle corral (see Site Tour #2 notes) seems to be a better site than the former residence area since the grades are more level. This general location is superior in terms of developing a staging area and beginning trails in the central preserve. I believe that visitors will strongly desire to get up close to the Red Barn and travel to see La Honda Creek. Red Barn area has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing. Has a direct connection to Highway 84 which reduces neighborhood traffic concerns and makes it more easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area. This general location is superior in terms of developing a staging area and beginning trails in the central preserve. I believe that visitors will strongly desire to get up close to the Red Barn and travel to see La Honda Creek. Red Barn area has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing. Has a direct connection to Highway 84 which reduces neighborhood traffic concerns and makes it more easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area. Extremely long hike to reach central area of preserve and Red Barn - does not seem to meet goals at all. That said, this site is a great staging site for the Driscoll Ranch part of the preserve, and when new trail options open, it would make sense to consider this for more than equestrian use. Suggest amending the master plan to include consideration for Event Center (and Driscoll Orchards) uses. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Fairly open and visible from surrounding area. Additional large paved area would be somewhat intrusive and not in keeping with rural character. Any way to do a gravel paved lot expansion, especially since that is better for horses? May be a good place to add some oak trees for screening. Lengthy paved road and paved parking area is not in keeping with rural character. Any way to do a gravel road and lot, especially since that is better for horses? Shifts the parking away from the “sacred” space in front of the Red Barn, thus keeping that area open and rural. This site is well screened with vegetation and not particularly visible from Hwy 84. Previous design for access driveway and parking area intruded on “sacred” space in front of Red Barn. Quite visible from Highway 84, not sure it meets Midpen’s sense of low- intensity development. Would downsizing and scaling back previous plan accomplish anything? Existing facility development fairly elaborate and the addition of a paved area would not detract further from the rural character of the area. Given the parcel size, there may be an issue with County density credits; density study needed. In Hwy 84 Scenic Corridor, so no density transfer allowed. Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Provide safe public access Away from high speed traffic. Away from high speed traffic. Staging area would be away from high speed traffic. Currently traffic on 84 appears to be going about 40-45 mph at this corner; some are faster, especially motorcycles. Would need effective traffic calming measures. Driveway alignment and turning movements here are really this biggest issue. Is another alignment feasible? Note that the historic route of La Honda Road went right by the Barn (these unpaved roads are still in use).May want to explore limiting turn movements from 84 to right in/out. What about a roundabout? Staging area would be away from high speed traffic. Currently traffic on 84 appears to be going about 40-45 mph at this corner; some are faster, especially motorcycles. Would need effective traffic calming measures. Driveway alignment and turning movements here are really this biggest issue. Is another alignment feasible? Note that the historic route of La Honda Road went right by the Barn (these unpaved roads are still in use).May want to explore limiting turn movements from 84 to right in/out. What about a roundabout? Staging area would be away from high speed traffic. May need to assess left turn movements into driveway. Turn pocket needed? The tunnel creates excellent trail access across Hwy 84. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Expanded staging in this area would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? Roadway past school would probably have to be widened. Is this section publicly maintained or would Midpen have to assume responsibility for that? Adds to construction and maintenance costs. Development as a staging area would result in loss of grazing pasture, but this site is at least along the pasture edge. Expanded staging in this area would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? Roadway past school would probably have to be widened. Is this section publicly maintained or would Midpen have to assume responsibility for that? Adds a mile of new road beyond the existing staging area, which substantially increases to construction and maintenance costs. Would result in a loss of grazing pasture as well as inhibiting the tenant’s ability to move their cattle freely. Roadway would need One nearby ranger residence, but superior in terms of minimal conflicts with existing uses. One nearby ranger residence, but superior in terms of minimal conflicts with existing uses. A few nearby private residences, but superior in terms of minimal conflicts with existing uses. Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center to fence cattle out and accommodate several cattle crossing gates. Not ideal. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Immediate vicinity of site is not particularly compelling but if loop over to Sears Ranch ponds were added, this might open up interpretive opportunities. Immediate vicinity of site is not particularly compelling but if loop over to Sears Ranch ponds were added, this might open up interpretive opportunities. Offers opportunity to add short interpretive loop touching on the of Red Barn, grazing, bats, regional trails, and explaining the importance of La Honda Creek to steelhead. Offers opportunity to add short interpretive loop touching on the of Red Barn, grazing, bats, regional trails, and explaining the importance of La Honda Creek to steelhead. Immediate vicinity of site is not particularly compelling but if loop over to White Barn were emphasized, this might open up interpretive opportunities. Near former La Honda Oil Fields. Protect scenic views of and from the site Fairly visible from surrounding preserve – at some point a large staging area becomes out of scale for the rural setting. Fairly well screened from surrounding preserve. Adds an intrusive element to an otherwise rural, open setting, but at least this site was previously developed with a residence and kennel. Lots of existing screening. Driveway as shown on previous plans was visually intrusive. Is another alignment feasible? Driveway as shown on previous plans was visually intrusive. Is another alignment feasible? Existing facility development fairly elaborate and the addition of a paved area would not detract further from the views of and from the site. Notes: I think we should not give up on safe access from Highway 84. Not that different from Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) and worth it in the long run to access regional recreational resources from a major road. I can think of at least thirteen other staging areas that directly access State highways (84, 35 and 9). I would like to learn more about potential traffic calming measures to explore – flashing caution lights, rumble strips, enforcement – what is the best thinking about how to consistently and effectively slow drivers down? I suggest we start engaging with CalTrans starting now. Is there any way to invite a representative to the PAWG meetings? (Note that a CalTrans representative has been attending the Hwy 17 Crossing public meetings and is also involved in POST’s Cloverdale bluff trail planning efforts) La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #1 – October 19, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Sears Ranch Road Parking Area- Expansion of Existing Lot Sears Ranch Road - Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Red Barn- Area Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn- Area Down Slope from Red Barn Event Center Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve I would support expanding the existing parking lot, but this is NOT what I would consider the central portion of the open space even if the largest part of the open space is much lower. The costs and impacts of fencing and widening the entire road would not be worth the expenditure necessary to develop a lot here, nor does the gain of one mile ease access very much. I find this a very attractive alternative to parking around the Red Barn. It needs to be studied. I would prioritize a parking area here. The open space needs a lot in this central area of La Honda Preserve. This area is too close to the Red Barn and a large parking lot with amenities would negatively impact the scenic value of the area. This area is my least favorite, I have not hiked here, however, and at first glance it is does not look inviting nor does it provide access to the central portion of the open space. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn No impact No impact This seems to be far enough away to avoid negative impact while allowing access. Limited impact. Down slope would be visible from the Red Barn area and improvements should be minimal. No impact Provide safe public access This lot provides safe access but would not allow most hikers access to the “middle” of the park. This lot provides safe access but the middle of the open space as designated by staff would still not be accessible to most hikers. I would rely on CA Highway studies re safe access to a parking lot here that could facilitate access to hiking trails downhill to Sears Ranch and uphill to Allen Road accesses. I would rely on CA Highway studies re safe access to a parking lot here that could facilitate access to hiking trails downhill to Sears Ranch and uphill to Allen Road accesses. This looks safe for parking and hikers if parking were available on both sides of the road and the tunnel was deemed safe. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses I have no clue about the impact increasing public access would have on the current operation. Major impact on current operation with limited improvement of accessibility. Some impact on current operation and ranger housing. I don’t know about current activities there but a short granite loop trail in this area with limited handicapped parking spaces would provide handicapped access. Making this area accessible looks like it would have little or no impact on the current activities. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Some educational signs could be displayed. Buildings and signs could be built here. A parking area here would provide some great views and might allow space for historical ranching signage and pit toilets. Amenities that facilitate environmental education could be included here. Amenities that facilitate environmental education including a visitor center could be provided here. Protect scenic views of and from the site Plenty of views available here. Views are big enough here that a visitor center would not detract. I would like to visit the site with some vehicles parked here or sticks with tape to represent vehicles and an out building. Minimal development would protect views. I didn’t see any scenic views here. Notes: Traffic through La Honda and past the school to Sears Ranch will be somewhat reduced since drivers from the Bay Area will not need to drive as far to have access to the open space and will not need to drive through La Honda to Sam McDonald, Memorial Park or Pescadero Creek to hike among trees. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites COMMENTS BY ART H. Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve A very promising location! It’s a bit south of the red barn but still provides access to the central area. The flat-ish area is larger than I anticipated. But…the area is within a “sensitive natural resource area” per the Natural Resources Considerations map provided to us. Use of this location doesn’t establish access to the central portion of the preserve. Use of this location doesn’t establish access to the central portion of the preserve. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This location is visually separated from the red barn, so visual impact there is minimized by its use – as a primary or secondary parking area. Not applicable except as it reduces need for parking or educational function at red barn area. Not applicable except as it reduces need for parking or educational function at red barn area. Provide safe public access Wide highway ROW could allow improvements in sight lines on 84, and an “uphill” entry location seems better than what was analyzed in traffic study. As in expansion of existing Sears Ranch parking area, access from/to 84 is quite safe here. Existing single-lane road will need widening. As in expansion of existing Sears Ranch parking area, access from/to 84 is quite safe here. Existing single- lane road will need widening, though. Extension of road would potentially create more pedestrian conflicts within preserve. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Use of this location wouldn’t seem to affect grazing. It is outside active grazing lease area per map provided to us. Grazing area would be reduced, but it would basically be a larger expansion of the existing parking lot. Not really an issue. Grazing access would be more difficult with extended road to lot within preserve. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Probably not a good location for education facility. That would increase traffic off 84 and the space would be better used for parking away from the red barn. Same as existing parking area: seems like a good place for this function: safe vehicular access, expandable parking, screened from neighbors… Assuming parking is developed here, it’s a beautiful place for an educational facility. It would draw more traffic into the central of the preserve, though. Protect scenic views of and from the site Use of the site could avoid parking close to red barn, which is an important scenic icon. Improvements here could be visually screened from 84 with some natural landscaping. Same as expansion of existing lot, really. Contrary to my previous comments upon closer examination, this area is pretty well screened from outside and within much of the preserve. Notes: 2) Ok, there’s a fourth option: 4 – Combine 2 and 3: provide access and some functions at red barn and distribute others to other sites. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Andie Reed Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 (West Access Gate) Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Provides good mid-preserve access; trails could go north to Red Barn and/or south to Sears Ranch area. There appeared to be potential access to flat area beyond the fence and eucalyptus (north of currently useable gate) that could be a parking lot. Worth studying further for a likely access point to mid-area (along with a hidden parking area outside of Red Barn itself, but not circulating in front of Barn). Two options for central access. Great flat space, accessible from existing parking lot: - Would detrimentally impact views that are currently culturally agriculture and grazing, farm buildings and pond - Would require extensive fencing Does not achieve accessibility into “purple” central area of the LHC preserve. Satisfies allowing more people into lower LHC. It seems inconsistent with the goal of preserving the natural state of the open space to put a parking lot in what amounts to the interior of the Harrington trail. The fencing requirements work against the free flow of the ranchers’ cattle. Seems too intrusive. If a short hike is desired, then hike from the existing parking lot to this site (1 mi) or hike another on Harrington trail .7 mi down to the creek. Nice hikes. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Would reduce impact to Red Barn area; signage at Red Barn would direct overflow to LH07. Limited number of autos can park either place. Would allow hiking access to view Red Barn as a destination, where there could be educational boards and perhaps water and facilities (behind current ranger house or below Barn, not viewable from 84). Of the goals of the PAWG, the larger goal of public access to the central area of La Honda Creek preserve does not get addressed in the two Sears Ranch parking area proposals. This parking area does not increase accessibility to Red Barn. Provide safe public access Need further study of pull-off from 84, is sight distance sufficient to not reduce traffic too suddenly? Looks like a sufficient distance to slow down and pull off west-bound Hwy 84, and then access to more space for parking, widening out from current . Needs signage to warn of upcoming parking area and to discourage roadside parking. Traffic study (Hexagon 2007) suggests pocket turn lanes could be achieved. Sears Ranch Road is the safest access to LHC preserve. The current parking lot is often unfilled, but presumably once the whole preserve is trailed and opened, there would be more traffic to this access point. See column to the left of this one. We would be making open land safe for cars but less useable for ranching and views. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Currently there is no grazing in this area. Need to study access to creek and how to get hikers across. No apparent current historic loss to putting parking here, and the bulk of it would be hidden from the highway. It appears that any further intrusion into this open area would impact grazing (fencing, noise and fumes from cars). It would seem in both of these Sears Ranch proposals that a lot of paving construction for parking would negatively change the rural character and scenic views. See column to the left of this one. It would seem we’d lose sight of many other goals in order to satisfy the goal to accommodate more cars so that more of the public can access the La Honda Creek lower preserve. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education LH07 would seem to be suited to parking and trailhead access only. Signage would be important for users to identify where other access points to trails, and equestrian amenities, bathrooms and educational interpretive centers would be located. Not all amenities need to be in one area. The current signage at the existing parking lot is helpful. There could be more boards with historical information or habitat info. The bathrooms are very important to the comfort of users of the hiking areas. Current amenities are helpful. This could be a location for further educational and interpretation, although just below Red Barn, accessible from the ranger’s house or hiking there from LH07 (or Sears Ranch) is an option. Protect scenic views of and from the site It would be good to keep the parking area as much as possible lined with trees and bushes, in concert with the current highway scenic vistas. If there had to be an increase in parking in this area, then 2A is better than 2B, as those arriving already are used to seeing a parking lot, cement and curbs, bathroom and fencing. However, enlarging the parking using 2A detracts from the current views. Further study might reveal whether current parking lot could be made larger in existing location? This would be expanding human intrusion into nature without satisfying access to the purple section and without assurance that it will be used. How does MidPen determine potential popularity of newly opened preserve trails? Notes: Thanks, Melissa and Tina, this format is very helpful to keeping in mind PAWG goals at the same time we are increasing our familiarity with the access points to the beautiful open space and how the impacts can be mitigated. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Barbara Hooper Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve The plot of land seems feasible for some parking. However, ingress and egress from the area to and from Highway 84 would be dangerous. This area may be a good site for permitted access and/or docent led activities. This seems like natural place to expand access towards the central area. Perhaps equestrian, biking, and dog access could be added here in addition to the current hiking. Equestrian parking could be located at this site while the current lot could be used by hikers. Loop trails and trails towards the Red Barn and Upper LHC could provide additional options for visitors which would encourage people to visit more frequently and increase use in this under-utilized section of LHCOSP. Additionally, educational facilities located here could inform visitors about the history, geography, wildlife, and agricultural use in the site and region. This location would expand visitor access closer to the central area. Equestrian and visitor parking could be located here and somewhat hidden from view. The other comments included in the Site West of Existing Lot apply to this area as well. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This site could preserve the natural character of the region if parking was not visible from Highway 84. The benefit of the location is that it is in the central part of the preserve. Visitors could hike from here to view the Red Barn area and the existing Red Barn historic scenic views would not be disturbed. The vistas here are spectacular and naturally reflect the rural character of the area. Information about the local history, agricultural uses, and the Red Barn could be provided here to encourage visitors to explore the central and northern areas of the preserve. The comments included in Sears Ranch Road Parking Area apply to this area as well. Provide safe public access Safe public access may be an issue. As noted in the CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 – Enlargement A map, collisions have occurred near this entry/exit point. As mentioned in the Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. - April 26, 2007 report, the ingress/egress at LH07 may not meet Caltrans’ minimum line of site requirement. Permit only access and/or docent led hikes could potentially provide safe public access as there could be a limited number of visitors allowed per day (like the Allen Road access point). Visitors to Safe public access has already been proven at this site as it is located away from Highway 84 and is accessible via an intersection that has been established for many years. The posted speed limit on Highway 84 for entering La Honda is 35mph and there are stop signs at La Entrada Road and Sears Ranch Road as they intersect Highway 84. Low traffic speeds and notifications are posted going up to the Sears Ranch Road parking lot so that the public is aware that the La Honda Elementary School is nearby. The comments included in Sears Ranch Road Parking Area apply to this area as well. the site could be given very specific guidelines about how to enter and leave the site, as well as warnings about traffic hazards. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses It seems like hiking and/or cycling from this site could be designed as to not interfere with grazing. Since the Sears Ranch Road parking was established when the LHCOSP was opened, the grazing activities and hiking paths have complemented each other. Hikers have been educated through MidPen brochures about not approaching the grazing cattle and how to proceed safely through the area. Other activities such as horseback riding, biking, and dog walking could be implemented here as well with proper guidelines for the public and/or various paths delineated for specific uses. The comments included in Sears Ranch Road Parking Area apply to this area as well. If the access road extended to a parking area here, perhaps a hiking (equestrian, biking, and or dog walking) trail parallel to the access road could be established so as not to conflict with motor vehicles. Also, grazing areas may need to be adjusted if parking is at this location. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Informative signage could highlight environmental aspects and history of the area. This would be an excellent location for environmental education. Facilities like those at the Arastradero Preserve could be included. Additionally, the local Coastside schools (ie: La Honda Elementary, Pescadero Middle and High Schools, Cabrillo School District schools in Half Moon Bay) would have the opportunity to access and benefit from a preserve in their area. The comments included in Sears Ranch Road Parking Area apply to this area as well. This could be a location for environmental education. Protect scenic views of and from the site Views from this site would be very attractive. The forested area is a nice contrast to the open views in other parts of the preserve. Care should be taken to construct parking hidden from Highway 84 and made of a substance other than asphalt to reflect the rural atmosphere. If the trails already planned by MidPen from this area towards the Red Barn are constructed, the public would be able to experience the Red Barn as the protected, historic, grazing site that it currently is and has been for years. The comments included in Sears Ranch Road Parking Area apply to this area as well. This location would be closer to the Red Barn and parking or educational facilities could be constructed to blend into the environment in contrast to the current parking area where the parking is located on top of a rise in the landscape. Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This may be a good alternative site as it rests on the westernmost border of the central area as designated by the board and shown on our map. It is not a large area, but there could perhaps be a smaller parking lot with room for cars for access to developed trails leading both towards the Allan Ranch road section and the Sears Ranch Road section of the Preserve. This location does not address our primary board-directed goal of establishing access to the central portion of the preserve. It would be a very long hike for many to reach the RB area from trails originating here. The Board objective is to open access to the central portion of the preserve to help join the existing trails at Allan Ranch Road and Sears Ranch Road. This location does not accomplish that objective. Again, this location does not address our primary board-directed goal of establishing access to the central portion of the preserve. It would be a very long hike for many to reach the RB area from trails originating here. The Board objective is to open access to the central portion of the preserve to help join the existing trails at Allan Ranch Road and Sears Ranch Road. This location does not accomplish that objective. It also doesn’t seem to make sense to put in a new parking lot a mile from an already existing parking lot. That makes the existing hiking path into a roadway, so hikers would need to contend with vehicles unless a new trail was created to divert people away from the road. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn While this location is not near the RB, I would expect Midpen to design it in such a way that it would blend in appropriately to the surrounding area. While this location is not near the RB, I would expect Midpen to design it in such a way that it would blend in appropriately to the surrounding area. The existing parking area is quite nice. I am concerned about how deep into the preserve this site would bring traffic. While I’d expect Midpen to design a parking area here to blend in as much as possible, it’s beautiful and remote as it is, and building out a parking area would inevitably take that away. Provide safe public access According to the traffic study done at this area, the existing driveway is not going to work. However, the traffic study recommendation of moving the driveway 150 to the north to help offer acceptably safe access to the parking area from each direction on 84 is encouraging. I would hope that Caltrans would work with Midpen to implement changes in signage and striping to help to alert the public to upcoming turns. Turn lanes/alleys may also be an option. Accessing this site from 84 would be safer. Accessing this site from 84 would be safer. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses It would not work to have equestrian trailer parking here, but access for hikers and cyclists would work. Not sure what the grazing agreements are at this site. Expanding the lot here to the lower flat area would require substantial fencing and additional gates to protect the cattle from vehicles. There may be a place here for equestrian trailers, though, in the lower area. If the lot were kept smaller and designed just for horse trailers, the footprint would be that much smaller. Maybe make it permit only to keep it just for horse trailers to help keep it smaller? Again, building out a lot here would require substantial changes in fencing and gates to accommodate the grazer’s cattle to protect them from vehicles and facilitate moving them from area to area as per their grazing agreement. Though this area could certainly be built big enough to accommodate horse trailer parking, that makes the footprint deep inside the preserve that much bigger. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education I believe sign boards could be included I the parking lot design to help educate the public. Not sure what form these would take, but there would certainly be room for sign boards or bulletin board area where info could be shared. There is room down below to potentially accommodate an actual covered area for education purposes Not sure what form these would take, but there would certainly be room for sign boards or bulletin board area where info could be shared. There is room to potentially accommodate an actual covered area for education purposes Protect scenic views of and from the site The parking area would be somewhat shielded from 84, and there are no long distance views here given the woods beyond it. Some PAWG members expressed concerns about noise, but staff suggested that the design could help mitigate noise from 84. The view from site 2A is quite beautiful with the barn and pond in the distance, so whatever may be built here would need to try to preserve that if possible. Parking horse trailers there could block the view, but a short stroll down the road would bring the view back into sight again. The view from here is beautiful and remote and gives the visitor a true sense of being deep in the preserve. Building a lot here would take away that sense. Notes: • Smaller lot at LH07, no horse trailers, perhaps permit only to discourage visitors from pulling in, finding it full and then parking on the non-existent shoulder of 84 • Development of trails leading from LH07 area up towards the RB area and down towards Sears Ranch, thereby connecting the upper and lower portions of the preserve (our objective in recommending a location to the PNR Committee/Board) • Equestrian Trailer parking at Sears Ranch 2A option – perhaps by permit only so it is truly just for equestrian parking. Would help to keep the lot much smaller and take advantage of the existing lot and facilities there. • I believe building a second parking lot with facilities at site 2B would unnecessarily develop an area of the preserve that truly represents the remoteness and beauty of the Preserve. It seems unnecessary given that there is already a lot a mile closer to 84 just above the school (Site 2A). • Not sure if this is the place for this or not. If not, feel free to edit out: The Red Barn site is located immediately next to Hwy 84 and has beautiful views. The Hexagon traffic study dated Aug 10 based at La Honda Rd/Old La Honda Rd/Jeep Trail indicates that the majority of passers-by are going between 40 – 60 mph as they drive by that area. That allows little time to take in the view. If designed carefully, development at this site could preserve the views around and beyond the barn for visitors who actually stop at the RB site. Discreet and sensitive development here would also avoid impacting the interior of the preserve for visitors and would fulfill the project objective of opening access in the central portion of the preserve. • Perhaps a combo of these features – equestrian parking at Sears Ranch Rd. 2A, a smaller permit lit at LH07 for those most interested in hiking/biking, and a small lot at the RB site with education and picnicking opportunities would be able to address all the board’s goals for LH. PAWG: Karl Lusebrink Assessment Criterion Gate LH07 Sears Ranch, meadow West of entrance Sears Ranch, Residence Site on Harrington trail New public access to central preserve Only 1 mile from here up Hwy 84 to Red Barn area new trails. Slope to creek not too extreme for trails. Minimize visitor impact to pristine creek. If site cannot remain closed, consider permits to manage visitor numbers. Develop south area trail network to connect with mid area trails, all accessible by hikers without despoiling the Red Barn. Add equestrians at this site, which is as near as feasible to central preserve. Additional parking lot 1 mile from current lot is redundant. It would negate the initial, easy segment of Harrington trail, which is very popular with walkers and joggers, by requiring widening of the ranch road for 2- way vehicles. Would not greatly reduce hike distance to Red Barn area. Potential for a loop trail around hilltop residence site. Design to reflect character of the site Woodland trail alternative to private road needed to descend slope. Opportunity for forest habitat, salmonid spawning, or wildlife corridor interpretive sign. Design to fit working ranch.Design to fit working ranch. Visitor traffic on wider 2-way road seems out of place. Site good for signs, bench, toilet, maybe water. Safe public access Difficult (but possible?) to locate a safe driveway in the sweeping Hwy 84 curve. Short sightlines, fast traffic. Safe entrance established, away from Hwy 84. A remote lot within preserve is not easily patrolled. Theft, vandalism risk. Emergency vehicles would have to drive to trailhead. Balance access with grazing and other activities Protect wildlife corridor on Weeks Creek and redwoods. Decision needed about necessity of connection across the creek to ranch road we hiked from Harrington. Feasible to isolate compact new parking area from cattle. Prioritize equestrian parking on graded, unpaved surface, and allow for car overflow from current lot. Widened road isolated by fence and gates would change cattle management; can no longer leave gates open to let herd migrate to new pasture. Amenities for environmental education Interpretive signs ok. Site is too small for visitor amenities. (Event Center may be ideal for that) Possibly add exhibits and pack-in-pack- out picnic at white barn near the pond. Amenities other than parking can be added at various suitable flat locations near N-S-W trail hub. Protect scenic views Enough space for small parking lot on gentle slope off right of way, partially shielded from road by foliage. Area is near entrance lot and below sightline from most vantage points except the entrance gate. Area is a trail hub where great views of hills toward the West greets hikers. I would not like to see parking in foreground. LHCOSP Parking Feasibility Study. Site Tour #2 Assessment. Nov. 16, 2019 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This would be quite close to the “central” part of the Reserve This area is very central to the Preserve, if you are looking at overall acreage and the area and trails that are currently in use This area is even more central to the Preserve, if you are looking at overall acreage and area/trails that are currently in use. The road that we hiked further into the Preserve brings visitors even closer to the Red Barn and what some consider to be the ‘central’ part of the Preserve. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn * If amenities were located behind a screen of the existing trees along the roadside, it is possible to imagine developing this site in a way that would preserve the rural character. I don’t know if this site could accommodate much more than a modest parking lot though. Placing an additional parking lot on this site would keep it well out of view from the town of La Honda and most of the surrounding homes, though it could be seen from some of the hiking trails. One downside, however, is that a parking lot there may somewhat diminish the view of the barn and pond . If the parking lot and amenities could be kept to the lower level we looked at and away from the Barn and the trail, the rural character could be well preserved. Provide safe public access Although there are decent site lines looking to the West, the site line looking East is obscured somewhat by a curve in the road. Also, this is a notorious stretch in which motorists and motorcyclists pick up considerable speed and take the opportunity to pass others before the road Of all the sites being reviewed, Sears Ranch Road is the safest exit off of Highway 84 -- by far. Sears Ranch Road is wide, very visible and in the middle of town where most traffic (presumably) already slows down. It is well-paved, two lane and already in steady use by large school buses, so we know it is safe. Sears Ranch Road is the safest exit off of Highway 84 of all the sites being reviewed -- by far. Sears Ranch Road is wide, very visible and in the middle of town where most traffic (presumably) already slows down. It is well-paved, two lane and already in steady use by large school buses, so we know it is safe. gets winding again . Many accidents occur along this bit of roadway. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses I don’t know enough to comment here. Grazing is already being accommodated here so only modest amendments to the current agreement with ranchers would seem to be necessary. Some adjustments would have to be made here, including a fence with gates on the other side of Harrington trail to keep the cows off what would become a road to a new parking lot at this site.. MidPen may want to build a trail that is separate from the current trail (that would become the access road for cars to the new lot) that either runs parallel to the road/existing trail or that meanders a bit, but in a way that keeps people separated from the cattle. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education There looks to be enough relatively flat area in which explanatory panels and the like could be installed. The view from the site here is more limited, making explanation of the area a little more difficult to point out. Since there are already amenities at the nearby parking lot, only modest additions, if any, would have to be made. There is ample flat space here to accommodate environmental education, restrooms etc. Protect scenic views of and from the site There are only limited views from this site so protection of the view from the site does not seem to be a concern. However, care would need to be taken to screen the area from the road using the existing vegetation if we wanted to have the site blend into the scenery and thereby protect scenic view of the site. Because the flat site for a parking lot here lies below the road level and is partially shaded by trees, the view of a new site would not be obtrusive. The view from the site would be expansive and very nice, taking in the surrounding hills, the barn and the very photogenic pond. However, a new parking lot here would also somewhat mar the wideview of the pond and barn. As a new parking lot and amenities here would be at a lower elevation from the road/trail coming in, the view of it would be somewhat obscured from that direction. However, it would probably be visible from some of the later portions of Harrington trail. Notes: * Item #2: “Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn” is odd in that we did not look at the Red Barn on this site tour, so I just ignored the Red Barn part and focused on “the rural character” portion. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Nice, wide shoulder for a pull out lane & parallel parking possible, however Highway 84 is a fast & deadly corridor. If a parking lot was built here it will be a small lot. Perhaps parking would be limited to 20 cars to provide a circular entrance- parking- exit strategy? Nice Flat site and a large area for parking & Equestrian Parking, which is needed ( MidPen Mission Statement ) to provide access for additional user groups. No water/ Power on site and I believe a parking area distracts from the view shed here. Amazing view of mountains, barn and pond. Nice Flat site with an existing road here. Plenty of space for a large area for Equestrian Parking ( off a paved area). I like that this site is ‘tucked away’- out of site. ** Water on site ** Power on site Lots of space for an Interpretive Center. plus the cattle calve here- a real bonus, in terms of educational value!! Close to the trails to be opened, heading out towards Red Barn Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Parking could be on the shoulder? to retain the character of this spot. No room for Equestrian Parking here. Red Barn not visible from here & trails would need to be built to get to the creek & over to Red Barn. ** Best as on street parking? It seems such a small site to build a parking lot. Use would be limited to pedestrians/dog users. Close to the new parking lot built, which is under-utilized ( as of now ) Red Barn is not visible from here. ** Very accessible for all users, since the site is near flat. Lots of space here. ** Site would provide easy access for all user groups, close to proposed trails to creek & up to the Red Barn. Provides an access area away from new parking area down the road & gets people closer to the trails. Fencing is here, so it won’t be difficult to add more fencing for the safety of cattle. Provide safe public access Site is not near grazing. The creek separates the grazing activities from potential access from Highway 84. ** Not the safest access area of these three choices ** Safety concerns re: Highway 84 & traffic dangers! Site is in the grazing area, so additional fencing will be required. I love that the grazing cattle are here ** Very safe for Public Access!! Site is in the grazing area, so additional fencing will be required. I love that the grazing cattle are here & this is where they calve ( under the large Eucalyptus Trees ) so that area should somehow be saved for the herd to enjoy! ** Very safe for Public Access!! Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Small site compared to the Sears Ranch site & Event Center site. This site would be limited in public access & will not provide safe access for all user groups. The terrain is rough & downward towards creek. Mobility users may be compromised by difficult terrain here. Views limited, so lots of trees would need to be ‘limbed up’ to provide a view of grazing on the opposing hills ( if at all ) ** No power here ** No water here for construction Large site for amenities and all user groups can find safe areas to park & hike. Plenty of space to picnic and enjoy the pastoral views!! ** Very safe site for all User Groups ** No power here ** No water here, but most likely is close by?? Large site for amenities and all User Groups. Plenty of open space for users to park, hike and picnic close to the grazing cattle ( a real bonus, in my opinion !) Terrain is a gentle hill. ADA Parking could be up on flat area where I propose Equestrian Parking to be. ** Power on Site ** Water on Site Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Site is constrained by size and proximity to Highway 84. This site is not large enough to provide a building/ciosk for Environmental Education Large, safe site for a building or public bathroom, plus safe parking away from Highway 84. Environmental Education is feasible here Large, safe site for a building or Public Bathroom ( ADA) away from Highway 84. Environmental Education is feasible here, plus the cattle calve here. If fencing could provide cattle continued access to the site it would be ideal & appropriate. Protect scenic views of and from the site ** Views are limited here This site is more central, however it is constrained by safety concerns and rough terrain. User groups would be very limited, as it is a down hill climb to the proposed trails to the Red Barn. ** Great Views here & it protects the view of the Red Barn. ** Parking here is visible from road and the existing, new parking area. Parking could still protect views, if the lot is close to the tree line ( to the North ) This site is still far from the trails up to the Red Barn, not a central location for additional parking ** Great Views here & it protects the view of the Red Barn. ** Parking here would be less visible & would protect the views. This site is not visible from the existing , new parking area, plus it brings people closer to the trails up to the Red Barn. Notes: Sandy Sommer’s notes La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve On edge of central preserve, not too far from Red Barn area. Study this area more! Would need to acquire minimal amount of adjacent land (do a lot line adjustment?) to use existing roadway down to the creek. This road seems to be in good condition. LH07 has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing. Has a direct connection to Highway 84 which reduces neighborhood traffic concerns and makes it more easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area. Suggest continuing to discuss roadside parking in excess CalTrans right-of-way west of Gate LH07. CalTrans may not wish to develop more roadside parking, but if they declared the land to be surplus and conveyed it to Midpen, it could be used for that purpose. Very long hike to reach central area of preserve and Red Barn - does not seem to meet goals. Only equestrians and cyclists, who can more quickly cover the distance, would really consider this site to be a substitute for a staging area in the central preserve. Good level area with potential for equestrian trailer loop. Proximate to pond / historic Sears Ranch area, which is a good opportunity for an attractive easy access trail. Right now, the demand for an expanded parking lot is just not there – it would need to be tied to additional trail access options. Very long hike to reach central area of preserve and Red Barn - does not seem to meet goals. Only equestrians and cyclists, who can more quickly cover the distance, would really consider this site to be a substitute for a staging area in the central preserve. Good level area with potential for equestrian trailer loop. Right now, the demand for an expanded parking lot is just not there – it would need to be tied to additional trail access options. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Lots of existing trees – oaks and eucalyptus. Would need to remove some trees to develop parking, but lot would be well screened from the road. Fairly open and visible from surrounding area, but less so than existing staging area. Additional large paved area would be somewhat intrusive and not in keeping with rural character. Any way to do a gravel paved lot, especially since that is better for horses? Lengthy paved road and paved parking area is not in keeping with rural character. Any way to do a gravel road and lot, especially since that is better for horses? Provide safe public access Currently traffic on 84 appears to be going about 40 mph at this corner; some are faster, especially motorcycles. Would need traffic calming measures. I wonder about sight lines on the corner – the driveway location would need to be carefully selected. Staging would be well set back from the highway. Away from high speed traffic. Away from high speed traffic. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses One nearby private residence, but superior in terms of minimal conflicts with existing uses. Expanded staging in this area would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? Roadway past school would probably have to be widened. Is this section publicly maintained or would Midpen have to assume responsibility for that? Adds to construction and maintenance costs. Development as a staging area would result in loss of grazing pasture, but this site is at least along the edge. Expanded staging in this area would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? Roadway past school would probably have to be widened. Is this section publicly maintained or would Midpen have to assume responsibility for that? Adds a mile of new road beyond the existing staging area, which substantially increases to construction and maintenance costs. Would result in a loss of grazing pasture as well as inhibiting the tenant’s ability to move their cattle freely. Roadway would need to fence cattle out and accommodate several cattle crossing gates. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Beautiful redwood groves farther down trail would make a nice destination for an easy access trail and environmental ed. Immediate vicinity of site is not particularly compelling but if loop over to Sears Ranch ponds were added, this might open up interpretive opportunities. Immediate vicinity of site is not particularly compelling for environmental education. Protect scenic views of and from the site Lots of existing screening. Fairly visible from surrounding preserve – at least it is on the edge near existing trees. Fairly well screened from surrounding preserve. Adds an intrusive element to an otherwise rural, open setting, but at least this site was previously developed with a residence and kennel. Notes: I think we should not give up on safe access from Highway 84. Not that different from Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) and worth it in the long run to access regional recreational resources from a major road. I can think of at least thirteen other staging areas that directly access State highways (84, 35 and 9). I would like to learn more about potential traffic calming measures to explore – flashing caution lights, rumble strips – what is the best thinking about how to consistently slow drivers down? I suggest we start engaging with CalTrans starting now. Is there any way to invite a representative to the PAWG meetings? (Note that a CalTrans representative has been attending the Hwy 17 Crossing public meetings and is also involved in POST’s Cloverdale bluff trail planning efforts) La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Site Tour #2 – November 16, 2019 Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Tour Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Preserve Gate LH07 Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot) Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve I believe this site could provide limited access to the central portion of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. The long narrow strip of flat area adjacent to the highway could provide two rows of perpendicular parking. When more access is needed for the southern portion of the park this would be a good place to add additional parking. When more access is needed for the southern portion of the park this would be a good place to add additional parking. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This would not take away from the rural character of the Red Barn and could be screened by strategic plantings. A parking lot at Sears Ranch would not take away from the rural character of the Red Barn because it’s nowhere near and would add interest to this barren rural landscape. A parking lot at the Cattle Corral would not take away from the rural character of the Red Barn because it’s nowhere near and would add interest to this barren grassland landscape. Provide safe public access The access safety can be determined by CA State Highway’s assessment. Line of sight is good here. This site would provide the safest public access if the access road could be widened to two lanes. This site would provide the safest public access if the access road could be widened to two lanes. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses A parking lot here would have no impact on grazing or other uses. Grazing activities would be minimally impacted. Grazing activities would be greatly impacted, because the one mile access road would have to be fenced along both sides greatly impacting the movement of cattle. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education This site could only provide space for a few environmental education signs. This sight could provide almost unlimited facilities for environmental education. This sight could provide almost unlimited facilities for environmental education. Protect scenic views of and from the site There are no views from this site and views of the site from the highway might help make people aware of this resource. There are plenty of views of and from this site that could be enhanced by a well designed parking lot and other amenities. There are plenty of views of and from this site that could be enhanced by a well designed parking lot and other amenities. Notes: If the committee does not recommend any site for accessing the middle of La Honda OSP off Highway 84, would trail work in the middle cease? What constraints is the district under re: emergency and public access/square mile or /mile of trail? Are there district guidelines for miles of trail/access points. Would a backpack camp be in order to allow the public full access? Is there any hope for more access off Skyline to Upper La Honda? Page 1 of 3 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Questions & Answers from Site Tour #1 Assessment Forms October 19, 2019 1) Red Barn site: Driveway alignment and turning movements here are really the biggest issue. Is another alignment feasible? Note that the historic route of La Honda Road went right by the Barn (these unpaved roads are still in use). May want to explore limiting turn movements from 84 to right in/out. What about a roundabout? (Sandy Sommer) In prior Red Barn site plan alternatives, the driveway was located where line-of-sight requirements were met. If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board of Directors (Board) by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR), and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including traffic circulation and driveway alignment considerations. 2) Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Expansion of Existing Lot: What does Midpen hope to have in terms of education? Instructional signage located around the parking area? (Denise Phillips) Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area (1 mile from existing lot): What does Midpen hope to have in terms of education? Instructional signage located around the parking area or by the roadway that people would be walking along? (Denise Phillips) Educational amenities can take many forms such as interpretive signage, gathering areas for groups, or kiosks. Depending on the site, the District would need to determine what types of educational programs and amenities could be accommodated and what would fit in with surrounding uses. 3) When the board determined “central access” as a priority, how did the Board define “central” in this instance? (Denise Phillips) The central area of the Preserve is shown on a map labeled “Exhibit 2-4 Preserve Areas” in the 2012 La Honda Master Plan. The southerly edge of the central area runs approximately east and west from Preserve Gate LH07. The northerly edge runs east and west approximately 0.75 miles north of the Red Barn area. 4) Why is Driscoll Ranch only equestrian parking? (Melany Moore) The Event Center (also known as the former Driscoll Ranch) accommodates many uses on site, such as grazing operations, an interim coastal area office for District staff, and equestrian activities, which do not currently need a use permit from the County. Expanding the existing uses with additional public access at the site (e.g. new parking, hiking, etc.) would require a use permit from the County. In order to submit for a use permit, the District would need to develop a site plan for the property through a public planning process. If the Board selects the Event Center location as an option to pursue in the feasibility study phase, the District would need to prioritize site planning as a future project and would also need to complete an amendment to the 2012 La Honda Master Plan for these new uses. Page 2 of 3 5) Both Sears Ranch Road sites: Any way to do a gravel paved lot expansion, especially since that is better for horses? (Sandy Sommer) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including using gravel instead of pavement for equestrian spaces in a new parking lot. 6) Expanded staging in this area would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? (Sandy Sommer) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including the potential traffic effects on nearby school and residents. Based on District staff observations, use of Sears Ranch Road parking lot has lessened since the December 2017 grand opening when the lot generated high interest. 7) Both Sears Ranch Road sites – Roadway past school would probably have to be widened. Is this section publicly maintained or would Midpen have to assume responsibility for that? (Sandy Sommer) The District owns a portion of Sears Ranch Road past the school, at a certain point where it narrows, and the District would be responsible for the maintenance of that portion of the road. 8) Red Barn – Area down slope from Red Barn: Would downsizing and scaling back previous plan accomplish anything? (Sandy Sommer) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional site plan analysis in the feasibility study phase. Future site plan designs at this location would be different from previous Red Barn site plan alternatives due to its unique site and access characteristics. 9) Event Center: May need to assess left turn movements into driveway. Turn pocket needed? (Sandy Sommer) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including traffic circulation and driveway alignment considerations. 10) I would like to learn more about potential traffic calming measures to explore – flashing caution lights, rumble strips, enforcement – what is the best thinking about how to consistently and effectively slow drivers down? (Sandy Sommer) The District has contracted with a transportation consultant to explore potential traffic safety and calming measures that in general might be applied to a rural highway like Highway 84 (note that any proposed change to Highway 84 requires Caltrans approval). The goal is to provide this information for the December 12, 2019 PAWG meeting. 11) I think the vehicle access to the Sears Ranch parking is safe for cars, but not sure about larger vehicles. Similarly, I think the proposed driveway at the red barn is perfectly safe for a modern Page 3 of 3 passenger vehicle, but I've never tried to accelerate a truck up to highway speed with a horse inside trying to remain on its feet. (Art Heinrich) There is no issue for a larger horse trailer and truck to navigate Sears Ranch Road to the existing lot or to a potential parking area near the former residence, located a mile north from the existing lot. There is sufficient visibility, and the road is fairly wide with gradual turns and no steep drop-offs. In designing a parking area, the ease of access is generally the issue, with the preference being pull-through diagonal parking stalls, which do not require the driver to back up. Turning right onto Highway 84 from the Red Barn site would bring vehicles into faster traffic, but it is downhill, so accelerating the truck and horse trailer would be easier. Turning left onto Highway 84 should not be a problem since the uphill highway traffic is moving more slowly with adequate line-of-sight to the future driveway entrance (see page 4 in August 10, 2016 traffic study). The horses are able to remain upright when a truck is accelerating in a straight line unlike going around a corner or stopping too fast which would be an issue for horses. Maneuvering a horse trailer and truck involves the driver’s sense of caution, experience, judgment of speed and spacing of other vehicles, and knowledge of his or her truck’s capability. (Equestrian information in above response provided by PAWG member Curt Riffle.) Page 1 of 3 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Questions & Answers from Site Tour #2 Assessment Forms November 16, 2019 1) How does Midpen determine potential popularity of newly opened preserve trails? (Andie Reed) The District routinely observes usage patterns at preserves and regularly conducts visitor use surveys. Immediately after a new facility opens, there is often a high level of interest and visitation that then dissipates over time. However, certain facilities remain highly popular for a variety of reasons such as being a unique destination point, ease of access from and proximity to more populated areas, diversity of trails and loops, types of uses offered, and diversity of vegetation and terrain. 2) Need further study of pull-off from 84(LH07), is sight distance sufficient to not reduce traffic too suddenly? (Andie Reed) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board of Directors (Board) by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR), and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including assessing traffic circulation and safety. 3) Further study (of Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site West of Existing Parking Area) might reveal whether current parking lot could be made larger in existing location? (Andie Reed) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including potential modifications to the existing lot and/or adding parking to the west area. 4) Study this area more (Gate LH07) Would need to acquire minimal amount of adjacent land (do a lot line adjustment?) (Sandy Sommer) If this location is proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including providing public access from the gate to the rest of the preserve. 5) I suggest we start engaging with Caltrans starting now. Is there any way to invite a representative to the PAWG meetings? (Note that a Caltrans representative has been attending the Hwy 17 Crossing public meetings and is also involved in POST’s Cloverdale bluff trail planning efforts) (Sandy Sommer) Caltrans was not yet willing to coordinate with the District project team during the Red Barn site development process. The District will attempt to re-engage Caltrans when there are sites that the Board approves for moving forward into the feasibility stage. The current focus of this phase of the project is to develop an option or options to move into the feasibility study phase. 6) I would like to learn more about potential traffic calming measures to explore – flashing caution lights, rumble strips – what is the best thinking about how to consistently slow drivers down? (Sandy Sommer) Page 2 of 3 The District has contracted with a transportation consultant to explore potential traffic safety and calming measures that in general might be applied to a rural highway like Highway 84 (note that any proposed change to Highway 84 requires Caltrans approval). The goal is to provide this information for the December 12, 2019 PAWG meeting. 7) Any way to do a gravel paved lot, especially since that is better for horses (both Sears Ranch locations)? (Sandy Sommer) A gravel lot could be explored though the District’s standard has been to build paved parking lots to avoid long-term operations and maintenance issues including poor drainage, loss of compaction, dust issues that result in poor visibility for motorists and inefficient parking due to lack of striping. 8) Expanded staging in this area (Sears Ranch Road – Cattle Corral – former residence area) would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? (Sandy Sommer) Expanded staging in this area (Sears Ranch Road – west of existing lot) would reduce available pasture and add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? (Sandy Sommer) If these locations are proposed by the PAWG, forwarded to the Board by the PNR, and approved for further study by the Board, the District will conduct additional analysis in the feasibility study phase including potential impacts on nearby uses, grazing operations, and existing public trails. Based on District staff observations, use of Sears Ranch Road parking lot has lessened since the December 2017 grand opening when the lot generated high interest. 9) If the committee does not recommend any site for accessing the middle of La Honda OSP off Highway 84, would trail work in the middle cease? (Willie Wool) Other District project teams are working on expanding the trail system in the Preserve following the future phases of trails identified in the 2012 La Honda Master Plan including a trail connection between the Allen Road area and the Sears Ranch Road area. 10) Are there district guidelines for miles of trail/access points? Does the district have any standards it has set regarding length of trails from access point. Can the district construct a ten mile trail with access at only one end of the trail? Would that be considered accessible for hikers and emergency vehicles? If there were no middle access to La Honda Creek Preserve, could a trail be constructed that would go from Sears Ranch parking lot to the Coho Vista Point without any other access point. What are the current estimates (a range from high to low) for the length of that trail? (Willie Wool) Access is determined on a preserve-by-preserve basis. In the case of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, the proposed trail network and access points were proposed in the master plan to provide public access that is distributed geographically across the preserve. The District does not have access standards that prohibit a long regional trail like one that would extend from Allen Road to the Event Center. However, where feasible, the District provides a variety of access points in order to distribute public use across the trail system rather than concentrate visitors at fewer locations. In addition, more access points allow more people with differing endurance levels to experience more of a preserve and encourage creation of more loop trails since a larger Page 3 of 3 number of people can access them. A long “out-and-back” trail can limit the number of visitors capable of using this longer distance trail. Within the central portion of La Honda Open Space Preserve, existing access points used for District patrol use are not open to the public for accessing a trail between the Allen Road and Sears Ranch Road areas. The District is working on future trails that will provide additional loop trails in the southern portion of the preserve and other trails to connect the southern and central areas to upper La Honda. 11) Would a backpack camp be in order to allow the public full access? (Willie Wool) The Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Protection Area (2003) prohibits camping on District lands located in the Coastal Protection Area (Guideline G.6.8 of the Service Plan). Backpack camps are special uses that would be considered on a case by case basis outside of the Coastal Protection Area. The central area of the Preserve is not in the Coastal Protection Area, but the Sears Ranch and Event Center areas are. 12) Is there any hope for more access off Skyline to Upper La Honda? (Willie Wool) Expansion of the Allen Road parking area and an increase in use are not feasible due to a prior agreement with neighbors along this private road that limits vehicular access to ten vehicles per day. Homework Site Assessment Forms February 6, 2020 (updated) The PAWG determined at the December 12th PAWG meeting to visit two locations: Red Barn – behind the ranger residence and Preserve Gate LH15. A third location at the Red Barn site was suggested after the meeting by the District project team: Red Barn – an area near a white shed below the ranger residence. PAWG members were asked to record their observations according to project goals and objectives on assessment forms provided by the project team. The members noted below provided their assessments, which are attached to this cover sheet. PAWG Member Site E1, E3 and B3 Assessment Form Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich Submitted Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle Submitted Submitted La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Establishes new access Establishes new access New access close to existing Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Design elements detract from the rural character and Red Barn Does not reflect rural character of the site and red barn This site is not in proximity to the red barn Provide safe public access Does not provide safe public access Does not provide safe public access This provides safe public access Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Impact on grazing would be negligible Grazing impact would be limited Limited impact to grazing Ari Delay Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Could include amenities that include environmental education Could include amenities that include environmental education Little opportunity for environmental education Protect scenic views of and from the site This site is on prominent high point that could be viewed from many locations Does not protect scenic views Site is concealed well and hidden from most areas Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites ART H. COMMENTS Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Use of this site potentially reduces the visual impact around the immediate barn area, but providing access from 84 and driveways to get here would remain, well, eyesores. However it has the same access issues as the red barn entry from 84. Use of this site potentially reduces the visual impact around the immediate barn area, but providing access from 84 and driveways to get here would remain, well, eyesores. . However it has the same access issues as the red barn entry from 84. Use of this location doesn’t establish new public access in the central portion of the preserve. Its use does have the potential for reducing uses and resulting impacts at the red barn. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Improvements here would be mostly out of sight of the red barn and 84, so could help preserve the character of the barn itself. If 84 access must be at the red barn, this area is visibly shielded from view (with a few more low plants) from 84, although it is highly visible from inside the preserve. Improvements here would be mostly out of sight of the red barn and 84, so could help preserve the character of the barn itself. If 84 access must be at the red barn, this area is visibly shielded from view (with a few more low plants) from 84, and is well hidden from the rest of the preserve, too. Again, it may relocate uses away from the red barn but otherwise does not affect that area. In terms of maintaining the rural character of the Sears Ranch area, it is a good location: next to the school, which is already developed, away from 84 view, and well hidden from within the preserve. Kudos to Karl for noticing this area. Provide safe public access Access seems to necessarily be from 84 at the driveway location determined in the earlier studies, so doesn’t differ from access to the red barn area itself. Access seems to necessarily be from 84 at the driveway location determined in the earlier studies, so doesn’t differ from access to the red barn area itself. Like the other proposed sites in the Sears Ranch area, this has the safest vehicle access off 84. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses This location would seem to work ok with public grazing – most of it is fenced off from the grazing areas now. This location would seem to work ok with public grazing – most of it is fenced off from the grazing areas now. Use of this area would have an impact on grazing area, but since it is on the edge of the preserve, up against the school, it would seem to have less of an impact than the other locations suggested in the Sears Ranch area. Art Heinrich Include amenities that facilitate environmental education This seems like a reasonable place for educational amenities – especially if it requires a structure. The existing house is nearly invisible from 84 so that bodes well for locating other buildings out of sight. This seems like a good place for educational amenities – especially if it requires a structure. The area is well shielded from view from both 84 and from within the preserve. Not a bad place for educational use, with easy public access. Location next to school might have advantages. Unfortunately this site has no view to the rest of the preserve, which would make it less than inspiring for educational use; the existing parking lot would be better, so use this site to expand parking when needed. Protect scenic views of and from the site Use here could hide facilities and minimize stuff around red barn, but the driveway to get here from 84 will still be a distraction from views of the red barn area. It is unfortunate that this site would be so visible from within the preserve. Use here could hide facilities and minimize stuff around red barn, but the driveway to get here from 84 will still be a distraction from views of the red barn area. This area is better hidden from inside the preserve than the ranger house area, so has that advantage. Doesn’t affect red barn site, of course. But it is well situated to be out of site. See rural character notes above. Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Andie Reed E1 E3 B3 Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This location would provide access to the central portion, but impinges upon the ranger residence in an aggressive manner. The first time we visited this site, I hadn’t studied how the residence is in fact someone’s home; residential opportunities are very important to attracting good candidates for this job. This location is not optimal, vote no. Yes, provides good access; also this would be less detrimental to the residents than E1. User- friendly gravel road to flat area, which is already industrialized by cement and a shed, avoids driving by residence and parking in ranger’s personal space, and is hidden from view from hwy 84 and, although visible from the residence, isn’t obtrusive. Avoids cars near Red Barn; access to Red Barn by an easy walk; could host latrine and interpretive signs and boards. LH15 could serve as an overflow from the current parking lot at the Lower La Honda Creek preserve. If, as has been stated, there will come a time when this area will be very popular with hikers and walkers and cyclists, this would serve well as excess parking. Also, it would appear the current parking lot could be expanded for 10- 15 more cars. However, this area doesn’t provide access to central portion. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Would detract from existing residential purpose. Originally, I thought the ranger house could be used for other purposes (latrines and interpretive information and rest areas) but after spending some time there this visit, I came away with a much different opinion. Current use is high- priority. Fairly well screened by trees; would require little work to build a pathway towards Red Barn that could veer off and down to E2 area where there could be signs, explanatory bulletin boards, maps and trailheads to go up to Allen Rd or down to Sears Ranch (that would not be viewable from 84). The current parking lot is great in that you don’t see it until you are on top of it. However, the road leading to the existing parking area contains buildings and the elementary school, so parking here would not impact the rural area of the LHC preserve. Provide safe public access In E1 and E3 hwy 84 access would need to be improved. Same as E1, access would call for signage several hundred yards both directions on 84; slow-down indicators, blinking lights and other warnings as well as widening the pull-in area. Not clear that this area (LH15) is within the bounds of the MROSD, but assuming it is, this is a very safe area for parking to easily access Lower La Honda Creek area. Access to Sears Ranch Road is the safest of all the options; however, it does not provide access to the central portion, unless you are planning to hike/bike 10-15 miles. Andie Reed Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Doesn’t balance well with “other uses”, that of protecting the personal residence for the ranger. Rental properties being what they are in this area (very high priced and hard to come by), this is an asset that needs to be protected. Does not impinge upon the views or take away any of the currently beautiful ranching amenities, fencing and working sheds. Well-hidden and discreet. Would be much preferable to other options B1 and B2 which appear to infringe upon open grazing lands and hiking open areas. Doesn’t further take up open space that currently exists for hiking and biking. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Not a good location for amenities. Yes for interpretive boards (historical, ranching, agricultural uses) and directional signs & maps. Current maps and boards and latrine already in existence at large parking lot. Protect scenic views of and from the site Would invade private space of ranger’s family. Well-hidden from 84 and doesn’t invade the ranger’s residential area. Takes away some open space, but this area is already used for a school and school parking lot and playgrounds, so if kept close to the street, a parking lot here doesn’t further invade into scenic views. Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Barbara Hooper Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve The plot of land seems feasible for parking. However, ingress and egress from the area to and from Highway 84 are very dangerous as the line of site in both directions is minimal. Additionally, the close proximity of the ingress and egress of Old La Honda Road is another hazard which would complicate the accessibility and increase the risk of accidents and collisions at this location. This area may be a possible site for docent led tours or limited permit access for visitors. The area could be utilized for parking but the ingress and egress from this area to and from Highway 84 are very dangerous. Additionally, the close proximity of the ingress and egress of Old La Honda Road is another hazard which would complicate the accessibility and increase the risk of accidents and collisions at this location. If additional parking access is needed this area could be a possibility. However, this location may not be desirable as it is next to the La Honda Elementary School (LHES). Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This site could preserve the natural character of the region if constructed to blend with the current road-bed materials. The benefit of this location is that the Red Barn site and grazing can be observed without disrupting the historic scenic views in existence now. Adding a parking lot would not reflect the rural character of the site and Red Barn. Parking would be visible from Highway 84 and would detract from the open scenic vistas which are currently enjoyed at the Red Barn pullout. This site would be visible from the school and that may not be desirable. Provide safe public access Safe public access would likely be an issue as traffic studies have included line of site concerns and vehicles exceeding the speed limit in this location. Additionally, as noted in the CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 – Enlargement A map, collisions have occurred at this entry/exit point LH06. Docent led hikes and/or permit access Safe public access would likely be an issue as traffic studies have included line of site concerns and vehicles exceeding the speed limit in this location. Additionally, as noted in the CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 – Enlargement A map, collisions have occurred at this entry/exit point LH06. The LH15 gate is on a very narrow section of road which would need to be redesigned to accommodate traffic ingress and egress. Safe public access has been proven on Sears Ranch Road (which leads up to the gate) as it is located away from Highway 84 and is accessible via an intersection that has been established for many years. Barbara Hooper could potentially provide safe public access as there could be a limited number of visitors allowed per day (like the Allen Road access point). Visitors to the site could be given very specific guidelines about how to enter and leave the site, as well as warnings about traffic hazards. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Grazing activities have been thriving here. Markegard belted cows are a beautiful site to see in front of the picturesque Red Barn. If the public had parking access at this point, perhaps they could observe the Red Barn and cows from afar and be given access to trails below the Red Barn and towards the upper portion of LHCOSP and in the heart of the central portion heading towards Sears Ranch Road. Parking at this location may interfere with grazing that is currently in place. Since the Sears Ranch Road parking was established when the LHCOSP was opened, the grazing activities and hiking paths have complemented each other. Parking at LH15 would likely not interfere much with current grazing or could be accommodated in some way. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Informative signage could highlight the history of the area as long as it did not interfere with the Ranger Residence. Any new buildings would detract from the scenic views and rural character in this area. Other than the fact that this location may interfere with or be objected to by LHES, this could be a location for environmental education. A better location for additional amenities would be near the parking lot already located at the end of Sears Ranch Road. Protect scenic views of and from the site Views from this site would be very attractive looking down towards the Red Barn, westward toward Sears Ranch Road, and in the direction of the Allen Road access point. Care should be taken to construct roads and parking of a substance other than asphalt to reflect the rural atmosphere. A parking lot in this site would not be advisable as it would not preserve the rural nature and scenic views near the Red Barn area. Parking would be visible from Highway 84 and would detract from the open scenic vistas which are currently enjoyed at the Red Barn pullout. Vistas at this location would look towards LHES and in turn, the school would be looking at a parking lot. If the trails already planned by MidPen near this area towards the Red Barn are constructed, the public would be able to experience the Red Barn as the protected, historic, grazing site that it currently is and has been for years. Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study - Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Curt Riffle Feedback – 1/18/20 Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This location would provide the best trail access for the central portion of the preserve. Hardly any road noise and an excellent location to begin a hike into the preserve or visit the Red Barn area. This location would provide the best trail access for the central portion of the preserve. Hardly any road noise and an excellent location to begin a hike into the preserve or visit the Red Barn area. While this location is better for public access to the central portion of the preserve than the Event Center, it is lower than many of the other locations being considered. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This location moves the parking away from the Red Barn area and won’t disrupt the visuals of the site with a parking lot. Allows the public to get a close-up view of the barn and the views. This location moves the parking away from the Red Barn area and won’t disrupt the visuals of the site with a parking lot. Allows the public to get a close-up view of the barn and the views. Close to the school and the road at the edge of the pasture. Not a great location for rural character. Provide safe public access Closest and safest access to this portion of the preserve provided Highway 84 traffic safety engineering is successful. Closest and safest access to this portion of the preserve provided Highway 84 traffic safety engineering is successful. This is a shorter drive to the parking area than the one behind the ranger residence. Safe Highway 84 access without any additional traffic safety engineering. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Seems to be out of the active pasture area. Somewhat concerned about impact on ranger residence. Seems to be out of the active pasture area. Less concerned about impact on ranger residence. Seems to be on the edge of the working pasture area and would have minimal impact. Curt Riffle Include amenities that facilitate environmental education This would be a great location to provide easy public access (including ADA) to educational amenities planned for the Red Barn area. This would be a great location to provide easy public access (including ADA) to educational amenities planned for the Red Barn area. Not a great location for environmental education. Seems to be more of an overflow lot for existing parking area. Protect scenic views of and from the site Best of the three locations. One has the feel that you are in the middle of the preserve as soon as you arrive. Not quite as good as the location behind the ranger residence, but still an incredible and safe view. Nice view, but not nearly as nice as the other locations being considered. Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This location achieves this primary goal. This location achieves this primary goal. This does not help with access to the board-defined central portion of the Preserve. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This location would is nearly if not completely hidden from view from Hwy. 84 and would not undermine the rural character of the Red Barn. Even from the Red Barn itself, this location is hidden from view. As with the Ranger residence location, this location is mostly hidden from view from Hwy 84 and would not impact the rural character of the Red barn as viewed from Hwy 84. From the Red barn itself this site would be more visible, but the existing trees would help shield much of the area and Midpen could construct the facilities to blend in with the landscape (i.e. El Corte de Madera site). This site would not impact the Red Barn. Provide safe public access This remains a big issue at this site but it is not unsolvable. I defer to the professional traffic studies and most recent letter regarding traffic safety issues. I am confident that measures could be taken to calm the existing traffic along that stretch of road to create safer access. Same response as box to the left. There is safer access here off of Sears Ranch road. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses I seem to recall Midpen telling us that the grazer at this location is open to potential changes and is willing to work with Midpen if the corrals need to be relocated and could in fact reduce his footprint as his operation there is not as big and would not need as much space. Is this correct? Same response as box to the left. This site may involve fencing changes to accommodate the existing cattle operation. Denise Phillips Include amenities that facilitate environmental education As mentioned before, this depends on what Midpen has in mind. Sign boards seem like they’d be fairly easy to incorporate. This area may potentially have more room to incorporate environmental education elements. There is some interest in maintaining the existing corral structure though the grazer may be willing to relocate his corrals. Perhaps the fencing could be repaired and retained and some education element could be located inside the corral? There is potential here for including environmental education facilities. As stated before, it depends on what Midpen is looking to do. Protect scenic views of and from the site Facilities located here would not be visible from Hwy 84 and would not obstruct the view corridor to the west of the Red Barn. Facilities located here would be mostly invisible from Hwy 84 and would not obstruct the view corridor to the west of the Red Barn. This site seems redundant given the parking lot just beyond it at the top of the hill. I could see this site being used for equestrian parking, and it would preserve the views over towards the pond area from the top of the hill (the existing parking lot). Its proximity to the school raises questions in my mind. Are there any issues associated with locating a public access site so close to an elementary school? Notes: 1) Has anyone talked with Don Horsley about the traffic issues along Hwy 84 in this area? Don appreciates the opportunity to get involved with underserved areas of his jurisdiction, District 3. With Don’s support, we could perhaps get the SMC Board of Supervisors on board (pass a resolution?) to work with us and Caltrans to help create a safer traffic corridor along Hwy 84. The LHOSP is a huge asset in his District, and I’m sure Don would love to be able to help ensure safe access for as many citizens as possible. 2) Does Midpen own any of the land immediately adjacent to the Ranger residence to the east (north?) of the property beyond the fence line? It does not look like it on the maps. If yes, that field opens up possibilities of expansion of parking and services to the Red Barn area. If no, is there a chance of acquiring it? Perhaps for ADA purposes there could be a drop off down below closer to the Red Barn? Or a longer paved winding trail down the outside of the hill to the Red Barn area? 3) What about the possibility of relocating the Ranger residence? That would greatly expand the opportunities to develop that site. I know staff housing is an issue, so this may not be feasible, but is it worth looking into? 4) I spoke with Andy Kerr (one of the owners) at Alice’s Restaurant, and the first thing he said when we started talking about public access to the central portion of the Preserve was that the Ranger residence site seems like the best choice and why not move the residence somewhere else. I was interested to find that some community members were thinking along those lines as well. 5) While the grazer has (I seem to recall) stated a willingness to move the corrals at the Red Barn site from their existing location, there is some interest in preserving them as agricultural history. Perhaps the corrals could be repurposed and the existing (repaired) fences incorporated into the design of a parking or educational area with actual working corrals being relocated in agreement with the grazer. This could expand the available area down by the white shed while still preserving some of the history of the original grazing operation. Karl Lusebrink La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence E1 Red Barn – Area Near White Shed E3 Preserve Gate LH15 B3 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Central location, but with highway safety and view concerns. Same as E1 Parking area for equestrians only a few miles from Central area. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn If highway access risks can be managed, the field immediately North and adjacent to this top-of-the hill site would be preferable for parking because it is lower elevation, screened from view from the trails by trees, and further from the residence. If highway access risks can be managed, this is a good small parking site. Current ranch roads provide a path that does not intrude on barn views, parking would be mostly shielded from the highway by trees, and it is removed from the residence. Plenty of space for horse trailers and equestrian activity removed from passenger car lot. An area adjacent to lot B1 is possibly easier to accomplish using existing gates and requires minimal new fence. Provide safe public access With traffic calming measures discussed by W-trans to minimize risk of speeders on highway, and careful lay out of driveway hugging embankment and following ranch roads, red barn vicinity access may be feasible. Same as E1 Sears Ranch Rd. is a safe access road. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Keeps cars away from red barn and corrals. Wetland pond restoration may be possible. Same as E1 Established compatible use area. Karl Lusebrink Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Cultural, Historical and Environmental signs and kiosk. Same as E1 Signs and kiosk in place. Protect scenic views of and from the site Screen roads and lot with topography and trees. Use existing ranch roads where possible. Same as E1 Area not visible from trails Notes: Field N of E1; lower elevation & tree screen Keep roads out of view; hug embankments and follow existing tracks La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve THe Highway access here is on a Dangerous curve on High way 84. We were unable to unlock the Gate & had to back out onto the Highway to get out. First hand got a realistic experience of how dangerous this part of the Highway is for public access. This site will not get my vote. Too close to the Highway & will obstruct the rural character of the vistas here. This site is near the existing Parking lot. Nice open site with plenty of space for Equestrian Parking & ADA access. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This site has potential- however I will n eed to visit again This site will impact the rural character of the Red Barn, which should be protected at all costs. Not a favorable site ( in my opinion) This site will not directly affect the Red Barn site. Not visible from Highway 84. Provide safe public access This is a dangerous curve on Highway 84. I will not vote for this as a safe public access point. NOT A SAFE PUBLIC ACCESS POINT! Not a safe area on Highway 84. As has been noted by locals, who serve on this panel, the straight parts of 84, are ‘passing areas’ where motorists gain speed to illegally pass other cars. Yes! Very safe Public Access here, plus the site is large and almost flat. Plenty of room for large horse trailers to turn around. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Possible, if road calming measures were strident, that this site would balance grazing activities. This site seems central to the Preserve. Yes! This site keeps the Parking lots on the same side of the Preserve. Grazing could be maintained; and cows separated from Parking areas. Melany Moore Include amenities that facilitate environmental education We were unable to visit the actual site in question. I will need to walk this site to answer this question. ??? Yes! This site is large enough to include many amenities for Environmental Education. I do believe this site seems reduntent, due to the close proximity to existing parking lot- however it may work, due to it’s safe access to the Highway. Protect scenic views of and from the site This site would protect the scenic view of the Red Barn & amazing vistas from the Highway. No! This site will not protect the scenic views of the Red Barn. I will not support this site as a proposed safe Public Access Site. Yes. The view of the White Barn & the Red Barn would be protected. The view of the White Barn & vistas should be protected at all costs! Notes:We enjoyed our rainy day visit to La Honda on 1/16/2020, however were unable to unlock the gate behind the Ranger residence. I do believe it is critical to do another joint Field Trip with the entire group, in order to further study these new sites. Due to the weather it was not realistic to walk the mile into the Preserve to show my friend my prefered site, at the ‘ old residence site’. The Sears Ranch Road site is my favorite site for Safe Public Access, plus it is the most central site in the Preserve ( that we have studied thus far). I love that this site really does get “ people into the central portion of the Preserve”. Out of all the sites, it will protect the vistas, provide safe public access and have enough space for Environmental Education, equestrian parking and ADA access. Even if people just parked and wanted to enjoy the views- it is all here! We did stop by & walk into LH07 & my friend agreed that this site is very small, plus not realistic for Equestrian Parking. If the District turns this site into a small parking area, equestrians may want to park directly on the Highway, due to the large pull out here ( very dangerous to have horses near the Highway!) Thank you for inviting me to tour the new proposed access points. I will be interested in the other participants feedback. Kind regards, Melany Moore Sandy Sommer’s notes 1 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This location is acceptable in terms of developing a staging area for trails in the central preserve. Red Barn area has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing. Has a direct connection to Highway 84 which reduces neighborhood traffic concerns and makes it more easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area. This general location is superior in terms of developing a staging area for trails in the central preserve. Red Barn area has great potential for a regional trail (Ridge Trail) staging area and crossing. Has a direct connection to Highway 84 which reduces neighborhood traffic concerns and makes it more easily accessible to those unfamiliar with the area. Very long hike to reach central area of preserve and Red Barn - does not seem to meet goals. Only equestrians and cyclists, who can more quickly cover the distance, would really consider this site to be a substitute for a staging area in the central preserve. Good level area with potential for equestrian trailer loop. Proximate to pond / historic Sears Ranch area, which is a good opportunity for an attractive easy access trail. Right now, the demand for an expanded parking lot is just not there – it would need to wait for additional trail access options. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Staging area would seem to be part of existing historic McDonald Ranch complex. Routing of driveway is an important consideration. Prefer to avoid “sacred ground” in foreground of Red Barn -- however the route to the existing lower (white) gate is most direct. Lots of existing trees – pines. May need to remove some trees to develop parking, but lot would be well screened from the road and from surrounding view. Routing of driveway is an important consideration. Prefer to avoid “sacred ground” in foreground of Red Barn – however the route to the existing lower (white) gate is most direct. Fairly open and visible from surrounding area, but less so than existing Sears Ranch staging area. Provide safe public access Parking site is away from high speed traffic. Unsure how to connect this site to the highway without following the alignment that previously raised community concern. Any staging area entrance in the Red Barn area would need effective traffic calming measures, given the excessive highway speeds. A new creative solution is needed. Parking site is away from high speed traffic. Unsure how to connect this site to the highway without following the alignment that previously raised community concern. Any staging area entrance in the Red Barn area would need effective traffic calming measures, given the excessive highway speeds. A new creative solution is needed. Away from high speed traffic. Uses existing roadways and intersection at Highway 84 has a stop sign. Poor wayfinding for visitors who are unfamiliar with the area, since requires turn onto local side road. Sandy Sommer Sandy Sommer’s notes Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 What about a roundabout on La Honda Road, located near the LH06 entrance? Roundabouts naturally slow traffic down and eliminate left turn movements completely. What about a roundabout on La Honda Road, located near the LH06 entrance? Roundabouts naturally slow traffic down and eliminate left turn movements completely. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses Site does not appear to be used for pasture, so no conflicts. Site does not appear to be used for pasture, so no conflicts. Expanded staging at LH15 is superior to the other options in the Sears Ranch area since it avoids existing pastures. Would add more car trips to Sears Ranch Road. Would this increase conflicts with school and nearby residents? Roadway past school would probably have to be widened. Is this section publicly maintained or would Midpen have to assume responsibility for that? Adds to construction and maintenance costs Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Immediate vicinity of site offers scenic views of upper preserve to north and west. Trail loop over to Red Barn would open up interpretive opportunities. Immediate vicinity of site offers scenic views of upper preserve to north and west. Trail loop over to Red Barn would open up interpretive opportunities. Immediate vicinity of site is not particularly compelling but if loop over to Sears Ranch ponds were added, this might open up interpretive opportunities. Protect scenic views of and from the site Fairly visible from surrounding preserve – at least it is near the existing residence. Lots of existing screening. This site is the superior Red Barn location. Less visible than other expansion options – would appear to be an extension of the school rather than a new freestanding facility. Notes: I suggest we start engaging with CalTrans now. La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve This site is well situated to access the “central” portion of La Honda Creek OSP. This site is well situated to access the “central” portion of La Honda Creek OSP. This site would in no way improve access to the “central” portion of LHOSP. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn This site could be designed to reflect the rural character. The section closest to the ranger’s house and storage unit (garage) would be somewhat hidden. If built further away, the parking lot would be a blot on the landscape. The shed area is my favorite site so far. It is well hidden by large trees. Far enough away from the barn to minimize the effect on the view shed and it provides a great view of the Red Barn. This is a very exposed site, an eye sore, and might have a negative impact on the school—construction noise, dust, traffic and future park use traffic. Provide safe public access Access to the Red Barn would be more challenging. CalTrans can advise re: vehicular access from CA-84 The easiest access to the Red Barn while also providing access to any future trails in the area. CalTrans can advise re: vehicular access from CA-84 Safe access for pubic to the park but may be hazardous for the students access to the school. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses I don’t see any negative impact on the grazing activities. A parking lot here might be a problem for the ranger living in the residence. I don’t SEE any negative impact on the grazing activities. No negative impacts on grazing activities. Willie Wool Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Amenities that facilitate environmental education could be integrated. Amenities that facilitate environmental education could be integrated and it’s an inspiring setting. Amenities that facilitate environmental education could be integrated but it’s not a very inspiring setting. Protect scenic views of and from the site The views from this site are lovely and distant, but designing and installing vegetation that would shade and shield this location would be a challenge. The view of the Red Barn from this site is stunning, and vegetation to shade and shield this location from view is already in place. This is the least scenic of all the sites studied. Notes: La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Homework from December 12, 2019 Meeting Project Goals and Objectives – Assessment of Sites Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Red Barn – Behind Ranger Residence Red Barn – Area Near White Shed Preserve Gate LH15 Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Would provide access to central portion of the Preserve Would provide access to central portion of the Preserve Would provide access that is further than the most central part of the Preserve. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn The rural character of the site could be maintained here if kept on a small scale The site would have to be hidden behind the curtain of trees that already exists and kept to a small scale in order to maintain the rural character of the area. Not close to the Red Barn, so less relevant Provide safe public access Access to this site from Hwy 84 would not be safe, as speeding and accidents are already a frequent occurrence here. Also complicated by the presence of Old La Honda Road directly across the road from this site. Access to this site from Hwy 84 would not be safe, as speeding and accidents are already a frequent occurrence here. Also complicated by the presence of Old La Honda Road directly across the road from this site. Use of Sears Ranch Road to this site makes this the safest spot along Hwy 84 in which to access the Preserve. Balance public access with grazing activities and other uses I don’t know enough about the grazing agreement with the ranchers to know how development of a site here would impact their operations. It is sure to have some impact, but I would have to I don’t know enough about the grazing agreement with the ranchers to know how development of a site here would impact their operations. It is sure to have some impact, but I would have to It would seem that development here would have minimal impact on grazing operations since it is adjacent to already existing grazing areas that are open and spacious. learn more about their operations to know how much of an impact. learn more about their operations to know how much of an impact. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education Likely to be easy to add signage etc for environmental education at this site. Likely to be easy to add signage etc for environmental education at this site. Likely to be easy to add signage etc for environmental education at this site, and since there is already signage further up the road, the educational materials could be more limited. Protect scenic views of and from the site This site could be well hidden from Hwy 84 and it offers beautiful views of the Red Barn and the surrounding hills. However, unless very limited in size, it could be very visible to hikers in the Preserve. If hidden behind the existing screen of trees and kept very modest in size, this area could shield much of the site from passersby on Hwy 84. The views of the scenery from the site are lovely. Since this is an open area, it is likely that it will be very visible to the rest of La Honda and the school. The views from the site are nice if you want to look toward La Honda, but limited otherwise. Notes: Highway 84 Traffic Observations December 12, 2019 During the August 22, 2019 PAWG meeting, it was suggested that the group individually observed traffic conditions on Highway 84 in the Red Barn area. The members noted below provided their observations, which are attached to this cover sheet. PAWG Member Observations of Highway 84 Lou Bordi - Ari Delay - Art Heinrich - Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed - Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed - Sandy Sommer - Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle - MROSD La Honda Creek OS Public Access Working Group Red Barn Pull-Out Traffic Observation Observer: Karl Lusebrink Date: Time: 11:50 am - 1:20 pm Duration: 1.5 hours Vehicles:Count Vehicle Type 482 Passenger car or truck 106 Motorcycle 54 Bicycle 3 Heavy/Oversize truck Total:645 430 Estimated per hour Other Observations: 13 Passing across line (4 car pass car) 7 Very fast car or motorcycle 5 Pullout users (incl. 2 PAWG members) 2 Motorcycle Club 1 Car Club (Cameros and Corvettes) 1 Sheriff vehicle 8/25/2019 Examples of vehicles passing others by crossing double-yellow line Motorcycle passing car, toward oncoming car and motorcycle Truck and car passing two bikes Pickup truck passing bike Barbara Hooper - Traffic Study Sunday, Sept. 8, 2019 2:00pm - 3:00pm weather: sunny, slight breeze, 71 degrees ;rraffjc Detail vehicle type direction quantity cars and trucks cars and trucks eastbound westbound 125 160 motorcycles motorcycles bicycles bicycles Total vehicles r eastbound westbound 27 40 eastbound 0 westbound 9 361 cam: 285 ,motorcycles: 6Z bicycles: 9 Observations Incidents Note: passing is prohibited; speed limit is 35mph 1. a motorcycle passing a car traveling eastbound 1 2, a motorcycle passing a car traveling westbound 3 3, one motorcycle passing a two cars traveling eastbound 1 4. two motorcycles passing two cars traveling eastbound 1 5, two motorcycles passing a car traveling westbound 1 6. a car passing a bike going westbound 3 7. a pack of eleven motorcycles speeding 8. many vehicles speeding Wittql Barbara Hooper Traffic Study Sunday, Sept. 1, 2019 2:00pm - 3:00pm weather: sunny, no breeze, 82 degrees Traffic Detail vehicle type direction quantity Cars and trucks eastbound 1 168 cars and trucks westbound 508 motorcycles eastbound 17 motorcycles westbound 27 bicycles eastbound 2 bicycles westbound 8 Total vehicles 730 cars: 676 motorcycles: 44 bicycles: 10 Observations incidents Note: passing is prohibited; speed limit is 35mph 1. a motorcycle passing a car traveling eastbound 1 2. a motorcycle passing a car traveling westbound 7 3. two motorcycles passing a car traveling eastbound 1 4. two motorcycles passing two cars traveling eastbound 1 5. a motorcycle passing a two cars traveling eastbound 1 6. two motorcycles passing a car traveling westbound 1 7. a motorcycle passing a two cars traveling westbound 1 8. a car passing another car going westbound 2 9. a car passing a bike going westbound 5 10. cars going westbound parking in pull out to enjoy the view 4 11. many vehicles tailgating 12. many vehicles speeding From:Melany Moore To:Lou Hexter Cc:Melissa Borgesi;Tina Hugg;Ana Ruiz;apadilla@migcom.com;Cydney Bieber;Jane Mark;Korrine Skinner;Leigh Ann Gessner;Luke Mulhall;Susanna Chan Subject:Re: PAWG Site Tour #1 - Follow up Tasks and Materials Date:Monday, October 21, 2019 10:49:46 PM EXTERNAL Noted. Hi Melissa & Tina. Please add these notes for the Traffic Count Homework. Wish I could make a neat chart ! Total Cars/Trucks:. 283 Total Motorcycles : 102 Total. Bikes: 10. Total Emergency Vehicles: 3 The vast majority of Westbound 84 drivers: upwards of 45 mph ( My guesstimate). Eastbound 84 drivers drove slower @ 40-45mph (my guesstimate.) Many Westbound drivers appeared to drive closer to 50 mph & upwards, especially the motorcycles & Corvettes. My total time watching traffic: 1 hour & 15 mins. Thank you, Melany Moore From:Denise Phillips To:Tina Hugg Cc:Denise Phillips Subject:My traffic study homework Date:Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:26:26 PM EXTERNAL HI Tina. I just wanted to go ahead and send you the results of my traffic study in case you’re keeping track of other people’s results. Here’s what I found. Sunday, Aug. 25, 12:55pm - 2:15pm Westbound: Cars/Trucks 281 total (1 was a sheriff’s vehicle) Motorcycles 88 total Bicycles - 7 Eastbond: Cars/Trucks 70 total Motorcycles 37 total Bicycles 0 Cars noticeably speeding (both directions): 11 Motorcycles noticeably speeding (both directions): 30. (Of those, 7 passed illegally) I saw one car pull over into the turnout to let other cars behind him pass. I also saw Kurt there doing his homework as well. :-) Thanks, Denise Phillips La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Public Access Working Group Homework Report by Wilma Wool September 6, 2019 On Saturday, August 24, my husband and I spent a total of one hour observing the traffic at the Red Barn pull out on Highway 84. In our first half hour from 10:50 AM to 11:20 AM, we counted one illegal pass over the double yellow markers, one speeder, and one U-turn using the pullout where we were parked. In our second half hour from 1:40 PM to 2:10 PM we saw 3 motorcycles passing illegally and one tailgater. Totals counted: Cars and Trucks AM 90 PM 96 186 or 3.1/minute Motorcycles AM 23 PM 12 35 Cyclists AM 7 PM 2 9 GAppendix GENERAL INFORMATION DOCUMENTS THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 of 5 La Honda Public Access Working Group Ground Rules, and Operating Procedures Approved August 22, 2019 Introduction The District Board of Directors (Board) established the La Honda Public Access Working Group (Working Group, WG) on June 26, 2019 to form an advisory body for the La Honda Creek Preserve Public and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study Project. Purpose and Charge The Working Group will work directly with the District project team on the La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study to evaluate and submit feedback on viable parking and trailhead access options to expand accessibility to the central area of La Honda Creek Open Preserve (Preserve), consistent with the April 9, 2019 Board-approved project goals and objectives. Feedback from the Working Group will inform the options to be reviewed by the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee, and the PNR Committee will forward their recommendation to the full Board for review and consideration. The Board will make final policy decisions informed by input from both the Working Group and PNR to determine which option(s) will move forward into the conceptual planning/design and environmental review (California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA) phase. Membership The Working Group is composed of thirteen members as described below. Type Representation and Appointment Board Directors (2) (non-voting liaisons) •Represent policy interests of the Board. •Appointed by the 2019 Board President. Excludes Directors currently serving on the 2019 PNR. La Honda area community representatives (3) •Represent local community interests and local perspectives. •Ideally reside in the Town of La Honda or in relative proximity to the Preserve or the Highway 84 corridor. •Recruited through an application process. Selected and appointed by the full Board. Ward 6 stakeholders (2) •Represent more localized Ward 6 interests and perspectives. •Appointed by the Director of Ward 6. Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7 stakeholders (1 each for a total of 6) •Represent the regional interests and perspectives of each Ward. •May be residents of the ward and/or represent regional stakeholder interests (e.g. hiking, bicycling, or equestrian uses, and/or education, conservation, recreation, agriculture, or multi-generational access. •One stakeholder appointed by each Director of Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Page 2 of 5 Member Vacancies In the event of a WG vacancy, the Board will fill the vacancy using the following process: 1. If a vacancy is a La Honda area community representative, the Board will appoint a new member to the Working Group from the interviewee list established by the Board on June 19, 2019. 2. If a vacancy is a ward stakeholder, the Board Director for that ward would select a new representative to serve on the Working Group. Ground Rules The Working Group members shall strive for a collaborative, constructive process with active participation of all members in discussing issues and shall honor the following ground rules to ensure open and productive discussions: 1. Attend scheduled meetings. WG members shall strive to attend each scheduled meeting. WG members who cannot attend a meeting shall call or email the WG Chair and District staff liaison or District Clerk at least one week prior to the meeting. Two consecutive absences and up to three total indicate an inability to serve and may result in removal and/or replacement from the WG by the Board of Directors. WG members who are unable to attend a particular meeting but would like to share their views on agendized topics have two options: a. They can submit written comments to District staff 24 to 48 hours before the meeting to be shared with WG members at the meeting, or b. They can ask another WG member to make comments on their behalf. 2. Attend scheduled site visits. Site visits are key to understanding the Preserve’s suite of opportunities and constraints with regard to providing parking and trailhead access. WG members shall strive to attend each site visit. No more than one site visit can be missed. 3. Participate in meeting discussions. WG members will read each packet of meeting documents before the scheduled meeting and come prepared to engage in discussions. 4. Keep an open mind and be respectful. WG members will keep an open mind and remain respectful of the opinions expressed by fellow WG members, the public, and information presented by the District project team. 5. Represent stakeholder perspectives. WG members represent and will actively and constructively voice the interests and concerns of their respective community and/or stakeholder groups. Page 3 of 5 6. Work together towards solutions. WG members will hold each other accountable to work together towards solutions for the project that meet the Board-approved project goals and objectives. 7. Avoid sidebar conversations. WG members will avoid side conversations, which may detract from the meeting. 8. Avoid repetition. WG members will express their points and avoid continuing to reiterate the same points. If WG members share viewpoints previously raised by another WG member, they shall note the shared opinion and avoid otherwise repeating the points to help move the process forward. 9. Step up, step back. WG members will speak up to make their points and avoid dominating the conversation. 10. Be a liaison to the public. WG members will be available to hear from and discuss interests and concerns about the project with members of the public. WG members will remain alert to issues, problems, and needs expressed by the public, neighbors, and special interest groups and will raise these to the WG. WG members will also strive to keep their communities informed of the work and progress of the WG. 11. Provide feedback to the District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee through the WG Chair. The Chair of the WG will present feedback from the WG to the PNR Committee. Although the WG will strive for consensus, if consensus is not reached, the Chair will present differing views, e.g. majority and minority views. 12. Provide opportunities during meetings for members of the public in attendance to address the WG. WG meetings and site tours will be open to the public. WG members will remain open to hear from the public about the project. 13. Have fun. Enjoy the process and learn from each other. Meeting Operating Procedures The WG shall conduct its meetings as described below. 1. Adoption of Ground Rules and Operating Procedures. At the first meeting, the WG shall review, modify as necessary, and adopt the Ground Rules and Operating Procedures. 2. Chair and Vice-Chair. The WG shall select a Chair and Vice-Chair at the second meeting who will be responsible for presenting feedback from the WG to the PNR about the project. Board members on the WG would not serve as Chair or Vice-Chair. See additional responsibilities under Decision Making Process below. Page 4 of 5 3. Frequency. The WG will meet approximately 6 to 8 times over the course of 12 to 18 months. Meeting dates and times may need to change or be added due to unforeseen situations such as inclement weather conditions. 4. Quorum. A quorum (6 members) of the voting members (11 total) of the WG must be present to transact business. 5. Agendas and materials. Agendas will be developed by District staff and reviewed by the WG Chair (or Vice-Chair if the Chair is unavailable) and the two Board liaisons. Agendas and materials will be posted on the District website at least 72 hours before each meeting. One notification of the meeting schedule will be distributed to interested parties and the La Honda area via mail and email. Thereafter, notifications will be sent only in the event of a schedule change. 6. Public participation. Members of the public may speak during public comment periods provided at each meeting, one at the beginning of the meeting and another to be held at the discretion of the WG Chair. A handout with rules for public participation will be available at all meetings. 7. Motions for a vote. If a vote is needed, motions for a vote may be made by any voting member of the WG. All motions must be seconded by a different member of the WG. 8. Facilitation. A facilitator and District staff will work together to facilitate the meetings. The Chair will assist with running the meeting and ensuring order, flow, and adherence to the WG Purpose and Charge as well as Ground Rules and Operating Procedures. Meetings will be run by the Chair, or in the absence of the Chair by the Vice- Chair, consistent with the Ground Rules and Operating Procedures and general rules of professional courtesy. 9. Meeting summaries. The facilitator and District staff will prepare meeting summaries, which will include recommendations made by the WG. Meeting summaries from WG meetings are approved at the following meeting of the WG, transmitted to the Board, and made available on the District website. Decision Making Process The WG shall strive for making decisions and recommendations through a consensus-based process, as described below. When the WG is ready to make a formal vote, the Chair (or Vice- Chair if the Chair unavailable) has the responsibility to ensure that the interaction remains orderly. 1. Procedure for seeking consensus. The WG shall strive for full member participation in discussing issues in order to make decisions through a consensus-based process. Page 5 of 5 Consensus is defined as general agreement by all members of the WG present at the meeting when a decision item is on the meeting agenda. Prior to voting on items, the WG will first test the level of a support for a proposal by employing a tool called the Gradients of Agreement. This tool is a mechanism for testing the level of agreement on a proposal that expands on the traditional “yes” or “no” voting. The Gradients of Agreement are typically described as follows: 1 I can say an unqualified “yes” to the recommendation. 2 I find the proposal acceptable. It appears to be the best of the options available to us at this time. 3 I can live with the proposal, although I am not especially enthusiastic about it. 4 I do not fully agree with the proposal, but I am willing to stand aside, remain neutral, so the process can move forward. 5 I do not fully agree with the proposal. I have some suggestions and I would like the Working Group to do more work to see if we can reach a higher level of agreement. 6 I do not agree with the proposal and I will work actively to oppose it. Consensus will be reached if all members are at 1 to 4 on the Gradients of Agreement, which are considered as supportive of the recommendation. After the initial level of support for each proposal is determined, the WG members may discuss and deliberate on each proposal and offer potential modifications or alternatives. Following deliberation, the WG may determine the level of consensus on a variety of alternatives and to determine which alternatives require additional study by staff. The alternatives receiving at least four votes, or 33% of the voting members present, shall be voted and the results forwarded to the PNR Committee. 2. Voting. After determining the level of consensus for each alternative, a vote shall be taken, with a simple majority of the quorum present needed for a motion to pass. 3. Working Group Recommendations. The WG will provide recommendations to the PNR Committee. The meeting summaries shall include the results of each of the proposals voted on by the WG. The total results for each of the proposals receiving votes from the members of the WG shall be presented to the PNR Committee. The PNR Committee will then make recommendations to the full Board, who will make final policy decisions. ### La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study La Honda Public Access Working Group Members Ari Delay La Honda area community representative • 45-year resident of La Honda • Currently serves as Fire Chief of La Honda Fire Brigade and Battalion Chief, Coastside Fire Protection District/CAL FIRE • Interested in bringing my history, community experience, and 28 years of public safety to this effort Karl Lusebrink La Honda area community representative I have emphasized helping people efficiently find and navigate to places in my career as a geographer, saving time, resources and stress through my work on Intelligent Transportation Systems. I grew up over the hill and moved to La Honda in 2003. The places of the Bay Area have seen phenomenal change since I was a child, but the hills near La Honda still can seem like a magical wilderness. Memorable encounters with wildlife, and just being in nature, inspire us to care deeply about and respect ecosystems and want to preserve them. That aligns with the vision of Open Space. Providing scientifically managed, appropriate access to natural areas encourages people to visit and learn to be responsible stewards of the environment for the long-term. Creating safe, sustainable access to La Honda Open Space is a challenge that would enable visitors to appreciate and care for the place and help protect its unique natural and cultural qualities. Kathleen Moazed La Honda area community representative Kathleen grew up in La Honda and attended local public schools and Stanford University. She spent 18 years working for the U.S. Congress in Washington, DC, as Chief of Staff for the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Kathleen later worked at UC Berkeley as the Director of Government Relations and more recently served as a political and communications advisor for business leaders Steve Kirsch, Tom Steyer and Steve Westly. With two partners, Kathleen also founded WaterNow, a San Francisco based nonprofit dedicated to water conservation. She recently retired and several years ago moved back to La Honda with her husband, David, where they enjoy daily hikes along the local beaches and among the woods they grew up in. Melany Moore Ward 1 stakeholder My training is in Agricultural Ecology & Sustainable Agriculture. I am self employed in a specialty floral business for 32 years, with a strong customer relations background. I consider myself an ecologist, an avid animal lover & outdoors woman who advocates for America's Wild horses, kids, horses and Bear Creek Stables. Hobbies include wild horse gentling, rain water harvesting, gardening, composting, family & community. I look forward to helping support Midpen in the La Honda Public Access group. Art Heinrich Ward 2 stakeholder I was a practicing architect for 25 years before changing focus to manage construction projects for higher education institutions in the bay area. As a dedicated cyclist and 30-year resident of Palo Alto I have long enjoyed the beauty of the peninsula hills and their natural open spaces. Now that I’m retired, I have more time to enjoy the outdoors and to support MROSD and its laudable activities. Wilma (Willie) Wool Ward 3 stakeholder I have lived on the SF Peninsula for over 50 years. I went to college here, raised a family and taught high school. For the last 25 years I have hiked the over 100 parks that are within one hour from here once and often twice a week logging 5 to 15 miles per week first as a teacher for Santa Clara Unified Adult Education then for Fremont Union High Adult and Community Education. 40-50 students register for my Hike for Health class year round. I am also a docent for the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. Sandy Sommer Ward 4 stakeholder Sandy is a landscape planner with broad vision as well as an in‐depth understanding of public access planning, stewardship, and conservation real estate in the public and private sectors. Between 1999 and 2014, Sandy worked at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. She has served on the boards of directors of several non‐profit organizations, as an appointed public official, and in community service groups, including the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and Squaw Valley National Ski Patrol. Her interests include hiking, mountain biking, environmental protection, regional trails, as well as equitable access to the outdoors. She has visited almost all the preserves and has an affinity for Russian Ridge. Andie Reed Ward 5 stakeholder The outdoors is my favorite place to be, and I hike the hills around the Peninsula as well as more ambitious adventures. I am a retired CPA, and when I'm not hiking, I'm involved in local civic issues in my neighborhood. I had a great day hiking at lower La Honda preserve in May; the skies cleared just long enough for incredible views from the top. Folger Loop was wild and muddy and lovely, and the cattle friendly! Looking forward to participating in preserving open space. Lou Bordi Ward 6 stakeholder I have been a General Engineering Contractor for 46 years and involved in land management for most of my life (my grandfather taught me that we are stewards of the land, we don't truly own it). I have lived in the Skyline area my entire life and I view a majority of the La Honda Creek Preserve from my property. I have a passion for keeping the land as natural as possible. I was contracted by Midpenninsula Regional Open Space (Midpen) starting in the late 1970's and worked with Midpen for over 20 years. As a General Engineering Contractor, I have extensive experience in all aspects of the trade, including: planning commission meetings, civil engineering, soil engineering, structural engineering, traffic study, design, drainage, large and small grading projects, paving, trail building, water systems, fire protection, structural steel and fabrication, etc. I have played a significant role in managing the Audubon Preserve and many other large acreages in the Skyline area. I am extremely detail oriented with a natural eye for design. I have used this expertise in hundreds of projects in the community, including many local wineries. I believe that the ultimate design is simple, functional and has cosmetic appeal. My trademark is to make things look as natural as possible. I have been a member of many design teams, several of which were quite challenging and thoroughly enjoyable. I look forward to this opportunity to be a member of the La Honda Public Access Working Group. I see fantastic potential in this project! Barbara Hooper Ward 6 stakeholder I have had careers in the data communications industry and in English as a Second Language adult education. I spend time outdoors hiking and biking every chance I get! I have lived in La Honda for the past 11 years and I am involved in the La Honda Elementary School garden program, Puente La Costa del Sur language exchange activities, and a Felidae Conservation Wildlife Study. I grew up in San Mateo County, have seen many changes in the region, and appreciate the efforts of citizens, local government entities, and non-profit organizations to preserve and protect our surroundings so future generations can enjoy and explore our precious environment. Denise Phillips Ward 7 stakeholder I’ve lived in Moss Beach for 25+ years. My husband and I have raised our two kids here and are proud to call the beautiful San Mateo County Coastside home. I’m a dedicated and involved volunteer, having served as a Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Docent, President of SIPA (Spanish Immersion Parent Association) and a Devil’s Slide Trail Ambassador. I’ve also served as a board member and President of The HEAL Project, a local nonprofit that gets kids outside with their hands in the dirt to teach them about where their food comes from and why it matters so they understand the connection between their food, their health and their environment. I am an avid hiker and dog walker, and I believe strongly in MROSD's preservation of open space around us for everyone to enjoy. I look forward to being part of the successful implementation of a plan to public access to the Red Barn Visitor area so more can visit this special site. Larry Hassett Board Director, Ward 6 Born in Two Harbors, Minnesota, Larry Hassett moved to California in 1957. Larry grew up in San Carlos, and has lived in the South Skyline Area since 1977. Larry attended the College of San Mateo and San Jose State University, where he graduated in 1973 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Studies. In addition to his service as a District Board Director for Ward 6 since 2000, Larry has been involved with or served as a Director for several other community organizations, including Achieve, a school for autistic children, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, Museum of American Heritage, Leadership Mid-Peninsula, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, South Skyline Association, South Skyline Volunteer Fire Department, Peninsula Conservation Center, and Rotary and Kiwanis clubs. He continues to live on Skyline Boulevard adjacent to District lands with his wife Penelope, and has three grown children. Curt Riffle Board Director, Ward 4 In 2006, Curt Riffle was appointed to the Board of Directors and has served since then as the Ward 4 Director. He is Vice President of Land at Peninsula Open Space Trust. Curt is a conservation professional dedicated to public service, with over 25 years of successful experience serving on committees, commissions, and boards. He also donates his time to the District as a Volunteer Trail Patrol. Curt and his wife have lived in the Los Altos/Mountain View area for more than 30 years. Having first experienced the District’s preserves and the County’s parks in the mid-70s, Curt has continued to visit them at least weekly. He’s a hiker, trail runner, equestrian, dog hiker, and mountain biker. Curt earned a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Cincinnati, and a master’s degree in business administration from Harvard University. S t a r woo d D r i v e Kebe t Rid g e R o ad Allen Road Allen Lookout La Honda Road La Hond a Road O l d Pearson's Pond Spani s h Ranch C re e k POST Conservation Easement Djerassi Resident Artists Grand M o rse Ln. CDF Ray's Peak Bea r S e a r s La Honda Driscoll RanchesEvent Center POST Conservation Easement Redgate Ranch R a nch R o a d Sky Londa Co a s t a l P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e Stillheart Retreat Center 35 Old L a Honda R d. Former Folger Ranch Gul c h R oa d Bo gess Creek Harrin g t o n Creek La Honda Creek PG&E Line Clos de la Tech Winery Former Sears Ranch Former Wool Ranch (1037 ft.) BearGulc h R d . Redwood Cabin Red Barn White Barn Former Dyer Ranch Former Driscoll Ranch Area Former Weeks Ranch 84 84 84 35 Harrin gton Creek Mind Kingston Creek W eeks Creek Alp in e C r e ek Langley Creek Woodhams Creek Woodruff Creek D e n nis M a rtin Creek McC ormick Creek La Honda Creek Madera C reek Bull Run C reek Mindego Creek Mar t i n C LH11 LH12 LH13 LH07 LH02 LH10 LH01 LH05 LH04 LH06 LH03 TW02 CM05 CM06 0 Map Projection: UTM Zone 10N, NAD 1927 Data Sources: USGS,County of San Mateo, and MROSD Map Printed November 2007 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Figure 4: Preserve Areas SOUTHERN LA HONDA CREEK AREA CENTRAL LA HONDA CREEK AREA NORTHERN LA HONDA CREEK AREA Southern La Honda Creek Area Central La Honda Creek Area Northern La Honda Creek Area includes former Dyer Ranch and Redwood Cabin includes former Weeks Ranch and Red Barn includes former Driscoll Ranch El Corte de Madera Creek Roads Unpaved Ranch / Patrol Road Existing Paved Road Highway Figure 11: Public Access Trails Enriched Experiences Number of Goals Accomplished Healthy Nature Scenic Landscapes Outdoor Recreation Working Lands Goals Accomplished by This Action 2064108 Stan Unive La Hondag Los Tranc o eigh M u r r a y h State P a r k Sam McDonald County P a r k Crystal Springs Watershed Woodside Huddart County Park Pescadero Creek Redwood City Teague Hill Pulgas Ridge Purisima Creek Redwoods El Corte de Madera Creek Windy Hill La Honda Creek Skyline Ridge Russian Ridge o Jasper Ridge Thornewood Tunitas Creek Palo A l t o Foo thills Park Pearson Arastrade Preserve Wunderlich County P a r k Open Upper Area; provide biking/hiking trails, dog access, staging areas. Develop Red Barn area as educational destination. Plan new activities such as night hikes, community events. Provide loop & connector trails. Improve habitat for rare species. Expand conservation grazing to manage grasslands; improve fencing, cattle watering methods to protect streams. La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration, and Conservation Grazing Projects  5 Top 25 Midpen Vision Plan | Chapter 5: Priority Action Profi les | Page 64 Provide public access to the upper area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Ra n d y W e b e r Page 65 | Chapter 5: Priority Action Profi les Midpen Vision Plan Enriched Experiences 046 Number of Goals Accomplished 810 Healthy Nature Scenic Landscapes Outdoor Recreation Working Lands Goals Accomplished by This Action 2 Stanford University La Honda Los Trancos urray e Park Sam McDonald County P a r k Portola Redwoods State P a r k Woodside Huddart County Park Pescadero Creek County Park Teague Hill sima Creek edwoods El Corte de Madera Creek Windy Hill La Honda Creek Skyline Ridge Russian Ridge Long Ridge Monte Bello Jasper Ridge Thornewood Foo tas ek Palo A l t o Foothills Park Pearson- Arastradero Preserve Wunderlich County P a r k Open Driscoll Ranch Area, provide biking/hiking trails, limited dog access, parking areas, interpretive materials. Provide loop & connector trails. Improve habitat for red-legged frogs. Restore La Honda Creek; remove fish migration barriers. Develop volunteer restoration program. Continue conservation grazing to manage grasslands; improve fencing, corrals, cattle watering methods. Develop and introduce fire management strategies to reduce fuel & fire risk. La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Area Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, and Conservation Grazing Projects 7 Top 25 Midpen Vision Plan | Chapter 5: Priority Action Profi les | Page 68 Provide improved equestrian, biking, and hiking trails at Driscoll Ranch area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve De a n e L i t t l e Page 69 | Chapter 5: Priority Action Profi les Midpen Vision Plan !P !P !P !P !P !P !# LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Permit Only Sears Ranch Parking (No Equestrian) Permit Only Allen R o a d !#Former Residence H a r r i g t o n C r e e k T r a i l L a w r e n c e C r e e k L a H on d a C reek Alpin e Creek L a H o n d a C r e e k El C o r t e d e M a d e r a Cree k L a ngley C r e ek S a n Gregorio C r e e k W o o d r u f f C r e e k Harring ton C r e e k Woo dhams Creek K i n g s t o n C r e e k W e e k s Cre ek B o g e ss C re ek Whi s tl e Creek L a H o n d a Cr e e k B e a r G ul c h Rd Allen Road GrandviewDr Old L a Hond a Rd Ranch Rd H arrington CreekTrail T i m b e r v i e w T r a il S t i llhe a rtTrails Coh o V i s t a L o o p T r a il C o h o V ist a T r ail L a w r e n ceCreek Trail Cielo T r ail Virginia M illT r a il F o l g e rR a n ch Loop Tr a il O l j o n T r a il G ordon M ill T r ail S k yline Trail BlueBlosso m T r a il P e s c a d e r o CreekRd B e a r G ulchRd S e a r s R a n c h R o a d ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 22 0 0 20 0 0 1 4 0 0 10 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 60 0 400 800 200 1800 1600160 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 60 0 400 6 0 0 40 0 200 0 1800 120 0 100 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1200 10 0 0 80 0 600 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 40 0 2200 2200 2 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 1200 14 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 600 800 8 0 0 800 8 0 0 80 0 80 0 800 800 40 0 2200 2200 140 0 600 LH08 LH10 LH15 LH06 LH07 LH09 Red Barn Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 1 _ T o p o g r a p h i c _ 2 0 1 9 0 8 2 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 8/29/2019 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve !#Point of Interest Existing Parking Lot Existing Equestrian Lot Highway Preserve Boundary Ponds 1/2 Mile Buffer from Highway 1/4 Mile Buffer from Highway Topographic Considerations Slope < 2% Slope 2% - 5% Slope 5% - 8% Slope > 8% Slope 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet I !P !P !P !P !P !P !# LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE CMU CMU Alle n R o a d Permit Only Sears Ranch Parking (No Equestrian) !#Former Residence H a r r i g t o n C r e e k T r a i l Conservation Easement Over POST Property L a H o n d a Creek L a H o n d a C r e e k San Gregori o C r e e k L a ngley C r e ek W oo dhams C r eek W o o d r u f f C r e e k Harring t on Cr e e k E lCorte de M a d e r a C r e e k L a w r e n c e C r e e k Ala mbique Creek W e e k s Cre e k B o g e ss C re e k Whis tl e Creek La H on d a C r e e k B e a r G ul c h Rd Allen Road Old L a Honda Rd Ranch Rd H a rring ton CreekTrail T i m b e r v i e w T r a il Sk y li n e Trail OljonTrailS p r i ng Boar d Trail S t i llhe a rtTra ils Coh o V i s t a L o o p T r a il C r o s s c u t T r a i l C o h o V ist a T r ail L a w r e n ceCreek Trail Cielo T r ail Giant S a l a m ander Trail F i r Trail V i r gi n ia Mill Trail Virg i nia Mill Tr a il F o l g e rR a n ch Loop Tr a il Steam D onke yTrail Ala m bique Trail G o rd o n Mill Tr a i l BlueBlosso m T ra il Skyline Trail B e a r G ulchRd Se ars R a n c h R o a d ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 16 0 0 14 0 0 120 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2000 1800 80 0 60 0 160 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 80 0 600 600 400 400 2 0 0 220 0 200 0 1200 1000 1200 1000 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 600 600 400 60 0 40 0 40 0 200 18 0 0 12 0 0 16 0 0 14 0 0 120 0 1 0 0 0 2200 22 0 0 22 0 0 2000 1800 160 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 800 8 0 0 80 0 800 600 600 LH06 LH07 LH08 LH10 LH09 LH15 Red Barn Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 2 _ O w n e r s h i p M g m t _ 2 0 1 9 0 6 1 8 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : F L O P E Z While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 7/30/2019 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Existing Parking Lot Existing Equestrian Lot !#Point of Interest Highway Building Residential Lease Area Conservation Management Unit Non-MROSD Easement Active Grazing Lease MROSD Preserve Ownership and Management Conditions 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet I Occupied Tenant Residence Private Property !P !P !P !P !P !P !# !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Sears Ranch Parking (No Equestrian) Former Residence CMU CMU H a r r i g t o n C r e e k T r a i l !# Upper Turtle Lower Turtle Schoolhouse Pond Nice Pond Fair Pond Lower Pond Dani's Pond Quarry Pond Tree Pond Snake Pond Duck Pond Allen Road Pond Permit Only Red Barn 200 0 180 0 160 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 600 40 0 2 0 0 80 0 60 0 400 200 1800 1 6 0 0 600 400 22 0 0 20 0 0 1200 1000 60 0 400 1400 12 0 0 100 0 800 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 140 0 80 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 60 0 2200 22 0 0 22 0 0 2 2 0 0 16 0 0 1400 1 2 0 0 1200 1200 12 0 0 1200 10 0 0 8 0 0 800 80 0 80 0 800 6 0 0 600 1200 B ear G ulch R d Allen Road Grandview D r OldLa HondaR d Ranch Rd Ha r r i n gton Creek Trail S k y l i n eTrail O l j on T r a i l A la mbiq u eTr a il C r o s s c u t T r a i l S p r i ng Boar d Trail S t i llhe a rtTra ils Coh o V i s t a L o o p T r a i l C o h o V ist a T r ail L a w r e n ceCreek Trail Cielo T r ail Giant S a l a m ander Trail Skyline Trail F o l g e rR a n ch Loop Tr a il Virg inia M i l l Trail T i m be r v i e w T r a i l Alambique Trail G o r d o n Mill Tr a i l BlueBlosso m T r a il StarHill R oad B e a r G ulchRd Se ars R a n c h R o a d ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 LH08 LH10 LH15 LH06 LH07 LH09 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 3 _ N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e _ 2 0 1 9 0 8 2 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 8/29/2019 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve !(Cal-IPC Invasive Plant !#Point of Interest Existing Parking Lot Existing Equestrian Lot Highway Conservation Management Unit Sensitive Natural Resource MROSD Preserve Natural Resources Considerations 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet I !P !P !P !P !P !P !# LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE CMU CMU !#Former Residence Permit Only Sears Ranch Parking (No Equestrian) A l l e n R o a d Red Barn L a H o n d a Creek L a H o n d a C r e e k L a ngley C r e ek W oo dhams C r eek W o o d r u f f C r e e k Harring t on C r e e k S a n G r e g o rio C r eek El Corte de M a d e r a C r e e k L a w r e n c e C r e e k W e e k s C reek Ala m bique Creek M e t hu s e l a h T r ibutary B o g e ss C re e k Whis tl e Creek L a H o nd a C r e e k Harrington C r e e k Tr a il Sk yli n e Trail Alambiq u eTrail C i e l o T r a il C o h o V i s ta L o o p Trail Coho Vis ta Trai l S k y li n e Trail FolgerRanch L o o p Trail Oa k T r a i l Oljon Trail Spring Boar d Tr ail L a w r e n ceCreek Trail T i m b e r v i e w T r ail Stea m Don k ey Trail VirginiaM il l T r ail Virginia M illTrail Fir Trail Man z a nit a Tr a i l G o r d o n M ill T ra i l Skyline Tr ail B e a r G ulchRd Se ars R a n c h R o ad ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 22 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 60 0 400 20 0 0 18 0 0 160 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 600 400 22 0 0 2 0 0 0 200 0 1800 800 600 8 0 0 60 0 60 0 40 0 40 0 20 0 160 0 140 0 1 2 0 0 200 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 2200 1800 16 0 0 120 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 600 80 0 800 80 0 800 80 0 400 2000 600 400200 LH08 LH10 LH15 LH06 LH07 LH09 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 4 _ T r a i l s _ 2 0 1 9 0 8 2 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 8/29/2019 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve !#Point of Interest Existing Parking Lot Existing Equestrian Lot Conservation Managemetn Unit MROSD Preserve Non-MROSD Easement Highway ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trail (Equestrian Only) ! ! !Existing Trail (Hiking, Equestrian) Existing Trail (Multi-Use) ! ! !Proposed Trail (Hiking, Equestrian) Proposed Trail (Multi-Use) Phase II-A Trails Phase II-B Trails Proposed Bay Area Ridge Trail Existing Bay Area Ridge Trail Future Trail Considerations 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet I   Page 1 of 2 La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study Site Development Assessment Criteria September 12, 2019 When a site is being assessed for its suitability as a parking and trailhead location, project teams evaluate it using assessment criteria listed in Table 1 below. Project specific goals and objectives are then added to these criteria. The La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study’s specific project goals and objectives are listed in Table 2. Table 1. General Site Development Assessment Criteria Criterion Description Adequate line of sight at entrance Assess adequacy of line of sight at location of the entrance onto the main road or highway. Does the location provide enough reaction time for drivers on the road or highway and in the entrance to see one another? Safe ingress/egress Ingress/egress allows for stacking or maneuvering of large vehicles, e.g. horse trailers. Is there space for vehicles to maneuver safely into and out of the site? Ability to meet desired parking capacity Enough space for enough cars to meet public demand and to make the project cost effective. Sizeable, flat sites are ideal as they minimize amount of grading needed. Minimize amount of grading required Is the topography steep or gently sloped? Amount of grading can affect the difficulty and cost of implementing a project. Does site topography generate a lot of grading, which can have negative aesthetic impact on the site as well as drive up cost? Amount of tree/vegetation removal Minimize removal of large trees or many trees. Ability to connect to trail system or regional trail Is there a feasible trail connection to the existing preserve trail network? Is there a regional trail that this site would connect to? Distance, steep topography, erosive soils, and stream crossings are factors that can affect cost and constructability. Level of use on connecting trails or within preserve Is there a high demand for more access at this location and would this site fulfill that? Opportunities for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility Does the terrain or topography offer opportunities for accessible trails that meet the guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas? Proximity to existing preserve parking Is the parking distributed across the preserve to provide access evenly? Located away from residential/commercial/ intersections Consider compatibility with and impact to adjacent uses. Would the development of the site negatively affect nearby uses including activities within the preserve itself, e.g. grazing operations? Page 2 of 2   History of prior use Prior use may leave behind site issues that need to be addressed, e.g. hazardous materials, unusable or unsafe infrastructure. Use conflicts (grazing, staff facilities, etc.) Consider compatibility with and impact to existing and future uses at or near the site. Can the site accommodate all of the planned uses? Disturbed habitat/area Consider if the site is already disturbed, requiring less grading and vegetation removal. Lessens impact to pristine open space. Minimize impacts to sensitive natural and cultural resources/habitats Assess presence of high value habitat and high value cultural resources. Is the site compatible with the protection of high value resources? Species (plants, wildlife) Note special-status species and habitats to avoid impacts. Does the site have species that would preclude its use or affect construction feasibility? Soil stability (landslides) Soil stability for built infrastructure, e.g. restroom, parking area. Are the soils adequately stable for proposed uses? Hydrology (creeks, drainages) Prevent impact, e.g. pollutants, sedimentation, to watersheds and creeks. Flood plain considerations. Is the area prone to flooding? Hazardous materials Hazardous materials can require mitigation, increasing project costs. Is significant site cleanup needed before improvements can be made? Infrastructure required (bridges, retaining walls) Is significant infrastructure required? Does it require excessively expensive infrastructure improvements? Aesthetics/viewshed Visual compatibility with open space character. Is this in a scenic corridor? Patrol/safety Patrol considerations. Open views into site. Can the site be easily seen by patrol staff? Is it far into a preserve where patrol is challenging? Other major concerns/issues to resolve Are there other site specific issues to address? Table 2. Project Goals and Objectives Below are criteria specific to the La Honda Creek Preserve Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study project. Project Specific Site Assessment Criterion Description Establish new public access in the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve A key goal is to provide access to the central area of the Preserve. Existing Preserve access is available through Allen Road parking area in the north and Sears Ranch Road parking area in the south. Design elements to reflect the rural character of the site and the Red Barn Design aesthetic should acknowledge rural nature and ranching history of the Preserve. Provide safe public access Ingress and egress points should meet safety standards of Highway 84. Balance public access with grazing activities Parking area and trailhead design and location should accommodate grazing operation needs. Include amenities that facilitate environmental education When envisioned as part of the 2014 Vision Plan, the Red Barn was seen as a potential educational focal point for family friendly activities. A similar opportunity elsewhere would be desirable. Protect scenic views of and from the site The Preserve is located on Highway 84 which is County-designated scenic corridor. The project should be compatible with the aesthetic of the surrounding rural environment. !P !P !P !P !P !P !# LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE CMU CMU !#Former Residence Permit Only Sears Ranch Parking (No Equestrian) A l l e n R o a d Red Barn Event Center Parking L a H o n d a Creek L a H o n d a C r e e k L a ngley C r e ek W oo dhams C r eek W o o d r u f f C r e e k Harring t on C r e e k S a n G r e g o rio C r eek El Corte de M a d e r a C r e e k L a w r e n c e C r e e k W e e k s C reek Alambiqu e C r e e k M e t hu s e l a h Tributary B o g e ss C re e k Whis tl e Creek L a H o nd a C r e e k B e a r G ulchRd Se ars R a n c h R o ad ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 22 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 0 1200 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 60 0 400 2 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 160 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 600 400 22 0 0 2 0 0 0 200 0 1800 800 600 8 0 0 60 0 60 0 40 0 40 0 20 0 160 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 220 0 2200 1 8 0 0 16 0 0 120 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 600 80 0 800 80 0 800 80 0 400 220 0 2000 600 400200 LH08 LH15 LH06 LH07 LH09 LH10 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 5 _ E l e v a t i o n P r o f i l e _ 2 0 1 9 1 0 3 0 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : f l o p e z While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 11/6/2019 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Elevation gain and distance to Allen Rd using existing roads 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet I Sears Ranch to Allen Rd: 6.2 miles; 1,500 feet gained Event Center to Allen Rd: 9.8 miles; 2,500 feet gained Red Barn to Allen Rd: 3.6 miles; 1,200 feet gained !#Point of Interest Existing Equestrian Lot Conservation Managemetn Unit MROSD Preserve Non-MROSD Easement Highway Existing Parking Lot MID PENINSULA 'REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Page 1 of 7 Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs Planning and Natural Resources Committee Meeting – July 28, 2020 Public Access Working Group – Overall Site Options Map General Location Site Specific Location Event Center area A Area near existing permit area trailhead and tunnel to Preserve Sears Ranch Road parking lot area   B1 Expansion of the existing lot  B2 Area opposite existing lot across drive B3 Area at Gate LH15  Sears Ranch Road interior area   C1 Open area (site of former residence) past first interior gate C2 Former corral area adjacent to C1  Preserve Gate LH07 D Area at gate and extending parallel to highway Red Barn area  E1 Knoll west of existing ranger residence E2 Former corral area west of and downhill from Red Barn E3 Area south of and downhill from existing ranger residence E4 Area north of existing ranger residence A  B2  B1  C2  C1  D  E1  E2  E3  B3  E4  Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs  Page 2 of 7 Site A: Event Center Site A was one of two locations that the Board of Directors on June 12, 2018 directed staff to assess for their potential to meet the project goals and objectives. The location is at the southern end of the Preserve and is connected by an existing tunnel to the main Preserve on north side of Highway 84. Currently used for permit equestrian parking and as an interim staff office outpost, the site will be the subject of a future site planning effort as a standalone project and will need to be incorporated into the 2012 La Honda Creek Master Plan. Given the ultimate plan for this site, the PAWG supported it as a future multi-use access facility that is separate from the current project. Tunnel under  Highway 84  Highway 84 To Harrington  Creek Trail  Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs  Page 3 of 7 Sites B1, B2, and B3: Sears Ranch Road Parking Lot Area     B2  B1  Harrington  Creek Trail  Sears Ranch  Road  B3  Sears Ranch  Road parking lot  Sears Ranch  Road  La Honda  Elementary School  Gate LH15  Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs  Page 4 of 7 Site B1: Expansion of existing lot Site B1 is the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead that opened to the public in 2017 and one of two locations that the Board of Directors on June 12, 2018 directed staff to assess for their potential to meet the project goals and objectives. This lot’s observed use is currently under capacity but expected to increase once more trails open in the Preserve or if additional uses are permitted from this location per the 2012 Master Plan such as bicycle access, equestrian or dog on leash access. Expansion may be possible if more of the open grassy area is graded to flatten more area for parking and circulation. Providing adequate space for equestrian trailer to maneuver and park would need to be studied. Improvements to the Sears Ranch Road may be required and could include pavement widening or drainage infrastructure. Site B2: Area opposite existing lot across drive Site B2 is an open, grassy area opposite the drive from the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead. The area is large enough to potentially accommodate equestrian trailer parking and additional vehicular parking if the existing lot begins to exceed its capacity. Improvements to the Sears Ranch Road may be required and could include pavement widening or drainage infrastructure. Site B3: Preserve Gate LH15 A PAWG member suggested Site B3 as an alternative location for equestrian parking in the Sears Ranch Road parking lot are. The relatively open and flat site is at Preserve Gate LH15 on Sears Ranch Road, past the La Honda Elementary School and before the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead. It is presumed that users of this lot could access the trailhead information and restroom at the main parking lot, so a trail connection between the two sites would be needed. Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs  Page 5 of 7 Sites C1 and C2: Sears Ranch Road Interior Area   Site C1: Open area (site of former residence) past first interior gate Site C1 is located approximately one mile past the existing Sears Ranch Road parking lot and trailhead and is accessed by the Harrington Creek Trail. Several structures in this area, including a former residence, were removed in 2016. The area is actively grazed, and like the existing lot, fencing the road and a future parking area to separate cattle from vehicles would be necessary. Improvements to the Sears Ranch Road may be required and could include pavement widening or drainage infrastructure. Site C2: Former corral area adjacent to C1  Site C2 is located adjacent to Site C1 within a former corral area along the Harrington Creek Trail as it turns westward. The area is actively grazed, and like the existing Sears Ranch Road lot, fencing the road and a future parking area to separate cattle from vehicles would be necessary. Improvements to the Sears Ranch Road may be required and could include pavement widening or drainage infrastructure. C1 C2  Harrington  Creek Trail  Harrington Creek  Trail to Sears Ranch  Road parking lot  Closed area of  Preserve  Former  corral area  Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs  Page 6 of 7 Site D: Preserve Gate LH07 Site D is located at Preserve Gate LH07, which is about one mile south of the Red Barn area. A flat area inside the gate parallels Highway 84 behind a fence and a stand of eucalyptus trees. Access from Highway 84 would require further analysis. A private property is adjacent to the south and an access road from the gate passes through it for a short segment before returning to District property and La Honda Creek. There is currently no public access over this segment crossing private property. A new trail connection to reach the creek and cross into the Preserve to connect to the trail system would need further study. D  Highway  84  Red Barn area  Attachment 2 – Site Options Map, Aerials, and Photographs  Page 7 of 7 Sites E1, E2, E3, and E4: Red Barn Area Site E1: Knoll west of existing ranger residence The PAWG identified Sites E1, E2, and E4 as sites for consideration. Site E1 is located on an open knoll behind an existing ranger residence. Utility poles extend past the house into the open space. It is not visible from Highway 84 but it is visible from the trail system in the northern area of the Preserve accessed via the permit only Allen Road parking area. Site E2: Former corral area west of and downhill from Red Barn Site E2 is located in a former corral area west and below the Red Barn and is visible from the Red Barn itself. The PAWG unanimously removed this site from further consideration due to its high visibility. Site E3: Area south of and downhill from existing ranger residence Site E3 was discovered by District staff while obtaining video footage of Site E2 as additional information for PAWG members. It is located next to an existing shed below the ranger residence and could potentially accommodate a small lot. Site E4: Area north of existing ranger residence Site E4 is located directly north of the existing ranger residence in an open grassy area. It is not visible from the Red Barn and less visible from the trail system in the northern area of the Preserve accessed via the permit only Allen Road parking area. E4  E1  E2 E3 Existing driveway  Highway  84 Ranger  residence  Shed  Corral  Existing driveway  Former  corral area   Knoll   Attachment 3 – DRAFT March 5, 2020 Meeting Summary Page 1 of 16 La Honda Creek Parking Feasibility Study Public Access Working Group Meeting Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 March 5, 2020 6:30 PM – 9:30 PM MEETING SUMMARY ROLL CALL Chair Barbara Hooper called the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) to order at 6:35 p.m. PAWG Members Present () or Absent (): Board Directors  Curt Riffle, Ward 4  Larry Hassett, Ward 6 La Honda area representatives  Ari Delay  Karl Lusebrink  Kathleen Moazed Ward stakeholders  Ward 1: Melany Moore  Ward 2: Art Heinrich  Ward 3: Willie Wool  Ward 4: Sandy Sommer  Ward 5: Andie Reed  Ward 6: Lou Bordi  Ward 6: Barbara Hooper  Ward 7: Denise Phillips District Staff Present:  Ana Ruiz, General Manager  Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager  Jane Mark, Planning Manager  Melissa Borgesi, Planner I  Tina Hugg, Senior Planner  Chris Barresi, Supervising Ranger Page 2 of 16  Luke Mulhall, Planning Administrative Assistant  Renée Fitzsimons, Interpretation & Education Program Manager MIG Consultants: Lou Hexter, Ana Padilla WELCOME/AGENDA OVERVIEW Chair Hooper called the meeting to order at 6:35 pm. Meeting Facilitator Lou Hexter reviewed the objectives and agenda for the evening and provided an overview of the February meeting’s discussion, which captured members’ levels of support for the various site locations and initiated the creation of project option suites. Senior Planner Tina Hugg reviewed the PAWG’s role and goal for the day, noting the PAWG would discuss and decide later in the meeting if they were ready to forward a recommendation to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) given the absences of PAWG members Sandy Sommer and, unexpectedly, Ari Delay. Mr. Hexter reviewed the project background and the PAWG’s work since the group started. PUBLIC COMMENT -1 Nancy Cole, a Los Gatos resident, appreciated the work the PAWG and the District did to develop the Preserve for everyone’s interests. She commented she would like the group to consider allowing dogs at the Preserve, stating dog owners were underrepresented users. Ms. Cole requested including a toilet facility at trailheads in the recommendation. James Eckman, a Mountain View resident, thanked the group for its work. He stated that after reviewing materials, he would like access to the middle area of the Preserve with low-clearance vehicles, and he was looking forward to one or more parking areas along Highway 84 to be able to hike in the area and to appreciate nature. Jan Staats, a Sunnyvale resident, shared that she hiked to the upper La Honda vista point and wanted to be able to experience the upper and middle section of the Preserve more. She expressed hope that the PAWG would find a way to make the middle area of the Preserve accessible to avid hikers like herself. Sharon Dooley, a La Honda resident, thanked the PAWG, District staff, and the public who attended the field trips. She expressed concern that the District had presented three sample suites of options but these suites had not considered the PAWG’s scores or comments that the group had just shared. WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Chair Hooper asked for a motion to approve the February 6, 2020, meeting summary. Melany Moore made a motion to approve the meeting summary and Vice Chair Denise Phillips seconded. The PAWG approved the February 6, 2020 meeting summary. Approval of February 6, 2020 PAWG Meeting Summary Ayes (9) – Lou Bordi, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Page 3 of 16 Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (1) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Mr. Hexter introduced Renée Fitzsimons, the program manager of the District’s Interpretation and Education Program to provide background related to the PAWG’s interest in incorporating docent and education programing at the sites. Ms. Fitzsimons reported the District’s docent programs started in 1977 to enrich the preserve and park experience and to build a relationship with nature. She reported the District had three programs: Docent Naturalist, in which docents developed themes and topics for guiding a group at various preserves; Nature Center Docents, who currently served about 3,400 visitors each year at the David C. Daniels Nature Center in Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve; and Outdoor Education Docents, through which schools could arrange 3rd to 5th grade school field trips to the Daniels Nature Center. The District seeks to preserve nature while also offering public access with docent-led activities to provide enriched experiences for the public. Docent-led activities are provided in open areas of preserves, as well as, on a case-by-case basis, in closed areas as one option to phase in public access. Kathleen Moazed asked if there was docent programing for those interested in ranching history. Ms. Fitzsimons confirmed this and reported these docents would receive specialized training to understand the area’s ranching history. Vice Chair Phillips asked if the District provided transportation to docent-led events. Ms. Fitzsimons explained that this was not the model followed and visitors are expected to transport themselves or meet somewhere and caravan to the preserves. Karl Lusebrink asked how long it took to schedule and coordinate a docent for a special request. Ms. Fitzsimons reported the District typically requires at least three weeks’ notice. Chair Hooper asked if docents decided where they went or were assigned to programs or if staff or the Board could request tours of areas that were not open. Ms. Fitzsimons answered docents typically develop their own program based on their availability and interests, which also depending on the area and time of year. After the discussion with Ms. Fitzsimons, Mr. Hexter recapped the meeting discussion from February 6th. He reviewed the ten sites under consideration: Site A – Event Center Site B1 – Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Expansion of existing lot Site B2 – Sears Ranch Road Parking Area – Site west of existing parking area Site B3 – Preserve gate LH15 Site C1 – Sears Ranch Road – Former residence area (1 mile from the existing lot) Site C2 – Sears Ranch Road – Cattle corral at former residence area (1 mile from the existing lot) Page 4 of 16 Site D – Preserve gate LH07 (West access gate) Site E1 – Red Barn – Area behind and west of Ranger residence Site E2 – Red Barn – Area northwest and downhill from Red Barn Site E3 – Red Barn – Area by shed below Ranger residence Mr. Hexter shared a summary table showing how the PAWG previously voted on each site during its February 6, 2020 meeting. A vote of 1 and 2 was considered in support of a proposal, a vote of 3 and 4 was considered neutral and therefore willing to accept the proposal, and a vote of 5 and 6 was considered not supportive. Based on the vote, he reminded the group that they had unanimously eliminated Site E2 because it was too intrusive to the viewshed from the Red Barn. Ms. Hugg reported that Site A had been already identified as a standalone public access project that would go through a comprehensive planning process in the future. PAWG Member A B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D E1 E2 E3 Bordi 2 6 1 1 5 1 3 6 6 6 Delay 1 5 2 6 3 1 5 6 6 6 Heinrich 6 3 3 2 5 5 1 6 6 4 Hooper 1 5 1 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 Lusebrink 1 2 3 2 6 6 4 3 6 3 Moazed 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 6 6 Moore 2 4 1 4 1 1 5 6 6 5 Phillips 3 2 3 3 6 6 3 2 6 2 Reed 2 3 5 2 6 6 1 6 5 1 Sommer 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 4 6 2 Wool 6 5 4 3 6 6 3 6 6 1 # of 1-4 scores 8 6 10 9 4 5 7 3 0 6 # of 5-6 scores 3 5 1 2 7 6 4 8 11 5 Mr. Hexter reminded the PAWG that a PAWG member proposed a new site during the February 6, 2020 meeting: Site E4 – Red Barn – North of and adjacent to the ranger residence. The PAWG discussed their observations of Site E4. Ms. Moazed stated her opposition to all of the Red Barn sites based on concerns regarding traffic safety in the area. She said that aesthetic and safety concerns were critical considerations, and while Site E4 addressed the community’s aesthetic concerns, it did not address safety concerns. Ms. Moore agreed and described her attempt to visit the site earlier in the day, when a delivery truck in the small driveway prevented her from being able to drive into the site. She expressed concerns about the small driveway not being a safe access point from Highway 84. Vice Chair Phillips agreed that there were safety concerns, but that the PAWG’s charge was to propose sites to be brought into the feasibility study phase. She spoke in support of the site due to its access to the middle of the Preserve and in support of studying safety issues for the site in the feasibility study phase. Willie Wool commented regarding the view of the site from a vista point in the northern upper area of the Preserve. Page 5 of 16 Chair Hooper agreed with Ms. Moazed and Ms. Moore, stating she did not support the site because of access issues from Highway 84 and because access was too intrusive to the Red Barn. Mr. Lusebrink stated Site E4 may be less visible than Site E1 from the vista point in the northern area of the Preserve. He felt that the slope of the area could make building in the area difficult but felt it had potential for addressing aesthetic concerns. Mr. Lusebrink stated he supported Site E4 similarly to the other E sites, but he supported Site E4 more than Sites E1 and E3 because it was less obtrusive. Mr. Lusebrink acknowledged that there had been a great deal of input and concern about the access safety from Highway 84 and was curious to know what traffic engineers would propose to make it safe. Andie Reed stated her support for Site E3, which could not be seen. She felt Site E4 encroached into the rolling pasture, and Sites E1 and E4 were intrusive to the ranger living in the residence. Director Curt Riffle agreed with Vice Chair Phillips, Ms. Reed, and Mr. Lusebrink on the site’s potential and stated if the PAWG recommended the site, it should do so with the understanding that safety concerns need to be addressed. Director Riffle agreed that Sites E1 and E4 were exposed. Lou Bordi commented the PAWG’s first priority was safety. He stated the original site plans developed for the prior Red Barn project with a new driveway location were safer than the current proposal to use the existing driveways. Director Larry Hassett stated Site E3 warrants serious consideration. By limiting the parking lot capacity at Site E3, either by the size of the lot or through permit access, it would result in fewer trips in and out of the site. He agreed with Ms. Moazed’s statement that aesthetics and safety are critical considerations and Site E3 addresses the aesthetic issue and should be evaluated in regards safety considerations. Director Hassett stated some type of access at the Red Barn should be considered and reminded the group that no other site met the goal of providing access to the middle area of the Preserve as the Red Barn area sites can. Vice Chair Phillips commented the Red Barn area is the site closest to the closed middle area of the Preserve. She observed that hiking six to eight miles to this location would not be feasible for all visitors and some visitors would like a short nature walk. Ms. Moazed inquired regarding how the comments and votes of the absent PAWG members would be accounted for. She felt these PAWG members should have an opportunity to weigh in on the suites of options. Chair Hooper felt the meeting would be a discussion of the suites of options but not a vote for a recommendation to forward to the PNR. A couple PAWG members asked whether the two absent members could vote later as they had previously done on the sites. General Manager Ana Ruiz responded the PAWG’s previous votes on the sites and sample suites of options provided input into the overall discussion. However, the PAWG was now considering voting on a formal recommendation to the PNR, and only PAWG members present at a publicly noticed meeting can record their vote. Page 6 of 16 Ms. Hugg explained the PAWG could decide later in the meeting whether to move the vote on a recommendation to a future meeting. She added that the group would be further informed if they finished discussing the suites of options that were prepared for the meeting. The PAWG voted on Site E4 using the same 1 to 6 scale used in previous meetings. PAWG Member E4 Bordi 6 Delay Absent Heinrich 4 Hooper 6 Lusebrink 4 Moazed 6 Moore 6 Phillips 2 Reed 4 Sommer Absent Wool 3 # of 1-4 scores 5 # of 5-6 scores 4 Mr. Hexter summarized the PAWG’s comments on the other options and iterations presented during the February 6, 2020 meeting. The group reviewed and submitted observations as homework for the March 5th meeting on how well implementing the other options and iterations at each site met the project goals and objectives. The PAWG found some sites able to accommodate different uses (equestrian, dog access, family/picnic, interpretive amenities) and limited access options (permit or docent-led activities) better than others. PUBLIC COMMENT - 2 Joel Gartland, a Bay Area Ridge Trail (Ridge Trail) representative and volunteer, commented on the importance of access to multi-use trails for regional trail connectivity and stated the Ridge Trail Council is there to support the effort. Lynette Vega, a La Honda resident, said she attended the February 6, 2020 PAWG meeting, and a number of community members were shocked that options at the Red Barn continue to be considered. Ms. Vega reminded the group of the District’s mission to preserve nature and stated that putting a parking lot so close to the Red Barn would conflict with the goal of protecting and preserving rural character. She stated traffic safety would be an issue with access at Red Barn. Finally, Ms. Vega thanked the PAWG for their work and hoped the group would make the right choice. WORKING GROUP BUSINESS Ms. Hugg and Mr. Hexter explained the PAWG should confirm the type of recommendation to send to the PNR. In past PAWG meetings, the PAWG discussed the difficulty of trying to incorporate all project objectives into one location, which led to the suggestion of distributing the uses and facilities across Page 7 of 16 several locations. Ms. Hugg explained the PAWG would need to formally vote to decide if their recommendation would come in the form of a suite of options rather than a single option. Chair Hooper asked for a motion to recommend a suite of options instead of a single site to the PNR to consider for the future feasibility study phase. Ms. Wool made a motion to approve the recommendation of a suite to the PNR and Ms. Reed seconded the motion. The PAWG approved the motion as follows. Approval to provide a suite of options approach to the PNR recommendation. Ayes (9) – Lou Bordi, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (2) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Ms. Hugg provided an overview of six potential suites and explained that any sites added or removed by the PAWG from a suite would essentially form a new suite. The three sample suites presented at the February 6, 2020 meeting were examples of how to potentially combine sites and options and were meant to illicit reaction and discussion from the PAWG and inspire creation of new suites. Of the six suites, three new suites were suggested by two PAWG members. The PAWG discussed how to discuss and rate the suites and observed that there were many possible iterations. PAWG members suggested forwarding the most highly rated sites as a suite. Vice Chair Phillips suggested completing the discussion of the suites provided to the PAWG for the meeting. Ms. Reed felt the PAWG could talk about what sites or uses to switch out of the suites, which are a framework to start from. Ms. Hugg reminded the group it would be important to review the project goals and seek a suite of options that met those goals. Chair Hooper suggested discussing the six suites to give the group a better idea of the options. Mr. Hexter explained the report being sent to the PNR would identify the suites having majority support, and the PAWG’s votes for individual sites, site use and suites. He added the PAWG’s vote does not have to be unanimous. Vice Chair Phillips reminded the group that all materials would be packaged and provided to the PNR and Board. Art Heinrich suggested generalizing the descriptions to show intent, such as “limited access” rather than permit parking only or docent-led only. The PAWG discussed the various suites as described below. Suite 1 included: Page 8 of 16  Site D – Gate LH07, small lot with restroom  Site B1 – Existing Sears Ranch lot, expansion for equestrian parking  Site E3 – Red Barn shed area below ranger residence, permit only and limited number of cars depending on weekend or weekday Ms. Wool supported Suite 1 but suggested removing Site B1 in favor of Sites B2 and B3 to better account for equestrian needs. Director Riffle spoke in favor of the suite and thought the limited access to Site E3 during the week was an innovative approach. Ms. Moazed spoke against having two access points off Highway 84 for Sites D and E3. She mentioned that while she did not like any of the E sites, she preferred Site E3 over the others. Chair Hooper agreed with Ms. Moazed that having two access points in an unsafe area was a problem. Ms. Hooper did not have confidence that the general public would follow directions for accessing the site safely. Chair Hooper stated that due to traffic concerns, she could not support any of the suites that included Site D or any of the E sites without the condition that access was limited through docent-led activities using District-provided transportation. She referred to traffic and safety data, the PAWG’s site tour experience, and community feedback related to traffic safety concerns. Mr. Bordi did not support Suite 1. He stated that while Sears Ranch Road needed an equestrian lot, Site B1 at the top of the ridge was not visually appealing for that use. Mr. Heinrich liked the suite, as it is the only one to offer public access to the closed middle area of the Preserve but would only support it if traffic engineers could solve the safety issues. He supported advancing the suite to the PNR. Director Hassett agreed with Mr. Heinrich and added that some public access in the vicinity of the Red Barn is needed. Director Hassett commented that limiting the number of vehicles going into the site to just docent-led activities might be viewed as equivalent to denying access. He suggested reducing the number of parking spaces to a manageable number and reminded the PAWG that thousands of people were taxpayers who paid for this land. Director Hassett referred to El Corte de Madera Creek and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves as example types of access that were provided under similar constraints. Director Hassett felt a recommendation provided to the Board without any access to the Red Barn site would likely not be well received. Ms. Reed agreed with Director Hassett but preferred Site B3 to B1 to provide better access for equestrians. Ms. Reed asked if Site A would be a separate study. Ms. Hugg reported Site A would be part of a separate site planning effort, and the District would need a use permit from the County of San Mateo to change or increase use at the site. Ms. Hugg explained the PAWG could still share with the PNR their support for further developing the Event Center in the future. Suite 2 included:  Site D – Gate LH07, permit lot with no restroom  Site B2 – Area west of existing Sears Ranch lot, equestrian parking Page 9 of 16  Site E1 – Red Barn area behind ranger residence, docent-led activity only Ms. Moore stated she preferred Suite 2 over Suite 1 but would like to include Site E3 instead of Site E1 although she remained concerned about safe public access. Mr. Bordi thought Site B2 would be better suited for equestrian access and did not want to limit the expansion of Site B1 to equestrians only. Mr. Bordi observed Site D in Suite 2 no longer includes a restroom, unlike Suite 1. Vice Chair Phillips did not think Suite 2 was as favorable an option, especially for equestrians. Vice Chair Philips preferred Site E3 to Site E1 and thought weekday permits at the E sites seemed exclusionary and suggested phasing in people would be a better approach. Vice Chair Phillips suggested Site D should include a restroom. Suite 3 included:  Site C1 – Sears Ranch interior, former residence area, gravel lot  Site B3 – Gate LH15, equestrian parking  Site E3 – Red Barn shed area below ranger residence, permit only and limited number on cars depending on weekend or weekday Mr. Hexter described Suite 3 to the group and suggested the PAWG vote to determine if there was a preference to include Site E3 instead of Sites E1 and E4 in all the options. Approval to use Site E3 as a preferred site in a suite over Site E1. Ayes - E3 (7) – Art Heinrich, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes – E1 (1) – Barbara Hooper Abstentions/Neutral (1) – Lou Bordi Absent (1) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Approval to use Site E3 as a preferred site in a suite over Site E4. Ayes – E3 (5) – Karl Lusebrink, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes – E4 (1) – Barbara Hooper Abstentions/Neutral (3) – Art Heinrich, Kathleen Moazed, Lou Bordi Absent (1) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle The PAWG voted whether to suggest equestrian access at Site B1 and the majority voted against it. Approval of equestrian uses at Site B1 Ayes (0) Noes (9) – Lou Bordi, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Abstentions (0) Page 10 of 16 Absent (2) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle The PAWG voted whether to have equestrian access at Site B2 and the majority voted in favor. Approval of equestrian uses at Site B2 Ayes (9) – Lou Bordi, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (2) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle The PAWG voted whether to have equestrian access at Site B3. The majority voted not to have equestrians at Site B3 with four in the minority. The PAWG members not in favor of equestrian access at Site B3 stated its proximity and potential impact to the La Honda Elementary School were their main considerations. Approval of equestrian uses at Site B3 Ayes (4) – Art Heinrich, Karl Lusebrink, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips Noes (5) – Lou Bordi, Barbara Hooper, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Willie Wool Abstentions (0) Absent (2) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Ms. Moore stated the La Honda Elementary School students should be the priority for Site B3, and the District should be a good neighbor by putting the lot elsewhere. Since the group was closely divided regarding Site B3, the PAWG agreed there were possibilities for the site; however, the school would need to be consulted. Mr. Bordi stated a gravel lot at Site C1 would require extensive grading and stated his preference for equestrian use at Site C2, as it is tucked away and would not require a great deal of grading. Mr. Bordi stated either of the C sites had potential, but Site C2 would be a better location for a picnic area and interpretive center with vehicle access. Mr. Bordi asked Director Riffle, as an equestrian, his opinion on which site would be better for equestrians. Director Riffle answered the B and C sites would not be an issue for horse trailer access but raised a concern that hikers may not appreciate sharing trailers on the road in the Preserve. Vice Chair Phillips stated that she did not like the C locations because they do not provide access to the closed middle portion of the Preserve or the Red Barn, which is one of the objectives for the project. Mr. Lusebrink pointed out that the C locations could introduce conflicts with the grazing and cattle management. He preferred to not pave a road to the C sites. Mr. Lusebrink also felt there was not a big payoff to paving a mile-long path in the Preserve or changing how the grazing operation was managed and suggested other sites be considered for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible facilities. Page 11 of 16 Ms. Wool stated she preferred Site C2 over Site C1 and expansion here could be considered after more people discovered the beauty of the Preserve and visitor use increased. She added that upper La Honda would become more appealing, and Site C2 could provide access in the future. Director Hassett stated the idea of having a shared access road in the middle of the Preserve was not typical for the District, and maintenance and patrol of the location would be challenging so far from the highway. Mr. Heinrich suggested Suite 3 should be a fall back to Suite 1 and 2, so that in case the B sites were infeasible, the C sites could be an alternative. Ms. Hugg invited Supervising Ranger Chris Barresi to speak to the concerns about access through the C sites and public safety. Mr. Barresi stated a mile-long road would be difficult to patrol as there would be no visibility from a public road and would be challenging to clear in the evening. He added it would be more difficult to reach an interior lot quickly, there would be higher risk for speeding and accidents, and cars and pedestrians sharing the road could be problematic. Ms. Reed reminded the group this space is a preserve and building a mile-long road with fencing on both sides through it conflicts with the project goal to design elements that reflect a rural character. Due to the discussion around the C sites, the PAWG voted on whether they wanted to include either site in a suite. The majority voted not to include Sites C1 or C2 in a suite. If a C site were forwarded to PNR, Director Hassett suggested the PAWG include their concerns regarding maintenance and patrol of the one-mile long road to the parking lot and recommend further evaluation by staff. Approval of including Sites C1 and/or C2 in a Suite. Ayes (4) – Lou Bordi, Art Heinrich, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore Noes (5) – Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Abstentions (0) Absent (2) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Mr. Hexter reviewed Suite 4, which was developed by Ms. Sommers. Suite 4 included:  Site A – Event Center, parking lot and trailhead  Site B3 – Gate LH15, permit equestrian parking lot  Site C1 or C2 – Sears Ranch interior, parking lot and trailhead as a central staging hub for Preserve  Site D – Gate LH07, small parking lot with restroom and trailhead, potential staging for Bay Area Ridge Trail  Site E3 – Red Barn shed area below ranger residence, phased approach – initially limited access and pending traffic calming or safety improvements, explore potential expansion Page 12 of 16 Ms. Moore stated she preferred this suite over the others and suggested replacing Site B3 with Site B2 based on PAWG discussions from earlier in the meeting. She stated a small lot at Site D has great potential because the location has a wide shoulder along the highway. Vice Chair Phillips thought Suite 4 was similar to Suite 1 when changes were made based on the PAWG’s votes earlier in the meeting and when Site A was set aside as a standalone project. She observed Suite 4 includes the C sites, and the PAWG had voted to not include the C sites in a suite. Mr. Bordi stated Site B3 should not be permit only for equestrians but should be open for the general public. Ms. Moazed stated that she preferred including either of the C sites as an alternative to any of the E sites at the Red Barn but had concerns about introducing an access road into the Preserve. Mr. Heinrich was concerned that Site E3 was proposed in Suite 4 as having long-term full public access, which had already been considered during the prior Red Barn project. Mr. Lusebrink reminded the group that for the feasibility study phase, the discussion had been to include a small lot in the Red Barn area that would have minimal impact on parking and traffic generation as opposed to full access. At the end of the PAWG’s discussion of Suite 4, Ms. Hugg observed that the previous discussions and voting were establishing a new suite based on the group’s preferences. This “hybrid” set of the PAWG’s preferred sites were combining into Suite 7: Site D LH07, Site B2 or B3 Sears Ranch Road, and Site E3 Red Barn shed area below the Ranger Residence. Mr. Hexter reviewed Suite 5, which was developed by Chair Hooper. Suite 5 included:  Site A – Event Center, parking lot and trailhead for multi-use access  Site B1 or B2 – Expansion of Sears Ranch lot or area west of existing Sears Ranch lot, equestrian and multi-use access  Site D – Gate LH07, minimal improvements, docent-led hikes with District-provided transportation  Site E1 or E4 – Red Barn area behind ranger residence or Red Barn area adjacent and north of ranger residence, minimal improvements, docent-led hikes with District-provided transportation Vice Chair Phillips observed the PAWG discussed limited access at the E sites rather than specifying it be only permitted or docent-led hikes. Mr. Heinrich observed that Suite 5 was a variation of Suite 2 if Site E3 replaced Sites E1or E4 as the PAWG had voted earlier. Mr. Bordi supported limiting the number of people accessing the Red Barn area and asked for more specific numbers of people and cars that would be allowed in the permit only lot. Page 13 of 16 Vice Chair Philips reminded the group that specific questions would be answered in the feasibility study phase and the PAWG’s focus was recommending which sites to forward to the PNR. Suite 6 included near-term options, suggested by Chair Hooper, for the PAWG to consider forwarding to the PNR. These options could potentially be implemented while the longer-term feasibility study and site planning work were under way. Some proposed near-term solutions included:  Site E1 – Offer docent-led hikes with District-provided transportation  Existing Red Barn Pull Out on Highway 84 – Provide interpretive information on the site and information on how to access the Preserve at Sears Ranch Road  Site A – Offer permit access to hikers in addition to equestrians or docent-led hikes  Site B1 – Offer docent-led or permit hiking north from Site C1 on existing road towards Red Barn  General – Prioritize projects related to trail access from Allen Road vista point and Sears Ranch Road area to Red Barn Chair Hooper observed that two years had passed since the June 12, 2018 meeting when the prior Red Barn site planning process was put on hold, and given the amount of time the process could take, the PAWG and District could consider these near-term options to introduce public access more quickly while longer-term solutions were pursued. Mr. Lusebrink supported quicker results but thought near-term options might be out of the PAWG’s scope of work. Director Hassett acknowledged that during the next 10 to 15 years, additional opportunities for different access points and trail directions may develop. Ms. Hugg confirmed the PAWG’s scope was to find a long-term solution for public access and staging areas in the Preserve but stated the interim solutions could be incorporated into the report to the PNR. However, Site A would need to be removed, because the current San Mateo County use permit does not allow an increase in uses at the site. Mr. Hexter reviewed the PAWG’s key takeaways of the sites and suites to that point in the meeting. For Site D, the PAWG supported a small lot and restroom. For Site B2 or B3, they proposed equestrian parking. For Site E3, the PAWG preferred limited access. Though the PAWG had earlier preferred to not include Sites C1 and C2 in a suite, the group suggested including limited improvements at the C sites focused on equestrian-, interpretive- or family-oriented amenities, such as a horse water trough and picnic area. The PAWG discussed the various sites and suites. Ms. Reed asked about the possibility of prioritizing the suites. Mr. Lusebrink asked whether access at the E sites would be needed if Site D was found to be feasible or vice versa. Mr. Bordi suggested that instead of grouping sites into a suite, each member could state their favorite site, and the group would then discuss what amenities to provide at each location. Ms. Moore referred to Director Hassett’s comment earlier in the meeting that the PAWG should consider access in the vicinity of the Red Barn in order to satisfy the project objectives. Chair Hooper reminded the group that the PAWG would provide a recommendation to the PNR, and a recommendation would then go to the Board, which would not necessarily have to grant approval, so the PAWG’s role is not to provide specific details for every site. Page 14 of 16 Mr. Hexter invited the PAWG to review the emerging Suite 7 and refine the sites within the suite to best represent their perspectives. Suite 7 included:  Site B2 or B3 – equestrian parking  Sites C1 and C2 – equestrian-, family/picnic-, or interpretive-oriented amenities; should not be staging areas  Site D – small parking lot with restroom  Site E3 – small parking lot with limited access The PAWG discussed that Site B2 or B3 could be suitable for equestrian parking, and Sites C1 and C2 should not be a staging area but could be used for equestrian-, family/picnic-, or interpretive-oriented amenities. The PAWG agreed Site D could support a small lot with a restroom, and limited access and a small lot at Site E3 would be preferred for the Red Barn area. The group discussed how to define limited access at Site E3, and Ms. Hugg reminded the group that specifics such as type of limited access and lot size and capacity would be part of the feasibility study phase. Ms. Hugg added that Site E3’s physical constraints would limit the size to a small lot. Director Hassett observed that the PAWG’s discussion provided District staff with a good understanding of the PAWG’s view of limited access at the Red Barn area when the project moved into the feasibility study. Vice Chair Phillips added that the Board liaisons would be able to share the PAWG’s perspective with the full Board when the recommendation reaches the Board. Ms. Hooper expressed concerns about overflow parking along Highway 84 at Site D if the lot were fully open rather than only providing limited access. Vice Chair Phillips observed that even with a permit only lot, people might still park along Highway 84. Mr. Hexter suggested the PAWG vote on Suite 7 to register their level of support or reservation on the composition of the suite. PAWG Member Suite 7 Bordi 3 Delay Absent Heinrich 2 Hooper 5 Lusebrink 2 Moazed 5 Moore 1 Phillips 2 Reed 1 Sommer Absent Wool 1 # of 1-4 scores 7 # of 5-6 scores 2 Page 15 of 16 Ms. Moazed stated she wanted to register her continued opposition to the suite because it includes a Red Barn site but did not think the PAWG needed to continue discussing it. Mr. Hexter reminded the group of the absence of Mr. Delay and Ms. Sommer and observed that if they had been in opposition, there would still be a majority in favor of Suite 7. Mr. Hexter reminded the group that the PNR will receive the PAWG’s recommendation and determine whether to forward it to the full Board or request more information from the PAWG. Mr. Hexter described the steps to prepare a report for the PNR and explained the role of the Chair and Vice Chair in preparing the report and attending the PNR meeting to present the work of the PAWG. Ms. Hugg observed that with the results of the PAWG’s vote, 7 votes supportive to 2 votes not supportive, there is sufficient support to move Suite 7 forward, even with two PAWG members absent. Ms. Hugg asked if this suite was what the PAWG wanted to forward to the PNR, or did the PAWG need more information or further discussion that would change their votes. Vice Chair Phillips asked whether the group was being asked to decide if they were recommending the suite to the PNR. Ms. Hugg confirmed and reminded the PAWG that at the start of the meeting, it was announced that Mr. Delay could no longer attend due to the triggering of the City of San Bruno’s Emergency Operation Center in response to the COVID-19 virus outbreak, and the PAWG would vote at the end of the meeting on whether to advance a recommendation with Mr. Delay and Ms. Sommer absent. Ms. Hugg observed that through the PAWG’s discussions that evening, the PAWG had removed some sites from their consideration and formed a suite with the remaining sites. She asked if the PAWG felt additional information was needed to change the current suite or if the PAWG wanted to take an official vote on it. Chair Hooper acknowledged the Brown Act precludes Mr. Delay and Ms. Sommer from voting after the meeting but asked whether they could at least provide what their votes would have been, and that information be given to the PNR in the PAWG’s report. Ms. Hugg stated Mr. Delay and Ms. Sommer would be able to email written comments to the Chair, Vice Chair, or the District, and those comments would be provided to the PNR. Ms. Hooper felt that it was important to hear from the entire PAWG and observed that both absent members had spent a great deal of time on the effort. Ms. Wool asked how the PNR report would be reviewed by the PAWG. Ms. Hugg confirmed the Chair and Vice Chair would assist with preparing and reviewing the report. Ms. Wool commented that she was confident that the District, Chair Hooper and Vice Chair Phillips would capture the PAWG’s comments and conditions. Ms. Hugg added that PAWG members would also be able to submit comments to the PNR about the report before the PNR meeting. Page 16 of 16 Chair Hooper called for a motion to confirm that the PAWG’s prior vote on Suite 7 was the PAWG’s official vote to forward a recommendation to the PNR. Ms. Wool made a motion to approve Suite 7 (reflecting the prior 7 to 2 vote conducted earlier in the meeting) as the PAWG’s recommendation to the PNR; Ms. Reed seconded. Approval of sharing Suite 7’s reflecting their 7 to 2 as a recommendation to the PNR Ayes (9) – Lou Bordi, Art Heinrich, Barbara Hooper, Karl Lusebrink, Kathleen Moazed, Melany Moore, Andie Reed, Denise Phillips, Willie Wool Noes (0) Abstentions (0) Absent (2) – Ari Delay, Sandy Sommer Non-Voting (2) – Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle Mr. Hexter stated the project team will work with the Chair and Vice Chair to prepare the final recommendation report and to present it to the PNR on April 21. He said that the PAWG had a tentative meeting date scheduled for May 14 to respond to any potential questions from the PNR that require the PAWG to reconvene and address. Vice Chair Phillips thanked the PAWG and the District for the time and effort and felt that this process was a wonderful manifestation of the District’s good neighbor policy. The District team expressed their appreciation for the PAWG members’ hard work and passion for the project and looked forward to reconvening the group for a celebratory gathering. ADJOURNMENT Chair Hooper adjourned the meeting of the La Honda Public Access Work Group at 10:00 pm. ___________________________________ Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Page 1 of 7  Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance, Communications, and Homework Summary Planning and Natural Resources Committee Meeting – July 28, 2020 Public Access Working Group – Attendance, Communications, and Homework Summary Meeting Attendance The below table summarizes the Working Group’s meeting attendance, also captured in each meeting summary that was shared with the group, posted online, and included in Appendix B of the PAWG recommendations report. PAWG Member 08/22/2019 09/12/2019 10/19/2019 11/16/2019 12/12/2019 02/06/2020 03/05/2020 Lou Bordi        Ari Delay      X X Art Heinrich        Karl Lusebrink        Barbara Hooper        Kathleen Moazed        Melany Moore        Denise Phillips        Andie Reed        Sandy Sommer   X    X Willie Wool        Larry Hassett        Curt Riffle    X     Working Group Member was in attendance X Working Group Member was not in attendance  Communications PAWG members shared information or asked questions via email with the project team. Member emails and project team emails, if responses were needed, were shared with the group, posted online with each meeting, and are included in Appendix D of the PAWG recommendations report. 1.B Hooper 08-26-19 2.A Reed 10-18-19 3.L Bordi 10-14-19 4.K Lusebrink 9-23-19 (includes 9/20 and 9/13 emails) 5.K Moazed 12-11-19 6.B Hooper 12-19-2019 7.B Hooper 1-24-2020 8.A Heinrich 2-9-2020 9.S Sommer 2-17-2020 10.T Hugg response to A Reed and K Lusebrink 2-19-2020 a.A Reed 2-16-2020 b.K Lusebrink 2-17-2020 11.T Hugg response to K Lusebrink 2-20-2020 Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance and Homework Summary     Page 2 of 7    a. K Lusebrink 2-14-2020 12. B Hooper 2-27-2020 13. B Hooper 3-1-2020 Meeting Homework On their own time, between PAWG meetings, members were asked to review materials and complete homework to make each session as productive as possible. PAWG members also suggested homework for the group. Homework submitted by PAWG members was shared with the group, posted online with each meeting, and is included in Appendices E and F of the PAWG recommendations report. From August 22, 2019: 1. Review introductory background materials provided in binders. 2. Conduct Highway 84 traffic observations. During the August 22, 2019 PAWG meeting, a couple members suggested that the group individually observed traffic flow, violations, and modes of transportation (car, truck, bicycle, motorcycle) on Highway 84 in the Red Barn area and in the community of La Honda. The members noted below provided their written observations, included in Appendix F of the PAWG recommendations report. PAWG Member Observations of Highway 84 Lou Bordi - Ari Delay - Art Heinrich - Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed - Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed - Sandy Sommer - Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle -   From September 12, 2019: 1. Review meeting materials provided by the project team and additional background documents requested by PAWG. 2. Review Considerations Maps (Topography, Ownership and Management, Natural Resources, Future Trail). These maps provided background information to the PAWG as they viewed the sites during the October and November tours. Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance and Homework Summary     Page 3 of 7    3. Begin thinking about other potential access points. The PAWG members were asked, as they reviewed the maps and materials in preparation for the site tours, to consider and look for other potential access points along Highway 84. a. Suggested two sites near the Red Barn (Site E1 – behind the ranger residence – and Site E2 – west and downhill from the Red Barn) for the October tour – K. Lusebrink 4. Visit existing Event Center and Allen Road access points. The PAWG requested access to visit the Event Center and Allen Road areas. Permits issued to PAWG members visiting the Event Center, Allen Road, and Red Barn areas from August 2019 through June 2020 are listed below: PAWG Member Permit Location and Date Lou Bordi - Ari Delay - Art Heinrich Red Barn 1/20/2020 Allen Road 1/20/2020 Karl Lusebrink Event Center 11/21/19 Red Barn 1/7/2020 Allen Road 1/7/2020 Barbara Hooper Event Center 10/8/19 Red Barn 1/8/2020 Allen Road 1/8/2020 Event Center 2/18/2020 Red Barn 2/18/2020 Kathleen Moazed Event Center 10/19/19 Melany Moore Red Barn 1/16/2020 Event Center 1/16/2020 Allen Road 1/16/2020 Red Barn 2/6/2020 Event Center 3/5/2020 Red Barn 3/5/2020 Denise Phillips Red Barn 1/22/2020 Allen Road 1/22/2020 Andie Reed Event Center 11/25/19 Red Barn 1/21/2020 Allen Road 1/21/2020 Red Barn 2/16/2020 Event Center 2/16/2020 Sandy Sommer Red Barn 10/26/19 Allen Road 10/26/19 Event Center 10/26/19 Red Barn 1/18/2020 Allen Road 1/18/2020 Willie Wool Allen Road 11/13/19 Allen Road 11/20/19 Red Barn 12/31/19 Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance and Homework Summary     Page 4 of 7    Allen Road 1/6/2020 Larry Hassett Red Barn 1/25/2020 Allen Road 1/25/2020 Curt Riffle Red Barn 1/18/2020 Allen Road 1/18/2020 Red Barn 1/19/2020 Allen Road 1/19/2020 Event Center 2/16/2020 Red Barn 2/16/2020 Event Center 2/22/2020 Red Barn 2/22/2020   From October 19, 2020 Site Tour: 1. Review meeting materials provided by the project team and additional background documents requested by PAWG. 2. Fill in and submit Site Assessment Forms of Tour #1 sites. Following the tour, PAWG members submitted their observations on forms provided by the project team, included in Appendix F of the PAWG recommendations report. PAWG Member Assessment Form Site Tour #1 Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich Submitted Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle Submitted 3. Visit other District parking lots before the November tour: the Allen Road permit parking area to understand the northern extent of the Preserve and the El Corte de Madera parking lot at Gate CM00 to see a lot not visible from Highway 35. 4. Consider and suggest other sites to add to November site tour. The PAWG was asked to consider other sites to visit on the upcoming tour. Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance and Homework Summary     Page 5 of 7    a. Two sites in the Sears Ranch area (Site B2 – across from the existing parking lot – and Site C2 – corral area near a former residence located one mile north of the lot) for the November tour – suggested by L. Bordi b. Preserve Gate LH07 (Site D) – requested by A. Heinrich, S. Sommer, and others From November 16, 2020 Site Tour: 1. Review meeting materials provided by the project team and additional background document requested by PAWG. 1. Reflect on the sites visited on both tours and possible access options in preparation for December discussion of group observations. 2. Fill in and submit Site Assessment Forms of Tour #2 sites. Following the tour, PAWG members submitted their observations on forms provided by the project team, included in Appendix F of the PAWG recommendations report. PAWG Member Assessment Form Site Tour #2 Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich Submitted Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle Did not attend tour From December 12, 2019: 1. Review meeting materials provided by the project team and additional background documents requested by PAWG. 2. Reflect on what sites or combinations of sites and options to discuss further at the next meeting, with the goal of determining what to ultimately forward to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. 3. Visit new potential site at Preserve Gate LH15 (Site C3) suggested by K. Lusebrink. Re-visit the site behind the ranger residence near the Red Barn (Site B2), which was part of the October 19, 2020 site tour. Visit new potential site at Red Barn area behind existing corral (Site E3) suggested Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance and Homework Summary     Page 6 of 7    by District project team. PAWG members submitted their observations on forms provided by the project team, included in Appendix F of the PAWG recommendations report. PAWG Member Site E1, E3 and B3 Assessment Form Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich Submitted Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett - Curt Riffle Submitted From February 6, 2020: 1. Review meeting materials provided by the project team and additional background documents requested by PAWG. 2. Consider the three example suites of options and to think of other combinations of sites and options to discuss. Suites submitted below are included in Appendix E of the PAWG recommendations report. a. Suite 4 – submitted by S. Sommer b. Suite 5 – submitted by B. Hooper c. Suite 6 (short-term options) – submitted by B. Hooper 3. Assess and score the Other Options and Iterations uses (limited access and use distribution options) for each site, fill in and submit forms provided by the project team. PAWG members submitted their scores on forms provided by the project team, included in Appendix E of the PAWG recommendations report. PAWG Member Scores for Other Options and Iterations Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich Submitted Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Attachment 4 – PAWG Attendance and Homework Summary     Page 7 of 7    Kathleen Moazed Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett Non-voting Curt Riffle Non-voting 4. Visit new potential site north of the ranger residence near the Red Barn (Site E4) suggested by K. Lusebrink. Per the Chair and Vice-Chair’s instructions, assess and score the Other Option and Iterations uses for Site E4. PAWG members submitted their scores on forms provided by the project team, included in Appendix E of the PAWG recommendations report. The PAWG shared their observations of Site E4 at their March 5, 2020 meeting. PAWG Member Scores for Other Options and Iterations for Site E4 Lou Bordi - Ari Delay Submitted Art Heinrich - Karl Lusebrink Submitted Barbara Hooper Submitted Kathleen Moazed Submitted Melany Moore Submitted Denise Phillips Submitted Andie Reed Submitted Sandy Sommer Submitted Willie Wool Submitted Larry Hassett Non-voting Curt Riffle Non-voting March 5, 2020 March 5, 2020 was the final scheduled meeting for the PAWG. There was no homework for the group except for the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Board liaisons who reviewed the PAWG recommendations report and appendices, Board report, and associated documents provided to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee on July 28, 2020. From:DOCENT To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Subject:Fw: Docents Invited: La Honda Creek- PAWG Meeting Tonight March 5 Date:Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:36:47 PM Importance:High FYI From: Teri Baron Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 1:45:58 PM To: DOCENT <docent@openspace.org> Cc: Curt Riffle Subject: Re: Docents Invited: La Honda Creek- PAWG Meeting Tonight March 5 EXTERNAL Hi, thanks so much for the heads up. I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but I would like to give my opinion for the possibility of docent led activities in the area that is still closed to the general public. I am a current equestrian docent as you know. I am supportive of docent led activities in the closed area, either docent hikers or docent equestrians. It appears at this time that there will not be any equestrian parking by the red barn, so I would like to submit that I would be able to use the existing parking at the event center and lead a ride into the closed area from there. It would also be possible to open the gate at the Sears Ranch Rd. parking and park rigs where the dog kennels used to be or in the old arena adjacent to that. There are old ranch roads that could be used for an equestrian docent led ride. There is a ranch road that cuts off the Harrington Creek Trail right where the dog kennels used to be that I believe goes to the red barn, not sure, but that would be a great trail to lead a ride. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks for your consideration. Thank you! On Mar 5, 2020, at 1:17 PM, DOCENT <docent@openspace.org> wrote: Hi Docent Naturalists, Apologies for this last-minute notification. I am emailing on behalf of Renée who will be presenting tonight about access options related to the Public Access Working Group (PAWG) for La Honda Creek Preserve. She will present program overview with information regarding the potential of docent-led activities in an area that will remain closed to the general public. If you are interested in learning more and attending the meeting, here is some further information: When: TONIGHT, Thursday March 5, 2020 from 6:30-9:30 p.m. Where: Midpen Admin office in Los Altos, meeting is in the Board Room Attachment 5 – Public Comment 03-05-2020 through 07-16-2020 Meeting agenda information: https://www.openspace.org/about- us/meetings/lhcpawg-20200305. Most likely Renée will be presenting around 7 p.m. or later. Thanks, Ellen <image001.gif> Ellen TjosvoldInterpretive Specialistetjosvold@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022650.772.3639 www.openspace.org From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#232] Date:Monday, March 9, 2020 12:19:56 PM EXTERNAL Name KATJA WICK Email * Zip Code *95124 Please let us know your comments about projects at La Honda Creek. To whom it may concern: With great interest, I have been following the development of the La Honda Creek Master Plan and the discussions of the Public Access Working Group. Since I couldn’t be present at the last meeting, I would like to voice some of my ideas and concerns: As an avid hiker and trail rider, I would like to caution you about the installation of too many multi- use trails that are open for bikers in addition to hikers and horse-back riders. Many multi-use trails are de facto bike trails since the presence of vast amounts of bikers deters hikers and horseback riders given that bikers are often not doing their part to keep the other trail users safe. The John- Nicholas trail is a great example. I am happy to hike this beautiful trail on a weekday and the few bikers I encounter are usually not a problem. I would never go there on a weekend since the relatively narrow trail with lots of turns becomes unsafe with the amount of bikers, who use it. Since not everyone can enjoy the trails during weekdays, I feel sorry for the hikers, who are forced to share those kind of trails with a big crowd of bikers and might be deterred from using it. If trails are designed as multi-purpose trails, the agency in charge needs to be much more vigilant about all users adhering to safety measures such as speed limits through increased visibility of rangers on the trails and frequent controls if needed. I am a heavy user of State and County Parks, MidPen Preserves, and other outdoor facilities and I am always grateful if there is some kind of restroom facility at the trailhead. I personally think that well- maintained porta-potties are a good option. Since I am also an equestrian, I would urge you to take into consideration the spots for trailer parking since the people trailering their horses to a trailhead usually prefer not to leave the vicinity of the trailer for too long while their horses are tied to the trailer in case they need to tend to their horses if something spooks them. Thank you for continuing to open land owned by MidPen to the broader public! Katja Wick From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#239] Date:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:35:37 PM EXTERNAL Name David Guerra Email * Zip Code *94070 Would you like to be added to the La Honda Creek e-mail list? Yes Please let us know your comments about projects at La Honda Creek. I’m particularly interested in the proposed access at the Red Barn area; and also the timeframe for access between the Upper and Lower areas of the preserve. From:Jim De La Riva To:Tina Hugg Subject:La Honda Creek Preserve Public Access Date:Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:45:15 AM EXTERNAL Good morning, Just a simple request from a tax payer. Please allow access for bicyclist into this beautiful area. And if possible that the trails are linked to other preserves. Thank you Jim De La Riva Farmers Insurance 533 Airport Blvd Ste 165 Burlingame, CA 94010-2018 License Number: 0644697 650-571-8891 (Office) 650-571-8896 (Fax) 1 Tina Hugg From:D Arnow <> Sent:Thursday, July 16, 2020 12:24 PM To:Tina Hugg Subject:La Honda Creek Preserve Public Access EXTERNAL  Hello Tina,  Humbly submitting my input regarding the La Honda Creek Preserve Public Access Working Group recommendations.  Please consider allowing bicycles to this area, and that it be linked to other trail systems in the area.  I know sometimes  mountain bikers get a bad reputation but I think *most* cyclists are responsible and active stewards of this area’s  natural treasures.  Respectfully,  Dennis Arnow  From:Tina Hugg To:Melissa Borgesi;Tina Hugg Subject:RE: Follow-up from PAWG March 5 meeting Date:Thursday, March 12, 2020 2:22:58 PM Dear Working Group, Another question has been received. The following is the response to Kathleen Moazed’s email below. The PAWG’s recommended Suite was written based on PAWG feedback to not define what limited access means yet at Site E3, so that specific limited access options could be studied further during the feasibility study phase. When the PAWG discussed the six Suites, the PAWG talked about different ways to limit access: offering permit access only, specifying a set number of cars, setting a time frame for access, offering docent-led activities, and providing District-staffed transportation. Instead of settling on one specific type of access, PAWG members discussed generalizing it to “limited access.” The PNR and Board will be provided the range of limited access options discussed by the PAWG. The PNR Committee and Board may also have other ideas for staff to evaluate during the feasibility study phase. Thank you. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Kathleen Moazed Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 12:23 PM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> Subject: Re: Follow-up from PAWG March 5 meeting EXTERNAL Thanks Tina, I drafted this note just before I read your message, but I think it still applies: I wanted to once again express my appreciation for the enormous amount of work that you and the rest of the MidPen staff put into the complex task of steering the PAWG to a vote on the issue of public access to the middle portion of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. It was a challenge, to say the least! Attachment 6 – PAWG Communication 03-05-2020 through 07-16-2020 As I recall, the PAWG voted to recommend to the PNR a suite of options that included: B2/B3 – for equestrian use C1/C2 – for equestrian amenities / family, picnic, interpretive amenities D - for a small lot with restroom E3 - for a small lot with limited access Since this suite that the PAWG voted on had only the barest of descriptions, I am assuming that the intention was for the PAWG to vote on (and subsequentially approve) the options as described in the materials provided to the PAWG on February 6th.,-- descriptions that we had all been asked to study and that were before us for consideration at the March 5th meeting. Specificially, for E3, those materials described this option as: E3 – Area by shed below ranger residence -permit only -clear access instructions -minimally improved -interpretive sign on grazing -limit # of cars depending on day (potentially more permits issued on weekday because less traffic on Highway 84 vs weekend) Am I correct that this is what the PAWG voted on March 5th to approve? Since there was some confusion among a few of the PAWG members about what was actually voted on, I think it will be very important for the PAWG to be able to review and approve the minutes of the March 5th meeting, so thank you for providing that There has been a good deal of talk about this vote in the La Honda community, so it would be great to be able to have some clarity. Again, thanks for all the incredible work all of you at MidPen have done keep this process moving. As usual, please feel free to share this email with others on the PAWG. Kathleen On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:00 PM Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org> wrote: Dear Working Group: We appreciate Barbara Hooper’s questions regarding the PAWG’s recommended suite of options, March 5th meeting summary, and website updates. In addition to preparing the meeting summary and updating the website, we are also synthesizing and organizing information since last August to develop the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee report, recommendations report, and appendices. Thank you for your patience. Below are responses to Barbara’s questions. 1. The March 5th meeting summary will be prepared using the meeting notes and audio recording and will include the suite of options that the PAWG discussed and voted on to recommend to the PNR Committee. The details and considerations raised by the group will be organized in the site assessment format that the PAWG used for its site assessment work. Since the scope of the PAWG was to evaluate and identify site location options, the development of site-specific parking area layouts will take place after sites are approved by the Board for further study. At this time there are no conceptual site plans for any of the sites, so there is not enough information to specify a particular size for either Site D or E3. When Lou Bordi asked about the number of spaces at Site E3, we provided ranges of 6 to 10 or 10 to 15 spaces, but a conceptual layout in the feasibility study phase will confirm the number of spaces, circulation, etc. Both sites are constrained by existing infrastructure (e.g. driveway, shed), topography, and vegetation, so their size will be limited. For the purposes of illustrating potential uses for sites, we can list the types of limited access that the PAWG discussed. The PNR Committee and Board may also share other ideas for staff to evaluate during the feasibility study phase. 2. The draft March 5th meeting summary will be shared with the PAWG prior to the PNR meeting. If a PAWG member identifies errors and omissions, these will be checked with the audio recording and the summary revised if necessary. The District Clerk informed us that with no PAWG meeting currently scheduled, the full Board of Directors would be the official body to confirm the final meeting summary. Directors Hassett and Riffle will be present to discuss the summary with the rest of the Board. 3. We update the website with meeting materials in as timely a manner as possible. As with previous website updates, this includes all meeting materials provided either in advance or at the meeting. Let us know if something is missing from previous meetings. We appreciate everyone’s patience over the next three weeks as we focus on all of these deliverables. Thank you. Tina Hugg, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner thugg@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: Barbara Hooper Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:48 AM To: Tina Hugg <thugg@openspace.org>; Melissa Borgesi <mborgesi@openspace.org> Cc: Barbara Hooper Subject: Follow-up from PAWG March 5 meeting EXTERNAL Tina- Last Thursday's meeting was effective as there was thoughtful feedback from all PAWG members about the suites and proposed elements of the various sites. Thank you for creating the documents and for giving the PAWG specific direction prior to the meeting so that it was productive. I'm sure you and Melissa are busy writing and compiling information to be included in the report for the PNR Committee. If you have a moment, I hope you can address the following questions: 1. As was displayed in the March 5 meeting, the “suite” the PAWG agreed to recommend and present to the PNR includes the following sites: B2/B3 - equestrian, C1/C2 - equestrian amenities / family, picnic, interpretive amenities, D - small lot with restroom, E3 - small lot with limited access. Will you be sending an e-mail to the PAWG members to confirm the elements of this suite? I think it would be helpful to view the suite in the format MidPen provided in our previous discussions which included details per site and considerations in regards to the project-specific site assessment criterion. Please verify: a) what "small lot" is defined as; ie: how many parking spaces, b) limited access; ie: permit access, docent access or both. 2. When will the March 5 meeting minutes be available? How will the PAWG approve them since we have no other meetings scheduled at this time? 3. Will the PAWG March 5 website be updated to include the additional documents that we received? Thank you, Barbara -- Kathleen Moazed 415.933.7582 mobile MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE The Committee conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. Tuesday, July 28, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Director Kishimoto called the meeting of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee to order at 1:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, and Yoriko Kishimoto Members absent: None Staff present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Planner I Melissa Borgesi District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Committee members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District website. Ms. Woodworth described the process and protocols for the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted. Attachment 7 - Draft 07-28-2020 PNR Meeting Minutes Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 2 July 28, 2020 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the agenda, with a correction to Item 2 to reflect the correct committee title. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Select Committee Chair for Calendar Year 2020 Director Holman nominated, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to nominate Director Kishimoto to serve as Committee Chair for calendar year 2020. Director Kishimoto accepted the nomination. Public comment opened at 1:05 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted. Public comment closed at 1:05 p.m. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 2. Approve the January 14, 2020 Planning and Natural Resources Committee Meeting Minutes. Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to approve the January 14, 2020 Planning and Natural Resources Committee meeting minutes. Public comment opened at 1:06 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted. Public comment closed at 1:06 p.m. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 3. Consideration of the La Honda Public Access Working Group Recommendations that address Board-approved Parking and Trailhead Access Goals at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-81) General Manager Ana Ruiz provided opening comments thanking the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) and staff for their efforts on this multi-year project. Ms. Ruiz stated this is an important step in the project, and following Board consideration and action, the District will study of the sites to determine the feasibility and address the safety of the options and to meet project goals and objectives. Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 3 July 28, 2020 Senior Planner Tina Hugg provided the staff presentation describing the La Honda Open Space Preserve (OSP) and the creation and implementation to date of the La Honda Creek Master Plan adopted by the Board of Directors in 2012, including securing Measure AA funding, opening of the Sears Ranch Road parking lot, and formation of the PAWG. Ms. Hugg described the responsibilities and charge of the PAWG and the PAWG’s process for studying, visiting, and deliberating on the various potential sites and suites of options. Ms. Hugg and Planner I Melissa Borgesi described the eleven site options considered by the PAWG, including the site locations, potential site uses, and site opportunities and challenges. Additionally, staff described various aspects of the sites that will require further study during the feasibility assessment. The Committee members requested and received clarifying information regarding the various sites and potential uses. Director Kishimoto suggested including a map showing the potential regional trail connections when the item is considered by the Board of Directors. Director Holman suggested including photos of the views from the Red Barn in the Board meeting materials. Director Kishimoto suggested the ranger residences near the Red Barn could potentially be repurposed to be an interpretive center or for other purposes. Ms. Hugg described potential limited access and distribution of use options among several sites to help meet the project goals and objectives instead of locating all site uses at a single location. Chair Kishimoto inquired regarding the Phase II trails for the La Honda Creek OSP and commented on the beauty of the area and maximizing public benefit and access. Planning Manager Jane Mark described the proposed Phase II interior trails. Ms. Hugg described the PAWG recommendation, which includes a suite of sites with various limited access and site use options. Additionally, the PAWG made recommendations for near- term suggestions to expand public access to the preserve. Finally, Ms. Hugg presented the timeline and next steps for the project. PAWG Chair Barbara Hooper described the work of the PAWG and thanked the District for creating its first working group of this kind. The District’s staff and consultant worked well with staff and members of the PAWG to create a cooperative environment to keep all members informed. Ms. Hooper stated public participation was encouraged, including holding meetings on site and in the community. Ms. Hooper spoke in favor of keeping the Red Barn and surrounding area in its current state and thanked the committee members for visiting the sites. PAWG Vice-Chair Denise Phillips thanked the District for convening and supporting the PAWG with time and resources. Ms. Phillips stated creation and the work of the PAWG demonstrates the District’s commitment to its Good Neighbor Policy by encouraging public outreach. Ms. Phillips offered several suggestions for potential future working groups: advising the committee of the regional funding received by residents throughout the District earlier in the process; reminding the committee of their charge and role more often throughout the process; keeping the voting membership more equitable related to the number of representatives from a specific Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 4 July 28, 2020 geographic area or community; requiring committee members to complete meeting homework to provide for productive discussion; and allowing time for candidate statements before selecting the Chair and Vice-Chair at the beginning of the process. Director Kersteen-Tucker recommended incorporating the various suggestions from the PAWG Vice-Chair into future working groups with the public and inquired how this can be accomplished. Ms. Hugg stated staff compiled a list of “lessons learned” throughout the process from formation through the current state of the project. Staff also plans to debrief will all project team members to discuss what went well and areas for improvement. Public comment opened at 2:49 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record. Ross Heitkamp supported opening the middle area of the La Honda Open Space Preserve to public access to provide additional options for the public and extend the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Mr. Heitkamp is in favor of bicycle access and direct access to the area from Highway 35. Finally, the Red Barn vista point is nice but not a significant concern. Laurie McLean stated the only safe area to add parking to the central area of the La Honda Open Space Preserve is an expansion of the Sears Ranch Road parking lot. Ms. McLean opposes adding additional parking along Highway 84 to the high number of traffic accidents on Highway 84. Patty Mayall thanked the La Honda Public Access Working Group for their time and dedication to the project. Ms. Mayall supports only allowing docent-led visitors in the Red Barn area to minimize negative impacts on the preserve. Ms. Mayall opposes additional parking along Highway 84 because the additional traffic will increase fire danger and traffic accidents in the area. Cindy Crowe-Urgo opposes an additional parking lot and access to the La Honda Open Space Preserve via Highway 84 because it will create a traffic safety issue. Ms. Crowe-Urgo supports expanding parking at the Sears Ranch Road parking lot or a new lot in the Driscoll Ranch area. Carole Corcoran Williams opposes any parking or access to the Red Barn property because it will be a hazard and liability for La Honda and Woodside residents and those who travel on Highway 84. Ari Delay, chief of the La Honda Fire Brigade and member of the PAWG, expressed safety concerns regarding access to the Red Barn area and Gate LH07 from Highway 84. Mr. Delay opposes building a driveway and parking lot in front of the Red Barn. Karl Lusebrink, member of the PAWG, stated his support for the final PAWG report and its well-reasoned analysis of the potential sites. Mr. Lusebrink supports a feasibility assessment of the PAWG recommendations to inform the District’s decisions to create safe and sustainable improvements and provide access to the public. Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 5 July 28, 2020 Alex Sabo, representing the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, stated the council’s support for creating a multi-use regional trail connection and parking lot in the central and upper areas of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. A trail connection would also help complete the Bay Area Ridge Trail by closing a 5-mile gap and help Bay Area residents connect with nature. Daniel Antonaccio stated his support for opening more of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to public access because access to open space is especially important during the current pandemic. Mr. Antonaccio thanked the District for keeping its preserves open throughout the pandemic to allow the public to have continued access to open space. Sandy Sommer, member of the PAWG, stated her support for the consensus recommendations from the PAWG to study specific sites for feasibility and urged the Committee to consider options that will provide access to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Matthew Sarna-Wojcicki inquired if bicycle access has been considered for the La Honda Open Space Preserve and if it has not, inquired why. Mr. Sarna Wojicicki encouraged the District to consider bicycle access for this preserve. Shani Kleinhaus asked that the District consider wildlife crossings for all new construction, including roads, parking and ADA trails, especially for newts and other small animals. Additionally, Ms. Kleinhaus asked that the District consider expanding riparian ecosystems wherever possible. Public comment closed at 3:05 p.m. Director Holman inquired regarding the timeline for potential expansion of uses at the Driscoll Event Center and how the deferment of expansion affected potential equestrian sites for the preserve. Ms. Hugg stated the potential equestrian sites examined by the PAWG sought to provide equestrian access to the central area of the preserve; however, the Driscoll Event Center is located further south2, and equestrians requested more centralized access, such as at Sears Ranch Road. Director Holman suggested including in the Board materials a map that includes distances between the various sites being considered, and other details, such as the location of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Director Holman thanked the PAWG for its dedication and diligence in their work and deliberations. Finally, Director Holman stated that in response to the various site constraints, PAWG recommendations, community concerns, etc., the Board may need to reevaluate the project goals and objectives and whether all sites are recommended. Directors Kersteen-Tucker and Kishimoto suggested that all of the sites be considered in the feasibility study, and following completion of the analysis, the Board can consider how to meet the project goals and objectives. Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested including access at the Driscoll Event Center in the feasibility study to better understand potential vehicle access at the site. Director Kersteen- Tucker spoke in favor of the PAWG recommendations and stated the feasibility assessment will provide the District with additional information to understand the various options for providing Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 6 July 28, 2020 public access to the middle area of the preserve. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke about the various sites and acknowledged the need to balance the traffic along Highway 84 with the need for public access. Committee members provided their thoughts and comments regarding the potential impacts of the various sites on the area, such as on traffic, viewshed, natural resources, La Honda Elementary School, etc. Chair Kishimoto applauded the PAWG process and offered her thoughts on the various site options and spoke in favor of permit parking over only docent parking near the Red Barn. Chair Kishimoto suggested providing additional information for dog and bicycle access on the Phase II trails. Ms. Mark stated the La Honda Master Plan does call for expanding dog access, which will be further studied in a future project. Bicycle access will be considered in determining how to provide regional trail connections and trail connections within the preserve. Chair Kishimoto requested staff provide additional information regarding the average number of vehicle accidents and fatalities in the area, if it is available. Additionally, Chair Kishimoto stated that the District should not let dangerous and reckless behavior and driving set the course for the District’s mission to increase safe public access to open space on the Coast. Finally, Chair Kishimoto suggested exploring additional site options in the event the PAWG recommended sites are not feasible, such as at the current ranger residence or potential land acquisitions. Director Kersteen-Tucker supported implementation of the various near-term solutions recommended by the PAWG. Additionally, Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested engaging with various stakeholders and partner agencies to address traffic safety along Highway 84 and seek opportunities for making Highway 84 safer for the community. Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to forward the La Honda Public Access Working Group’s recommendations to the full Board of Directors for consideration of approval and recommend that the Working Group be dissolved, and a recognition issued thanking the group for their contributions. Also direct staff to engage with the California Highway Patrol and other stakeholders to make Highway 84 corridor safer, where and if possible Friendly amendment: Director Holman offered a friendly amendment. - Compile and forward the committee members’ comments about the various sites to the Board of Directors - Do not dissolve the PAWG yet in case it is needed later in the project - Forward the near-term solutions as recommended by the PAWG for Board consideration Director Kersteen-Tucker accepted the friendly amendments and enthusiastically thanked the PAWG and District staff for their efforts and recommendations on this project. ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0 ADJOURNMENT Planning & Natural Resources Committee Page 7 July 28, 2020 Chair Kishimoto adjourned the meeting of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee at 3:57 p.m. ____________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA OPEN SPACE PRESERVE !# Permit Only Sears Ranch Parking(No Equestrian) RedBarn Event CenterParking 1 m i l e 1 .4 miles 4.3miles 2 . 5 m ile s E !#D B C!# !# !#A ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 B e arGulc hRd AllenRoad 22 0 0 18 0 0 140 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1400 1200 10 0 0 8 0 0 600 400 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 160 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 100 0 10 0 0 80 0 600 400 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 800 600 80 0 600 8 0 0 60 0 60 0 40 0 400 20 0 200 0 1600 20 0 1 0 0 0 100 0 2200 2 2 0 0 2000 1 8 0 0 16 0 0 1200 14 0 0 120 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 800 8 0 0 8 0 0 800 80 0 4 0 0 2200 2000 600 400 400200 Harringto n C r e e k Tr ai l Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 8 _ S i t e D i s t a n c e s _ 2 0 2 0 0 8 2 5 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : f l o p e z While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Distance Site to Site I00.50.25 Miles Site Distances Site A to Site B: 4.3 Miles Event Center to Sears Ranch Road Site B to Site C: 1 Miles Sears Ranch Road Parking Lot to Sears Ranch Road – Former Residence Area Site B to Site D: 1.4 Miles Sears Ranch Road Parking Lot to Preserve Gate LH07 Site D to Site E: 2.5 Miles Preserve Gate LH07 to Red Barn Site!# Highway Unpaved Seasonal Road Unpaved All-Season Road MROSD Preserve Existing Parking Lot Existing Equestrian Lot Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 9/18/2020 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Attachment 8 - Site Distances Map !# ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 P o r t o l a R d Sa n d h i l l R d W h i s k e y H i l l R d M o u n t a i n R d K i n g s A l p i ne Rd Pescadero Cree k R d A l p i n e R d AUDUBON SOCIETY HUDDART PARK SANTA CLARA WATER VALLEY DISTRICT JASPER RIDGE COAL MINE RIDGE SF BAY YOUTH AUTHORITY SAM MCDONALD PARK POMPONIO RANCH LLC DJERASSI RESIDENT ARTIST LA HONDA WOODSIDE LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE RUSSIAN RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE TEAUGE HILL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE WINDY HILL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE COAL CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 Permit Only Red Barn Sears Ranch Parking (No Equestrian) Event Center Equestrian Parking _ _ _ Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ L H C _ P A W G _ M a p 9 _ B A R T _ 2 0 2 0 0 8 2 5 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : f l o p e z While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Bay Area Ridge Trail I010.5 Miles Bay Area Ridge Trail MROSD Preserve Other Protected Open Space Planned Designated MROSD Trail Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(Midpen) 9/24/2020 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Attachment 9 - Bay Area Ridge Trail Map Figure 11: Public Access Trails Attachment 10 - La Honda Creek Preserve Trails Map LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE LA HONDA APPLE ORCHARD Schilling Lake La Honda Cre ek S a n G r e g o r i o C r ee k El Corte de Mad era Cre ek L aw r e n c e C r e e k Bo g e s s C r e e k H a r r i n g t o n C r e e k EVENT CENTER B e a r G ulch Rd O l d L a H o n da Rd Allen Rd Permit D J E R A S S I R E S I D E N T A R T I S T S R E D G AT E R A N C H (P OS T) (P OS T) S k y l i n e B l v d La Ho n d a Rd La Hon d a Rd DRISCOLL RANCH MCDONALD RANCH Enlargement B Enlargement A SEARS RANCH ALLEN RD RED BARN 9 10 11 12 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 14 13 8 7 6 5 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 9/5/2019 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ C o l l i s i o n s H w y 8 4 \ H w y 8 4 _ C o l l i s i o n s 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 9 _ 2 0 1 9 0 8 1 6 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : F L O P E Z 0 10.5 Miles I One Party Involved (n = 162) While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Area of Detail ÄÆ35 ÄÆ82 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ85 ÄÆ280 Half Moon Bay Redwood City San Carlos Belmont East Palo Alto Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Two Parties Involved (n = 90) Cluster of Five or more Collisions Within 200 Feet (n = 11) Three Parties Involved (n = 6) Caltrans Post Mile Marker/7 /7 /7 Between Skyline Blvd (SR 35) and SR 1 February 2009 - June 2019 CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 (SR 84) Data Source: California Highway Patrol, February 2009- June 2019 258 Plotted data points - Not all visible at current scale. Attachment 11 - Highway 84 Collisions Map LA HONDA La Honda Creek at Sears Ranch Parking Lot La g u n a D r Guardian Wy Fir vie w Cuesta Real Sc e n i c D r Canada V i s t a Play Bowl D r SuenoCamino M e m o ryLn Beverly Dr Redo n d o S e q u o i a D r Ro b l e P l Jud s o n D r Autumn St Fernwood Dr V e n t u r a A v e Roquena Dr R e cr e a ti o n D r Woodlan d V ist a S e a r s R a n ch Road ÄÆ84 LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 10 9 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 9/5/2019 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ C o l l i s i o n s H w y 8 4 \ L a H o n d a _ C o l l i s i o n s 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 9 _ 2 0 1 9 0 8 2 2 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : F L O P E Z 0 0.50.25 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Area of Detail ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 Cluster of Five or more Collisions Within 200 Feet (n = 11)One Party Involved /7/7 /7 Two Parties Involved Three Parties Involved Between Skyline Blvd (SR 35) and SR 1 February 2009 - June 2019 CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 (SR 84) - Enlargement B Caltrans Post Mile Marker Data Source: California Highway Patrol, February 2009- June 2019 258 Plotted data points - Not all visible at current scale. Attachment 12 - Highway 84 Collisions Map Enlargement – Sears Ranch Road Old La H o n d a Road S e q u o i a D r ÄÆ84 Red Barn LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 13 12 11 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 9/5/2019 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ P A W G \ C o l l i s i o n s H w y 8 4 \ R e d B a r n _ C o l l i s i o n s 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 9 _ 2 0 1 9 0 8 2 2 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : F L O P E Z 0 0.50.25 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Area of Detail ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 Cluster of Five or more Collisions Within 200 Feet (n = 11) Between Skyline Blvd (SR 35) and SR 1 February 2009 - June 2019 CHP Collision Data for Highway 84 (SR 84) - Enlargement A One Party Involved /7/7 /7 Two Parties Involved Three Parties Involved Data Source: California Highway Patrol, February 2009- June 2019 258 Plotted data points - Not all visible at current scale. Caltrans Post Mile Marker Attachment 13 - Highway 84 Collisions Map Enlargement – Red Barn area 1 Tina Hugg From:Wufoo <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:24 PM To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#288] EXTERNAL  Name * Karen Sullivan Email * Zip Code * 95451 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Hello Planning Committee, I am a former La Honda resident, born in the Bay Area and with ties still to that area. I am an avid hiker, jogger, trail runner and equestrian and feel strongly about open space on the Peninsula, especially the west side. I am glad workshops are being held regarding the development of this incredible open space and wanted to share some opinions on this. I strongly suggest that development of trails and activity is left as minimum as possible. As they say, "they aren't making land anymore", especially open space in the Bay Area. This area is home to a plethora of wildlife, native plants, insects and entire ecosystems. The introduction of the public will not have a benefit on keeping this area as it has been in the past and will be a disruption those ecosystems. I suggest visits by permit only and restricted to equestrians and hikers only, who have minimal impact on the land. You might want to look back at all the workshops that San Mateo did for their parks master plan in which they found that due to trail conflicts, safety and resource protection; they designated all county park trails hiker and equestrian only. As you will find as you research this, allowing mountain bikes on narrow trails only increases user conflict and adds to trail erosion and trail poaching. Please keep mountain bikes out of La Honda Open space. Speeding vehicles are NOT a safe mix with foot traffic (hikers and horses). Midpen and POST have had continuing problems with this over the past 3 decades and the problem is only getting worse. There are documented reports of collisions with hikers and equestrians as a direct result of speeding mountain bikers that have killed and injured other trail users. Popular parks (Wilder State Park, for example) have such heavy use that other trail users start avoiding visiting and recreating. I would be happy to share a report documenting the dangers of allowing mountain bikers on trails with foot traffic, based on 30 years of research and showing problems back in the 1990's, which was BEFORE bikes for faster and before E-bikes. E bikes can be hard to tell from standard mountain bikes; they are motorized and can go faster downhill AND uphill Attachment 14 - Public Comment 07-17-2020 through 10-08-2020 2 Karen Sullivan Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Yes From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#286] Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:44:16 AM EXTERNAL Name *Mike Vandeman Email * Zip Code *94583 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. There is absolutely no good reason to build the Ridge Trail! NO ONE needs to travel several hundred miles, just so they can say they circumnavigated the Bay Area. Trail-building and trail use both destroy wildlife habitat! What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail-building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail! Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking.... A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see https://mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions. Mountain bikers also love to build new trails - legally or illegally. Of course, trail-building destroys wildlife habitat - not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10-mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for details. Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297. In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm . For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm . The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks). The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks. Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Yes From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#284] Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:47:26 PM EXTERNAL Name *Mike Vandeman Email * Zip Code *94583 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail-building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail! And there is no good reason to continue building the Bay Trail and Ridge Trail. Haven't we ALREADY destroyed far too much wildlife habitat? Why do you think we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction crisis????? It's mostly caused by habitat loss! DUH! Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mjvande.info/mtb10.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking.... A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see https://mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions. Mountain bikers also love to build new trails - legally or illegally. Of course, trail-building destroys wildlife habitat - not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10-mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See https://mjvande.info/scb9.htm for details. Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297. In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb_dangerous.htm . For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm . The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks). The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks. Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Yes 1 Tina Hugg From:Wufoo <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 4:45 PM To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#287] EXTERNAL  Name * Robert Gonzales Email * Zip Code * 95051 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Would love to see more lands opened up to the public for general use. That should include bikes. Also it would be nice to create an area accessible by the handicapped. Another key opportunity is a telescope observation area. Opened up for nite use away from city lights Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Yes From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#285] Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:32:13 PM EXTERNAL Name *Tina Kraal Email * Zip Code *V7K1S5 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Ease stop any trail building and keep this closed to the public. We need wild places! Thank you. Tina kraal. From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#283] Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:07:22 PM EXTERNAL Name *Vy Nguyen Email * Zip Code *94062 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. I have had the pleasure of hiking La Honda Creek under the limited permit access system. Living near several open space preserves and enjoying being able to visit these areas, I would like to commend the committee for considering expanding access to La Honda Creek. I believe that doing so provides additional opportunity for visitors to experience the natural beauty of the Peninsula, but I also believe the committee can ensure it stays that way for generations to come. The current free- access model at Edgewood is an example of how the popularity of a park can create problems for the environment, the life within the preserve, and the community surrounding it. I support increasing access, however I strongly feel that this access needs to be managed to mitigate the effects of visitors on soil erosion, invasive species introduction, trash, unauthorized dog walking, and vehicular traffic hazards on roadways. I lack insight into whether the permit system in its current state is scalable or sustainable for our local preserves and so have no opinion on whether to continue with it as is, but permit systems do work as proven for Muir Woods, Half Dome, and Whitney Portal. I urge the committee to evaluate a solution that accomplishes both providing increased access, and limits hiker and vehicle traffic to continue preserving La Honda Creek for the future. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Yes From:Wufoo To:Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc:web Subject:La Honda Creek Communications [#289] Date:Monday, September 28, 2020 11:22:50 AM EXTERNAL Name *Greg Klein Email * Zip Code *94062 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. I'm excited to see bike access! Hopefully there will be a legal way to connect from Allen Road to Sears Ranch Road. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Yes October 7, 2020 Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 To the Members of the Board: I was honored to be able to serve as a member of the La Honda Creek Public Access Working Group. As a former public servant myself, I very much appreciated the excellent work put into effort by the Midpen staff, they were so professional and hard-working! I filled out the online survey on the PAWG process, but as I know this is Midpen’s first go at one of these working groups, I also wanted to convey my thoughts to you here as well, in the hopes that it helps you perfect what I think is already a very strong public service. First, while I was happy to be able to represent La Honda on the PAWG, I was disappointed that local representation was outnumbered by those living outside the area. While I recognize that Midpen represents thousands outside the area, the impact of development of the Red Barn site, particularly with respect to the increase in traffic hazards, falls disproportionately on those living from Skyline/Highway 35 to San Gregorio /Highway 1. Government at all levels often gives greater weight to those more heavily impacted by its decisions. Midpen should do likewise. Second, the two major concerns of the community writ large was traffic and aesthetics. On traffic, Midpen relied on outdated traffic and collision studies, forcing PAWG members from the community to come up with their own, amateur, ‘studies’, comprised of pouring through old data and standing by the side of the road for days on end. While I understand that Midpen might not have wanted to expend resources on traffic studies at this early stage of the Red Barn project, given the gravity of the proposal and the alarm that this stirred up, it might have been wiser to spend the money and have some answers. As it was, we spent months debating amongst ourselves, with those of us who travel these dangerous roads daily listening to theoretical discussions of traffic calming measures that were uninformed by either expertise or an understanding of actual traffic patterns and history or even knowledge of the laws and regulations governing state highways. And with respect to the aesthetics of the Red Barn, it is no small matter of the locals just liking what they’ve always had. The Red Barn is an iconic image that has been captured by photographers worldwide and it is what draws the rest of you to our area. So, it should have come as no surprise that when the images of the conceptual design alternatives for the Red Barn showing a paved driveway running in front of the Barn and a parking lot for 70 vehicles were first projected on the big screen, it drew an audible gasp from the audience. Those same images should have been projected on a screen at every meeting of the PAWG until we voted to dismiss the idea so that the members from outside La Honda could have a graphic, visual understanding of why over 900 people in nearby communities signed a petition to protest development at the Red Barn. Without this visual reminder, Attachment 15 - PAWG Comments received 7/17/20 through 10/8/20 especially for those PAWG members who were not at those Midpen meetings in La Honda, the discussions about the Red Barn become dishearteningly academic and not about protecting beautiful and iconic landscapes. Finally, the last session of the PAWG in which we voted on proposals to forward to the PNR was unnecessarily confusing and rushed, with some participants unclear as to exactly what was being voted on. We would all have benefited from taking an extra 10 minutes to have the proposals clearly restated before voting took place. To be clear, I was on the losing side, and I think I would still have been on the losing side even if everyone was clear on what they were voting for, but the process would have felt better and would have been more fair. Certainly the public would have felt that they understood what had happened and why. And, as I remind people from my days in government, it’s not always about ‘winning’, sometimes it is about being heard and understood. I think we missed a little of that at the end of the process. In any case, for me it was a very worthwhile process even though, as I say, I was on the ‘losing’ side in that a proposal for the Red Barn (even scaled down) remains in the mix. But I respect the process and, more importantly, I have an even greater respect now for the very important and quite difficult work that you all do. For that, you have my thanks, truly! Sincerely, Kathleen Moazed La Honda, CA From:DENISE LARSEN To:Tina Hugg Subject:Red Barn access Date:Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:27:11 PM EXTERNAL Hi, I think the La Honda Creek working group did not look at Red Barn access but rather anything but Ref Barn Access. Access from or near where there is already access or limited access(permits, ranger led only), is not what I thought they were charged with. Your original plans were great! Stick with it! I live a mile from Alice’s Restaurant so understand traffic. There are ways to mitigate traffic concerns at Red Barn location. It will be a great educational area! Great place to connect to lower and upper LaHonda Creek areas. Keep up good work look at what is best for all. Thanks for Listening! Denise Larsen Sent from my iPhone From: Wufoo To: Tina Hum; Melissa Boroesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#289] Date: Monday, September 28, 2020 11:22:50 AM EXTERNAL Name * Email * Zip Code * Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? Greg Klein 94062 I'm excited to see bike access! Hopefully there will be a legal way to connect from Allen Road to Sears Ranch Road. . Yes Tina Hugg From: Wufoo <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 9:24 PM To: Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#288] EXTERNAL Name * Karen Sullivan Email * Zip Code * 95451 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Hello Planning Committee, I am a former La Honda resident, born in the Bay Area and with ties still to that area. I am an avid hiker, jogger, trail runner and equestrian and feel strongly about open space on the Peninsula, especially the west side. I am glad workshops are being held regarding the development of this incredible open space and wanted to share some opinions on this. I strongly suggest that development of trails and activity is left as minimum as possible. As they say, "they aren't making land anymore", especially open space in the Bay Area. This area is home to a plethora of wildlife, native plants, insects and entire ecosystems. The introduction of the public will not have a benefit on keeping this area as it has been in the past and will be a disruption those ecosystems. I suggest visits by permit only and restricted to equestrians and hikers only, who have minimal impact on the land. You might want to look back at all the workshops that San Mateo did for their parks master plan in which they found that due to trail conflicts, safety and resource protection; they designated all county park trails hiker and equestrian only. As you will find as you research this, allowing mountain bikes on narrow trails only increases user conflict and adds to trail erosion and trail poaching. Please keep mountain bikes out of La Honda Open space. Speeding vehicles are NOT a safe mix with foot traffic (hikers and horses). Midpen and POST have had continuing problems with this over the past 3 decades and the problem is only getting worse. There are documented reports of collisions with hikers and equestrians as a direct result of speeding mountain bikers that have killed and injured other trail users. Popular parks (Wilder State Park, for example) have such heavy use that other trail users start avoiding visiting and recreating. I would be happy to share a report documenting the dangers of allowing mountain bikers on trails with foot traffic, based on 30 years of research and showing problems back in the 1990's, which was BEFORE bikes for faster and before E -bikes. E bikes can be hard to tell from standard mountain bikes; they are motorized and can go faster downhill AND uphill 1 Karen Sullivan Would you Yes like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? 2 From: Wufoo To: Tina Hum; Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#290] Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:01:52 AM EXTERNAL Name * Email * Zip Code Liz Chapman 94020 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Hello, in early discussion of developing parking and access at the Red Barn just off 84 it was noted that the area is damp through the summer, a kind of wetland. That is especially noticeable now as the field between the barn and the highway is green while all else around it has dried to the usual golden brown. I don't think I've seen this taken into account in this past year's conversations? Along with possibly complicating construction there I believe it may have to be taken into account as precious habitat? Perhaps this has been explored and understood? I just want to be sure it hasn't been forgotten as it may be important. Thank you, Liz Chapman p.s. as I write today the October 21 meeting is not available on the public comment page's dropdown menu for submitting comments to be read into the record Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? • Yes From:Midpen Public Comment Form To:Clerk; web; Maria Soria Subject:I want my comment to be <strong>read into the record</strong> during the board meeting. (250 word limit) - October 14 - Board of Directors Meeting - Date:Thursday, October 8, 2020 6:30:41 PM EXTERNAL Meeting Date *October 14 - Board of Directors Meeting Is this a comment about a specific board item? * Yes Agenda Item Number *1 Subject *La Honda Parking & Trailhead Please check one: *In Favor Name *Linda Rutherford City of Residence *Montara CA Email * Select a Choice *I want my comment to be read into the record during the board meeting. (250 word limit) Comments to be read into the record * As a 70+ year old woman who enjoys the outdoors, I request the Board consider adding more paved road, parking, benches, and trail access points at La Honda. When I visited, I found that the park seemed to be designed just for athletic young people, and not for senior citizens. Easier access would be appreciated. From: Wufoo To: Tina Hugo. Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#286] Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:44:16 AM EXTERNAL Name * Mike Vandeman Email Zip Code * 94583 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. There is absolutely no good reason to build the Ridge Trail! NO ONE needs to travel several hundred miles, just so they can say they circumnavigated the Bay Area. Trail -building and trail use both destroy wildlife habitat! What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail -building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail! Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mivande.info/mtbl0.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking.... A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see httns.//mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions. Mountain bikers also love to build new trails - legally or illegally. Of course, trail -building destroys wildlife habitat - not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10 -mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See httos-//mjvande.info/scb9.htrn for details. Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5 -minute video: httn- / /vimeo.com /48784297. In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: httns•//mjvande.info/mtb dangerous.htnt. For more information: httns-//mjvande.info/mtbfan.htm . The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks). The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks. Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? • Yes From: Wufoo To: Tina Hum; Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#284] Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:47:26 PM EXTERNAL Name * Email Zip Code Mike Vandeman 94583 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. What were you thinking??? Mountain biking and trail -building destroy wildlife habitat! Mountain biking is environmentally, socially, and medically destructive! There is no good reason to allow bicycles on any unpaved trail! And there is no good reason to continue building the Bay Trail and Ridge Trail. Haven't we ALREADY destroyed far too much wildlife habitat? Why do you think we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction crisis?»?? It's mostly caused by habitat loss! DUH! Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1996: https://mivande.info/mtbl0.htm . It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking.... A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited, and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see https.//mjvande.info/scb7.htm ). I found that of the seven studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2) in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions. Mountain bikers also love to build new trails - legally or illegally. Of course, trail -building destroys wildlife habitat - not just in the trail bed, but in a wide swath to both sides of the trail! E.g. grizzlies can hear a human from one mile away, and smell us from 5 miles away. Thus, a 10 -mile trail represents 100 square miles of destroyed or degraded habitat, that animals are inhibited from using. Mountain biking, trail building, and trail maintenance all increase the number of people in the park, thereby preventing the animals' full use of their habitat. See httns-//mjvande.info/scb9.htrrl for details. Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5 -minute video: httry / /vimeo.com /48784297 In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: httns.//mjvande.info/mtb dangerous.htnt. For more information: httos-//nijvande.info/mtbfaa.htm . The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks). The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks. Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? . Yes Tina Hugg From: Wufoo <no-reply@wufoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 4:45 PM To: Tina Hugg; Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#287] EXTERNAL Name * Robert Gonzales Email * Zip Code * 95051 Please let us know your comments about Would love to see more lands opened up to the public for general use. opening public access at La Honda Creek That should include bikes. Also it would be nice to create an area Preserve. accessible by the handicapped. Another key opportunity is a telescope observation area. Opened up for nite use away from city lights Would you like to receive email notifications Yes regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? i From: Wufoo To: Tina Hum; Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#285] Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:32:13 PM EXTERNAL Name * Email * Zip Code * Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. Tina Kraal V7K1S5 Ease stop any trail building and keep this closed to the public. We need wild places! Thank you. Tina kraal. From: Wufoo To: Tina Hum; Melissa Borgesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#283] Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:07:22 PM EXTERNAL Name * Email * Zip Code Vy Nguyen 94062 Please let us know your comments about opening public access at La Honda Creek Preserve. I have had the pleasure of hiking La Honda Creek under the limited permit access system. Living near several open space preserves and enjoying being able to visit these areas, I would like to commend the committee for considering expanding access to La Honda Creek. I believe that doing so provides additional opportunity for visitors to experience the natural beauty of the Peninsula, but I also believe the committee can ensure it stays that way for generations to come. The current free - access model at Edgewood is an example of how the popularity of a park can create problems for the environment, the life within the preserve, and the community surrounding it. I support increasing access, however I strongly feel that this access needs to be managed to mitigate the effects of visitors on soil erosion, invasive species introduction, trash, unauthorized dog walking, and vehicular traffic hazards on roadways. I lack insight into whether the permit system in its current state is scalable or sustainable for our local preserves and so have no opinion on whether to continue with it as is, but permit systems do work as proven for Muir Woods, Half Dome, and Whitney Portal. I urge the committee to evaluate a solution that accomplishes both providing increased access, and limits hiker and vehicle traffic to continue preserving La Honda Creek for the future. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? . Yes From: Wufoo To: Tina Huoa; Melissa Boroesi Cc: web Subject: La Honda Creek Communications [#293] Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 7:57:56 PM EXTERNAL Name Email Zip Code Eli Weiss 95008 Please let us know your comments I strongly support increasing trail access for hiking and about opening public access at La bicycles Honda Creek Preserve. Would you like to receive email notifications regarding La Honda Creek Preserve? . Yes From: Midpen Public Comment Form To: Clerk; web; Maria Soria Subject: I am submitting a comment to be provided to the board of directors. (no limit) - October 21- Board of Directors Meeting - Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 10:22:58 AM EXTERNAL Meeting Date * October 21 - Board of Directors Meeting Is this a comment about a specific No board item? Subject * Wildland Fire Resiliency Program - El Sereno Please check one: * Neutral Name * jj Liston City of Residence "" Los Gatos Email * Select a Choice ` I am submitting a comment to be provided to the board of directors. (no limit) Comments to be provided to the board of directors N Hello I am concerned with the vegetation management map that has been put together for El Sereno OSP located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. I live in this area, off Overlook Road, that borders ELOSP to the North and East. I am a trail runner and have spent extensive time doing in -field research of the WUI between ELOSP and our Overlook Community. My in -field research paints a much different picture of the fuel and fire hazard, as opposed to your study dated May 2020. I realize that Mid Pen has many OSP's to tend to. I also know that my community on Overlook Road (unincorporated Santa Clara County) has a lot of work to do to improve our fuel loads on private property that lies between ELOSP and Overlook Road. Nonetheless, your plan for El Sereno is vastly under reported and underfunded. I have spent many many hours in this area as "boots on the ground", and I whole heartedly dispute your team findings. I have done extensive analysis of the tax base and home value for my community of unincorporated Santa Clara County. We, the 1.3miles of Overlook Road, are the MOST VALUABLE private property in ALL of Mid Pen acreage. I have run my analysis further and include .smile from your property boundary and 1 mile too, each time once again, this area and in to Los gatos and Monte Sereno are the MOST EXPENSIVE piece of private property that borders Mid Pen. I encourage you to seriously rethink your plan and commitment to fire mitigation and fire fuel reduction for the private property border of El Sereno OSP. Finally and further, with your recent acquisition of 182 acres from SJWW, it will be crucial and important that Mid Pen perform an in -field study and survery of the new land acquired and its fuel level load in the 100 ft plus that borders our valuable private property. With your acknowledgement and effort, we can work together to improve the WUI of this area. I am in the final stages of finishing my Vegetation Management and Fire Mitigation study for my community. I will be providing this report, with extensive in -field, GPS and GIS study, to all offices at the local, county, and state level. I am also preparing this for State Farm insurance and my county Firesafe program. I will be happy to share this valuable report with Mid Pen at the conclusion of my written analysis. I want my email and opinion to be acknowledged as part of the community feedback for your final draft of your Wildland Study. I disagree with your assessment of the fire fuel load and necessary abatement for El Sereno OSP, as it borders private property along Overlook Road, unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. With kind regards and much thanks Janssen Liston 408/313-5137 19131 Linda Vista Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 File upload midi en vea_manaaementmaDs el_sereno osD.Ddf 831.30 KB • PDF