HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800910 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 80-19 0 Meeting 80-19
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
A G E N D A
September 10 , 1980 7 :30 P .M.
(7 : 30) ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 27 , 1980
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
(7 :45) 1. Location of Parking Lot at Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve - S. Sessions
NEW BUSINESS 14ITH ACTION REQUESTED
(8 :00) 2. Renewal of Contract with Coordinator of Volunteer
Programs - S . Sessions
(8 :10) 3. Date for Program Evaluation Workshop - H. Grench
NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED
(8 :15) 4. Signing Along Skyline Boulevard - S. Sessions
(8 :30) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
CLAIMS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Negotiations & Personnel Matters
ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you 're concerned
with appears on the agenda , please address the Board
at that time; otherwise, you may address the Board
under Oral Communications . When recognized, please
begin by stating your name and address . Conciseness
is appreciated. We request that you complete the
forms provided so your name and address can be
accurately included in the minutes .
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G Wendin
R-80-50
(Meeting 80-19
September 10, 1980)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
September 4 , 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: S . Sessions, Land Manager, and
D. Woods, Environmental Management
Planner
SUBJECT: Location of Parking Lot at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Introduction: At the City of Palo Alto Council meeting of August 11,
1980, the District was granted a continuance of the parking lot
issue, and the matter is to be heard on October 20 , 1980 . The
continuance was requested by District staff in order to evaluate
a potential lot location which had not been addressed in previous
discussions. The site (Area L) is located adjacent to Page Mill
Road and to the east of Area F as shown on the attached map. The
following is an evaluation of this site and the same criteria pre-
viously used to study each potential location were applied.
Discussion: The suggested parking lot site, Area L, is situated
on gently sloping terrain alongside Page Mill Road on the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve. It is located primarily in the County
of San Mateo, but depending on actual design, it may extend into
the City of Palo Alto. A 30 car parking area could be developed
on the San Mateo County parcel. Any expansion beyond that 30 car
capacity would have to be within the City of Palo Alto.
A schematic design has been prepared illustrating a possible con-
figuration for parking in this area (see attached Exhibit B) . The
entrance to the lot would be opposite and to the east of the Los
Trancos gate which leads to the old riding ring (Area K) . This
access provides an acceptable line of sight on the road for ingress
and egress.
The close proximity to the roadway should inhibit undesirable use
of the parking area. Although the location offers an attractive
view of the Peninsula, the parking scheme would not encourage
motorists to use the parking lot as a vista turnout. Perimeter
landscaping could also be used to discourage this type of use.
Surveillance of the lot could be satisfactorily accomplished from
a westerly approach on Page Mill Road. The lot would not be
visible from the east approach because of a steep embankment
along the road.
Page Two
The suggested site is close to the attractive portions of the
Preserve and the various trailheads. Trail links would include a
connection to the existing Canyon Fire Trail and the proposed
Stevens Creek Nature Trail. The site also lends itself to the
establishment of a handicapped trail which would provide vistas
of Stevens Creek Canyon.
Grading would be confined to an area approximately 31 acre in size.
A six foot cut would be necessary in the southeast corner and the
displaced earth would be used to build up the northeast corner near
the roadway. The resulting scars and compacted area would be
visible for a short distance along Page Mill Road and highly visible
along Monte Bello Ridge. These areas would be reseeded; there-
fore, any impact from the cut and fill operation would be short
term, although the parking area would always be visible from
Monte Bello Ridge.
The ten factors used to evaluate each of the potential parking
areas have been applied to this site and are included in Exhibit C.
Although a comparison indicates that this site is not as desirable
as Area G, site "L" would be the best possible alternative if
Area G were eliminated as a considered parking lot location. The
visual impacts from Monte Bello Ridge are not favorable, but the
site's relationship to the Preserve, its location on the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve side of Page Mill Road, and the advantage
of good surveillance would make the location acceptable.
ry
Recommendation: From a site use and management planning standpoint,
Area G is still recommended as the location for a parking lot to
serve the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. The proposed Area L
would be the recommended second choice. Accordingly, the Board
could direct staff to continue with Area G until a determination
is made by the Palo Alto City Council. If the City Council does
not approve Area G, the Board could then consider the location of
a parking lot in Area L or other options .
Page Two
a) repairing water lines
b) clearing fallen trees
c) etc.
B. The MROSD Method of Providing After-Hours Response (Present)
.............
EXHIBIT A SITE MAP (USGS)
U,[
MONTE BELLO
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
2000 ' North
g!
5 x Yi�e
X, 0.
�_, _ ��
3,
T
At
iiii—c NO,
-K I I L
B
-4m
if it
Lukr
V11)
ir 7�
2-i;;- —SEAVE
rortola
s
ey
10
y ``�
unn
zk,
; ale
�o
0
7
7--
:1EN'oS,RA'CE MSEAyE flAA
ANIIrNLwO CO.
A 4. FRW
mo C6 STE' v
V
SJRA(�, 2
cAfEN
.b� 4
rftsrA-?0-'01
4A
R.IA
EXHIBIT C R-80-5
Analysis of Site Location With Respect to Various Factors
Page Mill Road Location
Factors limiting development A B C D E F **G H I J K L
1. Line of sight for safe
accessibility Good Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair
*2. Close visual proximity to
roadway Fair Good Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Good
3. Visual impact from Page
Mill Read Poor Fair Good. Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair
4. Visual impact fran
Skyline Boulevard Good Good Good Good Good Poor Fair Good Good Poor Good C
5. Visual impact from
Monte Bello Ridge Fair Fair Good Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor
*6. Restrictive view from
site to discourage parkers Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Poor
7. Engineering - lack of excessive
grading or geologic problems Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair
8. Expansion potential Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good Good
9. Close proximity to attractive
parts of site Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair Good Poor Poor Good
10. Relationship to the Monte Bello I
Open Space Preserve and proxi-
mity to trail system ;Poor Fairy Good 1 Good Fair i Good . Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Good
*The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to a public roadway is a critical
factor with direct impacts on the District's management program. If the lot is highly
visible from the roadway and has a limited view, it will be less inviting to vandals and
loiterers. A lot positioned away from the roadway will most likely result in a security
system with extended patrol coverage and locked gates during the nights.
**Location adopted on July 11, 1979
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
August 26, 1980
I
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
f ,
pp
y 6'
rt
An
ta
qepol
July 17, 1980 j
I
tioNORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Midpeninsula Regional en Space District's Application for Site and ;
Deli Review of Monte Iello en ace Preserve Improvements
Members of the Council: _
History �tt
I
An application for Site and Design review of the Monte Bello Open Space t
i Preserve Use and Management Plan was submitted by the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District on August 15, 1979. The Plan included
three major elements: (1) a proposed 8S-car parking lot (with 30 of
E these spaces in landscaped reserve) on Page Mill Road; (2) a network of
trails; and (3) removal of water cisterns and an abandoned building.
4
The application was continued by the Planning Commission on Septem-
ber 26, 1979 for redesign of the parking lot (minutes are attached) .
A,!ROSD requested three continuances to re-evaluate the parking lot design
and location, and the item returned to the Planning Commission on May 28,
1980 (minutes are attached) .
f The parking lot design presented to the Planning Commission on May 28,
1980 was curvilinear to conform with the existing contours of the land,
would accommodate 4S cars, and had an area of landscape reserve. The
Planning Commission once again questioned the location of the proposed
I parking lot and unanimously recommended denial. The intent of the
t
Commission to recommend denial of the proposed parking lot is clear in
the May 28 Commission minutes. However, a notion to that effect was
never made. Therefore the Commission on June 25, after correction and
approval of the May 28 minutes, adopted a motion clarifying their ear-
lier denial recommendation (see attached page 29 of the June 2S Commis-
sion minutes) . On May 28, the trail system was unanimously recommended
for approval by the Commission. The removal of structures and the
concrete cistern was not acted upon pending City Attorney's Office
clarification of whether this was covered by the Site and Design pro-
vision. Subsequent discussions with the Attorney's Office determined
that the removal of structures, including concrete cisterns, does not
require Site and Design review.
The Architectural Review Board approved the trail system at its meeting
of June S, 1980 (minutes attached) .
f
GIR:354:0
. l
Environmental Review
An addendum to the original environmental impact assessment was prepared
for the May 28, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. This assessment
recommending a negative declaration attempted to clarify many environ-
mental concerns raised by Commission members and the public.
Current Status and Recommendation
Given the opinion of the City Attorney's Office on the removal of struc-
tures, the Site and Design application now consists of (1) the proposed
parking lot and related landscaping and facilities, and (2) the proposed
trail network. Attached are two brief reports submitted by MROSD sub-
sequent to the May 28, 1980 Planning Commission meeting which explain
the selected parking lot location and clarify the construction tech-
niques and routing of the trail system.
Staff recommend's that the City Council adopt a motion concurring with
the unanimous Planning Commission and ARB reconunendations for approval
of the trail system.
If the City Council wishes to approve the proposed parking lot, the
parking lot and landscaping plans should then be forwarded to the ARB.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT M. BROWN NAPhFALI H. KNOX
Associate Planner Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: July 15, 1980 letters from MROSD
June 25, 1980 Planning Con-mds sion minutes
June S, 1980 ARB minutes
May 28, 1980 Planning Commission minutes
Original and supplemental EIAs
September 21, 1979 staff report
February 19, 1980 update memorandum
Letter from John Olmstead
Letter from Thomas Harrington, November 7, 1979
Responses from Fire Department and Parks Department
September 26, 1979 Planning Commission minutes
May 1, 1980 letter from MROSD
January 15, 1980 letter from MROSD
July 5, 1979 letter from MROSD
Plans (Commission and Council members only)
cc: Applicant
Santa Clara County Planning Department
San Mateo County Planning Department
Thomas Harrington
John Olmstead
Chin:354:0 7/17/80
-2-
WMIUsslullel, Int-k-UW11-11CLVVr%r;'Z> 4AAIU
positions by the er July. By August, we will r a new Planning Commissioner
replacing Jay Mitch I indicated two alternativ :hedules in the staff report
for finishing out the work on the Plan. The first is to meet weekly until the work
is done. The second is to concentrate the meetings on a specific week or two. Ther
are several advantages to alternative member two. With Jay Mitchell leaving that
would make it possible for him to finish out the public hearings rather than hav-
ing a new Commissioner come in the middle of them. Also, if we get a week where
everyone will be present, there is the probability for more continuity that might
otherwise be difficult to achieve were the meetings spread out over time. Staff
needs to know in which direction you want to go in.order that we can start adver-
tising dates.
Commissioner McCown-Hawkes: If we met three nights in a row, what would be the
cliFaic-es of finisFiRg?
Mr. Schreiber: it would depend in part on how much language changing the Com-
mission wants. conmdssioners could facilitate the process by identifying pos-
e
sible changes and getting them to staff early in order to get them typed.
Commissioner Cobb: I would suggest meeting July 16 and 17 and then meeting
again July 23 and 234. That way we could do two nights back-to-back in two
successive weeks.
Vice-Chairman Nichols: By general consent we will accept that.
T
NEW BUSINESS
Vice Chairman Nichols: We have the clarify of the motion on Parking Lot G
in the Open Space rict's Site and Design application.
Vic
e
C
Commissioner Cullen: I 'distinctly remember there was a discussion of denial of
A lot
ot G. That can e seen from the May 28 minutes.
�JT
Commissioner McCown-Hawkes: it may well be that we concluded by the sense of it th2
we would not make a positive recommendation on Lot G. However, what we did formall�
recommend was only approval of the trail plan. It was somewhat confusing.
Mr. Schreiber: That staff sense from the tapes and staff notes. The comments
sounded like everyone was responding to a motion, but the tape indicates that
the motion was not formally made.
MOTION AND SECOND: Commissioner Heneke moved to clarify that it was the intent
of the cori—mussion to deny Lot G even though the formalities of a motion and vote
apparently did not take place. Commissioner Wheeler seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Nichols: I will abstain since I did not attend the May 28 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED: The motion carried unanimously by a vote of S - 0 (Vice Chairman
Nicho-li abstaining and commissioner Mitchell absent) .
A11JOURNNENT
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: it was moved, seconded, and carried to adjourn
meeting—a-F-1-27.Wa.m.
29
6/25/80
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MIDPENINSULA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
age
New trails
Ken Schreiber explained that the project had been considered by the Planning
Commission; the trails were approved under site and design and were before
the ARB, but the parking lot was not approved by the Commission. The cisterns
question did not require site and'design.
Mr. Del Williams described the foot trails as being 30" to 36" wide and would
be a cleared dirt path. The equestrian trails would follow the old logging
trails and would be 10' wide.
The Board APPROVED the trails and cohmented that they were well thought out.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Mmws--___,�,._
design application for Monte hello open Space Preserve. There are
plan. The one area of that
several elements that are contained within P
the parking area and
the District staff was h p K
concern referred back to h
its ro osed location. Since the referral back to staff, we have done
P P and
areas
redesigned reduced number of parking ,
things. One, we have �,
two t �
some landscaping. The original proposal that was brought to you in
r CO 45.
We feel
reduced January was far 5� parking stalls.. No
w it is rc d c
the design is very sensitive to the proposed location. We have taken
into consideration the- topography and the ad;acent knoll. We have done
p
one other item in depth. We went through a complete analysis of possible
parking lot locations. This information was compiled, presented to our
�-+ board, copies were made available to the Commission. We attempted to
evaluate nine factors that we felt were important to the location of
this parking area. The result of that evaluation was that the District
std"ff has reaffirmed the location we refer to as Location C as the most
suitable in relation to the Monte Bello plan. I emphasize that, because
what we are referring, to is the Monte Bello development plan and this
particular location is a trailhead and has a very close relationship to
what we are proposing in that facility now and in the future. If there
are questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Purusha Ohluda. 31570 Pare Mill Road: I spoke at the September meeting, -
so I will try not to be too repetitive. I speak for myself, but I am
also President of Friends of the Land which has a fairly extensive
membership and we have discussed these issues at great length. I have
been in contact with all the families that live along upper Page Mill
and constitute a sort of ad hoc Page Mill residents' group. I have also
spoken with Robert Skocroft of the Friends of the Earth, who has authorized
me to say that group is willing to take part in any public discussion to
choose a proper place, and they are very unhappy with the position
proposed by the Open Space District. Needless to say, so are the rest
of the.people I speak for. However, from now on, I will speak for
myself and make my points as clear as possible. First, we feel that the
Open Space District has not gotten serious input from those of us who
live there. I understand some of their motivation. They regard some of
us who were involved in the bitterness surrounding the expulsion of the
community as likely to be their implacable enemy. Perhaps there is no
possibility that they could meet with the group and come out with any
kind of compromise plan. I would sincerely like to tell them that is
not the way we look at it. We are interested in solving the question of
what to do about the parkins; lot, the parking situation, the trails, and
the cistern, and especially about fire problems by meeting with them.
At the previous September Meeting a member of the staff used Proposition
13 as a reason they had not met with the public to get input. We think
this is erroneous. When they did hold a public meeting it was not
announced in their packet and we had to rind out about it by aggressively
presssing to find out that there was a public meeting about that at the
parking lot. I think any of you who were present are aware of the fact
that a large number of neighbors turned out, and there is widespread and
heated teeling on the hill regarding, in particular, the status of the
parking lot situation. The people have `2d the three of us to expr, ;s
their opinion that we wouLd like to ,;:st?tor c,itlt the: (?pen Space D trio
and solve this on a cooperative compromise arrangement. By and large we
feel that the propusitiun submitted by tite 0LiL, cL, site C is quite the
worst of all that have been discussed. A great many of us could get
behind John Olmsted's position about b,-vin,, parking in the
riding ring. I will .111.0w hin to sit :l- :o C.a:at. i do want ao point v+at
that the reasons }riven by the Opt"' :"t "." '1istrlct for n0L cc nsideri1.,.
that seem to center on the fact thzel- ;: is )!;dd on from P-,,ge `till Rold
and would be difficult For the +r:n`r"• l.�'". • trider surveil l:tnvc for
a- ` I go h}
s< � ' c :
there every day and keen z t.,b on !;.r.: 1; >.tc:: are in Lh,! ltx` ;ting lot--
something the District h.-Isn't is it fil.;.mod to overflowing,
In the middle of summer on a ;ound::y i.; ahtn it overflows.
16
5/"28/80
r
Twenty or thirty people would be walking I- the parking lot then, and
you don't need outside police/ranger surveillance. At night, when
there are no cars in there, you don't need surveillance. We think that
the solution would be to use that as an overflow parking lot, try it out
this summer, lock that outer gate at Pape *till [toad to take care of the
neighbors' objections to having it open at night and having it as an
attractive spot for people to pull over and park, drink beer, and etc.
We think that could be closed at dark and opened in the morning.
In the past they have said they can't get their rangers scheduled to
handle that. Tire people up there would be quite willing to contract at a
minimal cost to lock and unlock that parking lot. We think that could
be handled easily. I want to speak a little bit about the trails. Very
little has been said about this proposal to put in about four miles of
trails, partly because it has been very difficult for us to get any
clear information from the Open Space District staff as to what they are
planning to do. I haven't seen it written down and I don't know. There
has been no input asked of us who lived there for so long and those of
us who live next door and walk that land constantly. I spent two years
in a teepee in the meadow, and after the Open Space District took over
they drove a road through the meadow. If they had asked me, I could
have told them there was no need for a road. It would always be passable,
summer and winter. There was no reason to get a bulldozer in there and
destroy the beauty of that meadow. They went ahead and did it, and we're
afraid that same kind of thing is going to happen with the trails. If
there is a need for new trails, we would be happy to meet as a group and
work that out under some compromise understanding. We don't see why it
should be pushed through in front of you without clear detail. That
is an in invitation to the Open Space District to go ahead and put
trails in any manner they see fit. I am unable to find out if they plan
to put them in with bulldozers, by hand, or where. I feel leery about
the whole proposition about the trails. The questions of the cistern is
another that has been discussed relatively little. I haven't seen any
indications that staff from the Open Space District has visited the site
and knows what they are genuinely proposing there. If I had brought
pictures it would have been clear that pulling out the concrete structure
that is currently catching water from the bay spring, as we call it,
storing that water and then releasing it on down into the swamp and the
stream below. Pulling out those concrete foundations is going to
destroy a number of trees on the site. They are wrapped all around it.
It is going to rip the hillside into pieces. It would be a miserable
thing to do that to the hillside. I see in the discussion of it that it
will restore the flow of the stream to its natural contour, but that is
not what it will do. It will immediately cause an erosion down into
that swamp. It also says In the discussion there is no need to store
that water because there is adequate water in the swamp. Winter Sojourner
authorized me to tell the group that she had been told by the Palo Alto
Fire Department it was important to keep every conceivable supply of
water stored in that area because wild fires could happen at any time in
the dry summer. It would be foolish to dynamite two places that can
store a Whsidecable bupply of water. The basic reason to tear down
the cisterns is that they are dangerous. I agree to that: I have made
several visits there this spring, and T can attest to the fact that the
t covered cistern which has a two square foot opening at one corner with a
rusty iron ladder dowra into it is accessible to anyone. liven though the
Open Space District has had control of that area for approximately two
years, they have not spent the $50 to close it :,ff. It makes it difficult
for me to accept their reasoning for destroying tho cistern because of
the fact that it is dangerous when they have allowed Lhat dancer to
exist for two years. I pointed that out at the parking lot last month
when there was a discussion. I pointed it out to several staff members_
to a couple members of the board of directors, but I don't sec any sign
that anyone has done anything to make it safe. I have bean in there and
seen kids playing in it grid I've warned L're;.l out and covered it over
with plywood and put heavy tree trunks on ::op with tlic hope of keeping
little kids out of there. I agree it is dangerous. it is almost as
r
' 17
5/28/80
r
dangerous as the cabin that John Olmsted mentions in his letter is
thronged with people. There are shards of glass on the floor, places
where kids could fall. I don't feel the open Space District has taken
good care of that land and then to destroy the cisterns seems totally
foolish. There is no hurry to destroy those cisterns. All the legal
te Court
c Land case have now gone to the California St.a
arguments in theof Appeals and by the 23rd of July-they will be ruled upon. At that
time it will be touch clearer what the legal situntion is and if there
might not he reason to retain that water supply. I don't
might might or rush through this when a group of neighbors and friends
see any reason to
could get together and come Lip With a reasonable decision in the a short
staff of
L time. The last thing I want to mention is the report by
the Planning Commission. 1 am pleased that a number of the items
argued for last time have been somewhat changed. I don't think it is
going to be necessary for us to argue this environmental report. if the
neighbors are in support of the situation, we won't have to get into
this kind of argument. I do find it difficult to believe that the water
is going to run off Site G very evenly with no erosion. John Olmsted
had discussions with people from the Planning Commission at that meeting
to the fact that wasn't likely to happen. I don't believe the report
was adequate about the cisterns. I also find that under 19,B-, when the
final decision is trade, is this going to have a negative impact. 19B
says there are a lot of little things about it that don't constitute
enough to disqualify the things in it, but together there might be
enough to disqualify it. I think the answer to that is yes. There
might not be any one of those items that check yes or no--but at the end
of it there are so many that are yes, the answer to 19B should be "yes
it does". We'd like to have six or eight people sit down with them and
talk. it wouldn't be exclusively people who used to live on the land;
neighbors like the Harringtons or the Geigers would be more than willing
to sit in with the group and come to some general compromise. We hope
that is the position You people will choose to lean toward tonight.
Thank you.
Mark_ Box 343 Star Route #2 LaHonda: I had the privilege
to live on the land you are talking about for six years as a tenant of
Mr. Eldrige. It is a beautiful piece of property, and I would like to
to the
make sure that everything is done to en
sure that no harm comes
would like to begin with a true story that happened on
environment. I e District bulldozed down the dwellings that
December 1, 1977, when th were there. The land community by that time has bowed to the inevitable
and conceded twenty-seven buildings. mere was one building that was on a
disputed stretch of land; a boundary line that had never been surveyed
and a question existed on whether it was on property where this kind of
action could take place. The District had the husband arrested and
taken to jail, left the wife and child sitting with a pile of belongings
and bulldozed down their house. This action is abhorent. I tell this
story so that everyone will know I am not objective about the situation
with the District. There is a lot of ligation involved with the property.
There are two cases that I think concur:, the City of Palo, Alto. The
first is Mr. Eldrige's condemnation suit. Vhan I mentioned this to City
staff I was told that a supreme Court deciSIWI in California had core
down that said tho proPer remedy was to sue to have the zoning changed
back to what It 11-0 City Of Ti',-uron before tte United
States Supreme Court. it could he overturned. Ilerhaps 'ir. Eldridge
does have a cause of :lct'ort ft'r his
cuouldtlikUity of p,lu N,,Lo may end th:- Vcv � .-Ypf
and Ile (:It..r are deci:;;
the Planninr, Cormnis,;Lon For that reason the City :;hould pay Ott
that happens there. 1,.Ic . -cud ",lyself and fiftv
,. �Ocood i
other Individuals are iw;oLv::,Ji„t ro
Mr.. Obti,j ard
the properLy.
last April, and t1tat dcciflk)ti by I :w
favor would refer 010 at0 :vilow the
decision I" cur % _1� onto, the propert,.
fifty individuals involvcd .ht Lhi-; tit to m :v,
18
5/28/80
i
r
That is in theory, of course. Practically, there are enormous obstacles
that would be confronted before that could happen. . The most important
of which would be health and safety approval from the City since the
District has bulldozed the facilities that were there. My approach is
to say that I don't want to see this development at all because my
visions of what should happen on the property are different. My vision
is one that comes from a moral consideration. I think that what should
happen there is that there should be an alternative community there to
experiment with low cojt housing, with solar and other alternative
a energies, with alternative means of disposing waste, and that these
experiments could benefit all the people in the State of California.
k `J The District should give its support to that community and the City of
Palo Alto should approve it. Perhaps this litigation that I am involved
in will cause the District to reconsider its position on the matter.
The'next thing I want to talk about is this Commission's duty to ensure
that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are
used in the design. The OS Zone calls for a geologic and soil report be
done on any development that happens. I understand that it is a restrictive
provision and designed to ensure that any development will be sound
as far as the environment is concerned. I understand from the District
and the City staff that the City Attorney has given the opinion that _
only on that limited area of the parking lot will a geologic and soil
report have to be done. Further, this report will not have to be done
until after the project is approved. Then, contingent on an acceptable soil
report, will the grading permits and so forth be issued. There are two
things wrong with that procedure. One is that the public should be
given an opportunity to review that soil report, and if there is no
public notice, how are people going to find out what the experts are
going to say. Second, I think It should apply to the entire project.
Tearing out that Bay tree spring cistern is going to have a massive
effect on that environment. I think a geologic and soil report is
needed,. at least, in that limited area. I would also say that they are
going to be putting in trails and they are talking about covering up
certain trails. Who can tell where the water shed is going to go. They
might put the trail in the wrong place. I think the geologic and soil
report which are mandated by the zoning should be done on the entire
project and not on one limited area. Because there has been a lot of
discussion about the parking lot, I am not going to mention it except to
say that in response to the number of spaces allowed, the original plan
called for 55 spaces with 35 in open landscape reserve. The plan now
calls for 45 spaces with unknown amount held in landscape reserve. I am
unable to find out how many spaces the parking lot can be expanded to
just with approval from the City. As far as the Bay Tree Spring, that is
a special place. Out of the roots of the Bay tree comes water. I would
guess sixty gallons a minute. It runs and runs--all through the draught
there was never any problem. The water there has always tested completely
pure. The updated environmental assessment says that care should be
taken not to disturb this water, and I think that is exactly right. I
don't think it is possible to take those boxes out without disturbing
the Bay tree. The boxes sit directly below the Bay tree. , You take that
box out, it may well affect that Bay tree. Tf the Bay tree falls, the
roots are going to tear up that hillside. That water could come out at
a point hundreds of feet above where it is now, run down an entirely
different gully, and the sag pond that they are now counting on for
their emergency fire water may not get fed at all from this spring. I
think it should be looked at by a geologist and a certified engineer to
determine exactly what the impact is going to be. When I t:,iked to Mlr.
Woods about this, he said that he would have someone knowledgeable look
x
at the Spring before they went in there with bulldozers and took it out.
And yet, he is asking for approval from you to do this before th. assessment
.-•• is made on whether or not It is feasible. I think that i-, carL before
the horse. I think they •>hould :spend the time to look at what they are
putting forward and get a certified geologist to approve this kind of
project. I doubt it, but I would like to see someone with specific
scientific knowledge about what is going to happen to the environment
19
5/28/80
I
in that area write a report before it is approved by the City. I
believe that while the updated assessment is a great step rorward and
begins to deal with some of the many small environmental concerns with
this project, that it doesn't go far enough. I believe an environmental
impact report should be done to find out exactly what is going to happen.
We are talking about the top of a watershed, the reservoir at Stevens
Creek and the trees. I think It is important that we are clear about
what is going to happen before we proceed with this development. I
questioned Mr. Woods about the District and Darned that their report
says the cisterns are not only dangerous but useless in that they could
possible future use. With appolo&ies to Mr. Woods, I think
foresee no such a policy is senseless and stupid. At the District Site Emphasis
Meeting they talked about how they would bring drinking water into the
Monte Bello area. Like I said, the water there tests out perfectly
pure. it's stored in a cistern similar to the cisterns that stored Palo
Alto's emergency water during the draught and could be used for drinking
water. it could, in fact, be developed into a very lovely area. The
District doesn't seem to consider this, which leads me to my final
point. I believe that what this entire project needs is some planning.
I don't see that competent planning has gone into it. There has been
no talk about alternative means of transportation to get to the District
preserves. There are preserves from Windy Hill to Saratoga Cap. San
Mateo County and Santa Clara County both have bus plans which they have
projected for the future and will be running bus routes on Skyline. Why
can't the District put forward the plans where they have one large
parking area which serves the entire Santa Cruz Mountain area inside
their district. They could have one parking area and then run shuttle
buses. I think If the District could plan for the future and what is
going to be a big crisis in transportation, that now the first steps
could be laid. Instead of spending $50,OQO to Put in the second parking
lot, we' should decide what to do about our future concerns. The District
sees that they have money coming in now and the price of land is getting
higher and they have to buy land. They want to use all their money to
buy land and don't want to consider using the money for anything else.
I think it is time for them to stop and look at what ten years from now
is going to bring. Instead of littering the Skyline with parking lots,
they need to come up with an overall plan that will preserve the environment and share this beautiful natural resource with everyone. Thank you.
.John OlInAted, 31570 Page Mill Road: First, I notice the packet is
missing the last page of my letter. They all have two of page two.
will begin by reading the last page. I alsc, notice that one of the
pages of the District's material was garbled.. Tice last page of my
letter, "Vie public value of preserving this beauLiiUl area for public
enjoyment and protecting the land ane watershed which is the purpose of
the park should be paramount, even if taie itistri t has to provide some
additional staff and ranger hours and effort in the tradeoff. MRD already
needs to provide more presence. Please do not approve this unfortunate
initial site production until looking at s,.,Pe -,,f the t.6g;6t,L3
by neighbors." I would like to start with a few quick cu,miients on the
revised and updated environ:---n-ital lmj�act T-;5-,eSs7:e11t and checklist. I
see several "Yes" answers that to me lr,! I wart t-U make the
point that Mark Schneldor arguod on, the soil, and tl!c
watershed. The critical thi'19 In the location Of this lot is the geological
location of it. Skipi-in,, ()Ver to aC,01' r r ar -olt ov th- a:;sessment list--
transpertaLion. V11-roa -, it to c-:(- lot 'oes, UZ
whatever further parkin, lt!arly morn vehicul-t-
movements. if you're goinr-. to 401.Y)'--" ri.- there is going to be
an incrr,ase in traffic lk:li-.J.- I-L . can't he avoided,
talkint-, t1tc. to,-,ft :"11 nO, of th- thing:,
Park 01,,Arixt saYs 11--- t-llit L ! *1Lt,c-.-11,1 ---;- t-r re;-.iia the: lati.1
In a it it Lc 11-0 1 ,ij- I I v.tr I aL% 4, L-2- Litt-) 14:111t to
niact
the lot herc J)i_,causu it it . rue, desirable part
of the land. IL is t, , it's scenic.
tile most it-ir,ibLe place to :tart a 111hil
20
5/218/80
F
It is hard for me to imagine that a car lot on that site ran do anything
but degrade it as a place to enjoy. I understand that the District
parking over to the exposed side of
hopes to eventually relocate all the
the road for increased surveillance. I would hope you have all been
there. I notice that the parking lot has been redesigned to be curvi-
linear. I should point out that in reality it is still the same gravel
parking tot with two stinking chemical toilets right on top of the most
k. It looks to me that the desirable thing to
special place in the par
do is put parking in the former riding rink area. When it is not used,
it can be closed and there won't be automobiles in there which could be
vandalized. During times of heavy use there are people coming and going
and that is the least likely time for injury or vandalism. In referring
to the environmental impact assessment list, I'm looking at aesthetics.
11y used.
It may not constitute one of the nine criteria that is actually
Number 16, "Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive sight open to public view. Yes it
will. That is part of my argument. The Park District is pointing out
that this site will inevitably become the most heavily used District
Preserve. They would like to transfer all the parking, if that is
feasible, and expand the parking to the side of the road that myself and
the neighbors are arguing is important to preserve. I want to touch on
the question of the cisterns. When I inquired at the occassion of the
site inspection in March, the impression I was left with was that there
was no plan to demolish the cisterns. Now, in this document, there are
several mentions that that is the plan. The District wants to eliminate
the parking lot from the Los Trancos parking lot. The neighbors are
arguing that the parking on the side of the road where it now exists
creates less impact in terms of aesthetics and in terms of watershed and
in terms of public traffic. The parking- lot that is proposed will have
two entrances and will Create more hazard with cars stopping, slowing,
and turning in and out. The site proposed may be slightly less hazardous
of entrance than the existing one. if there are two entrances on opposite
each other, it can only increase the amount of hazard.
sides near I want to talk about the Bay spring. There are about three places on
the land that are familiar to the neighbors and people who know that
land... They want to tear the springs out. The least that should be
required is a soil study. It's going to be a major impact to tear out
those spring boxes. Their usefulness has been argued because of the
swamp down below. They are on different levels and there is quite a
number of feet, a dozen at least, between the level of the swamp and the
level of the cistern. The cisterns provide fire protection to another
level. my last comment will be to refer to the letter from Larry White,
Director, Parks and open Space Management. tie references Mr. Harrington's
suggestion "...to extend the existing parking makes sense and would
provide parking spaces for the least cost." As I argue, it doesn't
make sense to add an additional lot since there is a good site in existence
which has a good overflow and expansion site next to it, it would provide
parking spaces for the least cost. It's right there, it's gravelled and
It's ready to use for parking. Also, it's larger than the existiny, lot
and doesn't require $6,000 worth of' soil testing. The important criteria
for the Park District is the ease and problems of surveillance. ;11 my
letter I tried to respond to the question of whether that is the kind Of
thing people in parks usually do. They are usually not placed for case
of surveillance. The parking site 1 talked about was not one of the
situs they looked at. They did not evaluate it with their criteria. We
think that was a serious omission and it should be look,.d :it. Thank
you.
Daniel tenth. Dlrt!cto f the. Midr)enin!;ttla
r o 0 Ice-
the Board. I will nt-lke a fc-w br.',J remarks. 'rhe
speaking on behalf of goal of Lhe D13triCt In opening tip Hone t;eIlow Ridge i.s t.0 make accessible
an area that is already open. All the land.,; in LILC Vis::rict are -1-c-1
Ionds—open to 010 public. To woke it ame"L!:'es have to be
provided. Any plan which does that to a beaotttful area like this has
gar to be a compromise. UnforLuvlat�--Iy, there: is no perfect solution.
21
5/28/80
We are not a park district, we are an open space district and we have
worked hard over the last eight years to develop expertise which may
well be unequalled in this country in managing open space land. We look
at this area with a 100 year view. I'd love to see public transportation
going up Page Mill Road to Skyline. Realistically, that is not going to
happen in the next few years. With problems of gasoline, the use of our
open space is going to increase more and more. I would ask that you as
one public body recognize that we as another public body have agonized
over our decisions, have reappraised and carefully evaluated all the
possibilities and have come to the conclusion that we have. It's a
matter of one set of ,judgements for another, it is our opinion that the
an that we have proposed will be the best plan, and we ask that you
!1 P !
concur with your staff, our staff and our Board and pass it on for
review by your Architectural Review Committee and then by the City
Council.
Mary Gordon, 16 Roosevelt Circle: I would like to speak to the aspects
that deal with the parking area. I participated in the field trip that
the Commission had in looking at the various sites. There were some
suggestions made that the Board might take another look and re-evaluate,
which they have done. They are seeking approval for location G. I am
disappointed, because it seemed to me that on that field trip there were `
a number of questions raised from both sides, the Commission and the
public, that have not been addressed. It seems to me as though the
issues have had little to do with the long term service and view of the
Open Space District. We feel there must be great sensitivity to the
lands they are buying to preserve, and that is the center of my concern.
I think Mr. Olmsted, in his letter to you, has done a splendid job of
outlining another alternative. We have been through all the letters up
to K. so I might just call this the "OK" location. The questions raised
seemed to deal with the flexibility of this- site. Dan said they were
1
looking to the 100 year long-term view, and we hope p these public lands
will be well used. However, the residents have raised some questions
about the current use and there isn't a full usage of the Los Trancos
Lot now and there may not be in the foreseeable future. One suggestion
was made to extend the current lot. That is what location K does. If
you envision yourself in the Los Trancos lot and move to the right as
you face out to where the trailhead begins, take a right turn going
parallel to Page Mill, up and over the knoll, and then drop down, there
exists the
re right now. It
i like a foo
tball field thatg
is a large ring,g
e and all through the year there are
e good drains Y
has , g
is flat it h g
, P g
no problems with excess moisture, erosion or any of the problems that we
feel might become problems on lot G. There is an access road there now
in order to accommodate traffic. It would have to be increased to
accommodate traffic going two ways. A minimal amount of grading would
be required to make this functional. It could be functional with maybe
some minimal additional amount of rock. The area is so large and flat
that one of the prime opportunities it would give is that it could be
used on a very limited basis to begin with and then as additional requirements
became obvious, it could be extended with great flexibility. I did a
quick review of the District's standards. I will apply those to what I
call the "OK" site. One, safe accessibility; as Mr. Olmsted pointed out
they could take advantage of the current access to the L.os Trancos siie.
You could add a gate that could be locked and used only during overflow
periods and still have the identical line of sight for safe accessib'lity
that occurs there now. Cloue visual -proximity to the roadway; it is
relatively closer, a short view but by means of being able to close chi:
off so it was only being used during very limited times when there would
be ranger activity in the area. Its visual impa;:t on Page Mill Road; I
think you have to give it a "good" there. Visual impact from Skyl.inc
Blvd; "Good". Visual impact from Monte Bellow Ridge; At i..--ast ":.air" if
not "good". Restricted view from site to discourage parkc:s; I think yo�i
have to give that a "good". lingincering, lick of oxcos:sive grading or
geological problems; "good". Expansion potential; "goo(t". Close promity
to attractive parts of the site.; well , at i,?-ist "f.-1ir" if 11�)t "good". t
think by their own standards it merits a closer look. Currently there
22
5/28/80
4�
h '
J
are restrooms in this area. Again, with proper location, they would not
be visible from the furthest reaches of Monte Bello Ridge. Also, it is
nicely tucked between some trail routes that are there now. During
active trail periods its use would have on-site surveillance as well as
the ranger activity that would come in. Another question raised by
residents is that if the District is considering some kind of permanent
residence in the area. It occurs to us that this could very nicely
accommodate that without any major impact on the general area. Another
point that is important and It has not been made clear is that this site
would be primarily if not totally in San Mateo County. Just from the
practical standpoint, it wouldn't need the usual geologic reports for
this existing site and L don't think San Mateo County requires it.
There's a nice chunk of money there. Also, because of its usefulness
right now it wouldn't require much of anything additional to be done to
_ it. The distinct advantage is the lack fany major expense
xile seiintorder to
rto
get it working. Plus there is the opportunity
he
future if that were necessary. The other site Mr. Olmsted mentioned is
the McNeil property. This could be looked at in the future for an
additional trailhead on the other side of the road. A distinct advantage
to the "OK" side is that it gives a lot of flexibility if you look ahead
to the next year or so. Thank you.
Commissioner Cobb: I'm curious as to what the District's formal position
is regarding the alternative that Mary Gordon has outlined, to what
extent would they consider it and are their objections beyond the one
of security.
Mr. Sessions: I wasn't prepared to discuss this alternate site tonight,
basically because it had been considered about two years ago during
initial planning process. it was disgarded as low on priorities for
several reasons. One, we are talking about Monte Bello Open Space
Reserve, not emphasizing the Los Trancos Open Space Reserve. If you look
at the map, you will notice that the "OK" site is in from Page Mill on
is the Los Trancos site. Technically, we hate a parking area that would
i require the removal of some five parking stalls and the creation of a
...M twenty foot wide minimum 150 foot long service road to gain access to
the
that parking area from the existing parking lot. In our estimation,
riding ring parking area, if developed, would accommodate from 20 -
25 vehicles. What we would be doing is losing 5 to gain 20 - 25. What
facility relating to Monte Bello to accommodate
we are proposing is a
what we feel are present and future needs. Also, the riding ring
area is into the facility to the point where we would have problems with
he trail system at mid-point and that
visitors coming in and utilizing t
would have some potential impact upon that facility from people creating
ailhead from the parking lot. As iar as
their awn trail rather than the tr
the element of public safety, we feel that this does not meet minimum
criteria for public safety.
Chairman Mitchell: How do you figure you will lose rive stalls that are
there now?
Mr. Sessions: To gain access we would have to come off the east eni of
the existing parking lot and would have to take down a section of fence.
[' In doing so, in order to have a designated drive-approach into this
area, we would lose the parking stalls that are at that end of the
parking area.
Chairma_n Mitchell: Not if you used the aisle. There's a 90o parkin
i, plan now, double-loaded, and if you continue that aisle as the access
II you won' t lose any.
Mr. Sessions: Except that we would haves to bring that access road back
towards Ila-gc Mill If we wanted to reduce the cut into that knoll at the
east end of the parking lot.
23
5/28/80
Chairman Mitchell: It doesn't appear that it's that serious.
Mr. Sessions: It's a tradeoff. We could cut deeper into that knoll and
take It from the dcad center but we do have, In our estimation, five
parking stalls being impacted.
Chairman Mitchell: The capacity of 20 - 25 vehicles in that spot
sounds suspect to me. I haven't measured it, but it seems to me, the
capacity is greater than that. it's a large area.
Mr. Sessions: Not all of the area is usable. It is true, we have not
done an engineering study at this time. It has just had a tentative
layout. In our estimation to provide parking in there to allow turn-
around and not utilize the center parking because it is not wide enough
would restrict us to the 20 25 number.
Chairman Mitchell: I am not convinced of that. It should be looked at
further.
Commissioner Cobb: It looks like it would take more than 25 cars.
Would you respond to the recommendation that has been made that this be
used on an overflow basis where it would be open at peak periods and
closed the rest of the time to minimize the security problems?
Mr. Sessions: The District doesn't have an official comment at this
point. The entire discussion of the location of the parking lot and our
analysis that went into the various .possible areas to construct one was
presented to the Board. There have been several discussions and the
Board has taken a position of concurring with staff recommendations on
the location. I couldn't relate the District's position on the "OK"
parking area. Staff's position is that we are not trying to develop an
overflow parking area but trying to develop a parking area that relates
to the Monte Bello Plan. That this area be considered as an overflow
area does not relate to that plan, and it has several other negative
qualities to it that we feel make it undesirable.
Commissioner Heneke: What about the stable area at the McNeil Ranch.
Does the District have a staff position on that.
Mr. Sessions: It was evaluated even though it is not our property. The
position there is that the negative impacts from the visual aspects make
it an undesirable Site. The access off Page Mill, and its relationship
to trailheads weigh that one on the low side.
Commissioner Heneke: Tonight you told us you were looking for parking
for Monte Bello and yet when it originally came to us, we were informed
it was because the parking was getting so crowded that the District
needed more parking. What is the District's real szoal?
Mr. Sessions: We are talking about two different facilities. We have
the Los Trances Open Space area which has an entirely different use
pattern than what we are projecting for the ,Monte Bello Open Space
Reserve. Los Trances is utilized with wild flower hikes and earthquake
trail hikes, and its somewhat of a contained facility. Monte Bello,
with some 2300 acres, has a different jise -,att; rn. Wv art lookitig aL
the more serious hiker. That's 4hat we're rrtlitin),, about--two diffe-ont
facilities. What was preLi��nted to you was an appil.catlon to consider
the Monte Bello development plan. Part of Livit was to provide parking
for that facility to retie-ve the load Lilzlt is existing on Lr..; Tr3ncos
because of Lhe use patter-ts beat are stla tir,, Lo dvvoloi, in the Monte
Bello site.
Commission Cobb: What i livar you saving is that because its a little
Less convt-nient for the K)ntc Vollo u.,cc. ,!ant Lhey are not going
24
5/29/80
to hike over to the trailhead. If they are serious hikers. I don't see ,
how that can make much difference.
Mr. Sessions: We could probably discuss :tumberti and numbers of velat:le:i.
Some people have seen it when it is full and others when it has not b-11
full. When we talk .about increased use, we're experiencing it right now
with Los Trancos. We are also projecting that with Monte Bello. To
provide parking that relates to Monte Bello is what I keep coming back
to because that's what we're Here to discuss tonight.
Commissoner Cullen: As per the January 16th Letter from Gel Woods, ender
consideration was the expansion of the existing parking lot at Los
Trancos. But then there are a couple of negative statements made about
it because of the sag pond. Do those remarks apply to K or do they
apply merely to the expansion of Los Trancos parking lot.
Mr. Sessions: Expansion of the existing lot. You would have to cut
dawn aoine existing knolls or expand out into the facility which would
take you into that sag pond area.
Chairman Mitchell: If there were no topography problems and that existing
lot were in the center of a flat area and there were no drainage problems,
would you then expand it?
Mr. Sessions: That would allow us to do a different evaluation.
Chairman Mitchell: I am having trouble with the highly specialized
nature of each of these lots. We're not getting sophisticated analysis
and I'm having trouble coping with that kind of thinking. We're looking
for a place for people to park who are going to walk long distances, and
I don't think the convenience or the highly specialized nature of it is
that important. What happens to the land in the way these lots are
situated is much more important. We want to preserve what is there and
not deface the land.
Mr. Sessions: 1 think we are working toward the same goal. It was our
conclusion that we could not expand the existing facilities to provide
.ram what we were looking for and that when we looked at the Monte Bello
plan, area G became the area we recommend for a variety of reasons.
Commissioner Cullen: I'm having trouble with some of the findings, too.
The mandatory findings of significance--there were so many individual
findings of impact that did have the disadvantage of long-term environmental
impact that I have trouble under 19B with the negative statement being
justified. The major impact i feel when I'm up there is what you do to
a meadow that has a 3600 vicry and ie oae of the most beautiful in the
area and it becomes a parking lot. That's a major impact on the environment.
Chairman Mitchell: We are responding to this specific site. Maybe
our next strp siaould be to respond to this particular site and whether
the Commission is iticlined to approve it or not. If not, then what
future recommendtation3 do we want to make?
Commissioner Wheeler: The original Fnvirona:ental Impact Report had
three positive declarations and there are now eleven including the yeses
in the second one. At what paint does the nat;ative itnp tcC become 1
positive impact staten.ent, is them a nrIviv number of `:s:pa-ts?
Mr. Brown: No. The checklist is use(: to note areas of potential impact
of tice pr oj ect. I hold to i.:,dicate t:,.+t ie kra my assessment that cla;.•
iimp:cc.r. of the yes-checked itcros was not of a sis,.nitcant nature. In
addition in refercnre to aesthctics, ti« 4ie':r is r:amewl"t limited at
E this particular r<itu br the k::oll an,; r;., •:tand ,f tree. -:ir�_ctly below.
25
r 5/28/80
Commissioner Wheeler: When you are talking about the total size of the
project, are you talking about the total Site and not the parking lot
specifically?
Mr. Brown: That is right.
MOTION,_ SECONDED and CA-PRIED: Along those same lines, I think the point
Pat was making was it very important one. The accumulative affect of these
Impacts combined is tome together very close to a situation where it would
require an overall finding of significance, and that would require log G.
For the trail system, T would recommend that they attempt to limit the
extent of any additional grading and try to use existing roads and
trails as much as possible. I think that is the kind of concern we
would have If we were to get into reviewing the trails individually. I
think that they are as sensitive to those issues as we could be. I move
that we approve the trail system as it is proposed in the application.
Commissioner Cobb: I will second the motion and note that he had not
heard any arguments to the contrary from people who objected to the
parking lot. The trails are something we can pass on. I think the issue
of the cistern should be resolved, and I'm not sure if that needs site
and design review. Lot G we have already resolved. I'm not -sure what
else we can do. Essentially, those are the actions that are left for us
at this point. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 6 - 0.
Commissioner McCown-Hawkes: I would like to make one more comment for
t.he record and indicate that speaking for myself, the concern that I
have about the parking lot does not in any way reflect my view of the
job that the Board is doing with the open space. We are all struggling
with a very difficult problem. My view is that the Planning Commission
is trying to help resolve the problem of automobile access to the site
and find the beat long term solution. My vote against that lot does not
mean that I am not completely supportive of what the Open Space District
is doing to get the public a reasonable means of access to this site.
Chairman Mitchell: Ken, what should we pass on with respect to the
parking lot other than the rejection of one lot. Should this go on to
the Council with the comments in the minutes or should we recommend an
alternative. 1 am not sure procedure-wise where we are.
Mr. Schreiber: As far as the parking lot, I think the Commission can
do one of two things. it can be sent on to the Council as a denial of
that part of the application or you can retain it at the Commission and
allow the Open Space District to come back and provide additional
information.
Chairman Mitchell: Wouldn't it depend upon the actions that the District
would want to take and whether we will suggest another site and if they
do not think it is appropriate, then they can go on to the Council with
our actions and deal with the Council on it. on the other hand, if they
feel they w4t,L Lu luok at other sites, they can go back and study it.
It seems to me a question of what they would do with their actions more
than anything else.
Mr. Schreiber: if the District wants to pursue I,ot G, then we have to
have a
unanimous
naWimous recommendation of denial from the Commission and it
will go on to Council that way. Lf they wish tc pursue al.k.eroati,;es and
come back to the Commission wtthout ?;Ming to the: counciL, we Can work it
that way. As far its Lite trails, that can go on to the Council. as a
recommendation for approval. The cistern will have to wait for a le.-al.
interpretation of whether that even falls under site and design. If It
does fall under It, then it will have to come back to tht! Commission.
Chairrian Mitchell: What would he the iitent of the Dt.s-Lrict after the
meeting tonJi,;ht I'- — were to ;tlternaLlve�i' Would You still 90
directly to the Council or would you want to slo through this again?
26
5/28/80
Mr, sions: I think that at this poir would have to refer back to
our _.,aril_.,arilof Directors.
Chairmau Mitchell: I would like to indicate my feelings about the
parking. I feel that "OK" Lot has a Lot of merit. I looked at that
area again. Primarily, it could very simply be converted to an overflow
lot with very little grading. There would be a slight amount of grading
as the road parallels Page Kill Road and rises over the knd turns to the
left down into that flat area. The area itself could probably be used
without even putting in gravel, depending on how stable it is in wet
weather. But then it probably wouldn't be used as an overflow lot
anyway in any weather. It seems like, very simply, it could be used as
is for an overflow lot. it could be used for as many cars as necessary
and if necessary it could be gravelled in a certain small area and
provide for 20 - 25 cars now and if that's no.t enough you could extend
it on. I do think there is more area than that to accommodate vehicles.
It's quite well screened now. There are quite a few shrubs around the
parameter that would screen it from view away from the road. A few more
shrubs could be put in to screen it more if that is a problem. I think
it has a lot of inherent advantages. There is a lot to be said for not
having to do extensive plans to make these things work. I don't think,
in my own estimation, that any geological testing for that particular
site would be necessary. It would be a waste of money, because the
things that could go wrong are so minor that it's not going to be any
danger to any person's safety and health, and I think that's the reason
you conducted geologic tests in that area.
Commissioner Cullen: Tf we continue it, the District wouldn't have to
go through the business of going through the Council and coming up with
a new plan. Is there some way we can continue it conditionally based on
whatever they decide on the use.
Mr. Schreiber: I think that is a good idea. If the Commission is
agree'able, it could be left that way. If the District decides that they
want to pursue Lot G, it goes on to Council, and if they decide not to
pursue Lot C it would either come back to the Commission, if it were
something within Palo Alto, or it would not be pursued if it is in San
Mateo County.
Chairman Mitchell: Then my further recommendation is that if for some
reason the "OK" Lot has problems in engineering or laying out the site
or it does not work for reasons we can't foresee, then my second choice
is the McNeil site. Perhaps the other Commioners might want to state
what their opinions are so that we could at least give some guidance to
the District as well as we can.
Commissioner Cullen: I will concur with that. We did look at that one
briefly, and it did seem to have some of the aspects that the District
is lookng for.
Commissioner Heneke: I will go along with both of those sites. As I
recall 1 k1ULt'L %lus ti.at much trouble with site "I" either. I did find
it an acceptable site, although not as good as the othei two.
Commissioner Cobb: I thought the McNeil property represented an excellent
solution to the problem. Based on what Mary Cordon has said, and my
respect for her judgement, I would say it deserves a careful look.
Between one of those two I think we could find a better answer.
Commissioner Wheeler: I will make this unanimous. I did get a chance to
up to the wtorning and I would concur that of the sites I
have seen, that looks by far the best solution to me.;and that that the
McNeil site presents the second best cholct!-
27
5/28/80
k
rt Mr. Sessions: i Have one point of clarification on Item 3. I picked up
on the discussion of the cisterns and the analysis required there.
Could you refresh me on the structures.
Chairman_Mitchell: That may be a legal question. We didn't know whether
that was something we had to review as a site and design item, so we're
tmcertain about that.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. S eiber: Last week we talked about setting public hearings on
June 18- to discuss a potential mixed-use amendment to the Land Use
Section. o he Plan as well as the Varian site on Page Mill and the
Arastradero ad site. What I wanted to clarify is if the public hearing
was going to b for those two specific sites or if other areas were to
be advertised. se are the two site's that were remaining from the
Council. There was ome discussion, about looking at the L-zone along
Arastradero at the sau time. If that was the intent then that area
would have to be advert -ed.
Commissioner Cullen: I thin we wanted to look at the "L" area. -
Chairman Mitchell: My recollect n is that we didn't have much discussion
on that. It was a recommendation a one of the members of the Working
Committee.
Mr. Schreiber: Joe Erlich had suggested and there was some discussion
but the intent of the Commission wasn't cle in my notes from the meeting.
the larger area the safest thing to do.
i man Mitchell: Advertisingg
Cha r
At least we have the prerogative of considering a ange.
Mr. Schreiber:_ If there is no disagreement, then we wi. advertise
public he
all of the Arastradero Road frontage for the p
ADJOURNMENT
MOTIONa SECONDED, and CARRIED: It was moved, seconded and carrie o
adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m.
28
5/28/80
M-80-65
AA.
(Meeting 80-19
September 10, 1980)
N4
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
September 4 , 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: S. Sessions, Land Manager and J. Fiddes,
Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Renewal of Contract with Coordinator of Volunteer Programs
Discussion: The District's contract with Kathy Blackburn, the
Coordinator of Volunteer Programs , expired on June 30, 1980, and
therefore, it is necessary to execute a new agreement with Kathy
for the 1980-1981 fiscal year. A copy of the proposed agreement
is attached, and it is essentially the same as the contract you
approved last year.
Kathy' s official title has been changed from Coordinator of Volunteers
to Coordinator of Volunteer Programs to reflect the different types
of volunteer support the District seeks. The compensation schedule
will be a monthly reimbursement of $733.00 for services rendered.
This is within the approved FY 1980-81 program budget, and reflects
a 12% increase over last year' s compensation schedule. This year,
the monthly reimbursement will be at a flat rate instead of last
year' s adjustments for the spring and. winter workloads.
This year' s goals, as reflected in Attachment A - Contract Responsi-
bilities, have been revised to focus on the quality of the volunteer
program' s objectives and the expansion of the volunteer program to
include such events as Fremont Older Open House tours and the
recruitment of volunteer groups to augment District staff in
trail maintenance and site clean-up tasks.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you authorize the General
Manager to enter into the attached Agreement with the Coordinator
of Volunteer Programs for the 1980-1981 fiscal year.
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Los Altos, California this
day of , 1980 by and between the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District, a public district, hereinafter
referred to as "District" , and Ms. Kathleen Blackburn, an in-
dependent contractor, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor" .
WHEREAS Contractor includes among her capabilities environ-
mental education programming and has the capability of recruit-
ing, training , and supervising public agency volunteers.
WHEREAS the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has
acquired over 7,000 acres of open space lands and wishes to
maximize volunteer community involvement on District lands and
in District programs, and
WHEREAS public use of Los Trancos, Monte Bello and Rancho
San Antonio Open Space Preserves has demonstrated a substantial
public interest in natural resources, environmental and inter-
pretive programs, and
WHEREAS currently District does not have sufficient staff to
manage a volunteer program,
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows :
1. Duties of Contractor. Contractor shall coordinate
the volunteer program of District and perform the
other tasks described in the Contract Responsibili-
ties affixed hereto, marked Attachment A and by
reference made a part hereof. Approximately 900
of time shall be spent on items 1 through 6 and
approximately 100 on items 7 through 8. Contractor
shall be called "Coordinator of Volunteer Programs"
for District.
page two
2. Compensation. For the full performance of the services
by Contractor described in section 1 herein, District
shall pay Contractor $733. 00 per month. Invoices and
monthly activity reports on services rendered shall be
submitted by Contractor after each month of service
performed, and payment shall be made promptly by the
District after approval of each claim by the Board of
Directors of the District.
a. monthly activity reports shall outline monthly
activities by tasks and the hours expended by the
Coordinator of Volunteer Programs. Additionally,
the report shall outline docent and volunteer
activities by programs and locations.
3. Term. The contract period shall be July 1, 1980 through
June 30, 1981.
4. Termination. This agreement shall be terminable at will
by either party upon giving the other thirty (30) days
written notice. In such event, payment to Contractor
shall be prorated to the date of termination.
5. Assignability. Both parties shall give their personal
attention to the faithful performance of this agreement
and shall not assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise
dispose of this agreement or any right, title or interest
in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior
written consent of the other.
6 . Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing
and delivered as follows :
To District: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, CA 94022
To Ms. Kathleen Blackburn
Contractor: 354 Fuller Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
page three
7. Interest of Contractor. Contractor covenants that it
presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any
interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,
which would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the services hereunder. Contractor
shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor
and not an agent or employee of the District. Contractor
shall have independence in setting hours of work and
shall exercise independent professional judgement in
performing the work under this agreement. The General
Manager of District or his/her designee shall provide
policy guidance and shall provide coordination in behalf
of the District.
Contractor shall exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless
District from and against and shall assume full responsi-
bility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes
or contributions imposed or required under unemployment
insurance, social security and income tax laws, with
respect to Contractor and Contractor' s employees engaged
in performance of the Agreement.
8. Indemnity. Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify, defend
and save harmless District, its officers, agents and
employees of and from any and all claims and demands
which may be made against District, its officers, agents
or employees by reason of any injury to or death of any
person (including agents and employees of Contractor)
or corporations caused by or alleged to have been caused
by, any wrongful act or omission of Contractor or any
subcontractor under this agreement or of Contractor' s
or any subcontractor's employees or agents.
Noncompensated volunteer workers shall be considered to
be volunteers of the District than of the Contractor.
gage four
9. Workers ' Compensation. Contractor understands no workers '
compensation insurance is provided by District under
this agreement, and Contractor shall carry sufficient
medical, accident and hospitalization insurance for
protection of Contractor.
10. Nondiscrimination. No discrimination shall be made in
the employment of persons under this agreement because
of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion or
sex of such person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, District and Contractor have executed
this agreement the day and year first above written.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
By
Herbert Grench, General Manager
CONTRACTOR
Kathleen Blackburn
ATTACHMENT A
Contract Responsibilities
Coordinator of Volunteer Programs
Summary of Duties
Responsible for recruiting District volunteers for all types of
tasks including educational activities and for the coordination
of volunteers and docent activities with District staff members.
Typical Work Performed But Not Limited To:
1. Responsible for the training, coordination, and scheduling
of docents.
2. Responsible for liaison with the Environmental Volunteers and
others who conduct environmental education programs on District
sites.
3. Recruiting volunteers and interviewing prospective docents .
4. Coordinating training courses with Foothill College and consulting
with teachers regarding course content.
5. Arranging for training materials for course, especially those
which pertain to the District, arranging for follow-up training.
6. Writing monthly docent newsletter keeping in contact with
volunteers.
7. Recruiting individual volunteers or groups for a number of
activities such as trail maintenance and construction, site
clean-up, and public outreach via slide show presentations to
special groups .
8. Taking occasional hikes with special groups and attending
community meetings with other docent leaders.
M-80-64
(Meeting 80-19
September 10, 1980)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
August 29, 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Date for Program Evaluation Workshop
Discussion: At your meeting of July 23, 1980, you dis-
cussed possible dates for the Program Evaluation Workshop
and tentatively established Saturday, September 20, 1980
as the date for the workshop. In order to allow staff
to distribute notices for the workshop, the Board should
officially set the date, time, and location of the work-
shop at this time.
Recommendation: It is recommended that you schedule the
Program Evaluation Workshop for Saturday, September 20,
1980 from 9 : 00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. at the District office.
If necessary, the workshop can extend into the afternoon
if all evaluations have not been completed by noon.
R-80-49
(Meeting 80-19
September 10. 1980)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
August 28 , 1980
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: S. Sessions, Land Manager
SUBJECT: Signing Along Skyline Boulevard
Introduction: At the October 24, 1979 meeting, the matter regard-
ing Skyline -Boulevard "No Parking" signs that were not
attractive nor consistent with the concept of a scenic highway
was brought to the Board's attention. Mr. Robert Mark, 725
Cowper, Palo Alto, who introduced the matter, suggested the signs
be removed and replaced with signs that were more appropriately
worded and more tastefully designed to befit a scenic corridor.
Also, in October 1979, the Santa Clara County Board of Super-
visors adopted a resolution designating a segment of Highway 35
(Skyline Boulevard) as a no-parking area, thus causing
more signs to be installed along Skyline Boulevard. At the July
23, 1980 Board meeting, the Board directed that the issue of
getting more attractive signs along Skyline Boulevard, as well
as the proliferation of signs (but not the issue of parking) , be
discussed at a future meeting.
Discussion: Staff has investigated the subject of signing along
Skyline Boulevard and can report the following:
A. Cal Trans is the responsible agency for signing and roadway
maintenance along Highway 35. They report that there are
adopted, recognized sign standards throughout the State of
California to assist driver safety by enabling a driver to
recognize a sign before actually reading it, that the sign
size, lettering, color, and placement result from highway
safety studies, and that any pigning change could result in driver
confusion, impact driver safety, and result in law enforcement
problems.
B. Since this item was brought to the Board's attention last
October, staff has been working with Cal Trans and the road
departments of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to replace
some "No Parking" signs with time-restricted parking signs
to allow pull-out parking where feasible and to replace
larger "No Parking" signs with smaller signs. This effort
should be completed within 90 days -
R-80-49 Page Two
Citizens residing along the Skyline Boulevard are
concerned about highway safety, as well as problems associ-
ated in controlled off-road parking. The proper placement
of smaller no-parking signs and time-limited parking signs
placed in off-road pull out areas should resolve some of
the concerns raised over signs.
C. In addition, Cal Trans , has reported that should the District
desire to pursue the concept of a new aesthetic design for
scenic highway signs, it may take several years to effect
a signing change because of the statewide impact. All signing
changes must go through the State Traffic Control Devices
Committee, which is a statewide committee established to
standardize traffic control devices, including signs.
Recommendation: Staff is not recommending any action on this
item at this time,pending further discussion with you on Septem-
ber 10. The following actions might be considered:
(1) Board authorization for the President to write a letter
to Ms. Adriana Gianturco, Director of the Department of
Transportation for the State of California, regarding
the problem and asking her to assist in seeking a satis-
factory solution.
(2) Board referral of the matter to its Legislative Committee
for possible proposed legislation in next legislative
session.
C-80-16
September 10, 1980
Meeting 80-19
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Amount Name Description
1376 $ 45.00 Honeywell Protection Services Phone Line Charges
1377 90.53 E. D. Bullard Co. Field Supplies
1378 40.88 Rancho Hardware & Garden Shop Field Supplies
1379 180.00 U.S. Postmaster Newsletter Postage
1380 108.01 Harfst Associates, Inc. Computer Services - August
1381 60.00 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
1382 611.39 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
1383 138.90 United California Bank Series A Note Service Fees
1384 102.38 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies
1385 800.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Consultant-August
1386 62.31 Carolyn Caddes Photos
1387 106.50 ZZZ Sanitation Portable Toilets - Los Trancos
� 1388 8.43 Peninsula Blueprint Blueprints
1389 17.35 Meredith Sun Newspapers Classified Ad - Site Rental Uni
1390 39.20 Del Woods Personal Vehicle Expense
1391 540.44 Lawrence Tire Service District Vehicle Expense
1392 22.00 B & H Equipment Co. Field Supplies
1393 86.46 Foothill Auto Service District Vehicle Expense
1394 733.00 Kathy Blackburn Contract Services - July
1395 733.00 Kathy Blackburn Contract Services - August
1396 9.81 City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
1397 144.31 Mobil Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
1398 172.96 P.G.&E. Utilities
1399 9.16 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies
1400 88.41 S & W Equipment Co. Field Supplies
, 1401 77.50 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service
1402 58.17 Monta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies
1403 15.98 Kragen Auto Supply District Vehicle Expense
1404 176.00 Communications Research Radio Equipment Maintenance
11405 90.00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich . Insurance Coverage - Fire Trucks
1406 72.28 REI Co-Op Ranger Uniforms
I
x Amount Name Description j
1407 $ 10.41 Victor California Field Supplies
1408 68.14 Union Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
1409 142.88 Hubbard and Johnson Field Supplies & Site Repair
1410 1,064.78 Shell Oil Co. District. Vehicle Expense
1411 3.83 Foster Bros. Security Systems Site Maintenance & Repair .
1412 1,100.00 Foss and Associates Consultant Services - July,Augus'
1413 58.10 Stanley Norton. Duplicating, Phone & Private
Vehicle Expenses - July
1414 1,926.75 First American Title Guaranty Co. Title Insurance & Escrow Fee
1415 43.29 John Escobar Reimbursement-Uniform Expense
1416 107.05 Del Woods Reimbursement,-COD charges ^
1417 63.80 Steve Sessions Private Behicle Expense
a
r
C-80-16
September 10, 1980
Meeting 80-19.
REVISED
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
i P-mount Name Description
1376 $ 45.00 Honeywell Protection Services Phone Line Charges
1377 62.84 E. D. Bullard Co. Field Supplies
1378 350.00, Regents, U. of California Confernee Fee - H. Grench
1379 180.00 U.S. Postmaster Newsletter Postage
1380 108.01 Harfst Associates, Inc. Computer Services - August
11381 60.00 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
1382 6Z5.33 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
1383 138.90 United California Bank Series A Note Service Fees
1384 102.38 Los Altos Stationers Office Supplies
1385 800.00 California Advocates, Inc. Legislative Consultant-August
� 1386 62.31 Carolyn Caddes Photos
1387 106.50 ZZZ Sanitation Portable Toilets - Los Trancos
1388 8.43 Peninsula Blueprint Blueprints
1389 17.35 Meredith Sun Newspapers Classified Ad - Site Rental. Units
1390 39.20 Del Woods Personal Vehicle Expense
' 1391 540.44 Lawrence Tire Service District Vehicle Expense
1392 22.00 B & H Equipment Co. Field Supplies
1393 86.46 Foothill Auto Service District Vehicle Expense
1394 733.00 Kathy Blackburn Contract Services - July
I1395 733.00 Kathy Blackburn Contract Services - August
1396 9.81 City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
1397 144.31 Mobil Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
1398 172.96 P.G.&E. Utilities
1399 11.38 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies
1400 88.41 S & W Equipment Co. Field Supplies
1401 77.50 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service
1402 58.17 Manta Vista Garden Center Field Supplies
1403 15.98 Kragen Auto Supply District Vehicle use
1404 176.00 Conmmications Research Radio Equipment Maintenance
1405 90.00 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Insurance Coverage - Fire Trucks
406 72.28 REI Co-Op Ranger Uniforms
C-80-16 September 10, 1980 Meeting 80-19 Page Two REVISED
r.
Amount Name Description
1407 $ 10.41 Victor California Field Supplies
1408 68.14 Union Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
1409 142.88 Hubbard and Johnson 'Field Supplies & Site Repair
1410 1,064.78 Shell Oil Co. District. Vehicle Expense
1411 3.83 Foster Bros. Security Systems Site Maintenance & Repair.
1412 1,100.00 Foss and Associates Consultant Services - July,AuguY
1413 58.10 Stanley Norton_ Duplicating, Phone & Private
Vehicle Expenses - July
1414 1,926.75 First American Title Guaranty Co. Title Insurance & Escrow Fee
1415 43.29 John.Escobar Reimbursement-Uniform Expense
1416 107.05 Del Woods Reimbursement-COD charges
1417 63.80 Steve Sessions Private Vehicle Expense
1418 30.42 Jennie George Office Supplies
1419 150.00 Wendy Lieber Ranger Residence Deposit Refux
1420 172.88 Petty Cash Postage, Office Supplies, Pri-
vate Vehicle Expense, Meal
Conferences, and Miscellaneous.:
Expenses