Loading...
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