HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810812 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 81-20 Meeting 81-20
AW
or
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING*
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Wednesday, August 12, 1981 5 P.M.
Los Trancos Open Space Preserve
Parking Lot, Upper Page Mill Road,
Palo Alto, approximately 1 mile
below Skyline Boulevard
Joint Meeting with Palo Alto Planning Commission
AGENDA
(5: 0 0) ROLL CALL
Tour of Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Potential Parking
Lot Locations
(8 : 30) Reconvene at Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto
CLAIMS
ADJOURNMENT
*The meeting of August 12 at the regular time and place has been
cancelled.
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
Meeting 81-18
July 22, 1981
emmwmc
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
July 22 , 1981
I. ROLL CALL
Vice President Daniel Wendin called the meeting to order at 7 :35 P.M.
Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
and Nonette Hanko.
Members Absent: Edward Shelley, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Staff Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steve Sessions ,
Charlotte MacDonald, Del Woods, and Joan Combs.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 24 , 1981
D. Wendin noted a typographical error on page 7 , paragraph 3,
which should read fire "lane" instead of fire "land" .
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the minutes of June 24 ,
1981 as corrected. B. Green seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
B. July 8 , 1981
Motion: B. Green moved the adoption of the minutes of July 8 ,
1981 . K. Duffy seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
J. Combs reported the Board had received a letter, dated July 20 ,
1981, from Thomas Harrington, 105 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos,
concerning the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve parking lot
comparison criteria. The Board agreed to consider the letter
during the discussion of item 2.
H. Grench rioted a set of letters had been received from Jones,
Hall, Hill , and White, concerning the District tax anticipation
note . Letters were also received from Santa Clara County Super-
visors Zoe Lofgren and Dan McCorquodale, and Santa Clara County
Associate Planner Don Weden, thanking the District for its support
of the Planning Department during recent budget hearings.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
D. Wendin stated the Board' s consensus that the agenda was adopted
as written.
V. ORAL C014MUNlCATIONS
There were no oral communications.
VI . SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
C. MacDonald showed the Palo Alto League of Women Voters ' film,
"Thin Edge of the Bay" .
Herbert A Grench,General Manager
Board ofDitectors.Katherine Duffy.Barbara Green.NonetteG.Hanko,Richard Bishop.Edward G Shelley.Harry A Turner.Daniel Wendin
Meeting 81-18 Page two
VII. OLD BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
A. Follow-Up on the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot
Approval Process
S. Sessions introduced memorandum M-81-82 , dated July 16 , 1981,
noting the information contained in the memorandum was forwarded
to the City of Palo Alto staff. He said a joint meeting to dis-
cuss the G' FV and L locations is planned to be held with the
Palo Alto Planning Commission, respective staffs , and some Palo
Alto Council members no later than the second week in August.
D. Wendin noted that items D and E in the memorandum should be
stated somewhat differently, as the basic idea of the process was
that the Board would select a parking lot location in conjunction
with the Planning Commission by August 26 , the potential "closed
door" meeting. He noted that the meeting with the Palo Alto City
Council was not a joint meeting.
S. Sessions noted that item C was the presentation, D the actual
selection based on the discussion.
N. Hanko said the phrase "hold a joint meeting with" should be
deleted from item E, and suggested changing "to approve" to
"present for approval" .
D. Wendin said it should be made clear that D is a joint meeting
with the Board and the Planning Commission.
S. Sessions, referring to item C, noted that the Palo Alto City
staff felt the first joint meeting should be held in the field.
A complete packet of information, based on the criteria, would
be made available, and conceptual sketches of the three locations
would be available.
D. Wendin said adequate time was needed for public input, which
would mean allowing for a change of criteria at the final meeting.
He added that at the first joint meeting in August, the criteria
adopted by the Board would be reviewed, and a set of criteria
tentatively adopted by the Board and Planning Commission. The
second meeting in August would probably be a formal meeting in
the Palo Alto City Council Chambers, with public comment on the
criteria and ratings of each site. He added that he felt it
was imperative that the Board and Planning Commission tentatively
work out an agreement on criteria and filling in the blanks prior
to the second joint meeting. This would be distributed to the
two groups and to the public .
N. Hanko said she would like the set of criteria, without the
ratings or with only staff' s ratings , sent to the Planning
Commissions.
H. Grench suggested, as an alternative structure, the tentative
adoption of criteria, a joint meeting with the Planning Commission
to discuss criteria, followed the same day by a field trip to
the sites, and possibly reconvening at the office for arriving
at consensus .
Meeting 81-18 Page three
Motion: D. Wendin moved to direct staff to choose a date for a
6 P.M. field trip, followed by a public meeting at an
appropriate place. K. Duffy seconded. The motion
passed unanimously.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that a fifteenth criterion, suggested by
Thomas Harrington and concerning visual impact on neighbors
and local support, be added. B. Green seconded the mot on.
Discussion: S. Sessions pointed out that Number 14 was
intended
ntended to take neighbors' visual impact into consideration.
N. Hanko withdrew the motion with the permission of B. Green.
Lewis Reed, 225 Lindenbrook Road, Woodside, representing the Mid-
peninsula Trails Council, asked if provisions had been made for
horse trailer parking. He stated that since Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve had a number of horse trails , the existing equestrian use
should be maintained.
S. Sessions said the "G" location was not originally designed to
accommodate horse trailers , and "L" could accommodate one or two
horse trailers on a casual basis , but not on a weekend.
Harry Haeussler, 1094 Highland Circle, Los Altos, asked for a
definite commitment from the District to provide horse trailer
parking within a reasonable length of time .
D. Wendin said he did not think any of the three sites` under
consideration were adequate for horse trailer parking, and there-
fore, he did not want to see trailer parking stated as a criterion.
He added that he felt the District had made a commitment to include
horse trailer parking for the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve,
but the commitment did not apply to the parking lots under
consideration. Ile suggested that equestrian groups present input
at the first meeting in August.
N. Hanko suggested a Board consensus to endeavor to provide horse
trailer parking, although not necessarily on the sites currently
being considered. She added she would like to see horse trailer
parking provided at another site, to be determined at a later date,
and added she felt that horse trailer parking should not be part
of the criteria being considered.
Motion : K. Duffy moved -the adoption of the criteria, re-ordering
them to group visual and safety factors , and suggested
that an initial paragraph be added saying that no
weighting of the criteria was implied.
Discussion: N. Hanko suggested that it should also be
noted that the rating of the criteria was staff ' s .
B. Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board directed that the invitation to the joint meeting be sent
to the Palo Alto Planning Commission from the President or Vice
President of the Board, with copies to the Palo Alto City Council .
Staff' s evaluations would be included as an informational item,
noting that they have not been adopted by the Board.
B. Proposed Schedule for Thornewood Lease Negotiations
C. Britton reviewed memorandum M-81-84 , dated July 22, 1981, noting
Meeting 81-18 Page four
that' staff hopes to come to the Board with final documents for con-
sideration at the second meeting in August or first meeting in
September. He noted that he also hoped to present the lease
agreement for the Picchetti as well as Thornewood sites at the
second meeting in August. He said the exchange agreement with
the Ganos could be accomplished first, and the lease agreement later.
Motion: D. Wendin moved approval of the proposed target schedule
for Thornewood lease negotiations, giving the staff option
to delay the lease agreement until no later than 30 days
following positive action by Woodside. B. Green seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
VIII . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED
Use and Management Plan Status Report for Foothills Open Space Preserve
S. Sessions reviewed report R-81-34 , dated July 15 , 1981.
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the use and management
recommendations for Foothills Open Space Preserve. D.
Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
H. Grench announced that S.Sessions had accepted a job offer and
would be leaving the District July 24 .
N. Hanko said she would like to place a resolution on the next
agenda supporting the attempt to preserve the Bair Island area.
N. Hanko announced that the Palo Alto City Council voted to instruct
their attorney to draft a dedication ordinance for 438acres of the
Arastra property.
S. Sessions noted that San Mateo County has adopted a subdivision
moratorium for the Skyline corridor.
S. Sessions reported that on July 16 , San Mateo County consultants
presented conceptual plans for Edgewood Park.
X. CLAIMS
Upon questioning from N. Hanko, S. Norton advised that it was proper
for her to vote on item 2344 , since the debt was already an obligation
of the District. N. Hanko stated that, were there not a need for a
quorum, she would abstain from item 2344 , a check to I .B.M.
Motion : D. Wendin moved approval of the revised claims , C-81-15 , dated
July 22 , 1981. B. Green seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
XI. CLOSED SESSION
The Board - recessed to Closed Session at 9 :50 P.M. for the purpose of
discussing land negotiations and personnel .
XII . ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 10 :40 P.M.
Joan Combs
Secretary
ting 81-19
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
July 27, 1981
I. ROLL CALL
!�i—es-I"dent Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 :34 P.M.
for the purpose of holding a Closed Session to conduct the General
Manager' s performance evaluation.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green,
Edward Shelley, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop.
Member Absent: Nonette Hanko.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench.
II. CLOSED SESSION
The Closed Session recessed at 11 :30 P.M. and reconvened at 7:00 P.M. ,
Wednesday, July 29 , 1981. Directors Hanko and Turner were not
present at the continued Closed Session.
III . ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned at 9 :15 P.M. , July 29, 1981.
Herbert Grench
General Manager
Herbert A.Grench.General Manager
Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,EcNvard G.Shelley,Harry A Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
'V M-81-86
Av (Meeting 81-20
440 4 toe August 12, 1981)
Am-a.;i mw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
August 5 , 1981
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with Palo Alto Planning Commission Regarding
the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Location
Introduction: At your meeting of July 22, 1981 you considered a
staff report (M-81-82 of July 16, 1981) regarding Follow-Up on the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Approval Process. As a
result, a letter (attached) was sent to the Palo Alto Planning Com-
mission regarding evaluation criteria and a proposed site tour.
Although you determined that provision for horse trailer parking
would not be a criterion for selection of the parking lot location
under discussion and that trailer parking might not be accommodated
at all on the selected site, you did indicate that staff should
study possible locations for such use. The McNiel property, on
which acquisition negotiations are continuing, and the area down
Page Mill Road on the former Burns property where the old barn was
located are areas which will be investigated, among others.
Discussion: Vice President Wendin and I attended and participated
in the Planning Commission meeting of July 29 where the tour was
discussed. As a result, a joint meeting was proposed for August 12
for a site tour followed by discussion back at City Hall (see agenda) .
Your Regular Meeting for that date has subsequently been cancelled and
regular items postponed until August 26 . The August 12 meeting will
be a study session of the Planning .Commission, under their procedures,
and a Special Meeting for the District.
Conclusion: I believe that consensus can be reached on August 12
on a preferred lot location. The Planning Commission would not
make a decision (for a location within the City limits) , however,
until an application was presented later for formal site and design
review, when the public would have another chance to comment.
Site plans and grading information will be available August 12.
'laims-81-16
.ugust 12 ,1981
Meeting 81-20
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
Ir
A Amount Name Description
2364 38. 07 Air Photo Co. , Inc. Thornewood Aerial
2365 129 . 68 Abema, Inc. T-Bar Driver and Chisel
2366 657. 32 AMC/Jeep, Inc. Maintenance-District Vehicle
2367 475 . 00 Louis Bordi & Son Filling in Water Cistern-Windy
Hill
2368 750. 00 California Advocates ,Inc. July Legislative Services
2369 176. 00 Communications Research Co.Equipment Maintenance
2370 300. 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture -July
2371 6. 28 Crest Copies Copies of Maps
2372 22 . 65 Ewert' s Photo Audio-Visual Presentation
2373 2 ,"7031. 40 First American Title- Title and Escrow Fees-Leslie Salt
Insurance Co. and Longridge(Bean Property)
2374 200. 00 First American Title- Preliminary Reports
Guaranty Co.
2375 182 . 50 Flinn, Cray & Herterich Insurance-Volunteer Coverage
2376 38. 60 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense
2377 10. 92 Graphicstat , Inc. Print of Baylands Area
2378 166 . 50 Honeywell Protection Burglar Alarm-Ranger Yard
Services
2379 91 . 81 Image Technology, Inc. Mylar Master for Montebello
Parking Lot and Coastal Con-
servancy Grant
2380 690. 63 I .B.M. Service Agreement and Sound
Reduction Hood for Selectric III
2381 341. 55 Los Altos Garbage Co. Garbage Service
2382 12 . 00 Meredith Newspapers- Subscription Renewal-8/81 to 8/82
Saratoga News
2383 508. 93 Mobil Oil District Vehicle Expense
2384 197. 91 PC and E Utilities
2385 619. 92 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
2386 3. 62 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
2387 80. 91 The Map Man-Steve Pape Maps
2388 18. 73 Peninsula Blueprint ServiceBlue Lines
2389 100.40 Pete Ellis Dodge Maintenance-District Vehicle
Expense
Claims-81-16 Page 2
August 12 , 1981
Meeting 81-20
Amount Name Description__
2390 $ 141. 65 Peninsula Office Supply Binders - District History
2391 1 , 348. 02 Peninsula Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense-
2392 - 365. 07 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2393 251. 43 Signs of the Times Signs-Monte Bello and Windy Hill
2394 150. 00 Title Insurance and Trust Preliminary Title Report
2395 3. 18 Hubbard and Johnson _Fuses
2396 8. 00 University of Wisconsin- Subscription-Res' toration and
Madison Arboretum Management Notes'
2397 1, 969 .00 SGS, Inc.: Cistern Work at Monte Bello.
2398 52. 80 Peninsula Times Tribune Ad for Rental House-Bean Propert
2399 34. 44 Uno Graphics Skyline Trails Brochure
2400 73. 10 Unistrut .Unisign Systems Field Supplies.
2401 500. 00 U.S Postmaster Postage Meter
2402 249. 03 Union Oil Co. . District Vehicle Expense
2403 13. 30 Victor of California Oxygen
2404 34. 50 Warren, Gorham, and Lamont, Real Estate Law Digest
Inc.
2405 53. 30 Western Fire Equipment , Co. Replacement Handles for Fire
Tools
2406 58. 58 ZZZ Sanitation Co. . Portable Toilets-Los Trancos
2407 227-. 59 Xer6x Corporation Maintenance Agreement.
2408 134. 19 Hub Schneider Patches for Uniforms
2409 52. 60 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
2410 332. 89 Mark Deady Reimbursement-Expenses on repair
of Fremont Older -rental unit
Claims-81-16
zgust 12 , 1981
aeting 81-20
Revised
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
C L A I M S
it
2 Amount Name
Description,
2364 $ 38. 07 Air Photo Co . , Inc. Thornewood Aerial
2365 129. 68 Abema, Inc. T-Bar Driver and Chisel
2366 657. 32 AMC/Jeep , Inc. Maintenance-District Vehicle
2367 475 .00 Louis Bordi & Son Filling in Water Cistern-Windy
Hill
2368 750. 00 California Advocates ,Inc. July Legislative Services
2369 176. 00 Communications Research Co.Equipment Maintenance
2370 300. 00 Susan Cretekos Patroling Windmill Pasture -July
2371 6. 28 Crest Copies Copies of Maps
2372 22. 65 ' twert ' s Photo Audio-Visual Presentation
2373 2 '1'-703r. 40 First American Title- Title and Escrow Fees-Leslie Salt
Insurance Co. and Longridge(Bean Property)
2374 200. 00 First American Title- Preliminary Reports
Guaranty Co.
2375 182. 50 Flinn, Gray & Herterich Insurance-Volunteer Coverage
2376 38. 60 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense
2377 10. 92 Graphicstat , Inc. Print of Baylands Area
2378 166 . 50 Honeywell Protection Burglar Alarm-Ranger Yard
Services
2379 91. 81 Image Technology, Inc. Mylar Master for Montebello
Parking Lot and Coastal Con-
servancy Grant
2380 690. 63 I .B.M. Service Agreement and Sound
Reduction Hood for Selectric III
2381 341 . 55 Los Altos Garbage Co. Garbage Service
2382 12. 00, Meredith Newspapers- Subscription Renewal-8/81 to 8/82
Saratoga News
2383 508. 93 Mobil Oil District Vehicle Expense
2384 197. 91 PG and E Utilities
2385 619. 92 Pacific Telephone Telephone Service
2386 3. 62 Palo Alto Utilities Utilities
2387 80. 91 The Map Man-Steve Pape Maps
2388 18. 73 Peninsula Blueprint ServiceBlue Lines
2389 100. 40 Pete Ellis Dodge Maintenance-District Vehicle
Expense
Claims-81-16 Page 2
August 12, 1981 Revi.sed
.4eeting 81-20
Amount 'Name Description
2390 $ 141. 65 Peninsula Office Supply Binders - District History
2391 1 , 348. 02 Peninsula Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense-
2392 . 365. 07 Shell Oil Co. District Vehicle Expense
2393 251. 43 Signs of the Times Signs-Monte Bello and Windy Hill
2394 150. 00 Title Insurance and Trust Preliminary Title Report
2395 3. 18 Hubbard and Johnson _Fuses
2396 8. 00 University of Wisconsin- Subscription-Res' toration and
Madison Arboretum Management Notes-
2397 1, 969..00 SGS,Inc..- Cistern Work at Monte Bello.
2398 52 . 80 Peninsula Times Tribune Ad for Rental House-Bean Propert3
2399 34. 44 Uno Graphics Skyline Trails Brochure
2400 73. 10 Unistrut,Unisign Systems Field Supplies•
2401 500. 00 U.S Postmaster Postage Meter
2402 249. 03 Union Oil Co. , District Vehicle Expense
2403 13. 30 Victor of California Oxygen
2404 34. 50 Warren, Gorham, and Lamont , Real Estate Law Digest
Inc.
2405 53. 30 Western Fire Equipment , Co.. Replacement Handles for Fire
Tools
2406 58. 58 ZZZ Sanitation Co. . Portable Toilets-Los Trancos
2407 227-. 59 Xerox Corporation Mai-ntenance Agreement.
2408 134. 19 Hub Schneider Patches for Uniforms
2409 52. 60 Pat Starrett Private Vehicle Expense
2410 332. 89 Mark Deady Reimbursement-Expenses on repair..
of Fremont Older -rental unit
2411 186 .20 ' Petty Cash Private .Vehicle Expense,Ma-p
Duplication,Xeroxing,Meal
Conferences ,Office Supplies ,
Books ,and Postage.
♦ T
1
NaDPENIT3SULA REGIONAL OPHN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: H. GRENCH, GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: F.Y. I.
DATED: 7/27/81
k,title
'.--
:0Q AM
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Policies and Policy Decisions
Relating to Site Emphasis
Adopted By
Board of Directors
July 8, 1981
For purposes of discussion, emphasized and non-emphasized sites were defined as
follows:
Emphasized Site - a District site which is either (a) actively used by the
public (example - Rancho San Antonio) or (b) promoted by
the District for active public use (example Los Trancos).
Non-Emphasized Site - A District site which is either (a) not actively used
by the public (example - Costanoan Way) or (b) not pro-
moted by the District for active public use (example - Long
Ridge).
BUDGET GUIDELINES
1. Should any new policies on site emphasis and stewardship fit within the existing
land management budget guidelines?
Board reaffirmed Land Management budget guidelines; any emphasis policies
adopted would only be guidelines for allocation of funds within those
budget guidelines.
SITE EMPHASIS
1. Should some District sites be emphasized for public use?
Yes
Should the emphasized sites be limited in number according to geographic distri-
bution?
Yes
2. Should some District sites be unemphasized for public use?
Yes
3. Should there be a system which defines various levels of emphasis into which
individual sites are placed?
No
4. Should the level of emphasis be decided for each site on its individual merits?
Yes, according to the criteria in the present sixth paragraph
5. Should the District establish classifications for each site (wilderness, etc. )?
No
Page two
6. What criteria should be used in determining emphasis vs. unemphasis of sites
and should criteria be assigned priorities? -
The Board adopted the list of criteria with the provision that criteria
should not be listed by priority and are not necessarily stated in order
of importance. Staff is to work w*, 'Lh the list of criteria and return to
the Board if additional clarification was needed.
Staff was directed to return to the Board in six months to one year with
a suggested plan for the number and general location of emphasized sites.
Staff should report back to the Board in March with a schedule for the
suggested plan.
a) manageability of site
b) public need
0 accessibility to public
d) geographic distribution
e) geographic location
f) attractiveness of natural features
9) costs measured against benefits
h) physical and psychological carrying capacity
i) availability of existing facilities for public use
j) other factors affecting suitability of site
7. Does the Board wish to adopt guidelines which address the following subjects?
a) restrooms
b) drinking water
0 level of trail development
d) provision of maps
e) parking areas
f) signs
g) provision of camping facilities
h) transportation (shuttle bus)
Board requested staff return to the Board with a suggested set of guide-
lines for items a, b, c, d, e, and f for further discussion by the Board;
staff recommendations could be changed or referred to committee, if re-
quired, by Board.
Board will not adopt guidelines for items g and h, leaving them to a
case by case consideration in use and management plans.
8. Is a master land management plan needed to implement adopted policies?
Staff should not attempt to put together or create a formal written
master land management plan document at this time, but it is important
to think of the District as a whole when making planning considerations.
A• Page three
9. Should the District adopt publicity guidelines related to a site emphasis
policy? If so, how will the level of emphasis be reflected in our publicity
program?
The Board tentatively adopted the guidelines in C. MacDonald's memorandum
to H. Grench (Memorandum M-81-32, dated March 16, 1981 ) , asking staff to
return to the Board with a restatement of the guidelines in the form of a
policy statement. A recommendation on directional signs as a method of
attracting people to sites was also requested from staff.
10. Should there be a policy to influence level of external publicity given to
sites? (externally generated)
The Board recommended adopting a policy on externally-generated publicity
that stated the degrees to which the District would encourage such pub-
licity so as to be consistent with the level of emphasis for a site.
Staff should include the proposed policy with the other material being
prepared for the Board to consider.
11. Should the District have a public relations policy on emphasis of sites not
managed or owned by the District?
The Board adopted a no-policy position, as it was premature to consider
until an emphasis plan for District sites was prepared by staff and
approved by the Board.
SITE STEWARDSHIP
1. Do we need additional general stewardship policy statements beyond those con-
tained in the basic policies?
No
2. Do we need specific policies on level of maintenance and patrol?
No
3. Should policies be established regarding influencing stewardship of lands not
managed by the District?
Not at this time.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
PUBLICITY GUIDELINES
RELATED TO SITE EMPHASIS POLICY
Adopted by
Board of Directors
July 8, 1981
A. BROCHURES
1. There shall be at least one informational brochure that includes a brief
but clear explanation of the site emphasis policy and its underlying
rationale. The brochure shall state clearly that all District sites
belong to the public. It shall also make it clear that an unemphasized
site is neither "secret" nor "closed", but is simply an area where for
one reason or another a great deal of public use cannot be accommodated.
The reasons for the temporary closure of some areas will also be made clear.
The brochure will include a map showing the location of all the District
preserves, with a code or other graphic device to suggest degrees of de-
velopment or emphasis.
2. Brochures for specific sites shall reflect the site emphasis policy through
their design, their distribution, or both. The amount of effort and ex-
penditure that goes into a particular site brochure will reflect the degree
to which that site is emphasized. There may be no brochures or maps pro-
vided for some of the sites. The distribution of site maps and brochures
shall also be matched to the site emphasis policy, with brochures for the
most emphasized sites generally available--through mailinos, distribution
at libraries, by Docents and Rangers, etc. , and other maps available by
request from the District office. The level of distribution of maps even
for the most emphasized sites will also depend upon budget considerations
and the numbers of visitors that can be accommodated. The kind and avail-
ability of specific site brochures shall be considered at the adoption and
biennial review of individual land use plans.
B. PRESS RELEASES
Press releases from the District shall reflect the site emphasis policy
through the degree of detail devoted to particular sites and the activities
on them. Unlike the meeting summaries and minutes, which provide the press
with regular complete information about the District's activities, press
releases will be considered as bids for publicity and as having the potential
to increase site use and emphasis.
C. OPENSPACE NEWSLETTER
The Openspace newsletter shall be regarded as an informational device for
clarifying the District's site emphasis policy to the public and as a forum
for the discussion of questions and issues related to it. It can also help
implement the emphasis policy through its choice of feature material .
r Page two-
0. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
Slide shows and other public presentations shall reflect and clarify the
site emphasis policy in the same way that. press releases and newsletters
do.
E. RADIO AND TV
Radio and TV coverage often reflects or spins off from the subject matter
of the District's press releases and publications. It also reflects the
occurrences (sometimes outside the District's control ) on various District
sites. Clear communications with these media about the site emphasis
policy and the reasons behind it shall be stressed.
F. EXTERNALLY-GENERATED PUBLICITY
1. While the District has and desires no control over the "external publicity"
given to District sites by the various media, it is recognized that a great
deal of this publicity is based on information originally provided by the
District. The best way to influence such publicity to reflect the site
emphasis policy is to make sure that the policy is fully and clearly
communicated to the press and the public.
2. The degree to which the District will encourage "externally generated pub-
licity" about District sites from authors of books, newspaper and magazine
articles, etc. will be consistent with the level of emphasis adopted for
that site.
All
MIDPaiINSULA REGIONAL OPa� SPACE DISTRICT
TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:H. GRENCH, GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: F.Y. I .
DATED: 7/27/81
City of Talo11to
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 94301
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
(415) 329-2441
July 23, 1981
Mr. Steven D. Sessions
Land Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Dear Steve:
I have had an opportunity to review the MROSD Board of Director's proposed
process for evaluation and selection of a parking area for the Montebello Open
Space Preserve. We understand your Board's need for an expedient decision-
making process so as to utilize a development grant by December 1, 1981. We
would suggest a further refinement of the suggested process to facilitate your
application by September.
The Palo Alto Planning Commission can review the evaluation criteria at their
meeting of July 29, 1981. Input from the Planning Commission and interested
City Council members on site selection could be obtained at an on-site meeting
in early August. Based upon this input, City and District staff could then
work together in preparation of an actual parking lot layout and landscape
plan. We feel it would then be possible for MROSD to submit a formal Site and
Design application in early September for Planning Commission review later in
that month and City Council review in October.
This item will be agendized for discussion by the Planning Commission on July
29, 1981. If you or a representative of your Board or staff could be present
at this meeting, we will attempt to formalize our schedules. Please contact me
at 329-2149 if you have any questions concerning our proposed process or the
City's role.
Sincerely, ,
ROBERT M. BROWN
Associate Planner
RMB:jb
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
MROSD Board of Directors
Tom Harrington
David Hale
July 22, 1981
Evaluation Criteria for Selection of
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Location
Note : The following criteria are not listed *in any particular order
of importance; no ranking or weighting has been done.
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for safe ingress and egress to
parking area.
This is the minimum line of sight from a potential driveway
up and down Page Mill Road in order to allow for a safe
entrance and exit. Grading may be necessary to provide
the line of sight.
2. Close visual proximity of parking area to roadway for patrol
and safety.
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, 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 night.
3. Restrictive view from site to discourage parkers from loitering.
The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to
a viewshed is a critical factor. If the lot has a limited
view, it will be less inviting to vandals and loiterers.
A lot offering a picturesque view of the Bay Area will most
likely result in a security system with extended patrol
coverage and locked gates during the night.
4 . Relationship to the Monte Bello open Space Preserve and proximity
to trail system.
How does the location relate to the trail system and the
projected use patterns of the site?
5. Proximity to attractive parts of site; desirability as a trail-
head staging area.
Does the location of the lot make accessible those areas of
the Preserve which are most attractive and inviting, namely
the hilltops , which offer panoramic views of Stevens Creek
Canyon and the Canyon itself?
6. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Page Mill Road.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Page Mill Road?
7. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Skyline Boulevard.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Skyline Boulevard?
Page two
8. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Monte Bello Ridge
public land.
Does the parking lot location offer,a significant negative
visual impact to people hiking along the I-lonte Bello Ridge
public land area?
9 . Ability to landscape area as mitigation of visual impacts from
the road, public land, and private property.
Can the location be adequately landscaped to mitigate
possible visual impacts which may result from a parking lot?
10 . Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s Page Mill Road Scenic
Corridor (200 foot setback) .
Does the location allow for Page Mill Scen-ic ,Corridor '-
restrictions (fencing, setback, etc. ) ?
11. Protection of visual integrity of Stevens Canyon watershed. area.
Does the location have potential visual impact on the
Stevens Canyon watershed area?
12. Protection of existing natural landscape features.
Does the location allow for protection of existing natural
landscape features, i.e. rock outcroppings and native
vegetation?
13. Ease of engineering, i .e. lack of excessive grading or geologic
problems.
Does the proposed location require excessive grading to
construct a parking lot? Is a complex engineering design
required to overcome geologic problems?
14 . Expansion potential , if needed in the future.
Can the parking area be logically expanded if needed?
The preliminary layout for the "G" area shows a 45 stall configuration
and the "L" area indicated a possible 35 car layout. The design
for the F 1 location has not been completed, but 35 parking stalls
are being conceptually considered.
August 12 , 1981
Desirability of Parking Lot Locations
with Respect to Various Criteria
Page Mill Road Location
Factors Limiting Development F1 G L
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for
safe ingress and egress to parking area
2 . Close visual proximity of parking area
to roadway for patrol and safety
3. Restrictive view from site to dis-
courage parkers from loitering
4 . Relationship to the Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve and proximity to trail
system
5. Proximity to attractive parts of site;
desirability as a trailhead staging area
6. Visual impact of parking area as seen
from Page Mill Road
7 . Visual impact of parking area as seen
from Skyline Boulevard
8. Visual impact of parking area as seen
from Monte Bello Ridge public land
9. Ability to landscape area as mitigation
of visual impacts from road, public
land, and private property
10. Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s
Page Mill Road Scenic Corridor (200 '
setback)
11. Protection of visual integrity of
Stevens Canyon watershed area
12 . Protection of existing natural land-
scape features
13 . Ease of engineering, i.e. lack of CUT 427 cu.yds. 1151 cu. yds 275 cu.yds
excessive grading. or geologic proble FILL 1233 cu.yds 400 cu. yds 956 cu.yds
i=ENCE 806 cu.yds 751 cu. yds 681 cu.yds
14 . Expansion potential, if needed in the
future
*Rating subject to specific lot and access design.
July 22 , 1981
Evaluation Criteria for Selection of
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Location
Note: The following criteria are not listed in any particular order
of importance; no ranking or weighting has been done.
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for safe ingress and egress to
parking area.
This is the minimum line of sight from a potential driveway
up and down Page Mill Road in order to allow for a safe
entrance and exit. Grading may be necessary to provide
the line of sight.
2. Close visual proximity of parking area to roadway for patrol
and safety.
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, 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 night.
3. Restrictive view from site to discourage parkers from loitering.
The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to
a viewshed is a critical factor. If the lot has a limited
view, it will be less inviting to vandals and loiterers.
A lot offering a picturesque view of the Bay Area will most
likely result in a security system with extended patrol
coverage and locked gates during the night.
4 . Relationship to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and proximity
to trail system.
How does the location relate to the trail system and the
projected use patterns of the site?
5. Proximity to attractive parts of site; desirability as a trail-
head staging area.
Does the location of the lot make accessible those areas of
the Preserve which are most attractive and inviting, namely
the hilltops , which offer panoramic views of Stevens Creek
Canyon and the Canyon itself?
6. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Page Mill Road.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Page Mill Road?
7 . Visual impact of parking area as seen from Skyline Boulevard.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Skyline Boulevard?
Page two
8. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Monte Bello Ridge
public land.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people hiking along the Monte Bello Ridge
public land area?
9. Ability to landscape area as mitigation of visual impacts from
the road, public land, and private property.
Can the location be adequately landscaped to mitigate
possible visual impacts which may result from a parking lot?
10 . Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s Page Mill Road Scenic
Corridor (200 foot setback) .
Does the location allow for Page Mill Scenic Corridor
restrictions (fencing, setback , etc. ) ?
11. Protection of visual integrity of Stevens Canyon watershed area.
Does the location have potential visual impact on the
Stevens Canyon watershed area?
12. Protection of existing natural landscape features.
Does the location allow for protection of existing natural
landscape features, i.e. rock outcroppings and native
vegetation?
13 . Ease of engineering, i.e. lack of excessive grading or geologic
problems.
Does the proposed location require excessive grading to
construct a parking lot? Is a complex engineering design
required to overcome geologic problems?
14 . Expansion potential , if needed in the future.
Can the parking area be logically expanded if needed?
The preliminary layout for the "G" area shows a 45 stall configuration
and the "L" area indicated a possible 35 car layout. The design
for the F 1 location has not been completed, but 35 parking stalls
are being conceptually considered.
--NM
JW&
August 12 , 1961
Desirability of Parking Lot Locations
with Respect to Various Criteria
Page Mill Road Location
Factors Limiting Development Pi G L
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for
safe ingress and egress to parking area
2. Close visual proximity of parking area
to roadway for patrol and safety
3. Restrictive view from site to dis-
courage parkers from loitering
4 . Relationship to the Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve and proximity to trail
system
5. Proximity to attractive parts of site;
desirability as a trailhead staging area
6. Visual impact of parking area as seen
from Page Mill Road
7 . Visual impact of parking area as seen
from Skyline Boulevard
8. Visual impact of parking area as seen
from Monte Bello Ridge public land
9 . Ability to landscape area as mitigation
of
f visual impacts from road, public
land, and private property
10. Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s
Page Mill Road Scenic Corridor (200 '
setback)
11. Protection of visual integrity of
Stevens Canyon watershed area
12. Protection of existing natural land-
scape features
13 . Ease of engineering, i.e. lack of CC T 427 cu.yds. 1151 cu. yds 275 cu.yd!
excessive grading. or geologic proble FILL 1233 cu.yds 400 cu. yds 956 cu.yd!
D,IUF,FENCE 806 cu.yds 751 cu. yds 681 cu.yd.-
14 . Expansion potential ,, if needed in thei
future
*Rating subject to specific lot and access design.
July 22, 1981
Evaluation Criteria for Selection of
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Parking Lot Location
Note : The following criteria are not listed in any particular order
of importance; no ranking or weighting has been done.
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for safe ingress and egress to
parking area.
This is the minimum line of sight from a potential driveway
up and down Page Mill Road in order to allow for a safe
entrance and exit. Grading may be necessary to provide
the line of sight.
2. Close visual proximity of parking area to roadway for patrol
and safety.
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, 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 night.
3. Restrictive view from site to discourage parkers from loitering.
The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to
a viewshed is a critical factor. If the lot has a limited
view, it will be less inviting to vandals and loiterers.
A lot offering a picturesque view of the Bay Area will most
likely result in a security system with extended patrol
coverage and locked gates during the night.
4. Relationship to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and proximity
to trail system.
How does the location relate to the trail system and the
projected use patterns of the site?
5. Proximity to attractive parts of site; desirability as a trail-
head staging area.
Does the location of the lot make accessible those areas of
the Preserve which are most attractive and inviting, namely
the hilltops , which offer panoramic views of Stevens Creek
Canyon and the Canyon itself?
6. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Page Mill Road.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Pago Mill Road?
7. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Skyline Boulevard.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Skyline Boulevard?
Page two
8. Visual impact of parking area as seen from Monte Bello Ridge
public land.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people hiking along the Monte Bello Ridge
public land area?
9. Ability to landscape area as mitigation of visual impacts from
the road, public land, and private property.
Can the location be adequately landscaped to mitigate
possible visual impacts which may result from a parking lot?
10 . Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s Page Mill Road Scenic
Corridor (200 foot setback) .
Does the location allow for Page Mill Scenic Corridor
restrictions (fencing, setback, etc. ) ?
11. Protection of visual integrity of Stevens Canyon watershed area.
Does the location have potential visual impact on the
Stevens Canyon watershed area?
12. Protection of existing natural landscape features.
Does the location allow for protection of existing natural
landscape features, i.e. rock outcroppings and native
vegetation?
13. Ease of engineering, i.e. lack of excessive grading or geologic
problems.
Does the proposed location require excessive grading to
construct a parking lot? Is a complex engineering design
required to overcome geologic problems?
14 . Expansion potential , if needed in the future.
Can the parking area be logically expanded if needed?
The preliminary layout for the "G" area shows a 45 stall configuration
and the "L" area indicated a possible 35 car layout. The design
for the F 1 location has not been completed, but 35 parking stalls
are being conceptually considered.
July 27, 1981
Desirab.Llity of Parking Lot Locations
with Respect to Various Criteria
Page Mill Road Location
Factors Limiting Development F I G L
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for Good* Good Fair
safe ingress and egress to parking area
2. Close visual proximity of parking area Good Good Good
to roadway for patrol and safety
3. Restrictive view from site to dis- Fair Fair Poor
courage Parkers from loitering
4 . Relationship to the Monte Bello Open Good Good Good
Space Preserve and proximity to trail
system
5. Proximity to attractive parts of site; Good Good Good
desirability as a trailhead staging area
6 . Visual impact of parking area as seen Fair Fair Fair
from Page Mill Road
7 . Visual impact of parking area as seen Poor Fair Good
from Skyline Boulevard
8. Visual impact of parking area as seen Fair Fair Poor
from Monte Bello Ridge public land
9. Ability to landscape area as mitigation Good Fair Poor
of visual impacts from road, public
land, and private property
0. Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s Fair Poor Fair
Page Mill Road Scenic Corridor (200 '
setback)
1. Protection of visual integrity of Fair Poor Fair
Stevens Canyon watershed area
.2 . Protection of existing natural land- Fair* Poor Fair
scape features
3 . Ease of engineering, i.e. lack of Poor* Fair Fair
excessive grading_ or geologic problems
4 . Expansion potential , if needed in the Fair Fair Good
future
*Rating subject to specific lot and access design.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Position' Statement on Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Adopted by
Board of Directors
July 8, 1981
Background: Since its inception in 1972 , the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District has taken as its goal the preservation and
protection of open space. To date, the District has acquired over
10 ,000 acres of natural lands in the foothills and baylands . Al-
though these preserves are crisscrossed with trails and open to
the public, primary emphasis has been on acquisition and not on
development or encouragement of public use. However, demands
by the public for use of the land which has been acquired with
public money are increasing. To meet these demands, while still
protecting the goals of maximum open space acquisition, the District
has embarked on a program of restrained emphasis, and development
of certain key open space preserves. The development of trails,
earthquake demonstrations trails, and docent programs on Los Trancos
Open Space Preserve was a modest and very successful beginning to
this program, providing reasonable, safe, public use while pro-
tecting the open space amenities.
The next step in this program has been the "development" of the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. The District' s largest site,
this 3, 000 acres at the center of the District has been described
as the "jewel" of the District' s acquisitions. The use of this
area has been growing, and demands for improved access are being
made. In order to accommodate this growing use in an orderly,
responsible, and safe manner, the District has sought and received
a development grant which would fund development and signing of
trails, and construction of a landscaped staging area for auto-
mobile parking. This grant could be lost if the plan is not
approved and underway by the December 1, 1981 deadline .
Reasons for Development of the Staging Area (Parking) :
1. To accommodate increasing public use.
Word is spreading about the desirability of the beautiful open
space land along Page Mill Road without any efforts by the
District to advertise its availability. Use by the public is
growing, overflowing of the current Los Trancos lot is in-
creasing, and scattered hazardous parking along Page Mill Road
is occurring more frequently in order to gain access to existing
trails on Monte Bello.
2. To provide a modest site emphasis program on the District ' s
largest and most centrally located site.
Together with a trail system, a staging area would provide a
central site with adequate facilities for District-controlled
use of publicly owned open space. Rather than haphazard use
patterns , the District has as a goal a controlled growth pro-
gram which considers public safety and environmental protection.
3. Public transportation is not a viable alternative- at this time.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has committed to
working with other public agencies to provide for future public
transportation to the park and open space resources of the
midpeninsula. Unrestrained parking development is not environ-
mentally sound and is certainly not a goal of the District.
This staging area, however, would also serve very well as a
focal point for future public transit.
Specific Site Selection
Attractiveness of the natural features , topograp4y, central location,
and adequate road access has accounted -for. the desirability of, a
staging area at the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve along Page
Mill Road. In this general area, a number of possible staging
areas were evaluated and criteria developed and prioritized. Al-
though these sites included locations on both sides of Page Mill
Road, evaluation of criteria and clarification of goals confirmed
the desirability of a location on the Monte Bello side of the road.
Reasons for this focus are as follows :
1. The basic premise for development of this trail head is to
open the 3000 acre Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and its
trails system to public use. This purpose is ill served (nor
is it environmentally sound) by placing more cars and people
on the Los Trancos site which is much smaller and already
heavily used.
2. Monte Bello is the approach to a vast network of regional trails;
Los Trancos is self contained. The uses of the two areas differ.
Parking should be appropriate to each site.
3. Public safety and the desirability of creating a trail for the
handicapped is not well served by placing all the parking on
the Los Trancos side, thus requiring a pedestrian crossing of
Page Mill Road.
4 . Accommodation of future public transit is poorly served by the
current parking lot, but would be considered when planning for
the new staging area.
Rejection of the "OK" Corral
Besides being on the wrong side of the road with poor access to
Monte Bello, there are other convincing reasons to reject this site.
1. Aesthetics
Although the corral itself does not require significant grading,
a road entrance from Page Mill or from the present parking
area would require significant grading to make it practical
and safe. This grading, which is almost equal to that required
by site G, would be visible from a long stretch of Page Mill
Road and, even more importantly, from a large portion of both
Page three
Los Trancos and Monte Bello Open Space Preserves. If the
choice is between damaging the view from the road or from
the trail, this District would prefer 'to leave unspoiled the
open space experience.
2. Management
Supervising, opening, and closing an overflow lot is a much
greater management burden than a well-designed, easily
accessible parking area . The District is in general at-
tempting to control costs with adequate and careful initial
planning of such areas.
***Please note that aside from the fact, that the District -does
not yet own the McNiel property, evaluation of the abo"lle
aesthetic and management considerations make the McNiel
site totally unacceptable.
Conclusion: The Board has been working in good faith for months,
indeed more than a year, to open to the public the "Jewel of "'lid-
peninsula Open Space" . Now that we are up against a deadline,
we hope that things can be put into perspective with a timely
approval of a thoughtfully developed h acre parking area in order
to make accessible 2-, miles of trails and 3000 acres of open space.
Ad-
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
July 27 , 1981
Planning Commission
Citv of Palo Alto
Civic Center
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Members of the Commission:
At our meeting of July 22, our Board adopted the attached
eyja.tUat4.Lojj criteria for choosing a Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve parking lot location. These criteria were adopted
for purposes of discussion with you while gaining further public
iini-,)ut . Our intent is to reach consensus with you 'in August
on the criteria and on a parking lot location before that
specific site is submitted to you for formal review. Also
attached is our staff' s ratings with respect to the various
criteria of the three locations under discussion; our Board
has not adopted these ratings.
In accordance with your staff ' s suggestion, we should like to
schodule a field trip with you during the first two weeks of
August to ieview on-site the locations and criteria. We
suggest ccnveninq at 6 P.M. during the week at the Los "I"rancos
02en Space Preserve parking lot.
Finally, we enclose our policy statement regarding the Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve.
We look forward to working with you to complete this project so
as to make the Monte Bello area accessible and usable -to Palo
Altans and other residents of the District. Representatives
of the District will be on board on July 29 when, we understand,
you be considering the evaluation criteria.
Sincerely,
Daniel Wendin
Vice-President
DTI c
E n 1 .
cc. l. Palo Alto City Council
MROSD Board of Directors
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
city of yal lto
P. O.box 10250
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303
July 24, 1981
TO: Palo Alto Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Brown
SUBJECT: Process for Evaluation of Montebello
Open Space Preserve Parking Area
Members of the Commission:
History
On May 28, 1980 the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a fifty-five car
parking lot on the Montebello Open Space Preserve (Lot G on the attached map) .
The Commission recommended denial of the application due to its impact on the
Stevens Creek Canyon viewshed and amount of grading required. The Commission
recommended instead that the "OK Corral" area adjacent to the existing Los
Trancos Preserve parking lot on the north side of Page Mill Road be used as an
overflow parking area. MROSD withdrew the Lot G application prior to Council
review.
The MROSD considered a second parking lot location (Lot L) at its meeting of
May 27, 1981. This area was within San Mateo County and would not require a
public hearing for approval. The Palo Alto City Council objected to the
proposed lot on the basis of poor traffic visibility, inadequate landscaping
and visibility of the lot from Montebello Ridge. A letter from the mayor was
forwarded to San Mateo County Planning Department and the MROSD Board of
Directors. The application was not pursued and the MROSD Board directed that
their staff work with City staff to formulate a mutually agreeable evaluation
and decision-making process.
Evaluation Process
The District has received a federal development grant for trail development and
parking lot construction. The grant would be lost if a total development and
management plan is not approved by December 1, 1981. Due to this time
constraint, the parking lot evaluation process as originally conceived by MROSD
and Citv staff has been substantially condensed.
Three memorandums from MROSD are attached. The first is a position statement
describing the need for a parking area, the District 's preference for its
location on the south side of Page Mill Road, the feasibility of public
transportation to the Preserve, and the rationale for rejecting the "OK Corral"
option.
The second memorandum sets forth the evaluation and decision-making process
recommended by the MROSD Board. The process calls for two joint meetings of
the MROSD Board and the Planning Commission. The first meeting would include
any interested City Councilmembers and would be an on-site evaluation of three
alternative parking lot areas (see attached map for sites G, L and FI) in
conjunction with the selection criteria adopted by the MROSD Board on July 22,
1981. The second joint meeting would involve review and discussion of the
selected site and proposed parking lot layout. The District would then begin
the formal Site and Design process.
The third memorandum is the Board-approved site selection criteria with
suggested ratings of the three sites by MROSD staff.
City staff has suggested to the District that the process be further refined
(see attached letter) by elimination of the second Commission-Board joint
meeting. It is our impression that sufficient input from the Commission on
site selection could be obtained from a single on-site meeting. Specific
parking lot layout and landscaping could then be worked out by City and
District staff. The parking lot design would be formally reviewed by the
Planning Commission as a Site and Design application possibly as early as
September.
Recommendation
The Commission should formalize the evaluation process for the Montebello
Preserve parking area involving one joint meeting with the MROSD Board of
Directos and any interested City Council members. The meeting should be held
on-site in early August. The Commission should also consider the proposed
evaluation criteria and offer refinements either orally to an MROSD
representative at the July 29 Planning Commission meeting or in writting to the
MROSD Board of Directors.
Attachments
Location Map
July 23, 1981 letter from City staff to MROSD
July 8, 1981 MROSD Position Statement on Montebello Open Space Preserve
July 10, 1981 letter from MROSD to City staff
July 23, 1981 letter from MROSD to City staff
cc: City Council
MROSD Board of Directors
Thomas Harrington
David Hale, San Mateo County Planning Department
7/24/81
2
C'i y of Palo tto
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT Or PLANNING G4301
AND rOMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
,415) 329-2441
July 23, 1981
Mr. Steven D. Sessions
Land Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1
Los Altos, California 94022
Dear Steve:
I have had an opportunity to review the MROSD Board of Director's proposed
process for evaluation and selection of a parking area for the Montebello Open
Space Preserve. We understand your Board's need for an expedient decision-
making process so as to utilize a development grant by December 1, 1981. We
would suggest a further refinement of the suggested process to facilitate your
application by September.
The Palo Alto Planning Commission can review the evaluation criteria at their
meeting of July 29, 1981. Input from the Planning Commission and interested
City Council members on site selection could be obtained at an on-site meting
in early August. Based upon this input, City and District staff could then
work together in preparation of an actual parking lot layout and landscape
plan. We feel it would then be possible for MROSD to submit a formal Site and
Design application in early September for Planning Commission review later in
that month and City Council review in October.
This item will be agendized for discussion by the Planning Commission on July
29, 1981. If you or a representative of your Board or staff could be present
at this meeting, we will attempt to formalize our schedules. Please contact me
at 329-2149 if you have any questions concerning our proposed process or the
City's role.
Sincerely, ,
ROBERT M. BROWN
Associate Planner
RMB: jb
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
MROSD Board of Directors
Tom Harrington
David Hale
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT J Ll L. 13 1981
Position Statement on Monte Bello Open Space
T Y 0 A L
Adopted by
Board of Directors
July 8, 1981
Background: Since its inception in 1972, the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District has taken as its goal the preservation and
protection of open space. To date, the District has acquired over
10 ,000 acres of natural lands in the foothills and baylands . Al-
though these preserves are crisscrossed with trails and open to
the public, primary emphasis has been on acquisition and not on
development or encouragement of public use. However, demands
by the public for use of the land which has been acquired with
public money are increasing. To meet these demands, while still
protecting the goals of maximum open space acquisition, the District
has embarked on a program of restrained emphasis, and development
of certain key open space preserves . The development of trails,
earthquake demonstrations trails, and docent programs on Los Trancos
Open Space Preserve was a modest and very successful beginning to
this program, providing reasonable, safe, public use while pro-
tecting the open space amenities.
The next step in this program has been the "development" of the
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. The District ' s largest site ,
this 3 ,000 acres at the center of the District has been described
as the "jewel" of the District ' s acquisitions. The use of this
area has been growing, and demands for improved access are being
made. In order to accommodate this growing use in an orderly,
responsible, and safe manner, the District has sought and received
a development grant which would fund development and signing of
trails, and construction of a landscaped staging area for auto-
mobile parking. This grant could be lost if the plan is not
approved and underway by the December 1, 1981 deadline .
Reasons for Development of the Staging Area (Parking) :
1. To accommodate increasing public use.
word is spreading about the desirability of the beautiful open
space land along Page Mill Road without any efforts by the
District to advertise its availability. Use by the public is
growing, overflowing of the current Los Trancos lot is in-
creasing, and scattered hazardous parking along Page Mill Road
is occurring more frequently in order to gain access to existing
trails on Monte Bello.
2. To provide a modest site emphasis program on the District ' s
largest and most centrally located site.
Together with a trail system, a staging area would provide a
central site with adequate facilities for District-controlled
Page two
use of publicly owned open space. Rather than haphazard use
patterns , the District has as a goal a controlled growth pro-
gram which considers public safety and environmental protection.
3. Public transportation is not a viable alternative at this time.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has committed to
working with other public agencies to provide for future public
transportation to the park and open space resources of the
midpeninsula. Unrestrained parking development is not environ-
mentally sound and is certainly not a goal of the District.
This staging area, however, would also serve very well as a
focal point for future public transit.
Specific Site Selection
Attractiveness of the natural features , topography, central location,
and adequate road access has accounted for the desirability of a
staging area at the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve along Page
Mill Road. In this general area, a number of possible staging
areas were evaluated and criteria developed and prioritized. Al-
though these sites included locations on both sides of Page Mill
Road, evaluation of criteria and clarification of goals confirmed
the desirability of a location on the Monte Bello side of the road.
Reasons for this focus are as follows :
1. The basic premise for development of this trail head is to
open the 3000 acre Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and its
trails system to public use. This purpose is ill served (nor
is it environmentally sound) by placing more cars and people
on the Los Trancos site which is much smaller and already
heavily used.
2 . Monte Bello is the approach to a vast network of regional trails ;
Los Trancos is self contained. The uses of the two areas differ.
Parking should be appropriate to each site.
3 . Public safety and the desirability of creating a trail for the
handicapped is not well served by placing all the parking on
the Los Trancos side, thus requiring a pedestrian crossing of
Page Mill Road.
4. Accommodation of future public transit is poorly served by the
current parking lot, but would be considered when planning for
the new staging area.
Rejection of the "OK" Corral
Besides being on the wrong side of the road with poor access to
Monte Bello, there are other convincing reasons to reject this site.
1. Aesthetics
Although the corral itself does not require significant grading,
a road entrance from Page Mill or from the present parking
area would require significant grading to make it practical
and safe. This grading, which is almost equal to that required
by site G, would be visible from a long stretch of Page Mill
Road and, even more importantly, from a large portion of both
Page three
Los Trancos and Monte Bello Open Space Preserves. If the
choice is between damaging the view from the road or from
the trail , this District would prefer to leave unspoiled the
open space experience.
2. Management
Supervising, opening, and closing an overflow lot is a much
greater management burden than a well-designed, easily
accessible parking area. The District is in general at-
tempting to control costs with adequate and careful initial
planning of such areas.
***Please note that aside from the fact that the District does
not yet own the McNiel property, evaluation of the above
aesthetic and management considerations make the McNiel
site totally unacceptable.
Conclusion: The Board has been working in good faith for months ,
indeed more than a year, to open to the public the "Jewel of Mid-
peninsula Open Space" . Now that'we are up against a deadline,
we hope that things can be put into perspective with a timely
approval of a thoughtfully developed � acre parking area in order
to make accessible 2� miles of trails and 3000 acres of open space .
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL. CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
rL
July 10 , 198
Mr. Ken Schreiber JUI 133 1981
Assistant Planning Director
City of Palo Alto (BEN P,1 P,11 E N-!' 0, iNI;'4i Ir'l C
250 Hamilton Avenue C I T Y 0 V
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Dear Mr. Schreiber:
As a follow-up to our discussion about the Monte Bello Open Space
Preserve parking lot section process, the District ' s Board of
Directors has modified the suggested process, accelerating the
evaluation and review sequence in order to adhere to the State
imposed deadline of December 1, 1981 to meet the LWCF grant criteria.
The Board of Directors has adopted the following process for
evaluation and selection of a parking area. I would appreciate
any comments and suggestions you may have to keep this process
moving in an orderly manner.
1) Review site evaluation criteria at July 8 , 1981 Board Meeting.
Forward criteria to Palo Alto for comment. Proceed with con-
ceptual drawings of parking layouts for the G, F, and L sites .
2) Board adopts evaluation criteria at July 22 , 1981 Board Meeting.
3) Hold a joint meeting in early August , not later than the second
week,
with Palo Alto Planning Commission and with at least two
members of the Palo Alto City Council to review the adopted
criteria (may include a field trip) .
4) Board to select a preferred location based on finding and hold
a joint meeting with Palo Alto Planning Commission in early
September (not later than the second week) to discuss the
selection.
5) Final adoption of site locale to be made by the Board of
Directors at a special meeting of the Board, and a pre-
sentation to the City of Palo Alto by the end of September.
In addition to the above schedule , the Board has prepared a state-
ment on the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve parking lot location
which it felt will clarify its position.
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.Wending
Page two
I am also including the 14 criteria used for evaluating the various
sites . The Board of Directors has concurred in concept with these
criteria and will adopt the list at its July 22 , 1981 meeting.
Please note that the ratings applied to the F1, G, and L sites
are District staff ratings and have not been approved by the Board.
Should you wish to forward the criteria to the Planning Commission,
the staff ratings should be eliminated. One element of the process
is to reach agreement on what criteria should be used to evaluate
parking locations . The actual ranking will come later.
If you have further questions, please call. otherwise, I need to
talk to you about your comments on the proposed process and evalu-
ation criteria by late next week.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Sessions
Land Manager
SDS: jc
Attachment
r t
JUL 28 08-1
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
Y
July 23, 1981
TO: Bob Brown
FROM: Steve Sessions
Attached for your information is the list of evaluation criteria,
adopted by the District's Board of Directors, to be used during
the selection process for the parking lot location. Please note
the adopted criteria is not ranked or weighted in any manner.
It only represents a listing of criteria to be considered during
site evaluation.
1. Line of sight on Page Mill Road for safe ingress and egress to
parking area.
This is the minimum line of sight from a potential driveway
up and down Page Mill Road in order to allow for a safe
entrance and exit. Grading may be necessary to provide
the line of sight.
2. Close visual proximity of parking area to roadway for patrol
and safety.
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, 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 night.
3 . Restrictive view from site to discourage parkers from loitering.
The design and location of a parking lot in relationship to
a viewshed is a critical factor. If the lot has a limited
view, it will be less inviting to vandals and loiterers .
A lot offering apicturesque view of the Bay Area will most
likely result in a security system with extended patrol
coverage and locked gates during the night.
4 . Visual impact of parking area as seen from Page Mill Road.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Page Mill Road?
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager
Board of Directors Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,NonetteG.Hanko.Richard S.Bishop.Edward Shelley.Harry A Tumer.Daniel G Werc,n
Page two
5 . Visual impact of parking area as seen from Skyline Boulevard.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people driving along Skyline Boulevard?
6 . Visual impact of parking area as seen from Monte Bello Ridge
public land.
Does the parking lot location offer a significant negative
visual impact to people hiking along the Monte Bello Ridge
public land area?
7 . Ability to landscape area as mitigation of visual impacts from
the road, public land, and private property.
Can the location be adequately landscaped to mitigate possible
visual impacts which may result from a parking lot?
8 . Protection of visual integrity of Stevens Canyon watershed area.
Does the location have potential visual impact on the Stevens
Canyon watershed area?
9 . Ease of engineering, i .e. lack of excessive grading or geologic
problems.
Does the proposed location require excessive grading to con-
struct a parking lot? Is a complex engineering design re-
quired to overcome geologic problems?
10 . Proximity to attractive parts of site; desirability as a trailhead
staging area.
Does the location of the lot make accessible those areas of
the Preserve which are most attractive and inviting, namely
the hilltops , which offer panoramic views of Stevens Creek
Canyon and the Canyon itself?
1.1. Expansion potential, if needed in the future.
Can the parking area be logically expanded if needed?
12 . Relationship to the Monte Bello open Space Preserve and proximity
to trail system.
How does the location relate to the trail system and the
projected use patterns of the site?
13 . Protection of the City of Palo Alto' s Page Mill Road Scenic
Corridor (200 foot setback) .
Does the location allow for Page Mill Scenic Corridor
restrictions (fencing, setback, etc. ) ?
14 . Protection of existing natural landscape features..
Does the location allow for protection of existing natural
landscape features, i .e. rock outcroppings and native
vegetation?
Desirability of Parking Lot Locations
with Respect to Various Criteria
Page Mill Road Location
FacAl-ors Limiting Development 1 G L
Line of sight on Page Mill Road for Good Good Fair
safe ingress and egress to parking area
:2. Close visual proximity of parking area Good Good Good
to roadway for patrol and safety
3. Visual impact of parking area as seen Fair Fair Fair
from Page Mill Road
4 . Visual impact of parking area as seen Poor Fair Good
from Skyline Boulevard
5. Visual impact of parking area as seen Poor Fair Poor
from Monte Bello Ridge public land
-6. Restrictive view from site to dis- Fair Fair Poor
courage parkers from loitering
7. Ease of engineering, i.e. lack of ex- Poor Fair Fair
cessive grading or geologic problems
8. Expansion potential, if needed in the Fair Fair Good
future
9 . Proximity to attractive parts of site; Good Good Good
desirability as a trailhiead staging area
.0 . Relationship to the Monte Bello Open Good Good Good
Space Preserve and proximity to trail
system
J. Protection of the -City of Palo Alto's Fair Poor Fair
Page Mill Road Scenic Corridor (200 '
setback)
L 2 Protection of visual integrity of Fair Fair
Stevens Canyon watershed area
L3. Protection of existing natural land- Fair Poor. Fair
scape feature
L4 . Ability to landscape area as mitigation Good Fair Poor
of visual impacts from road, public
land, and private property
*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 night.
Ott
�y CL
8� r %
i�'l/m,W
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM
August 5 , 1981
TO: H. Grench, General Manager
FROM: E. Mart, Operations Supervisor
SUBJECT: Medfly Campaign
The District has taken the following steps during the current
Medfly campaign:
1) In FY 80/81, at the request of State officials , District
Rangers worked with Medfly staff in locating traps on
District preserves. Staff also assisted Medfly personnel
in locating District-owned orchards.
2) During the current crisis , District staff has repeatedly
contacted the Medfly Center in Los Gatos to ensure that we
were in compliance with their orders. The most recent
directive from the Medfly Center requested that we strip
fruit from any orchard areas under five acres . The only
such orchard the District owns is at Rancho San Antonio
and is under the management of the City of Mountain View.
District Rangers assisted Mountain View staff in completing
the stripping of this area.
The areas over five acres (and, therefore, not stripped) are
on the following preserves :
Fremont Older
Monte Bello
Monte Bello (Picchetti area)
Saratoga Gap
3) Several District sites are currently included in the aerial
spraying program:
Thornewood
Windy Hill
Foothills
Rancho San Antonio
Rancho San Antonio (Windmill area)
Monte Bello (Picchetti area)
Fremont Older
In some cases, only portions of these preserves are sprayed.
Following each spraying, we post notices to inform the public
of the presence of the pesticide on the two most heavily used
sites - Rancho San Antonio and Fremont Older.
Page two
4) District staff is continuing to respond to any requests for
cooperation from the Medfly Center.
The District is, according to the Medfly Center, totally in com-
pliance with their current directives .
I will advise of any changes.