Loading...
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.