HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140114 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 14-02
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Hillview Community Center – Social Hall
97 Hillview Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94022
Tuesday January 14, 2014
SPECIAL MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
6:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
1. Vision Plan Board Workshop to review the results of Public Deliberations from Phase 4, “Deliberating”
(R-14-18) – K. Lenington & S. Sommer
ADJOURNMENT
Items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of
Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited
to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-
1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to
the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the Special
Meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on January 10, 2014, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel
Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda is also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org.
Signed this 10th day of January, 2014 at Los Altos, California.
District Clerk
Meeting 14-02
R-14-18
Meeting 14-02
January 14, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Vision Plan Board Workshop to review the results of Public Deliberations from Phase 4,
“Deliberating”
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the results of the Public Deliberation Phase of the Vision Plan.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) initiated the Vision Plan Project in
August 2012 to engage the District’s partners, stakeholders, and the public in a Districtwide
vision for land preservation, resource management, public recreation, and working lands. With
the completion of the Deliberation phase of the Vision Plan process, the District is now poised to
complete the Vision Plan in early 2014 by identifying the priority actions which will serve to
fulfill the District’s mission for the next 40 years. The District’s Board of Directors will meet
twice in January to decide these priorities. The purpose of the January 14th meeting is to review
in detail the public input received related to the Vision Plan. The purpose of the subsequent
meeting to be held on January 29th will be to determine the Priorities for the Vision Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
The District’s Vision Plan Project, entitled ‘Imagine the Future of Open Space,’ is a
multidisciplinary effort combining scientific analysis with broad public engagement to create a
shared vision for the future of the District and the region’s open space. The project has been
structured around a strategic five-phase public engagement process represented by the acronym
SHEDD: Getting Started, Hearing the voices, Enriching the conversation, Deliberating, and
Deciding. The District is now poised to complete the final phase of this process, Deciding. In
order to keep the Board of Directors updated on the status of this five-phase process, the General
Manager has provided the Board regular Vision Plan progress updates, as summarized below:
Board Meeting Date Topic Board Report(s)
January 15, 2013
February 27, 2013
Phase 1: “Getting Started” R-13-08, R-13-09
R-13-10, R-13-32
March 13, 2013
June 12, 2013
Phase 2: “Hearing the Voices” R-13-33, R-13-57
July 24, 2013 Phase 3: “Enriching the Conversation” R-13-66, R-13-70
October 2, 2013
January 14, 2014
Phase 4: “Deliberating” R-13-89, R-14-18
R-14-18 Page 2
At this meeting the Board will receive and discuss the results of public input on the Vision Plan
Goals and Priority Actions. Those results are in the attached Public Deliberation Summary
Report and include public input from the five public deliberation meetings, as well as results
from the online tool, MindMixer, and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The focus of
the workshop will be to review and understand these results.
Following the workshop and review of the public input on the Vision Plan Priority Actions, a
second meeting will be held on January 29, 2014 for the Board to determine the Priorities for the
Vision Plan. The Featured Priority Actions will be the Priority Actions that will serve to fulfill
the District’s mission for the next 40 years.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project is well within budget, having expended $184,000 of the $282,900 budgeted for the
planning and analysis tasks and $49,500 of the $180,000 budgeted for the public engagement
tasks in FY2013-14.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Board waived Committee review of this project in lieu of full Board engagement.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. Notice was also sent to the interested parties
list for this project.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Vision Plan public engagement update does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
Following this workshop, the Board will hold a special meeting on January 29, 2014 to decide on
the Featured Priority Actions for the Vision Plan.
Attachment
1. Public Deliberation Summary Report
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager
Prepared by:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Manager
Sandy Sommer, Senior Real Property Planner
Contact person:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Manager
Imagine the Future of Open Space
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
1/10/2014
Public Deliberation
Summary Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
What We Did and Who We Talked To ....................................................................................................... 1
Public Outreach for Deliberation Phase .................................................................................................. 1
Public Workshops ................................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Public Workshops: Locations, Number of Participants and Regions ........................... 2
Who We Talked To: Participant Demographics for Public Workshops ............................................. 3
Online Deliberation ................................................................................................................................. 4
Who We Talked To: Online Participant Demographics ..................................................................... 5
CAC Deliberation ................................................................................................................................... 6
Results of Public Deliberation .................................................................................................................... 7
Vision Plan Goal Results ........................................................................................................................ 7
Workshop Goal Ratings ...................................................................................................................... 7
Online Goal Ratings ............................................................................................................................ 8
Vision Plan Priority Action Results ...................................................................................................... 11
Workshop Priority Action Ratings .................................................................................................... 11
Online Priority Action Ratings ......................................................................................................... 11
CAC Priority Action Ratings ............................................................................................................ 11
Priority Action Ratings Compared to Goal Ratings ......................................................................... 12
Workshop Ratings Key ..................................................................................................................... 13
Participant-generated Goals and Actions .............................................................................................. 17
Workshop Participant Comments ......................................................................................................... 17
Workshop Participant Evaluations ........................................................................................................ 17
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Goals Ratings ................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 2: Priority Action Ratings, by Region ............................................................................................ 14
Table 3: Priority Action ratings, by Public Workshop Ranking ............................................................... 16
Table 4: Comparison of All Ratings ......................................................................................................... 20
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Region Map
Appendix B: Goals Detail
Appendix C: Sample Priority Action Profiles
Appendix D: Priority Action Ratings by Region: Details
Appendix E: Participant Generated Goals and Priority Actions
Appendix F: Workshop Participant Comments
Appendix G: Workshop Evaluation Results
Report prepared by:
Sandy Sommer, Senior Real Property Planner, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Linda Blong, Public Dialogue Consortium
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to report on the results of the Vision Plan team’s efforts to
engage the public in discussions and choice-making around Goals and Priority Actions for the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). These efforts reflect the District’s
commitment to a planning process that combines robust scientific analysis with meaningful
public input. The efforts constitute the deliberation phase of the five stage SHEDD process:
Getting Started, Hearing the voices, Enriching the conversation, Deliberating, and Deciding (see
R-13-10 dated January 15, 2013). The results are intended to inform District decisions on the
goals and actions included in the Vision Plan.
WHAT WE DID AND WHO WE TALKED TO
The deliberation phase of the vision planning process involved two parallel strategies for
engaging the public: face-to-face public workshops and online interaction
(imagine.openspace.org). Both of these strategies focused on Vision Plan Goals and Priority
Actions drafted by District staff and finalized by the District Board of Directors (Board) with
input from the Vision Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The development of the
Goals and Priority Actions was informed by the scientific analysis, and community, partner and
stakeholder conversations conducted in earlier phases of the planning process.
Public Outreach for Deliberation Phase
Outreach efforts for the deliberation phase were coordinated between the workshop and online
engagement strategies. Beginning in early September 2013, District staff worked with the Public
Dialogue Consortium (PDC) to notify the public of the Workshops, and built upon the robust
online participation generated in earlier phases. Outreach included the following means:
District print newsletter
District website (www.openspace.org)
Email announcements to existing interested parties lists
Facebook & Twitter announcements
Announcements through the imagine.openspace.org website
Public radio (KQED) interview with District planner Sandy Sommer
Email notifications through partner organizations’ contact lists
Distributing postcards with meeting dates and locations, as well as the
imagine.openspace.org URL, at various district events and preserves
Informational flyers in preserve signboards and in various public locations throughout the
District
Notifications for public workshops were sent out via various channels at least once a week
starting one month prior to the first public workshop on October 21, 2013 and continued until the
fifth and final workshop November 16, 2013. Notifications for online participation continued
through the final week of the online platform, which closed December 15, 2013.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 2
Public Workshops
The region framework established for the Vision Plan was used to structure the public
workshops (See Appendix A for a Region Map). Five public workshops were held in locations
across the District, each with a focus on the overall Vision Plan Goals and sets of Priority
Actions associated with at least two planning regions. The workshops were designed to both
inform and engage the public, and each of the approximately three-hour meetings was based on a
similar agenda. The workshops included presentations, small group discussions, and the use of
keypad technology. Using the keypads, the participants rated the Goals and Priority Actions on a
scale of one to ten where ten represented the highest level of importance/priority, and one
represented the lowest level of importance/priority. This approach enabled participants to express
individual opinions and preferences, and to have immediate access to the aggregated responses
of the group. Rating of goals and priorities resulted in an average score, shown in the Results
section of this report.
The agendas consistently included the following components:
1. Opening with introductory District video and the use of keypads to gather and show
information about who was in the room.
2. Presentation and keypad rating of Goals for each of five Open Space Themes.
3. Opportunity for participants to generate and rate additional goals.
4. For each region covered: presentation, small group discussion, and keypad rating of
Priority Actions.
5. Opportunity for participants to generate and rate additional Priority Actions
6. Workshop evaluation with keypads.
Summary of Public Workshops:
Locations, Number of Participants and Regions
Workshop locations were chosen based on accessibility and geographic relevance to the regions
that were covered.
Half Moon Bay, CA
October 21st 6-9 p.m.
Cunha Elementary School
37 participants rated District Goals and Priority Actions in the following regions
North San Mateo Coast
South San Mateo Coast
Saratoga, CA
October 28th, 6-9 p.m.
West Valley College
71 participants rated District Goals and Priority Actions in the following regions
Sierra Azul
South Bay Foothills
La Honda, CA
November 2nd, 1-4 p.m.
Skyline Field Office
24 participants rated District Goals and Priority Actions in the following regions
Skyline Ridge
Central Coast Mountains
Mountain View, CA
November 4th, 6-9 p.m.
Graham Middle School
68 participants rated District Goals and Priority Actions in the following regions
Skyline Ridge
Peninsula Foothills
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 3
Under 18
0%
18‐24
3%
25‐34
15%35‐44
25%
45‐54
31%
55‐64
16%
65+
10%
Public Workshop Participant Age
Redwood City, CA
November 16th, 1-4 p.m.
Fair Oaks Community
Center
34 participants rated District Goals and Priority Actions in the following regions
Baylands; Peninsula & South Bay Cities
Peninsula Foothills
TOTAL WORKSHOP
ATTENDANCE:
234 participants
Who We Talked To: Participant
Demographics for Public Workshops
Based on the demographic information
provided through the keypad voting
technology, a total of 234 community
members participated in the public
workshops. As the charts below indicate,
there was a small majority of male
participants. Although all adult age ranges
were represented, the overwhelming
majority were over the age of 45.
In addition to basic questions of
demographics, participants were asked about
how and how often they visited open space
preserves. A large majority of the workshop
participants were frequent users of the
preserves and most of those reporting on
their primary activity used the preserves to
walk, hike, or run1.
1 The use of open space question was added after the second workshop so 96 of the 231 participants answered the
question.
Male
54%
Female
46%
Gender ‐Public Workshops
1%
13%
20%38%
28%
How often do you visit open space?
Never visited
Seldom (a few times a
year)
Sometimes (about once
a month)
Often (at least twice a
month)
Consistently (at least
twice a week)
Bicycle
34%
Horseback
1%Dog
Walking
7%
Hike, Run,
Walk
58%
How do you primarily use
open space?
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 4
Mountain View
17%
Los Gatos
12%
Saratoga
9%
Sunnyvale
9%
Cupertino
8%
Portola Valley
8%
Half Moon
Bay
7%
Redwood
City
8%
La Honda
6%
Los Altos
5%
Palo Alto
3%
San Carlos
3%
Woodside
2%
Other
District
Cities
3%
Workshop Participants from District (172)
San Jose
12%
Santa Clara
3%
Pacifica
2%
Other Cities
83%
Workshop Participants from Outside District
(59)
74%
26%
Workshop Participants
In‐District
residents
Outside
District
residents
Participants identified their city of residence
using keypads. The majority of participants
reside within District boundaries.
However, the limits of the technology
created some challenges that resulted in
what is likely to be an over use of the
“other” category. In addition, a few cities,
including Palo Alto and San Jose, were
added to the options after the second
workshop making it likely that these two
cities are underrepresented in their category
(and overrepresented in “Other”).
Online Deliberation
An online participation platform MindMixer (imagine.openspace.org) ran concurrently with the
public workshops. Like those involved in public workshops, online participants rated both Goals
and Priority Actions. However, online participants could rate actions across all regions.
Workshop participants were therefore encouraged to access the website to rate actions in regions
not covered in the workshop they attended.
Participants were invited to comment on, as well as rate, Goals and Priority Actions by
indicating "I love it!”, "I like it!", "It's ok", or "Neutral." Definitions of each were provided on
the website and indicated as follows:
Love it! = This is a top priority for me!
Like it! = This is a priority for me, but I have higher priorities.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 5
Under
18
0%
18‐24
3%
25‐34
15%
35‐44
25%
45‐54
31%
55‐64
16%
65+
10%
Online Participant Age
Male
57%
Female
43%
Online Participant Gender
It's OK = I see how that can be important, but it is not a high priority for me.
Neutral = This is not a priority for me.
Rating of goals and priorities resulted in the accumulation of points (or stars) as shown in the
tables in the Results section of this report. In addition to rating the Goals and Priority Actions
developed by the District, online participants could add their own goals and actions for rating
and comment.
Who We Talked To: Online Participant
Demographics
461 participants rated goals and/or actions
within the online platform during the
deliberation phase. As with the public
workshops, male participants were in the
majority, as with participants over the age of
45 as shown in the charts below.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 6
63%
37%
Online Participants
In‐District
Residents
Outside
District
Residents
San Jose
32%
San
Francisco
15%
Out of
California
7%
Campbell
7%
Santa Clara
6%
Santa Cruz
5%
Morgan Hill
2%
Oakland
2%
San Mateo
2%
Walnut
Creek
2%Other Cities
20%
Online Participants from Outside District (170)
Los Gatos
21%
Los Altos
10%
Palo Alto
10%
Portola Valley
9%
Redwood
City
9%
Sunnyvale
8%
Mountain
View
7%
Cupertino
6%
Menlo Park
5%
Saratoga
5%
La Honda
4%
San Carlos
2%
Atherton
1%Half
Moon Bay
1%
Other Coastal
Towns
2%
Online Participants from District (291)
The majority of online participants resided within the District. Participants from a wide range of
cities joined the deliberation, as shown in the following charts.
CAC Deliberation
The Vision Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) also rated the Priority Actions across
all regions at their meeting on December 18, 2013. The meeting was similar to the public
workshops, with brief presentations, group discussions, and the use of keypad technology.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 7
RESULTS OF PUBLIC DELIBERATION
The five workshops, online activity, and CAC meeting produced public input on the relative
importance of the Vision Plan Goals and Priority Actions to those people that participated. While
not statistically valid, this input was gathered from a wide range of highly engaged individuals.
These results are meant to inform staff recommendations and Board decisions about the focus of
the vision plan. The ranked lists of Goals and Priority Actions that resulted from the public
meetings are based on average ratings, but these data are also broken down by demographic
subgroups to provide additional information the priorities expressed by types of participants. The
online deliberation produced similar lists based on the four-point rating scale (however with less
demographic detail).
Vision Plan Goal Results
Participants rated vision plan Goals across five themes. (The CAC did not rate the Goals using
the keypads, having extensively participated in their development.) The information they were
provided on these Goals included a short bulleted list of objectives. (See Appendix B-1).
Workshop Goal Ratings
Table 1 provides a detailed look at the participants’ average ratings broken out by key
demographics and by each of the individual workshops. The Goals are listed by overall average
rating in descending order. Generally, items scoring over 7.5 are considered to be first tier items,
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 8
but it is also informative to review the ratings of core sub-groups that reflect significant minority
preferences.
“Stewardship of Nature” was, on average, the most highly rated goal at the workshops. “Expand
Appropriate Low Intensity Access” tended to be more important than stewardship to younger age
groups, those that consistently use open space, and bicyclists. Also of note in these ratings is the
low diversity score in the top-rated goal (which indicates agreement), as well as the high
diversity scores in red (which indicates lack of agreement).
Online Goal Ratings
For ease of comparison, the online ratings are also shown on Table 1 in the yellow column on
the right. These are based on total points (rather than the average) gained across all ratings on a
four-point scale (see page 4 and 5 above), so the comparison is somewhat limited. However, the
difference in relative scores of some of the Goals may be of interest. Generally, the ranking of
the Goals is similar across platforms and participant populations, at least in considering tiers.
Two notable exceptions are the low ranking of “Sense of Place” and high ranking of “Expand
Opportunity and Variety” by the online participants. For further detail regarding online goal
ratings, including comments, see Appendix B-2.
TABLE 1: Goals Ratings
AVG
TOTAL
234
F
(99)
M
(117)
10.21
(28)
10.28
(67)
11.2
(25)
11.4
(64)
11.16
(34)
18
24
(7)
25
34
(13)
35
44
(25)
45
54
(65)
55
64
(62)
65
or >
(46)
Never
(2)
SEL‐
DOM
(29)
SOME
TIMES
(43)
OF‐
TEN
(81)
CON‐
SIST‐
ENTLY
(63)
BIKE
(32)
DOG
(7)
HIKE
(53)
Horse
(1)
Online
Points
Healthy Nature Stewardship of Nature 18 8.3 9.1 7.9 8.7 8.2 7.8 8.5 8.6 9.5 8 7.8 8.3 8.6 8.9 4.5 8.6 8.3 8.7 8 7.3 8.1 9.2 8 100
Outdoor Recreation / Healthy Living Expand Appropriate Low Intensity Access 26 8.2 8.4 8.2 7.2 8.6 8.4 8.4 7.9 9.5 9.1 8.8 8.8 7.7 7.8 4.5 7 7.9 8.6 8.9 9.6 6.4 7.7 10 101
Natural, Cultural, & Scenic Landscapes Quiet Enjoyment of Nature 29 7.8 8.5 7.3 8.1 7.9 8 8 7.1 7.8 6.8 8.2 7.4 8.3 8.1 4 8.1 7.7 7.9 7.7 6.7 6.3 8.4 6 96
Healthy Nature Biodiversity 25 7.6 8.3 7.2 8.2 7.5 7.1 7.9 7.6 9 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.7 2.5 7.8 7.5 8 7.4 6.5 8.2 8.4 6 85
Healthy Nature Habitat Connectivity 25 7.6 8.2 7.3 7.9 7.6 7.3 7.5 7.8 9 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.6 2.5 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.5 6.8 8.3 8 8 107
Natural, Cultural, & Scenic Landscapes Sense of Place 25 7.4 8.3 7 7.8 7.6 7.2 7.6 6.9 8.8 7.3 7.8 7.2 7.7 7.7 2.5 8.1 7.2 7.6 7.3 7 7 7.6 7 58
Viable Working Lands Model Ecologically Sound Practices 27 7 7.8 6.5 8.3 7.3 7.4 6.7 6.2 8 6.6 6.4 777.6 5.5 7.3 6.9 7.5 6.6 5.7 6.4 7 10 66
Outdoor Recreation /Healthy Living Ensure Compatibility 25 7 74 69 7 72 7 75 59 9 81 66 71 68 73 35 64 69 74 72 72 66 71 8 75
Theme
GENDER WORKSHOP AGE USE OPEN SPACE
VISION PLAN GOALS
DIV
ERS
ITY
VISIT OPEN SPACE
Outdoor Recreation / Healthy Living Ensure Compatibility 25 7 7.4 6.9 7 7.2 7 7.5 5.9 9 8.1 6.6 7.1 6.8 7.3 3.5 6.4 6.9 7.4 7.2 7.2 6.6 7.1 8 75
Enriched Experiences Volunteer Stewardship 26 6.7 7 6.4 7 6.6 7.8 6.5 6.1 7.8 6.5 6 6.5 6.6 7.3 4 6.5 6.7 7.2 6.3 5.4 7.2 77 69
Viable Working Lands Support Agriculture and Local Food Producers 39 6.4 7 6 7.8 6.6 6.6 5.9 5.6 7 5.5 5.3 6.3 6.5 7.5 4 6.6 7.2 6.7 5.6 4.9 5.1 6.5 9 72
Enriched Experiences Increase Diversity and Remove Access Barriers 25 6.4 6.8 6.1 6.4 6.6 7.2 6.3 5.4 8 6.9 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.7 5.9 5.1 5.6 6.6 7 66
Outdoor Recreation / Healthy Living Expand Opportunity and Variety 33 6.3 6.6 6.1 6 6 7.3 6.7 5.3 8.3 7.8 6.1 6.2 6 6.2 8 6 6.9 6.4 5.8 5.7 6.1 6.6 6 96
Enriched Experiences Improved Visitor Experiences 25 6.2 6.6 5.8 6.6 6.2 6.7 6.4 4.8 7.9 5.5 6.2 5.7 6.2 6.8 9 6.2 6.8 6.1 5.8 5.3 4.1 6.5 8 72
Enriched Experiences Knowledge, Understanding, and Appreciation 29 6 6.6 5.5 7.2 5.9 6.2 6.1 4.7 8.2 6 5.3 5.9 5.8 6.6 4 6.3 6.3 6 5.5 4.8 4 6.4 6 48
Natural, Cultural, & Scenic Landscapes Stewarding Many Cultures 27 6 6.5 5.7 7 6.1 6 5.8 4.9 7.4 6.2 5.8 5.7 6.1 6.2 3.5 6.4 6.2 6 5.5 5 4.6 6.1 6 40
Viable Working Lands Educate about the Region's Agricultural Heritage 28 5.5 6 5.1 6.7 5.3 5.9 5.2 5 6.7 4.9 5 5.2 5.4 6.3 4.5 5.7 6.1 5.4 4.9 3.9 6.3 5.8 7 39
Rating Scale
The ten point rating scale was presented to participants in
Div: Diversity Scores
The purple column provides a diversity score for each overall
Highlighting Divergence in Subgroup Ratings
The table uses formatting to highlight subgroup averages that
N: The Number of Participants in Subgroups
For each subgroup, the number of participants rating the
Rating Scale
The ten point rating scale was presented to participants in
the public workshop with the following prompts:
10 Highest level of Importance/Priority
8Mostly Important/Priority
6 Tends to be Important/Priority
5 Tends to Not be Important/Priority
3Mostly Not Important/Priority
Div: Diversity Scores
The purple column provides a diversity score for each overall
average rating. These are percentage scores that reflect the
level of diversity in the average ratings. If 50% of the
participants were to rate the item as “1” and 50% of the
participants were to rate the item as “10”, the diversity score
would be 100% (high diversity of opinion). Conversely, if
100% of the participants were to rate an item as “5”, then
the diversity score would be zero (no diversity of opinion). So
higher scores means less agreement. Low scores reflect
commonality.
Highlighting Divergence in Subgroup Ratings
The table uses formatting to highlight subgroup averages that
vary notably from the overall average:
‐Green italic with one underline = .5 to .9 above the total
average
‐Green italic with two underlines = 1 or more above the total
average
‐Red italic with one underline = .5 to .9 below the total
average
‐Red italic with two underlines = 1 or more below the total
N: The Number of Participants in Subgroups
For each subgroup, the number of participants rating the
goals is provided in parenthesis in the heading. This is
important when considering the relative influence of the
group’s rating on the average. The N actually varies across
goals because not all participants rated all goals. This highest
number in each group was generally selected for inclusion in
the chart.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 11
Vision Plan Priority Action Results
Participants in the vision plan public deliberation phase learned about Priority Actions by
reviewing Priority Action Profiles (see several samples in Appendix C). A total of 54 Priority
Actions were developed.
Workshop Priority Action Ratings
At the public workshops, District staff presented the Priority Action Profiles and addressed
participant questions without getting into details that were not appropriate at this stage of priority
action development. The workshop participants jotted down pencil ratings during the
presentation and then engaged in small group discussions to explore different perspectives on
priorities. Keypad ratings were thus informed by these discussions.
The rating processes for the Priority Actions resulted in a ranked list of Priority Actions within
each region (See Table 2 and Appendix D-1). Also provided (see Table 3) is a listing of all
Priority Actions sorted by public workshop ranking. Refer to the Workshop Ratings Key on
page 13 for an explanation of table abbreviations and formatting.
Overall, due to time limitations, public workshop participants were able to rate 46 of the 54
Priority Actions. Workshop participants were therefore encouraged to access the website to rate
actions not covered. With the exception of the “Cities” region, all areas of District have at least
one priority action in the highest tier based on Public Workshop ratings (greater than 7.5). The
participants in the Redwood City meeting consistently rated Priority Actions (across the board)
lower than participants at other workshops.
Online Priority Action Ratings
Online participants were afforded the opportunity to rate all 54 Priority Actions across all
regions, using the Vision Plan website at imagine.openspace.org. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the
online point totals. Unlike the workshop results, average scores and demographic details are not
available, making a direct comparison impossible.
Online, the highest rated Priority Actions tended to be those that reflected long-standing
community interest, that had received recent media coverage, or that were located in well known
places. The most highly rated priority action was 17- El Sereno Dog Trails and Connections,
which received 193 points. Considering that 13% of online participants were from Los Gatos and
El Sereno Open Space Preserve is already open to the public, this score does not seem surprising.
However, 47 – Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use (127 points) was also entered as a
duplicate participant-generated action (119 points), so in total this priority action was by far the
highest rated online item (with 246 points).
CAC Priority Action Ratings
At their December 18, 2013 meeting, the CAC rated 39 Priority Actions drawn from the more
highly ranked subset, based upon public workshop and online rankings. Tables 2 and 3 indicate
the CAC point totals (See Appendix D-2 for greater detail).
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 12
CAC members tended to have lower diversity rankings than the public in general, reflective of
their closer ties to the District and its work.
The order of Priority Actions within regions was fairly consistent between the CAC and public
workshops ratings, with the exception of the Skyline Region. Other notable exceptions were
higher CAC ratings for #7 ‐ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and
Interpretive Projects (which the CAC toured, so was more informed about the area) and #31‐
Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and Preservation Projects (the CAC includes Hidden
Villa’s Executive Director).
Priority Action Ratings Compared to Goal Ratings
The highly rated Priority Actions are generally in alignment with the highly rated Goals of
Stewardship of Nature and Expanding Low Intensity Access. The highest rated Priority Actions
for both the public workshop participants and the CAC show a balanced emphasis on both of
these Goals. In contrast, the highest rated priorities of the online participants were more often
those actions that emphasized expanded public access. Consistent with the Goals ratings, all
participants tended to rate Priority Actions that emphasized the Viable Working Lands and
Enriched Experiences themes (without stewardship or access) on the lower end of the scale.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 13
Workshop Ratings Key
Rating Scale
The ten point rating scale was presented to participants in the public workshop with the following
prompts:
10 Highest level of Importance/Priority
8 Mostly Important/Priority
6 Tends to be Important/Priority
5 Tends to Not be Important/Priority
3 Mostly Not Important/Priority
1 Lowest Level of Importance/Priority
Div: Diversity Scores
The purple column provides a diversity score for each overall average rating. These are percentage
scores that reflect the level of diversity in the average ratings. If 50% of the participants were to rate the
item as “1” and 50% of the participants were to rate the item as “10”, the diversity score would be 100%
(high diversity of opinion). Conversely, if 100% of the participants were to rate an item as “5”, then the
diversity score would be zero (no diversity of opinion). So higher scores means less agreement. Low
scores reflect commonality.
Highlighting Divergence in Subgroup Ratings
The table uses formatting to highlight subgroup averages that vary notably from the overall average:
‐Green italic with one underline = .5 to .9 above the total average
‐Green italic with two underlines = 1 or more above the total average
‐Red italic with one underline = .5 to .9 below the total average
‐Red italic with two underlines = 1 or more below the total average
N: The Number of Participants in Subgroups
For each subgroup, the number of participants rating the item is provided in parentheses in the heading.
This factor is important when considering the relative influence of the group’s rating on the average.
The N actually varies in a given workshop because not all participants necessarily rated each action. This
highest number in each group was generally selected for inclusion in the chart.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 14
Note: Table is sorted by Workshop Results
North San Mateo County Coast Region ‐ HMB Workshop ‐ 10.21.13 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
67 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima‐to‐Sea Trail Watershed Protection & Conservation Grazing 30 8.3 30 98 19 8.7 7
74 ‐ Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, & Agriculture Enhancement 31 7.6 30 65 19 7.6 21
73 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Crk Rdwds: Mills Creek/Arroyo Leon Watershed, Stream Restoration, & Trails 31 7.1 29 59 19 7.5 12
75 ‐ Regional: Support CA Coastal Trail 31 6.9 43 74 19 7.4 23
70 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Fire Management and Risk ReducƟons 30 6.6 30 41
72 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Coastside Environmental EducaƟon Partnerships 31 5.6 40 26
71 ‐ Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas**40
South San Mateo County Coast Region ‐ HMB Workshop ‐ 10.21.13 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
64 ‐ La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, & Conservation Grazing 28 9 10 86 19 8.1 25
58 ‐ Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife ProtecƟon, Grazing, and Trail ConnecƟons 30 7.8 29 52 19 7.4 21
62 ‐ La Honda Creek/El Corte Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed and Agriculture Preservation Projects 30 7.4 26 41 21 6.9 26
66 ‐ Tunitas Creek: AddiƟonal Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing 30 7.2 28 32 20 6.8 25
59 ‐ Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing 30 7.1 36 39 19 6.9 28
57 ‐ Gazos Creek Watershed: Preserve Redwoods, Fish & Add Trails** 68 21 7.4 25
61 ‐ Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas**44
60 ‐ Lower Pomponio Creek: Watershed Preservation and Grazing** 38
Central Coastal Mountains Region ‐ Skyline Area Workshop ‐ 11.2.13 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
56 ‐ Regional: Trail ConnecƟons and Campgrounds 24 8.4 15 69 21 8.3 16
55 ‐ Regional: Redwood ProtecƟon and Salmon Fishery ConservaƟon 24 7.5 19 52 21 8.3 12
Skyline Region ‐ 2 Workshops ‐ 11.2.2013 and 11.4.2013 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
51 ‐ La Honda Creek: Upper Area RecreaƟon ‐ Habitat RestoraƟon and ConservaƟon Grazing Projects 84 8 23 97 21 9.1 9
46 ‐ Russian Ridge: Public RecreaƟon ‐ Grazing ‐ and Wildlife ProtecƟon Projects 83 8 19 96 21 8.7 11
48 ‐ La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: PreservaƟon of Upper San Gregorio Watershed & Ridge Trail Comple Ɵon 82 8 25 82 21 8.3 10
47 ‐ Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use 85 7.8 27 127 #216.9 17
38 ‐ Long Ridge: Trail ‐ ConservaƟon and Habitat RestoraƟon Projects 83 7.7 20 114 21 8 13
52 ‐ El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects 85 7.5 28 138 21 7.4 14
40 ‐ Skyline Subregion: Fire Management and Forest RestoraƟon Projects 84 6.5 30 48
39 ‐ Skyline Ridge: EducaƟon FaciliƟes ‐ Trailsand Wildlife ConservaƟon Projects 84 6.4 33 51 21 7.9 16
53 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects 86 5.8 32 63
37 ‐ Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food EducaƟon Projects 83 4.9 25 22 21 6.8 22
43 ‐ Monte Bello: Campfire Talks & Habitat Projects**27
Peninsula Foothills Region ‐ 2 Workshops ‐ 11.4.2013 and 11.16.2013 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
27 ‐ Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail 97 8.1 29 141 21 8.1 13
32 ‐ Windy Hill: Trail Improvements ‐ PreservaƟon ‐ and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership 102 7.7 36 107 21 8.1 17
76 ‐ Pulgas Ridge: Regional and Neighborhood Trail Extensions 102 6.7 38 98 20 6.9 19
44 ‐ Regional: San Andreas Fault Interpre Ɵve Trail Program 102 5.8 36 61 21 6.9 17
30‐ Rancho San Antonio: Intrepretive Improvements ‐ Refurbishing ‐ and Transit Solutions 101 5.6 40 130
31‐ Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and PreservaƟon Projects 102 5.6 46 73 21 8 15
28 ‐ Collaborate to Restore San Francisquito Creek Fish Habitat** 67
29 ‐ Teague Hill: West Union Crk Watershed Restoration Partnership** 39
Peninsula / South Bay Cities & Baylands Regions ‐ Redwood City Workshop ‐ 11.16.2013 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
34 ‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat ProtecƟon and Public Access Partnerships 34 7.6 38 109 21 9.1 5
23 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail 34 6.7 41 133 21 8 18
35 ‐ Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership 34 6.2 42 37 21 8.8 18
24 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: San Francisquito Creek RestoraƟon Partnership 34 4.9 34 58
22 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Los Gatos Creek Trail ConnecƟons 34 4.4 32 120 21 7.2 21
25 ‐ Major Roadway Signage**16
Workshop Results CAC Results
Workshop Results CAC Results
Workshop Results CAC Results***
Workshop Results CAC Results***
Workshop Results CAC Results
Workshop Results CAC Results
Table 2: Priority Action Ratings, by Region
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 15
South Bay Foothills Region ‐ Saratoga Workshop ‐ 10.28.13 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
16 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements 64 8.6 18 94 21 8.6 14
11 ‐ Bear Creek Redwoods: Public RecreaƟon and InterpreƟve Projects 65 8.1 22 76 21 8 15
18 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Saratoga‐to‐Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor 65 7.4 32 101 21 8.1 10
17 ‐ El Sereno: Dog Trails & Connections 66 6.8 31 193 21 6.6 26
21 ‐ Picche ƫ Ranch: Family Nature Play Program 66 6.1 15 39 21 6.8 25
19 ‐ Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills RestoraƟon & Overall Parking Improvements 66 5.8 23 60
Sierra Azul Region ‐ Saratoga Workshop ‐ 10.28.13 NAvgDivOnline
Points NAvgDiv
1 ‐ Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects 69 8.2 27 158 21 8.2 8
4 ‐ Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and InterpretaƟon Projects 68 8 23 159 21 8.9 9
10 ‐ Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and ConservaƟon Projects 70 7.6 22 124 21 7.8 11
8 ‐ Sierra Azul: Fire Management 70 7.5 18 68
9 ‐ Sierra Azul: Expand access in the Kennedy‐Limekiln Area 64 6.9 27 121 21 7.7 12
7 ‐ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family RecreaƟon and Interpre Ɵve Projects 70 6.8 20 83 21 8.5 8
**: Not rated at the public workshops
***: CAC did not rate all actions on 12/18/13
#: Same participant generated action also received 119 points
Workshop Results CAC Results
Workshop Results CAC Results
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 16
Note: Table is sorted by Workshop Results
Priority Action Region
N Avg Div Online
Points NAvgDiv
64 ‐ La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, & Conservation GraSouth Coast 28 9 10 86 19 8.1 25
16 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements South Foothills 64 8.6 18 94 21 8.6 14
56 ‐ Regional: Trail ConnecƟons and Campgrounds Coastal Mtns 24 8.4 15 69 21 8.3 16
67 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima‐to‐Sea Trail Watershed Protection & Conservation Grazing North Coast 30 8.3 30 98 19 8.7 7
1 ‐ Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects Sierra Azul 69 8.2 27 158 21 8.2 8
27 ‐ Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail Pen. Foothills 97 8.1 29 141 21 8.1 13
11 ‐ Bear Creek Redwoods: Public RecreaƟon and InterpreƟve Projects South Foothills 65 8.1 22 76 21 8 15
51 ‐ La Honda Creek: Upper Area RecreaƟon ‐ Habitat RestoraƟon and ConservaƟon Grazing Projects Skyline 84 8 23 97 21 9.1 9
46 ‐ Russian Ridge: Public RecreaƟon ‐ Grazing ‐ and Wildlife ProtecƟon Projects Skyline 83 8 19 96 21 8.7 11
48 ‐ La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: PreservaƟon of Upper San Gregorio Watershed & Ridge Trail Comp Skyline 82 8 25 82 21 8.3 10
4 ‐ Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and InterpretaƟon Projects Sierra Azul 68 8 23 159 21 8.9 9
58 ‐ Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife ProtecƟon, Grazing, and Trail ConnecƟons South Coast 30 7.8 29 52 19 7.4 21
47 ‐ Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use Skyline 85 7.8 27 127 #21 6.9 17
38 ‐ Long Ridge: Trail ‐ ConservaƟon and Habitat RestoraƟon Projects Skyline 83 7.7 20 114 21 8 13
32 ‐ Windy Hill: Trail Improvements ‐ PreservaƟon ‐ and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership Pen. Foothills 102 7.7 36 107 21 8.1 17
74 ‐ Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, & Agriculture EnhanceNorth Coast 31 7.6 30 65 19 7.6 21
34 ‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat ProtecƟon and Public Access Partnerships Baylands 34 7.6 38 109 21 9.1 5
10 ‐ Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and ConservaƟon Projects Sierra Azul 70 7.6 22 124 21 7.8 11
55 ‐ Regional: Redwood ProtecƟon and Salmon Fishery ConservaƟon Coastal Mtns 24 7.5 19 52 21 8.3 12
52 ‐ El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects Skyline 85 7.5 28 138 21 7.4 14
8 ‐ Sierra Azul: Fire Management Sierra Azul 70 7.5 18 68
62 ‐ La Honda Creek/El Corte Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed and Agriculture Preservation ProjSouth Coast 30 7.4 26 41 21 6.9 26
18 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Saratoga‐to‐Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor South Foothills 65 7.4 32 101 21 8.1 10
66 ‐ Tunitas Creek: AddiƟonal Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing South Coast 30 7.2 28 32 20 6.8 25
73 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Crk Rdwds: Mills Creek/Arroyo Leon Watershed, Stream Restoration, North Coast 31 7.1 29 59 19 7.5 12
59 ‐ Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing South Coast 30 7.1 36 39 19 6.9 28
75 ‐ Regional: Support CA Coastal Trail North Coast 31 6.9 43 74 19 7.4 23
9 ‐ Sierra Azul: Expand access in the Kennedy‐Limekiln Area Sierra Azul 64 6.9 27 121 21 7.7 12
17 ‐ El Sereno: Dog Trails & Connections South Foothills 66 6.8 31 193 21 6.6 26
7 ‐ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family RecreaƟon and Interpre Ɵve Projects Sierra Azul 70 6.8 20 83 21 8.5 8
76 ‐ Pulgas Ridge: Regional and Neighborhood Trail Extensions Pen. Foothills 102 6.7 38 98 20 6.9 19
23 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail Cities 34 6.7 41 133 21 8 18
70 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Fire Management and Risk ReducƟons North Coast 30 6.6 30 41
40 ‐ Skyline Subregion: Fire Management and Forest RestoraƟon Projects Skyline 84 6.5 30 48
39 ‐ Skyline Ridge: EducaƟon FaciliƟes ‐ Trailsand Wildlife ConservaƟon Projects Skyline 84 6.4 33 51 21 7.9 16
35 ‐ Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership Baylands 34 6.2 42 37 21 8.8 18
21 ‐ Picche ƫ Ranch: Family Nature Play Program South Foothills 66 6.1 15 39 21 6.8 25
53 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects Skyline 86 5.8 32 63
44 ‐ Regional: San Andreas Fault InterpreƟve Trail Program Pen. Foothills 102 5.8 36 61 21 6.9 17
19 ‐ Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills RestoraƟon & Overall Parking Improvements South Foothills 66 5.8 23 60
72 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Coastside Environmental EducaƟon Partnerships North Coast 31 5.6 40 26
30‐ Rancho San Antonio: Intrepretive Improvements ‐ Refurbishing ‐ and Transit Solutions Pen. Foothills 101 5.6 40 130
31‐ Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and PreservaƟon Projects Pen. Foothills 102 5.6 46 73 21 8 15
37 ‐ Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food EducaƟon Projects Skyline 83 4.9 25 22 21 6.8 22
24 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: San Francisquito Creek RestoraƟon Partnership Cities 34 4.9 34 58
22 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Los Gatos Creek Trail ConnecƟons Cities 34 4.4 32 120 21 7.2 21
71 ‐ Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas** North Coast 40
57 ‐ Gazos Creek Watershed: Preserve Redwoods, Fish & Add Trails** South Coast 68 21 7.4 25
61 ‐ Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas** South Coast 44
60 ‐ Lower Pomponio Creek: Watershed Preservation and Grazing** South Coast 38
43 ‐ Monte Bello: Campfire Talks & Habitat Projects** Skyline 27
28 ‐ Collaborate to Restore San Francisquito Creek Fish Habitat** Pen. Foothills 67
29 ‐ Teague Hill: West Union Crk Watershed Restoration Partnership** Pen. Foothills 39
25 ‐ Major Roadway Signage** Cities 16
**: Not rated at the public workshops
***: CAC did not rate all actions
#: Same participant generated action also received 119 points
Wkshp Results CAC Results***
Table 3: Priority Action ratings, by Public Workshop Ranking
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 17
Participant‐generated Goals and Actions
In addition to the ranked lists of Goals and Priority Actions developed by the District,
participants in public workshops and online offered their own ideas for Goals and Priority
Actions. Some of these were also rated. These ideas are included in Appendix E.
Workshop Participant Comments
Workshop participant comments are shown in Appendix F.
Workshop Participant Evaluations
Workshop evaluations conducted with keypads at the end of the meetings indicate that the
agenda and use of the keypad technology were well received by participants. In all cases,
participation in the workshops raised the level of trust in the Vision Plan engagement process.
Participants over the age of 65 tended to express a higher level of satisfaction with the
workshops. Those participants that indicated that they primarily bicycle when they use open
space expressed a lower level of satisfaction with the workshops, as did the attendees at the
November 16, 2013 workshop. (See Appendix G)
Photo: Ray Hosler
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 18
NEXT STEPS
The District now moves into the deciding phase of the vision planning process. In this final
phase of the process the Board will delve into the results of the deliberations outlined in this
report and decide what Priority Actions will be featured in the Vision Plan. This will not be an
easy task as each and every one of the actions that were profiled in the deliberation phase were
selected from an even broader pool of potential Priority Actions and developed with considerable
input scientific and public input. It is important to keep in mind, however, that none of the
actions that were included in the deliberation phase need be completely removed from all future
consideration. In the future, conditions will change and priorities will shift accordingly in
response to those changes.
A first step in the deciding phase is to sort actions into tiers that reflect levels of priority. These
tiers can be informed by the public input gathered across all three sources of deliberative input:
public workshops, online deliberation, and the CAC deliberative meeting. Table 4 provides an
overview of where the actions fall in relation to top tier ratings across the three sources of input.
For purposes of this table, the top tier is generally defined as a rating in the top quartile. For the
public workshops and CAC, the top quartile is an average result greater than 7.5. For the online
scores, the scores over 100 comprise the top quartile. The table is not intended to comprise a
final tiered ranking. Rather, it is meant as an initial summary that can be used to surface actions
that require a closer look to understand their ratings, and the specific populations and situations
through which these ratings were produced.
CONCLUSION
During the deliberation phase of the vision planning process, more than 535 members of the
public actively engaged with the District and its work. They learned about the Themes and Goals
that guide that work and the kinds of actions that might be taken to work toward those Goals.
They considered their own priorities and values in relation to that work and many of them
explored perspectives different from their own through small group conversations and online
comments. And ultimately, they expressed their priorities through rating systems that invited
them to consider tradeoffs and to see how others’ priorities compared to their own.
The District has gained some useful information through this process. The results offer a solid
look at the values and opinions of community stakeholders — those who really care about what
the District is doing and what it will do in the future. What is more, the process has shown those
stakeholders that the District cares about what is important to them, and intends to bring their
voices into decision making processes that will shape the future of open space on the Peninsula
and in the South Bay.
As the District Board engages in the work of making decisions about how Goals will be
expressed and what Priority Actions will be featured in the Vision Plan, the results of the public
deliberations outlined in this report will sit along side scientific analyses and expert planning to
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 19
provide a balanced foundation for making difficult choices. Community stakeholders will
continue to observe, participate, and better understand what has informed the decisions that will
guide the work that they so clearly care about.
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 20
Priority Action Region
Top
Wkshp
Results
(>7.5)
Top
Online
(Top
25%)
Top
CAC
Results
(>7.5)
Sum N Avg Div Online
Points NAvgDiv
34 ‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat ProtecƟon and Public Access Partnerships Baylands 1 1 1 3 34 7.6 38 109 21 9.1 5
4 ‐ Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and InterpretaƟon Projects Sierra Azul 1113688 23 159 21 8.9 9
1 ‐ Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects Sierra Azul 1113698.2 27 158 21 8.2 8
27 ‐ Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail Pen. Fthills 1 1 1 3 97 8.1 29 141 21 8.1 13
32 ‐ Windy Hill: Trail Improvements, Preservation, and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership Pen. Fthills 1 1 1 3 102 7.7 36 107 21 8.1 17
38 ‐ Long Ridge: Trail, Conservation and Habitat Restoration Projects Skyline 1 1 1 3 83 7.7 20 114 21 8 13
10 ‐ Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and ConservaƟon Projects Sierra Azul 1113707.6 22 124 21 7.8 11
51 ‐ La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Skyline 1 1 2 84 8 23 97 21 9.1 9
67 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima‐to‐Sea Trail Watershed Protection & Cons. Grazing North Coast 1 1 2 30 8.3 30 98 19 8.7 7
46 ‐ Russian Ridge: Public RecreaƟon ‐ Grazing ‐ and Wildlife ProtecƟon Projects Skyline 1 1 2 83 8 19 96 21 8.7 11
16 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements South Fthills 1 1 2 64 8.6 18 94 21 8.6 14
56 ‐ Regional: Trail ConnecƟons and Campgrounds Coastal Mtns 1 1 2 24 8.4 15 69 21 8.3 16
48 ‐ La Honda Ck/Russian Ridge: Upper San Gregorio Wtrshd Preservation & Ridge Trail Completion Skyline 1 1 2 82 8 25 82 21 8.3 10
55 ‐ Regional: Redwood ProtecƟon and Salmon Fishery ConservaƟon Coastal Mtns 1 1 2 24 7.5 19 52 21 8.3 12
64 ‐ La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, & Cons. Grazing South Coast 1 1 2 28 9 10 86 19 8.1 25
18 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Saratoga‐to‐Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor South Fthills 1 1 2 65
7.4 32 101 21 8.1 10
11 ‐ Bear Creek Redwoods: Public RecreaƟon and InterpreƟve Projects South Fthills 1 1 2 65 8.1 22 76 21 8 15
23 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail Cities 1 1 2 34 6.7 41 133 21 8 18
9 ‐ Sierra Azul: Expand access in the Kennedy‐Limekiln Area Sierra Azul 1 1 2 64 6.9 27 121 21 7.7 12
74 ‐ Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, & Ag Enhancement North Coast 1 1 2 31 7.6 30 65 19 7.6 21
52 ‐ El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects Skyline 1 1 2 85 7.5 28 138 21 7.4 14
47 ‐ Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use Skyline 1 1 2 85 7.8 27 127 #21 6.9 17
35 ‐ Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership Baylands 1 1 34 6.2 42 37 21 8.8 18
7 ‐ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family RecreaƟon and InterpreƟve Projects Sierra Azul 1 1 70 6.8 20 83 21 8.5 8
31‐ Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and PreservaƟon Projects Pen. Fthills 1 1 102
5.6 46 73 21 8 15
39 ‐ Skyline Ridge: EducaƟon FaciliƟes ‐ Trailsand Wildlife ConservaƟon Projects Skyline 1 1 84 6.4 33 51 21 7.9 16
73 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Pur. Ck Rdwds: Mills Creek/Arroyo Leon Wtrshd Restoration, & Trails North Coast 1 1 31
7.1 29 59 19 7.5 12
58 ‐ Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife ProtecƟon, Grazing, and Trail ConnecƟons South Coast 1 1 30 7.8 29 52 19 7.4 21
22 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Los Gatos Creek Trail ConnecƟons Cities 1 1 34 4.4 32 120 21 7.2 21
17 ‐ El Sereno: Dog Trails & Connections South Fthills 1 1 66
6.8 31 193 21 6.6 26
8 ‐ Sierra Azul: Fire Management Sierra Azul 1 1 70 7.5 18 68
30‐ Rancho San Antonio: Interpretive Improvements, Refurbishing, and Transit Solutions Pen. Fthills 1 1 101
5.6 40 130
75 ‐ Regional: Support CA Coastal Trail North Coast 0 31
6.9 43 74 19 7.4 23
57 ‐ Gazos Creek Watershed: Preserve Redwoods, Fish & Add Trails** South Coast 0
68 21 7.4 25
62 ‐ La Honda Creek/El Corte Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed and Ag Preservation South Coast 0 30 7.4 26 41 21 6.9 26
59 ‐ Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing South Coast 0 30 7.1 36 39 19 6.9 28
76 ‐ Pulgas Ridge: Regional and Neighborhood Trail Extensions Pen. Fthills 0 102 6.7 38 98 20 6.9 19
44 ‐ Regional: San Andreas Fault InterpreƟve Trail Program Pen. Fthills 0 102
5.8 36 61 21 6.9 17
66 ‐ Tunitas Creek: AddiƟonal Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing South Coast 0 30 7.2 28 32 20 6.8 25
21 ‐ Piccheƫ Ranch: Family Nature Play Program South Fthills 0 66
6.1 15 39 21 6.8 25
37 ‐ Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food EducaƟon Projects Skyline 0 83
4.9 25 22 21 6.8 22
70 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Fire Management and Risk ReducƟons North Coast 0 30 6.6 30 41
40 ‐ Skyline Region: Fire Management and Forest Restoration Projects Skyline 0 84 6.5 30 48
53 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects Skyline 0 86
5.8 32 63
19 ‐ Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills RestoraƟon & Overall Parking Improvements South Fthills 0 66
5.8 23 60
72 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Coastside Environmental Education Partnerships North Coast 0 31
5.6 40 26
24 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay Ci Ɵes: San Francisquito Creek RestoraƟon Partnership Cities 0 34 4.9 34 58
28 ‐ Collaborate to Restore San Francisquito Creek Fish Habitat** Pen. Fthills 0
67
61 ‐ Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas** South Coast 0
44
71 ‐ Advocate to Protect Coastal Vistas** North Coast 0
40
29 ‐ Teague Hill: West Union Crk Watershed Restoration Partnership** Pen. Fthills 0
39
60 ‐ Lower Pomponio Creek: Watershed Preservation and Grazing** South Coast 0
38
43 ‐ Monte Bello: Campfire Talks & Habitat Projects** Skyline 0
27
25 ‐ Major Roadway Signage** Cities 0
16
*: Use of keypads to collect data on use of open space did not start until 11/4/13 workshop
**: Not rated at the public workshops
***: CAC did not rate all actions
#: Same participant generated action also received 119 points
Wkshp Results CAC Results***
Table 4: Comparison of All Ratings
Vision Plan Public Deliberation Summary Report 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Region Map
Appendix B: Goals Detail
Appendix C: Sample Priority Action Profiles
Appendix D: Priority Action Ratings by Region: Details
Appendix E: Participant Generated Goals and Priority Actions
Appendix F: Workshop Participant Comments
Appendix G: Workshop Evaluation Results
280
Santa ClaraSunnyvale
Foothills
StanfordUniversity
Rancho San Antonio
Palo Alto
Mountain View
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
SAN MATEO COUNTY
Campbell
Soquel DemonstrationState Forest
Ano NuevoState Park
San Gregorio
Castle RockState Park
Stevens CreekShoreline NatureStudy Area
Los Trancos
Ravenswood
Don Edwards SanFrancisco Bay National WildlifeRefuge
State WildlifeRefuge
S a n M a t e o B r i d g e
Half
Moon
Bay
El Granada
Montara
Burlingame
San Mateo Foster City
San BrunoMountain
Sweeny Ridge(GGNRA)
Crystal SpringsWatershed(City & Co. of SF)
Sanborn SkylineCounty Park
Woodside
San Carlos
Thornewood
Huddart County Park
Big Basin Redwoods State Park
Butano State Park
Pescadero CreekCounty Park
Saratoga
Los Gatos
San Jose
Redwood City
FremontOlder
PicchettiRanch
Teague Hill
PulgasRidge MiramontesRidge
TunitasCreek
Purisima CreekRedwoods
El Corte de Madera Creek
Windy Hill
La HondaCreek
Saratoga Gap
SkylineRidge
Russian Ridge
LongRidge
Monte Bello
El Sereno
Bear Creek Redwoods
SierraAzul
Almaden QuicksilverCounty Park
280
Coal CreekMilpitasHaywardHenry CowellRedwoodsState ParkDon Edwards SanFrancisco BayNational WildlifeRefugeCloverdale RanchSt. Joseph's HillFelton StationRancho Corralde Tierra(GGNRA)SanLeandroNewarkFremontAzulPilarcitosCreekMillsCreekPurisimaCreekLobitosCreekTunitasCreekMadonnaCk.ElCortedeMaderaCreekPomponioCreekHarringtonCreekPescaderoCreekButanoCreekGazosCreekWaddellCreekScottCreekBigCreekBoulderCreekBearCreekSanLorenzoRiverSaratogaCreekLosGatosCreekSanTomasAquinoCreekStevensCreekGuadalupeRiverCoyoteCreekLosTrancosCreekBearCreekSanGregorioCreekSoquelCreekW.BranchSoquelCreek
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
AnoNuevoBay
San
Francis
c
o
B
a
y
District Boundary
S
p
h
e
r
e
o
f
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
1
1
84
84
84
82
82
101
101
237
880
280
17
35
35
35
280
280
880
92
9
17
101
85
87
680
Sierra Azul
Skyline
Ridge
Central Coastal
Mountains
Peninsula
Foothills
San
Francisco
Baylands
South
San Mateo
County
Coast
South Bay
Foothills
North
San Mateo
County
Coast
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
January, 2014
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
a
_
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
d
e
\
V
i
s
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
s
\
s
u
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
_
P
P
T
\
S
u
b
r
e
g
i
o
n
s
n
e
w
c
o
l
o
r
s
_
8
.
5
x
1
1
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
m
c
h
i
l
d
s
0 52.5
Miles
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
MROSD Boundary
P
acific
O
ce
a n
MidpeninsulaRegional OpenSpace District
San Francisco Oakland
San Jose
S.F. Bay
SantaCruz
Central Coastal Mountains
North San Mateo County Coast
Peninsula Foothills
San Francisco Baylands
Sierra Azul
Skyline Ridge
South Bay Foothills
San Mateo County Coast
MROSD Sphere of Influence
Peninsula & South Bay Cities
Peninsula
Cities
Appendix A :Open Space Subregions
Subregion Area
South Bay
Cities
APPENDIX B: GOALS DETAIL
B-1: Public Workshop Handouts
B-2: Online Goal Rating
Priority Action Goals:
Stewardship of Nature
Restore the natural environment, control invasive plants and
animals, and limit the spread of pathogens
Promote natural ecosystem processes
Prevent or address erosion and pollution
Protect watersheds and restore stream flow to improve habitat for
fish and wildlife
Biodiversity
Protect large contiguous areas of intact habitat that represent the
Peninsula and South Bay’s full mosaic of natural communities
Conserve sensitive species and special natural communities
Increase adaptation to climate change and reduce carbon impacts
Encourage scientific research, partnerships, and relationships with
educational institutions and scientists
Habitat Connectivity
Increase connectivity between protected areas to support natural
wildlife movement patterns
Priority Action Goals:
Increase Diversity and Remove Access Barriers
Creatively reach more people, including those with disabilities, and
increase the cultural diversity of our visitors
Expand youth programming and outreach through partnerships
Improved Visitor Experiences
Provide opportunities where families can engage safely with nature
Emphasize a variety of natural learning environments
Increase use of technology to introduce people to nature
Volunteer Stewardship
Increase support for volunteer stewardship and open space
conservation
Increase use of technology to promote volunteer stewardship
Encourage hands-on volunteer stewardship and citizen science
activities on District lands
Knowledge, Understanding, and Appreciation
Remember and honor community heritage and past ways of life
through activities, programming, and projects
Interpret how natural and cultural resources relate to people’s
current lives
Increase site-specific interpretation projects and programs that
emphasize the protection of natural and cultural resources
Priority Action Goals:
Support Agriculture and Local Food Producers
Preserve farms and rangelands by working cooperatively with
partners and the agricultural community
Prioritize preservation of agricultural lands at the urban edge and
currently in agricultural use
Promote large contiguous blocks of land in agricultural use
Support the region’s agricultural economy
Protect the economic viability of District working lands
Model Ecologically Sound Practices
Use rangeland management to improve grassland health, reduce
wildfire fuel loads, and protect water quality
Promote wise water use and other ecologically sensitive farming
practices
Educate about the Region’s Agricultural Heritage
Foster awareness of, and support public educations programs about,
the importance of agriculture to the region’s heritage and future.
Priority Action Goals:
Expand Appropriate Low Intensity Access
Provide new public access or improve access with trails and staging
area improvements
Increase access close to where more people live, and encourage
access that minimizes the use of cars
Provide ecologically-sensitive access to exceptional natural features
or vistas
Provide regional, long distance trails that connect open space to
communities
Ensure Compatibility
Ensure access compatible with resource protection and regulatory
constraints
Distribute opportunities for low intensity recreation across District
Reduce or eliminate safety hazards and promote safe use of the
preserves
Provide ongoing management and maintenance
Expand Opportunity and Variety
Increase diversity of visitors
Accommodate a wide variety of visitors of all abilities, ages , cultures,
and interests
Priority Action Goals:
Quiet Enjoyment of Nature
Provide opportunities for people to experience, enjoy, and interpret
the beauty and tranquility of natural open space
Increase access to quiet places to enjoy vistas, encourage
connections with nature, and take refuge from urban life
Sense of Place
Maintain a sense of place by protecting and increasing access to
locally significant, iconic natural or cultural features
Preserve the scenic backdrop and designated scenic corridors,
emphasizing the view from major roadways and parklands
Preserve the character and scenic qualities of coastal and rural areas
Stewarding Many Cultures
Protect at-risk culturally significant resources and promote their
responsible stewardship
Cultivate partnerships that preserve and/or enhance cultural
resources
Increase interpretation of cultural resources
Appendix B‐2
Online Ratings: Goals for Open Space
Points
Idea Title Habitat Connectivity 107
Idea Detail •Increase connecƟvity between protected areas to support natural wildlife movement
patterns
Comment 1
I agree with this priority. Please update this to include not just connectivity between
protected areas, but also along stream corridors so that migratory aquaitc species
(like steelhead and salmon) can connect between the Pacific Ocean / SF Bay to the
MROSD Preserves (which typically occur near the headwaters). MROSD support of fish
passage barriers downstream of their preserves and not in protected areas, for
example, is critical to reconnecting sea‐run fish (and ocean nutrients) to headwater
streams on Preserve lands. Many Preserve lands and wildlife have been starved of
ocean nutrients for over a century, due to downstream fish passage barriers, such as
dams and road crossings. Thanks for considering. | By Matt S
Comment 2 This can be done with trail connections as well, serving two goals. | By Galli B
Idea Title Expand Appropriate Low Intensity Access 101
Idea Detail
•Provide new public access or improve access with trails and staging area
improvements
•Increase access close to where more people live, and encourage access that
minimizes the use of cars
•Provide ecologically‐sensiƟve access to excepƟonal natural features or vistas
•Provide regional, long distance trails that connect open space to communiƟes
Comment 1 Horses and hikers should be prioritized on trails, as they are not usually
accommodated on city streets. | By Kathleen M
Comment 2
How exactly are horses and hikers less accommodated on city streets than mountain
bikers? Mountain biking does not exist without trails! Please increase access to single
track for cyclist throughout MPOSD! | By Paul W
Comment 3 More singletrack access to bikes | By J‐C P
Comment 4
As everyone below me has said, I fully support expanding access, as long as this
includes BIKES. Bikes are an affordable way to get needed exercise while enjoying
open space. Most of us cannot afford horses, nor do they provide the same level of
exercise. Biking is a healthy lifelong sport that should have much more access than it
currently does on the peninsula. | By Linda H
Comment 5
1% of Santa Clara county population has usurped access to the foothill properties that
are easiest to access for recreation. Middle income families do not have $$$ to pay
for riding horses. Children need opportunities for healthy recreation. Ban
dangerous slave animals, and expand recreational trails for running and biking in the
foothills, so people do not have to ride further. | By Daniel E
Comment 6
I am strongly in favor as long as it includes bike access, important for enjoyment of
the large areas available. I am not in favor of this goal if it excludes or biased against
bikes. | By Larry W
Comment 7 I agree with RA. Low Intensity needs to be defined as I can see it being used against
particular classes of trail users. | By Alistair A
Online Ratings: Goals page 1
Appendix B‐2
Comment 8
This is one of my favorite ideas so far. Increasing access close to where more people
live is very important to making open space more accessible to the larger community.
Providing regional trail connections to communities helps us all see each open space
in it's regional context and encourages further exploration (by highlighting the
regional trail, or wanting to trek throughout the regional trail, or be able to get to a
preserve without a car). | By Galli B
Comment 9
This sounds great, assuming that low‐intensity access includes active recreation (such
as bike). The term low‐intensity needs to be better explained (if it excludes bicycles
then I am opposed). I assume that this goal is talking about providing additional trail
access to preserves for all users, and making connections so that people can ride/hike
from home to use the preserves more easily. | By R A
Idea Title Stewardship of Nature 100
Idea Detail
•Restore the natural environment, control invasive plants and animals, and limit the
spread of pathogens
•Promote natural ecosystem processes
•Prevent or address erosion and polluƟon
•Protect watersheds and restore stream flow to improve habitat for fish and wildlife
Idea Title Quiet Enjoyment of Nature 96
Idea Detail
•Provide opportuniƟes for people to experience, enjoy, and interpret the beauty and
tranquility of natural open space
•Increase access to quiet places to enjoy vistas, encourage connecƟons with nature,
and take refuge from urban life
Comment 1
Agree with the first poster. As soon as I step into the trails on my Mtn bike, I
immediately am quietly enjoying nature (or after I get a few hundred yards away from
the constant roar of Sunday motorcycles). Hope this "priority" of quiet enjoyment is
not trying to limit bikes. Most of the time, we rarely encounter any other trail users,
when we do, we dismount for horses and stop or yield to all pedestrians on the trail.
We only wish we had the opportunity to have more recreational trails available for
biking to enjoy this wonderful quiet nature we are so lucky to leave near. | By Linda H
Comment 2 I think this idea is hard to interpret. I really enjoy the peace and quiet especially when
I'm mountain biking and hiking. | By Sean M
Comment 3 I enjoy the quiet especially on my mountain bike. | By Sean M
Comment 4 Yes, we need more trails so you can get away from cars. Make trails for people to
bike up to Skyline without intermingling with dangerous cars. | By Daniel E
Comment 5
This is an important goal, so long as it is not interpreted as a method to prohibit
access for active recreation (biking). The two goals can co‐exist together on the same
trails in the same preserves. It is not a one or the other situation. | By R A
Comment 6
@ Frank S7. Exactly. Just having quality open space and access to that open space
accomplishes this, no? I'm going to translate this goal: Open Space w/access. Who can
be against this? This is like voting for Open Space with more trees and grass. We need
real goals to vote on here! | By orion W
Online Ratings: Goals page 2
Appendix B‐2
Comment 7
When I am using the existing open space preserves, it is rare that I will come across
another trail user. I, almost immediately after entering the trails, feel the sense of
refuge from urban life. | By Frank S
Idea Title Expand Opportunity and Variety 96
Idea Detail •Increase diversity of visitors
•Accommodate a wide variety of visitors of all abiliƟes, ages, cultures, and interests
Comment 1
Agree with Frank. A fantastic way to expand recreational opportunities would be to
expand access to all users (horse, bike, hike) across park regions for longer excursions
and to reduce driving. i.e.: if we could access from our neighborhood open space to
regions more distant, we would not have to drive to those regions. | By Linda H
Comment 2
A diverse user group is great! I think one way to create a more diverse user group,
would be to increase bicycle trail access. It would be fantastic to be able to access
Montebello Open Space from Rancho San Antonio. Opening PG&E Trail or Upper High
Meadow Trail to Black Mountain Trail would be a great way to increase the diversity
of this open space. | By Frank S
Idea Title Biodiversity 85
Idea Detail
•Protect large conƟguous areas of intact habitat that represent the Peninsula and
South Bay’s full mosaic of natural communities
•Conserve sensiƟve species and special natural communiƟes
•Increase adaptaƟon to climate change and reduce carbon impacts
•Encourage scienƟfic research, partnerships, and relaƟonships with educaƟonal
institutions and scientists
Comment 1 Seems like this one could be lumped in with the above habitat connectivity into one
goal. Aren't we already doing this as a priority? | By Linda H
Comment 2 Isn't much of this a cornerstone of any open space program? Also, very broad. What
does "increase adaptation to climate change" mean? | By orion W
Idea Title Ensure Compatibility, Safety, and Maintenance 75
Idea Detail
•Ensure access compaƟble with resource protecƟon and regulatory constraints
•Distribute opportuniƟes for low intensity recreaƟon across District
•Reduce or eliminate safety hazards and promote safe use of the preserves
•Provide ongoing management and maintenance
Comment 1 These descriptions are so vague and lumped together I have no idea what I am really
voting for. | By Drew P
Comment 2
What we have learned about pedestrian / auto conflict and crashes is that we can
increase pedestrian safety by slowing auto traffic with traffic calming measures. Fire
roads are the freeways of our parks and tend to increase speeding by bikes and
horses. We need to reduce trail widths and increase side friction to naturally slow
bikes and horses. Wide trails with large radius turns are not safe trails. | By Marc J
Online Ratings: Goals page 3
Appendix B‐2
Comment 3
Really hard to understand what you mean here by "low intensity". There are enough
"horse only" trails, it would be wonderful to see some "bike only" trails. All are, of
course, open to hikers. As in my other post, a few bike only trails (no major views,
just nice single track technical climbs/descents to enjoy or a clockwise loop that bikers
can enjoy free of horses or hikers) would certainly draw more visitors and may
improve safety if the two groups had an opportunity for their own spaces to recreate.
| By Linda H
Comment 4 Isn't this sort of table stakes for MPROSD? | By Brian M
Comment 5
I am not sure if this idea is in support of more active recreation (biking/running) in the
preserves or against it? The idea description could be clearer on this (what is low‐
intensity? what are considered safety hazards?) I support more active recreational
opportunities (esp. biking) in all of the preserves. | By R A
Comment 6
I would like to see a more balanced trail designation system. There are plenty of hiker
only, or hiker/equestrian trails, but no bicycle only, or bicycle/hiker only trails.
One safety concern of mine is that equestrians have limited control over their horses.
Additionally, the horse has a mind of it's own. If a horse is spooked, it can be
completely out of the control of the rider. This presents an extreme danger to the
rider, the horse, and other trail users. | By Frank S
Comment 7 I would like a simple and clear protocol or rating system for how access to trails are
determined for different user groups: Hikers, Cyclists, Horses... | By Kevin M R
Idea Title Improved Visitor Experiences 72
Idea Detail
•Provide opportuniƟes where families can engage safely with nature
•Emphasize a variety of natural learning environments
•Increase use of technology to introduce people to nature
Comment 1
Agree with Frank. Horse poop really sucks. Mountain bikes don't leave behind any
poop for the hikers!
Wish there were more technically challenging single track bike only segments that
perhaps ran parallel or bypassed wider hiking trails (like Manzanita at Skeggs and
Rocky Ridge at Santa Theresa). The majority of trails are closed to bikes, why not
improve bike visitor experience by opening a few "bike only" trails that would
challenge our skills, or a flow trail/mtn bike park that might attract more visitors. |
By Linda H
Comment 2 There are not enough beginner friendly, accessible trails for biking. Not everybody
can ride steep, dusty, slippery fireroads. | By Daniel E
Comment 3
One improved visitor experience would be to tighten the regulations on equestrians.
Horses defecate on the trails. The equestrians are not required to pick up after it. As a
hiker, this does not create an enjoyable experience. Additionally, horses can be
extremely terrifying and hard to control. Horses are known to be spooked easily,
which imposes a risk on not just the horse and rider, but to all other trail users. | By
Frank S
Online Ratings: Goals page 4
Appendix B‐2
Idea Title Support Agriculture and Local Food Producers 72
Idea Detail
•Preserve farms and range lands by working cooperaƟvely with partners and the
agricultural community
•PrioriƟze preservaƟon of agricultural lands at the urban edge and currently in
agricultural use
•Promote large conƟguous blocks of land in agricultural use
•Support the region’s agricultural economy
•Protect the economic viability of District working lands
Idea Title Volunteer Stewardship 69
Idea Detail
•Increase support for volunteer stewardship and open space conservaƟon
•Increase use of technology to promote volunteer stewardship
•Encourage hands‐on volunteer stewardship and ciƟzen science acƟviƟes on District
lands
Idea Title Increase Diversity and Remove Access Barriers 66
Idea Detail
•CreaƟvely reach more people, including those with disabiliƟes, and increase the
cultural diversity of our visitors
•Expand youth programming and outreach through partnerships
Comment 1
Seems like there are already organizations that do provide disabled persons outdoor
access and transport. Not sure these should really be a priority over expanding
general public access….to increase cultural diversity on our trails?? This area is
already extremely diverse so why target certain cultural or racial groups to visit here
more than others? Everyone is already welcome, right? | By Linda H
Comment 2 Is outreach like this a significant part of your mission? | By Brian M
Idea Title Model Ecologically Sound Practices 66
Idea Detail
•Use rangeland management to improve grassland health, reduce wildfire fuel loads,
and protect water quality
•Promote wise water use and other ecologically sensiƟve farming pracƟces
Idea Title Sense of Place 58
Idea Detail
•Maintain a sense of place by protecƟng and increasing access to locally significant,
iconic natural or cultural features
•Preserve the scenic backdrop and designated scenic corridors, emphasizing the view
from major roadways and parklands
•Preserve the character and scenic qualiƟes of coastal and rural areas
Idea Title Knowledge, Understanding, and Appreciation 48
Idea Detail
•Remember and honor community heritage and past ways of life through acƟviƟes,
programming, and projects
•Interpret how natural and cultural resources relate to people’s current lives
•Increase site‐specific interpretaƟon projects and programs that emphasize the
protection of natural and cultural resources
Online Ratings: Goals page 5
Appendix B‐2
Idea Title Stewarding Many Cultures 40
Idea Detail
•Protect at‐risk culturally significant resources and promote their responsible
stewardship
•CulƟvate partnerships that preserve and/or enhance cultural resources
•Increase interpretaƟon of cultural resources
Idea Title Educate about the Region’s Agricultural Heritage 39
Idea Detail •Foster awareness of, and support public educaƟons programs about, the importance
of agriculture to the region’s heritage and future.
Online Ratings: Goals page 6
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE PRIORITY ACTION PROFILES
Bear Creek Redwoods:
Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects
Open for hiking, equestrian activities. Provide
parking areas, trails; upgrade stables. Restore
8c protect habitats for various species, address
invasives. Repair roads & trails to reduce sediment.
Provide interpretive/educational services, volunteer
programs. Rehabilitate Alma College site, explore
limited reuse by public or private partners.
Goals Accomplished by This Action
Enriched
Experiences
Healthy
Nature Scenic
Landscapes
Outdoor
Recreation
Working
Lamb
I
2 4 6
Number of Goats Accomplished
10
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
ens Cre�c "`
oUnty-Park
Loch
Lomond
Recreation
Area
Sar
Los Gatos
St. Joseph's ,p
Hi[I, ?-- I
1
Sierra Azul 1
Windy Hill:
Trail Improvements, Preservation, and Hawthorns Area
Historic Partnership
IOPENINSULII
II EGIONBL
OPEN
1:111111T--
mprove trails, complete pond facilities. Increase
multi -use trails, study possible increased dog use.
Open Hawthorns Area, develop trails connecting
to Portola Valley and Palo Alto trails. Explore
partnerships to protect, restore, and interpret
historic buildings. Improve habitat conditions in
Los Trancos Creek. Preserve additional scenic
open space as available.
(;)I
Goals Accomplished by This Action
Enriched
Experiences
Healthy
Nature
Scenic
Landscapes
Outdoor
Recreation
Working
Lands
0
2 4 6
Number of Goats Accomplished
10
liPri ngs
shed
1
1 Hudda
County Park
Redwood
City
-Tea
le de
Creek
1
1
1
1
1
--I
Woodside
Wunderlic
aunty Park
La Honda
Creek
Honda.
Sam
McDonald
County Park
Pekcadero Creek
Lf Coitnity, Park
Jasper
Ridge
Stanford
University
Pearson-
Arastradero
Preserve
Palo Alto
',foothills
l Park ,,
1
an Anton1
;Russia
Ridge ' ,A ante
Betio
Eas7 I
Palo
Alto
Palo Alto
Portola
Foothills
Sara dQ
I . - Ga
El Corte de :Madera Creek:
Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects
API RRENINSOLA
REGIONAL
✓♦
■
Develop and carry out plans for single -use
biking/hiking trails, complete Ridge
Trail gaps, and develop trail system leading to
parking area. Restore damaged trails for better
water quality. Deter marbled murrelet predators.
Preserve additional open space as available.
041
w AIM
litliPPr ()
Goals Accomplished by This Action
Enriched
Experiences
Healthy
Nature
Scenic
Landscapes
Outdoor
Recreation
Working
Lands
0
4 6
Number or Goals Accomplished
10
I
•
I`J6ur}eigh Murray
Ranch State Park
Pri f sima Creek
--`- Redwoods
•
I
I
Tunitas
Creek
San Gregorio
I
Crystal Springs
atershed
San Carlos
Redwood
City
Woodside
Wunderlic
aunty Park
Thorrsewood
r
Wind
La Honda
Creek
Sam
McDonald
County Park
11
— —
Russia
Ridge
Purisima Creek Redwoods:
Purisima-to-Sea Trail Completion, Watershed Protection &
Conservation Grazing Projects
IMP E Ni NS LILA
REGIONAL
OPEN
Complete and open multi -use Purisima-to-Sea trail
connection between Ridge Trail & Coastal Trail,
add new parking areas. Preserve additional open space
as available. Remove fish barriers and restore Lobitos
Creek. Study & improve ponds for red -legged frogs.
Continue grazing, improve fencing, cattle watering
to protect ponds and streams. Develop interpretive
materials and volunteer steward program.
Goals Accomplished by This Action
Enriched
Experiences
ieaithy
I Lei ire
Scenic
Landscapes
0utdocr
Recreation
Working
Lands
1
J 6
(Number of Goals Accomplished
10
-1117S f: -
'qu.1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Half
Moon
Bay
E. EEC
Ridge\
Elucleigh Murray 35
Ranch State Park
P risima Cie
dWoods
Tunitas
Creek
San Gregoria
Crystal Springs
Watershed
}Huddartl
County Pamir
7aalti
orte de
a Creek
La Hondr
Creek
Key to Priority Action Icons
ese icons illustrate the main components of the priority actions.
For example, if a priority action contains icon number 1, improving
access to trials is a signicant part of that action.
1. Improves access to
trails
2. Supports multiple trail
uses (hiking, biking,
horseback riding, dogs)
3. Family friendly location
4. Extends regional trails
5. Eliminates barriers to
using open space
6. Protects endangered
species
7. Restores natural
conditions for plants
and animals
8. Environmental
stewardship and
maintenance
9. Ensures clean streams
and water bodies
10. Protects and manages
forests
11. Reduces re risk
12. Provides environmental
education
13. Protects beautiful
scenery and panoramic
views
14. Preserves local
character and sense of
place
15. Conserves additional
open space
16. Protects local farms
and ranches
APPENDIX D: PRIORITY ACTION RATINGS BY REGION: DETAILS
D-1: Priority Action Ratings by Region: Details from Public Workshops
D-2: Priority Action Ratings by Region: Details from CAC Meeting
Refer to Workshop Ratings Key , page 13, for more information Appendix D ‐ 1
Priority Action Ratings by
Region: Details from Public Workshops
North San Mateo County Coast Region ‐ HMB Workshop ‐ 10.21.13 N Avg Div
Female
(15)
Male
(11)
18‐24
(1)
25‐34
(2)
35‐44
(1)
45‐54
(4)
55‐64
(12)
65 ≤
(6)
Seldom
(4)
Sometimes
(9)
Often
(10)
Consistentl
y
67 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima‐to‐Sea Trail Watershed Protection & Conservation Grazing 30 8.3 30 8.8 7.7 9 8.5 9 9 9.6 5.3 8.8 7.6 8.3 9.3
74 ‐ Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, & Agriculture Enhancement 31 7.6 30 7.9 7.3 8 8.5 9 9.5 8.5 4.2 7.2 6.7 7.8 9
73 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Crk Rdwds: Mills Creek/Arroyo Leon Watershed, Stream Restoration, & Trails 31 7.1 29 7.1 6.8 9 8.5 7 6.5 7.8 4.8 6.2 6.6 7.6 7.3
75 ‐ Regional: Support CA Coastal Trail 31 6.9 43 7 6.9 10 778 7.5 4.7 6 6.8 6.9 7.3
70 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Fire Management and Risk ReducƟons 30 6.6 30 6.9 6.7 10 8.5 7 6.5 6.2 7 4.5 6.5 6.7 9
72 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods:Coastside Environmental EducaƟon Partnerships 31 5.6 40 5.3 5.8 10 6 10 7 5.2 3.3 4.5 4.6 5.4 8
South San Mateo County Coast Region ‐ HMB Workshop ‐ 10.21.13 N Avg Div
Female
(14)
Male
(11)
18‐24
(1)
25‐34
(2)
35‐44
(1)
45‐54
(4)
55‐64
(11)
65 ≤
(6)
Seldom
(4)
Sometimes
(9)
Often
(8)
Consistentl
y
64 ‐ La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, & Conservation Grazing 28 9 10 9.4 8.8 9 10 9 8.8 8.9 9.5 8.2 8.9 9.5 10
58 ‐ Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife ProtecƟon, Grazing, and Trail ConnecƟons 30 7.8 29 8 8.6 8 9 10 9.5 7.5 8.3 5.2 8.3 9 9.7
62 ‐ La Honda Creek/El Corte Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed and Agriculture Preservation Projects 30 7.4 26 7.1 7.9 8 9 10 7.5 7.8 5.7 7.2 7.1 7.2 8.3
66 ‐ Tunitas Creek: AddiƟonal Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing 30 7.2 28 7 7.2 9 7 9 7 7.8 5.2 6.2 6.7 7.4 7.7
59 ‐ Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed PreservaƟon & ConservaƟon Grazing 30 7.1 36 7 7.6 9 8.5 10 8.5 6.7 6.3 6.5 7.4 6.9 8.3
Central Coastal Mountains Region ‐ Skyline Area Workshop ‐ 11.2.13 N Avg Div
Female
(12)
Male
(8)
18‐24
(0)
25‐34
(1)
35‐44
(4)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(4)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(2)
Sometimes
(3)
Often
(10)
Consistentl
y
56 ‐ Regional: Trail ConnecƟons and Campgrounds 24 8.4 15 8.3 8.6 0 10 8.8 8.5 8.5 7.4 8 9.3 8.7 7.6
55 ‐ Regional: Redwood ProtecƟon and Salmon Fishery ConservaƟon 24 7.5 19 7.9 6.6 0 6 7.5 7.7 8 7.8 8 6.3 7.3 8.3
Skyline Region ‐ 2 Workshops ‐ 11.2.2013 and 11.4.2013 N Avg Div
Female
(39)
Male
(41)
18‐24
(2)
25‐34
(4)
35‐44
(10)
45‐54
(26)
55‐64
(18)
65 ≤
(18)
Seldom
(8)
Sometimes
(16)
Often
(21)
Consistentl
y
Bike
(18)
Dog
(2)
Hike
(32)
Horse
(1)
51 ‐ La Honda Creek: Upper Area RecreaƟon ‐ Habitat RestoraƟon and ConservaƟon Grazing Projects 84 8 23 8 8.2 4.5 9.5 8.2 8.4 7.8 8 8.3 7.8 8.3 8.1 9 8.5 8 9
46 ‐ Russian Ridge: Public RecreaƟon ‐ Grazing ‐ and Wildlife ProtecƟon Projects 83 8 19 8.2 8 6 9.8 8 8 7.9 8.2 7.6 7.3 8.3 8.6 8.8 8.5 7.5 9
48 ‐ La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: PreservaƟon of Upper San Gregorio Watershed & Ridge Trail CompleƟon 82 8 25 7.9 7.9 5 10 7.5 8 7.8 8 8.1 7.5 8.5 7.8 9 8.5 7.9 10
47 ‐ Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use 85 7.8 27 7.8 7.7 3.5 9.8 7 8.1 7.3 8.2 7.8 7.5 7.7 8.3 8.3 6 7.2 8
38 ‐ Long Ridge: Trail ‐ ConservaƟon and Habitat RestoraƟon Projects 83 7.7 20 7.3 8.1 7 9.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.6 8 6.8 8 7.9 8.9 9 7.4 6
52 ‐ El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects 85 7.5 28 7.2 7.8 8.5 10 7 7.8 7.3 6.9 8.1 6.2 7.5 8.3 9.7 7.5 6.8 5
40 ‐ Skyline Subregion: Fire Management and Forest RestoraƟon Projects 84 6.5 30 6.9 5.9 9.5 2.5 6.4 5.6 6.8 8 7 6.4 6.6 6.2 4.9 9.5 7.5 5
39 ‐ Skyline Ridge: EducaƟon FaciliƟes ‐ Trailsand Wildlife ConservaƟon Projects 84 6.4 33 6.9 5.8 5 2.2 6 5.7 6.7 8.2 7.8 7.2 6.6 5.1 4.7 9 7.5 6
53 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects 86 5.8 32 6.5 5.2 5.5 2.2 5.2 5.8 6 7.4 6.9 6.4 6 5.3 4.2 6 7.4 7
37 ‐ Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food EducaƟon Projects 83 4.9 25 5.7 4.1 4 1.8 5.2 4.8 4.4 6.2 6.4 5.9 5.3 3.5 3.5 6 4.9 6
Peninsula Foothills Region ‐ 2 Workshops ‐ 11.4.2013 and 11.16.2013 N Avg Div
Female
(43)
Male
(50)
18‐24
(2)
25‐34
(5)
35‐44
(11)
45‐54
(35)
55‐64
(20)
65 ≤
(22)
Seldom
(11)
Sometimes
(20)
Often
(33)
Consistentl
y
Bike
(31)
Dog
(7)
Hike
(49)
Horse
(1)
27 ‐ Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail 97 8.1 29 8.5 7.8 9 9.4 7.6 8.3 7.7 8.3 8 6.3 8.4 9.4 9.4 6.7 7.7 10
32 ‐ Windy Hill: Trail Improvements ‐ PreservaƟon ‐ and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership 102 7.7 36 8.4 7.5 5.5 5.2 8.7 8.7 7.2 8 8.1 7.4 8.1 7.7 8.1 7.9 7.9 8
76 ‐ Pulgas Ridge: Regional and Neighborhood Trail Extensions 102 6.7 38 7.2 6.5 8.5 4.2 7.5 7.1 6.4 6.6 5.9 5.7 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.4 6.7 9
44 ‐ Regional: San Andreas Fault InterpreƟve Trail Program 102 5.8 36 6.5 5.4 5.5 6.2 5.8 5.6 5.6 6.6 6.1 6.3 6.7 4.7 5.1 6.2 6.4 6
30‐ Rancho San Antonio: Intrepretive Improvements ‐ Refurbishing ‐ and Transit Solutions 101 5.6 40 6.1 5.4 4.5 4 5.2 5.9 5.4 6.5 5.5 5.6 6.6 5 5.5 6.3 5.9 5
31‐ Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access and PreservaƟon Projects 102 5.6 46 6.1 5.2 2.5 2.6 5.4 5.3 5.7 7.3 5.6 6.6 6.3 4.3 3.9 5.3 6.8 6
This Data is not available
for this region
This Data is not available
for this region
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space*
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space*
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space*
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space
This Data is not available
for this region
page 1
Refer to Workshop Ratings Key , page 13, for more information Appendix D ‐ 1
Priority Action Ratings by
Region: Details from Public Workshops
Peninsula / South Bay Cities & Baylands Regions ‐ Redwood City Workshop ‐ 11.16.2013 N Avg Div
Female
(16)
Male
(16)
18‐24
(0)
25‐34
(2)
35‐44
(4)
45‐54
(15)
55‐64
(6)65 ≤ (6)Seldom
(4)
Sometimes
(7)
Often
(11)
Consistentl
y (11)
Bike
(13)
Dog
(5)
Hike
(14)
Horse
(0)
34 ‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat ProtecƟon and Public Access Partnerships 34 7.6 38 8.6 7 0106.8 8 6.7 8.5 7 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.8 7 8.6 0
23 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail 34 6.7 41 7.6 5.9 0 7.5 6.5 7.4 4.7 7.7 5.8 6.1 7.4 7.2 8 5 6.9 0
35 ‐ Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership 34 6.2 42 7.2 5.5 0 4 6 6.9 5.7 7 2.5 6.3 7.5 6.8 6.9 4.2 7.1 0
24 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: San Francisquito Creek RestoraƟon Partnership 34 4.9 34 5.6 4.4 0 5.5 5.8 4.7 3.7 6.7 4.2 4.9 5.8 4.7 5.2 3.2 5.9 0
22 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay CiƟes: Los Gatos Creek Trail ConnecƟons 34 4.4 32 4.4 4.3 0 6 3 4.1 4.5 6.2 4.2 5.1 4.8 3.9 4.2 3.2 5.4 0
25 ‐ Major Roadway Signage**
South Bay Foothills Region ‐ Saratoga Workshop ‐ 10.28.13 N Avg Div
Female
(23)
Male
(42)
18‐24
(3)
25‐34
(5)
35‐44
(9)
45‐54
(18)
55‐64
(18)
65 ≤
(12)
Seldom
(10)
Sometimes
(7)
Often
(26)
Consistentl
y
16 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements 64 8.6 18 8.5 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.2 8.7 8.5 7.8 9.4 9 8.2 8.6
11 ‐ Bear Creek Redwoods: Public RecreaƟon and InterpreƟve Projects 65 8.1 22 8.3 8.1 7.7 8.8 8 7.5 7.9 9.6 8.4 8.1 8.1 8.2
18 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Saratoga‐to‐Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor 65 7.4 32 7.9 7.1 9.7 9.2 6.6 7.1 7.6 7 7.2 8.2 7.4 7.2
17 ‐ El Sereno: Dog Trails & Connections 66 6.8 31 7.6 6.4 5.7 7.4 6.6 6.8 7.4 5.9 7 6.4 6.6 7.1
21 ‐ Piccheƫ Ranch: Family Nature Play Program 66 6.1 15 6.3 6 8 7.4 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.9 6.9 6.1 5.8
19 ‐ Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills RestoraƟon & Overall Parking Improvements 66 5.8 23 6.2 5.7 7 6.6 6 5.4 5.9 5.8 6.5 6 5.5 5.7
Sierra Azul Region ‐ Saratoga Workshop ‐ 10.28.13 N Avg Div
Female
(24)
Male
(45)
18‐24
(3)
25‐34
(5)
35‐44
(9)
45‐54
(19)
55‐64
(21)
65 ≤
(12)
Seldom
(10)
Sometimes
(9)
Often
(27)
Consistentl
y
1 ‐ Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects 69 8.2 27 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.5 7.4 8.2 7.8 8.5 7.9
4 ‐ Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and InterpretaƟon Projects 68 8 23 7.7 8.1 9.3 8.6 7.9 7.8 8.4 7 8.3 7.9 7.9 7.8
10 ‐ Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and ConservaƟon Projects 70 7.6 22 8.1 7.3 8.3 8 6.8 7.2 8 7.8 8.4 7.1 7.6 7.4
8 ‐ Sierra Azul: Fire Management 70 7.5 18 7.9 7.3 8.7 8 7 7.2 8 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.7
9 ‐ Sierra Azul: Expand access in the Kennedy‐Limekiln Area 64 6.9 27 7.5 6.7 7.3 6.8 8 6.2 7.3 6.6 6 6.7 7.2 7.2
7 ‐ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family RecreaƟon and InterpreƟve Projects 70 6.8 20 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.4 6.6 7.3 6.2 6.5 7.1 6.7 6.6
*: Use of keypads to collect data on use of open space did not start until 11/4/13 workshop
Visit Open Space Use Open Space*
This data is not available
for this region
This data is not available
for this region
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space*
Workshop Results Gender Age Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Workshop Results Gender Age
page 2
Refer to Workshop Ratings Key , page 13, for more information Appendix D‐2: Priority Action Ratings
By Region: Detail from CAC Meeting
North San Mateo County Coast Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
67 ‐ Pursima Creek Redwoods: Pursima‐to‐Sea Trail Completion, Watershed Protection & Conservation
Grazing Projects 19 8.7 7 9 8.7 8 8.8 8.7 9.2 8.8 7.8 8.8 9.8 10 8 8.6 7
74 ‐ Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the San Mateo Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, and
Agriculture Enhancement Projects 19 7.6 21 8 7.4 8 6.2 8.3 8 8.4 7.4 8.2 6.2 6.7 9 7.4 9
73 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Mills Creek/Arroyo Leon Watershed Protection, Stream
Restoration, & Trails 19 7.5 12 7.2 7.7 6 7.8 7.4 7.8 7.2 6.6 8 8.2 9.7 7 6.8 8
75 ‐ Regional: Support CA Coastal Trail 19 7.4 23 6.6 7.7 7 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.5 6.4 8 7.8 9 8 7.1 6
70 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Fire Management and Risk Reductions*
72 ‐ Miramontes Ridge/Purisima Creek Redwoods: Coastside Environmental Education Partnerships*
South San Mateo County Coast Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
64 ‐ La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Area Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, & Conservation
Grazing 19 8.1 25 7.8 8.2 7 8 9.3 7 7.2 8.2 8 9 8 9 8.6 9
57 ‐ Gazos Creek Watershed: Preserve Redwoods, Fish & Add Trails 21 7.4 25 5.8 8.1 7.5 7.8 8.3 5.6 7.2 7.2 8 7.2 9.7 7 7.3 8
58 ‐ Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife Protection, Grazing, and Trail Connections 19 7.4 21 5.5 8.2 8 8 7.5 6.2 7 7.2 8 7.2 9.5 9 7.4 7
59 ‐ Lower Pescadero Creek: Watershed Preservation & Conservation Grazing 19 6.9 28 6 7.4 8.5 6 8 6.2 6.8 7.6 8.5 5.2 5 9 7.6 8
62 ‐ La Honda Creek/El Corte Madera Creek: San Gregorio Watershed & Agriculture Preservation 21 6.9 26 6.7 6.8 6.5 6 8.3 6 6.4 7.6 7.5 5.8 5 8 7.5 8
66 ‐ Tunitas Creek: Additional Watershed Preservation & Conservation Grazing 20 6.8 25 6.7 6.8 8 5.3 8.2 6.2 6.4 6.8 8.2 5.8 5.3 8 7.3 8
Central Coastal Mountains Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
55 ‐ Regional: Redwood Protection and Salmon Fishery Conservation 21 8.3 12 8.5 8 8.5 7.2 8.7 8.6 8.4 7.4 9 8 7.7 8 8.4 6
56 ‐ Regional: Trail Connections and Campgrounds 21 8.3 16 8.7 8.1 6 8.2 8.5 9 9.4 7 7 9.4 9.7 9 7.8 7
Skyline Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
51 ‐ La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration & Conservation Grazing 21 9.1 9 9.2 9.1 10 8.8 9.2 9 8.4 8.2 10 10 10 8 8.9 9
46 ‐ Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing, & Wildlife Protection Projects 21 8.7 11 8.2 8.8 8.5 8.7 8.3 9 8.6 7.6 9 9.4 9.3 10 8.5 5
48 ‐ La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: Preservation of Upper San Gregorio Watershed and Ridge Trail
Completion 21 8.3 10 8.2 8.4 8 8 9 8 8.4 7.4 8.5 9 9.3 8 8.2 6
38 ‐ Long Ridge: Trail, Conservation & Habitat Restoration Projects 21 8 13 8 8.2 7 8.3 8 8.4 8 7.6 8.8 8.2 9.7 6 7.9 6
39 ‐ Skyline Ridge: Education Facilities ‐ Trails & Wildlife Conservation Projects 21 7.9 16 8.3 7.6 7 7.2 7.8 9 7.8 7.4 8.8 7.6 7.3 9 7.9 5
52 ‐ El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects 21 7.4 14 7.3 7.6 6.5 8 7.2 7.8 7 6.4 8 8.8 9.7 7 7.2 4
47 ‐ Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use 21 6.9 17 6.5 6.9 4 7.5 6.2 7.8 7 5.8 6.5 7.8 9 9 6.2 4
37 ‐ Saratoga Gap: Stevens Canyon Ranch Family Food Education Projects 21 6.8 22 7.3 6.7 8 5.7 7 7.8 8.4 6.6 7 5.6 4 5 7.5 6
40 ‐ Skyline Subregion: Fire Management and Forest Restoration Projects*
53 ‐ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Parking and Repair Projects*
All Results
All Results
CAC Results
All Results
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
page 1
Refer to Workshop Ratings Key , page 13, for more information Appendix D‐2: Priority Action Ratings
By Region: Detail from CAC Meeting
Peninsula Foothills Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
27 ‐ Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail 21 8.1 13 8.5 8.2 6.5 8.3 8.3 8.8 8.2 7.4 8.2 9.2 9.7 7 7.9 8
32 ‐ Windy Hill: Trail Improvements, Preservation, and Hawthorns Area Historic Partnership 21 8.1 17 8.7 7.8 7 7.3 8.8 8.4 7.6 7.2 8.5 9 9.7 8 7.5 9
31‐ Rancho San Antonio: Hidden Villa Access & Preservation Projects 21 8 15 7.7 8 9.5 7 8 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.5 6.6 5 8 8.5 8
76 ‐ Pulgas Ridge: Regional & Neighborhood Trail Extensions 20 6.9 19 6.7 6.5 4.5 6.8 7.3 6.2 6.4 6.8 6.2 6.8 7 6 6.2 8
44 ‐ Regional: San Andreas Fault Interpretive Trail Program 21 6.9 17 7.7 6.2 7.5 5.3 7.3 7 7.6 6.2 6.5 6.2 4.3 7 6.8 7
30‐ Rancho San Antonio: Intrepretive Improvements, Refurbishing, & Transit Solutions*
Peninsula / South Bay Cities & Baylands Regions
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
34 ‐ Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection and Public Access Partnerships 4 9.1 5 9.3 9.1 9 8.8 9.5 9.2 9 8.6 9.8 9.4 9.7 8 9.1 9
35 ‐ Ravenswood: Cooley Landing Nature Center Partnership 21 8.8 18 9.2 8.5 6.5 8.3 9 9.6 9.6 8.8 7.5 8.6 9 10 8.4 9
23 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay Cities: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail 21 8 10 8.3 7.8 7 8.2 8.3 7.6 7.4 8 7.5 8.8 8 6 8.1 8
22 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay Cities: Los Gatos Creek Trail Connections 21 7.2 21 8.2 6.5 7.5 5.8 7.8 7.2 7.4 7.4 7 6.2 4.7 7 7.3 8
24 ‐ Peninsula/South Bay Cities: San Francisquito Creek Restoration Partnership *
South Bay Foothills Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
16 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements 21 8.6 14 8.8 8.3 7.5 7.3 9.3 9.2 8.8 8.4 9.8 7.2 7 10 8.5 10
18 ‐ South Bay Foothills: Saratoga‐to‐Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor 21 8.1 10 8.7 7.8 7 8 7.8 8.8 7.6 8.6 8 8 7.7 9 7.8 10
11 ‐ Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects 21 8 15 8.8 7.5 7 7.7 8 8.6 7.4 8 7.8 8.6 6.7 7 8.1 9
21 ‐ Picchetti Ranch: Family Nature Play Program 21 6.8 25 7.8 6.1 5.5 5.5 7.2 7.8 875.8 5.6 2.7 6 7.3 7
17 ‐ El Sereno: Dog Trails & Connections 21 6.6 26 7.2 6.5 4 7 8 6 6 7.4 5.8 7.6 8 8 5.9 10
19 ‐ Fremont Older: Historic Woodhills Restoration & Overall Parking Improvements*
Sierra Azul Region
N Avg Div
Female
(6)
Male
(13)
35‐44
(2)
45‐54
(6)
55‐64
(6)
65 ≤
(5)
Seldom
(5)
Sometimes
(5)
Often
(4)
Consistently
(5)
Bike
(3)
Dog
(1)
Hike
(13)
Horse
(1)
4 ‐ Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects 21 8.9 9 8.7 8.8 8.5 9 8.8 8.6 7.2 8.4 10 9.8 9.7 8 8.7 8
7 ‐ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects 21 8.5 8 8.2 8.6 7.5 9 8.2 8.6 8.2 8 8.2 9.4 8.7 8 8.5 7
1 ‐ Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects 21 8.2 8 8 8.5 7 8.5 8.7 8.2 8 7.6 8.8 9 10 8 7.8 8
10 ‐ Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects 21 7.8 11 7.7 7.9 8 8.2 7.7 7.6 6.6 7.2 9 8.8 9.7 6 7.4 8
9 ‐ Sierra Azul: Expand access in the Kennedy‐Limekiln Area 21 7.7 12 7.5 7.5 7.5 8 7.3 7.2 6.8 7.4 7.8 8.2 9 6 7.1 8
8 ‐ Sierra Azul: Fire Management*
*: Not rated by CAC
All Results
All Results
All Results
All Results
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
Gender Visit Open Space Use Open Space
page 2
APPENDIX E: PARTICIPANT GENERATED GOALS AND PRIORITY ACTIONS
E-1: Public Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Goals
E-2: Public Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Priority Actions
E-3: Online Ideas for Additional Priority Actions
Appendix E‐1: Public Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Goals
HALF MOON BAY WORKSHOP ‐ OCTOBER 21, 2013 AVG Div N
Partnering/Working with neighbors to protect both district lands and neighbor lands.8.4 12 25
Do not treat the Coast the same as the Peninsula area.7.9 22 23
More collaboration with other organizations.7.9 13 25
Improve participation ‐ by all groups ‐ races ‐ ages ‐ working classes ‐ IN THIS PUBLIC PROCESS 7.8 24 24
Under support ag: provide affordable access to such lands for current and future farmers and ranchers.7.6 30 24
Education is there, but not thoroughly nor accurately describes to fully benefit kids ‐ I'd reframe it ‐ separate &
clarify.7.4 23 24
Access by trail from inland areas to the shoreline (priority action 48)7.3 21 21
Increase amount of open space land.74023
Need metrics of core mission ‐ healthy nature ‐ stewardship ‐ pollution ‐ farms & ranchers ‐ something about
fuel loads.72922
Designation of a contiguous "Portola Trail" from South San Mateo County line to the Discovery Site on Sweeney
Ridge by the 250th Anniversary of the Expedition in 2019. 73421
Manage current lands well and make them safe for visitors & residents: Reduce fuel load through more grazing
supported by the land ‐ possible burns ‐ other techniques.6.9 24 22
Reserve some significant areas for true" wilderness ‐ at least as much as possible in urban areas ‐ limit bike
access ‐ perhaps limit number of visitors ‐ restore/remove as much human caused change to original
landscape."
6.6 40 27
Healthy Nature ‐ include wetlands with watersheds connecting Enriched Experiences ‐ watershed management
thru bioassessment projects ‐ use SWAMP guidelines 6.2 25 20
Support extended hours ‐ after Sunset 5.5 42 25
Leave well enough alone ‐ keep it natural ‐ don't improve remote areas ‐ let nature take its course ‐ if ain't
broke ‐ don't fix it.5.2 40 24
More of an objective: conduct scientific research ‐ prsettlement vs current settlement 4.8 30 24
Clearly identify what constitutes low impact activity ‐ ie: the actions of MROSD in cutting access for Mt bike
riders from the Mindego Hill Trail ‐ trucks drive on this trail ‐ if one group is denied access due to potential
harm...all users should be denied access.
45126
SARATOGA WORKSHOP ‐ OCTOBER 28, 2013 AVG Div N
Make Bear Creek Redwoods more accessible *7.7 21 62
Open more multiuse trails 7.4 28 62
Restore natural habitat & wildlife in these lands, not just protect what is there now.7.3 23 62
More single track trails for all users including bikes 7.2 32 61
Equitable trail access decisions across user groups, based on current approaches to trail design and land
management (vs. historic/legacy based decisions)7.2 27 59
Mountain Bike specific trails (ditto)74462
Minimize human impact in ecological sensitive areas. Save our wildlife!7 29 59
Allow areas for dogs on leash.6.5 34 61
Permit dogs on leash in the El Sereno Open Space **6.4 38 60
Create a citizen scientist/volunteer program on habitat connectivity by establishing camera traps to monitor
wildlife 6.4 28 62
Open some trails for limited (until 10 pm) biking (after dusk)6.2 48 61
Define appropriate access 6.1 30 58
Goal: HISTORIC PRESERVATION 5.6 29 60
A working farm that urban kids can visit (families, school field trips) [I know you already have Deer Hollow Farm ‐
maybe offer one elsewhere as well]5.3 37 63
Replace dirt roads with narrow trails with grade <10%5.2 35 60
*: This goal matches MROSD Priority Action #11
**: This goal matches MROSD Priority Action #17
Appendix E‐1 page 1
Appendix E‐1: Public Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Goals
SKYLINE FIELD OFFICE WORKSHOP ‐ NOVEMBER 2, 2013 AVG Div N
Increase interconnecting trails between parks for cyclists and other users so we don't have to mix with more
vehicles on roads.7.8 34 23
Use best science to guide what you do.7.2 26 24
Skyline to the sea multi use trail 7.2 48 24
More multuse single track following contours instead of dirt roads up & down hills 7.2 36 24
Increase access close to where more people live, and encourage access that minimizes the use of cars.7.1 19 24
Eliminate the cartel marijuana grow site on district lands.6.9 52 24
T‐Open newly purchased open space within a specified time limit 6.8 40 24
More diverse perspectives on Mid Pen Board 6.6 43 21
Public outreach about trails and preserves to gain new visitors ‐ Publicizing OSP facilities and activities ‐
massively increase advertisement of presence of the open spaces.6.5 21 24
Expand multiuse access ‐ areas ‐ hours ‐ etc. i.e. keep parks open later 6.5 67 24
Reduce fuel loads in Oak Woodlands ‐ reducing the fuel loads 6.5 23 24
Equal access to trails.6.3 62 22
Co‐operation with schools and encouragement of science/nature education ‐ this is in other goals but is not
specific 6.2 15 24
Expand trail access for cyclists ‐ more bike access on single track 6.2 71 22
Provide bikonly downhill trails that parallel uphill trails to avoid conflicts.6.2 48 24
Increase representation of user demographics by advertising 6 27 22
MOUNTAIN VIEW WORKSHOP ‐ NOVEMBER 4, 2013 AVG Div N
Add more open space 8.3 26 60
Trail connectivity from valley/foothills up to Skyline region for all user groups 7.8 27 61
Community focus groups for specific trail use issues ‐ biking ‐ hiking ‐ equestrian ‐ dogs 6.8 28 57
Access during night time in a compatible way ‐ Allow preserve trail access after sunset ‐ until 10pm ‐ to allow
users to access trails after work on short winter days ‐ access to 10 pm 6.5 46 61
Allow preserve trail access after sunset ‐ until 10pm ‐ to allow users to access trails after work on short winter
days 6.5 61 51
Study restoration of watersheds by eliminating dammed lands and ponds 5.7 34 57
Additional aesthetic trails 5.6 43 54
More biking single track 5.5 65 59
Improve access to trails for bicycles 5.5 62 60
Provide sites for nature education centers 5.5 40 62
Increase access to multi‐use trails for cyclists 5.2 66 60
Imagine the future of your excellent staff? ‐ compensation ‐ housing ‐ advancement/education 5.1 49 53
Great care needs to be taken by those who have been granted great powers ‐ and we should prioritize the
preservation and protection of the wild animals ‐ plants ‐ and terrain acquired by MROSD ‐ and remember not
to trample individual home owner's rights to the present peace ‐ privacy ‐ and securities that they have vested
in their homes adjacent to open space
5.1 44 55
More (but still limited) acccess for organized sports events (trail running ‐ mountain biking ‐ orienteering ‐ etc)
including school activities.4.7 42 61
Appendix E‐1 page 2
Appendix E‐1: Public Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Goals
REDWOOD CITY WORKSHOP ‐ NOVEMBER 16, 2013 AVG Div N
Land acquisition ‐ acquire more land ‐ continue to acquire lands in order to avoid loving to death ‐ overuse
problem 8.2 36 36
Acquire watershed properties where protected species are present 7.1 41 34
Restrict widening of single track trails 6.8 40 36
Provide more multiple trail user trails between parks ‐ hike ‐ bike ‐ equestrian 6.6 42 35
Change midpen charter such that directors cannot be appointed but only elected 6.4 49 30
Actions should allow participants to show support for individual activities including hiking ‐ horse riding ‐ and
bicycling 6.3 43 32
Expand on leash access ‐ expand dog access ‐ Expand dog walking access beyond existing 15% of parks ‐ and add
additional off leash areas beyond Pulgas Ridge ‐ to reduce over crowding at that one facility 6.2 58 35
Obtain more lands along and ? the Bay 6.2 44 31
Create smaller open space opportunities within or close to urban areas ‐ but not parks ‐ example ‐ Hetch Hetchy
trail in Redwood City 64336
Wildlife preservation should have priority over recreation and open land. Save wildlife ‐ minimize human
impact!5.9 62 32
Improve access for all capabilities 5.4 43 36
More night time access like at Mission Peak in East Bay 5.4 54 34
Better parking at busy lots ‐ Rancho ‐ Fremont ‐ Wind Hill ‐ etc 5.3 37 33
Fuel load reduction 5.2 24 34
Create bicycle only single track trails 5.1 62 37
Reduce number of rules and regulations governing preserve use ‐ parks are over regulated ‐ too many limits on
dogs ‐ speed limits ‐ helmets ‐ closure hours ‐ etc ‐ rules should not be arbitrary 57533
Provide more technically challenging single track trails for cyclists 4.6 53 37
Protect open space and wildlife by No Access from the public 4.5 59 35
Appendix E‐1 page 3
Appendix E‐2: Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Priority Actions
North San Mateo Coast ‐ Half Moon Bay Workshop, October 21, 2013
Designation of historic Portola Trail in combination with coastal trail but on different route when expedition was
east of highway 1.
Be ready to move on any opportunity to protect + make accessible the viable working row‐crop lands. Highest
Focus on visitor and resident safety and manage current lands well across all preserves.
Ca. Coastal Trail Completion, Ensure clean streams + aquatic health, Partnering with other conservation
Every project should have an educational aspect to teach future generations. Fish + agricultural sustainability is
need and should be encouraged. (2 comments)
Connect all the priority action areas with trails and build “Youth Hostels” at key locations.
South San Mateo Coast ‐ Half Moon Bay Workshop October 21, 2013
South county project list should include coastal trail completion with designation of Portola Trail. Specific
archeology search for Casa Grande Indian Village.
Partner w‐/create/recruit schools and educational programs to train new land stewards!
Acquire new row crop farmland and make it available to new farmers and offer longer leases.
More emphasis on working farmlands on south coast area. Affordable housing and land leases for ongoing
agricultural activity.
Link the lands to the food and provide a teachable moment! Integrate projects, such that people from urban
areas get to appreciate the open space.
Monitor biodiversity of flora + fauna.
Sierra Azul ‐ Saratoga Workshop, October 28, 2013
Open Bear Creek for multi use trails
(2) Open more trails to mountain biking, and create more connections to adjacent parks.
(2) Provide a plan to open up mountain biking only trails with technical features.
Develop Trail Connections for Bay Area Ridge Trail to the sea via Nisene Marks State Park
Create native plant nursery to restore natural areas (like Golden Gate National Park) Provides excellent
volunteer opportunities
South Bay Foothills ‐ Saratoga Workshop, October 28, 2013
Connect multi‐use future trails in Stevens Creek Canyon continuously
Multi use trails in Bear Creek
Purchase land to connect existing corridors
Permit leashed dogs on El Sereno trail
Build trails for mountain biking
Bring back wildlife once natural to area (like beaver that established self in Lexington Basin) For instance: elk,
eagle, osprey, river otter, bears, badgers, hawk.
Open more trails to mountain biking and create more connections to adjacent parks.
More bike access on trails: Bear Creek, El Sereno, Saratoga to sea trails, Fremont Older (with 6pm‐10pm, access
to bikes in fall/winter).
General Ideas ‐ Saratoga Workshop, October 28, 2013
All user groups be judged to the same standard when trails access is determined. If one user group is allotted
their own single use trail, the scales should be balanced by allowing other user groups their own trail(s), ideally
Off leash area at other preserves. Model Pulgas Ridge.
What is MROSD doing to partner with neighboring city/county agencies? What can we do to assist MROSD with
How about odd/even hike/bike?
Appendix E‐2 page 1
Appendix E‐2: Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Priority Actions
Skyline ‐ Skyline Field Office Workshop, November 2, 2013
Improve trails with more single track.
Improve trail loops, including multiple OSPs or adjacent county/city parks. –lower focus on “there & back” trails
–lower focus on Ridge Trail.
More single track Mtn bike access.
(2) Single Track. Increase bike access to reflect the size of the bike user group and to disperse bike use for less
congestion and better safety, for bike users/non bike users. Thank you.
Would like Trail Development (multi‐use) everywhere as priority.
More interconnect multi‐use trails.
Watershed parts of projects are important.
It is absolutely vital to keep some prime trails bike‐free, that is, off‐limits to bikes.
High priorities are: 1. Erosion control & watershed protection. 2. Connecting through trails.
Long Ridge: Group feels erosion control important but is less concerned about parking.
There is a large disabled parking lot near Horseshoe Lake, but the fire road/trail from the parking lot to the Lake
is very rough & rutted and generally unsuitable for wheelchair. It would be helpful to keep it in good repair at
least as far as Richey’s Dam, and preferably for some distance along the lake edge beyond the dam.
Central Coast: interconnecting trails that don’t exclude cyclists
Open to dogs: Saratoga Gap, Long Ridge, Skyline Ridge.
Create a user survey to better understand the number/percent of people per activity/use type at the parks,
weekend use/weekday use.
Safe route for all user groups along Skyline.
Walk in campsites away from main trails.
Skyline Ridge as part of a Regional Rim Trail System
A new trail camp for use by backpackers & possibly mtn. biker towards the north end of the open space area.
Bus shuttle from Hwy 92 to Saratoga Gap (Hwy 9) on Skyline Blvd during summer working with SamTrans.
Don’t ticket riders who speed but are still riding safely. The judges who respond to these citations think they are
A bus shuttle on hwy 35 for access to preserves along corridor.
No bike trails at either place‐ #48(la Honda creek/Russian ridge) and #51(la Honda creek)
(2) Nighttime access to trails (night hikes, runs, bikes) + early morning access (before 6am).
Putting a Nature Interpretive Center at Hawthorns in an existing building + developing a Nature “garden” to
restore nature, remove broom, enhance creek.
Peninsula Foothills ‐ Mountain View Workshop, November 4, 2013
Guide Book with online + mobile version to Open Space lands to provide historic, geologic + habitat information
in more thorough detail than available in interpretive signage.
Bicycle Parking‐ at Russian Ridge & Deer Hollow Farm to encourage access by bike + Rancho San Antonio.
The Portola Valley Nature and Science Committee seeks opportunity to develop a nature center on the
Connect Windy Hill to Russian Ridge and La Honda Creek by trail.
Appendix E‐2 page 2
Appendix E‐2: Workshop Participant Ideas for Additional Priority Actions
Peninsula Foothills ‐ Redwood City Workshop, November 16, 2013
(2) Create a bike path through Pulgas Ridge OSP to connect to Canada Rd. from Edgewood Rd. & Crestview Dr.
(bypass for Edgewood Rd grade).
Trail Connectivity between Bay lands, Foothills & Skyline regions for all users.
#27 Bay Trail to Ridge Trail: Need for overnight place to stay‐ group camp or hostel w. minimal maintenance.
Many would like to hike long trips, several nights. (Could limit nights to 2)
The MidPenn needs more than one place for overnight camping for hikers (No car camping!). #32 Add another
Backpack camp?
Partner with bike share program to get visitors from parking to staging areas. Currently just at transit centers.
Habitat as the topmost criteria‐even beyond trails.
More off leash dog areas.
Develop single use trail systems and subsystems specific to: ‐mtn. bikes –dogs –equestrian
Open up more/all trails to mt. bikes.
South Bay Peninsula Cities and Bay lands ‐ Redwood City Workshop, November 16, 2013
Support work to eliminate illegal encampments on Los Gatos
Sponsor a linear open space and trail on the “Hetch Hetchy” right‐of‐way through Redwood City.
Open parks at night like Mission Peak in East Bay.
A combined Nature Center +Tech Center at RSA.
Pack out TP or other ways to take care of human waste. Litter prevention! Rancho San Antonio and other heavily
used spaces.
Improve trails parallel to Skyline Blvd. Continuous access from Saratoga Gap to Purisima Creek or even Half
Appendix E‐2 page 3
Appendix E‐3
Online Ideas for Additional Priority Actions
Participant Generated Action POINTS
Connect Montebello and Rancho San Antonio for bicycles 152
End Exclusionary Trail Management‐ Open Single Track to bicycles 141
Allow preserve access until 10pm 129
Connect Skyline area trails to Woodside 120
Acquire & maintain Dirt Alpine: Best access to heart of Midpen*119
Alternating trail user days 98
Allow dogs on more trails !84
Increase bicycle speed limit 84
Specific user group contacts 60
Create a small Trials and Mini‐bike area 47
More accessibility for dogs 32
User group interaction 31
More camping sites 25
Expand District into Santa Cruz County 22
Create a Bay 2 Sea multi‐use trail 21
"Silent" Sundays (or other day)18
Current trail design guidelines encourage speeding 9
More true hiking trails 8
Protect private property rights of individual homeowners 5
Evaluate creek ordinances, if any, in Redwood City and elsewhere 0
* This idea matches MROSD Priority Action #47
Appendix F: Public Workshop Comments
1
Half Moon Bay Workshop - October 21, 2013
Comments on Process
Process worked pretty well. Would have liked less time on going through the goals. For some
people, feedback at the end was too late, might be good to have some discussion early.
Ranking priority actions is really tough without separating out some of the pieces. For example,
some actions would require new acquisitions—not a simple management action… Also, I may
strongly support some parts of a proposal, but may disagree with another or support an action in
general, but not agree Midpen is necessarily the correct agency to implement it. Not sure about
the value of this exercise.
Process too long. Keep to 1.5 hours.
Very well done- Thanks for staying on subject.
Please coordinate slide order with handouts! North coast evaluation limits our vision of what
MROSD could do with each project. They should all have a teaching aspect. Focus on
agricultural + fishing lands to advance the understanding + improvement of both is really
needed. Protection of the watershed is also a high priority.
It felt a little rushed. It would have been helpful to have the themes packet stapled in the same
order as the slides. The Priority Action Goals should have been lettered the way the voting slides
were, it would be easier to vote. The remote voting device was easy to use.
Ideas
I recommend each project to have 9 + 12 (key to priority actions items). Monitor biodiversity of
flora + fauna. Create coastal trails with many forms of accessibility with wildlife and the health
of the environment in mind. Implement overpasses or underpasses for people and wildlife to
cross open space preserves.
We need more fire management in our public lands. Fire is necessary for the native species that
are adapted to regular burning, to introduce nutrients back into the soil, and to keep the
population of non-native species down. Controlled burns would also reduce the fuel load and
Make future fires safer.
Other Comments
No. San Mateo County coast map – common mistake- “McNee Ranch State Park” is not correct.
“McNee Ranch” is part of “Montara State Beach”. Maybe someday it’ll get a new name.
Having been involved through a series of these meetings, I still feel that significant emphasis
about retaining working agriculture and retaining affordable land and housing for agricultural
farmers and workers. Agriculture needs strong support, not an illusion of pretty landscape only.
I am concerned about the mode of grazing?? Are native grasses being over-grazed?
75 should be in both project lists for N. and S. Coast County. The historic Portola Trail should be
designated in combination with the Coastal Trail.
Appendix F: Public Workshop Comments
2
Saratoga Workshop - October 28, 2013
Comments on Process
Process is good. Please give more information on how to get to meeting place at West Valley.
I’m parked across campus. Saw map- but didn’t see building names. In area that I parked- no
signs. - money machine didn’t work, didn’t have time to put flyer on car. Your special event
parking permit could have been online.
Great meeting facilitator. Nice to hear area presentations by Mid Pen staff.
There was not enough specifics on the “actions”.
Ideas
All user groups be judged to the same standard when trails access is determined. (Ex- if
minimizing impacts to terrain-species is paramount, mountain bikes should not automatically be
the first group excluded). 2. Mt. Biking should be viewed as a tranquil nature experience similar
to those hiking. In order to attain a level trails access playing field with MROSD, fundamental
shifts need to occur from the cemented in perception of the MROSD board that MTB is a non-
tranquil recreation activity. 3. What good will all this info do if MROSD board snubs input, as
they seeming do when it suits? 4. MROSD board needs to be much more open to shared use
trails, which are the norm within the coastal region. 5. If one user group is allotted their own
single use trail, the scales should be balanced by allowing other user groups their own trail(s),
ideally nearby.
Offleash areas in big-acre preserves. Model Pulgas Ridge off leash area at other preserves.
More bike-friendly trails. Maybe some bike only trails? There are hike-only trails for people who
don’t want to deal with bikers. Why not some courtesy for biker? I think we can all get along,
but if we can’t…. How about odd/even hike/bike? Tahoe run trails has success with that. 2. More
dog-friendly trails, too, please!
I would love to see more horse trails. From Fremont Older we horses (hikers too) need to be able
to get around the reservoir area (Near Tony look trail). I want to be able to access the Highway 9
corridor (Sea-to-Sea trail) via horses. Years ago this was possible but no more. Pichetti has no
real horse access from Garrod’s/ I want to ride over Steven’s Canyon up into upper Steven’s
Creek & Pichetti via horses. Why not make the trail near Steven’s Canyon available to horses to
reach the rest of the part. We need more trails in Older. I ride M-W & there are always people in
this park. All that space but no new trails. More trails for horses/hiking while bikes on others.
Parking for cars is basic but for horse there are few places to park. Bigger room, Talk less about
how we do this. I wanted to hear what we’re doing on trails & opening more trails please, Stayed
1 3/4hrs.
Other Comments
We should not be introducing camping. Night use + opens District to many problems +
additional usage of resources. Leave camping to State + County parks. District user & volunteer.
I appreciate the opportunity to be involved with this process but am not confident our inputs will
be used to make change. Specifically, there were very few ideas specific to opening more
mountain biking trails.
What is MROSD doing to partner with neighboring city/county agencies? What can we do to
assist MROSD with this?
Appendix F: Public Workshop Comments
3
Skyline Field Office Workshop - November 2, 2013
Comments on Process
Many “priority actions” had multiple components. There wasn’t a simple way to choose one or
some components over others. Also, the multi-us vs. single use questions were ambiguous, so I
may have rated some questions inconsistently with my opinions.
Other Comments
Ask the Question: 1. How do you get to parks? 2. How would you like to get to parks? –car-mass
transit- walk- horse- bike.
I was disappointed in being unable to request access for dogs in more places, esp. Long Ridge. I
am old and wish to have dog as my hiking companion in the preserves closest to my home in
Saratoga. If poor behavior is a problem then a certification process might help.
Mountain View Workshop - November 4, 2013
Comments on Process
Very well organized & executed. Valuable! Congratulations to Midpen for investing in public
feedback.
What about long term goals for your excellent staff? What do you want your future staff to look
like? Is there a Board member focusing on this?
Other Comments
Thank you for the public’s input. Even though Rancho San Antonio seemed to get a low priority.
I really hope that access can be improved. Also, thank you for protecting our open space.
Too bad people aren’t more open to trying new or different ideas.
Not addressed: User group policy incompatible with resource protection. The cycling lobby is
always well represented at meetings/workshops, which ensures that there will be no breaching of
the issue or further restricting them use of the trails they’ve already damaged. One planner even
attributed the damage at ECdM to “motorcycles”. South Leaf Trail will be the next to go down,
so maybe you are already photo shopping images of Harleys on that original segment (which
contrasts so dramatically with the newer section re-built last decade, connecting to Methuselah).
Conceptually there is a simple answer: place the burden of proof on cyclists to demonstrate that a
segment of single-track can maintain its surface integrity under the impact of cycling. Many
segments can and do, and I am NOT categorically opposed to their access to single-track. But
cyclists are not “low-intensity” users at ECdM, and have not earned the benefit of any doubt. On
the contrary, the bias should be against their access to single-track until they demonstrate they
can use it w/o destructive impact.
I have been walking in Rancho San Antonio & Windy Hill for about 20 years. I really like how
the MROSD is managed. Long term, I am concerned about how well your excellent staff is paid
in this high cost living area. I hope they are paid above average? Then salaries look modest to
me. What about housing for them? More on employee housing? In summary, I have met many
rangers & maintenance employees, all excellent. I am surprised no long term goals concern your
excellent but hard working staff. You folks do a big job with very few people. Well Done! –
Allan Wentworth, ahwentworth@sbcglobal.net
Appendix F: Public Workshop Comments
4
Redwood City Workshop - November 16, 2013
Comments on Process
The priority actions goals had letters A-P on the slides, but not on the handout.
It’s a bit confusing at first.
Excellent process! Well done; very clear; friendly. Lots of speakers- good to hear different
voices, purposes. Have a microphone at each table. People waiting around w/ one was too late by
the time question was asked.
The priority actions with keys is hard to follow. Look at ways to more concisely represent this
information. I think it can be done on a single page.
Great presentation. Loved the computer program that you used.
It would be very helpful if at beginning of presentation someone would give explanation of
where this fits into the overall process of producing the vision plan.
Good use of technology for voting. Website voting is good but you can do better at including
more people. Meetings could be webcast with live online voting. More online reading material.
If you want to get wider participation you need to contact each city’s outreach(?) coordination
e.g. in RWCity, Sheri(?)Costa_Brava@rwc.org. But make it FOCUSED- say “Please fill out the
on-line comment form” + provide a simple LINK to (can’t read word here). –The announcement
was pretty verbose (tho nice!) Hope this helps.
Not enough information given to provide informed ratings of individual projects. What are the
tradeoffs? For instance, access vs. biodiversity. What are the relative resource expenditures
required compared to what is available. Too much focus on very granular details vs overall
goals. So please don’t much too much focus on response to individual projects. -But, thank you
for listening.
Meeting could have been much shorter if less time wasted on reading lists that we can read for
ourselves, and explaining project management jargon. Need clearer explanation of what each
priority action entails. Ie, what exactly is the proposed project and contribution. Also, too much
time explaining processes. Also- You should have asked us how we typically use the parks, ie,
rugged hiking, light hiking, bikes, strollers, dogs… you can use that info to better serve
community needs. Since there isn’t time to prai?e real details about actual projects, it would be
more useful to get more detailed feedback from us about general preferences and goals or usage
patterns. Not useful to make us vote on concrete projects without really knowing what they are.
Ideas
Offer another opportunity for a coffee table book-art, photography, poetry, etc. This could meet
the enriched experiences, Id go out to photograph for the contest. Helps me see better.
Appendix G
AVG
TOTAL
(205)
F
(86)
M
(101)
10.21
(20)
10.28
(61)
11.2
(22)
11.4
(60)
11.16
(28)
18
24
(6)
25
34
(13)
35
44
(24)
45
54
(58)
55
64
(51)
65
or >
(41)
SEL‐
DOM
(25)
SOME
TIMES
(36)
OF‐
TEN
(70)
CON‐
SIST‐
ENTLY
(57)
BIKE
(29)
DOG
(4)
HIKE
(44)
The voting technology was used
effectively and benefitted the
Workshop
14 8.6 9 8.6 8.4 9 8.7 8.8 8.3 8.4 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.9 8.7 8.7 8 9.2 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.7
I support the role the Open Space
District plays in the preservation and
management of open spaces for public
use and benefit
23 8.4 8.9 7.9 8.4 8.5 8.8 8.5 7.7 7.8 8.4 8 8.3 8.2 9.2 8.4 8 9 7.9 6.9 9.2 8.9
Overall, we had a successful Vision
Workshop 15 8.1 8.4 7.9 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.2 7.1 8.8 8 7.6 7.8 8.2 8.8 8.3 7.8 8.7 7.6 6.8 8.5 8.5
I feel my time was used effectively 16 7.8 8 7.6 7.7 8 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.1 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.3 7.6 7.4 8.3 7.5 6.6 7.5 8.1
The Workshop gave me an opportunity
to have my voice heard on an
important topic
22 7.8 8.1 7.6 7.5 8.3 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.5 7.9 8.2 7.9 7.5 8.3 7.6 6.6 7.7 8.1
At the End of the workshop: I trust the
process of engagement for the Vision
Plan Public Workshops
26 7.2 7.9 6.7 7.6 7.3 8 7.3 6.6 7 6.8 6.6 6.9 7.3 8.4 7.1 7.3 7.8 6.8 5.4 88
At the Beginning of the workshop: I
trust the process of engagement for
the Vision Plan Public Workshops
27 6.7 7.3 6.3 0 6.8 6.9 7.1 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.8 7.8 7.2 6.8 7.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 7.6
VISION PLAN WORKSHOP EVALUATIONS
PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS
DIV
ERS
ITY
GENDER WORKSHOP AGE VISIT OPEN SPACE USE OPEN SPACE
Refer to Workshop Ratings Key for further information