Portola Valley City Council
October 30, 2024

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

SPECIAL MEETING

A G E N D A
Sarah Wernikoff, Mayor
Judith Hasko, Vice Mayor
Jeff Aalfs, Councilmember
Mary Hufty, Councilmember
Craig Taylor, Councilmember

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM
To access the meeting by computer:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86799506122?pwd=wB96LuAuTQAv8GLPxMp780ou96YDct.1 Webinar ID: 867 9950 6122
Wednesday, October 30, 2024 – 5:30 PM
HISTORIC SCHOOLHOUSE – 765 PORTOLA ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA REMOTE MEETING ADVISORY: On March 1, 2023, all public meetings in Portola Valley returned to conducting inperson meetings. A Zoom link is provided for members of the public to participate remotely. However, the Town cannot guarantee there will be no technical issues with the software during the meeting. For best public participation results, attending the meeting in person is advised.

ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (650) 851-1700 or by email at [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Passcode : 880044
To access the meeting by phone:
1-669-900-6833 or 1-888-788-0099 (toll-free)
Mute/Unmute – Press *6 / Raise Hand – Press *9

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Speakers' time is limited to three (3) minutes.

3. CLOSED SESSION
a. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Govt. Code section 54957)
Consider the qualifications of candidates for the position of Interim Town Manager b. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Govt. Code section 54957) Conduct periodic check-in with Interim Town Manager Corie Stocker-Pedalino

4. 7:00 P.M. - RECONVENE SPECIAL MEETING
a. Consideration of appointing seven members to ad hoc Evaluation Committee to review potential sites for building affordable housing
b. Consideration of options for selection of recruiting firm for Interim Town Manager

c. Receive presentation from Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District regarding Hawthorns Area Plan project

5. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Town Council meeting will be held on November 13, 2024 at 7:00 PM Land Acknowledgement:

The Town of Portola Valley acknowledges the colonial history of this land we dwell upon—the unceded territory of the Ramaytush (rah-my-toosh) Ohlone, Tamien Nation, and Muwekma (mah-WEK-mah) Ohlone, who endured a human and cultural genocide that included removal from their lands and their sacred relationship to the land. Portola Valley recognizes that we profit from the commodification of land seized from indigenous peoples and now bear the ecological consequences. We seek to understand the impact of these legacies on all beings and to find ways to make repair. ______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Judith Hasko and Mary Hufty
DATE: October 30, 2024
RE: Subcommittee Report on Selection of Members of the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the appointments of Karen Askey, Nona Chiarello, Joselyn Gray, and Karen Vahtra to serve on the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee with the appointed member of the ASCC, the Planning Commission, and the Town Council to satisfy the needs of the Post Adoption Sunrise Provision of the Housing Element. The Town Council must select its representative to the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee to complete the selection process.

BACKGROUND
Our Subcommittee of the Town Council was asked to interview potential resident members of an Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee to evaluate alternative sites for affordable housing to replace the Dorothy Ford Open Space and Park in our Housing Element. This Ad Hoc Committee formation is part of the efforts included in the Sunrise Provision of the PostAdoption Plan approved by the Town Council. The Town Council agreed to select a group of 7 individuals for the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee: One member of the Town Council, one member of the Planning Commission, one member of the ASCC, and four resident members. The Town Council will select its member in a future meeting, and the Planning Commission selected Ronny Krashinsky as its representative, with Lynda Brothers as the alternate, while the ASCC selected Danna Breen as its representative, with Rebecca Flynn as the alternate. We describe our process and summarize our recommendation for appointing the four resident members below.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Subcommittee Recommendation for
Selection of Ad Hoc Site Evaluation
Committee Members

DISCUSSION
Process. The Town solicited residents interested in participating in the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee by asking applicants to fill out a preliminary questionnaire. We were very pleased to see that we had 11 strong applicants: Peter Lipman, Patricia McCrory, Nona Chiarello, Ed Holland, Karen Vahtra, Ed McGavin, Joslyn Gray, M.J. Lee, James Rooney, Judith Murphy and Karen Askey.

Of those, Ed Holland and M.J. Lee elected to withdraw their candidacy after more detailed discussions of the role the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee would serve. We interviewed the remaining candidates in 20 minute slots over several days between October 11th and October 25th.

Recommendation. We recommend the following as members of the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Subcommittee, based on criteria including prior experience volunteering with the Town, familiarity with Town’s Housing Element and the goals of the Sunrise Provision of the Post-Adoption Plan and the ability to bring different perspectives and experience relevant to affordable housing in Town:

Karen Askey
Nona Chiarello
Joslyn Gray
Karen Vahtra
The Subcommittee would like to thank all of the excellent applicants for being willing to step up for the Town for this important role. We are fortunate to have so many volunteers in Town who bring enormous talent and energy to help us address important issues facing us at this time.

Next Steps. We recommend an initial meeting the week of November 18th. Our Subcommittee will prepare transition documentation to assist the Ad Hoc Site Evaluation Committee members in commencing its activities.

______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Judith Hasko and Mary Hufty
DATE: October 30, 2024
RE: Subcommittee Report on Selection of Recruiting Firm for Interim Town Manager

BACKGROUND
The Outreach Subcommittee of the Town Council was asked to interview potential recruiting firms to use in the Town’s efforts to identify an interim Town Manager. We enclose a summary of the results of our work for discussion by the Town Council.

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Outreach Subcommittee Report

DISCUSSION
The Subcommittee interviewed 4 potential recruiters and 2 people who manage bulletin board-type listings that are relevant to recruiting an interim Town Manager. The 2 recruiters for an interim Town Manager that we recommend the Town Council consider are Greg Larson and Baker Tilly based on price and other considerations. We also interviewed Matt Nash of the Stanford Social Innovation Center and Kevin O’Rourke of Calcities, who run bulletin board-type listings for Town Manager postings, who have said they can post our interim Town Manager search on their sites. The latter opportunity can be pursued both as a standalone option or potentially in conjunction with engagement of a recruiting firm, to achieve a wider range of opportunities that the recruiter may identify.

Greg Larson Proposal
See Attachment A for Greg Larson’s proposal. Greg would not be in a position to perform a search for a permanent Town Manager after the interim position is filled, but he would be willing to coordinate our process for selecting a recruiter for that search for an additional fee. He anticipates proposing 2- 10 candidates for interim Town Manager for selection by the Town Council.

Baker Tilly Proposal
See Attachment B for Baker Tilly’s proposal. Carol Jacobs is a former Town Manager who believes selecting an interim Town Manager may be possible in 60 days. Baker Tilly could also perform, using a different person in their firm, a permanent Town Manager recruitment. She anticipates putting forth 3-4 candidates for interim Town Manager for selection by the Town Council.

Stanford Bulletin Board Option
See Attachment C for an overview of how this bulletin board can be used to support our recruitment effort.

CalCities Bulletin Board Option
See Attachment D for an overview of how this bulletin board can be used to support our recruitment effort.

Subcommittee Recommendation
We believe that either proposal from the recruiters would be acceptable so the Town Council should consider each as set out below. Baker Tilly has the ability to perform a search for the permanent Town Manager so there may be some efficiencies in selecting them for the interim Town Manager search, although no specific discount was offered if we did select them, and they said they would appoint a different recruiter at this firm to conduct the permanent Town Manager recruitment.

However, Greg Larson understands the Town from his engagement as a potential independent facilitator for our prior Town Manager.

For interim Town Manager recruitments, the focus is generally on an efficient process in which the recruiter uses his or her network contacts to suggest candidates with relevant experience for the interim position in a relatively short period of time (from a few weeks to a few months). The amount of independent solicitation these recruiters do varies but is not as extensive as a recruitment for a permanent Town Manager. This difference in level of effort required results in the cost for a recruitment of an interim Town Manager being less that for a recruitment of a permanent Town Manager, which can take from two to six months and involves preparation of more extensive background materials used for broader outreach.

Given the subcommittee’s concern that the interim Town Manager recruitment should involve a thorough process, but not as extensive as that for a permanent Town Manager, we interviewed managers of 2 bulletin boards maintained by Stanford and by CalCities, who agreed that they would be willing to post a 1-2 page document summarizing the interim Town Manager decision free of charge.

The subcommittee suggests that the Town Council consider the following:

1. Engaging one of the recommended recruiters.

2. Engaging one of the recommended recruiters and require them to consider candidates responding to a posting on a bulletin board within a certain time frame.

3. Rely only on the bulletin board resource to save the cost of engaging a recruiting firm for the interim Town Manager position. This may entail some delay in selection given that we cannot predict timing for submission of candidates, and logistics of conducting these interviews would need to be determined.

Attachment A
Greg Larson Proposal
Facilitating Recruitment of the Portola Valley Interim Town Manager Scope of Work and Compensation for Consultant Greg Larson
(Oct. 9, 2024)

INTERIM TOWN MANAGER RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
The Interim Town Manager recruitment and selection process will consist of the following steps subject to Town review and approval:
 Review prior Town Manager recruitment information
 Meet with the Town Council to identify key characteristics of desired Interim Town Manager  Prepare draft email recruitment program
 Distribute approved recruitment email to hundreds of professional and re red colleagues  Directly solicit two dozen prospective candidates and sources of candidates  Review and categorize all submitted resumes (e.g., top, maybe, no further consideration)  Present proposed interview pool for Town consideration  Facilitate Town Council interviews of two to five prospective appointees  Conduct reference checks on one to two finalists, and facilitate Town backgrounding if required  Facilitate final engagement of selected candidate and organizational transition  OPTION – Coordinate the RFP Process for a professional recruiter to conduct the recruitment and selection of the Town’s next ongoing City Manager, sharing the schedule above  With the Town’s active assistance and responsiveness, we would seek to have one or both contracts resulting from the work above approved by the Town Council in November.

Much of this work, including the candidate (and recruiting firm) interviews, will be conducted by email and Zoom, both to reduce costs and to ensure completion of the process TERM
The term of this agreement shall be from October 2024 through December 2024.

COMPENSATION
The fixed fee agreement for the Interim Town Manager Recruitment and Selection, including expenses, will be $12,500. The optional add-on for Coordinating the RFP Process for your professional recruiter would be $5,000.

Background
Retired City Manager Greg Larson’s full profile and credentials can be found on LinkedIn, but are summarized below:
 Retired City Manager of Los Gatos, Milpitas and Cupertino (interim)  Former San Jose Deputy City Manager, first Environmental Services Director, and Budget Director

 Former Community Development Director for Scottsdale, Santa Cruz and Gilroy (interim)  Past California Chief Deputy Controller and President of United Way Silicon Valley  Consultant for over 50 municipalities, including Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Redwood City, East Palo Alto, Atherton, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, Santa Clara, Roseville, Sausalito, Novato, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Martinez, Pasadena, San Clemente and many others  Trustee-Elect, Santa Cruz County Board of Education
 Past Chair and Board member, Coastal Watershed Council  Graduated from Stanford University after serving as student body co-president  Personal Mission: To Promote the Shared and Ethical Use of Power (and Be a Great Older Dad!)

Attachment B
Baker Tilly Proposal
October 11, 2024
Ms. Judith Hasko, Vice Mayor
Ms. Mary Hufty, Council Member
Town of Portola Valley
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
Delivered electronically
Dear Vice Mayor Hasko and Council Member Hufty:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal for an interim Town Manager position for the Town of Portola Valley. Anne and I appreciate your time discussing the Town's needs as you transition to a new Town Manager. Baker Tilly has prepared this proposal to provide the Town with interim Town Manager services. We can also provide permanent Town Manager recruitment.

Meeting your needs with our resources
Based on our extensive experience with similar engagements for many cities and towns, we are well positioned to provide the Town with the guidance and support needed throughout this engagement. Below are some key facts about our firm.

Delivering specialized expertise to our public-sector clients State and local government is a complex, unique environment shaped by fiscal, regulatory and operational considerations not found in other industries. Recognizing this complexity and eager to serve as a true valued advisor to the public sector, Baker Tilly formalized its dedicated public sector specialization more than 50 years ago. Today, more than 350 Baker Tilly professionals — including nearly 30 principals — focus directly on serving governments and provide hundreds of thousands of client service hours annually to organizations like the Town.

Our services include:
• Management services
• Executive recruitment
• Executive coaching
• Executive performance assessment
• Organization assessments
• Organization development
• Performance management
• Process improvement
• Planning and economic development
• Strategic and business planning
• Service sharing and service consolidation
• Financial planning, budgeting and analysis
Proposed plan of work
We understand that you are interested in Baker Tilly’s assistance with the following work outlined below. The work will be prioritized in consultation with the Town Council to fit within the budget capacity of the contract. Our consultant will meet with you to determine the timing and sequencing of the priorities that include:

• Manage staff on-site
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
3 Lagoon Drive, Suite 400
Redwood City, CA 94065
+1 (650) 3654646bakertilly.com2
• Be available to the Council and the community
• Develop Town Council reports as needed
• Attend meetings (in-person) based on issues requiring Town Manager input • Provide good communication to the Town Council
• Other assignments as directed by the Town Council
We anticipate providing the Town Council with three to four candidates who will most likely be California Public Employee Retirement System annuitants, and the Town will hire the person directly. Based on our knowledge of Portola Valley, we anticipate that the interim recruitment may take up to four weeks, depending on the Council schedule. A full executive recruitment is four to six months.

Aligning key engagement team members with your goals
We understand that finding the right fit during this time is important to Portola Valley’s continued success. We have a deep bench of seasoned city managers to whom we will connect with to find the right fit during this transition period.

ENGAGEMENT TM FOR THE TOector
Role: Project director
Carol is a managing director with Baker Tilly. She has held a wide range of roles across local government and consulting, including a city manager in Stanton and Eastvale, and served most recently as assistant city manager of the City of Newport Beach, California. In that role, she was responsible for functions such as fire, library, harbor, information technology, utilities, and homelessness, with service as interim finance director and harbormaster. Carol also served as city manager for the southern California cities of Eastvale and Stanton, as interim city manager for the City of Grand Terrace, California, and in a series of roles with increasing responsibility for the City of Costa Mesa, California. Carol’s consulting experience includes managing a financial solutions practice area that served local governments, managing client needs, preparing financial studies and conducting management and organizational reviews. She earned a Master of Public Administration with an emphasis in Finance and a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from California State University-Fullerton. Carol will be available to provide subject matter expertise and dedicated time to the project on an as-needed basis. She has been with Baker Tilly for more than three years.

Donna Peter, MBA — Special Advisor
Role: Human resources subject-matter specialist
Donna’s career in local government spans 30 years. She is skilled in organizational development and helping agencies optimize their operations. Donna is accomplished in all areas of human resources practices and operations, executive coaching, and leading and training staff in conducting effective labor negotiations. Donna has a Master of Business Administration and undergraduate social welfare and child development degrees. As a consultant, she manages project teams and assists clients with organization assessments, benchmarking, succession planning and professional development, executive coaching, improving efficiency through teamwork, and analyzing staffing plans. Among the jurisdictions Donna has assisted are the cities of Arcadia, Baldwin Park, Covina, Diamond Bar, Duarte, Glendora, La Verne, Monrovia, Pomona, San Marino, Temple City, Perris, El Segundo, and the County of Orange. She previously held executive and management positions in the cities of Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, and Fresno, and she served as a human resources consultant for the City of Lynwood and Santa Monica Community College. Donna has served in leadership roles with the League of California Cities and the Association of Workplace Investigators.

Optional services
As we discussed, the Town will also need an executive recruiting firm to find your next permanent town manager.

Understanding your needs to help achieve your objectives and mission Baker Tilly public sector executive recruiters will collaborate with you or your designated staff to understand the traits, attributes, capabilities and overall qualifications that are most important to your organization for this recruitment. The information we gather helps us customize colorful and informative marketing, recruitment and outreach strategies, and materials that present the Town of Portola Valley as a unique community with exciting opportunities for growth and renewal.

Baker Tilly has distinguished itself from public sector executive recruitment peers in many ways.

What makes Baker Tilly different from other firms? Our executive recruitment solution truly begins with your needs and does not end once the candidate is selected. VALLEY AT HOW
Public sector recruiting specialization and experience
• Experienced executive recruitment professionals passionate about local government since all have spent a significant part of their professional careers in senior leadership positions for cities, counties and school districts.
• Successfully recruited more than 1,700 executive-level positions within cities, counties, school districts and public and not-for-profit organizations since 2000.

Thorough candidate evaluation
• Active recruitment of qualified candidates, drawing from our extensive personal and professional connections with capable individuals, assuring the Town of Portola Valley its access to established managers and rising stars.LA VALLEYW
• Thorough evaluation of the final candidates, including detailed information from references and a careful review of background records to ensure sound professional and personal character.

Diversity in executive recruitment
• Committed to diversity in executive recruitment as a reflection of our broader social aspirations for a diverse workforce, equal opportunity and cross-cultural respect. • Ensure diversity is a focus of our recruitment strategy and candidate pools through involvement with the National Forum for Black Public Administrators (NFBPA) and their Corporate Advisory Council, the Local Government Hispanic Network and other organizations.

Delivering value for the Portola Valley’s budget
• Full-service engagement includes advertising, preparation of a recruitment brochure, background, reference and academic verification checks and up to three on-site visits. • Work closely to meet the Town’s needs and any unexpected circumstances that may arise during your recruitment to expedite the recruitment, but not at the expense of finding high-quality candidates.
• Backed by our guarantee — our executive recruitment for 12 months against termination by the Town — or we will come back to fill your Town Manager position for half of our professional fee plus expenses (internal candidates do not qualify).

Involved process using technology to minimize disruption • Leverage technology tools, including a video interview system, and an online application platform, to enhance the search process.
• Comprehensive process incorporates the active participation of the Town’s Manager or appointing authorities at key steps in the process to keep decision-makers fully advised and informed of all aspects of the process without requiring them to expend substantial time or put aside other pressing issues.

These services, as well as other services, can be provided as a separate scope of work on an asneeded basis.

Cost for services
Recruiting the interim Town Manager is $10,000. We will include background checks and social media checks as part of the process.

Conclusion
The Town of Portola Valley will be a valued client of Baker Tilly. We look forward to making tangible contributions to your success. Our team is excited to work with you and we look forward to discussing your questions and feedback. If you have any questions about this proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Carol Jacobs, Managing Director
+1 (714) 287 1547 | [email protected]
Baker Tilly US, LLP and Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide professional services through an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable laws, regulations and professional standards. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business advisory services to their clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.

Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, are independent members of Baker Tilly International. Baker Tilly International Limited is an English company. Baker Tilly International provides no professional services to clients. Each member firm is a separate and independent legal entity, and each describes itself as such. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP are not Baker Tilly International’s agent and do not have the authority to bind Baker Tilly International or act on Baker Tilly International’s behalf. None of Baker Tilly International, Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP, Baker Tilly US, LLP nor any of the other member firms of Baker Tilly International has any liability for each other’s acts or omissions. The name Baker Tilly and its associated logo is used under license from Baker Tilly International Limited.

Attachment C
Stanford Bulletin Board
We spoke with Matt Nash of the Stanford Center for Innovation. He would take a summary of the position and post on an alumni bulletin board, and he can suggest other bulletin boards within the Stanford organization such as the Business School. There would be no charge.

Attachment D
CalCities contact
Kevin O’Rourke
Mary spoke to Kevin O’Rourke at the CalCities Annual Conference Long Beach. He runs an email distribution list of about 140 retired managers. There would be no charge.

Rev. 3/15/21

AGENDA ITEM
Feedback Session - Hawthorns Area Plan Public Access Working Group’s recommendations

SUMMARY
In 2023, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors (Board) formed the Hawthorns Area Public Access Working Group (PAWG), comprised of volunteer Ward Stakeholders and Interest Area Representatives as voting members and a Board Liaison and Town Liaison as non-voting members, to develop public access recommendations for the Hawthorns area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. The recommendations include two parking area location options and a loop trail with trail connections to the Town of Portola Valley’s (Town’s) trails. The recommendations include bicycle, equestrian, dog-on-leash, and hiking access designations for each trail segment. Additionally, the recommendations are aligned with an existing conservation easement that overlays the property.

On September 17, 2024 (R-24-115), the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee reviewed and provided feedback on the PAWG’s recommendations. As supported by the PNR Committee, the General Manager directed the project team to present the PAWG’s recommendations to the Town-established Portola Valley Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee (a special committee comprised of representatives from seven Town committees convened by the Town to liaise on this project) and Portola Valley Town Council feedback before presenting the PAWG recommendations and Town and public input at a future Study Session of the Board of Directors.

DISCUSSION
The 79-acre Hawthorns area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve was protected from development when it was gifted to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in 2011. In 2021, the District initiated the Hawthorns Area Plan project, a multiyear phased planning process for the property, located within the Town of Portola Valley. The Hawthorns Area is governed by a conservation easement granted to the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), under which the District operates. This easement allows low intensity, ecologically sensitive recreation and defines limits on potential future development of the property. Guided by the easement’s requirements, the PAWG’s recommended parking options are located around the perimeter of the site’s improved area and are also across from an already developed section of the Alpine Road corridor. On June 28, 2023 (R-23-75), the Board formed the PAWG to collaborate with the District on exploring ways to introduce public access to Hawthorns. The District held seven meetings, including two onsite from July 2023 to June 2024, to help the PAWG develop their recommendations.

During the Hawthorns Area Plan Phase 3: Programming/ Conceptual Planning, District staff worked with the PAWG to develop conceptual plan alternatives for ecologically sensitive public access and enjoyment that are informed by the existing conditions and aligned with the following key Board-approved parameters.

Board-approved Vision and Goals (Phase 1)
Hawthorns Area Vision Statement
The Hawthorns Area offers picturesque views of rolling oak grasslands and the Santa Cruz Mountains, provides important wildlife refuge, and reflects the region’s natural, agricultural, and social history. The District will protect and manage natural, scenic, cultural, and open space resources at the Hawthorns Area and provide ecologically sensitive public access consistent with the District’s mission and the allowable uses outlined in the property’s conservation easement.

Hawthorns Area Goals
• Protect and restore native habitat and manage for ecological resiliency of aquatic and terrestrial habitat, wildlife connectivity, and other natural resources. • Open the Hawthorns Area to low-intensity public access, provide an internal trail system, and provide multi-modal access to the property.
• Connect to adjacent public trails and explore opportunities for trail connections to regional open space lands.
• Interpret the rich natural, cultural, and historic features and pursue partnerships to manage the property’s natural and cultural history.
• Highlight scenic viewpoints and design recreational amenities while protecting scenic viewsheds.
• Manage the property for safe public access in a fiscally sustainable manner that promotes ongoing public support and appreciation with ongoing public engagement and consistent with the District’s Good Neighbor Policy.

Board-approved Public Access Framework (Phase 2)
The PAWG received a Public Access Framework (PAF) developed during the existing conditions phase of the project that outlined specific natural resource and land management considerations related to public access. The PAF guided and informed the PAWG’s exploration and evaluation of parking and trail options on the topics of natural resources (vegetation, wildlife, aquatic, wildfire resiliency), cultural resources (Native American resources, historic complex), aesthetic resources (viewsheds, scenic corridor), public access (public use, trail, driveways, parking, site amenities, signage), and operations and maintenance (gates and fencing, staff residence, roads and trails, safety and security, utilities, environmental hazards, legal arrangements, partnerships).

PAWG and Conceptual Planning (Phase 3)
Based on the PAF, natural resources protection has been a key focus throughout the PAWG process. At the December 16, 2023 meeting, PAWG members had a robust conversation on the various proposed driveway access points on Alpine Road and the extent of parking being introduced into the meadows. The District’s Natural Resources staff provided a comprehensive analysis of proposed parking options 4 through 6, which are based on the District’s Basic Policy

and Resource Management Policies. This analysis played an important role in shaping the PAWG's final recommendations. Table 1 below provides a general overview of the PAWG meeting schedule, topics and agenda packet materials.

Table 1 – Hawthorns Area PAWG Meeting Schedule and Topics Date and Location Topics
July 27, 2023
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.

District Office
Meeting 1: Kickoff
Established Working Group roles, goals, workplan, schedule, and operating procedures. Received public feedback.
(agenda packet, meeting minutes)
August 26, 2023
9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Hawthorns Site
Meeting 2: Site meeting
Conducted in-person site meeting and reviewed existing site conditions. Received public feedback. RSVPs were requested for planning logistics.
(agenda packet, meeting minutes)
October 26, 2023
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.

District Office
Meeting 3: Preliminary design discussion
PAWG discussed and provided input on draft parking and driveway design options 1 through 4, as well as internal connections, trailheads, trail uses, and local and regional connectivity opportunities. Received public feedback. Selected two co-chairs.
(agenda packet, meeting minutes)
December 16, 2023
9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

District Office
Meeting 4: Continuation of preliminary design discussion PAWG continued discussion on initial conceptual design alternatives, including parking and driveway options 4 through 6, internal trail system and connections, trailheads, trail uses, and local and regional connectivity opportunities. Received public feedback.
(agenda packet, meeting minutes)
February 29, 2024
6:00 - 10:00 p.m.

District Office
Meeting 5: Continuation of December 16, 2023 design discussion PAWG discussed updated conceptual design alternatives,
including parking and driveway options 7 and 8, internal trail system and connections, trailheads, trail uses, and local and regional connectivity opportunities. Conducted informal voting and assessed initial recommendations on all public access components. Received public feedback.
(agenda packet, meeting minutes)
March 24, 2024
9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Hawthorns Site
Meeting 6: Site meeting and design discussion
PAWG reviewed and discussed conceptual parking design options 7 through 9a on site. Received public feedback. RSVPs were requested for planning logistics.
(agenda packet, meeting minutes)
June 13, 2024
6:00 - 10:00 p.m.

District Office
Meeting 7: Discuss and confirm recommendation
PAWG discussed design options 7 through 10 and finalized recommendations on conceptual trail alignment, trail uses, opportunities for regional trail connections, and conceptual parking alternatives to forward to the District’s PNR Committee and subsequently to the Board for consideration. Received public feedback. (agenda packet, meeting minutes)

PAWG Recommendations
At the June 13, 2024 PAWG meeting, the voting results showed a consensus among the 13 voting members of the PAWG. The PAWG members raised topics for discussion as each voting item was brought up and indicated when clarifications or considerations related to their votes should be shared with the PNR. The final voting included the following public access components:
• Internal trail system
• Trail connections with surrounding Town trails
• Opportunities for regional trail connections
• Proposed trail uses within the Hawthorns Area
• Concept parking designs
The PAWG’s voting resulted in the following recommendations that are now before the PNR Committee for consideration. The PAWG’s recommendations below include information regarding their support and opposition to various public access elements within each category, as well as additional considerations the PAWG wanted shared with the PNR. Refer to Attachment 1 for numbering of concept trail segments and parking options.

1. Internal Trail System
• Support for internal loop trail alignment and spur trails (segments 2 – 9, 11, 12 and 13)
• Support for benches at all viewpoints. Bench A facing northeast, bench B facing northwest, and bench C facing northwest.

2. Trail Connections with Surrounding Town Trails and Pathways • Support for connections to Alpine Trail (segments 1, 10 and 14) • Opposition to connection to Sweet Springs Trail by Saddleback Drive (segment 15) • Suggestion to re-evaluate and decide whether to build connector trail to Sweet Springs Trail after monitoring trail usage following the preserve's opening (segments 16 and 17)*
• Additional considerations to share with PNR:
o Adjust the western end of loop trail segment 3 to be positioned further away from Portola Valley Ranch, if feasible
o If there is any connection to Sweet Springs Trail, desire to move it farther northwest and away from Pomponio Court Trail that currently connects to Sweet Springs Trail

3. Opportunities for Regional Trail Connections Beyond Town Trails • Support for future regional trail connection to Los Trancos Trail • Support for future regional trail connection to Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Nature Preserve

4. Proposed Trail Uses
• Support for hiking, dogs-on-leash, equestrian use, and bicycle use on internal loop trail, spur trails and connections to Alpine Trail (segments 1 – 14)

• Support for hiking, dogs-on-leash, and equestrian uses only on connections to Sweet Springs Trail, if any of the connections are built – opposition to bicycle use (segments 16 and 17). Although not recommended, if Segment 15 is pursued, the PAWG also opposes bicycle use on this segment.
• Additional considerations to share with PNR:
o Allowing bicycle use on the Alpine Trail segments that currently don’t allow bicycles, that connect to the proposed connector trails (segments 10 and 14), requires Town approval

5. Conceptual Parking Designs
• Support for both conceptual parking options 9 and 10, with a greater level of support for option 10
• Support for an upper limit of 50 parking spaces
• Support for a phased approach, if feasible
• Additional considerations to share with PNR:
o Attaching PAWG assessment of conceptual parking design options with the preferred conceptual parking options 9 and 10.
*Note: further evaluation of the allowable trail uses of the connecting Sweet Springs Trail and the feasibility of implementing Segments 16 and 17 is needed. Therefore, through a majority vote, the PAWG recommends a phased approach for Segments 16 and 17 whereby these segments would be reevaluated as part of a future phase, after Hawthorns is opened to the public and the interior trail usage and connecting Sweet Springs Trail uses can be further evaluated.

The PAWG worked diligently and respectfully to fulfill its charge over the year-long process.

They gathered, considered and generated a substantial amount of information, including new parking area options for the overall PAWG evaluation. Ultimately, this group, representing both local and regional constituencies of the entire District, developed a strategic approach for providing low intensity and ecologically sensitive public access to the Hawthorns property.

NEXT STEPS
Following the feedback sessions with the Town, the District staff will present both the PAWG recommendations and Town’s input to the full Board of Directors at a future Study Session. At a subsequent Board meeting following the Study Session, the Board will make final policy decisions, informed by input from the PAWG, PNR, the Town, key partners and the public.

These decisions will determine which options to incorporate into the Hawthorns Area Plan advance to the environmental review phase in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Tentative Project Timelines
Calendar Year Hawthorns Area Plan Phase
2021-2022 Develop vision and goals for the Hawthorns Area 2022-2023 Develop existing conditions/opportunities and constraints 2023-2025 Develop Programming and Conceptual Planning,

Public Access Working Group and Board approval
2025-2026 Prepare Hawthorns Area Plan
2026-2027 Conduct CEQA environmental review
2027-TBD Implementation (design development, permitting, bidding and construction)
Prepared by:

Ashley Mac, Planner III, Planning Department
Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Attachment 1: Hawthorns Area numbering of concept trail segments and parking options

Minutes from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Hawthorns Area Plan Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting
Date: Monday, October 21, 2024
Attending:

Portola Valley:

Judith Hasko (on behalf of Sarah Wernikoff): Portola Valley Town Council Karen Askey: Parks and Recreation Committee
Fred Leach: Trails and Paths Committee
Betsy Morgenthaler: Open Space Committee
Patty Dewes: Historic Resources Group
Catherine Magill: Conservation Committee
Ed Holland: Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Pat Baenen: Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Mid-Pen:

Jane Mark, Planning Manager
Tina Hugg, Senior Planning, Planning Department
Ashley Mac, Planner III, Planning Department
After introductions, Karen Askey opened the meeting by explaining the purpose of the meeting:

In 2023, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors (Board) formed the Hawthorns Area Public Access Working Group (PAWG), to develop public access recommendations for the Hawthorns area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. The recommendations include two parking area location options and a loop trail with trail connections to the Town of Portola Valley’s (Town’s) trails.

On September 17, 2024 (R-24-115), the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee reviewed and provided feedback on the PAWG’s recommendations. As supported by the PNR Committee, the General Manager directed the project team to present the PAWG’s recommendations to the Town-established Portola Valley Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee (a special committee comprised of representatives from seven Town committees convened by the Town to liaise on this project) and Portola Valley Town Council feedback before presenting the PAWG recommendations and Town and public input at a future Study Session of the Board of Directors.

This will be an information sharing meeting only, no decision will be made. Feedback from this meeting will be included in the PAWG's presentation to the Portola Valley Town Council on Wednesday, October 30 and also back to the Mid-Pen Board of Directors.

Tina and Ashley then led us through a summary of the PAWG's process and recommendations.

Given that there have a number of concerns raised about car and bicycle traffic along Alpine Road and specifically at the points of entry for the proposed parking lots #9 and #10, Andrew Lee (Parameetrix Traffic Consultant) showed data regarding the volume of traffic for days of the week and times/day.

Their conclusions are that the peak volumes along those corridors do not coincide w/ what is expected to be the normal times/days for Hawthorns visits.

Karen then opened the meeting for Committee questions:

Fred Leach:
● Questioned why the PAWG recommend a phased approach to Trails #16 and #17 concerning their connectivity to Sweet Springs Trail? Has the Committee determined what would be the criteria and timeline for evaluating connectivity in the future? PAWG responded that criteria had not yet been established and that this would need to be addressed. Betsy interjected that she believed there had been some criteria discussed in a previous meeting and that she would follow up with any findings.

Betsy Morgenthaler:
● Voiced support for good alignment with the Hawthorns Conservation Easement, and as well bringing it into alignment with Portola Valley’s Municipal Code and General Plan. ● Questioned Midpen staff about how POST had arrived at the conclusion that both Option 9’s fire truck turn-around and all of Option 10 were in alignment with the Conservation Easement’s prohibitions on tree removal and grading in the Unimproved Area. o Midpen staff response: POST looked to section 6(i), adding the Conservation Easement does not indicate that public access must be located within the Improved Area, rather it directs public access to the perimeter of the Improved or Unimproved Area. ● Betsy read section 6 (i) into the record,
o 6. (i) If the Real Property is ever conveyed to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, or any similar governmental or non-governmental entity intending to use the Real Property for public open space and passive recreational uses, construction of a limited staging area (gravel parking lot, pit toilets, wood rail fencing, trail markers, etc.) around the perimeter of the Improved Portion as necessary to facilitate public access to, and use of, the Real Property for hiking and other uses permitted by this easement, is ever conveyed to midpen or any similar governmental entity intending to use the real property for public open space and passive recreation use construction of a limited staging area gravel parking lot pit toilets wood fencing Trail markers around the Imp perimeter of the improved portion as necessary to facilitate public access to and use of the real property for hiking and other uses.
● Questioned how the multiple restoration projects envisioned at the Historic Complex would impact the Hawthorns Area parking lot on Alpine Road. From one perspective Portola Valley could ask why we need as many as 50 parking places for a 1.1 mile loop, yet Midpen is engaged in a prospective partnership with Willow Commons to rehabilitate Lower Barn and 3 other public-facing historic buildings representing > 17,000 sq ft that await such partnerships.

Meanwhile staff has indicated public parking will be directed to the Alpine Road lot.

o Midpen response: Acknowledging the many unknowns, staff said they had no crystal ball, suggested potentially phasing the parking lot, and that this would be a part of the environmental review.
● Due to the insufficiency of information presently available, the Open Space Committee believed weighing in on either access proposal, Option 9, 10 or other, was premature.

Ed Holland:
● Questioned how parking options #9 and #10 would affect the integrity of the internal Alpine trails? PAWG responded that has not yet been defined and is a detail that would need to be addressed in the project plan.
● Also questioned the # of parking spaces. PAWG responded that they will "permit" for the 50 spaces but that final parking spaces will be determined at a later date. ● Questioned the financial cost to the Town of both parking options #9 and #10. PAWG responded that they were sensitive to the potential financial constraints of the Town and this would need to be addressed between the Board and the Town Council.

Pat Baenen:
● Commented that parking option #9 seems to have a much lower impact on topography, natural resources, etc than option #10. PAWG indicated that this was not the case. ● Expressed concern about bicycle speeds on #9 vs. #10. Andrew indicated that even if cyclists don't stop at #10, their behavior would likely be that they would at least "slow down" if there was a stop sign. At access point #9, they would be going full speed down hill and this would create a higher risk situation fpr them and cars exiting at this new access point.

Karen Askey:
● Asked for clarification that the Town was responsible for the costs of any improvements related to implementing parking options #9 or #10. PAWG confirmed that the Town would be responsible.
● Questioned why, if the Los Trancos road access was being considered for the parking area associated with the Lower Barn activities, why was it not in play for the larger parking area.

PAWG reiterated that the sight lines on Los Trancos Road are not an option for the higher volumes of access that would result from the larger parking area. Access is restricted to the "grandfathering" of volume already in place by the residences on that corridor. ● Questioned whether the project for public access could be slowed down/delayed so that the review of the whole project, i.e. including the Historic Complex, could be considered. Especially since there was an indication that usage of the Lower Barn was being considered. PAWG indicated that the primary reason they were addressing the Lower Barn at this time was because they had a partner that was willing to engage. They had no such partner opportunities for the broader Historic Complex and it was their determination that opening the area to public access was deemed more of a priority.
● Questioned whether it was appropriate to apply the CEQA review to a partial area (i.e. without the Historic Complex) vs. the entire project. PAWG indicated that although their preference is NOT to "piecemeal," they felt it could be justified for the CEQA review.

● Questioned whether PAWG had had discussions with either the ASCC or the Planning Commission. PAWG indicated that until they have a project plan, they have not felt they had the appropriate level of detail to go before these entities. They will certainly be part of the process after Board review and approval.

The meeting was then opened to public comments:

Margaret MacNiven - Mid Pen Board of Directors: Wanted to complement the PAWG for working through a very democratic process which was comprehensive and collaborative to get to this point.

Charles Maroney - PV Ranch resident: Spoke at length about the potential negative impact of any connectivity to the Sweet Springs trail on himself personally and the other PV Ranch residents . A petition signed by a large majority of PV Ranch residents opposed the connectivity. He also questioned the positioning of the trails as to their impact on Open Space views.

Leslie Kriese - PV Ranch resident: reiterated Charles concerns Rita Comes: Asked whether PAWG was using the latest traffic studies and the latest evacuations plans? She also asked whether AB2091 applied (PAWG replied that it does not apply) Kristi Corley: Expressed concern that parking would overflow to Alpine Road. Asked that any trees to be removed be identified. Asked if the activities being proposed for the Lower Barn could be opened up to the public, especially area children. Also pointed out that Corte Madera is dismissed at noon on Wednesdays.

The meeting was then brought back to the panel for discussion:

Fred Leach pointed out that one of the advantages of parking option #10 is that it would force sorely needed improvements to the Alpine Trail that would really benefit the community. He also indicated, based upon the impact of the public comments, that he could get behind the idea of a phased approach to any Sweet Springs trail connectivity.

The Committee also expressed support for the phased approach but 1) encouraged Midpen to establish clear parameters about how and when the decision will be made for connectivity, and 2) our Committee still supports the overall direction as outlined in our General Plan regarding Trail connectivity.

The committee overall supported the idea of a phased approach to the 50 car parking lot, perhaps starting with fewer spaces and then expanding as needed.

Karen asked PAWG to ensure they were using the latest traffic studies and had the latest evacuation plan.

The meeting was then adjourned.

Patty Dewes, scribe

February 28, 2024
Dear Staff Members of MROSD and Hawthorns PAWG,
We appreciate all the time and thoughtfulness you have put into the planning process for Hawthorns Open Space, and anticipate the day the property opens. We do believe that taking the appropriate amount of time to consider the context surrounding Hawthorns will lead to a more positive outcome.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Portola Valley (PV) would like to recapitulate certain requests and provide updated comments as well.

Planning Process:
● We support the idea that several parking & access alternatives be proposed by PAWG, and also be presented to Portola Valley during the decision-making process. We feel that an additional preliminary design meeting with the PV Planning Committee would benefit both MidPen and Portola Valley, as fewer “surprises” may develop later on. ● Prior to the 3/24 site visit, we request that “story poles” or the like (stakes with bright flags) be erected so people can visualize the length, width and height of proposed parking lots, and how close and visible to Alpine Road the lot may be. ● We again request that the Los Trancos side and Historic complex be considered in the planning process. Simply put, it is unfair to a robust process to not review all potential alternatives. As we mentioned earlier, we are comfortable with slowing down the PAWG process to align with or follow the Historic Complex planning. Given that the PAWG process timing has been delayed, would it make sense to better align these two key Hawthorns projects?
Safety:
● Safety should be the top priority when selecting an entrance and exit into Hawthorns. ○ We believe that the CONSIDERABLY lower traffic volume on Los Trancos for both bicycles and autos will lead to fewer accidents than on Alpine Road. When comparing Los Trancos to Alpine Road east of Nathorst (at the Historic Entrance), bicycle volume of Los Trancos is 9% and vehicle traffic is 26% of Alpine Road volume. And we must look at TOTAL numbers, not collision rates per million vehicle miles. It is clear that many more accidents have occurred on that stretch of Alpine Road where entrances are being considered than on Los Trancos. With all the future development planned along that stretch of Alpine Road, the risk is even higher. It is imperative to limit the risk of injury. ○ Consistent with our Bicycles, Pedestrians, Traffic and Safety Committee concerns, we believe that due to the downward slope on Alpine Road, from Portola to Los Trancos, the safest entry along Alpine Road is at the existing main entrance, even with mitigation efforts at the other proposed entrances.

Trail Design:

● We are in favor of the proposed trail design and value the interconnectivity with other PV trails, which aligns with our General Plan.

Access & Parking:
● We would like the following alternatives to be explored:
○ Per the suggestion of PAWG member of Charlie Krenz on 12/16/23, we prefer the existing Hawthorns driveway leading to parking adjacent to the residence.

The residence could be repurposed as an Interpretive Center, and plumbing is already in place. We believe this alternative may have a lesser impact on resources.
○ We support a full study of the Los Trancos entrance and associated parking beyond the Historic Complex site, where the flat terrain accommodates it. ○ We support the idea of a parking lot that can accommodate phased-in parking, such as building 30 spots initially and expanding to 50 as needed. At no time, however, should there be overflow parking onto nearby streets. ○ Consider placing handicapped parking up at the main residence.

Enhanced Visuals to Better Understand Natural Resources ● With respect to the Historic Entrance option and Parking Option 7, please provide more details and visuals to help better understand distances, slopes and work necessary to create the entrance and improve safety. Some of us have taken photos which show that much of the proposed parking along Alpine Road would be fairly visible as the slope is less steep. Please see the visuals at the bottom of this letter.

Alignment with PV General Plan
● As stated in our December 2023 letter, parking lots directly off of Alpine Road conflict with the PV General Plan and Alpine Road Scenic Corridor principles. Most likely, this will likely cause opposition from members of our Planning Commission, Town Council and residents.

We are very appreciative of all the hard work and thoughtful consideration you give to our comments, as well as those of other PV residents and committees.

Thank you,
PV Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee (Karen Askey, Patt Baenen, Brook Coffee, Patty Dewes, Fred Leach, Catherine Magill, Betsy Morgenthaler)

Dear Members of MROSD and Hawthorns PAWG,
We look forward to the opening of the Hawthorns Property and thank you for all the work that you have put into the planning process.

Our Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee of Portola Valley (PV) consists of representatives from many of our Town Committees. As Town Committee representatives, we are aligned with and committed to adhering to the Portola Valley General Plan.

The PV Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee is focused on creating awareness and providing channels for resident feedback on the Hawthorns Project, sharing resident feedback throughout the process with MidPen & PAWG for a smooth and efficient undertaking, and providing feedback to the PV Planning Commission and Town Council.

Various Town Committees will be submitting comments as well. For this 10/26 meeting, both Trails & Paths and Bicycles, Pedestrians, Safety & Traffic have submitted their preferences and concerns for your consideration.

At the present time, the Ad Hoc Committee would like to focus your attention on two important issues.
● We request that an updated traffic study be completed, as the Transportation Conditions Technical Memo study (Parisi Transportation Consulting, March 20,2023) relies on a traffic count study from 2019. This study is outdated given the changes that have occurred in Portola Valley since the survey was done. There are also significant development projects slated for Alpine Road in the next seven years. ○ Our concerns include increased traffic volume, traffic mode conflicts and evacuation issues.
○ Please note that Alpine Road is a major evacuation route. ● We request that MidPen include the Historic Complex in its overall plan, and not treat it as a separate phase or project. We believe that park access, parking and trail connectivity on the Los Trancos side offer many benefits, and need further review. We are comfortable with slowing down the PAWG process to align with or follow the Historic Complex planning. The lone exception would be the modifications to the Safe Routes to School Alpine Trail, which should happen more quickly.

Thank you,
PV Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee (Karen Askey, Patt Baenan, Brook Coffee, Patty Dewes, Fred Leach, Catherine Magill, Betsy Morgenthaler)

December 14, 2023
Dear Staff Members of MROSD and Hawthorns PAWG,
Thank you for listening to and addressing Portola Valley resident and Committee concerns at your recent meeting on 10/26. Your thoughtful questions and willingness to take the appropriate amount of time to get the plans right is much appreciated.

As Hawthorns plans are still being worked on, the Ad Hoc Committee would like to reiterate and update you on certain issues:

Traffic Study/Safety Issues: Our understanding is that MidPen may be updating traffic volume numbers using just one week of data from December 2023, and we do not feel that this data accurately addresses seasonality issues for either autos or bicycle riders, rates of speed, or future patterns due to the opening of Hawthorns or local developments. We are aligned with the separate request from our Bicycles, Pedestrians, Traffic & Safety Committee to perform a more comprehensive study, and have concerns that if the study is not completed in this phase of planning, delays may result while a new study is completed further down the road. We need to better understand rates of speed and traffic volume of both autos and cyclists, and how that might offset site-line issues, before choosing the main entrance to Hawthorns.

Alignment with Portola Valley General Plan: Portola Valley's General Plan serves as the blueprint for the Town's future growth and development. It addresses issues of importance to the community, sets forth policies for conservation and development, and outlines specific programs or actions for implementing these policies.

As discussed, protecting and enhancing the Alpine Road Scenic Corridor, along with the 75’ setback, is of great importance to the Town of Portola Valley. As you consider access points and parking lot alternatives, we urge you to follow the guidance of our Town Plan.

The Scenic Highway and Roads Element
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/6732/635617553050330000 Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/5974/638370459881770000 Alpine Scenic Corridor Diagram
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showpublisheddocument/3977/635393271701670000 (Hawthorns is #65, which indicates “Vista to Hills, Keep Open”) Los Trancos Parking Access: MidPen consultants indicate that site-line issues preclude an access point on Los Trancos Road. The Ad Hoc Committee believes additional analysis is warranted to better assess which entry point(s) may be the safest for cyclists, pedestrians, and autos. For example:
● Are there solutions that might improve the site lines (such as respectful tree removal)?

● Would lower traffic volume and speeds on Los Trancos Rd. (vs. Alpine Rd.) offset other factors or play a role in addressing safety issues?
● What impact will the population growth from the planned developments across the street (4370, 4388, and 4394 Alpine Road) have on traffic in that area? ● Does the wide left-turn lane off of Alpine Road onto Los Trancos Road offset not having a turn lane at the access point on Alpine Road?
● Should we consider putting the entrance on Los Trancos with a one-way drive leading to the exit on Alpine Road, so the majority of visitors are turning right to get into and out of the property?
● Would separate bicycle parking on the Los Trancos side be of benefit? Los Trancos Access: Prior to the opening of the Historic Complex, we support enhancing trail access on the Los Trancos side and would like to understand if the current 13-acre Historic section area could be modified or decreased in size to incorporate trails around that section while under development.

Please recognize that providing trailhead access on the Los Trancos side without parking access will likely result in parking issues along Los Trancos Road or in the private parking area of Alpine Hills Swim & Tennis, which is dangerous and/or a violation of private property.

Process Timeline: As we mentioned earlier, we are comfortable with slowing down the PAWG process to align with or follow the Historic Complex planning, scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2024. Given that the PAWG process timing has been delayed, would it make sense to better align these two key Hawthorns projects?
Alpine Trail Modification along Hawthorns Property: We are pleased that the PAWG is supportive of the Alpine Trail Modification along Hawthorns, and encourage those modifications to be a top priority.

Dog Access: We are pleased that the PAWG supports trail access for dogs-on-leash.

We are very appreciative of all the hard work and the thorough consideration you give to our comments, as well as those of other PV residents and committees.

Thank you,
PV Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee (Karen Askey, Patt Baenan, Brook Coffee, Patty Dewes, Fred Leach, Catherine Magill, Betsy Morgenthaler)

June 12, 2024
Dear Staff Members of MROSD and Hawthorns PAWG,
Thank you for your thoughtful and persistent work on developing the Hawthorns Plan. The Portola Valley (PV) Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee is intrigued with the addition of Parking Option 10 and the increase in parking spaces for Option 9.

Recently-added Option 10 is of particular interest, as it increases safety due to a 4-way stop, and appears to have a lesser impact on the natural environment.

We do have several concerns that should be addressed prior to ANY decision being made:
● The new designs have not been visited in person nor flagged to help one understand the visual impact from Alpine Road or the scale of disturbance to the land. Another tour should be scheduled.
● Please refer to the photos at the end of this letter. These pictures show that a significant number of trees would need to be removed for the Option 10 entrance. A considerable amount of soil removal and fill would be required for both Options 9 and 10. More detailed plans and visuals are necessary to make an informed decision. ○ Each tree that would be removed should be clearly identified (ribbon around girth).
○ Story poles, or the like, need to indicate the height and length of the new berm, retaining walls, and size of the lots.
○ Detailed mock-ups, comparing and contrasting Options 9 and 10, with views from all sides, should be provided.
○ How does the widening of the multi-use Alpine Trail impact these options? Please provide visuals.
● How will the Alpine Trail and Safe Routes to School be impacted by a new entrance? How might the proposed berm impact that location and additional width of the Alpine Trail (per earlier discussions)? Please present a diagram/drawing looking toward the front of the entrance which shows the slope of the cut and width of the driveway. ● What is the approximate additional height of the proposed berm? Portola Valley has specific regulations about soil removal/fill, grading and retaining walls. Has MidPen reviewed these requirements to ensure it follows these specifications? Please discuss this with our Town Staff and Architectural and Site Control Commission (ASCC) to ensure its feasibility.
● The PV General Plan, in its Land Use section 6222, includes this language: “A policy statement issued by the Town of Portola Valley, July 1969, indicates the nature of uses of land considered to be suitable for the corridor. The policy of the Town of Portola Valley has always been to maintain a tranquil, rural atmosphere, and to preserve a maximum of green open space. The Alpine Corridor should be developed in accord with this policy.

The natural look and feeling of the land between the road and the creek should be maintained. Trees and natural growth should be preserved and increased. Recreational uses should be in keeping with a peaceful and rural atmosphere. We recognize that a

scenic corridor along a public road should be for public use. The hiking and riding trail and the bicycle path will be open to everyone. The Little League field, the soccer field, the Alpine Beer tavern and the tennis clubs are existing public and semi-public uses.

Aside from this, we envision opportunities for peaceful, uncrowded recreation for the benefit of the residents of the Town and others. In order not to attract crowds that would make this impossible, we feel that there should be no advertisement to the transient passer-by, such as picnic tables visible from the road or visible parking areas.” ○ How will MidPen ensure adherence to the highlighted guideline above, not scarring the hillside and changing the look and feel?
○ How can the berm be constructed without looking like an unnatural manipulation of the land? Do you have visual examples you can share? ○ How far off the road would the parking lot start? What is the possibility of following the 75’ setback?
● While an entrance at a 4-way stop improves safety issues, please note:
○ There are many cyclists who do not stop at the intersection while heading east downhill. How do we change this behavior and ensure that cyclists are aware of this new entrance?
○ Our understanding is that a crossing guard is currently present at the corner of Alpine & Portola Roads after school. It is unclear who is funding this necessity and for what period of time. How can we be guaranteed this role will continue? What design accommodations will MidPen integrate to make the driveway crossing a safe one under all conditions?
● We feel strongly that the Los Trancos entrance still be considered in the planning process (now and/or when planning the Historic Complex), as there is limited impact to Natural Resources. Having an entrance at Los Trancos will help minimize the impact of traffic at our major intersection in Town. With respect to safety, we believe further analysis is required to assess the trade-off between shorter site lines and significantly lower traffic volumes on Los Trancos vs. Alpine Road.

Please schedule a site tour of the recommended trails and parking options with our Town Council in conjunction with the upcoming Study Session. An actual visit is extremely informative in gaining a better understanding of the proposals, and will help our Council members visualize the alternatives.

Our goal is to find a safe parking solution that offers no visibility from the road, a naturalistic look, and minimal cut and fill. We are extremely appreciative of all your efforts and attentiveness to our concerns.

Thank you,
PV Ad Hoc Hawthorns Committee (Karen Askey, Patt Baenan, Brook Coffee, Patty Dewes, Fred Leach, Catherine Magill, Betsy Morgenthaler)

Proposed entrance for Option 10, which is at our main intersection of Town - how much tree removal is necessary here?

Tree removal, grading, and soil removal required for Option 10?

If parking lot is placed in this open area (Options 9 and 10), how will screening and artificial “naturalization” occur to limit visibility of the lot from the roadside? How will the proposed berm fit in?

Parking area for Options 9 and 10 - how will screening limit visibility to the parking area?

Edward Holland, Ph.D
BPTS Chair
Portola Valley
22nd October 2023
Public Access Working Group
MROSD
Dear Public Access Working Group,
I represent the Bicycle Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee (BPTS) of Portola Valley. The Committee provides a bridge between the community and Town of Portola Valley in matters of road and pedestrian safety. The recent proposal by MROSD to open “The Hawthorns” property on Alpine road has been raised at our meetings. Residents requested that BPTS gather resident feedback on aspects of this proposal that fall within the Committee purview. In pursuit of this, BPTS held a special meeting on 17th October to discuss issues and gather resident input on matters including, but not limited to access, traffic impact, parking etc. The meeting concluded with a summary of points of concern and suggestions to be communicated to the PAWG at the earliest opportunity. That summary is included below.

BPTS welcomes the access to more open space within the Town of Portola Valley, and looks forward to working with the PAWG and MROSD in the forthcoming months.

Sincerely,
Edward Holland, Ph.D. BPTS Chair.

Summary of 17th October Special BPTS Meeting Concerns and Suggestions BPTS Points of concern based on resident feedback and Committee discussions. These form the following points requested for inclusion by Midpeninsula Open Space District in any site development plan.

Visitor and other site access.
● That due consideration be given to the increased traffic resulting from site visits, and its interaction with the existing transport corridor by all road users and pedestrians.
● That MROSD conducts an updated study using current traffic data including predictions or forecasts resulting from a change of site use and an anticipated increase in residential properties on the Alpine Road Corridor
● That changes to the site access comply with the Town of Portola Valley General plan designation of Alpine Road as an access corridor, and that changes respect the Scenic Corridor Element.
● That all potential access points remain under consideration during the planning process.

Parking.
● That MROSD provides forecasts for the anticipated visitor numbers, including consideration of daily, weekly and seasonal uses, and that this includes the Phase I “Open Space” and Phase II “Historic” Elements of site use.
● BPTS recommends to allow public parking access from both Los Trancos and Alpine Road to decrease the influx of cars on our scenic Alpine Road Corridor.
● That onsite parking, including overflow parking be provided to the extent necessary to accommodate all site visitors, and prevent overspill onto neighborhood roadways.
● That car parking reservations and pricing may be considered, as may access limitations. For example, car access may only be available on weekends, but hikers and horse riders would be able to access the property during the week.
● That provision be made for secure accommodation of alternative means of transport e.g. pedal cycles and E-bikes.
● That the Town of Portola Valley allows for such onsite parking when considering a formal planning application.

Overflow Parking

● That overflow parking be provided on site, and that the area be of an environmentally friendly design - for example a grass area with subsurface that allows drainage and a firm surface for car tires.

Parking – Placement on site
● That location of parking should comply with the town's General Plan that designates Alpine and Portola Roads as Scenic Corridors, it is recommended that cars are hidden from the road when parked.

Trail Crossings, Improvements, and Safe Routes to School Accommodations.
● Trail Crossings Shall be subject to Portola Valley’s guidelines as stated in our General Plan and reviewed by the Trails and Path, Conservation and BPTS Committees
● Consideration Shall be given to the existing infrastructure (trails) in planning site access points.
● It is assumed that the chain-link fence will be removed and that a trail outside the fence along Alpine Road will be available 24 hours. A second trail inside the fence, parallel to Alpine Road, may provide a safer alternative for horse riders and hikers.
● That trail fencing along the route contiguous with the Alpine Road trail should provide multiple points for non vehicle access by users of the new development.

Edward Holland
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Chair
3rd October 2024
Midpeninsula Open Space Trust
Portola Valley “Hawthorns” Ad-Hoc Committee
Dear Midpeninsula Open Space Trust, and the Ad Hoc Committee The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee of Portola Valley (BPTS) has, at its recent October 2nd meeting, given further consideration to the proposed options for access and parking to The Hawthorns site. The criteria were prioritized, see list below, and recommendations based on the Committee’s assessment are discussed in the following paragraphs.. ● Consideration of Pedestrian, Bicycle and vehicle safety and impact on trails ● Potential cost impacts required to implement changes to roadway design. ● Visual changes to the scenic corridor.

Our discussion centered on re-evaluation of the Option 9 and Option 10 (Hereafter #9 and #10) proposals for parking and access as shared by Midpen. In terms of overall safety, BPTS considers there will be a significant negative impact on traffic and pedestrian safety When MidPen opens the site to public access without having a traffic mitigation plan in place with the appropriate cost analysis.

Both entrance options, #9 and #10 will have a negative impact on bike, pedestrian and equestrian safety. #10 will add further costs resulting from modification of the intersection at Alpine and Portola Roads from 3-Way to 4-Way stop control. In particular, this location sees the highest concentration of pedestrian usage in Town, including but by no means limited to children biking and walking to and from school. Use of the existing Hawthorns driveway would lead to a lesser incidence of vehicle-pedestrian interaction.

Modifications to enable access at Alpine and Portola Roads will incur significant costs to modify roadway signage, trail levels and other elements required to meet State standards. At this time, the Town is not in a strong financial position to support these changes.

Lastly, changes to the Alpine and Portola Road intersection will have a significant impact on the scenic corridor and character of this section of our Town. Our scenic corridors have historically been protected and should continue in the future. We are asking MidPen to respect the guidelines of our General Plan and mitigate any negative impact to ensure the safety of our

community before opening the Hawthorn project to the public.

As such, BPTS recommends Option 9 as the preferred plan for the Hawthorns Site.

Sincerely,
Ed Holland, Ph.D, BPTS Chair; Assistant Sheriff Commissioner.

24 October 2023
Dear members of the Hawthorns Public Access Working Group and MROSD, In accordance with the MROSD Vision Plan and Measure AA, The Portola Valley Trails and Paths Committee is requesting trail improvements as the Hawthorns Open Space area is developed.

The primary goal of our recommendations is to improve and expand on the usage of trails in the MROSD and Portola Valley trail systems, and we look forward to seeing how the design of this wonderful new addition to MROSD develops.

Please find our thoughts below:

1. We request that MROSD prioritize developing a trail along Alpine Road into an avenue that is safe and accessible for all those who use the corridor, including pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists. This is particularly important for children commuting to and from school. We request that development of this trail be prioritized and believe that it could be developed ahead of completion of the rest of the project. We recommend close partnership with the Town to complete this work as quickly as possible. We believe there are multiple options to accomplish this goal, but here are our recommendations:
a. Expand the trail to an appropriate width, using a natural surface as referenced in the conservation easement for the property.
b. Move the trail eastward into the property and away from the slope down to the road but maintain a continuous connection with the rest of Alpine Trail at the northern and southern ends of the Hawthorns property.
c. Evaluate both the options of consolidation of the existing Alpine Trail into the new trail and of creation of a separate trail while leaving the current Alpine Trail intact.
d. Remove the current fence to maintain the Open Space feel of the area. e. Consider adding a split rail type fence along the road edge if the existing trail remains to increase safety along the steep slopes.
f. Level the trail at any driveway crossing the trail such that there is nominal slope down to the driveway with clear visibility for the safety of all users, particularly children biking to school.

2. Within the property, develop multi-use trails to provide the residents of and visitors to Portola Valley a place where they can access Hawthorns Open Space through a variety of methods including horseback, bicycle, wheelchair, and on foot.
a. Align trails to the plans set forth in Portola Valley’s General Plan Trails and Paths Element.
b. Explore options for dedicated use (e.g., pedestrian only) trails only after multi-use options are established.
c. Include benches along trails to allow for resting.
d. Leverage existing trails within the property in addition to plans for new loops.

3. Develop a plan for interconnection with existing trail systems so residents of and visitors to Portola Valley can access the Hawthorns and other Open Space systems without having to drive between different trail systems. We suggest expediting consideration of the additional 13 acres in the property that will be explored soon in order to create the best possible trail plan.
a. Suggested interconnections include:
i. A connection to the Sweet Springs trail roughly across from the end of Pomponio Street with a small spur to a prominent vista point. ii. A connection of Los Trancos trail where the Hawthorns property meets Los Trancos road, continuing towards Valley Oak Street.
b. These interconnections are indicated roughly in blue on map excerpts below.

The first excerpt is from the Hawthorns Conceptual Trail Diagram and the second is from the Town of Portola Valley Trails and Paths Element Plan Diagram A, both of which are linked at the end of this letter. We note that the Trails and Paths Element Plan Diagram A is dated from 2009 and offers an excellent guide to the development of trails in Portola Valley and its surrounds.

The dashed black lines represent suggested trails in this document.

i.

ii.
c. Explore potential use of parking in areas of Portola Valley that already exist within proximity to the Hawthorns border (e.g., Roberts Market). If additional parking is absolutely necessary per MROSD’s expertise, focus parking within the Hawthorns Open Space to a limited scope, ideally for bicycles and ADA only. We note that the Trails Element of the Portola Valley General Plan recommends *against* parking at trailheads.
d. Explore expansion of public transportation or a dedicated weekend shuttle to and from the Windy Hill Portola Road parking lot.

Thank you for your consideration in expanding the public’s access to Open Spaces in the region. We are available for further consultation and welcome collaboration on trail development.

Sincerely,
Fred Leach
Chairman of the Portola Valley Trails & Paths Committee on behalf of the Portola Valley Trails & Paths Committee References:

MROSD Vision Plan:
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Vision_Plan_Summary.pdf Measure AA:
https://www.openspace.org/what-we-do/projects/measure-aa Hawthorns Conceptual Trail Diagram:
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Hawthorns%20PAWG%20Mtg%203%20- %20PACKET.pdf
Town of Portola Valley Trails and Paths Element Plan Diagram A:
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=3982

October 19, 2024
To
Portola Valley Town Council
Planning Valley Planning Commission
Portola Valley Hawthorns Ad Hoc Committee
Portola Valley’s founding in 1964 and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen’s) founding in 1972 grew from the desire to protect surrounding foothills and open space. This shared commitment to land stewardship and public access has been vital to the town and to the region, and it will grow with the addition of Hawthorns to Midpen.

Hawthorns also brings a new dimension—historic structures, including 17,000 sq ft earmarked for renovation1.

The Portola Valley Open Space Committee has followed Midpen’s plans for Hawthorns with steady interest by participating in the Hawthorns Ad Hoc Committee2 and discussing the project in our regular agendized meetings. In anticipation of the town’s several upcoming meetings on Hawthorns, we oTer the following input and recommendations.

1. We support Midpen’s goal of holistic integration of the Hawthorns3. Further, we believe this requires integrative framing from the start, rather than separate consideration of the Unimproved and Improved portions4 or addressing parking separate from activities it will serve5. Therefore we recommend assembling information on integration of the property as a whole. An indication of the timeliness of this approach is Midpen’s accelerated planning for the Historic Complex’s Lower Barn6 and its potential implications for the Unimproved portion. 1 House: 9,100 sf, Garage: 2,200 sf, Cottage: 1,300 sf, Lower Barn: 4,500 sf 2 In late 2022, Town Manager Jeremy Dennis requested various Town Committees provide representation to the Hawthorns Ad Hoc Committee; the Open Space Committee was including, represented by Betsy Morgenthaler. 3 Specifically, “Incorporate the Historic Complex holistically within the overall Hawthorns Area Plan.” https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/4%20-
%2020241009_HawthornsHistoricComplexLowerBarnPartnership_R-24-122.pdf (Goal #9, page 2). 4 The 79-acre Hawthorns has been divided in several ways. It is comprised of 3 Assessor parcels; and 2 areas defined by the Conservation Easement as “Improved Portion “and “Unimproved Portion” (sometimes as Unimproved parcel). More recently, Midpen distinguished between the “Hawthorns Area” and “Historic Complex”.
5 At their July and August Board meetings, Midpen sta` shared that apart from limited parking in the Historic Complex, a public parking lot located across the hill on Alpine Road would more largely serve the Historic Complex.
6 A partnership agreement regarding the Lower Barn has been requested by January 2025. https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/4%20-
%2020241009_HawthornsHistoricComplexLowerBarnPartnership_R-24-122.pdf (page 3).

2. We support Midpen’s goal of ensuring safe access7 and recommend expanding the scope to consider safety for all. Midpen is advancing two of the PAWG’s parking options for Town consideration. Each includes parking for 50 cars, a fire truck turnaround, and toilet facility. They diTer primarily in the location of ingress-egress:
• Ingress-Egress Option 10, via a 4-way intersection at Alpine & Portola Roads • Ingress-Egress Option 9, via the existing driveway opposite Roberts Market We recommend that those proposals address the nexus of safety issues at the intersection of Alpine Road and Portola Road fully and in a forward-thinking way.

How would use of Alpine Trail by school children and hikers, and use of Alpine Road by motorists and cyclists be aTected? Has a thorough safety study of the Alpine Road corridor and points of contact been conducted and made public? Would the parking lot serve hikers, visitors to the Historic Complex, both8? How was parking capacity determined?

3. We welcome and support the alignment of the Hawthorns Conservation Easement and the Town’s Municipal Code and General Plan in terms of restrictions on grading and tree removals9. We recommend that each parking option address those restrictions by specifying: the amount of cut and fill10, the number of significant trees that would be removed, and any likely hydrologic changes. More broadly, we would request a full explanation of how Parking Options 9 and 10 are consistent with the Conservation Easement11.

4. It will be important for the Town to understand Midpen’s compliance with the conditions of POST’s Conservation Easement. The importance is to understand the guardrails under which the design will be judged.
7 https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/4%20-
%2020241009_HawthornsHistoricComplexLowerBarnPartnership_R-24-122.pdf (Goal #6, page 2). 8 At their July and August Board meetings Midpen sta` shared that apart from limited parking in the Historic Complex, a public parking lot located across the hill on Alpine Road would more largely serve the Historic Complex.
9 “Prohibited Uses” within the Hawthorns Conservation Easement include specific language regarding “Soil Erosion and Degradation” page 5, #3(d); “Excavation” page 6, #3(n);“Scenic and Natural Character” page 6, #3(o); “Tree Cutting” page 5, #3(e); “New Utilities” page 5, #3(g); “Building” page 4, #3(c) 10 Hawthorns at Alpine Road has soil types (slope wash and Franciscan Complex), ground movement potential (the Berrocal-Black Mountain Fault), which coupled with the impacts of climate change point to the import of land use review. Both Options 9 and 10 require significant regrading / cut & fill. 11 Option 10 sits almost wholly within the Unimproved Portion of Hawthorns where the strictest conservation measures apply. A sizeable portion of Option 9 is also within the Unimproved Portion. In June, at the conclusion of the PAWG process, Midpen sta` informed the PAWG that POST’s reading of Article 6 of the Conservation Easement allowed for the consideration of Parking Option 10 (and 9). Article 10 may also be relevant to POST’s interpretation, but we are not aware of discussion with the Town about the “Amendment” clause.

5. As part of an integrated assessment, we recommend that the Town consider connectivity of Hawthorn trails to Town trails in terms of trail maintenance, Town responsibilities, and compliance with trail use rules, and seek input from Portola Valley Ranch.

6. We recommend a review of Assembly Bill 2091 (Grayson) regarding new options for opening Hawthorns to the public. AB 2091 was enacted last month and allows park districts to forgo CEQA if, in opening the park, public access is limited to preexisting paved and natural surface roads, trails and pathways, and parking is limited to disturbed areas. We note that Midpen was co-sponsor with East Bay Regional Park District of AB 2091.

The Open Space Committee welcomes the opportunity to support the Town in making future decisions based on a full picture of Hawthorns, all while integrating the details that inform its parts. At this time, we believe it premature to consider evaluating either parking Option 9 or 10.

Respectfully,
The Open Space Committee
Betsy Morgenthaler Chair
Nona Chiariello, Vice Chair
Terry Lee
Beverly Lipman
Gary Nielsen
Carter Warr