Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20051130 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) Open S Regional Op pace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 05-26 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 7:30 p.m. Wednesday,November 30, 2005 Los Altos Youth Center I North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California AGENDA* 7:30* SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA—L. Hassett ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR—L. Hassett BOARD BUSINESS 7:40* la Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment for the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve which Currently Has an Interim Designation for Hiking and Equestrian Use Only; Determine that All Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from CEQA—Use and Management Committee&C. Britton 7:50* lb Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment for the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve which Currently Has an Interim Designation for Hiking Use Only; Determine that All Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from CEQA—Use and Management Committee & C. Britton 8:00* Ic Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment for the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve which Currently Has an Interim Designation for Hiking Use Only; Determine that All Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from CEQA—Use and Management Committee&C. Britton 8:10 1 d Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment for the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve which Currently Has an Interim Designation for Hiking Use Only; Direct Staff to Evaluate Trail Bridges for Equestrian Use; Determine Number of Trees to be Removed Which Would be a Requirement for Multiple Use; Direct Staff to Prepare a Proposal to Expedite Planning and Implementation of a Bay Area Ridge Trail Segment Along Skyline Boulevard; Determine that All Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from CEQA—Use and Management Committee &C. Britton *** 2 Cancel Special Meeting of December 7, 2005; Call Special Board Meeting for December 20, 2005 —C. Britton *** REVISED CLAIMS 8:15* INFORMATIONAL REPORTS—Brief reports or announcements concerning pertinent activities of District Directors and Staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to Staff for factual information; request Staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future meeting;or direct Staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Meeting 05-26 Page 2 8:30* ADJOURNMENT TIMES ARE ESTIMATED AND ITEMS MAY APPEAR EARLIER OR LATER THAN LISTED.AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OF ORDER. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair 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. All items on the consent calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. 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. Please note all reports on this agenda are posted on the District website, www.opensp7ace.org. In t the left column,,:click on Agendas + Minutes. Scroll down to the date of the meeting you are r st I c r Ic [interested in and click on VIEW in the AGENDA column. Scroll down the agenda and click the click report po you u would I to eport you would like to read. LOS ALTOS YOUTH CENTER BOARD MEETING LOCATION I N. San AMONO Rd-1 Los Aj—Y-1 CO— M.rfl LI—ion 110 pox y Cy F-dah P—" HOA— Sao O C 70 0 CV CC: .2 O O Pine Lane< Arbuelo to Almond Av (D Edith AvLocation PJ2 3 0 'N co ON N f PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Trail Use Designations for Four Trails The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Board of Directors will be considering adoption of use and management plan amendments for four different Preserves to formally designate the allowed trail use for the following trails(these trails currently have interim trail use designations): ..............._...................................._....................................._................................_.__......_......_._..............._............__. . . _ .,............._........._..__._...._ _— _.._._...___ _—.�__.-..................._..............._......- ._.._.._.—_.._._.__.._.._..........._..............._......._ Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open I Legend Space Preserve �~ lni Oi.dr�¢6MG1.. The Use and Management Committee recommends no change to the interim use ,,- . . . . r designation,which would mean that the trail I . would remain open to hiking use only on an interim basis. 4cz� 1i flltNl()M Mot, reYam. OPFN SPA F The General Manager recommends ; M" removing the interim use status and ':. formally designating the use of the trail as c w Or4dl eb open to hiking only. O . Mleveae Cerh Pahla Mina, Caunl rY i r The current interim trail use designation is b-� hiking only. f ' f .._ • Trail Use e'�ti M Mr.�+ Slevrn+GtA bd Nair. weer. p,�w M'c,�..�r�. '�•� �l.`va�' tl�na�ir�e.d� f .. � d We pwv.a. ..... ._......... ...............___ ._..... ....... ........ .. Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Legend I Crk Ptl Redwoods Open Space Preserve „ r y .rill lMfnann In MYb veAl�e orivewa, The Use and Management Committee recommends no change to the interim use c�'"l '- -f>''' Subs designation to maintain the trail open to "'"P"'""`°` hiking use only on an interim basis. The ,&;0„M6B Committee also recommends that the Board direct staff to evaluate the various trail bridges to determine if these can accommodate equestrian use; determine the number of trees that would need to be DnA t, removed if the trail were open to multiple- use;and prepare a proposal to expedite the O planning and implementation of a Bay Area i Ridge Trail segment along the Skyline ah.Nu'`t.& J7 f r n Boulevard ridgeline. NaPat+i�F.rr mrreor R.1 Eta Trail Use The General Manager recommends r H Mind Cady removing the interim use status and ; formally designating the use of the trail as open to hiking only. =p..db«"d" PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS ON as mi.Pt<rvt. N Open Space Preserve The current interim trail use designation is: hikingonly. _..__...__.._..._.__._.__..........__..........___............_.._............... ..._.......__.................- .... _.._........_................................................._........................... .......__,. Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space i -- Preserve I Both the Use and Management Committee and the General Manager recommend that this trail be officially designated as open to hiking and equestrian use only. t ( ;' fit i The current interim trail use designation is: open to hiking and equestrian use. r L, RANCHO SAN ANTONIO O ._..—_._. .....Open Space Preserve_ Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve - I Both the Use and Management Committee and the General ' 'r Manager recommend that this trail M� be officially designated as open to � _,,,,, 11 t _ `�-� a subject ,. hiking use only. �, • '�_�l.r `.L""_r _ r"p ...f- The current interim trail use designation is:open to hiking use. Public Review Process: The upcoming public meeting is your LOS ALTOS YOUTH CENTER BOARD MEETING LOCATION opportunity to provide input on the trail use recommendations that will _ ti be before the Board of Directors. This meeting is scheduled for: �ereId Date: Wednesday,November 30,2005 1 Location: Los Altos Youth Center 0 1 North San Antonio Road in Los Altos Time: Board meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. 0 o,ava ar.R / Written comments are also welcome if you are unable to attend. If you ine Lanec ArWelo ' have questions,please contact Cathy Woodbury,Planning Manager,at (650) 691-1200. For copies of the staff reports,please visit our website at www.openspace.org. Imond Av m .a a The Mission of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is: "To acquire and preserve a dl n g regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity;protect and restore the natural environment; % c a and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. s , \NI I J Regional Open Spat. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-05-121 AMENDED Meeting 05-26 November 30, 2005 AGENDA ITEM la AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment to Designate the Use of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Which Currently Has An Interim Designation For Hiking and Equestrian Use Only USE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve for hiking and equestrian use only. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the recommended actions are Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report. 2. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve for hiking and equestrian use only. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors has not yet formally designated the use of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Since its construction in the 1980's, the trail has been open on an interim basis for hiking and equestrians only. The Planning Department's FY 05/06 Action Plan includes the preparation of Use and Management Plan Amendments to designate the use of trails that are currently open on an interim basis. Use and Management Committee Meeting On November 2, 2005, the Use and Management Committee reviewed the status and staffs analysis of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio, the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge, the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch, and the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and received public input on potential use of the trails (see Black Mountain Trail Exhibit A). Approximately 13 members of the community attended the Committee meeting and the District received 20 written communications, which are attached to this report (Exhibit B). Generally bicyclists at the meeting expressed great interest in opening this trail to multi-use and cited its importance as a regional multi-use trail connection to the Skyline area. In addition, a recommendation was made by a representative of the bicycling community to designate "Bicycle Sunday"to allow multi-use of the trail one day of the week. Several equestrians stated that they R-05-121 Page 2 would not like bicycles on the trail in general, but would support `Bicycle Sunday." Approximately half of the written communications recommended maintaining all four trails under consideration, including the Black Mountain Trail, for hiking only or as they are currently used. The remainder of the correspondence recommended opening the trails for bicycling and/or equestrians. Existing Trail Conditions The entire trail length is approximately 3.9 miles. • PG&E has an easement over the upper 1.2 miles of the trail to access transmission lines and towers. The District inherited this segment of road when the property was purchased. The road averages about 12 feet in width to accommodate PG&E service vehicles. The average grade is approximately 15-20%, with shorter segments of steeper gradient. The tread in this area is very rocky and unconsolidated, due to vehicle use and underlying geology. Hikers need to exercise caution in steep areas not to slip on the loose rock. The trail alignment is fairly straight without switchbacks, providing excellent line-of-sight. • The lower 2.7-mile segment of the Black Mountain Trail was constructed by District staff in the 1980's to make the connection between Black Mountain and trails in the Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area of Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. This segment of trail is approximately three (3) feet wide and incorporates many switchbacks. The average gradient of the lower portion is approximately 10 percent per District standards. Current Trail Use The entire trail is open on an interim basis to hiking and equestrian use; bicycling is currently not allowed. Dogs are not allowed on this Preserve or within Rancho San Antonio County Park. Connecting trails that continue through Hidden Villa to the west and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve to the east are designated for hiking and equestrian use only. Hidden Villa does not allow bicycles on their trails. Foothills Operations staff report that the lower portion of Black Mountain Trail is popular with hikers who enjoy the narrow, winding nature of the trail. This trail segment is frequently used by hikers who enjoy the challenge and aerobic workout of the steep climb from the Rhus Ridge parking lot. Planning Considerations and Consistency with the District's Trail Use Policies The steep grade of the upper portion of the trail would lend itself to high bicycle speeds, which in combination with the rocky surface, could result in hazardous safety conditions and increase potential conflicts with other trail users. Excessive speed would likely result in cyclists having to "lock up" their brakes under these circumstances, leading to erosion, which would increase the need for trail maintenance. Staff considered an "uphill only" trail. However Operations staff have observed that there is typically little compliance with uphill only trail regulations, and enforcement of the regulation would be very difficult. Given the length of the trail, there is also the possibility that some riders would simply descend back down the trail if they were not able to make it to the top. R-05-121 Page 3 Surrounding trails are designated for hiking and equestrian use only. The District's Trail Use Policies (Exhibit C) encourage trail uses on District lands that are compatible with interconnecting trails. Opening the Black Mountain Trail to cyclists could encourage illegal exploration of adjoining trails in Hidden Villa and Rancho San Antonio, which are closed to mountain biking. In addition, the District's Trail Use Guidelines and Mitigation Measures (Exhibit D) determined that designating periods of trail use (days or hours) has low effectiveness in providing a safe and enjoyable trail experience for all users and protecting the natural resources. Additional enforcement would be difficult and confusing for users. The District's Trail Use Policies establish a target of 60-65%multi-use trails. Currently 68% of the � trails District-wide are open to multi-use (hiking, bicycling and equestrians). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice of this meeting was mailed to owners and residents of the properties adjacent to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, interested organizations, and other parties who have expressed interest in the trail use designation. Notice of this meeting was also posted at the Preserve's trailheads and on the District's website. CEQA COMPLIANCE The District concludes that continuing the current use of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve by designating the trail for hiking and equestrian use will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 as follows: Section 15301 exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities such as trails, which does not expand existing uses. This proposal would continue existing uses of the Trail with no or negligible expansion of use, and therefore falls within the exemptions set out in Section 15301. Prepared by: Meredith Manning, Open Space Planner I Matt Freeman, Senior Open Space Planner Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Contact person: Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Exhibits A. Preserve Map B. Written Communications C. Trail Use Policies D. Trail Use Guidelines and Mitigation Measures i I G--'11�� // �-.,,v✓�J � r �q�,`�c�e F°off'' �,-n.,=i. [J.-.°'�'' to r�'.�`�, >✓� F*,oP H c,xg,l-urs_t- ko < rn Q � �.�• � ham--' � _, LOS ALTOS HILLS ��,✓ �--� �" n(��V•" w 2230 Duven Windmill g^ Pasttuu re Area t� . r/ rrsl Di— Hidden Villa , ( (No bicycles s `/.�Ta;`/L� \o1i esou veMek od.eway are allowed)1 "� a _ B r.1c,are not / wc-I o,DI.-Hollo allw Farm. ( ^s 00 ///r' r • I 6p fY ' zav aw °S,ae galley trait . 0.3G ieS `,aler Vim' Nil . o L ,2ao\ +�` 4 Lower •®� 2t30 Packing Lot ♦ �,� ' `/�—� Wilde inir P Pd/ r S Meadow t JPP`ri�M� a /•�.�/ly os, • •mum aa,. rail 0/� ( ---'/ U�• Nigka4a ` ( ay o.s� eNd.U`yodd Vista P,un •.a,/ , 0.6 rer.•n t, ` '� Il wildcat Loop ��/'�®: t onlyl r �v\ 0' `,% Fgnestrian Park{r�g Subject / ,zoo �`;y aTaa d`�`'�'� ��. iaii•0.3 .w V �'•. ems_ r• • Molbw /rSRsoi ® 0 - ��Q'�iI ` o Residenrr i \ Trail Farm 0.3 � .�•` \ v`,/1 P 9t�ye 3.91 f • ,.9 w �'a"� � 0 anR(ral � S Ramr facility tmio my Park 1.6 V ` C�Packf Lard ReStroams —V » 02 -c. V l \ �� �500 Drinking W,er Pomt of ln,errsl Iwmu • /y'/�/' ,/ Black Mountain RANCHO SAN ANTONIO 0.0 .1 .2 3 A s .6 .R .9 ON One Mile Open Space Preserve rn o� y a EXHIBIT B Cathy Woodbury From: ' General Information Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:11 PM To: Matt Freeman; Cathy Woodbury Subject: Fw: Pichetti ranch: equestrian use ----- Original Message----- From: SpiritOfl977S7a aol.com To: info@openspace.org Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: Pichetti ranch: equestrian use To Whom it may Concern: I am writing in regards to equestrian use on the Pichetti Ranch open space preserve (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District). I wish to remain anonymous. I have been riding at Brookside Stables in Cupertino for several years and frequently ride my horse in the preserve. I have ridden all of the trails thoroughly , Bear Meadow, Vista Loop, Orchard Loop. Although the trails are very nice, my problem is that they are all so brief. I can finish all of these trails within a half hour. When I go trail riding, I often would like to go for one and a half to two hours. In order to have a complete ride, I have to circle the same trails over and over again, and it gets boring. I am writing specifically regarding the Zinfandel trail. It is by far the best, and longest-trail in the preserve, and it is also blocked to horses. My curiousity has gotten the better of me on several occasions and I admit that Ih ha ve e ridden r a ound the barrie r in order to explore this trail. A question comes to my mind: Why is this trail blocked to equestrians?Although it is narrow, it is not too narrow for a horse. The Bear Meadow trail leading down to the road is just as narrow, and it is open to horses. Passing hikers on the Zinfandel is no easier or harder than it is on the other trails. Sometimes there will be a part on the trail that is too narrow to pass and a hiker will have to step off the trail in order to let the horse se pass. In my opinion the Zinfandel trail is equally as safe as the other trails. There is absolutely no reason this trail should be blocked for equestrian use. There is not enough areas to ride as it is, and to block this trail is unneccesary. To me the Zinfandel trail is the perfect trail; it is long enough for a complete ride, and I do not have to ride on the road in order to access it, as I do when I ride in Fremont Older. I have always felt this wayabout the trail for the past few ears but the e reason P Y why I finally decided to speak up about it was because I saw a notice posted in front of the Pichetti Winery entrance stating that there was to be a hearingregarding use of the tra ils ails and one of the e trails in 9 9 question was the Zinfandel, which is the trail I would like to ride on. Please let me know the status of this. Is there any possibility that the authorities have decided to let eq uestrians q use this trail legally. WHatever the case, Just j know that there is at least one equestrian out there (and probably several others at Brookside) that would very much appreciate being able to ride on the Zinfandel trail. -Anonymous trail user. email:Spiritof1977@aol.com i i 11/7/2005 -----Original Message----- From: public@openspace.org [mailto:public@openspace.org] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 12:42 PM To: BOARD Cc: henry.pastorelli@moldev.com Subject: 11/03/2005 - henry.pastorelli@moldev.com - Contact Board First Name: Henry Last Name: Pastorelli Phone Number: 650 967 8320 Email Address: henry.pastorelli@moldev.com Ward / Location: los altos Comments: Greetings MROSD Use & Management Committee, Regarding Nov. 2nd meeting: Please take this opportunity to improve access within your preserves. Regional routes to provide off road loops are very important to a f existing . Mountain bikers usage cyclists experinece and safety e o g trails continues to increase causing us to become increasingly corraled into smaller areas. Please consider opening these trails. thanks Henry Pastorelli -----Original Message----- From: Bill Bauriedel [mailto:billb@stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 1:51 PM To: Matt Freeman Subject: MROSD trail use Dear Matt, Just back from NYC and not really prepared to say anything much about this issue which I just learned about today. But, in general, it is my opinion that it is a bad policy to allow dual use at the same time on our narrowest and short visibility trails. Either specify times for hikers, times for bikers, times for horses or widen the trails so that all can use the trails simultaneously. I would prefer not to widen the trails. That takes away from the outdoor experience (imagine an asphalt trail with a center line and guard rails - ouch! ! ) Single use at a time is fine with me so long as there is another preserve nearby with the opposite designation and signs telling groups where to go if they need an alternative. Bill Bauriedel ---Original Message----- From: Marilyn Bauriedel (mailto:mbauriedel@ursu.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:35 PM To: Matt Freeman Cc: Bill Bauriedel; Docent Subject: Today's committee meeting re trails Dear Matt: As a docent for MROSD for 18+ years, I've seen a lot of changes--most for the good. I've also had a lot of dangerous encounters with unruly or careless bicyclists in several preserves when leading large and small groups. I can't be at this afternoon's meeting but want to strongly urge the committee not to recommend opening up Picchetti Ranch trails (Zin, I believe) or the Soda Gulch Trail in Purisima to bicycles. I know that many families with small children and many elders hike in Picchetti on the Zin trail. I've taken groups in there with car shuttle and done the trail from the county park to the ranch or vice versa. The Zin Trail is too narrow in places for comfortable co-existence of bicyclists and hikers. I vote a resounding "no" if you are polling hike leaders on this one. Keep it a low-key place where people on foot do not fea r they encounter I a fast bicyclist who doesn't give a warning. Likewise, as I 've hiked with many people on a long loop at Purisima including Soda Gulch, I've often feared that MROSD would open Soda Gulch Trail to bicyclists. It's just too dangerous, in my opinion. I would find it so uncomfortable hiking there if I knew I'd have to look out over my shoulder all the time. It spoils the peacefulness of that serene and majestic area of that preserve to think about having to be on guard as a hiker. There are such steep drop-offs. I could see a bicyclist or hiker going over the edge. Bicyclists, to be fair to them, have plenty of thrill-seekers' paradise trails in Purisima without making Soda Gulch a multi-use trail, I firmly believe. Sincerely, Marilyn Bauriedel -Sally Thielfoldt From: public@openspace.org ,nt: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:55 AM a: BOARD Cc: kenton@rahul.net Subject: 11/02/2005-kenton@rahul.net-Contact Board First Name: Ken Last Name: Lee Email Address: kenton@rahul.net Ward / Location: Palo Alto Comments: I understand that MROSD is trying to improve bicycle access to MROSD lands. I strongly encourage and applaud this effort. Currently, there are very few car-free access routes to the MROSD lands along Skyline Blvd. from the populated areas of the mid- peninsula. I would very much like to see more trails up to Skyline open to bicycles in San Mateo i e Black Mou ntain Tr ail Clara Count I hope that you can open th Santa Cla P County and norther n Y to bicycles from Rancho San Antonio OSP up to Montebello OSP. I would also like to see more bicycle trails from San Mateo County to Skyline. Thank you. I I I 1 Sally Thielfoldt From: public@openspace.org int: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:57 AM p: BOARD Cc: oare@comcast.net Subject: 11/02/2005-oare@comcast.net-Contact Board First Name: David Last Name: Oare Email Address: oare@comcast.net Comments: Hi, A quick note to support the opening of the proposed trails to bikes and horses. There many reasons why these changes make sense--decreasing trail use density, completing the Bay Area ridge trail. Let me add another one for Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima. At it stands now, the biking users of these preserve frequently complete there loops by riding a stretch of Skyline. The road in this section is dark--particularly on foggy days and in the late afternoon-- and it is hard to see bikes on the road. It is only a matter of time before a preserve user will needlessly be seriously injured (or worse! ) while riding this road section. Opening Soda Gulch trail would provide a viable loop and keep many of the bikes off the road. Personally, in the few times I have been on Soda Gulch Trail, I have never seen he trail head keeping hikers because it is far away from t p g another user. This is likely bec Y away. It seems pointless to force cyclists onto Skyline because 30 hikers a week use a trail. This is not a heavily used, user conflict prone trail and should be opened to all users. To not open this trail segment would be grossly irresponsible. i i i i 1 i f -----Original Message----- From: public@openspace.org [mailto:public@openspace.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:06 PM To: BOARD Subject: 11/02/2005 - vochl963@yahoo.com - Contact Board First Name: Christine Last Name: Voci Email Address: vochl963@yahoo.com Ward / Location: Cupertino Comments: Please, please , please consider opening the Black Mountain Trail, Zinfandel Trail, Picchetti Ranch, Ridge Trail (south of Horseshoe Lake) in Skyline Ridge, and the Soda Gulch Trail in Purisima Creek Open Space Preserves to mountain bikers. Cyclists should not be discriminated against. We should have access to the same quality trails as hikers and equestrians, instead of just steep, exposed fire roads. Regional and longer connecting trails reduce cyclist density at trailheads providing more, positive user experiences for everyone. Studies show that mountain biking does not damage trails any more than hiking or horses! Opening trails to cyclists that create 5, 10, 15 mile loops in underused preserves reduces density in more popular preserves. The Bay Area Ridge trail is intended to be multi-use. Please consider opening all sections of Ridge trail to Mountain Biking. -----Original Message----- From: Susan Peterson [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, November 02,"R 11:50 WM To: Matt Freeman Subject: Thoughts from a MPOSD docent on Review Status of four trails currently closed to bicycling and equestrians Dear Matt Freeman, As a M.P. Open Space District docent for eight years I have frequently hiked the Zinfandel Trail and the Soda Gulch Trail. Both trails should remain closed to bicycling and equestrians use because they are extremely narrow with steep drops-offs on one side and steep banks on the other. In some places there is virtually no safe way for a hiker to step off the trail to allow a bike or horse to pass by. Additionally the downhill trail edges are unstable and can be seriously damaged by such uses. I urge you to recommend that those two trails remain closed to bicycling and equestrian use. Additionally I suggest that signs and pass-through gates at each end of those trails be improved to better clarify the use restriction to bicyclists. I have encountered as many as ten bicyclists riding up Soda Gulch Trail on one day, each of whom claimed not to have known that Soda Gulch Trail was closed to bicycling. In fact that particular day I was run into from behind by a bicyclist who had no where to go to avoid slower paced walkers in front of him and chose not to alert us of his approach. The narrow gates at each end of Soda Gulch Trail and on Zinfandel Trail are designed, and I presume effective, for stopping horses. A different sort of entrance obstacle is necessary for a bicycle---perhaps two off-set gates requiring weaving through. In fact I suggest that a more bicycle proof transition gate structure be installed on all preserves wherever a mixed use trail changes to a pedestrian only trail. Having that sort of warning would at least require a bicyclist to knowingly start along a pedestrian use trail. I know less about the Ridge Trail south of Horseshoe lake, but I believe there is a wider parallel alternative available for mixed use so opening a narrow walking trail is not necessary for traveling on the Ridge Trail. Finally about the Black Mountain Trail, I urge you to consider where fast moving bicycles would go after traveling down that trail. As far as I can see on my map of Rancho S.A. there are currently no bicycling use trails leading to Black Mountain Trail, and although Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area does have trail wide enough for mixed use, Rhus Ridge Trail is extremely steep in places, and I shudder to think of the accident potential for bike- pedestrian collision on that trail. I hope all four trails remain closed to bicycling and equestrian use. I presently plan my private and docent walks for Preserves and trails that are designated pedestrian use only because I want to be safe and quietly observant of the plants and animals around me without having to jump off the trail for passing bikes or even being hit by bikes. I hear from cyclists that they also have greater pleasure from their ride if they have room to pass pedestrians on roads or trails wide enough for a 'pedestrian lane' . Thank you for considering my views, Susan Peterson, MPOSD Outdoor Activity Docent and resident of the district From: Chris MacIntosh [mailto Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:52 AM To: Matt Freeman Subject: Use & management cttee meeting: comments on trail use This email concerns the agenda item for this afternoon's Use & Management Committee meeting, regarding amending Preserve Use &Management Plans for 4 preserves. I have been a Docent for MROSD for 25+years, and have seen the evolution of trails and trail use over the years. While I understand the wish of bicyclists to have as wide a choice of trails to enjoy as hikers have, and to be able to cycle the Ridge Trail, I think that there are good reasons for keeping these cited trails closed to bicyclists. A. Black Mountain Trail, Rancho San Antonio OSP. I remember this from decades ago . for enduran ce training. If this is still the case the will as a trail used by equestrians g � Y not wish to encounter bicyclists speeding downhill. The trail climbs so much that hikers need to stop at 'puffing places' frequently, which is made easy by the great views. Not all bicyclists are likely to obey the speed rules. This leads to accidents, and to scares for all which,unlike boots nev er leave contact - made b tires h users. The continuous ruts , , trail use Y with the ground - lead to erosion when water runs off by following the easiest route, which is the tire tracks. On this trail in particular, this will surely be a major problem. When it's frosty or snowy (I have hiked this trail with snow on the ground) will bicycle accidents not increase? B. Zinfandel trail, Picchetti OSP. This whole preserve, including the Zinfandel trail, is much used by families, often with small children, and by older people and seniors. These constituencies are likely to avoid trails where they will encounter bicycles. Despite major progress in speed control and trail manners by the bicycle community since the early days of the activity, bicycles are still faster and, to some people, scarier than people on foot. C. Ridge Trail, Skyline OSP. This trail is very narrow in places, with tight corners. It is not conducive to bike to bike or bike to foot traffic encounters. There is already an alternative route down the Skyline corridor from Horseshoe Lake to Skyline Pond(or Alpine Pond: whatever its current official name is). D. Soda Gulch Trail, Purisima OSP. Like the other trails, this trail has narrow places and is often a "haven" for hikers who would like to relax and enjoy the preserve without constantly listening for an approaching bike, or often having to move off the trail to avoid a bike. There are already extensive and challenging bike routes in this park. In short, I think current uses of these trails should remain in place. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Chris MacIntosh Menlo Park i i From: Hintermeister Jan-AJH130 [mailto:Jan.Hintermeister@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:01 AM To: Matt Freeman Subject: tonight's use and maintenance meeting - trail status Dear Use and Management Committee Members, I am writing to encourage you to maintain hiker-only trails on MROSD preserves and to give you my perspective on hiker-biker interactions. I am a MROSD docent and regularly lead hikes on MROSD preserves. First, I think it's important to maintain good access for both hikers and bicyclists on MROSD preserves. As a hiker, my interactions with bicyclists have been overwhelmingly positive, with only a few exceptions. Hikers and bicyclists do a good job of sharing the common trails. However, it is undeniable that bicyclists do tend to degrade the hiking experience. As a docent, we are trained to watch and listen for bicyclists, and then move our group to the uphill side. As a hiker, I accommodate this need to make way for bicyclists, but it's important to recognize that the necessity for hikers to always be on the alert, especially for bicyclists approaching from the rear, does degrade the outdoor experience. This is an accommodation that must be made to share the trails. However, I think that it's important to maintain significant hiker only trails that will maintain for hikers the opportunity to focus on the experience of being in nature free from concern about who's corning u from behind at high speeds. p g Jan Hintermeister MROSD Outdoor Activities Docent From: Debbi Brusco [mailto Sent: Wednesday, November To: Matt Freeman Subject: 11/2 meeting agenda Matt, I would like to put in my two cents and say that I do not think that these trails should be opened to bicycle use, especially single track portions. In all my years of hiking, I have yet to come across a bicyclist who stops for a hiker or group of hikers, rather than the other way around, and often they are traveling too fast. (Picchetti in particular has older folks and kids walking around, as you probably know.) I was recently pre-hiking with another docent at El Corte de Madera on the Methuselah and Sierra Morena trails, a portion of which is by the highway and very narrow. We stopped and stepped to the side as much as possible, but it was pretty difficult with packs on. I certainly wouldn't take a group there during the day. Black Mountain Trail,Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Zinfandel Trail,Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve Ridge Trail(south of Horseshoe Lake),Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Soda Gulch Trail,Purisirna Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Debbi Brusco From: judy@fenerty.com [mail k, Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 5 :5 To: Matt Freeman Subject: User Group Changes Hello Matt- I was informed about the proposed user-group changes for four trails in the District, and I was told you could accept email comments on the topic. As a hiker, I would like to strongly request that bicycles *not* be allowed on these trails. Of the four trails in question, I am particularly 1 concerned about the Zinfandel Tr ail and the Bl ack Mountain/Duveneck Trail. I frequently hike in Picchetti Ranch and use the Zin Trail. The trail is narrow, has a number of sharp turns, and stream/seep crossings. As far as I can tell, the trail is also apparently prone to slumping in some of the sections that cross-cut the steep slope through the bay woodland. Adding bicycles would accelerate erosion, particularly during rail widening when bikes attempt to avoid mudholes. the rainy season, and lead tot g p More importantly, I believe MROSD made the correct decision several years ago when Ranch OSP was closed to bicycles, along with six other District preserves. This cchetti ,Pi g Y p p reserve is an excellent lace for families and hikers to experience a quiet nature experience, particularly with the added attraction of the winery, and wildlife is abundant. Adding the inevitable conflicts with bikers on the many blind corners of the Zin trail would detract from the experience and enjoyment of the preserve that many people have Older and S t. Joseph's Hill discovered as an alternative to the crowded multi-use Fremont OSPs. trail from the Windmill Pasture to thoughts are similar regarding in the single-track MY g g g Black Mountain, as the steepness of the trail would certainly lead to some terrifying encounters for hikers. I have seen bike tracks on this trail on a number of occasions, which would lead me to conclude that bikers are already using it. This in itself does not seem sufficient justification to make this a legal use. Thank you for accepting my comments on this issue. Over the last ten years I have led public hikes on all four of the trails in question, and I greatly value the areas MROSD has set aside for hikers-only use. i Regards, Judy Fenerty MROSD Volunteer Docent, Trail Patrol, and Community Outreach Programs i i From: Karen DeMello [mailto:karen.demello@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:53 AM To: Matt Freeman Subject: Comments for meeting on bike trails Matt, It is my understanding that there is a meeting this afternoon on opening certain trails for bikes, and that since I cannot attend the meeting due to work conflicts that I should send you my comments. As a hiker, I have noticed that in the past few years the mountain bicyclists behavior has certainly improved over what it was a decade ago. In the past few months I've had only a few occurrences of bicyclists flying by at dangerous speeds, and only 1 occurrence of a bicyclist yelling out a snide comment about how many "points" they'd get for running me over on the trail. Overall, the bicyclists are courteous and careful. That said, it is difficult to "share" single track trails with bicycles. The Black Mountain trail is a peaceful, beautiful trail, and the single-track area with the switchbacks just seems like heaven. At present mountain bikes are encountered on the trail (illegally, I suppose), and it's a bit of a scare for a hiker breathing in the serenity of the moment to have the sound and speed of a bike go by. I fear that opening the trail to mountain bikers will mean more on the trail. Right now I encounter lots of mountain bikes at Long Ridge and Monte Bello, and it really does take away from the hiking experience. I urge you to consider "peace and quiet" for hikers, plus safety concerns on single-track trails, when evaluating which trails to open to mountain bikes. Thank you for your consideration, Karen DeMello Mountain View i -----Original Message---- From: svheist(o),aol.com To: info[openspace.orq Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:34 PM Subject: Dean Little- Use and Management Mtg, Nov 2, 2-4 pm Dear MROSD Chair - Use and Management Committee, In regards to the Use and Management meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 2, from 2:00-4:00 pm: All outdoor enthusiasts who live on the peninsula should have the benefits of enjoying our parks and trails. However, I believe that bicycles and other vehicles cause unnecessary harm to the trail environment. There are already trails that allow bicycle access in order to give bicycle enthusiasts their share. Therefore, in order to preserve the remaining MROSD land from harm caused by vehicles, please do not add any more trails to the existing ones mentioned above. Thank you! Susan Heist Black Mountain Regional Group (former chair) - Loma Prieta Chapter - Sierra Club -----Original Message----- From: public@openspace.org [mailto:public@openspace.org] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:01 PM To: BOARD Cc: Subject: 10/31/2005 - - Contact Board First Name: Martin Last Name: Hendess Email Address: Ward / Location: San Jose Comments: I understand there is a public meeting this Wednesday, November 2nd about four trails in local preserves currently closed to mountain bikes. Unfortunately, since this meeting is during the workday I cannot attend. Therefore I wanted to make my opinion known in this email. I hope you decide to open the trails to mountain bikes/multi-use. There are a lot of people in the Bay Area. For that very reason we must learn to get along. Hikers must realize some people like to bike. Bikers must realize that hikers and horses deserve accomodation. The more trails that are open to all, the more spread out we will all become. And that's a good thing. r -----Original Message----- From: public@openspace.org [mailto:public@openspace.org] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:22 PM To: BOARD Cc: Sub - Contact Board First Name: Shane Last Name Reed Email Address: Ward / Locatio . i-IMM Comments: I heard that the board is having a meetingon Nov 2nd to talk about access for bicycles and horses on a couple of trails that are currently off-limits. I want to say thank you for looking at this issue and express my support for the idea of opening the following trails to bicycles and horses. 1. Black mountain trail in Rancho San Antonio 2. Soda Gulch trail in Purisma Creek OSP 3. Zinfandel Trail in Picchetti Ranch OSP 4 . Ridge Trail section in Skyline Ridge OSP It appears that these are key trails that would enable mountain bikes and horses to access terrain higher in the mountains and ride larger loops, while driving shorter distances, poluting less, and with less need to ride on dangerous sections of roads where cars are moving at high speeds. I cannot make this meeting to speak in person because I have to be at work but I want to say thank you again for considering a multi-use designation for these trails. Shane Reed i i -----Original Message----- From: hysakai To: info openspace.org Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:02 PM Subject: Trail use by bikers Dear Mr Little: 1 understand that the board will meet Wednesdayto consider whether more o the trails f in the Open Space District should be opened to mountain bikers. Having hiked the open space district trails for many years, I appreciate the opportunity to enjoy the peace and serenity of these beautiful trails. The wildflowers and wildlife are fragile, and the trails themselves easily damaged. Having also hiked trails such as Fremont Older and Arastradero which allow mountain bikes, I appreciate the peace and beauty of the trails which do not allow bikes. It is so much more relaxing to hike and appreciate nature without being constantly on the alert for bikers coming up from behind, especially on narrow trails with poison oak n the vision o the wise people who made the open space district a Please keep in mind P .� P P P P reality. These trails need to be preserved and protected, and not destroyed by mountain bikers. They are a very vocal group, but remember that there are many other people, like me, who quietly enjoy and appreciate the treasure which you protect. Sincerely yours, LaPaula Sakai 1031 Live Oak Drive Santa Clara i i i I� ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Gallagher" <drrust@greenisles.com> To: <info@openspace.org> Cc: "Claire Gallagher" <clairdelune@greenisles.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:34 PM Subject: Attn: Deane Little - MROSD Trail Use Meeting 11/2 > Dear Deane Little, and MROSD Use and Management Committee Members, > I see that on your agenda for the 11/2/2005 meeting there is to be > discussion .of the following item: > > Review status of four trails that are currently closed on an interim basis to bicycling and/or equestrian use, discuss proposed amendments to the four Preserve Use and Management Plans, and forward preliminary recommendations to the full Board of Directors to determine their final trail use designations. A. Black Mountain Trail, Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve B. Zinfandel Trail, Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve C.-Ridge Trail (south of Horseshoe Lake) , Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve > D. Soda Gulch Trail, Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve > I regret that I will be out of town on the day of your meeting. I would be happy to have another opportunity to speak to you about this issue. I hope the remarks below can be read into the record of the meeting. > My wife and I often hike three of these trails, Black Mountain Trail, > Zinfandel Trail, and Soda Gulch Trail because of their accessibility and natural beauty, including delightful flora on the Black Mountain and Soda Gulch Trails especially. Most of the pathways of these trails are too narrow for mixed use and widening them would destroy much of their beauty. > I believe the highest value use of these trails is for hiking and nature study, and that to open them to riders would significantly degrade them for these uses. Therefore I urge you not to open Black Mountain Trail, Zinfandel Trail, and Soda Gulch Trail for bicycle or equestrian traffic. > Respectfully, Patrick Gallagher > 864 Elmira Drive > Sunnyvale CA 94087 > 408-738-8546 I ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Vandeman' To: <info@openspace.org> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:05 PM Subject: Mountain Biking > Please share with the MROSD Board of Directors. > Cyclists should not be discriminated against. We should have > access to the same quality trails as hikers and equestrians, > instead of just steep, exposed fire roads. > This is a lie. Mountain bikers have NEVER been discriminated against. They have EXACTLY the same access to trails as everyone else (on foot) . The exact same rules apply to everyone, so it is impossible to be discriminatory. Mountain bikers think that pretending to be discriminated against will help them increase access for bikes. Mountain bikers are never banned from trails. Only BIKES are banned. BIKES aren't human, don't have rights, and can't be discriminated against! Regional and longer connecting trails reduce cyclist density at trailheads providing more, positive user experiences for everyone. Nonsense. It could just as easily increase use and therefore recreation density. The presence of bikes does NOT "positive user experiences" for hikers or equestrians. On the contrary, it drives them off the trails and out of the parks. Studies show that mountain biking does not damage trails any more than hiking. Those "studies" were all conducted by mountain bikers, and all misinterpret their own datain order to arrive at the conclusion desired (rationalizing montain biking) . See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7. Opening trails to cyclists that create 5, 10, 15 mile loops in underused preserves reduces density in more popular preserves. > Nonsense. It could just as easily increase use and therefore recreation density. The presence of bikes does NOT "positive user experiences" for hikers or equestrians. On the contrary, it drives them off the trails and out of the parks. > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:36:48 -0700 > From: josh Moore > To: " 'ROMP' list" <romp@ns.live555.com> > Subject: [ROMP) MROSD Use & Management Meeting - This is a rare opportrunity to get some more trails open to bikes! > The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) Use & Management Committee will meet 2 pm Wednesday, November 2 at their offices at 330 Distel Circle in Los Altos. They will "review the status of four trails that are currently closed on an interim basis to bicycling and/or equestrian use. . . " The trails are in Rancho San Antonio, Picchetti Ranch, Skyline Ridge, and Purisima Creek Open Space Preserves. For full agenda <http: //www.openspace.org/about—us/meetings.asp>. (If the agenda isn't there yet, it will be soon, they promise me. Otherwise bug them at 650- 691-1200. ) Please consider attending the meeting or send an email to the entire board> <http: //www.openspace.org/about—us/contact.asp?s=board>. Some points you can make in your communication are: * Cyclists should not be discriminated against. We should have access to the same quality trails as hikers and equestrians, instead of just steep, exposed fire roads. * Regional and longer connecting trails reduce cyclist density at trailheads providing more, positive user experiences for everyone. Studies show that mountain biking does not damage trails anymore than hiking. * Opening trails to cyclists that create 5, 10, 15 mile loops in underused preserves reduces density in more popular preserves. > ROMP mailing list > ROMP@lists.live555.com Cathy Woodbury From: Margaret Reimche Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 2:49 PM To: Craig Britton Cc: Matt Freeman; Cathy Woodbury; Meredith Manning; Sally Thielfoldt Subject: FW: Use and Management Committee 11/2/05 Meeting -----original Message----- From: Martin Hendess [mailto:martinwilliamh@yahoo.comI Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 2 :18 PM To: Margaret Reimche Subject: Re: Use and Management Committee 11/2/05 Meeting Thanks for the email. It's a great country when a person's voice is heard! So, may I ask what your recommendation will be? And did most of the emails support or denounce multi-use of the trails? Margaret Reimche <mreimche@openspace.org> wrote: > Dear Trail Users: > Thank you for your interest in our open space > trails. We have received a number of e-mails > regarding our interim closures and proposed > amendments to certain Preserve Use and Management > Plans. Midpeninsula Regional open Space District's > Use and Management Committee met on November 2, 2005 > to review status of four trails that are currently > closed on an interim basis to bicycling and/or > equestrian use. The Committee discussed proposed > amendments to four Preserve Use and Management > Plans, specifically, Black Mountain Trail (Rancho > San Antonio Open Space Preserve) ; zinfandel Trail > (Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve) ; Ridge Trail > (south of Horseshoe Lake--Skyline Ridge Open Space > Preserve) and, Soda Gulch Trail (Purisima Creek > Redwoods Open Space Preserve) . > The Use and Management Committee will make > preliminary recommendations to the full Board of > Directors for determination of the final trail use > designations. The matter is tentatively scheduled > for the regular public Board meeting on February 22, > 2006. Your emails were made available to the Use > and Management Committee and will also be > distributed to the Board of Directors for their > February meeting. If you would like to review the > Agenda and Staff Report for this item, please be > sure to visit the District's Web Site at > www.openspace.org some time in February, 2006. > Sincerely, > L. Craig Britton > L. Craig Britton EXHIBIT C TRAIL USE POLICIES Adopted by Board of Directors November 14, 1990 (Amended on July 12, 2000) PREAMBLE One of the District's basic policy statements is that it will "follow a land management policy that provides proper care of open space land, allowing access appropriate to the nature of the land and consistent with ecological values." As a result of the rapidly increasing level of trail use and the increased types of trail use, it is necessary to adopt more specific policies on trail use in order to effectively implement this basic policy statement. The District is concerned both with the safety of all trail users and the enjoyment of their.open space experience. The purpose for which people use open space trails varies depending on individual or group needs. Visitors may come to observe nature in a protected environment, experience tranquility, exercise in a non-urban setting, or any combination of these. The means by which visitors use trails also varies—be it hiking, running, on bicycle, on horseback, or in a wheelchair. Motorized vehicles, except electric wheelchairs, are prohibited. The combination of trail conditions, level of use, and the mix of uses may lead to conflicts. Conflicts result in negative environment impacts, unpleasant user experiences, or unsafe situations. Conflicts are related to several factors, including: • The relative speeds of different users • Existing trail conditions, such as poor line-of-sight, narrowness, steep slopes and wide- open stretches of trail that might encourage excessive speed. • A lack of knowledge of, or disregard for, trail use etiquette and regulations by all types of users • A high concentration of use in certain areas This set of policies is intended as a guide in establishing trail use designations throughout the District which will promote safe and enjoyable experiences for all who use the District lands. These policies are not intended to restrict who may use the District trails, but they may restrict how, or under what conditions, the trails are to be used. POLICIES 1.0 The District will endeavor to provide a variety of satisfying trail use opportunities on open space preserves throughout the District. More specifically, the District will endeavor to: 1.1 Provide multiple use on individual trails where such use is consistent with the balance of these policies. Page 1 1.2 Protect the opportunity for tranquil nature study and observation, especially in those areas identified as providing a unique wilderness experience. { 2.0 The District will designate appropriate use(s) for each trail. Uses will be allowed that are consistent with District's objectives for sound resource management and safe and compatible use. Morespecifically, t he Distr ict will: 2.1 Allow trail use ap propriate'a n tot o the nature o pp f the la nd and and consistent with the protectio n of the natur al, scenic and aes thetic 1c values of open space. 2.2 Within budgetary and staffing constraints, make reasonable efforts to provide safe conditions for trail users. 2.3 Evaluate trail user needs, concerns, quality of experience, impacts, and the compatibility of various uses. Those uses creating the least conflict among trail users and the least environmental impact will be given greatest preference in trail use planning. 2.4 Ensure that all District trails will be accessible to hiking. When consistent with this policy, if a non-hiking use adversely impacts user safety, the use may be restricted or redirected. The intention is not to restrict access by any individual, but rather to limit incompatible uses and means of travel. 2.5 The District will strive to provide multi-use trail access (including bicycles) to dedicated sections of the Bay Area Ridge Trail and other regional trails by allowing exceptions to preserve bicycle closures for the Ridge Trail. The District will also strive to provide multi use trail access to regional trails connecting urban areas to the Ridge Trail. Access to such regional connecting trails will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of availabili o suitable regional trailhead staging, the availability of other alternative multi-use trail connections in the same region, and the completion of the CEQA process. The district will encourage other agencies to provide Ridge Trail and regional trail connections on the same basis. 3.0 The Board of Directors will adopt qualitative and quantitative trail use guidelines to aid the Board and staff in determining trail use designations in the implementation of these policies. 3.1 As a planning tool to aid the Board and staff in determining future trail use designations, the District will consider, along with the Trail Use Guidelines and these Policies, a guideline target trail use designation ratio of 60%to 65%multi- use trails (including bicycles) to 35%to 40%hiking or hiking-and-equestrian trails (excluding bicycles). This will not be a quantitative restriction, but a flexible planning tool to consider. Actual use designation of trails and preserves will only be established after the Use and Management Planning Process and CEQA process have been completed. Page 2 4.0 Specific trail use designations will be established and reviewed periodically through the Use and Management Planning Process, and will be subject to adopted Public Notification Procedures. Trail use designations may change if use patterns develop that are in conflict with these policies. 4.1 In extreme cases where there is not sufficient time to comply with the Use and Management Planning Process, the Board of Directors or General Manager may make an interim decision to limit use while providing an evaluation process and timeline for final determination of the designated use. 5.0 The District will endeavor to provide trail access for a variety of physical capabilities and user needs (including persons with physical limitations) in a manner consistent with resource protection goals, budgetary constraints, and state and federal regulations. 6.0 The District will I� carry out management programs necessary for the implementation of these trail use policies. The designation of appropriate trail use as a method of minimizing trail use conflicts and environmental impacts will require a significant increase in trail use measures such as education, physical improvements to trails, and enforcement of trail use regulations. More specifically, the District will: 6.1 Support trail use actions with a strop educational program. The District rr g p �' recognizes that education in proper trail etiquette and low-impact use is a key measure towards the reduction of negative trail use impacts. it r t use conditions on a regular basis. The purpose of a monitoring program will be to evaluate current conditions and to determine whether or not trail management programs, including maintenance, reconstruction, education, and use regulations, are effective in addressing user conflicts and environmental impacts, and to recommend changes if necessary. 6.3 Include implementation costs in determining the feasibility of trail use designations and regulations. 7.0 The District will work with other agencies, interest groups, and private landowners in an effort to promote an interconnectingtrails stem throughout the region. The District Y g g recognizes that connections should be compatible with other jurisdiction designations and land owner objectives as well as these policies and trail use guidelines. 8.0 The District recognizes that existing trail use characteristics such as the types of use, conflicts, and impacts may change over time so that certain policies may no longer be appropriate or a new policy may be required. Hence, these policies will be subject to review and revision as deemed necessary by the Board of Directors, following adopted Public Notification procedures. Page 3 APPENDIX A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Secti on on I Trail Use Guidelines What are trail us e guidelines. , Trail use guidelines are quantitative and qualitative factors considered in determining trail use designations. Quantitative factors include physical characteristics of a trail such as trail width and - p Y grade, line-of-sight and side slopes. Qualitative factors are more subjective in nature and address existing trail use conflicts, other preserve activities, trail use on adjacent lands, and past,present and future trail use. Trail use guidelines are designed to assist the District staff and Board of Directors in implementing adopted trail use policies. The guidelines are meant to be principles that direct the judgement and decision making process. They are intended to provide flexibility in the planning and management of the District's trail system. The District is currently developing accessibility plans that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As part of the process, trail access for visitor's having disabilities is being addressed. When completed, trail use considerations contained in the ADA Plan will be incorporated into the trail use guidelines. Why are trail use guidelines being developed? Trail use guidelines are being developed to comply with the existing Trail Use Policies, adopted by the Board of Directors in November 1990. The purpose of the policies is to promote safe and enjoyable experiences for all who use the District lands. Trail Use Policy 3.0 states "The Board of Directors will adopt qualitative and quantitative trail use guidelines to aid the Board and staff in determining trail use designations in the implementation of these policies." As pointed out in the preamble to the policies, this policy is not intended to restrict those who may use the District trails, but they may restrict how or under what conditions the trails are to be used (Refer to Trail Use Policies dated November 14, 1990) How are trail use guidelines going to be used? Trail use guidelines will be applied to each preserve on an individual basis. A particular trail system will be examined in a comprehensive manner along with all other elements of the preserve's use and management plan. This is to insure that land use decisions relating to such things as environmental education, parking areas and observation platforms become factors in determining appropriate trail use. Use and management plans are reviewed by the Board of Directors in accordance with District's planning process and subject to the Public Notification Procedures. i A - 1 ..... ..... Trail use guidelines and the planning process. 'he trail use guidelines are presented in the following table. They are, generally, in the order they will be considered in the use and management planning process. Many of these guidelines can be applied simultaneously during the process. What are trail class designations? The District's trail system is characterized by a wide variety of physical trail conditions. These trails range from level to steep, narrow to wide, and with natural features making each trail somewhat unique. Many of the trails, though, can be grouped together when examining similarities in trail width and grade, side slope, and line of sight. hi fact, the majority of trails fall into three classes which are described, herein, as Class A, B and C. Together, these three classes are believed to represent approximately 75%of the District's trail system. The four physical characteristics that determine a trail class designation are; ® the trail ad r graded area including the path in which trail users travel Trail Width - represents the width of p o gr g and the shoulders of the path which in man cases may be overgrown. p Y Y �' ® Trail Grade- describes the steepness of a trail. It is based on the change in elevation between two points along the length of the trail. ® Side Slope - represents the steepness of the area adjacent to a trail. It is based on the change in elevation between two points along a line perpendicular to a trail. ® Line of Sight - describes the distance a trail user can see along the length of a trail. Large trees rocks or g g � g embankments can limit the line of sight and ability to see oncoming trail users. Line of sight is based on the average height of a trail user travelling in the middle of the trail. Section II Mitigation Measures for Trail Use Conflicts What are trail use conflict mitigation measures? In the future, increasing trail use and changing modes of travel will escalate trail use conflicts. Trail use guidelines and designations may reduce trail conflicts but will not completely resolve them. Unfortunately, trail users will always have different expectations, irresponsible and illegal trail use will continue, and accidents will happen even under the best conditions. It is, therefore, necessary to employ trail use conflict mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are an array of actions that may be undertaken to augment trail use guidelines and designations. They are essentially the tools used to reduce significant trail use conflicts to an acceptable level. They vary greatly in their scope and application and therefore need to be evaluated on individual merit. These A - 2 tools include such things as educate, at videos, bicycle helmets and one-way .ls. Generally speaking,mitigation measures can be grouped into the following five categories. 0 Education Methods for increasing public awareness and understanding of diverse trail use needs and conflicts ■ Regulations Rules that may be applied and enforced widespread on District preserves or specific areas and trails ■ Enforcemen t Number of rangers and the manner in which regulations are enforced by rangers and administered by the courts ■ Improvements Construction and maintenance measures that can be undertaken to improve trail use conditions ■ Monitoring Data gathering and analysis of trail use impacts, trail use guidelines and mitigation measures What mitigation measures have been undertaken to date? ■ An etiquette brochure title Sharing the Trails, has been developed and made available at preserves and included in mailings and handouts; portions were published in the San Jose Mercury News. ■ Signs prohibited particular trail uses are placed at trail entry points and trail junctions to clearly indicate, regulations. ■ Bicycle advisory signs stating 'Bicyclists - Caution 15MPH", "Reduce Speed - Steep Grade", and "Reduce Speed - Call Out WI-ien Passing" are being tested at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. ■ New map signs and brochure maps have been placed at Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves emphasizing trail use designations, distances and terrain. ■ Increased ranger patrols are occurring in hotspots where problems are persistent, including a recent ranger information barricade program at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. ■ Seasonal trail closures occur on specific trails to prohibit bicycle and equestrian use during winter months when the trails can be easily damaged. How are mitigation measures going to be employed? Many trail use conflicts are related to physical conditions of a trail and levels of trail use. Each situation P Y ion where conflicts occur may be unique and require individual attention. Other situations may be widespread and mitigation Y P g measures can be applied more broadly. In other words, bicycle helmets may be considered appropriate District- wide while one-way uphill trails may be developed in specific areas of a preserve. A - 3 The mitigation measures that have i addressed in the attached table can - considered a shopping list when trying to resolve specific trail use conflicts. Some mitigation measures may not be the panacea they first appear to it be. Without fully understanding the relative effectiveness of a measure and budgetary impacts, it may be nremature to consider implementation. The purpose of compiling the comprehensive list is to understand the nultitude of available tools and weigh their individual merits. Many of the measures will require further evaluation and Board consideration before they can be implemented. On the other hand some measures can be more easily implemented when they are relatively effective and do not require detailed fiscal analysis. What is included in the Mitigation Measures table? The following table includes an analysis of mitigation measures that have been identified during the course of this study. The left portion of the table represents comments expressed by the public, staff, and Board committee. Comments are not necessarily supported by each and everyone who participated in the planning process. They are presented to fairly represent those who have commented and believed to add valuable insight into the planning process. The night portion of the table represents the Board committee's view (based on staff input) of the resources, complexity and relative effectiveness of each measure. The first four columns project the staffing levels that may be needed in respect to planning, operations, public affairs and administrative programs. The fifth column indicates the potential cost that may be associated with materials, publications and contract services. Cost projections do not include staff salaries which are indirectly included in staffing levels. The implementation column represents the complexity and time that may be involved in implementing a particular measure. The seventh column projects the amount of volunteer support and commitment necessary. The last column, and most subjective part of the analysis, is an opinion of relative effectiveness of a measure in respect to other mitigation measures in the table. A - 4 TRAIL USE v uIDELINES AND MITIGATIDi, MEASURES Adopted by Board of Directors January 27, 1993 This document represents a comprehensive strategy for implementing the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Trail Use Policies. It is comprised of two major components, trail use guidelines and mitigation measures. Section I addresses trail use guidelines which establish a procedure for designating appropriate trail use on the District's vast and diverse trail system. Section II, mitigation measures, analyzes methods designed to augment trail use guidelines in reducing trail use conflicts. Both components are equally important in providing a safe and enjoyable trail experience and protecting the natural resources. (See Appendix A for supplemental information.) Section I Trail Use Guidelines Trail Use Guideline Comments 1.0 Trail Inventories Data will be gathered relating to trail width and grade,side slopes,line of sight, surface condition and natural obstacles. 1.1 Physical conditions of all trail segments will be documented. The surveys will be conducted in a consistent manner to insure continuity in the decision making process. The survey comprises documentation of trail conditions at 500 foot intervals,noting exceptional and unusual features along II� the way. 2.0 Trail Class Designation A trail class designation portrays the physical conditions,generally existing over 75%of a trail's length. The length of trail segment is determined from one trail 2.1 Three trail classifications will be used to junction to the next. characterize physical conditions of the trail system. Three class designations characterize the major portion of the District's trail system(Refer to Trail Class study following this table). Not all trails will fit into 2.2 Trail class designations only suggest suitable the three class designations. Exceptions must be evaluated on a case by case trail uses. Other factors must be considered to basis. determine a trail use designation. Suitable trail uses for a trail class designation are not based solely on physical characteristics. Other factors such as trail use on adjacent parklands and anticipated trail use may be equally important in determining trail use designation. 3.0 Past,Present and Future Trail Use Historical and existing trail use information will be gathered from field staff and informal surveys. Trends in trail use will be valuable information in attempting 3.1 Trail use information relating to levels and types to project future use. of trail use will be evaluated. Trends may also indicate that trail users have been displaced because of 3.2 Existing trail use will not be considered an over- undesirable conditions,incompatible user groups or increased levels of use. riding factor in determining trail use It is conceivable that an existing trail use prevents others from a safe and designations. enjoyable trail use experience or has deleterious environmental impacts,whereby consideration may be given to redirecting one user group to an alternate route. Existing and anticipated low trail use levels may allow for variations of multi-use (ie;equestrians and/or bicyclists)where, 1)a trail's class designation would indicate multi-use is not suitable or,2)a trail has been found to be an exception to the three class designations. 4.0 Trail Use Conflicts Field reports will be reviewed to examine accidents and violations. Records will 1 Trail Use Guideline Cc its include public communications.Consideration will be given to the possible 4.1 Available records will be evaluated to gain subjective nature of these communications. understanding of current trail use conflicts. e management conflicts maybe anticipated,based on changes in use and m Trail use conflr s a b g g Y 4.2 Future trail use conflicts will be anticipated and or new recreational equipment that maybe adapted to trail use. will be an important consideration. Analyzing trail use conflicts may reveal information about users having been displaced to other parks and preserves where conflicts are not so prevalent. 5.0 Adjacent Land Use Where trails are connecting with adjacent public lands,a survey of trail use and regulations will be undertaken. Consultation with public agencies will identify 5.1 Trail use designations will be compatible with existing and planned land use and trail use that may influence the District's adjacent parklands in respect to trail use and decision making process. Every attempt will be made to develop,in cooperation regulations. with other agencies,a connecting trail system that is consistent in terms of trail use and regulations. 5.2 Undesirable trail use on private lands will be discouraged. The District needs to be sensitive to private landowners who do not want public trail use or specific user groups. In cases where a landowner may be receptive to allowing public trail use,attempts will be made to designate compatible trail use on connecting trails. 6.0 Trail Use Opportunities Loop trails of moderate length will be explored to accommodate pedestrians while longer loop trails will be sought for equestrians and bicyclists. 6.1 Attempts will be made to provide loop trails and regional trails for all user groups. When conditions exist,whereby a direct regional connection for a particular user group is not feasible,alternate trail routes will be pursued if they do not 6.2 Attempts will be made to provide all user unnecessarily duplicate the trail system. groups equal access to facilities and attractive areas of a preserve. Providing all user groups access to attractive portions of the preserve may also be achieved by providing alternate routes if they are not unnecessarily duplicating a 6.3 Equal access opportunities for equestrian and trail system. bicyclists will be considered when trail conditions will not permit both user groups. When trail conditions do not accommodate both equestrians and bicyclists, decisions will not be based solely on historical and existing trail use. Other factors contained in these guidelines will be taken into consideration. 7.0 Trail Use Constraints When a trail exhibits satisfactory conditions for specific uses but high levels of trail use result in degradation of the trail or persistent trail use conflicts, 7.1 Environmental impacts and persistent conflicts consideration will be given to prohibiting the use causing the greatest impact. are critical in determining trail use designations. Prior to closing a trail to specific uses,mitigation measures that adequately address the trail use problems will be explored. 7.2 Trail use by a user group may be prohibited on trails that lead directly to trails found not Trail use designations will be compatible with interconnecting trails. A trail may appropriate for that use. exhibit satisfactory conditions for a particular user group,but if that trail leads directly to a trail which does not exhibit satisfactory conditions,the use will not 7.3 Trail use by a user group may be prohibited be permitted on either trail. when 25%of a trail's length does not comply with a trail class designation and mitigation When a trail exhibits satisfactory conditions over 75%of it's length,mitigation measures can not reasonably reduce trail measures may be employed to make the remaining 25%acceptable. Minor conflicts. rerouting of a trail segment may bypass natural obstacles like a tree limb or rock outcropping. Advisory signs and passing areas may mitigate narrow trail segments. 8.0 Use and Management Plans Many elements in a preserve's use and management plan can potentially impact the trails stem.It is imperative that consideration be given to plannin elements 2 Trail Use Guideline k ents 8.1 Trail use designations will be compatible and such as new parking areas,environmental education programs,and equestrian facilitate other elements of the use and facilities. These uses can seriously contribute to trail use conflicts if they are not management plan. recognized in advance. Trail Class Designations Class A Trail Trail Use Suitability Hiking Equestrian Running Bicycling Examples Monte Bello-Upper&Lower Canyon Trail Russian Ridge-Ridge Trail 10 feet ---- 6 feet — Statistics Width: 6 to 10 feet Represents approximately 60%of District trails Grade- Varyinggrade Side Slope: Varying slope Significant Problems Line of Sight- More than 75 feet Speed increases on wide trails and roads Class B Trail Trail Use Suitability Hiking Equestrian Running Bicycling Examples Long Ridge-Parking to Peters Creek Monte Bello-Parking lot to Skyline 6 Feet t <I—4 feet Statistics Width: 4 to 6feet Represents approximately 10%of District trails Grade: Less than 15% Side Slope: Less than 30% Significant Problems Line of Sight:More than 100 feet Passing often requires moving off trail Class C Trail Trail Use Suitability Hiking Running Examples Purisima Creek Redwoods-Soda Gulch Trail St.Joseph's Hill-Jones Trail ;1—4 feet 2 feet-47 Statistics Width: 2 to 4 feet Represents approximately 5%of District trails Grade: Varying gradetia 'r Side Slope: More than 30% Si-gnificant Problems Line of Sight- More than 50 feet Speed is alarming on blind turns 3 Section H Mitigation Measures for Trail Use Conflicts Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 10'- i 0 U > E No-0 0 < 1.0 EDUCATION 1.1 Etiquette Brochure Assists those unfamiliar with regulations M M M L M L M, (Project complete) Most helpful if available on all preserves Most useful if brief and to the point Should be available with preserve brochure Irresponsible users will probably not read Not everyone will stop to read Too general to address specific problems Needs to be made widely available Needs to be included in mailings&handouts Provide etiquette brochures to conservation& recreation organizations and retail stores Attention enhanced by ranger distribution Need a better interpretation for"yield" 1.2 Volunteer Patrols Positive peer group contact is helpful L H M H H H H M Serves as eyes and ears;volunteers can not enforce District rules and regulations Offers a needed presence&surveillance Organizing, training and scheduling is difficult and costly;can be facilitated with core group of volunteers Training by staff necessary to insure high quality program Some volunteers may take possessory interest &not be receptive to trail closures if needed Can convey valuable info on maintenance problems as well as user related issues Ineffective without reasonable level of ranger enforcement to reinforce volunteer efforts Multi-agency volunteer program is possible Limited success at other public agencies Need uniforms, identification and radios Participation&enthusiasm can wane due to time commitment Irresponsible users may react in an abusive manner to volunteers contacting them Bicycle and equestrian patrols should not be used where bicycles&horses are not allowed Organizations like ROMP could participate Program needs to be re-energized by staff L=Low M=Moderate H=High 4 1.0 EDUCATION(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 12: i2 i aoi clw > Ij E < 1.3 Education Videos Potentially can reach broad audience H H H L H H H M Could be used in schools,retail shops and private organizations May reach irresponsible users Could be undertaken by university Or private organization such as Trail Center Could be eligible for grant program Include in bicycling classes such as one offered at West Valley College Could locate videos at some trailhead 1.4 District Special Trail use information could easily be L H L H L H H M Events and Hikes combined with other scheduled events Problematic users do not attend these events Limited audience Participants will spread the word 1.5 Trail Signs Value for safety related issues Ms It L L H M H Required to convey regulations Conveys site specific information Renegade users tend to ignore signs Too many signs detract from quality of experience and are confusing if they conflict Adds support to enforcement effort Trail conditions&closures should be more apparent at the trailheads Provide trail courtesy signs at trailheads; 1.6 Information Stations Ability to contact specific users of preserve L H L L L H H M Ineffective without reasonable level of ranger enforcement to reinforce education Positive peer group contact is helpful Trail system having multiple entry points will require multiple stations to be effective Need to be dedicated over long time period Participation&enthusiasm can wane due to time commitment Irresponsible users may react in an abusive manner to volunteers contacting them Scheduling and participation are critical Staff operated stations may be more effective with some user groups than volunteer stations L=Low M=Moderate H=High 5 1.0 EDUCATION(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 10 U E 1.7 Outreach to Schools, Difficult to direct to irresponsible users L M H M L M L M Retail Stores and Staff could include message when speaking to Organizations organizations,school career days,etc. May not fit into existing school curriculum May discourage some from visiting trails Message could reach new users that are unfamiliar with rules Could result in more use and conflicts Could combine with existing outreach from organized groups such as ROMP 1.8 Safety Events Probably not well attended unless combined M H H M L H H L with fun event Difficult to organize and manage event Enthusiasm tends to wane Safety events could be combined with school, retail and organizational events 1.9 Press Releases and Reaches large audience L L M L L L M Interviews Not much control over content and editing Good contacts with press necessary Good method of public outreach May discourage some from visiting trails 2.0 REGULATIONS 2.1 Bicycle Helmets Promotes general safety and awareness M H M L M M H May reduce severity of head injuries • Contact with violators could include increased education Violators could be irresponsible users otherwise difficult to contact Leads to confusion when user reaches preserve not knowing of requirements Requirement should be compatible with adjacent lands(Santa Clara Co.requires) Continuity throughout District lands needed Ordinance revisions necessary Need public relations program to spread word;work with retailers to educate users Consider stipulating helmet standard(ANSI) L=Low M=Moderate H=High 6 2.0 REGULATIONS(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 0 E > < 2.2 Restrict Use to Trail Required to reduce resource degradation M j M L L M i M M, Could inhibit informal access for picnics, photography,etc. Could be directed to specific users such as equestrians and bicyclists Trailhead sign could state "Bicycles must stay on trail" Specific problem areas could be signed to state "Closed-Not a Trail" Using"Closed Area"sign is too restrictive and unclear as to where boundaries are 2.3 User Permit or Pass Etiquette brochure could accompany permit H H H H M H M L Retailers could assist in issuing permits Extremely difficult to administer and may require permit officer Leads to confusion;user reaches preserve not knowing of permit requirements Too many entry trails to regulate More rangers&volunteers to check permits P -lit fee probably could not offset costs Per nut permit for reckless behavior could be very subjective Violations must be observed by ranger in order to confiscate permit Coordination needed with adjacent park agencies 2.4 Periods of Use Leads to confusion when user reaches M H M H L M L (Days or preserve not knowing of restrictions Hours) Considered very restrictive Bicyclists could still injure themselves Concentrated bicycle use may be a problem Too many entry trails to regulate May not be compatible with adjacent lands Need to apply to all preserves for continuity 2.5 Limit Number of M M Leads to confusion when user reaches M H H H L Users preserve not knowing of restrictions May not be compatible with adjacent lands L=Low M=Moderate H=High 7 2.0 REGULATIONS(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments i IS i i U r: 0: < > Too many trails and impossible to regulate Acceptable level of use is very subjective Bicyclists will still injure themselves 2.6 Bicycle Speed Limit Very important since speed relates so closely M H I M M H H H to fears and safety problems Can be in designated area or District-wide Can be specific to passing and blind turns Requires radar guns and training to enforce Need increase level of signs and enforcement Courts likely to uphold enforcement with radar gun if they understand the problems Radar guns may have undesirable image Speed estimating and enforcement without radar gun unlikely to be upheld in court -Bicyclists warn others of speed traps Bicyclists have difficulty monitoring speed without speedometer Marin Water&San Mateo County and E.B.R.P.D have speed limits and use radar •Ordinance revisions necessary 2.7 Bicycle Walking Use only in exceptionally dangerous H H L M M i L Zones conditions Compliance is usually very poor Needs to be a short distance • Signs and brochures need to be clear Beginning and end need to be clear Difficult to enforce when applied to runners Indirectly warns all users to use precaution May reduce accidents even though compliance is terrible May be closed to all use or closed to specific M 2.8 Temporary Trail L H L L L L Closures user group Annual closures required for restoration Protects sensitive areas Seasonal closures required for winterization Closures may occur for hazardous conditions Equestrian and bicycle closures are very effective when trail is uncompacted&wet L=Low M=Moderate H=High 2.0 REGULATIONS(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments LS Generally accepted by public when closure is short term •Advanced warning needed at parking areas& roadside trailheads and interconnecting trails where part of longer loop trail system -2.9 One-way Trails Leads to confusion when user reaches M H M L j M M M M preserve not knowing regulation Signs and brochures need to be clear Legal direction may prove difficult or too long;user can not turn around Steepness may require high level expertise User group needs input into feasibility Conflicting reports on degree of compliance Irresponsible users learn patrol patterns and continue to violate May be useful on short trail sections to bypass steep and unsafe trail conditions • Uphill trail use could open up steep trails 3.0 ENFORCEMENT 3.1 Ranger Bicycle and Some users may find this offensive H L M M M M Equestrian Patrol Some users may feel this promotes objectionable use Bicycles and horses should not be used where they are not allowed Patrol procedure would never permit fast pursuits More trail patrolled in less time Would require union meet and confer Variety and sizes of equipment needed to fit all rangers-donations possible Potential increase of staff injuries • Increased training Users give advance warning to others Could build goodwill with all user groups Could reduce vehicle traffic,pollution and vehicle maintenance L=Low M=Moderate H=High 9 3.0 ENFORCEMENT(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments ro— 0 U t-5 co r 0 Increase ranger presence in more areas Set a proper example for bicyclists by demonstrating trail etiquette Some agencies report successful and effective ranger bicycle and equestrian patrols 3.2 Update Ordinance Last revisions were in 1983 L H L L L M i M Any new regulations require revising ordinance Staff needs to prepare draft Legal counsel needs to review Board needs to adopt revised ordinance Regulations need to be clear at preserves and in brochure Courts need to be advised of trail use problems to gain support Need liaison with local district attorneys Most violations observed result M 3.3 Ranger Patrol and in citations L M M H L H Profile Education is included when citations and warnings are issued Increase patrols where problems exist Word spreads when patrols stepped up Take transportation away from offenders, including bicycles&horses Confiscating bicycles and horses may create liability for District and riders may not be able to walk out Saturate patrol where problems persistent Adds support to volunteer efforts Increased foot patrols limits emergency response capabilities Patrol vehicles provide warning 3.4 Community Service Court unlikely to grant community service as option to violator Infractions do not require court appearance L Low M Moderate H High 10 3.0 ENFORCEMENT(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 10 > g E CL C): > 3.5 Bail Schedule for District recommends bail schedule to court M L L L H 1M Violations • Fee structure consistent with other agencies Court sets bail schedule;not District Excessively high bails increase ranger court appearances Court costs increase bail Need a graduated schedule to penalize repeated offenders Graduated schedules difficult to manage Publicize amount of fines over$100 to encourage compliance Education is included when writing warnings Juveniles do not pay same fine as adults •Revise ordinance so equestrian and bicycle infractions have same fine Ordinance revisions necessary Publicize fine schedule at trailhead 4.0 IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 Improved Trail Requires imported non-native materials M H j 1 H H M Surface Soil type and moisture are major factors in providing smooth,stable compacted trails Initially requires specialized heavy equipment Increases accessibility to many users Can detract from natural environment Confine to persistent problem areas • Very expensive and labor intensive 4.2 Passing Areas Allows passing within reasonable distance L M L i L L M Should be placed within users view Viable alternative to wider trails Allows users to negotiate on where they want to be passed Requires increased cut and fill L=Low M=Moderate H=High 4J0 IMPROVEMENTS(Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 2 U E i E C): Requires removal of more vegetation Can detract from natural environment 1. 4.3 Wider Trails Increases passing space for multi-use H H H M L 1 11' Desirable width for multi-use is>6' Requires increase in cut and fill resulting in visual impacts Requires removal of more vegetation Can detract from open space experience Increased expense and labor intensive Bicyclists may increase their speed •Volunteers could assist in finishing work Wide switchbacks difficult to construct May increase problems with erosion 4.4 Alternate Routes Use to increase opportunities for passive H H H 1 H L M experience Redirect less passive use to alternative routes Too many alternates can duplicate trail system and negatively impact environment Most users will choose most attractive route Alternate routes used to ic user redirect specif group away from where conflicts exist •Does not reduce conflicts within specific user group • Seek desirable and scenic alternate routes All users prefer loop trail experience H H M 4�5 Loop Trails H H H Will lead to better compliance Different user groups have different needs in regards to length Loop trails can disperse trail use May need interagency cooperation 4.6 Barriers&Stiles Use to prohibit specific uses M H M j L L In using,they may make areas less accessible to physically limited Horse stile inhibits physically limited No barrier prevents bicycle access Stiles needed to prevent motorcycle access in remote areas L=Low M=Moderate H=High 12 4.0 IMPROVEMENTS(Continued) III Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments a i n ' 21 U > Use pedestrian/wheelchair stile in combination with equestrian stile May cause visitor to stop and read signs 4.7 Volunteer Indirectly benefits when volunteers gain H H I H iM H H j M Construction and understanding of trail use impacts Maintenance Volunteers can assist in repairing surfaces, widening and other physical improvements Districts volunteer program can be expanded to repair trail damage Maintenance provides more awareness of user related problems Mixing user groups can foster better understanding of trail use needs Volunteers may take possessory interest and not be receptive to trail closures if needed •Projects need to be directed by staff to insure quality and low maintenance Partnership between staff and volunteers strengthens when working together • Increases interest in caring for land Is not free but requires good deal of staff attention and direction 4.8 Speed Bumps Present a hazard and liability problem L M L H L Difficult to make visible and not intrusive Could injure inexperienced bicyclists Needed more on roads than trails Tend to breakdown when driven over I I I Degrades passive users experience Hard on patrol vehicles Need warning signs alongside Irresponsible users may still speed 4.9 Trail Maintenance Trail maintenance is required to keep trail H i M j L I M M H M width and surface in good condition Keep trail shoulders brushed for passing Maintain trails to required width to accommodate designated trail use Volunteers are helpful maintaining trails L=Low M=Moderate H=High( 13 Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments E < 5.0 MONITORING 5.1 Visitor Conflict Visitor conflict form needs to be readily L M L L M L Reports available to trail users Visitor may lack objectivity and report may be unreliable Reporting procedure needs to be explained in signs and brochures Visitors must be encouraged to report conflicts to rangers Return address cards need to be provided 5.2 Violation and Rangers provide valuable information for M L M Incident Reports understanding and resolving trail conflicts Number of reports not as useful as content (bow,when,where,and why) Reports need to be comprehensive,objective, &consistent 53 M Trail Condition Monitoring effectiveness of mitigation M L M M Reports measures is necessary Need guidelines to ensure consistency Volunteers may be too subjective(eye of the beholder) Need base line information and regular reports to determine increase in damage Need in conjunction with visitor survey to determine relationship of use 5.4 Visitor Surveys Need user type,numbers and attitudes H M H M H H L M Extend over time to compensate for unusual weather, special activities,etc. Survey method and delivery must be consistent for accountable data Numerous entry points and long days require numerous participants Extremely difficult to coordinate with volunteers Commitment&boredom are a problem Could contract for survey Only way to substantiate levels of use Will not indicate if hikers have diminished due to other incompatible trail uses Need data for benefit&dissatisfaction levels L=Low M=Moderate H=14igh 14 EXHIBIT D TRAIL USE G„iDELINES AND MITIGATICGIv MEASURES Adopted by Board of Directors January 27, 1993 This document represents a comprehensive strategy for implementing the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Trail Use Policies. It is comprised of two major components, trail use guidelines and mitigation measures. Section I addresses trail use guidelines which establish a procedure for designating appropriate trail use on the District's vast and diverse trail system. Section H, mitigation measures, analyzes methods designed to augment trail use guidelines in reducing trail use conflicts. Both components are equally important in providing a safe and enjoyable trail experience and protecting the natural resources. (See Appendix A for supplemental information.) Section I Trail Use Guidelines Trail Use Guideline Comments 1.0 Trail Inventories Data will be gathered relating to trail width and grade, side slopes, line of sight, surface condition and natural obstacles. 1.1 Physical conditions of all trail segments will be documented. The surveys will be conducted in a consistent manner to insure continuity in the decision making process. The survey comprises documentation of trail conditions at 500 foot intervals, noting exceptional and unusual features along the way. 2.0 Trail Class Designation A trail class designation portrays the physical conditions, generally existing over 75% of a trail's length. The length of trail segment is determined 2.1 Three trail classifications will be used to from one trail junction to the next. characterize physical conditions of the trail system. Three class designations characterize the major portion of the District's trail system (Refer to Trail Class study following this table). Not all trails 2.2 Trail class designations only suggest suitable will fit into the three class designations. Exceptions must be evaluated on trail uses. Other factors must be considered a case by case basis. to determine a trail use designation. Suitable trail uses for a trail class designation are not based solely on physical characteristics. Other factors such as trail use on adjacent parklands and anticipated trail use may be equally important in determining trail use designation. 3.0 Past, Present and.Future Trail Use Historical and existing trail use information will be gathered from field staff and informal surveys. Trends in trail use will be valuable information 3.1 Trail use information relating to levels and in attempting to project future use. types of trail use will be evaluated. Trends may also indicate that trail users have been displaced because of 3.2 Existing trail use will not be considered an undesirable conditions, incompatible user groups or increased levels of use. over-riding factor in determining trail use It is conceivable that an existing trail use prevents others from a safe and designations. enjoyable trail use experience or has deleterious environmental impacts, whereby consideration may be given to redirecting one user group to an alternate route. Existing and anticipated low trail use levels may allow for variations of multi-use (ie; equestrians and/or bicyclists) where, 1) a trail's class designation would indicate multi-use is not suitable or, 2) a trail has been found to be an exception to the three class designations. i 1 III I Trail Use Guideline Co—ments 4.0 Trail Use Conflicts Field reports will be reviewed to examine accidents and violations. Records will include public communications. Consideration will be given 4.1 Available records will be evaluated to gain to the possible subjective nature of these communications. under standing g of current trail use conflicts. Trail use conflicts may be anticipated, based on changes in use and 4.2 Future trail use co nflicts will be anticipated p management or new recreational equipment that may be adapted to trail and will be an important consideration. use. Analyzing trail use conflicts may reveal information about users having been displaced to other parks and preserves where conflicts are not so prevalent. S.0 Adjacent Land Use Where trails are connecting with adjacent public lands, a survey of trail use and regulations will be undertaken. Consultation with public agencies 5.1 Trail use designations will be compatible will identify existing and planned land use and trail use that may influence with adjacent parklands in respect to trail the District's decision making process. Every attempt will be made to use and regulations. develop, in cooperation with other agencies, a connecting trail system that is consistent in terms of trail use and regulations. 5.2 Undesirable trail use on private lands will be discouraged. The District needs to be sensitive to private landowners who do not want public trail use or specific user groups. In cases where a landowner may be receptive to allowing public trail use, attempts will be made to designate compatible trail use on connecting trails. 6.0 Trail Use Opportunities Loop trails of moderate length will be explored to accommodate pedestrians while longer loop trails will be sought for equestrians and 6.1 Attempts will be made to provide loop trails bicyclists. and regional trails for all user groups. When conditions exist, whereby a direct regional connection for a 6.2 Attempts will be made to provide all user particular user group is not feasible, alternate trail routes will be pursued if groups equal access to facilities and they do not unnecessarily duplicate the trail system. attractive areas of a preserve. Providing all user groups access to attractive portions of the preserve may 6.3 Equal access opportunities for equestrian also be.achieved by providing alternate routes if they are not unnecessarily and bicyclists will be considered when trail duplicating a trail system. conditions will not permit both user groups. rou s. When trail conditions do not accommodate both equestrians and bicyclists, decisions will not be based solely on historical and existing trail use. Other factors contained in these guidelines will be taken into consideration. 7.0 Trail Use Constraints When a trail exhibits satisfactory conditions for specific uses but high levels 1 of trail use result in degradation of the trail or persistent trail use 7.1 Environ mental impacts p is and persistent conflicts consider ation ration will be given to prohibiting the use causing the conflicts are critical in determining trail use greatest impact. Prior to closing a trail to specific uses, mitigation designations. measures that adequately address the trail use problems will be explored. 7.2 Trail use by a user group may be prohibited Trail use designations will be compatible with interconnecting trails. A on trails that lead directly to trails found not trail may exhibit satisfactory conditions for a particular user group, but if appropriate for that use. that trail leads directly to a trail which does not exhibit satisfactory conditions, the use will not be permitted on either trail. 7.3 Trail use by a user group may be prohibited when 25% of a trail's length does not When a trail exhibits satisfactory conditions over 75% of it's length, comply with a trail class designation and mitigation measures may be employed to make the remaining 25% mitigation measures can not reasonably acceptable. Minor rerouting of a trail segment may bypass natural reduce trail conflicts. obstacles like a tree limb or rock outcropping. Advisory signs and passing areas may mitigate narrow trail segments. 2 Trail Use Guideline C. .tents 8.0 Use and Management Plans Many elements in a preserve's use and management plan can potentially impact the trail system. It is imperative that consideration be given to 8.1 Trail use designations will be compatible planning elements such as new parking areas, environmental education and facilitate other elements of the use and programs, and equestrian facilities. These uses can seriously contribute to management plan. trail use conflicts if they are not recognized in advance. Trail Class Designations Class ATrail Trail Use Suitability ti Hiking Equestrian Running Bicycling Examples Monte Bello-Upper&Lower Canyon Trail Russian Ridge-Ridge Trail "—— j lOfeet Statistics 4- 6feet D Represents approximately 60% of District trails Width: 6 to 10 feet Grade: Varyinggrade Significant Problems Side Slope: Varying slope Speed increases on wide trails and roads Line of Sight: More than 75 feet Class B Trail il 0. t Trail Use Suitability� b r y Hiking Equestrian Running Bicycling s Examples Long Ridge-Parking to Peters Creek Monte Bello -Parking lot to Skyline 6 feet C}—4 feet Statistics Width: 4 to 4 feet Represents approximately 10% of District trails Grade: Less than 15% Side Slope: Less than 30% Significant Problems Line of Sight:More than 100 feet Passing often requires moving off trail Class C Trail Trail Use Suitability Hiking Running Examples Purisima Creek Redwoods -Soda Gulch Trail St. Joseph's Hill -Jones Trail 4feet Statistics 2 feet—{? Width: 2 to 4 feet Represents approximately 5% of District trails Grade: Varying grade Significant Problems Side Slope: More than 30% Line of Sight: Mare than 50 feet Speed is alarming on blind turns 3 Section 11 Mitigation Measures for Trail Use Conflicts 0 U Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments > 1.0 EDUCATION 1.1 Etiquette Brochure Assists those unfamiliar with regulations M M M L M L M. (Project complete) Most helpful if available on all preserves Most useful if brief and to the point Should be available with preserve brochure Irresponsible users will probably not read Not everyone will stop to read Too general to address specific problems Needs to be made widely available Needs to be included in mailings&handouts Provide etiquette brochures to conservation& recreation organizations and retail stores Attention enhanced by ranger distribution Need a better interpretation for "yield" .......... ............................... ........... ...................... ...... Positive peer group contact is helpful L H 1.2 Volunteer Patrols M H H H H Serves as eyes and ears; volunteers can not enforce District rules and regulations Offers a needed presence & surveillance Organizing, training and scheduling is difficult and costly; can be facilitated with core group of volunteers Training by staff necessary to insure high quality program Some volunteers may take possessory interest &not be receptive to trail closures if needed Can convey valuable info on maintenance problems as well as user related issues Ineffective without reasonable level of ranger enforcement to reinforce volunteer efforts • Multi-agency volunteer program is possible Limited success at other public agencies Need uniforms, identification and radios Participation& enthusiasm can wane due to time commitment Irresponsible users may react in an abusive manner to volunteers contacting them Bicycle and equestrian patrols should not be, used where bicycles &horses are not allowed Organizations like ROMP could participate Program needs to be re-energized by staff _J.......... ................................................................................ 4 L = Low M = Moderate H = High 1.0 EDUCATION (Continued) E� • U Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 0 E .3 cl 0 > 1.3 Education Videos Potentially can reach broad audience H H H I L H H H Could be used in schools, retail shops and private organizations May reach irresponsible users Could be undertaken by university or private organization such as Trail Center Could be eligible for grant program Include in bicycling classes such as one offered at West Valley College Could locate videos at some trailbead .................... .......... ........... ...................... .......... 1.4 District Special Trail use information could easily be L H L H L H H Events and Hikes combined with other scheduled events Problematic users do not attend these events Limited audience Participants will spread the word ........... ............................... 1.5 Trail Signs Value for safety related issues M H L L H M Required to convey regulations Conveys site specific information Renegade users tend to ignore signs Too many signs detract from quality of experience and are confusing if they conflict Adds support to enforcement effort Trail conditions& closures should be more apparent at the traiffieads Provide trail courtesy signs at trailheads .......................................... ........... ........... ............ 1.6 Information Stations Ability to contact specific users of preserve L H L L L H H w. Ineffective without reasonable level of ranger enforcement to reinforce education Positive peer group contact is helpful Trail system having multiple entry points will require multiple stations to be effective Need to be dedicated over long time period Participation& enthusiasm can wane due to z time commitment Irresponsible users may react in an abusive manner to volunteers contacting them Scheduling and participation are critical Staff operated stations may be more effective with some user groups than volunteer stations ........................................................................................... 5 L = Low M = Moderate H = High 1.0 EDUCATION (Continued) C: n cc 0 0 s U Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 0 7E. 1.7 Outreach to Schools, Difficult to direct to irresponsible users L M H M L M L Retail Stores and Staff could include message when speaking to Organizations organizations, school career days, etc. May not fit into existing school curriculum May discourage some from visiting trails Message could reach new users that are unfamiliar with rules Could result in more use and conflicts Could combine with existing outreach from organized groups such as ROMP .......... ........... ..........;.......... 1.8 Safety Events Probably not well attended unless combined M H H M L H H with fun event Difficult to organize and manage event Enthusiasm tends to wane Safety events could be combined with school, retail and organizational events ..................... ............................................. .......... ...... 1.9 Press Releases and Reaches large audience L L M L L L Interviews Not much control over content and editing Good contacts with press necessary Good method of public outreach May discourage some from visiting trails ......................................................... ........... .............. ....................................................................................... 2.0 REGULATIONS Promotes general safety and awareness 2.1 Bicycle Helmets M H M L M M May reduce severity of head injuries Contact with violators could include increased education Violators could be irresponsible users otherwise difficult to contact Leads to confusion when user reaches preserve not knowing of requirements Requirement should be compatible with adjacent lands (Santa Clara Co. requires) Continuity throughout District lands needed Ordinance revisions necessary Need public relations program to spread word; work with retailers to educate users Consider stipulating helmet standard (ANSI) ......................................................................................... 6 L = Low M = Moderate H = High 2.0 REGULATIONS (Continued) 0 Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 0 > J.:W 2.2 Restrict Use to Trail Required to reduce resource degradation M M L L M M M::... Could inhibit informal access for picnics, photography, etc. Could be directed to specific users such as equestrians and bicyclists Trailhead sign could state "Bicycles must stay on trail" Specific problem areas could be signed to state "Closed -Not a Trail" Using "Closed Area" sign is too restrictive and unclear as to where boundaries are .......... ............................... 2.3 User Permit or Pass Etiquette brochure could accompany permit H H H H M H M Retailers could assist in issuing permits Extremely difficult to administer and may require permit officer Leads to confusion; user reaches preserve not knowing of permit requirements Too many entry trails to regulate More rangers &volunteers to check permits Permit fee probably could not offset costs Taking permit for reckless behavior could be very subjective Violations must be observed by ranger in order to confiscate permit Coordination needed with adjacent park agencies ..................... ..................... ............ ............. 2.4 Periods of Use Leads to confusion when user reaches M H H L M Me (Days or Hours) preserve not knowing of restrictions Considered very restrictive Bicyclists could still injure themselves Concentrated bicycle use may be a problem Too many entry trails to regulate May not be compatible with adjacent lands Need to apply to all preserves for continuity .......... ..........44.......... 2.5 Limit Number of Leads to confusion when user reaches M H H H M M Users preserve not knowing of restrictions May not be compatible with adjacent lands Too many trails and impossible to regulate Acceptable level of use is very subjective Bicyclists will still injure themselves .......... ........... ........... ........... .......... . 7 L = Low M = Moderate H = High 2.0 REGULATIONS (Continued) Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments G ° Q W .® •• •V .-per. ? U 2.6 Bicycle Speed Limit Very important since speed relates so closely M H M M H H H to fears and safety problems Can be in designated area or District-wide Can be specific to passing and blind turns Requires radar guns and training to enforce Need increase level of signs and enforcement Courts likely to uphold enforcement with radar gun if they understand the problems Radar guns may have undesirable image Speed estimating and enforcement without radar gun unlikely to be upheld in court Bicyclists warn others of speed traps Bicyclists have difficulty monitoring speed without speedometer Marin Water & San Mateo County and E.B.R.P.D have speed limits and use radar Ordinance revisions necessary 2.7 Bicycle Walking Use only in exceptionally dangerous H H L M M L Zones conditions Compliance is usually very poor Needs to be a short distance Signs and brochures need to be clear Beginning and end need to be clear Difficult to enforce when applied to runners Indirectly warns all users to use precaution May reduce accidents even though compliance is terrible 2.8 Temporary Trail May be closed to all use or closed to specific L H L L L L M<. Closures user group Annual closures required for restoration Protects sensitive areas Seasonal closures required for winterization Closures may occur for hazardous conditions Equestrian and bicycle closures are very effective when trail is uncompacted &wet Generally accepted by public when closure is short term Advanced warning needed at parking areas & roadside trailheads and interconnecting trails where part of longer loop trail system 8 L = Low M = Moderate H = High 2.0 REGULATIONS (Continued) 0 U r < Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 0 2.9 One-way Trails Leads to confusion when user reaches M H M L M M M M. preserve not knowing regulation Signs and brochures need to be clear Legal direction may prove difficult or too long; user can not turn around Steepness may require high level expertise User group needs input into feasibility Conflicting reports on degree of compliance Irresponsible users learn patrol patterns and continue to violate May be useful on short trail sections to bypass steep and unsafe trail conditions Uphill trail use could open up steep trails .......... .......... ......................................................... .................................................................... ..................... 3.0 ENFORCEMENT 3.1 Ranger Bicycle and Some users may find this offensive H L M M M Equestrian Patrol Some users may feel this promotes objectionable use Bicycles and horses should not be used where they are not allowed Patrol procedure would never permit fast pursuits More trail patrolled in less time Would require union meet and confer Variety and sizes of equipment needed to fit all rangers - donations possible Potential increase of staff injuries Increased training Users give advance warning to others Could build goodwill with all user groups Could reduce vehicle traffic, pollution and vehicle maintenance Increase ranger presence in more areas Set a proper example for bicyclists by demonstrating trail etiquette Some agencies report successful and effective ranger bicycle and equestrian patrols ............................................................................... ......; 9 L = Low M = Moderate H = High 3.0 ENFORCEMENT(Continued) Mitigation Measure o Public and Staff Comments > W Update Ordinance Last revisions were in 1983 L H L L P L M 3.2 U Any new regulatio ns require revis ing _. ordinance Staff needs to prepare draft Legal counsel needs to review Board needs to adopt revised ordinance Regulations need to be clear at preserves and in brochure Courts need to be advised of trail use problems to gain support Need liaison with local district attorneys ............................................................................... 3.3 Ranger Patrol and Most violations observed result in citations L H M M H L M< Profile Education is included when citations and warnings are issued Increase patrols where problems exist Word spreads when patrols stepped up Take transportation away from offenders, including bicycles &horses Confiscating bicycles and horses may create liability for District and riders may not be able to walk out Saturate patrol where problems persistent Adds support to volunteer efforts Increased foot patrols limits emergency response capabilities Patrol vehicles provide warning ................... ...... ...... 3.4 Community Service Court unlikely to grant community service as option to violator Infractions do not require court appearance 10 L = Low M =Moderate H = High 3.0 ENFORCEMENT (Continued) c = o o 41) � o Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments ° Q 2 u °' 0 3.5 Bail Schedule for District recommends bail schedule to court M L L L H M Violations Fee structure consistent with other agencies Court sets bail schedule; not District Excessively high bails increase ranger court appearances Court costs increase bail Need a graduated schedule to penalize repeated offenders Graduated schedules difficult to manage Publicize amount of fines over $100 to encourage compliance Education is included when writing warnings Juveniles do not pay same fine as adults ce o equestrian clean and bicycle Revise ordinance s eq y ,infractions have same fine Ordinance revisions necessary Publicize fine schedule at trailhead ............................................................................... ....... ....: .................................................................. ...... 4.0 IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 Improved Trail Requires imported non-native materials M € H 's H € H € M Surface Soil type and moisture are major factors in providing smooth, stable compacted trails Initially requires specialized heavy equipment Increases accessibility to many users Can detract from natural environment Confine to persistent problem areas Very expensive and labor intensive € € .... ..... ...... 4.2 Passing Areas Allows passing within reasonable distance L M L L L M Should be placed within users view Viable alternative to wider trails Allows users to negotiate on where they want to be passed Requires increased cut and fill Requires removal of more vegetation Can detract from natural environment 11 L = Low M = Moderate H = High i 4.0 IMPROVEMENTS (Continued) C ~ O W U µ d C Mitigation M Me asure re Public and Staff Comments G '2 s o. a O 4.3 Wider Trails Increases passing space for multi-use H ': H € H ` M L H Desirable width for multi-use is > 6' € Requires increase in cut and fill resulting in visual impacts Requires removal of more vegetation Can detract from open space experience Increased expense and labor intensive Bicyclists may increase their speed Volunteers could assist in finishing work Wide switchbacks difficult to construct May increase problems with erosion .................. ...... 4.4 Alternate Routes Use to increase opportunities for passive H H H H, L M' experience Redirect less passive use to alternative routes . Too many alternates can duplicate trail system and negatively impact environment Most users will choose most attractive route Alternate routes used to redirect specific user group away from where conflicts exist Does not reduce conflicts within specific user group Seek desirable and scenic alternate routes 4.5 Loop Trails All users prQfer loop trail experience H H H H H M Will lead to better compliance Different user groups have different needs in regards to length Loop trails can disperse trail use May need interagency cooperation 4.6 Barriers & Stiles Use to prohibit specific uses M H M L L In using, they may make areas less accessible to physically limited Horse stile inhibits physically limited No barrier prevents bicycle access Stiles needed to prevent motorcycle access in remote areas Use pedestrian/wheelchair stile in combination with equestrian stile May cause visitor to stop and read signs 12 L = Low M = Moderate H = High i 4.0 IMPROVEMENTS (Continued) o 2 Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments 0 4.7 Volunteer Indirectly benefits when volunteers gain H H H M H H .-M.- Construction and understanding of trail use impacts Maintenance Volunteers can assist in repairing surfaces, widening and other physical improvements District's volunteer program can be expanded to repair trail damage Maintenance provides more awareness of user related problems Mixing user groups can foster better understanding of trail use needs Volunteers may take possessory interest and not be receptive to trail closures if needed Projects need to be directed by staff to insure quality and low maintenance Partnership between staff and volunteers strengthens when working together • Increases interest in caring for land • Is not free but requires good deal of staff attention and direction .......... ..........5..........5...........5...................... .......... Present a hazard and liability problem 4.8 Speed Bumps L M L H Difficult to make visible and not intrusive Could injure inexperienced bicyclists Needed more on roads than trails Tend to breakdown when driven over Degrades passive users experience Hard on patrol vehicles Need warning signs alongside Irresponsible users may still speed ........... ................... ....................... ........... .......... ....... 4.9 Trail Maintenance Trail maintenance is required to keep trail H M L M M H M. width and surface in good condition Keep trail shoulders brushed for passing Maintain trails to required width to accommodate designated trail use Volunteers are helpful maintaining trails ................................ .............................................. 13 L = Low M = Moderate H = High r 0 U Mitigation Measure Public and Staff Comments > -C q :-V 5.0 MONITORING 5.1 Visitor Conflict Visitor conflict form needs to be readily L M L L M Reports available to trail users Visitor may lack objectivity and report may III be unreliable Reporting procedure needs to be explained in signs and brochures Visitors must be encouraged to report conflicts to rangers Return address cards need to be provided .......... ............................... ......................... .......... ........ 5.2 Violation and Incident Rangers provide valuable information for Ms L M:1 Reports understanding and resolving trail conflicts Number of reports not as useful as content (how, when, where, and why) Reports need to be comprehensive, objective, &consistent .......... .................... ........... ........... ...................... Monitoring effectiveness of mitigation M 5.3 Trail Condition M L M Reports measures is necessary Need guidelines to ensure consistency Volunteers may be too subjective(eye of the beholder) Need base line information and regular reports to determine increase in damage Need in conjunction with visitor survey to determine relationship of use ........... .......... 5.4 Visitor Surveys Need user type, numbers and attitudes H M H M H H L Extend over time to compensate for unusual weather, special activities, etc. Survey method and delivery must be consistent for accountable data Numerous entry points and long days require numerous participants Extremely difficult to coordinate with Volunteers Commitment & boredom are a problem Could contract for survey Only way to substantiate levels of use Will not indicate if hikers have diminished due to other incompatible trail uses Need data for benefit& dissatisfaction levels 14 L = Low M = Moderate H = High APPENDIX A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Section I Trail Use Guidelines What are trail use guidelines? Trail use guidelines are quantitative and qualitative factors considered in determining trail use designations. Quantitative factors include physical characteristics of a trail such as trail width and grade, line-of-sight and side slopes. Qualitative factors are more subjective in nature and address existing trail use conflicts, other preserve activities, trail use on adjacent lands, and past, present and future trail use. Trail use guidelines are designed to assist the District staff and Board of Directors in implementing adopted trail use policies. The guidelines are meant to be principles that direct the judgement and decision making process. They are intended to provide flexibility in the planning and management of the District's trail system. The District is currentlydeveloping accessibility plans that comply with the Americans with Di P g Y P P y Disabilities Act (ADA). As part of the process, trail access for visitor's having disabilities is being addressed. When completed, trail use considerations contained in pthe ADA Plan will be incorporated into the trail use guidelines. Why are trail use guidelines being developed? Trail use guidelines are being developed to comply with the existing Trail Use Policies, adopted by the Board of Directors in November 1990. The purpose of the policies is to promote safe and enjoyable experiences for all who use the District lands. Trail Use Policy 3.0 states "The Board of Directors will adopt qualitative and quantitative trail use guidelines to aid the Board and staff in determining trail use designations in the implementation of these policies." As pointed out in the preamble to the policies, this policy is not intended to restrict those who may use the District trails, but they may restrict how or under what conditions the trails are to be used (Refer to Trail Use Policies dated November 14, 1990) How are trail use guidelines going to be used? Trail use guidelines will be applied to each preserve on an individual basis. A particular trail system will be examined in a comprehensive manner along with all other elements of the preserve's use and management plan. This is to insure that land use decisions relating to such things as environmental education, parking areas and observation platforms become factors in determining appropriate trail use. Use and management plans are reviewed by the Board of Directors in accordance with District's planning process and subject to the Public Notification Procedures. A - 1 Trail use guidelines and the planning process. The trail use guidelines are presented in the following table. They are, generally, in the order they will be considered in the use and management planning process. Many of these guidelines can be applied simultaneously during the process. What are trail class designations? The District's trail system is characterized by a wide variety of physical trail conditions. These trails range from level to steep, narrow to wide, and with natural features making q each trail somewhat unique. Ma ny of the trails, though, can be grouped together when examining similarities in trail width and grade, side slope, and line of sight. In fact, the majority of trails fall into three classes which are described, herein, as Class A, B and C. Together, these three classes are believed to represent approximately 75% of the District's trail system. The four physical characteristics that determine a trail class designation are; ■ Trail Width - represents the width of the trail pad or graded area including the path in which trail users travel and the shoulders of the path which in many cases may be overgrown. ■ Trail Grade - describes the steepness of a trail. It is based on the change in elevation between two points along the length of the trail. ■ Side Slope - represents the steepness of the area adjacent to a trail. It is based on the change in elevation between two points along a line perpendicular to a trail. ■ Line of Sight - describes the distance a trail user can see along the length of a trail. Large trees, rocks or embankments can limit the line of sight and ability to see oncoming trail users. Line of sight t' based on the average height of a trail user travelling in the middle of the trail. Section II Mitigation Measures for Trail Use Conflicts What are trail use conflict mitigation measures? In the future, increasing trail use and changing modes of travel will escalate trail use conflicts. Trail use guidelines and designations may reduce trail conflicts but will not completely resolve them. Unfortunately, trail users will always have different expectations, irresponsible and illegal trail use will continue, and accidents will happen even under the best conditions. It is, therefore, necessary to employ trail use conflict mitigation measures. i Mitigation measures are an array of actions that may be undertaken to augment trail use guidelines and designations. They are essentially the tools used to reduce significant trail use conflicts to an acceptable level. A - 2 They vary greatly in their scope , pplication and therefore need to be uated on individual merit. These tools include such things as ed, anal videos, bicycle helmets and oi,,-way trails. Generally speaking, mitigation measures can be grouped into the following five categories. ■ Education Methods for increasing public awareness and understanding of diverse trail use needs and conflicts ■ Regulations Rules that may be applied and enforced widespread on District preserves or specific areas and trails ■ Enforcement Number of rangers and the manner in which regulations are enforced by rangers and administered by the courts ■ Improvements Construction and maintenance measures that can be undertaken to improve trail use conditions ■ Monitoring Data gathering and analysis of trail use impacts, trail use guidelines and mitigation measures What mitigation measures have e been undertaken to date. ■ An etiquette brochure title Sharing the Trails, has been developed and made available at preserves and included c uded in ma ilings and handouts; portions were published in the San Jose Mercury News. ■ Signs prohibited particular trail uses are placed at trail entrypoints and trail 'unctions to clearl indicate P J y ndicate regulations. ■ Bicycle advisory Y signs stat ing "Bicyclists - Cautionti on 15M PH , R educe Speed _ Steep Grade , and "ReduceS Speed - Ca Out Passing" being Fremont Older Space Preserve. ■ New map signs and brochure maps have been placed at Skyline Ridge and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves emphasizing trail use designations, distances and terrain. ■ Increased ranger patrols are occurringin hots pots where problems are persistent, P P pe s stent, including a recent ranger information barricade program at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. ■ Seasonal trail closures occur on specific trails to prohibit bicycle and equestrian use during winter months when the trails can be easily damaged. How are mitigation measures going to be employed? Many trail use conflicts are related to physical conditions of a trail and levels of trail use. Each situation where conflicts occur may be unique and require individual attention. Other situations may be widespread and mitigation measures can be applied more broadly. In other words, bicycle helmets may be considered A - 3 appropriate District-wide while o iay uphill trails may be developed i ecific areas of a preserve. I The mitigation measures that have been addressed in the attached table can be considered a shopping list when trying to resolve specific trail use conflicts. Some mitigation measures may not be the panacea they first appear to be. Without fully understanding the relative effectiveness of a measure and budgetary impacts, it may be premature to consider implementation. The purpose of compiling the comprehensive list is to understand the multitude of available tools and weigh their individual merits. Many of the measures will require further evaluation and Board consideration before they can be implemented. On the other hand some measures can be more easily implemented when they are relatively effective and do not require detailed fiscal analysis. What is included in the Mitigation Measures table? The following table includes an analysis of mitigation measures that have been identified during the course of Y g g this study. The left portion of the table represents comments expressed by the public, staff, and Board committee. Comments are not necessarily supported by each and everyone who participated in the planning process. They are presented to fairly represent those who have commented and believed to add valuable insight into the planning process. The right onion of the table represents the Board committees view (based on staff input) of the resources g P P � P ) complexity and relative effectiveness of r y each measure. The first four columns project the staffing levels that may be needed in respect to planning, operations, public affairs and administrative programs. The fifth column indicates the potential cost that may be associated with materials, publications and contract services. Cost projections do not include staff salaries which are indirectly included in staffing levels. P J The implementation Y g P column represents the complexity and time that may be involved in implementing a particular measure. The seventh column projects the amount of volunteer support and commitment.necessary., The last column, and most subjective part of the analysis, is an opinion of relative effectiveness of a measure in respect to other mitigation measures in the table. A - 4 Regional Open Spa MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-05-121 Meeting 05-26 November 30, 2005 AGENDA ITEM I a AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment to Designate the Use of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Which Currently Has An Interim Designation For Hiking Only USE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate t4o-Kack Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve for hiking and jequest an se only. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIO 1. Find that the recommended actions are Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set outin this report. 2. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve for hiking and equestrian use only. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors has not yet formally designated the use of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preseive. Since its construction in the 1980's, the trail has been open on an interim basis for hiking and equestrians only. The Planning Department's FY 05/06 Action Plan includes the preparation,'6f Use and Management Plan Amendments to designate the use of trails that are currently open,bn an interim basis. Use and Management Committee Meeting On November 2, 2005, the Use and Management Committee reviewed the status and staff s analysis of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio, the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge, the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti,kanch, and the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and received'v I ed public input on potential use of the trails (see Black Mountain Trail Exhibit A). Approximately 13 members of the community attended the Committee meeting and the District received 20 written communications, which are attached to this report (Exhibit B). Generally bicyclists at the meeting expressed great interest in opening this trail to multi-use and cited its importance as a regional multi-use trail connection to the Skyline area. In addition, a recommendation was made by a representative of the bicycling community to designate "Bicycle Sunday"to allow multi-use of the trail one day of the week. Several equestrians stated that they Regional Open Spa.. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-05-121 Meeting 05-26 November 30, 2005 AGENDA ITEM I b AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment to Designate the Use of the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, Which Currently Has An Interim Designation For Hiking Only USE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to design e the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve for hiking only. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATI 1. Find that the recommended actions are Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report. 2. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve for hiking only. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors has not yet formally designated the use of the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. Since its construction in the 1990's, the trail has been open on an interim basis to hiking only. The Planning Department's FY 05/06 Action Plan includes the preparation of Use and Management Plan Amendments to designate the use of trails that are currently open on an interim basis. Use and Management Committee Meeting On November 2, 2005, the Use and Management Committee reviewed the status and staff s analysis of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio, the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge, the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch, and the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and received public input on potential use of the trails (see Ridge Trail Exhibit A). Approximately 13 members of the community attended the Committee meeting and the District received 20 written communications, which are attached to Agenda Item Ia. Bicyclists and equestrians at the meeting expressed great interest in opening the Ridge Trail to multi-use citing that this would be consistent with the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council's goals for a R-05-121 Page 2 regional multi-use trail along ridge idge tops surrounding San Francisco Bay. Approximately half P of the written communications recommended maintaining all four trails under consideration, including the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, for hiking only or as they are currently used. The remainder of the correspondence recommended opening the trails for bicycling and/or equestrians. Existing Trail Conditions The trail segment under consideration is approximately 0.6 miles in length. The trail was constructed as a hiking-only trail in the early 1990's by the District's contractor, Gene Shehan. The trail serves as a scenic alternative to a 0.3-mile multiple-use patrol road that parallels the p P trail. This segment of trail has an average width of 4 feet and an overall grade of approximately 6%. In general, this trail can be considered a Class B Trail (suitable for multiple-uses) based on the District's Trail Use Guidelines, although individual segments differ. • The westernmost segment of this trail (0.1 miles) is very narrow with a 2-foot to 4-foot bed width and a steep gradient of 10% to 12%. The elevation gain in this segment is approximately 200 feet. Side slopes are steep (approximately 40 to 60%) and are not fortified with retaining walls. Trail alignment gently curves so the line of sight is moderate (approximately 50 feet). This segment is considered a Class C Trail (typically suitable for hiking only). • The central portion of this trail (0.3 miles) has a bed width of 4 feet to 6 feet and a gradient of approximately 2% to 4%. The segment is level with no side slopes and because of this, the line-of-sight is good (approximately 75 feet). This particular segment is considered a Class B Trail (typically suitable for multiple uses). • The easternmost segment of this trail (0.2 miles)has a bed width of 4 feet and a downhill gradient of approximately 6%. The descent in this segment is approximately 75 feet to 100 feet. Side slopes are moderate(approximately 20%) and are not fortified. The alignment is generally straight and therefore line-of-sight is good (approximately 75 feet). This particular segment is considered a Class B Trail. Current Trail Use The trail is currently open on an interim basis to hiking only. Adjacent trails in the vicinity include both hiking-only and multi-use trails, including segments of the Ridge Trail. Skyline Operations staff noted that illegal use of the trail was rarely witnessed and that no citations for illegal use have been issued. Planning Considerations and Consistency with the District's Trail Use Policies Under existing conditions, only the central and easternmost portion of the trail may be wide enough to safely accommodate equestrian and bicycle use. Since these segments are relatively level, hikers would be able to step to the side of the trail to allow equestrians and bicycles to pass. However, the westernmost portion of the trail is extremely narrow and is characterized by very steep side slopes. It would be impossible for an equestrian or bicyclist to safely pass a hiker on this section of the trail. In addition, there is an existing alternate trail that provides multi-use R-05-121 Page 3 access in the immediate vicinity. In addition, this trail is permanently a multi-use trail but is also designated as The Ridge Trail Alignment as this segment represents a hiking-only alternative. The District's Trail Use Policies state that if a non-hiking use adversely impacts user safety, trail use is to be restricted or redirected. The District's Trail Use Policies establish a target of 60-65% multi-use trails. Currently 68% of the trails District-wide are open to multi-use (hiking, bicycling and equestrians). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice of this meeting was mailed to owners and residents of the properties adjacent to Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, interested organizations, and other parties who have expressed interest in the trail use designation. Notice of this meeting was also posted at the Preserve's trailheads and on the District's website. CEQA COMPLIANCE The District concludes that continuing the current use of the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve by designating the trail for hiking use only will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 as follows: Section 15301 exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities such as trails, which does not expand existing uses. This proposal would continue the existing use of the Trail with no or negligible expansion of use, and therefore falls within the exemption set out in Section 15301. Prepared by: Jonas Roddenberry, Planning Technician Doug Vu, ASLA, Open Space Planner II Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Contact person: Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Exhibit A: Preserve Map EXHIBIT A Russian Ridge Op n Space Preserve Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Bs �3 1 iSUCI 3 �hClent pa 0• m 0.3 0. 0.2 �ltd 0.3 � © ®. OA 220p ®� 1 Attention Bicyclists&Equestrians: m~ .... These sections are closed seasonally. 0.2 O 0.1 �O 1rd%f (RR02) O." .,. 0.2� `f 5R05) 06 2001) ,x1e1 Ipine 0.2• 2200� Pond ;� O •�� 0.22400 O•^ ' •: 0.5 •T4 0.5 0.3 1.5 f5R030:2 �'1)mxon1 1800 �• ?d • 0.1 • ® �O .? � y• surs.9lpe• • G�PL.� Q. .••l ; take o:6 lnmar • Chr a 'd 221N1 nee rum Zoo (�-� u 0.5 Subject 160HO 2000 k, Trail 2000 1.0 sR02 1800�m ._ zz Closed Area sR01 f f £ f f'rzws(:r<<X 1 t C Portola Redwoods State Park Long Ridge Open Space Preserve .2 A .� .1, .� .x .ri 1.0 i Skyline Ridge One Mile Open Space Preserve N � N Trail Use Map Legend Hiking Only • 1�0 . ® 0 Q Q Hiking,Bicycling, Gate(ps) Trail Distance in Miles Ranger Facility Reslronm Whole Ames Parking lot Other Public lands Equestrian Trail Bay Area Ridge Trail Note: Dogs are not allowed Creek Vehicle Driveway Nature Center Residenm I landicapprd lyursuian Parking Nn I'uhlic f nlry on this preserve Parking Only Check trail coditions and seasonal closures by calling the District office or visiting the Weh sitr www.olnnspau.org Regional Open Spa, MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-05-121 Meeting 05-26 November 30, 2005 AGENDA ITEM I c AGENDA ITEM I Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment to Designate the Use of the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve, Which Currently Has An Interim Designation For Hiking Only USE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION Maintain the interim designation for the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve as hiking only. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIO 1. Find that the recommended actions are Categorcally Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) as set out in this report. 2. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve for hiking only. (This is a different recommendation than that of the Committee) DISCUSSION The Board of Directors has not yet formally designated the use of the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve. The trail has been open on n interim i a e m basis to hiking only. The p P P g Planning Department's FY 05/06 Action Plan includes the preparation of Use and Management Plan Amendments to designate the use of trails that are currently open on an interim basis. Use and Management Committee Meeting On November 2, 2005, the Use and Management Committee reviewed the status and staff's analysis of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio, the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge, the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch, and the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and received public input on potential use of the trails (see Zinfandel Trail Exhibit A). Approximately 13 members of the community attended the Committee meeting and the District received 20 written communications, which are attached to Agenda Item l a. Equestrians at the meeting strongly recommended that horseback riding be allowed on the R-05-121 Page 2 Zinfandel Trail. One bicyclist expressed extreme disappointment that the Preserve had been closed to bicycling in 2000 and urged the District to open Picchetti Ranch to bicyclists. Some trail users wanted to keep the interim designation hoping for future equestrian and bicycling use designation. Approximately half of the written communications recommended maintaining all four trails under consideration, including the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve, for hiking only or as they are currently designated on an interim basis. The remainder of the correspondence recommended opening the trails for bicycling and/or equestrians. Existing Trail Conditions The entire trail length is approximately 1.9 miles, including the section that lies within Stevens Creek County Park. Only the 0.9-mile segment of the Zinfandel Trail between the Orchard Loop Trail south to the preserve boundary lies within Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve. This section of trail has an average width of five feet, with an average grade of approximately 5%, with shorter segments of steeper gradient trail. Side slopes in certain areas are steep, approximately 40-50%, and are fortified with retaining walls. The trail alignment is mostly straight without switchbacks so the line-of-sight is good. The trail can be classified as a Class B Trail (suitable for multiple-use). Current Trail Use South of the Orchard Loop Trail, the Zinfandel Trail is currently open on an interim basis as a hiking-only trail. Other trails in the Preserve are open to equestrian use. Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve was one of seven preserves designated for closure to bicyclists in 2000. The preserve does not appear to be a major destination for equestrians. There is a squeeze stile at the junction of Orchard Loop Trail and Zinfandel Trail, designed to keep equestrians from accessing this portion of the trail, but there is evidence that equestrians have bypassed this stile by riding along the hillside just a few feet away from the gate. Planning Considerations and Consistency with the District's Trail Use Policies Under existing conditions, the upper portion of the trail is wide enough for equestrian use, but barely wide enough to accommodate an equestrian and a hiker passing each other. The upper portion is characterized by very steep side slopes, with sections that have been fortified by retaining walls to prevent erosion. If a horse were to pass a hiker in a section of the trail with these steep side slopes, it would be difficult for the hiker to find a place to step off the trail safely. In addition, a misstep by either party may collapse the edge of the trail, potentially causing significant erosion into the stream below. The southern portion of the trail switches back through a drainage and crosses an unnamed perennial stream before connecting with Stevens Creek County Park. This perennial stream drains directly into Stevens Creek County Reservoir, which makes the potential of soil erosion a significant concern. The Zinfandel Trail connects to and continues through Stevens Creek County Park. The County portion of the trail is designated for hiking-use only, and in conversations with Santa Clara County Parks staff, they have reiterated that there will be no change in that status whatever the R-05-121 Page 3 district's trail designation may be. And they do not have current plans to review this trail system in the County Park. The District's Trail Use Policies state that every attempt will be made to develop (in coordination with other agencies) a connecting trail system that is consistent in terms of trail use and regulation and, also that if a non-hiking use adversely impacts user safety, trail use is to be restricted or redirected. The District's Trail Use Policies establish a target of 60-65%multi-use trails. Currently 68% of the trails District-wide are open to multi-use (hiking, bicycling and equestrians). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice of this meeting was mailed to owners and residents of the properties adjacent to Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve, interested organizations, and other parties who have expressed interest in the trail use designation. Notice of this meeting was also posted at the Preserve's trailheads and on the District's website. CEQA COMPLIANCE The District concludes that continuing the current use of the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve by designating the trail for hiking use only will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ualit under Section 15301 as follows: (CE A Q ) Section 15301 exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or facilities such as trails, which does not expand existing uses. This proposal would continue the existing use of the Trail with no or negligible expansion of use, and therefore falls within the exemption set out in Section 15301. Prepared by: Matt Sagues, Open Space Planner I Doug Vu, AS LA, Open Space Planner II Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Contact person: Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Exhibit A: Preserve Map EXHIBIT A PICCHETTI L ACH OPEN SPAkE PRESERVE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Legend oaf Cate(#s) 0.4 600 s / J Trail Distance in Miles _ Montebello road r } No equestrian ( �teV��� _ '•• Vehicle Driveway access from this l� _ - - I parking lot. \ �• I — %' ,'� Creek 0�(P103) 8Q0 1 i O(P101) Winery rp z ildings) �_... _ Q ,. L. •may O-(Historic Bu , `` •••'• % / •`\� °,z� • (;1?0 •• ., l`) Vehicle Parking Lot 0.1 `-4• �O atd Loop Tra�j o.i`,, o °~z"r�•os� _,� Roadside Parking l 1pool �~ Bea ` Z' FREMONT OLDER i•Pond //•°°Q to : •• Restrooms �(P102) o.l'. o•z!a °� .,t•• OPEN SPACE t000 .., PRESERVE 0.7` •,20 Pay phone ; Ste..S 00 Cr Mont o Fire Station e6 O• ° g) 1200 t •• Drinking Water )aico � : : �ro0 � O Stevens Creek Point of Interest County-Park fE+ V•.,. \ (Santa Clara County) �tJ f •�• •• IPnsCd/� ,• dry �. Other Public Lands SubjeS0.6 ct .•s, ..: { . Trail ':••E;ae 600 o Z1n Jf } No Public Entry Private or Leased Lands ' County Parks�••• , �1 l Maintenance Trail Use 1 .......... Hiking Only r1o0._ © �� � � � Hiking, Equestrian The area within the winery complex has wide l000 c. Mt. Eden dirt roads that can be navigated by most Stevens Creek Road Note' wheelchairs.There is an accessible restroom and a wheelchair lift into the winery.The trails County Park �ti Stevens Dogs and bicycles outside the winery complex are not improved (Santa Clara County) f Canyon are not allowed for wheelchair access. % Road on this preserve. 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 1/2 Mile i Regional Open Spa, . MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-05-121 Meeting 05-26 November 30, 2005 AGENDA ITEM Id AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment to Designate the Use of the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, Which Currently Has An Interim Designation For Hiking Only USE AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Maintain the interim designation for the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve as hiking only. 2. Direct staff to evaluate the trail bridges to determine if the load capacity is sufficient for equestrian use; determine the number of trees that would have to be removed and evaluate the extent of tree pruning that would be required to provide for equestrian use. 3. Direct staff to prepare a proposal to expedite planning and implementation of a Bay Area Ridge Trail segment through properties along the east side of Skyl' Boulevard. - GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the recommended actions are Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) as set out in this report. 2. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to designate the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve as hiking only. (This is a different recommendation than that of the Committee.) DISCUSSION The Board of Directors has not yet formally designated the use of the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. The trail has been open on an interim basis to hiking only. The Planning Department's FY 05/06 Action Plan includes the preparation of Use and Management Plan Amendments to designate the use of trails that arc currently open on an interim basis. R-05-121 Page 2 Use and Management Committee Meeting On November 2, 2005, the Use and Management Committee reviewed the status and staff s analysis of the Black Mountain Trail at Rancho San Antonio, the Ridge Trail at Skyline Ridge, the Zinfandel Trail at Picchetti Ranch, and the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and received public input on potential use of the trails (see Soda Gulch Trail Exhibit A). Approximately 13 members of the community attended the Committee meeting and the District received 20 written communications, which are attached to Agenda Item 1 a. Some of the equestrians at the meeting felt that the trail would accommodate multiple uses if some of the lower limbs of the trees were removed to provide greater clearance. Bicyclists at the meeting expressed great interest in opening the Soda Gulch Trail, currently designated as a Ridge Trail segment, to multi-use citing that this would be consistent with the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council's goals for a regional multi-use trail along the ridge tops surrounding San Francisco Bay. Many trail users wanted to keep the interim designation hoping for future equestrian and bicycling use designation. Approximately half of the written communications recommended maintaining all four trails under consideration, including the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, for hiking only or as they are currently designated on an interim basis. The remainder of the correspondence recommended opening the trails for bicycling and/or equestrians. Existing Trail Conditions The trail is approximately 2.6-miles in length. Most of the trail follows the 1,000-foot elevation contour, veering off of Purisima Creek Trail into a small canyon on the southeastern side before gradually climbing to 1,400 feet where the trail connects with the Harkins Ridge Trail. The trail is rated easy to moderate, with an average grade of 5%; the width varies from 1 to 4 feet; the average cross slope is 2%. Side slope varies within the range of 35% to 90%, with an average side slope of 60%. The average horizontal clearance is 4 feet and the average vertical clearance is over 8 feet. The dominant form of vegetation is redwoods, conifers, ferns, oak, and understory vegetation commonly found in riparian habitats. From the Purisima Creek Trail entrance, Soda Gulch Trail is 4 feet wide with the lowest vertical clearance at 6 feet and a horizontal clearance between 3 and 4 feet. A quarter of the way along the trail lies a gigantic, felled redwood trunk that blocks most of the trail, leaving a gap with a vertical clearance of 5 feet and a horizontal clearance of 3 feet. Several retaining walls have been built along the trail to establish a pad due to very steep side slopes. Further down the trail, the horizontal clearance is reduced to 2 feet with a vertical clearance of 5 feet at the lowest. Near the Harkins Ridge Trail connection, stairs were built by the District to provide a stable tread due to unstable soils and soil sloughing, causing a short steep section of the trail. The stretch of stairs, made of milled redwood, are 19 feet long and 3.5 feet wide. The trail is classified as a Class C trail (suitable for hiking only) based upon the Districts' Trail Use guidelines. Current Trail Use Soda Gulch Trail is currently open to hiking use only; no mountain biking, equestrian, or dog use is currently allowed. Connecting trails, both Harkins Ridge Trail and Purisima Creek Trail, are open to multi-use access, excluding dogs. Soda Gulch Trail is a dedicated segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. One ranger typically patrols the trail on foot once a month while simultaneously carrying out maintenance tasks with hand pruning tools. The trail withstands winter rains extremely well and does not require much maintenance. However, the connecting multi-use trails R-05-121 Page 3 are difficult to maneuver during the winter months for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle traffic. The trail was constructed using hand tools and small equipment including use of shovels and the toter(gas powered wheelbarrow). A Rokon(2-wheel motorcycle)was also used for access; unfortunately, due to the more recently constructed stairs, the trail is now inaccessible to Rokon use for maintenance or patrol. The trail is inaccessible to all emergency vehicles, thus requiring on-foot emergency response, slowing the response time. The existing stairs and pedestrian stiles make the trail impassable on ATVs. On rare occasions for major maintenance work, ATVs have been used on a limited one-way basis. This trail was designated as a part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail very early in its' creation process. It was not possible to build a Ridge Trail along Skyline Boulevard on the Purisima Creek Preserve (westerly) side and there was a lack of public land ownership continuity on the easterly side of Skyline to build a multi-use Ridge Trail. However, with the GGNRA purchase of the former Phleger property and the reopening of the Huddart Park Master Plan, a multi-use Ridge Trail along the easterly side of Skyline is very feasible. Staff has already begun preliminary discussions to promote such a project. Planning Considerations and Consistency with the District's Trail Use Policies Under existing conditions, the trail has poor lines-of-sight due to the narrow width of the trail, blind turns, and minimal horizontal clearance. Many sections of the trail pass by steep side slopes greater than 60%, making it difficult or impossible for users to step off the trail. Also, the narrow horizontal clearance cannot be changed along most of the trail due to the presence of very large redwood trees or steep side slopes. Given that the trail passes by and crosses several drainages, there is a concern of introducing uses that may impact water quality through siltation. The many footbridges would also need to be assessed and load tests performed to determine allowable loads. The District's Trail Use Policies state that if a non-hiking use adversely impacts user safety, trail use is to be restricted or redirected. The District's Trail Use Policies establish a target of 60-65% multi-use trails. Currently 68% of the trails District-wide are open to multi-use (hiking, bicycling and equestrians). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice of this meeting was mailed to owners and residents of the properties adjacent to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, interested organizations, and other parties who have expressed interest in the trail use designation. Notice of this meeting was also posted at the Preserve's trailheads and on the District's website. CAA COMPLIANCE The District concludes that continuing the current use of the Soda Gulch Trail at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve by designating the trail for hiking use only will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) under Section 15301 as follows: R-05-121 Page 4 Section 15301 exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities such as trails, which does not expand existing uses. This proposal would continue existing use of the Trail with no or negligible expansion of use, and therefore falls within exemption set out in Section 15301. Prepared by: David Gagner, Planning Technician Ana Ruiz, AICP, Open Space Planner 11 Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Contact person: Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Exhibit A: Preserve Map To Highway 9! Legend t .• Gate(#s) 1.0 �l 'At Ie,t en Bic IiA,and Equ ,Irians: Trail Distance in Miles ` Whittemore Gulch Trail is closed seasonally.Check trail conditions by 0 0.5 1 / calling the District office,or visiting 0.3 ------- -� the web site at www.o ns ace.or Z • 0.3 � ( a�• /.� Pe P 8• Vehicle Driveway Rid 1 �� Ord spa rt _ Re a-d, tsa' ta0o 0.6 1 .� Creek -' ' 1200 1s ® Subject j "°° r 0.3 Al ip -�-�� law Parking Lot I L.� rcoat, g, a f 100 ��0.2 Trail 2 a / c�s� f arkc 2.1 / tOW� ® 2.2 (\ . `•• F Higgins �0 % 6 • (Golden Cat Estate Roadside Parking Purlsimd <a= \ 'Pa .� Golden Gate Are al Recreation Area Road (PCpSt - »00 • a4 C. For detailed trail f nou���- _.-�_ '• a Q1 information,refer to a �...r 1'On�r. Bar PS' N 2.6 ® Huddarl Park trail map. Restrooms r 00 too O ? _ • 1000 Purisima C Huddart Park reek Trail �' ®'OO (San Mateo uri Creek a o°rdM cab _ County) " Road °> Pay phone I—J tsoo 1000 P aaec� dal it �.�n •O Fire Station l ,sm °/n,-Ta wr�tm -+-ea //o.z •��� \ J ` T ail Drinking Water 1800 ® in �.. 0.2 0.3 O ` aid Kno r� '• I� Point of Interest � "03' .tag //�1 , (/ � y{inc irail } tt a Other Public Lands Swett Roa \ J a �4 -='--'`: _ •' For complete trail information, f •/�� No Public Entry io6;, • refer to an El Corte de Madera Creek > Sky/' �1re Private or Leased Lands �t•••"' � 'r!4 ,�� Open Space Preserve trail map. P 4.• h — '• ��� } EL CORTE-D`MADERA CREEK /� 1.z J OPEN SPAC\RESERVE d'tr Trail Use - - ,l•?s' ,_(t: ` ` f1CONeaoeraCc al 0.7 � N Trai/ C o F2 rQ Hiking Only ''� ,-- '�. �. \� • 0.9 1. '.TadSandstone Hiking,Equestrian K 0 cj 1.2 0° /o.6 f�----�. �_ � O .2 •O �lelah Note: ' Dogs and bicycles OA 1 2 3 J 5 6 7 8 9 7.0 T°Highway tlJ are not allowed � D PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS on this preserve. One mile Open Space Preserve Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-05-120 Meeting 05-26 November 30, 2005 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM and ncel December 7 2005 Special Schedule Special Board Meeting for December 20, 2005 a p Board Meeting GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Cancel your December 7, 2005 Special Meeting. 2. Schedule a Special Meeting for December 20, 2005. DISCUSSION It was recommended that you schedule two Special Meetings, one for November 30 and one for December 7, 2005 (see report R-05-109) for the purpose of considering the potential purchase of POST properties in the Coastside protection area. Staff recommends canceling the Special Board meeting on December 7, 2005 and instead recommends scheduling a Special Board meeting on Wednesday December 20, 2005. This Special Meeting would be held for the purpose of considering the potential purchase of the POST (Rapley Ranch) and POST (Portola Lookout)properties. Prepared by: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Contact person: Same as above Claims No 05-21 Meeting 05-26 Date 11/30/05 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 3780 $950.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services-Pumping At RSA 3781 $374.26 Acme&Sons Sanitation Pumping/Disposal Fee&Weekly Services 3782 $212.00 Al's Chimney Cleaning Service Chimney Service 3783 $37.00 Allen's Press Clipping Bureau Clipping Service 3784 $183.70 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Repairs&Maintenance 3785 $750.00 Appraisal Research Corporation Appraisal Services 3786 $1,460.00 Arcturus GPS&Conventional Surveys Pulgas Ridge Land Survey 3787 $2,059.00 Aspen Environmental Group Consulting Services-Pulgas Ridge 3788 $71.88 AT&T Telephone Service-Long Distance 3789 $63.24 Barg Coffin Lewis&Trapp Legal Services-Guadalupe Watershed 3790 $367.12 Beck's Shoes Inc. Uniform Shoes 3791 $200.00 CA Dept.of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Update 3792 $120.18 Cal-Line Equipment,Inc. Chipper Parts 3793 $9,256.50 California Conservation Corps Erosion Control-ECDM 3794 $397.66 California Water Service Company Water Service-FFO&AO 3795 $59.90 Camino Medical Group Medical Services 3796 $1,514.93 Carsonite International Roadmarkers 3797 $753.98 Cimino,Jim Reimbursement-CALPELRA Conference 3798 $350.00 '1 City of Los Altos Security Deposit-11/30/05 Special Meeting 3799 $2,961.45 CMK Automotive Inc. Vehicle Maintenance Service 3800 $633.36 Coastal Tractor Specialized Rental Tractor Delivery&Pickup Charge 3801 $245.02 Continuing Education of the Bar Law Book 3802 $1,653.48 Cresco Equipment Rental Equipment Rental-Cat Excavator For South Canyon Trail 3803 $81.19 Cresco Equipment Rental Equipment Rental-St.Joseph's Hill Road Work& Davidson Restoration Project 3804 $256.40 CSK Auto Vehicle Supplies 3805 $75.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Replace Lights-AO 3806 $4,984.56 Dunn's Automotive Auto Body Repairs 3807 $3,909.16 EDAW,Inc. Master Plan Contract Services-Sierra Azul&Bear Creek Redwood OSP 3808 $1,658.98 EKI Soil Screening&Level Survey 3809 $376.25 Emily And Associates Management Consulting 3810 $97.20 Fed Ex Shipping Charges 3811 $197.75 Fed Ex Kinko Copy Services 3812 $146.35 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services 3813 $80.06 Fry's Electronics Computer Supplies 3814 $113.30 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 3815 $66.26 Galls Incorporated First Aid Supplies 3816 $74.56 Gilman,Mary Deer Hollow Farm-Supplies 3817 $145.14 Grainger,Inc. Field Supplies 3818 $897.44 Hammond,Tracy Reimbursement-Law Enforcement Academy Expenses 3819 $9,631.29 Jakaby Engineering Design&Engineering Services/Topographic Surveys- Pedestrian Bridges At ECDM 3820 $12.99 Kwik Key Lock&Safe Co.Inc. Key Services 3821 $38.05 Lab Safety Supply Field Supplies 3822 $99.43 Lenington,Kirk Reimbursement-Mileage 3823 $5,674.77 LFR Levine Fricke Engineer/Design Services&Petroleum Product Release Source Investigation-Pulgas Ridge 3824 $403.05 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 3825 $1,681.08 Lumenature Install Energy Efficient Lighting-Kaidara 3826 $60.00 Macke Water Systems,Inc. Water Dispenser Rental-2 Months Page 1 of 2 Claims No 05-21 Meeting 05-26 Date 11/30/05 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 3827 $975.00 Matt Mann Web Design Services 3828 $136.57 McKowan,Paul Reimbursement-Volunteer Supplies 3829 $107.00 Metro Mobile Communications Mobile Radio Repair 3830 $1,403.01 Miller,Starr&Regalia Legal Services-Fogarty/MacFarlane Litigation 3831 $124.64 Noble Tractor,Inc. Tractor Supplies 3832 $214.16 Northern Energy,Inc. Propane Delivery 3833 $923.06 Office Depot Office Supplies 3834 $191.93 Pape' Material Handling Maintenance Supplies-Tractor Equipment 3835 $552.72 Peninsula Digital Imaging Presentation Boards 3836 $129.24 Pine Cone Lumber Lumber 3837 $4,631.13 *2 Post Haste Direct Mail Services Postage 2005/2006 Winter Newsletter 3838 $8.10 Rancho Ace Hardware&Garden Shop Field Supplies 3839 $44.25 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Conditioning Service 3840 $496.01 Redwood General Tire Co.,Inc. Tires 3841 $162.35 Redwood Trading Post Field Supplies 3842 $196.65 Rich Voss Trucking,Inc. Rock Delivery-FFO 3843 $12,500.00 Roddie Inc. Install New Water Drain Line-AO 3844 $5,096.52 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 3845 $54.56 Ruiz,Ana Reimbursement-Mileage 3846 $103.00 San Mateo County Environmental Petroleum Release Groundwater Protection Program Health Oversight-Pulgas Ridge 3847 $87.92 SBC Faxiine-AO&FFO 3848 $1,277.40 SBC Telephone Service-FFO,SFO&AO 3849 $19.32 Second Cup Caf6 Local Business Meetings 3850 $609.60 *3 Simeon Walton Accommodations-Rental For Ranger Attending Law Enforcement Academy 3851 $197.71 Stevens Creek Quarry,Inc. Base Rock 3852 $365.89 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 3853 $9,870.00 T.M.Sweatt Co.Inc. Benson Demolition At Sierra Azul 3854 $64.00 Terminix Pest Control-A.O. 3855 $522.68 Tires on the Go Tires 3856 $99.51 United Rentals Highway Tech. Decals 3857 $150.00 Verisign Email Security Service 3858 $323.88 Verizon Cellular Phone Service 3859 $1,450.46 West Coast Aggregates,Inc. Base Rock-Pulgas Ridge 3860 $654.21 West Payment Center Legal Books/Supplements 3861 $1,423.75 Westfall Engineers,Inc. Boundary Survey-Moody Gulch 3862 $275.00 Woodside&Portola Private Patrol Patrol Services-Windy Hill 3863 $85.55 Xpedite Systems,Inc. Fax Broadcast System Services Total $100,961.70 *1 Urgent Check Issued 11/16/05 *2 Urgent Check Issued 11/18/05 *3 Urgent Check Issued 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2 Claims No 05-21 Meeting 05-26 Date 11/30/05 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 3780 $950.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services-Pumping At RSA 3781 $374.26 Acme&Sons Sanitation Pumping/Disposal Fee&Weekly Services 3782 $212.00 Al's Chimney Cleaning Service Chimney Service 3783 $37.00 Allen's Press Clipping Bureau Clipping Service 3784 $183.70 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Repairs&Maintenance 3785 $750.00 Appraisal Research Corporation Appraisal Services 3786 $1,460.00 Arcturus GPS&Conventional Surveys Pulgas Ridge Land Survey 3787 $2,059.00 Aspen Environmental Group Consulting Services-Pulgas Ridge 3788 $71.88 AT&T Telephone Service-Long Distance 3789 $63.24 Barg Coffin Lewis&Trapp Legal Services-Guadalupe Watershed 3790 $367.12 Beck's Shoes Inc. Uniform Shoes 3791 $200.00 CA Dept.of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Update 3792 $120.18 Cal-Line Equipment,Inc. Chipper Parts 3793 $9,256.50 California Conservation Corps Erosion Control-ECDM 3794 $397.66 California Water Service Company Water Service-FFO&AO 3795 $59.90 Camino Medical Group Medical Services 3796 $1,514.93 Carsonite International Roadmarkers 3797 $753.98 Cimino,Jim Reimbursement-CALPELRA Conference 3798 $350.00 '1 City of Los Altos Security Deposit-11/30/05 Special Meeting 3799 $2,961,45 CMK Automotive Inc. Vehicle Maintenance Service 3800 $633.36 Coastal Tractor Specialized Rental Tractor Delivery&Pickup Charge 3801 $245.02 Continuing Education of the Bar Law Book 3802 $1,653.48 Cresco Equipment Rental Equipment Rental-Cat Excavator For South Canyon Trail 3803 $81.19 Cresco Equipment Rental Equipment Rental-St.Joseph's Hill Road Work& Davidson Restoration Project 3804 $256.40 CSK Auto Vehicle Supplies 3805 $75.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Replace Lights-AO 3806 $4,984.56 Dunn's Automotive Auto Body Repairs 3807 $3,909.16 EDAW,Inc. Master Plan Contract Services-Sierra Azul&Bear Creek Redwood OSP 3808 $1,658.98 EKI Soil Screening&Level Survey 3809 $376.25 Emily And Associates Management Consulting 3810 $97.20 Fed Ex Shipping Charges 3811 $197.75 FedEx Kinko Copy Services 3812 $146.35 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services 3813 $80.06 Fry's Electronics Computer Supplies 3814 $113.30 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 3815 $66.26 Galls Incorporated First Aid Supplies 3816 $74.56 Gilman,Mary Deer Hollow Farm-Supplies 3817 $145.14 Grainger,Inc. Field Supplies 3818 $897.44 Hammond,Tracy Reimbursement-Law Enforcement Academy Expenses 3819 $9,631.29 Jakaby Engineering Design&Engineering Services/Topographic Surveys- Pedestrian Bridges At ECDM 3820 $12.99 Kwik Key Lock&Safe Co.Inc. Key Services 3821 $38.05 Lab Safety Supply Field Supplies 3822 $99.43 Lenington,Kirk Reimbursement-Mileage 3823 $5,674.77 LFR Levine Fricke Engineer/Design Services&Petroleum Product Release Source Investigation-Pulgas Ridge 3824 $403.05 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 3825 $1,681.08 Lumenature Install Energy Efficient Lighting-Kaidara 3826 $60.00 Macke Water Systems,Inc. Water Dispenser Rental-2 Months Page 1 of 3 Claims No 05-21 Meeting 05-26 Date 11/30/05 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 3827 $975.00 Matt Mann Web Design Services 3828 $136.57 McKowan,Paul Reimbursement-Volunteer Supplies 3829 $107.00 Metro Mobile Communications Mobile Radio Repair 3830 $1,403.01 Miller,Starr&Regalia Legal Services-Fogarty/MacFarlane Litigation 3831 $124.64 Noble Tractor,Inc. Tractor Supplies 3832 $214.16 Northern Energy,Inc. Propane Delivery 3833 $923.06 Office Depot Office Supplies 3834 $191.93 Pape' Material Handling Maintenance Supplies-Tractor Equipment 3835 $552,72 Peninsula Digital Imaging Presentation Boards 3836 $129.24 Pine Cone Lumber Lumber 3837 $4,631.13 '2 Post Haste Direct Mail Services Postage 2005/2006 Winter Newsletter 3838 $8.10 Rancho Ace Hardware&Garden Shop Field Supplies 3839 $44.25 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Conditioning Service 3840 $496.01 Redwood General Tire Co.,Inc. Tires 3841 $162.35 Redwood Trading Post Field Supplies 3842 $196.65 Rich Voss Trucking,Inc. Rock Delivery-FFO 3843 $12,500.00 ## Roddie Inc. Install New Water Drain Line-AO 3844 $5,096.52 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 3845 $54.56 Ruiz,Ana Reimbursement-Mileage 3846 $103.00 San Mateo County Environmental Petroleum Release Groundwater Protection Program Health Oversight-Pulgas Ridge 3847 $87.92 SBC Faxline-AO&FFO 3848 $1,277.40 SBC Telephone Service-FFO,SFO&AO 3849 $19.32 Second Cup Caf6 Local Business Meetings 3850 $609.60 '3 Simeon Walton Accommodations-Rental For Ranger Attending Law Enforcement Academy 3851 $197.71 Stevens Creek Quarry,Inc. Base Rock 3852 $365.89 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 3853 $9,870.00 T.M.Sweatt Co.Inc. Benson Demolition At Sierra Azul 3854 $64.00 Terminix Pest Control-A.O. 3855 $522.68 Tires on the Go Tires 3856 $99.51 United Rentals Highway Tech. Decals 3857 $150.00 Verisign Email Security Service 3858 $323.88 Verizon Cellular Phone Service 3859 $1,450.46 West Coast Aggregates,Inc. Base Rock-Pulgas Ridge 3860 $654.21 West Payment Center Legal Books/Supplements 3861 $1,423.75 Westfall Engineers,Inc. Boundary Survey-Moody Gulch 3862 $275.00 Woodside&Portola Private Patrol Patrol Services-Windy Hill 3863 $85.55 Xpedite Systems,Inc. Fax Broadcast System Services 3864 R $395.11 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 3865 R $25,428.00 Aerial Information Systems,Inc. Central Coast Watershed Vegetation Classification 3866 R $36.00 Baillie,Gordon Reimbursement-Pager Service 3867 R $24.91 California Water Service Company Water Service-Windy Hill 3868 R $1,594.02 Caterpillar Financial Services Mini Excavator Lease-Trail Construction At Pulgas Corporation 3869 R $378.55 Environmental&Occupational Risk Consulting Services-Air Quality Analysis At FFO Management 3870 R $11.89 Galls Incorporated First Aid Supplies 3871 R $22,140.00 ## Half Moon Bay Grading&Paving Post Forde Cleanup Per Management Agreement 3872 R $410.00 Half Moon Bay Review Advertising-Good Neighbor Meetings 3873 R $3,638.71 LFR Levine Fricke Petroleum Product Release Source Investigation-Pulgas Ridge Page 2 of 3 Claims No 05-21 Meeting 05-26 Date 11/30/05 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 3874 R $34.00 Miller,Starr&Regalia Legal Services-Green Eyes,LLC 3875 R $172.31 Orlandi Trailer Trailer Accessories 3876 R $558.00 Palo Alto Weekly Advertising-Good Neighbor Meetings 3877 R $6.44 Pape'Material Handling Tractor Part 3878 R $362.12 Petty Cash Postage,Office Supplies,Parking&Mileage,Local/Out Of Town Business Meeting Expenses,Training&Seminars 3879 R $823.94 Redwood General Tire Company Patrol Truck Tire Upgrade For 4x4 Use 3880 R $1,553.95 Roberts&Brune Co. Dyer Water Tank Plumbing Repairs 3881 R $156.00 San Mateo County Public Health Residence Water Testing 3882 R $162.36 SBC Voice Mail Service-AO 3883 R $6,263.82 Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger LLP Legal Services-Coastal Annexation Litigation Total $165,111.83 '1 Urgent Check Issued 11/16/05 '2 Urgent Check Issued 11/18/05 '3 Urgent Check Issued 11/16/05 ## Expenditures To Date Exceed 10K But Not 25K ## Expenditures To Date Exceed 10K But Not 25K Page 3 of 3 Regional Open , -ice ------------ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: L. Craig Britton, General Manager DATE: November 30, 2005 RE: FYI's Page lVfl Cathy Woodbury From: Genero| |nhxmabon Sent: Tuesday, November O8. 2OU5S:38AM To: Matt Freeman; Cathy Woodbury Subject: Fw: trails � � --- Ohgina| K4emsoga --' From: To: Sent: Monday, November U7. 2OO511:U3PK4 Subject: trails � � Dear Decision Makers, We hope you will follow your staff recommendations for your trails and designate them for hiking � use only. The mountain bikes tear up the habitat, create erosion, and frighten those ofuswho � walk the trails. Everyone is welcome on trails, but machines (bikes) hurt the resources and � negatively impact all other users. Your staff has analyzed the trail system and has come forth with the proper decision. Warm regards, � � Mary Ann Webster � � � � | | | | / ll/30/2OO5 -----Original Message----- From: Young. Lisa (SVMB) To: 'info(d,)openspace.org' Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: thank you I just wanted to say thank you for being so open to mountain biking, and for keeping the trails open for some of the best biking California! My friends and I ride Saratoga Gap, Long Ridge, Fremont Older and Sierra Azul, and I look forward to riding the rest! - Lisa Young, mountain biker i I I�i II' -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Bauriedel [mailto:mbauriedel@ursu.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:00 PM To: Margaret Reimche Subject: Re: Margaret, Thank you for keeping the docent community who have concerns about this issue informed about the meetings. Marilyn I -----Original Message----- From: Henry Pastorelli [mailto:Henry.Pastorelli@MolDev.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3: 12 PM To: Margaret Reimche Cc: Sally Thielfoldt; Craig Britton Subject: RE: Pretty disappointing for cyclists. It appears there's no acknowledgement, consideration or actions being taken to open any trails. Cyclists continue to engage in MROSD meetings and help maintain many of the trails in the preserves and are rewarded with less and less access. Same old frustrating story. . . Henry Pastorelli -----Original Message----- From: Curt Riffle To: info(d)-openspace.org ; deane(a)-sbh.com Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Rhus Ridge Trailhead Hi Deane, I am not sure the email address I have for you is current,so I will copy the MROSD email address as well. I read about the request to open the Rhus Ridge trailhead to bicycles in the LA Town Crier. I agree with you completely that this would not be a good idea. I have used that trailhead for over 15 years and feel it would not work(not even one day a week)for the following reasons: • Parking-the parking situation is already overflowing on the weekends and given the residential proximity,I would hate to promote a conflict with the neighbors that will pressure the MROSD to shut the trail access down completely. • The trail immediately out of the trailhead is steep,wide,and smooth which invites speed. I have experienced this situation as an equestrian and hiker at the County's Quicksilver Almaden Park(bikes were just introduced about two years ago),and it is not safe (although everyone is trying to get along). • The trail system that this trailhead accesses are not conducive to bikes. Black Mountain is too narrow. Rancho does not allow bikes. I would hate to see cyclists start going into Hidden Villa's trail system prompting them to close their trails to the rest of us. • Finally,this area is a nice respite from bikes. Having just hiked at Fremont Older,we could not wait to get out of the bike accessible trails so that we did not have to keep checking over our shoulders or peering around the corner before proceeding. Thanks,Deane. Curt Riffle -----Original Message----- From: Patty Ciesla [mailto:patty@ecocyclist.org] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:47 PM To: romp@live555.com Subject: [ROMP] Fwd: mrosd bod mtg 7:30 pm wed, bikes to lose >From: AnneNg@aol.com >Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:50:24 EST >To: bikes@svbcbikes.org >The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors will meet >7:30 pm this coming Wednesday, November 30, at the Los Altos Youth Center, 1 >N. San Antonio Road in Los Altos. This special meeting will consider the fate of four trails: Black Mountain in Rancho San Antonio, Ridge in Skyline, Zinfandel in Pichetti Ranch, and Soda Gulch in Purisima Creek. They were >discussed at a Land Use and Management Committee meeting in early November. The General Manager's recommendations are to make permanent what had been interim use designations for the first three: hiking and equestrian for Black Mountain and hiking only for the next two. The details on Zinfandel indicate his recommendation differs from that of the committee, but doesn't say what the >committee recommended. For the Soda Gulch, he recommends keeping the interim hiking only status while the trail is evaluated for equestrian use. The comments indicate the input received at the November meeting from 13 warm bodies and 20 written communications was about half and half for and against allowing bikes, but bikes got nothing, not even one day a week, as some had requested. Check _www.openspace.org_ (http: //www.openspace.org) for all >the details. I trust someone from ROMP will share this with the ROMP email list, unless it's already been done. > >bikes@svbcbikes.org mailing list -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hendess [mailto:martinwilliamh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 10:38 AM To: Margaret Reimche Subject: Re: Hello Margaret: Thanks for the email update. I am dissappointed that it looks like all of the trails will be for hikers only (with the one exception that may allow horses) . There are a great deal of mountain bikers in the Bay Area, including myself, that will be unhappy with this decision. Is there still time to modify the plans? County of Santa Clara o LI Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden I fill I)ri\(, Los Gatos, California 9 ,032 7660 (408) 355 22(M) FAX 35.1 >290 J isso Q RCS( r\Mioris(408)3 5,-2201 � C� Q' www.park))(ire.org November 7 2005 Mr.Craig Britton Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Mountain View,CA 94022-1404 Mr.Britton At your request,Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation staff have reviewed the Zinfandel Trail use at Stevens Creek County Park and determined that the current designated use of`hiking only' is appropriate given the physical characteristics of this trail. The trail construction guidelines developed in the Countywide Trails Master Plan of 1995 recommend a shared-use trail optimally have a width of 4 to 6 feet in mountainous areas with cross-slopes over 30%. The current trail is 3 feet wide and there are areas where a widening of the trail would require the construction of extensive retaining walls to allow for the expansion of the trail and also to accomodate the weight of horses. Additional] trails intersecting the P g Y g Zinfandel are all designated as `hiking only'. Changing the designation on the Zinfandel would require a re-evaluatation of all of the trails in that area. At this time,the Parks Department has no plans to reassess the trails in this area of the park for use designation changes. A Trail Master Plan is underway at Sanborn County Park and should be completed in the spring of 2007. Two other Trail Master Plans,one at Calero and the other at Mt.Madonna are sequentially scheduled to follow the Sanborn Plan. The Countywide Trails Master Plan of 1995 identifies a route,the Stevens Creek Sub-regional Trail,which would be developed when a connection,through land acquisition,between Upper Stevens Creek County Park and Stevens Creek County Park has been secured. The Stevens Creek Sub-regional Trail,which is roughly planned to pass through the Cooley Picnic area at the base of the road leading to Camp Costanoan and beyond that to the Zinfandel Trail,would be a multi-use trail. The Zinfandel Trail, while within one-quarter mile of this route,given the current physical constraints would likely not become part of the Stevens Creek Sub-regional Trail. As such we do not foresee changing its use designation. Regards, John Falkowski GIS Technician County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department Board of supervisors: Donald F. Gage, 131ar)ca Alvarado, Pew Mcl lugh, James"I. Beall, Jr., Liz Kniss Colulty FAA litive: Peter Kutras, Ar e�i� Page lofl Cathy Woodbury From: General Information Sent Monday, November 28. 2O0S1O:37AK8 To: Matt Freeman; Cathy Woodbury Subject: Fw: zinfandel trail recommendation � -----Original Message----- From: � To: inf"^=~ � Sent: Fhday, November25. 2005 2:50 PM � Subject: zinfandel trail recommendation Hiho|ko— � Thankmverynnuohformoi|ingmeeUngogendaotoSi|iconVaUeyBioyoaCoa|iUon. |will share the announcement with this coming meeting with our email list. With respect to the meeting this conning Wednesday, |'nncurious about the connnnentvvithrespect hmthe Zinfandel Trail that the general nnanoge�o � recommendation im different from that of the committee. What was the committee recommendation? � Thanks, Anne Ng � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �11/30/2005 Regional Open x MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT TO: Board of Directors FROM: L. Craig Britton, General Manage DATE: November 23, 2005 RE: FYI s I FAEEs, Regional Open .S, X MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM November 10, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: M. Foster, Controller SUBJECT: Monthly and Quarterly Investment and Security Transaction Report Attached is the District's current portfolio of cash investments. All reserve and program funds established pursuant to public debt issues continue to be invested through the offices of the designated trustees. All instruments are in compliance with our latest Statement of Investment Policy, last approved on May 11, 2005. The District receives and maintains complete monthly reports of all investments managed by bond trustees. Santa Clara County has reported the pooled fund yield at 3.31%as of September 30, 2005. This yield remains below general market rates. Attached is the latest report from the Santa Clara Treasurer, received October 14, 2005. Our cash position, together with estimated near-term revenues, is adequate to cover cash requirements over the next six months. Enclosure cc: B. Congdon C. Britton S. Thielfoldt Auditor I MROSD INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO—October 31,2005 ISSUE SANTA CLARA COUNTY POOLED $22,545,427 INVESTMENT FUND(3.31%on 9/30/05), per 10/31/05 General Ledger Account Analysis. Guaranteed Investment Contract AIG Inc. $10,000,000 Drawable beginning May 1, 2006. Final maturity not later than December 15, 2007, Yield: 3.21%, market value as of 10/31/05 $10,257,957 Federal Home Loan Discount Note(AAA) $2,001,516 Due 12/13/05 yielding 3.70%, market value as of 9/30/05 $2,005,052 Federal Home Loan Bank Discount Note(AAA) $3,037,418 Due I I/15/05 yielding 3.64%, market value as of 9/30/05 $3,051,514 Certificate of Deposit at Mid-Peninsula Bank 1,015,948 Due 4/28/06 yielding 3.05%. 1996 REVENUE BOND RESERVE FUND 1,640,375 Managed by Trustee BNY Western Trust Co. Guaranteed investment contract yielding 4.89%. As of October 31, 2005, BNY and MBIA report par value of$1,640,375, market value of$1,653,850 and a maturity date of 9/1/26. Reserve requirement is $1,666,197. 2004 REVENUE BOND RESERVE FUND $1,429,003 Managed by Trustee BNY Western Trust Co. Guaranteed investment contract yielding 4.94%. As of October 31, 2005, BNY and MBIA report par value of$1,429,003, market value of$1,440,846 and maturity date of 4/1/34. Reserve requirement is $1,393,435. TOTAL $41,669,687 County of Santa Clara cQu Finance Agency Controller-Treasurer irer 1)cparlt-ficn( C01.111ty CAMM1111=111 center 70 WCSt 1-leddii ig street. East wing. 2nd 1-lour Is Sall Jose.California 95 1 10-1 705 (408)299-5200 FAX(408)289-84329 October 14, 2005 Prepared by: 6tz lvl�- 44 Cl-/,-%- Wquelin Flippin, Investment Officer Reviewed by: 040'r David G. Elledge Controller-TAasurer TO: BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SANTA CLARA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS FROM: JOHN V. GUTHRIE, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE SUBJECT: SANTA CLARA COUNTY TREASURY INVE T T PORTFOLIO STATUS RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the September 30, 2005 Detailed Investment Portfolio Listing. DISCUSSION In compliance with the State of California Government Code as amended by Chapters 783 and 784, Statutes of 1995 and in compliance with County Policy, the Santa Clara County Treasury Investment Portfolio Report as of September 30, 2005 is submitted for your review and acceptance. The attached detailed investment reports list each investment of the County Treasury Pool as well as individual reports for specific investment funds each school district or special district has in the County Treasury. The reports include the respective purchase and maturity dates, par value, amortized cost, present value, and effective yield for each investment. A summary of market value versus cost is provided below for Commingled Investments of the County Pool, Increase Cost Market Value Decrease) Percent Commingled Investments $2,890,395,762 $2,873,996,001 (16,399,761) -0.567% Board of Supervisors: Donald 1z, Gage. Blanca Alvarado, Pete,McHugh.James T. Beall,Jr.. Liz miss County ExCCUWC: Poter Kulras.Jr. CTS AND SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS TO. SANTA CLARA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRI October 14, 2005 Page 2 The yield of the pool on September 30, 2005 was 3.31%. As a comparison, an September 30, 200 5 the yield of a 90-day Treasury Bill was 3.53% and a 6-month Treasury Bill was 3.92%. A two- year Treasury Note was 4.17%. The State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yield was 3.39%. Attached with the current investment strategy is a schedule that lists the average maturities and yield for the commingled funds over the past six months. A chart of investment concentration and maturity is provided for the Treasury Pool. Also included is a chart showing the one-year history of the pool and selected interest rates. Securities are purchased with the expectation that they will be held to maturity, so unrealized gains or losses are not reflected in the yield calculations. The market values of securities were taken from the Wall Street Journal, quote screens, Bloomberg Analytics, and an independent pricing service. A combination of with the current investmentpolicy. w The investment portfolio is in compliance securities maturing, new revenues, and tax receipts will adequately cover the anticipated cash flow needs for the next six months. Cash flows are continually monitored and are considered paramount in the selection of maturity dates of securities. If any Board member would like further information on this report, please let me know. i Attachments I SANTA CLARA COUNTY TREASURY COMMINGLED POOL INVESTMENT REVIEW AND STRATEGY September 30, 2005 As was widely anticipated, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised its target interest rate by 25 basis points for the eleventh consecutive time since June 2004, bringing the federal funds rate up to 3.75%. Releases from the FOMC's policy statement underscored the committee's belief that the near-term negative impact from Hurricane Katrina on spending, production and employment would prove to be temporary. More importantly, FOMC statements suggested that focus and concern had emerged over the potential creation of inflationary pressures as a result of higher energy prices and recent GDP growth. Given this focus, we expect that the FOMC will continue its path of removing accommodation and will raise rates again at its November 1st meeting. In response to the FOMC's post Katrina inflation concerns, fixed income securities with both long and short maturities decreased in price and their yields increased. During the 1st quarter, the 6 month treasury bill yield increased by 58 basis points and the two year and ten year treasury notes increased by 53 and 41 basis points respectively. Interest rates have not reached these heights since April 2005. As of 9/30/05, the two-year treasury note reflected a yield of 4.16%. Interest rates for the two-year treasury however, comfortably remain within a trading range evident over the last four years. As of September 30th, the portfolio posted a weighted average maturity of 380 days as compared to the maturity of 289 days reflected at the end of the prior quarter, 6/30/05. On 9/30/05 the portfolio's weighted average yield to maturity was 3.31%, a favorable comparison to the prior period's 2.98%. We observe that core inflation remains low and that long-term inflation expectations are contained. Recently we experienced a period over which long rates have trended higher, however, after 11 consecutive Fed Funds hikes and with expectations of slower economic growth for 2006 (including estimates from the Federal Reserve staff), higher rates may not be sustainable over a substantially long period. For this reason the major thrust of our strategy continues to rely on identifying attractive structures and opportunistically locking in higher yields given their current availability. Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Average Days to Maturity 248 259 289 295 283 380 County Yield (end of Month) 2.74 2.89 2.98 3.00 3.09 3.31 LAIF Yield (end of Month) 2.79 2.93 2.97 3.08 3.26 3.39 I SANTA CLARA COUNTY TREASURY-COMMINGLED POOL INVESTMENT CONCENTRATION AND MATURITY DISTRIBUTION as of September 30, 2005 SECURITIES BY TYPE* Medium Term LAIF Notes $272.4 $40.0 Treasury Notes 0 1% $25.3 9 l0 1% Commercial P Federal Agency ae pr 726 25/o o Coupons $1,826.3 64% *Amounts are in millions (000) SECURITIES BY MATURITY Cash 731 days-5 Equivalents yrs 10.0% 1-30 days 16.0% 11.9% 31-90 days 13.0% 366-730 days 17.5% days d 181-365 days 17 91-180 14.3% I PORTFOLIO HISTORY 2004-2005 I CO POOL - - LAW 2 YEAR TREAS - - - 6 MONTH BILL 4 17%00 . 0 00 0 3.31% r r r go / so � so i 2.50% _ 'j "' / g / 00 / / Volvo I I I 1.50% _— - - -- i i 0.50% ---- — -- — _ 275 260 211 214 215 231 248 259 289 295 283 380 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT YIELD AND AVERAGE MATURITY (in days) Print Article Page I of 1 Article Last Updated: 11/11/2005 03:08 AM Eucalyptus trees to get the ax Popular trees in Pulgas Ridge Open Space deemed invasive By Julia Scott, STAFF WRITER Inside Bay Area In spite of community opposition, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District voted Wednesday night to cut down six eucalyptus trees in its Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. Pulgas Ridge Preserve, a 366-acre property between San Carlos and Redwood City, contains fewer than 50 eucalyptus trees. There were more than 100 when the district began felling them in 1998 on the basis that they were an invasive species that decreased biodiversity by preventing other plants from growing. A group of park users banded together in 2000 to try to prevent the district from cutting down 30 of the trees. They collected 275 signatures from other eucalyptus lovers and appealed their case to the board, to no avail. Today, only 45 trees remain at the top of the ridge. Some are 22 to 25 inches in diameter. They give shade to hikers and picnickers who come to enjoy the view of the western skyline. Judy Baker, a resident of Los Altos, said the district is going to cut down some of the oldest, most majestic trees on the site. "If the park is for public enjoyment, they should listen to the public," she said. Cindy Roessler, a biologist with the district, said it had already compromised by cutting the trees down gradually instead of all at once. She said that leaving any eucalyptus trees behind didn't fit with the district's mission of"protecting natural lands and restoring them to their original condition." Roessler said the definition of eucalyptus as a non-native, invasive species was not up for dispute. It has been designated as such by the California Invasive Plant Council. "We're pretty consistent with the science that's out there," she said. The District recently received 19 additional letters from local residents who wanted to keep the trees. Nonetheless, the board voted 6-1 to cut them down, with Nonette Hanko casting the dissenting vote. "To me, invasive species are the ones like yellow starthistle," she said. Hanko said she will propose that a heritage grove of eucalyptus be set aside on the knoll. Board member Ken Nitz said the community's strong opposition to the project has had an effect.The board has directed district staff to reevaluate its plan for Pulgas Ridge. "We want to take another look at it to make sure we're doing the right thing," he said. "We may not in the future take any trees down." Staff writer Julia Scott can be reached at 348-4340 or at 1!iqQtt@,sanmateocountytimes.com. http://www.insidebayarea.com/portiet/article/html/fragments/Print—articlejsp?article=320... 11/21/2005 NOV 22 2005 November 17, 2005 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Mr. L. Craig Britton General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022 Dlear MY Britton, Thank you for contacting me regarding SB 203 (Simitian). After extensive consideration and thorough deliberation from proponents and opponents of this issue, I have decided to sign this bill. This legislation mandates the extension of San Mateo's local county authority to impose and use tax for specific park and recreation purposes. Based on your informed letter, it is evident that you have extensive experience and a genuine investment in the improvement of transactions and use taxes in local government. I am a consistent advocate for the strength and authority of local government. These localities are the foundation upon which our great State of California is built. As a fellow public servant, I recognize the critical role local government plays in the everyday lives of California residents. With the proper support, the local government can make progressive changes for the wellbeing of our great state. Transactions and use taxes support hundreds of state and local government programs and services including schools and colleges, hospitals and health care services, criminal justice, correctional and social welfare programs, law enforcement, consumer services, natural resource management and transportation and housing programs. SB 203 authorizes the Board of Supervisors of the county of San Mateo to impose transactions I allu Lio& taA 1,Uf spe:671,1ed I)ai,-. ilia 1'eufcaiiull PJL6PVS;z;S -i , if cocofiLimb wcaei. Tklsbilll provides the county voters greater flexibility and local control and truly helps county parks, which are in desperate need of a dedicated funding source. Thank you again for taking the time to express your support of SB 203. 1 have great faith in the residents of California and the authority of local government. With the support of concerned citizens, like yourself, my administration can achieve a positive change for local government programs and-services. Sincerely, mold 4,SchwParzeneggger GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 - (916) 445-2841 Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 17, 2005 The Honorable Breene Kerr Town of Los Altos Hills 27261 Sherlock Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Proposed Town Parking Lot at Rhus Ridge Road and Moody Road Dear Mayor Kerr: On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, I would like to express our enthusiastic support for a parking lot on the Town of Los Altos Hills' property located at Rhus Ridge and Moody Roads. The Town's construction of a parking lot at this location would improve public safety by providing greatly needed off-street parking. Since this property was originally a gift to the Town from the Duveneck family, we would look forward to working with the Town so that any proposed improvements would be acceptable to the family. We also encourage the Town to take this opportunity to develop a safe trail off the roadway that would access the District's staging area and the trail system through the Windmill Pasture area of Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. We look forward to working with you to establish a trail connection from the proposed parking lot to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Please contact the District's Planning Manager, Cathy Woodbury, regarding coordination with the District during the planning process. Sincerely, lvlMa)y Dave Mary Davey, Ward 2 Director MD:caw/jb cc: MROSD Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:info@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org ----- Original Message ----- From: <volunteer@openspace.org> To: <infoCa)openspace.org> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: 11/18/2005 - bearit88@yahoo.com - Visitor Feedback > Email Address: bearit88(4)yahoo.com > Feedback: This is just a note to say thank you for maintaining such amazing parks. My wife and I run at Rancho San Antonio 5 days a week and we thoroughly enjoy every day there. I have seen, in recent weeks, 4 different mountain lions and think it is wonderful that such a place exists where one can run/hike and see deer, wild cats, birds, etc and that they are all protected there. thank you for all of your work. Regional Open Sp_ ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 22, 2005 Via Facsimile: (202) 228-3954 Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Re: Land Water Conservation Fund Dear Senator Feinstein: fight for the survival of the Land Water Conservation Fund a very Please g o y successful and needed program that has provided millions of dollars for critical park improvements across the country over a number of years. The Bush Administration is currently pressuring Congress to pass a $2.3 billion rescission to bills already passed. Thirty million dollars for Land Water Conservation Fund state assistance funding for FY 2006, though approved by Congress in the Interior Spending bill and signed into law by the President, is targeted in the administration's recommendation of rescissions. The Land Water Conservation Fund is intended to create and maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality recreation areas and facilities and to stimulate non-federal investments in the protection and maintenance of vital recreation resources across the United States. Please reject the President's rescissions proposal to eliminate Land and Water Conservation Fund state assistance. Instead, we urge you to advocate for an across the board cut before eliminating specific program funding. Sinc ely, r L. Craig Britton General Manager cc: MROSD Board of Directors 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD or DIRECTORS:Fete Siemens,MaryDavey,led Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www,openspace.org Deane tittle,Nonette Honko,Larry Hassett,Kennett)C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Regional Open Sp.ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 22, 2005 Via Facsimile: (41.5) 956-6701 The Honorable Senator Boxer 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 240 San Francisco, CA 94111 Re: Land Water Conservation Fund Dear Senator Boxer: Please fight for the survival of the Land Water Conservation Fund, a very successful and needed program that has provided millions of dollars for critical park improvements across the country over a number of years. The Bush Administration is currently pressuring Congress to pass a $2.3 billion rescission to bills already passed. Thirty million dollars for Land Water Conservation Fund state assistance funding for FY 2006, though approved by Congress in the Interior Spending bill and signed into law by the President, is targeted in the administration's recommendation of rescissions. The Land Water Conservation Fund is intended to create and maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality recreation areas and facilities and to stimulate non-federal investments in the protection and maintenance of vital recreation resources across the United States. Please reject the President's rescissions proposal to eliminate Land and Water Conservation Fund state assistance. Instead, we urge you to advocate for an across the board cut before eliminating specific program funding. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton General Manager cc: MROSD Board of Directors 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Simms,MoryDovey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,t_orrry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Regional Open Sloce r MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 22, 2005 Via Facsimile: (202) 225-5929 Written Testimony To the Committee on Resources United States House of Representatives The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman 1324 Longworth HOB Washington D.C. 20515 Re: National Environmental Policy Act Dear Chairman Pombo: Please enter these comments into the record for the NEPA Task Force Hearing. I hope the enclosed comments about the importance of the National Environmental Policy Act are reflected in your final report. The National Environmental Policy Act is the most important environmental law in requiring the government to review major federal projects for the environmental and public health impacts. If the damage will be significant, alternative designs must be investigated to minimize damage and these options must be shared with the public. NEPA has protected our communities and must not be weakened. NEPA is the guarantee that Americans affected by a federal action will get the best information about its impacts, a choice of good alternatives, and the right to have their voice heard before the government makes a final decision. • NEPA ensures balance, common sense and openness in federal decision-making. • At the heart of NEPA is its requirement that alternatives must be considered - including those that will minimize possible damage to our health, environment or quality of life. NEPA also lets Americans have a say before the government makes its final decision about a project. • By making sure that the public is informed and that alternatives are considered, NEPA has stopped some damaging projects or made them better. • Cutting corners can have disastrous consequences, especially when it comes to spending taxpayer money on projects that might harm citizens or their environment. We believe that limiting public involvement and weakening environmental review won't avoid controversy or improve projects. NEPA saves time and money in the long run by reducing controversy, building consensus, and ensuring that a project is done right the 33o aistel Circle 650-697-i2oo Info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Honko,Larry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L Craig Britton The Honorable Richard Po90 November 22, 2005 Page 2 first time. NEPA's promise of project review and public involvement must be safeguarded, not sacrificed in the name of speed. Rather than making changes to NEPA or its regulations, I urge you to ensure that the federal agencies responsible for implementing the law get the resources they need to do the job right and in a timely manner. Sincerely, L. Craig B'ri ton General Manager cc: MROSD Board of Directors Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Dianne Feinstein