HomeMy Public PortalAbout19870812 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 87-19 Meeting 87-19
*4 04 1&*-*-
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:30 P.M. 201 San Antonio Cl.
Wednesday A G E N D A Suite C-135
August 12, 1987 Mountain View, CA
(7 :30) * ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (July 15, July 22, July 23, 1987)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Public**
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
BOARD BUSINESS
(7:45) 1. Proposed Support for Preservation of Endangered Wetlands by
Placing Them Under the Protection of the San Francisco Bay
Natural Wildlife Refuge -- D. Hansen
Resolution Urging the Preservation of Endangered Wetlands by
Placing Them Under the Permanent Protection of the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
(7 :55) 2. Continuation of Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for
the Hassler Open Space Preserve -- D. Hansen
(8:25) 3. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan
for the Trust for Hidden Villa Property Addition to the
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve - Duveneck Windmill
Pasture Area -- D. Hansen
(8:35) 4. Response to Preservation 2020 Task Force Draft
Recommendations -- N. Hanko
(8:55) 5. Hosking Property Defeasance Payment - El Corte de Madera
Creek Open Space Preserve -- D. Hansen
(9:05) 6. Proposed Addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Lands
of Slobe/Aries) -- C. Britton
(9:25) 7 . Approval of Funding for Parking Lot Design by Nancy Hardesty
Associates for the Slobe/Aries Addition to Windy Hill Open
Space Preserve -- D. Hansen
(9:35) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS Directors and Staff
CLAIMS
CLOSED SESSION (Land Negotiation and Litigation Matters)
ADJOURNMENT
*Times are estimated, and items may appear earlier or later than listed.
Agenda is subject to change of order.
**TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: When an item you're concerned with appears on the
agenda, the Chair will invite you to address the Board at that time; on
other matters you may address the Board under Oral Communications. An
alternative is to comment to the Board by a Written Communication which the
Board appreciates. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to 3 minutes.
When recognized, please begin by stating your name and address. We request
that you fill out the form provided so that your name and address can be
accurately included in the minutes.
USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEWS
The Use and Management Plan Reviews for Coal Creek, Thornewood, and the
Picchetti Ranch Area of Monte Bello Open Space Preserves are tentatively
scheduled for the September 9 Board Meeting. Please send your written
comments, ideas and concerns to David Hansen, Land Manager, by August 31 so
that they can be considered in drafting the staff report. You may call the
District office between September 7-9 to confirm that the item is on the
agenda.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIREC"MRS
JULY 15, 1987
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
Vice-President Katherine Daffy called the meting to order at 7:34 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Daffy, Ernestine Henshaw, D-dward Shelley, Nonette
Hanko, and Gerry Andeen.
1-kmbers Absent: Richard Bishop.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench and Jean riddes.
U. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Initial Interviews of Applicants for 1-1-i-e Position off-Director - Ward 2
K. Duffy noted that applicants Andrew Allison and Thomas Barton would not
be present at the meting and applicant Jan 'Terry would be plugged into
the interview process when she arrived.? She then reviewed the procedure to
be followed. She said that the procedure was meant to be a guideline and
could be amended by Board consensusduring the meeting.
The order of opening statements was as follows:
1. Janet Schwind
2. Lee Callaway
3. David McKinney
4. Robert McKibbin
5. Vince Garrod
6. Andrew Allison - not present
7. Dean Kapsalis - not present
8. Alfonso Tatano
9. Thomas Barton - not present
10. Robert Beard
11. Mark Winitz
12. Jan Terry - not present during this portion of the meeting.
The Board recessed for a break at 9:45 P.M. and the meting reconvened at
9:50 P.M.
The order of final statements was as follows:
1. Jan Terry
2. Lee Callaway
3. Robert McKibbin
4. Andrew Allison - not present
5. Dean Kapsalis - not present
6. David McKinney
7. Robert Beard
8. Janet Schwind
9. Alfonso Tatano
10. Mark Winitz
11. Vince Garrod
12. Thomas Barton - not present
page two
N. Hanko requested that applicants who could not attend this meeting be
included as finalists in the second round of interviews or be provided
another opportunity to speak. E. Shelley and T. Henshaw .-poke in favor
of following the established procedure regarding absentee applicants.
K. Duffy said that she felt applicants not present should be given every
opportunity to speak.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board reaffirm the procedure it estab-
lished for the interview process, particularly concerning candi-
dates who zould not be avail-able at this meeting. T. Henshaw
seconded the motion. The motion failed to pass on the following
vote: Ayes: E. Shelley, T. Henshaw and G. Andeen.
Noes; K. Duffy and N. Hanko.
K. Duffy thanked all the candidates for their time and effort and declared
a recess at 10:30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 10:38 P.M.
The results of the first round of voting were as follows:
Andrew Allison - 2 votes
Thomas Barton 2 votes
Robert Beard 3 votes
Lee Callaway 2 votes
Vince Garrod 4 votes
Robert McKibbin - 5 votes
Janet Schwind - 5 votes
Mark Winitz - 5 votes
Applicants Dean Kapsalis, David McKinney, Alfonso Tatano and Jan Terry did
not receive any votes.
A second round of voting followed to see if the tie for the sixth finalist
slot could be broken. The results of the second round of voting were as
follows:
Andrew Allsion - 1 vote
Thomas Barton 1 vote
Robert Beard 3 votes
Lee Callaway 2 votes
Vince Garrod 4 votes
Robert McKibbin - 5 votes
Janet Schwind - 5 votes
Mark Winitz - 5 votes
Applicants Dean Kapsalis, David McKinney, Alfonso Tatano and Jan Terry did
not receive any votes.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board accept the top six applicants (Robert
Beard, Lee Callaway, Vince Garrod, Robert McKibbin, Janet Schwind and
Mark Winitz) for final interviews on July 23. T. Henshaw seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meting was adjuourned at 10:45 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District,Clerk
Meeting 87-17
'..
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JULY 22 , 1987
MINUTES
I . ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 :34 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Bishop, Edward Shelley, Teena Henshaw,
Gerry Andeen , and Nonette Hanko. Katherine Duffy arrived at
7 :56 P .M. during the National Weather Service item.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, David Hansen, Jean Fiddes ,
Mary Hale, Linda Steputat, Stanley Norton, and Doris Smith.
II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 8 , 1987
Motion: T. Henshaw moved that the Board approve the minutes of
July 8, 1987. N. -Hanko seconded the motion. The motion
- passed 5 to 0 .
III . WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
D. Smith reported that the Board had received the following written
communications :
1) a letter dated June 29 , 1987 from Harry H. Haeussler, Jr. , 1094
Highland Circle, Los Altos, concerning the payment of rent by
Beverly Fike for High Meadow Stables;
2) a letter from Albert J. Jurafsky, 675 San Martin Place, Los Altos ,
containing suggestions for identification and parking for the
preserves along Skyline Boulevard and asking that all preserves
be opened to dogs under control of their owners .
Staff was directed to notify Mr. Jurafsky when the Board addressed
the issue of preserve identification and parking in the Skyline corri-
dor, and his letter was referred to the Dog Committee.
R. Bishop stated that the draft replies for both letters were approved
by Board consensus .
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Larry Hassett, 22286 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, commented that the
District 's Rangers are well received by most residents in the Skyline
area and noted that Patrick Congdon , an active member of the South
f
Skyline Fire Department, had been elected Assistant Chief effective ve
July 1 , 1987 .
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
i F
Meeting 87-17 Page Two
V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion : R. Bishop moved that Item 6 concerning the Trust for
Hidden Villa be moved to the end of the agenda after
Item 11 . E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5 to 0.
Motion: R. Bishop moved that Item 10, Appointment of Peace Officer,
be considered after Item 1 . N. Hanky seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5 to 0.
R. Bishop stated that the agenda as modified was adopted by Board
consensus.
VI . BOARD BUSINESS
A) National Weather Service Proposal to Locate NEXRAD Station on
Rt. Umunhum (Report R-87-118 of July 15 , 1987)
H. Grench reviewed the staff report, noting that the Weather Ser-
vice had not yet had an opportunity to respond to staff 's position
as stated in the report. He noted that NWS had a long-standing
policy to purchase land rather than lease it, and he stated the
reasons the District should retain control of the property on the
summit of Mt. Umunhum. He reviewed the conditions that would be
negotiated by staff in a long-term lease, calling particular atten-
tion to the County use permit requirements and NWS funding to hire
a consultant (s) to review SRI 's site specific impact study. He
said that it would be extremely important that environmental pro-
cedures be followed very carefully, and that the Board 's potential
approval of the proposed lease would be contingent on the Board 's
consideration of environmental studies and independent review, and
agreed-to mitigation measures .
G. Andeen advised that he would not participate in discussions nor
the vote on this matter because of potential conflict of interest.
Richard Anderson , Chief of the NWS Engineering Division for the
Western Region , noted that the staff report was in line with dis-
cussions with staff and he did not have a major problem with the
content of the report. He said that the NWS is still very much
interested in acquisition by purchase rather than lease and that
he felt that when SRI finished their report many of the questions
that are site specific and of concern to the District will be
answered. He noted that there may be some reluctance on the part
of NWS to pay for another report based on SRI 's findings , but he
did not have the authority to make such a decision.
Dave Leone of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) , said that they
are looking at the electromagnetic interference aspects of the
site, had identified approximately 400 potential antenna site
users in the area , and will be looking at each one to identify
potential interference. He said that they are considering bringing
in an outside consultant to do aesthetic analysis. R. Bishop
stated that an aesthetic study would be very helpful.
Discussion centered on the Weather Service 's desire to own rather
than lease the property, and Mr. Anderson stated that adopted
policies prohibit lease of over five years and that their need
is for long-term occupancy of the site. D. Hansen said that a
right of renewal option could be made part of the proposed lease.
Meeting 87-17 Page Three
Rick Estrada, Sierra hzul Landowner's Association , urged the Dis-
trict to lease rather than sell the land and to work into the nego-
tiations who will be liable for technical errors and problems
arising from electronic interference. K. Duffy asked Mr. Estrada
to put his concerns in writing to the Board so that his concerns
would be on record.
T. Henshaw asked what the proposed timeline was for staff negoti-
ations. H. Grench said that the County procedure for issuing per-
mits and conducting environmental reviews would probably take from
30 to 90 days after SRI completes its study, providing there are
not serious challenges along the way. T. Henshaw said that she
would like to have a field tour of the site before the issue returns
to the Board, and several Directors indicated their interest for
such a tour. R. Bishop directed staff to make the necessary ar-
rangements for the field trip and to determine if a special meeting
is needed.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board approve the full recom-
mendations of staff as contained in report R-87-118 of
July 15 , 1987 , including the question of the lease and
the outside review by a consultant. N. Hanko seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5 to 0 . G. Andeen ab-
stained from the vote.
B. Appointment of Peace Officer (Report R-87-117 of July 16 , 1987)I
D. Hansen introduced Ranger Linda Steputat, noting she had joined
the Ranger staff the previous week.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt Resolution 87-23 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula I
Regional Open Space District Appointing Linda Steputat as
a Peace Officer. T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The
motion passed 6 to 0.
C. Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for the Hassler Open Space
Preserve (Report R-87-121 of July 17 , 1987)
D. Hansen presented the staff report for the Comprehensive Use and
Management Plan dealing specifically with access and circulation
for the Preserve and said that the balance of the Plan would be
presented at the August 12 meeting. He noted that attendees
(mostly neighbors) at a public workshop held on September 9 , 1986
had indicated strong support for maintaining the site essentially
as it is and that they supported low intensity recreation uses.
He reported that the two subdivision proposals for the Benedetti
property adjacent to the Preserve have been of concern to staff,
and that staff is working with the City of San Carlos to minimize
impacts of the subdivision on the Preserve.
D. Hansen discussed major access planning under consideration by
staff, including developing the Edmonds Road and Vista Point access
and exploring other potential parking area sites. Discussion cen-
tered on the removal of chain link fence at the Vista Point access
and the federal legislation required to facilitate access from the
Interstate 280 Vista Point and the Edgewood Road Park and Ride lot.
Meeting 87-17 Page Four
Motion : G. Andeen moved that the Board formally refer this issue
to the Legislative Committee. N. Hanko seconded the
motion.
Discussion: Discussion focused on the need to refer this
item to the Legislative Committee.
The motion failed to pass on the following vote:
Ayes : G. Andeen and N.
Hanko.
Noes : E. Shelley, K. Duffy, T. Henshaw and R. Bishop.
Motion : R. Bishop moved that the Board amend the Plan by inserting
a provision that staff report back to the Board within 90
days on their efforts to obtain agreement from CalTrans
on the use of the Edgewood Road Park and Ride lot and the
Vista Point. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion
passed on the following vote:
Ayes : R. Bishop, K. Duffy, N. Hanko, and T. Henshaw.
Noes : T. Henshaw and E. Shelley.
R. Bishop, referring to item C4 on page five, stated that the
trail through the west canyon should carry a more definite time-
frame for completion. He requested that the Plan be amended to
insert the statement that the trail from the Edmonds Road entrance
to the central ridge via the west canyon would be constructed
during the spring of 1989.
Discussion centered on placing a completion date for the trail.
D. Hansen said that there is a need to establish an annual priority
list of trails designated for completion based on the Board 's de-
cisions regarding all preserves . He noted that the second portion ,
of the report would indicate a proposed construction date for the
trail. E. Shelley stated that the appropriate time to decide the
timeframe for building a particular trail would be when the Board
reviewed the larger picture to determine which trails should have
the greater priority.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board tentatively adopt the
access and circulation elements of the Comprehensive Use
and Management Plan as contained in the report as amended.
T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
D. 2020 Task Force Recommendations (Santa Clara County)
(Report R-87-115 of July 15 , 1987)
N. Hanko introduced Hugh Graham, Senior Planner for Santa Clara
County and the 2020 Project Manager, who gave an overview of the
recommendations of the 2020 Task Force.
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the Board direct staff to work with
Director Hanko to develop and present at the next Board
meeting, a draft letter, containing information in her
report, which would state the Board 's position on the
Task Force 's goals and recommendations. T. Henshaw
seconded the motion . The motion passed 6 to 0.
E. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Berry
Property Addition to the Sierra_ Azul .Open Space Preserve , Limekiln Can-
yon Area (Report R-.87-113 of July 15 , 1987)
D. Hansen said that escrow on the 64 . 83 acre Berry property had closed
Meeting 87-17 Page Five
on June 30 , 1987 and that no further public comment had been
received.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt the Preliminary Use
and Management Plan for the Berry property addition to
the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, Limekiln Canyon Area,
as contained in report R-87-91 and dedicate the property
as public open space at this time. K. Duffy seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5 to 0; Director Henshaw was
not present for the vote.
F. Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the
Blest Property Addition to the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
(Report R-87-114 of July 15 , 1987)
D. Hansen said that escrow on the one-quarter acre Blest property
had closed on June 19 , 1987 and that no further public comment had
been received.
Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt the Preliminary Use
and Management Plan for the Blest property addition to
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve as contained in re-
port R-87-87 and indicate its intention to withhold the
property from dedication as public open space at this
time. N. Hanko seconded the motion .
Discussion : G. Andeen, referring to section E-2 of the
accompanying acquisition, questioned why access to the
property should not be publicized.
Motion to Amend: G. Andeen, referring to report R-87-87 of
June 2 , - 1987-, moved that the words "but not publicize"
be stricken from Section E-2 in the Interim Use and Man-
agement Recommendations . N. Hanko seconded the motion .
The motion to amend failed to pass on the following vote:
Ayes : G. Andeen and N. Hanko.
Noes : R. Bishop, K. Duffy, T. Henshaw, and E. Shelley.
G. Resolution of Appreciation to Assembly Member Sher and
Senator Morgan (Report R-87-116 of July 15 , 1987)
H. Grench reported that Assembly Bill 2425 had been signed by the
Governor on July 8 . E. Shelley suggested the Board and staff
consider some type of additional recognition for Assembly Member
Sher for all his efforts over the years for the District.
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt Resolution 87-25, a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District to Assembly Member Sher for
Authoring and to Senator Rebecca Morgan for Co-Authoring
Assembly Bill 2425. G. Andeen seconded the motion. The
motion passed 6 to 0 .
H. General Manager 's Compensation (Report R-87-111 of July 13 , 1987)
R. Bishop stated that when considering the General Manager 's sal-
ary it was important to review its relationship to the Assistant
General Manager 's salary. N. Hanko stated that the District should
continue to have one retirement benefit for the General Manager.
Meeting 87-17 Page Six
E. Shelley stated that upon further study of the General Manager 's
compensation he now favored a 1% salary increase and payment of
the General Manager 's 7% PERS contribution . R. Bishop stated he
supported this proposal. T. Henshaw stated the Board should con-
sider a better process for determining the General Manager 's compen-
sation in future years.
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the District pay the 7% PERS contri-
bution for the General Manager and also increase his base
salary by one percent. R. Bishop seconded the motion .
Discussion: T. Henshaw spoke against the motion and stated
that she favored a straight percentage salary increase,
rather than the PERS pickup, since the General Manager was
different from other employees. N. Hanko spoke in favor
of phasing in payment of the General Manager 's PERS con-
tribution.
Motion to Amend: N. Hanko moved that the motion be amended to a
straight salary increase of 7% for the General Manager.
The motion to amend died for lack of a second.
The original motion passed on the following vote:
Ayes : E. Shelley, K. Duffy, G. Andeen , and R. Bishop.
Noes : N. Hanko and T. Henshaw.
I . Action Plan Program Evaluation for 1986-1987 Fiscal Year
(Report R-87-110 of July _13 , 1987)
H. Grench, D. Hansen , M. Hale, and J. Fiddes reviewed the program
evaluation material for the Board. D. Hansen , referring to the
fifth key project in the Operations , Maintenance, and Volunteer
Subprogram, stated that staff had completed a fair amount of re-
search on establishing volunteer foot, bicycle, or equestrian
trail patrol of District lands and an item on this would be pre-
sented to the Board.
G. Andeen stated that he would like to see a statement in the
1987-1988 key projects and activities for General Management and
Program Support advocating activity on the part of Board and staff
members to promote the District to the general public. He recom-
mended that the following wording be included in the third item:
"Create an environment of public service that encourages individual
employees to find and execute routes to inform and demonstrate the
benefits of open space to those not already aware. " G. Andeen also
requested that the words "allowing public access" in the third
Basic Policy statement that reads "The District will follow a land
management policy that provides proper care of open space, allowing
public access appropriate to the nature of the land and consistent
with ecological values" be changed to "encouraging public enjoy-
ment. "
Following Board discussion of the recommendations " R. Bishop re-
quested that G. Andeen put his proposal in writing so the Board and
staff could look at it to find ways to integrate his suggestions
into the District's program. G. Andeen said that he would place an
item focusing on the Basic Policy wording change on a future agenda.
Meeting 87-17 Page Seven
Motion : E. Shelley moved acceptance of the Program Evaluation for
the 1986-1987 fiscal year as contained in report R-87-96
of June 24 , 1987 and as amended during the meeting.
T. Henshaw seconded the motion . The motion passed 6 to 0.
J. Proposed Slobe (Aries) Property Addition to the Windy Hill Open
Space Preserve (Report R-87-122 of July 17 , 1987)
H. Grench advised that C. Britton, who was attending the Portola
Valley Town Council meeting at which the Slobe acquisition was
being discussed, had reported by telephone that there appeared to
be a favorable acceptance by the Council thus far for the acquisi-
tion. H. Grench noted that there is a specific contingency in the
purchase contract for a 50-car parking area on the property imme-
diately adjacent to Portola Road and referred the Board to his
July 22 letter that had been prepared for consideration by the
Portola Valley Town Council. S. Norton concurred that the agree-
ment, if approved, would be valid until August 14 , 1987 and added
that the Board could walk away from the purchase contract if the
parking lot was not approved.
D. Hansen reviewed the proposed design plans for the parking area
prepared by Hardesty and Associates.
Following discussion of the role of the Town of Portola Valley in
the potential acquisition, E. Shelley stated that he felt the
District must maintain the position that this was a District pur-
chase for a regional facility and that powers should not be given
to the Town of Portola Valley that would restrict the District 's
ability to use the property for its intended purpose.
Larry Hassett, 22286 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda , requested that
adequate equestrian parking be included in the proposed parking
area.
Motion : N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt Resolution 87-25 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of
Purchase and Sales Agreement, Authorizing Officer to
Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District,
and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All
Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of
the Transaction (Windy Hill Open Space Preserve - Slobe
Property) . K. Duffy seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6 to 0 .
Motion : N. Hanko moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Pre-
liminary Use and Management Plan recommendations contained
in reports R-87-106 and R-87-109 , including naming the
property as an addition to the Windy Hill Open Space Pre-
serve, and reaffirming its intention to dedicate the prop-
erty as public open space. K. Duffy seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6 to 0 .
K. Proposed Addition to Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (Lands
of The Trust for Hidden Villa) Final Easement Transaction
(Report R-87-119 of July 17 , 1987)
D. Hansen reviewed the staff report, noting that the District had
Meeting 87-17 Page Eight
been notified in July 1986 that the final land area had been trans-
ferred from the Duveneck family to the Trust for Hidden Villa,
including the 940 acres of "Wilderness Area" easement and 6 . 06 acre.,
of "Ranch Area" easement. He noted that total cost to the District
for this final transfer would be $865 ,786 .61 and that Master Agree-
ment needed to be amended to include the adjustments to the pur-
chase price and other revisions discussed in the staff report. He
added that the purchase price reflected changes in the payment
schedule that. benefittled the District from a cash flow basis and
that approximately a 100 acre portion of the property from the
easterly ridgeline of the Upper Adobe Creek Watershed to the
existing Windmill Pasture Area was being conveyed in fee title at
no additional cost to the District.
Discussion focused on the realignment of the Black Mountain Trail
and its placement entirely on District land so as not to intrude
upon the ranch area itself. D. Hansen noted that the existing trail
would have required rerouting and rebuilding even if the stipulation
about the trail had not been included in the amended agreement.
Mark Winitz , 1638 Corte Via, Los Altos , asked if an accessible
trail route will be open during the time the old trail is obliter-
ated and the new trail is completed, and D. Hansen stated that a
trail route would always be open to accommodate hikers.
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the Board adopt Resolution 87-26 , a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of
Amendment to Purchase Agreement and Authorizing General
Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary
or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve - Lands of the Trust for
Hidden Villa) . T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion
passed 6 to 0 .
Motion : E. Shelley moved that the Board tentatively adopt the Pre-
liminary Use and Management Plan recommendations contained
in the report, including naming the property as an addition
to the Rancho San Antonio Open Spade Preserve - Duveneck
Windmill Pasture Area, and indicate its intention to dedi-
cate the interests in real property as public open space.
T. Henshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
VII . INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
D. Hansen said that he had attended the Los Gatos Town Council meeting
on July 20 , and reported that the Council had approved the Use and
Management Plan for St. Joseph 's Hill Open Space Preserve with some
minor changes. The second reading for the Comprehensive Use and Man-
agement Plan will be in August for this Preserve.
IX. CLAIMS
Motion : R. Bishop moved that the Board approve the Revised Claims 87-14 .
T. Henshaw seconded the motion.
Discussion : R. Bishop noted that item 239 in the amount of
$4 ,700 ,000 to Founders Title Company for the Slobe acquisition
was contingent upon the terms and conditions set forth in the
purchase agreement.
Meeting 87-17 Page Nine
The motion passed 6 to 0 with item 239 to Founders Title
Company conditional upon completion of the terms and condi-
tions of the Slobe purchase agreement.
X. CLOSED SESSION
S. Norton announced that the existing litigation concerning the status
of the Cothran estate would be discussed in Closed Session, and it
fell under Government Code Section 54956 . 9 (a) . The Board recessed to
Closed Session at 11 :19 P.M.
XI . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :40 P.M.
Doris Smith
Secretary
CLAIMS No. 87-14
Meeting 87-17
MIDPEN . jLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTR Date: July 22, 1987
C L A I M S REVISED
A`)ount Name Description
225 14.88 AmeriGas Tank Rental
226 477.74 Big Wheel & Frame Truck Repair
227 548.00 Louis B. Bordi Culvert Pipe & Supplies
228 18.00 California Native Plant Society Membership
229 428.31 California Water Service Water
230 185.50 Camden Rentals Inc. Equipment Rental
23T 289.24 xe1epbfloe_lea5z_ .
232 168.86 Clark's Auto Parts Parts for District Vehicles
�33 171 .30 Donnelly Newspapers Ward 2 Vacancy Advertising
234 948.36 Ferrelle Communications Radio Equipment
�35 11 .00 Federal Express Express Mail
236 671 .09 First American Title Guaranty Co. Closing Costs Title Insurance--Berr,)
�37 6,112.73 First Interstate Bank Note Paying Agent Fees
238 550.00 Foss & Associates Personnel Consulting Fee--June
nCompany -
4 7O� 000.00 Founders Title Land Purchase- Slobe
239 �
-'.0 22.78 The Frog Pond Meal Conference
Id
1 545.84 Herbert Grench Meal Conferences Travel Expenses and
Medical Exam Reimbursementp
42 77.49 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense
243 434.53 Hubbard & Johnson Field Supplies
244 76.32 Jobs Available Advertisement
245 3,800.00 Langley Hill Quarry Repair Septic System
246 139.66 Lawrence Tire Service Tires for District Vehicle
247 25.60 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service
248 111 .80` Micro Financial Computer Equipment
249 2,296.40 Micro Accounting Solutions Computer Consulting Services
�50 289.92 Noble Ford Tractor Tractor Repairs
251 33.23 Norney's Of Mountain View Office Supplies
252 11 .39 Northern Hydraulics Field Supplies
�53 81 .60 Stanley Norton Meal Conferences, Phone, Copying
254 416.94 On-Line Business Systems Computer Expense
�S5 25,502,44 *** Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Legal Fees & Expenses--1987 Note Issue
256 221 .71 Pacific Bell Telephone Services
257 295.93 Pacific Gas & Electric Electrical Services
258 98.00 Padgett-Thompson Seminar--D. Hansen
259 825.49 Peninsula Oil Company Gasoline
*Erergency Check Issued on July 2, 1987
:: Will -be ,withdrawn from the 1987 Promissory Note Acquisition Fund.
— �Fal_ls No 37—T4___
Meeting 87-17
Date: July 22, 1987
i r Amount Name Desc., iptlonREVISED
260 74.90 Port-O-Let Sanitation Services
261 8,726.45 Restroom Facilities Restroom
262 43.90 Sanborn Security Systems Locks
263 413.92 San Francisco Chronicle Advertising
264 837.00 San Jose Mercury Ward 2- Vacancy Advertising
265 190.00 County of Santa Clara, GSA Dispatching Services
266 964.99 6ante-6�ara-Eaantq-5heriff1s-f�cpt< Patrol-Services
267 555.00 Times Tribune Ward 2 Vacancy Advertising
268 150,000.00 Trust for Hidden Villa Land Purchase--Hidden Villa
269 3,511 .60 Edward Tunheim Timber Consulting
270 200.00** United States Postmaster Postage
271 84.41 Unocal Fuel
272 403.60 Uno Graphics Brochure Printing
273 225.00 Valley Title Company Preliminary Title Report
274 270.00 Van Gas Tank Rental
275 25.00 Wendel , Lawlor, Rosen & Black Legal Fees
276 11 .23 Word Products Computer Supplies
277 404.99 Yardbird Equipment Sales Field Supplies
205.30 John Escobar Reimbursement--Field Supplies
15.00 Mary Hale Reimbursement--Subscription
280 49. 11 The Hub Schneiders Ranger Uniforms
281 341 .60 M & M Builder Supply Inc. Field Supplies
282 857.51 Minton's Lumber & Supplies Field Supplies
283 246.16 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Drafting and Office
Supplies, Film Processing and Private
Vehicle Expense
**Emergency Check Issued on July 6, 1987
Meeting 87-18
Y
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
SPECIAL MEETING
July 23, 198Z
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to or-der at 7: 47
P.M.
Members Present: Richard Bishop, Edward Shelley, Teena
Henshaw, Katherine Duffy, Gerry Andeen, and Nonette Hanko.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Mary Hale, and Jean
Fiddes.
II . BARD BUSINESS:
A. Final Interviews of Applicants for the Position of
Director - Ward 2
R. Bishop reviewed the procedure to be followed during
the second round of interviews. He stated the five
finalists were, in alphabetical order, Lee Callaway,
Vince Garrod, Robert McKibbin, Janet Schwind, and Mark
Winitz.
R. Bishop stated that Mr. Garrod would not be present
at the meeting and that the Board could use submitted
written material and verbal information presented at
the initial interviews in evaluating Mr. Garrod.
The order of the initial twenty-minute question and
answer period was:
1. Robert McKibbin
2. Mark Winitz
3. Lee Callaway
4. Vince Garrod - Not Present
5. Janet Schwind
The Board recessed for a break at 9:25 P.M. and
reconvened for the meeting at 9:35 P.M.
The order of final five-minute applicant statements
was:
1. Vince Garrod - Not Present
2. Robert McKibbin
3. Lee Callaway
4. Janet Schwind
5. Mark Winitz
The Board, using signed ballots, selected Robert
McKibbin on the ninth ballot as the new Ward 2
Director. The results of the ballot were as follows:
Ballot 1: Callaway 1 vote
Schwind 2 votes
Winitz 3 ,-votes,
Meeting 87-18
Ballot 2: McKibbin - 1 vote
Schwind - 2 votes
Winitz - 3 votes
Ballot 3: McKibbin - 2 votes
Schwind - 1 vote
Winitz - 3 votes
Ballot 4: McKibbin - 2 votes
Schwind - 1 vote
Winitz - 3 votes
Ballot 5: McKibbin - 2 votes
Schwind - 1 vote
Winitz - 3 votes
Ballot 6: Callaway - 1 vote
Schwind - 2 votes
Winitz - 3 votes
Ballot 7: Callaway - 1 Vote
Schwind - 3 votes
Winitz - 2 votes
Ballot 8: McKibbin - 2 votes
Schwind - 3 votes
Winitz - 1 vote
Ballot 9: McKibbin - 4 votes
Schwind - 2 votes
Motion: N. Hanko moved that the Board adopt
Resolution 87-27 , a Resolution of the Board
of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Appointing Robert J.
McKibbin Ward 2 Director. K. Duffy seconded
the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0.
R. Bishop stated that Robert McKibbin was appointed to
the position of Director - Ward 2, and, in behalf of
the Board, congratulated Mr. McKibbin and thanked all
the applicants for their interest in the District and
the Ward 2 position.
J. Fiddes administered R. McKibbin' s Oath of Office.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
-WRITTEN COMMUNICATION -
Meeting 87-19 yMOXSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF
August 12 , 1987 Board President Acknowledge/Resppnd
Director Acktowledge/Respond
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
Draft Response Attached
Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directive(s)
No Response Necessary
other July 15, 1987
Mr. Richard S. Bishop
Chairman of the Board of MROSD
Old Mill Office Center
Bldg. C, Suite 135
201 San Antonio Circle
Mountain View, CA 94040
Dear Mr. Bishop:
The Portola Heights Area has formed a neighborhood organization. Its name is
Portola Heights Property Owners Association; this in contrast to the Portola
Park Heights Property Owners Association. The latter is a road maintenance
organization which is active only inside the boundaries of the original sub-
division and is usually referred to as "the Road Committee". The new associa-
tion (PHPOA) will be active in all issues pertaining to the neighborhoods'
interests , with the exception of road maintenance.
Mr. Paul Storaasli has been elected Secretary/Treasurer and I am President.
Please contact Paul or me for all matters pertaining to the formation of an
MROSD Designated Community in our area. You can reach Paul at (415) 948-8398
(home) or (415) 857-8965 (work) . The PHPOA address is 22400 Skyline Blvd. ,
Box 10, La Honda, CA 94020. You can reach me at INL Ventures , 14500 Big
Basin Way, Suite K, Saratoga, CA 95070, (408) 867-3222.
Sincerely,
John K. Landre
JKL:cdr
cc: Mr. Paul Storaasli
Sky Ridge Ranch
22400 Skyline Blvd. , Box 9
La Honda, CA 94020
WRIT7E'7 CQ'.` MUNICATION — -W
Meeting 8 7—1 9 RESPONSE ACT10N Piu7 `ED BY STAFF JUL 1 198I
August 12 , 1987 _ Board President Acknowledge/Respond
_ Director Acknowledge/Respond
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
_ Draft Response Attached
_ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directives)
.J�.�Iy 29 , 1937 — No Response Necessary
Other
Director
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Old Mill Office Center
Building C, Suite 135
201 San Antonio Road
Mountain View, California 94040
Dear air:
I just completed reading an article in the Los Altos Town Crier
regarding the Quarry Hills proposed development which will adjoin
the Rancho San Antonio Preserve. I agree with the position of
the district regarding preservation of the ridge area as open
space.
i
My wife and I live on Mora Drive and use the preserve daily.
Please advise if there is anything that local homeowners can do
to support your effort to preserve open space in the hills .
S1n-e rely,
! a 1 ne;y M ryo Feeney
11030 Mora Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 87-19
i
August 12 , 1987
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
1094 Highland Circle RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF
Los Altos , Calif. 94022 — Board President Acknowledge/Respond
Director Acknowledge/Respond
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
_ Draft Response Attached
July 28, 1 9 d�7 _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
1 7 / Response for Board Consideration per
/Board Directive(s)
Y No Response Necessary
Board of Directors _ other _
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
201 San Antonio Circle
Mountain View, CA 94040
Re: High Meadow Stables ( Rancho San Antonio)
When MROSD purchased the Cho property considerable staff,
board, and public effort and time was spent in making a
decision on what to do about High Meadow Stables . And
subsequent to that ,your staff spent time maintaining
and improving trails on this property.
Now it is discovered that high Meadows Stables is not on
MROSD land , and possibly some of the trails are not on
MROSD land .
Failure of staff to properly locate boundaries prior to or
immediatl,y after purchase is , in my opinion, inexcusable .
It leads one to wonder just what is really known of MROSD
boundaries and properties . , Further, it causes concern of
the competence and diligence of staff when properties are
purchased .
I trust that this will be reflected in future appraials
for compensation adjustments of staff concerned .
Harry H. Haeussler, Jr.
I
I
' II
i
i
i
i
I
i
V
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
DRAFT
Mr . John K. Landre, President
Portola Heights Property Owners Assn.
22400 Skyline Blvd. , Box 10
La Honda, CA 94020
Dear Mr. Landre:
Thank you for your letter of July 15 informing us of the
formation of your neighborhood association and keeping us
informed of the current contact persons, addresses and
telephone numbers.
Staff members have been notified of the correct name of
your organization and the appropriate contacts .
i
Sincerely,
Richard Bishop, President
Board of Directors
i
cc: Board of Directors
RB:ab
i
i
Herbert A.GrenCh,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIO'
Board President Acknowledge/Respo, Meeting 87-19
Director Acknowledge/Respon. August 12, 1987
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
Draft Response Attached
Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
Response for Board Consideration per
Board Directive(s) 11666 Dawson Drive
_ No Response Necessary Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Other�'� Y'y-}.J fo,j( See
af�'ha� r-Ps�oonse � �'/R July 10, 1987
Mr. Edward Shelley, President,via District Clerk,Jean Fiddes
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
201 San Antonio Circle
Mountain View, CA 94040
Dear friends:
The enclosed copy of the preliminary draft of the
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed "Quarry
Hills Project" (development of major subdivision
requesting multiple variances, the total obstruction
of Hale Creek for several years, etc. ) justifies your
perusal.
You may want to attend the joint Study Session of the
members of Los Altos Hills Town Council
members of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Los Altos Hills Town Planner
the person(s) to write the definitive
Environmental Impact Report
Interested Persons
at the Los Altos Hills Town Hall, 4P.M. Thursday, July 23.
Your input at this meetin , could be quite helpful.
A
dially y
Howard Martin
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE_ DIS-rRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER.BUILDING C.SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE.PAOUNTAW VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94-:140
(415)949-5500
? aZ,ril .2, 1.957
Nancy Lytle, Town Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
76379 Fremont Road
Loa Altos Hills, CA 94022
SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of. Draft: EIR for. Proposed
Quarry Hills Project
Dear Ms. Lytle:
The-proposed Quarry Hills project adjoins Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's
969 acre Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Rancho is the District's most, heavi_l.y.
used Preserve, attracting large numbers of local and regional hikers, runners, eques-
trians, and school groups. The attached map shows the location of the Preserve in
relation to the proposed project.
The District is concerned about potential impacts of the project on recreational use
O the Preserve. and would like the E1R'to address impacts on visual quality, trails,
and natural resources. Following are comments about- potential_ specific impacts.
1. Visual
The homes proposed atop the ridges in the project area would be highly visible
from trails within the Preserve as well as from the Town of Los Altos lulls. The
cutting of the ridgeline by approximately 36 feet to accommodate streets and
building sites, and the accompanying' removal of vegetation, would also significantly
degrade the visual quality of the area. The homes proposed along the southwest:
ridge (lots 34-54) and eastern ridge (lots 67-80) would be especially apparent: from
the District's High Meadow trail. Widening the road along the south side of the
eastern ridge from single to double lane width would create additional visually
obtrusive roadcuts, further impacting the views from Rancho trails. The serene and
peaceful "away from it all" quality of hiking on these trails would be compromised
b, these proposed placements of homes and roads. Noise may also be a problem due
to the sound carrying qualities of the canyons.
?. Trails
Trails within the Preserve have historically been used to connect three points:
Rancho San Antonio, Windmill Pasture, and the Quarry Area, formerly a stable.
Proposed lots 30-32 have severed the existing major access trail to Windmill Pas-
ture. The proposed alternative route is much longer and more difficult, taking
hikers from 975 feet elevation down to 500 feet and back up to 1100 feet. This
i
I
is not an acceptable alternative to the existing ridgetop route. It would be
a valuable route, however, for hikers coming to Windmill Pasture only from
Stonebreok Drive.
Several of the proposed trails are very steep, exceeding a 15% grade. Although
( . valuable connections, they would be highly erodable and unuseabl.e by the average
hiker. They should be rerouted to achieve a more gentle grade. Extent of slides
and potential for slope failure should be examined in connection witl) trail
placement.
3. Sa.ural Resources
The proposed road connecting the two ridges (passing lots 47-49) would be built
on 100 feet of fill placed in a canyon draining into the north fork of Permanent:e
Creek-. The creek would be channeled beneath the fill. Filling this canyon would
h-nve negative impacts on the integrity of the watershed which need to be addressed
in the EIR.
T'nan_: cu for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. For additional infor--
m?tio:, you may contact me at (415) 949-5500.
i V:ery truly yours,
\ /bavid Wm. Hansen
Land Manager .
G=:cla?;ure
c
f
.._—__-�_.-.,....--.----__. ..--__..�.-.__.- ..-._�....r._.-...---.._._.--.-...____.--....•a..-a..�..e....--..�..�......�..
24379 FRFUONT ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA 04022
(415)I"l-nn
0
0,
California
itcd 2 n
DATE: February 26 , 1987
TO: Responding Agencies
FROM: Nancy Lytle, Town Planner ),/
Re: Notice of Preparation of an EIR for proposed Quarry Hills
project
Attached please find a Notice of Preparation indicating that. the
Town of Los Altos Hills will be preparing an Environmental Impact
Report to address the concerns of a proposed 358 acre annexation
and 80 lot subdivision. Attached to the NOP are a project des-
cription, regional location map, proposed site plan and Initial
Study with an explanation of probable environmental concerns . We
would appreciate a response from you indicating the concerns you
feel should be addressed by the EIR. CEQA allows 30 days for an
agency to respond to the NOP. If you should need additional time
to respond and/or if you have any questions regarding the project
or the EIR, please either call myself or Lori Scott. We can be
reached at the Los Altos Hills Town Hall , 415-941-7222. Thank
you for your assistance.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
T0. FROM: Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fren=t Rd.
(Address) Los Altos ETill is CA 94022
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Town of Los Altos Hills will be the Lead Agency and will prepare
an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to
know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental
information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in
connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR
prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the
project.
The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are
contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study X is, is
not, attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the
earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Nancy Lytle, Town Planner
at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your
agency.
Project Title: Quarry Hills - 80 lot subdivision, annexation, General Plan amendment,
and pre-zoning
Project Applicant, if any: De Anza Properties, Mr. John Vidovich
DATE Z, 1 61 7 Signature 1,J A��, l� L
Title TUNN P r
Telephone 415-941-7222
Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(a) , 15103,
15375.
294
i 2627S FREMONT ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA $4022 (115)901•Tn1
� a►
a
rc California ,4^
QUARRY HILLS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - DE ANZA PROPERTIES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Quarry Hills development is located in the
Montebello Ridge area of Santa Clara County, adjacent to the
southern boundary of the Town of Los Altos Hills , west of Inter-
state 280 . The 358 acre site has been owned by George Neary
since 1962 and is generally known as the Neary property. Recent-
ly, De Anza Properties , a Sunnyvale based development corpo-
ration, obtained an interest in the property. They are proposing
to develop 103 acres of the site with 80 single family residences
and accompanying infrastructure and to preserve 255 acres in com-
mon open space.
The Town of Los Altos Hills has recieved applications from De
Anza Properties to initiate their development proposal . Annexa-
tion to the Town has been requested, along with a General Plan
amendment, to revise the Town' s designation of the majority of
the property from Open Space Reserve to Residential , and Pre-
Zoning of the site to a designation which will accomodate the de-
velopment proposal . Additionally, a Vesting Tentative Map for
the 80 lot subdivision has been filed with the Town. Other ap-
provals which will be necessary for project development include
an amendment of the Town ' s Urban Service Area and cancellation of
Williamson Act contracts now covering the property.
A quarry, known as the Neary Quarry, has been operated on the
site since 1934. Presently, the quarry is being operated by Pat-
ton Bros. Construction, but is proposed to be closed and
reclaimed as part of the Quarry Hills residential development.
Patton Bros . have submitted a reclamation plan to the County of
Santa Clara, but the plan has not yet been approved and the Town
has raised numerous concerns during their review of the Patton
Bros. proposed plan. No information on quarry reclamation has
been submitted to the Town as part of this application, however,
this submittal has been requested. Both the reclamation plan
submitted to the County by Patton Bros . and the Tentative Map
submitted to the Town by De Anza Properties indicate that the
quarry is to be reclaimed as a lake.
The Quarry Hills development site consists of three steep ridges
with slopes up to 100% . Elevations range from a high of 1, 120
feet on the central ridge to a low of 360 feet in the quarry
area. The site is covered with dense chaparral and woodland
vegetation (trees include oak, madrone, laurel , maple, alder,
sycamore and California buckeye) , with the exception of th
e dis-
turbed quarry area which consists mostly of grassland type
vegetation.
Two creeks cross the site: Hale Creek flows along the northern
border adjacent to the quarry and the north fork of Permanente
ou h he property
rt and then
turns east-
west through t
Creek runs north-southg p p Y
west and runs along the southern boundary of the site.
There is some evidence of slope instability on the site but the
extent of slides and potential for slope failure have not yet
been determined. Additionally, several mapped fault traces cross
through the property.
Access and Traffic
The main entrance to the site and the residential development is
planned to be a private, gated entry on Stonebrook Drive, where
it presently ends at the quarry. Three emergency access
entrances are also planned from surrounding streets: Ravensbury
Ave. , Olive Tree Lane and Magdalena Road. The interior streets
are proposed to be a private closed loop system with road- widths
varying from 18-24 feet and cul-de-sacs as long as 2500 feet.
Several exceptions to Town codes have been requested to ac-
comodate road development which include street lengths in excess
of 300 feet at 20% grade, cul-de-sacs in excess of 1500 feet in
length and street radius of less than 100 feet. Stonebrook
Drive, proposed to be the only ingress/egress to the subdivision,
is a rural road as are most roads within Los Altos Hills. The
Town" s Circulation Element has policies supporting the
maintenance of rural design and discouraging traditional urban
circulation system improvements.
Land Use
The Quarry Hills site is bounded on the north and east by low
density (1 acre +) single family development located mostly
within the Town of Los Altos Hills . It should be noted that be-
cause some of the adjacent lands are in the County, annexation of
the project site would result in "County islands" , which is in-
consistent with policies of the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) . Therefore, annexation of some adjacent County parcels,
in addition to the project site, would be necessary. To the
south and west are permanent open space lands owned by the Mid-
peninsula Regional Open Space District (these lands are known as
Ra
ncho San Antonio
io Open Space Preserve) .
2
I
The Santa Clara County General Plan Land Use designation for the
site is Hillsides and the zoning is also Hillsides (HS) . Uses
allowed include agricultural activities , mineral extraction, and
very low density residential development. Currently, the project
site, except for a small area near Stonebrook Dr. , is designated
in the Town ' s General Plan as Open Space Preserve. The applicant
has requested a General Plan amendment in conjunction with an an-
nexation request to allow residential development on the entire
property.
There are two zoning designations within the Town - Open Space
and Residential/Agriculture (RA) . Single family homes are
permitted in the RA zone with minimum one acre lots and with the
lot size requirement increasing .as the slope of the property in-
creases . Likewise, lot coverage and floor area are restricted by
a slope density calculation. The applicant has requested several
exceptions from the zoning and subdivision standards required by
Town ordinances including:
a) lot sizes substantially smaller than required by the slope
density formula
b) reduction in required front setbacks and/or road right-of-way
widths for some lots
c) Development Area ( lot coverage) and Floor Area (house size)
allowances in considerable excess of those allowed by ordinances
d) exceptions to road requirements such as reduced minimum street
radius and street slopes and increased length of cul-de-sacs .
e) an exception to the measurment of structure heights on lots
which are filled during installation of subdivision improVements
Essentially, the applicant has attempted to keep all development
along the ridgelines and around the quarry area. The applicant ' s
statement is that such a design reduces necessary grading and
preserves more open space, even though it does not meet Town
standards . The Town' s General Plan and Site Development or-
dinance contain ridgeline preservation regulations with which the
proposed subdivision is inconsistent. The possibility of creat-
ing a new zoning designation will be explored by the EIR as will
the possibilty of creating a development which meets Town minimum
lot size and other standards .
The applicant is proposing that approximately 255 acres of the
site be left in common open space to be owned and maintained by a
homeowners association with a conservation easement granted to
the Town over the entire open space. Historically, the Town has
not supported the creation of common open space areas Usually,
open space areas remain in private ownership and conservation
easements precluding development are obtained by the Town.
3
Quarry
The existing quarry is proposed to be shut down and reclaimed as
a lake as part of this application, although no specific informa-
tion on reclamation has yet been submitted. The lake would be
filled to a surface elevation of 369 feet and would be approxi-
mately 21. 5 acres at the surface. A filled berm and road would
extend along the lower side of the quarry providing access to 10
lots. It is assumed that the lake is proposed to be filled by
natural ground water accumulation and stream flows from adjacent
Hale Creek. The reclamation plan submitted to the County by Pat-
ton Bros. estimates that it will take 7-9 years to fill the
quarry. Once the quarry is filled, the reclamation plan calls
for a release channel to allow the runoff to flow back to Hale
Creek.
There are several issues of concern regarding the quarry which
require addressing. These concerns include: impact on Hale Creek
downstream from the quarry, seismic safety, water quality of the
lake and how it will be maintained, hydrologic and groundwater
effects of water storage, and the Dotential safety problems the
lake poses to persons attracted to the lake. The property, in-
cluding ridgelines proposed for residential development, is
designated as a significant statewide mineral resource by the
Division of Mines and Geology. Additionally, the Town may need
to adopt a reclamation ordinance prior to annexation of the prop-
erty.
Grading, Terrain Alteration and Vegetation Removal
Development is proposed around the quarry and along 3 ridgelines .
Some of the ridgeline areas are proposed to be cut by as much as
approximately 36 feet in order to accomodate streets and building
sites . In order to complete a loop street system and create 4
building sites, a portion of the North Permanente Creek canyon is
proposed to be filled by as much as 100 feet. The creek would be
channeled under the new road and filled area. An unknown amount
of vegetation removal will be necessary to accomplish the pro-
posed site grading and construction of residences . The Town has
no information regarding biotic resources on the property and
potential for biotic impacts.
Public Services
a) Sewage - The closest sewer lines to the project site are lo-
cated near Foothill College to the north and near the intersec-
tion of Magdalena and Ravensbury Avenues to the east. At this
time, the project is proposed to be served by individual septic
systems, however, no percolation tests have been completed to
determine which areas, if any, can accomodate septic systems.
4
b) Water - The applicant has stated that water service will be
provided by either Purissima County Water District or the Cali-
fornia Water Company, but neither company has yet confirmed this .
c) Fire Protection - Fire protection is provided to the Town by
the Los Altos Fire Protection District, which contracts with the
City of Los Altos Fire Department for services. Los Altos Hills
has unique fire service problems due to it' s steep, winding roads
and the large areas of open land which can be extreme fire
hazards. Response times in the Town are higher than in other
communities due to the steep and hilly terrain. Fire protection
for the Quarry Hills project could be hampered by the limited ac-
cess to the site and the proposed road design. Fire hazard would
be considered very high due to proximity to open space areas,
steep terrain, dense vegetation, climate, etc .
d) Police Protection - Police protection is provided to the Town
through contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff ' s Depart-
ment. Although crime and police related problems are generally
low in Los Altos Hills, a development of this size could lead to
an increased need for service. Response times are again higher
than other communities due to the terrain and difficulty in
locating residences .
Williamson Act
All of the Neary Property, with the exception of the quarry par-
cel , has been under Williamson Act contracts since 1968 and 1971.
A Williamson Act contract offers reduced property taxes in ex-
change for a quarantee from the owner that the land will remain
undeveloped. The contracts run for 10 year periods and are auto-
matically renewed each year, with 9 years always remaining. The
property owner initiated non-renewal of the contracts in 1982 and
plans to apply for cancellation of the contracts upon approval of
the Quarry Hills project.
Seismic Safety and Geotechnical Hazards
A preliminary Geotechnical Report was submitted by the applicant.
The report indicates that several unnamed fault traces have been
mapped on and adjacent to the property. In 1985 , a study of the
quarry area was conducted for input into the reclamation plan.
Two discontinous faults were located in the northeastern quarry
wall , but their level of activity was not assessed. The Town has
some concerns about possible increased seismicity on the site as
a result of the creation of a lake in the quarry pit. Downstream
flooding as ,a result of the failure of the lake' s release channel
is also a concern. As mentioned previously, there is some evi-
dence of landslide activity but the extent and potential for fur-
ther slides has not yet been assessed.
For additional information regarding potential environmental ef-
fects of the proposed Quarry Hills development, please refer to
the Initial Study attachment. '
5
j APPLICANT
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS FZI��
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM EJGniEER
(To be Completed by Planning Department)
I BACKGROUND
1. Name of Applicant De Anza Properties/ Mr. John Vidovich
2. Address and Phone Number of Applicant:
1307 S. Mary Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
408 738-4444
3. Date of Environmental Information Form 2/23/87
4. Project Title: Quarry Hills
S. Permit Applied for: Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning,
Vesting Tentative Map
II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Fxnzanations of all "yes" and "potential" answers are required on
attached sheets. )
YES POTENTIAL NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions , displacements , compaction
or overcovering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground sur-
face relief features? X
d. The destruction, covering or modifi-
cation of any unique geologic or
physical features? X
e. Any increase. in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site? X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake? x
POTENTIAL NO
g. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earth-
quakes, landslides, mudslides, X
ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or de-
terioration of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either X
marine or fresh waters?
b . Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters , or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or tur- X
bidity.
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters? X
9- Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals , or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or X
tidal waves?
-3-
YES POTENTIAL NO
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species , or
number of any species of plants (in-
cluding trees, shrubs, grass , crops,
microflora and aquatic plants) ? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of exist-
ing species? X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricult- X
ural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species ,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna) ? _X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique
rare or endangered species of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wild-
life habitat? _X
6 . Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? X
YES POTENTIAL NO
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
X
new 1 ght or glare?
1 are.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
� planned land use of an area? X
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal re-
sult in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? X
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal in-
volve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances (includ-
ing, but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event of
an accident or upset conditions? X
Population. Will the proposal alter
ll. o P P
P
the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population
of an area? X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect exist-
in
r ate a demand for add-
hou
housing,
sin or create
housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
t� X
vehicular movement?.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking? X
Substantial impact. upon existing trans-
portation P PX
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of cir-
culation or movement of people and/or
goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? _ X--
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
YES POTENTIAL NO
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas :
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police protection? X
C. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities X
e. Maintenance of public facilities , in-
cluding roads? X
f. other governmental services? X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial alter-
ations to the following utilities :
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential X
health hazard (excluding mental health) ?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? X
POTENTIAL NO
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result in
the creation of an aesthetically offensive site X
open to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities? X
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site , structure,
object or building? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate im-
portant examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future. ) X
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively
small, but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is X
significant. )
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings , either
X
directly or indirectly?
III DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
IV DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
rl I find that although the proposed project could have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date rL�nr -� 'c� i I l 1,t L.` ��►f {�L,n^,���Y1 Y�{
(Signature) i
For
III . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I.a-g. The proposed grading (outlined in the project
description) and modifications to both Hale and North Permanente
Creeks will affect the soil , topography and flow of streams on
the site. Some evidence of unstable earth conditions and the
steep topography of the site could mean the exposure of persons
to slides , ground failure and other geologic hazards . Addi-
tionally, the close proximity of the site to earthquake faults
(as described in the project description) will expose residents
to earthquake hazards and the creation of a lake in the quarry
pit has potential to increase seismicity in the area.
3 .a.&b. Changes in the flows of both Hale Creek and North
Permanente Creek are proposed as part of the project. It is as-
sumed that Hale Creek will be effected by diversion of its waters
into the quarry and North Permanente Creek will be effected by
the proposed filling of a canyon which the creek runs through.
3 .c. &i . The Federal Emergency Management Agency ' s Flood Insur-
ance Rate Maps indicate the project lies in an area of un-
determined, but possible, flood hazard. Santa Clara Valley Water
District ' s Maps of Flood Control Facilities and Limits of 1%
Flooding show the area is not subject to flooding.
3 .d.-g. The filling of the quarry will have undetermined impacts
on groundwaters . The impact of the quarry filling on Hale Creek
is also undetermined at this time.
3 .h. The availabilty of and impact on public water supplies is
unknown at this time . Neither of the local water districts have
confirmed that they can serve the project and that no negative
impacts will result from such service.
4 .a.-c. Site grading and development of 80 residences will
result in removal of woodland and chapparal habitat. Landscaping
of individual lots will introduce new species into the area. it
is not known at this time whether there are any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants on the site.
5 .a.-d. The habitat of the site probably supports a variety of
wildlife. Proposed grading, site development and construction of
residences will eliminate some habitat area. The long range im-
pact of development is undetermined. It is unknown at this time
whether the site supports any rare or endangered animal species.
The impact of creating a lake from the quarry and the proposed
filling of the Permanente Creek Canyon could impact fish and
wildlife habitat in, along and downstream of Hale and Permanente
Creeks .
6 .a.&b. The elimination of the quarry operation will reduce
noise associated with trucks and excavation. However, the devel-
opment of new residences may increase noise levels in adjacent
areas as well as on the site due to the sound carrying qualities
of the Canyons .
7 . Development of 80 single family residences will result in new
glare and light in an area where there is presently none.
8 . The project site is designated as Hillsides by the County of
Santa Clara and as Open Space Preserve by the Town. If annexed
as proposed, a General Plan amendment would be necessary to allow
residential development. Please refer to the project description
for further land use concerns .
9 .b. The proposed project will result in the committment of the
site to residential land uses. Town staff understands from the
County that the site has been designated as a mineral resource of
statewide importance by the State Division of Mining and Geology.
11 . The project will result in 80 new residences in an area
presently designated as open space.
13 .a. ,c. ,d. &f . 80 new homes would increase traffic on Stonebrook
Drive by 800 trips per day (80 x 10 trips per unit per day) . The
closure of the quarry would eliminate truck traffic on Stonebrook
Drive as well . The impact of new development on surrounding
streets and intersections requires analysis particularly because
the Town' s rural road design standards and policies do not en-
courage traditional traffic engineering solutions to congestion.
Hazards due to conflicts with pedestrian/equestrian trail users
will also need to be addressed.
14 .a. ,c. ,d. ,e.&f . The property can be classified as an area of
extreme fire hazard. Please refer to the project description for
a discussion of fire and police services. The addition of school
age children to the area could have an effect on school districts
serving the Town.
16 . Please refer to the project description for discussion of
public services . All utilities would need to be extended to ser-
vice new residences.
17 . The quarry pit and the plan to convert the quarry into a
lake poses a potential human health hazard. No provisions for
safety have yet been proposed by the applicant.
18 . The ridgelines of the site, where most development is pro-
posed, are visible regionally, from surrounding neighborhoods and
also from the Midpeninsula Open Space District lands to the
south.
19 . The adjacent open space lands offer hiking and other recrea-
tional opportunities in a natural setting. The development of 80
new residences on, and the substantial modification of , adjacent
visible ridgelines could affect the quality of this recreational
area.
20 . The northerly portion of the project site is shown in Santa
Clara County ' s A Plan for the Conservation of Resources as being
within a potential archaelogical resource zone. It is unlikely
that any existing structures on the site have historical value.
l
/' - •f■ a\'o`a\ I\f!� e�F�'�l�F CccP �`,{y{v��' ✓tt•/�.�•'�� /* lS �I�At Ao
l l yp, -• • •a \rt,'r•tiU •11 U lob-
lip
•o liege
!
00 � ��1.�'■•s<• e�+�,�• a • •) -. ��F '!
v�i 1•�t� '+�
roux(i IF,
�Z ) ),�� �S�i ••t�.. _ J - � r' • e •• t�,j ."B wwY• <
�>{, �' ..LI n!I = , _ -- �r�t ..b'' � � uorltll.l.� , � � � U ' �i '� r�,:f•� �l � �l� seh .�
;�J,��f��,, � e�.';�. pr 7�a__`.,�.'_ __al '�'G.� 1'u i ,■>.�. i /�.` � I ,�._ t---'Ic1-1 ..:\ �r •'�('-r '��`!?
+ - �_.C'_ _■�.\ p l 0: - mil/\ ♦ /'�•�� �'� r.� h A l' �!-�6 ' . S �'� II lS _,�` .� ' ■ . )i • F . ...._
•�•\ \����1�^--�y �. �" 1 �1� � �!1 r���~- �._ ����■`-�■ •J� �_' 75a. ���e l• '!;� ..�� ��IE� 6,e;�9;_•�• � •••i� l�• •�0�
rt ` , �� '��Lv�1�� ; 1 1 �/ f► �_..q lYA �ti �'
+� 1),! -.�_ 4� v .J }IUR ¢ >.'/••. �r 1 e(I ��-.�� ,\[ • \ �•�/ `' \l -3`0lf
_ ��'+i -Ll rgrj ' t■. N, ! ,1.�. C
1 ;•,.ale '1 11 v • ai.�� v o l � I/ `�J" 'r``, Ul/ J r X _ /{ y ,4A •1��� ` < . (, ��!• �
`�r •�— ter \ �_ Jtl7D. a •` s
J
O
. •'+7 N-t - �`// - •i�p, '��,. .1 '�\ •,� -j�••`
1 /1e I?\`��. ``. - �ll )1�`i�IEO,, -•�r _���� /' 7 ��) Aat'„ ; ^\ 'ifd,ESFpr•
C
�,.,j t.� �1 _)K--�+\ C � ��Sy J '�� IL.�II,> �'p •H (�ilr ( C
_! �I I Ik '� t-i�1\11 .I�')1\IIf' .�/8 ))��[ - ����)� ( •']l`�_�.Wi `: ,9� +avel F%1} �l�i )~;,� ♦ �f pf�1 �� �f ;V ♦ •Z �L .`
sj�rlll ���- • `ar, C <�
PROJECT SITE ��
��� t I _ ! ' --t 1 �Fµt;i,tl` ',.j i` /�:�j / (�� •, •,� 1�� AAJL
Ing
/ - '\�.i����-•f r� ) � '�."r_s+�� ���- d I l '-c �; !'J-/v``�'t BC; �l:,p ) �^ ` � Jar ' a�,��•��\,, s• , fq�� �`'
�l_-_�` ,- ��;�` � !�( ��� �r.�' _ � d,\�•�� �;�/- ,� � ��\ r� 1 (r/ ��.� � � N gee
•'a_
l•' �•.i r%R�� �y t_ial J`
�• 1. `` '�ti 7� '\ ' f '�J _� - ! _.� �•! �.' ��� r[,ill / • b k i d
.4,, _ ( '•�� l/'\� l � �`�`��1!-i% / ���1{� ' e .fir• A' 11 as• r,�,i - � SS �i�-.� • ''.!'1!
i/ (� ���\� � � � � C (JS�f,`�� ��r�.7'j�`' t•i'� �fc?1 cll/ Z- � �'��a� �-�'p � Lam` �("/,�, i •� .
/ ( - /` 1lJ �~-� � Y//t )) �. �._`��`�, r.1 1 i l �lr' \�I � �Q �\\�:(��... /�;, ,� 1r �� �ti 1. 7 1-', ♦.`��tt ,• �• �`
��� ) � f60 � + � ) L� 1` ?>>,r� _=<ti •��`�- �a��.-. Goo 1
---����/is.�� �/� _-� ')_�/t t1 I`/•• 1 / I(! I )))i} ` � ��<'°`^,:.--- _�"��`?�_ _� �a `"�-�-��i�a'� `J• ;p '� a .a +`':
J��
! o ��
�� �L1l;
\�_ 0 1 ) 1i ,1 -�a �c C h��'f �' / ✓=t, ACE er
�•`.' _`��•••.• .t((� "i,%� Q - / i (1�'-'�,�i�/..'.. � ��, .. � OS �`\a �1,.-� �_ � ` � '� •\ ,per°
10.
�/•�` � \ 21\!1 � / ram-�.�1 , � � 1 J� yl� � `�� li ran �._- ��
1 1
• , ��, i�� �f., + � 1l�( ��'?o _` �) _ r �_-:�_-�� t:_-_----:--- ) --!\/ "� /i Salo '�_•e.i ,.
{C(�
J��_ � a � � -'� 1� � � � -��•"- -�• !11l11 h,.`l � _\� _^)�2=_\',`-�` �_�\\- �-ti—~_� 6a ,\(K�
i��?�Jli'l�rl� �.. `'`1f� r���• =i
�'� ��Cl1' J,N\((
l+ II Ij �),/ � leoog��:,''� 1'���y`'i"`^-\� :���;`"•'' '�/ �� ,1\ y 1 �-5; `�'! -1I�W-=�;i 1 ` - —� \_1 '��/�/'• �-
+�C=;, ;;�,� ,✓� -` LL
..�5 %j'� r ���y �,1 ' ,. '• �li� .1'�j lr(Ir'I `,ilfCUr, t1•`,\v_._.J� '����\~ ��,•�- �`l� �../�t\ -\�'"-h\�-\�K_\1��---
_� v �..) /�i III��_� r'_.-� (�►I -�C�',� f j�(C�V�V'�� •\��c��-�-,1 �I ..`� � - ih��lr,r_I ',\�`_ woof
SCALE 1 " = 20001 NORTH
k!�\Io-_ ) , /.rl/�,��1� •-41.(1�`��:I�1�,�1; ��C ./,�` 1 '� P/. r) � t
•( l 1 .. )(�/���/ _ '��t,� ,:�1 _JIV .•,,, 1.>;�i+ ,,/.i ` _ I `y\Ir U I \ +. / \\ /! �'7
IN Q`
)1\ `` y'�Ju
\ -111�-� )ir>>•t:Ct$ek-_��Yj��tl` - � •,�__�/J 9r/,• /r• s• N� � f/\� _ 0 s ,�� r+e
_�1. - .,\��/. ,ys �_��_-�_ ,/,r•+h/ '•--� .��. ?AJ; i t , n)l.i�-_ __- j.. -
+,� �1� ,r� �� .4 �1' 4. `--�.�ice:(i--•�'• - Via} lr' t). .___. .. .. � ,,'�! - r /� r. , �-�... ! .. . .f' , ! I. 1 � f! y
f
WRITTEN CCU""UNICATION
Meeti 7-19
August _- , 1987 RESPONSE AC_ PROPOSED B1' S`AFF
THE1 E _ Board President Acknowledge/Respond
LAW4`/�T _ Director Acknowledge/Respond
v _ Staff Acknowledge/Respond
OFFICES _ Draft Response Attached
_ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
OF Response for Board Consideration per
1 /card Directives)
ROBERT o Response Necessary
J' _ Other
July 30, 1987
LOGAN
Richard Bishop, President
Board of Directors
Midpeninsula Regional open Space District
201 San Antonio Circle
Mountain View, CA 94040
Dear Mr. Bishop:
I am in receipt of your letter to my clients,
Walter, Norma, Herbert and Elsie Vielbaum, dated July
8 , 1987 , concerning access to Mt. Thayer via Soda
Springs Road. I am responding in confirmation of our
understanding of your letter.
You have assured my clients that Midpeninsula will
not trespass, or in any way authorize others on behalf
of Midpeninsula to trespass on the Vielbaum' s private
property. Since the Vielbaum' s have never granted
Midpeninsula access over their private property, any
claim arising out of the staff research for "possible
rights to access the District' s Mt. Thayer property via
Soda Springs Road" should be forwarded immediately to
my office along with supporting documentation for such
claim.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sinc e y urs,
Ro ert J n
RJL/kl
cc: Vielbaum
95
SOUTH
MARKET
STREET
SUITE
300
SAN
JOSE
CALIFORNIA
95113
408 287 2156
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Meeting 87-19
August 12 , 19$,7,`, ,—,
Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition
441 Park Avenue, San Jose, California RESPONSE ACTION PROPOSED BY STAFF
Board President Acknowledge/Respond
August 5, 1987 _ Director —Acknowledge/Respond
Staff Acknowledge/Respond
Richard Bishop, Chairman _ Draft Response Attached
Board of Directors, _ Staff to be Directed to Prepare Draft
for Board
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Boarrdnse Direcctivve(s) Consideration per
Old Mill Office Center, Building C, Skuite 135 No Response Necessary
201 San Antonio Circle, Other
Mountain View, California 94040
RE: Greenbelt Coalition Evaluation of Preservation 2020 Task Force Report
Dear Chairman Bishop,
On behalf of the Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition, I am pleased
to enclose a copy of the Coalition's Evaluation of the Draft Report of the
County Preservation 2020 Task Force ("Open Space Preservation: A Program for
Santa Clara County") . I understand from Jean Fiddes of the District office
that the District Board has discussed the Draft Report and will be considering
their response August 12.
This evaluation summarizes comments that members of Greenbelt Coalition
have raised over the last several months of Task Force meetings. I hope
that it can be distributed to Board members and staff for their review
(I have spoken today with District Director Nonette Hanko and will forward her
a copy directly) . I expect that myself or other members of the Coalition will
be available on August 12 to respond to any questions and offer comments as
appropriate.
We have outlined positive aspects of the 2020 Report which we hope the
Open Space District will strongly endorse. At the same time, we have indicated
areas of concern that, if not corrected, could result in decreased protection
of the Greenbelt and consequently endanger the resources which your
organization has endeavored to protect. In particular, we are concerned
that the protection programs proposed for the Coyote Valley Floor and the
County's hillsides will not be sufficient to prevent irreversable adverse
impacts. The proposed hillside viewshed protection program could, by
inducing development, interfere with acquisition efforts of your District and
the proposed new Open Space District for other lands in Santa Clara County.
Streams and riparian habitats need interim protection immediately, while
longer term measures are studied.
We appreciate the District's active contributions to the 2020 Task Force.
We look forward to working with the District in the resolution of issues
we have raised in our evaluation of the 2020 Report. Please contact me at
(415) 543-4291, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jay Powell, Field Coordinator .
People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress
Enclosure
cc: County Supervisor Dianne McKenna
County Office of Planning
2
it
A Greenbelt Coalition Evaluation of the
Report of the
Preservation 2020 Task Force
(Oven Space Preservation:
A Program for Santa QaLA Count April 1987)
Prepared at the request of the
Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition
Contributions by
Linda Elkind
Bernadette Ertl
Trixie Johnson
Paul Kelly
Jay Powell
Advice and support from
Committee for Green Foothills
Guadalupe Group, Sierra Club
People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress
June 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................................1
Overview of a Greenbelt Coalition Evaluation of the Report of the
Preservation 2020 Task Force
Positive Aspects of the Draft Open Space Program..................................2
Areas That Need to Be Strengthened...........................................................3
Our Threatened Greenbelt: Discussion and Information
Why Open Space Preservation Is Important Now...................................5
What We Have to Lose..................................................................................6
What Is the Concept of a Greenbelt and Why Is it Important?............7
Priorities for Open Space Preservation.......................................................9
"Preservation 2020" and the 1980 General Plan
Fundamental General Plan Policies which Are Reaffirmed by the
TaskForce..........................................................................................................10
Task Force Recommendations which May Be Inconsistent with
Fundamental General Plan Policies............................................................11
Dangers and Solutions: The Need for Stronger Measures
Valley Floor Greenbelt and Agriculture Protection Programs
AreInadequate...........................................................................................12
Risks of Encouraging Hillside Cluster Development..............................14
More Specific Hillside Development Standards Are Needed................16
Riparian and Stream Protection Cannot Wait..........................................18
Conclusion and Recommendations........................................................................20
The servation 2020 Task Force F )rt:
Summary Evaluation by the
Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition
Positive aspects of the draft open space program
1. Supporting the concept of a Greenbelt,including long standing General Plan policies which
endorse a greenbelt/compact growth pattern.
2. Reaffirming the importance of regional cooaration and joint powers agreements.
3. 2Lefining priorities for open space preservation.
4. Stating the need for additional specific ordinances and development standards to better
protect baylands and wetlands, streams and riparian vegetation, and hillsides.
5. Proposing the creation of an Open Space District and making a commitment to identify
funding options.
The following areas need to be strengthened:
1. The valley floor greenbelt pro
tection program must limit additional rural
residentiaf/—ranchette development.
2. Valley floor pLWAM which seek to transfer development credit from open space lands
must direct the density transfers only into appropriate existing or future Urban Service
Areas. The proposal to increase the amount of rural residential development west of
Monterey Highway in exchange for open space east of Monterey Highway will not result
in a Greenbelt of viable agriculture as a separator between San Jose and Morgan Hill.
3. The proposed,2,xyanded hillside clustering program could actually accelerate development
in the hills. Design of a Hillside Clustering Program must preclude growth inducing
impacts.
4. Riparian and stream protection measures cannot wait. Until the recommended study is
done,interim setback requirements must be in place.
5. Policies and pEograms need to be coordinated so that tlicy work together. Acquisition of
land by an open space district may be frustrated by speculation and inflated land values in
response to the proposed "Hillside Clustering Program." Open space district formation
and planning should precede implementation of other programs, and strengthened hillside
development standards and regulations must be adopted before an expanded clustering
program begins.
For further information and a copy of the Greenbelt Coaltion Evaluation of the preservation
2020 Task Force Report, contact the Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition, 411 Park Ave,
San Jose 95110; or call (415)327-5906 or (415)5434291.
For a copy of the Task Force Report, contact Hugh Graham, Santa Clara County Office of
.Planning, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, California 95110; (408)299-2521.
Comments on the report are due by August 15.
Introduction
INTRODUMON
The County's Preservation 2020 Task Force Draft Report proposes a
"Program for Open Space Preservation" in Santa Clara County. In the
report the Task Force, chaired by Supervisor McKenna, reaffirms the
importance of preserving open space and recommends methods to secure it.
Although we support many elements of the program, we cannot endorse
the draft report as it stands today. There are too many critical issues left
unresolved. In our opinion, unless these problems are corrected, the
proposed program will fail to protect the County's greenbelt.
We have outlined in this overview those positive aspects of the open space
program which we strongly endorse and those which we believe must be
strengthened. The subsequent sections of the evaluation emphasize
important points in the 2020 report and expand on our concerns and
recommmendations. We offer this evaluation in the spirit of constructive
criticism and in recognition of the considerable effort expended by Task
Force members, staff, and consultants. We hope that the goals of the Task
Force and those specifically outlined in our conclusion will be fulfilled in
the next stage of this process.
For further information, please contact the Santa Clara County Greenbelt
Coalition, 441 Park Ave., San Jose, California 95110; or call (415)327-5906 or
(415)543-4291.
Overview
OVERVIEW OF A GREENBELT COALTION EVALUATION OF THE REPORT OF THE
PRESERVATION 2020 TASK FORCE
Positive aspects of the draft open space program
The report is to be commended for taking the following actions:
1. Supporting the concept of a Greenbelt.
2. Confirming the importance of certain long standing General Plan policies
which are fundamental to a greenbelt-compact growth pattern. "The
County will be increasingly challenged to uphold thL, policies set forth in
the General Plan... It is crucial that public officials involved in land use
decisions in the county make a strong commitment to implement,
monitor and enforce policies which preserve open space....'" (p.11-9.)
3. Defining priorities for open space preservation and identifying the areas
which are most vulnerable to development.
4. Reaffirming the importance of regional cooperation and joint powers
agreements for protection of the valley floor and surrounding hillsides.
5. Stating the need for additional specific ordinances and development
standards to protect valuable natural resources or to prevent/minimize
environmental damage from further development. These include:
a. Bayland and wetland protection
b. Protection of streams and riparian vegetation
c. Hillside development standards
6. Proposing the creation of an Open Space District and making a
commitment to identify funding options.
7. Proposing creation of a private land trust.
2
Overview
Areas that need to be strengthened
1. The valley floor greenbelt protectionprogram must limit additional rural
residential/ranchette development.
Unless land uses on the nonurban valley floor are restricted, we will lose
our greenbelt. Appropriate uses include agriculture, public and private
open space, parkland and preexisting rural residential ranchettes. (pp.111-
10,111-14.)
The proposed program to preserve a valley floor greenbelt will fail if it
allows increased rural residential and ranchette development on the
Coyote/South County Valley Floor.
2. Valley floor prog rams which seek to transfer development credit from
open space lands must direct the density transfers only into appropriate
existing or future Urban Service Areas.
The program recommends the use of a transfer of development credits
system to secure a greenbelt in Coyote Valley. If density transfers are used,
densities should be transferred only to existing urban areas or within
ultimate urban service lines. It is not acceptable to transfer density credits
which increase the amount of rural residential development west of
Monterey Highway in exchange for open space east of Monterey Highway.
(p.HI-12.) This proposal would aim at preserving a narrow scenic strip,
but it would not focus growth in San Jose and Morgan Hill.
3. Design of the Hillside Clustering Program must preclude growth
inducing impacts.
As presently proposed, the Hillside Clustering Program is likely to
accelerate development and inflate land values in the hillsides. We
recommend that before adoption of such an expanded cluster program,
the County and the cities undertake a study of how and where a duster
program could work in order to achieve greenbelt preservation. The
open space program should include procedures to avoid the growth
inducing impacts of clusters.
4. Riparian and stream protection measures cannot wait.
The report acknowledges the need for mandatory setbacks to protect
riparian vegetation and water quality from residential and agricultural
development. However, it fails to recommend adoption of interim
mandatory setbacks. Interim standards are necessary because the County's
financial constraints raise a question about how soon the county could
3
Overview
perform the recommended study to define necessary setbacks for creek
and riparian protection. (p.III-8.)
li 5. Policies and programs need to be coordinated so that they work together.
The report should recommend coordinated policy implementation so
that clustering and density transfers and acquisition programs do not
work at cross purposes. Acquisition of land by an open space district may
be frustrated by speculation and inflated land values in response to the
proposed "Hillside Clustering Program." Therefore, ol2en space district
formation and planning should precede implementation of other
programs.
Furthermore, new hillside development standards and regulations
must be adopted before an expanded clustering program begins.
Our Threatened Greenbelt: ession and Information
j
WHY OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION IS IMPORTANT NOW
Our County and the Bay Region are subject to ever increasing growth
pressures.
1. Housing projections
Demand for expanded transportation and more houses seems
insatiable. ABAG projects that by 2005 in Santa Clara County the demand
for housing could exceed what would be accommodated, given existing
policy.1
2. Revenue demands
The Cities struggle with revenue deficits and compete for commercial
and industrial development rather than residential. Commercial and
industrial development further increase the demand for housing, all
ultimately increasing the need for more highways and other
infrastructure to serve inappropriately placed development.
3. Parcelization and speculation
As the pressure mounts, the value of rural lands on the urban fringe
increase in response to speculation. At the same time as the value
increases so does the pressure to allow increased breakup of large into
smaller parcels. These parcels also increase in value.
4. Inappropriately located jobs and housing
Residents become frustrated by the problems associated with growth,
traffic and pollution. Pressure to sprawl mounts as established
neighborhoods resist projects which would add inappropriate density to
their neighborhoods.
5. South County sewerage
When the Gilroy/Morgan Hill sewer project is completed, growth in
South County is expected to accelerate and increase pressure for
development on rural lands.
6. Need for more parks and recreation areas
The demand for open space and for outdoor recreation increases. For
example, yearly use figures for Rancho San Antonio Park doubled in the
last two years.
1 ABAG Memo,2/20/87,to City and County Planning Directors.Re:Review of Preliminary
Projections 87 Population,Household and Employment Forecasts.p.4. ABAG projects that in
2005 the demand for housing in Santa Clara County will increase by 615,000 units which is a
27% increase over the dwellings in 1985.
5
i
�JO/� _ Ru:al ne aldenllal I
\ _. IEafl Fuol hllisl
L�
�,-+ � � C.Mtr.enlralmns
-- I nl nevclunmenl
r./ Rural Resldenllal '� J- Pros sure Ou.slde
? 15anle Teresa Nlllsl � ))roan Scr nce
tl 1,,� / �� � !•rocs
5..'( Ind strlal Commerclnl u
Rural Resldenllal Resldenllal(Coynle Valley) /
l.e,inglon)(Ills) !} '•- .•tt 1(r
Rural Residential,
Rural Resldenllal, _ Intluslrlal,Cammcrclol
R a O ISouth 15oulh Valley) lto ]d Ida 5erv1ces
Counly Weet IP-heco Pass Mlghwayl
_. J.
o of MII31 �
n
FIGURE II 4
_J
DEM-OPMENT PRESSURE
loadslJe Ser vltef_ /'/'�
11
Rural 1 ntlel,
i/l lgh gf+weYl
II-h (Preservation 2020 Report, April 1987)
HIGHLIGHTS FROM CHAPTER II OF THE 2020 REPORT:"RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY"
"San Jose's urban service area...has grown from 83,882 acres in 1979 to its
current size of 88,800 acres."
'Gilroy: The current urban service area consists of 6,800 acres, an increase
of 2,297 acres (51%) since 1979."
Single building site development applications increased from 65 in FY 83 to
140 in FY 86, a 115% increase (= average 30% increase per year).
Rural subdivisions. " Since 1981, the county has received 18 applications for,
residential subdivisions of 3 units or more."
Gift Deeds. "The creation of lots outside the normal subdivision
process...(is) counterproductive to sound open space planning."
'"Me final approved gift deed ordinance in Santa Clara County does not stop
the creation of gift deeds."
Private General Plan Amendments. "Twenty-nine proposals have been submitted
for unincorporated area during (81-85) period. Over half (16) of these have
been for parcels in South Valley (Coyote Valley toto s-out of Gilroy)."
As of March 1986, of those 29 amendment proposals: 13 approved, 7 pending,
5 denied, 4 withdrawn.
Examples: * Nov 1983 amendment approved: 465 ac., 2 mi.s SE of Morgan Hill.
Redesignation from "hillside" to "rural residential" = 23 unit subdivision.
* 1983 application in Hayes Valley for Research and Development
park on part of 1,500 acre parcel. Approval of this proposal would represent a
major change from adopted policies. (Board has deferred decision...).
Public General Plan Amendments.
* East Foothills Area Policy (1982): "For parcels meeting the criteria within
existing rural residential districts, lots may be as small as 2.5 acres..."
* Slope density formula: (straight to curved line, 1981) "Countywide, the
amendment could result in 1,245 more allowable parcels in the "hillside"
areas than would have occured under the straight line formula."
* Sewage capacity restraint on growth. "The 'unsatisfied development demand'
may become sufficient enough to result in a tremendous surge of new growth
ill South County after ccmpletion of the new treatment plant."
* Agricultural lands. Williamson Act contract non-renewals. "As of 1985,
Seventy properties have initiated non-renewal proceedings. `
85% of these are in South County.
Our Threatened Greenbelt: assion and Information
WHAT WE HAVE To LOSE
Greenbelt Lands
Category of Unincorporated lands Acres
Within San Jose's sphere of influence,
hillsides which flank the valley floor 70,0001
Total unincorporated hillsides and
adjacent watersheds which flank the
valley floor 124,6002
Unincorporated land on the valley floor 38,2003
Habitat for Rare and Endangered Species
(See appendix B, Preservation 2020.)
Heritage and Historical Resources
(See appendix C, Preservation 2020.)
Agricultural Lands
(See charts and map reproduced on following page .)
Remaining Riparian and Creekside Habitats in the Hillsides
The Santa Clara Valley Water District estimate that they are responsible for
641 miles of streams. The 1980 General Plan documentation lists roughly
300 miles of streams on the vallev floor and only about 30 miles in a natural
state. There are roughly 300 miles of undisturbed creeks left in our hillsides
and upper watersheds. With completion of the Coyote Creek and
Guadalupe Creek Flood Control projects there will be almost no natural
creeks left on the valley floor.
1San Jose Greenbelt Task Force Report.
2Preservation 2020 Draft Report chapter N.
31'reservation 2020 Draft Report chapter IV.
6
7'^"ICULTURAL RESOURCES IN SANTA C COUNTY:
Chart
Acreage Changes of Selected Crops
in Santa Clara County, 1970-85
60 aciering Acreage(T1lotmands)
60 ------------ ----
30
TOW cope
20 ---- --- --- ----- -- -may.
Put vnewl"
t0 ----------'--------- --
Frla,Nut*,Oar
0
70 71 72 73 71 76 7a 77 7e 71; e0 61 e2 83 Bs B5
Year
Frto,II Bar A,,vap --''- Total dope
Source Banta 0ere County Department
of Aprtculture,Annual Crop Reports.
I973 to 1985.
Chart Total Real Value of Farm
Products in Santa Clara County,
1970-1985
Millions of dollars/1967 for Real Value
200
160 --- - — — — ----------
too ---. — - — --
60
0
70 71 72 73 74 76 70 77 7e 79 BO 61 52 B3 84 06
Year
Current Va-ue = 11"I value
Source Santa Gore County Depatlrnent Of Note Flgurea we ndfueted uslrt0 the
/Qrlculture,AnNAl Crop Repale,1973 Froduoer II IrdbM for form
through 1965 products.
Chart 9: Value of Nursery Stock
and Cut Flowers Production
in Santa Clara County, 1979-1985
millions of dollars ,
40 ------ --- ------
I
30
20 -- - - -- - --
EM
10 - — — --
o .-'=1_ - '-a --` F
79 BO 01 e2 83 as 05
Year
Nursery Stock Out Flow-rs
Source: Santa pare (I DeOartment of
Agriculture,Annual Crop Reporte, 1080 iVP
10 19B6.
Santa Clara County Greenbelt Coalition, June 1987
l
� I
Prin»A90cultur■1 Bolls
6 r ••A III { { fCl,.■t and cl,.■nI
Good Aprlcultur.t-toile
I 11 ,I I L IV II "IV Ict,..in and(;l,.■IV)
t
i A 1 t a
IV
IV 1
I .
IV '
ILA
' t
1 r
III Iv
AGRICULTURAL . 1 III
�I11
I III
I
h
Our Threatened Greenbelt: ission and Information
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF A GREENBELT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
The report describes the following reasons for protecting open space and a
greenbelt:
1. The greenbelt serves as a continuous backdrop of open space which
defines the urban form.
"The prime function of a greenbelt consisting of private and public
lands is to physically restrict the outward expansion of the urban area it
surrounds."(p.I-3)
"By limiting the extent of urban sprawl open space Greenbelts
encourage compact orderly urban growth. Orderly growth, in turn,
improves the efficiency and decreases the costs of delivering services."
(p.I-3.)
An additional reason, not mentioned by the report, is that greenbelts
provide structure to support the best and most creative uses of lands
within cities.
2. These open space lands retain critical natural resource functions.
a. Watershed
The function of a watershed is to collect and recharge ground water so
that it is clean and plentiful. In Santa Clara County 1/3 of the water we
use is stored underground. All of the water supply for South County is
stored underground.
b. Viewshed
c. Recreation
III
Recreational areas should include land which is relatively level, as
well as hilly and mountainous land.
d. Psychological separation and sense of identity
e. Quality of life
The abundance and proximity of open space make the County a
pleasant place to live. A Bay Area poll (conducted by the Bay Area
Council in November 1986) revealed that fifty-eight percent of those
polled said that either recreational and cultural activities or access to
open spaces was the most important reason for living here. We must
7
Our Threatened Greenbelt: ussion and Information
retain accessible open space if industry is to retain a hiring advantage.
(p.1-2.)
f. Natural habitat of sufficient scale and diversitv to support wildlife
"By protecting rare and endangered species and unique natural
communities we maintain a genetic diversity that can be beneficial to
us." (p.I-6.)
g. Agricultural uses and separation of uses
Rural residential needs often conflict with agricultural activities. Each
benefits from a buffer.
Specific examples of greenbelt recommendations are:
"those to establish greenbelts on the valley floor between San Jose and
Morgan Hill, and between Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
"those to protect the hillsides which flank the valley floor.
8
Our Threatened Greenbelt: .4ssion and Information
PRIORITIES FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
A very valuable part of the Task Force's report is the definition of specific
geographic regions as study areas, based on natural characteristics of the land
(i.e., watershed boundaries; for valley floor areas, soil type). Each is
described in terms of landform, slope, geologic conditions and hazards, soil,
vegetation, hydrology, natural habitat and scenic resources/visual
vulnerability.
Each study area is assigned a priority for open space preservation using the
following criteria: resource value, accessibility/location, parcelization,
vulnerability to development and contiguity to public lands.
Priorities for park acquisition are based on recreation value,
accessibility/location, vulnerability to development, and difficulty of land
assembly.
9
KEY TO "AP OF STU, -REAS (Fig. IV-2, 2020 J.987)
TOTAL ACREAGE = 644,900 acs.
Type I. Valley floors, edges.
B Type II. Foothills and adjacent watersheds
Lll�,E YM SIDE
1.
BAY ZONE 16500 12. LOS TRANCOS/ 1AU AM
FELT LAKE 8400 22. E. bERRYEELsA
MAIN VALLEY 13. PERHAMENTE FOOTHILLS 7000
CREEK 4300 23. ALUM ROCK
2 COYOTE VALLEY 7500 FOOTHILLS 7400
14. STEVF14S
3. MORGAN HILL CREEK 13100 24. X. 9" josE
ENVIRONS 2100 FOOTHILLS 8100
15. SANBORN
4. SAN MARTIN 9400 SKYLINE 6500 23. 1. COYOTE
5. LLAGAS 5700 16. LEXINGTON 17600 FOOTHILLS 7500
26 E. SAN MARTIN
6. OLD GILROY 5400 17. GUADALUPE FOOTHILLS 3700
7. BLOOMFI ELD 8100 WATERSHED 7800 27, E. GILROY
18. NEW ALMADEN 4100 FOOTHILLS 7200
SUB VALLEYS 19 W. COYOTE 90TI(AL
FOOTHILLS 4200
B. PARADISE 28. SANTA TERESA 5700
VALLEY 3200 20. W. VALLEY
9. RAYES 2600 FOOTHILLS 2500
21. GAVILAN
10. DAY ROAD 3200 FOOTHILLS 4400
11. LOWER UVAS 2400
TOTAL ACREAGE TOTAL ACREAGE
TYPE I = 66, 100 acs. TYPE 11 = 119,500 acs.
TYPE III. IJDDPr Valley-, and watersheds. TYPE IV. Remote.
111. UPPER VALLEYS AND WATERSHED
III. UPPER VALLEYS AND WATERSHED! M REMOTE
WEST SIDE EAST SIDE 49. ALAMEDA
29. UPPER 39, CALAVERAS/ CREEK 15500
LOS GATOS 8100 ARROYO 50. ARROYO VALLE 61400
HONDO 20600
30. TWIN CREEKS 7800
51. ARROYO
40. ALUM ROCK HOCHO 4200
31. CA_'ER0 5100 WATERSHED 10400
52. rsABEL 26000
32. UVAS 41. HALLS/SAN
WATERSHED 9000 FELIPE 53. MT. HAMILTON/
33. LITTLE UVAS VALLEY 24300 SMITH CREEK 12700
WATERSHED 5300 42, SHINGLE 54. KID-FORK
34. UVAS RESERVOIR/ VALLEY 7200 COYOTE 14900
EASTMAN 7000 43. ANDERSON 55. LAST FORK
35. LLAGASI LAKE $100 COYOTE . 21900
CHESBRO 11700 44. PACKWOOD/ 56. GILROY HOT
36. REDWOOD LOWER COE 10700 SPRINGS 17000
RETREAT 6400 45. COYOTE LAKE/ 57. UPPER
TIKBER RIDGE 5600 PACHECO 40
37. HECKER PASS 7900 700
46. CANADA DE 58, LOWER
38. PESCADERO/ LOS OSOS 9000 PACHECO 32900
TAR CREEK 12500
47. HUNTING 59. PACHECO
HOLLOW 7300 PASS 6700
48. SAN FELIPE/ 60. SOUTH FORK
PACHECO 8200 PACHECO 9100
61. VIBORAS 4100
TOTAL ACREAGE TOTAL ACREAGE
TYPE III = 192,200 acs. TYPE IV = 267,100
:r .j.. 49
f Type I
50
52 Type 11
5 3 Type III
Type IV
NOTE:
54 55 All study areas are located
outside urban service area
boundaries.*
4� 3
r 3. 56 57
•�. •T. I R Ry .Y
59
PRESERVATION 2020: MAY 1987 �, S 8
County of Santa Clara Office of Planning
N
FIGURE IV - 2 �- 60
STUDY AREA TYPES ?'
'April, 1986 urban service
area boundaries shown.
I �
"Preservation 2020" and the I General Plan
FUNDAMENTAL GENERAL PLAN POLICIES WHICH ARE REAFFIRMED BY THE TASK
FORCE
'I
1. The regglatory framework must be stable.
*"The recommendations are made with the assumption that a stable
regulatory environment exists, that it is perceived to exist, and that it
will exist in the future. General Plan amendments which have the
effect of altering this stability will be counterproductive to the
recommendations." (p.III-1.)
2. Growth should occur in cities in a compact pattern. (p.III-6.}
*"Urban development should occur onlyin the cities and where the full
,
array of urban services can be provided." (p.III-6.)
*"The boundary lines drawn around the prematurely urbanized rural
residential areas shall be firm boundary lines not to be breached, and the
County shall develop procedures to assure that these areas do not
expand." (p.III-6. )
`LAFCO policy specifically precludes the expansion of sanitary sewer
districts outside of urban service areas, except for the purpose of
removing an existing health hazard." (p.III-7.)
i,
i
10
I
CITY OF SAN JOSI: "HORIZON 2000"
General Plan Concept Ma
// //
1
/
W
/
/
/
Legend
/ i
Emphasis on
Dovt•Itrpinonl
/iii��A'VL11M/l///////// i ♦
t t n l r r t r tCo
nlnit s
/
/
I v
/
/ Planned ' r rltiIrt1r mr,
to Exislrng 111ghways
Planned New Highways/
/ �/ ♦ ♦ Expressways/Lrghl Hari
.i r ticr P II r r n o r t o W�
Control Plant
7
A 6
//
/
1
/
/
/ / Iv
/
/
/
/ /
rn ,
ex I
w
/
J ♦
/n'}:•:�:::;::tiff•}::•};.;;.}}}..'.'::•.
/ I -
////:% r:%:�%':•:}::{•::%:%:ti%:%:tiff{}:•};:•:•}.'::%:•}:.
// //i•}}:•:•:tiff•:•::}}:•: :.;tifftiffti•: i:•:•}:•:•:•}.. %"�:%'%'%':%:%:�:�:%:%:%:�:%:%:�:%::�:'�':�:% :%:�}:%:%:%:%:�:•::•'%:�:':':'�::':%:%:%:%::::;::}:::%:%}:.:.
/ /
/ /
}:•}?:•}::•:•:•::};ti:;:%::ti•::tiff•,}::::�:%::;'•:•:�::•:� %:%::%'� ....:•:•:::}:::•::�};:,::;:ffff•::.•••
Preservation 2020" and the General Plan
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH
FUNDAMENTAL GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
1. The Preservation 2020 Task Force recommendations which expand the
potential size and intensity of clustered rural residential development is
not consistent with the County policy to limit expansion of rural
residential areas. The Coyote Valley Greenbelt proposal which would
increase rural residential development between San Jose and Morgan
Hill is an example.
2. Cluster development which could be larger and more dense than is
possible under the current hillside regulations would discourage orderly
compact growth, induce further development, inflate adjacent land
values (making open space preservation more difficult), and increase
the cost of service delivery.
In describing the function of a greenbelt, the Task Force has introduced
language that is potentially in conflict with General Plan policies. They
have described a greenbelt as "...focusing development outside the cities
into clusters..." The resulting scenario, illustrated by the report's figure
1-2 ("Imaginary Greenbelt"), is a major departure from current growth
management strategies and policies (such as the City of San Jose
"Greenline" strategy).
GU
��X. f�'�X�'�Gz
Industrial
:Cluster
CITY
A Wn'00
A A A
A h Pork
A
A A A A
A AA
Rural ReBId, Cluster
a r :
�n
�MOUNTAINS
CITY GREENBELT
It has been well-documented that providing the necessary
fan it ser
vices r se ices to c s alter r cci areas
s f o urban development
c clopmcnt is
highly costly and inefficient.1 0 These costs are not borne 1 - 3
solely by the residents of these areas, but are shared by tic
whole community. By limiting the extent of urban sprawl From "A Program for Open Space
aaE by focusingdement outside the cities into clusters, Preservation in Santa Clara County:
open space greenbelts encourage orderly urban Report of the Preservation 2020
f P �, g y growth. Task Force, April 7, 1987 Draft Rev.
Orderly growth in turn improves the efficiency and decreases Page 1-3.
the costs of delivering public services. 41
it �
Dangers and Solutions: The for Stronger Measures
VALLEY FLOOR GREENBELT AND AGRICULTURE PROTECTION PROGRAMS ARE
INADEQUATE.
Further rural residential and ranchette development on the valley floor
will destroy the valley floor greenbelt;however, the proposed valley floor
greenbelt program depends heavily on the extension of rural residential
development.
Much of the section dealing with the Valley Floor Greenbelt (Ill.a.1-5, pp.111-
10 to 14) has merit, particularly the concept of contractual setting of ultimate
urban growth limits. There are now 38,200 acres of valley floor greenbelt,
and they will indeed be the most difficult portion of the greenbelt to
preserve. The contract can provide a much more stable environment than
the current dependence on Williamson contracts, agricultural zoning and
sewage treatment limits.
The preservation of a Coyote Valley greenbelt, however, depends almost
entirely on a Transfer of Development Credits program which saves the east
side of Monterey Highway at the expense of the west side. Ironically, the
west side portion of the Coyote Valley devoted to greenbelt is already the
most heavily subdivided portion of the valley, and this report supports
further subdivision. The entire west side buffer between San Jose and
Morgan Hill could consist of small ranchettes, whose dwelling unit
proximities and crisscross of access roads is hardly consistent with the
concept of open space. San Martin, which is developed in such a pattern, is
considered semi-urban. By a narrow margin, its residents recently voted
against incorporation. The report itself refers to the open space between
"Morgan Hill/San Martin and Gilroy," (p.IH-11) clearly implying that San
Martin is urban. To propose this pattern as appropriate for a critical portion
of the valley floor greenbelt is inconsistent.
The only deterrent to rural residential subdivision is septic tank
capacity/water contamination hazard. Advanced projections of the
cumulative effect of individual septic systems has proved difficult and
resulted in ground water contamination in the San Martin and Morgan Hill
area. Yet the Coyote Valley, with its high water table and sandy, rapidly
percolating soils is a prime candidate for contamination of underground
water sources by the cumulative impact of the septic tanks which
accompany rural residential development.
To preserve a true greenbelt and to protect water quality in the Coyote
Valley, development credits from the east side of Monterey Highway should
12
ii
Dangers and Solutions: The N ',)r Stronger Measures
be transferred to areas within the ultimate urban growth limits of San Jose
or Morgan Hill.
Additional rural residential development in the remainder of the valley
floor greenbelt is not desirable. A large portion of the area functions as a
giant recharge area. The acceptance of rural residential as a proper greenbelt
land use increases the septic tank load and subsequent potential for water
contamination. Further, of all the land uses recommended for the greenbelt
(III, p.11), rural residential is the most incompatible with agriculture. Yet
agricultural preservation is considered an important part of the valley floor
program, meriting its own section (M.a.3).
The program for agricultural preservation on the valley floor does little to
improve the long-range outlook.
The program for agricultural preservation weakly suggests considering areas
for permanent use and continuing the current large lot zoning. But there is
no substantive proposal that will prevent subdivision and retain the
viability of agriculture, particularly in areas 6 and 7 and part of 5 (figure M-1)
where large lots and profitable agriculture now dominate.
Agriculture is the most productive use for open space lands on the valley
floor. The land on the Santa Clara Valley floor has prime soils, moderate
climate, adequate water and a large urban market nearby. The combination
of these factors make the potential for productivity higher in Santa Clara
than in many other areas of the state--or the world, for that matter.
a a s San lose Mercury News st Sunday,March 29.1987 5B
Folks want farmland p reserved
By Mark DiCamillo throughout California,The 1987 study was un.
r_rkw California Poll derwritten by The American Farmland Trust.
Majorities of the public in all parts of Califor- A summary of the survey's main findings
We believe that urban=11weateving the shows these results
amount of available And that this as far as having state and local governments -1 By a 72 percent to 24 percent margin,
growth Deeds to be controlled,according to a compensate farmers for agreeing not to level- Californians agree that urban growth is threat-
poll conducted by the Field Institute. op or sell their lands, min g the amount of available farmland in the
Consistent with this view, Californians be. The public's advocacy of the preservation of state and that this growth needs to be con-
Have farming should be given priority over state farmlarAs appears to be largely an in. trailed. A similar plurality agree that "state
industrial use on the attentive response to the Issue,because 53 per. law Should require that local governments
cant of those polled admit to being relatively adopt tough policies to discourage urban sprawl
housing and
uninformed about agricultural issues. onto farmlands."
There Is strong support for government au. W When asked which should have priority
thority to Manage ittrrojeod use However,the publies protective attitudes farming or housing—on the state's productive
mint, eves tbouLit this . =6%0% about farmland on are longstanding.Ton years lsnds.78 pwx*nt of those pulled choose farming
pubiles--.db=M to the primple of lead. ago,In 1977.The Mid Instituta found
rob.tfut.b- and just 14 percent select housing.
owners`private property right. He responding very similarly to a no The statistical findings In this report are
I By a large tuargin the public favors cootin. "me ustuaL based on interviews with a representative Sam-
nod local government soniag restrictions and The current results corm from a Fleld Insti- pie of 1,019 California adults taken during the
is of farmland sales to discour- tute survey conducted last January among a period January M27.7he margin of error is 33
r4ge-,=A Smaller majority would V representative cross section of 1,019 adults percenL
13
Map 14
Parcel Patterns in Coyote Valley
as of 1978
Urban Services Area Boundary -
0
o c
: 1 n
r a
r
°• ° t9
Palm Avenue H
f9
m
P.
,o 00
e `t
Aver ,e
Legend
parcel sizes 10 acres
=3 10 acres < parcel size < 20 acres
'ti +
parcel sizes p e 20 acres
Q °
Source: Santr. Clara County Planning Department, Parcel N
Size Map, July 1986. Note: Base parcel map
is from 1978.
l 1 i i
Map 16
CLCA Non- Renewals in Coyote Valley
Through 1993
NORM COYOT F
Wit I I Y
_ I
c?hi�l.c
CENTRAL COYOTE_
��. ...
VALLEY
e E i
gg000a°o°s°.
(URDAN RESERVE )
•% q 0
10
et
eoq P �
SOUTH COYOTE
VALLEY
M
( COYOTE GREENDELT )
Lend e
9
44 still enrolled
i
q 0 to S
Years left
:t: 6 to 9 years left
L_
Dangers and Solutions: The I for Stronger Measures
RISKS OF ENCOURAGING HILLSIDE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
A hillside clustering program must be designed to preclude growth
inducing impacts and reduce the risk of environmental damage to the
hillsides.
1. What is the Cluster Program for Contiguous Properties?
It is a program which will permit contiguous properties to collectively
combine their allowable development potential and cluster the
development in one place. The undeveloped remainder of the properties
will be permanently preserved as open space.
2. Why consider clustering?
The open space status of our hillsides is at risk. The risk is that zoning
will not hold under mounting pressures to develop. If you assume that
officials lack sufficient resolve to retain the existing zoning, then cluster
development may be a lesser risk. Nonetheless, the program could result
in a substantially different pattern of development than has been
envisioned for the unincorporated hillsides.
3. The risks associated with clustering:
a. It gives speculative value to lands which might not be developable
now or by 2020.
b. It accelerates hillside development in areas where it has not been
economically advantageous to develop. By pooling the number of
units which could be built on the combined lands of participants and by
building them all at the same time in a cluster, it reduces the
developers infrastructure costs and increases the profit potential.
c. On grassy hillsides it will probably accelerate a change in land use from
cattle grazing to residential.
d. Depending upon cluster locations and configuration, clusters may be
growth-inducing. Building of new roads out to clusters through
undeveloped areas will increase development activity along the new
transportation corridor. Presently inaccessible lots will be developed or
subdivided. Road networks between clusters could open even more
land to development. Over the years, demand may arise for locally
sited commercial and institutional developments.
14
Dangers and Solutions: The I for Stronger Measures
Except in the East Berryessa hills, and the Lower Alum Rock
Foothills, it is unlikely that the cluster development will occur close
enough to cities to be served by existing or expanded public
infrastructure.
e. If the cluster program establishes a pattern of leap frog nodes, they will
propagate the problems of sprawl (i.e., inefficient and expensive
delivery of services and transportation needs which can not be
efficiently met using mass transit systems).
4. Measures which might reduce the risks associated with the Clustering on
Contiguous Properties program:
a. Require that 90% of the land in any clustering project be permanently
preserved as open space. No more than 10% of the land may be
developed.
b. Require that each cluster form an assessment district so that the public
does not have to underwrite excessive service delivery costs.
c. New or expanded roads should be limited in size and length. Costs of
construction and maintenance must be covered by the developer and a
residents' assessment district.
d. Limit the credits awarded to properties which are smaller than the
minimum lot size for hillside subdivision (i.e., 20A).
*No credit fora parcel created by gift deed.
*No credit for a parcel which could not be developed under the
current general plan and hillside zoning and development
ordinances.
*Treat all contiguous parcels in the same ownership as one parcel for
purposes of calculating density transfers.
e. The standards for choosing the sites for cluster development must be
mandatory, and must be written into the ordinances which regulate
Hillside Cluster development. (p.III-18.)
15
Dangers and Solutions: The for Stronger Measures
MORE SPECIFIC HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE NEEDED, TOGETHER
WITH BETTER ENFORCEMENT.
How many acres are in the hillsides and considered immediately subject to
development because they are adjacent to the valley floor?
129,700 acres of hillside lands are immediately adjacent to the valley floor.
171,280 acres are designated Hillside and subject to county ordinances
which regulate hillside development.
What types of environmental damages/hazards and service delivery costs
can be reduced by adoption and enforcement of more adequate and specific
hillside development standards?
1. Fire
Many of the county's hillside areas have been listed by the state or
county as extreme fire hazard areas and, therefore, should have 2
means of access for fire protection and evacuation. (See County 1980
General Plan materials.)
2. Erosion and siltation
Road construction and grading account for major erosion and silta-
tion. Increased silt loading in our streams reduces their value for fish
breeding, accelerates erosion of stream banks, fills in reservoirs, plugs
up the natural water percolation by gravel stream channels, and blocks
downstream storm drainage capacity. Removal of silt by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District is expensive. Often neighborhoods sustain
huge property damages when SCVWD can not keep up with sudden
and heavy rains. (Eastfoothill residents have sustained enormous
damage in past years.)
3. Damage to the viewshed
Roads scar the grass covered rolling hills, and houses built on graded
pads interrupt the flow of the ridgelines.
What additional development standards do we recommend?
1. More specific Design Review Requirements.
2. Require 2 means of access for emergency vehicles.
3. More specific language to prevent removal of vegetation that impedes
erosion. We suggest language from the San Mateo ordinance: "When a
16
i
t Dangers and Solutions: The for Stronger Measures
i
change in vegetative cover is proposed, it must be demonstrated that
the change will provide for similar protection from erosion as that
provided by the existing vegetation.
4. Preservation of natural scenic beauty Y requiring b that No use devel-
opment or alteration shall 1) create uniform, geometrically-terraced
building sites which are contrary to natural land forms; 2) substantially
detract from the scenic and visual quality of the County; or 3) substan-
tially detract from the natural characteristics of existing major water
courses, established and mature trees and other woody vegetation,
dominant vegetative communities or primary wildlife habitats."
5. Require that development demonstrate a high degree of compatibility
with and minimal adverse impact on wildlife habitat areas.
6. Prohibit construction on areas of saturated soils where the water table
is within three feet of the surface.
7. Require that development visible from Scenic Corridors be so located
and designed as to minimize interference with ridgeline silhouette. j
I
i
17
Dangers and Solutions: The for Stronger Measures
RIPARIAN AND STREAM PROTECTION CANNOT WAIT.
The report should recommend immediate adoption by the County of
interim mandatory setbacks to protect riparian vegetation and creek water
quality.
1. Water quality
tY
Contaminants have access to ground water where streams and recharge
ponds serve as replenishers to the aquifer. Important recharge areas
include the following:
a. LLagas Creek in South County.
b. Alluvial fans of creeks entering the valley floor. These are gravelly
and have good percolation ability.
2. Riparian habitat protection
No other terrestrial habitat in California supports so large a number of
birds and mammal species.
How much riparian habitat remains in the County and how much have we
lost?
The Santa Clara Valley Water District estimates that they are responsible for
641 miles of streams. The 1980 General Plan lists roughly 300 miles of
streams are on the valley floor and only about 30 miles are in a natural state.
There are roughly 300 miles of undisturbed creeks left in our hillsides and
upper watersheds. With completion of the Coyote Creek and Guadalupe
Creek Flood Control projects there will be almost no natural creeks left on
the valley floor.
There are four riparian creeks which are listed by the County and the
California Natural Areas Coordinating Council as being most significant
natural areas. These are:
*Little Arthur Creek and Bodfish Creek: important to native fish and
designated a natural area of significant biological importance by
CDF&G.
* Riparian Areas: scenic
an Oak Tree
Pacheco Creek Sycamore d O
spawning area for native fish--a "relatively untouched natural area."
18
Dangers and Solutions: The for Stronger Measures
*Upper Coyote Creek Riparian Area: important habitat for native fish
and a unique natural community of sycamore trees.
The Task Force's consultants Livingston and Twiss reported that riparian
regulations could be a major open space protection device on the valley
floor for portions of the following study areas:
#3 Morgan Hill
#4 San Martin
#5 LLagas
#6 Old Gilroy
#7 Bloomfield
#10 Day Road
#11 Lower Uvas
In fifty of the sixty-one Study Areas riparian protection is listed as an
important protective device. (See Livingston and Twiss' report, p.34-39.)
Riparian and stream protection was specifically mentioned in the
following Hillside Study Areas:
#14 Stevens Creek Canyon--for pristine riparian
#17 Guadalupe--"strongly dissected by creeks"
#20 West Valley Foothills--riparian habitat value (Llagas
Creek)
#21 Gavilan--"heavily dissected with narrow canyons and
creeks"
#31 Calero--important watershed
#36 Redwood Retreat--"Little Arthur Creek is
an important habitat area."
Also mentioned are Pacheco Creek, Upper Coyote Creek, Upper Boya Creek,
and Sweetwater Creek.
In the Ranchland Areas the issue is protection of natural vegetation from
road construction and fuelwood operations.
II
19
Conclusion and Recommem is
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Task Force Report is a valuable starting point as a proposal for open space
preservation. However, the implications of recommended programs for
hillside clustering and valley floor preservation need further evaluation to
clearly outline their impacts.
We recommend that the Board of Supervisors and all jurisdictions in Santa
Clara County cooperate in the next step in this process--the formation of an
interjurisdic tional implementation committee--to insure that the
following goals are realized:
*Hillsides are protected from inappropriate and growth-inducing
development.
*An open space district or other appropriate agency is e.,tablished to
acquire designated lands in cooperation with the park districts and
other public agencies.
*A true permanent Greenbelt is established as a "community separator"
between San Jose and Morgan Hill to break the pattern of urban sprawl.
*Agriculture is promoted and protected in the Coyote Valley and other
existing agricultural areas of South County.
*Remaining natural streams and riparian habitat receive immediate
protection.
Achievement of these goals will require the direct support and
commitment of all jurisdictions and elected officials in Santa Clara County.
All jurisdictions should contribute to this effort since all citizens benefit
from a protected Greenbelt.
Programs for open space preservation need to be coordinated so they will
work together and not at cross purposes. Since acquisition of land by open
space districts could be frustrated by speculation and inflated land values in
response to other proposed programs (e.g., the large scale hillside clustering
program), we recommend that:
*Open space district formation and planning should precede and set the
context for implementation of other programs
*Strengthened hillside development standards and regulations must be
adopted before an expanded clustering or transfer of development
credit program begins.
20
limes-fribune
Palo Alto, Calif. 94301
_ EDITORIALS
d
-
.z-ato in thesprawl
p� �
:PROTECTING BAY AREA lands pute, and we join with the Greenbelt Co-
from suburban sprawl is no easy alition in urging that regulations ad-
task. Rural landowners eager to dressing these concerns be instituted
cash in on rising property values re- quickly and be written clearly.
gularly team up with developers eager In dispute, however, is the idea of a!-
'.to ' h 1 housing shortage. "clustered"
'to cash to on the local h orta e
g g lowing clustered housing in exchange
g g g
They can be a powerful combination, for leaving the rest of a property un-
_,particularly when the pdblic's attitude developed.The Greenbelt Coalition wor-
..is lackadaisical. ries that such clusters will create their
Nor is there a foolproof method of own sprawl, will be difficult to provide
protecting land. Some carefully craft- public services like fire protection and
--ed plans are found later to Include a could hinder adjacent agriculture. The
loophole or two that cannot stop objec- task force's basic argument is that land-
"`tionable development or cannot stop a owners cannot be deprived of all devel-
"court from declaring them illegal. opment options, and a recent decision
Nor is there a plan that has managed by the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that
_ _to make all sides perfectly happy. Wit- Imposing a building ban without provid-
ness the still-simmering controversy ing compensation puts the county on
over growth control on San Mateo Coun- treacherous legal ground.
ty's Coastside. There were pitched bat- Another concern is what should tie
ties before various public bodies over done with the central and southern por-
the plan itself and a bitter November tions of the Coyote Valley, where agri-
1988 election fight over whether the cultural land is fast vanishing between
Board of Supervisors could be trusted San Jose and Gilroy. The task force is
to abide by It. willing, through the sales of develop-
With this backdrop, it to see meat rights, to allow more subdivision
why the draft report of Santa Clara and construction on the west side of
Count 's Preservation 2020 Task Force Monterey er Highway in exchange for little
., Y hot eY g
already is attracting flak, despite a ten- or no construction on the east side. The
• Aadve 10-1 vote of approval by the task Greenbelt Coalition complains that
force and much praise from Its chief de- stricter limits on the west side are need-
tractors — in this case, an alliance of ed to protect ground water and create a
environmentalists called the Santa Clara true "greenbelt" south of San Jose. It
County Greenbelt Coalition. prefers to have development rights on
The tusk force, so named because it both sides of Vie highway said to those
seeks to preserve the county's remain- who own land within San Jose's desig-
ing rural charms at least through the nated urban boundaries.
year 2020, proposes that voters in the Before taking positions on clustered
southern and eastern areas of the county housing and the Coyote Valley, we'd like
w.be psked to creatg_.4ndJ44d a copy of to see what the public thinks.Such Issues
_-'ttie 'Petfin!i T16 s Mldpeninsula Regional will be debated in August during a series
Open Space District. This new govern- of public hearings to be held by the
ment entity would purchase expanses of Preservation 2020 Task Force. Hearings
..eastern hillside land to protect them will be held later by the Board of Super-
.-from development. visors, but the first set of hearings is the
......Also recommended are specific ordi- best place to defend these proposals or
nances and development standards that argue for changes.
,protect baylands, wetlands and streams This dispute might seem distant from
as well many hillside lands.And the task the Peninsula, but their impacts are
=-force also calls for governmental coop- broad. It behooves local residents con-
! development.
erati an to limit
cerned with the basic uestions being
g
All of these are Important, sensible raised here to get involved and be
policies and goals that are beyond dis- heard.
Edi*ton*als/Letters
w ,
t + Tuesday,June 30, 1987 gg
ifler tg1t News
Letters to the editor
greenbelt will require count commitment-
Congratulations Y .
Congratulations and thank you for this "political reality?" What are the ment of marginal lots.
your editorial of June 7 supporting pressures? Who are the players? b We applaud your statement that
preservation of the greenbelt.There is their interest in the best of the valley "the strate es ...can onl be useful-
a great need for commitment from and the rest of us? We really need a ly discussed after a foundation for:an
county policy makers and influencers physical separation between San Jose open space program is in place,.b
+to implement, monitor and enforce and Morgan Hill, and agriculture is creating a new open space district'" I
the imposition of urban limits ,
the most productive use for such a I
which as you stated are long over- se Of course we need a new open space
y g separation. "Political reality'" can be district but it will only be successful
due. Unfortunately, the Preservation a self-fulfilling prediction. Let's fight to the extent that a comprehensive
2020 Task Force program does not for a well-planned valley with
P Y tS •
hold the promise of protecting the belts that really separate. open space program is based strict
greenbelt unlessa new and stronger The proposal for "cluster develop- hillside development standards.
commitment is demonstrated. ment" on the scale contemplated in Formation and planning an open
the 2020 program is a major depar- space district should precede imple-
You refer to the "political reality" ture from current policies; encourag- mentation of other programs.
dictating a plan allowing greater de- ing clusters could actually accelerate
velopment west of Monterey Highway development in the hillsides. Parcels — Patricia and James Comport
In return for less to the east. What is may receive "credits" for develop- Saratoga
4
R-87-123
,AA (Meeting 87-19
August 12, 1987)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
July 23, 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Support for Preservation of Endangered Wetlands by
Placing Them Under the Protection of the San Francisco Bay
Natural Wildlife Refuge
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the attached Resolution
of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Urging the Preservation of Endangered Wetlands by Placing
Them Under the Permanent Protection of the San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge.
Discussion: Attached is material which describes the efforts of the
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge to seek protection of en-
dangered wetlands by including these lands within the San Francisco
Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
A representative of the Committee will be on hand at your August 12,
1987 meeting to make a presentation and answer your questions . Thus
far, resolutions of support have been passed by Alameda, San Mateo and
Santa Clara County Boards of Supervisors, by the City Councils of Palo
Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City, Milpitas, Fremont, Menlo Park, and
by the East Bay Regional Park District.
I
RESOLUTION NO. 87-2$
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
URGING THE PRESERVATION OF ENDANGERED
WETLANDS BY PLACING THEM UNDER THE PERMANENT
PROTECTION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL
i
WILDLIFE REFUGE
WHEREAS, of the original 200, 000 acres of San Francisco Bay
wetlands, only 37 , 000 remain, and almost every wetlands parcel
has been proposed for development; and
WHEREAS , these remaining acres are essential for wildlife
habitat, pollution control, flood control , spawning grounds for
fish and shellfish, groundwater recharge and saltwater intrusion
control; and
WHEREAS, development of these lands would increase traffic
problems and seismic liability for local jurisdictions; and
i
WHEREAS, preservation of the wetlands would provide needed
open space and recreational opportunities for the community; and
WHEREAS, the Basic Policy of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District states that "the
District will work with and encourage private and other public
agencies to preserve, maintain, and enhance open space" ; and
WHEREAS , the Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District rates wetlands within the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District very highly; and
WHEREAS , these lands can be protected by urging the U.S.
000
Fish and Wildlife Service to accelerate acquisition of the 5, 000
acres that remain from the initial Congressional authorization
for the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (1972) ; and
WHEREAS, additional endangered wetlands can be protected and
the Refuge be completed by the Congress passing new legislation;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District urges the preservation of endangered
wetlands by placing them under the permanent protection of the
E San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
i
i
i
I
I
III
To the Senate 61 Congress of
We urge you #�he United States:
wetlands to to support legis,,
the San Franc' tion to add diked &
These wetlands iscO Bay N
are critical seasonal
birds and water habitat National Wildlife Refuge.
included in the fowl in the Pacific Flyway,
millions Of shore-
lYway, but are not
flood Present Refuge. For us, they Provide
Protection, groundwater recharge, and an open space
buffer.
went. yo These wetlands are rapidly being lost
Your action Is needed now. to develop-
zip
THE COMMITTEE PROTECTS THREATENED WETLANDS . . .
. . . IN PARTNERSHIP WITH LOCAL ACTION GROUPS
Lost Original Wetlands
Oakland I
■ Remaining Wetlands
San San Francisco Bay National
El
Francisco
Wildlife Refuge I
i
_ I
JOIN YOUR LOCAL ACTION San Leandro
GROUP:
Baylands Conservation Committee Hayward
-Menlo Park, Palo Alto-
Citizens for Alameda's Last Marshlands(CALM)
-Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward
Citizens for Open Space in Alvarado(COSA) 4
-Union City-
I
Friends of Charleston Slough Union City
-Mountain View- 7..
nds of Redwood City
edwood City-
e Our South Bay Wetlands(SOS Bay Wetlands) Redwood City �t; ;, , Newark
-Alviso,Sunnyvale,San Jose- �
Save Wetlands in Mayhews(SWIM) Fremont {
Menlo Park
-Newark-
Tri-City Ecology Center Palo Alto
- Fremont-
i
Whistling Wings/Pintail Mountain View
I
Duck Clubs in Newark-
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO Sunnyvale
COMPLETE THE REFUGE San Jose
453 Tennessee Lane
Palo Alto, California 94306
(415) 493-5540 Source:Wetlands and Refuge boundaries from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
I
i
�
NCB f p
k11
I
Z
0 >>
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE i
REFUGE
WETLANDS IN CRISIS j
m o A little over a century ago, the San Francisco j
Bay contained almost 200,000 acres of pristine
wetlands teeming with wildlife. Today about
37,000 acres of tidal and seasonal wetlands
o remain. The rest have been filled and
E o developed.
0 a Unless they are protected soon, most of thes
.26 endangered lands will totally disappear.
J Today, every privately owned wetland in the
E (D South Bay is proposed for development.
E �
0 The Citizens Committee to Complete the
Refuge wants to permanently preserve these
N I� remaining wetlands by incorporating them into
CO the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge.
o BA" WE MUST ACT NOW. We need your help to
protect these unique and valuable lands--
pleasejoin us.
Nvs w
i
i
I
11E CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO
COMPLETE THE REFUGE
PROTECTS WETLANDS
The Citizens Committee to Complete the
Refuge is a citizens group dedicated to
protecting our remaining endangered wetlands.
We promote their protection through publicity,
education, legislation, political and legal action.
We act largely through local groups throughout
the Middle and South Bay area (see map).
The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge originated through the grass-roots
efforts of local citizens. Building upon their
r 'nplishments, we hope to complete the
je by including additional habitats
necessary for a biologically stable Bay system.
This is the best means of obtaining permanent
protection.
We propose that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service accelerate acquisition of the remaining
5000 acres initially authorized by Congress.
We also urge Congress to pass new legislation
to protect the most critical and endangered
wetlands by completing the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge as originally
envisioned.
WETLANDS IMPROVE OUR QUALITY
OF LIFE
San Francisco Bay and its wetlands
provide:
- Our moderate climate and clean air.
*A natural barrier to increasing urban
development, traffic congestion, noise, and
air pollution.
*Easily accessible recreational areas for
hiking, photography, fishing, hunting,
birdwatching, and boating.
*A natural pollution filter to protect the Bay's
water quality, and natural flood control.
* Critical nesting and feeding grounds for
resident and migrating water birds.
Essential habitat for endangered species
and other wildlife.
Building on wetlands is dangerous.
* Underlying mud liquifies during earthqu 3,
destroying structures above.
*As the water level in the Bay rises over time,
these lands will be flooded.
* Paving wetlands causes freshwater runoff,
reducing groundwater recharge and
increasing saltwater intrusion.
Wetlands should be protected because
they are an irreplaceable natural
resource.
Illustrations courtesy of Wally Peters and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
WETLANDS ARE SPECIAL
The Bay and its associated marshes and
wetlands are a unique resource. Flooded part
or all of the year, wetlands are crucial for the
quality of life in the Bay Area. They preserve
essential open space, buffering urban
development. They protect the Bay's water
quality, prevent flooding, and provide food and
shelter to the Bay's fish and wildlife.
Presently, the San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge contains virtually no seasonal
wetlands. Rather, it consists of open water,
salt ponds, and salt marshes. Since many of
the Refuge's wildlife species need seasonal
wetlands and uplands to survive, the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is
incomplete without these critical lands.
Organizations That Endorse the Citizens
Committee to Complete the Refuge:
Baylands Conservation Committee Native Plant Society,Santa Clara
California Waterfowl Association Chapter
California Wildlife Federation Ohlone Audubon Society
Citizens for a Better Environment Peninsula Conservation Center
Committee for Green Foothills Foundation
City of Fremont People for Open Space
Defenders of Wildlife Planning and Conservation League
East Bay Green Alliance San Francisco Bay Chapter,Sierra
Federation of Fly Fishers Club
Fremont Area League of Women Santa Clara Valley Audubon
Voters Society
Friends of Charleston Slough Save San Francisco Bay
Friends of Redwood City Association
Golden Gate Audubon Society Sequoia Audubon Society
Greenbelt Congress South Bay Wetlands Coalition
Loma Prieta Chapter,Sierra Club Sportsmen for Equal Access
Madrone Audubon Society TH-City Ecology Center
Marin Audubon Society Trout Unlimited
Mount Diablo Audubon Society United Anglers of California
Napa-Solano Audubon Society Urban Creeks Council
Yes, I want to help insure that the Wildlife Refuge is completed by including authorized lands
and seasonal wetlands.
_ I will help with my time.
I will help with a contribution ($ ) (for $10 or more you will receive one year's
newsletters and action alerts).
I have enclosed a separate check to support legal action to protect wetlands in the
South Bay (made to PCCF/Refuge--Legal).
Name:
Address:
Phone(s): ►'
Tax deductible contributions will be accepted by the Peninsula Conservation Center
Foundation. Make checks payable to: PCCF Refuge Fund. 1
4
Send to: Refuge Committee
453 Tennessee Lane
Palo Alto, California 94306
PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - USE , +NAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY Exhibit A
Project ; ;Budgeted ;Budgeted ;Projected ;Proposed
Description ; Status of Plans or Projects ;FY 86-87 ;FY 87-88 ;FY 88-89 ,Completion
----------------------------------------;----------------------------------------` --------- ' ----------` -----------
Planning Tasks
1 Use and management review ;Public workshop was held Summer '86 ; ; 08-87
2 Prepare Master Plan ;Master Plan not recommended, public 25000 ; ; Dropped
;support for low intensity recreation
3 Design access improvements at ;Plans submitted to SFWD h Redwood Center; ; ; Complete
Edmonds Road entrance ;
' i Secure trail easement at end (Necessary to construct east canyon trail; 87-88
of Edmonds Road ,SFWD has yet to respond to request ;
5 Layout east canyon trail Pending SFWD easement 500 ; ; 10-87
6 Investigate Cal Trans access ;Federal legislation will be required, ; 1000 88-89
at Park 8 Ride and Vista Point ;Cal Trans to outline proceedure ;
7 Investigate local neighborhood ;Potential access at Bow Drive, Brittan ; ; Ongoing
access !Ave. and Beneditti subdivision
8 Monitor Beneditti subdivision ;Planning Commission has denied,aoolicant; ; ; Ongoing
;has appealed to Council
_ _ _ - ;
- - - - - - - - - - - - Anticipated New or Revised Recommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
9 Plan trails to proposed access ;Pending obtaining necessary easements ; ; Ongoing
points and Edgewood Park
10 Disposition of lower buildings ;No forseeable uses, should be removed 750 88-89
;demolitions plans to be prepared
11 Prepare resource management ;Pending District resource management 88-9
plan ;policies, focus on fire suppression ;
12 Redesign water system ;Plan to reactivate fire hydrants ; 500 ; ; 87-88
13 Evaluate Native Plant Society :Reviewing alternative proposals for ; Ongoing
proposals ;proposed Edgewood Park golf course
14 Layout west canyon trail ;Work with Cordilleras Hospital ; ; 500 ; 88-89
----------- ----------- -----------
Subtotal 25000 1000 2250
Capital Improvements
1 Construct canyon parking area ;Not recommended due to potential impacts; 2500 ; ; Dropped
2 Construct east canyon trail ;Pending securing SFWD easement ; 3500 ; 3000 ; ; 06-88
3 Install trail/regulatory signs ;Incorporated in recommendations below B00 400 ; ; 87-58
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AnticipatedNeworRevisedRecommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
4 Construct Edmonds Road entry ;Compacted baserock, bridge, drainage ; ; 12000 ; ; 87-88
trail improvements
5 Construct Edmonds Road entry ;Coated chainlink entry and split rail 1 7500 ; ; 87-88
fence and gate improvements
6 Install Edmonds Road entry ,Use of easement, private property, entry; 1100 ; ; 87-88
sign improvements ;regulations
. 7 2.nn.4.nli F,.s.t .{i n...wa•i...w...S ....+.w..,Tk..,...�.5....,.i _:a. t 1 cnn n� n.e
�I I
1
R-87-127 Page five
H. Site Dedication Status
The entire 293 acre preserve was dedicated as public open
space.
I. CEQA Compliance
The 7
ro 'ects contained herein are determined to be
projects
categorically exempt under the California Environmental
Quality Act guidelines.
i
k
f
I
i
i
i
a
i
1
R-87-127 Page four
New or Revised Use and Management Recommendations
1 . A resource management plan will be prepared for the
site, emphasizing fuel reduction, fire suppression, and
native plant enhancement.
2. Prior to completion of the resource management plan,
steps will be taken to reduce the number of invasive
plants. An attempt will be made to coordinate
volunteers to assist with this task.
3. General site clean-up of remaining debris will be
accomplished in conjunction with other related
projects, such as fence removal or invasive plant
control.
E. Special Activities
Consideration will be given to permitting dogs on a portion
of the Preserve. The middle ridge appears to be an
appropriate area to allow this use because it has been
highly disturbed. The canyons are less appropriate because
they provide valuable wildlife habitat, which should be
protected as much as possible. The California Rescue Dog
Association (CARDA) has used the site as a training
facility.
New and Revised Use and Management Recommendations
1. It is recommended that the Board' s Dog Use Committee
evaluate this Preserve for possible incorporation into
any proposed program allowing dog use.
F. Visitor and Site Protection
Currently, the Ranger staff patrols the Preserve about two
or three times a week. It will be necessary to increase the
frequency of patrol as the access is improved and use
intensifies. The area adjacent to the Vista Point will
require more patrol than the remaining portion of the
Preserve because of existing illegal and undesirable
activities. These activities may increase when the Vista
Point fence is removed and the area is more accessible;
however, it is anticipated that responsible, legal uses will
also increase.
G. Site Naming
The site name being recommended by staff for Board
consideration is Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. The
Preserve is located along historic Pulgas Ridge and the
Pulgas Tunnel bisects the site in the northeast corner.
The word Pulgas means fleas, which were abundant in this
area, and was the name given to one of the largest original
ranchos in California. It encompassed an area from San
Mateo Creek to San Francisquito Creek and extended from the
Bay to Skyline Ridge. Geographical names are consistent
with the District' s Site Naming Policy.
R-87-127 Page three
retain these structures. As the use of the Preserve
increases , these vacant buildings will become an attractive
nuisance and be subject to vandalism. The facility,
including the perimeter chain link fence, should be removed.
New or Revised Use and Management Recommendations
1. The water system should be repaired so the water
storage tank can be kept full and the fire hydrants
charged for immemdiate use.
2. The buildings which were once part of the sewage
treatment plant for the Hassler facility should be
removed. In addition, the above ground portion of the
filled-in evaporation pit and the perimeter fencing
should be removed. The area should be restored to a
natural condition.
3. Interior wire fencing located in the east canyon and
the middle ridge will be removed.
4. The pavement on the upper portion of the patrol road is
deteriorating and will be removed. The road will be
maintained with gravel for patrol and trail use.
5. The District' s chain link fence surrounding the Vista
Point will be removed.
C. Site Brochure
A brochure will be designed to assist visitors in accessing
the site. Special care will be taken to explain the current
parking and easement situation on Edmonds Road.
New and Revised Use and Management Recommendations
1. An 8-1/2 x 11 folded site brochure will be prepared for
the Preserve. The brochure will include a map and use
regulations.
D. Natural Resource Management
The vegetation on the site varies from chaparral and
oak/riparian woodland in and around the canyons to exotic
and invasive landscaping on the middle ridge. The northeast
corner of the property, below the Brittan Heights
neighborhood, is largely comprised of chaparral. This
presents a potential fire hazard to a densely populated
area. Therefore, the Preserve will receive priority
consideration in the anticipated development of site
resource management plans . This resource management plan
will emphasize fire suppression, but will also deal with
issues concerning removal of exotic and invasive plants and
the retention of grassland ridges. Preliminary plans have
been prepared for vegetation management of the middle ridge
and will be incorporated into the resource management plan.
R-87-12 7 Page two
explain the nature of the easement and direct visitors
to the Preserve boundary.
2. Signs will be placed along the edge of the proposed
Edmonds Road easement trail to discourage trespassing
onto lands of San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) and
the Redwood Center.
3. As proposed in the access and circulation element,
trail directional signs will be placed where necessary
to define the entire trail system.
4. Boundary signs will be placed where appropriate to
discourage trespassing onto adjacent private lands.
Particular attention will be given to protecting the
privacy of the Redwood Center and Cordelleras Hospital.
5. An interpretive sign will be installed in the vicinity
of the former Hassler hospital complex to explain the
past and proposed future uses of the site.
6. Regulatory signs (20" x 24") will be placed at the
Preserve ' s west boundary near the hairpin turn on the
Edmonds Road easement and near the Vista Point parking
area.
B. Structures and Improvements
The existing water system on the Preserve is comprised of a
pump station located in the valley near the west entrance;
underground water lines leading to a hilltop storage tank;
and a number of fire hydrants in the area of the middle
ridge. Staff has attempted to maintain this system to
enhance the District's ability to suppress a wildland fire
if one were to occur near the middle ridge. Unfortunately,
the complex pumping system has broken down, and preliminary
estimates indicate repairs may run as high as $7500.
A portion of the upper water line may need replacement.
Damage may have occurred during removal of the underground
gas tanks at the time of building demolition. A few
hydrants have been removed after being identified as
unnecessary because of the inordinate number of hydrants
remaining on the site. In an effort to enhance our working
relationships with the San Francisco Water Department, the
removed surplus hydrants were given to SFWD for placement
along the Sawyer Camp Trail on San Mateo County Park lands .
Remains of a sewage treatment plant are located near the
southeast boundary of the Preserve. The facility is
comprised of three small buildings and a filled-in
evaporation pit. The buildings were excluded from the
initial demolition to allow for their possible use as
recreation facilities. Since the proposed plan is for low-
intensity recreation, there appears to be no reason to
}
}
t
SMWM I.M.
r
SAVE WETLANDS
IN M AYH E WS
The Mayhew' s Landing area of Newark
is unique.
Adjacent to the San Francisco Bay
National Wildlife Refuge, Mayhew' s
Landing is prime wildlife habitat
t that is now rare in the Bay Area,
and some of the last remaining open
space in Newark.
It contains saltwater marshes,
seasonal wetlands, and grasslands that
provide food and breeding grounds for
more than 100 species of birds and
! animals, including endangered species.
SWIM is a citizens group dedicated to
protecting the Mayhew' s Landing area.
Our goal:
to preserve this prime area of open
space and seasonal wetland for
recreation and wildlife
We believe it should be a part of the
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
Refuge so it can be enjoyed and
appreciated by all.
� 1
MAYHEW' S LANDING IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR
QUALITY OF LIFE:
• Adjacent to the Refuge, it is a buffer
against urban sprawl and provides
essential open space.
• It protects us through flood control,
groundwater recharge, and saltwater
intrusion control.
• Like all wetlands, it filters
pollutants from urban areas to keep
them out of the Bay.
• It is a feeding and breeding ground
for migratory shore birds and
waterfowl. Over 100 species of birds
and animals, including the endangered
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, live there.
Without wetlands like Mayhew' s, they
cannot survive.
MAYHEW' S PAST: =_
• Ohlone Indians used the land for
thousands of years. Three Indian
mounds have been discovered there.
• Early Spanish and American explorers
marveled at the abundant wildlife,
much of which, like tule elk and bears,
is gone_
• In the early 1900 ' s Mayhew' s Landing
was agricultural. Barges travelled
its sloughs. In the 1950 ' s, it was
developed into the Silver Pines Golf
Course, abandoned in the late 1970 ' s.
• With urban development throughout the
South Bay, this area is one of the few
seasonal wetlands that remain.
WETL DS OUTSIDE THE REFUGE
ARE VULNERABLE TO DEVELOPMENT
4 UUYOTE
! W
84 o� A
\ A
HILLS c�g9r�via
/ a
PW
�,Ae ea
REGIONAL+ ..1//�i.. = r yT %
a tf'
• _ 9n �aMt1aGE
PARKA
TOLL PLAZA,
a IDGEPOINTE y S
st
1 0 PARX
SAN fRANCISCO \ J�- `'Tc`iQ `' C7
r 8AY NA77ONAL
NOLDUfE-REFUGE
VISITOR CENTEROF
` ry
�p�NGPp
E
1j j• � .�t,Ew Q�o�
� G
N»
�\ JMEDt„E`tEa
f u.S.a.
TREATMENT
q ANT
Refuge lands are acquired through negotiated
purchases, gifts or donations .
■ Habitat Types:
Meadow Wetland
Salt Marsh
Grassland
4
■ Wildlife Species:
Waterfowl--12
Shorebirds--11
Waterbirds--13
j Birds of prey--11 ;
Other birds--38
Mammals and other vertebrates--10
x
CONDOMINIUMS OR OPEN SPACE? {'
1
For Mayhew' s Landing, the Newark General
Plan shows 880 CONDOMINIUMS and a 9-HOLE
GOLF COURSE. This development would
totally DESTROY THE LAND FOR WILDLIFE
and GREATLY BURDEN THE COMMUNITY:
• Traffic and noise on neighboring roads f
will greatly increase. The quality of
life will decrease.
• To control saltwater intrusion, the
developer will remove the natural j
soil, replacing it with impermeable
materials and new soil. An extensive
drainage system will be installed.
• Construction will continue for five
years. The Environmental Impact
Report states that up to 34, 500 truck
loads of fill dirt will be required
and dust will greatly increase.
• Its seismic instability increases
risks to new residents and costs of
maintaining roads and sewers.
• City services (police, fire, schools,
waste disposal) will be strained by
the large numbers of new residents.
f
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT YOU?
. r
il
1
y7
1
YES, I want to see the Mayhew' s Landing area preserved and made part
of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
I will help with my time.
I will help with my money ( $ ) .
Name: Phone•
Address •
Tax-deductible contributions to assist with saving the Mayhew' s
Landing area will be accepted by the Peninsula Conservation Center
Foundation. Make checks payable to: PCCF Refuge Fund (SWIM) ,
36493 Bridgepointe, Newark, California 94560 .
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT
SWIM
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ?
F
f
We want to keep the Mayhew' s Landing
area NATURAL:
• It would provide us and our children
with opportunities to interact with a
beautiful and special natural area.
• It would provide opportunities for
hiking, exploration, photography,
solitude, and other outdoor activities,
and will increase environmental
awareness and education.
• It would be Newark' s only natural
park, a statement that Newark is
committed to the quality of life in
the South Bay.
• It would preserve feeding and breeding
grounds for birds and animals. It is
nearly essential to the survival of
the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse, a gentle animal that lives only
in salt marshes.
• As part of the Refuge, it would be
protected and maintained by the U.S
Fish and Wildlife Service.
WE WANT, TO PRESERVE THIS UNIQUE RESOURCE .,
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO ENJOY!
If you want to help us preserve
the Mayhew' s Landing area, please write
or call: t
Save Wetlands in Mayhews
36493 Bridgepointe
Newark, California 94560
( 415 ) 790-2250
1
1
R-87-12 7
(Meeting 87-19
t* August 12, 1987)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
August 6 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager;
D. Woods, Principal Open Space
Planner; C. Bruins,
Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Continuation of Comprehensive Use and Management Plan
for the Hassler Open Space Preserve
Recommendation: I recommend that you tentatively adopt the
remaining elements of the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan
for the Hassler Open Space Preserve as contained in this report,
including changing the name of the site to the Pulgas Ridge Open
Space Preserve.
Introduction: The access and circulation elements of the
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for the Hassler Open Space
Preserve were presented to you and tentatively adopted at your
meeting of July 22, 1987 (see attached report R-87-121 dated July
17 , 1987) . This report includes the remaining elements of the
Plan: signing; structures and improvements; site brochure;
natural resource management; special activities; visitor and site
protection; site naming; dedication status; and CEQA compliance.
If these elements are tentatively adopted at your August 12
meeting, they will be combined with the access and circulation
elements and the entire plan will be presented for final
consideration at your August 26 meeting. A summary chart
outlining all the use and management recommendations, including
projected costs and scheduling, is attached as Exhibit A.
A. Signing
The signing program will be designed to increase the
visibility of the Preserve and provide visitors with
information. Special attention will be given to directing
visitors through the Edmonds Road easement area. Plans for
the improvements in this area were exhibited at your
previous meeting.
New or revised use and management recommendations
1. An entry sign will be placed at the beginning of the
District' s easement on Edmonds Road. The sign will
R-87-121
(Meeting 87-17
IR
-All July 22 , 1987)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
July 17 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager;
D. Woods , Principal Open Space Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for the Hassler
Open Space Preserve
Recommendation : I recommend that you tentatively adopt the access and
circulation elements of the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan as con-
tained in this report.
Introduction: " The" '-pres7entation to the Board of the Hassler Open Space Pre-
serve Comprehensive Use and Management Plan has been delayed for three months !
compared with your most recently adopted target review schedule due to other
more pressing planning work priorities. This is not to imply, however, that
implementation of elements of the preliminary Plan (see memorandum M-85--168 1
November 20'--1985) has been on hold. Those -items having to do'-with -site - --
-3tection and improving public access to the site have been proceeding.
This report covers only the access and circulation elements of the compre-
hensive plan, generally in outline form. However, Director Bishop and I
felt that the Board should not delay further the review for this site. Plan
elements not covered in this report include signing, site brochure or maps,
structures and other improvements , natural resources , site naming, and the
financial summary sheet. These items will be covered at your first meeting
in August.
Site Planning History
A. The site was acquired May 11 , 1983 at which time you tentatively adopted
a Preliminary Use and Management Plan (see report R-83-17 dated May 6 ,
1983) .
B. Following further investigations of alternative proposals for use of the
structures, the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was adopted on
July 23, 1983 (see report R-83-33 , dated July 21, 1983) .
C. Demolition was completed in August 1985 and revegetation was done in
November 1985.
D. On December 11 , 1985 , the Board discussed and adopted a planning process
for the site which included the possible formation of an advisory com-
mittee in a second phase of planning after a first phase which included
the basic access improvements (see memorandum M-85-168 , dated Novem-
ber 20 , 1985) .
E. A public workshop was held on site on September 9 , 1986 to solicit
input into the planning process.
R-87-121 Page Two
Site Description and Use
A. The Preserve. encompasses 293 acres.
B. It is bounded on the west by Interstate Highway 280 and on the south-
ease by Edgewood Road.
C. The Brittan Heights subdivision is adjacent to the east, and private
undeveloped property lies to the northwest.
D. San Francisco watershed lands are to the west and San Mateo County 's
Edgewood Park to the south.
�f E. Two public health facilities border the site : The City of San Fran-
cisco's Redwood Center and San Mateo County 's Cordilleras Center.
F. The Preserve is divided by two canyons that converge near Edmonds Road.
G. Vegetation is largely chaparral and oak woodland, with riparian plant
communities in the canyons and exotic species around the former Health
Home site.
H. The open grassland meadow in the center of the site is the dominant
feature, offering panoramic views of the Bay.
I. Use to date has been confined mostly to neighborhood use for hiking and
bicycling, but has been increasing steadily.
Thi�- 6� roadside--parking--available-along :Edmonds-Road-, and- the
- - can be accessed via an easement over San Francisco Water Department
lands. SamTrans bus service is also available to Edmonds Road.
K. Current signing and fencing on the San Francisco land at the Redwood
Center at the Edmonds Road entrance has not been inviting to the public.
On occasion, visitors have been asked to leave the easement area by San
Francisco Water Department rangers. This problem seems to have subsided.
Planning Considerations
A. The Preserve is in unincorporated San Mateo County and the Sphere of
Influence of City of San Carlos.
B. Local residents of Brittan Heights have assisted in the acquisition of
the Preserve through the formation of an assessment district.
C. Access and trails planning will involve cooperation of San Francisco
Water Department, CalTrans , San Mateo County, and the City of San Carlos.
�I 1. The District holds easement on the main road extending from Edmonds
Road and into the Preserve. Areas surrounding the easement are
under jurisdiction of the City of San Francisco and house the Red-
wood Center, an alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility, and var-
ious pumping facilities for the Hetch Hetchy waterway.
2 . Potential access and trail connections along the westerly side of
the site are under the jurisdiction of CalTrans and the City and
County of San Francisco.
3 . Local neighborhood access is desired and may be achieved through
efforts of the Brittan Heights Homeowners Association and City of
San Carlos.
III 4 . When aligning proposed trails , consideration must be given to other
adjacent land uses , particularly the Cordilleras Center and the
Redwood Center.
S
R-87-121 Page Four
Access and Circulation
A. Access remains the major issue for long term planning and development,
as the preferred access points all have their limitations which are
described below.
1. CalTrans ' position regarding access from the Interstate 280 Vista
Point is that it will require federal legislation. We can remove
our fence but CalTrans will most likely reinstall their own.
2. Access from the Edgewood Road Park and Ride lot also requires
federal legislation, according to CalTrans, plus an easement across
San Francisco watershed lands. It is the ideal access because
Preserve users would utilize the lot mostly on weekends when it is
not used by commuters and it is the closest and easiest crossing
to Edgewood County Park as well.
3 . Neighborhood access would be most desirable off Brittan Avenue
through a common open space area owned by the Brittan Heights
Condominium Association. This location would provide streetside
parking without negatively impacting the neighborhood.
4 . Other neighborhood access could be achieved at Bow Drive involving
--- ----- ,-- ,- --..- pedestrian easements across lands owned by City of San Carlos and
fan Francisco. Access here is not as desirable because parking _
very limited, and access is extremely close to residences.
5. The Benedetti Subdivision may eventually provide some parking and
access. The seven lot subdivision on the easterly portion of
this property has a provision for trail easements. It is anticipated ,
that access and parking here will be focused on neighborhood use.
6 . Staff has been working with the San Francisco Water Department and
Redwood Center in developing an acceptable plan for Edmonds Road
access. The Water Department has concerns that focus on trespass
and protection of the Hetch Hetchy water line and pumping facilities.
The Redwood Center wants clear separation of the public corridor
and their facility to protect their privacy. A design of public
access has been prepared and submitted to both agencies. This
will be available for your review at your July 22 meeting. Modi-
fications have been made based on comments from the Redwood Center.
Comments from the San Francisco Water Department have yet to be
received.
B. Staff has investigated trail alignments that provide for both the
enjoyment of the Preserve and regional connections to existing and
future trails on adjacent public lands.
1. The interior trails will extend up both canyons and the middle
ridge, having connections to the proposed parking and access
points . Easements will have to be obtained to extend trails
eventually to the Edgewood Road Park and Ride lot, Bow Drive,
Brittan Avenue, and the Benedetti Subdivision.
2 . A more immediate concern is obtaining an easement over a 50 foot
section of roadway between the existing Edmonds entry road and
the east canyon. A formal request for the easement has been made
to the San Francisco Water Department some months ago. The
District' s last communication to the Water Department indicated our
intention to proceed with the development of this trail , as there
had been no response, and no objection has been registered.
R-87-121 Page Three
5. The adjacent Benedetti Subdivision may yield an opportunity to pro-
vide neighborhood access and parking. We will continue to work with
the City of San Carlos. The northeast portion of this property has
recently received approvals for a seven lot subdivision with provi-
sions for trail access from the public street to the District 's land.
A 74 lot subdivision plan for the remaining ridgetop property has now
been submitted to the City of San Carlos and is currently under re-
view by the Planning Commission. The District staff has met with
the developer to discuss potential trail access and open space dedi-
cation, and environmental impacts that the project will have on the
Preserve. Staff will be monitoring the review process and commenting
on the EIR and plan.
D. The public workshop on September 9, 1986 indicated strong support
for development of low intensity (as opposed to intensive) recreation.
Interests focused on:
1. Providing parking and access trails at the Edgewood Road Park and
Ride lot, Interstate 280 Vista Point, Edmonds Road and Brittan
Heights.
2 . Developing a circulating trail system.
3. Regional trail connections to Edgewood County Park and potential
trails within San Francisco watershed lands.
'&Ve' 7rl-use-' by' bi'c'y'cles,' horses, an ogs.
4 ., concern " d d �
5. Removal of exotic plants and planting of native plants.
6. Keeping parking out of the east canyon and developing a fuel
management program for that area to reduce potential fire- hazards-
below Brittan Heights.
E. The two-phase planning process for the site, adopted in December 1985,
outlined a number of planning and improvement projects designed to
If accelerate public access of the site. Phase I projects, which were
originally intended to be completed prior to preparation of the
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan, included developing the Edmonds
Road and Vista Point access, installing various signs to increase
visibility and enhance circulation, exploring other potential parking
area sites, constructing a trail in the east canyon, and holding a
public workshop. Potential elements of Phase II included the possible
formation of a Public Advisory Committee, hiring of a planning con-
sultant, construction of a west ridge trail along Interstate 280 and
the west canyon, additional parking, a site brochure, appropriate
site naming, and a public workshop.
Generally speaking, the access improvements in Phase I have been
delayed to continue discussions and seek the necessary supports and/or
approvals from the San Francisco Water Department, Redwood Center,
and CalTrans. The Phase I public workshop was held, and testimony
indicated a strong interest in developing low intensity recreation
limited to perimeter parking and an interior trail system. In con-
sidering this level of development, it would appear unnecessary at
this time to form a Public Advisory Committee which was a conceptual
consideration in Phase II . Most other elements of both preliminary
phases are being integrated into the Comprehensive Use and Management
Plan.
A �
� t
I
Citizens for Open Space
in Alvarado
A unique 900-acre "island of wildness" borders the
Bay in the Alvarado District of Union City. Called
the "511 Area," it harbors an astonishing variety of
wildlife: deer, foxes, muskrats, birds and
waterfowl, rabbits, owls, hawks, and eagles. It is
one of the last prime habitats for Peregrine Falcons
I
remaining in the South Bay Area.
This priceless treasure is scheduled to be
developed. Union City's plans call for "upscale
houses" along Union City Boulevard, adjacent to an
existing sewage treatment plant and sanitary
landfill.
Won't you help us save this land?
Citizens for Open Space in Alvarado
4626 Korbel Street, Union City, CA 94587
1
.nique Open Space Opportu,..,ies
11
µ Wetlands and open space are critical for the Bay's U
native wildlife. Since 85 percent of the Bay's once (Z 0-
extensive wetlands have been developed, U) . .
remaining wetlands in the 511 Area are more U
valuable now than ever. Wetlands are critical for CL co
people, too, for they improve our air and water a 0-M LO
quality, protect us from flooding, and provide us cZ rn
Road with endless enjoyment of the wildlife we find there. o T U-
U
I Alvarado-Niles ... -0�C
� C U
Sew
Tr atn ent S �o We Should Not Develop the 511 Area! 3 E a 0 C)
Plant _ See -� (Z U O
- COSA, a local citizens group, believes that open U CZ
space is best for the 511 Area because: `° �; T
c q Fi C }:
-.� "'t+•'f ��daoA �' Residential use is hazardous. Natural and man-made coi — o U)_
hazards pose significant threats to people who would live N 0
there--flooding, earthquakes, liquefaction of bay mud, �.
,-.�•"t W. _ e` Wetlands L_ E .o 0
- :a� _`.•�' o� deadly chlorine gas, explosive methane, and toxic gases m o O
LL
.'" 4- `4El Riparian Corridor from the landfill. y E co
N
y`Landfill^ O (n C-0
Channels Our schools can barely meet the demands from existing M o O `t
residents. New children from the 511 Area will surpass Q CD U U (n
Q
CD
City Boundary Q a-----
- i �� our schools' capacities. r �, o -0 �-a p
as �c ry t �0C U
LL
Development will not pay for itself without high densities. a) CL — — -0 Z o
half-Porids - \10 °� We do not need more high density housing, nor should N a) m �
;�• G°�` other residents have to subsidize it. a) L 0 X `�
od ,r Development would increase traffic congestion on
a
N already overcrowded streets, magnifying noise and air
' eK pollution.
ice
Alameda rt These lands are a rare natural treasure for Union City--
their value as open space and wildlife habitat will improve
everyone's quality of life.
Union City's 511 Area Join us today--find out how you can help us = ---
protect the 511 Area! }' 1
COSA Coordinator:
Martha K. Esserlieu (415) 487-1282
4626 Korbel St., Union City, CA 94587 Brochure production assisted by a grant from People for Open Space and the
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge. Wildlife illustrations by Wally Peters.
� n
N N:
The 511 Area: Yesterday and Today
Cn0 : �,►'� The Alvarado marshes once were among the Bay's
�; t primary waterbird habitats. Flooded every year,
a CD
the marshes provided spring nesting sites for
CD �
ducks, geese, and shorebirds--even for whistling
swans, trumpeter swans, and brants. Overtime,
s CD development encroached on these lands.
DCompletion of the Alameda Creek Flood Control
< Channel dried up much of the land. Without
marshes to provide food and cover, most
C waterbirds disappeared from Alvarado.
(00
V Today, the Alvarado lands consist of seasonal
wetlands (filled by winter rains and dry in summer),
uplands, meadows, a creek, and duck ponds.
These habitats still support a tremendous variety of
wildlife: foxes, birds, muskrats, raccoons, deer,
Citizens for Open Space and endangered species like the salt marsh
p P harvest mouse. Seals can be found in the Flood
in Alvarado Control Channel. Ground squirrels, mice,
cottontails, and jackrabbits attract numerous
raptors. Black-shouldered Kites, Burrowing Owls,
Harriers, Short-eared Owls, and Kestrels nest and
A unique 900-acre "island of wildness" borders the live here all year. Great Horned Owls, Barn Owls,
Bay in the Alvarado District of Union City. Called and Rough-legged Hawks hunt here. Birds that
the "511 Area," it harbors an astonishing variety of winter here include Peregrine Falcons, Prairie
Falcons, Merlins, Golden Eagles, Cooper's Hawks,
wildlife: deer, foxes, muskrats, birds and Sharp-shinned Hawks, and Red-tailed Hawks.
waterfowl, rabbits, owls, hawks, and eagles. It is
one of the last prime habitats for Peregrine Falcons
The 511 Area Tomorrow
remaining in the South Bay Area.
What is the future of the 511 Area? Will it remain
This priceless treasure is scheduled to be open space, where we can experience the open
developed. Union City's plans call for "upscale land, sky, bay waters, and wildlife? Will Union City
houses" alongUnion City Boulevard, adjacent to an have the wisdom to preserve its unique natural
y resources?
existing sewage treatment plant and sanitary
landfill. Or will developers build houses? More housing
causing more traffic? Increased air pollution?
Won't you help us save this land? Higher taxes? More pressures on our already
over-burdened schools?
5
I Marsh
Levee Seasonal Wetland Upland
.s of the Bay's Edge
LAST MARSHLANDS (CALM)
CALM works--
* We believe that transferring ownership of our remaining
wetlands to public management, such as the San Francisco
Bay National Wildlife Refuge,best assures their permanent
protection.
We strive to improve the quality of life for San Francisco Bay
people and wildlife.
CALM has joined with numerous other local and regional
organizations in the Citizens Committee to Complete the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The Committee
promotes protection of wetlands and marshlands through
publicity, education,legislation, politics, and legal action.
WON'T YOU JOIN US? WE NEED YOU.
YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
North CALM (San Leandro North):
Barry Margesson (415)482-2997
3884 Whittle Ave., Oakland, CA 94602
South CALM (Hayward area):
Pat Stuart (415)582-0926
457 Smalley, Hayward,CA 94541
{
I
4
' I
{
i
( I
s
CITIZENS FOR ALAMEDA'S LAST
MARSHLANDS (CALM)
Wetlands and marshlands keep San Francisco Bay
healthy. Wetlands and marshlands are a giant
nursery for birds, plants, and fish. They stabilize
shorelines, prevent salt intrusion, reduce silting,
and recharge groundwater. Wetlands and j
marshlands provide opportunities for hiking,
solitude, exploration, photography, and
birdwatching.
Of the Bay Area's 200,000 acres of original
wetlands and marshlands, few remain--about
37,000. Most all of central and northern Alameda
County's wetlands are gone, filled and developed.
The Citizens for Alameda's Last Marshlands
(CALM) are working to protect the last few
wetlands and marshlands in our county.
Yes, I want to help preserve Alameda County's wetlands for
open space and wildlife.
_ I will help with my time.
I will help with a contribution($ )
Name:
Address:
Phone(s):
Tax deductible contributions will be accepted by the Peninsula Conservation
Center Foundation. Make checks payable to: PCCF Refuge--CALM.
Send to: CALM, 3884 Whittle Ave., Oakland, California 94602 �''
4/87
Citizens For Alameda's Last Marshlands
3884 Whittle Ave., Oakland, CA 94602
s� _T411.
Bay Tidal Zone Tidal Marsh Non-tia,.
Plant Communiti
CITIZENS FOR ALAMEDA'S
CALM educates--
# Members lead marshland tours for the public,informing
schools and local voter groups about the importance of
wetlands and threats to their existence.
* We compile data on the values of existing wetlands,
documenting species and the value of this special resource.
* Volunteers help clean up wetlands and marshes, turning
litterscapes into productive wildlife habitats.
CALM protects--
*1 Members act as watchdogs for wetland areas,guarding
against and quickly responding to illegal filling,grading,
draining, oil spills,and toxins. We urge Federal, State, and
local agencies to prosecute violators of wetlands laws.
* At city councils,planning commissions, and local,State, and
Federal resource agencies, we advise on plans and propose
alternatives to better protect our natural resources.
* We challenge proposed wetland development legally when all
other alternatives have failed.
1
Oakland
Wetlands remaining
• Wetlands lost
San Leandro
San Francisco Bay
Hayward
Remainin Wetlands of Northern
Aameda County
These last remaining wetlands and marshlands of Alameda
County, if they are designated for wildlife habitat and for
open space, will help maintain the quality of life we all
cherish here in the Bay Area. With increasing smog,noise
and traffic, and with the Bay Area's population projected to
grow by one million within the next two decades, such open
space will become increasingly precious.
These few last wetlands are being proposed for developments
ranging from industrial and commercial facilities to housing
to racetracks. We believe that they should be retained and
enhanced for wildlife and open space;for these uses they are
irreplaceable.
Brochure design assisted by a grant from People for Open Space/Greenbelt
Congress to the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge. Wildlife by
Wally Peters.
tiiIDPE.NINSLILA REGIONAL _ A(_- - 1Sif,`tl lx"
� , ..... Hassle- -)pen wpCace Prose.-
er
u �
411,
loo
V i d % �y t • �� _ 'try t� r' / j t Y
PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS
._.r /•: �. /' / F' �., Y # Ii ` >;. �, .per``... .', F
1 v 11 R:
,3
dop
�. / .;�`•"`~►' `-- ? ,may ..+ LAND3 ADJACENT TO ROAD
ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
ir, •_ _�� _ GnTE DO NO f TRESPASS.
'DSED PARKING'] �/•..Jl\ �<' f ''p -z ' PROPOSED
Y
' ^CCESS ,y� ��f �; ., NE I GHBOkrfoo
` e�"�-_'� r---%�� _ �� - a. ACCESS
NEW PARKING: ~ RD.
.����' AND ACCESS_
REDWOOD CENTER (PRIVATE)- }. CRESTVh
��.'c`3`l ROADjIDE
\�_ %•' - /. PULLOUT ,y
t EDGEWOOD RD.
PROPOSED PARKINGi X
,� '✓ WAND ACCESS f
EDGEWG(A) ,OUNTY PARK ,
_, , >� •`, `` . . yam .�=
'► `••� INITIAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENTac
-. �,'r =,
ANTICIPATED TRAIL DEVELOPMENT � .... x ,
R-87-1 21 Page Five
3. Future trail alignments may include a trail parallel to Interstate
280 north of the Vista Point and connecting to San Francisco
watershed land trail leading to Belmont.
4 . The only feasible connection to Edgewood County Park is at the
intersection of Interstate 280 and Edgewood where the installation
of a stop sign and cross walk would be necessary.
C. Use and Management Recommendations :
1. The following Phase I elements will be initially implemented.
a. Parking and access improvements will be provided at the
Edmonds Road entrance to the site. Plans include roadside
parking on Edmonds Road, new fencing and gating at the Edmonds
Road entrance to the easement (opposite the Redwood Center) ,
construction of a bypass trail parallel to the easement, and
appropriate fencing and gating.
b. The chainlink fence at the Vista Point will be removed, and
staff will pursue an agreement with CalTrans to establish
trail access improvements at this location.
C. A trail will be constructed in the east canyon using District,
..- --.-court--crew-.and,.volunteer--labor,.-to--form-d-loop trail-originating
from the Edmonds RoAdeasement, --extending up' the canyon and
connecting to the upper middle ridge. Construction would
occur in spring 1988 following completion of existing District
trail construction projects at Purisima Creek and a Trail
Center project at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve . Some
alignment planning and -brush clearance can begin this .-fall .
to allow limited access in this area.
2 . Major parking and access will be investigated at the Edgewood Road
Park and Ride lot. Staff will seek the necessary approvals and
easements to establish a stile and trail to connect the parking
area to the Preserve. A planning consultant may be hired to
assist staff in establishing this access .
3 . Neighborhood access will be sought at Bow Drive, Brittan Avenue
below the condominium complex, and the Benedetti Subdivision.
Staff will encourage the Homeowners Association, intervening
property owners and local jurisdictions to establish necessary
trail easements and to help build and maintain the trail access
points and alignments. Neighborhood trails will be left to
the responsibility of the neighbors and City of San Carlos; con-
necting trails on District land will be the District' s responsibility.
4 . It is anticipated that in the long term, trails will be developed
to connect to the proposed access points and through the west
canyon. These trails will be constructed as the necessary ease-
ments, permits and approvals can be obtained and as staffing and
budget priorities permit.
R-87-124
(Meeting 87-19
law August 12 , 1987
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
July 23 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: N. Hanko
SUBJECT: Response to Preservation 2020 Task Force Draft Recommendations
Dear Colleagues:
At your July 22 meeting we heard a presentation from Hugh Graham
of the Santa Clara County Planning staff about the Task Force
draft report (see report R-87-115 dated July 15, 1987) .
The Board voted to have staff work with me to draft a letter which
you would consider on August 12 as our response to Chairperson
McKenna' s invitation to comment. Attached is a draft response .
Please note that item six, which S feel is very important, does
pertain to an area outside the boundaries of Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space Preserve.
Attachment
i
I
1
i
I
R-87-126
(Meeting 87-19
OF August 12 , 1987)
KC
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
August 6 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: D. Hansen, Land Manager;
M. Gundert, Open Space Planner;
C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Final Adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for
the Trust for Hidden Villa Property Addition to the Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve - Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area
Recommendation: I recommend that you adopt the Preliminary Use and Manage-
ment Plan for the Trust for Hidden Villa property addition to the Rancho
San Antonio Open Space Preserve - Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area, as con-
tained in report R-87-119 . In addition, I recommend that you indicate your
intention to dedicate the interests in real property, with the exception of
the 20 acre holding to be reconveyed to Hidden Villa (Parcel B) .
Discussion: At your July 22, 1987 meeting, you approved the acquisition of
946 acres of land from the Trust for Hidden Villa, This is an addition to
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve - Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area
(see report R-87-119 of July 17 , 1987) . At that time, all interests in the
entire 946 acres were recommended for dedication as public open space . The
recommendation has been revised to exclude the twenty acres of land indi-
cated as Parcel B and containing Ewing Hill . At the end of three years ,
when the initial trail change is complete and this parcel is reconveyed to
the Trust for Hidden Villa, a wilderness area easement should be retained
by the District. It is recommended that you indicate your intention to
dedicate the easement interest at that time .
In accordance with your adopted Land Acquisition Notification Procedures ,
final adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was deferred
until after recordation to allow for public comment. Staff has received
no public comment. Recordation of the property interests for the District
occurred on July 24 , 1987 .
kY'bY
U
0
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
DIFCAFT
Dianne McKenna, Chairperson
Preservation 2020 Task Force
c/o Hugh Graham
Department of Planning
Santa Clara County
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Chairperson McKenna®
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District, I am pleased to respond to your invitation
t; comment on the Preservation 2020 Task Force draft report. We
heard a presentation by Hugh Graham at our July 22 Board Meeting,
and we finalized our comments at our August 12 meeting .
From an overall standpointwe are very supportive of the Task Force
reco:nmendations, which-, -if implemented, will preserve considerable
re-wining open space in Santa Clara County. In addition, we would
like to emphasize these further specific comments :
(1) We support the formation of a new district formed under
the same law that governs the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District,
Marin County Open Space District and the East Bay Regional
Park District, and that the highest priority should be
given to its formation.
(2) We suggest that if a public vote is needed for funding a
new agency, the implementation committee should consider
the possibility of including the electorate within the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, which has his-
torically been extremely supportive of parks and open
space and may help carry the vote, in the funding measure
with the proceeds of the new taxes generated within the
boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
going to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
(3) We feel strongly, based upon our experience in setting pri-
orities and acquiring land, that final adoption of ordi-
nances and subsequent implementation of a cluster for con-
tiguous properties or a transfer of development credits
program should be delayed until the new district 's board
of directors has established its own program and set its
own priorities for acquisition of property rights . In
this way potential conflicts between the new zoning incen-
tive techniques and the acquisition program will be mini-
mized.
Herten A- rerr%Gr*ral Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
page two
(4) We look forward to cooperating with the new district's
board of directors with special attention given to areas
in the mountains and baylands .wbere we will have a common
boundary.
(5) We strongly support protection of riparian corridors .
(6) We support protection of agriculture on the Valley Floor
to include acquisition with lease-back to farmers, land
banking if necessary, to protect remaining productive ag-
ricultural lands before they are lost for all time. Any
advisory agricultural commission should be composed of ad-
visors charged with protection of agricultural lands .
(7) Based upon our experience with the Peninsula Open Space
Trust, we encourage formation of a land trust to work with
landowners and developers to preserve open space.
(8) We feel that use of mitigation fees to mitigate adverse im-
pacts of some developments must be set up in such a way
that the program does not provide an excuse to develop
where development should not occur.
Thank you again for the invitation to comment . We offer our assis-
tance in helping the County and new district as we go toward the year
2020 .
Sincerely,
Richard .Bishop
President, Board of Directors
CC: MROSD Board of Directors
RB:ab
SAN WHY PROTECT OUR WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SAVE THESE
SOUTH BAY WETLANDS? WETLANDS--PLEASE JOIN US! j
FRANCISCO
Located at the bottom of one of the largest estuaries in the United
BAY States,San Francisco Bay,these wetlands and marshlands are
invaluable. Yes, I want to help protect the remaining South Bay
wetlands.
• These marshes provide habitat that is essential to thousands of
migratory and resident waterfowl. I will help with my time.
I will help with a contribution ($ )
■ Wetlands lost • By filtering water before it enters the Bay,marshes and
wetlands help preserve the Bay's water quality. Name:
Wetlands remaining
• The South Bay wetlands must be maintained to protect against Address:
flooding and prevent further land subsidence.
Sunnyvale
San Jose • Wetlands provide a necessary buffer between open water and
Santa Clara urban growth,acting as a greenbelt to improve the quality of Phone:
life for all residents,human and animal.
Tax deductible contributions will be accepted by
Wetlands Remaining in the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation.
the South San Francisco Bay ACTION! Make checks payable to: PCCF Refuge Fund (SOS
Save Our South Bay Wetlands is acting now to protect these lands Bay Wetlands).
Designating these last remaining wetlands and marshlands for from further loss. We work to: Send to: SOS Bay Wetlands
wildlife habitat and open space will help preserve the quality of Stopdegradation of the South Ba 's few remaining P.O. Box 315
life we cherish in the South Bay. The Bay Area's population is Y g A1viS0,California 95002
Y Pop � wetlands.
projected to grow by one million within the next two decades.
With increasing traffic congestion,smog and noise,open space Oppose projects which impact wetlands or threaten wildlife
will become increasingly precious. O habitat.
SOS Bay Wetlands believes that these lands should be retained Save vital wetlands by transferring wetlands and marshes r"+
and enhanced for wildlife and open space;for these uses they are S to public ownership,such as the San Francisco Bay National
irreplaceable. Wildlife Refuge. ~ s
SOS BAY WETLANDS COORDINATOR: SOS Bay Wetlands has joined with numerous other local and
Ginny Becchine (415)9684875 regional organizations as part of the Citizens Committee to
Complete the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The = J► '
Committee promotes protection of wetlands and marshlands -
through publicity,education,legislation,politics,and legal action,'"
Brochure production assisted by a grant from People for Open Space/Greenbelt and assists with purchasing land from willing sellers.
Congress to the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge. Wildlife illustrations
by Wally Peters. 'F
i k
SAVE OUR SOUTH bAY
o�
o WETLANDS
invites you to help us reserve the
y P P
few remaining South Bay wetlands.
U)
a�
110 PJ i
o �
o¢'
N�
WILDLIFE WORTH PROTECTING!
Endangered Species: Threatened Species:
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Salt Marsh Yellowthroat
Wetlands support teeming, abundant life. In South California Clapper Rail Long-billed Curlew
Bay wetlands, fish and shellfish find spawning Tri-colored Blackbird
grounds and ducks find cover and food for their
young. Waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway, the flight path Many Other Birds and Wildlife:
of millions of migrating birds, find wintering grounds
or a haven for feeding and resting before continuing Snowy Egret Marsh Wren Western Meadowlark
their journey. In adjacent seasonal wetlands, eagles, Great Egret Pied-billed Grebe Common Snipe
owls and hawks find prime hunting, while rabbits, Great Blue Heron Black-necked Stilt Red-winged Blackbird
foxes, raccoons, and other animals thrive within sight Black-crowned Night Heron Black-bellied Plover Yellow-rumped Warbler
and sound of busy highways and industrial parks. Sora Least Sandpiper Black Phoebe
Virginia Rail American Avocet Greater Yellowlegs
Of San Francisco Bays 200,000 acres of original
Common Moorhen Du-din Forster's Tern
wetlands,only 37,000 acres remain. Besides wildlife, Mallard Turkey Vulture Northern Mockingbird
Northern Pintail Red-tailed Hawk Water Pipit
these remaining wetlands and marshes are essential for Cinnamon Teal Northern Hamer Loggerhead Shrike
pollution control,flood control, groundwater recharge Gadwall Cooper's Hawk Burrowing Owl
``- and saltwater intrusion control. Man of these
y Northern Shoveler Sharp-shinned Hawk Jackrabbit
remaining wetland parcels are proposed for Killdeer Ring-necked Pheasant Cottontail Rabbit
development. SOS Bay Wetlands is acting to protect Willet White-crowned sparrow opossum
these wetlands and the quality of life they represent Swallows Golden Eagle Raccoon
�`'-� before they disappear. Song sparrow Black-shouldered Kite Muskrat
WHISTLING WINGS AND PINTAIL
ARE VITAL OPEN SPACE �irJ y
These wetlands, when added to the Refuge, would
become a part of the largest urban wildlife preserve in ,� 4
the United States--a haven not only for wildlife but open
space for ourselves. With the Bay Area's population
c
h
n within the next 20 projected to grow by one million o
years, this open space will help maintain the quality of
life we cherish, despite increasing smog, noise, and `
n �
traffic.
c J 't7 9 Z
CL
These wetlands will also provide opportunities for �,��°° :; n o a
hiking, photography, birdwatching, solitude and wild NEWARK P� FREMONT o C CD
beauty . . . and they will be tangible evidence of
sportsmen's continuing concern for preserving wildlife
habitat. _ - ° $1'
.. o
WHISTLING WINGS
HELP US ADD WHISTLING WINGS AND
PINTAIL WETLANDS TO THE SAN DUCK CLUB o I I w m
FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE o '
Losing these important wetlands is unacceptable and + - . n b b c, b •d o
0 CD
unnecessary. While working with the Citizens .�•" PINTAIL FARMS � `� z
Curfew Hunting . � � a� � rt � � � �
Committee to Complete the Refuge to ensure that these 1� DUCK CLUB .4 in,
r-
Lodge(Historical) ���� cn .� o
lands will be preserved, we need your help: • 5� . w n o
to persuade the present landowners of Whistling
Wings and Pintail wetlands to consider these lands' I . n P �.
unique qualities in determining their future; _ __ CD
___ CD as
to monitor responsible government agencies and
•`` / 0 ��
seek their assistance in protecting these wetlands; '`,• �c P 9V)
to educate Bay Area citizens about this critical nCL
problem; San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
to assist in raising funds should these lands ; °
become available for purchase. o
WHISTLING WINGS AND PINTAIL WETLANDS cn
YOUR HELP WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Whistling Wings/Pintail Coordinator:
Wally Peters (415) 796-0220
I
WHISTLING, ,INGS AND PINTAIL PROVIDE
o IRREPLACEABLE WILDLIFE HABITAT
d "
As San Francisco Bay was settled during the late
1800's, sportsmen soon realized that the South Bay
5 offered great hunting. A chain of 200 duck clubs--with
names like Bamboo, Bimbo, Del Monte, Whistling
o d - ' �. Wings, and Pintail--played a major role in preserving
�. ' -. the Bay's wetlands long before anyone talked about
c ia� t the environment."
As cities grew, most of the original 200,000 acres of
Bay's wetlands were filled and built upon. One by one,
=� the duck clubs closed. Today only 37,000 acres of
- —T wetlands remain and now they are threatened with
CD aj �r� development. In 1983, the owners of Pintail closed the
�_;. :j .
club to make way for development. In 1984, the lease
rn on Whistling Wings was terminated so that Valley
Enterprises could build another R&D park there.
This loss of habitat has led to a corresponding loss of
wildlife. In the 1800's, millions of ducks and geese
WHISTLING WINGS AND PINTAIL darkened South Bay skies; today only thousands
DUCK CLUB WETLANDS remain. In 1978, 6 million waterfowl wintered in all of
California; in 1985, only 2.1 million remained. About
These two historic duck clubs occupy 350 85%of the state's historic wetlands are gone forever--
acres of wetlands in the South San Francisco "developed." All of the remaining wetlands are vital to
Bay at the western end of Stevenson Blvd. on these birds as they nest and migrate along the Pacific
the Newark-Fremont boundary. These Flyway.
wetlands provide breeding grounds and
shelter for over 43 species of birds, including whistling Wings and Pintail are seasonal wetlands--
nine varieties of ducks such as Buffleheads, lands that are sometimes wet, sometimes dry. They are
Golden Eyes, and Pintails. vital to ducks'breeding success. They also provide
dependable habitat for other wildlife such as Cinnamon
Developers see this land as the future site of Teal, Western Sandpipers, Black-shouldered Kites, and
more industrial parks in an area where too the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.
many buildings now stand vacant. We see the
Whistling Wings and Pintail wetlands as
opportunities to protect irreplaceable wildlife _
habitat by adding them permanently to the
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
To make this dream a reality, we need your
help --- NOW!
i
R-87-129
VL (Meeting 87-19
August 12 , 1987)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
August 6, 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: Hosking Property Defeasance Payment - El Corte de Madera Creek
Open Space Preserve
Recommendation: I recommend that you approve the disbursement of the
defeasance payment of $332 , 500 in accordance with this report, as provided
in the Agreement for Transfer of Interests in Real Property between The
Alan Hosking Ranch, Inc. , as seller, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District , as buyer, dated October 22 , 1986 .
The reason for the defeasance payment is to keep the Agreement in full
force and effect, retain District ownership of the property subject to
defeasance, and extend the District "option" rights to acquire the
entirety of the property in the future. The District could also consider
acquiring the property at this time; however, it is financially
advantageous to extend this agreement rather than exercise full purchase
rights from a standpoint of both cash flow and District carrying costs .
Discussion: On October 22 , 1986 you approved the acquisition of
additional acreage and rights in the Hosking lands (see report R-86-97 ,
dated October 22, 1986) . As a part of that acquisition you also adopted
Resolution 86-61 approving and accepting the Agreement for Transfer of
Interests in Real Property, which governed the transfer of most of
Hosking' s land to the District subject to defeasance (the obligation to
redeed the property to Hosking in the event the District elects not to
make certain payments) . Section 4 of the Agreement specifically provides
for the following payments in order to keep the agreement in force:
a. $332, 500 on or before August 15, 1987 (less certain off-sets)
b. $332 , 500 on or before August 15, 1988
The payment due on August 15, 1987 is currently subject to the following
off-sets:
1 . The District settled the "tree cutting" incident for $10 , 000
which is to be deducted from this payment.
2. The purchase agreement allowed the District to withhold up to
$25, 000 if the "Corporation Yard" was not cleaned up by June 30 ,
1987 . This date was extended to July 30 , 1987 as a part of the
"tree cutting" settlement and has still not been completed. it
is staff ' s opinion that Mr. Hosking could complete the clean-up
R-87-129 Page two
more economically than the District. Therefore it is proposed
that the District withhold the $25, 000 and give Mr. Hosking
until August 31 , 1987 to complete the project. He has agreed to
this proposal .
3 . The District has received notice of levy from the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) in the amount of $204 , 550 . 52 and District
Legal Counsel has advised staff that the District is legally
required to pay this amount directly to the IRS . Mr. Hosking' s
attorney has agreed to this legal requirement.
4. A portion of the Hosking property is subject to notes secured by
Deeds of Trust referred to as the "Herzer Corporation
Obligation" in the Purchase Agreement. Under this Agreement the
District is allowed to cure any defaults in these notes from
any payments due to seller under any of the provisions of
this Agreement. " At the writing of this report, the amount to
cure this default is unknown; however, the current figures will
be available at the time of your meeting.
A recapitulation of the District' s obligation for this defeasance payment
is as follows :
Amount Owed $ 332, 500. 00
Less: tree cutting $ 10, 000. 00
clean-up fund 25.000.00
IRS lien 204 , 550. 52
TOTAL 239, 550. 52
Balance due to Hosking and Herzer* 192,949. 48
Proportionate share to be determined prior to August 12, 1987
An, ed 8/12/87
EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - HOSKING PROPERTY
Revised recapitulation of the District' s obligation for this defeasance
payment is as follows :
Amount Owed $332 , 500 .00
Less: tree cutting 10 ,000 ,00
clean-up fund 25, 000 .00
Herzer Corporation 259 , 468 .81
TOTAL 294 , 468 . 81
Balance due to IRS $ 38 , 031 . 19
EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - HOSKING PROPERTY
Revised recapitulation of the District' s obligation for this
defeasance payment is as follows :
Amount Owed $332,500. 00
Less : tree cutting $ 10,000. 00
clean-up fund $ 25,000 .00
IRS $204 ,550 52
Herzer Finan-
cial Services $ 41,552.63
TOTAL $281,103 . 15
Balance due to Hosking $ 51,396. 85
(Payable to Clifford Ross Chernick, Trustee)
R-87-128
(Meeting 87-19
• August 12 , 1987
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
August 6 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (Lands of
Slobe/Aries)
Recommendation: I recommend that you review the requirements of the
Conditional Use Permit proposed by the Town of Portola Valley for the 50
car public parking lot on the subject property. This material will not be
available until immediately prior to your meeting. This item is being
placed on the agenda for your information on the status of this very
important open space acquisition project; however, no specific action on
your part is required at this time.
Discussion: On July 22, 1987 you approved and accepted the Purchase and
Sale Agreement for the subject acquisition (see report R-87-122 , dated
July 17 , 1987) . That agreement listed several contingencies including the
requirement for a successful subdivision of the property into two parcels
(one to be retained by Slobe containing 20 acres and one to be conveyed to
the District containing approximately 429 acres) , and approval by the Town
of Portola Valley of a public 50-car parking lot for users of the District
Preserve.
Since that time, District staff has worked with Town staff and Hardesty
Associates , the District consultant, to complete the required process
prior to close of escrow on August 14 , 1987 . There was an initial Town
Council public hearing on July 22 , 1987 which was very positive and a Town
Planning Commission Hearing on August 5, 1987 which concentrated on
General Plan conformity issues . The final hearing will be a Town Council
Meeting to be held on August 12, 1987 at the same time as your meeting.
The main issue in the Town' s deliberations has centered around potential
public use of the property which in turn would affect the popularity of
the site and therefore the frequency of parking lot use . It is
anticipated that if the parking lot is approved by the Town Council , the
Conditional Use Permit issued will include requirements specifically
limiting District development of the property to public uses consistent
with the current Use and Management Plan for the balance of the Windy Hill
Open Space Preserve. District staff will be working with Town staff on
these recommendations, which probably will not be finalized until Monday
or Tuesday of next week. This material will be available in time for your
meeting and members of District staff will also be attending and
testifying at the Town Council Meeting.
Assuming that this matter is resolved satisfactorily and the parking lot
is finally approved by the Town and the other purchase contingencies are
met, escrow will close as planned on August 14 , 1987 . An Informational
Report on the outcome of the Town Council Meeting will be provided at your
meeting of August 26, 1987 if the Town Meeting does not end early enough
for me to report back to you as a part of this agenda item.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
August 5, 1987
Planning Commission
Town of Portola Valley
Town Hall
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94025
Subject: Proposed Addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
(Lands of Slobe/Aries)
Dear Commission Members:
Your Agenda tonight (Item 5) includes a public hearing on matters
related to the District' s proposed acquisition of the subject
property. We have had an opportunity to work closely with Town
Staff and have carefully reviewed the information and staff reports
� - that--are -before you tonight. This matter is also scheduled for
Town Council consideration, including your recommendations, on
August 12, 1987. Immediately following the deliberations by the
Town Council, the District Board of Directors will review the con-
ditions of the Slobe Subdivision proposal and parking lot Site
Development Permit before approving the closing of the transaction,
as currently scheduled for August 14 , 1987 .
In reference to the reports before you from the Town Planner, George
Mader, please additionally consider District thoughts and view-
points on several of these items as follows :
1. Cover Memo, dated July 31, 1987
A. Guarantee of Minor Collector. The District supports
including the suggested language in the Site Development
Permit for the parking area. The District is also willing
to withhold the area of this possible road area from open
space dedication at this time. Robert Slobe has concurred
with a modification to the Purchase Agreement allowing for
this change in the dedication status of the property.
B. CC&R' s. The District has accepted CC&R' s as a recorded
exception to the District' s title to real property on only
In all purchase contribu-
tions by the receiving groups were in excess of $1 ,000,000.
i
1
usrt,nn n Branch Genera(Mananer 6nard at Gfrectnrs,Katherine Duffw.Nanette G.Manko.Teens Renshaw Richard S Rishnn.Fdward G..Shelle+r_Ham A.Tuner.7anBl G.Wendrt.
Planning Commission
Town of Portola Valley
August 5, 1987
Page two
We feel that it is not in the best interests of the District
to accept such conditions nor does the subdivision and park--
ing lot permit request seem to warrant such an extraction.
The District to forward to working with the Town on the
development of a suitable comprehensive use and management
plan for the preserve and the Town can be assured that the
District will take every possible step to cooperate with
the Town on future proposals for the property.
It is our feeling that the proposed emergency amendment
to the Town zoning ordinance, requiring a conditional use
for the District's proposals,-would give the Town an
adequate and complete review privilege.
2. Tentative Subdivision Application Memo, X6D-155 , Slobe, dated
July 31 , 1987
A. Trails Committee. We support the recommendation that the
District will wank with the Town to develop a trails plan,
but we cannot make a specific plan commitment at this time.
B. Tentative -Subdivision Map. The District has agreed to
_utilize an acreage estimate of 23 acres for parcel 2 on
the tentative map; however, the final recorded map will
reflect an actual acreage calculation of 20 acres for
parcel 2. This will allow for minor boundary adjustments
as the geology and water sources for parcel 2 become better
understood.
3. Subdivision Committee Meeting Review of July 31 , 1987
A. Report of Trails Committee. A minor clarification is
necessary in the final statement of this section, as ' the
District cannot sell up to ten (10) acres per year but
can only trade up to ten (10) acres of dedicate property
per year, as ratified by a unanimous vote of the District's
Board of Directors in accordance with State law.
4. Site Development Permit Application Memo, X91H-242, MROSD
A. Town Engineers. if a power pole is required to be relo-
cated as a result of required improvements to Portola
Road, the District respectfully requests an exemption
from the requirement to underground these utility lines.
B. Trails Committee. The District will gladly relocate the
Portola Road equestrian trail as may be necessitated by
required improvements to Portola Road; however, to allow
the District trail relocation flexibility in the future,
Planning Commission
Town of Portola Valley
August 5, 1987
Page three
we prefer that it not be a requirement to provide the
Town with a trail easement. The District is in the
business of providing trails and the Town can be assured
that the District will continue to provide trail conti-
nuity in this area. In fact, this trail could possibly
tie into the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve trail system
in the proposed parking and staging area.
C. Town Planner. We concur that the collector road should
be labeled as "potential, " as it may never become necessary
to build such a road in the future.
D. Planning Commission Staff. We concur with the recommendation
that the Town consider undergrounding any relocated utili I ty
lines in the area of the Portola Road improvements contem-
plated as a part of this permit process.
5. Urgency Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Memo, dated July 31 , 1987
The District agrees that the measures recommended by the Town
Planner would give the Town many of the controls that are sought
over the District' s planning and open space use implementation
. -. , ,,process.- Other -jurisdictions, such as Palo Alto, have taken a
similar approach, which appear to adequately take the place
of the idea to impose recorded CC&Rls over the District lands .
This would be an acceptable alternative from the District' s
standpoint.
We are generally supportive of the recommendations made in the staff
report, except for some of the specific items addressed in this
letter. It is my hope that the cooperative spirit of this and pre-
vious cooperative projects have established a mutual respect and a
basis for a future working relationship. The District looks for-
ward to continued cooperative efforts to preserve the valuable open
space and recreation lands of this region.
Sin yl
L L. r g Britton
rittontton Assistant General Manager
CLB:cac
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
`Q\\`N.%
or
� elmu ti11 C
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
August 12 , 1987
Town Council
Town of Portola Valley
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94025
Subject: Proposed Addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
(Lands of Slobe/Aries)
Dear Council Members :
Tonight you will be deliberating over the requirements for a two-
lot subdivision of the subject 449 acre parcel (20 acres to
remain in private hands with the remaining 429 acres to become
public open space) . You will also be deciding whether you can
make the findings and approve the concept and preliminary
conditions of a Site Development Permit for a 50-car public
parking lot to serve the open space lands . District purchase of
this property, which is scheduled to close escrow on Friday,
August 14 , 1987 , is contingent, by contract, upon your approval
of these two critical planning elements . At your meeting and
public hearing of July 22 , 1987 , you tentatively approved the
concept of this transaction by unanimous vote. Since that time
there have been additional hearings and background material
presented that the District has considered in detail .
Accordingly, in order to assist you with your decision making
process , I have attached the following information for your
consideration:
1 . General Plan Consistency Findings as prepared by
Hardesty Associates for the District .
2 . Project Impact Comparison as prepared by Hardesty
Associates for the District.
3 . Traffic Impact Comparison as prepared by Hardesty
Associates for the District .
4 . Management and Patrol Summary for the Aries/Slobe
Acquisition as prepared by the District Operations
Supervisor.
i
5. Open Space Use and Management Planning Process ,
j District Board Policy as most recently amended on
f February 25, 1987 .
Herter,Grench,General Manager;Board of Directors:Katherine puffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andeen,Richard Bishop
August 12, 1987
Page 2
I think it is also important to note that Portola Valley' s
General Plan is almost singly devoted to enhancement of its rural
residential character and preservation of its regionally
significant open space lands , primarily in the western hillside
area. The District has already acquired and dedicated the
following open space lands within Portola Valley' s sphere:
Size Cost
Windy Hill Open Space Preserve 703 ac. $ 2. 9 million
Los Trancos Open Space Preserve 274 ac . . 8 million
Coal Creek Open Space Preserve 386 ac. 3. 5 million
Sub-Total 1363 ac. $ 7 . 2 million
Slobe/Aries (Proposed) 429 ac . $ 4 .7 million
Grant Total 1792 ac . $11 .9 million
The Town General Plan specifically addresses the importance of
the preservation of the visual integrity of Spring Ridge . The
District, unassisted, has not only acquired these existing lands
for permanent preservation; but also has now proposed to carry
out further the General Plan goals of the Town by acquiring the
entirety of Spring Ridge . In this case however, the District is
requesting the approval by the Town of a 50-car parking lot on
Portola Road to augment existing public access to the Windy Hill
Open Space Preserve, as well as a contribution of $113, 000 toward
the $4 .7 million purchase price.
The District ' s and the Town ' s goals are virtually identical in
the accomplishment of this proposed acquisition. If General Plan
conformity is considered in the spirit of the entire project, it
appears that the goals are totally compatible.
I respectfully request that the Town Council make the necessary
findings and approve the required conditions for the two-lot
subdivision and parking lot permit.
Si ly,
ig Britton L Britton
r1tton
t
Assi ant General Manager
LCB:cac
Enclosures
cc : MROSD Board of Directors
GL AL PLAN CONSISTENCY FIND. S
Regional Planning and Portola Valley
The General Plan states that the residents of Portola Valley
draw on other parts of the Bay Area for a wide range of cultural ,
commercial and recreational facilities. In addition, Portola
Valley is identified as a "unique part of the Bay Area" and a
"major open space within the larger urbanized region" that serves
as a low density residential area and a large natural scenic area
(Policy 1007 and 1013) .
One primary justification for maintaining the low density
character of Portola Valley is the need for a transition between
the intensely developed areas to the east , and the sparsely deve-
loped areas between Portola Valley and the coast (Policy IOD8) .
The General Plan states that ". . . the intensity of land uses,
the distribution of land uses and the standards for development
all reflect the recognition that the natural beauty of the area is
its prime asset, important both to local residents and to the
Midpeninsula and Bay Area. " (Policy 1013) .
Focus on Local Rather than Regional Needs
The General Plan focuses development in Portola Valley on the
needs of local residents. The following policies are examples of
this tendency:
Policy 2102 : 1 . "To provide for residential uses and related faci-
lities and services that will preserve and enhance
the quality of living enjoyed by local residents. "
3. "To minimize the need for non-local traffic to
penetrate the planning area. "
The Portola Valley General Plan addresses broader or regional
needs with policies that direct development of such facilities to
the edge of town. For example:
Policy 2103: 3. "In addition to uses serving primarily local
residents, public , private, and limited commer-
cial recreational facilities serving a broader
area would be appropriate in locations on the
periphery of the planning area but so located as
not to encourage traffic through the Town. "
Policy 2136: "Each park or recreation area proposed is so
located and served by circulation facilities
that it can be reached and used by the intended
users without interfering with the enjoyment of
nearby areas. Thus , facilities serving other
than primarily local residents should be located
on the edges of the planning area accessible
from major thoroughfares. "
I hrift!,11y N;,;ocirilos kind,"(:,ripo Archl(�cv-, 851) Oak (,,[()v(, Awniw M(vto Paik, (A 9,10") '11!)/3;)G 4:1;8
I
Policy 3210: he connections of throng rails to bordering
jurisdictions are indicated . Walkers and riders
from outside the Town are expected to be rela-
tively few -- largely residents from near the
Town limits. Bicyclists, because they can tra-
vel further and faster than walkers and riders,
are expected to be the principal visitors. To
discourage use of local trails by motorists
leaving their cars, no auto parking facilities
should be provided adjacent to any trail , except
as may be required to serve a local facility or
as may be necessary to permit reasonable use and
enjoyment of Skyline Parkway . "
These policies and others make the "edge of town requirement"
seem conditional. For example, one of the previous policies
includes a condition related to through traffic. The following
policies provide more general conditions.
Policy 2102: 2. "To maintain the natural character of the plan-
ning area and to provide for limited park, re-
creation and open space use in appropriate sce-
nic areas where the uses will be compatible with
the maintenance of the residential nature and
quality of the planning area. "
Policy 2134: 2 . "To encourage public parks, recreation areas and
open spaces serving other than primarily local
residents only in locations where they will not
be disruptive influence on local residents and
where they will preserve unique natural resources
for use by residents of the larger region. "
Policy 2312 : 6. "Impact on the Town from the use of these (open
) P
space) reserves should be minimal and most ve-
hicular access should be from roads on or near
the boundaries of the Town. " �
In summary , the previous policies indicate the following con-
ditions should be met, if regional access should be allowed .
Responses to each of these conditions have been provided to
illustrate consistency.
The project should :
a) not encourage through traffic.
The proposed open space acquisition and parking lot may
encourage traffic through the town by non-residents , but
the traffic volumes would be significantly lower than
those anticipated from development allowable with the
current zoning. Peak hour traffic congestion would not
be affected by the open space proposal.
Hardcsly Ags;ocintos Lnrulsc:nl (, Aichilr*cl, 855 04 Grove Averitw Menlo Park, CA 94W5 11Y.T)G 426H � Z
b) not inter _ e with the enjoyment of rby areas.
The proposed open space and parking lot would blend into
nearby areas. The proposed open space and use character-
istics would enhance the enjoyment of adjacent proper-
ties. The parking lot would be screened from most view-
points and is not expected to become a nuisance for the
following reasons :
• The parking lot design and landscaping allows surveil-
lance of the entire lot from key vantage points on
Portola Road.
• The parking lot is too close to active areas. (Inap-
propriate activity can be reported and responded to
quickly . )
• Portola Road is a primary roadway and an obvious
sheriff patrol corridor.
c) be necessary to permit reasonable use and enjoyment of
the Skyline Parkway.
Reasonable use and enjoyment of the Skyline Parkway in-
volves vehicle access and appropriate trail configura-
tions . Existing peripheral parking lots at the tops of
ridges are inconvenient . Inconvenience includes ineffi-
cient use of energy , time consuming outings and poor use
of trail systems (downhill toward urban areas then uphill
to more natural areas) . Inconvenience limits use and
enjoyment and causes parking problems in Portola Valley.
Policy 1008 states that Portola Valley is "a resource for
residents of nearby areas seeking a brief outing. A brief
outing is not possible without a convenient parking lot.
With or without the proposed project , public demand for
access to trails among regional resources will draw
vehicles to Portola Valley. A plan to accommodate these
vehicles would provide for reasonable use and enjoyment
of the Skyline Parkway.
Alternative parking lot locations include:
• Areas along Alpine Road , west and east of Willowbrook
(Arastradero to end of pavement) .
Alpine Road west of Willowbrook is unsuitable due to
habitat conditions and topography. (Parking is pro-
hibited east of Willowbrook. )
• Corte Madera School .
Willowbrook, includin Corte
d w st of
Alpine Road e g
Madera School , is too far away and too far below the
desired hiking trails.
Hardesty Dissociates Landscape Architects 855 Oak Grove Avernie Menlo Park, CA 94025 415/326-4268 p �
• Commerc _ areas near the intersec n of Alpine Road
and Portola Road.
Commercial areas at the intersection of Alpine Road
and Portola Road are already used by retail customers
and cyclists and should not be expanded to accommodate
increased use.
• Portola Town Center.
The Portola Town Center is close enough to serve the
trails, but this area should remain intact as a focus
of local activity.
• Areas along Portola Road, north of the town center .
All areas east of the Town Center are too far away to
meet the need for access to existing open space and
trails betwen the Portola Road/Alpine Road corridors
and the Skyline Parkway .
d) be compatible with the maintenance of the residential
nature and quality of the planning area.
The proposed open space acquisition and parking lot would
be compatible with the community ' s goal of maintaining
the residential nature and quality of the planning area
for the following reasons:
• Preservation of the property as open space is consis-
tent with the town' s intent to preserve the natural
qualities of the planning area.
• The loss of the development potential provided on the
site by the zoning designation involves 60 dwelling
units. Other undeveloped properties with residential
development potential would not be affected.
• The parking lot would be screened with natural g vegeta-
tion 1
Lion and topography and the meadow would not e si
gni-
ficantly g
ficantly changed by the project.
e) not create disruptive influences on local residents .
The proposed open space and parking lot would not be a
disruptive influence on local residences for the follow-
ing reasons:
Local hiking and equestrian trails would be estab-
lished through the property as defined by the Town.
• Required road improvements would be necessary with or
without the proposed project to allow for potential
development north and west of the meadow.
• The parking lot would be screened with natural vegeta-
tion and topography. The meadow would not be signifi-
cantly changed by the project.
I
e sk Grove nwu Frk,Cn0, 4GfHmdHsty As9oriiks Lnn(Kcipe lchii�cts 855 U . Q 4
I
• Propo uses of the open space consistent with
existing uses in the planning are- and uses on conti-
guous property.
• Existing disruptive influences on to Alpine Road west
of Willowbrook could be significantly reduced with an
officially recognized parking lot.
f) preserve unique natural resources for use by residents of
the larger region.
The proposed project would preserve a unique natural
resource for use by local residents and residents of the
larger region.
g) present minimal impact on the town.
The impacts of the proposed open space project are insig-
nificant and have been mitigated . The primary impacts of
concern are addressed below:
Visual Considerations :
• The parking lot will be screened with native vegeta-
tion.
• Almost all of the walnut trees will be preserved (2 or
3 trees will be removed) .
• The parking lot design minimizes meadow impacts to the
maximum extent feasible given engineering requirements.
Safety Considerations j
• The parking lot design and landscaping allow surveil-
lance of the entire lot from key vantage points along
Portola Road .
• The location of the parking lot provides for rapid
response times (2 to 3 minutes) which will discourage
inappropriate activity.
• MRQSD staff and the local law enforcement officers
will patrol the site.
Traffic Considerations
• Trip generation from the proposed project is signifi-
cantly anticipated ated from
less than the trip generationP
residential development of the site.
• All traffic improvements will be required with or
without the open space project in order to implement
the General Plan or allow residential development of
the site.
Hardesty Associates Landscape ArchitocV; 855 Oak Gtnvo Avenue Menlo Park, CA 9,1025 415 4268 �.S
Land Use Apatibility
9 The parking lot is a compatible use because it will be
adjacent to an identical use and a primary roadway .
0 The open space is a compatible use because it is
adjacent to identical uses and will link local trails.
9 Noise impacts will be insignificant due to topograph-
ical characteristics of the property , attenuation due
to the distance between noise sources and receptors
and because the ambient noise increase will be negli-
gible (see Safety Considerations) .
h) provide most vehicle access from roads on or near the
edge of town.
Almost all of the vehicular access to the MROSD Open
Space Preserves in the Portola Valley Planning Area is
provided by roads on or near the edge of town (Page Mill
Road and Skyline) . (Refer to the following table. )
There are 103 roadside parking spaces along Skyline
between the north and south boundaries of the Windy Hill
Open Space Preserve, and a total of 345 existing spaces
serving the six open space preserves (Windy Hill, Mt.
Melville, Coal Creek, Russian Ridge, Monte Bello and Los
Trancos) . The proposed lot would not significantly alter
the use patterns for the other open space preserves and
doesn' t create a majority of parking spaces with the
town' s boundaries.
The preservation of open space in Portola Valley has many
local and regional benefits. The proposed addition to the Windy
Hill Open Space Preserve is consistent with the intent of the
General Plan and meets the conditions of specific policies, which
initially seem to conflict with the proposed project.
Policy 1013: "The spectrum of land use and circulation pro-
posals conforms to the concept of Portola Valley
as a major open space within the larger urban-
III
ized region. Thus, the intensity of land uses,
the distribution of land uses, and the standards
for development all reflect the recognition that
Ili the natural beauty of the area is its prime
asset , important both to local residents and to
the Midpeninsula and Bay Area. "
Hatclesty Associates Landscape Architects 855 Onk Grove Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 415/326-4268
PROJECT IMPACT COMPARISON TABLE (8/10/87)
ORIGINAL IMPACT COMPARISON PREPARED BY GEORGE MADER
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve 60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
1. Open Space Would preserve 430 acres Would result in preserv- A. The longevity of this MROSD i
as low intensity recrea- ing about 360 acres as Open Space Preserve should not
tion, but longevity un- permanent open space, as- be questioned. MROSD is bound
certain. suming 1.2 acres in lots to dedicate this proper* 's
and streets per house public open space under ce
(open space would vary law. MROSD policies and prac-
based on design). tices are to develop open spac}
lands for low intensity recrea
tion purposes only. The Dis-
trict was not formed to dupli-
cate existing county and local,
park functions.
B. Open space provided under this
scenario would be interrupted j
and discontinuous as a result
of a dispersed system of roads'
homes and private use. The asJ
sumption of 1.2 acres per dwell
ling units is low. A mr- ap-
propriate average would ou
acres per dwelling unit. .his
development assumption leaves
only 210 acres of unstable,
steep or otherwise undevelop-
able property for open space.
2. Spring Ridge Would preserve Spring Geologic problems on lower A. See Comment 1A, Spring Ridge
Ridge, longevity not part of property would pre- will not be disrupted.
certain. sent an argument for put-
ting houses on Spring Ridge. B. The open space character of
Spring Ridge is threatened by
60 unit subdivision.
Hardesty Associates Landscape Architects 855 Cak Grove Avenue Menlo Park, CA 9-IC25 526-4258
i
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve 60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
3. Violation of Entrance road will cut Virtually the same as for A. The entrance road design is re-
Meadow through meadow. MROSD proposal. quired as a result of the Gen-
eral Plan and requirements of
the city engineer. The design
of the road minimizes impacts on
the meadow.
B. The impact of this scenario is
greater, not virtually thr
same. A 60 unit subdivisi
would require a longer and
wider road than the MROSD pro-
. •ject and would generate more
vehicle trips within the mead-
ow. In addition, the longer,
wider road would encourage ad-
ditional development and higher
densities to the north and
west.
4. Use MROSD would control with- Town would control through A. The District has accepted the
in limits of their powers zoning and conditional use conditional use permit process
and conditional use per- permit to residential uses. and has agreed to a development
mit (should town require). agreement process.
B. No comments.
5. Traffic Volume 100 car parking lot would 60 lot development would A. A 50 car parking lot is re-
accommodate 400 trips/day, generate about 720 trips/ quired. 25 spaces for overflow
according to MROSD (100 day (60 houses x 12 trips/ conditions are proposed. A 100
spaces x 2 trips/day/space day a 720 trips/day). space parking lot is not pro-
x 2 turnovers = 400 trips posed. 400 trips per day only
per day). refers to Sat, Sun & Holidays
during the peak use period
(March - May). (See Trip Gen-
eration Comparison 8/10/87.)
Hardesty Associates Lancscace Architects 855 Oak Grcve Avenue Menlo Park. C.' 9,1025 -41-7:326--=250
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve 60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
6. Time of Traffic Would be concentrated on Would be spread rather even- A. This statement is misleading.
weekends when most resi- ly over week and weekend (See Trip Generation Comparison
dents are home. pattern would be consistent 8/10/87).
with normal local pattern of
use. B. This statement is misleading.
(See Trip Generation Comparison
8/10/87.)
7. Portola Road Major change: Virtually same as for MROSD A. All "major changes" are r
Improvements a. Widening for distance proposal. quired as a result of the .wn
of 740' . engineering and a General Plan
b. Pavement near inter- proposal for a new road along
section widened from •the hillside from the Town Cen
36' to 561. ter to the existing access road'
c. Left turn lane and to the Aries property. The
acceleration lanes will significant modification of the
significantly modify "feeling" of Portola Road will
"feeling" of Portola be required to implement the
Road. General Plan.
B. The impact of this scenario is
greater, not virtually the
same. A 60 unit subdivision
would require a longer and
wider road than the MROSr z-
posal and would generate
vehicle trips and delay at the
new intersection. The feeling
of Portola Road could change
even more after additional ve-
hicle trips from off-site sub-
divisions, facilitated by the
longer and wider road to the
Town Center, are added to this
intersection.
Hardesty Associates LanCscace Architects 855 Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park. CA 94C25 41u 328-41258
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve 60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
8. Parking Could spill onto local Parking would be confined A. Parking on Portola Road would
streets and Town Center. to residential lots. be controlled through signage
Control could be a prob- and enforcement by MROSD local
lem if indeed possible. sheriffs. The proposed parking
lot is expected to reduce rather
than increase parking problems
in Portola Valley. The existing
demand patterns cause people to
park at retail establishm
and roadside pullouts.
B. Town parking requirements would
,have to be met. Access to the
remaining open space (210
acres) would continue to be a
problem.
9. Signs Significant MROSD warn- Normal street signs at turn A. MROSD does not construct "warn-
ing signs before inter- off. ing" signs. Facility identi-
section and at inter- fication signage is proposed ini
section. appropriate locations. MROSD
signage will meet town require-
ments and will not be offen-
sive. Traffic control signage
and striping requirements ld
be fewer or equivalent to se
required by the General Plan
for this location.
B. Additional traffic would re-
quire additional signage or
more visible signage. A sub-
division identification sign
may also be proposed by the de- ��
veloper.
t
Hardesty Associates Landscape Architects 855 Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park. CA 9,1025 115, 3:79--1268
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve 60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
10. The Sequoias Parking lot could be an Subdivision road on two A. A parking lot in the proposed
irritant. sides would be an irritant. location is supported by a
majority of residents at the
Sequoias. Noise and visual
impacts would be insignificant.
I
B. Higher vehicle speeds an,' -
umes would create higher se
levels at the Sequoias. Visual
impacts would be more exten-
sive.
11. Trails MROSD would build and Subdivider would build per A. flROSD has a set policy to sup-
maintain, decide routes town direction, town would port local trail planning.
with town. maintain.
B. Trail quality and experience
would be adversely impacted by
dispursed dwelling units.
12. Public Access To entire 430 acres. Limited to trail easements A. No comment.
plus possibly a small park
of 1 ac.+. B. Trails within subdivisions are
less accessible because c' ',e
proximity of private prod
and the subjective "feelin6 of
intrusion."
13. Public Road & None. All roads and drainage fea- A. No non-pervious surfaces pro-
Drainage tures serving development posed.
Maintenance unless roads were private.
B. Significantly higher erosion
potential, storm water flows
and capacity/maintenance re-
quirements.
Hardesty Associates Landscape Architects 855 Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park, CA 91C25 41-5 326-4268
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve .60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
14. Public Services Possibly some increased Increased demand in sheriff, A. Incremental impact offset by
sheriff time. fire district and schools. MROSD staff.
B. Plus sewer, water and solid
waste disposal services. 60
sewer hookups would be neces-
sary.
15. Environmental Negligible. Potentially considerable. A. The impacts of the open space
Damage project are insignificant.
B. Potentially considerable envi-
ronmental impacts that have not
been identified previously in-
clude:
• construction impacts (noise,
earthwork, hauling, dust,
etc.)
• air pollutant emissions
• energy consumption
• habitat disruption
• tree removal
• geologic risk exposure
• surface water quality
gradation
• fiscal impacts
Hardesty Associates Landscape Architects 855 Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94C25 415, 3126-4268
COLUMN A COLUMN B
M.R.O.S.D.
Impact MROSD Open Space Reserve 60 Lot Residential Subdiv. Comments on Columns A and B
16. Consistency Consistent with town goal Consistent with general A. Potentially inconsistent is not
w/G.P. to preserve open space for plan unless geology would inconsistent. Numerous teneral
Peninsula and Bay Area force development onto Plan policies support the pro-
(Sec. 1010. ,1). Spring Ridge. ject. Other policies require
interpretation by the decision
Potentially inconsistent makers. These interpretations
as a major facility at- are subject to local and
tracting significant non- gional value judgments.
local traffic (Secs. 2102. , pite potential inconsisteAA-ies
3 & 212.,6). with individual policies, an
overall finding is needed that
balances beneficial impacts and
favorable policies with poten-
tially conflicting General Plan
policies and findings. (See
General Plan Consistency Sum-
mary.)
B. Development of Spring Ridge is
potentially inconsistent with
more than one General Plan
policy. (See General Plan Con-
sistency Summary.)
Hardesty Associates Landscape Architects 855 Oak Grove Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94C25 415, K-6-11268
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON (8/10/87)
Development Scenario Open Space Trip Generation (Trips/Day)
Open Space
Plus One
Open Space Dwelling Unt
March - May June - August Sept. - Nov. Dec. - Feb. Weekly Avg. Weekly Avg.,
Wkday Wkend Wkday Wkend Wkday Wkend Wkday Wkend (Annual Total) (Annual Tota'„
1. 50 Car Parking Lot 50 200 25 100 38 150 13 50 375* 459*
(19,500)* (2"
2. 75 Car Parking Lot 75 300 38 150 56 225 19 75 575* 659*
(29,900)* (34,280)*!
3. 100 Car Parking Lot 100 400 50 200 75 500 25 100 750* 834*
(39,000)* (43,380)*'
4. 60 Dwelling 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 5,040** Not Applicabi
Unit Subdivision (262,800)**
Add 2 percent to these figures to reflect weekday holiday trip generation (assumes 8 weekday holidays per year).
If 15 trips/day were used (town standard is 12-15 trips per day), the weekly average would be 6,300 and the annua',
average would be 327,600.
Seasonal Assumptions Weekend-Weekday Assumptions
• 100% March - May Weekday/weekend ratio ranges from 5% to 25% depending on proximity to urban areas.
0 50% June - Aug. 25% has been used in all cases for the Windy Hill Addition figures.
• 75% Sept. - Nov.
• 25% Dec. - Feb.
i
100% = 2 turnovers and two trips per turnover = 2 x 2 number of spaces.
NOTES: The AM and PM peak hour trip generation under Scenario 4 of the project impact comparison table (60 dwelling
units) would be consistent with normal local patterns of use and congestion.
Hartesty Asscciates Lanascace Architects 855; Oa:t Grove rVenue %ltaric Farr. CA 94C25 41-5, ?26-42e8
MANAGEMEF- `ND PATROL SUMMARY FOR AIRES/S- ACQUISITION
Staff
The District employs 15 full-time Rangers; 6 Rangers are assigned f:o the patrol region which
includes the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve.
All Rangers are appointed peace officers by the District Board and have the authority to
issue written warnings or citations when necessary. District Rangers have been instructed to
use the lowest level of enforcement necessary to achieve compliance, and generally confine the
scope of their authority to addressing District problems on District land.
Training
- Law enforcement over 300 hours
- Fire prevention/suppression, 24 hours minimum
- First aid, ranges from basic to EMT
- Search and rescue, several technical climbers on staff
- Site maintenance, includes trail construction and maintenance, carpentry, plumbing,
welding and electrical
Equipment
4X4 vehicles equipped with:
100 gal. fire suppression pumpers and hand tools
multi-channel radios which link Rangers with local police, fire departments
first aid kits
miscellaneous maintenance tools
Code 3 red lights and siren for quick responses to emergencies
Ranger Residences
The District currently maintains seven (7) ranger residences located stragetically through-
the District. The resident Rangers are available for response to after hours problems
)urs/day. The phone numbers for reporting problems occurring on District lands are:
Mateo County, (415) 364-1811; Santa Clara County, (408) 299-2507.
Mutual Aid
The District maintains a close working relationship with local police and fire jurisdictions.
A cooperative effort will commence immediately to reduce the incidence of late night parties,
associated camp fires and litter, and trespassing by off-road vehicles.
Initial Patrol Plan
Upon close of escrow, the District will embark on an ambitious site patrol effort emphasizing
tight after-hours security, resource protection and public education, District Rangers will
be highly visible while patrolling both in vehicles and on foot. Initially, there will be an
average of one to two patrol passes through the site and parking lot per day with a strong
emphasis placed on evening coverage. Additionally, the site will be spot checked on an inter-
mittant basis, or as requested by reporting parties.
It is important not to expect the immediate and complete elimination of some problems which
have existed on the site for many years. Young people, for example, initially may feel chal-
lenged by the new set i of use regulations. They may test the resolve of the District through
cunning or even vandalism. However, through carefully planned site design and patrol, .tbe
serious problems should diminish accordingly.
Neighborhood Watch
As is the case in most neighborhoods, extra eyes and ears can be helpful in deterring illegal
or unauthorized activities. The District encourages neighbors to report suspicious activities.
And in a similar way, District Rangers will serve as extra eyes and ears for .its neighbors.
�- �
~
�
�
ROOGH URAFT
August 11 / 19B7MEMORANDUM
�
�
|
To Town Council /
�
From : George Mader, Town Planner |
`
| �
| Subject: Consistency with General Plan: Tentative Subdivision Map '
�
� %6D-155, Slo6e, and Site Development Permit , X9H-242° MROSD |
�
REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
�
The tentative subdivision map and the site development permiL are being
|
considered as one project since the purpose of the subdi inn is to '
establish a parcel for use by MROSD and the purpose of the site
� development permit is to allow development of the parking lot.
�
|
Requirements which must be met are: . �
|
' 1. The state subdivision map act (Sec. 66474) requires denial of a �
tentative subdivision map if it ". . . is not consistent with applicable
�
�~- general and specific plans. . . " |
�
3. The zoning enabling act (Sec. 65860) requires zoning ordinances to he �
consistent with the general plan. The town 's regulations have similar
�
provisions. |
3. The site- development ordinance of the town was enacted as a specific �
plan to implement the general plan and thus must meet the same test as
the zoning regulations. �
�
4. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix G) �
indicates that a project will normally have a significant effect if it �
� will "Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the �
�
� community where it is located; ". (Note: If a significant effect can
� .
not be mitigated, an EJR is required. ) �
�
|
| Thus, it is clear that it is critical to determine if the proposed project
� consistent � th '
� � w the t e own s general plan.
|
Next , one needs to determine what �onsit�tues "consistency. " Daniel J.
| ' ^
| Curtin, Jr. , in 1987 Edition, on
page 21 states:
|
|
. . .As to what "consistency" means* the Attorney General in 58 Ops.
|
| Cal . Atty. Gen. 21 < 1975> stated:
�
| . . . As a general approach we endorse the statement in the 'General
plan Guidelines' that 'The zon�ting ordinance should be considered
| consistent with the general plan when the allowable uses and
standards contained in the text of the zoni'ng ordinance tend to
( further the policies in the general plan and do not inhibit or
� . . obstruct the attainment of those articulated policies. ' 'General
�
�
1 -
^ �
1
Consistency with General � �L
Plan Guidelines, ' September 1973/ Council on Intergovernmental �
Relations, page 11 11-13. �
�
It appears that to determine consistency the town needs to determine if �
the project furthers the policies of the general plan and will not
obstruct attainment o; stated policies, '
REVIEW OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY BY COUNC{LPERSUNS AND CDMMlSS\ONERS
Kent Mitchell recently sent a document "MEMORANDUM TO ALL COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS" in which he asked that individuals review the
project against a number of provisions of the genera] plan (attached to
the memorandum) and indicate their impressions ragardin0t consistency.
Responses were obtained from Councilpersons Crane and Anderson, and
planning Commissioners Bell , Merk and Reichardt. The many comments
submitted are too numerous to repeat although they are available for
review at town hall . Also, when summaries were submitted, they are
enclosed with this memorandum. A very brief summary of the major aspects
of the consistency review follows:
Anderson, Crane, Bell , Merk
~
'
In general these persons took the position that it is essential for the
town to have control over the use and development of the HROSD land if
consistency with minimizing through traffic in the town is to be found.
They do not accept the 4/5ths override provision of the state law with
regard to the district. This control is seen as needing to extend to
limiting the size of the parking lot to 50 cars. Commissioner Nerk
suggested that there be at least as many developed parking spaces on �
Skyline Blvd. as there are in the vicinity of Portola Rd.
These persons also indicated that the MRUSD acquisition would be
consistent with many open space related objectives of the general plan, �
Finally, some of these persons thought that there were internal �
inconsistencies in the general plan. Thus, they pointed out that on the
one hand the town encourages open space for the region but on the other
hand sets up provisions which makes the provision of such space very
difficult.
Reichardt
Commissioner Reichardt took the position that the primary responsibility
is to the residents of the town and therefore minimizing external traffic
must take precedence over protecting open space.
(Note: The foregoing summaries are very brief and in no way convey all o�
the thoughts of the reviewers. They may wish, therefore, to correct o/
� add to the summaries. )
�
REVIEW OF WINDY HILL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
'
^
. �
�
-
Consistency with General Plan, X6D-155. X9H-242
Since it is important to judge the potential relative amount of access
from Skyline Blvd. and Portula Rd. / a brie{ reconnaissance was made of the
Skyline Blvd. frontage on August 11 , Following are some relevant
observations:
. �
1. The preserve has 2 miles of frontage on Skyline Blvd. �
�
� 2. There are four points of access from Skyline Blvd. to the preserve, �
�
� that is, places where st,�les are built.
� 3. There are approximately 65 to 70 spaces (very rough estimate) for cars
� along this section of Skyline Blvd. (on both sides of the road) which �
appear to be far enough off the pavement to be safe and also in �
reasonable proximity to the four points of entry. '
4. Signing for the entry points that is visible from Skyline Blvd. . is
almost non-existent. The parking area (\ ] cars) at Windy Hill is
� visible, but even here signing is not readily apparent. �
� ..
- �
5. The variation in terrain and vegetation along the 2 mile stretch is �
remarkable. It would appear that there are magnificent hiking
posse� w very
�blit� with fine views to the east as well as a few to the
� west.
�
6. The- northern-most entry point on Skyline is 6 miles from the proposed
entrance to the parking lot on Portola Rd. with a driving time of 16
� minutes (via Old La Honda Rd. ) .
�
POSSIBLE FINDINGS
It would appear that the town council could find the use and development
�
� of the proposed MROSD parcel as an open space preserve as being consistent
� with the many objectives of the general plan which relate to Open space �
for residents and the larger region. �
�
It would appear that the town council could find consistency with the �
�
requirement that impact of the use of the preserve on the town would be
minima) if stringent enforceable controls are in place including a parking �
lot limited to 50 cars. (Note: The proposed development agreement and
conditional use permit controls are intended to provide this control ) . �
�
Also, it would appear that consistency could he found with the requirement �
that most access would he from roads on or near the boundaries of the town
if the Lnxn council considers the several open space preserves cited in
Section 21212` 6. of the general plan as a group.
To better ensure that there is substantial access from Skyline Blvd. , it
is recommended that as a part of the conditional use permit for the MROSD
development, MROSD agree to greatly enhance the attractiveness oi Skyline
Blvd. as a major entrance. Consideration should be given to adding the
-
| '
�
�
'
,
|'
�
following recommendations as additional condition* MROSD should comply
with relative to site development permit X9H-243:
1 , Improving parking lots at several entry pmints, to the property which
in total would equal at least 50. �
2. Providing signs which are visible to motorists indicating that the
parking areas exist and that trails are available. �
�
3. Improving the signing for trails at each entry point. �
4. Promoting the Skyline corridor as s magnificent access area to the
Windy Hill Preserve emphasizing the variety of terrain and vegetation
in the area.
5. As a part of the management plan for the preserve, providing . a
positive and firm policy with appropriate handouts which will direct
any overflow parking from the parking 1pt on Portola Rd. to the
_ Skyline Blvd. access points,
, ..
. �
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
1 . The potential major role the preserve will play for local residents
should not be underestimated. Local residents currently use the �
property and that use will be enhanced with the purchase and
development by MROSD. During the week, it is likely that most of the
use will be by local residents.
2, It is highly likely that actual traffic will be less with the MROSD �
development than with a potential residential development. The
maximum residential development of 60 lots would generate about 720
trips (12 per du/day) . (Note: Counts in the town have revealed in the
past that traffic generation from a residence ranges from 12-15 cars a �
day in some areas. ) A small development , say 30 lots, would generate
about 240 trips. The 50 car parking lot , with two turnovers a day
�
(MROSD estimate of turnovers based on experience at other parking
areas under the district) would equal 200 cars.
3. A traffic count made for the town from midnight , Saturday, August 8,
1987 to midnight , Sunday August 9, on Portola Rd. at the proposed
entrance to the parking lot resulted in a total of 3`365 cars, Thus `
the traffic from a residential subdivison on a weekend might add from
7% to 21% to the traffic volume and traffic to the parking lot might
add about 6%.
�
enc.
cc. James T. Morton, Town Attorney
Susan McGowan, CAO/Clerk
� Robert Slobe, applicant for subdivision
�
Tony Arostegui , attorney for Mr. S1obe
,
�
Draft Dist
'GOWI L Q TO Bob Britt
`' � Craigg Britt
i
Town Hall and Offices: 765 Portola JZoad, 1'ciff8} afTey; Gali(, 94025 Tel. (Area Code 415) 851-1700 Kent Mitch(
1 Susan MCGo4
Jim Morton
D R A F T Bob Slobe
(Note: A second memorandum is being prepared to address the issue of Tony Arost(
J conformance with the general plan. )
MEMORANDUM August 10, 1987
i
To Town Council
From George Mader, Town Planner
Y Subject: Tentative Subdivision Map, X6D-155, Slobe
Site Development Permit, X9H-242, Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District(MROSM)
j Development Agreements with Slobe and MROSD
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Guarantee re Minor Collector
CC&R's re MROSD band
I
This memorandum summarizes the actions of the planning commission at its
meeting on August 5, with regard to the above referenced items and
provides recommendations for town council actions.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Tentative Subdivision Mao X6D-155, Slobe
t
The planning commission considered the staff report of July 31, 1987, on
this subject and took the following actions:
Environmental Impact The commission took no' action on the proposed
negative declaration on the project. The proposed negative declaration
includes the subdivision, site development permit for the parking lot, and
!� the development agreement between Slobe and the town.
_Exceptions to Subdivision Ordinance The commission on a 4-1 vote
(Reichardt abstained) recommended that the town council make the findings
r pursuant to Sec 17.56.010 (copy of section attached) of the subdivision
I.
ordinance to allow the following exceptions to the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance:
Sec. 17.48.010 - To permit parcel 2 to be serviced by overhead
electrical and telephone lines from Alpine Rd, across Corte Madera
4 Creek rather than having to place them underground.
I Sec. 17.48.020 -- To permit parcel 2 to be served by a septic tank
and drainfield rather than by a sanitary sewer.
Sec. 17.48.030 - To permit parcel 2 to be served by a well and
storage tank rather than by a normal domestic system, and also not
to meet normal fire flow requirements, but rather modified
requirements of-the Woodside Fire Protection District; however,
as additional development takes place, additional water storage
shall be provided as required by the District.
P
Consistency with General Plan, X6D-155, _X9H•-2A2 Paoe 5
Robert Stoecker, adviser to Mr. Slobe
Craig Britton, MROSD, applicant for site development permit
Jim Walsh, Brian, Kangas, Foulk, engineer for Mr. Slobe
Nancy Hardesty, Hardesty Associates, landscape architect for MROSD
Planning Commission
Ellen Schillig, Planning Coordinator
Tentative Subdivision Map, X6D-155 Slobe - etc. - Page 2
Sec. 17.32.010 and 17.32.060 - To permit parcel 2 to not meet the
normal 40 ft frontage requirement on a road meeting town
standards; tq not demonstrate, prior to approval of the tentative
map, that a proposed access driveway meets normal geologic
standards; and to not demonstrate prior to the approval of the
tentative map that a geologically stable building site has been
identified. (Note: the necessary geologic studies and review by
the town are to be accomplished prior to recording the parcel
map. )
Conditions of Approval The commission recommended approval of the
tentative map dated July 22,
1987, with the following conditions, on a 4-1
vote (Reichardt abstained) :
a. The requirements of the town engineer in her memorandum of July
27, 1987 with the exception that item 5. need not be demonstrated'
until prior to issuance of a building permit.
b. The requirements of the town geologist as contained in his
memorandum of July 27, 1987.
c. The dedication of a 20 ft trail easement along the frontage' of
parcel 2 on Alpine Road and that a good faith effort be made by
the owner of parcel 2 to investigate with the town the town's need
for a trail(s) in the vicinity of Hamm's Gulch and to provide
appropriate easement(t).
d. The tentative map is deemed to show parcel 2 as 23 acres plus or
minus and parcel I as 426 acres plus or minus, with the
understanding that the final parcel map will show acreages of 20
and 430 acres plus or minus.
e. The following easement shall be recorded prior to recordation of
the parcel map:
A floating easement for ingress and egress and for underground
utilities from parcel 2 to Portola Rd. no less than 20 ft in
width.
f. The tentative map illustrates a subdivision of land which shall be
effected by a grant from Robert Slobe to the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District, a public agency. This transaction is exempt
from the requirements of the subdivision map act of the State of
California in accordance with Section 66428 of the Government
Code. A parcel map shall be filed in connection with this
transaction within 12 months of the date of approval of this
tentative map and shall illustrate the land division and shall
substantially conform to this tentative map as approved by the
Town of Portola Valley.
Tentative Subdivision Map, X6D-155 Slobe, etc. -Page 3
Site DevelopmentPermit, X9H-242
The planning commission recommended approval of the preferred alternative
concept plan, revised 7/29/87, on a vote of 4-1 (Reichardt abstained), to
the town council with the following conditions:
1. The improvement plans for the modifications to Portola Rd. necessary
for the entrance to the MROSD property along with such guarantees as
necessary shall be reviewed by the planning commission and approved by
the town council prior to issuance of the site development permit.
2. The final site development plans shall be subject to approval by the
planning commission after referral to the members of the site
development committee.
3. The *Preferred Alternative Concept Plan,* revised 7/30/8 7, shall be
modified to correct the errors noted under "Town Planner" in the
report on the permit dated 7/31/87.
4. Telephone and power lines along the Portola Rd. front•age of the
property shall be put underground.
5. The overflow parking as shown on the site development permit plan' is
not approved.
In addition, the planning commission indicated that it was its feeling
that the Portola Rd. improvements should be scaled down.
Development Aqreement
The planning commission recommended approval in concept of the proposed
development agreement dated 7/30/87 between Mr. Slobe and the town on a
3-2 vote (Merle voted no and Reichardt abstained) .
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The deputy town attorney, Sherrod Davis, recommended that the appropriate
manner in which to amend the zoning ordinance, as described in the
memorandum from the town planner dated 7/31/87 and titled "Urgency
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance,* was to undertake a normal rather than an
urgency amendment. The planning commission then voted 4-1 (Reichardt
abstained) to set such amendment for hearing at a future meeting. The
amendment would require a conditional use permit for Publicly-owned parks,
recreation areas or open spaces.
Guarantee re Minor Collector
The planning commission took no action with re4ect to the minor
collector. This matter is described in the cover memo dated 7/31/87 from
the town planner which pertained to the tentative map, etc.
Tentative Subdivision Map, X6D-155 Slobe, etc page 4
CC&R's
While the importance of CC&R's (as described in the 7/31/87 cover memo
from the town planner) was discussed, no recommendation was made.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Subdivision, X6D-155, Slobe
1. The town council should take action on the proposed negative
declaration which pertains to the subdivison, site development permit
and development agreement submitted by Mr. Slobe.
2. The town council should take action on the recommended exceptions to
the provisions of the subdivision ordinance.
3. The town council should take action on the recommended conditions to
the tentative map.
Site Development Permit, X9H-242, MROSD
1. The town council should take action with respect to the recommended
conditions.
2. The town council should consider the following additional conditions:
a. Stipulate that the site development permit shall not be issued
until a development agreement has been entered into between the
town and MROSD and that such agreement shall conform in general to
the proposal described below under the heading "Development
Agreement- MROSD."
b. Stipulate that the site development permit shall not be issued
until a conditional use permit for the use and development of the
MROSD parcel has been issued by the town, unless the town fails to
amend the zoning ordinance within 6 months of approval of the
permit to require a conditional use permit for an open space owned
by a public agency. The provisions of the conditional use permit
shall be similar to the CC&R's which pertain to the Windy Hill
Open Space Preserve except that public toilets shall be permitted.
C. The site development permit shall indicate whether buses and horse
trailers will be allowed to enter the MROSD property or whether
they will be required to park elsewhere in the town.
Development Agreement - Slobe
The development agreement submitted by Mr. Slobe and dated 7/31/87 needs
to be acted upon. Mr. Slobe's attorney will bring two amendments to the
meeting. One amendment will provide that the existing development
agreement and amendment thereto between Mr. Aries and the town will become
Tentative Subdivision Map, X6D-155 Slobe, etc. Page 5
null and void when Mr. Slobe purchases the property. The second amendment
will clarify that provision 4. on page 7 of the agreement holds the town
harmless from any actions of Mr. Slobe.
The town council will need to take action on this development agreement.
Development Agreement - MROSD
Discussions have taken place since the planning commission meeting in an
effort to develop a guarantee, acceptable to the town and MROSD, which
would require MROSD to conform to town plans and regulations. The
following language has been discussed with Mr. Britton of MROSD, Mayor
Mitchell and Town Attorney Jim Morton. It is recommended as the basis for
y a development agreement which would be entered into between MROSD and the
town prior to issuance of the site development
p permit.
The use and development of the subject parcel shall conform to the
general plan and zoning, subdivision and site development ordinances
of the Town of Portola Valley and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District shall not override such plan and regulations. Such
limitations shall not ap
ply, however,
PP Y, if the Town fails
is to approve a
conditionalPP
use pe
rmit allowi
ng in a 50 car parking lot on subject parcel
P c 1
g j P
with primary access from Portola Road within twelve months of ' an
application being filed by the District, or in the event the
conditional use permit, if issued, is revoked or declared invalid by a
court action.
The general plan and zoning, subdivision and site development
ordinances of the Town in existence at the time of the recordation of
i this agreement shall remain in effect as they pertain to the subject
property for the duration of the agreement with the exceptions that
the general plan may be amended to show the subject parcel as an "open
space preserve," that the "trails and paths element" of the general
plan may be amended to reflect a design agreed upon by MROSD and the
Town, and finally that the zoning ordinance may be amended to require
a conditional use permit for a publicly-owned park, recreation area or
open space.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
The planning commission has already taken action to set for hearing the
proposed amendment to require a conditional use permit for a
publicly-owned park, recreation area or open b ace. If the town council P P 11
has other recommendations to make it should so inform the planning
commission or take action itself to set an amendment for public hearing.
Minor Collector
hIn evaluating conformity of the proposal with the general plan, attention
needs to be given to the minor collector which is shown crossing the
property to be acquired by MROSD. It is suggested the following wording,
a .
i
Tentative Subdivision
_MaA, X6D
_
155 Slobe, etc p8ge 6 �
contained in the 7/31/87 cover memo from the town planner, be considered
for inclusion in a development agreement between MROSD and the town.
I
The owner of Parcel 1 (shown on "Tentative Map, Rancho Corte Madera"
dated 7/22/87) agrees to cooperate with the Town of Portola Valley in
the design and acquisition of a minor collector road which would
comply with the town's general plan. Said road is currently shown on
the town's general plan as intersecting Portola Road on the frontage
of Parcel 1 with said road. Specifically, at such time as the
property to the north (APN 76 340 06) is to be subdivided and the town
deems that the road is needed, the owner of Parcel 1 will enter into
negotiations with the town and the owner of the property to the north,
or any portion thereof, to provide the needed right of way for the
road. The location of the road should result in the least ossible
ecological and visual impact while meeting its function. As a-part of
negotiations, consideration shall be given to the fair market value of
th
e land and also reimbursing the owner of Parcel 1 fora pro rats
share of the costs of the improvements which provide access to Portola .
Rd. and which are of benefit to the property owner to the north.
CC&R's
The proposed development agreement between the town and MROSD provides for
the types of deed restrictions previously considered. CC&R's no longer
appear necessary.
enc.
CC. James T. Morton, Town Attorney
Susan McGowan, CAO/Clerk
Robert Slobe, applicant for subdivision
Tony Arostegui, attorney for Mr. Slobe
Robert Stoecker, adviser to Mr. Slobe
Craig Britton, MROSD, applicant for site development permit
Jim Walsh, Brian, Kangas, Foulk, engineer for Mr. Slobe
Nancy Hardesty, Hardesty Associates, landscape architect for MROSD
Planning Commission
Ellen Schillig, Planning Coordinator
17.56.010 Application for exception. The planning com-
mission may recommend that the council authorize conditional
exceptions to any of the requirements and regulations set forth
in this title. Application for any exception shall be made by a
verified petition of the subdivider stating fully the grounds of
the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Such
petition shall be filed with the tentative map of the subdivision.
In order for the land referred to in the petition to come within
the provisions of this section, it shall be necessary that the
planning commission find all of the following facts with respect
thereto:
A. That the land is of such shape or size, or is affected by
such topographical conditions, or is subject to such title limita-
tions of record that it is impossible or impractical for the
subdivider to comply with all of the regulations of this title;
B. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner;
C. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimen-
tal to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
vicinity of the subject property.
(Ord. 1967-71 § 1 (7670.0), 1967)
of TO'RZ-�0LA 0ALLE'2)
rt,%\,I I J,111 a,,I 765 l'ortola Portola Valley. Cali[. 0.1025 Tel. (Area Co(le 415) 851-1700
August 3, 1987
MEMORANDUM
To : Planning Commission and Town Council
From : George Mader, Town Planner
Subject: Comparison of MROSD Proposal and a Possible 60 Lot Subdivision
Don Bell, Chairman of the planning commission, asked that we prepare an
analysis of the pros and cons of the MROSD proposal. We decided that it would
probably be most useful to compare the MROSD proposal with a potential
subdivision. We selected a 60 lot subdivision since that number appears in
the Aries Limited Development Agreement and was based on a holding capacity
analysis prepared by the town. While 60 lots may be feasible, it should be
pointed out that geologic conditions appear to be worse than were thought to
exist when the holding capacity analysis was made.
Impact MROSD Open Space Preserve 60 Lot Residential Subdivision
1. Open Space Would preserve 430 acres as Would result in preserving about
low intensity recreation, 360 acres as permanent open spacer
but longevity uncertain. assuming 1.2 acres in lots and
streets per house (open space would
vary based on design).
Spring Ridge Would preserve Spring Ridge, Geologic problems on lower part
longevity not certain. of property would present an
argument for putting houses on
Spring Ridge.
3. Violation of Entrance road will cut Virtually the same as for MROSD
Meadow through meadow. proposal.
4. Use MROSD would control within Town would control through zoning
limits of their powers and and conditional use permit to
cond. use permit (should residential uses.
town require) .
5. Traffic 100 car parking lot would 60 lot development would generate
Volume accommodate 400 trips/day, about 720 trips/day (60 houses x
according to MROSD (100 12 trips/day = 720 trips/day).
spaces x 2 trips/day/space
x 2 turnovers = 400 trips
per day).
6. Time of Would be concentrated on Would be spread rather evenly over
Traffic weekends when most residents week and weekend pattern would be
are home. consistent with normal local
pattern of use.
Comoarison of MROSD Prop. & ,sible 60 lot Sub. page 2
- Impact MROSD Open Space Preserve 60 Lot Residential Subdivision
7. Portola Rd. Major change: Virtually same as for MROSD
Improvements a. Widening for distance of proposal.
7401 .
b. Pavement near intersection
widened from 361 to 561 .
c. Left turn lane and acceler-
ation lanes will signifi-
cantly modify "feeling" of
Portola Road.
8. Parking Could spill onto local streets Parking would be confined to
and town center. Control could residential lots.
be a problem if indeed possible.
9. Signs Significant MROSD warning signs Normal street signs at turn
before intersection and at inter- off.
section.
10. The Parking lot could be an irritant. Subdivision road on two sides
Sequoias would be an irritant.
11. Trails MROSD would build and maintain, Subdivider would build per
decide routes with town. town direction, town would
maintain.
Public To entire 430 acres. Limited to trail easements plus
;cess possibly a small park of I ac.l.
13. Public Rd. None All roads and drainage features
Drainage serving development unless roads
Maintenance were private.
14. Public Possibly some increased sheriff Increased demand in sheriff, fire
Services time. district and schools.
15.Envirorimental Negligible Potentially considerable.
Damage
16. Consistency Consistent with town goal to Consistent with general plan
w/G.P. preserve open space for unless geology would force
Peninsula and Bay Area development onto Spring Ridge.
(Sec.1010. ,1) .
Potentially inconsistent as a
major facility attracting
significant non-local traffic
(Secs. 2102. ,3 & 212. ,6).
XfA'4 I
CC. Ellen Schillig Jack Haslinger Craig Britton, MROSD
Betty Irvine Sherrod Davis Robert Slobe
Bill Cotton Susan McGowan Nancy Hardesty
Bo Gimbal Town Council Bob Stoecker
Jim Walsh, Brian Kangas Foulk
All it J
N de
01=l 9MITIMIC
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
August 12, 1987
Town Council
Town of Portola Valley
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94025
Subject: Proposed Addition to Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
(Lands of Slobe/Aries)
Dear Council Members :
Tonight you will be deliberating over the requirements for a two-
lot subdivision of the subject 449 acre parcel (20 acres to
remain in private hands with the remaining 429 acres to become
public open space) . You will also be deciding whether you can
make the findings and approve the concept and preliminary
conditions of a Site Development Permit for a 50-car public
parking lot to serve the open space lands . District purchase of
this property, which is scheduled to close escrow on Friday,
August 14 , 1987 , is contingent, by contract, upon your approval
of these two critical planning elements . At your meeting and
public hearing of July 22 , 1987 , you tentatively approved the
concept of this transaction by unanimous vote . Since that time
there have been additional hearings and background material
presented that the District has considered in detail .
Accordingly, in order to assist you with your decision making
process , I have attached the following information for your
consideration:
1 . General Plan Consistency Findings as prepared by
Hardesty Associates for the District.
2 . Project Impact Comparison as prepared by Hardesty
Associates for the District.
3 . Traffic Impact Comparison as prepared by Hardesty
Associates for the District.
4 . Management and Patrol Summary for the Aries/Slobe
Acquisition as prepared by the District Operations
Supervisor.
5. Open Space Use and 2,Ianagement Planning
District Board Policy as most recently amended on
February 25 , 1987 .
Herbert Grench,General Manager;Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andean,Richard Bishop
August 12, 1987
Page 2
I think it is also important to note that Portola Valley ' s
General Plan is almost singly devoted to enhancement of its rural
residential character and preservation of its regionally
significant open space lands , primarily in the western hillside
area. The District has already acquired and dedicated the
following open space lands within Portola Valley' s sphere:
Size Cost
Windy Hill Open Space Preserve 703 ac . $ 2. 9 million
Los Trancos Open Space Preserve 274 ac . .8 million
Coal Creek Open Space Preserve 386 ac . 3.5 million
Sub-Total 1363 ac. $ 7 . 2 million
Slobe/Aries (Proposed) 429 ac. $ 4 .7 million
Grant Total 1792 ac . $11. 9 million
The Town General Plan specifically addresses the importance of
the preservation of the visual integrity of Spring Ridge. The
District, unassisted, has not only acquired these existing lands
for permanent preservation; but also has now proposed to carry
out further the General Plan goals of the Town by acquiring the
entirety of Spring Ridge . In this case however, the District is
requesting the approval by the Town of a 50-car parking lot on
Portola Road to augment existing public access to the Windy Hill
Open Space Preserve, as well as a contribution of $113, 000 toward
the $4 .7 million purchase price.
The District ' s and the Town' s goals are virtually identical in
the accomplishment of this proposed acquisition. If General Plan
conformity is considered in the spirit of the entire project, it
appears that the goals are totally compatible.
I respectfully request that the Town Council make the necessary
findings and approve the required conditions for the two-lot
subdivision and parking lot permit.
Si 1 ,
Y
L ig Britton
Assi ant General Manager
LCB:cac
Enclosures
cc : MROSD Board of Directors
R-87-125
AMeeting 87-19
August 12 , 1987)
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
REPORT
August 6 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: C. Britton, Assistant General Manager
PREPARED BY: D. Hansen, Land Manager; D . Woods, Principal Open Space
Planner; and C. Bruins, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Approval of Funding for Parking Lot Design by Nancy Hardesty
Associates for the Slobe/Aries Addition to Windy Hill Open
Space Preserve
Recommendation; I recommend that you approve payment of the current
invoice for $13, 039. 73 to Nancy Hardesty Associates, for planning the
parking lot on the Slobe/Aries addition to the Windy Hill Open Space
Preserve. I also recommend that you approve additional expenditures
of up to $10, 200 to complete this project and direct staff to enter into
a new contract with Nancy Hardesty Associates reflecting this amount.
Introduction: Nancy Hardesty Associates was retained by the District to
aid in completing parking lot plans as an integral part of the Slobe/Aries
property addition to the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. That contract
was for a total of $9585 . Due to Town of Portola Valley requirements ,
unanticipated meetings and design needs, the costs have risen considerably
and require your approval.
Discussion: Nancy Hardesty Associates was selected for this project
because of the firm' s familiarity with the Portola Valley planning process .
Due to the unusual time constraints and planning complexities, staff was
unable to clearly define the project scope during contract negotiations .
Originally, staff anticipated completing conceptual design only . However ,
in order to gain a higher degree of assurance from the Town, staff had
to move forward well into the detailed design phase. Ms . Hardesty and her
associates have put great effort and long hours into the project and
should be credited with much of the projects success to date. In essence,
a four to six month project has been squeezed into a one month process .
The following is a breakdown of costs currently incurred as well as
anticipated costs to complete this job:
R-87-125 Page two
Original Contract (Phases I & 11) $9585
Actual Expenses (Phases I & II) $ 9, 513 .75
Additional Planning Requirements, Meetings,
and Development of Alternative Plans .
Costs to 7/31/87 3 , 525. 98
Amount of Current Invoice $13 ,039. 73
Estimated Additional Costs Needed to Obtain
Building Permit:
a) Hardesty Associates (Planning) 5 , 200 .00
b) Engineering Subcontracted by
Hardesty Associates 5, 000 ,00
Subtotal Additional Costs $10 , 200 .00
PROJECTED COSTS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL $23,039 . 73
(This does not include driveway or lot
engineering work already completed by
Brian, Cangas & Foulk for conceptual
approval of Portola Road improvements . )
AIIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FRO.kh: 11. Grench, General Manager
SUBJECT: F.Y. I.
DATE: August 7, 1987
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
MEMORANDUM
August 5 , 1987
TO: Board of Directors , Staff and Docents
FROM: David Hansen , Land Manager
RE : Whole Access Training
A whole access awareness/training session has been tentatively
scheduled on the morning of Friday, September 18 , 1987 . The work-
shop will be coordinated by staff from Whole Access , a non-profit
organization. The goal of Whole Access is to provide access to
recreational environments for people of all abilities . This "hands
on" workshop will last approximately three hours , and may include
City of Mountain View staff.
I strongly recommend that everyone attend, especially if you have
not participated in this type of workshop before. You will be
informed of the exact time and location of the workshop later. We
are seeking permission to use the City of Mountain View 's new in-
door/outdoor multipurpose facility.
I need to know how many people will be attending. Please complete
the form below and return it to me by August 21 , 1987 . Thank you.
Name
I can /cannot attend the Whole Access training/awareness
session on the morning of Friday, September 18 , 1987 .
Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
Ak,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
July 24, 1987
Mr. Virgus Streets
Redevelopment Administrator
City of East Palo Alto
Municipal Center
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Streets:
I noticed in the paper last night that the "Whiskey Gulch"
redevelopment plan is moving forward.
As stated in my letter of March 13 , 1987 (copy enclosed) ,
I would appreciate a copy of any staff reports regarding the
City's redevelopment plans. We have not received any infor-
mation from the Redevelopment Agency since that time (or
before) . We again respectfully request to be placed on your
mailing and notification lists for future considerations of
the project by the Redevelopment Agency. If you feel the re-
quest cannot be accommodated in full, I would appreciate
learning what information and notification we might expect
to receive as the project proceeds .
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
Enc.
c: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbe l 6.Grenc's,General Manager Board o1 Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE -':STRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C.SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
March 13, 1987
Mr. Virgus Streets
Redevelopment Administrator
City of East Palo Alto
Municipal Center
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Streets:
I would appreciate a copy of any staff reports or relevant data
regarding the City's redevelopment plans. We also respectfully -
request to be put on your mailing and notification lists for
future considerations so' that we might provide input for your
analysis and respond to plans as appropriate:
We have been deeply concerned- over the last few years about the
revenue loss implications to the District from redevelopment
projects in other cities. It will be refreshing to consider a
project that shows a positive long term revenue balance to the
District, as your project may very well accomplish.
Under my Board's policy, a committee consisting of the Board's
elected representative whose ward covers the redevelopment area,
the President of our Board (Richard Bishop) , and the General
Manager will evaluate the potential impacts, positive and nega-
tive, of projects on the District and respond as necessary. East
Palo Alto is covered by the wards of Directors 'Gerry Andeen and
Nonette Hanko. Mr. Andeen's ward includes "Whiskey Gulch" .
We look forward to working you with as the Citymoves ahead to
meet its needs.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Grench
General Manager
HG:ej
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Re eve I o ment
moves
By Mary T.Fortney Mouton then advanced the idea
Times Tribune staff 'Z`� I of extending the project area to Eu-
The East Palo Alto Redevelop- clad Avenue, where East Palo Alto
ment Agency Wednesday approved borders Menlo Park. Such a
the preliminary plan for redevel- change would bring a number of
opment of the Whiskey Gulch area apartment houses into the redevel-
opmentover the objection of agency mem-
ber Barbara Mouton. At present the project area stops
at Manhattan Avenue, except for a
Mouton questioned whether they small jog to take in the 7-Eleven
the redevelopment project pro- ;
food store and coin-operated laun-
posed by De Monet Industries, San Rif iVj� dry across the street.
Mateo, conflicted with the city's
general plan. Streets said the University Circle
The vote was 3-1, with Mouton area was drawn so as to take in all
dissenting. The agency is com- the commercial properties. Includ-
posed of the same members as the ing the additional area would cre-
City Council. Member John Bostic ate more problems in relocating
missed the meeting because he's tenants and would force the rede-
away on vacation. velopment process to go back to
De Monet has an 18-month exclu-
square one,Streets said.
sive agreement with the city to ne- We don't want to cause resi-
gotiate a plan to redevelop the dents on the edge of the projec,
Whiskey Gulch area, now called area to be uprooted, agency mem-
University Circle.The area,west of ber Warnell Coats said. "But if the
Bayshore Freeway, centers on the Barbara Mouton idea is to forestall the project e
1900 block of UniversityAvenue. then yes,throw everything into the
... casts dissenting vote. pot and make it messier."
Wednesday's meeting was devot- Agency Chairman James Blakey
ed chiefly to laying the ground- it didn't recognize the neighbor- agreed that expanding the area
w,)rk for the redevelopment pro- hood-based pattern of the cit—,. would add another burden of find-
cess. The preliminary plan was a ti irgus Streets, redevelopt:.,ent ing new housing for apartment ten-
very general statement of the administrator,replied the plan was ants, and declared he was opposed
boundaries of the project area and consistent with the land use and ec- to the idea.
proposed land use. onomic development sections of Agency member Ruben Abrica
De Monet earlier announced a the general plan. said, "What we're doing today is
proposal to construct two 20-story "What about people over here getting the ball rolling. If we get
office towers containing 1.2 million (on the east side of the freeway) too much detail in the project now
square feet of commercial and re- who spend their money over 're defeating our purpose."
tail space and a 250-room hotel. there. we
Mouton asked. "I don't Mouton also voted against asec-
The firm plans to present a spe- want to develop part of the city and and proposal, a procedural matter
cific concept for redevelopment dress it up and leave the rest as it of informing the auditor, assessor
within the next 30 days, according is." and tax collector of San Mateo
to William Skibitzke, senior vice Noting the preliminary plan was
president.He reported De Monet is only a general document, Streets County and the state Board of
negotiating with property owners said,"It describes what can be pro- Equalization that East Palo Alto is
in the redevelopment area but has posed but not in a particular level preparing a redevelopment plan
aot made an for the University Circle area.
y purchases yet. of detail. In the course of develop- Notification is required in case
Mouton said she had a problem ing a final plan, the broad strokes
,vith the preliminary plan because can be made very specific." Please see GULCH,A-10
items as mapping the redevelop-
ment plan, preparing business and
the city decides to use tax incre- residential relocation plans and
ment financing for the project. drafting an environmental impact
In other action, the agency: statement.
• Voted against forming a spe- There was extensive debate
cial committee to serve the rede- about the provision that De Monet
velopment agency in an advisory agrees to cover the city s expendi-
capacity. tures up to $200,000, with expendi-
• Approved a proposed $266,500 tures beyond that reimbursed at
budget to cover costs for such the redeveloper's discretion.
_ • Agreed to interview applicants
for redevelopment consultant and
a special redevelopment counsel at
an Aug. 3 meeting of the agency.
V
1 40,
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 ,
(415)949-5500
July 24, 1987
Mr. Milton Purcell
2309 San Jose Avenue, #3
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Mr. Purcell :
Thank you for your letter regarding Edgewood County Park.
The historical background is quite interesting!
The Park is owned in fee by San Mateo County and planned and
developed by the County. The Open Space District contributed
funds equally with the County to acquire the property and in
return received an easement that limits use of the property
to park and open space uses. A golf course is a permitted
use under the easement. The District has review and comment
privileges on plans the County considers but no veto rights.
When the Environmental Impact Report was done for the golf
course proposal, the District commented on the design, made
various suggestions, and we stated our preference for no golf
course at all.
Currently the federal government is considering whether to list
the Bay Checkerspot butterfly, which inhabits the site , as an
endangered species, and if it is listed, the golf course could
be impacted (see attached article) ,:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter!
Sincerely,
Richard Bishop, President
Board of Directors
RB:ej
Enc.
cc: MROSD Board of Directors
Herbert P_Grench,Genera!Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Nonette G.Hanko,Teena Henshaw,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin
1
�l
ry� l
i
I
I
p
i
� �- � �.. �
43r�yJ
�� �--�r��� �
�� _ 1 _ �
� � `�'
� Q30/.9NlO.�
"�"y� ,7�,r,, shy ..�.� �"-�•�•,J ��•'.Z,'J "�,,,� +r�i�,y�.
// � T -!/
�' •� �
� -
,.,,
�-
� --, ��
i
--_ -
C�
U
.. �E��'trt'T /.,�-�r' — !cam w�•-c-l �:. `.�wc vt. �
v
i
� 1
I�
2
i
v �
ow
i
i
��
�'��
�,
`"'`�-. � .,may. ".'��N
�'� �'�� �
• � �-���
d o ,�" _ � ,
.���� ..
;�
i �,7 Yy -�.�' -�
I � ���`�
� .,
,� ,^yy �
j�
. .�
Meeting 87-19
Dater Aug. 12, 1987
Dame Descxipti on
319 1,213.67 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
320 928.96 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
321 333.86 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities
322 956.02 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel
323 39.72 Personal Report Subscription
324 1,742.01 Portola Park Heights Property Road Maintenance Costs
Owners Association
325 1,008.00 John Pound Legal Fees--Kidwell
326 14.38 Precision Engravers, Inc. , Ranger Name Badges
327 23.04 Rancho Hardware Equipment Supplies
328 84.07 Redwood Office Products, Inc. Office Supplies
329 101 .08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service
330 69.54 Sears, Roebuck and Company Equipment
331 1 ,484.75 Shell Oil Company Fuel and Repairs
333 151 .31 Linda Steputat Reimbursement--Pre-Employment Physi(
and Uniform Expense
334 91 .89 Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. Sand for MonteBello Restroom
9.97 Success
. - Subscription
175.46- Times Tribune Advertisement
337- ' 60.44 Unocal Fuel
338 87.57 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense
339 99.92 Rich Voss Trucking, Inc. Delivery
340 49.50 Western Governmental Research Advertisement
Association
341 32.82 Woolrich Uniform Expense
342 40. 13 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expense
343 87.90 Your Framing Center Framing Materials and Labor
344 204,550.52* Internal Revenue Serv-ice Hosking Defeasance Payment
345 Unknadn* Herzer Corporation Hosking Defeasance Payment
346 Unknown* Alan Hosking Ranch, Inc. Hosking Defeasance Payment
347 13,039.73 Hardesty Associates Parking Lot Design .
Total Defeasance Payment due is $297,500.00. Herzer and Hosking
amounts to be determined prior to August 12, 1987. i
III
CLAIMS No. 87-15
Meeting $7-19
MIDPENIN:. .A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DIb_.iICT Date. Aug. 12, 1987
C L A I M S
-7ount Nam
e Description
284 266.80 Adia Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help
285 153.53 Aeroquip/Kayser Co. , Inc. Equipment Supplies
286 81 .86 Allen Equipment Co. , Inc. Field `Equipment
287 63.53 AmeriGas We Tanks Refill
288 96.14 A T & T
Telephone Rental .
289 32.35 Blue Ribbon Express P Ex
press Mail
290 385.00 Brauer Grading Equipment men Rental t en al
q
29) 30.00 Bruce's Skywood Gas S Towing Fuel
292 4,023.00 Ceip Fund, Inc. Legal Intern Program
293 3,629.24 Communications Research. Company Radios and Installation
294 47.06 Patrick Congdon Reimbursement--Equipment Repairs
295 62.60 Crest Copies, Inc. Bluelines
296 441 .16 Alice Cummings Reimburse C" F4 ate=-Fr-i-va.te.- -
Vehicle Expense
297 215. 12 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
298 668.75 DeHart's Vallco Copy Center Map Reproduction
217.53 Alan_D'Orsay Construction of Bookshelves and
Desk Extension
300 191 .70 East Bay Regional Park District Resource Materials
301 123.91 John Escobar Reimbursement--Field Supplies
302 79. 18 Foothill Safety, Inc. Uniform Expense
303 23.96 Walter Goggin Private Vehicle Expense
304 28.00 Graphicstat Artwork
305 71 .40 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense
306 1 ,830.50 Mary Hale Reimbursement--Seminar Expense
307 23.25 Harbinger Communications Computer Expense
308 66.50 Hennepin Parks Resource Materials
309 48.49 Hubbard S Johnson Field Supplies
310 29.20 'IsIzind Press Resource Document
3T1 96.30 William Kaufmann, Inc. Office Furniture
312 12.00 Lauren Langford Artwork
313 240.00 Langley Hill Quarry Repair Septic System
314 510.60 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
315 1 ,691 .50 McCracken, Byers & Martin Legal Services--Dyer
316 69.75 Mobil Oil Company Fuel
317 45.0o Joyce Nicholas Reimbursement--Seminar Registration
318 60.96 Norney's Office Supplies
REVISED Meeting 87-19
Dater Aug. 12, 1987
Ain0,.--it Name Description
319 1 ,213.67 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
320 928.96 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
321 333.86 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities
322 956.02 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel
323 39.72 Personal Report Subscription
324 1 ,742.01 Portola Park Heights Property Road Maintenance Costs
.Owners Association
325 1 ,008.00 John Pound Legal Fees--Kidwell
326 14.38 Precision Engravers, Inc. Ranger Name Badges
327 23.04 Rancho Hardware Equipment Supplies
328 84.07 Redwood Office Products, Inc. Office Supplies
329 101 .08 San Francisco Water Department Water Service
330 69.54 Sears, Roebuck and Company Equipment
331 1 ,484.75 Shell Oil Company Fuel and Repairs
332 13.36 Skyline County Water District Water Service
333 151 .31 Linda Steputat Reimbursement--Pre-Employment Physit ,A,
and Uniform Expense
334 91 .89 Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. Sand for MonteBello Restroom
9.97 Success Subscription
175.46' Times Tribune Advertisement
337 60.44 Unocal Fuel
338 87.57 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense
339 99.92 Rich Voss Trucking, Inc. Delivery
340 49.50 Western Governmental Research Advertisement
Association
341 32.82 Wooirich Uniform Expense
342 40. 13 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expense
343 87.90 Your Framing Center Framing Materials and Labor
344 204,550.52* Internal Revenue Service Hosking Defeasance Payment
345 .4 52.63 Financial Services, Inc.
51 ,39 . r5 Herzer Cart--por-a-t-i-on- Hosking Defeasance Payment
C, �
ifford Ross Cherni k, Trustee
346 :4Ctiott= Olafr-+krs�k--ng--Rarch-� I-no, , Hosking Defeasance Payme:it
347 13,039.73 Hardesty Associates Parking Lot Design
348 297.00`* Browning & Ferris Dumpster Rental
349 249.71 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Photo Processing,
Equipment Rental and Office Supplies
Total Defeasance Payment due is $297,500.00. Herzer and Hosking
amounts to be determined prior to August 12, 1987. j
**Emergency Check Issued on August 10, 1987
a
CLAIMS No. 87-15
Meeting 87-19
MIDPENINL A REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DI_, _�ICT Date: Aug. )2, 1987
REVISED
A-7.ount Name Description
284 266.8o Adia Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help
285 153-53 Aeroquip/Kayser Co. , Inc. Equipment Supplies
286 81 .86 Allen Equipment Co. , Inc. Field 'Equipment
289 32-35 Blue Ribbon Express Express Mail
290 385-00 Brauer Grading Equipment Rental
292 4 023-00 Ceip Fund, Inc. Legal Intern Program
293 3:629.24 Communications Research, Company Radios and Installation
296 441 . 16 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Film and Private
Vehicle Expense
297 215- 12 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies
217.53 Alan D'Orsay Construction of Bookshelves and
Desk Extension
191 -70 East Bay Regional Park District Resource Materials
301 123-91 John Escobar Reimbursement--Field Supplies
302 79- 18 Foothill Safety, Inc. Uniform Expense
303 23-96 Walter Goggin Private Vehicle Expense
305 71 .40 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense
3o6 1 ,830-50 Mary Hale Reimbursement--Seminar Expense
Harbinger Communications Computer Expense
308 66-50 Hennepin Parks Resource Materials
309 48.49 Hubbard & Johnson Field Supplies
310 29.20 -island Press Resource Document
311 96-30 William Kaufmann, Inc. Office Furniture
312 12.00 Lauren Langford Artwork
313 24o.00 Langley Hill Quarry Repair Septic System
314 510.60 Los Altos Garbage Company Dumpster Rental
315 Y ,691 .50 McCracken, Byers & Martin Legal Services--Dyer
316 63,75 Mobil Oil Company Fuel
� 317 45,08 Joyce Nicholas Reimbursement--Seminar Registration
318 60.96 Nmrney^s Office Supplies
C�S No. 87-15 /
� Meet1rcj 87-79
� MIDPENIyJSU_-^ REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DZS)^`LCT Date: Aug. 12, 1987
REVISED
C L & I }4S
Name [) |
ea��lptioo
/
284 266.80 Adia Services, Inc. Temporary Office Help
285 153-53 Aeroquip/Kayser Co. , Inc. Equipment Supplies
286 81 .86 Allen Equipment Co. , Inc. Field 'Equipment
289 32-35 Blue Ribbon Express Express Mail
290 385.00 Brauer Grading Equipment Rental
292 4,023.00 Ceip Fund, Inc. Legal Intern Program
� 293 3,629.24 Communications Research Company Radios and Installation
294 47.06 Patrick Congdon Reimbursement--Equipment Rb alrs
295 62,60 Crest Copies, Inc. Blmalines ' |
� 296 441 . 16 Alice Cummings Reimbursement--Film and Private i
�
Vehicle Expense
�
297 215. 13 Discount Office Supply Office Supplies �
298 668.75 DaHart's Vallco Copy Center Map Reproduction �
299 317.53 Alan D`Drsay Construction of Bookshelves and
Desk Extension l
300 191 .70 East Bay Regional Park District Resource Materials �
Ol l2�.gl John Escobar �
- Reimbursement--Field Supplies �
302 79, 18 Foothill Safety, Inc. Uniform Expense �
303 23.96 Walter Gmggin Private Vehicle Expense �
304 28.00 Graphics1at Artwork
305 77 .40 Mary Gundert Private Vehicle Expense
306 1 ,830'50 Mary Hale Reimbursement--Seminar Expense
307 23.2- Uorbinger Communications Computer Expense
� 308 66.50 Hennepin Parks Resource Materials
309 48,49 Hubbard & Johnson Field Supplies
| 310 2g.2U 1s}and Press. Resource Document
| 3) ) 96.30 William Kaufmann, Inc. Office Furniture
� 312 12.00 Lauren Langford Artwork
� 313 24O.00 Langley Hill Quarry Repair Septic System
314 510.60 Los Altos Garbage Company Bumpster Rental
| 315 1 ,697 .50 McCracken, Byers & Martin Legal Services--Dyer
. 316 69.75 Mobil Oil Company Fuel
317 45,00 Joyce Nicholas Reimbursement--Seminar Registration
318 60.96 Nurneyvs Office Supplies
- - - - - ------ -- -- v�i a ju" J4,-, >
REVISED Meeting 87-19
Date: Aug. 12, 1987
Name Description
319 1 ,213.67 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies
320 928.96 Pacific Bell Telephone Service
321 333.86 Pacific Gas & Electric Company Utilities
322 956.02 Peninsula Oil Company Fuel
� 324 1 ,742.01 Portola Park Heights Property Road Maintenance Costs
| Owners Association
!
� 325 1 ,008.00 John Pound Legal Fees--Kidwell
326 14.38 Precision Engravers, Inc. Ranger Name Badges
�
327 23.04 Rancho Hardware Equipment Supplies
�
/ 328 84.07 Redwood Office Products, Inc. Office Supplies
. 329 101 .OU San Francisco Water Department Water Service �
330 69.54 Sears,- Roebuck and Company Equipment .
/ 331 1 ,484,75 Shell Oil Company Fuel and Repairs
332 } 3.]6 Skyline County Water District Water Service
| 333 151 .31 Linda Dteputat Reimbursement--Pre-Employment Physical,
! and Uniform Expense
|
| 334 91 .89 Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. Sand for MonteBello Res1ruom
335 9^97 Success Subscription
� -
336 175,48 ' Times Tribune Advertisement
�
! 337 60.44 Unocal Fuel
!
| 338 87.57 Sandy Voorhees Private Vehicle Expense
' 339 99.92 Rich Voss Trucking, Inc. Delivery
|
340 49.50 Western Governmental Research Advertisement
' Association
�
341 33.82 Woolrioh Uniform Expense
342 4O, 13 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expense
343 87^90 Your Framing Center Framing Materials and Labor
344 204,550,52* Internal Revenue Service Hnsking Befeasance Payment
41 ,552.63 Y Services, Inc.
345 Herzer � Hmsklng Defeasance Payment
5/ `3zo^«� Cliffordlck' Trustee |
��� �*4�a*x+a�---����� -���-' Hoa�lng Defeas�nca Payment '
~ - '~~'`'''� �--', |
| 347 13,039.73 Hardesty Associates Parking Lot Design �
348 297 UO** Browning � Ferris Dump�t r Rental
� , � |
349 249^71 Petty Cash Meal Conferences, Photo Processing, |
/ Equipment Rental and Office Supplies |
| |
/
� Total Defeasance Payment due is $297,500.00. Herzer and Husking
amounts to be determined prior to August 12^ 1987. �
**Emergency Check Issued on August 10, 1987 /
' |