HomeMy Public PortalAbout20000522 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 00-12 ce
j Open , i
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting -00 12
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
7:00 P.M.
Monday, May 22, 2000
Elks Lodge#1471
4249 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California
NOTE SPECIAL DATE and LOCATION:
MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. at the Elks Lodge#1471
I
AGENDA
7:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT- OPEN SESSION
i
** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Public
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
7:05 BOARD BUSINESS
1. Tentative Adoption of an Amendment to the Preliminary Use and Management Plans
for Seven Preserves: Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch,
Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill, and Thornewood Open Space Preserves, Designating the
Preserves as Closed to Bicycle Use, Including Closure of 13.6 Miles of Existing Trails
to Mountain Bicycle Use; Tentative Amendment to the District's Trail Use Policies to
Add a Long Range Trail Use Designation Guideline Ratio of 60% to 65% Multi-Use
(Including Bicycles) and 35% to 40% Hiking or Hiking and Equestrian Use Only;
Determine that the Recommended Actions are Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as Set Out in the Report; Tentative Amendment to
the Trail Use Policies Regarding Multi-Used Trails to Include a Policy Regarding
Multi-Use Trail Access (Including Bicycles) to Regional Trails Such as the Bay Area
Ridge Trail - R. Anderson
11:00 ADJOURNMENT
330 Distel Circle . Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 * Phone:650-691-1200
FAX:650-691-0485 # E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org Web site:www.openspace.org N
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane tittle, Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder, Kenneth C.Nitz . General Alanager:(_.Craig Britton
Meeting 00-12 Page 2
Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to
change of order.
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the
time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board
concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited
to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication,
which the Board appreciates.
Regional Open ,' .ice
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
R-00-69
Meeting 00-12
May 22, 2000
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Tentative Amendment to the Preliminary Use and Management Plans for Seven Preserves: Foothills,
La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch, Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill, and Thornewood Open
Space Preserves, Designating the Preserves as Closed to Bicycle Use, Including Closure of 13.6 Miles
of Existing Trails to Mountain Bicycle Use; Tentative Adoption-of Revisions to the District's Trail Use
Policies to Add a Long Range Trail Use Designation Guidel' a Ratio,of 60% to 65% Multi-Use
king(Including Bicycles) and 35% to 40% Hiking or Hi an Equestrian Use Only
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Determine that the recommended actions are exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report.
2. Tentatively amend the Trail Use Policies regarding multi-use trails (including bicycles) to
provide access to regional trails such as the Bay Area Ridge Trail, as follows:
The District will strive to provide multi-use trail access (including bicycles) to dedicated
sections of the Bay Area Ridge Trail by allowing exceptions to preserve bicycle closures for the
Ridge Trail. The District will also strive to provide multi-use trail access to regional trails
connecting urban areas to the Ridge Trail. Access to such regional connecting trails will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of availability of suitable regional
trailhead staging, the access policies of adjoining agencies' trail systems, and the availability of
other alternative multi-use trail connections in the same region. The District will encourage
other agencies to provide Ridge Trail and regional trail connections on the same basis.
i
AD HOC COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Tentatively adopt an amendment to the Use and Management Plans for seven preserves:
Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch, Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill, and
Thornewood Open Space Preserves, designating the preserves as closed to bicycle use,
including closure of 13.6 miles of existing trails to mountain bicycle use.
or
Ia. Amend Ad Hoc Committee's Recommendation 1 to close the preserves to bicycle use on
weekends only for a two-year trial period. On weekdays, the trail use shall remain status quo.
R-00-69 Page 2
2. Tentatively amend the Trail Use Policies to add a guideline target trail use designation ratio of
60% to 65% multi-use trails (including bicycles) to 35% to 40% hiking or hiking-and-
equestrian trails (excluding bicycles). This may be attained over time by designating entire new
preserves as closed to bicycles as they undergo a thorough planning process, or if necessary,
through the designation of new trails.
DISCUSSION: COMMITTEE REPORT
Background
As overall recreational use of the open space preserves by mountain bicyclists has increased over the
years, the opportunities for a tranquil nature experience have diminished. Discussions between Board
members and their constituents indicate there is a desire on the part of many preserve visitors for trails
that do not permit bicycle use.
In October 1996, Director Hanko submitted a memorandum(see Exhibitl) to the Board of Directors
requesting a review of the Trail Use Policies, particularly with regard to Policy 1.2.
Trail Use Policy 1.0 states: The District will endeavor to provide a variety of satisfying trail use
opportunities on open space preserves throughout the District. More specifically, the District will
endeavor to:
1.2 Protect the opportunity for tranquil nature study and observation, especially in those areas
identified as providing a unique wilderness experience.
Director Hanko heard from many constituents that they did not feel safe or able to enjoy themselves in
the preserves due to frequent encounters with high-speed cyclists on mountain trails. The District
provides very few practical options for constituents who wish to enjoy open space without encountering
mountain bikes. Currently, trails that limit access to hiking or hiking and equestrian use are scattered
throughout the District's trail system. A given preserve might have one or several trails that prohibit
access to bicycles, but these do not create a cohesive opportunity for hikers or equestrians to experience
open space without encountering bicyclists. If a visitor requests recommendations for hikes where they
will not encounter a bicyclist, at present, staff can only direct them to Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve. At Rancho San Antonio, bicycle access is prohibited to the trail network beyond Deer
Hollow Farm.
Many constituents have expressed serious concerns about their safety and the disturbance of their peace
and enjoyment of trails due to mountain bicycle use. Over the past 16 years, the District has received
many letters complaining of negative experiences with bicycles on the trails and requesting relief from
their impacts. These letters describe hikers forced off trails by speeding bicycles; equestrians having
their horses startled by speeding bikes, thus creating safety risks to equestrians; and numerous examples
from both hikers and equestrians of near-misses with bicyclists (see Exhibit 2). Board members have
reported receiving similar complaints directly from their constituents. The District has also received
many letters from bicyclists supporting increased bicycle access (see Exhibit 2).
i
R-00-69 Page 3
These experiences turned a pleasant outdoor experience into an unpleasant and possibly hazardous one.
In addition, due to the speed difference between bicyclists and other trails users, mountain biking
creates a perception among many trail users that they are unsafe on the trail, making it difficult for
hikers and equestrians to relax and fully enjoy their natural surroundings. The fear of an accident
between hikers or equestrians and mountain bicyclists has affected how some visitors use District lands.
Although actual collisions between trail users are infrequent, Board members have indicated that even
one such accident is one too many. In a four-year period (1996 through 1999) field staff responded to
166 reported solo bicycle accidents. In the same four-year period, field staff responded to 15 reported
accidents caused by a collision or an attempt to avoid another trail user. Solo accidents affecting
mountain bicyclists occur more frequently, and are indicative of the aggressiveness and speed with
which some bicyclists travel through the preserves. It is clear that user conflicts are real, and that some
bicyclists are disrupting the quiet enjoyment of other user groups.
In response to Director Hanko's 1996 memorandum, an ad hoc Committee of the District's Board of
Directors was formed to develop recommendations that address this issue for full Board consideration.
The Committee met on several occasions in 1997 and began meeting regularly in mid-1999. The
Committee is comprised of Deane Little (chair), Nonette Hanko and Betsy Crowder. With staff's
assistance, the Committee researched the District's trail system and trail designation methods, other
Bay Area agencies' trail system and trail designation methods, user conflict mitigation measures, and
considered a variety of options to address the issue of providing opportunities for tranquil nature
experiences. The proposal outlined in this report is the outcome of these meetings.
As elected representatives, Board members need to base their decisions on the needs of all District
constituents. Although some visitor user groups may be more vocal or better organized in providing
input on potential decisions, it is the Board's responsibility to protect the natural environment and to
appropriately balance the needs and desires of all constituent groups. The Committee feels that the
present proposal will help to restore an appropriate balance to the use of District preserves, giving
hikers and equestrians opportunities to experience the tranquil surroundings of nature without user
conflicts, while preserving the vast majority of popular mountain biking opportunities and providing a
wide variety of satisfying bicycling trails and experiences.
Proposal Objectives
The Committee worked with staff to develop objectives to guide the process. The objectives were
established and revised throughout the discussions to reflect the Committee's understanding of the
Board's charge. The objectives are:
1. Increase geographically distributed opportunities for a safe and tranquil nature experience
within the District's preserves. Strive to balance, on a District-wide level, the trail use
designations between areas with multi-use trails (including bicycles), and areas that allow hiking
or hiking and equestrian use only (excluding bicycles).
2. Seek a system of trail use designations that promote visitor understanding of the preserve rules
and trail use designations, and enhance compliance with those rules.
I
I
I
i
i
R-00-69 Page 4
3. Respect preserve visitors' preferred modes of travel to experience open space.
4. Revise the Trail Use Policies to make them consistent with the District's Basic Policy and
Mission Statement.
5. Develop a policy foundation as a tool to use when addressing other trail-related issues in the
future. The additional planning processes which may be undertaken in the future upon
completion of the trail use designation process may include:
• Policies and procedures for trail management(i.e., seasonal closures, signing,
monitoring and enforcement),
• Trail design, construction and maintenance standards, and
• Site specific trail planning.
Proposal
The Committee considered various alternatives to reach their objective of enhancing visitor enjoyment
and tranquil trail use opportunities. The following proposal was selected as the best alternative to
create such opportunities, while minimizing the impact to the District's mountain biking community
(see Exhibits 3 and 4).
1. Close the following seven preserves to all bicycle use: Foothills, La Honda
Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch Area, Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill, and
Thornewood Open Space Preserves. This proposal affects a total of only13.6
miles out of the 165.3 miles of trails currently open to mountain bikes, or
approximately 8%; 151.7 miles of trails will remain open, which constitutes 69%
of all District trails.
2. Amend the District's Trail Use Policies to add a long-range trail use
designation ratio of 35% to 40% hiking or hiking-and-equestrian use only, and
60% to 65% multi-use (including bicycles).
In considering which preserves to close to bicycle use, the Committee selected preserves that are
geographically distributed throughout the District, allowing District constituents to enjoy safe and
tranquil nature opportunities without having to travel a great distance from home. Also considered was
the environmental setting of the individual preserves, including striving to select a variety of settings for
preserve visitors to enjoy a tranquil nature setting. The preserves chosen range from the redwood
forests and cool creek corridors of Thornewood, to chaparral hillsides and valley views at Foothills, to
the mixed evergreen and oak woodland forest at Los Trancos, among others.
I
In making its decision, the Committee considered the impact of these preserve closures on existing trail
use patterns within the District. The selected preserves receive relatively light use by mountain cyclists
when compared to all District preserves. This conclusion is based upon several independent lines of
data, including one-day trail counts on some of the affected preserves, yearlong trail census data, and
years of field staff observations (see Exhibit 5). The relatively low mountain bicycle use of some
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
R-00-69 Page 5
preserves may be due to the isolated location of an individual preserve, or the limited trail use
opportunities of the preserve. This proposal leaves the majority of the District's trail system intact and
open to multiple use. The closure of the seven preserves affects 13.6 miles of trails, decreasing the
number of multiple-use (including bicycles) miles of trails District-wide from 165.3 miles to 151.7
miles, but retaining 69% of the existing trail system as full multiple-use.
The affected preserves were selected to provide an overall balance in accommodating all District user
groups while providing a balance to the District's trail use designation system, with the least impact on
preserve users. Changes to the District's most popular mountain biking preserves, including El Corte
de Madera, Russian Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Monte Bello, Long Ridge, Sierra Azul,
Fremont Older, and others were purposely avoided to minimize the impact of the proposal on mountain
bicyclists. Six of the seven selected preserves are relatively small in size and thus have limited trail
opportunities. The average size of the affected preserves is 560 acres. The average size of all District
preserves is 1,614 acres. The trail systems on the preserves to be considered for closure are primarily
self-contained, with relatively few links to other preserves or trail systems.
Proposal Amendment
In addition to the original proposal approved at its March 9, 2000 meeting, the Committee
recommended by a 2 to 1 vote an amended proposal that would allow continued mountain biking use of
these preserves during weekdays. Both the amendment and the original proposal are being forwarded
to the full Board for consideration at its May 22' meeting. The amended proposal states:
3. Closure of the seven preserves (Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos,
Picchetti Ranch Area, Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill, and Thornewood) to bicycle
use shall only occur on weekends for a two-year trial period. On weekdays,
the trail use shall remain status quo.
The Committee has forwarded this alternative to the Board to explore as a possible mitigation measure.
However, staff has concluded, and the existing Trail Use Guidelines support, that this option is
unworkable and it is not recommended by staff, as discussed later in this report.
RESEARCH AND FINDINGS: STAFF ANALYSIS:
Guideline Trail Designation Ratio
This proposal creates a guideline trail use designation goal to improve the overall opportunities for a
tranquil nature experience while minimizing the impact on existing preserve users. This guideline
would be used as a decision-making tool for Board and staff in determining future trail use
designations. This long range trail use ratio of 35% to 40% hiking or hiking and equestrian use, to
60% to 65% multiple use (including bicycles), may be accommodated b designating entire new
p ( g Y )� Y Y g g
preserves as they undergo a thorough planning process prior to opening to the public. The District
currently has four preserves or areas that are closed to public use, pending adoption of use and
management plans. They are Bear Creek Redwoods, Cathedral Oaks, La Honda Creek (lower portion),
and Rancho de Guadalupe. The ratio can be achieved when planning new preserves so that it will not
affect any current trails open to bicycle use. The ratio may also be attained by designating individual
I
I
I
I
I
i
R-00-69 Page 6
trails as they are added to the system. No further closure of existing trails is anticipated to meet this
ratio (although some trail closures do occur seasonally due to poor conditions or to protect against
resource damage).
The 35% to 45% hiking/equestrian-only guideline ratio is based on the general understanding that
approximately half of the District's current overall use is hikers and equestrians, of which a significant
number have expressed complaints about conflicts with mountain bicyclists on trails. Thus, a case could
be made that 50% access to mountain bicycles would be appropriate. Seventy-five percent of the trails
(or 69% of the trails if the proposed 13.6 miles of trails are closed), are currently open to mountain
bicycles. Both the percentage of bike-accessible trails and the pattern of individual trail use
designations makes it difficult to mitigate the conflict between bicyclists and other users. While it
might be reasonable to seek a ratio of 50% bicycle trail access if conflicts cannot be mitigated by less
significant changes. The 35% to 45% target ratio was selected to provide a reasonable regional
distribution of trails and/or preserves where visitors can avoid sharing trails with mountain bicycles,.
while maintaining a variety of preserves, environments, interconnecting trail systems, and popular
mountain bicycling preserves intact.
The District's ultimately-envisioned trail system as depicted in the Regional Open Space Study
anticipated to be developed over the next 25 to 35 years, could be as high as 600 miles, rather than the
current 219 miles. Thus, even though the ratio of the bike-accessible trails would be lower than at
present, the long-range result will be an overall increase in the miles of trails available to bicycles and
in the miles without access to bicycles, so that all users can have a safe and enjoyable experience.
Preserve-Specific Changes
The specific conditions and proposed changes in each preserve are summarized below.
Foothills Open Space Preserve This preserve has a 0.8 mile designated trail system. A single trail
leads preserve visitors from two roadside parking spaces on Page Mill Road to an overview of the
Silicon Valley. Use of this preserve is very limited by all user groups, but particularly by mountain
bicycles.
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve The southern two thirds of this preserve is currently closed to
all uses, pending a master planning process for the preserve. The designated trail system on the
remaining northern one-third of the preserve is restricted to access by permit only. The trail system in
this portion of the preserve consists of 3.4 miles of designated road-width trails. This proposal would
most likely affect the entire preserve, including the closed portion. The final decision for the portion of
the preserve closed to public use would occur when the master planning process is complete. Due to
the access by permit only restrictions, use of this preserve has been limited. Mountain biking use on
the portion of the preserve open to bicyclists has been extremely light, based upon staff observations.
The nearby preserves of El Corte de Madera Creek and Purisima Creek Redwoods will remain status
quo. These two preserves total 5,938 acres and have a multi-use trail system of 53 miles.
I
Los Trancos Open Space Preserve This small preserve has a 5.3-mile trail system, including the
popular San Andreas Fault Trail. This interpretive trail is very popular with school groups and docent-
I
I
I
I
I
I
R-00-69 Page 7
led activities. A portion of trails in this preserve, 4.1 miles in length, will be affected by this proposal.
This preserve is centrally located in the popular South Skyline Area of the District. The remaining
South Skyline Area preserves include Coal Creek, Long Ridge, Monte Bello, Russian Ridge, Saratoga
Gap, and Skyline Ridge. Together, these preserves total 9,686 acres and have a combined multi-use
trail system of 47.2 miles. These trails will remain open to multi-use activity.
Designating Los Trancos as a hiking or hiking and equestrian preserve will create a tranquil nature
opportunity within this popular public land use area. This preserve is relatively isolated from the trail
systems of the surrounding preserves. Preserve use counts conducted in 1997 indicate this preserve
receives very low bicycle traffic (see Exhibit 5).
The low use numbers and bike percentages for Los Trancos Open Space Preserve support staffs
conclusion that this preserve is not a significant destination for bicyclists. In addition, staff has
researched the use of Los Trancos for advertised rides by Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers
(ROMP). ROMP newsletters for all of 1999 through the first quarter of 2000 did not mention Los
Trancos as the destination of part of the route for any beginner rides, and only mentioned Los Trancos
as a portion of two intermediate rides. Several ROMP rides have been scheduled at Los Trancos in the
last 60 days.
Picchetti Ranch Area This 308-acre preserve has a 3.7-mile trail system. Approximately 2.8 miles of
trail are currently open to mountain bicycling would be closed. This preserve receives minimal bicycle
traffic based upon staff observations. Also, the focal point of this preserve is the historic Picchetti
winery, which regularly attracts families and is therefore a more appropriate preserve for hikers and
equestrians.
w Pul as Ridge Open Space Preserve The 1.8 miles of the 3.8 mile trails stem that are no open to
�-g P P Y P
multiple-use would be closed to bicycles. This small preserve is isolated and receives minimal
mountain bicycle activity, based upon staff observations. However, the only trails currently designated
for access to bikes are the Hassler Trail, a paved road looping through the center of the preserve and a
connecting paved road parallel to the Cordilleras Trail, which is a decomposed granite-surfaced trail
designated for handicapped access. While the preserve map shows the paved road parallel to
Cordilleras Trail as available for multiple use, actually this is not the case. The land is owned by the
City of San Francisco, and the area designated for the trail is adjacent to the paved access road.
Because this trail is a designated handicapped access trail, it is inappropriate for use by bikes or horses.
Therefore, the multiple use designations for these trails should be corrected regardless of whether other
actions are taken to address trail use conflicts within the District.
Teague Hill Open Space Preserve A .8-mile section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail currently travels
through the preserve. The trail, a continuation of a segment of the Ridge Trail extending from Huddart
Park, is currently designated for hiking and equestrian traffic only. This is consistent with the trail use
designation applied to the trail by San Mateo County Parks. An alternative, multi-use alignment of the
Bay Area Ridge Trail is planned eventually for the west side of Skyline Boulevard to connect through
Purisima, El Corte de Madera, and, presumably, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserves. The closure
of Teague Hill Open Space Preserve does not constitute a change in current multi-use trail mileage, but
i
R-00-69 Page 8
represents a proposal to maintain this preserve in the future for hiking and equestrian use only to help
address the proposed target ratio for multi-use trails/preserves to hiking/equestrian trails/preserves
only.
Thornewood Open Space Preserve The 0.7-mile trail from a small staging area to Schilling Lake will
be closed to bicycle use. This is an isolated preserve, which contains the historic Thornewood house
and is seldom used by bicyclists.
Public Notification and Participation Process
Recognizing that this issue is of great concern to District constituents, an extensive public notification
process has occurred. This included the following: A public meeting notification flyer containing a
summary of the proposal and amendment was mailed to nearly 1,900 parties and/or agencies that had
expressed interest in related District trail use issues. In addition, the meeting notice was posted at all
key trailheads, (trailheads containing a bulletin board) and on the District's web site. A press release
was issued and the subject received significant coverage in the local and regional press. Copies of this
report were available for requesting parties on May 17.
A similar public notification process occurred prior to the ad hoc Trail Policy Committee's March 9
meeting. In addition, staff contacted or met with key interest group representatives. The March 9
meeting was attended by approximately 200 people. Sixty-two people addressed the Committee with
comments on the proposal. The comments were 77% against the proposal, and 23% supportive. Notes
from the meeting have been forwarded to you. Numerous written comments have also been received:
54 letters and 18 a-mails were received supporting the policy and 26 letters and 259 e-mails were
received opposing the policy. Copies of these have been made available to you and are part of the
record. A minimum of three extensively-advertised public meetings will have occurred to provide
opportunity for public comment before these actions would become final (the March 9 Committee
meeting, the May 22 Board meeting, and, at minimum, a final reading before the Board at least a
month hence).
The proposed actions are also based on many rounds of study and public review through successive
stages since 1990. This includes a series of well-attended Board meetings in 1998 and 1999 concerning
the general policy that hiking use should have priority on District trails and that preservation of the
opportunity for a tranquil nature experience is a part of the Basic Policy of the District. These occurred
on December 16, 1998 (see report R-98-159), February 10, 1999 (see report R-99-31), and March 10,
1999 (see report R-99-41). During this period, 127 letters and a-mails were received supporting the
policy and 51 letters and a-mails were received opposing the policy.
Response to Weekend-Only Closure Option
Staff has reviewed the recommendation adopted at the Committee meeting on March 9 that the Board
consider the option that the proposed preserve closures be in effect on weekends and holidays only for a
two-year trial period. Staff feels strongly that this alternative is unworkable from the standpoint of
management in the field. The infeasibility of designating use for different days or time periods was
identified in the adopted Trail Use Mitigation Measures, as discussed later in this report. District
preserves have many unstaffed points of entry, rather than a central staffed entry kiosk or gate as at
I
R-00-69 Page 9
many county and state parks. It would be extremely difficult to convey to visitors the reasoning behind
this management practice, which staff believes would be unique to the Bay Area. The District has not
had particularly good success with past attempts at infrequently-used techniques, such as walk-only
zones and one-way trails. The Board would also have to make a determination of how holidays would
be handled by requiring the publishing of a list of holidays that would be treated as weekend days.
An objective of the proposed trail policy revisions, and of other recent policy revisions such as those
for dog access, has been to simplify the rules and conditions for access in the field. The weekend and
holiday-only closures will be difficult for users to be informed about or remember and for managers to
interpret and for patrol staff to enforce. Overall, staff feels that weekend-only closures are so
problematic and difficult and costly to administer that it would be preferable the Board not act on any of
the proposed closures rather than adopt a weekend-only closure. In addition, members of the cycling
community, including the President of ROMP, did not support the weekend only closure option.
Information on District Trail Use Levels
An issue was raised at the Committee meeting on March 9 as to whether the District had information on
quantity of use of the trails by user group. It was made clear that numeric use levels per user group are
not the primary basis for policy decisions on where specific uses are allowed. However some use-level
information is available and is relevant as background information.
Collecting very precise trail use statistics is difficult to accomplish, given the configuration of most
District preserves. Many other parks have a single staffed entry point making it relatively easy to count
or administer a questionnaire asking visitors' mode of travel while visiting the park. District preserves
have multiple, mostly unstaffed entry points. To conduct a trail use count for a preserve is very time
consuming, as the counters need to be present at each access points for the entire length of time of the
count. However, with assistance from volunteers, trail counts have been completed on a number of
occasions at various preserves (see Exhibit 5). These counts were conducted from sunrise to sunset at
all trailheads in the relevant preserve, unless otherwise noted.
While these trail counts and trail census do not constitute precise data on overall trail use, they do give
good general information about the overall levels and types of use. They indicate that bicycling is the
predominant use in El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve, at about 80%, and may be predominant
in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. In other popular preserves open to bikes, bicycle use is generally
below 50% of the use, although it occasionally exceeds this.
Regional Trail Connections
An issue was raised at the March 9 Committee meeting about the impact of the proposed trail closures
on bike access to regional trails such as the Bay Area Ridge Trail and connections to the urban area.
This issue was previously discussed by the Committee and staff, though a specific policy was not
articulated. Staff and the ad hoc committee agree that it is desirable to provide continuity to such trails
g P Y
and that there should be exceptions or alternative routes for such trails in the event that closure of a
preserve to bicycles would otherwise sever the connection. To address this issue staff has prepared a
draft policy for consideration by the Board:
I
I
I
I
i
i
————————— - - - - - --
R-00-69 Page 10
The District will strive to provide multi-use trail access (including bicycles) to dedicated
sections of the Bay Area Ridge Trail by allowing exceptions to preserve bicycle closures for the
Ridge Trail. The District will also strive to provide multi-use trail access to regional trails
connecting urban areas to the Ridge Trail. Access to such regional connecting trails will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of availability of suitable regional
trailhead staging, the access policies of adjoining agencies' trail systems, and the availability of
other alternative multi-use trail connections in the same region. The District will encourage
other agencies to provide Ridge Trail and regional trail connections on the same basis.
A related issue was raised at the March 9 meeting concerning the closure of Los Trancos to bicycles: a
speaker stated that this would force bicyclists off two miles of unpaved District trail paralleling Page
Mill Road onto the paved road, conflicting with traffic and potentially putting the bicyclists in danger.
This implies that mountain bicyclists use Page Mill Road as a means of accessing open space preserves
from the urban area. Staff has studied this issue by reviewing records for accidents involving bicycles
on Page Mill Road. A total of 9 accidents involving bicycles have been recorded during 1997, 1998,
and 1999. Five of these accidents occurred in or near the segment of Page Mill Road that could be
bypassed by using the trail in Los Trancos. However, all of the accidents in or near this segment were
"solo" accidents, in which the bicyclist lost control, rather than collided with a vehicle.
In addition to the evidence of the accident reports, many years of regular use of this road and
observation of bicycle use on it lead staff to conclude that use of Page Mill and connecting roads as a
means of regional access is by road bikes that will stay on the road regardless of the opportunity to use
an unpaved trail. Therefore, staff sees no relationship between closure of Los Trancos and any risk to
mountain bicycle users from vehicle traffic on Page Mill Road.
An existing alternative regional access for mountain bikes to reach the Skyline Area preserves from the
urban area is located a few miles to the north on Alpine Road. The upper terminus of this route is very
near to Los Trancos Preserve, in the adjacent Coal Creek Preserve. The District has provided a
substantial staging area and public parking in the adjacent Windy Hill Preserve that can accommodate
users of the Alpine Road connection. From a regional standpoint, Alpine Road provides the connection
to satisfy the recommended regional connection goal. Los Trancos does not now serve as part of an
alternative for regional mountain bike access to open space, and is not appropriate to develop as such,
given the nearby alternative.
Overview of Laws and District Policies and Regulations Governing Trail Use Decisions
The decisions and actions of the District's Board of Directors and staff are guided by the District's
enabling legislation, Section 5500 of the Public Resources Code and regulations developed and revised
over the District's 28-year history.
Section 5541 of the California Public Resources Code, Design and maintenance of park systems, gives
the District the basic authority to plan, improve and maintain the trail system and other public
recreation facilities. Section 5558, Management and Control of district and its property: district
policies, gives the Board the responsibility and broad authority to manage its lands and facilities:
R-00-69 Page 11
"The board shall regulate, restrain, and control the kind of vehicles, and the time and
conditions of travel or parking on such public parks, playgrounds, beaches, parkways, scenic
drives, boulevards, open spaces, and other facilities for public recreation, and it shall employ a
suitable police force and shall adopt all ordinances, improvements, and facilities belonging to
the district or under its control.
Regulations for use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands, Ordinance 93-1, include in
Section 101, Purpose, that states: "These regulations are adopted to provide responsible stewardship
for District Lands, to establish orderly use, and to maintain a natural and quiet environment for persons
on the lands."
The District's mission statement is the foundation upon which additional policies and procedures are
created to assist in the decision-making process and in the day-to-day management of the District's
holdings. The Mission of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is:
To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity;protect and
restore the natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public
enjoyment and education.
The Basic Policy, originally created in the 1970s, was thoroughly reviewed and updated during 1998
and 1999. It further defines the District's mission, outlining policies to govern the acquisition, use and
management of District lands. The District's approach to Trail Use Policies was partially clarified
during this update, in Objective 2, Open Space Management, Policy C, Recreational Use and
Improvements. The Board determined that the timing and level of access for low intensity public
recreational use of District land was to be evaluated in terms of four basic criteria:
• Protection of natural resources;
• Preservation of the opportunity for tranquil nature study and observation;
• Avoidance of significant user conflicts;
• Availability of Board and staff time, funding and/or other means, to plan and manage
the use.
This policy was adopted to be consistent with and support the previously existing Trail Use Policy 1.2,
the Trail Use Policies, and other detailed policies such as the Resource Management Policy, were
developed to address specific planning issues. The District's Board of Directors adopted District-wide
trail use policies in November 1990 following a lengthy public participation process. The policies were
intended to promote safe and enjoyable experiences for all who use the District's trail system. The
policies were also meant to serve as a guide for establishing trail use designations throughout the
District's trail system.
The Trail Use Policies includes a framework for how trail use designations will be determined. Policy
3.0 states: "The Board of Directors will adopt qualitative and quantitative trail use guidelines to aid the
Board and staff in determining trail use designations in the implementation of these policies." To
accomplish this, the Board of Directors adopted the Trail Use Guidelines and Mitigation Measures in
I
i
i
(
R-00-69 Page 12 j
I
I
I
January, 1993. These guidelines established a procedure for how appropriate trail use would be
designated on the District's extensive trail system. The quantitative factors to be incorporated into the
decision-making process include the physical characteristics of a trail (i.e., trail width and grade, line-
of-sight and side slopes) and qualitative factors such as existing trail use conflicts, other preserve
activities, trail use on adjacent lands, and past, present and future trail use.
The Trail Use Guidelines were to be applied to each preserve on an individual trail-by-trail basis.
Existing trails were to be evaluated, new trails planned, and appropriate use designations
recommended, as a part of the Board's review of a preserve's use and management plan. The process
to collect the appropriate trail use information has proven to be very time consuming. As a result,
since the adoption of the Trail Use Policies and Trail Use Guidelines and Mitigation Measures, only
P g Y
four preserves have undergone the extensive review necessary to create a preserve trail use plan. They
are: Coal Creek, Fremont Older, St. Joseph's Hill, and El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space
Preserves. Even after extensive study of the quantitative and qualitative factors associated with each
i
trail or each preserve, the decision to designate trail use on a preserve's trail system is very difficult.
The decisions tend to be made on a trail segment-by-segment basis. This tends to lengthen the process
and can undermine the overall objectives of the broader policies and the planning process.
I
I
The most recent example of the trail use planning process is the trail use plan for El Corte de Madera
Creek Open Space Preserve. It required a four-and-one-half year planning process, which included two
separate citizen task forces and over 20 public workshops and meetings. While this extensive planning
process may be an extreme example, it helps to illustrate the amount of time that can be consumed in
piecemeal trail planning, where use designations are assigned on a segment-by-segment basis.
I
The segment-by-segment approach also has the potential to create a system that may be confusing to
I
trail users. An individual preserve's trail system typically has an assortment of trail-user options for
hikers, equestrians, bicyclists and dog walkers, where any combination of the above may be allowed on
any given trail. Some trail segments may be open to certain trail users while others are closed. This
approach requires much more signing at individual trail junctions, not only to inform trail users as to
which trail segments allow a particular activity, but also to inform trail users what other preserve
visitors they may expect to encounter on the trail. Making trail use designation based on the goal of
having entire preserves either open or closed to a particular use will inform visitors of trail-system
designations at entry points and simplify, as well as reduce, interior preserve signing.
A keyobjective of the currently proposed revisions t the Trail Policies is i simplify the process
J YP P
o Useto s m e s
P Y P
and pattern of trail designation. In reviewing and updating its policies for access to dogs in 1995, the
Board adopted a guideline policy that individual preserves should generally be either all open or all
closed to dogs. This was determined to facilitate visitor understanding and compliance with
regulations, and simplify enforcement. It appears that this approach will work equally as effectively
with bicycle use.
The Mitigation Measures for Trail Use Conflicts, Section II of the Trail Use Policies document,
identifies a variety of methods that may be employed to reduce trail use conflicts. The mitigation
measures generally fall within five categories: education, regulations, enforcement, improvements, and
i
I
R-00-69 Page 13
I
I
I
monitoring. On page 7 in Section 2.4, designation of different periods of use is identified as having a
low overall effectiveness to reduce trail conflicts, as is "user permits or passes" and "limit number of
users." Virtually every mitigation measure identified as having moderate to high potential effectiveness
has been attempted or is practiced: etiquette brochures, volunteer patrol (including bicycles), special
events (e.g."Day in Open Space" and in coordination with the ROMP group), trail signs, information
( y program, y group), outreach to stores stations b District staff at outset of radar use ro ram, and b the ROMP rou I
and organizations, press releases and interviews, helmet regulations, specific trail use restrictions, bike
speed limits, bike walk-only zones, temporary trail closures, one-way trails, ranger bike patrol, updated
ordinances, increased ranger patrols, increased fines, many types of physical modifications to existing
trails design and layout of new trails to make them safer and reduce conflict, and all types of
monitoring of conditions.
I
I
In spite of 10 years of such efforts, the level of conflict between mountain cyclists and other users has
increased to the extent that the proposed specific trail closures and guideline access ratios are necessary
to adequately address the situation.
I
Current District Trail System and Use Designations
As part of the background work for studying this issue with the Committee, staff collected and analyzed
I
data on the current District trail system and use designations. Currently, the District's trail system
consists of 219.1 miles of trails that are designated, open and accessible to the public. These
designated routes are Board-approved, signed, and mapped. Typically, the Board approval process
involves a two-meeting public process, with at least one month separating the two meetings. The
designated trails are identified in the District's brochures.
Of the 219.1 miles of trail, 66% of the trail system(145 miles) consists of road-width trails that were in
existence upon the District's purchase of each parcel of land. District staff has very rarely constructed
road-width trails. Over the years, this 145-mile trail system has been augmented with 74.1 miles of
narrower trails constructed by the District. The width of these trails may vary from four to eight feet.
Although it is a significant factor according to the current Trail Use Guidelines, the District trail system
does not directly differentiate trail use based on the width of the trail. All 219.1 miles of trails are open
to hikers, and 165.3 miles (75%) are currently open to bicycle usage. The trail system is further
analyzed in Exhibit 6.
Regional Trail Use Management Practices
The staff also helped the Committee to gain a better understanding of how the District's trail use
practices compared with other Bay Area land managing agencies. In order to do this, a questionnaire
was developed to survey other agencies' trail use and management practices. The questionnaire was
sent to 14 agencies and individual parks that manage trail systems similar to the District's. The
I
agencies include cities: Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Portola Valley and Walnut Creek; counties of Marin,
San Mateo, and Santa Clara; water or utility districts: East Bay Municipal Utility District and Marin
Municipal Water District; regional park districts: East Bay Regional Park District and Livermore Area
Recreation and Park District; and state parks: Bay Area and Santa Cruz District Offices. A
questionnaire was also sent to the National Park Service, responsible for the management of the Golden
R-00-69 Page 14
Gate National Recreation Area, however, they did not respond. The remaining thirteen agencies
returned the questionnaire. In addition, several questionnaires were duplicated by the agency and
returned with information about individual parks: Mt. Diablo, Castle Rock, Wilder Ranch, and Henry
Coe State Parks.
The results vary considerably, as presented in Exhibit 7. Two of the surveyed agencies prohibit bicycle
use entirely: town of Portola Valley and East Bay Municipal Utility District. Five agencies prohibit
bicycle use on narrow trails: East Bay Regional Park District, Livermore Area Recreation and Park
District, Marin Municipal Water District, San Mateo County, and the City of Walnut Creek. The
remaining five agencies allow at least some bicycle use on their narrow width trails: Santa Cruz, Palo
Alto, Marin Open Space District, Santa Clara County, and State Parks. The individual state parks also
vary considerably: Henry Coe and Wilder Ranch allow bicycles access to nearly all of their trails,
while Castle Rock State Park prohibits bicycle use entirely.
District Access Compared to Other Agencies
To summarize the information collected about District lands and other Bay Area land managing
agencies, the District is the most accommodating agency in the Bay Area when it comes to bicycle
access to its trail system. This information helps establish an understanding of the District's
management practices within the context of land management practices throughout the Bay Area, and
further shows that the District has been more accommodating to the mountain bicycle community more
so than any other agency. This proposal would result in an extremely fair, reasonable, and appropriate
balancing of access to the District's open space resources.
Summary of Supporting Evidence
Evidence supporting the need for these actions includes all of the materials referenced in this report,
including a significant number of letters from constituents complaining of conflicts with mountain bike
use, including physical accidents, near misses, disruptions, and fear; testimony in hearings to the same
effect; statistics of occasional accidents between bicycles and other users and a significant number of
solo bicycle accidents; information regarding District access opportunities for bicycles compared to
other agencies in the region; and direct staff and Board observation of conditions on the trails. The
record also includes all of the testimony and documents opposing this action submitted throughout this
process. All of this information is in the record for consideration by the Board.
The proposed actions are based on many rounds of study and public review through successive stages
since 1990. This includes a series of well-attended Board meetings in 1998 and 1999 concerning the
general olio that hiking use should have priority in District trails and that reservation of the
g policy g P tY � P
opportunity for a tranquil nature experience is a part of the Basic Policy of the District. In addition, a
minimum of three extensively advertised public meetings will have occurred to provide opportunity for
public comment from all user groups before these actions become final.
CEQA Compliance
I
Project Description
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
R-00-69 Page 15
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District currently manages a 219-mile system of designated
public trails contained in 23 open space preserves. In addition, parts of several open space preserves
and one entire preserve, Bear Creek Redwoods, have yet to be planned, improved, or designated for
public trail use. The current trail system consists almost entirely of unpaved trails in natural, rugged
grassland, chaparral, and forested lands on the San Francisco Peninsula. The current system includes
145 miles of road-width trails (typically old ranch or logging roads), and 74 miles of "single track"
trails 4 to 8 feet wide constructed by the District. Currently, 75% of the designated trail system, or
165.3 miles, are open to multiple use, including mountain bicycles. Currently, 22 of the 23 preserves
with designated public trails include mountain bicycle use on some trails. The only exception is Teague
Hill Open Space Preserve, which has a 0.8 mile of the previously-established California Riding and
Hiking Trail in the northwest corner, but no designated multi-use trails. The former California Riding
and Hiking Trail section is also designated as the Bay Area Ridge Trail in this area.
This project consists of the closure of 13.6 miles of existing trails on six preserves to mountain bicycle
use. The six preserves are: Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch Area, Pulgas
Ridge, and Thornewood Open Space Preserves. The seventh preserve, Teague Hill, has no current
bicycle access. No change is proposed to other types of uses currently allowed on the seven preserves.
Based on these changes, the District-wide ratio of multi-use trails (including bicycles) to total trails will
change from 75% to 69%.
The project also includes adoption of a policy guideline of achieving a ratio of 60% to 65% multi-use
trails (including bicycles) to 35% to 40% hiking or hiking and equestrian trails. This ratio would be
achieved over time by designation of individual trails in existing preserves when and if new trails are
built, or through designation of trails in entire preserves in the future when new preserves are opened
for public use.
Staff has proposed an additional policy guideline calling for exceptions to or alternative routes around
trail or preserve closures for access to the Bay Area Ridge Trail and, on a case-by-case basis, for
regional connecting trails from the urban area to the Bay Area Ridge Trail.
CEOA FindiM
The District concludes that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is
categorically exempt under Sections 15301 (Class 1) and 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA).
Class 1 categorical exemptions consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment,
or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time
of the lead agency's determination.
The proposed actions affect bicycle use on a small percentage (8%) of the District's trail system. The
project does not involve any expansion of use nor the construction of any new facilities. It is possible
that a very small percentage of bicycle use will shift to other preserves. However, this would be a
negligible expansion of the current use of the existing trails. The preserves designated for closure have
R-00-69 Page16
low bicycle use currently. Any actual change in use levels would fall into the category covered by
Class 1. No alterations of existing physical conditions of the land are proposed. No new trails are
planned to be created to implement the policy guideline of achieving the described ratio of multi-use to
hiking/hiking and equestrian trails, nor to achieve the policy of endeavoring to provide multi-use trail
access to the Bay Area Ridge Trail and other regional trails. Rather, as new preserves or trails are
built, the policy guidelines would be used as a tool for the Board to consider in designating uses of such
trails.
Further, it can be seen with great certainty that there will be no significant effect on the environment
from this project, consistent with Section 15061(b) (3). Section 15061(b) (3) states that "CEQA applies
only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect of the environment. Where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." The purpose of the proposed project is
to reduce user conflicts and thereby offer more opportunities for the general public to experience nature
without the disruption and intrusion and potential physical risk of mountain bicycle use on the same
trails, and to promote the quiet enjoyment of all user groups on current and future trails. The project
will not change the physical environment nor commit the District to construct, open, or close any
preserves or trails, now or in the future, with the exception of the trail closures identified as part of this
project. Rather, it will better allocate the current use of District trails by current user groups to provide
a more positive visitor experience for all user groups, and will be a tool to guide allocation of user
groups on new trails as they may be constructed in the future. Based upon a consideration of the
record, there is no possibility that the project will have a significant attention to the environment.
Prepared by:
Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, and Betsy Crowder, Trail Policy Committee Members
Mary de Beauvieres, Planning Consultant
Randy Anderson, Planning Manager
John Escobar, Assistant General Manager
Exhibits Prepared by:
Ana Ruiz, Planning Technician
Contact person:
John Escobar, Assistant General Manager
I
Regional Open .ce Exhibit 1
R-96-110 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 96-21
October 23, 1996
To: Board of Directors
From: Nonette, Hanko, Director, Ward 5
Subject: Wilderness Policy Regarding Trails
Dear Colleagues:
Recent letters from District trail users have brought to my attention a need for re-study of our Trail Use
Policy which calls,for provision of wilderness experience (see attached 1.2).
Some years ago, I served on the Trail Use Committee when we developed the Trail Use Policies and in
1990 they were adopted by the Board. At that time, it was my hope that future Use and Management plans
would reflect the policy by assigning some existing trails to a wilderness category. However, this method
takes time and in the meantime has proven frustrating to many trail users. _In addition I expected new
preserves to be studied by staff so that they also would contain either wilderness trails, or a wildernes$
preservation description. Section 1.2 reads as follows: "To protect the opportunity for tranquil nature
study and observation especially in those areas identified as providing a unique wilderness experience."
Such trails are of special importance to our Docent Program, for the education of our children, and for the
peace of mind of people of all ages who enjoy the communication and spiritual rejuvenation that such
experiences provide. I know it was an important aspect for me personally in the development of the
concept of the District in the 1970's.
Of late we have emphasized the use of trails by the mountain bike community through the adoption of the
Trails Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. There was a conscious effort on,my part
to involve the cycling community in the development of the trail system on El Corte de Madera Creek ,
Open Space Preserve; so what I am about to recommend is not intended to detract from that continued use.
At this time, I recommend that the Use and Management Committee be charged with a re-look of the
policy regarding wilderness experience and study methods by which this policy can be better implemented.
Since we have received a number of good ideas from recent letters on this subject, I would like to see a
compilation of pertinent letters received by us in 1996 and hereafter for study by the committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Charge the Use and Management Committee with the study of the policy regarding wilderness
experience and return to the Board with methods for implementation.
2. Direct staff to include this charge in their 1997 work program, Action Plan, and budget.
330 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 . Phone: 415-691-1200 .fAX:415-691-0485 . E-mail:mrosd@netcom.com
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Teena Nenshaw,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Nanko,Betsy Crowder,Wim de Wit
General Atana°err:L.Craig Britton
I
Exhibit 2
Correspondence Concerning Bicycle Use on the Trails of
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
1990-2000
Cate gor es Bicycles - Positive I Bicycles - Negative
Letters before 1990 36 46
Letters 1990-1998 12 57
Letters & E-mail—Basic Policy 1998-1999 51 127
Letters—March-May 2000 54 --- 18
E-Mail—March-May 2000 --- 259 26
Totals 4121 274
Proposed Trail Use Exhibit 3
Designations
PRESERVES ACRES*
1. Coal Creek 493 ,
'.. e
2. El Corte de Madera Creek 2,821 Fulgas \ —�; Rev mood '
92 e A. .
3. El Sereno 1,152 g
i ^�"
4. Fremont Older 739 � � � � ,� `t \ '"� ± �., � 680
l84
5. Long Ridge 1,946
Steven's Creek
6. Monte Bello 2,867 Purisima
Creek
' t
Page Mill Area -' �A V 1i
F' 101 337 -
7. Purisima Creek Redwoods 3,117
8. Rancho San Antonio 3,635 �. El Corte l 280
\ ¢e Madera 373 880
Cteek TYnewood NI .,`
9. Ravenswood
10. Russian Ridge 1,629 • i.i^ \ 82
11. Saratoga Gap 1,090 � � � \ � �
12. Sierra Azul 2,918
(Ke nedy-lirnekin) '\-
a _
13. Sierra Azul 8,540 I
(Mt.Umunhum Area) 84 a
14. Skyline Ridge 1,661 • • L 1 �rp
- � T
87
15. St.Joseph's Hill 268
P'cc
16. Stevens Creek 55
Shoreline Nature Study Area 85 -7 r!
17. Windy Hill 1,307 to a"
18. Foothills 211
19. La Honda Creek 2,056 r rSt.
20• Los Trancos 274 s
21. Monte Bello 308 f
Picchetti Ranch Area Bear
C
22. Pulgas Ridge 293 ed
23. Teague Hill 624 is \ •
tdY
g�
24. Thornewood 154
25. Bear Creek Redwoods 1,065
26. Rancho de Guadalupe 1,867 1.1
17 �•
27. Sierra Azul 2,113 Nk _
(Cathedral Oaks Areas)
Total 45,445 g 4 0 8 16 Miles
'Total includes 1,869 acres in miscellaneous easements.
Exhibit 4
Proposed Trail Use Designations (in miles)
Closed Proposed Use Net Loss
Pending Equestrian Hiker& Bikes Bicycle
101
Preserve Acreage* Planning and/or Hiking [and/or Multi-Use Access
No Chan ge in Trail Use Designation
Coal Creek 493 5.3
El Corte de Madera Creek 2,821 0.1 36
El Serena 1,152 0.6 5.6
Fremont Older 739 0.6 11
Long Ridge 1,946 3.9 9.8
Monte Bello 2,867 1.5 14.2
Purisima Creek Redwoods 3,117 7.2 17
Rancho San Antonio 3,635 21.0 1.4
Ravenswood 373 1.8
Russian Ridge 1,629 1.5 8.4
S. Azul Kennedy-Limekiln Area 2,918 13.1
S. Azul Mt. Umunhum Area 8,540 10.8
Saratoga Gap 1,090 1.1
Skyline Ridge 1,661 3.0 8.4
St. Joseph's Hill 268 0.5 3.5
Stevens Creek Shoreline 55 0.5
Windy Hill 1,307 1 9.0 1
Proposed Closure To Bicycle Use
Foothills 211 0.8 0.8
La Honda Creek 2,056 5.6 3.4 3.4
Los Trancos 274 5.3 4.1
Picchetti Ranch Area 308 3.7 2.8
Pulgas Ridge 293 3.8 1.8
Teague Hill 624 0.8 0
Thornewood 154. 0.7 0.7
Trail Use Designations Pending Corn Metion of Preserve Planning Process
Bear Creek Redwoods 1,065 14.2
Rancho de Guadalupe 1,867 7.0
S. Azul Cathedral Oaks 2,113 0.0
Misc. Easements, Etc.* 1,869
TOTAL 45,4461 26 6771
PERCENT OF TOTAL 1 1 31%1 69%1
*Total acreage includes 1,869 acres of misc. easements.
i
Table 1: Visitor Census and Trail Use ounts Exhibit 5
Date Total N ers Percentages Notes
I
Hikers Bikers I Equestrians Equestriansl Hikers I Bikes I Horses
Purisima,Creek
04/22/95 651 230 3 74% 26% 0% Trail Count
10/11/95 61 34 Not counted 64% 36% Trail Count
10/14/95 180 121 4 59% 40% 1% Trail Count
07/13/96 751 645 2 54% 46% 0% Trail Count
09/14/96 772 651 1 2 1 54% 46% 0% Trail Count
09/26/98 175 119 0 60% 40% 0% Trail Count
1/00- 5/8/00 1268 306 13 80% 19% 1% Trail Census
PRESERVE AVERAGES 63% 36% 1%
El Corte de Ma011 ra
07/08/95 43 166 0 21% 79% 0% Trail Count
09/23/95 44 178 0 20% 80% 0% Trail Count
01/13/96 59 213 0 22% 78% 0% Trail Count
03/09/96 23 83 0 22% 78% 0% Trail Count
09/27/97 61 234 0 21% 79% 0% Trail Count
PRESERVE AVERAGES 21% 79% 0%
Wind Hill
2/97 -2/98 2723 228 79 90% 8%0 2% Trail Census
Long,Ridge >,
04/08/95 40 135 0 23% 77% 0% Trail Count
Lars Trancos
5/20/97 & 6/10/97 33 10 Not counted 77% 23% Trail Count
5/25/97 & 6/1/97 50 17 Not counted 75% 25% Trail Count
6/6/97 &6/13/97 177 56 Not counted 76% 24% Trail Count
PRESERVE AVERAGES 76% 24%
Monte Bello
5/6/97 & 5/13/97 32 26 Not counted 55% 45% Trail Count
5/9/97 &5/16/97 38 33 Not counted 54% 46% Trail Count
5/11/97 & 5/18/97 233 116 Not counted 67% 33% Trail Count
PRESERVE AVERAGES 58% 42%
Rancho San,Antoir io,
04/25/95 1674 23 0 99% 1% 0% Trail Count
05/06/95 3611 164 21 95% 4% 1% Trail Count
02/08/96 687 21 3 97% 3% 0% Trail Count
03/09/96 3390 56 20 98% 2% 1% Trail Count
10/03/96 2227 44 8 98% 2% 0% Trail Count
10/05/96 3599 119 9 97% 3% 0% Trail Count
4/15/97 &4/29/97 2723 57 Not counted 98% 20/6 Trail Count
4/18/97 &4/25/97 2955 63 Not counted 98% 2% Trail Count
4/20/97 &4/27/97 6067 220 Not counted 97% 3% Trail Count
PRESERVE AVERAGES 97% 3% 0%
St.Jose M Hilt'
07/19/93 360 163 Not counted 69% 31% Trail Count
06129/96 70 28 Not counted 71% 29% Trail Count
PRESERVE AVERAGES 70% 30% Trail Count
Fremont Older
05/13/95 25 145 173 7% 42% 50% Trail Count
06/03/95 727 657 77 50% 45% 5% Trail Count
06/04/95 60 78 30 36% 46% 18% Trail Count
10/05/95 112 242 22 30% 64% 6% Trail Count
10/07/95 173 310 56 32% 58% 10% Trail Count
PRESERVE AVERAGES 31% 51% 18°l0
Note: joggers and hikers are grouped together. Dogs and strollers are not included.
I
I
Exhibit 6
Table 2: Existing Trail Conditions in Miles by Trail Use Designation*
Single Track Road Width
Preserve Acres Hiking Only Multi-Use 1 Multi-Use 2 Multi-Use 3 Subtotal Hiking Only Multi-Use I Multi-Use 2 Multi-Use 3 Subtotal Total
Bear Creek Redwoods** 1065 0.0 0.0 0.0
Coal Creek 493 0.3 0.3 5.0 5.0 5.3
El Corte de Madera Creek 2821 0.1 14.1 14.2 21.9 21.9 36.1
El Sereno 1152 0.0 0.6 5.6 6.2 6.2
Foothills 211 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8
Fremont Older 739 0.4 0.2 0.4 4.1 5.1 6.5 6.5 11.6
La Honda Creek** 2056 0.0 3.4 3.41 3.4
Long Ride 1946 0.7 2.6 3.3 3.2 7.2 10.4 1^ '
Los Trancos 274 1.2 1.9 1.5 4.6 0.7 0.7
Monte Bello 2867 1.5 4.0 5.5 10.2 10.2 1�.
Picchetti Ranch Area 3081 0.9 0.1 1.2 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.7
Pul as Ride 2931 1.8 1.8 0.2 1.8 2.0 3.8
Purisima Creek Redwoods 3117 4.7 2.8 7.5 2.5 14.2 16.7 24.2
Rancho de Guadalu e** 1867 0.0 0.01 0.0
Rancho San Antonio 3635 1.3 7.3 8.6 12.4 1.4 13.8 22.4
Ravenswood 373 0.0 L8 1.8 1.8
Russian Ride 1629 1.2 3.0 4.2 0.3 5.4 5.7 9.9
S.Azul Cathedral Oaks 2113 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
S. Azul Kennedy-Limekiln Area 2918 0.0 13.1 13.1 13.1
S. Azul Mt.Umunhum Area 8540 0.0 10.8 10.8 10.8
Saratoga ap 10901 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.1
G
Skyline Ride 1661 3.0 0.7 3.7 7.7 7.7 11.4
St. Joseph's Hill 268 0.5 0.5 3.5 3.5 4.0
I
Stevens Creek Shoreline 55 0.0 0.5 0.5
Teague Hill 624 0.8 0.8 0.0 u.s
Thornewood 154 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.21 0.7
Windy Hill 1307 1.2 7.8 0.7 9.7 3.1 3.1 12.8
Total Miles 17.3 17.3 2.4 37.1 74.1 6.5 12.7 5.5 120.3 145.0 219.1
Percentage of Subtotal 23% 23% 3% 50% 5% 9% 4% 83%
Percentage of Total 8% 8% 1%1 17% 34% 3% 6% 3%1 55% 66%
--*-Statistics collected fromfigures shown on the preserve map contained in the brochure
* *Numbers do not include preserves(or portions of preserves) currently closed to public use,
23.6 mi(Bear Creek Redwoods, La Honda Creek(portion), Rancho de Guadalupe)
Multi-use 1 =Hiker+horses
Multi-use 2 =Hiker+mountain bicycles
I
Multi-use 3 =Hiker+mountain bicycles+horses
I
I
Exhibit 7 Pagel
Table 3: Other Agency Trail Conditions in Miles by Trail Use Designation and Trail Type Rev.9/13/99
Paved Unpaved Single Track (unpaved) Road Width (unpaved)
Agency Acreage Total Total Hiking Bicycles Horses Total Hiking Bicycles Horses Total
CITIES
Santa Cruz Parks& Recreation 1,000+ 7 12.5 7 2 1 7 5.5 3 3 5.5
Palo Alto 4,500 3 36 25 9 3 25 11 9 3 ill
Byxbee Baylands incl 3 12 6 6 0 6 6 6, 0 6
Arastradero Preserve incl 0 7 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
Foothills Park incl 0 17 15 0 0 15 2 0 0 21
Portola Valley 8 44 44 0 4 44 0 0 0,
Walnut Creek 21704 5 50 30 0 30 30 20 20 20 2U
COUNTIES I
Marin Open Space District 13,800 1 140 60 2 60 60 80 80 80 80
San Mateo County Parks 15,391 9 155 124.8 0 77.5 124.8 303 21 28 30.3
Santa Clara County Parks* 45,102 28.9 192.1 103.9 26.2 68.1 103.9 88.2 62.41 83.1 88.2
Almaden Quicksilver 4,115 0 38.6 11.5 0.5 3.4 11.5 27.1 141 27 27.1
Anderson Lake 3,393 0.7 0.4 0.4, 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0
Calero 2,431 0 12.2 12.2 0 11.7 12.2 0 0 0 0
Chesbro Reservoir 793 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chitactac-Adams 4 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 01 0
Coyote Creek 1,739 13.7 5.4 5.2 0 5.2 5.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Coyote Hellyer 242 1.6 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0
Coyote Lake 5,087 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0
Ed Levin 1,576 0 11.4 11.4 4.4 9.9 11.4 0 0 0 0
Joseph D. Grant 9,557 0 44.9 0 0 0 0 44.9 33.8 39.9, 44.11'
Lexington Reservoir 1,476 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.
Los Gatos Creek 132 8.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01
Motorcycle 442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mount Madonna 3,742 0 16.7 16.7 0 10.4 16.7 0 0 0 0
Penitencia Creek 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rancho San Antonio 165 0.8 1.7 1.7 0 0.6 1.7 0 0 0 0
Sanborn-Skyline 3,467 0 11.6 2.6 0 2.4 2.6 9 7.4 9 9
Santa Teresa 1,680 0 15.2 15.2 11.9 14.5 15.2 0 0 0 0
Stevens Creek 1,292. 0 7.2 7.2 2.2 2.8 7.2 0 0 0, 0
Upper Stevens Creek 1,1541 0! 13.8 9.9 7.2 7.2 9.9i 3.9 3.9 3.91 3.9
Uvas Canyon 1 1,2201 01 7.7 7.7 0, 0. 7.71 0 0 01 0
Page 1,Table 3
Exhibit 7 Page 2
Table 3: Other Agency Trail Conditions in Miles by Trail Use Designation and Trail Type Rev.9/13/99
Paved Unpaved Single Track (unpaved) Road Width (unpaved)
Agency Acreage Total Total Hiking Bicycles Horses Total Hiking Bicycles Horses Total
COUNTIES
Santa Clara County Parks*contd.
Uvas Reservoir 925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vasona Lake 209 3.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0
Villa Montalvo 178 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0
WATER/UTILITY DISTRICTS
East Bay Municipal Utility District 28,000 0 80 30 0 30 30 50 0 50 5
Marin Municipal Water District 20,000 4 130 401 0 25 40 90 90 90, 90
REGIONAL AGENCIES
East Bay Regional Park District 90,000 150 800 200 0 200 200 600 600 600 600
Livermore Area Recreation & Park
District 1,652 14 6 0 0 0 0 6 41 4 6
STATE PARKS I I
Henry Coe State Park 81,000 0 271 124 84 112 124 147 147 147 147
Bay Area District" 33,000 5.4 160.2 82 2 82 82 78.2 65 67.5 78.2
Mt. Diablo State Park 20,000+ 0.7 124.5 52.5 3.5 51.6 52.5 72 72 72 72
Santa Cruz District"' n/a 0 250 150 0 0 150 100 100 1001 100
Castle Rock State Park 3,800- 0 19.5 15, 0 4.5 15, 14 0 11.51 14
Wilder Ranch State Park 6,0001 0, 33.4] 5.81 5.8 5.8 5.81 27.61 27.6 27.61 27.6
*Does not include Alviso Marina, Field Sports,Sunnyvale Baylands, Uvas Creek. Sunnyvale Baylands is managed by the City of Sunnyvale and Uvas Creek is managed by the
City of Gilroy.
"State Parks-Bay Area District includes Ano Nuevo, Burleigh Murray, Butano,Candlestick Point, Half Moon Bay, Montara, Mt. Diablo, Pescadero(Discrepancies between the
mileages for the Bay Area District and Mt. Diablo State Park may be due to errors in estimations. State Park staff provided the mileages.)
***State Parks-Santa Cruz District includes Big Basin, Castle Rock, Fall Creek, Henry Cowell, Natural Bridges, Nisene Marks, Portola,Wilder Ranch
Page 2,Table 3
FROM Roger and LeBl.e Meer' PHONE NO. : 650 365 7e19 May. 23 2000 11:45RM PI
FAX Cover Page
FAX to: 650-851-0410
(Betsy Crowder)
FAX from: 650-3365-7819
(Roger Myers)
3507 Altamont Way
Redwood City,CA 94062-3105
No. of pages(including Cover Page):3
Notes: Hello Betsy.As per your request I enclose the text of my comments to the Board at last
nights meeting.
I would like to add the following anecdotal observations and ideas that I thought about after the
meeting:
I In an ideal world the Board would make decisions regarding trail use based simply upon the
guidelines so simply and elegantly set Earth in the District Mission Statement- But today's
world seems to be neither simple nor elegant and the Board is constantly being pressured to
make exceptions or concessions to various user segments that are only concerned with their
own selfish interests.These segments seem either ignorant about or choose to ignore the
District's Mission Statement. I feel it could be helpful if the District could initiate a program
to remind the public of the reason's the District was formed in the first place through an
ad/media campaign or perhaps public service announcements. Many of today's younger
constituents seem to have lost sight of the original stipulation that opportunities provided for
public enjoyment and education on District lands must be ecologically sensitive and
consistent with resource protection. j' ' 1
2. My personal viewpoint is that it is ludicrous to suggest that a largo mechanical device
hurtling down a fragile narrow trail occupied by slow-moving wildlife and trail users can in
any way be considered an ecologically sensitive form of public enjoyment. Anecdotally,
during my more than 20 years,of leading hikes on District trails I have personally observed
an increasing incidence of trail kills(even among the very fast and uncommon Western
Whiptuil lizard population) that appear to be directly proportional to the ever-increasing use
of mountain bikes on District trails, Only a mountain bike could overtake and kill awhiptail
in such a manner.
3, However,a compelling argument was raised by members of the off-road cycling community
who,due to injury or incapacity,rely on bicycles as their sole means of access to the trails.
Perhaps the District could arrange for special use permits that could be carried and displayed
by these riders much as the blue placards used.by the disabled for use in specialty designated
FROM Roger and Lesl:e Mgerp PHONE NO. : 650 365 7919 May. 23 2000 11:46PM P2
parking spaces. I doubt that this segment of the cycling community would abuse such a
privilege,but strict use guidelines and consequences for abuse could be included with such
special its.
4. When I was a child first learning to ride a bicycle I had to take a test of riding skills and road
safoty knowledge in order to be granted the privilege of a bicycle license.This impressed
upon me my responsibilities as a cyclist and made it clear that this was an earned privilege
and not a right.If the District is committed to allowing general cycling access to at least a
portion of its trails whom deemed ecologically acceptable,I would suggest access be limited
to those cyclists who have registered with the District and obtained a free numbered bicycle
use permit or license which would be clearly displayed by the rider(like a fishing license).
Such a license would be subject to similar restrictions and consequences for abuse as those
mentioned earlier.This would make it easier to detect the unlicensed and identify those
licensees found abusing the privilege. Just an idea..I'm not trying to be"big brother"here.
I guess that is all I have to add at this point. Feel free to share any of this with the other Board
members as you see fit. I greatly admire and appreciate the job you are all trying to do and do not
envy your task.
FROM Roger and Lesl:e Myer, PHONE NO. : 650 365 7819 May. 23 2000 11:4GRI P3
Thank you for allowing me to speak before you this evening.
As stated in its Mission statement,the Midpettinsula Regional Open Space District was created
by voters in 1972 to"acquire and PRESERVE a regional greenbelt of open space land in
perpetuity;PROTECT and RESTORE the natural environment;and provide opportunities for
ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE public enjoyment and education."
In light of dramatic population growth since the District's inception and the resulting increased
impact by ALL trail users(not just mountain bike riders),the District has been compelled to
reevaluate access to the preserves according to its basic policy that provides for"use of the
preserves CONSISTENT WITH RESOURCE PROTECTION'.If the impact of ANY
recreational use gets to the point where it becomes INCONSISTENT with resource protection,
the District is OBLIGED and MANDATED to mitigate those impacts.
This would logically require reassessment and increased restriction of historical access to the
Preserves by ANY user group found to be creating an excessively deleterious impact on the
creatures and plant communities of the natural environment the District has been entrusted to
Protect,
Some voices within the mountain-bike riding community have suggested that certain Board
members are carrying out a personal vendetta against mountain bikers.They suggest that the
Board has already prejudged this matter, I If
the Board appears to be following a pre.-determined
course of action,perhaps it is simply because it is being guided by the MANDATE upon which
the District was created in the riot place.To charmeterize their process and actions as anything
but equitable and ethical seems a shallow and discourteous disservice.
Mountain biking is not the only activity inflicting ecologically insensitive injury upon the
preserves,it Is just the most flagrant offender,It is important to point out that mountain bike
riders are NOT being discriminated against.They can enjoy the preserves in an r&Wogic:alI
sensifive manner just as any other citizen can. They are merely being asked, for the sake of the
ecological protection of the preserves,to LEAVE THEIR BIIWS AT HOME.
In conclusion let me say a few words for the animals and plants whos land we are on whenever
we are visiting a District preserve.They rely on this fragile land not for recreational enjoyment
but for their very existence.These critters and plants have no voice of their own at tonight's
meeting. Nor could they submit their written comments to the Board. As responsible stewards of
their remaining fragile environment,we owe it to g=,and ultimately ourselves,to protect their
essential interests over any recreational indulgences of our own.
71=k you for listening to me this evening.
Roger Myers
Redwood City,CA
THEE VOICES
Trail access is a
privilege, not a ri ht
�
In a front page article which elderly or families with small
appeared in the April 1st issue Guest Editopial W children who have difficulty leap-
of the Independent,Jon Mays s x ing out of harms way.
addressed the current controversy � People on horseback also run
concerning the proposed exclu- Clements.ROMP has lost sight of the dire risk of being thrown
sion of mountain bikes from 13.6 the true obligation and responsi- from their mounts when the ani-
miles of the Mid-Peninsula bility of all trail users—be they mals are spooked by the sudden
Regional Open Space District's on foot,on horseback,or on bikes approach of a speeding mountain
219 miles of unpaved trails.If —is the obligation to do no harm. bike.It is ludicrous to suggest
implemented-this modest propos- There is a mounting body of evi- that a large mechanical device
al would ban cycling on seven of hurtling down a fragile narrow
r tbs smalle"f the District's."., trail occupied by slow moving
49k 1Y r A .'24 preserves. wildlife and trail users
The off-road cycling can in any way be con-
community,most sidered an ecological-
vocally represented ly sensitive form of
ni the well often
( public enjoyment.
militantly
and often In truth, the land
militantly con- does not belong to
tenuous any of us.We may,
Responsible a'
as taxpaying citi-
zens,"own"the
Mountain ' property,but it
Peddlers(ROMP), does not belong to
has reacted to us.The land
the district's belongs to the
proposals with creatures and
alarm and indig• plan[communi-
nation.They ties that depend
allege that rock- ' 1 S.� on our responsible
less and incon• stewardship of
siderate behavior �
( � their last refuge
by a few rogue
cyclists and t( from a world
biased board f increasingly
threatened by
members are threatening to human expansion
i
p 1
i': and development.
disenfranchise the ,
rr. «; nvi-
� entire off-road �' '''� � We are all p
� .r� leged visitors on
cycling community. Kut&�„erUn their land,and we
They fear any trail have a responsibility
closure would set a danger- to leave no trace.These
ous precedent destinned to trig in truth, the land are,after all,preservesl
th ger a domino effect of future trail f In light of the dramatic growth
closures.They argue that the belongs to none in population since the district's
cycling community comprises the inception and the resulting
decided majority of tax-paying of us. We may, as increased impact by all trail users.
trail users(75 to 95 percent by tax-paying citizens, the district must re-evaluate
their own estimatesl)and,as , access to the preserves according
such,should have greater entitle own the property, to its original mission statement.
ment to trail access and a greater but it does not There is a danger of loving our
voice in trail use decisions, open space to death.If the impact
What ROMP fails to recognize or belong to us. of recreational use gets to the
chooses to ignore is that the open The land belongs to point where it degrades or threat-
space preserves were not put ens the natural environment, the
aside to be personal outdoor play- the creatures and district is obliged and mandated
grounds for the public.According plant communities „ to mitigate those impacts.This
to its mission statement.the dis- could well require reassessment
trict was created by voters in 1972 and increased restriction of his-
to"acquire and preserve a region- deuce that burgeoning hoards of torical access to the preserves by
al greenbelt of open space land in mountain bikes are causing any user group shown to have a
perpetuity;protect and restore tremendous damage on district deleterious impact on the crea-
the natural environment;and lands and posing a serious threat tures and plant communities of
provide opportunities for ecologi• to several wildlife species the pre- the natural environment.
cally sensitive public enjoyment serves were created to protect.
and education." They also jeopardize the safety of Roger My",is a volunteer naturalist j
Amid all the bickering over enti- other trail users,particularly the and resident of Redwood City.
1
i
Regional Open , ,ice
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
for Review of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's
TRAIL USE POLICY
Location: Elks Lodge,4249 El Camino Real,Palo Alto
Date: Monday,May 22,2000
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Background: In 1996, the District's Board of Directors directed a Board committee to review the
District's Trail Use Policy, and to return to the full Board with recommendations on methods to increase
the opportunities available to hikers and equestrians for a tranquil nature experience. Beginning in 1997,
and again, in mid-1999, the Board committee worked closely with staff to develop a proposal to address
the Board's concerns. At a March 9, 2000 public committee meeting,the proposal was reviewed .
Approximately 200 people attended. The committee decided to forward the proposal to the full Board for
their consideration with one possible change. The proposal and alternative are summarized below.
Proposal: The proposal recommends the closure of seven preserves to bicycle use in order to create
several locations for preserve visitors to have a tranquil nature experience. The seven preserves, which
currently allow minimal bicycle access, are: Foothills, La Honda Creek, Los Trancos, Picchetti Ranch,
Pulgas Ridge, Teague Hill, and Thornewood. This proposal affects 13.6 miles of trails on the seven
preserves. In addition, the proposal creates a long-range trail use designation ratio of 60—65%multi-use
(including bicycles)and 35 —40% hiking or hiking and equestrian use only. This may be attained by
designation of individual trails,or by designating entire new preserves as they undergo a thorough
planning process.
Alternative: By a 2:1 vote, the committee added an alternative to the proposal to be forwarded to the
Board for their consideration. The alternative retains the original proposal language, adding that the
seven preserves listed above would be closed on weekends only for a two-year trial period. On
weekdays, the trail use designations on the affected preserves would remain status quo. The alternative
retains the long range trail use designation ratio.
Next Step: On May 22, 2000,the Board of Directors will consider the committee's recommendation and
alternative at the public meeting identified above. You are invited to attend or submit written comments
about the proposal and alternative. Formal adoption of any changes to the Trail Use Policy will occur in a
two-step process. Any action taken by the Board at the May 22 meeting will be tentative. Final adoption
typically occurs one month following the initial action.
A copy of the committee report and staff report will be posted on the District's web site on Thursday,
May 18. Copies will also be available at the District office at that time.
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 . Phone:650-691-1200
FAX:650-691-0485 . E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org openspace.org . Web site:www.openspace.org
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Nanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz •General Manager:L_Craig Britton