Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20001025 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 00-28 i Regional Open .", tee t d. .a.,.. "'y...... Win.. '. I MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-28 i REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 7:30 P.M. Wednesday,October 25,2000 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California I AGENDA ROLL CALL I REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—PUBLIC *** ADOPTION OF AGENDA *** ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR—K.Nitz *** WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ** APPROVAL OF MINUTES ■ September 27,2000 ■ October It,2000 BOARD BUSINESS 7:35* 1. Status Report on Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve; Accept the Oral and Slide Presentation on the Status of Staff Activities at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve—T. Fischer 8:05* 2. Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Urging Stanford University to Define Future Land Use and Provide Long-Term or Permanent Protection of Critical Open Space Areas in its Community Plan; Review, Discuss, Amend and Adopt the Resolution Urging Stanford University to Provide Clear and Significant Long-Term or Permanent Protection for Open Space Areas in its Community Plan Proposed for Consideration to Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors —C. Woodbury 8:15* 3. Appointment of Unopposed Candidates in Wards 4 and 7; Adopt the Resolutions Appointing Unopposed Ward 4 Candidate Deane Little, and Unopposed Ward 7 Candidate Kenneth C. Nitz to Four-year Terms, Which Will Begin on January 1, 2001; Have the District Clerk Administer the Oath of Office to the Appointed Directors — D. Dolan I *** 4. Authorization to Purchase One Tractor Mower; Direct the General Manager to Execute a Purchase Contract with the State Department of General Services and Powerland Equipment for One Tractor Mower at a Total Cost Not to Exceed $70,000 —J. Maciel i� 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 I Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager.L.Craig Britton Meeting 00-28 Page 2 5. Cancellation of November 8 and 22 Regular Board Meetings and Scheduling of Special Meetings of the Board of Directors for November 15 and November 29, 2000 Beginning at 7:30 P.M. — C. Britton 6. Annual Seasonal Trail Closures Information Report; Review and Comment on Proposed Trail Closures; No Former Board Action is Required —J. Maciel REVISED CLAIMS INFORMATIONAL REPORTS— Brief Reports or announcements concerning pertinent activities of District Directors and staff 8:30* ADJOURNMENT Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication,which the Board appreciates. All items on the consent calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. Regional Open S&ce ------------ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DRAFT R E S PREPARED BY STAFF FOR BOARD CONSOCL-, ii Hans H. Mueller 3295 La Mesa Drive #11 San Carlos, CA 94070 Subject: Restoration and Habitat Enhancement of Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve Partners Dear Mr. Mueller, Thank you for your recent e-mail of October 16, 2000 regarding the phased eucalyptus tree removal as part of the Habitat Restoration Plan at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. The Board of Directors considered your e-mail at its meeting of October 25, 2000. On September 13, 2000 the Board approved the staff's proposal to remove 30 eucalyptus trees at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, with the amendment to retain, at this time, the largest of the eucalyptus trees adjacent to the road near the water tank. Subsequent to that meeting, staff has tagged, measured, and mapped 96 of the eucalyptus trees to be removed over the life of this restoration plan. Additionally, staff has marked the trees to be removed with an orange marking around the circumference of each tree. Planning staff is currently computerizing a detailed map of all the eucalyptus trees, which is expected to be available soon. The focus for this year is to remove 30 of the larger eucalyptus (diameter greater than 15 inches) and several smaller trees bordering the native vegetation. The intention is to thin the density of the trees to allow natural regeneration of native species in a phased manner over time. The tree removal is very gradual, and is expected to extend over the next 20 years or more. It is a selective removal, not a clear-cutting operation, retaining a substantial number of trees to minimize the short-term visual impact and to phase the changes to the habitat over time. The Pulgas Ridge Habitat Restoration Plan exemplifies the District's resource management mission to protect and restore the diversity and integrity of its land resource. This plan is a long-term commitment in which the priority is to systematically restore areas of the preserve that are most threatened by invasive, non- native species. Restoration efforts have begun in the northern portion of the preserve, and not until native vegetation becomes established will restoration begin in the 330 Distel Circle - Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 e Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 e E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org * Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz *General Manager:L.Craig Britton Mr. Hans H. Mueller October 26,2000 Page 2 southern areas. Upon completion of this plan, all areas with non-native vegetation will be restored. Control of invasive non-native species, revegetation, maintenance, and monitoring are proposed to continue incrementally each year at Pulgas until completion, as stated in the restoration plan. I hope that we have adequately addressed your concerns about this project. We do feel that the phased implementation of the restoration plan will allow the preserve to function as viable habitat for native flora and fauna. If you have any further questions regarding natural resources on District lands, please contact Jodi Isaacs, the District's Resource Management specialist. Sincerely, Kenneth C. Nitz, President Board of Directors KCN/ak Page I of I Main Identit From: Hans H Mueller<number13@home.com> To: Midpeninsula open Space <mrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 12:29 PM Subject: Tree removal! To members of the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Open space. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Directors! My name is Hans H Mueller and I live at the Brittan Heights Condominium Complex. As we donated largely to the acquisition of Pulgas Ridge, I feel that my voice and others like mine need to be heard! On my daily walk at Pulgas Ridge it came to my attention that you plan to remove most of the Eucalyptus Trees on the Pulgas Ridge land! This is as you say to remove none native species from the ridge. A few month ago a large number of sturdy young oak trees were planted on the preserve on your direction. On close inspection you will find that more then 50 % of the planted trees have died, mostly because of the heat and lack of water. What seems to have escaped your attention is, that the large Eucalyptus trees are sheltering quite a few young oak seedlings under their shade. It would be my pleasure to count the exact numbers. One tree alone has nine young seedlings flourishing as well as other shrubs. In the process of removing the Eucalyptus you would unintentionally destroy these young oaks. May I suggest that you take a second look at the seedlings and evaluate the shelter given by the Eucalyptus trees. Although these trees are not native surely they have squatters rights by now and their numbers are easily controlled. Your good judgment in these matters has stood you in good stead in the past. It is my hope, that you will give this matter your attention and find it in your hearts to let the trees live. After all, hospitality is easily granted. With kind regards, Hans H Mueller Hans H Mueller 3295 La Mesa Drive # 11 San Carlos, Ca. 94070 650591 1035 QuMbpr13@hQme-.c.o-rn 10/16/00 Page I of I Main Identity From: Jane Mackey <jane_mackey@hotmail.com> To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Removal of Eucalyptus trees at Pulgas Ridge To Members of the Board of Directors, My name is Jane Mackey and I am a frequent hiker at Pulgas Ridge. Today I saw an announcement posted regarding the removal of 30 Eucalyptus trees along the trails at Pulgas Ridge. I understand that the reasoning behind their removal is that they are non-native and you are trying to increase the number of native oak trees. Perhaps you are unaware of the positive effects of these eucalyptus trees. First, the eucalyptus trees provide a much-needed canopy along the top portion of the trail where it can get quite hot. The shady spots provide a nice break for myself, my daughter, and my dog to rest and have a sip of water. Second, these eucalyptus trees have been providing shade to some young oak trees that are growing alongside them. Although I'm aware that about 100 young oak trees were planted along the ridge earlier this year, about 50% have already died due to the heat and lack of water. The eucalyptus trees are reducing the impact of the heat for the young trees growing in their shade. Although the eucalyptus trees are non-native, they are healthy and providing a wonderful environment for many hikers (many of whom are non-native themselves!). Thanks in advance for giving this matter your attention. Sincerely, Jane Mackey Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http­://ww_w,hotmaH._com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at hltp-//Drofiles.msn.com. 10/17/00 Page I of 2 Main Identity From: K. W. <klw-4@yahoo.com> To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 9:34 PIVI Subject: Eucalyptus removal... To the members of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Open Space District, ' use the Pulgas Ridge Preserve daily and it has come to my attention, through both conversations with rangers there, and notices posted, that all "non-native" vegetation is being removed. This includes some large eucalyptus trees that have been there longer than myself as well as probably most of the individuals of the Board of Directors. The trees are serving a dual purpose as both an efficient wind break and a shelter for the numerous "native" oak tree seedlings thriving underneath them. Strangely enough, adjacent older oak trees have far fewer, if any, "native" oak tree seedlings growing under them. The eucalyptus trees also add greatly to the sensual stimulation visitors enjoy... the smells, the sights and the sound of the wind blowing through these large trees is quite a treat. They also provide a generous amount of shade which is certainly appreciated by all the visitors that use this preserve during the summer. Isn't THAT what these "open space preserves" are suppose to be about!?... sensual stimulation, enjoyment and peace and quiet!? I observed the recent attempt of the Open Space District at re-introducing some robust "native" oak seedings and in my opinion the results show that it was largely a waste of time, effort and money. It appears that less than half have survived. Who knows how many more will perish next year due to the lack of shelter and water. Why not let nature, along with the "non-native" eucalyptus trees, do the job of restoration for free? Please reconsider your decision to remove these majestic eucalyptus trees... as well as other "non-natives"... and let nature take it's course. Nature knows better what to do!! If you must disturb the peace and serenity of these open space preserves, keep it to a bare minimum and let the oldest trees and vegetation survive. How many on the Board of Directors use the Pulgas Best regards! Ridge Preserve? PLEASE listen to what the people that use this preserve are saying!! Karl Weidel 10/16/00 County of Santa CIA �coUNT� Environmental Resources Agency D Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos,California 95032-7669 - 2 41 `y law (408)358-3741 FAX 358-3245 ETA CVO Reservations(408)358-3751 TDD(408)356-7146 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL QpE www.parkhere.or� SPACE DISTRICT N July 21, 2000 Ms. Caroline Moore 1909 Newman Place Mt. View, CA 94043 RE: TRAILS USAGE AT RANCHO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK Dear Ms. Moore: Thank you for your letter dated July 11, 2000 expressing concerns on the impact that park users have on the trail that runs vertically up to the water tank..As of July 4, 2000, the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the Rancho San Antonio County Park were taken over by the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District. A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the MidPen staff for response. Please feel free to contact the MidPen's office and staff in the future for any questions you may have regarding the Rancho San Antonio County Park. The MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District office is located at: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022-1404, Phone: 650-691-1200,Fax: 650-691-0485, or E-Mail: mrosd@openspace.org. If you have any further questions, please call me at (408) 358-3741, xt. 142. Sincerely, DangKhoa T. Vo, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer e-mail: khoa.vo@mail.prk.co.santa-clara.ca.us c: Mark Frederick, Planning and Development Manager Bernie Garrison, Sr. Park Ranger Midpeninsula Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022-1404 l l t Ms.Moore(07-21-2000).doc l i Regional Open Sepce fit„ >X,- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DRAFT R�.S3 N; , AR D Bar �"i--T PREP, FOR BOARD CONSEN-1, Ms. Caroline Moore 1909 Newman Place Mountain View, CA 94043 Re: Trail Usage at Rancho San Antonio County Park Dear Ms. Moore: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, I would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding your concerns on the impact that park users have on the trails that ascend to the water tank at Rancho San Antonio County Park. The Board of Directors reviewed your letter at its regular meeting last night. For your information, per the District's Basic Policy, access for hiking is typically unrestricted on District lands and trails. However, when an overuse situation results in significant resource damage, access restrictions may be appropriate. It is very important that problem-usage issues are reported, and, accordingly, your letter was forwarded to staff at the Foothills Field Office with a request to collect information on use patterns on the segment of trail you identified. The Board is pleased to report that the District has scheduled a project in the near future to close and restore several of the steep, undesignated shortcut trails leading to the water tank. After restoration, two options will remain to access the water tank area: the switchback trail shown on the preserve map, and the recently graded access road used for water tank repairs. Again, thank you for writing to share your concerns on trail-related damage. Sincerely, Kenneth C. Nitz, President Board of Directors KCN:SGS:sgs Cc: MROSD Board of Directors Foothills Field Office 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hank.,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz • Genera/Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open Suace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT EE S P 0 N"E P R E P AFRE D BY ScJ t FOR BOARD CONS0211RAT 1101N! Mr. Richard Moyer 872 Fielding Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Moyer: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, I thank you for your recent letter regarding the safety of single track trails shared by bicyclists and hikers in Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. The Board of Directors reviewed your letter at its regular meeting last night. It is very important that safety issues are reported and your letter has been forwarded to staff at the Skyline Field Office with a request to increase patrol on the trail segments you identified. At its July 12, 2000 meeting, the Board directed the Ad Hoc Trail Use Committee to reconvene to develop a recommendation regarding bicycle-only trails, including the possibility of one-way descending trails for cyclists. Your suggestions for bicycle use on single track trails within Long Ridge Open Space Preserve will be referred to the Committee for their consideration later this year or early next year. You will be notified when a public meeting is scheduled on this matter. Staff will confirm that your name is included on the District's trail use mailing list. Again, thank you for writing to share your ideas for ensuring the safety of all trail users. Sincerely, Kenneth C. Nitz, President Board of Directors KCN:CW:ar Cc: MROSD Board of Directors Ad Hoc Trail Use Committee 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz -General Manager:L.Craig Britton Page 1 of 3 From: MROSD <mrosd@openspace.org> To: Stephanie<sjensen@openspace.org> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 12:22 PM Subject: Fw: Safety and Bicycles Kristi Webb Public Affairs Assistant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (650) 691-1 200 www.openspace.org i ----- Original Message ----- { From: <RichAMoyer[r.�,aol.com> To: <mrosd(c�r7,openspace.org> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 2:24 PM Subject: Safety and Bicycles > MROSD Directors: >I want to take this opportunity to thank you for a job well done and > especially in the >recent hearings on closing some areas to bicycles. Having been at the >meetings > and having felt somewhat intimidated to speak, your positions must have been >much more difficult. > > For those who thought the letters and notes you received commenting on >bicycles >were bogus I assure you my previous Email and this one is not. >My chief concern in this note is to point out some of the safety issues I >have seen >while hiking in the Long Ridge Preserve. There is one area of the preserve >where > there are two single lane trails connecting old ranch roads which are wide. >As far as > I know these two single lane trails are the only connecting trails between >the roads. > In each case these connecting trails are about one mile to two miles in > length and > allow bicycles and hikers in both directions. > Those connecting trails were not built for bicycles. I hiked these trails 9/19/00 Page 2 of 3 three times >on the weekend last June and July. Besides the continuous disruption of my > hike to > step off the trail to allow bicycles to pass in either direction, there were >times when it >was not very obvious where to step to allow the bicycles to pass. Nor was >there that >much time to make a decision. On hillsides in particular if one stepped up >the hill, one >could easilty slip down onto the trail. If one stepped on the downside, one >could >easily slide down quite a ways. The speed limits I know say 15mph max and > 5mph >passing hikers (in either direction I hope); however, some cyclists are very >much caught >up in the spirit of seeing how far they go in a day. They pass hikers far > faster than > 5mph even on the single lane trails, especially near the entrance from the >road onto >the single lane trail where they seemingly don't want to lose the speed they >have built up. > >These single lane trails are places for accidents waiting to happen. Even 1f >there were no >hikers on these trails,bicycles are coming at one another from opposite >directions. > I'm sure that some bicyclists would want these trails to remain open; but >would they >accept the cost of injury accidents. Doesn't the MROSD leave themselves open >to being > sued for these accidents? > Suggested solutions: > 1. Widen these single lane trails. (This may not always be possible, cost >effective, > good for the natural habitat or even feasible.) > 2. Close these single lane trails to bicycles either in one direction or >both. > 3. Direct bicyclists to walk their bicycles on these trails. (Would they do Page 3 of 3 > it?) > >4. Close these connecting single lane trails to hikers. > >Again thank you the great job and for being great directors. > Sincerely, > >Richard Moyer > 872 Fielding Dr. >Palo Alto, CA 94303 >RichAMoyer®,,aol.com (or) >moyergmail.arc.nasa.gov > I� 9/19/00 Carolyn Chaney, Ed. D. D C E W E 313 Lakeview Way Redwood City, CA 94062 : September 30, 2000 L MIOPEN!NSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPICE DISTRICT Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Dear Directors, At your meeting of September 13,2000 you voted to remove thirty eucalyptus trees as a part of the habitat restoration plan for Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. As a part of this decision, you agreed that the eight large trees along the upper road would be spared, that trees would be selectively removed without clear cutting any area, and that trees to be removed would be posted in advance, as required by the county. Since this decision was reached,I have collected additional information, which I would like you consider before the trees are cut. You have relied on Jodi Isaacs, Resource Management Specialist of MPOSD, to guide you in your decision making process. She is your professional staff person, and I respect your desire to be guided by her wisdom. However, I have come to distrust Ms. Isaacs. It is not that we disagree about the importance of the trees in the preserve,but the deliberate way that Ms. Isaacs has tried to circumvent the legal and ethical permit process in place in our county and the false statements and misleading "information" that Ms. Isaacs has provided to your Board, to the neighbors and to me that leads to this distrust. Following our attendance at the September meeting, Geri Kennedy and I made a list of discrepancies and misleads in the information provided by Ms. Isaacs to the Board. They are as follows: 1. Jodi Isaacs (JI): The reason that the tree cutting did not proceed when scheduled previously was a failure of the contract due to difficulty bringing heavy trucks on Hetch Hetchy property. Mislead: The first time the cutting was halted by the San Mateo County Planning Department because Ms. Isaacs authorized cutting large trees without a permit. The second time was when she sent a letter stating the intention to clear cut in violation of the permit later issued, according to which the process was to be done slowly over a period of years to protect the neighbors' view. 2. JI: This is a long term (30 year)restoration project. (Told to neighbors of Pulgas). Inconsistency:Later said that tree removal would not take that many years. Once proposed removal of all trees at one time. Now proposes removing about half the large trees at once. 3. JI: The new contract was given to PAL at a cost of$15,000,because CCC can't cut large trees. Also: it costs more to cut trees down the hill. Mislead: I saw CCC cut down an enormous tree, one of the very largest, in the earliest round of cutting. CCC cut trees in the lowest grove in the preserve. 4. JI: Provided a map to the Board that purported to show the trees at Pulgas. Mislead: The map was not representational;it showed trees growing wildly in clumps, not neatly planted rows, and did not accurately show the number of trees. 5. JI: The trees are about 10 feet apart, and in some places 4 feet. Mislead: The closest trees are 14 feet apart. 6. JI: Eucalyptus trees and their duff are poisonous to other vegetation, preventing growth of native trees such as oak. Inconsistency: Later proposed to chip up small branches and leaves and spread the eucalyptus wood chips throughout the preserve. Mislead: Eucalyptus trees provide shade and moisture that seem to assist in the growth of oak seedlings. On September 30, Leslie Vallerga (an attorney and friend of Pulgas Ridge) and I measured two similar 100 sq. foot plots of adjacent land near the water tank at Pulgas, one plot with two large oaks and one plot with two large eucalyptus trees. After measuring the plots, we counted the oak seedlings growing on each. Under and around the oaks, 9 baby oaks were growing. Under and around the eucalyptus, 27 small oaks were growing. Under the oaks, the ground seemed bare, but under the eucalyptus were also additional native shrubs. 7. JI: Eucalyptus trees are invasive; they produce many sprouts that take over. (This was actually a statement by a board member that Ms. Isaacs agreed with). Mislead: The invasive species featured in Ms. Isaacs' slide presentation was Acacia. Under the eucalyptus trees at Pulgas, Leslie, Geri and I have found NO sprouting baby trees. In one location there appears to be a proliferation of small eucalyptus trees; however, an inspection reveals that these are shoots growing off stumps of cut trees. Proliferation occurs when the trees are cut, not when they are left alone! 8. JI: To replace the eucalyptus, native species are to be planted in their stead. Featured in Ms. Isaac's slide presentation was a recent planting of oaks. Inconsistencies: a. When asked why so many of the newly planted oaks had died Ms. Isaacs claimed that this was an opportunistic planting and that she had anticipated only a 1-217o success rate. The volunteers who planted those trees would not be happy to hear that 987o of their work was for nothing. b. The slides implied that oaks would replace the eucalyptus; later JI indicated that low growing coyote bush and other natives would just take over naturally. Mislead: The neighbors and concerned friends have been led to believe that eucalyptus would be removed slowly over a number of years so that oaks and other native Jr= could take over. 9. JI: Agreed to post the trees that were selected for removal in a timely way, so that interested hikers and neighbors could provide input about the selection. I called Ms. Isaacs on September 29 to ask if I could accompany her on the day that trees were selected. She informed me that the trees were already marked and that she would send me a map. She said that more than 30 trees were marked, to allow PAL some leeway in the selection process. Mislead: A thorough survey of trees on September 30 by Leslie Vallerga and me revealed that ALL the eucalyptus trees larger than 8 " in diameter have been tagged with tiny metal numbers. No specific trees are marked in such a way that the public can see that tree cutting is imminent. I am annoyed that Ms. Isaacs interpreted the board's direction to post the trees in this way. I feel concerned that the selection is to be left up to the cutters, who will certainly apply different criteria for selection than would environmentalists and friends of the preserve. I have taken a number of photographs at Pulgas, which I would like to share with you. They show that broom and cactus plants are indeed invasive at Pulgas Pulgas...yet I have heard nothing about removal of cactus. The photographs show that Oaks are growing in the protective shelter of the eucalyptus trees. Further, I have taken they measured plots where Leslie and I counted oak seedlings, to show tha provided a fair and representative sampling. I request that you postpone the tree cutting at Pulgas Ridge until after your next meeting, and I invite you to come and view the setting for yourself. I would be delighted to walk with you and show you that the eucalyptus are not causing damage at Pulgas, and on the contrary, are proving needed shade for hikers and oak seedlings, as well as high perches for owls and other raptors. Furthermore, I ask you to not blindly trust your staff person,but to seek additional expert advice from arborists who are not stakeholders. I have a colleague at San Francisco State University who is a well known authority on oaks;she is willing to look at the oak and eucalyptus trees and offer her expert opinion, and I have scheduled a walk with her in 2 weeks. I will talk with her about recent research on cohabitation of oaks and eucalyptus. It will take only a few days to cut down these trees that took decades to grow...why not take a bit more time to evaluate the impact of such a decision? Perhaps we have a unique situation in Pulgas, where eucalyptus are fostering baby oaks...such a situation certainly warrants further study, don't you think? Thank you for listening. I look forward to your response to my letter. If you'd like to walk with me,please call me at 650-364-5547. Sincerely, cc.Jodi Isaac Carolyn Chaney, L. Craig Britton MPROSD Volunteer Regional Open *ace T MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR B 0 A R D C 0 N 3*i D 7Z R PJ 10;,�J Ms. Carolyn Chaney 313 Lakeview Way Redwood City, CA 940262 Subject: Restoration and Habitat Enhancement of Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve Dear Ms. Chaney: Thank you for your recent letter of September 30, 2000 regarding the phased Eucalyptus tree removal as a part of the Habitat Restoration Plan at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve. Your letter was considered by the Board of Directors at its meeting of October 25, 2000. As you stated in your letter, on September 13, 2000 the Board approved the staff report to remove 30 Eucalyptus trees at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve, with the amendment to retain, at this time, the largest of the Eucalyptus trees adjacent to the road near the water tank. Subsequent to that meeting, staff tagged, measured and mapped 96 of the Eucalyptus trees to be removed over the life of this restoration plan. Please refer to the September 29 letter to you from Jodi Isaacs for the individual tree numbers to be removed this fall. Additionally, staff has marked the trees to be removed with an orange marking around the circumference of the tree. Planning staff is currently computerizing a detailed map of all of the Eucalyptus trees,which is expected to be available soon. Please let Jodi know if you would like a copy of this map. This focus for this year is to remove 30 of the larger eucalyptus (diameter greater than 15 inches) and several smaller trees bordering the native vegetation. The intention is to thin the density of the trees to allow natural regeneration of native species in a phased manner over time. The tree removal is very gradual, and is expected to extend over the next 20 years or more. It is a selective removal, not a clear-cutting operation, retaining substantial trees to minimize the short-term visual impact and phase the changes to the habitat over time. The Pulgas Ridge Habitat Restoration Plan exemplifies the District's resource management mission to protect and restore the diversity and integrity of its land resource. This plan is a long-term commitment in which the priority is to systematically restore areas of the preserve that are most threatened by invasive, non-native species. Restoration efforts have begun in the northern portion of the preserve, and not until 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 * Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 e E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org * Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz *General Manager:L.Craig Britton Ms.Carolyn Chaney October 11,2000 Page two native vegetation becomes established, will restoration begin in the southern areas. Upon completion of this plan, all areas with non-native vegetation will be restored. Control of invasive non-native species,revegetation, maintenance, and monitoring are proposed to continue incrementally each year at Pulgas Ridge until completion, as stated in the restoration plan. I hope that we have adequately addressed your concerns about this project. We do feel that the phased implementation of the restoration plan will allow the preserve to function as viable habitat for native flora and fauna. If you have any further questions regarding natural resources on District lands, please contact Jodi Isaacs, the District's Resource Management Specialist. Sincerely, Kenneth C. Nitz, President Board of Directors KCN/jp Regional Open Dace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DR .F � FOR BOARD CONS) OZER Ms. Mikala Caune 504 Clifton Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 Re: Trails Usage at Rancho San Antonio County Park Dear Ms. Caune: On behalf of the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, I thank you for your recent letter regarding your concerns on the impact that park users have on the trails that run up to the water tank at Rancho San Antonio County Park. The Board of Directors reviewed your letter at its regular meeting last night. For your information, per the District's Basic Policy, access for hiking is typically unrestricted on District lands and trails. However, when an overuse situation results in significant resource damage, access restrictions may be appropriate. It is very important that problem usage issues are reported and your letter was forwarded to staff at the Foothills Field Office with a request to collect information on use patterns on the segment of trail you identified. The Board is pleased to report that the District has scheduled a project in the near future to close and restore several of the steep, undesignated shortcut trails leading to the water tank. After restoration, two options will remain to access the water tank area: the switchback trail shown on the Preserve map, and the recently graded access road used for water tank repairs. Again, thank you for writing to share your concerns on trail-related damage. Sincerely, Kenneth C. Nitz, President Board of Directors KCN:SGS:sgs Cc: MROSD Board of Directors Foothills Field Office 330 Distei Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Avg ®. Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton County of Santa Cla coUNT� Environmental Resources Agency Parks and Recreation Department 298 Garden Hill Drive tf Los Gatos,California 95032-7669 (408)358-3741 FAX 358-3245 Reservations(408)358-3751 TDD(408)356-7146 www.parkhere.org July 21, 2000 Ms. Mikala Caune 504 Clifton Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 RE: TRAILS USAGE AT RANCHO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK Dear Ms. Caune: Thank you for your letter dated July 11, 2000 expressing concerns on the impact that park users have on the trail that runs vertically up to the water tank. As of July 4, 2000,the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the Rancho San Antonio County Park were taken over by the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District. A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the MidPen staff for response. Please feel free to contact the MidPen's office and staff in the future for any questions you may have regarding the Rancho San Antonio County Park. The MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District office is located at: 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos, California 94022-1404, Phone: 650-691-1200,Fax: 650-691-0485, or E-Mail: mrosd @ openspace.org. If you have any further questions,please call me at (408) 358-3741,xt. 142. Sincerely, DangKhoa T. Vo, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer e-mail: khoa.vo@mail.prk.co.santa-clara.ca.us c: Mark Frederick, Planning and Development Manager Bernie Garrison, Sr. Park Ranger MidPeninsula Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,California 94022-1404 Ms.Caune(07-21-2000).doc i Regional Opera ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-25 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 27, 2000 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING I. ROLL CALL President Ken Nitz called the meeting to order at 6:10 P.M. Members Present: Betsy Crowder, Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Peter Siemens, and Ken Nitz. Mary Davey arrived at 6:12 P.M. Members Absent: Nonette Hanko, Deane Little. Staff Present: Craig Britton, Del Woods, Susan Schectman, Duncan Simmons, Mike Williams, John Escobar, Cathy Woodbury, Stephanie Jensen, Tom Fischer. II. CLOSED SESSION K. Nitz stated that the Board would adjourn to Closed Session for the purpose of discussingClosed Session Agenda Items 1 2 and 3. g The Board recessed to Closed Session at 6:10 P.M. and the Closed Session commenced at 6:10 P.M. The Board concluded the Closed Session at 7:26 P.M. REGULAR MEETING III. K. Nitz called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. and noted that no reportable actions had taken place in Closed Session. Director Little was present for the Regular Meeting. Additional Staff Present: Deirdre Dolan, Lisa Zadek, and Ana Ruiz. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. 330 Distel Circle . Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 a Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 * E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org a Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz .General Manager:L.Craig Britton Meeting 00-25 Page 2 VI. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR B. Crowder asked that the following corrections be made to the August 9 minutes: • Page 11, first line, change the work "like"to "as." • Page 11, item 3, second sentence, change to read, "She summoned help from the rangers to assist a cyclist who had been stung by a bee." K. Nitz removed agenda item 7, Authorization to Ratify and Approve Printing Service Costs with Harbor Printing at an Amount Not to Exceed $19,000. Motion: B. Crowder moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including minutes of the July 26, 2000 Special and Regular Meeting and the August 9, 2000 Special and Regular Meeting as corrected; a response to a written communication from Mr. W. Patrick Gallagher, 864 Elmira Drive, Sunnyvale; agenda item 5, Authorization to Change District's Designation of Authorized Signatories for the District's General and Payroll Accounts; Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Signatories for General Checking Account (Mid-Peninsula Bank); Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing_Signatories for Payroll Checking Account (Mid- Peninsula Bank); Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Financial Instrument Signatories of the District for Santa Clara County Accounts, agenda item 6, Authorization to Solicit Bids for One Tractor Mower; Authorize Staff to Advertise for Bids to Purchase One Tractor Mower Equipped With a Boom-Mounted Brushing Mower; and Revised Claims 00-16. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. VII. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of an Agreement for Purchase of a Fee Estate Subject to a Power of Termination for Sale of the Former Bean Property - Long Ridge Open Space Preserve; Determine that the Recommended Action is Categorically Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as Set Out in the Staff Report; Declare a 13.9 Acre Portion of San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number 080-410-220 as Surplus to District's Needs, Amend the Use and Management Plan as Set Out in the Staff Report; Adopt the Resolution Accepting and Authorizing Execution of the Agreement for Purchase of a Fee Estate Subject to a Power of Termination with Sharon L. Niswander and Thomas L. Anderson, Husband and Wife, for Sale of the Former Bean Property - Long Ridge Open Space Preserve—(Report R-00-120). T. Fischer described the property. M. Williams explained fee ownership and outlined the terms and conditions, noting that in the CC&Rs it is a requirement that they have permits for repairs, remodeling, and major renovation. Meeting 00-25 Page 3 C. Britton provided background information stating that the District used to remove buildings from property they acquired. The Bean house was one of the first the District bought, where there was a new house. They have been looking for someone to purchase the house for a term of year so the District could recapture some of its investment. B. Crowder complimented staff on the creative arrangement. M. Williams enumerated the reasons the District was selling. as follows: 1. The District can continue to manage the open space. 2. It is a high maintenance property. 3. It allows the District to recoup money to be used on other acquisitions. Discussion followed regarding how the value was determined. M. Williams said staff looked at present value of rental income at a 6 percent interest rate over 40 years. That came to about $470,000 which did not discount for repairs that need to be done now which amount to $40-50,000. That was also the value arrived at by the appraiser hired by the District. The appraiser looked at 40 acre parcels in Portola Heights area with significant improvements, some more substantial than the Bean house, where they would own fee title. C. Britton said staff time involved in maintaining the property was included in the overhead figure. M. Williams showed slides of the property. Motion: B. Crowder moved that the Board determine that the recommended action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report; declare a 13.9- acre portion of San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number 080- 410-220 as surplus to District's needs; amend the Use and Management Plan as set out in the staff report; and adopt Resolution No. 00-59, Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Declaring Property Surplus to District's Needs, Approving and Authorizing Acceptance of the Agreement for Purchase of a Fee Estate Subject to Power of Termination, Authorizing the President of the Board or Other Appropriate Officer to Execute Grant Deed for the Real Property Being Sold, and Authorizing the General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing the Transaction (Sale of Former Bean Property — Long Ridge Open Space Preserve). J. Cyr seconded the motion. Discussion: J. Cyr said he thought this was a very creative resolution to a complicated issue from the District's point of view. M. Williams mentioned that T. Fischer and D. Simmons provided a lot of help on the project. Meeting 00-25 Page 4 Vote: The motion passed 6 to 0. B. Agenda Item No. 2 — Application to Habitat Conservation Fund Program for the Soquel Creek Headwaters Acquisition Project; Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving the Application to the Habitat Conservation Fund Program for the Soquel Creek Headwaters Acquisition Project—(Report R-00-123). D. Woods outlined staff's report and said he did not think there were pig problems there. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board adopt Resolution No. 00-60, Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Local Agency Grant Program — Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Under the Habitat Conservation Fund Program of the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 for the Following Project: Soquel Creek Headwaters Acquisition (Loma Prieta Ranch). D. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. C. Britton noted that the total grants received for this program amounted to over $2.6 million. C. Agenda Item No. 3 - Proposed Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property With Aventis CropSciences, Inc. (Successor to Rhone-' Poulanc, Inc.) Extending the Date for Conveyance of a Trail Easement in Order to Complete the Exchange Agreement (Ravenswood Open Space Preserve), Determine that the Recommended Action is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as Set Out in the Staff Report; Adopt the Resolution Authorizing Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property With Aventis CropSciences, Inc. (Successor to Rhone7 Poulanc, Inc.)(Report R-00-1 15). T. Fischer presented the staff report. C. Britton said the District holds a $10,000 deposit which Aventis would forfeit if they did not renew. B. Crowder said she understood the trail along the levee could not be an official part of the Bay Trail because the levee had to be strengthened and raised by the Army Corp. of Engineers. C. Britton said we had a joint grant with San Mateo County where they were going to buy the necessary trail easements. The addition of these two easements leaves only one parcel that is needed to complete the link. He said the real problem is the toxic cleanup. T. Fischer said they are still Meeting 00-25 Page 5 working on the cleanup of the whole area. He said the toxins have been brought to an acceptable level from an environmental standpoint by remediation. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board determine that the recommended action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report; and adopt Resolution No. 00-61, Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of the First Amendment to the Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property with Aventis CropSciences Inc., Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Easement to District, and Authorizing General Manger to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to the Transaction (Ravenswood Open Space Preserve — Lands of Aventis CropSciences, Inc.). J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. D. Agenda Item No, 4 - Sausal Trail Use Designation at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve; Refer the Matter of Sausal Trail Use Designation to Staff for Return to the Board After Completion of Construction of Kabcenell Bridge and Town of Portola Valley Work on Alpine Road—(Report R-00-121). A. Ruiz presented staff s recommendation, noting that the delay would provide staff with the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the trail and analyze where it fits into the surrounding landscape. She said this approach would ensure that the use or uses recommended for the trail will be compatible, that the uses will not impact the breeding and nesting pattern of the pond, and that the uses do not disrupt, but rather enhance the final trail system that will be established after all construction work is completed in the lower area. B. Crowder said she could not remember whether the Board had decided the trail would eventually be reviewed for equestrian use when it was originally designed. She thought everybody was concerned that mountain bicyclists might use this trail, and she did not think that was an appropriate use of the trail. She said that personally she could see no reason it should not have horses on it because it is fairly wide, horses do not go fast, it's a well-built trail with an easy grade, it's very beautiful and shady, and is preferable to the existing road. She said that the coming winter might be a reason to delay opening it. P. Siemens asked if the trail was open to dogs on leash. A. Ruiz said it is a temporary designation of hiking only while the trail has stabilized. J. Escobar said this trail is on the draft list of seasonal closures that will come before the Board. Meeting 00-25 Page 6 J. Escobar said this trail is on the draft list of seasonal closures that will come before the Board. Mary Hufty, 757 Mapache Drive, Portola Valley, said this has been an issue since she became chair of the Portola Valley Trails Committee. They were sure this was going to be horse trail. She said there were some very good safety reasons why it should be opened right now to horses because of the construction. She said they thought they were working with the District to help set up the deal with the Sequoias, and they hoped they could get back to working together. C. Britton talked about the history of the trail, stating that they closed it to all but foot traffic while the tread stabilized. He said it stayed in a temporary status and it probably should have come back to the board prior to that time. When it came back in January staff proposed it for hiking and companion dogs only, and that's when the equestrians came forward. Staff said they would like to study this entire area; in the meantime the District was working with the town and the Kabcenells. Jeanette Hansen said that it was fully understood by the Portola Valley Trails Committee that it would be a horse trail. P. Siemens was informed that the trail had been complete for 18 months. Sarah Fries, 135 Farm Road, Woodside, said she felt that they were given verbal assurances that it would be an equestrian trail. Paper signs were put up indicating a temporary designation, then they found wooden stiles, which were put out prior to the hearing on the designation of the trail, that said it was for hikers only. She said some of the issues expressed about environmental concerns seemed disingenuous. She felt there were a good many on staff who were not familiar with horses. She described meeting a large construction truck while riding on the trail earlier in the month, and said to her this was not an alternate trail. She said the hoped they would open Sausal Trail to horses soon, because by the time they do the final plan it will probably be closed for the winter. C. Woodbury said she anticipated that this would return to the Board in late winter. B. Crowder said this was not just a question of the Sausal Trail, but also the area where the trail is to be realigned. She said that area is closed right now, but when it is opened she thought it was essential that there be an alternative trail so hikers and horses would not have to walk on the wide driveway. C. Britton said this pointed to the fact that there were a lot of issues. He stated for the record that there was no predisposition on the part of staff in favor or against equestrian use. M. Davey said the trail is seasoned, and asked why they couldn't use it now. Meeting 00-25 Page 7 J. Cyr said that while he appreciated their frustration, he would prefer to see the planning as a whole rather than piecemeal. He said he could understand the safety consideration. D. Little expressed concerns about the water draining from the trails into the pond causing pollution. He informed those present that it is the Board's decision as to the use of trails, not staff's. He was sure that staff understood that well, and were professionals to the extent that they would not have proposed any particular usage to a group regarding future access. He personally didn't have a problem, but he would like staff to have a chance to look at it comprehensively. P. Siemens said he was also concerned about runoff. B. Crowder said both the road and trail are above the pond, and Sausal Trail is farther from the pond than the road. M. Davey said she thought it was a good idea to look at the plan as a whole, but there was no compelling reason not to allow horses on the trail. She believed that the Board prefers multi-use trails, and if there were any exclusion it would be bicycles. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board direct staff to study the area as a whole and in the meantime allow equestrian use until it is necessary to close the trail for seasonal reasons. B. Crowder seconded the motion. Discussion: S. Schectman said since they did not have a staff report for action before them tonight, she recommended that if it is the majority pleasure of the Board to open the trail to a particular use then the motion would be to direct staff to return at the next meeting for just that use. If the majority of the Board did not wish to address the trail segment, the other alternative would be to direct staff to return with the area plan at a future date. J. Escobar said the seasonal closings will be brought to the Board at the second meeting in October. Motion: M. Davey moved to direct staff to return at the next meeting with a proposed action to open that trail segment to equestrian use temporarily and also direct staff to return to the Board at a future time with a comprehensive trail plan for the area. Discussion: J. Cyr was informed that a reasonable time for a comprehensive plan would be mid-winter. Staff has been investigating the area. Board members indicated they did not wish the trail to be open to bicycles. Meeting 00-25 Page 8 Second: B. Crowder seconded the motion. D. Little said he had a problem with changing Board policies and putting the planning process second to what is a political consideration. He said they need to treat all constituent groups the same. P. Siemens said he could support the opening on a safety basis. Vote: The motion passed 4 to 2 with Directors Little and Nitz voting no. E. Agenda Item No. 7, Authorization to Ratify and Approve Printing Service Costs with Harbor Printing at an Amount Not to Exceed $19,000—(Report R-00-124). K. Nitz said he noticed that there are symbols on the bottom of the pages in the packet that say they are printed with soy ink and are forest free. S. Jensen said those symbols would be removed before reproduction. In addition, K. Nitz said part of the logo on the envelopes interferes with the Postal Service bar code. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board approve the printing expenditure with Harbor Printing for up to $19,000. M. Davey seconded the motion. Discussion: D. Little said he thought we could come up with a more modern and attractive design for the District logo. C. Britton said after the coastal annexation is completed staff will look at the District's graphic image and name. Vote: The motion passed 6 to 0. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS B. Crowder: 1. She said when the District purchased the Silva property they granted a life estate to Paul Ortega who died three weeks later. Ruth Waldhauer and Janet Schwind, who are working on a history project on South Skyline, had called her. They had interviewed Mr. Ortega for the project. She said the history project is quite comprehensive. 2. She asked about Bay Area Action moving to the Peninsula Conservation Center. 3. She had a call from Roger Alleman from the East Bay in response to the bicycle closure action in July. He had supported the Board's action and called to thank them. He did not come to meetings because of threats. 4. She had an invitation from Sustainable San Mateo County for a benefit for Greenbelt Alliance. M. Davey: 1. She informed B. Crowder that Bay Area Action and the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation had officially merged. They had their first Board meeting last week. The co-directors are Peter Drekmeier, Holly Kaslewicz and David Meeting 00-25 Page 9 Smernoff. The merged organization will eventually be housed at the building the Trust owns. The hope is that eventually there will an ecocampus on Mountain View public land. The city is looking at a request for proposal for both the ecocenter and the hotel, hoping they can make both the building and the hotel completely green. If that is the case, the conservation center will move from East Bayshore to the new facility east of Highway 101 in Mountain View right next to Shoreline. 2. Regarding the Stanford land, the staff report from the County was released earlier this month and it is time for public input. October 18 will be the Planning Commission meeting, and on October 24 Supervisor Simitian will give his views on land use. 3. She asked J. Escobar about the tremendous increase in parking violations shown in the incident report. J. Escobar said that could be from Rancho County Park and could easily double. K. Nitz said next week he will meet with C. Woodbury and J. Escobar, and he recommended that all Board members take the opportunity to meet with the new Planning Manager and S. Jensen to get to know them and find out what their plans are for the future. C. Britton said he and J. Escobar had already scheduled such meetings with individual Board members. M. Davey said S. Jensen has been working with the group at History House planning the Open Space Celebration this fall. The opening has been postponed until March. Kate Disney said S. Jensen has been very helpful in showing her artifacts and history of the agency. C. Britton: 1. He had an invitation to the Deer Hollow Farm celebration October 1, 3:00- 5:00 P.M and wanted to advise the Board. 2. He had notice of the annual legislative breakfast in San Mateo on October 14 and asked about Board intent. Byron Sher, Jackie Speier, Lou Papan, and Ted Lempert will be speaking. 3. East Bay Regional Park District will present a study of the economics of open space and park lands on November 2. He wanted to know if any Board members might be interested in attending. 4. In the FYI's there was a letter stating that the District had received a land and water grant for Saratoga Gap Trail. That project will appear in next year's work program. 5. He and other members of the management team thought the staff recognition event was the best one ever. S. Schectman: 1. She said the president had signed a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. She said it remains to be seen how it will be interpreted. It says that no government can impose a land use regulation on a religious use that imposes a substantial burden on the use unless there is a compelling interest. She was sure there would be a challenge. 2. She talked about the Ninth Circuit decision which upheld the ability of the park service to prohibit jet skis on segments of the Snake River. It contains language about the authority of government agencies to regulate types of uses. 3. The Pacifica Trust for Public Lands was the successful bidder for Mori Point, a 100-acre parcel on the coast north of the San Pedro Headlands. It will become part of the GGNRA. 4. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approved the building of a frog pond to be built next to the proposed Devil's Slide Tunnel. It is within 100 yards from her home. Meeting 00-25 Page 10 C. Woodbury presented a coastal annexation update and schedule. The first of three workshops will be held on October 16 and the draft document will be out next week. S. Jensen said Friday, October 13, which is a full moon, is the tentative date for the Russian Ridge bum. G. Baillie will keep them up to date. IX ADJOURNMENT At 9:30 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary Claims No. 00-16 Meeting 00-25 Date: Sept. 27, 2000 Revised MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2467 90.83 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 2468 134.41 ADT Security Services Alarm Service 2469 5,111.00 All Seasons Roofing Services Enterprise Rental Roof Installation 2470 624.16 All Laser Service Printer Repairs&Maintenance 2471 25.08 ANG Newspapers Legal Advertisement 2472 952.94 Artscapes/Young Framing Staff Appreciation Picture Framing 2473 90.47 AT&T Telephone Service 2474 45.90 Barron Park Supply Co. Plumbing Supplies 2475 98.07 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 2476 5,429.50 BNY Western Trust Company Note Paying Agent Fees-Debt Service 2477 407.02 Bruce Barton Pump Service, Inc. Pressure Tank for Water System 2478 95.00 California Chamber of Commerce Resource Document 2479 180.00 California Park&Recreation Society Recruitment Advertisement 2480 169.67 California Water Service Water Service 2481 102.09 Camino Medical Group Medical Services 2482 158.52 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Equipment Parts 2483 392.67 Cellular One Cell Phone Service 2484 240.22 Cole Supply Co., Inc. Janitorial Supplies 2485 1.00 Communications&Control Annual Radio Site Lease-Mt. Umunhum 2486 312.55 *1 Bernardette Congdon Reimbursement--Staff Event Supplies 2487 50.00 Jim Davis Automotive Vehicle Smog Testing 2488 5,480.82- Deborah G. Mills-Design Concepts Graphic Designs- Newsletter/Hikes&Walks 6,332.73 2489 36.31 Emergency Vehicle Systems Vehicle Lights 2490 56.16 Federal Express Express Mail 2491 1,424.49 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies 2492 344.70 Green Waste Recovery, Inc. Garbage Service 2493 75.00 *2 City of Half Moon Bay Coastal Meeting Room Rent 2494 1,419.69 Home Depot Field Supplies 2495 1,131.64 H. T. Harvey&Associates Ecological Consultant--La Honda OSP 2496 248.00 Jobs Available Recruitment Advertisement&Subscription 2497 250.00 Tamara Kan Feral Pig Monitoring Consultant 2498 46.16 Anne Koletzke Reimbursement--Resource Documents 2499 25.00 *3 La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District Coastal Meeting Room Rent 2500 935.20 *4 Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Copier Lease 2501 501.20 Los Altos Garbage Company Garbage Service 2502 1,148.72 Lucent Technologies Maintenance& Lease of Telephones 2503 210.02 MCI Worldcom Telephone Service 2504 990.00 Micro Accounting Solutions Computer Consultant 2505 43.19 Minton's Lumber&Supply Field Supplies 2506 614.87 Navarone Mailing Services Mailing of Fall Newsletter 2507 1,462.11 Noble Ford Tractor, Inc. Tractor Repairs 2508 430.00 North American Title Company Title and Escrow Fees 2509 407.76 Office Depot Office Supplies 2510 100.34 *5 Office Helper Office Supplies 2511 8,234.00 Old Republic Title Company Title and Escrow Fees 2512 1,284.81 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 2513 30.00 Palo Alto Weekly Legal Advertisement 2514 8,910.68 Panko Architects Distel Circle Remodel-Architect Page 1 Claims No. 00-16 Meeting 00-25 Date: Sept. 27, 2000 Revised MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2515 255.64 Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation Postage Meter Lease 2516 13,354.00 Portola Park Heights Property Owner's Association Road Repairs 2517 1,868.70 Eric Remington Wildlife Assessment Consultant 2518 2,407.03 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repair 2519 88.50 Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. Solvent Tank Service 2520 255.42 San Jose Mercury News Legal Advertisement 2521 870.00 Santa Clara Co. Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Permits 2522 454.00 Sequoia Analytical Water Testing 2523 451.77 Shell Fuel 2524 272.73 Signs of The Times Times 2525 352.49 Skyline County Water District Water Service 2526 1,200.00 Slaght Living Trust October Ranger Resident Rent 2527 141.00 *6 Spoil Me Staff Appreciation Event Raffle Prize 2528 1,875.00 Systems for Public Safety Recruitment Background Checks 2529 64.00 Terminix Pest Control Service 2530 320.75 *7 Togo's Staff Appreciation Event Lunches 2531 10,719.70 2M Associates Coastal Annexation Consultant 2532 138.00 Verio/Best Internet Internet Service Domain Fees 2533 225.00 Verio Internet Service Provider 2534 2,747.14 VISA 69.00 CA Lawyer Subscription 282.41 Notary Association Fee 1280.90 Field Supplies 64.43 Local Business Meeting Expense 250.00 CARPOSA Airfare-Baillie/Escobar 400.40 Staff Appreciation Event Gifts 400.00 Trails Symposium Registration- A. Ruiz and S. Sommer 2535 275.13 West Group Payment Center Legal On-Line Services 2536 482.71 The Workingman's Emporium Uniforms 2537 1,338.50 Whitmore, Johnson&Bolanos Legal Services 2538R 577.00 Old Republic Title Company Title& Escrow Fees 2539R 105.00 Park Rangers Association of California Conference--K. Miller 2540R 9.62 Rancho Hardware Field Supply 2541R 235.06 Petty Cash Local Business Meeting Expense, Nature Center Supplies, Staff Appreciation Event Supplies&Vehicle Expense Total 98,268.59 *1 Urgent Check Issued September 14, 2000 *2 Urgent Check Issued September 18, 2000 *3 Urgent Check Issued September 18, 2000 *4 Urgent Check Issued September 21, 2000 *5 Urgent Check Issued September 21, 2000 *6 Urgent Check Issued September 14, 2000 *7 Urgent Check Issued September 14, 2000 Page 2 Regional Open !, ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-26 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 11, 2000 MINUTES i SPECIAL MEETING I. ROLL CALL President Kenneth C. Nitz called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Nonette Hanko, Peter Siemens, and Kenneth C. Nitz. Members Absent: Deane Little. Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Duncan Simmons, Michael Williams, and Tom Fischer. II. CLOSED SESSION K. Nitz stated that the Board would adjourn to Closed Session for the purpose of discussing Closed Session Agenda Item 1. The Board recessed to Closed. Session at 6:33 P.M. and the Closed Session commenced at 6:34 P.M. The Board concluded the Closed Session at 7:10 P.M. REGULAR MEETING III. K. Nitz called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. and noted that no reportable actions had taken place in Closed Session. Director Little arrived at 7:35 P.M. Additional Staff Present: Cathy Woodbury, Lisa Zadek, David Sanguinetti, Duncan Simmons, Ana Ruiz, Stephanie Jensen and Jenny Preciado. p Y IV. SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY K. Nitz and J. Cyr paid tribute to Director Betsy Crowder, and those present observed a moment of silence in her memory. 330 CDistel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 . E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org o Web site:www.ol�)enspace.org Board of Oirectors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz .General Manager:L.Craig Britton Meeting 00-26 Page 2 V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. VI. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. P. Siemens seconded and the motion passed 6 to 0. VII. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR K. Nitz removed agenda item 6, Tentative Adoption of an Amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Monte Bello Open Space Preserve to Separate the Picchetti Ranch Area Name From Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Officially Name It As Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve from the Consent Calendar. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including approval of the minutes of the September 13, 2000 Special and Regular Meeting; draft responses to written communications from Mr. Edgar Dethlefsen, P. O. Box 7337, Menlo Park and Ms. Sally Lee Boyd, 3352 La Mesa Drive, #17, San Carlos; agenda item 5, Schedule a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors for 7:00 P.M. on October 16, 2000 to Discuss the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Preliminary Draft Service Plan; and Revised Claims 00-16. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. VIII. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 - Adoption of a Use and Management Plan Amendment for an Interim Equestrian Trail Use Designation of Sausal Trail at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, Determine that the Proposed Actions are Categorically Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Based on the Findings Contained in Staff Report; Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to Open Sausal Trail to Equestrians on an Interim Basis Until Seasonal Closures Are In Effect; Direct Staff to Bring a Comprehensive Trail Use and Management Plan Amendment for Lower Windy Hill Open Space Preserve Back to the Board for Consideration Upon the Completion of the Kabcenell Bridge and Construction Projects That Will Be Concluding Within the Next Few Months —(Report R-00- 126). A. Ruiz presented the staff report. Mary Hufty, 257 Mapache Drive, Portola Valley, Chair of the Portola Valley Trails Committee, talked about naming a trail for B. Crowder. Regarding the Sequoia Trail entrance, she said she would like to see that complete prior to winter and asked whether it was their responsibility or that of the District. She also wanted to know when the bypass of the Kabeenell driveway would happen. Meeting 00-26 Page 3 She added that she thought they needed to have Sausal Trail open to horses as a safety measure. C. Britton talked about naming trails and how to memorialize B. Crowder. He said the District does name trails after people who have made contributions to the District. Portola Valley could do something separately. N. Hanko said that B. Crowder had worked so hard on this trail it seemed fitting to have her name on it. There could be a memorial ceremony in the spring. D. Little asked about the origin of the name Sausal. Denise Williams, 25462 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills, asked the Board to consider having the trail open to dogs also. There are dog trails all over the area. She said she feels more secure when she has her dog with her. C. Britton noted that all that is before the Board tonight is to let the horses use the trail on a temporary basis because of the construction. Staff's plan is to look at all the trails and come back with a recommendation on all uses. M. Davey assured Ms. Williams they would consider it at that time. C. Britton said staff wants to bring it back to the Board after construction of the Alpine Creek project and the Kabcenell driveway. That would probably be in mid to late winter. He explained why trails are closed seasonally. K. Nitz indicated he would support dog use. Dan Bernstein, P. O. Box 1236, co-founder of PADS, said he advocated that the trail be open to dogs on an interim basis. He felt it ought to be open because both ends of the trail are dog legal. He said PADS has been active at Windy Hill informing dog owners about the restrictions including a requirement that dogs be on a leash. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board determine that the proposed actions are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on the findings contained in the staff report; adopt a Use and Management Plan amendment to open Sausal Trail to equestrians on an interim basis until seasonal closures are in effect; and direct staff to bring a comprehensive trail Use and Management Plan amendment for Lower Windy Hill Open Space Preserve back to the Board for consideration upon the completion of the Kabcenell bridge and construction projects that will be concluding within the next few months. N. Hanko seconded the motion. Discussion: Ellie Ferrari, 211 Willowbrook Drive Portola Valley, thanked the Board for their action. Meeting 00-26 Page 4 D. Little expressed concern about treating different constituent groups differently. He said if there is a dangerous situation, it is dangerous for all users. Amendment to Motion: D. Little moved to amend the original motion to open the trail to cyclists and dog walkers on an interim basis. Discussion of Amendment: D. Little said if the bicycling community came to the Board, he did not think they would have passed the recommendation to send this back to staff. He said the District's reputation and integrity were on the line. Motion died: The motion to amend died for lack of a second. Vote on original motion: The motion passed 5 to I with D. Little voting no. B. Agenda Item No. 2 - Approval of Financial Support in the Amount of$2,500 to Extend the Bay Trail Project's Wildlife and Public Access Study; Authorize the General Manager to Expend $2,500 to Extend the Bay Trail Project's Wildlife and Public Access Study—(Report R-00-13 0). C. Woodbury presented the staff report. She said the amount of the support related to the amount of trail in the District compared to the total length of the Bay Trail. C. Britton said the District is trying to back away from managing the Bay Trail. He said we have an agreement with San Mateo County who was going to manage the Bay Trail through the Ravenswood Preserve at one time. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to expend $2,500 to extend the Bay Trail Project's Wildlife and Public Access Study. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. C. Agenda Item No. 3 - Establish a Procedure for Filling Ward 6 Board Vacancy, Determine Whether the Board Vacancy in Ward 6 Will Be Filled By Appointment or By the Election Process—(Report R-00-127) C. Britton introduced the staff's recommendations. N. Hanko asked that the staff report be corrected to show that Ward 6 includes portions of East Palo Alto. She also asked that the proposed schedule be amended to show a 4 week application period rather than 4-1/2 on the November 8 deadline. She said she favored the appointment process in this case. They need to look at the District and its ability to function. M. Davey agreed that appointment was the way to go. She requested that they change the November 13 meeting to November 14. Discussion followed about Meeting 00-26 Page 5 the dates of Board meetings in November. S. Schectman suggested that the wording be changed to say November 14 or 15 if needed, at the discretion of the Vice President of the Board. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board fill the vacancy in Ward 6 by appointment. P. Siemens seconded the motion. Discussion: Rod Brown asked that the Board consider holding a special election so that the people in that district would have the opportunity to choose their representative. P. Siemens said he normally preferred elections but there are two years left in the term and it would be vacant for six months if they waited for an election. M. Davey observed that B. Crowder had been appointed to her first term as director. D. Little said having gone through the appointment and the election process, he knew the appointment process was very competitive. No one is running against him in his bid for re- election. Anyone who lives in the ward can apply. J. Cyr echoed D. Little's opinion, noting that he had been impressed with the process for filling the Ward 4 vacancy and there had been solid candidates. He talked about the cost of an election. Discussion followed regarding the list of publications where the notice of vacancy would appear. Staff agreed to amend the list to add the Palo Alto Daily and the San Mateo Times, as well as the bulletins from the South Skyline Association and King's Mountain. Vote: The motion passed 6 to 0. P. Siemens suggested modifying the procedures for interviews. Following discussion the procedures were amended as follows: First Round, switch the order of items 4 and 5. Change item 9 to read, "The field will be narrowed to half of the original number of applicants, but at most four. Item 10 will read, "The four candidates receiving . . ." S. Schectman suggested making a note on the proposed schedule for November 20 to state that the meeting is for the purpose of initial interviews for Ward 6 applicants, and potential final Meeting 00-26 Page 6 interviews. Following discussion, it was decided to leave it at a two-stage process and to modify the schedule and procedures as discussed. Motion: P. Siemens moved that the Board approve the application form to be used as presented in the staff report; reaffirm use of the general criteria for appointment to the Board of Directors as presented in the staff report; approve the use of the procedures for interviews, modified as discussed; establish a timeline for filling the vacancy, including setting a deadline for receipt of applications, and setting the dates for the first and second round of interviews, modified as discussed. M. Davey seconded the motion. S. Schectman reminded Board members to make sure there is a quorum present on November 20 and 27. Vote: The motion passed 6 to 0. D. Agenda Item No. 4 - Election of Secretary for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors and Appointment of Director to Serve on the Governing; Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority—(Report R-00-128). C. Britton presented the staff report. J. Cyr volunteered to serve as Secretary for the District Board of Directors. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board elect J. Cyr as Secretary for the District Board of Directors. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. J. Preciado, Assistant District Clerk, distributed ballots for Board Secretary. Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board appoint J. Cyr to serve on the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority. P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. J. Preciado announced that there were six votes cast for J. Cyr for Board Secretary. E. Agenda Item No. 6 - Tentative Adoption of an Amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Monte Bello Open Space Preserve to Separate the Picchetti Ranch Area Name From Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and Officially Name It As Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve — (ReRort R-00-125). Meeting 00-26 Page 7 K. Nitz asked if this would cost the District anything and why we are doing it. C. Britton said Picchetti was always seen as part of Monte Bello Ridge and we thought that someday they would be connected physically. He said the distance in dollars has increased to the point where they might never be connected. In addition, when the Board made their decision about closing preserves to bicycle use, Picchetti will be closed but the balance of Monte Bello would be open. If they don't have a separate name, it will create confusion. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board tentatively adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Monte Bello Open Space Preserve to separate Picchetti Ranch Area from Monte Bello Open Space Preserve and officially name it Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. IX. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS M. Davey: 1. Disposition of the Stanford Land (Community). There will be hearings before the Santa Clara County Planning Commission on October 18 and 19 about the staff recommendation. The final decision will be on October 31. On October 24, Supervisor Simitian will make a report to the public, as to what he thinks his recommendation will be to the Board of Supervisors. N. Hanko asked if the group of conservationists and environmentalists had considered the urban growth boundary to be the same as Palo Alto. M. Davey didn't know if it was in the final report. N. Hanko said it seemed important that we a have a strong position on that and asked if M. Davey was agreeable to having an item on the next agenda to take a position. M. Davey said she would work with staff. J. Cyr talked about B. Crowder's memorial service. He said that while he was hiking in Boulder, he thought about B. Crowder. He suggested that the District write a letter to the judge and district attorney to make it clear the type of loss that has been suffered. S. Schectman said there is a time for people to express their position, but it is probably not appropriate at this time. K. Nitz stated he had a letter from Carolyn Chaney about Pulgas Ridge. C. Britton said there would be a draft response prepared for the next meeting. P. Siemens stated he will work with staff on a response to a letter from Teresa Nesmith about St. Joseph Hill. C. Britton: I. He reminded Board members about the legislative breakfast. 2. He had an invitation to the October 27 Sustainable Communities event. 3. He had an invitation to the program at East Bay Regional Park District on November 2 where they will unveil their economic study having to do with the region's health relative to park and open Meeting 00-26 Page 8 space. 4. He passed out an advance copy of POST's newsletter. 5. He was a guest speaker at a Stanford law class that is trying to put together an activists handbook. He said it was a pleasure to meet the students. S. Schectman: 1. She reminded Board members about the coastal annexation workshops, noting that three can attend and that they should coordinate their calendars. 2. She talked about a new bill effective January 1 which revises LAFCO procedures, noting that it focused more on open space and agriculture and there could be some impact on the coastal annexation. J. Preciado stated that the Administration and Budget Committee members had received a September 29 memo from Mike Foster. S. Jensen distributed copies of an article on the coastal annexation from the Los Altos Town Crier. X. ADJOURNMENT At 9:07 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary Claims No. 00-16 Meeting 00-26 Date: Oct. 11, 2000 Revised MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2542 46.56 AT&T Telephone Service 2543 211.87 Barron Park Supply CO. Plumbing Supplies 2544 235.18 Bimark, Inc. Employee Appreciation Event Rockers 2545 262.01 California Water Service Water Service 2546 59.48 CSK Auto, Inc. Vehicle Parts 2547 57.37 Cole Supply Company, Inc. Janitorial Supplies 2548 699.77 Continuing Education of the Bar Resource Document 2549 419.70 Costco Wholesale Wholesale Supplies 2550 66.90 Scott Cotterel Reimbursement--Uniforms 2551 260.00 Jim Davis Automotive Vehicle Repairs 2552 9,952.55 Dell Marketing L.P. Seven Computers 2553 87.60 Deluxe Business Forms I.R.S. Forms 2554 115.00 Evergreen Environmental Services Hazardous Waste Removal 2555 151.12 Tom Fischer Vehicle Expense 2556 144.01 Forestry Suppliers, Inc. Field Supplies 2557 40.79 Foster Brothers Security Systems, Inc. Keys 2558 513.05 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies 2559 21.60 G &K Services Shop Towels Service 2560 360.00 Green Waste Recovery, Inc. Garbage Service 2561 6,751.55 Harbor Printing Skyline Map Printing 2562 1,276.64 Howard Rome Martin&Ridley Attorneys At Law Legal Services 2563 59.05 Stephanie Jensen Reimbursement-Local Business Meeting 2564 170.49 Michael Jurich Reimbursement-Uniform 2565 5,700.00 JMS Painting Company Enterprise Rental House Painting 2566 125.00 Tamara Kan Feral Pig Monitoring Consultant 2567 12.02 Kwik Key Lock&Safe Co., Inc. Keys 2568 110.54 1 Tom Lausten Reimbursement--Uniforms 2569 447.42 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service 2570 447.61 Lucent Technologies Maintenance &Lease Of Telephones 2571 21.21 MCI Worldcom Telephone Services 2572 97.86 MetroMobileCommunications Radio Maintenance&Repair 2573 186.02 Minion's Lumber&Supply Field Supplies 2574 123.59 Northern Energy, Inc. Propane Service 2575 146.94 Office Helper Office Supplies 2576 7,653.00 Art O'Neal &Associates Employee Enhancement Plan Consultant 2577 273.15 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 2578 18.67 Peninsula Blueprint, Inc. Printing Services 2579 257A9 Pine Cone Lumber Co., Inc. Field Supplies 2580 7,055.46 Powerland Equipment, Inc. Field Supplies 2581 99.03 Pringle Tractor Company Tractor Parts 2582 7.28 Rancho Hardware Field Supplies 2583 36.13 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Service 2584 78.91 Recreational Equipment, Inc. Uniforms 2585 1,799.40 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 2586 39.00 *2 Santa Clara County Clerk, Recorder's Office Notary Commission Papers-L. Zadek 2587 39.00 Santa Clara County Clerk, Recorder's Office Notary Commission Papers-J. Preciado 2588 8,200.00 Richard Seever-Land Management Resource Pig Control Contract Services Page 1 Claims No. 00-16 Meeting 00-26 Date: Oct. 11, 2000 Revised MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2589 224.57 Shell Fuel 2590 92.18 Signs of the Times Signs 2591 35.70 Skywood Trading Post Fuel 2592 216.30 Sandy Sommer Reimbursement-Trails Conference 2593 142.89 Summit Uniforms Uniforms 2594 83.33 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 2595 315.00 Terminix Pest Control Service 2596 774.25 Tooland, Inc. Air Compressor 2597 1,712.00 *3 Total Tree Care Oak Tree Removal-Sausal Trail 2598 39.61 Union 76 Fuel 2599 388.13 U.S. Bank Note Paying Agent Fees 2600 600.00 Roberta Wolfe Recording Services 2601 934.68 Wolf Camera Camera and Photo Processing 2602 250.00 Wildcat Metals Inc. Enterprise Rental Gutter Repairs 2603 85.80 Michael Williams Vehicle Expense 2604 200.00 Woodside&Portola Private Patrol Windy Hill Parking Security Service 2605 121.29 *4 Lisa Zadek Reimbursement--Copying 2606R 1,805.73 Bruce Randolph Anderson Assoc. Planning Consulting Services 2607R 1,120.00 Country Rogue Construction Equipment Operator/FRO 2608R 171.60 Ana Ruiz Reimbursement Trail Symposium 2609R 653.00 Santa Rosa Junior College Registration C. Barresi 261OR 243.39 Skywood Trading Post Fuel 2611R 398.30 Petty Cash Local Business Meeting Expense, Office Supplies, Nature Center Supplies, Staff Recognition Supplies And Coping Total 61,152.45 *1 Urgent Check Issued September 29, 2000 *2 Urgent Check Issued October 03, 2000 *3 Urgent Check Issued September 18, 2000 *4 Urgent Check Issued September 29, 2000 Page 2 Claims No. 00-16 Meeting 00-26 Date: Oct. 11, 2000 Revised MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2589 224.57 Shell Fuel 2590 92.18 Signs of the Times Signs 2591 35.70 Skywood Trading Post Fuel 2592 216.30 Sandy Sommer Reimbursement-Trails Conference 2593 142.89 Summit Uniforms Uniforms 2594 83.33 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 2595 315.00 Terminix Pest Control Service 2596 774.25 Tooland, Inc. Air Compressor 2597 1,712.00 *3 Total Tree Care Oak Tree Removal-Sausal Trail 2598 39.61 Union 76 Fuel 2599 388.13 U.S. Bank Note Paying Agent Fees 2600 600.00 Roberta Wolfe Recording Services 2601 934.68 Wolf Camera Camera and Photo Processing 2602 250.00 Wildcat Metals Inc. Enterprise Rental Gutter Repairs 2603 85.80 Michael Williams Vehicle Expense 2604 200.00 Woodside& Portola Private Patrol Windy Hill Parking Security Service 2605 121.29 *4 Lisa Zadek Reimbursement--Copying 2606R 1,805.73 Bruce Randolph Anderson Assoc. Planning Consulting Services 2607R 1,120.00 Country Rogue Construction Equipment Operator/FRO 2608R 171.60 Ana Ruiz Reimbursement Trail Symposium 2609R 653.00 Santa Rosa Junior College Registration C. Barresi 261OR 243.39 Skywood Trading Post Fuel 261 tR 398.30 Petty Cash Local Business Meeting Expense, Office Supplies, Nature Center Supplies, Staff Recognition Supplies And Coping Total 61,152.45 *1 Urgent Check Issued September 29, 2000 *2 Urgent Check Issued October 03, 2000 *3 Urgent Check Issued September 18, 2000 *4 Urgent Check Issued September 29, 2000 Page 2 Regional Open S ce t 1 - `tip"tip R-00-133 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-28 October 25, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Status Report on Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION G ' Accept the oral and slide presentation on the status of staff activ' ies at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. BACKGROUND Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve has been the focus of much staff attention since its acquisition in 1998. The District owns the"lower"260 acres and the"upper" 805-acre area is owned by Peninsula Open Space Trust;however,the District manages the entire 1,065 acre site. The property has a long history of varied use and improvements. This continued activity has necessitated a great effort by District staff in securing the property and preparing for its ultimate status as a safe, restored, and managed public open space preserve. Activities performed by District staff have ranged from interfacing with the pre-existing equestrian operation and the holders of timber harvest rights to coordinating safety improvements,demolitions, and permits for public access. Summaries of staff's activities will be presented in the following order: • Site Safe /Site Improvement: The site has been improved with fencing, gating, signage and debris has been removed. (Michael Newburn,Maintenance&Construction Supervisor) • Demolitions: Structures causing a potential safety and fire hazard have been removed. Historical evaluation concluded that three cabins had no architectural or historical significance. Restoration of scarred areas with non- invasive, erosion controlling grasses will be completed this month.(Sandy Sommer, Senior Planner; and John Cahill, Planner II) • Bear Creek Stables: The equestrian facility owners,operating under a short-term lease, have been working with District staff to assure that the facility creates the least possible environmental impact on the area through management of waste, location of stalls and pastures,and compliance with trail closures. (Thomas W. Fischer, Land Protection Specialist) • Logging: Big Creek Lumber Co. began logging operations which are expected to continue through the summer of 2001. (Dennis Dart, Planning Technician) • Permits: A limited permit system has been developed for the stable riders, neighbors and the public. (Michael Newburn,Maintenance& Construction Supervisor) Prepared by: Thomas W. Fischer, Land Protection Specialist Map prepared by: Dennis Dart, Planning Technician Contact person: Thomas W. Fischer, Land Protection Specialist 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz • Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve rz�v L I� • 12 9B )( r 9. f \c' - A. �►I MROSD Highway Gate Contour Interval Water Bodies ` POST Minor Paved Parking /V 40 ft. 0 1500 3000 Feet Unpaved 200ft. Creeks --- --- . New Road b Regional Open ,(.", ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-00-137 Meeting 00-28 October 25, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Urging Stanford University to Define Future Land Use and Provide Long-Term or Permanent Protection of Critical Open Space Areas in its Community Plan ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION�W �1 Review, discuss, amend and adopt the attached resolution urging Stanford University to provide clear and significant long-term or permanent protection for open space areas in its Community Plan proposed for consideration to theSanta Clara County's Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION The Santa Clara County Planning Commission held public hearings on October 18 and 19, 2000 to take public comment, consider the application regarding the Stanford Community Plan, General Use Permit application and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report, and to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. On behalf of the District, the General Manager submitted the attached letter to the Planning Commission emphasizing the District's concerns regarding the lack of permanent protection of open space and the project's impact on the surrounding area. In addition, Randy Anderson represented the District's views by giving testimony at the hearing. The Santa Clara County Planning Commission's action was to recommend approval a of the application by a 4:1 vote, subject to two amendments: 1. The entire Golf Course shall be located within the Campus Open Space land use designation; and 2. The transportation section of the Community Plan shall be revised to reflect the continuing requirement for multi jurisdictional meetings regarding traffic safety along Junipero Serra Boulevard and Stanford Avenue. The use and development of the Stanford campus is an issue of critical importance to the District and to all the communities and jurisdictions of the San Francisco Peninsula. While Stanford University has vast beneficial impacts on the region's economy and culture, it also has tremendous impacts on all aspects of regional planning and the environment due to the sheer scale of its holdings, existing development and potential expansion. Stanford lands have been a vital open space resource for people of the midpeninsula area for decades. These lands constitute part of the regional trail network and 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 * Phone:650-691-1200 i Fax:650-691-0485 * E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org * Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder, Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton R-00-137 Page 2 provide a greenbelt between burgeoning urban areas and important open space. The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of Stanford's proposal is a grave disappointment given the plan's lack of permanent protection for open space lands. The next step in the approval process is for the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to consider the application. The Board of Supervisors has scheduled two meetings during the last week of October: Monday, October 30 at 7:00 P.M. and Tuesday, October 31 at 2:00 P.M. At the meeting on October 30, the Board intends to take public comment and, if time allows, consider and take action on Stanford University's request. However, if the Board of Supervisors continues the item to its meeting of October 31, the Board is not expected to accept further public comment, and action will likely be taken. The attached resolution, in the same form as that adopted by the Board in January, lends the District's voice to the many organizations and agencies urging Stanford to offer, and Santa Clara County to require, a clearly defined Community Plan with permanent protection for open space preservation to mitigate development impacts. Staff recommends that the Board review, discuss, and, if appropriate, amend the resolution, and, finally, adopt it for transmittal to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Prepared by: Cathy Woodbury, Planning Manager Contact person: Same as above Regional Open ,S&ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 18, 2000 Hon. Jack Bohan, Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Santa Clara County Planning Commission 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Proposed Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit Dear Chairperson Bohan and Members of the Commission: On behalf or the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, which owns and manages over 46,000 acres of public open space on the San Francisco Peninsula, I would like to express concern over several important aspects of the staff-recommended actions contained in the report to the Planning Commission dated October 9, 2000. Though County staff and officials have done an excellent job of brining order to a vast and complex project and process, we have strong concerns regarding the current proposal: • The Conditions of Approval fail to require permanent open space protection, which is essential given the vast development entitlement being granted. • Significant development is allowed in current open space areas, in conflict with the "core concept"of compact urban development and in spite of significant post- mitigation project impacts on open space noted in the EIR. • The EIR does not clearly and completely present all the components and impacts of the project. ■ The EIR and the Conditions of Approval fail to address some potential direct impacts of the project on open space, such as a future road connection and future school site. ■ Habitat protections for the endangered California Tiger Salamander are not required on a timely basis. We are very disappointed that the proposed Conditions of Approval do not require permanent open space protection. In a resolution of its Board of Directors dated January 12, 2000 (attached), the District urged the County to require permanent dedication of open space in consideration of the vast development entitlement that is being conveyed by the General Use Permit. The appropriateness of this requirement is underscored by a number of significant unmitigated project impacts since identified by the EIR. A letter to the Commission dated October 10, 2000 from attorneys Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills eloquently stated the legal basis and the practical mechanism for securing permanent open space protection. We urge you to 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz 9 General Manager:L.Craig Britton Santa Clara County Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Page 2 incorporate these requirements into the Conditions of Approval. Alternatively, if the open space protection is only for 25 years, then the approval of the development should also be good for only 25 years, after which time its removal must be required. A very disturbing feature of the Conditions of Approval is contained in Section E., Academic Building Area. Table 1 allows 20,000 square feet of development in the Lathrop Area, which is within the endangered California Tiger Salamander Management Zone and within the current Open Space and Academic Reserve area. This is inconsistent with the reasonable development limit established by Junipero Serra Boulevard and the "core concept" of compact urban development presented in the staff report. Further, the "deviations"permitted following the table (paragraph E.2.b) allow 15,000 square feet of buildings to be constructed in the Foothills Area(though the table lists 0 square feet). Paragraph E.3 allows an additional 21,000 square feet in the Lathrop Area with a separate use permit. To protect open space and endangered species habitat and provide for logical, compact urban limits, no additional development should be allowed south of Junipero Serra Boulevard. In a letter from our Board President, Kenneth C. Nitz, dated August 2, 2000 (attached), the District commented on what we believe are serious inadequacies in the draft environmental impact report. We believe the draft EIR obscures the cumulative project impacts, including those on open space, by segregating aspects of the Community Plan proposal from aspects of necessary mitigations and desirable or inevitable alternatives, rather than presenting all the likely consequences, direct and indirect, in each category. The Final EIR found significant post-mitigation impacts on open space, intersections, historical and archaeological resources, noise and growth inducement (see Final EIR Volume III, Table S-1). Even so, as noted in the District's August 2 letter, the summary of environmental impacts failed to note other significant impacts that are implied or specifically noted in various sections of the EIR analysis of mitigations and alternatives. For example, in Section 4AF on page 4.4-84, the draft EIR contains an alternative for a new road through the open space area between Sand Hill Road and Alpine Road, connecting from the core campus to I-280. The EIR traffic analysis concludes that even with major local intersection improvements, there will be significant unmitigated local traffic impacts from the project. The proposed Conditions of Approval require that Stanford provide future mitigation of these traffic impacts (see Section G.9.a), but do not speak to this additional road alternative, though it seems likely it would eventually be required. Another example is the potential impact on open space of a new school site proposed by Stanford in the current Open Space and Academic Reserve area at Page Mill and Deer Creek Roads (see Table 7-3 on page 7-48 of the draft EIR). The impacts of the school site are not addressed in the EIR or in the Conditions of Approval, though the school is directly related to the current and previous phases of Stanford campus development. Santa Clara County Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Page 3 In addition to these specific omissions, we believe the overall impacts of the project are understated because the EIR fails to address the"multiplier effect"of the added academic and housing uses, as noted on page 6 of the October 9 staff report under"Growth Inducement". The response to our letter from EIR preparers (see page 12-48 of the response to comments) was basically that these issues had been addressed in the various EIR sections, and that in some cases further analysis of secondary impacts would be speculative or impossible. An example given was the "multiplier effect": traffic and housing impacts due to service industry jobs created by the additional academic and housing uses. We have seen such secondary effects analyzed in environmental documents for much less significant projects, using very straightforward methodologies. We reiterate our position that the final EIR should contain a clear and complete summary of all the project proposals and alternatives, and the inevitable or likely direct and indirect impacts. This should include factors such as the construction of new a road through the open space area as mitigation for local traffic impacts that the EIR says will not otherwise be mitigated, and the construction of a new school in the open space area, as proposed by Stanford and required to serve Stanford families. Perhaps because the EIR obscures these cumulative impacts, the draft Conditions of Approval for the General Use Permit fail to address the potential secondary open space impacts of road and school construction. The Conditions of Approval should state specifically if and where these facilities would be allowed. If they are to be potentially allowed in the open space area as part of the GUP approval,the case for permanent protection of open space and limitation of the development boundary is further supported. Though the measures specified in the Conditions of Approval for the protection of the California Tiger Salamander(CTS) are thorough, they do not require action on Stanford's part until "prior to any construction in the CTS management zone". Further, no easements or action will be required if the CTS becomes extinct, which seems a disincentive to take protective action in the interim. We request that initiation of measures to protect the endangered CTS be required immediately after approval of the GUP, and that no development be considered unless a reasonable schedule for these protections has been maintained. In summary, the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit provide Stanford University with entitlements to a vast magnitude of development that greatly exceeds the surrounding land use intensities. In many other cases in Santa Clara County and elsewhere much lesser projects and impacts have been the basis for significant limitations on the project configuration and dedication of significant permanent open space protection. I Santa Clara County Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Page 4 We urge you to hold a firm line against the intense pressure brought to this issue by Stanford University, and require an agreement that is fair to the current and future citizens and the environment. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton General Manager Encl. cc Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Regional Open Space ` 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT August 2, 2000 Sarah Jones Associate Planner Santa Clara County Planning 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Foor San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for Stanford University Community Plan/General Use Permit Dear Ms. Jones: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District staff has reviewed the DEIR for the Stanford Community Plan and have some very serious concerns about the completeness of the Plan and the adequacy of the environmental review with respect to open space and environmental resources. In the Impact and Mitigation Summary(Table S-1) the DEIR finds significant unmitigated impacts under Open Space, Recreation and Visual Resources (OS-2 and OS- C2), under impacts on intersections in Traffic and Circulation (TR-5), and in two categories under Historic and Archaeological Resources (HA-1 and HA-C1). Review of the DEIR, and particularly the various alternative components, indicates that the Project also has significant impacts in conflict with land use policy(LU-1), on scenic routes and visual resources (OS-1, OS-4, OS-5, OS-6, and OS-C1), and on population and housing (PH-3 and PH-0). In addition, avoidance of other significant impacts such as biological (most categories) and recreational opportunities (OS-3, OS-C3)depends on assumptions and mitigations that are not a part of the current Community Plan. The DEIR fails to recognize the cumulative impacts of Project alternatives that are proposed and/or likely to occur, such as a new connector road, a new school site, and relocation of a portion of the existing golf course, all of which would impact existing open space. Table 3-1 on page 3-3 indicates Project consistency with the Santa Clara County General Plan Policy R-LU 68 on the Academic Reserve and Open Space Lands. The Policy states that "These lands are important for their scenic beauty, visual relief, grazing, and wildlife values, as well as their academic potential." The project is found to be consistent "with the exc eption tion of the golf cours e and research uses south of Juntpero Sena Boulevard (JSB), and a portion of the Arboretum . . .... The Project is also found to be consistent with Policy L-1 of the City of Palo Alto General Plan, as resented in Table 3-3 on page p Pg 3-7. These findings of consistency do not take into account the likely(as announced in the press) Project alternative of relocation of the portion of the golf course north of JSB to 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton I Sarah Jones July 31, 2000 Page 2 currently undisturbed open space areas (see Impact OS-3 on page 4.2-21). The findings also do not account for the likely impacts of the proposed new school site. Although not designated in the Community Plan, the new school site proposed by Stanford, which is required to mitigate Project impacts on local schools, is also in the Open Space and Academic Reserve at Page Mill and Deer Creek Roads (see Table 7-3 on page 7-48). The fact that the site is not specified in the Plan does not mean that the primary open space impacts, and secondary biological and recreational impacts, of the proposal are avoided. Similarly, the alternative of construction of a new road through the open space (see section 4AF on page 4.4-84) has not been considered in the findings of consistency of the Project with open space policies. This is in spite of the fact that the Traffic and Circulation studies conclude that this road would be badly needed to relieve significant unmitigated traffic impacts of the Project on Sand Hill Road, Alpine Road and other roads and intersections. Also, the DEIR does not address the cumulative impacts of the currently proposed Carnegie Research Facility on open space in the Lathrop District. This project must be included as part of the Community Plan process to make any sense or use of the DEIR process. The inappropriateness of the findings of consistency with land use policy is underscored by the DEIR analysis regarding development proposed for the Lathrop District, on page 4.1-18: ,,The proposed CP designation for the Lathrop Development District is Academic Campus, which is a change from the existing land use designation of Academic Reserve and Open Space. While the GUP only proposes 20,000 square feet of additional development, the CP designation would allow the consideration of future development that is consistent with the Academic Campus designation. Such future development could result in the need to relocate the golf course. Additional academic development in this development district would have the potential to conflict with natural resources protection and open space uses that are afforded in the surrounding area. In addition, access to this development district is currently limited, and would likely require additional capacity to accommodate additional development." In spite of this statement, the DEIR finds that the Project is consistent with County General Plan Policy R-LU 68 and Palo Alto General Plan Policy L-1. The DEIR.also finds that the impacts of development in this District are less than significant in terms of land use. The rationale is that"potential effects and recommended mitigation measures for open space and biological resources are addressed in their respective sections of the DEIR" and: "it is anticipated that these uses could be provided in the development district without conflicting with adjacent non-Stanford land uses because of existing buffers, Sarah Jones July 31, 2000 Page 3 including portions of the golf course, San Francisquito Creek and Alpine Road." The conclusion is not supported by the analysis; further, findings in the Open Space and Biological Resources sections do not support these conclusions. The DEIR finds significant unmitigated loss of open space resulting from the Project (see page 4.2-20), and this does not take into account the cumulative impacts of Project alternatives and other projects outlined above. The Biological Resources section of the DEIR, beginning on page 4.8-1, finds that Project impacts on many critical resources, including the endangered California Tiger Salamander, can be mitigated to a less than significant level only by extensive creation of new habitat and native vegetation in remaining open space areas, along with careful monitoring, protection, and pro-active management. Yet, the Project does not include these measures, nor does it contain guarantees that the remaining open space will be permanently protected, or provide the means to address the conflict between increased campus population, reduced areas for public open space and recreation, and use of the same areas for critical habitat mitigation. The DEIR does not recognize the difficulty of achieving full and permanent mitigation of z biological and recreational impacts given these conditions. The DEIR finds in Table S-1 on page S-5 and on page 4.2-15 that the Project will be consistent with Santa Clara County General Plan policies concerning scenic routes and will have no significant impacts on scenic resources of JSB, which is a County- designated scenic roadway. This is in spite of the finding that 38 acres of new housing will be built north of JSB, 20,000 square feet of academic space would be constructed on the south side of JSB, and two pockets of housing of 1 to 12 units and 2 to 18 units would be constructed on the north side of JSB. The rationale that there would be no scenic impact is that "a thick grove of trees screens view of the golf course from most viewpoints along JSB" and"any structure within 100 feet of JSB will be subject to design review as required by the County zoning ordinance." This level of analysis and these assumptions are not adequate to support the finding of no significant scenic impact. The Impact and Mitigation Summary does not include Growth Inducing Impacts; however, in Section 5.3, starting on page 5-5, the DEIR concludes, under Impact GI-1, that the project will have significant indirect impacts due to growth and concentration of population, which cannot be mitigated. This is in spite of the theory that the project includes housing components that will improve the local imbalance between jobs and housing. Under Impact GI-C 1 on page 5-9, the DEIR clarifies that the indirect employment demand generated locally by the estimated 1000 academic and related jobs, and the additional local residents, would result in another 500 to 1000 jobs in service and support areas. Even if the jobs and housing being created at Stanford are assumed to match Stanford's current and projected needs, this indirect job creation (especially in light of the 1.3 million square feet of office, commercial, and retail space envisioned in other known and potential projects) will result in a net worsening of the local housing shortfall, and related transportation impacts. This relates to categories PH-3 and PH-C3 in the Impact and Mitigation Summary. Also, though the summary notes significant post- Sarah Jones July 31, 2000 Page 4 mitigation impacts on local intersections, the DEIR traffic analysis does not evaluate the local and regional traffic impacts of this indirect growth. In addition to failing to acknowledge the likely cumulative impacts of components of the Project, the DEIR in many instances is unable to describe the Project in sufficient detail to evaluate the impacts at all. Many of the findings of no significant impact are based on vague assumptions, on mitigations that are not included in the Community Plan, or are contradicted by the analysis in the DEIR. This demonstrates that the Community Plan proposal is entirely too vague to provide the basis for adequate community planning or environmental review. The proposal is still open-ended in terms of future use of proposed Open Space and Academic Reserve lands,which makes it impossible for the DEIR authors to realistically evaluate or mitigate the ultimate impacts of the proposal. We strongly urge the County to require Stanford to provide a more detailed Community Plan that accounts for all of the land uses,projects(including the Carnegie proposal) and alternatives that are necessary to provide a complete and clear picture of what is to occur, z and how the impacts are to be minimized. We urge that, based on a more complete Plan, the DEIR be extensively revised and expanded to.fully address the Project and the impacts and mitigations. It is clear that this project will have major, unalterable impacts on the quality of life of the entire region. Stanford has the responsibility and the resources to do the best job possible. The County has the responsibility to make sure that Stanford follows through. Sincerely, ? Kenneth C. resident Board of Directors cc: MROSD Board of Directors Joe Simitian, Supervisor, Santa Clara County Luke Connelly, Palo Alto Planning Department Planning Department, City of Menlo Park RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT URGING STANFORD UNIVERSITY TO OFFER, AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO REQUIRE, PERMANENT PROTECTION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE AREAS IN THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN WHEREAS, Stanford University provides vast economic and cultural benefits to the communities of the San Francisco Peninsula, and has correspondingly significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Stanford University is subject to the same General Plan, zoning, and other land use controls and standards as any other private institution; and WHEREAS, Stanford University is currently requesting renewal of its General Use Permit from Santa Clara County, which addresses development in the 4,000-acre portion of the 8,004-acre campus which lies within unincorporated Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, Stanford University is proposing approximately 2 million additional square feet of educational, institutional, and commercial buildings, and over 3,000 additional housing units, which will have a significant cumulative impact on the community and the environment on the Peninsula; and WHEREAS, Stanford lands include open space lands south and west of Junipero Serra Boulevard and Foothill Expressway that provide vital recreational opportunities, an open space buffer between burgeoning urban areas, and wildlife corridors extending through adjacent parks and preserves and riparian corridors to the Santa Cruz Mountains and to San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District manages six open space preserves in the same critical watershed as the Stanford open space lands, and has as its Mission and Basic Objectives the preservation of a regional greenbelt, linking District and other key resource lands; and WHEREAS, Santa Clara County has required that Stanford University prepare a Community Plan, addressing the seven required elements of a General Plan under California law; and WHEREAS, Stanford University is internationally renowned as a leader in scientific, cultural, and technical fields, and through this Plan has the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the field of environmental and community planning; and WHEREAS, Stanford University submitted a draft Community Plan to Santa Clara County on November 15, 1999, that failed to provide clear definition of future use or protection of critical open space areas, and respond to other vital community concerns. f Now,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District urges Stanford University to offer, and Santa Clara County to require, a Community Plan that: Provides permanent protection of open space areas in sufficient proportion to mitigate the significant cumulative impact of the requested development entitlements, and reflecting the community value and environmental sensitivity of the open space lands; Responds to community input and provides a level of detail adequate for review of future plans and policies; Reflects the General Plans and zoning of the adjacent communities and San Mateo County in the Community Plan, including the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Palo Alto; Requires the discretionary review of current and future projects under 5,000 square feet in areas outside the core campus; Provides a more specific and higher standard of environmental management and monitoring of current and future use, to protect resources such as creeks, unstable slopes, and archeological sites. Regional Open ." ice 61111 R-00-131 Meeting 00-23 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 25, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Appointment of Unopposed Candidates in Wards 4 and 7 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the attached resolutions appointing unopposed Ward 4 candidate Deane Little, and unopposed Ward 7 candidate Kenneth C. Nitz to four-year terms, which will begin on January 1, 2001. I 2. Have the District Clerk administer the Oath of Office to the appointed Directors. DISCUSSION Section 5532(e) of the District's enabling legislation states in part that the Board of Directors, at a regular or special meeting held prior to the last Monday before the last Friday in November in which an election is held, shall appoint unopposed candidates who have been nominated. Section 5532(e) specifies that the Board of Directors shall make the appointment and that the person shall qualify and take office and serve exactly as if elected for office. Deane Little of Mountain View is the unopposed candidate nominated for the position of Director in Ward 4. Kenneth C. Nitz of Redwood City is the unopposed candidate nominated for the position of Director in Ward 7. At your June 14, 2000 regular meeting, you adopted Resolution 00-37 opting not to list any unopposed candidates on the November 7, 2000 ballot. Prepared by: Deirdre Dolan, Administration and Human Services Manager Contact person: Same as above 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPOINTING DIRECTOR—WARD 4 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT WHEREAS, an election for the office of Director—Ward 4 of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was scheduled to be held on November 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, at five o'clock p.m. on the 83'day prior to the date of said election, only one person had been nominated for the position to be filled at that election and a petition signed by ten percent (10%) of the voters or fifty voters, whichever is the smaller number, in Ward 4 of the District, had not been presented to the Board of Directors requesting that an election be held; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 5532(e) of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Directors, at a regular or special meeting held prior to the last Monday before the last Friday in Novem- ber in which the election is held, shall appoint to the office the person who has been nominated; and WHEREAS, Deane Little was unopposed as a candidate for Director— Ward 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, that,pursuant to and in accordance with Section 5532 of the Public Resources Code, Deane Little Is appointed Director—Ward 4 of said District, is duly qualified for the office of Director—Ward 4 of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and shall take office and serve exactly as if elected at the November 7, 2000 general district election for said office. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District this 25" day of October, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Kenneth C. Nitz, President J. Edmund Cyr, Secretary Board of Directors Board of Directors Deirdre Dolan, District Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPOINTING DIRECTOR—WARD 7 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT WHEREAS, an election for the office of Director—Ward 7 of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District was scheduled to be held on November 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, at five o'clock p.m. on the 83 d day prior to the date of said election, only one person had been nominated for the position to be filled at that election and a petition signed by ten percent(10%) of the voters or fifty voters, whichever is the smaller number, in Ward 7 of the District, had not been presented to the Board of Directors requesting that an election be held; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 5532(e) of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Directors, at a regular or special meeting held prior to the last Monday before the last Friday in Novem- ber in which the election is held, shall appoint to the office the person who has been nominated; and WHEREAS, Kenneth C. Nitz unopposed as a candidate for Director—Ward 7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, that, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 5532 of the Public Resources Code, Kenneth C. Nitz Is appointed Director—Ward 7 of said District, is duly qualified for the office of Director— Ward 7 of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and shall take office and serve exactly as if elected at the November 7, 2000 general district election for said office. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District this 25" day of October, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Kenneth C. Nitz, President J. Edmund Cyr, Secretary Board of Directors Board of Directors Deirdre Dolan, District Clerk r Regional Open S1 -e R-00-135 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-28 October 28, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Purchase One Tractor Mower ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1�k Direct the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of General Services and Powerland Equipment for one tractor mower at a total cost not to exceed $70,000. BACKGROUND At your September 27, 2000 meeting you authorized staff to solicit competitive bids for one Tractor Mower (see report R-00-119). After evaluation of various tractors and mowers available, staff finalized specifications. The tractor mower meeting the District's specifications is available through California Department of General Services, California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) contract. CMAS program allows the District to use a state negotiated contract and purchase the equipment directly from the vendor. The District's ability to purchase equipment through Department of General Services CMAS program provides a significant price discount and greatly reduces the amount of staff time that would otherwise be required if the District conducted a separate bid process. The District has purchased vehicles through the State Department of General Services for many years and been very satisfied with the price and quality. Prepared by: David Topley, Support Services Supervisor Contact person: Same as above 3 Dist el Circle • Los Altos, A 4 22-14 4 • 1-12 3 0 e C e to , C 9 0 0 Phone:650 69 00 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,led Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz •Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open ! ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-00-136 Meeting 00-28 October 25, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Cancellation of November 8 and 22 Regular Board Meetings and Scheduling of Special Meetings of the Board of Directors for November 15 and November 29, 2000 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS��z 1. Cancel your November 8 and November 22, 2000 Regular Meetings. 2. Schedule Special Board Meetings for November 15 and November 29, 2000 beginning at 7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION During the holiday months (November and December) staff attempts to look at the calendar to make sure there are a sufficient number of meetings to complete Board Business, while trying not to infringe on normal holiday schedules. This year, as a result of the potential need for an additional November meeting to review written applications for Ward 6 Director (in the case that more than eight applications are received), a November 15 meeting would serve the Board should this be needed. As a result of your meeting of October 16, 2000 and the two subsequent public workshops on the Coastal Annexation Preliminary Draft Service Plan, a meeting on November 29 would better meet the needs of the Farm Bureau and other groups interested in submitting additional comments. This additional time would also permit a more thorough review of these comments by staff and ensure sufficient time to distribute the Draft Service Plan in advance of the November 29 Board meeting. Therefore, by canceling your meeting of November 8 and November 22 and scheduling a special meeting for November 15 and November 29 you would be able to handle all of the anticipated Board business for November. Prepared by: John Escobar, Assistant General Manager Contact person: Same as above 330 Distel Circle e Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton r Regional Open S re 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-00-134 Meeting 00-28 October 25, 2000 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Annual Seasonal Trail Closures Information Report ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Review and comment on proposed trail closures. No formal Board action is required. DISCUSSION At your August 24, 1988 meeting, you asked that staff inform you of any proposed trail closures to bicycle or equestrian use. John Maciel's October 16, 2000 memorandum to Craig Britton outlining the recommendations for this year's trail closures is attached to this report. No new seasonal or interim closures are recommended for this year. However, on the attached table of seasonal closures you will see that for bicyclists, three trails have been changed from interim to permanent closures. This is because these three trails—the Zinfandel Trail, the Polly Geraci Trail, and the Blue Oaks Trail—are located in two of the seven preserves designated by the Board on July 28, 2000 to be closed to bicycles, i.e. Picchetti Ranch and Pulgas Ridge respectively. The General Manager intends to approve the staff s recommendations for trail closures contingent upon any comments you or the public may choose to make at the meeting of October 25, 2000. Prepared by: Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst Contact person: John Maciel, Operations Manager 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open S ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 16, 2000 TO: Craig Britton, General Manager FROM: John Maciel, Operations Manag*LZ SUBJECT: Recommendation for Interim and Seasonal Trail Closures to Bicycle and Equestrian Use Each year you report to the Board on the trails you propose to close to equestrian or bicycle use during wet conditions. This year, closures are designated as seasonal, interim, or closed, and are based on concerns for trail safety, resource damage, and on action taken by the Board. ■ The seasonal closure designation represents trails closed during extremely wet conditions or when new construction presents serious concern over trail safety and potential resource damage, usually between the months of November and April. ■ The interim closure designation represents trails closed temporarily pending the application of Board-adopted trail use guidelines in the use and management review process. ■ The permanent closure designation represents trails closed as the result of Board action. Board-adopted changes to the Trail Use Policies resulted in the closure of seven preserves to bicycle use. On the attached table, these changes are designated as permanent trail closures for Picchetti Ranch and Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserves. The final status of trails in the interim closure category will not be determined until specific action is taken by the Board through the Use and Management Planning process; I recommend that the practice in past years of keeping these trails closed to bicycle and equestrian use remain in effect. There are no new seasonal or interim closure recommendations beyond those recommended last year. I 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton PROPOSED SEASONAL AND INTERIM TRAIL CLOSURES TO BICYCLISTS AND EQUESTRIANS (See definition of "Seasonal" and "Interim" below) Revised October 16,2000 Preserve Trail Bicyclists Equestrians Comments 1. Long Ridge Peters Creek Trail Seasonal Seasonal Very popular with mountain bicyclists. Tread can get very muddy during wet conditions. Staff anticipates closures during and immediately following heavy rainfall. Ridge Trail - Chestnut Orchard Seasonal Seasonal Same conditions as above. to Peters Creek Trail 2. El Corte de Methuselah Seasonal Seasonal Trail is vulnerable to damage during extended periods of rain. Madera Leaf Trail Seasonal Seasonal Trail is vulnerable to damage during extended periods of rain. Virginia Mill Seasonal Seasonal Trail crosses El Corte de Madera Creek and is not passable during periods of high stream flow. Potential slide areas may cause longer term closures, if a severe winter is experienced. 3. Fremont Toyon Trail Seasonal Seasonal Very popular with equestrians from Garrod Stables and mountain Older bicyclists. Tread can get very muddy during wet conditions. 4. Monte Skid Road Trail to Canyon Trail Seasonal Seasonal Very popular with mountain bicyclists and equestrians. The shaded Bello (Lower Nature Trail) canyon environment can prevent the tread from drying through the winter season. Alternate route available. White Oak Trail Seasonal Seasonal Tread can get very muddy during wet conditions. Staff anticipates (Permit lot to Skid Road Trail) closures during and immediately following heavy rainfall. 5. Picchetti Zinfandel Trail Closed* Interim Constructed to a four-foot average width. Permanent status pending Ranch U&M process. 6. Pulgas Polly Geraci Trail Closed* Interim Constructed to a three-foot average width. Permanent status pending Ridge U&M review process. Blue Oaks Trail Closed* Interim Constructed to a four-foot average width. Permanent status pending I U&M review process. New closures SEASONAL CLOSURE: Closed during extremely wet conditions or when new construction presents serious concern over trail safety and potential resource damage,usually between the months ot'Novernher and April, INTERIM CLOSURE: Closed temporarily pending the application of Board-adopted trail use guidelines in the use and management review process. CLOSED: Closed permanently as a result of Board action Table Page: 1 PROPOSED SEASONAL AND INTERIM TRAIL CLOSURES TO BICYCLISTS AND EQUESTRIANS (See definition of "Seasonal" and "Interim" below) Revised October 16,2000 Preserve Trail Bicyclists Equestrians Comments 7. Purisima Whittemore Gulch Seasonal Seasonal Narrow, winding, seasonally wet trail, highly susceptible to damage. Creek This trail is normally closed for the winter. Alternate route available. Redwoods Soda Gulch Trail Interim Interim Narrow, winding, seasonally wet trail with poor line of sight and some very steep side slopes. Majority of trail offers no room for passing. Permanent status pending U&M review process. Alternate route available. Grabtown Trail Closed Closed Trail is closed to all users due to extensive damage from the El Nino storms. Repairs may require engineering plans and specifications. 8. Rancho San Black Mountain Trail Interim Open Constructed to a four-foot average width with occasional pullouts. Very Antonio steep grades remain on P.G. & E. road sections of trail. Permanent status pending U&M review process. 9. Russian Ridge Trail (former Norton Interim Open Constructed to average five-foot width. Permanent status pending U&M Ridge property) review process and purchase agreement restrictions. 10. Saratoga Saratoga Gap Trail Seasonal Seasonal Generally wet conditions during the winter. Damage can occur if open. Gap 11. Skyline Ridge Trail south of Horseshoe Interim Interim Constructed to a four-foot average width. Permanent status pending Ridge U&M review process. Alternate routes available. 12. Windy Hill Razorback Ridge Trail Closed Seasonal Constructed to average three-foot width. Staff anticipates closures during and immediately following heavy rainfall. There has been ongoing tread damage to this trail, due to use. Sausal Trail Closed Seasonal Generally wet conditions during the winter. Damage can occur if open. Lost Trail Closed Seasonal Trail suffers severe impacts when wet. There is limited horse use on the trail, but the use that is present can have a significant impact. Hamm's Gulch Trail Closed Seasonal Same conditions as above. New closures SEASONAL CLOSURE: Closed during extremely wet conditions or when new construction presents serious concern over trail safety and potential resource damage,usually between the months of November and April. INTERIM CLOSURE: Closed temporarily pending the application of Board-adopted trail use guidelines in the use and management review process. CLOSED: Closed permanently as a result of Board action Table Page:2 Claims No. 00-17 Meeting 00-28 Date: October 25, 2000 Revised MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2612 152.49 Ace Fire Equipment&Service Co. Fire Extinguisher Servicing 2613 917.55 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 2614 182.64 ADT Security Services Alarm Service 2615 674.02 All Premium Sportswear Uniforms 2616 127.04 Artech Laminating Laminating Supplies 2617 62.70 AT&T Telephone Service 2618 538.74 Avaya, Inc. Telephone Maintenance Agreement 2619 50.79 Barron Park Supply Co. Plumbing Supplies 2620 250.00 Bay Area Water Trucks Water Delivery Service 2621 510.00 Dana Bland&Associates Sierra Azul Resource Inventory 2622 92.00 City Of Brisbane Legislative Meeting Expense 2623 98.07 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 2624 140.00 California Park&Recreation Society Recruitment Advertisement 2625 35.36 California Water Service Water Service 2626 95.00 Camino Medical Group Medical Services 2627 2,413.48 CDW Government, Inc. Computer 2628 231.79 Cellular One Cellular Phone Service 2629 119.02 Cole Supply Co. Janitorial Supplies 2630 6,519.91 Alice Cummings Consulting Services-Grants 2631 190.13 Dennis Dart Vehicle Expense 2632 2,600.19 Dell Computer Pentium III Processor 2633 81.09 John Escobar Reimbursement-NRPA Conference 2634 26.89 Film To Frame Film Processing 2635 85.32 Foster Brothers Key Duplication 2636 221.13 Galls Inc. First Aid Supplies 2637 15.60 GreenInfo Network Map Project Delivery 2638 720.00 Green Waste Recovery, Inc. Garbage Service 2639 43.25 *1 Nonette Hanko Reimbursement-Office Supplies 2640 12,455.25 Harbor Printing Brochure Printing 2641 365.72 Home Depot Field Supplies 2642 349.60 Jobs Available Recruitment Advertisement 2643 127.03 Ed Jones Co., Inc. Refinish Badges 2644 1,405.00 *2 Kampgrounds Of America Ranger Academy Accommodations 2645 141.06 Kinko's Copies 2646 89.64 KW Publications Resource Documents 2647 939.21 Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Copier Supplies 2648 935.20 *3 Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Copier Lease 2649 1,075.00 June Legler Grant Preparation Services 2650 655.63 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service 2651 20.00 Los Altos Town Crier Subscription Renewal 2652 180.73 Brian Malone Reimbursement-Office Supplies 2653 180.41 Paul McKowan Reimbursement-Halloween Event Supplies 2654 730.94 Metro Mobile Communications Radio Maintenance&Repair 2655 1,577.83 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 2656 143.91 PIP Printing Printing Service 2657 255.64 Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation Postage Machine Lease 2658 3,336.20 Rana Creek Habitat Restoration Restoration Seed 2659 400.00 Recreational Equipment, Inc. Staff Appreciation Event Gifts 2660 1,946.50 Eric Remington Wildlife Assessment Consultant 2661 14.00 Roberts Hardware Field Supplies Page 1 Claims No. 00-17 Meeting 00-28 Date: October 25, 2000 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2612 152.49 Ace Fire Equipment&Service Co. Fire Extinguisher Servicing 2613 917.55 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 2614 182.64 ADT Security Services Alarm Service 2615 674.02 All Premium Sportswear Uniforms 2616 127.04 Artech Laminating Laminating Supplies 2617 62.70 AT&T Telephone Service 2618 538.74 Avaya, Inc. Telephone Maintenance Agreement 2619 50.79 Barron Park Supply Co. Plumbing Supplies 2620 250.00 Bay Area Water Trucks Water Delivery Service 2621 510.00 Dana Bland&Associates Sierra AzuI Resource Inventory 2622 92.00 City Of Brisbane Legislative Meeting Expense 2623 98.07 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 2624 140.00 California Park&Recreation Society Recruitment Advertisement 2625 35.36 California Water Service Water Service 2626 95.00 Camino Medical Group Medical Services 2627 2,413.48 CDW Government, Inc. Computer 2628 231.79 Cellular One Cellular Phone Service 2629 119.02 Cole Supply Co. Janitorial Supplies 2630 6,519.91 Alice Cummings Consulting Services-Grants 2631 190.13 Dennis Dart Vehicle Expense 2632 2,600.19 Dell Computer Pentium III Processor 2633 81.09 John Escobar Reimbursement-NRPA Conference 2634 26.89 Film To Frame Film Processing 2635 85.32 Foster Brothers Key Duplication 2636 221.13 Galls Inc. First Aid Supplies 2637 15.60 Greenlnfo Network Map Project Delivery 2638 720.00 Green Waste Recovery, Inc. Garbage Service 2639 43.25 *1 Nonette Hanko Reimbursement-Office Supplies 2640 12,455.25 Harbor Printing Brochure Printing 2641 365.72 Home Depot Field Supplies 2642 349.60 Jobs Available Recruitment Advertisement 2643 127.03 Ed Jones Co., Inc. Refinish Badges 2644 1,405.00 *2 Kampgrounds Of America Ranger Academy Accommodations 2645 141.06 Kinko's Copies 2646 89.64 KW Publications Resource Documents 2647 939.21 Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Copier Supplies 2648 935.20 *3 Lanier Worldwide, Inc. Copier Lease 2649 1,075.00 June Legler Grant Preparation Services 2650 655.63 Los Altos Garbage Garbage Service 2651 20.00 Los Altos Town Crier Subscription Renewal 2652 180.73 Brian Malone Reimbursement-Office Supplies 2653 180.41 Paul McKowan Reimbursement-Halloween Event Supplies 2654 730.94 Metro Mobile Communications Radio Maintenance&Repair 2655 1,577.83 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 2656 143.91 PIP Printing Printing Service 2657 255.64 Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation Postage Machine Lease 2658 3,336.20 Rana Creek Habitat Restoration Restoration Seed 2659 400.00 Recreational Equipment, Inc. Staff Appreciation Event Gifts 2660 1,946*50 Eric Remington Wildlife Assessment Consultant Page 1 Claims No. 00-17 Meeting 00-28 Date: October 25, 2000 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT # Amount Name Description 2661 14.00 Roberts Hardware Field Supplies 2662 139.59 Beth Tanner Reimbursement--Halloween Event Supplies 2663 53.21 *4 Togo's Business Meeting Expense 2664 2,101.60 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Maintenance 2665 870.00 Santa Clara Department Of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Permit 2666 88.00 Santa Clara Office Of The Sheriff Fingerprinting Services 2667 513.18 Skyline Water Water Service 2668 22.06 Skywood Trading Post Fuel 2669 1,200.00 Slaght Living Trust November Ranger Resident Rent 2670 1,592.00 State Of CA Dept. Of Water Resources Rickey Dam Permit 2671 114.75 Summit Uniforms Uniforms 2672 1,298.42 Swanson Hydrology&Geomorphology Hydrologic Assessment-Sierra Azul OSP 2673 261.80 Target Specialty Products Weed Abatement Materials 2674 1,300.00 Thoit's Insurance New Vehicles-Additional Insurance 2675 833.51 Tooland, Inc. Tools 2676 199.18 Minh Tran Reimbursement-Office Supplies 2677 29.52 Turf&Industrial Equipment Co. Field Supplies 2678 372.15 Turner&Mulcare Legal Services 2679 1,050.00 Valley Tree Care Tree Service-Rancho San Antonio OSP 2680 450.00 Verio Internet Provider 2681 36.34 Verizon Wireless Pager Service 2682 2,170.22 Visa 101.21-Resource Documents 244.62-Business Meeting Expense 358.1 1-Halloween Event Supplies 37.25-Fuel 914.58-Lodging/Airfare-Conferences 241.49-Field Supplies 272.96-Office Supplies 2683 1,298.00 Whitmore, Johnson&Bolanos Legal Services 2684 71.15 Wolf Camera Film Developing 2685 300.00 Roberta Wolfe Recording Services 2686 188.34 Xpedite Systems, Inc. Fax Broadcast Services For Press Release *1 Urgent Check Issued October 12, 2000 *2 Urgent Check Issued October 17, 2000 *3 Urgent Check Issued October 18, 2000 *4 Urgent Check Issued October 18, 2000 Total 61,071.72 Page 2 Regional Open Space i MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT To Board of Directors r From: L. Craig Britton,General Manager Date: October 25,2000 Re: FYI's 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 1 Regional Open S, re MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT M E M O R A N D U M To: L. Craig Britton, General Manager From: Douglas Vu, Open Space Planner Subject: Permit to Enter—Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve Date: October 25, 2000 During February of this year, while on routine patrol, District field staff discovered a significant washout along the PG&E Trail at the southern portion of Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Staff also noticed that significant amounts of soil were being deposited into Wildcat Creek as a result of this washout. Since this portion of the PG&E Trail lies entirely on the property of Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., staff contacted them regarding this matter. The issue was left unresolved until later this year. Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. eventually contacted the District in early October to request permission to access Rancho San Antonio County Park and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve in order to repair this failed section of the PG&E Trail. On October 11, Hanson Cement submitted a project scope and schedule. The work would involve the excavation of the damaged roadway, the removal of wood and debris, installation of a 36-inch diameter culvert, and the installation of Geotextile material and rip rap along the repaired roadway. Hanson Cement stressed that the work needed to be completed as soon as possible, so as not cause further erosion as well as possible injury to trail users once the winter rains started. Staff concurred and worked with Hanson Cement to prepare a Permit to Enter that would allow them access the project site via the Coyote Ridge and PG&E Trails. These trails would be closed to the public throughout the duration of this project, which is anticipated to last approximately three weeks. In order to perform the repairs, the Permit to Enter needed to be executed prior to the next regular meeting of the District's Board of Directors. Resolution No. 96-22 authorizes the General Manager to issue permits to enter to perform work of an emergency nature. Due to the urgency of this project, this Permit to Enter was issued as an emergency. Resolution No. 96-22 requires the following criteria: 1. The work is required due to the existence of an emergency which necessitates immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of health, safety or property or essential public services; or 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 C+ O: ESr Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz + General Manager:L.Craig Britton I 2. The work is minor and temporary. The work complies with both criteria. The work will prevent further damage to the road and Wildcat Creek, and is of a minor and temporary nature. The Resolution also requires such a permit shall be subject to the following criteria: 1. The work shall be done in such a way as to minimize damage to District land, and shall be conducted in full compliance with the Resource Management policies and Land Use Regulations of the District, and the project shall be fully mitigated and the land restored to its prior condition upon completion; or 2. The General Manager is convinced that no alternative exists to the utilization of District land. 3. The form of the Permit to Enter is approved by District Legal Counsel. The work complies with all criteria and the Permit to Enter has been approved by District's Legal Counsel. As also conditioned under Resolution 96-22, the General Manager shall report to the District's Board of Directors at its next regular meeting any such permit issued by the General Manager pursuant to this Resolution. I V11- Boo LOS ALTOS H ILLS �� \ s 280 ,r t r E ���se Tra• ��, �,. . •` 600400% o R501 r..} soo —= andJo� �0.6� 0.41 \� . NJ �41 • R / \• 0.�•, Water Tank •.I 000 gue I/alley Trad o.7 ` 1200 1.0 Wildcat LoopTraih o.4 � hoe �� Meadow 0.5� z j •7 1.3 �•'����. 0.3 0.2 600 to//Q �' Trail ;;/� Authorized •�✓ •�` •�. itfes only �.�• `�rghMeadowTrail -1• •� 4h 0.6 10.6 (ey. "'• he ndthis e<N '�� .^� ddok'Ti� ,f• (RSO6) Permit �� _�A'.'.Po' L�j l 11pQ Wildcat Loop Trail ` r/ • % only) 0.8 0.3-- U •1.3 upper wild 4�a \ 0.3`� � ...� ' \4 � ( C C •!•.• Water C i 1200 - ..��. Cal o Deere(R505_ )�•'M an 0.3 1 •�.�1 ����� ffd►i .. Hollow i t.,�... i 0.2 .© sta Point ail G (R5031 � wawa` Farm 0.3 " 800 .,'\ 600 -� 0-1 0.1 � •'2 / ��'! TA . 0; o.• .. ✓ �' ti -1000^\ -- -\ r• "�,(t i,f 800 \`a. (R504)y • T� � PROJECT, 12DD--� a;/ 1y,�4�. ' rt+++++ a++ j~' Rancho SITE J San Antonio ,40o yl fa �\ County Park — CLOSED TRAILSCUI ''" -600 1600 Boo EXHIBIT A INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM October 17, 2000 TO: C. Britton, General Manger FROM: G. Baillie, Management Analyst SUBJECT: MONTHLY FIELD ACTIVITY SUMMARY Month September Year 2000 VIOLATIONS CITES TOTALS CRIMES CITES TOTALS Bicycles Minor possession alcohol I I Closed area 0 3 Indecent exposure 0 1 Speed 1 4 Helmet 4 14 Night-riding 2 2 ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS TOTALS Unsafe operation 0 0 Bicycle accident 2 Dogs Vehicle accident 1 Prohibited area 0 1 Jogger 1 Off-leash 2 7 Other first-aid 2 Off-road vehicles 0 0 Landing Zone air evac I Closed area 0 0 After hours 3 17 Fishing 0 0 ENFORCEMENT Vandalism 0 4 Parking citations 20 Parking 10 19 Other citations 14 Parking after hours 10 34 Written warnings 71 Dumping/littering 0 0 Arrests — 0 Campfires 0 0 Police assistance — 0 Camping 0 1 Weapons Actual contact 0 0 MUTUAL AID Report only 0 0 Accident (motorcycle) I Evidence of 0 0 Law Enforcement 6 Collecting wildlife 0 1 Accident/medical aid 0 Smoking 1 1 Parking in handicapped space 0 1 SUMMARIES OF SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS Sept. 1 T. Randall led a Santa Clara County deputy to a 150-plant marijuana garden on private property adjacent to Sierra Azul OSP. The plants were removed and taken into evidence by the Sheriff's department. Sept. 2 Ranger W. Phillips acted as District liaison on a search conducted by Santa Clara and Santa Cruz county sheriff's offices for a missing and suicidal person at Saratoga Gap OSP. The man was not found. Sept. 8 A one-half mile section of illegally built trail was discovered at Los Trancos OSP, near the boundary with Foothills Park. The trail appears to have been built as a footpath, as evidence of bicycle use on the trail is light. It appears to be about one year old. B. Downing, D. Sanguinetti. Sept. 11 B. Downing investigated a report of vehicle tracks in El Sereno OSP. He found that the gate chain was missing a lock and a fresh pile of wood chips had been dumped inside the gate. Sept. 21 A bicyclist riding after hours in Fremont Older lost control of his bicycle and fell into a drainage. P. Hearin completed an assessment and determined the cyclist had a possible dislocated hip and a femur fracture. K. Carlson directed County Fire units and paramedics to the scene. The cyclist was stabilized on a backboard and then a low-angle rescue was performed to get him to the trail, where he was transported by District vehicle to the Garrod Ranch area. Cal Star Helicopter air ambulance transported the injured bicyclist to Valley Medical Center. Later, the bicyclist telephoned the Foothill Ranger Office to express his thanks for the rescue effort. He informed staff that he had sustained a dislocated hip, a femur fractured in 50 pieces and a broken wrist. Sept. 26 Two women reported a naked man standing on a trail in Rancho County Park. The two indecent exposure incidents were apparently about 10 minutes apart. J. Kowaleski, M. Newburn and K. Miller checked the area, but found no one. Vandalism: 5 Two sections of fence wire at Los Trancos OSP were cut and removed to gain access for an off- road vehicle. 9 The restroom at the Monte Bello lot was marked with graffiti. 12 Skyline Ridge OSP mailboxes were marked with graffiti. 13 A temporary fence was opened at Bear Creek allowing access to the buildings. A window was broken. K. Carlson secured the fence. SOUTH SKYLINE ASSOCIATION October 21, 2000 Q E C E WE�F7 { Anne Crowder I ! i L'1 2 2 ! 4 goo r 133 Mapache Drive b i Portola Valley,CA 94028 { h'IUPENiNSULA REGIONAL OPEN+ I SPACE DIC7RIC' I I Dear Anne: I I Please accept our very deepest sympathy on the death of your mother. It was a privilege to have known your Betsy. Her loss is felt by not only by you but also by very many, some of whom are the members of the South Skyline Association(SSA). Outspoken and direct, she was our good friend. Since 1989, Betsy represented Ward 6 for MROSD stretching from the valley up to the mountains,covering much of the SSA area. Most of the population of her district lived in the valley,and only a small percentage here in the mountains. Betsy was particularly sensitive to learning the concerns of the mountain dwellers. She joined SSA in 1992, and attended meetings whenever she could. Betsy converted many SSA members from opposing MROSD to being supporters. We will not forget Betsy and her accomplishments to protect the unique South Skyline environment. Sincere condolences, J ei Larry L. Myers, President cc: Craig Britton,MROSD II I I i Route 2, Box 400 - La Honda, CA 94020 _ I Page 1 of 1 i i Anne Koletzke From: Paul McKowan [volunteer@openspace.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 9:24 AM To: Denise Williams Cc: Anne i Subject: Re: 10/7 PADS information station at Windy Hill i Hi Denise, Hope all is well. Thanks for the update on the information station. I'm currently not involved with Education Stations so I will forward your information to Anne Koletzke in our Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact me or Anne at okoletzke@openspace.org. Thanks again for your efforts out there. I definitely have some folks interested in dog check-outs next spring so let me know if you're ready. Thanks, Paul I I Paul McKowan I Volunteer Coordinator v_ol_ia_nteerC,opens ece.ors (650) 691-1200 ----- Original Message----- From: Denis e_Williams To: Paul McKowan --- Cc: Linda Cohen Bernstein_Dan Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:39 PM Subject: 10/7 PADS information station at Windy Hill Dear Paul: > PADS held an information station for dogs last Saturday (10/7)from 10-2 > at Windy Hill OSP. We felt it was a very successful event and were able > to talk to dog owners and other users of Windy Hill regarding the > District's guidelines for dogs. 7 > People seemed definitely interested in the District's guidelines and very > much appreciate being able to bring their dogs to the Preserve. > We talked to approximately 12 hikers with dogs as well as several dog > owners without dogs about the District's policies regarding dogs and dog > access issues in general. > We are planning to have a similar information station soon. > i > Denise Williams I i i 10/18/00 i Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT M=ormdm To: John Escobar From: Ana Ruiz Date: 10/20/00 Re: Steps to Implement the Bicycle Closures for all Seven Preserves Below is a list of tasks that are required to effectively implement the bicycle closures for all seven preserves. The majority of these activities are intended to educate the public of the closures and to provide accurate District information that reflects the new use changes for the seven preserves. Each task below is followed with a scheduled completion date to ensure for their completion by December 1, 2000,which is the scheduled date of the closures. TASKS COMPLETION DATE 1. Post advisory,laminated signs onsite to let the public knowl End of July 2000 upcoming closures ............. _..... _ .__.__.. .. .. _....... _ 2. Preserve brochures for seven preserves include a text box September 2000 nofifying of bicycle closures _ _._._._..._.....___.._...___._____...._.__..._._.........-..................._._...._.....................____-..............._...... _...._.___..___...._._.._..____- 3. Regulatory signs are redesigned and ordered to reflect September through October 2000 preserve-wide changes __.._.-__._.. _.._.__._........._.............. ...... 4. New laminated signs indicating actual date ofbicycle October 13,2000 closures replace the advisory signs pasted onsiteu µ ............_...._........___... ._._ _.__._...._...._ . ... ............ .. .. 5. Inform ROMP of effective closure date October 2000 _._ ....__ 6. Brochure maps and language are updated and new copies October through November 2000 printed to replace older versions _P _ ..__....____ ._........__._.._....._..__.___._-----..._____-_.-___.___.._..__...._......_._._...........__ 7. Laminated notices,including the"Welcome to Open Space; October through November 2000 user matrix map,are updated and reprinted to replace outdated versions _.._._.._ ....._........_._.___. . _..._..._.... _ _ _..._........._ 8. MROSD web site includes updates and information on Beginning of November 2000 :_.. _bicycle closures_.._....___ I I I October 20, 2000 I _. ___..............-__....... _.._._._ r __._.... .... . ... ..... . _ _. _ 9. Information on the seven closed preserves are removed November 2000 _._from all MROSD bi...... ackets -------_�___.__.. .........___ _._- _._. __. _. i 10.New color laminated maps are ordered to replace older November 2000 __....... .maps for each bulletin.board(for affected preserves 11. Docents and MROSD volunteers are reminded of the November 2000 i effective bicycle closure date for the seven .....__...._.... .......-......._.__._ .. .......... i 12.Date of bicycle closures is included in the MROSD Trail November 1,2000 Hot Line _._................ .__..._ .. _... _ _.. _ _ __. 13 Closures are enforced(with a grace period at the onset) December 1,2000_.r__ .. .._ _- ..................................._......................_..._... ........................ .. ._....................................: 14.All other District information(including Escape to Open Spring 2001 Space)are updated to include information on the bicycle closures ! ......._..................................................................................................--.........__._._..._._..................__.....................__.....-____._------ I I I I I I 2 I I I I I Jenny, please print this memo out and include it in tonight's Board packet as an FYI. Thanks! Sincerely, L. Craig Britton General Manager ----- Original Message ----- From: Foster To: cbrittongopenspace.org Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11 :02 AM Subject: Mike Foster Great news! Mike's tests all show a normally functioning healthy heart. By process of elimination they have come up with a diagnosis - neurocardiogenic syncope. What it means is he fainted and his heart stopped. So that that won't happen again he will have to take two little pills every morning. I have asked them to keep him overnight one more night because I can't take responsibility for keeping him quiet while the artery heals over from the angiogram. Thanks for all your support. I should be back to normal by tomorrow. The doctor said he can go into work on Thursday if he feels up to it so prepare yourself. He isn't allowed to drive for two weeks so that means you-know-who will be the chaffeur. Maybe I can dictate his hours better? Yeah, right. Please spread the word. Cathie i i HarryY H . Haeussler , Jr . Corti 1094 Highlands Circle Los Altos CA 94024 October 12 , 2000 I Editor i Los Altos Town Crier 138 Main Street Los Altos , CA 94022 i I Your feature article "Open space awaits" , Wednesday, October 11 , 2000 , reminded me of a letter I started regarding the i annexation back in early July, this year . Unfortunatly , shortly after I started the letter , a serious accident with my horse hospitalized me for some time and I am just now starting to "catch up" . As time for submitting the enclosed letter has expired , and I feel strongly that the matter discussed should be brought before the MROSD board of directors and others concerned , I am sending it to you . I do not know if you feel this a Letter to the Editor , or a Comments type item. Use it as you see fit . Harry H. Hae s; ler , Jr . VE C E P V E CT 1 3 4 �roo encl : Letter started July 5 , 2000 r Copy to : MROSD Board of Directors MIDPENINSULAREGIONALOPEN SPACE DISTRICT I I I I I I Harry H. Haeussler, Jr. 1094 Highlands Circle A Los Altos, CA 94024 July 5, 2000 San Mateo Coastal Area Annexation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 In 1972 voters in certain parts of Santa Clara County voted on the ballot for a PARK district , as that was all the state laws allowed at the time. In 1974 state laws were changed to allow Open Space districts, and without a vote of constituents , the Board of Directors changed the Park district to an Open Space District. Also, about that time, the Board of Directors annexed part of San Mateo County into the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District , again without a vote of constituents . I grant that the voters , constituents , would in all probability, have approved the above actions were they given the opportunity to vote for them. However, the Board of Directors did not show the voters the courtesy or decency of allowing the voters to express their views on the matters . Now, there is annexation of part of the San Mateo Coastal Area under consideration to the Midpeninsula Regional open Apace District . There are three ( 3) considerations very briefly or not mentioned in any reports I have seen on the matter. 1 . Right of Eminent Domain. We in the present District have lived with thq Districts right to use this power, and it has been done . And we have lived with the threat to use this power, (though there will be strong denial that it has been used as a threat) . To get agreement from the San Mateo Coastal Area to approve their annexation, the District Board of Directors has agreed that the power of Eminent Domain will not be used in the San Mateo Coastal Area . Is this fair to the constituents in the present district? And how will the annexed area constituents feel if new directors decide to rescind the promise to not use eminent domain and take some property whose owner does not want to sell . 2 . Taxes . The tax to support the District has been .9% of preperty evaluation for all present constituents and businesses . The proposed tax for the new annexation area is that there be a parcel tax. I assume that each parcel , no matter the size, will have the same tax, be it a 50 foot by 100 foot lot , or a 500 acre property. II Current district taxes will remain the same. Is this fair to the current district constituents , and is it fair to all constituents in the proposed annexed area? 3 . Annexation or Not? There is no mention of giving the voters of the present District the opportunity to express their views on the above two matters and annexation of the San Mateo Coastal Area by a vote. The Board of Directors is just ramming it down the throats of the present district constituents . Harry H. Haeussler, Jr . i JERRY HEARN 144 EL NIDO ROAD PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028 October 11, 2000 Board of Directors D Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3 30 Distel Circle cc 1 3 _ Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN Dear Members of the Board, SPACE DISTRICT Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting. Though some of you may be familiar with me as a member of local environmental organizations, I am writing you tonight as a private citizen. I wish to say a few words about Betsy Crowder. Although I had not known Betsy as long as some, I felt that we were real friends and shared a passion for open space that reached into our everyday lives. To me she was a mentor and inspiration, and, more than once, her sage advice, coupled with her energy and vitality, helped me through a rough time while dealing with issues relating to the environment. I am sure that everyone who knew her could say the same. I think it would be most appropriate to honor this remarkable woman in a way that fits with her interests and passions: by naming a trail in her memory. I would suggest selecting a trail that captures for all time the characteristics of Betsy that we admired and loved: It should be straight and true as Betsy was in all her dealings with her fellow human beings; It should have challenging sections so that we, while toiling up them, will remember Betsy's remarkable physical strength and persistence; It should have panoramic vistas to celebrate Betsy's broad vision of open space and nature; And it should have wide spots, wide as that wonderful smile with which Betsy embraced us all. Jerry Hearn i I Tuesday, July 11, 2000 Bernie Garrison Senior Ranger 298 Garden Hill Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Dear Mr. Garrison: My family enjoys hiking at Rancho San Antonio and I have a concern about the water tank hill trail. We are concerned about erosion problems from this trail causing a problem similar to what Stanford has experienced with hikers to the dish area in the Stanford hills. In their case a vertical dirt trail similar to the one at Rancho has grown to be almost as wide as a road. It is an ugly eyesore that has grown over time as hikers who try to avoid the mud trample the grass, making the trail ever wider. In some areas of Rancho, park signs are posted to close short cut trails, but this trail, which is the most visible in the park, seems to be allowed by park rangers, even though it is also a short cut trail. Does the park have a policy on hikers creating their own trails or hiking off trail? We respectfully ask that the park consider closing this trail before any more damage is done to the hillside, and direct hikers to the new trail that was recently built. If this is a park approved trail, then we ask that it be properly maintained with drainage installed to stop erosion, and proper trail improvements made to prevent hikers from trampling the hillside. We look forward to hearing from you and the County. Thank you, cc Khoa Vo 298 Garden Hill Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tuesday, July 11, 2000 Bernie Garrison Senior Ranger 298 Garden Hill Dr_ Los Gatos, CA 95032 Dear Mr. Garrison: My family enjoys hiking at Rancho San Antonio and I have a concern about the water tank hill trail. We are concerned about erosion problems from this trail causing a problem similar to what Stanford has experienced with hikers to the dish area in the Stanford hills. In their case a vertical dirt trail similar to the one at Rancho has grown to be almost as wide as a road. It is an ugly eyesore that has grown over time as hikers who try to avoid the mud trample the grass, making the trail ever wider. In some areas of Rancho, park signs are posted to close short cut trails, but this trail, which is the most visible in the park, seems to be allowed by park rangers, even though it is also a short cut trail. Does the park have a policy on hikers creating their own trails or hiking off trail? We respectfully ask that the park consider closing this trail before any more damage is done to the hillside, and direct hikers to the new trail that was recently built. If this is a park approved trail, then we ask that it be properly maintained with drainage installed to stop erosion, and proper trail improvements made to prevent hikers from trampling the hillside. We look forward to hearing from you and the County. Thank you, cll&—��� cc Khoa Vo 298 Garden Hill Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Page I of I Main Identit From: Kathleen Beasley <kbeasley@stanford.edu> To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 7:48 PIVI Subject: Pulgas Ridge Eucalyptus Trees To the members of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Open Space District: I moved to the Bay Area from Princeton, New Jersey a year ago, and the main activity that helped me overcome my homesickness was walking through the lovely Pulgas Ridge Preserve. Now I hear that many of the beautiful, magestic eucalptus trees are marked for removal. The reason given is that they are hindering the growth of the native species. Yet, there are many native oak seedings thriving under the eucalyptus. Please reconsider your decision. I can understand not allowing new eucalyptus seedings to grow, but kindly allow the beautiful mature trees to die a natural death. Those of us who regularly walk the ridge would sorely miss them. Thank you for your consideration, Kathleen Beasley 10/23/00 Page I of I Main Identity From: Aadil Rhazi <arhazi@yahoo.com> To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:35 AM Subject: Eucalyptus trees at Pulgas Ridge PLEASE.PLEASE.PLEASE, don't cut down the Eucalyptus trees in Pulgas Ridge. If you've been at the park before, then you must have smelled them and enjoyed them one way or another. It would be such a mistake to kill them for the sole purpose of replacing them with different trees. Sincerely, AR Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger Talk while you surf! It's FREE. 10/25/00 Page I of 1 Main Identity From: Joan Merigan <Merigan@webtv.net> To: <mrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 10:36 AM Subject: Eucalyptus trees We were appalled to learn of your plan to destroy the magnificent old eucalyptus trees at Pulgas Ridge and replace them with oaks. Why must it be either/or? You could plant some oaks and at least wait a few years until they achieve a reasonable size before removing the eucalyptus trees. This species has become the scapegoat of the moment.So what if they're not natives--that's not the only thing that matters. And there are plenty of natives that burn briskly, as witness last weekend's fires around the Bay Area. We hope you will reconsider before taking such a drastic and irreversible step. Sincerely, Joan Merigan, M.D. 10/25/00 Page I of I Main Identity From: webmaster<craig@even.net> To: <rnrosd@openspace.org> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 11:56 PM October 23, 2000 Dear Open Space Board of Directors, We are emailing in the hope that you might reconsider your plan to cut down and remove the large Eucalyptus Trees in the Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve in Redwood City. My wife and I have just moved to the area and bought a house in the lower emerald hills of Redwood City. We were recently thrilled to find such a great place to get out and walk so close to our home. We consider Pulgas Ridge to be a small gem of nature and are very concerned with the proposed cutting. First, we like these trees and find them beautiful, majestic and impressive. We welcome there shade and shelter and believe that most of the others using the park do too. We discussed their removal with several other people enjoying the park and we all agree that this would leave the ridge wind swept and barren for years. This past weekend when the wind was blowing on the ridge, the large eucalyptus trees marked with the red X's were the only thing slowing the gusts and are actually quite protective to newer growth at their bases. Many of the recent plantings in more open areas are still very small and do not look healthy or likely to survive. We believe that the large trees should be left alone until the plantings that are intended to take the place of these majestic giants have taken hold and grown significantly so they stand a much greater chance of surviving. We feel that the eucalyptus trees should not be cut down. However, if the board has decided that the preserve should be restored to a more native state, we propose that the cutting should be delayed. It seems that purpose might be better served and more successful if we wait until new native trees have been reestablished and grown to at least a quarter of the size of the trees they are intended to replace. If we wait, the cutting of the eucalyptus trees could serve as a thinning and not as a clear cut that would leave the ridge barren. Please reconsider. Thank you, Craig and Tanya Scovill 10/25/00 Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT To Board of Directors From: John Escobar,Assistant General Manager Date: October 20,2000 Re: FYI's 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 Oct-11 -00 09: 22P P .01 557 Crests Vida Lane Ponola Vakry,CA 94M&77M Charlene anerry Kaconell (WOA54-7170(voice) d D b (060)85"170(FAX) Fax To: Board of Directors,MROSD From Deny Kabcenell clo L.Craig Britton Fmc (550)891_0485 Pages: Cover only Fbeeer (650)691-1200 Peter October 11,2000 Ner Derivation of"Sausal* CC: 13 Wilent 0 For Review CJ Men"Coreenet 0 Fka"Reply oplease K*GY*W Ladies and G"emen. At this evening's board meeting,there was some curiosity expressed about the derivation of the name !Sausal Pond!As part of the CEQA initial study for my driveway project,a cultural resources survey was performed,and the report included historical information on the area.To quote from the report Saus2l Creek is named for the Spanish word*sauzar or'sausal,"meaning w0vor grove, and is similar to the name of the town Sausalito,meaning little*law grove(Sanchez 1930:158-,Gudde I M-351-354.The use of Sausal Creek was recorded as early as 1853. Sanchez.Nelle Van de GO,Spar*sh and Wain PWe Akwvs of CaNba*t: Their Moar*V and TW Ronvince-San Francisco:A.M.Robertson, 1930. Gudde,Erwin G_CaMxr�a Pbw Ahwws; The Orign and Etymology of Currart GevgWWaf News.Berkeley and Los Angeles_University of Catillomia Prew 199& Fourth edition,revised and enlarged by William Bright-Originally published 1949. I hope you find this interesting. Regards, Deny Kaboenel Regional Open ace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Biographical Information Betsy Crowder,Director,Ward 6 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors A native of Dedham,Massachusetts,Betsy Crowder came to California in 1947 to study anthropology at Stanford University. She met Dwight Crowder,her husband-to-be,at the University, and has resided in Portola Valley for 40 years. Betsy and her late husband became active in conservation causes,locally as well as nationally. Locally they campaigned for the incorporation of Portola Valley,hoping to stem encroaching development,and nationally they worked hard toward the establishment of North Cascades National Park and the 1964 Wilderness Act,which provided permanent protection for millions of acres of public land from logging, mining,and other development.During this time,Betsy also began her work in public service as a member of the League of Women Voters. With her children growing into independence in high school,and after her husband was killed in an automobile accident in 1970 while driving on Portola Road,Betsy dedicated more time to conservation efforts. She became chairperson of the Portola Valley Conservation Committee, later becoming a member of the Portola Valley Planning Commission.Meanwhile, she earned her Master's Degree in City Planning from Stanford in 1972. She worked as an Environmental Planner for the City of Palo,until her retirement in 1980. Betsy was appointed to the Ward 6 seat of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Board of Directors in 1989,to fill a vacated,unexpired term. She was then re-elected in 1990, and has been re- elected and served the Ward in each succeeding 4-year term. She served on the following committees in 2000: Use and Management,Acquisition and Enterprise;Coastal Advisory; and Corte Madera Trail. She also served as Secretary and a member of the District's Financing Authority. Betsy demonstrated her conservation ethic in serving as a board member with several other organizations as well.Her community service as a Board member included terms with the Planning and Conservation League,the Committee for Green Foothills,the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council;the San Mateo County Ridge ge Trail Committee,the San Francisco Bay Trail,and the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. She also worked as a nature docent for Stanford's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, and as a volunteer at Filoli. An independent and intrepid outdoors person and traveler,Betsy enjoyed whitewater rafting, hiking,and exploring,often visiting conservation or botanical sites and gaining friends and meeting colleagues in countries as diverse as Africa.China, South and Central Asia. She recently returned from a trip to Nepal and Tibet,where she had trekked in the Himalayas. Co-author,with Jean Rusmore,of Peninsula Trails(third edition, 1997),Betsy's knowledge of San Mateo County lands,and her intimate familiarity with every mile of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District trails made her very effective Board Director. Betsy served as Board President twice during the ten years she devoted to the Open Space District. Known for her candor and"feisty"spirit, Betsy spoke directly and honestly, never leaving her fellow Board members,constituents,the MROSD staff,or the public to guess where she might stand an any issue.She has been admired,even by those on the receiving end of her feistiest moments, for her strength,clarity, courage,and sincerity. Her dedication to the preservation of land and restoration to its natural condition was evident,not only in the number and types of regional Board seats she held,but also in the enthusiastic support she demonstrated of District work,through her and attendance at every District event--often with her children and grandchildren in tow. (more) She is survived by her daughters,Wendy Crowder,of Palo Alto,and Anne Crowder,of Willits,California; two grandchildren;her sisters,Barbara Mouffe and Ellen Leupold,of Boulder,Colorado,and Mary Anderson,of Barrington, Rhode Island-,and fifteen nephews and nieces;and many friends around the world. A memorial service will be held on October 8,2000,at 4:00 p.m.at Valley Presbyterian Church,945 Portola Road,Portola Valley. In lieu of flowers,memorial contributions may be sent to Peninsula Open Space Trust(POST),3000 Sand Hill Road,4-135 Menlo Park,CA 94025. ### Regional Open *ace MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 11,2000 Field Supervisor Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 Sacramento,CA 95825 Re: Comments on Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog, 50 CFR Part 17,RIN 1018-AG32 Dear Sirs: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed critical habitat designation for the Red-Legged Frog. In response to your comment solicitation,this letter provides input on suggested additional critical habitat,describes the current and planned activities on District lands,and identifies possible economic impacts that may result from the proposed designation. BACKGROUND The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District)is an independent,special-purpose district created by the voters of northwestern Santa Clara County,southeastern San Mateo County,and a small portion of Santa Cruz County.The District's mission is"to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity;protect and restore the natural environment;and to provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education." The District is empowered,acting through its Board of Directors,to spend its funds to acquire land for open space purposes,and to carefully create and maintain low-intensity recreational facilities. The District strives to balance public access to lands with the need for protecting and restoring natural resources. The District currently owns and/or manages approximately 46,500 acres of land including the Santa Cruz Mountain region.The District's lands comprise the headwaters of a number of the watersheds listed in Map Unit 14 of the proposed critical habitat designation, including Corte Madera Creek,Mills Creek,Peters Creek, Purisima Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek,and La Honda Creek. SUGGESTED ADDITION TO CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION We support critical habitat designation on District lands,as it is consistent with our policies on resource protection and management.Our own amphibian survey work(Seymour and Westphal, 2000,enclosed) found 13 occupied Red-Legged Frog localities in 5 open space preserves and concluded that the District's lands provide a significant refuge for the species.The most significant breeding population was found in sag ponds along the San Andreas Rift Zone in Montebello Open Space Preserve on upper Stevens Creek. The Proposed Rule does not designate this area as critical habitat;however the unique ecological characteristics of the upper Stevens Creek area,with abundant Rift Zone sag ponds within the large block of publicly owned land,appears to warrant designation. CURRENT AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES ON DISTRICT LANDS The District's Basic Policy on Open Space Management describes the preference for carefully planned, low-intensity recreation.Due to the emphasis on resource protection,improvements on District lands are generally limited to facilities for low-intensity recreational uses,such as perimeter parking areas, restrooms,trails and patrol roads,map boards and signs.To date,approximately 219 miles of designated public trails have been developed on District lands. 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 Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton Access for hiking is typically unrestricted on District trails and lands. Equestrians are allowed on most designated trails. Bicycle use is allowed on approximately 162 of the 219 miles of trails. Dog use is allowed in eight carefully selected preserves. Special Use facilities(i.e.nature centers,historic structures, picnic tables and backpack camps,}and Special Use activities(i.e. large recreation events,hang gliding,or off-leash dog areas)are considered on a case-by-case basis. These types of uses may be allowed when they do not monopolize significant areas of natural land,do not significantly impact natural or aesthetic resources, and provide benefits such as environmental education,heritage resource protection,or public enjoyment and appreciation of nature. We feel that this low intensity level of use is consistent with the critical habitat designation.Any future special management considerations developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service relating to trail use within the critical habitat area needs to acknowledge the essential role of public access in building support for open space acquisition and habitat preservation. FORESEEABLE ECONOMIC IMPACTS Economic changes within San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties have caused dramatic changes in real estate dynamics.These dynamics involve the increase in personal income associated with the economic vitality of "Silicon Valley"and the subsequent increase in real estate development pressures in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Increasingly,the historic large landholdings are being subdivided into smaller parcels and land values are increasing to unprecedented levels. It is possible that the increasing development pressures and elevated land values will stabilize due to the heightened level of concern and scrutiny that the critical habitat designation will bring. We regard this impact as beneficial to the mission of the District. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's primary source of revenue is a partial share of the annual total property tax collected within District boundaries.The District has consistently worked to stretch local tax dollars with other revenue sources, including federal and state grants,gifts and bargain sales of land,and donations.As such,Federally-funded Grants are an important component of the success of the District's programs. While it is possible that administrative costs associated with grant applications may increase, we believe that the benefits of designation will outweigh any additional costs. Thank you for considering our comments and concerns.We look forward to assisting the Service in ensuring the long-term recovery of the Red-Legged Frog. Sincerely, L. tton General Manager LCB:SS:ss enclosure cc: Board of Directors a Regional Open S. re � 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT M E M O R A N D O M To: L. Craig Britton, General Manager From: Thomas W. Fischer, Land Protection Specialist ' Subject: Permit to Enter - Watters/Birkner La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Date: October 17, 2000 In July of this year, staff observed a significant amount of dirt that had been deposited on La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve adjacent the Watters' residence at 12 Starwood Drive, Woodside. The property owners were immediately notified to remove the fill and revegetate the area. At the end of August, the District was informed the 12 Starwood property had sold, and no action had been taken regarding the removal and remediation. The District was immediately informed that the new property owners, John and Noel Birkner, wanted to move forward in resolving the outstanding issues with the District. Staff recommended the owners work quickly to remove the fill prior to winter rains. The owners obtained a permit from the County of San Mateo to remove the fill material. On October 9, 2000, staff received a copy of the County permit and two engineering drawings for the fill removal and erosion control from the owners. This accompanied a request for a Permit to Enter onto District land to remove the fill and reseed. The documentation includes a verification of liability insurance. The fill removal and reseeding needs to be performed before the impending rains. If the area becomes saturated, removal will be impossible until next summer. Winter rains could cause significant erosion of the fill into the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve watershed. In order to perform the work, the property owners need be granted the Permit to Enter prior to the next meeting of the District's Board of Directors. Resolution No. 96-22 authorizes the General Manager to issue permits to enter to perform work of an emergency nature. Due to the weather, this Permit to Enter can be issued as an emergency. Resolution No. 96-22 requires the following criteria: 1. The work is required due to the existence of an emergency which necessitates immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of health, safety or property or essential public services; or 2. The work is minor and temporary. The work complies with both criteria. The work will prevent damage to the watershed, and is of a minor and temporary nature. I I The Resolution also requires such a permit shall be subject to the following criteria: 1. The work shall be done in such a way as to minimize damage to District land, and shall be conducted in full compliance with the Resource Management policies and Land Use Regulations of the District, and the project shall be fully mitigated and the land restored to its prior condition upon completion; or 2. The General Manager is convinced that no alternative exists to the utilization of District land. 3. The form of the Permit to Enter is approved by District Legal Counsel. The work complies with criteria I and the Permit to Enter has been approved by District's Legal Counsel. I LA HON DA CREEK OPEN SPADE PRESERVE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Map Legend t THDRNEW0 D Gate(.) OPEN'SPACE �yL1d PRESERVE1.0 ° Trail Distance in Miles Private Notice: la�bl Road. No parking along rJ_rJ Allen Road or outsideNO Public '..?,.: ACttfS• Trail Bridge Preserve gate. N Vehicle Q Driveway QPE 5P 1LH02 Work area Roadside Parking O.HOI) � Preserve •�• 0.2` Entry 0.5 9 t1100 2000 ��•/ `� Restrooms (LHiI) . ---� Parking �• permit rs `. No ors be and Q ` Private Residence pullout 0.21 Tree n O0.6 • r J '_• 1 00\`�\i Point of Interest lbou 3S \`7200 Other Public Lands .r 0.5 Vista d 1� L No Public Entry Point 1 Pri�rt•o L—d Unds zz- O'a. No Public Entry I ' Cky dArea •�,� Trail Use� Hiking,Bicycling, Equestrian ���� •� (LH10)�.1 = 1 .S .&� L •�. �r ��, ��',��,�r � �� J•^�� Hiking,Bicycling J� °a ........ �•(LH06) Hiking Only RANGER `' RESIDENCE 1.J FORMER MCDO'IALD RESIDENCE °i �(LH09) G 110, 5/99 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 OS 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.0 One Mile S P Memorandum : DPENINSULA MIREGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT To: All District Staff From: John Escobar Tl:-1 Subject: Update on Closure of Specified Preserves to Bicycle Use Date: October 12, 2000 In order to ensure adequate time for posting signs, and other necessary planning, John Escobar has announced that the bicycle closure approved by the Board will now be effective on December 1, 2000. More details on this will be provided as we approach the closure date. Please note, the information above was originally sent out as an e-mail, but was not received by all of the intended recipients. Regional Open Vace 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 18, 2000 Hon. Jack Bohan, Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Santa Clara County Planning Commission 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 71h Floor San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Proposed Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit Dear Chairperson Bohan and Members of the Commission: On behalf or the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, which owns and manages over 46,000 acres of public open space on the San Francisco Peninsula, I would like to express concern over several important aspects of the staff-recommended actions contained in the report to the Planning Commission dated October 9, 2000. Though County staff and officials have done an excellent job of brining order to a vast and complex project and process, we have strong concerns regarding the current proposal: ■ The Conditions of Approval fail to require permanent open space protection, which is essential given the vast development entitlement being granted. • Significant development is allowed in current open space areas, in conflict with the "core concept"of compact urban development and in spite of significant post- mitigation project impacts on open space noted in the EIR. • The EIR does not clearly and completely present all the components and impacts of the project. ■ The EIR and the Conditions of Approval fail to address some potential direct impacts of the project on open space, such as a future road connection and future school site. ■ Habitat protections for the endangered California Tiger Salamander are not required on a timely basis. We are very disappointed that the proposed Conditions of Approval do not require permanent open op p protection. In a resolution of its Board of Directors dated January 12, 2000 (attached), the District urged the County to require permanent dedication of open space in consideration of the vast development entitlement that is being conveyed by the General Use Permit. The appropriateness of this requirement is underscored by a number of significant unmitigated project impacts since identified by the EIR. A letter to the Commission dated October 10, 2000 from attorneys Shute, Mihaly& Weinberger on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills eloquently stated the legal basis and the practical mechanism for securing permanent open space protection. We urge you to 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 ®. Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager.L.Craig Britton i LL Santa Clara County Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Page 2 incorporate these requirements into the Conditions of Approval. Alternatively, if the open space protection is only for 25 years, then the approval of the development should also be good for only 25 years, after which time its removal must be required. A very disturbing feature of the Conditions of Approval is contained in Section E., Academic Building Area. Table 1 allows 20,000 square feet of development in the Lathrop Area, which is within the endangered California Tiger Salamander Management Zone and xvithin the current Open Space and Academic Reserve area. This is inconsistent with the reasonable development limit established by Junipero Serra Boulevard and the "core concept"of compact urban development presented in the staff report. Further, the "deviations"permitted following the table (paragraph E.2.b) allow 15,000 square feet of buildings to be constructed in the Foothills Area(though the table lists 0 square feet). Paragraph E.3 allows an additional 21,000 square feet in the Lathrop Area with a separate use permit. To protect open space and endangered species habitat and provide for logical, compact urban limits, no additional development should be allowed south of Junipero Serra Boulevard. In a letter from our Board President, Kenneth C. Nitz, dated August 2, 2000 (attached), the District commented on what we believe are serious inadequacies in the draft environmental impact report. We believe the draft EIR obscures the cumulative project impacts, including those on open space, by segregating aspects of the Community Plan proposal from aspects of necessary mitigations and desirable or inevitable alternatives, rather than presenting all the likely consequences, direct and indirect, in each category. a The Final EIR found significant post-mitigation impacts on open space, intersections, historical and archaeological resources, noise and growth inducement (see Final EIR Volume 1I1, Table S-1). Even so, as noted in the District's August 2 letter, the summary of environmental impacts failed to note other significant impacts that are implied or specifically noted in various sections of the EIR analysis of mitigations and alternatives. For example, in Section 4.417 on page 4.4-84, the draft EIR contains an alternative for a new road through the open space area between Sand Hill Road and Alpine Road, connecting from the core campus to I-280. The EIR traffic analysis concludes that even with major local intersection improvements, there will be significant unmitigated local traffic impacts from the project. The proposed Conditions of Approval require that Stanford provide future mitigation of these traffic impacts (see Section G.9.a), but do not speak to this additional road alternative, though it seems likely it would eventually be required. Another example is the potential impact on open space of a new school site proposed by Stanford in the current Open Space and Academic Reserve area at Page Mill and Deer Creek Roads (see Table 7-3 on page 7-48 of the draft EIR). The impacts of the school site are not addressed in the EIR or in the Conditions of Approval, though the school is directly related to the current and previous phases of Stanford campus development. Santa Clara County Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Page 3 In addition to these specific omissions, we believe the overall impacts of the project are understated because the EIR fails to address the "multiplier effect" of the added academic and housing uses, as noted on page 6 of the October 9 staff report under"Growth Inducement". The response to our letter from EIR preparers (see page 12-48 of the response to comments) was basically that these issues had been addressed in the various EIR sections, and that in some cases further analysis of secondary impacts would be speculative or impossible. An example given was the "multiplier effect": traffic and housing impacts due to service industry jobs created by the additional academic and housing uses. We have seen such secondary effects analyzed in environmental documents for much less significant projects, using very straightforward methodologies. We reiterate our position that the final EIR should contain a clear and complete summary of all the project proposals and alternatives, and the inevitable or likely direct and indirect impacts. This should include factors such as the construction of new a road through the open space area as mitigation for local traffic impacts that the EIR says will not otherwise be mitigated, and the construction of a new school in the open space area, as proposed by Stanford and required to serve Stanford families. Perhaps because the EIR obscures these cumulative impacts, the draft Conditions of Approval for the General Use Permit fail to address the potential secondary open space impacts of road and school construction. The Conditions of Approval should state specifically if and where these facilities would be allowed. If they are to be potentially allowed in the open space area as part of the GUP approval, the case for permanent protection of open space and limitation of the development boundary is further supported. Though the measures specified in the Conditions of Approval for the protection of the al• Tiger , C ifornia Tier Salamander(CTS) are thorough, they do not require action on Stanford s part until "prior to any construction in the CTS management zone". Further, no easements or action will be required if the CTS becomes extinct, which seems a disincentive to take protective action in the interim. We request that initiation of measures to protect the endangered CTS be required immediately after approval of the GUP, and that no development be considered unless a reasonable schedule for these protections has been maintained. In summary, the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit provide Stanford University with entitlements to a vast magnitude of development that greatly exceeds the surrounding land use intensities. In many other cases in Santa Clara County and elsewhere much lesser projects and impacts have been the basis for significant limitations on the project configuration and dedication of significant permanent open space protection. I I I i Santa Clara County Planning Commission October 18, 2000 Page 4 We urge you to hold a firm line against the intense pressure brought to this issue by Stanford University, and require an agreement that is fair to the current and future citizens and the environment. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton General Manager Encl. cc Board of Directors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District STANFOR&OPENSPACE*ALLIANCE P.O. Bar 19742 •Stanford, CA 94309 • (650)223-3333 • www.sos-afflance.org • fnfo@sos-altiance.ory October 12, 2000 Dear Frien of the Foothills Thanks to the great work of hundreds of volunteers,we're making tremendous progress on our campaign to save the Stanford Foothills. What happens over the next couple of weeks is critical to our success and will determine the final outcome. Please join us in renewing gyour i commitment to open space preservation by participating in the public process. li On October Stanford's o r 9 ty Coun staff released its.final recommendations fo r Co mmunity ty Plan and General Use Permit(GUP). On the positive side, the report recommends that the _ first acade�itie growth boundary (AGB) remain in place for at least 2'Y5 years, and the fi���1`►o1re of the golf course, which also serves as a tiger salamander migration corridor,be protected. The plan also recommends a "linkage" policy between housing and academic development, and encourages continuation of the "no net new commute trips" policy on campus. However, the report fails to recommend permanent protection of open space and continues Furthermore, to allow some development in the foothills southwest of Junipero Serra Blvd. Fur , the land use map shows a potential future school site located in the foothills outside of the AGB in prime red-legged frog habitat. Despite the fact that the California tiger salamander is very likely to be listed as "threatened" or "endangered" within the next 18 months, the plan still allows development within the tiger salamander management zone. This not only concerns environmentalists,but housing advocates as well, since much of Stanford's proposed housing is within this area. Once the salamander is listed, development will be much more difficult to get approved. Many of us have been concerned about the overall size of Stanford's development plan, which would allow more than 4 million square feet-the equivalent of three new Stanford Shopping Centers-over the next 10 years. Our position has been that if Stanford agrees to permanent protection of the foothills, then we would not oppose such massive growth. However, without permanent protection, we will insist on a reduced project alternative. Unfortunately, the staff recommendations also fail to encourage a maximum build-out plan for the University. It is time to ask the question, "when is enough, enough?" Will Stanford continue to grow by 200,000 square feet per year, or will it be required to abide by limits as does every other private property owner? Now that County staff has made its recommendations, the next step is to go before the County Planning Commission at a public hearing on Wednesday, October 18. Then on October 24, Supervisor Joe Simitian will state his position, and a final public hearing will be held on October 30. If everything stays on track, the Supervisors will make their final deliberation on October 31. On one last note,many of you have read about Stanford's proposal to offer the old Mayfield School site at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real for relocation of the Jewish I Community Center, thus freeing up the Terman site for a third middle school. At first this sounds like a very generous offer, until one reads the fine print. In a letter to Palo Alto, Stanford spokesman Larry Horton writes, "this offer is contingent upon(i) approval by Santa Clara County of a modified General Use Permit that is acceptable to Stanford, in its sole discretion, and (ii) final resolution of any litigation that may arise in connection with the Community Plan and modified General Use Permit." In other words, the deal only goes through if Stanford gets what it wants from the County. We caret allow this to derail the process that has included more than a year of public input. We've all been working incredibly hard, and now we're down to the wire. Please take a look at the following action items and do all you can to help protect the Stanford Foothills. With everyone's involvement,we really can win this one! Sincerely, 0 -L Peter Drekmeier Director Get Involved 1) Write a letter to Supervisor Joe Simitian encouraging permanent protection of the foothills. Supervisor Joe Simitian;70 W. Hedding St., 10' Floor;San Jose, CA 95110;ph: (650) 965-8737;fax: (408) 298-8460;joe.simitian@bos.co.sd.ca.us. 2) Use the enclosed remit envelope to send a donation to SOSA. 3) Make sure you're on SOSA's email list. Send a note to info@sos-alhance.org. 4) Attend as many of the upcoming meetings as possible: October 16 (Mon), noon- "Save the Foothills" rally in White Plaza on the Stanford campus. October 18 (Wed), 6:30prn-Planning Commission hearing on the Community Plan, GUP and Final EIR. Located at the Palo Alto City Council Chambers,250 Hamilton Ave. October 24 (Tues), 7pm-Supervisor Joe Simitian announces his position on the Stanford Community Plan and GUP and invites community feedback. Located at the Palo Alto Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Ave. October 30 (Mon), 7prn-Board of Supervisors hearing on the Community Plan, GUP and Final EIR. Located in the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St.,San Jose. Call (650) 223-3333 or email info@sos-alhance.org to carpool. October 31 (Tues), 2pm-Board deliberation and action on the Community Plan, GUP and Final EIR. Located in the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose. Call (650) 223-3333 or email info@sos-alhance.org to carpool. For more information check out www.sos-alliance.org. Community Center, thus freeing up the Terman site for a third middle school. At first this sounds like a very generous offer, until one reads the fine print. In a letter to Palo Alto, Stanford spokesman Larry Horton writes, "this offer is contingent upon(i) approval by Santa Clara County of a modified General Use Permit that is acceptable to Stanford, in its sole discretion, and (ii) final resolution of any litigation that may arise in connection with the Community Plan and modified General Use Permit." In other words, the deal only goes through if Stanford gets what it wants from the County. We caWt allow this to derail the process that has included more than a year of public input. We've all been working incredibly hard, and now we're down to the wire. Please take a look at the following action items and do all you can to help protect the Stanford Foothills. With everyone's involvement, we really can win this one! Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Director Get Involved 1) Write a letter to Supervisor Joe Simitian encouraging permanent protection of the foothills. Supervisor Joe Simitian;70 W. Hedding St., 10' Floor;San Jose, CA 95110;ph: (650) 965-8737;fax: (408) 298-8460;joe.sin-dtian@bos.co.sd.ca.us. 2) Use the enclosed remit envelope to send a donation to SOSA. 3) Make sure you're on SOSXs email list Send a note to info@sos-alhance.org. 4) Attend as many of the upcoming meetings as possible: October 16 (Mon), noon- "Save the Foothills" rally in White Plaza on the Stanford campus. October 18 (Wed), 6:30prn-Planning Commission hearing on the Community Plan, GUP and Final EIR. Located at the Palo Alto City Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Ave. October 24 (Tues), 7prn-Supervisor Joe Simitian announces his position on the Stanford Community Plan and GUP and invites community feedback. Located at the Palo Alto Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Ave. October 30 (Mon), 7prn-Board of Supervisors hearing on the Community Plan, GUP and Final EIR. Located in the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St.,San Jose. Call (650) 223-3333 or email info@sos-alliance.org to carpool. October 31 (Tues), 2prn-Board deliberation and action on the Community Plan, GUP and Final EIR. Located in the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St.,San Jose. Call (650) 223-3333 or email info@sos-alhance.org to carpool. For more information check out www.sos-aUiance.org. SHUTE, MIHALY 8 WEINBERGER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR, 396 HAYES STREET OSA L. ARMI LISA T. BELENKY MARK 1. WEINBERGER SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 MARK A. FENSTER MARC B. MIHALY. P.C. FRAN M. LAYTON TELEPHONE: (415) 552-7272 KATHERINE A. TRISOLINI RACHEL B. HOOPER FACSIMILE. (415) 552-5816 BRIAN A. SCHMIDT ELLEN J. GARBER WWW.SMWLAW.COM LAUREL L. IMPETT, AILP CHRISTY H. TAYLOR URBAN PLANNER TAMARA S GALANTER ELLI SON FOLK ELIZABETH M. DODD RIC HARD S TAYLOR OF COUNSEL SUSANNAH T FRENCH WILLIAM J. WHITE JOSEPH E JARAMILLO ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER October 10, 2000 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS D 0 E Jack Bohan, Chairman OCT and Planning Commissioners Santa Clara County Planning Commission MIDPENiNSULA REGiorvat OPEN 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7" Floor SPACE DISTRICT San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Proposed Stanford University Community Plan/General Use Permit Dear Chairman and Members of the Commission: We submit this letter on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills (the "Committee"), an organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of the hills, forests, creeks, wetlands, and coastal lands of the San Francisco Peninsula. The Committee urges the County to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the current Community Plan ("CP") process to limit and mitigate the dramatic, adverse impacts of developing Stanford lands in the fashion proposed by Stanford. We also urge the County to adopt CP policies that would provide a balance between Stanford's expressed needs and the adverse impacts of campus development. We suggest accomplishing this balance by directing campus growth to the core campus while preserving open space resources through a density bonus program. Unless the County does so, the Committee is concerned that it will only be a matter of time before Stanford extends the core campus into, and ultimately consumes, the foothills. INTRODUCTION We understand that the County may be concerned about a potential "takings" challenge by Stanford if Stanford is not granted the intensive development entitlement it has requested. As detailed below, however, while Stanford may claim it County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 2 should be granted additional development rights, the more than 12 million square feet of development it has already been granted would preclude any valid takings challenge with respect to the core campus, even if the County decided not to permit Stanford any more development on the campus. Likewise, with respect to the foothills, as long as the County allows Stanford some economically viable use of these lands--such as field research, grazing, and recreational uses--Stanford would have no basis for bringing a takings challenge against County policies that limited development on these lands. In fact, the County has an opportunity to minimize adverse environmental and other impacts by directing increased development to the core campus area closer to infrastructure, while preserving natural resources through a density bonus program. This program will add substantial value to Stanford's lands, making a takings claim even less viable. The County is highly unlikely to succeed in preserving natural resources, including the open space values of the foothills, however, if it simply grants Stanford blanket permission to develop an additional 5 million square feet ("sf') of academic development within the Academic Growth Boundary ("AGB") over the next 10 to 25 years.' Indeed, if the County grants Stanford the type of carte blanche freedom to build that Stanford has requested, Stanford will have no incentive to preserve the foothills at all. Rather, in the absence of a meaningful permanent limit on development and expansion of the core campus, it is only a matter of time before this core will sprawl into, and ultimately consume, the foothills. The resultant harmful impacts--including loss of open space, increased housing demand, increased traffic, increased air and water pollution, and harm to sensitive plant and animal species--will make the impacts of the present proposal, as documented in the draft environmental impact report, seem relatively benign Y P ni b com parison. ariso n. The CP represents a unique opportunity for the County to plan for all of Stanford lands in a way that recognizes and balances both the potential harm from allowing development to sprawl into the foothills and the significant benefit to Stanford, as well as the County, of directing additional growth onto the campus core. Sprawling ' Stanford's proposed General Use Permit ("GUP") envisions authorizing 3.5 million sf of development during the next 10 years alone. Preliminary Staff Recommendation on the Stanford Community Plan ("Staff Proposal") at 13. I I County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 3 development poses an immediate and long-term threat to the County's future. Specifically, as the County's current General Plan recognizes, uncontrolled urban and rural development into the foothills and other open space areas threatens the public health, safety, and welfare by causing increased traffic congestion, air and water pollution, depletion of water resources, and increased conflicts between urban and rural land uses. At the same time, as both the draft CP and the General Plan recognize, sprawling development also results in far more costly services than compact growth due to their existing infrastructure urban centered in areas such as the core. By contrast, d g , areas such as the core campus can accommodate development and provide services far more efficiently, not only in terms of reduced cost, but also in terms of fewer adverse impacts on the environment and the surrounding community. Accordingly, the County should revise the CP in a way that both recognizes the relative harms and benefits of locating development on different portions of Stanford's lands, and balances the needs and desires of both the County and Stanford. Stanford's proposed CP, as well as the preliminary Staff Proposal, seem to assume that Stanford should simply be granted an essentially unlimited right to develop at roughly the of 200 000 sf of additional i an average 40 ears .e over the past , rate it has developedy ( P development per year). The problem with this approach is not only that it fails to account it potentially allows for the complete for any of the factors discussed above, but also thatp y p build-out of all of Stanford lands over time, without regard to environmental and other societal impacts. By contrast, the Committee submits that the recommendations presented in this letter would go a long way towards achieving a balance of the harms and benefits of allowing additional development. We make these recommendations based on our firm's extensive experience in advising and defending government agencies in takings litigation. We also frequently advise agencies on takings issues related to general plan updates and amendments, rezonings, and specific development projects. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP has successfully defended numerous local governments and agencies, including: the Town of Tiburon against a challenge to its zoning ordinance in the United States Supreme Court case, Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980); the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority against challenges to its environmental regulation of the Tahoe region, see Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. TRPA, 216 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2000); and the City of Sacramento against a challenge to its low income housing fee ordinance, Commercial County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 4 Builders of North America v. City of Sacramento, 941 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 931 (1992). It has been our experience that when public agencies are considering whether to grant land use entitlements, landowners often seek to maximize thei r entitlement by threatening to bring a takings challenge if they are not granted their full request. We urge the County to recognize that, as long as Stanford's lands have substantial value and available beneficial uses, Stanford would have no basis for prevailing g revailin in such a challenge. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee respectfully requests that the County implement a"Density Bonus Program" that would allow Stanford to undertake additional development within the AGB if it agreed to permanently preserve some or all of the foothills.' The cornerstone of this program would be a density bonus overlay. This overlay, which would apply to the entire Stanford foothills, would assign to each acre a certain amount of development credit, in addition to those uses permitted in the Staff Proposal. The density bonus could only be utilized within the AGB; it could not be used to build any structures in the foothills. To use the density bonus within the AGB, Stanford would need to agree to set aside the corresponding foothill acreage as permanent open space, via a deed restriction, a conservation easement, or some other mechanism acceptable to the County. The deed restriction, conservation easement, or other mechanism should not require Stanford to allow public access to these lands, although Stanford would be free to allow such access should it so choose.' ' The density bonus could be used for academic support buildings, as well as faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate housing. Stanford would also retain the flexibility, over and above development authorized pursuant to the Density Bonus Program, to replace or redevelop existing buildings, so long as it did not increase total square footage above that amount. This is the method that many other major universities use to keep their facilities up to date; Stanford could do so as well. 3 The Committee strongly urges the County to continue to move forward in seeking to recognizes that cress to trails on Stanford lands. The Committee , implement public a � imple p in such public access may require the County unlike the Density Bonus Program, requiring p y q County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 5 The Committee recommends that the density bonus assigned to each acre be on the order of 1000 sf per acre. Given that the density bonus overlay would apply to roughly 2200 acres, the Density Bonus Program would allow for Stanford to undertake an additional 2.2 million sf of development within the AGB. This figure would allow Stanford to construct all of the student housing it requested in the CP application, plus an additional 700,000 sf of development. The Committee recognizes that the County may want to choose a higher or lower density bonus credit, depending upon its policy determination as to the appropriate level of development for Stanford lands. The County also may want to allow Stanford to undertake additional development on the core campus outside of the Density Bonus Program. Thus, the Committee does not propose that the development authorized pursuant to that program necessarily serve as an absolute cap for future development within the AGB. It does submit, however, that in light of the adverse impacts identified in the DEIR, the 3.5 million sf of additional development requested by Stanford is too high.' The remainder of this letter details why adopting CP policies to implement such a Density Bonus Program would not pose any meaningful risk of a successful takings challenge. It then proposes specific policy language for implementing this approach. These steps can be readily implemented by making relatively minor changes to the policies proposed in the Staff Proposal, without significantly altering the County's schedule for adopting the Community Plan. to satisfy the "rough proportionality" takings requirement set forth in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 4 Accordingly, the Committee respectfully submits that the Board of Supervisors should determine what level of development within the AGB it deems appropriate, based on its long-term vision for the community and a considered balancing of the costs and benefits of development. This level may need to be adjusted in the future to address changed circumstances. However, simply assuming that development should continue to increase at the same level as it has in the past, as both Stanford and the Staff Proposal seem to envision, does not provide for any balancing and cannot substitute for the necessary policy determination by the Board as to what level of development it deems appropriate. County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 6 DISCUSSION I. Existing Development on Stanford's Core Campus Already Far Exceeds the Level of Development in Surrounding Communities. In reviewing Stanford's development proposal and the extensive adverse impacts this development would create, the County should not lose sight of two basic, underlying principles: First, as a constitutional matter, Stanford is not legally entitled to and has no vested right to develop its land to the extent requested. Second, as a legal and political matter, the County has the authority to set any reasonable limits on Stanford's growth and to require the mitigation of any and all of the impacts of such growth. To place the CP and General Use Permit ("GUP") proposal in context, it is important to understand the extent of Stanford's existing development. To date, Stanford has either already developed, or may develop under the 1989 General Use Permit, 12,439,061 gross square feet of academic space. Stanford University Draft Community Plan and General Use Permit Application, Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I ("DEW), at 2-14. The Stanford campus already includes over 12,000 housing units and 1 r osed CP Stanford would be - 7 Under the o 2-16 to 1 U 19,351 parking spaces. Id, at proposed , allowed to add nearly 3.5 million gross square feet of academic development--plus additional faculty and staff housing and nearly 3,000 additional parking spaces--over the next ten years alone. Staff Proposal at 13. The DEIR reveals numerous significant from this expansive development. These impacts include verse environ mental impacts , ad P P P P among others, loss of open space, increased housing demand, increased traffic throughout the region, degradation of the quantity of groundwater, the risk of public exposure to hazardous materials, harm to sensitive and threatened plant and animal species, harm to important historical and archaeological resources, increased demand for public services and utilities, adverse effects to air quality, and increased noise levels. DEIR at S-4 to S- 17. This level of development far exceeds that permitted both in the surrounding area and in other unincorporated areas of the County. Moreover, under the existing General Plan, Stanford has effectively been granted special exemptions from limits on development placed on all other urban unincorporated areas of the County. Santa Clara County General Plan at S-2 to S-3, Policy U-ST3. Indeed, as we have previously pointed out, under the existing General Plan, Stanford is not even subject to the minimum required standards for building intensity and density necessary to comply County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 7 with state law. The revised Community Plan proposed by Stanford continues to omit these mandatory standards. See August 4, 2000 letter from Rachel B. Hooper to Sarah Jones at 3-5. Equally troubling, both Stanford's revised proposal and the present Staff Proposal provide no permanent protection for the foothills. Instead, both documents seem to envision (or perhaps even encourage) that Stanford will develop these areas after it utilizes the 5 million square feet "threshold" building area remaining within the present AGB. As noted above, this 5 million sf threshold is not based on any policy determination as to the carrying capacity of the land or the appropriate level of development for Stanford lands, but rather on the average level of development that has taken place over the past four decades (i.e., roughly 200,000 sf per year). 11. Limiting Stanford's Ability to Develop its Lands More Intensively Would Not Constitute a Taking. As a general rule, a claim that a regulation effects a taking will be found only when "the [government action fails to] substantially advance legitimate state interests . . . or denies an owner economically viable use of his land." Agins, 447 U.S. at 260. In determining the economic impact of government action, courts generally focus on whether the property owner has been deprived of all reasonable economic use of its property and whether the regulation has interfered with the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations.' ' In undertaking this analysis, the County clearly possesses the discretion to treat the foothills and core campus as a single parcel. The holdings of the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and numerous other jurisdictions, therefore, would allow the County to preclude gny development of the foothills so long as Stanford retained an economically viable use of its entire contiguous landholdings. See, M. ., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 497-99 (1987); Penn Central Transp. Comp. v. New York, 438 U.S. at 104, 117-18 (1978); see also Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 644 (1992); TRPA, 216 F.3d at 774-79; Zeal v. City of Waukesha, 548 N.W. 528, 533-34 (Wis. 1996); K�& K Construction. Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 575 N.W.2d 531, 537 (Mich. 1998); Karam v. New Jersey, 723 A.2d 943 (N.J. 1999), "ff' 705 A.2d 1221, 1226-28 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998). County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 8 A. Because the Extensively Developed ed Core CampusY Already Provides Stanford an Economically Viable Use of those Lands, Limiting Further Development on The Core Campus Could Not Possibly Result in a Taking. To determine whether a development restriction denies a property holder economically viable use of its property, courts generally look to the permitted beneficial uses of property. Lake Nacimiento Co. v. San Luis Obispo County, 841 F.2d 872, 877 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988). As long as regulations allow some beneficial use, courts are unlikely to find that a taking has occurred. Agins, 447 U.S. at 260; Long Beach Equities v. County of Ventura, 231 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1036 (1991) ("The denial of the highest and best use does not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property.")- In this regard, courts have treated property values as indicating a beneficial ' 1 3 1017 1992 ` For what 1 mm n 505 U.S. 00 South Carolina Coastal Co use. Lucas v. Sou ( ] is the land but the profits thereof[?]"). "Mere diminution" in the value of privately held property resulting from regulation in the interest of public welfare, even if significant, does not constitute a taking. MacLeod v. Santa Clara County, 749 F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1009 (1985) (citing Penn Central Transp. Co v. New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130-31 (1978)). Thus, in Long Beach Equities, the court found that even where "zoning restrictions preclude recovery of the initial investment made," they do not result in a taking as long as some use of the property remains. 231 Cal.App.3d at 1038; see also Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 405 (1915) (no taking despite diminution in value from $800,000 to a maximum of$60,000, and property could not be used for any purpose permitted under city's ordinance); Haas v. City & County of San Francisco, 605 A few cases have treated portions of a parcel under common ownership as separate parcels for takings purposes. See, e.g., American Savings & Loan Assn. v. County of Marin, 653 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1981). However, these cases were either decided prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Keystone, or are readily distinguishable. See Zilber v. Town of Moraga, 692 F.Supp. 1195, 1204-05 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (declining to follow American Savings, and noting that in light of Keystone "it is doubtful that American Savin s] is still good law"). In any event, even treating the core campus and the foothills separately, the proposed CP, as modified by our recommendations, would readily survive a takings challenge. County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 9 F.2d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 918 (1980) (no taking found where value of property was diminished from about $2,000,000 to about $100,000); Del Oro Hills v. City of Oceanside, 31 Cal.AppAth 1060, 1081, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 823 1995 " even where there is a very substantial diminution in the value of land, there is courts rarely find that land use regulations make ap parent that cou s These cases g no taken T Y g ) pP have deprived property owners of all economic use of their property where value remains p in the property under regulation. The adoption of a land use regulation may also effect a taking if the regulation "does not substantially advance legitimate state interests." Agins, 447 U.S. at 260. A party challenging a generally applicable zoning law on the ground that it fails to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest must demonstrate that the zoning "constitutes an arbitrary regulation of property rights." Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391. The courts have uniformly upheld land use regulations against a challenge under this prong as long as the regulations could advance at least one legitimate governmental interest, such as promoting orderly development or protecting open space. Agins, 447 U.S. at 261-62; see, e.g., Zilber, 692 F.Supp. at 1202. Applying these authorities to the core campus makes clear that the County would not be subject to a takings challenge even if it did not permit Stanford any re campus. As noted above Stanford has already additional development on the co p P constructed, or been authorized to construct, more than 12.5 million square feet of development on the core, 12,000 housing units, and 19,351 parking spaces. This lands and other t n both su rrounding an to men t far excee ds that o 1 of development g intensive level p "urban" unincorporated lands within the County. It is clear that Stanford enjoys a substantial beneficial use of its lands and that County regulations have not rendered that land valueless. Accordingly, Stanford could not successfully argue that it has been denied any economically viable use of its lands. Similarly, in light of the extensive impacts associated with the additional development requested by Stanford, there is no basis for arguing that declining to permit such development fails to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. Agins, 447 U.S. at 260-62. In light of the foregoing, the Committee recommends that any additional development within the AGB should only be permitted pursuant to, and balanced by, the permanent preservation of natural resources in the foothills. Such a balanced approach would allow both Stanford and the County to benefit in several ways. First, both Stanford and the County would benefit from the reduced costs of centralizing development on the I County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 10 I already developed portion of Stanford's lands. Second, Stanford would benefit from being permitted more development than the County would otherwise allow; as noted above, the County could constitutionally prohibit Stanford from undertaking a_y more development. Third, County residents--including those from Stanford--would benefit from avoiding the adverse environmental, health, safety, and societal impacts that would inevitably result from sprawling academic development in the foothills. While concentrating additional development in the core will itself have some adverse environmental impacts, these impacts can be more readily mitigated. Indeed, the Density Bonus Program will encourage Stanford to make more efficient use of the core campus and to implement more effective land use planning to make sure that it makes the best use of the lands within the AGB. Moreover, any impacts that do occur as a result of further development within the core area are dramatically less than would be the impacts of allowing even a small fraction of that development to occur in the foothills. Finally, all County residents would benefit from the permanent protection of the foothills for the natural resource and scenic viewshed values which they contain. B. The Uses Proposed in the Staff Proposal for the Foothills Likewise Provide for an Economically Viable Use of Those Lands. As Stanford itself has extensively documented, the foothills provide vital open space for a wide array of purposes and play an increasingly important role in enhancing the quality and character of the campus, as well as the surrounding area. In keeping with these values, the present Staff Proposal provides that, for the next 25 years, the foothills shall be,restricted to field study, utility infrastructure, grazing and agriculture, and other uses consistent with their open space character and historic use. The Committee applauds County staff for continuing to recognize the value of these lands as open space and for proposing policies that would provide some protection for these lands in the short-term. We note that numerous courts have upheld analogous land use regulations against takings challenges. See, e.g., Ayins, 477 U.S. at 261-262; San Mateo Coastal Landowners' Assn v. County of San Mateo, 38 Cal.AppAth 523, 549 (1995); Long Beach Equities, 231 Cal.App.3d at 1027-31. The Density Bonus Program would reduce the possibility of a viable takings claim even further, by providing additional value to the foothills in the form of a density credit. See, ems., Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 138; Aptos Seascape Corp v County of Santa Cruz, 138 Cal.App.3d 484, 496-500 (1982), peal dismissed, 464 U.S. 805 (1983). i i County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page l i While the Staff Proposal provides some short-term protection for the foothills, it does not provide any mechanism for protecting--or encouraging Stanford to protect--these sensitive and valuable areas over the long-term. As development pressure on these lands intensifies over the long-term, however, their importance and value will only increase. Accordingly, the Committee respectfully submits that it is imperative for the County to develop policies that direct all academic development and housing within while prese rving the foothills inperpetuity. The next section identifies one the AGB � P g mechanism for doing so. III. The County Should Take Advantage of the Unique Opportunity Presented by the Community Plan to Implement a Balanced Framework that Directs Growth towards the Core While Preserving Natural Resources. A. The CP Should Include Policies to Implement this Balanced Approach. P i As County staff and decisionmakers have repeatedly noted, the CP process unique opportunity for the County to establish long-term planning goals and represents a P g e g P q PP tY tY P h'policies for all of Stanford's lands within the County. The very process of developing the CP has highlighted the fact that such goals and policies have been sorely lacking in the past. This CP process has also highlighted the tremendous adverse environmental and other impacts that would result from Stanford's proposals for future development of the campus over the next twenty-five years. As detailed above, under well-established law, the avoidance of those impacts would clearly justify a decision by the County to direct all velo ment towards the core cam new de us.p P At the same time, Stanford has identified a desire for roughly 3.5 million sf additional academic development over the next ten ears alone. Stanford's desire for of P Y this more extensive development is not, of course, a sufficient reason for the County to permit it. If this were the case then, eventually, Stanford's entire land holdings would eventually be covered with development. Nevertheless, it may be appropriate for the County to grant Stanford some level of additional development, so long as it helps the County further its long-term goals of(1) encouraging growth in urban centers where infrastructure exists or could be most efficiently provided; and (2) preserving the foothills as open space. The Community Plan provides the perfect opportunity for the County to draft polices that would allow both the County, and Stanford, to achieve their objectives. These policies would consist of applying a density bonus overlay to the I i i County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 12 Open Space and Field Research ("OS/FR") and Special Conservation Areas ("SCA") lands in the foothills, which would provide, in addition to those uses permitted in the Staff Proposal, that each acre be assigned a certain amount of development credit. The Committee recommends that the development credit be on the order of 1000 sf per acre. It is essential to the success of this approach that the County strictly provide that the density bonus from the OS/FR and SCA lands could be utilized only on the core campus within the AGB and not in the foothills area.' To take advantage of the density bonus, Stanford would need to permanently set aside the corresponding OS/FR or SCA acreage as open space, via a deed restriction, a conservation easement, or some other mechanism acceptable to the County. While the details of this proposal could be further developed during the implementation of the Community Plan, the basic parameters should be included in the CP policies itself. To facilitate the development of such policies, the Committee offers the following suggestions as a possible basis for amending the Staff Proposal. Proposed osed new language is shown in bald italic existing language from the Staff Proposal is shown � g as plain text; and deleted language is shown in strikethrough. 1. Adopt a new cornerstone growth and development policy as SCP- GD0.1, as follows: SCP-GD0.1 develop ment and associated policy to direct all academic Establish a cornerstonep cyp m's housing on Stanford lands away from the foothills and within the Academic Growth Boundary ("AGB"), where the necessary infrastructure and public services can most efficiently be provided, while allowing Stanford sufficient flexibility to determine where within the AGB such development should be located Balance the competing benefits and harms of additional development on Stanford's lands, the Bounty's desire to encourage Stanford to preserve the foothills in open space, and Stanford's desire for additional academic development and housing via creation of a Density Bonus Program. This Density Bonus Program would allow Stanford to increase development intensity within the AGB beyond that allowed on other comparable County lands, but only i to the extent that Stanford permanently preserves land in the foothills as open 6 For the purposes of this restriction, it is essential to define the foothills as the entire land area owned by Stanford south of Junipero Serra Boulevard. I I County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 13 space. For the purposes of this Density Bonus Program, the A GB shall refer to the boundaries of the AGB as it exists on [INSERT DATE of adoption of CP]. 2. Amend Growth and Development Policy SCP-GD I on page 14, as follows: SCP-GDI Establish and maintain an Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) as shown in Figure 1.3.' Direct future development on Stanford lands within the AGB, consistent with the Community Plan land use designations. Prohibit development of any structures on lands outside the AGB other than as specified in SCP-L U2 7for lands designated OSIFR and in SCP-LU31,for lands designated SCA. Establish a Density Bonus Program that would apply a permanent density bonus overlay ("DB0') to lands designated OSIFR and SCA. This permanent DBO shall encompass the approximately 2200 acres of Stanford lands within the County Is jurisdiction commonly known as the "Stanford foothills"and identified as being outside the AGB, as of[INSERT date of adoption of CP]. For the purposes of the Density Bonus Program, the AGB shall not be expanded into the DBO. Allocate a density bonus of 1,000 square feet of development credit("density bonus"or "development credit") to each acre within the DBO. Provide that this development credit may only be utilized on lands within the AGB. Under no circumstances shall this development credit or density bonus be used to construct buildings within the DBO or anywhere else outside the AGB. The density credit is meant to serve as an incentive for Stanford to concentrate development within the AGB and to preserve the foothills permanently. The density credit is not intended to, and does not, represent the development potential of lands within the DBO. The density credit is not an entitlement to build within the DBO. 3. Amend Growth and Development Policy SCP-GD2 on page 14, as follows: The Committee strongly urges the County to redraw the AGB to exclude critical areas of California Tiger Salamander habitat. The Committee will be detailing the compelling reasons for doing so in a separate letter. County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 14 SCP-GD 2: academic and support facilities and student housing reaches Retain the location of the A6B as shown in Figure H until tile building area of 000 square f�et. This AEiB thieshold is meant to provide for a minimum of 25 years' wort growth. Provide that all new development, except (1) development previously authorized pursuant to the 1989 General Use Permit or other previously issued permit, and(2) development or redevelopment that does not result in a net increase in square footage (e.g., replacement of existing buildings), must be authorized pursuant to the Density Bonus Program. Allow Stanford to undertake additional development pursuant to the Density Bonus Program only if Stanford permanently preserves as open space the OSIFR or SCA lands to which the bonus density was assigned via a deed restriction, a conservation easement, or some other mechanism acceptable to the County. The deed restriction, conservation easement, or other mechanism need not provide for public access to these lands. This Density Bonus Program is meant to provide for a minimum of 15 years' worth of growth, but is not intended to place an absolute limit on additional development within the AGB. 4. Amend Land Use Policy SCP-LU3, on page 25, as follows: SCP-LU3 Development intensity of individual facilities may vary with the type of allowed use. Maximum cumulative development amounts are permitted through the Stanford General Use Permit, consistent with the Density Bonus Program, Academic Growth Boundary, and other growth and development policies AG development.threshold aniount of (See Growth and Development Chapter). 5. Amend Land Use Policy SCP-LU8, on page 26, as follows: SCP-LU8 Residential density up to 8 units per acre is permitted, with potential for clustering individual units to provide public or private open space. This residential density yields a population density up to 19 persons per acre. Residential development must be authorized pursuant to the Density Bonus Program. 6. Amend Land Use Policy SCP-LU 12, on page 27, as follows: I County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 15 SCP-LU12 Residential density between 8 and 15 units per acre is permitted, with potential for clustering individual units to provide public or private open space. This residential density yields a population density between 19 and 36 persons per acre. Residential development must be authorized pursuant to the Density Bonus Program. 7. Amend Land Use Policy SCP-LU27, on page 30, as follows: SCP-LU27 No permanent buildings or structures other than utility infrastructure and specialized facilities or installations that support permitted or existing activities or require a remote, rural setting are allowed. Allocate a density bonus of 1,000 square feet of development credit to each acre of land designated OS/FR. Pursuant to the Density Bonus Program,provide that this development credit may be utilized only on lands that are outside the DBO and within the A GB. 8. Amend Land Use Policy SCP-LU3 1, on page 32, as follows: SCP-LU31 No new permanent development in the form of buildings or structures is allowed, other than that which supports conservation efforts. Allocate a density bonus of 1,000 square feet of development credit to each acre of land designated SCA. Pursuant to the Density Bonus Program,provide that this development credit may be utilized only on lands that are outside the DBO and within the AGB. B. Adopting and Implementing the Density Bonus Program Would Not Constitute A Taking. The Density Bonus Program, which would be strictly voluntary, could not possibly constitute a taking as long as the underlying CP land use policies for Stanford lands do not. As noted above, we believe that simply by virtue of the existing level of development authorized on the core campus, the County would be justified in not allowing gny more development on either the core campus or the foothills. Even assuming, arguendo, that the two portions of Stanford's contiguous land holdings should be treated separately, however, the proposed CP, as modified by the Committee's recommendations, would survive a takings challenge with respect to both portions. It County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 16 necessarily follows that the Density Bonus Program, which provides Stanford the option of obtaining even more development, would likewise survive a takings challenge. Numerous courts have recognized that such density credits, like transferable development rights ("TDRs"), constitute a valuable "use" of property, and thus the value they add to property can be used to defeat a takings claim. See, e.g., Penn Central, 438 US. at 138 (the "ability to use [pre-existing] air rights" through a TDR program constitutes a potentially viable use of property); Aptos, 138 Cal.App.3d at 496-500 (rezoning which prohibited development on a portion of a landowner's property did not effect a taking because different zoning applicable to a contiguous portion of the landowner's property allowed a compensating increase in the permissible density of development).' Stanford may nevertheless try to argue that the Density Bonus Program constitutes some sort of"exaction" or"dedication," and therefore claim that the program must survive heightened scrutiny under Dolan v. Ci of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). Dolan and Nollan require that where a public agency seeks to impose an exaction or property dedication 8 We are aware, of course, that Justice Scalia took issue with Penn Central in his concurring opinion in Suitum v. TRPA, 520 U.S. 725, 747-50 (1997) (Scalia, J, concurring) (contending that the potential value of TDRs is relevant only to whether just compensation has been granted). Justice Scalia's concurrence, however, does not undermine the validity of the Density Bonus Program for several reasons. First, the density credit need not be relied upon to determine whether a taking has occurred; even without the Density Bonus Program, Stanford has been granted, and retains, economically viable use of its lands. Thus, no taking can be found. Second, Penn Central remains the law of the land; unlike Justice Scalia, the six-Justice majority in Suitum was not willing to narrow the holding of that case. Third, even Justice Scalia agreed that TDRs can be relied upon to preclude a taking where they are given to a landowner who owns nearby n tin that in Penn Central I . at 749 0 to which the rights can be transferred. d (noting property g "the relevant land, it could be said, was the aggregation of the owners' parcels subject to the regulation [ ]; and the use of that land, as a whole, had not been diminished"). That reasoning applies with all the more force here because the Density Bonus Program allows Stanford to use density credits assigned to one portion of its land to another portion of the same parcel. i .. ........................._ r ' County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 17 requirement as a condition of granting development, it must demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the problems created by development and the dedication. The rough proportionality test, however, has no applicability to the Density Bonus Program, for several reasons. First, the Density Bonus Program does not exact, or impose a dedication requirement, on anything. Stanford is free to use both the core campus and the foothills to the full extent authorized by the CP, and the CP policies plainly provide for land uses that are economically viable on their face. The Density Bonus Program simply allows Stanford to make even more intensive use of the core campus, if it chooses to avail itself of this program. See City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 119 S.Ct. 1624 (1999) (unanimously overruling the Ninth Circuit's decision to apply Dolan's rough proportionality test to the denial of a permit request); id. at 1635 (explaining that Dolan's test is "not designed to address, and is not readily applicable . . . [where] the landowner's challenge is based . . . on denial of development); Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 138 (holding that ability to transfer development rights for airspace above railroad terminal precluded a takings claim because these transferable rights afforded the owners "opportunities to enhance not only the Terminal site proper but also other properties"); compare Noilan, 483 U.S. at 836 ("a permit condition that serves the same legitimate police-power purpose as a refusal to issue the permit should not be found to be a taking if the refusal to issue the permit would not constitute a taking"). Second the Court in Dolan d distinguished between a required dedication of g public land, which it reviewed under the heightened "rough proportionality" test, and a requirement that land be preserved as private open space, which allows the owner to retain the right to exclude others and which would not be subject to heightened scrutiny. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 393; Del Monte Dunes, 119 S.Ct. at 1635; San Mateo Coastal Landowners, 38 Cal.AppAth at 548-49. The Density Bonus Program allows Stanford to exclude the public from any lands permanently dedicated to open space if it so chooses. Third, Dolan does not apply to legislatively enacted zoning mechanisms, see Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 CalAth 854, 879-81 (1996), and the Community Plan, as an amendment to the County's General Plan, is clearly a legislative act. See DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 CalAth 763, 781-82 (1995); Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 28 Cal.3d 511, 516-17 (1980) (rezoning is a legislative act regardless of the size of the parcel or number of landowners affected). II County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 18 Moreover, even if the rough proportionality test did apply--and it plainly does not--the Density Bonus Program would readily survive that test. As documented in the DEIR, increased development within the AGB will have significant, adverse environmental impacts on, among other things, loss of open space, increased housing demand, increased traffic throughout the region, degradation of the quantity of groundwater, the risk of public exposure to hazardous materials, harm to sensitive and threatened plant and animal species, harm to important historical and archaeological resources, increased demand for public services and utilities, adverse effects to air quality, and increased noise levels. DEIR at S-4 to S-1 7. Requiring Stanford to offset these impacts by dedicating a minimally intrusive private easement, which both allows Stanford to exclude others from the foothills and to continue using.them for the uses specified in the CP, would readily satisfy Dolan's mandate. See Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391 (noting that "no precise mathematical calculation is required"). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Committee For Green Foothills urges the County to revise the Community Plan along the lines proposed above. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER, LLP RACHEL B. HOOPER ROBERT "PERL" PERLMUTTER Attachments cc: Joe Simitian, Supervisor, Santa Clara County Sarah Jones, Associate Planner, Santa Clara County i Lizanne Reynolds, Deputy County Counsel, Santa Clara County Paul Romero, Director of Environmental Resources Agency, Santa Clara County Ann Draper, Planning Director, Santa Clara County County Planning Commissioners October 10, 2000 Page 19 Mayor and City Council Members of Palo Alto Ed Gawf, Director of Planning, Palo Alto Mayor and City Council of Menlo Park Janet Dolan, City Manager, Menlo Park Mayor and Town Council Members of Portola Valley George Mader, Town Planner, Portola Valley Craig Britton, General Manager, MROSD Margaret Roper, Department of Fish and Game Denice Dade, Committee for Green Foothills Susan Schectman, MidPenninsula Open Space District P:\CGF\CP\RSP003V4.WPD Page of | Main Identity Fnmnn: Denise Williams <denioe_oraik wUianns@msn.00nn> To: <mrood@openopace.orQ> Cc: Bernstein, Don <dbornstein@argotemh.conn> Sent: Thursday, October 12. 2OOOO:38PM Subject: Board K4tg 10/11/00 Sauoa!Trail ' To: Mary Davey and Kenneth Nibc Thank you for your show of support for allowing dogs on Sausal Trail when it comes up for review. | apprnciate that you are willing to work with us to increase the number of trails that dogs can use. � Denise Williams Peninsula Access for Dogs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � lO/|2/OO Page of Main Ident From: Denise Williams «deniee_oroik_«vUiamm@mon.uom» To: «mrood .org> Cc: Bernstein, Dan <dbernnhein@argobech.00m> Sent Thursday, October 12. 20O00:3QPK4 Subject Deanne Little Dear Deanne: � � � | attended last evening's Board meeting and was very impressed with your attempts to find equity for all District � users. Bicyclist and Dog Walkers seem b) be either forgotten or"oudawed"whereas other users are given special statue. � Since | had lived in Mountain View for 2O years, | mdU have many friends and relatives there. | will let them know how lucky they are Uo have you in their corner. � Denise Williams Peninsula Access for Dogs ' � � � � � � � � � � � � � iO/\2/OO