Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20021009 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 02-20 Regional Open ice -------------------- MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 02-20 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 9,2002 330 Distcl Circle Los Altos, California AGENDA* Please Note: 6:30 p.m. Closed Session Special Meeting Start Time 7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Start Time 6:30* ROLL CALL SPECIAL WEIIING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT—CLOSED SESSION The Closed Session will begin at 6:30 p.m. At the conclusion of the Closed Session,the Board will adjourn the Special Meeting Closed Session to the Regular Meeting,and,at the conclusion Of the Regular Meeting,the Board may reconvene the Special Meeting Closed Session. 1. Conference with Real Property Negotiator—Government Code Section 54956.8 Real PEM —Santa Clara County APN's 544-50-003, -005, -006;544-31-005,-006; 091-51-02 and 091-051-03 AjxeM Negoti —Mike Williams,Real Property Representative Negotiating Party—Clint Calan for the Sisters of the Presentation UNDER NEGOTIATIONS—Instructions to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. 2. Conference with Real PL9MM Negoti —Government Code Section 54956.8 Real P —Santa Clara County APN 544-50-002 Agency Negotiator—Tom Fischer, Land Protection Specialist Nmotiatina P —Mildred Holmes UNDER NEGOTIATIONS—Instructions to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. 3. Conference with Real Proper ly Ne —Government Code Section 54956.8 Real PEM —Santa Clara County APN's 351-090-017 and 351-12-001 Agency Negotiator—Tom Fischer,Land Protection Specialist Negotiating Party—Tom O'Donnell for Hanson Permanente Cement UNDER NEGOTIATIONS—Instructions to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. 4. Conference with Real Property Negotiator—Government Code Section 54956.8 RcalPMe —Santa Clara County APN's 537-05-10; -14;and-15 Aitena Ne gotiator—Tom Fischer,Land Protection Specialist Ne tiating P —Joe McCarth,go y UNDER NEGOTIATIONS—Instructions to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment. 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,led Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz * General Manager:L.Craig Britton Meeting 02-20 Page 2 7:30* REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINsuLA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COmMuNICATIONS—Public ADOPTION OF AGENDA ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR—D.Little BOARD BUSE41M I Authorization to Reject all Bids Received September 10,2002 for Construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area at Sierra Azul Open Spare Preserve;Authorize Staff to Reject all Bids Received for Construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area;Authorize Staff to Solicit New Bids for Construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve—D.Vu 7:40 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS—Brief reports or announcements concerning pertinent activities of District Directors and Staff. REVISED CLAims 8:00* ADJOURNMENT Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed.Agenda is subject to change of order. ToADDRasmEwARD: 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 10 ice 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-02-107 Meeting 02-20 October 9, 2002 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Reject All Bids Received September 10, 2 for Construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and to olicit New Bids GENERAL MANAGER'S RECO ENDATIONS 1. Authorize staff to reject all bids received for construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve on September 10, 2002. 2. Authorize staff to solicit new bids for construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. DISCUSSION At your May 29, 2002 meeting,you authorized staff to solicit bids for the construction of a parking and staging area at the Jacques Ridge entrance to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve(see Report R-02-76). The project includes the construction of a 14-car parking lot, a wheelchair-accessible pit toilet restroom, a trailhead with stiles and signage, and a short trail that will lead preserve users to a future trail crossing at the intersection of Mt. Umunhum and Hicks Roads. Staff distributed bid packages to prospective contractors and two pre-bid meetings were held at the project site on August 27 and August 30,2002. Sealed bids were due on September 10,2002 and two bids were received. The bid results, which are significantly higher than the projected cost of$80,000, are as follows: Bidder Total Base Bid Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. $128,633.00 T.K.O. General Engineering and Construction,Inc. $116,850.00 At the time the project was bid, staff had anticipated that the necessary planning and building permits from the County of Santa Clara would be obtained prior to awarding the contract to the lowest responsive bidder. However,the County recently informed staff that further clarification and additional information would be required before the necessary permits could be issued. In particular,the County contends that pit toilets that utilize holding tanks are prohibited. In fact,the District previously installed two at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve in 1999 with the proper permits. Although staff is diligently working with the County to resolve this issue along with other minor clarifications,receipt of the permits will take one to three additional months. Since the wet season is nearly approaching,this delay in obtaining permits will eliminate the opportunity to construct the staging area this calendar year. 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,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz • Genera!Manager:L.Craig Britton R-02-107 Page 2 The bids that were received are legally valid for a period of sixty(60)days, in which time the lowest responsive bidder must be awarded the contract or all bids must be rejected. Since construction of the project cannot be initiated within this time period, staff is recommending that the Board reject both bids that were submitted on September 10, 2002 and authorize staff to solicit new bids for construction of the Jacques Ridge Staging Area project once the appropriate permits have been obtained. Staff anticipates soliciting bids for the project again in January 2003,awarding the contract, and constructing the staging area next March, or as soon as the weather permits. This new schedule will be consistent with the construction of the County's staging area at Almaden Quicksilver County Park while allowing the District to complete the project in order to meet the Recreational Trails Program grant deadline of June 2003. Prepared by: Douglas Vu, ASLA, Open Space Planner Contact Person: Same as above Claims No. 02-16 Meeting 02-20 Date 10/9/02 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 4516 $700.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services 4517 $145.78 ADT Security Services Burglar Alarm Service 4518 $359.60 Allice Cummings Consulting Service-Photography 4519 $569.93 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repairs 4520 $500.00 American Tower Corporation Radio Repeater-Coyote Peak 4521 $138.79 AmeriGas Propane 4522 $8.00 Baker,Kurt Refund-Camping Cancellation 4523 $86.44 Barron Park Supply Co.,Inc. Plumbing Supplies 4524 $2,787.00 Big Creek Lumber Lumber for Bay Tree Project-Rancho San Antonio 4525 $395.25 Bill's Towing&Recovery Tow Truck Fees 4526 $2,597.00 BNY Western Trust Company Note Paying Agent Fees-1999 Notes-2nd.Issue 4527 $250.04 Bowerman Electric Electric Repairs-Skyline Rental 4528 $140.00 CA Park&Recreation Society Membership 4529 $730.60 Camino Medical Group Medical Services 4530 $4,182.76 Carter Industries Vehicle Parts&Supplies 4531 $224.11 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Field Supplies 4532 $92.00 City of Brisbane Conference Reg.-N.Hanko,M.Davey,J.Cyr,C.Bdtton 4533 $8.00 *1 Clark County Health District Resource Document 4534 $220.16 Costco Supplies 4535 $18.37 Cupertino Bike Shop Bicycle Supplies 4536 $80.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Light Repairs-Main Office 4537 $1,037.85 Design Concepts Posters of Visitors Map 4538 $750.00 Emily and Associates Personnel Training 4539 $421.98 Escobar,John Reimbursement-Conference Mileage 4540 $837.18 Expanets; Telephone System Maint.&Lease 4541 $263.44 Federal Express Express Mailing 4542 $1,159.70 *2 First Bankcard 597.00-Training&Conf.Exp. 109.96-Internet Ser. 377.74-Field Equip.Supp.&Uniform Exp. 75.00 -Subscriptions&Books 4543 $481.26 Foster Brothers Keys&Locks 4544 $67.57 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 4545 $1,298.08 GMI West LLC Rental Equip.Road Maintenance-Foothills 4546 $696.68 Goodco Press,Inc. Printing Services 4547 $89.10 Grainger,Inc. Field Supplies 4548 $460.00 Green Waste Recovery,Inc. Garbage Service 4549 $1,200.00 Heather Heights Roads Association Road Dues-Saratoa Gap 4550 $189.44 Indoff Incorporated Office Furniture-Planning Department 4551 $3,694.17 June Leger Consulting Services-Habitat Conservation Grant Prep. 4552 $350.00 Leeson,Dave Soda Spring Road Gate Upgrade 4553 $3,237.50 ## Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Legal Services 4554 $20.00 Los Alto Town Crier Yearly Subscription 4555 $99.36 Los Altos Garbage Co. Refuse Services 4556 $84.35 Madco Welding Supplies 4557 $13.61 MCI Long Distance Telephone Service 4558 $116.38 MegaPath Networks Internet Connection-DSL Line SFO 4559 $754.65 MetroMobile Communications Radio Repairs&Maintenance 4560 $1,7.33 Minton's Lumber&Supply Field Supplies Page 1 of 2 Claims No. 02-16 Meeting 02-20 Date 10/9/02 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 4561 $309.00 Mountain View Optometry Safety Supplies 4562 $910.00 NRPA Pacific Service Center Conference Reg.-Michael Newburn 4563 $423.42 Pacific Bell Telephone Service 4564 $60.00 *3 Peers Coffee Red Bam Event Supplies 4565 $245.04 Peninsula Digital Imaging Maps&Copies for Jacques Ridge Bid Sets 4566 $333.19 Photorime Scanning of Slides for District Display 4567 $281.69 PIP Printing Maps Printing-El Corte de Madera 4568 $235.00 Precise Mailing,Inc. Postage 4569 $22.50 Rancho Hardware&Garden Shop Field Supplies 4570 $1,581.82 Redwood General Tire Co.,Inc. Tire Repair and Tires 4571 $180.56 Reed&Graham,Inc. Hay Bales for Trail Restoration 4572 $3,000.00 Reserve Account Postage-Postage Meter 4573 $1,115.91 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 4574 $40.58 San Jose Mercury News Yearly Subscription 4575 $345.88 *4 Santa Clara County HHW Hazardous Waste Removal 4576 $44.00 Santa Clara County-Office of Sherriff Fingerprinting 4577 $5,967.57 Scotts Valley Sprinkler&Pipe Supply I Saratoga Gap Water System Replacement 4578 $4,840.39 Scotts Valley Sprinkler&Pipe Supply 2 Saratoga Gap Water System Replacement 4579 $488.68 Stevens Creek Quarry,Inc. Base Rock for Wild Cat Trail 4580 $1,068.16 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 4581 $278.78 Tires on the Go Vehicle Tires 4582 $290.93 United Rentals Highway Tech. Equipment Rental 4583 $51.28 Verizon Pager Service 4584 $200.00 Woodside&Portola Private Patrol Patrol Services-Windy Hill 4585 $50.64 Yolo County Res.Conservation Dist. Books&Posters 4586 R $671.15 CDW Government,Inc. MS Exchange Server 4587 R $488.55 Petty Cash Conference&Training Expense,Office&Field Supplies, Vehicle Mileage Reimbursement,Volunteer Supplies, Out of Town&Local Bus.Meeting Expense 4588 R $65.52 Roessler,Cindy Reimbursement-Mileage 4589 R $720.00 Society for Ecological Restoration Conference Registration-C.Roessler,G.Kern,K.Howard 4590 R $70.00 South Bay Regional Public Safety Training-F.Reneau 4591 R $9,000.00 Weintraub,David District Book Authorship Total $64,953.70 I Urgent Check Issued 1011/02 *2 Urgent Check Issued 10/11/02 *3 Urgent Check Issued 10/2/02 *4 Urgent Check Issued 10/2102 ##Expenditures to Date Exceed I OK But Not 25K Page 2 of 2 Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Di STRICT To: Board of Directors From: John Escobar, Assistant General Manager Date: October 4, 2002 Re: FYI's 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@opernpace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org Regional Open Sr.ic e 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT October 1, 2002 Honorable Liz Kniss Member, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 70 West Hedding Street, 1 Oth Floor San Jose, CA 95111 Dear Supervisor Kniss: As you may know, in May 1996, a Joint Powers Agreement was executed by and between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the County of Santa Clara, for the purpose of forming the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority. This Authority rm financing of District land acquisitions, and was provides enhanced opportunities for long-term g q , created with the full cooperation and endorsement of the County. The Authority Board is comprised of four members of the District's Board of Directors, and the member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors whose district encompasses the greatest territory of the Open Space District. That is currently district number five, making you the designated representative on the Authority Board. The Authority is required to hold a minimum of one meeting per calendar year. We have scheduled that meeting for Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 7:15 p.m. here at the District office in Los Altos. It is expected to be a very short meeting, consisting of action to approve the annual financial report. An agenda will be sent to you prior to the meeting itself. While we expect the Authority to have a quorum from members of the District Board of Directors, you are of course invited and encouraged to attend. Please feel free to contacl me if I can answer any questions or provide further information. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton General Manager LCB:lz cc: Donald Gage, Chairman, Board of Supervisors MROSD Board of Directors 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, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton Regional Open , ice ............ ................................ MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT September 24, 2002 Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PATHWAY ELEMENT OF THE TOWN'S GENERAL PLAN AND RELATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District), I would like to comment on the proposed amendment to the Pathway Element of the Town's General Plan and the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for this action. The District owns and manages approximately 46,500 acres of open space land on the San Francisco Peninsula in a series of 26 preserves stretching from the San Francisco Watershed Lands to south of Los Gatos. Rancho San Antonio and Foothills Open Space Preserves,totaling over 4,000 acres, adjoin the southern and western edges of the Town's boundaries. The District currently provides direct neighborhood trail connections between the Town's pathways and the trail system at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, and as such,the District holds a high interest in maintaining these local connections. Our comments are organized as follows: Maintain Existing Connections According to our understanding of the proposed Pathways amendment,no changes are recommended for existing pathways that connect directly to District trails. Nonetheless,we want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of retaining these connections since their primary function is to link residents of Los Altos Hills with recreational opportunities provided at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. These links provide direct access to very popular destinations including Deer Hollow Farm, the picturesque Duveneck Windmill Pasture Area, Black Mountain summit, and to more than 23 miles of low-intensity recreational trails. Expanding Connections We encourage the Town to include as part of the Pathways Element the goal to actively seek additional pathway connections to further increase the connectivity between Town neighborhoods and existing District trailheads. We also urge the implementation of those pathway connections that are currently in the"planned'phase,which includes more than 40 miles of future trails. It is inherently the responsibility of local jurisdictions to provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity for their communities to easily access local open spaces,parks, and public services. These alternatives reduce the reliance on automobiles, promote community interaction,and provide safe and healthy travel options for children,adults, and he elderly. We make note of the current recommendation to add 41.69 miles of on-road pathways,but recommend that these pathways be located"off-road"as much as possible to ensure greater public safety and provide a more idyllic experience for the pathway user that is consistent with the Town's unique rural character. Retaining All Pathways Until After the Designation of the De Anza Trail As you know, the alignment for the Juan Bautista De Anza National Historic Trail is currently under study for the Bay Area Peninsula. The alignment will extend through Rancho San Antonio County Park 330 Distel Circle * Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200 Fax: 650-691-0485 - E-mail. mrosd,,Topenspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org Board of Directors: Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Jed Cyr, Deane Little, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Kenneth C.Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton and Open Space Preserve and most likely through the western portion of the Town before connecting to the City of Palo Alto. The District considers this effort a great opportunity to work in collaboration with the Town of Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, and the National Park Service to designate the historic trail corridor. Given the timing, the District strongly recommends retaining all easements and pathways that are currently planned for elimination until after the trail corridor is designated in the event that they become incorporated as part of this historic trail. Comments Directed to the Negative Declaration According to the Negative Declaration, some of the pathways that are proposed for elimination are said to be in environmentally sensitive areas,and thereby supported for removal. The District contends that low- intensity, unpaved recreational trails, if properly constructed during the dry season,could be compatible and appropriate for such locations. Trails can be an appropriate use of land in such areas because they can be constructed by hand without heavy equipment, avoid impacts to trees and other vegetation,do not result in impervious surfaces, and support low-intensity, low-disturbance activities. Moreover,the Negative Declaration appears to provide very minimal information on the transportation benefits of the pathway system. We recommend elaborating on the various traffic benefits of trails,their use by a wide range of social groups, and their importance to children and others who rely on non- motorized transportation to access schools,libraries,parks, and open spaces. These transportation and connectivity benefits are the reason why the pathway system remains an important facility for Los Altos Hill residents. In summary,the District highly recommends retaining all existing pathways and easements until after the San Juan Bautista De Anza National Historic Trail is designated, and encourages the implementation of all planned pathways as well as the addition of new ones to ensure that the Town of Los Altos Hills becomes a fully connected community that meets the accessibility needs of both current and future populations. The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Pathways Element Amendment and related Negative Declaration. Sin6 ely, L. Crai ri on General Manager cc: MROSD Board of Direc tors Jane Mark, Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Meredith Kaplan,National Park Service Carl Cahill,Town Planning Director LCB:ar:dv SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. 396 HAYES STREET BRIAN J. JOHNSON MARK 1. WEINBERGEFt SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94 102 JANETTE E. SCHUE , MARC B. MIHALY, P.C. JEFFREY M. BRAX FRAN M. LAYTON TELEPHONE(4 1 5) 552-7272 MARLENA G. BYRNE RACHEL B. HOOPER ELLEN J. GARBER FACSIMILE (41 5) 552-581 6 JOHN A. HICKEY ',,... ZINN CHRISTY H. TAYLOR WWW.SMWLAW.COM MATFHEW D. '..... TAMARA S. GALANTER ELL SON FOLK LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP RICHARD S. TAYLOR CARMEN J. BORG SUSANNAH T. FRENCH URBAN PLANNERS ',.. WILLIAM J. WHITE (�(� ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER September 25, 2002 ELIZABETH M. DODD OSA L. ARMI DAVID NAWI OF COUNSEL By Facsimile and Federal Express Chairwoman Janet Vitu and Members of the Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-2624 Re: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: General Plan Amendment Pathway Element and Adoption of the 2002 Master Path Plan Dear Chairwoman Vitu and Commission Members: This firm represents the Committee for the Preservation of Los Altos Hills ("Committee") on matters relating to the Town of Los Altos Hills' ("Town's") land use planning, and particularly its trail and pathway system. We have thoroughly reviewed the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the Town's Pathway Element General Plan Amendment and Adoption of the 2002 Master Path Plan ("project") with an eye toward evaluating the accuracy of that document and recommending changes that might unite rather than divide the Los Altos Hills community. We transmit this letter on the Committees behalf to state our position that the IS/MND is legally invalid under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq., and that this Commission must therefore either substantially alter the proposed project or prepare an Environmental Impact Report("EIR") that fully identifies, analyzes, and mitigates the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. The short-cut IS/MND relies on a misleading and inaccurate description of the proposed project, fails to adequately disclose and analyze the project's public safety and other environmental impacts, and improperly concludes that the elimination of more than 15 miles of off-road paths will not significantly impair the Town's open space, recreational, and other natural resources. Equally troubling, the proposed project would directly contradict the Circulation, Open Space, Recreation, and Pathway elements of the Town General Plan, rendering that plan internally inconsistent in violation of state law. Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 2 Rather than approve a project that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is not in the best interests of the Town or its residents, the Committee respectfully requests that this Commission delay action on the project and instead reach out to all segments of the Los Altos Hills community to establish a consensus-based approach to evaluating the current pathway system. I. The Committee Desires an Open Evaluation of the Current Pathway System and a Reasonable, Consensus-Based Amendment to the General Plan Pathway Element. The Committee is a community-based organization of citizens dedicated to the protection of the Town's trails and open space areas, and the preservation of the Town's distinctive character and quality of life. The Committee's members come from all walks of life and all points along the political spectrum. They are residents of the Town who have consistently and unselfishly donated their time and energy serving their community and local government. The Committee strongly believes that Los Altos Hills' extensive network of off- road trails serves important circulation, recreation, and open space functions, enjoys a central place in the Town's long and unique history, and helps distinguish this community from the other residential communities of the San Francisco Bay area. The Town's many pedestrians, joggers, hikers, equestrians, and other recreational enthusiasts rely on the trail and pathway network for much of their open space needs and active recreational opportunities. The Committee believes that the majority of Town residents use and enjoy the pathway system, support an extensive yet reasonable network of off-road pathways, and do not wish to see so many future off-road trails eliminated under this project. The Committee strongly believes that an open and conciliatory approach has the potential to result in a much more reasonable and balanced plan that all segments of the Town community can support and endorse. II. CEQA Establishes a "Low Threshold" for Requiring Preparation of an EIR Rather than a Negative Declaration. CEQA is infused with a strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR rather than a shorter and simplified Negative Declaration. This presumption is reflected in what is known as the "fair argument" standard, under which an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Guidelines § 15064(f), (f)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 3 Under CEQA and its Guidelines, if a project may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21100, 21151; Guidelines § 15064(a)(1), (f)(1).) "Significant effect upon the environment" is defined as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code § 21068; Guidelines § 15382.) A project "may"have a significant effect on the environment if there is a "reasonable possibility" that it will result in a significant impact. (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d 63, 83, fn. 16; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309.) If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. (Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).) This standard sets a"low threshold" for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 310.) The Planning Commission must make a legal rather than a factual decision—the Commission may not weigh competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. Instead, if substantial evidence supports a"fair argument" that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the Town must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence indicates that the project will have no significant effect. (Guidelines § 15061(f)(1); No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d 68.) III. The IS/MND Relies on a Flawed, Inaccurate, and Legally Inadequate Project Description that Hides the Project's True Environmental Effects. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient environmental review document. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.) "Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal . . . and weigh other alternatives in the balance." (Id. at 192-93; McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143 ["An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity."]) The project description relied upon by the ISIMND is riddled with major inaccuracies that cripple its ability to provide accurate environmental information to either the public or to Town decision-makers. The Planning Commission may not adopt the project on the basis of this inadequate description; it must either reject the project or order the preparation of an EIR that more accurately describes the extent of the project and its potentially significant environmental impacts. Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 4 a. The Project Description Improperly Treats On-Road and Off-Road Paths as Equivalent Environmental Resources. The most fundamental problem with the IS/MND is that the Project Description treats both off-road and on-road pathways as interchangeable resources, and improperly lumps them together for purposes of evaluation. This slight-of-hand allows the document to assert that the project will result in a net loss of only 3.9 miles of planned pathways within the Town. (IS/MND at 3.) This improper assertion, in turn, is used to disguise a wide variety of environmental impacts that will in fact be caused by the project. (IS/MND at 55 [land use impacts]; 62 [recreation impacts]; 63 [transportation and circulation impacts].) Off-road and on-road pathways are not similar resources and must be evaluated and analyzed separately in an EIR. Off-road pathways offer a variety of recreational, scenic, and circulatory benefits that on-road pathways simply do not. On-road paths have much less recreational value than off-road trails, especially for equestrians, and have far less scenic and aesthetic value than off-road trails. On-road paths also provide no circulatory benefits that are not already provided by roadways and are largely incapable of serving as wildlife corridors and providing other biological benefits. While off-road trails serve as valuable recreational, circulatory, and open space resources, on-road paths are equivalent to sidewalks, as the IS/MND admits. (IS/MND at 2, 26.) The JS/MND may not legally lump trails and sidewalks together any more than it can compare apples and oranges. Rather than lumping all pathways together and comparing the 1981 inventory to the 2002 inventory, the proper analysis is to compare: (1) future roadside paths in 1981 to future roadside paths in 2002, and; (2) future off-road trails in 1981 to future off-road trails in 2002. That comparison reveals an increase in future roadside paths of less than 10 miles, and a net decrease in off-road trails of 89 separate segments and more than 15 miles. This more accurate project description renders much of the IS/MND's environmental analysis transparently inaccurate; how can the 1S/MND seriously contend that the loss of more than 15 miles of off- road trails may not possibly cause significant aesthetic, biological, circulatory, and recreational impacts? These likely significant impacts must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. b. The Project Description Improperly Fails to Disclose that the Project's Proposed On-Road Sidewalks Have Little to No Environmental Value. Even if sidewalks generally provide some environmental and recreational benefits, the Project Description fails to disclose that the particular sidewalks proposed here are uniquely bereft of these benefits and, in most cases, can be fairly described as useless. Even a cursory examination of the maps provided in the IS/MND reveals that the majority of proposed new sidewalks run either from streets to the end of cul-de-sacs (providing no recreational or other Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 5 benefits), or along streets that already have one sidewalk and do not need another. In fact, the IS/MND admits that the project would require a revision to the list of street segments planned for paths on both sides of the street because the project would place additional sidewalks at approximately 23 Locations that were not previously thought to need double sidewalks. (IS/MND at 19.) These additional on-road sidewalks present little to no recreational, circulation, aesthetic, or other environmental value, and have been included only as a makeweight designed to bolster the Town's claim that the project will not result in a net loss of pathways and thus will not create potentially significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an EIR. The Committee is neither the first nor the only party to identify the obvious uselessness of most of the proposed sidewalks; indeed, the Town has received several letters from Town residents noting the same thing. Tom and Susan Mandle's letter, for example, correctly asserts that a proposed new sidewalk along Fremont Road (see Figure 9): should not be allowed as there is already a path on the opposite side of the street[. The new sidewalk] therefore serves no purpose other than to allow the committee to have a real reduction in the 1981 paths with an apparent minimum impact on the net length of the pathways in the town. This seems to be an artificial way of adding paths to the town. Three other families have written the Town to protest the lengthy sidewalk along Encinal Court (see bottom of Figure 16), correctly noting that a sidewalk would have no connectivity to any other path and would likely be impractical and unsafe due to steep terrain and insufficient space. Ms. Judy Duque has similarly noted that cul-de-sac paths provide no safety benefits because "a cul-de-sac by the nature of its design is not a speedway!" C. The Project Description Fails to Analyze.the Whole of the Action. A third key, overriding failure of the IS/MND is that it fails to analyze a reasonably forseeable future segment of the project—the abandonment or vacation of easements held by the Town after the corresponding pathways have been excised from the General Plan. The IS/MND admits that"[i]f the Town decides to remove the pathway segments from the Plan for which easements are held,generally the easements would be abandoned." (IS/MND at 19) (emphasis added.) The abandonment of these easements to neighboring property owners would lead to a variety of impacts to biological, aesthetic, and other environmental resources, yet the IS/MND utterly fails to analyze or even acknowledge these potential effects. This approach flatly violates CEQA. (Guidelines § 15064(d) ["[T]he lead agency shall consider . . . reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which are caused by the project."].) Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 6 Rather than properly identify, analyze, and mitigate these impacts in an EIR the IS/MND vaguely suggests that "some" of the removed off-road pathways are located within areas of environmental sensitivity and that conservation easements or other land use regulations "should" be used to prohibit development there. (IS/MND at 19.) This response is wholly inadequate under CEQA. The IS/MND provides no quantification of how many easements the Town currently holds, no analysis of how many pathway areas are environmentally sensitive, and no assurance that even that subset would be protected by the Town. The IS/MND offers weak assurances rather than a full analysis of the entire project, as required by CEQA. (Guidelines § 15064(f)(5) [unsubstantiated narrative shall not constitute substantial evidence.].) The CEQA Guidelines require that a Negative Declaration analyze "the whole of an action." (Guidelines § 15378(a).) The IS/MND's Project Description analyzes only one half of the action and is improper under this requirement. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 396 [environmental review document must analyze the environmental effects the future expansion of a project if"it is a reasonablv foreseeable consequence of the initial project" and will likely change the scope or nature of the project's environmental effects.]) The IS/MND similarly fails to acknowledge that the removal of many off-road pathways will render other, existing pathways irrelevant, and that these now-irrelevant paths could well be abandoned by future Town Councils. A perfect example may be found at Figure 12. The Town has proposed eliminating a lengthy off-road trail that would have run from Stonebrook Court to Edgecliff Place and Moody Road. The elimination of this path will not only wipe out a valuable set of neighborhood connections, but will also render both the existing Stonebrook Court and Edgecliff Place sidewalks wholly irrelevant pathways to nowhere. Similar examples of paths to be rendered irrelevant by the elimination of connecting trails may be found at four other locations on Figure 12, the left side of Figure 11, and Figure 16. Because it is reasonably foreseeable that the City Council will agree to abandon, vacant, or decline to construct these irrelevant paths, the consequences of this future action must analyzed in an EIR. (City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1450-5 5 [EIR invalid where document failed to describe and discuss reasonably foreseeable future uses of the project, and reflected the respondent agency's attempt to "piecemeal" the project and its environmental analysis.].) Finally, the Project Description similarly fails to analyze the potentially significant impacts that will result from implementation of the project, despite CEQA's clear direction that an initial study evaluate "all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation." (Guidelines § 15063(a)(1).) The Project Description improperly asserts that"[t]he proposed project does not include the construction of any pathways; it only changes the designation of pathways on the Master Path Plan." (IS/MND at 3.) The Town is flatly barred from Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 7 piecemealing environmental review in this way. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. of San Francisco, Inc., supra, 47 Cal.3d at 396.) d. The Project Description Is Factually Inaccurate in Several Respects. In addition, the IS/MND's limited and flawed Project Description is inaccurate even on its own terms. The IS/MND repeatedly asserts that "no existing pathways . . . would be eliminated by adoption of the proposed Plan." (IS/MND at 1, 3.) In fact, the project would eliminate the following existing trails: • An off-road trail between 11871 and 11839 Hilltop Drive (see center of Figure 13). Although residents continue to use the existing trail, a sign indicating the path has recently been destroyed, and the pathway has been plowed under. The Committee is saddened that one pathway committee member resides adjacent to this existingpath, yet still voted for its removal and inaccurate description as a recommended path. • An off-road path from Pasco de Roble to Paseo do Roble (see Figure 7). This trail was identified on both the 1981 and 1994 Master Pathway Plan maps as an existing trail. • An off-road path from Esperanza Drive to Camino Medio Court (see Figure 8). This trail was similarly identified on both the 1981 and 1994 Master Pathway Plan maps as an existing grail, yet is now misidentified as a future trail from Esperanza Drive to Viscaino Road slated for elimination. In addition, an existing on-road sidewalk around Altamont Circle and identified as an existing pathway on the 1981 Master Pathway Plan map is omitted from the current project and IS/MND. The IS/MND's failure to properly identify even such basic information as which trails exist and which are only planned renders the Project Description legally inadequate and pollutes the rest of the document's attempts at environmental analysis. The project may not proceed on the basis of this inadequate and inaccurate information. In addition, as Mr. Scott Vanderlip and other Town residents have detailed in letters to the Town Council, the IS/MND fails to acknowledge that the project would delete connection arrows included on the 1981 Master Pathway Plan map. These arrows are a critical feature of the Mater Pathway Plan, as they indicate the approximate locations of pathways through future subdivisions or large lot developments. The 1981 map included approximately 57 such arrows, and although many of them have been satisfied due to development dedications Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 8 from 1981 to the present, approximately 25 arrows are still relevant and awaiting development dedications to be connected. These approximately 25 arrows consist of. • Two or three arrows connecting pathways across the Lands of Fenwick, 28011 Elena Road. • Three arrows across the property at 28030 Charles Avenue. • Two arrows across 12820 Rhoda Drive connecting Canario Way to Rhoda Drive. • Two arrows connecting Francemont Drive to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space. • Two arrows connecting Robleda Road to West Sunset Drive. The Town recently did not require an easement dedication even though this area has a very narrow and dangerous road and thus requires additional fire access. • Five arrows across the Lands of Packard at 26580 Taaffe Road. • Two arrows connecting Old Snakey Road to Altamont Road. • Two arrows on the Silvers property on Prospect Avenue between Finn Lane and Edgecliff Place. • Two arrows on Northcrest Lane connecting the property to Olive Tree Lane. • Two arrows on Chaparel. • One arrow on Olive Tree Lane. The new proposed pathway map wholly omits these 25 arrows, with the result that at least 12 properties, some larger than 40 acres in size, may not be required to dedicate easements for off- road paths as mitigation for future subdivisions or residential development. This is a major break from the 1981 plan and the long historical tradition of Los Altos Hills, yet the IS/MND improperly fails to analyze or even acknowledge this dramatic reduction in future off-road trails. The loss of these future trails may cause potentially significant environmental effects that must be analyzed in an EIR. The IS/MND also fails to mention that it has erased a long, scenic pathway delineated on the 1981 Master Path Plan and running south of Moody Road and Adobe Creek Lodge Road to provide access to Rancho San Antonio County Park. This trail was removed not for any principled reason,but because its inclusion might require preparation of an EIR and thus force the project off its fast-track status. On August 8, 2002 the outside consulting company that prepared the Initial Study wrote the Town and stated that inclusion of the trail might require an EIR because of the potential presence of special status species or their habitats. Rather than evaluate these potential impacts in furtherance of CEQA's statutory goals, the Town and its consultant took the easy and expeditious way out—they removed a long, valuable, and scenic connector to regional open space, and then deleted any mention of it from the IS/MND. At the same time, the IS/MND preparers failed to analyze the potentially significant impacts of Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 9 removing this scenic pathway. This approach is flatly inconsistent with CEQA, and must be remedied in an EIR. IV. There Is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have a Significant Effect on Aesthetic and Scenic Resources. The IS/MND acknowledges that the project would remove four scenic trails with views or vegetation that make them visually pleasing. It is further clear from figures 7, 8, and especially 11 that the pathways to be removed are of substantial length, and represent significant scenic resources. The loss of these pathways represents a potentially significant impact requiring preparation of an EIR. Rather than acknowledge this potentially significant impact, the IS/MND laughably asserts that removing four scenic trails would actually cause beneficial aesthetic effects. (IS/MND at 33.) This response is wholly inadequate. The fact that some homes are visible from scenic trails is not an aesthetic impact either to those who use the trails or to those who live nearby; the neighbors may not like having their homes visible to recreationists, but that concern is irrelevant under CEQA. The IS/MND's other response is to argue that because the off-road trails do not yet exist, no physical impact would result when compared to the existing condition. (IS/MND at 33.) This is an improper comparison under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines define "effects" and "impacts" to include both the direct or primary effects referenced by the IS/MND, as well as "[i]ndirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time." (Guidelines § 15358(a)(1), (2).) The project may not cause an immediate physical impact to the existing condition, but it would unquestionably destroy a future environmental benefit. The proper comparison is of the visual setting without the project(which includes the eventual creation of four more scenic pathways) to the visual setting with the project(which eliminates these pathways). The IS/MND's treatment is simply contrary to CEQA. Finally, the IS/MND violates CEQA by wholly failing to identify, analyze, or even mention the scenic values of the off-road trails that are slated for elimination but not designated as "scenic" on the 1981 Master Path Plan map. (IS/MND at 33.) The IS/MND improperly assumes that a 20-year-old map is the first and last word regarding scenic resources, and offers no suggestion that its preparers visited any off-road trails to be eliminated and assessed their aesthetic values. This lack of analysis is incompatible with CEQA's plain language and must be remedied in an EIR. (Pub. Resources Code § 21168.5 ["Abuse of discretion is established if the agency['s] determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence."] f Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 10 V. There Is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have a Significant Effect on Biological Resources. The IS/MND improperly concludes that the removal of off-road trails from the Master Path Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. (IS/MND at 39.) The IS/MND fails to support this conclusion with any substantial evidence. The document preparers apparently never consulted with any representative of any state or federal wildlife agency nor any other outside biological expert. (IS/MND at 67-68.) Nor does the IS/MND include any survey of native resident or migratory wildlife species that exist in the area or that might be impacted by the project. (IS/MND at 38-39.) Nor does the IS/MND document which current and planned pathways currently serve as wildlife corridors, or identify which species use which current corridors. (IS/MND at 38-39.) The IS/MND's bare conclusion is incompatible with CEQA's policy goals and must be remedied in an EIR. (Guidelines § 15384(a) [speculation and unsubstantiated opinion do not constitute substantial evidence]; Pub. Resources Code § 21168.5 ["Abuse of discretion is established if the agency determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence."].) The IS/MND instead improperly asserts that wildlife corridors will not be impacted because "[c]onservation easements are already in place along many of the off-road pathway alignments" and fences would be prohibited within these easements. (IS/MND at 39.) This unsupported assertion is wholly inadequate under CEQA. The IS/MND fails to quantify the number of pathway alignments currently protected with conservation easements and fails to acknowledge that the remaining pathway alignments are not similarly protected and may be fenced, leading to potentially substantial environmental impacts. Under CEQA, the Town may not"hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data" and must instead fully analyze the project's environmental impacts in an EIR. (Sandstrom v. County of Medocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 ["If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences."].) The IS/MND also fails to acknowledge that conservation easements are hardly ironclad guarantees of environmental protection and may in fact be eliminated by the easement holder. The abandonment of existing conservation easements is a reasonably foreseeable possibility requiring analysis in an EIR. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.) I Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 11 VI. There Is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Cause Significant Effects i to Public Safety. The IS/MND incorrectly asserts that the project would create only a less-than- significant risk of personal loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where, as here, wildlands are adjacent to more urbanized areas and intermixed with residences. (IS/MND at 49.) The document's analysis in support of this assertion is overly formalistic and fails to adequately capture the range of public safety opportunities the project will foreclose. These unevaluated impacts must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. The IS/MND notes that the Town has already constructed some emergency access routes along existing pathways, states that the project would not result in the loss of any of these routes, and perfunctorily states that no significant impacts will result. (IS/MND at 50.) The IS/MND provides no analysis of whether these formal access routes are sufficient to guarantee complete safety in the event of a wildland fire or other natural disaster, however. The document fails to indicate whether additional emergency access routes may be necessary as the Town grows, whether off-road rails can provide important escape paths in disaster situations, or whether the project will decrease the Town's informal escape routes and leave additional citizens dependent on impermeable roads and sidewalks. Remarkably, the IS/MND preparers apparently never consulted any fire department, law enforcement, or emergency preparedness personnel before drafting their conclusory assertions. (IS/MND at 67-68.) In fact, the record contains substantial evidence that the loss of 15 miles of off- .. � trails may cause potentially significant impacts to personal safe in the event of a wildland road tra y po y � P P safety fire or other natural disaster. Ms. Lysbeth Goodman wrote the City Council more than five months ago to note that off road paths can serve an important and valuable role in getting firefighters close to fires and ordinary people out of danger. Unlike the IS/MND preparers, Ms. Goodman actually consulted with a fire department expert, who noted that during the 1991 Oakland hills fire off-road paths were used by the fire department to develop a new water delivery system and to gain access to a major house fire. This testimony represents substantial evidence that the loss of these resources in Los Altos Hills may cause a potentially significant public safety impact requiring preparation of an EIR. The IS/MND's painful silence is insufficient to rebut this substantial evidence. Nor may the Planning Commission rely on the IS/MND's assertion that the project would not expose people or structures to a significant increased risk because the off road trail alignments have not yet been built. (IS/MND at 50.) As explained in Section IV, CEQA requires an analysis of both direct and"indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time." (Guidelines § 15358(a)(1), (2).) The removal of off-road trails from the Master Pathway Plan map will likely result in the abandonment of Town-owned — - - Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 12 easements, allowing many neighboring property owners to fence their properties and block informal emergency access. The IS/MND may not simply avoid this potentially significant secondary impact; the impact must instead be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. VII. There Is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Cause Significant Effects on Local Land Use. The IS/MND improperly and inaccurately concludes that the project does not conflict with the Town General Plan or any other applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. The project in fact directly conflicts with the Circulation, Open Space, Recreation, and Pathway Elements of the General Plan. These conflicts and the resulting environmental impacts must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. The project sharply conflicts with the Circulation Element's policy declaring that "the Town is meant to be largely impermeable to cars but permeable to equestrians and those on foot and bicycle." (IS/MND at 23.) The project would remove more than 15 miles of off-road trails which connect neighborhoods and Town resources and provide exactly the circulation links and permeability described by the Circulation Element. This conflict, and the resulting loss of circulation and permeability is a potentially significant impact under CEQA requiring preparation of an EIR. This conflict cannot be alleviated by the addition of new on-road sidewalks, as the IS/MND suggests. (IS/MND at 29.) If the Town's streets are "impermeable" to efficient transportation by design, then so too are on-road sidewalks that run alongside them. The proposed project will greatly restrict equestrian, pedestrian, and other recreational transportation, in clear and direct conflict with the General Plan Circulation Element. The IS/MND similarly conflicts with the language and spirit of the Open Space, Recreation, and Pathway elements. These elements must be read in accordance with the Town's "major community goals" of"maintaining a rural atmosphere, where people can live in the midst of open space" and maintaining "a transition between the urbanized mid-peninsula and the open coastal mountain range." (IS/MND at 23.) By removing off-road open spaces in favor of additional sidewalks, the project pursues the polar opposite policy goals and flatly conflicts with the General Plan. The project would increase the number of roadway sidewalks, increasing the Town's physical resemblance to an urban community, and greatly decrease the number and mileage of off-road trails, reducing the residents' ability to "live in the midst of open space." (ISNIND at 23.) By removing off-road trails, the project would greatly reduce the number of "small scale open space[s]" available to residents, in direct conflict with the first objective of the Open Space Element. (IS/MND at 25.) The project would also greatly reduce recreation opportunities for hikers, equestrians, and others who rely on off-road trails and justifiably find on-road sidewalks to be of little or no value, in conflict with a clear objective of the Recreation Element. (IS/MND at 25.) Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 13 Finally, the project directly conflicts with a number of goals and objectives of the Pathway Element. The project would reduce "safe and convenient pedestrian and other non- vehicular travel . . . to schools and community facilities"by forcing pedestrians and other non- vehicular travelers to rely on less safe, less efficient, and less convenient roadside sidewalks, in conflict with Goal 1. (IS/MND at 26.) The project also conflicts with Goal 1 by eliminating the off-road trails most suitable for hikers, equestrians, and other recreationists, reducing recreational enjoyment of the community. (IS/MND at 26.) These conflicts are not ameliorated by the project's proposed increase in on-road sidewalks; sidewalks provide impermeability rather than safe and convenient access to schools and facilities, and provide substantially less recreational enjoyment than off-road trails. The project similarly conflicts with the first off-road path policy of the Pathway Element, which states that "[c]ul-de-sacs should have off-road paths which connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods." (IS/MND at 27.) The project proposes no such off-road paths, and would instead remove off-road trails that provide exactly this connectivity. The project would eliminate more than 15 miles of off-road trails, which "provide connections between neighborhoods and provide direct routes to schools and open space." (IS/MND at 27.) The J ro"ect cannot remed this conflict by creating more on-road sidewalks which run to the end p Y of cul-de-sacs but no further. Rather than admit the clear consequences of the project, the IS/MND claims that the project "would continue to reinforce the rural and natural atmosphere of the community by providing direct access to more residences than the 1981 Master Path Plan." (IS/MND at 29.) That is a non-sequitur and is wholly irrelevant. The issue of residential access, while important, is completely separate from maintaining the rural and natural atmosphere of the community. That rural and natural atmosphere is furthered by expanding the Town's web of natural open space trails, not by increasing the number of cul-de-sac homes that have direct access to sidewalks. The project also directly conflicts with the Pathway Element's statement that the Juan Bautista de Anza National Trail "should be designated on the Town's master path plan." (IS/MND at 28.) As Mr. Les Earnest has documented in detail in a recent letter forwarded to the Town city manager, the IS/MND's claim that the project "would not result in the discontinuity of the retracement of the Anza trail" is simply false. In sum, the project conflicts with the letter and the spirit of at least four General Plan elements, and would turn the plan's primary community goals on their head. Instead of preserving a rural atmosphere unique in the Bay Area, the project would cause the Town to more closely resemble every other urban community: streets bordered by one or more sidewalks, a transportation system that favors vehicular travel, and recreational and open space opportunities Planning Commission September 25, 2002 I Page 14 provided by wholly separate parcels slated for that use. These substantial conflicts, and the potentially significant environmental impacts the project may cause, must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. VIII. There Is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Cause Significant Effects on Town Recreation. This section of the IS/MND is unconscionably brief, and legally inadequate on several different levels. The proposed project would eliminate more than 15 miles of off-road recreational trails, causing significant direct impacts and indirectly increasing the future use of local parks, equestrian facilities, and remaining off-road trails. The resulting potentially I significant impacts must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. The IS/MND preparers do not appear to have contacted any recreational organization, any equestrian group, any hiking club, or any other local or regional group of recreationists before baldly asserting that the project could not cause any potentially significant impact. (IS/MND at 67-68.) The IS/MND instead recites its mantra that the project would lead to a pathway reduction of only 3.9 miles. (IS/MND at 62.) I v in I As noted above however. This claim is bath incorrect and legally irrelevant, I _ - dissimilar recreational f road trails and o n road sidewalks pro vide vastly d ss n 111(a), of echoY Sp � benefits. On-road sidewalks admittedly provide value to walkers,joggers, and bicyclists. But they are largely useless to hikers, who, by definition, require off-road open space areas. On-road sidewalks also provide far less value to equestrians. Sidewalks are far harder on horses' hooves than natural trails, and their proximity to motor vehicles increases the potential for horses to spook and throw their riders. The proposed project clearly represents a significant loss of recreational opportunities for hikers and equestrians and will lead to an increase in use of existing parks and other recreational facilities, accelerating their physical deterioration. These potentially significant impacts must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. The IS/MND also incorrectly asserts that the project would not cause the loss of any linkages to regional recreation or open space areas. In fact, as described above in Section III(d), the IS/MND preparers have acknowledged that the project would erase a lengthy, scenic pathway linking Los Altos Hills to Rancho San Antonio County Park. The removal of this scenic connector is a potentially significant impact requiring preparation of an EIR. Finally, the IS/MND fails on even the most basic level. The IS/MND acknowledges that the project will cause a potentially significant recreational impact, but concludes that the impact will be rendered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (IS/MND at 62.) The document then states, surprisingly, that "[n]o mitigation measures are I Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 15 required or proposed." (Id.) Not to belabor the obvious, but if the project's recreational impacts are potentially significant absent mitigation, and mitigation measures are in fact absent, then these impacts must be considered potentially significant and must be analyzed in an EIR. IX. There Is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Cause Significant Effects on Town Transportation and Circulation. The project directly impacts the Town's stated goal of providing easy access for equestrians and pedestrians while remaining "largely impermeable" to motor vehicles. (IS/MND at 23.) As the IS/MND concedes, "the Town is meant to be largely impermeable to cars but permeable to equestrians and those on foot and on bicycle." (IS/MND at 23, 63.) Yet the project proposes eliminating off-road pathways which provide links between neighborhoods and Town resources, and replacing them with sidewalks which are, by definition,just as inefficient and impermeable as the roads they run beside. The project, if approved, would greatly reduce the Town's permeability to equestrians and other recreationists, a potentially significant impact IS/MND at 63.) requiring preparation of an EIR. ( q gp p The IS/MND fails to analyze or even acknowledge this potentially significant impact, despite the clear language of the General Plan Conservation Element and the Town's adopted policies supporting non-vehicular transportation. This absence of analysis in inadequate under CEQA, the potentially significant loss of pedestrian, equestrian, and other recreational transportation routes represents a potentially significant impact under CEQA and must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. The IS/MND similarly fails to acknowledge that the removal of many of the off- road pathways will cause indirect circulation impacts by rendering existing pathways irrelevant. As discussed above in Section III(c), the Town has proposed eliminating a variety of off-road trails designed to link Town neighborhoods together. Without these trails, neighborhoods will be accessible only through roads and roadway sidewalks. As the Circulation Element indicates and the IS/MND implicitly concedes, the project represents a massive reduction in pedestrian and equestrian transportation and circulation options, a potentially significant impact under CEQA. X. There Is Substantial Record Evidence that the Project May Cause Significant Cumulative Impacts. The IS/MND simply fails to analyze the project's potentially significant cumulative impacts on regional recreational, open space, and other environmental resources. CEQA requires public agencies to identify and analyze a project's cumulative impacts, which consist of impacts created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the i Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 16 environmental review document together with other projects causing related impacts. (Guidelines § 15130(a)(1).) An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is "cumulatively considerable." (Guidelines § 15064(i)(1).) "Cumulatively considerable," in turn, means that the incremental effects of the project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, and probable future projects. (Id.) The CEQA Guidelines thus require the Town to identify all past, present, and probable future projects in the Town and its regional setting that may impact the same resources as the present project, and then quantitatively evaluate whether the project will produce a "cumulatively considerable" contribution to one or more of these impacts. (ld.) The IS/MND offers no list of other local and regional projects, no assessment of the project's contribution to cumulative impacts, and, in fact, no analysis of cumulative effects at all. The IS/MND's bare, conclusory assertion that "the proposed project would not result in impacts that can be considered cumulatively considerable" is wholly untenable under CEQA. (Guidelines § 15064(f)(5) [unsubstantiated opinion shall not constitute substantial evidence].) The IS/MND's failure to conduct any cumulative impact analysis is particularly galling in light of the vital importance of this requirement. The courts have held that: The purpose of this [cumulative impact analysis] requirement is obvious: consideration of the effects of a project or projects as if no others existed would encourage the piecemeal approval of several projects that, taken together, could overwhelm the natural environment and disastrously overburden the man-made infrastructure and vital community services. This would effectively defeat CEQA's mandate to review the actual effect of the projects upon the environment. (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 306.) Environmental review documents: must reflect a conscientious effort to provide public agencies and the general public with adequate and relevant detailed information about [cumulative impacts]. [Citation.] A cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerning the environmental consequences of a project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval. [Citation.] An inadequate cumulative impact analysis does not demonstrate to an apprehensive i _ Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 17 citizenry that the governmental decisionmaker has in fact fully analyze and considered the environmental consequences of its action. (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421; 431.) The past year alone has seen several projects that will impact the same aesthetic, biological, transportation, recreational, and other environmental resources affected by this project. The past, present, and probable future projects within Los Altos Hills include: • The City Council's January 17, 2002 vacation of a pedestrian and equestrian ease ment over the Lands of Perrell. • The City Council's April 18, 2002 vacation of a pedestrian and equestrian easement over the Lands of Carse. • The City Council's recent decision to inventory Town-owned open space and public recreation properties for the purpose of potentially relocating Westwind Community Barn and potentially selling the O'Keefe property and the Story Hill Property, as detailed in the minutes of the April 18, 2002 City Council special meeting. • The Town's recent decision to not require off-road path dedications over three major development projects. The Town did not require off-road pathway connections through the Lands of Huang or the Lands of Cottrell. The past Mayor has similarly appealed a pathway connection over the Lands of Mendez, although no final resolution has been reached. In addition, the Town must identify and analyze the project in light of the loss of other open space and recreational resources in the neighboring areas of Santa Clara County. When viewed in light of these past, present, and probable future projects, it is clear that the project is part of a cumulatively consideration impact on biological resources and a cumulatively considerable reduction in recreational, open space, and circulation opportunities in the Town of Los Altos Hills and its surrounding areas. XI. The IS/MND Improperly Fails to Consider One of CEQA's Mandatory Findings of Significance. The CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency"shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared for the project" if"[t]he project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals." (Guidelines § 15065, (b).) I i Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 18 The IS/MND wholly omits any evaluation or analysis of this mandatory environmental criteria. (IS/MND at 66.) The IS/MND is thus legally inadequate under CEQA and may not be adopted nor the project approved without amendment. (Guidelines § 15065(b).) Moreover, the record demonstrates that the project will cause a potentially significant impact to long-term environmental goals requiring preparation of an EIR. The project may create some slight and short-term environmental benefits by eliminating future construction of off-road trails, but the long-term damage to biological resources, recreational opportunities, local circulation, and other environmental resources will be severe. These impacts must be identified, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. x1l. The IS/MND Violates CEQA by Failing to Discuss the Project's Environmental Setting. CEQA plainly states that an initial study"shall contain . . . [a]n identification of the environmental setting." (Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The IS/MND flatly omits this required element; nowhere does the document discuss the local physical environment, the regional setting (particularly with regard to regional open space and recreational resources and wildlife habitat), and the location of schools and other public facilities. The IS/MND thus violates CEQA and may not be approved without amendment. XIII. Approval of the Project Would Render the General Plan Internally Inconsistent. Government Code section 65300.5 provides that the "Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." Courts have routinely noted that "[t]he requirement of consistency is the linchpin of California's land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law." (deBottari v. Norco City Council(1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213.) The IS/MND's conclusion that the project is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan is unsupportable. As discussed above in Section IX, the project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element's declaration that "the Town is meant to be largely impermeable to cars but permeable to equestrians and those on foot and on bicycle." (IS/MND at 23, 63.) The project, if approved, would greatly reduce the Town's permeability to equestrians and other recreationists, and render the Circulation Element inconsistent. (IS/MND at 63.) The project would similarly conflict with the goals articulated in the Open Space, Recreation, and Pathway elements, which are designed to "maintain[] a rural atmosphere, where i I Planning Commission September 25, 2002 Page 19 people can live in the midst of open space." (IS/MND at 23.) The project would increase the number of roadway sidewalks, increasing the Town's physical resemblance to an urban community, and greatly decrease the number and mileage of off-road trails, reducing the residents' ability to "live in the midst of open space." (IS/MND at 23.) The project would similarly render the Open Space Element's objective of creating and preserving "small scale open space" and Pathway Element Goal G1 and Objective BI internally inconsistent. (IS/MND at 25-27.) XIV. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee for the Preservation of Los Altos Hills respectfully requests that the Planning Commission delay action on this project, decline to adopt the proposed IS/MND, and instead reach out to all segments of the Los Altos Hills community to establish a consensus-based approach to evaluating the current pathway system. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP I e(z B. HOOPER JEFFREY M. BRAX cc: Steve Mattas, Esq. (via facsimle and mail) Dan Kalb, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter(via facsimile and mail) L. Craig Britton and Mary C. Davey, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District i (via facsimile and mail) Denice Dade, Committee for Green Foothills (via facsimile and mail) Jane Mark, Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Department (via facsimile and mail) CUM M Li i u+ [P: atYllii�0`il'P'C�atter.W(�,.,,;� i i i i I RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2002 6AlDPENNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT i Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT I To: Board of Directors From: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Date: October 9, 2002 Re: FYI's �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 Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Memorandum To: Board of Directors From: Craig Britton, General Managi r Date: October 9, 2002 Re: Permit to Enter Under the authority granted to me by Resolution No. 96-22, on October 1, 2002, I executed a Permit to Enter for the Navy and its contractor to enter the Stevens Creek Nature Study Area for purposes of soil sampling in connection with the clean-up of contaminants. Stevens Creek Nature Study Area is adjacent to Moffett Field and the Navy is responsible for the remediation of District land. The sampling is minor in nature and the Permit to Enter is brief and temporary, lasting only a couple of days. All disturbed ground will be restored to its prior condition. Since the contamination is on District land there was no alternative to this Permit to Enter. I 'll I'�, I