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