Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 16Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee Los Altos Hills Council Chambers FINAL Minutes of January 16, 2014 Members Present: George Clifford, Nancy Coupems, Karen Lemes, Alice Salcamoto, Sharen Schoendorf, Roger Spreen, Jean Struthers, Wendie Ward, Sue Welch Members Absent: None Associate Members Present: Kit Gordon City Council Liaison Present: Gary Waldeck 1. Call to Order and Approval of Minutes The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am. Minutes of the December 19, 2013 meeting were approved with no amendments. The agenda was approved as written. 2. Current Business A. Natoma subdivision discussion. Roger Spreen presented the draft OSC response to the subdivision map for discussion and editing (Attachrment IA). OSC discussed content, made edits, and corrected typos. RS will incorporate the suggested edits and submit the revised document (Attachment IB) to the Planning Dept. SS, AS, and SW recused themselves for property proximity. RS moved that the OSC approve the document as revised. JS seconded; the vote was in 6 in favor with 3 abstaining for proximity. B. Other Plan Reviews. 27640 Sherlock Road. GC reviewed the development plans, observations from a site visit, and a draft recommendation for Plarming Department (Attachment 2). Much of the property has slope >60% and some areas are without vegetation (bare dirt). The adjacent properties on both sides have open space easements abutting this property. OSC reviewed criteria for OS easements and their application to this property. RS moved that the OSC approve the recormmendations as written with minor changes (e.g., suggest owners plant vegetation on the steep bare slope to help stabilize it.) SW seconded. The vote was 8 in favor with KL abstaining for proxii- ity.. C. Leash Law Enforcement and Coyotes in Byrne Preserve. Councihmember Gary Waldeck spoke with Town staff about options to improve compliance with leash laws. Sheriffs (who have a substation at Westwind Barn) can do once -a week patrols in Byrne and WWB and additional signs can be posted informing visitors about leash laws and presence of coyotes. A letter from a resident and a newspaper iteral were distributed (Attaclurrent 3 and 4). Examples of educational materials from City of Palo Alto and Project Coyote were distributed (Attachment 5A -5C). OSC discussed costs and benefits of options. JS moved that the OSC ask the Town to have the sheriff periodically patrol Byrne and WWB for off -leash dogs. NC seconded; the vote was unanimously in favor. Town staff asked OSC to organize a public information meeting about coyotes. OSC discussed options for presenters (i.e., George Hebert of SWAT Pest Control, Camilla Fox of Project Coyote, or both). The consensus was that Project Coyote is preferable because it is a large, nationally recognized organization with staff and scientific advisory board comprised of academic wildlife biologists and ecologists and has extensive experience providing public outreach and education programs. RS moved that the OSC ask the Town to engage Camilla Fox of Project Coyote to present a public education forum on coyotes. SF seconded; the vote was unanimously in favor. D. CEQA Update. Nothing to report. OSC FINAL Minutesl4-0120.doex E. Lehigh i Quarry Update. Councilmember Gary Waldeck reported that at a recent City Council meeting, Council discussed complaints from residents about blasting in the quarry. Blasts measured at 2.9 on the Richter scale have been reported. The Town will determine if this activity is legal and request notification prior to blasting. Lehigh will meet with RWQCB on Feb 12 to discuss response to notice of violation that was issued. F. Open Space Stewardship Proposal. SW reported that four vendors attended that mandatory pre-bid meeting on January 7, 2014. Deadline for proposals is January 28. G. Fence Permit Report. No issues for OSC for the two permits that were reviewed. H. Subcommittee on Tree Cutting Policy. Nothing to report. I. Creek Sins in LAH. Signs at major creek crossings would increase public awareness of local creeks and enhance public safety in the event of floods by assuring residents know locations of nearby creeks. KG provided sample designs (metal and wood; Attachinent 6) and OSC discussed pros and cons. Nine or ten crossings have been identified as potential sites. KG will consult Richard Chiu about staff preferences and cost estimates. Funds may be available from Guadalupe -Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD). J. Town newsletter article. In early January, OSC submitted a short item on ticks to Alex Atkins (editor) for the next Town newsletter. 3. New Business A. Proposed Verizon cell tower in O'Keefe Open Space Preserve. Discussion deferred because the Verizon representative did not attend (Attaclmlent 7). B. Proposed Roadway around Westwind Barn (WWB). Staff requested OSC input about construction of a new road in Byre Preserve. The road was proposed in response to a complaint from a former WWB horse boarder and also as an alternative to the road down the hill on the WWB property for constriction vehicles to access the lower arena. GC distributed a map showing the proposed route running SE from the WWB entrance near Altamont Road into Byrne Preserve, down the slope and then back SW to comlect to the WWB lands at the bottom of the hill below the bars (Attachment 8). The new road would have to be graded and widened to 12 feet to accommodate tricks. The Town upgraded the existing road and walkway on the WWB property a few months ago. OSC discussed pros and cons of the proposed road, including whether it was compatible with OS goals and management policies. A resident and long-time WWB horse boarder sent a statement opposing the new road and suggesting changes to the existing road on WWB property (Attaclmlent 9). RS moved that in lieu of additional information, the OSC categorically disapproves any new pathways or roads constructed in the preserve. SF seconded; the vote was unanimously in favor. C. Review "charges and duties" of OSC. Deferred. D. Review "Guide to Standing; Committees". Chair distributed copies of Town guidelines for committees and asked members to read it carefully. 4. Open Discussion. A. Conservation/Open Space Easement Database. Several years ago NC started a hard copy database with maps and descriptions from deeds for properties with existing conservation and open space easements and provided it to Town staff. A complete database would useful to the Planning Dept and OSC. Add this item to agenda for next meeting (Attachment 10). B. Kit Gordon was renewed as an Associate Member of the OSC. OSC thanked her for her many contributions to the committee. OSC FINAL Minutesl4-0120.docx 2 5. Presentations from the Floor None 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 AM. Next Meeting: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:00 AM at Town Hall Council Chambers Hard copies of attachunents are filed with City Clerk: Attachment 1: Draft and edited OSC letter to staff on Natoma subdivision Attachment 2: OSC reconnnendations for open space easement on 26740 Sherlock Road Attachment 3: Letter from resident about coyotes Attachment 4: Letter to SF Chronicle editor, "Coyote misinformation in column" Attachment 5: Educational materials from Project Coyote (Be Coyote Aware and Coyote Hazing) Attachment 6: Sample designs for creek signs Attaclunent 7: Verizon cell tower in O'Keefe info Attachment 8: Map showing route of proposed new road in Byrne Preserve Attaclunent 9: Letter from resident and horse boarder opposing new road in Byrne Preserve Attachment 10: Guidelines for Standing Connnittees Appl-ovecl Feb 20, 2014 OSC FINAL Minutesl4-0120.docx opm Spa&, Cz)vwm A-ee rUli To: Cynthia Richardson, Debbie Pedro & Carl Cahill Date: January 16, 2014 Subject- Open -Space Committee Comments on Stirling sul)divj.-'i0n prCpo.-nl Introduction: LAH Responsibilities The LAH Town Municipal Code concerning Subdivisions states that its purpose includes: - To preserve and protect the natural beauty and the established character of the community and, through good design, to provide for a harmonious relationship between completed subdivisions and the natural environment. (9-1.102-d) More significantly, on the Town's Land Use map, the majority of this parcel's boundaries fall within a regions defined as Open Space Conservation Area (emphasis added): - Within these areas, special measures should be taken to conserve the natural quality of the area and to avoid environmental degradation. Residences should be placed on the most buildable portions of lands designated OSCA and carefully sited so as to preserve existing trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat. (LAH General Plan, p. LU -5) We, the Open Space Cornmittee, feel that the preliminary plans do not accomplish the purpose of the Subdivision code, nor have sufficient special measures been taken to conserve these areas. To the contrary, this plan appears to maximize development and minimize mitigations and protections, and is thus inconsistent with Town policies, goals, and ordinances regarding protection of envionnnentally-sensitive conservation areas. Overview The Preliminary Subdivision plan for the 18 -acre Lands of Stirling is one of the largest subdivision projects in many years, and is one of the most enviromnentally valuable and sensitive and valuable areas of Town. This property: - Includes a major creek corridor. - Has extensive steep slopes. - Has mature oak woodlands. - Provides significant wildlife habitat. - Serves as a critical hub for wildlife movement between the major open space areas in this part of Town, linking Arastradero Preserve, Matadero Creek, Poor Clare's area, and Byrne Preserve. - Has a steep, heavily vegetated swale creating a creek tributary. The Town has an obligation to preserve these valuable natural features as outlined in the goals and policies of the LAH General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed plan maximizes the building lots, with only the minimum required areas preserved (through open space easements). Only minor changes have been made from the previous proposal, with limited new protections. Because it is by far the largest undeveloped parcel being developed in this area of the Town (FYI Lands of Fenwick are larger), this parcel represents the final opportunity for the Town to properly balance development and environment in this area, and to avoid a suburban grid that we have seen in other areas of the Town. The Town has an obligation to preserve these valuable natural features as required by the goals and policies of the LAH General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Because it is by far the largest undeveloped parcel beuig developed in this area of the Town, this parcel represents the final opportunity for the Town to responsibly balance development and environment inn this area. The developers have made only minor changes in the plans from the previous proposal (7/2012) and the revised subdivision (10/2013) is still very high density. Developers have moved the road to the east and made minor changes in the shapes of several lots, but the total member of lots (9) and overall configuration are the same. Further, the developers have not adequately addressed many of the OSC recoumnendations. The revised map includes an open space easement over part of the very steep southern and western slopes as recommended by the OSC. However, the revised map does not address other major conservation areas OSC reconnunended for other areas that the Town usually seeks to preserve and/or protect from development (e.g., steep slopes, mature oak woodlands, and watercourses) . Comparables To express how we believe this proposal is insufficient, we believe it is fair to compare this proposal to another recent project in Town, the Nicholson subdivision: The Stirling proposal has double the density and a significantly smaller proportion of open space. Protecting the Rural Character: Preventing a walled-off grid The Subdivision Ordinance requires that significant thought needs to be given to creating a subdivision that maintains the open space characteristics of both the Town and the adjacent existing neighborhoods. This area has already seen a notable increase in "giidding" due to property line fencing, some of which was initiated by the extremely long continuous boundary fence installed along the entire north border of the Stirling property in 2005. By packing in the large number of lots with no separation, the proposed subdivision virtually guarantees a complete walling off of this neighborhood. This would be completely antithetical to the Town's goals of preserving rural, open space enviromnents. We believe that some sort of permanent fencing provisions, preferably a small fencing setback of 10 feet along property lines, must be included in this proposal to prevent this from happening. The Town has the obligation to Mitigate this development to preserve the character and natural beauty of the area, and doing so will not be a burden to the future lot owners. 2 Nicholson Stirling Size 12.6 acres 18.2 acres Lots 3 lots 9 lots Avg lot size 4.20 acres/lot 2.02 acres/lot Ave, slope 25% 28% Open Space 49% 39.7% The Stirling proposal has double the density and a significantly smaller proportion of open space. Protecting the Rural Character: Preventing a walled-off grid The Subdivision Ordinance requires that significant thought needs to be given to creating a subdivision that maintains the open space characteristics of both the Town and the adjacent existing neighborhoods. This area has already seen a notable increase in "giidding" due to property line fencing, some of which was initiated by the extremely long continuous boundary fence installed along the entire north border of the Stirling property in 2005. By packing in the large number of lots with no separation, the proposed subdivision virtually guarantees a complete walling off of this neighborhood. This would be completely antithetical to the Town's goals of preserving rural, open space enviromnents. We believe that some sort of permanent fencing provisions, preferably a small fencing setback of 10 feet along property lines, must be included in this proposal to prevent this from happening. The Town has the obligation to Mitigate this development to preserve the character and natural beauty of the area, and doing so will not be a burden to the future lot owners. 2 In addition, openings should be provided in the existing fence along the eastern and northern border as a condition of subdivision. Providing breaks will allow a safer alternate route to the east for wildlife than forcing them to follow the cul-de-sac entrance road that intersects Natoma Road at a very sharp curve with poor sight distance for cars. Preventing wildlife issues Because this property supports resident wildlife species and serves as an established and heavily used hub for wildlife movement through the Town, the impact of high-density development on wildlife must be considered, for the sake of the surrounding neighborhood. It is the Town's responsibility to preserve wildlife habitat (which includes its migratory routes) as much as possible in the face of permitted development, and it also needs to protect surrounding neighborhoods from permanent, significant changes to the flow of wildlife. Failing to protect the significant and established wildlife area in this proposed subdivision is inconsistent with LAH Subdivision Ordinance and with the values and goals explicitly described in the LAH General Plan: - Special concern and scrutiny will be paid to the relationship of the subject property to surrounding properties. (Municipal Code, Subdivisions, 9-1.501) - Maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat. (LAH General Plan: Conservation. Element. Wildlife Species and Habitat, Goal 3) - Conservation of this [wildlife] habitat is not only important for the protection of wildlife, but also for the conservation of the semi -rural atmosphere of the community. To protect areas of significant wildlife habitat, such as creeks and riparian corridors, the dedication of conservation/open space easements should be encouraged. (LAH General Plan: Conservation Element. Wildlife Species and Habitat 314) - There is a need for planning to provide for effective protection and conservation of the Town's wildlife heritage, while continuing to allow appropriate development and land use. Planning for natural movement of wildlife can help to avoid, minimize and compensate for serious negative impacts on wildlife and humans. Areas that link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals such as deer, fox, bobcat and coyote are prevented by roads, fences, homes, and other development from moving freely as they once did. (LAH General Plan: Conservation. Element. Wildlife Species and Habitat 315) - To the degree that the natural amenities, characteristics, topography, vegetation and wildlife, are preserved, the probability of acceptance of a given subdivision will be enhanced. (LAH Subdivision Ordinance 9-1.501) Consistency with Town policies can easily be achieved by assuring that although the subdivision may reduce the existing routes, it should not eliminate any. The routes on the western side of the property will be maintained by the proposed easements over the creek and steep slopes. However, the eastern border of the property also currently serves as a critical, active route for wildlife to access lands to the east; as proposed, this subdivision would allow that route to be completely cut off by lot fencing. 3 Allowing this to happen will cause significant disturbance of wildlife flow, and risks causing negative effects to other houses and roads in the neighborhood. To access established foraging lands to the east, wildlife would be forced to travel along the cul-de-sac and the subdivision entrance road and cross Natoma Road at the sharp curve where there is poor sight distance for cars. The Town has a responsibility to protect the surrounding neighborhood by preserving this route, even if only in a minimal fashion. The Town's goal can minintize the disturbance to wildlife patterns by preserving a 25 -foot open space easement along the eastern border. In this way, the Town could insure that unintended consequences do not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. This proposed eastern border easement represents only 2.5% of the total area of the parcel; note the much smaller amount of open space currently proposed by the Stirling subdivision compared to the Nicholson subdivision above. Furthermore, this same easement also directly addresses the suburbangridding problem of boundary fencing mentioned previously. This one easement strip would solve both problems permanently, and would clearly not be an undue burden on the subdivision. Requiring these easements will not reduce the number of lots, the MDA or MFA of the lots, or the general configuration the developers have proposed. We strongly recommend the Town require this 25 -foot easement along the entire eastern border. Oak Trees: Oak Grove & Road Alignment Failing to protect the mature oak grove near the entrance to the property and in the proposed road realigmnent is inconsistent with Town policies to preserve and protect heritage oaks. Further, the developers have not accurately shown all the trees on the Preliminary map as is required by the LAH Subdivision Ordinance. - The preliminary map shall contain the following information: Location of existing native and ornamental trees, including outline areas of species of orchard trees; ... Trees in concentrated areas shall be appropriately marked on the said map, and shall be matched with a corresponding legend indicator. Trees to be removed shall be appropriately marked by a symbol set forth in the legend. (LAH Subdivision Ordinance 9-1.406 c 26) The revised map does not even show all the oaks that are shown on the developer's previous map. For example, the revised map omits 19 oaks on Lots 1 and 2 from the Tree Table, 17 of which are heritage oaks. These oaks are shown as dots on the revised map, but have no diameters indicated and are not included in the Tree Table. This grove requires permanent protection in the form of an open space easement. This grove has a defined border, and is contiguous with the border of the property. It should not be left to the individual lot owner to decide how to impact this grove. It is a significant stand of heritage oaks, and helps define the open space characteristics of the neighborhood; the Town must protect it with an open space easement for the sake of the neighborhood. This will have no burden on future developers. The road has been re -aligned in a way that removes significantly more oak trees than the previous alignment. hi the previous plan, developers reported 5 trees would have to be removed for the road (not including additional trees in the two required emergency pull-outs). Page 3 of the revised map shows 16 trees to be removed for the realigned road. An additional 7 trees will be removed for the access road to Natoma (plan not previously submitted). Additional trees will 0 also have to be removed for the two required 50 -foot emergency pull-outs alongside the road. These trees need to be indicated (for removal) and included in the total impact of the subdivision. Also, trees that are shown within proposed driveway locations and building footprints are marked as "preserved," which is not accurate. This confusing notation lets them over -report the member of trees preserved, and simultaneously request implicit permission to remove them. This is all the more reason why the aforementioned oak grove must be preserved by easement: Policy 2.2: Preserve and protect native and naturalized plants, with special attention to preservation of unique, rare or endangered species and plant communities such as oak woodlands. Policy 2.3 Preserve and protect Heritage Trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. LAH General Plan. Conservation Element Matadero Creek Feeder/Swale In response to the developers' previous proposal, we recommended that the open space easement protecting the steep slopes along the western bonder should extend up to include the steep swale that forms a feeder of Matadero Creek. It is clearly an active waterway, and requires the normal easement protections of creeks & swales. In addition, this area is steeply sloped, heavily wooded, and includes large oaks. When we walked the property with the developers' engineer, we pointed out that the developers' map did not appear to accurately reflect the terrain in the area of the swale. The revised map does not even shown the feeder (as required by the Town and state subdivision ordinances), and the map under -reports the severity of the swale. The preliminary map shall contain the following information: Unusual features of terrain, such as rock outcrops, tree masses, watercourses, in and adjacent to the proposed subdivision. (LAH Subdivision Ordinance 9-1.406, c 12) It is evident from walking the site, from overhead photos, and from the Town topo map that this area of terrain is well-defined by the significant vegetation around it. We continue to recommend that this entire area be protected by open space easement to protect the slope, the watercourse, and the mature oak woodland vegetation. This would be no burden on the developer. - Steep slopes, canyons and ravines in excess of 30% slope, as well as natural swales and drainage channels, and geologic hazard areas within the subdivision should be undisturbed and preserved in their natural condition to the maximum extent feasible. (LAH General Plan Land Use Element Goal 2, Policy 2.5) Connecting Adjacent Open Space Easements It is always the Town's goal to connect open space easements on adjacent properties, to form additive contiguous areas of protection. The existurg adjacent open space easements (OSE's) are notated as part of this proposal to assure they are connected; several of these adjacent areas were specifically designed with the intention to ultimately connect with the terrain on the Stirling side of the property line. These easements include: - 28025 Natoma Road (Lands of Sloss, March 2006). The Town required an OSE all along the western border from Charles Ave to the adjacent lot on Natoma. The western border near Charles Ave abuts the proposed Stirling subdivision. - 12400 Melody Lane (Lands of Wood), Jan 2009). The Town required a 1.79 - acre OSE along the full length of the northern and southwestern border. This easement comprises 1.79 acres, representing 49% of the parcel. (Note comparison of this easement percentage with the Stirling proposal and Nicholson subdivision in the previous table.) 13458 South Fork Lane (Lands of Yong). The Town required an OSE be placed over the northwestern slope of the property to preserve the steep slopes and oak grove. This OSE connects to the proposed Stirling subdivision and to lands to the north. - 13300 and 13311 Country Lane. Large OSEs were created on the eastern portions of these lots when the Matadero Creek Subdivison was put in. These provide connections to the north along Matadero Creek and to the west. CEQA Considerations It is a requirement of CEQA that a project not have a substantial impact on the environment. The significant size of this property, combined with its environmental value (as discussed at length above), means that unusual efforts must be taken to consider this proposed subdivision's overall impact. For the Town to request a Categorical Exemption from CEQA, there would have to be no impact from this project. Given the significant existing wildlife habitat and corridors, it does not seem that this argument can be made. The fence placed on the property caused a significant wildlife impact; clearly a relatively high density (for this area) development would cause even more disturbance to both the habitat and corridors. While a Mitigated Negative Declaration might be a more appropriate route, we believe that in its current form, the proposed subdivision does not reasonably consider or mitigate its impacts. In a proposal of this size, it is not sufficient to rely on good intentions; CEQA exists to insure that these factors are accurately measured and analyzed to avoid a permanent loss of natural resources. We look to the Town to lead a discussion on how this unique property and the highly significant disturbances incorporated in this subdivision proposal can be properly evaluated to match the CEQA requirements. Recommendations To be consistent with Town policies and goals stated in the LAH General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, the OSC recommends the following: • Require fencing setbacks along all property lines, to preserve the open space character and prevent suburban -type gridding. • Breaks should be provided in the existing eastern & northern boundary fence to allow an alternate route to the East for wildlife that is away from the entrance road that exits at the sharp curve on Natoma. • The oak grove near the entrance must be preserved with an open space easement. • The entire western and southern portions of the parcel, which consist of steeply sloped, dense oak woodland should be placed in open space easement. This easement should be made to connect with easements on adjacent properties and: 1) extend all the way to the northern border (i.e., include the area of the pathway easement); and 2) extend all the way to road edge near the entrance to the subdivision, and include the heritage Valley oak (Tree #11). • As the Open Space Committee recoimnended in July 2012, the northern and eastern borders should have a 2.5 -foot easement applied to provide an open space buffer with the adjacent neighborhood, to preserve the existing open space character and prevent closing them off with a straight row of new houses right up against all their properties. This will also prevent negative impacts of distorting the existnig flow of wildlife through the area. The proposed pathway easement can run through open space easement. • As required by the LAH Subdivision ordinance, the Matadero Creek feeder swale must be shown on the maps. This watercourse should be preserved with in open space easement from the main creek all the way to its top. We further recommend that the contiguous area of vegetation that extends up to just below the well house be included iii this easement. This is consistent with our recominendation from the previous proposal. • The road alignment should be modified to reduce, not increase, the number of oak trees removed. • The Town should provide guidance on how to align CEQA requirements with the highly significant disturbance represented by this proposal. 7 opwsPlaet, A�acA " n+, i Open Space Committee Report 26740 Sherlock Road January 14, 2014 I met with Revital Meron of Bekom Design today to review the building site at the subject property. After examining the site from the top at Sherlock Road, where the existing structure is located, to the bottom of the property, some 150' below, I concluded that an open space easement should be created to protect the lower portion of this property and keep it in its natural condition. From a few feet to the rear of the existing structure, the slope drops sharply into a steep canyon to a dry creek at its base just across the south property line. Because of the extreme steepness, much of it in excess of 50%, and the very loose soil on the slope, there is a high danger of erosion into the creek bed. Any disturbance of the slope would lead to the soil washing into the creek and downstream into the neighboring property at 27230 Moody Rd. There is no discernable top of this creek bank until reaching the building site on Sherlock Road. Two established deer trails traverse the slope, demonstrating that wildlife uses hillside as a corridor. The steep slope is covered with chaparral with a number of oaks near the bottom of the canyon. Two of the adjacent properties (27371 Moody Road and 27761 Moody Road) have recorded open space/conservation easements contiguous to the subject property. Recommendation: To protect the fragile sides of the canyon, the oaks and creek bed, and to connect to adjacent conservation easements, I recommend the creation of an open space easement on the lower portion of the subject property following the guidelines in the Los Altos Hills General Plan (see Land Use Element and Open Space and Recreation Element in addendum 1). The proposed easement would be enclosed by the four boundaries shown in addendum 2. George Clifford Open Space Committee ADDENDUM 1 Land Use Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page LU -9 Program 2.1 Continue to require the dedication of open space easements where appropriate as a condition of approval for new development. Each parcel shall be evaluated on a case- by-case basis during the site development review process to determine whether an open space easement should be required, based on the extent of steep slopes generally in excess of 30% slope and the presence of heritage oak trees and/or creek corridors. Other considerations shall include the size of the proposed open space easement, its contiguity with existing open space easements, and whether the property is located within an Open Space Conservation Area. Open Space and Recreation Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page 10 Program 1.2 Continue to require the dedication of open space easements as a condition of approval for development of parcels in designated Open Space Conservation Areas in order to protect steep slopes, canyons and ravines, generally in excess of 30% slope, as well as areas with Heritage oak trees, or other environmentally sensitive areas such as along creeks and riparian corridors. ADDENDUM 2 {{ NOTE: TREE SUES, COMMONS AP;O TYPE-" ARF THIS MAP \! APPROXIMATE ANp SIOULO Sk VERIFIED BY A CERTIFIED. 3Y LIE OR 26740 SHERLOCK ROAD \ ARBORIST. STH HE t- SPACE /� L �+ _ p (I.L I NOTE; THE LOCATION OF THE UNDERGROUND UTIIJT1E5 ACT: THE PROPOSED OPEN Alit ft SEMS 1 1SHO(M ON THIS MAP WERE BASED ON MARY,ING$ R1AOF- LIND SUN IN [ME FIEIp IY O1HER5. THERE !AAY DE OTHER . UNOERGROUNB UTiI ITIES THAT E%IST ON THIS 5!TE THAT i ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, CLEARLY DEFINER t 61ARXI?IGS THAT EXISRO AT THE BLIE OF THE SURVEY YIERE tOCATED AND ARE SHOV;14 ON TRIS PLAN, ItENNE'T� - ---- f4 ? i X GRAPHIC SCAT - t= �ixeverF lL LESS.THAN r..01+ SLOPE, -4- ...r. - r: �? ` _:-\ '' y+,m� i 27761 MOODY t - :.\d, 'ice'\. v.• �,` I l i t I i I I.( e t `` \ V y 1 .. N� �, \�,.� V( ,\ \ T=\.• u' aF.&o`°'.::�.r.. = , is i ; v,..;ti```�\ �t{�.` _ - _ `<\`•," __ _ �".. .. _ ' �. � \� tr�rm`t�m'PIB,`- tLE5,5 TAN\50Y -- K -1 -- ::tea ti _ .. ._ �. „ .- _\ 1,. . _,�\ � ...:\ L _. -�.,_ •... ._ -__ yam.,- - • '• :�. :\;.�:avn.w,..e�„ •�\ti's• -..�., �: - - - ' .-,._: <,i ,`•' \'_.LE J?TI, OPE..:: - off; - __ - - .I 27371 MOODY^fiQ¢ ``•. - _ - ' - - ,N, J f i c27230 MOODY ROAD U , Untitled Three coyotes were seen today behind 12830 Viscaino Road, on the hillside above Esperanza Drive. From: Jeannette Foley <jipf@thefoleys.com> To: srinathmurthy@yahoo.com; debbie.newhouse@gmail.com Cc: ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 3:29 PM Subject: Coyotes Dear Debbie and Srinath: I saw you message on the LAHF forum but for some reasonWe have lived in Los Altos Hills, and raised three children here, quite peacefully among the coyotes for 20 years. The uptick in the coyote sightings is likely just a natural population swing related to an increase in the availability of prey and will likely balance itself out again. As Carl suggests, we here learn to live with these animals. My daughter is a naturalist and explains there is little to fear from coyotes unless you have a small sick dog or loose chickens. We've lost several of those of the years. I believe the coyote in some Native American lore is called The Teacher. It is a very quiet and smart animal. It's nothing like a wolf in aggression but rather have a flight response. I walk the off road paths, sometimes without my dogs. I see the coyotes around. They've crossed my path, but rarely pay me any mind. They pass through the gully behind our house, howl out at night, sometimes provoke my dog to bark, but I do not see a reason to fear them. OTOH, dogs sometimes increase my heart rate as I've been bitten by one before. I would propose we have the Town invite a naturalist to come speak to and educate us about the coyotes and other wildlife among which we live. Just as with people of different cultures, we will value and appreciate the wildlife more when we know more about them. Regards, Jeannette Foley Page 2 OZ i'MeV.f7`JI( VAN /69, /V 4ffadl We 4 Coyote misinformation in column Tom Stienstra's recent column "Coyotes seemingly thrive in San Francisco" (Dec. 8) perpetuates misinformation about coyotes. Stienstra claims that coyote packs ambush and attack dogs with the intent to kill. Such behaviors have never been docu- mented or verified. Very often off leash dogs instigate chase with coyotes, and protective behaviors can be misinterpreted. It's our responsibility to reduce potential conflicts by making small changes in our behavior, including supervising our domestic animals. Regarding Stienstra's claim that coyote populations will keep expanding, research clearly shows that coyotes self - regulate based on the biological carrying capacity of an area. Resident coyotes defend their territorial range from transient coyotes, keeping the local population stable. Trapping/killing coyotes disrupts this stability creating vacant niches that can be quickly filled by inexperienced juvenile coyotes seeking new territories and mates. These younger animals might be more prone to cause conflict. Coyotes are native to California and provide many ecologi- cal benefits, including keeping disease -carrying rodent pop- ulations in check. With accurate information about coyote behavior and ecology, people and pets can and do coexist with these adaptable animals. Camilla Far, executive director, Project Coyote, Larkspur Scott Sommerdorf /The Chronicle 2003 An urban coyote keeps a wary eye on a visitor to Bernal Hill in San Francisco's Bernal Heights neighborhood. () / /1, (P �J � C6 vG E ^� c c ro O _. L rn >O, RS ti m +, O C aJ S t -0 O M C3) 4= X a) c v a) N -a s O 0) > C p � 0 a O E a) O -0 LTZ- L o U > O +., �+- C: & E c cv6 E Na) Ou ++ _ ca V O) a) Oj O i C +p v C •> + 4- > N > _ O ca O O m p-0 M V O > >+ N p +� N 0—' +1 � L O yO, DC c m Q L Ln + p " p a c u sO +' +1 O 41 O� cva O v a, 0 +' cs c O >>1m_0 v 'in N ,u7�> vv, O o° )f Oao c ,Ol C N C E ZNa) Ca -CS _OC p(a O >E OlO O O aO E >, to O O i >° p o •� L a)E o 0)-Q c"v °+)oo U) 4' (U 0 C N L C cn 7 ® rSi V �, 4J O S (3 E C -C ''' L 41 . N f0 ++ _ N Q) a1 OV O O } y O v O L > ON > ro N O C N O C C >, O N N OC E , O 0 O C ON Q• COS r , cG L b = ° 0 0 � o ,u aEO O E sO N v , ra -� O V J® O v (a C O r 07 V g v 6 i y E a> O d O V -� O O E v O _i of O= O v 7 0) v O p ro O g� i L. r _ v v ra L ,F..r L > E .� O w � C =$E + N J \ •Y Cb O O i L N E ] p p ' C O O u N o C v i L C w > O¢ C v V Cl O s O> (1) Y -� oa �Q E avis i a vsW > to O i a >O N s 'N w O �� s O .� v C i O : f6 ra L p 'SA O v �' O 4) r6 C ra -> Q> O C 7 L S.. �wy r,t M O ai d� O � V "C)V v Ln O O C a. m @ O o V a: -j .E O) N CL O c N Q O s Y O C Nai Y is >, 4- >+ 0 (>a a) a� .w O O .- t s O +� -C y ) mol.V c a) Ti a) O .a fu C y v w Ol 1 O >, a) - .� Fo 0 0) B N v 01 w i v C S a) •� C •� '4 + ti mtG +�+ 2 `E 0 ^� c c ro O _. L rn >O, RS ti m +, O C aJ S t -0 O M C3) 4= X a) c v a) N -a s O 0) > C p � 0 a O E a) O -0 LTZ- L o U > O +., �+- C: & E c cv6 E Na) Ou ++ _ ca V O) a) Oj O i C +p v C •> + 4- > N > _ O ca O O m p-0 M V O > >+ N p +� N 0—' +1 � L O yO, DC c m Q L Ln + p " p a c u sO +' +1 O 41 O� cva O v a, 0 +' cs c O >>1m_0 v 'in N ,u7�> vv, O o° )f Oao c ,Ol C N C E ZNa) Ca -CS _OC p(a O >E OlO O O aO E >, to O O i >° p o •� L a)E o 0)-Q c"v °+)oo U) 4' (U 0 C N L C cn 7 ® rSi V �, 4J O S (3 E C -C ''' L 41 . N f0 ++ _ N Q) a1 OV O O } y O v O L > ON > ro N O C N O C C >, O N N OC E , O 0 O C ON Q• COS r , cG L b = ° 0 0 � o ,u aEO O E sO N v , ra -� O V J® O v (a C O r 07 V g v 6 i y E a> O d O V -� O O E v O _i of O= O v 7 0) v O p ro O g� i L. r _ v v ra L ,F..r L > E .� O w � C =$E + N J \ •Y Cb O O i L N E ] p p ' C O O u N o C v i L C w > O¢ C v V Cl O s O> (1) Y -� oa �Q E avis i a vsW > to O i a >O N s 'N w O �� s O .� v C i O : f6 ra L p 'SA O v �' O 4) r6 C ra -> Q> O C 7 L S.. �wy r,t M O ai d� O � V "C)V v Ln O O C a. m @ O o V a: -j .E Ln o Lna) s in s O 0) a) > Ol t +' s a, O co �� •X � N � C co O -0 r6 v 7�, N v 0 > 0 -0 41 � : In f6 a)0 �--� i _ ,o F E 0 3 OV V Ln O ai a� 0 L C v C > +� O > O 0 _ O c0 O O mp '0 0 V O > _ .r v Lo Ln �+ vii t_ O o sr Q C +1 O 0 s N O J m O V OV C w 0 0 7 0 O J� Cs C O >1c0_0 v.N E aJ �' -0CL+N i O C N -0 N� s Q O vi 0 C aLj 000�)i N O V a1 O J_Np> Y L i 0 a) >C L O O >, Os N M o ® s O is s 01 O •r O O s = r6 01 LM •�-' C � o l6 O�> O O O CD O C O O 0'-L �v,: s•�> 0 o ' N mC N cu N 01 w C v C C 4J s .� }' C Co LL M CL t 0 Ln o Lna) s in s O 0) a) > Ol t +' s a, O co �� •X � N � C co O -0 r6 v 7�, N v 0 > 0 -0 41 � : In f6 a)0 �--� i _ ,o F E 0 3 OV V Ln O ai a� 0 L C v C > +� O > O 0 _ O c0 O O mp '0 0 V O > _ .r v Lo Ln �+ vii t_ O o sr Q C +1 O 0 s N O J m O V OV C w 0 0 7 0 O J� Cs C O >1c0_0 v.N E aJ �' -0CL+N -N -0 N� -0 ar) C aLj 000�)i til- J_Np> O >C >, p Ol M o O N O LM Qnu�r63 O�> > O C O O 0'-L �v,: s•�> 0 o ' N C: ov �> O•) LL +O N OQ) O (a O_ u a) L �ro �N L9 C0 0In 7 o m 0° v v s c1 > O .� v° a o O® OC E O O 5 ro a) 0 O s v N "L v O L ry O L° O +' ti ry_ O v O 0 0 u r e� V s ti p L .1 > Q p }w > _0 ti o p i oO— N +' p s Oj1 .J O s E O VO E O v- v +n 6) S r- v �•+ C a) O V '-' 5,i =1•°� E al O r C •� c6 C O V Q 41 p y X V1 L N O a) Z Q) L a) V1 vi >, O C i c p> i-' s Q) s va a) ++ Ri 4e L V O o of O V v - 01 O p ti O a) 01 w `� O O LO O E E .� O LA c� X C w ._ w a) O " ti C O a) > i -0- 3 a) N 01 ti ti O O .� Q" O C O L7i 7 QJ Q) t0 n�: C H J�.� 1e c a o�i x Oto Cti O o N i o m +j r3 0 0)L v ON *i— S a✓ •� O >s .0 v � 7 •� N ;� C N � .n O !e a1 lJ � � O 0 +rv+ A 0 A 0 0 ti s0 ti A Vaj _Q C a) s Q O a) C CO U -i in X ; N O 0 O aO v O 0 0 O C O O N E a O C a) E O O E V L 3 OO a1 > O v O 0 Q0. O �? L E E O a D O 0 y LM _Q C a) s Q O a) C CO U -i in X ; N O 0 O aO v O 0 0 O C O O N E a O C a) E O O E V L 3 OO a1 > O v O 0 Q0. O �? L E E O a D O 0 y OS6, Mee--h,ji�r JAIQ IMichnIUAI-f ,)-a a t CA U 111 - You are in an area where coyotes are known to o%-Icur. Please be aware of your surroundings whille using the V bzn preserve and observe the following safety, guidelines: Be aware that coyotes are more active when feeding Z:�- and protect:lna their youn.g. e Do not attempt to approach or bark at the animal. a Do not feed or attempt to tam.--- the animal. a Do keep children close to you - e If followed, make loud noises. If this falls, throw rocks. e Fight back if attacked., Please report any notable incidents to the Ranger Staff: Non- Etmergency:(650) 329-2423. Emergency: (650) 329-241.3 or 9-1-1 City of Vato Alto Department of Community Se - 9! OPOTI Space Div- IS1011 '29-2423 San- Francisquita Creek f A LOS J i J 3-7 i s L '• w€ ����� fir' �� T� � f S j"' �� r �— � � —L 5 MA 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov I:RS ATTR3 AILIR CALIFORNIA Wireless Communications Facilities Policy Amended 10/12/2006 Code Sections Section 10-1.703 (h)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows service uses, including "communications facilities", to be permitted in the Town if a Conditional Use Permit is granted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 10-1.1007 (1) of the Code outlines findings which must be made to approve a use permit, including the proper location of the use or facility relative to others in the vicinity, the adequacy of the site to accommodate the use, and that the facility or use will not have an adverse effect on adjacent properties. lsntent: The purpose of this policy is to outline the desired criteria for siting of wireless communications facilities, generally including monopoles, related antennas, and equipment shelters. As the Town's land use is virtually entirely residential, wireless communications facilities will be most appropriately located on public or institutional sites existing within the Town. Colocation, location on or near existing buildings, and landscape screening will be desired to minimize the visual impacts of the facilities on neighbors and the public. ?Policy: 1. Priorities for siting - Wireless communication facilities shall generally be located on properties with priority as follows: a. Town -owned properties b. Foothill College c. Water tanks d. Other public or quasi -public facilities, such as schools or churches e. Residential properties of at least ten (10) acres 2. Siting on residential parcels - Wireless communication facilities may be permitted on properties used for residential purposes or vacant parcels intended for residential property owner provides written consent and significant visual impacts are mitigated. 3. Colocation — -Colocation of wireless communication facilities with other facilities is encouraged to the maximum extend feasible, as long as the coloration is technologically compatible and does not substantially increase visual impacts. The Town will generally require as a condition of approval for any conditional use permit that the applicant permit Colocation of other facilities, subject to technological constraints and Town review. 12 Policy: Wireless Communication Facilities Page 2 3a. Applications for colocation on an existing wireless communications facility shall be subject to an administrative review provided that the following requirement is met: • The colocated antennas and ground equipment shall be mounted or installed within an existing tower, building, or structure where the physical appearance of the existing facility is not altered to accommodate the additional antennas and equipment. 4. Landscape screening and color - Landscape screening shall be required by the Town to minimize the visual impacts of wireless communication facilities. Poles, antennas, and equipment buildings should be painted to blend with the surrounding environment and/or buildings to further minimize visual impacts. 5. Environmental review - A Negative Declaration will typically be prepared for review of proposed wireless communication facilities, with special attention to the visual impacts of the facilities. Categorical exemptions may be used where facilities are colocated with or would be minimal additions to existing structures, with negligible additional visual impact. 6. Antenna master plans — Any applicant for a wireless communication facility site shall submit applications, to the best of their knowledge, for all sites anticipated to be required by the carrier for a three (3) to five (5) year period, and the request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council as a master plan application. 7. Terms of permits and abandonment of sites — Conditional use permits for wireless communications facilities shall be established for periods not to exceed five (5) years, at which time renewal of the permit must be requested by the applicant. More frequent review of the operation of the permit may be made a condition of approval. Approval will also require a written agreement from the applicant that, should the use be discontinued by the carrier, all facilities will be removed not later then ninety (90) days after discontinuance of the use or abandonment. Such a provision shall also be included in any lease with the Town for use of Town lands for wireless communications facilities. The Town may require bonding or other surety to assure the removal of such facilities. 8. Wireless communication firms shall, at the time of application for permits, demonstrate efforts which have been mad to inform neighboring residents of the proposed facilities, such as conducting meetings, or mailing fact sheets and/or letters, etc... to neighbors. 9. The Planning Director is authorized to reduce or waive permit fees for any wireless communications facility that is proven to expand wireless coverage in the Town and is structurally capable of colocation. 10. The Planning Director is authorized to administratively approve portable wireless communications facilities also known as cell on wheels or COWs on certain properties as specified in Policy #1 on a temporary basis. (DC,,,S AA e ebn� J -MQ ( (b, ;to m II te A*)Lt4 m e rvt t 0 CALIFORNIA UlDIEFOR S i ANDR-M COMMITTEES Prepared by the City Clerk's Office Last Updated: January 6, 2014 The Charges to and Duties of the Open Space Committee • To advise and assist the City Council and Staff in implementing the policies and goals of the Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan, specifically with respect to acquisition and maintenance of voluntary conservation easements and open space; • To make recommendations at subdivision, site development, Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding the acquisition and maintenance of voluntary conservation easements and open space; • To advise and assist the work for the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the open space within the Town for the use and enjoyment of all residents; • To study and recommend ordinances and resolutions relating to the acquisition, construction, maintenance and use of open space within the Town, including the identification of properties for which preservation is recommended; • To communicate Town policies and procedures regarding open space and open space preservation if advised to do so by the City Council; • To provide support to conservation education programs and to provide informational forums and programs to the public regarding open space if advised to do so by the City Council; and • To develop relationships with neighboring towns and regional entities to identify mutually beneficial open space opportunities. Updated: August 23, 2013 http://www.losaltoshilis.ca.gov/city-govel=entlstanding-committees/open-space-committee INTRODUCTION The City Council has established a number of standing committees to review Town programs, projects and community issues. These committees provide greater community participation and input into local government and facilitated informed decisions by the City Council. This Guide is designed as an informational tool for committee use. PURPOSE FOR STANDING COMMITTEES Standing committees play an important role in Town Government by assisting and making recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Commission has the authority to make final decisions; some decisions may be appealed to the City Council. The Town of Los Altos Hills standing committees have been established by resolution with the exception of the PIanning Commission, which was established by ordinance. Additionally, the Senior Commission was established by an ordinance of the City of Los Altos. QUALIFICATIONS To serve on a Town of Los Altos Hills standing committee, an appointee must be a resident of the Town and for as long as one serves. How APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE Applications for appointment to a standing committee are presented at a City Council meeting and approved by the City Council. 21Fagc STANDING COMMITTEES The Town of Los Altos Hills has established 13 standing committees and 3 commissions, Community Relations, Emergency Communications, Environmental Design and Protection, Finance and Investment, Parks and Recreation, Pathways, Open Space, Environmental Initiatives, Education, History, Water Conservation, Traffic Safety and Planning Commission, Senior Commission and Youth Commission. A Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Joint Community Volunteer Service Awards Committee has also been established. ASSOCIATE. MEMBERS Associate members of each standing committee shall be appointed by a majority vote of their. respective committees. Each associate committee member shall serve at the pleasure of the committee without compensation or payment of mileage for a term not to exceed four years and be unlimited in number based on the needs of each committee. They shall have a non-voting membership status and assist their respective committees with their charges and duties on an as - needed basis. Residence and regular meeting attendance is not required. TERMS OF OFFICE The standing committee members serve at the pleasure of the City Council, without compensation or payment of mileage, for a term of four (4) years. The Planning Commission shall consist of five (5) members who shall be appointed, and shall be subject to removal, by motion of the City Council adopted by at least three (3) affirmative votes, and who shall serve for a term of four (4) years or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. (LAHMC 2-2.102 Members). The Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Senior Commission was established and adopted the governing rules as set forth by Los Altos Ordinance 2011-369, amending Chapter 2.08.140 of the Los Altos Municipal Code specifically as it relates to the joint Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Senior Commission. The Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Joint Community Volunteer Service Awards Committee is governed by Bylaws and sets forth five (5) members from each city, each appointed for a four (4) year term. ATTENDANCE For standing committees to function effectively and accomplish their goals, all members must be active participants. This means all members must be present at all meetings. Each standing committee member shall be considered to have resigned in the event of three consecutive absences from the meetings of their committee, unless the Chairperson of the committee shall have excused the member's absence and informed the other committee members of the exception at the third consecutive meeting missed. 31"a RESIGNATIONS Notification of resignations or terminations of committee members shall be submitted to the City Council in writing. OFFICERS A Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and Secretary are selected by the members of the individual committees in July of each year. The officers shall not serve for more than two (2) consecutive one (1) year terms. If at the time of the election, it is determined that there are no viable nominations for the slate of officers including the Chairperson, the committee may request an exemption of the general rule pertaining to the terms for the officers/chairperson from the City Council. RESPONSIBILITIES The primary role of a standing committee is to provide prudent advice to the City Council, the elected policy -malting body of the Town. The committee's role can include, building community consensus for proposals or projects, reviewing written material, facilitating study of issues, guiding implementation of new or regulating established programs, assessing the alternatives regarding issues of community concern and ultimately forwarding recommendations to the City Council for consideration. There may be times when a standing committee's recommendations will not be sustained or will be modified by the City Council. It is important for the committee members to recognize that this is not a rejection of the integrity of the recommendation, but an inevitable part of the process of community decision malting. For a specific list of committee duties and charges, please see the latest Standing Committee Resolution (Resolution 7-12). SCOPE OF AUTHORITY Standing committees are not involved in administration or operation of Town departments. Standing committee members may not direct administrative staff to initiate programs and may not conduct major studies or establish policy without the approval of the City Council. Town staff members are available to provide general staff assistance to the standing committee. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST All members of standing committees should avoid the appearance of bias in pending Town matters at all times. Government Code section 1090 provides that "Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Nor shall state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees be purchasers at any sale or vendors at any purchase made by them in their official 41 Pit ge capacity." There may be certain exceptions to this rule. When in doubt, a staff liaison should consult with the City Attorney. Members of the Planning Commission are required, pursuant to the Political Reform Act, to file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) upon assuming office, annually and upon leaving office. The City Clerk will provide the necessary information to complete the filing obligation. MEETINGS The Town of Los Altos Hills standing committees are subject to State law governing opening meetings. The California law governing open meetings is found in the California Government Code, Sections 54950-54962 and is commonly referred to as the "Brown Act." Generally speaking, the intent of the Act is that meetings of legislative bodies, including standing committees, shall be open to the public. QUORUM At any meeting of a standing committee, a majority of those members currently appointed shall constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting business, and unless otherwise posted, a majority vote of those present and voting shall be sufficient to adopt motions. Please refer to Resolution 50-12 for current membership numbers. AGENDAS State law requires that an agenda for each standing committee be posted at least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting (24 hours for a special meeting). The agenda shall state the time and place of the meeting and a brief description of matters to be heard at the meeting regarding matters within the jurisdiction of the standing committee. The Chairperson is responsible for the preparation of the meeting agenda. A copy of the agenda is emailed to each member of the committee and any interested party who has made a request. MEETING TYPES Standing committees may hold two types of meetings: regular and special meetings. The Chairperson of the committee is responsible to prepare the meeting agenda and provide it to the City Clerk's office for distribution and posting prior to the 72 (or 24) hour deadline. The Chairperson is also responsible for meeting cancellations and/or changes of location. REGULAR MEETINGS Regular meetings are held at the time and place specified in the resolution establishing standing committees and adopting general and special rules pertaining thereto. The Brown Act generally requires advisory bodies to conduct public meetings. A "meeting" is considered to take place any time that a quorum of committee members meet to discuss committee business. The Brown Act prohibits a quorum from meeting privately. The Brown Act specifically prohibits "any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries or technological device employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action.to be taken on any item by the members of the legislative body." Therefore, the prohibition extends not only to personal contacts of the standing committee members themselves outside the public meeting, but it also prohibits "serial" meetings whereby information is ultimately exchanged among a quorum of advisory body members whether or not simultaneously in one another's presence. C�® SPECIAL MEETINGS Special meetings may be held at a different time or place to discuss specific issues as noted on the meeting agenda, as long as the meeting has been properly noticed. EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERS As email communication can ultimately lead to the exchange of information intended to, or which may create collective concurrence among a quorum of standing committee members, email communication between standing committee members related to committee business, should be avoided. While two members of a five member body, for example, may appropriately communicate with one another by way of email, the "forwarding" of such an email message to a third, or subsequent member, would result in a Brown Act violation. PUBLIC RECORDS On July 1, 2008, Senate Bill 343 became effective. That bill amended the Ralph M. Brown Act and required that any writings of public record relating to an agenda item for a regular meeting of a legislative/advisory body (City Council as well as Town Committees) that are distributed to the majority of that body less than 72 hours prior to the meeting or are distributed at the meeting must be made available for public inspection at the same time. You must either hand deliver, or scan and e-mail a copy of any materials provided to a majority of a members, either from staff or L F public, he Cit` Clerk as soon as the become available. In addition any a memuer ©i tlic piibu�, to tum j Y material provided to a majority of the committee after the distribution of the agenda, should be made available for public review at the meeting. ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIR The Chair shall preserve order and decorum at all meetings of the advisory body, announce the advisory body's decision, and decide questions of order. The Chair is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the meeting process. A good Chair balances moving the discussion forward while involving all members of the committee and allowing for adequate public participation. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall act as the presiding officer. MEETING PROTOCOL It is the Chair's role to facilitate meeting protocol. The duties of the Chair shall be consistent with those of a presiding officer as they pertain to the conduct of the committee meetings and adherence to the general powers and duties as set forth in Resolution 7-12. Proceedings: Start the meeting on time. Keep the agenda in mind in order to give each item the appropriate time. 71Pat _,e ➢ Announce at the start of the meeting if the order of agenda items are to be rearranged either for convenience, response to those attending only for certain items, or for better pacing of the agenda. ➢ Let the Chair run the meeting. ➢ Be fair, impartial, and respectful of the public, staff and each other. Give your frill attention when others speak. ➢ Trust your own good judgment on decisions. ➢ Keep in mind that people may be attending a meeting for the first time and may be unfamiliar with the standing committee's procedures. In your discussion, either avoid or explain technical terms or verbal shorthand. ➢ Listen to the audience concerns. Don't engage in side conversations or otherwise be distracted. r Don't engage the public in debate. ➢ Remember that your committee exists to take actions. It is not simply a discussion group or debating society. ➢ End the meeting at a reasonable hour. PREPARING MOTIONS Standing committees meetings are conducted according to parliamentary procedure. The Chair directs the meeting and his or her rulings must be followed unless they are overruled by the committee. When a member wishes to propose an action on a particular item on the agenda for the committee to consider, the member makes a motion. A motion goes through the following steps: 1. The member asks to be recognized by the Chair. 2. After being recognized, the member makes the motion: "I move that we (state the motion)." The chair should announce the name of the member of the committee who makes the motion. 3. Another member seconds the motion: "I second that motion." The Chair should announce the name of the member of the committee who seconds the motion. 4. The Chair restates the motion and asks for discussion. 5. When the Chair determines that there has been enough discussion, the debate may be closed with: "Is there any further discussion?" 6. If no one asks for permission to speak, the Chair then puts the question to a vote: "All in favor, say aye." "All opposed, say nay." 7. The Chair should announce the result of the vote and what action was taken. The minutes should reflect the members who voted in favor, and the members who voted against. Properly phrasing a motion can be difficult and rephrasing may be necessary before it is acted upon. Until the Chair states the motion, the member making the motion may rephrase or withdraw it. Only motions that are voted on will appear in the minutes. MEETING MINUTES The secretary is responsible for preparation of the minutes of each meeting. Meeting minutes shall be a brief record of matters discussed and actions taken by the committee. The minutes shall also list the full names of those persons speaking during the public comment period. Minutes should not reflect personal opinions and/or comments that do not directly relate to actions taken by the committee. Minutes of the meeting, once approved, shall be emailed to the Citv Clerk. The minutes of all standing committee meetings are public record. 91,=agu Zoning Ordinance Article S. ©pen Space Reserve District (DSR) 10-1.801 primary uses permitted (OSR). The following primary uses shall be permitted in the Open Space Reserve District: (a) Agricultural uses, including horticultural and grazing; (b) Forest preserves; and (c) Other open space uses. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986) 10-1.802 Accessory uses and structures permitted (DSR). The following accessory uses and structures shall be permitted in the Open Space Reserve District: (a) Structures other than buildings which are necessary for the conduct of a permitted primary use: and (b) Fences, trees, and shrubs subject to the height limitations set forth in Section 10-1.504 of Article 5 of this chapter. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3. 1986) 10-1.803 Area, coverage, height and setback limitations (OSR). See Article 5 of this chapter for the applicable provisions. (§ 1, Ord. 305. eff. October 3, 1986) tE: Westwind Barn road Ar o Our 0 Subject: RE: Westwind Barn road From: "Gary Waldeck" <gary.waideck@earthlink.net> Date: 12/20/2013 10:02 AM To: "'George Clifford"' <george@clifford.net> A prior horse boarder asked for it. He said that the hill between the upper and lower arena is much too steep for valuable horses and suggested creating a path where the inclination angle was much reduced. It is supposedly the reason he moved his horse to another barn. I looked at it and then met with Carl and Richard and we came up with the path track on the photo I shared with you. Gary -----Original Message ----- From: George Clifford [mailto:georgeoclifford.net] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:49 PM To: Gary Waldeck Subject: Re: Westwind Barn road Gary, This is great. Thanks. I'll go over and take a look at this. BTW, who is asking for this? George ++++++++++++++++ On 12/19/2013 5:50 PM, Gary Waldeck wrote: (George !Marked up print attached. The goal is to avoid the very steep incline from the lower arena to the Barn. The access path shown will follow ,an existing path and has a much less steep slope. It will also be {a10' wide road to get new building materials down to the lower arena Ito a) refurbish it and b) possible install an arena cover in the next year or two. Gary -----Original Message ----- From: George Clifford [mailto:george(@clifford.net] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 4:58 PM To: Gary Waldeck Subject: Westwind Barn road Gary, I've put the Westwind Barn roadway on the agenda for the January OSC meeting. So that I can understand where this proposed road would go, could you sketch it on the attached satellite photo? I'd like to walk over and take a look. Thanks, George of 2 1/15/2014 8:08 F _ktr" sZ �7JA 3 Al r"&. Y • �}"�'' } ��`+ ��-!'•k'(b ... � 'sem _nIr Ar f t'r2s�f 't# 9m _ z - r.- r - �s Ni {'}t�om��' � � � Y� �r 4- f�5.r •.51 i, h h�y4� o tet' ... s.1n1 yc {� 53s i.. t2 �_Y} I'M _ ��>`�. t gim OR S �Ye § � +ti• aY* Ji (' ,�� jz�-r,Jp�,� 'moi-�;F- �Lpj Me e7b TA -AJ 16,d0lV A -f1 �e;qq ev vi oSi R e- S - () VV e." aI/IFQ/O(-f- Thanks for sending this on, I just walked it and Am concerned that they will need to do quite a lot of grading to snake the path wide enough for large trucks. Plus the cost of re -fencing should be considered. It may be that spending the equivalent on improving the existing road would be preferable. I think if they removed the loose gravel and oiled it and compacted it,that would be a big improvement. Over the years many trucks have successfully navigated that as access, my own vehicle included. Admittedly in the winter it is more difficult. Just my five cents. And obviously I am not an engineer. Val Metcalfe