HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200406 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-07
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Monday, April 6, 2020
Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM*
A G E N D A
Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and the March 16, 2020 Order of the
Health Officer of Santa Clara County directing all individuals living in the County to shelter at their place of
residence, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to
make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking
to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended
all contrary provisions of the Brown Act.
THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://us04web.zoom.us/s/936157296 or listen to the meeting by
dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 936 157 296).
2. 2. If you would like to submit a public comments on an agenda item, please submit your comments
at openspace.org/public-comment no later than 4:30 P.M., Monday, April 6, 2020. Written public comments
will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District’s website. Please
visit openspace.org/board-meetings to learn more.
5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda;
however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items
not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment during this section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
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.
1. Approve February 26, 2020 and March 11, 2020 Minutes
2. Contract Amendment with Questa Engineering for additional geotechnical inspection
services for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection project at Ravenswood Open Space
Preserve (R-20-28)
Meeting 20-07
Rev. 1/3/20
Staff Contact: Scott Reeves, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manger to execute a contract
amendment with Questa Engineering for additional geotechnical inspection services for the
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project in the amount of $19,420, for an amended total contract
amount not-to-exceed $67,310.
3. Contract Amendment with Questa Engineering to Complete the Second Phase of Work for
the Phase II Trail Improvements at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-29)
Staff Contact: Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land and Facilities Department
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to amend the original contract of $225,000 with Questa
Engineering by $415,400, bringing the base contract amount to $640,400 to complete the
second phase of work (construction documents, permitting, construction administration, and as-
builts) for the Phase II Trails at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $62,310 to be awarded, if necessary, to cover unforeseen
conditions, for a grand total not-to-exceed contract amount of $702,710.
4. Resolution for funding from Santa Clara County for the Alpine Trail construction project in
Coal Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-30)
Staff Contact: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to
apply for Stanford Recreation Mitigation Funding from Santa Clara County and, if successful,
enter into a funding agreement.
5. Written Response to the Sierra Club-Loma Prieta Chapter Regarding Potential Pilot
Programs for E-bikes on District Lands
Staff Contact: Matt Anderson, District Chief Ranger and Visitor Services Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the written response to the Sierra Club Loma Prieta
Chapter regarding potential pilot programs for E-bikes on District lands.
6. Report from the Bond Oversight Committee to the Board of Directors for the review period
from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 (R-20-31)
Staff Contact: Denise Gilbert, Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Chair
Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager
Committee Recommendation: The Bond Oversight Committee recommends that the Board of
Directors accept this report.
BOARD BUSINESS
Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written
public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District’s website
at www.openspace.org. All written comments submitted in accordance with the guidance posted on the
District’s website will be read into the record.
7. Proclaim a Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and discuss District actions to
address the Emergency (R-20-32)
Staff Contact: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
General Manager’s Recommendations:
Rev. 1/3/20
1. Adopt a Resolution proclaiming a local Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District emergency due to
the COVID-19 Pandemic.
2. Discuss and consent to the formation of a new COVID-19 Ad Hoc Committee, and authorize the Board
President to appoint three Directors to serve on the Committee.
3. Discuss actions taken by the General Manager to address the Emergency and provide direction
regarding authority to undertake future actions.
4. Adopt a Resolution affirming the important role of access to open space during the COVID-19 Public
Health Order while recognizing the need to protect the health and safety of District employees and
Preserve visitors.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Bear Creek Redwoods Multi-Use Trail Alignment
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or
announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board
questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or
direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to
staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board.
Committee Reports
Staff Reports
Director Reports
ADJOURNMENT
*Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the special meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on April 2, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022.
The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
February 26, 2020
Board Meeting 20-04
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 5:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, and Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief
Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak,
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
Susanna Chan, Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria,
Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Public Affairs
Manager Kori Skinner, Engineering and Construction Manager, Jay Lin,
Senior Capital Project Manager Tanisha Werner
1. Historic Structures – Review of Other Agency Policies and Practices (R-20-20)
General Manager Ana Ruiz reported this is the third in a series of public meetings to review the
District’s policies and practices related to historic resources. Ms. Ruiz stated the District
engaged the services of 2M Associates to augment District staff’s research, analysis, and
comparison of District and other public agency historic resource policies and practices. Ms. Ruiz
reported that based on this assessment, the District’s policies are consistent with existing laws
and regulations; however, a varying degree of specificity and purpose exists among the various
Board policies, with the overarching principles and implementation guidelines remaining
consistent and adhering to current rules and regulations. Additionally, the District’s historic
resources policies align with the District’s overarching mission statement and Coastside mission.
Ms. Ruiz emphasized that while many park agencies have specific verbiage in their mission
Meeting 20-04 Page 2
statements related to historic cultural resources preservation, many open space districts do not.
Ms. Ruiz recommends clarifying internal administrative procedures, consistent with Board
policy, to ensure consistency and oversight of staff application District-wide.
Senior Planner Tina Hugg reiterated the General Manager’s recommendation and introduced
Patrick Miller, a partner at 2M Associates, who conducted the comparative research on the
policies and procedures of various park and open space agencies.
Mr. Miller provided an overview of his findings stating that all of the documents that mention
historic buildings or cultural resources are complimentary to the District’s operations and address
the Department of Secretary of the Interior’s standards for how to operate and maintain a historic
building. Secondly, Mr. Miller stated the policies align with the District’s overarching mission
and coastside mission, noting open space is the prime directive of the District. Mr. Miller noted
many regional park agencies have a broader mission than the District, which explicitly includes
preservation of historic and/or cultural resources – an element that is not included within the
District’s mission or the missions of other open space agencies.
Mr. Miller reported interviews were held with outside partner agencies and regulatory agencies
(seventeen cities and two counties). Mr. Miller explained partner agencies and regulatory
agencies either have a stand-alone inventory or a context statement included in their general
plan. Mr. Miller stated there are 517 buildings and structures currently documented in the
District’s GIS system. The District’s characterization of buildings and structures is not
consistent with the nomenclature used by local, state, or federal agencies about historic
properties.
Mr. Miller concluded no conflicts arise between policies, and they generally complement each
other and conform with legal standards and practices. Mr. Miller suggested the District could
clarify the policies, but the guidelines work in their current form. Instead, the District may
consider creating an administrative historic resources procedural guide to include relevant
District policies and other key information to inform staff of the steps required for historic
resources management. Additionally, Mr. Miller suggested standardizing terms in the District’s
GIS system to conform to historic building and structure standards and centralize the written and
photographic documentation of buildings and structures.
Director Kishimoto suggested the District create its own context statement, which could provide
the Board guidance on the top preservation priorities rather than individually analyzing each
structure.
Director Kishimoto suggested revising the Basic Policy to modify “the District depends on
partners” to “we would prefer to work with partners” since the District now has more resources.
Ms. Ruiz reported staff considered creating a context statement. However, it was determined
that creating a context statement would place a much greater emphasis on historic structure
preservation, raising questions about the policy consistency with the District’s mission and
coastside mission.
Ms. Ruiz reported she reviewed the Basic Policy and highlighted the section stating that historic
preservation would be considered when outside funding and partnerships could be leveraged.
When the Basic Policy was adopted, the Board decided to reserve general funds for projects
Meeting 20-04 Page 3
supporting the District’s core mission. Measure AA includes historic structures and cultural
resources preservation projects, and Measure AA funds can supplement the general fund. The
Board may choose to revise the Basic Policy; however, this change may affect the emphasis of
the District’s mission and how general funds may be used in the future.
Director Riffle asked if the Board could receive information on the long term costs of preserving
a building to help the Board determine whether it wants to preserve or protect a building.
Ms. Ruiz stated the District has begun providing more information upfront, such as for the
Mount Umunhum Radar Tower long-term repairs.
Director Kersteen-Tucker asked for clarification on the definition of rural character, especially as
it relates to open space and the Coastside mission.
Mr. Miller responded the undeveloped character of the Coastside landscape makes it rural.
Ms. Ruiz replied it is also geographic based, so for the San Mateo County Coast, the rural
character relates to the lack of high-density communities, the presence of ranches and
agricultural uses, and vegetation along the ridgeline. These elements combined create the rural
character of the San Mateo County Coast.
Public comments opened at 6:13 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 6:13 p.m.
President Holman concurred with Director Kersteen-Tucker that additional clarification is
needed to define rural character.
President Holman stated policy clarification for the existing policies is needed, and that this may
be achieved by combining policies and including references to other pertinent policies so staff
would be able to identify all relevant policies in one location.
Ms. Ruiz affirmed that all policies adhere to current rules and regulation, are consistent with
each other, and are comprehensive as a compilation. Combining policies and modifying policies
to reference other internal policies would take significant time and instead recommends
preparing an administrative historic resources procedural guide that compiles are the relevant
policies and includes other procedural guidance for staff to use as a resource and ensure
consistency of approach District-wide and across time.
President Holman questioned the time required to combine policies and incorporate references
and felt that this action would make the policies more coherent. President Holman expressed
frustration that when a property with a structure is acquired, the structure is not addressed early,
at the time of acquisition or soon after. When the structure is eventually brought to the Board for
consideration, the price to restore the building is therefore much higher. President Holman
suggested evaluating the structure when it is first acquired to determine its historic value and
create an action plan for the structure.
Meeting 20-04 Page 4
Ms. Ruiz commented that historically many District structures have been preserved in place
because the District’s focus has been on preserving the land, restoring the natural resource, and
providing public access. Mr. Ruiz reported that when a property with structures is considered for
acquisition, and purchase terms and conditions allow adequate time, an evaluation is completed
and brought to the Board for consideration.
President Holman inquired if historic structures are listed separately in the GIS system inventory
list, so staff is aware of which structures are historic.
Mr. Miller indicated the historic structures are not listed separately on the GIS inventory list and
advised improvements should be made in the terminology for tagging structures.
Director Riffle stated although the District has more funds now, they should not necessarily be
spent on buildings, since the mission statement of open space is the District’s focus.
Additionally, Mr. Riffle agreed with President Holman that the Board should make a
determination for a structure when it is initially acquired.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to confirm
that no Board Policy changes are warranted; instead, the General Manager will proceed with
making administrative procedural improvements and clarifications consistent with existing
Board Policy, as stated in the staff report.
Director Kersteen-Tucker added that the procedural guide should be created, and clarity is
needed for the GIS inventory list related to structure status.
President Holman stated she will not be supporting the motion at this time because although she
supports creation of a procedural manual, she recommends clarifying the policy language to
make the policies comprehensive as well as combining the policies and ensuring all relevant
policies are referenced when considering the disposition of historic structures. Additionally,
President Holman indicated she is interested in learning more about context statements and the
cost to implement one.
Substitute Motion: President Holman offered a substitute motion to continue the item to a date
uncertain to allow for the three absent Board members to be involved in the discussion.
Friendly Amendment: Director Kishimoto seconded the substitute motion and offered a
friendly amendment to the substitute motion to request staff to address two questions:
- How much work would it take to add clarity to the policies?
- How much work would it take to do a simple context statement for an open space
district?
President Holman accepted the friendly amendment and amended her original motion to include
further discussion on the inventory list and status.
Substitute Motion: President Holman moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to
continue the item to a date uncertain and for staff to address how much work would it take to add
clarity to the policies, how much work would it take to do a simple context statement for an open
space district and have further discussion on inventory list and status.
Meeting 20-04 Page 5
VOTE: 2-2-0 (Directors Kersteen-Tucker and Riffle opposed; Directors Cyr, Hassett, and
Siemens absent)
Main Motion: Confirm that no Board Policy changes are warranted; instead, the General
Manager will proceed with making administrative procedural improvements and clarifications
consistent with existing Board Policy, as stated in this report.
VOTE: 2-2-0 (Directors Holman and Kishimoto opposed; Director Cyr, Hassett, and Siemens
absent)
President Holman stated both motions failed, and the Board will take no action.
President Holman urged the Directors to continue the item since three Directors are absent from
the meeting.
Director Riffle proposed he would then follow the Board President’s lead and will vote to
continue the item to allow the three absent Director’s participate in the discussion since both
motions failed, but did not want to spend more staff time on this project and reiterated his
support for the General Manager’s recommendation.
Ms. Ruiz stated briefings for the absent Board members will be required to provide the context
and information from the Board meeting.
Director Kersteen-Tucker stated her support for the General Manager’s recommendation and
shared concerns related to the enormous amount of Board and staff time spent on this topic
noting it was an administrative issue.
Director Riffle suggested the General Manager provide an FYI to the Board regarding
implementation of her recommendation.
Ms. Ruiz confirmed staff will provide an FYI to the Board.
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson commented the Board would have an opportunity to agendize
the item again when the FYI comes to them.
By consensus the Board directed the General Manager to prepare a FYI for a future Board
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:02 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:12 p.m.
Meeting 20-04 Page 6
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens,
and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Jed Cyr and Larry Hassett
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief
Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak,
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Executive Assistant/Deputy
District Clerk Maria Soria, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington,
Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter,
Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist Lewis Reed, Senior Property Management
Specialist Omar Smith
General Manager Ana Ruiz took a moment to acknowledge the February 16 incident at the
Rancho San Antonio Open Space preserve, a mountain lion injured a child hiking with the
family. The child is safe and was treated and released back to the family. Ms. Ruiz thanked staff
for their quick response and for closing the preserve until the California Department of Fish &
Wildlife (CDFW) located and trapped the mountain lion responsible. Due to the circumstances
of the attack and after matching DNA from the mountain lion, CDFW officials made the
determination to euthanize the mountain lion. Ms. Ruiz commented the District continues to
preserve natural resources and move forward with various projects, such as the Highway 17
Wildlife Corridor, that improve critical wildlife linkages.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Angela Terra spoke against euthanizing the mountain lion stating the preserves are wildlife
habitat, so people need to exercise caution when visiting the preserves, noting there are warning
signs posted. Ms. Terra suggested limiting the number of visitors at the preserves by charging
for parking. Additionally, Ms. Terra commented the attack should have not been a surprise since
cameras are installed at the preserves and have captured more than thirty active lions including a
mother with cubs. Ms. Terra urged staff to close preserves longer when they are closed due to
mountain lion activity.
Denise Bolbol also spoke against euthanizing the mountain lion stating staff must have known
the mountain lion was roaming the area. Ms. Bolbol stated the Board should have closed the park
and that lack of action led to a child being hurt and consequently the taking of a mountain lion.
Ms. Bolbol commented the District started to livestock graze since 2004 without voter approval
on public lands noting the voters approved open spaces for wildlife, wildlife habitat, and some
recreation uses for people, not for grazing.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Director Cyr and Hassett absent)
Meeting 20-04 Page 7
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Director Cyr and Hassett absent)
1. Approve February 12, 2020 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Award of Contracts to Coastside Environmental Tech, Inc., for the Abatement and
Removal of Selected Dilapidated Non-Historic Structures at Bear Creek Redwoods Open
Space Preserve (R-20-21)
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental
Technologies, Inc., of Watsonville, California, for a base amount of $402,000.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $60,300 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the
total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $462,300.
BOARD BUSINESS
4. Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan and Grazing Lease in Tunitas Creek
Open Space Preserve (R-20-09)
General Manager Ana Ruiz stated the item before the Board relates to a pre-existing cattle
operation that has occurred prior to the District acquiring the property in 2012. These grasslands
have been actively managed with grazing for over 120 years and continue to support native
coastal plant communities. Ms. Ruiz stated staff worked closely with outside advisors and
consultants to evaluate the operation and develop improvements for the site to help better
manage the existing operation, continue to meet the biodiversity goals, and distribute livestock
on the property.
Ms. Ruiz remarked she is aware there are strong emotions and opinions on both sides of the
grazing topic and noted the District received 12 public comments with the vast majority
supporting the grazing lease. Ms. Ruiz reiterated this item is specifically for the property at the
Toto Ranch in the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, the Board will consider grazing at a
Districtwide policy level at a future date.
Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist Lewis Reed described the location of the Toto Ranch property, its
natural resources, and its current uses. In addition to the rangeland lease, there are residential and
agricultural leases for the site. Mr. Reed provided an overview of the rangeland management
plan (RMP), including its purpose, key proposed improvements, and monitoring, including a
recommendation to lease to a single tenant for year-round rotational cattle grazing, guidelines for
rangeland use involving horses, infrastructure improvements, and water improvements.
Monitoring protocols include photo monitoring, invasive plant tracking, and measuring of
residual dry matter.
Meeting 20-04 Page 8
Senior Property Management Specialist Omar Smith outlined the lease terms, including detailing
the responsible party for management, infrastructure, and operations; allowing work to be
performed by the tenant as a contractor; updates to comply with current legal requirements;
calculation of the animal unit month (AUM); and documentation requirements of the grazing
operations.
Director Riffle requested clarification regarding the lease terms related to allowing public access.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported all grazing leases provide for public access.
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson stated Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) holds a
conservation easement over the Toto Ranch property, which may contain certain restrictions and
would need to be reviewed before making any commitments.
Director Kersteen-Tucker noted the mitigation monitoring reporting program allows up to four
horses on the property, but Mr. Lewis indicated it could be seven.
Mr. Lewis stated staff will update the mitigation monitoring program to state seven horses may
be allowed.
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired if the lease has adequate flexibility to allow for other
livestock or a combination of livestock to manage brush or would a lease amendment be needed.
Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter stated the use of livestock goats,
sheep, or similar is not excluded, but staff would need to evaluate the type of livestock being
considered to confirm it is appropriate for the site.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone replied the rangeland management plan calls for cattle
grazing as the management tool. Staff would need to evaluate whether an amendment to include
other livestock would fall under the General Manager’s authority or would require Board
approval.
Public comment opened at 7:59 pm
Renee Cheung spoke in favor of conservation grazing and stated that it is the best tool to manage
the grasslands. The Markegards have been practitioners of conservation grazing for many years,
and Ms. Chung recommends the Board renew the lease.
Al Whaley expressed his frustration stating the public has opposed grazing at several public
meetings and have been told that additional public education will be conducted. Mr. Whaley
commented the Board has stopped listening to their mission and is altering the mission without
public input, and the broader science does not support grazing.
Mohan Gurnathan opposed the Board approving the lease and numerous members of the public
have raised objections and concerns about the grazing program. Mr. Gurnathan urged the Board
not to approve the lease at this time until the Board studies the concerns and objections and takes
time to review the science.
Meeting 20-04 Page 9
Ann Duwe spoke in favor of approving the lease with the Markegards. Ms. Duwe is a member
of Slow Food, a nonprofit organization which supports farmers like the Markegards and values
local and sustainably produced food. Ms. Duwe stated grazing contributes to healthy soil, and
healthy soil supports biodiversity.
Britt Bensen stated the Markegards are great stewards of the land and supports the Board
approving their lease.
Isabel Bauer spoke in favor of renewing the Markegards lease because cows can greatly help in
providing a healthy soil.
Karen Rubio, a member of the Los Gatos Plant Based Advocate, asked the Board to postpone
their decision on renewing the lease and asked the District to conduct an environmental report.
Lester Chen spoke in favor of the Board approving the rangeland management plan and
authorizing the general manger to enter into a conservation lease with the Markegards.
Additionally, Mr. Chen supported the five-year lease to help advance the District’s mission to
protect and restore the natural environment.
Doniga Markegard stated that she and her family deeply care for the land and all the wildlife on
the land. Ms. Markegard spoke about her background in ranching and spoke about the positive
effects of regenerative agriculture that supports soil health and biodiversity. Ms. Markegard
reported she met with the Audubon Society to discuss how ranchers can support habitat for
threatened grassland birds and explained she is applying to be able to sell certified bird-friendly
beef.
Meme Rasmussen commented there are members of the public on both sides of the argument and
different scientific points of view. Ms. Rasmussen spoke in support of the Markegards stating it
is a family run local farm that is responsible with the land and appreciates being able to purchase
local grass-fed pastured beef.
Paige Stanley, a PhD researcher at the University of Berkley, a grazing ecologist, and a soil and
climate scientist who works with ranchers like the Markegards, is looking into regenerative
ranching practices. Ms. Stanley spoke of scientific support for regenerative ranching similar to
the Markegards’ operations.
Scott Vanderlip spoke in favor or renewing the lease for Toto Ranch and indicated animals on
the land provide soil regeneration. Additionally, cows are also used on the coast to graze on non-
native grasses since prescribed fires are no longer conducted.
Jessica Campbell, a member of Slow Food, stated her support for sustainable ranchers where
people can get a clean source of protein and support regenerative sustainable land management.
Ms. Campbell spoke in favor renewing the Markegards lease.
Dennis Logie, a member of Slow Food, described the benefits of cattle grazing related to soil
health and wildlife diversity. Mr. Logie spoke in favor of renewing the lease with the
Markegards.
Meeting 20-04 Page 10
Lennie Roberts spoke on behalf of Green Foothills and in support of the General Manager’s
recommendation. Ms. Roberts commented that in 1980 the nine-hundred-acre property could
have been developed into 900 homes, but the county adopted very strict zoning. The
development possibility continued until POST and the District acquired the land to preserve in
perpetuity open space and agricultural lands of regional significance. Ms. Roberts believes the
Board has been true to the Coastside mission in recommending this proposal for adoption.
Peter Cnudde spoke in opposition to the General Manager’s recommendation. Mr. Cnudde
reported it was previously stated that conservation grazing was affordable, but he has not seen
the cost benefits. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to support grazing if it does not make
financial sense.
Pat Cuviello spoke in opposition to the recommendation and asked if the land being leased was
open to bids. Mr. Cuviello spoke against grazing and stated coyote brush is a native plant and not
invasive. Mr. Cuviello commented the staff report does not mention greenhouse gases and urged
the Board to reject this recommendation because it is not based on science.
Kim Acker, a member of Slow Food and a climate activist with 350 Silicon Valley stated climate
change solutions are needed and is appreciative the Board is looking into unconventional
solutions. Ms. Acker encouraged the Board to renew the lease.
Denise Bolbol commented the Board will be voting on the RMP and on a mitigated negative
declaration that was prepared by staff. Ms. Bolbol stated there is conflicting scientific data in the
RMP such as calling coyote brush an invasive species. She urged the Board to postpone their
vote until they thoroughly review the document and questioned why legal counsel did not see
any issues with the document.
Victoria Armigo spoke in favor of renewing the Markegards lease and appreciated hearing all the
speakers’ perspectives.
Ron Sturgeon, a member of the Sam Mateo County Farm Bureau but speaking for himself, raised
concerns that the proposed lease had not been presented to the Farm Bureau. Mr. Sturgeon
expressed concerns about multiple leases on the property and recommended the item should be
reviewed by the Farm Bureau before the Board makes their decision.
Taylor Adam spoke in favor or renewing the Markegards lease and commented she is a young
farmer in the regenerative agricultural community, and the Markegards have been an example of
regenerative agricultural practices specifically on the coastline and the peninsula.
Davy Davidson opposed all cattle grazing and oppose the Board making a decision not in line
with the original mission voted by the public in 1978.
Public comment closed at 8:48 pm
President Holman asked staff to answer some question that was asked by the speakers.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone replied to the questions asked by the speakers
describing the various types of leases for the property and the reasoning for the separate leases.
Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and greenhouse gas evaluation, Mr. Malone
Meeting 20-04 Page 11
reported CEQA requires agencies to evaluate changes to the baseline conditions. The RMP does
not change the baseline of having grazing on the property; it does not alter the extent of grazing
and therefore does not need to be evaluated under CEQA. Concerning the return investment for
conservation grazing, Mr. Malone stated staff reviewed other grassland management methods on
the coast, such as mechanical or brushing, which proved to be more expensive over the long
term.
Director Riffle inquired whether the grazing lease should have gone out to bid.
Mr. Malone responded the Coastal Service Plan requires staff to evaluate an existing tenant on
the property to confirm the tenant is taking care of the land and meets the lease requirements. If
a property is acquired without an existing tenant, a Request of Proposals is solicited through a
competitive process.
Ms. Stevenson added there are various laws in the District’s enabling legislation related to
competitive bidding, but there is not a requirement for this particular lease to go out for bid.
Director Riffle pointed there was a public comment regarding coyote brush as an invasive
species.
Mr. Lewis provided clarification on the terminology that is used to categorize plants and the
different components of native or non-native species and how those species behave
competitively with other species. Coyote brush is a native plant, and the District is not interested
in eradicating this species.
Director Riffle also commented a public speaker asked about the timing of this lease in relation
to the timing of the District’s agricultural policy.
Ms. Ruiz stated the District is continuing discussions related to the agricultural policy, which
will require the Board to weigh in on how land will be managed and in what shape and form
agricultural uses will exist on District lands.
Director Riffle inquired if the decision being considered by the Board could potentially run
counter to any of agricultural policies the Board will be considering in the future.
Ms. Ruiz stated the proposed lease does not preclude changes from occurring after the Board
makes a decision within the short order of the proposed five-year lease term.
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired if the Farm Bureau had the opportunity to review the grazing
lease.
Mr. Malone replied staff meet with the Farm Bureau on February 19, 2019 to discuss the
rangeland management plan, which set the ground rules for the proposed property uses. Staff will
also meet with the Farm Bureau when the agricultural lease is being developed.
Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on one of the public letters, which asserted voter approval
was never granted to change the scope of the District’s mission, which they refer to as a second-
tier mission. Director Kersteen-Tucker asked staff to respond to this statement.
Meeting 20-04 Page 12
General Manager Ana Ruiz commented there were many multiple discussions and meetings on
the District’s role on the Coast when determining whether the District should consider expanding
its boundaries. These discussions were heavily covered by the press at the time. Also, a
community advisory vote was also held, and the majority voted for the District to expand its
boundaries. As part of the annexation, the District incorporated community concerns to protect
and preserve agricultural lands and the agricultural heritage of rural San Mateo County Coast.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams added that staff visited each city and town within the
District’s existing boundary and sought resolutions of support, which the District received from
all but the Town of Woodside.
Ms. Stevenson commented that the annexation itself underwent review by the San Mateo County
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), so there was extensive public process,
including public comment.
Mr. Williams added there was involvement by San Mateo County, and they adopted a Coastal
Service Plan for the District as part of that process.
Lennie Roberts reemphasized the Coast did have an advisory vote in 2004, which passed.
Director Kersteen-Tucker explained she wanted to confirm the process is on record, including
that there was extensive public outreach and involvement. Additionally, there are Coastal
projects that were codified in Measure AA that support the preservation of sustainable
agriculture and the rural character on the Coast. Director Kersteen-Tucker reemphasized the
extensive voter approval for the work being done on the Coastside.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to
1. Approve a Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Adopt the Toto Ranch Rangeland Management Plan.
3. Amend the Toto Ranch Preliminary Use & Management Plan to reflect the adoption of the
Rangeland Management Plan.
4. Approve a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a new, five-year
conservation grazing lease with an option for a five-year extension at Toto Ranch with Erik
and Doniga Markegard.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Cyr and Hassett absent)
Recess was taken at 9:40 p.m.
Meeting reconvened at 9:42 p.m. with Directors Holman, Kersten-Tucker, Kishimoto, Riffle, and
Siemens present.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Meeting 20-04 Page 13
Director Riffle reported a Public Access Working Group (PAWG) meeting will be held on
March 5, 2020 where the PAWG will make their recommendation for the Planning and Natural
Resources Committee meeting current scheduled for April 21, 2020.
B. Staff Reports
No staff reports.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 9:46 p.m.
________________________________
Maria Soria, CMC
Deputy District Clerk
March 11, 2020
Board Meeting 20-06
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 6:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen -Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Real
Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Agent Allen
Ishibashi
Public comments opened at 6:05 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 6:05 p.m.
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, Santa Clara County APN: 170-04-051
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Diane New, Santa Clara County and Chris Jordan, City of Los Altos
Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms
Meeting 20-06 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 6:58 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:02 p.m.
President Holman reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen -Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manger Brian Malone,
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth,
Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Capital Project Manager III
Leigh Guggemos, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Public Affairs Manager
Kori Skinner, Governmental Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth confirmed with Director
Kishimoto that there is a meeting agenda posted at her location, that the location is reasonably
accessible to the public, such that any member of the public could participate, and that no
members of the public are currently at the teleconference location that would like to participate
in the public comment portion of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:06 p.m.
No speakers present.
Meeting 20-06 Page 3
Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m.
Director Cyr pulled Item 4 from the Consent Calendar.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent
Calendar, except for Item 4.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
1. Approve March 3, 2020 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Approval of the Funding and Acquisition Agreement between the County of Santa
Clara and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to support the Purchase of the
former Gupta-Khan Property as an Addition to El Sereno Open Space Preserve located at
17045 Bohlman Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number
517-24-030) (R-20-24)
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report.
2. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute a
Funding and Acquisition Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for a County
contribution of half the purchase price of the former Gupta-Khan Property, or $192,500, in
exchange for the conveyance of a conservation easement.
4. Award of Contract for Remediation Design of a ranch debris cleanup site at the
former Madonna Creek Ranch located in Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve (R -20-
23)
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Rincon Consultants Inc., for
hazardous materials consulting services and remediation plan development to implement the
Madonna Creek Ranch Debris Cleanup for a not-to-exceed base amount of $63,365.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $6,337 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus
allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $69,702.
Senior Resource Management Specialist Aaron Hébert explained that the changes to the General
Manager’s recommendation reflect the recommendation by the auditor that the project is not
eligible for Measure AA funding at this time.
Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of the item and shared comments of support of the item
from Lennie Roberts.
Director Hassett inquired if a past property owner could be responsible for the costs of the
cleanup.
Meeting 20-06 Page 4
Mr. Hebert reported that the District cannot confirm when the materials were deposited, so
would be unable to recover costs.
Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the
General Manager’s recommendation.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
5. Adoption of a Records Retention Schedule (R-20-06)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the records retention
schedule and authorizing destruction of certain records consistent with California law.
BOARD BUSINESS
6. Approval of Basis of Design recommendations to complete the Deer Hollow Farm
White Barn Structural Stabilization Project at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve
(R-20-27)
Capital Project Manager III Leigh Guggemos described the structures and their purposes and
detailed the proposed modifications and repairs to the various structures on the site.
Director Siemens suggested the District may want to consider painting the entire barn to support
long-term maintenance.
Director Hassett inquired regarding the total costs for restoring the Deer Hollow Farm White
Barn.
Ms. Ruiz reported on the various costs being funded by contributions from the City of Mountain
View, as well as a generous outside donation from the Tindall Family that came to the District
and the Friends of Deer Hollow Farm.
Director Siemens spoke in support of conducting additional repairs to prevent water intrusion.
Director Hassett commented on the proposed metal roof.
Mr. Guggemos reported that the metal roof is more fire resistant and would likely be less
expensive than a wooden roof.
Director Hassett suggested alternative options for replacing the staircase that may be more
practical than an attic ladder.
Ms. Ruiz suggested the Deer Hollow Farm staff could test out various ladder options to
determine which would be most appropriate for their use.
The Board members discussed various options for replacing the current staircase.
President Holman inquired why another firm was contracted to complete the historic assessment
instead of continuing with Page & Turnbull, who had completed an initial assessment.
Meeting 20-06 Page 5
Mr. Guggemos reported the additional assessment was needed to determine if the White Barn
was individually historically significant.
Planning Manager Jane Mark reported Page & Turnbull is not currently under contract with the
District but is a subcontractor for other District consultants.
President Holman questioned the rationale for assessing the White Barn separately from the
entire preserve.
Director Siemens commented on the District’s response to the historic assessment and spoke in
favor of staff’s selection of repairs to preserve the current appearance of the White Barn.
Director Hassett suggested interpretive signage to explain the significant partnership involved in
making the repairs.
Director Kishimoto spoke in support of the current staircase.
Ms. Ruiz reported staff can look at ladder options
Public comments opened at 8:14 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 8:14 p.m.
Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve
the structural stabilization measures for the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn as recommended in
the Basis of Design Report prepared by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., dated December
18, 2019.
Friendly Amendment: Director Hassett offered a friendly amendment to add signage to inform
the public of the repairs and the funding contributions.
Directors Kersteen-Tucker and Riffle accepted the friendly amendment.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
7. Legislative Action Recommendations (R-20-26)
Governmental Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg described the District’s legislative program, its
purpose, and reviewed the District’s legislative priorities for the upcoming 2020-21 legislative
session, including supporting efforts to eliminate the use of second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides, effective guidelines for wildland fuel reduction, and supporting wildlife and trail
corridors. Additionally, the District seeks to strengthen organizational capacity and long-term
financial sustainability to fulfill the mission, such as through a potential climate change bond,
Proposition 68 implementation, and issuance of green bonds.
Meeting 20-06 Page 6
Mr. Hugg reported regional priorities include seeking grant and funding opportunities through
implementation of several regional funding measures, such as San Francisco Bay Restoration
Authority Measure AA and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Measure B. Federal
priorities include advocating for fully funding the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund,
supporting policies that protect and designate national monuments within our region, and
supporting habitat connectivity projects.
Public comments opened at 8:32 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 8:32 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the
recommended list of legislative actions for the 2020 state legislative session.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Interest on Measure AA Bond Proceeds
• Implementation Update: Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Study & Short-Term
Measures
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No Committee reports.
B. Staff Reports
Ms. Ruiz reported the La Honda Public Access Working Group met on March 5, 2020 and voted
to forward a recommendation to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. Staff was
interviewed by Doug McConnell from Open Roads to discuss the Ravenswood Bay Trail
Connection and the importance of active land management to protect and preserve regional open
space lands and the sensitive natural resources.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Kersteen-Tucker reported her attendance at the March San Mateo County Farm Bureau
meeting. Additionally, she recently toured the Figone farmlands to learn more about historic
farming on the property.
Director Kishimoto reported she attended a forum on Lehigh Quarry hosted by Santa Clara
County Supervisor Joe Simitian.
Meeting 20-06 Page 7
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:42 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
R-20-28
Meeting 20-27
April 6, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 2
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment with Questa Engineering for additional geotechnical inspection services
for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection project at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize the General Manger to execute a contract amendment with Questa Engineering for
additional geotechnical inspection services for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project in
the amount of $19,420, for an amended total contract amount not-to-exceed $67,310.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) awarded a contract to Questa
Engineering (Questa) on August 02, 2019 for $47,890 to provide geotechnical inspections and
oversight for the construction of the structural components of the Ravenswood Bay Trail
Connection project (Project). Due to unforeseen field conditions, additional geotechnical
inspections and consultations have been required beyond the original scope of work. A portion
of the work under the proposed contract amendment was authorized in December and January to
keep the active construction project moving and avoid impacts to the schedule, which is strictly
restricted by regulatory permits for work in and near sensitive bayland habitat. Additional
geotechnical inspections are still necessary to complete the construction. The required additional
contract amount totals $19,420. The adopted fiscal year 2019-20 (FY20) project budget requires
a budget adjustment to fund the recommended action and expenditure. A budget overage was
first announced to the Board for the overall project in November 2019 as part of the construction
contract award due to an unanticipated and beneficial accelerated project timeline. The new
timeline will result in faster completion of the project with most expenses incurred this fiscal
year as opposed to next fiscal year. There are sufficient budget savings in various funds to
account for the required budget adjustment without increasing the total District-wide budget. An
amendment will be brought to the Board in May as part of the quarter 3 budget adjustment
process.
DISCUSSION
The Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection project is a 1.3-mile trail construction and repair project
that includes closing a 0.6-mile critical gap in the existing Bay Trail system. This larger Bay
Trail route is known as a commuter trail; therefore, the new trail link will be open from 5am to
10pm daily. The Project is partially located on District fee title land within the Ravenswood
Open Space Preserve (Preserve) and partially within an open space trail easement across City
and County of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) land. In July 2019, the
Board of Directors (Board) awarded a contract to Granite Rock Company of San Jose for
R-20-28 Page 2
construction of the Project (R-19-107). Concurrently, the District solicited proposals from six
pre-qualified consultants to provide geotechnical inspection and consulting services during
construction. Two proposal were received, and Questa was selected based on qualifications, past
experience, reasonable fees, and acceptance of the District’s standard contract agreement and
related requirements.
Questa’s original scope of work included the following tasks:
• Review geotechnical reports, plans, and specifications;
• Review contractor’s material submittals;
• Review and respond to Requests for Information (RFIs);
• Perform field observations and provide field reports for the following:
o Boardwalk pile installation
o Bridge abutment pile installation
o Trail paving subgrade compaction;
• Provide engineering consultation and recommendations as requested by the District;
• Provide technical assistance to comply with Building and Encroachment permits;
• Provide asphalt concrete paving observations and compaction testing; and
• Provide project management and close-out.
Once construction was underway, unforeseen site conditions presented geotechnical challenges
that required additional observations and technical expertise for the following tasks:
1. The boardwalk has 244 timber posts designed to be driven 26 feet into the ground unless
they reached adequate bearing capacity at a shallower depth as determined by a licensed
Geotechnical Engineer. In the original contract, Questa proposed to provide full-time
oversight at the onset of this work activity to observe the first 15 to 20 posts. Once a
consistent method was achieved and posts were reaching full-depth, Questa would reduce
visits to intermittently oversee and inspect the work. This method was successful on
similar boardwalk construction projects in the area and was supported by the project
Structural Engineer of Record. As less than 5% of the posts reached their design depth
due to stiff clay subsurface soils, no consistent method was achieved and Questa was
required to remain onsite to determine adequate bearing capacity for each post.
2. The bridge abutment piles required re-design in the field due to the infeasibility of the
method permitted by the regulatory agencies. Questa provided technical expertise in
developing alternatives to resolve this issue.
3. Questa’s original scope of work only included intermittent field density and compaction
oversight of the asphalt paving operations on the levee trail. There were several areas
where the contractor encountered unsuitable subgrade soils that required additional
geotechnical oversight and consultation. These unforeseen conditions were attributed to a
poorly consolidated existing base and moisture inundation from king tide events during
the compaction operations. Each instance required constant geotechnical oversight to
provide recommendations and confirm that corrective actions were sufficient.
The result is that Questa provided additional field observations and consultations that were not
anticipated in their original proposal. These tasks were authorized in December and January to
minimize interruption to the active construction underway in order to meet the seasonal
R-20-28 Page 3
restrictions mandated by regulatory permits. Additional budget is required to cover these
additional costs and complete the remaining field observation tasks for the project, which include
the final boardwalk post installations and asphalt paving along the SFPUC service road.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY20 adopted budget includes $1,976,760 for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and
Implementation MAA02-002 project. This project has progressed faster than contemplated in the
Spring of 2019 when the current fiscal year budget was prepared. At that time, the project
budget was allocated over two fiscal years (FY20 and FY21). A budget overage was projected
for this project when the Board awarded the construction contract in November 2019 (R-19-144).
Consequently, a project budget amendment will be brought to the Board as part of the Quarter 3
adjustment cycle to cover the recommended action and other construction expenditures incurred
in FY20. New funding sources for this project include a $700,000 grant from the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), now reflected in the project budget
table below.
Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and
Implementation MAA02-002
Prior
Year
Actuals
FY20
Amended*
FY21
Projected** TOTAL
FY20 Budget
District Funded (Fund 30): $212,301 $551,849 $828,207 $1,592,357
Grants: $660,608 $1,316,677 $818,043 $2,795,328
FY20 Budget Amendments (proposed)
Proposed Q3 Budget Amendment (Fund 30): $0 $988,076 ($828,207) $159,869
Grants: $0 $1,518,043 ($818,043) $700,000
Proposed FY21 Budget (Fund 30): $0 $0 $175,729 $175,729
Total Funding Sources: $872,909 $4,374,645 $175,729 $5,423,283
Total Project Budget: $872,909 $4,374,645 $175,729 $5,423,283
Spent-to-Date (as of 3/23/2020): ($872,909) ($2,609,347) $0 ($3,482,256)
Encumbrances: $0 ($1,995,878) $0 ($1,995,878)
Contractor Credit: $0 $250,000 $0 $250,000
Questa Contract Amendment: $0 ($19,420) $0 ($19,420)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $0 $175,729 $175,729
* FY20 amended budget includes proposed quarter 3 adjustments, to be brought to the Board in May 2020.
** Majority of project work is expected to be completed in FY20. Quarter 3 budget adjustments include shifting
projected FY21 budget into the current fiscal year.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 02 Regional: Bayfront Habitat Protection
and Public Access Partnership allocation, costs-to-date, and the fiscal impact related to the
Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation MAA02-002 project.
MAA02 Regional; Bayfront Habitat Protection and Public Access Partnership
Portfolio Allocation: $5,052,000
Grant Amount: $3,545,328
Total Portfolio Allocation: $8,597,328
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 3/23/2020): ($4,675,630)
Encumbrances (including credit): ($1,775,878)
Questa Contract Amendment, including contingency: ($19,420)
R-20-28 Page 4
Remaining FY20 project budgets: $0
Future MAA02 project costs (projected through FY ($175,729)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,646,657)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $1,950,671
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No Committee review has occurred for the recommended contract amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Project was evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (IS/MND),
adopted by the Board on November 16, 2016 (R-16-146) with an addendum adopted by the
Board on November 13, 2019 (R-19-144).
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will authorize the contract amendment allowing Questa to
continue providing geotechnical inspections and oversight through project completion.
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, PE, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Scott Reeves, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-29
Meeting 20-27
April 6, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment with Questa Engineering to Complete the Second Phase of Work
for the Phase II Trail Improvements at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Authorize the General Manager to amend the original contract of $225,000 with Questa
Engineering by $415,400, bringing the base contract amount to $640,400 to complete the
second phase of work (construction documents, permitting, construction administration, and
as-builts) for the Phase II Trails at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $62,310 to be awarded, if necessary, to cover unforeseen
conditions, for a grand total not-to-exceed contract amount of $702,710.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is working toward opening the
northeastern portion of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) to public access,
consistent with the 2017 Board-approved Preserve Plan. Several projects, including the Phase II
Trail Improvements, Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation, and the Bear Creek Stables Site
Plan Implementation need to be completed or underway before this area of the preserve can be
opened to public access. The opening is anticipated for either 2022 or 2023. In May 2019, the
Board of Directors (Board) approved the Award of Contract for Questa Engineering (R-19-14) to
initiate the design, engineering, and biological and cultural evaluations for the Phase II Trails
(MAA 21-011). Questa Engineering completed this first phase of work in December 2019. The
scope of work under the recommended contract amendment covers the second phase of design
and construction support, including preparation of construction documents, permitting,
construction administration, and as-builts. A Quarter 3 budget adjustment may be necessary to
complete the anticipated scope of work during Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. Once design, engineering
and permitting are complete, staff will release a Request for Bids and return to the Board for
approval of a construction contract.
DISCUSSION
Consultant Selection
On February 12, 2019, staff released a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) for trail
design and engineering, regulatory permitting, and biological/cultural services for the Bear Creek
Redwoods Phase II Trail network. Prospective consultants were required by the RFQP to submit
fees for the full scope of work separated into two phases. The language of the RFQP allowed for
the second phase of work to be awarded to the selected consultant through a contract amendment
R-20-29 Page 2
if the consultant met the needs of the District. The RFQP Questa Engineering, along with their
sub-consultants Sequoia Ecological and Basin Research Associates demonstrated expertise in
design and engineering for trail projects, completing prior biological/cultural assessments, and
negotiating permit requirements with regulatory agencies. Sequoia Ecological conducted
effective biomonitoring in preparation for the Phase I opening of Bear Creek Redwoods.
Sequoia’s experienced permitting staff has successfully permitted many projects through various
regulatory agencies. Basin Research staff has extensive experience in program management,
cultural resources (prehistoric and historic) field research, Native American consultation, and
regulatory agency coordination (including working with the State Office of Historic
Preservation).
First Phase of Work
On May 22, 2019, the Board awarded a contract to Questa Engineering for a base amount of
$225,000 (R-19-14) to cover the first phase of work, which included trail assessments, schematic
design, technical studies for regulatory permitting, and biological/cultural services. The Questa
Engineering team completed an assessment of the existing road and trail network along with
geotechnical investigations, preliminary design for trail structures, and various wildlife, botanical
and cultural technical studies to prepare for the regulatory permit process. Questa Engineering
expedited their workplan and completed the First Phase of Work several months ahead of
schedule. The District benefited from Questa Engineering’s experience with Bear Creek
Redwoods resulting from site investigations on the property prior to acquisition by the District.
Questa Engineering finished the first phase of work in December 2019 in a satisfactory manner.
Second Phase of Work
The second phase of work advances the preliminary design, to prepare the required construction
documents for securing permits and releasing a Request for Bids (RFB) to construct several
improvements including bridges, retaining structures, all-season patrol access routes. The second
phase also includes the following:
• Design of site safety measures to protect known historic resource;
• Biological and cultural resource monitoring during construction;
• Incorporation of habitat enhancements, where feasible;
• Additional cultural resource evaluation and documentation, as needed;
• Geotechnical and special inspections during construction;
• Proper road decommissioning of obsolete road(s); and
• Additional unanticipated regulatory permitting (i.e. waterline extension from gate BC01
to Bear Creek stables)
The Questa team is qualified to complete these essential tasks. At the District’s direction, Questa
Engineering provided a revised scope and fee for the second phase of work to include additional
tasks identified after the RFQP was released, based on findings from the first phase of work.
Typically, the District prepares separate contracts with biological and cultural resource firms to
cover regulatory permitting, mitigation planning, and on-site construction monitoring. Through
the consultant team structure employed on this project, the design engineer works directly with
the biological and cultural resource specialists to design the project that is sensitive to the
environmental setting, and thus reduces the need for costly mitigation work. This contract
amendment provides a full suite of services under one consultant team to bring the project
through completion. After careful review of Questa Engineering’s original and proposed scope
R-20-29 Page 3
and fee, District staff deems their phase two fees to be fair and reasonable (see comparison
below).
Firm Location First Phase Fees Second Phase Fees
Provided During RFQP
Revised Second
Phase Fees
Questa Engineering
Corp
Point
Richmond,
CA $225,000 $236,228 $415,400*
Waterways
Consulting, Inc Santa Cruz,
CA $410,968 $379,630 N/A
*Includes added tasks (Tasks 8a, 8b, 9, & 10) not anticipated in the original RFQP
**Does not include Tasks 8a, 8b, 9, & 10
The remaining scope for the Project includes the following primary tasks and associated fees.
The items listed in bold total $415,400 and are the subject of the proposed contract amendment
with Questa Engineering. Questa completed Tasks 1 through 4 under the first phase of work.
Task Fees
FIRST PHASE COMPLETE
1 - Review Existing Information $3,273 – Complete
2 – Multi-Use Trail Feasibility $30,230 – Complete
3 – Permitting Strategy and Technical Studies $111,137 – Complete
4 – Site Investigation/Alternatives Analysis $80,360 – Complete
FIRST PHASE SUBTOTAL (Original Contract) Complete - $225,000
FIRST PHASE CONTINGENCY Not Used - $33,750
SECOND PHASE
5 – 65% Plans, Specifications, & Cost Estimate (PS&E) $90,700
6 – Regulatory Permit Application Preparation $88,752
7 – 90% and 100% PS&E $53,340
8 – Bidding, Construction Administration, and Project Closeout $57,705
SECOND PHASE SUBTOTAL $290,497
ADDITIONAL TASKS
8a – Geotechnical Inspections $23,220
8b – Biologic preconstruction surveys and monitoring during
construction and Cultural Resource Monitoring
$63,216
9 - Historic Bridge Site Safety Features $20,220
10 - Stables Legacy Road Decommissioning and Waterline
Permitting
$18,247
ADDITIONAL TASKS SUBTOTAL $124,903
AMENDMENT TOTAL $415,400
BASE CONTRACT TOTAL $640,400
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal year 2020 adopted budget includes $277,250 for the Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II
Trail Improvements project (MAA21-011). The full $225,000 original Questa contract is
expected to be spent this fiscal year. A budget adjustment increasing the project budget by
$68,750 is anticipated during the Quarter 3 budget adjustment cycle to cover the recommended
R-20-29 Page 4
action and expenditures in FY20. Pending approval by the Board, additional funds will be
recommended in future fiscal year budgets as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
The new recommended total Questa Engineering contract is $702,710: $677,710 will be
allocated to the Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II Trail Improvements project (MAA21-011) and
$25,000 will be allocated to the Bear Creek Redwoods Stables Drainage and Mitigation project,
which is proposed to begin in FY2021 and will be included in the proposed FY2021 Capital
Improvement and Action Plan. This separation of work reflects that a small portion of the trail
improvements will, to a greater extent, benefit the stables.
In April 2019, the Board approved a grant from the California Natural Resources Agency
(CNRA, R-19-42) for $2,275,000 under the California River Parkways Grant Program –
Proposition 68. CNRA recently communicated that they will award this project an additional
$120,000 after they receive a revised cost estimate and a formal amendment to the agreement is
made, for a revised grant total of $2,395,000. These funds will be used to cover costs for the
Phase II Trails project.
MAA21-011 Phase II Trail
Improvements, Bear Creek
Redwoods OSP
FY20
Projected*
FY21
Projected
FY22
Projected
Estimated
Future Years TOTAL
District Funded (Fund 30): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grant Amount: $346,000 $367,250 $749,360 $932,390 $2,395,000
Total Funding Sources: $346,000 $367,250 $749,360 $932,390 $2,395,000
Total Project Budget: $346,000 $367,250 $749,360 $932,390 $2,395,000
Spent-to-Date (as of 03/11/2020): ($228,995) $0 $0 $0 ($228,995)
Encumbrances: ($358) $0 $0 $0 ($358)
Questa Engineering Amended
Contract: ($50,000) ($175,000) ($100,000) ($65,400) ($390,400)
Questa Engineering Total
Contract Contingency: $0 $0 $0 ($62,310) ($62,310)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $66,647 $192,250 $649,360 $804,680 $1,712,937
*A budget adjustment is anticipated during the end of quarter 3 budget adjustment cycle to cover the recommended
action and expenditures in FY2020.
The District has made significant progress on MAA Portfolio 21: Bear Creek Redwoods: Public
Recreation and Interpretive Projects (Open for hiking, equestrian activities. Provide parking
areas, trails; upgrade stables. Restore & protect habitats for various species. Repair roads &
trails to reduce sediment. Rehabilitate Alma College site). The primary projects that will
complete the portfolio goals, Phase II Trail Improvements, Alma Cultural Landscape
Rehabilitation Project, Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration, and the Bear Creek Stables
Site Plan Implementation project, are in progress and have reached the point where we have cost
estimates for each project. The estimated project costs exceed the MAA funds allocated to the
portfolio; $1,223,530 of available interest earned on MAA funds is being recommended for use
to close the majority of that funding gap. Since this project is grant funded the approval of
allocation of MAA interest funds is recommended for the Bear Creek Stables project (R-20-
34). As project costs are refined additional funding sources will be explored if necessary.
The following table outlines the Measure AA (MAA) Portfolio 21: Bear Creek Redwoods:
Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects allocation, costs-to- date, projected future project
expenditures and projected ending balance at the portfolio level.
R-20-29 Page 5
MAA21: Bear Creek Redwoods - Public Recreation and Interpretive
Projects Portfolio Allocation:
$17,478,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $3,741,424
Committed General Fund Capital (Fund 40) funds: $500,000*
Allocation of available MAA interest earnings: $1,223,530**
Total Portfolio Allocation: $22,942,954
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 03/18/2020): ($9,633,063)
FY20 Encumbrances: ($836,380)
Remaining FY20 project budgets***: ($1,069,646)
Future MAA21 project costs (projected through FY23): ($11,697,917)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($23,237,006)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed)****: ($294,052)
*The Board allocated $500,000 from General Funds for the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation Project.
**Available interest earned on MAA funds will be recommended for allocation to the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan
Implementation Project to address the remaining funding gap.
***Budget adjustments are anticipated during the end of Quarter 3 budget adjustment cycle to cover changes in
projected MAA21 project costs.
****Future project costs continue to be refined with each budget cycle; total MAA21 project costs in this table
reflect estimated costs as of March 2020.
The following table summarizes the Measure AA Portfolio 21 allocation, estimated total project
costs and remaining portfolio balance.
MAA21: Bear Creek Redwoods - Public Recreation and Interpretive Projects
Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $3,741,424
Committed General Fund Capital (Fund 40) funds: $500,000
Allocation of available MAA interest earnings: 1,223,530
Total Portfolio Allocation: $22,942,954
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
MAA21-001 Moody Gulch Fence & Gate Improvements $847
MAA21-002 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan ($14,369)
MAA21-003 Bear Creek Redwoods Stables Water System $200,038
MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation $5,334,890
MAA21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access $5,873,159
MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation $6,600,488
MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Invasive Weed Treatment $1,131,036
MAA21-008 Bear Creek Redwoods Ponds Restoration and Water Rights $712,619
MAA21-009 Bear Creek Redwoods Webb Creek Bridge $487,492
MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation $413,913
MAA21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP $2,395,000
MAA21-012 Bear Creek Redwood Tree Restoration $101,893
Total Portfolio Expenditures: $23,237,006
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($294,052)
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Board approved the Award of Contract with Questa Engineering to Complete the First Phase
of Work for the project (R-19-14) on May 22, 2019. The Award of Contract Report discussed the
R-20-29 Page 6
potential for a contract amendment with Questa Engineering to complete the Second Phase of
Work.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Potential environmental impacts of the Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II Trails and associated
improvements were analyzed in the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan and Environmental
Impact Report, which was certified by the Board on January 25, 2017.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board authorization, the General Manager will direct staff to amend the contract with
Questa Engineering to complete the second phase of work, which includes construction
documents, permitting, construction administration, and as-builts. For the portion of the
construction work that will not be completed by the District’s special project crews, staff will
return to the Board for consideration of a construction contract after the public bid process is
complete.
Attachment(s)
1. Bear Creek Redwoods Phase II Proposed Trail Network and Associated
Improvements
Responsible Department Head:
Michael Jurich, Land and Facilities Department Manager
Prepared by:
Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land and Facilities Department
B E A R C R E E K
R E D W O O D S O P E N
S P A C E P R E S E R V E
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
A LMA
CO LLEG E
M u d
L a k e
U p p e r
La k e
AlmaTrail
B e a r C r e e k R o a d
Old Santa Cruz Highway
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ17
Le x i n g t o n
R e s e r v o i r
L o w e r
La k e
æFutur e
C onnection
To Ba y A rea
Ridge Tr a il
Briggs Creek
A l d e r c r o f t Creek
W e b b Creek
Briggs C reek
14
0
0
120
0
1000
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
800
12
0
0
8 0 0
10 0 0
M i d p e ni nsula Re g i o na l
O p e n S p a c e D i str i c t
(M RO S D )
ATTACHMENT 1:
Pa
th:
G
:
\
Projects\
Bea
r_C
reek_Redwoods\
Pha
seII_Tra
i
ls\
Pha
seII_Tra
i
ls\
BC
R_Pha
seII_Tra
i
ls_2
0
1
9
0
3
0
5
_2
.
mxd
C
rea
ted
B
y:
flopez
0 5 0 0250
Fe etI
M R O S D Pre s e r ve
W hi le the D i stri ct s tri ve s to use the bes t a va i la ble di gi ta l da ta , thes e da ta do not re pre se nt a le ga l s ur vey a nd a re me rely a gra phi c i llustra ti on o f geo gra phi c fea ture s.
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ85
C a mpbell
Sa ra toga
Los G a tos
A r e a o f
D e t a i l
E x i s ti ng Tra i l
^_Prop o s e dImproveme nts Pr o p o s e d N e w Tr a i l
Existing Road/Trail
to be Improved
New vehicle
rated bridge
A
ll-
S
e
ason Patrol A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
u
t
e
All-Season Patrol A c c ess Route
Improve existing road to
All-season patrol access
Remove overly steep,
unsustainable trail
Bear Creek Phase II Trail Improvements
New vehicle
rated bridge
Retaining
Wall
Buttress
Fill
Safety Solution
for Old Bridge
Replace
Culvert
Develop
Trailhead
Options
BEAR CREEK
STABLES
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-30
Meeting 20-07
April 6, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Resolution for funding from Santa Clara County for the Alpine Trail construction project in Coal
Creek Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to apply for Stanford Recreation Mitigation
Funding from Santa Clara County and, if successful, enter into a funding agreement.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has been invited by San Mateo
County to apply for $272,711 of funding for the Alpine Trail Project. San Mateo County is
coordinating a joint application to Santa Clara County for projects in southern San Mateo County
that qualify for mitigating the loss of recreational opportunities due to development on the
Stanford University campus resulting from the approval of the 2000 Stanford General Use
Permit (GUP). Alpine Trail is an important regional trail connection through Coal Creek Open
Space Preserve for cyclists and hikers, connecting people from Stanford University in the valley
to trail systems located within the Skyline area along the ridgeline and even further out to reach
the Pacific Ocean. The Alpine Trail project is the primary component of MAA Portfolio #10:
Re-open Alpine Road at Coal Creek.
DISCUSSION
The District is currently working on a crucial regional recreational trail connection in
unincorporated San Mateo County that utilizes the alignment of the defunct Alpine Road to
establish a regional hiking, cycling, and equestrian trail. Alpine Road is an old road alignment
owned by San Mateo County that extends approximately 2.3 miles through Coal Creek Open
Space Preserve and adjacent private lands.
Santa Clara County has made $5,242,711 available for projects that mitigate the loss of
recreational opportunities for existing or new Stanford residents and facility users due to
development on the Stanford University campus resulting from the approval of the 2000
Stanford General Use Permit (GUP). To alleviate the loss of recreational opportunities,
mitigation measures were adopted in the 2000 GUP Environmental Impact Report that requires
Stanford to improve parks and dedicate trail easements.
The current funding available is from prior projects for which Santa Clara County previously
declared its intent to fund; however, some of those projects were either not implemented or were
R-20-30 Page 2
implemented without using the funding. The remaining funding is currently being made
available to San Mateo County jurisdictions located in proximity to Stanford University.
On March 14, 2018, the District’s Board of Directors approved Option Two (2) for the Upper
Alpine Road Trail Project, which repurposes and repairs the road failures to a six-foot wide trail
and constructs a new, six-foot wide trail through the central section. The Board also directed the
General Manager to pursue partnership and funding opportunities for this project with the
County (R-18-19). Through those outreach efforts, San Mateo County has agreed to include a
request for $272,711 in its coordinated joint application to Santa Clara County.
On April 2019, San Mateo County and the District entered into a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) formalizing a partnership and establishing a process to build a trail on the old roadbed
and for negotiating a potential transfer of property rights to the District for the long-term
management and maintenance of the Alpine Trail (R-19-19).
District staff is working with various consultants to develop construction documents, prepare
environmental review documents, and complete regulatory permit applications for the project.
Staff has advanced the design to 65%, and now has robust construction cost estimates. The
consulting engineer estimates the total construction cost at $2.88 million, including a 15%
contingency. The project will address several large roadbed issues, including a failed 220-foot
long by 48-inch culvert, a fill-slope failure requiring a retaining wall, and several failed or
actively failing stream crossing culverts as part of the road-to-trail conversion. By completing
this work, the project also will reduce the risk of sediment input to Corte Madera Creek, which is
a tributary in the San Francisquito Creek watershed. A second phase, which will be constructed
by a District special projects crew, will reroute a temporarily-built bypass segment.
Administrative requirements for this funding include quarterly invoicing if expenses are greater
than $1,000, as well as submission of twice-yearly progress reports to Santa Clara County. The
District will also commit to providing a plaque that acknowledges the grant permanently affixed
in a prominent location along the trail. Additionally, the District will give credit to Santa Clara
County in project-related materials and present the Project at a Santa Clara County Board
meeting within three months of project completion. Upon project completion, the District will
commit to opening Alpine Trail to the public and take responsibility for its ongoing maintenance
and operation. If ownership is transferred to another entity, the receiving agency must commit to
these same provisions. The grant agreement will be valid for five years from the date of
execution, with the possibility of an extension.
FISCAL IMPACT
This funding opportunity has the potential for a positive impact of $272,711 toward completion
of the Alpine Trail project. Design, environmental review and permitting are projected at
$530,000 for Phase 1. Construction costs for Phase 1 are estimated to be $2.88 million. Phase 2
total costs are estimated at $250,000. Grand total project costs are estimated at $3.66 million.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This report was not previously reviewed by a committee.
R-20-30 Page 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Applying for funding is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Pending Board approval, staff will apply for Stanford Recreation Mitigation Funding with Santa
Clara County in conjunction with the joint application coordinated by San Mateo County for
construction of the Alpine Trail for $272,711.
After Santa Clara County makes a formal commitment to allocate funding for the Alpine Trail,
the General Manager will enter into a project agreement with Santa Clara County to receive
Stanford Recreation Mitigation Funding.
Attachment(s)
1. Resolution approving submission of a funding application to Santa Clara County for
the Alpine Trail.
Responsible Department Head:
Michael Jurich, Land and Facilities Department
Prepared by:
Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
Contact person:
Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager
1
Resolutions/2020/20-xx_ Funding Alpine Trail
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING SUBMITION OF A FUNDING
APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FOR STANFORD RECREATION
MITGATION FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $272,711 FOR COSTRUCTION OF
ALPINE TRAIL AND ENTER INTO A PROJECT AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE THE
FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara has made available $5,242,711 to fund bicycle
and pedestrian projects as well as park projects in the southern part of San Mateo County in
proximity to Stanford University (Stanford) from the loss of recreational opportunities associated
with development at Stanford resulting from the approval of the 2000 Stanford General Use
Permit (GUP); and
WHEREAS, the funding must be expended for projects dedicated to new or expanded
recreational opportunities, that serve existing or new Stanford residents and Stanford facility
users, and that are supported by their governing bodies; and
WHEREAS, the former Alpine Road has experienced a series of slides and floods which
have damaged the road beyond repair, but the old roadbed is suitable for construction of a new
regional trail; and
WHEREAS, the future Alpine Trail would create a 2.3-mile regional trail for bicyclists,
hikers, and equestrians connecting the valley to the skyline area, including trail connections to
the Bay Area Ridge Trail and to trail systems within multiple open space preserves, San Mateo
County Parks, and State Parks; and
WHEREAS, the Alpine Trail project was one of the top 25 Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District projects identified through the public vision plan process, and the public voted in
favor of Measure AA bond funding in 2014 to fund the top 25 projects including Alpine Trail;
and
WHEREAS, the County of San Mateo and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District have
signed a memorandum of understanding, which contemplates the District leading the construction of the
trail along the former San Mateo County Road alignment with County of San Mateo assistance, and with
the County of San Mateo eventually transferring the underlying property rights to the District so that the
District can manage Alpine Trail after it is constructed; and
WHEREAS, in addition to providing regional trail connections, the Alpine Trail project
would also prevent sediment from entering Corte de Madera Creek where it could cause potential
environmental damage; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Alpine Trail connects public roads and trails to currently
accessible sections of Alpine Road managed by the County of San Mateo and the Town of
Portola Valley that connect directly to the Stanford campus; and
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Resolutions/2020/20-xx_ Funding Alpine Trail
WHEREAS, the total construction cost of phase I of the project is estimated at $2.38
million and the District seeks grant funding of $272,711 from the County of Santa Clara for the
Alpine Trail to address alternative mitigation resulting from the loss of recreational opportunities
due to development resulting from Stanford’s 2000 General Use Permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
1. Authorizes the General Manager, or designee, to:
a. Submit an application package for Stanford Recreation Mitigation Funding to the
County of Santa Clara in conjunction with the joint application coordinated by the
County of San Mateo for construction of the Alpine Trail in a total amount of
$272,711; and
b. Enter into a Project Agreement with the County of Santa Clara to receive Stanford
Recreation Mitigation Funding, after the County of Santa Clara makes a formal
commitment to allocate funding for recreation improvements for the Alpine Trail.
2. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has or will have sufficient funds to
complete and, following completion, to operate and maintain the Alpine Trail.
3. Agrees to provide any funds beyond the grant funding provided by the County of Santa
Clara necessary to complete the project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _______, 2020, at a special meeting thereof, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO
FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
3
Resolutions/2020/20-xx_ Funding Alpine Trail
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
From:Jennifer Woodworth
To:Brian Malone; Matthew Anderson; Ana Ruiz
Subject:FW: Karen Holman - Ward 5 - Board Contact Form
Date:Thursday, March 5, 2020 11:34:52 AM
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information <info@openspace.org>
Subject: Karen Holman - Ward 5 - Board Contact Form
EXTERNAL
Name *Loma Prieta
Select a Choice *Karen Holman - Ward 5
Email *
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District
Ward)
Palo Alto
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to
be contacted by phone)
Comments: *
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
3921 E. Bayshore Rd, #204
Palo Alto, CA 94303
March 4, 2020
Karen Holman,
Board President, Ward 5
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
Also via Email to
Dear President Karen Holman and Board Members,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has long appreciated the fealty of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District (MROSD) governance structure to the environmental mission for which the
District was founded. Our chapter is one of the leading sponsors of nature outings - hiking and
biking - of any of the 13 California chapters and thus the MROSD lands and trails are both familiar
and dear to us.
From time to time, however, an issue arises that gives us considerable concern and in this case the
issue is the proposal to conduct a one-year pilot program on MROSD trails as an assessment
methodology for electric bicycles. Our chapter's outlook on electric bicycles on open space trails is
not positive and we are working on a longer letter citing our reasons why.
Our purpose in this letter is to strenuously object to a process - a pilot program - that has all of
hallmarks of the proverbial foot-in-the-door, camel's-nose-under-the-tent, and/or test-that-can't-
fail - more politely a fait accompli. The impacts of powered vehicles on hikers and the environment
are, in all likelihood, not assessable within a one year period and the Board would then be faced with
an interest group that would strenuously object to the termination of a perceived entitlement.
We are confident that the MROSD Board Members are more than capable of reaching a decision
based on the considerable data and history available from other districts and jurisdictions with
similar missions.
We close in the belief that the Board itself shares that confidence.
Sincerely,
Bruce Rienzo
Executive Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: Conservation Committee Co-Chairs Katja Irvin and Gladwyn D’Souza
From:
To:Matthew Anderson
Cc:;
Subject:E-Bikes on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Trails
Date:Monday, March 16, 2020 12:50:42 PM
Attachments:MROSD E BIKE LETTER - Sierra Club March 16 2020.pdf
EXTERNAL
March 16, 2020
Mr. Matt Anderson
Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
RE: E-Bikes on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Dear Mr. Anderson,
We are writing to respond to your inquiry of March 6, 2020, and to provide more detailto express our continuing concern regarding pending consideration by MidpeninsulaRegional Open Space District (MROSD) to permit electric bikes on trails open tomountain biking throughout the District. The MROSD Board called for a data-drivenanalysis before another e-bike scheme is presented for review.
Accordingly, please note that the following assertions we make concerning e-bikesare fully documented at the end of this letter.
Sincerely,
Katja Irvin and Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Co-Chairs
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
sent by:
Barbara Kelsey
Chapter CoordinatorSierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Suite 204
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1
SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES March 16, 2020 Mr. Matt Anderson Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
RE: E-Bikes on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Trails Dear Mr. Anderson, We are writing to respond to your inquiry of March 6, 2020, and to provide more detail to express our continuing concern regarding pending consideration by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to permit electric bikes on trails open to mountain biking throughout the District. The MROSD Board called for a data-driven analysis before another e-bike scheme is presented for review. Accordingly, please note that the following assertions we make concerning e-bikes are fully documented at the end of this letter. In our view there is no overwhelming public demand for e-bikes on MROSD trails.i In fact, the MROSD’s most recent District-wide user survey and focus group interviews, conducted at a cost of $172,000, documented no mention of mountain bikes, e-bike or conventional, except in negative terms as a result of conflicts with non-biking trail users.ii According to the Outdoor Industry Association, there is no growth in mountain bike popularity because sales have been flat since 2001.iii E-bikes exist to make up for that deficiency, sales of which will compensate retailers and manufacturers who have lost revenue from the static popularity of conventional mountain biking. While there is no growth in mountain biking there is growth in hiking and walking.iv The majority of MROSD trail users are hikers and walkers - not bikers. The District’s own user survey and the user surveys of San Mateo County Parks and Santa Clara County Parks clearly state hiking and walking are the most popular activities on our local public lands.v The primary proponents of conventional and electric mountain biking are organized biking groups supported in large part by funding from bike retailers and manufacturers whose contributions are most likely tax deductible.vi Flush with donated money that some donors characterize as “investments,” local biker groups deploy paid staff they otherwise would not be able to afford who persistently lobby public land managers to open trails to mountain bikes, powered or otherwise.vii
2
E-bikes are motorized vehicles having more in common with motorcycles than bicycles.viii The Sierra Club supports the concept of such vehicles as an excellent transportation alternative. We do not perceive MROSD, POST, GGNRA or SFPUC trails as transportation trails. E-bikes enable riding faster and longer on trails and are not marketed to seniors needing help biking but to younger folks seeking to ride further, faster and longer.ix Once MROSD permits motorized vehicles on trails it will be nearly impossible to regulate against faster and more powerful e-bikes. If motorized bikes are allowed then we do not see what would be the limiting principle that would differentiate acceptable e-bikes from unacceptable e-bikes. E-bikes on MROSD trails would create a new and troubling user conflict that reflects the growing divide between proponents of e-bikes and those conventional mountain bikers who oppose them.x Why the opposition? Because e-bikes negate one of the legitimate reasons justifying mountain biking in the first place, that it is a healthy form of exercise.xi The reality of e-bikes poses questions about the verity of that claim.xii As a result, some defenders of conventional mountain biking are concerned that e-bikes on open space trails will present an unfavorable image about mountain biking, that they are more about speed and thrills than pursuing a healthy lifestyle. There are two kinds of major trail users — hikers and bikers. Multiple use means that mountain bikes have a tendency to dominate any trails to which they have access because they are larger and faster than human beings.xiii Over time hikers can be displaced as bikers rule. xiv E-bikes would result in more intense activity of bikes on trails that would increase small animal fatalities and negatively impact larger animal feeding and breeding behavior as well as trail-side plant communities.xv Conflicts between mountain bikers and hikers have existed for decades. Most certainly, as an obvious extrapolation of greater speed and power, e-bikes would further endanger non-biking trail users, especially children and the elderly.xvi E-bikes have the potential to accelerate a decrease in non-biking trail users and could further create the impression that district lands are playgrounds for people who can afford expensive e-bikes. Minority communities, who according to the District’s own comprehensive user survey, already feel unwelcome on District lands are not likely to react positively to the coming of e-bikes.xvii We don't believe any more data than what is already available to the District is necessary to clearly demonstrate that e-bikes on nature trails are a bad idea. E-bikes are the newest promotion the mountain bike industry is proffering to influence public land managers who we are hopeful will recognize their number one obligation, to protect the environment entrusted to their care which user surveys repeatedly make clear is the public’s highest priority.xviii Clearly, the tax paying public expects more from MROSD than proposing to open trails to motorized vehicles. MROSD is not a transportation agency. It is an open space district. Accordingly, we believe MROSD should resist the importuning of e-bikes advocacy – or any
3
powered vehicles for that matter - now and in the future in order to maintain consistency with its basic mission – the protection and enjoyment of the natural environment of the Peninsula. Sincerely,
Katja Irvin and Gladwyn D’Souza Conservation Committee Co-Chairs Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Cc: MROSD Board Members iMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s 2017-2018 Preserve Use Survey Project, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180509_PreserveUseSurveyPresentation_R-18-44.pdf ii“Recommended Areas of Focus,” Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s 2017-2018 Preserve Use Survey
Project, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180509_PreserveUseSurveyPresentation_R-18-44.pdf iii“Outdoor Recreation Participation,” Top Line Report 2017, Outdoor Foundation, page 8. https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-Topline-Report_FINAL.pdf, and “Demographics of Mountain Biking” International Mountain Bicycling Association, https://imbacanada.com/demographics-of-mountain-biking/ iv“Participation in Outdoor Activities,” 2018 Outdoor Recreation Participation Report, Pages 36-37, https://outdoorindustry.org/resource/2018-outdoor-participation-report/ vMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s 2017-2018 Preserve Use Survey Project, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180509_PreserveUseSurveyPresentation_R-18-44.pdf
2018 Visitor Survey Findings, Santa Clara County Parks, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/Whats-Happening/Documents/visitor-survey-2018.pdf; Visitor Use/Non-Use Parks Study 2015-2016, San Mateo County Parks, page 34, https://parks.smcgov.org/sites/parks.smcgov.org/files/press-release/files/Visitor-Study-Final-Report-072216.pdf; and viMountain Bikers of Santa Cruz, http://mbosc.org/sponsors/ and http://mbosc.org/about vii$15,000 donation from REI to Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz, https://www.rei.com/assets/stewardship/2018/2018-rei-grants/live.pdf and http://mbosc.org/jobs/ and REI gives $500,000 to biker groups nation-wide https://www.rei.com/stewardship and https://www.rei.com/assets/stewardship/2018/2018-rei-grants/live.pdf viii“Over a Beer: Why Ebikes Are the Spawn of Satan (mostly),” Singletracks, May 4, 2016, https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-columns/over-a-beer-why-ebikes-are-the-spawn-of-satan-mostly/ ixE-mountain bike commercials, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ng0nSY9CZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZFq-09gzTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfbUl2Hd6JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us-Ndx_b_Bo and “Does The E-Bike Invasion Represent A Menace To Wildlife And Character Of Public Lands?” Mountain
Journal, Sept. 25, 2019, https://mountainjournal.org/do-ebikes-represent-a-menace-to-wildlife-in-the-backcountry x“Over a Beer: Why Ebikes Are the Spawn of Satan (mostly),” Singletracks, May 4, 2016, https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-columns/over-a-beer-why-ebikes-are-the-spawn-of-satan-mostly/
4
xiMountain Biking as a Means to Encourage Public Health and Wellbeing, 2017, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/mph xii“The Ebike Trade-Off Seems To Be Less Exercise, More Enjoyment. And Fewer Showers,” The Washington
Post, May 9, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/the-ebike-trade-off-seems-to-be-less-exercise-more-enjoyment-and-fewer-showers/2018/05/05/5990770a-4ede-11e8-b725-92c89fe3ca4c_story.html xiii“Hiking Speed,” Trail Trove, http://trailtrove.com/hiking-speed and “Average Mountain Bike Speed,”
Mountain Bike Report, https://www.mountainbikereport.com/mountain-bike-speed xiv“Do Bikes Belong in Wilderness Areas?” Sierra, Dec. 20, 2017, https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/do-bikes-belong-wilderness-areas and
Castle Rock State Park General Plan, 2000, p. 105, https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/cr_final_gp_no_maps.pdfserious threat to Castle Rock’s landscape and ecology). Note, speeding bikes on trails was a recommended area of user concern in a survey of users conducted for the Midpeninsula Open Space District. “Recommended Areas of Focus,” Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District’s 2017-2018 Preserve Use Survey Project, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180509_PreserveUseSurveyPresentation_R-18-44.pdf and from Visitor Use/Non-Use Parks Study 2015-2016, San Mateo County Parks,” page 34, https://parks.smcgov.org/sites/parks.smcgov.org/files/press-release/files/Visitor-Study-Final-Report-072216.pdf xv“Impacts of Mountain Biking,” The Wildlife News, June 18, 2019, http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2019/06/18/impacts-of-mountain-biking/ and “When Bikers and Bears Don’t Mix,” the New York Times, Oct. 9, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/science/bears-biking-national-parks.html and “Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review,” 2016, PLOS ONE, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311527071_Effects_of_Recreation_on_Animals_Revealed_as_Widespread_through_a_Global_Systematic_Review and “The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People, A Review of the Literature,” Cultural Change, Sustainable Energy Institute, July 3, 2004, http://www.culturechange.org/mountain_biking_impacts.htm xviNote, speeding bikes on trails was a recommended area of user concern in a survey of users conducted for the Midpeninsula Open Space District. “Recommended Areas of Focus,” Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District’s 2017-2018 Preserve Use Survey Project, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180509_PreserveUseSurveyPresentation_R-18-44.pdf and from Visitor Use/Non-Use Parks Study 2015-2016, San Mateo County Parks,” page 34, https://parks.smcgov.org/sites/parks.smcgov.org/files/press-release/files/Visitor-Study-Final-Report-072216.pdf xviiA recent Midpeninsula user survey revealed minorities in the Bay Area perceive a visit to Midpen properties to be culturally challenging with perceived barriers to entry. “Recommended Areas of Focus,”
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s 2017-2018 Preserve Use Survey Project, https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20180509_PreserveUseSurveyPresentation_R-18-44.pdf xviiiA 2014 survey of park users conducted by the California State Parks Department found that 60% of respondents believed environmental protection was the most important mission of the State Parks Department. Survey on Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California 2012, Complete
Findings issued in January,2014, https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1324/files/PublicOpinionsAttitudes2012_spoa.pdf)
April 6, 2020
Barbara Kelsey - Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: Evaluation of E-Bikes on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Trails
Dear Ms. Kelsey,
Thank you for your letter outlining the Loma Prieta Chapter’s position on electric bicycle (e-bike) access on
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) trails. Balancing access and resource protection are essential to
our mission, which is why we have asked staff for more information and a comparative study. At the regular Board
meeting of November 20, 2019, District staff was directed to return to the Board of Directors (Board) with two
potential scenarios for further Board consideration: (1) an evaluation of and process to potentially implement a
phased, one -year pilot program to allow class 1 e-bikes on select unpaved trails, and (2) an evaluation for potentially
allowing class 1 and class 2 e-bikes on designated paved trails and roadways. As you may be aware, the District has
limited paved trails and roads, with the majority of paved mileage encompassing the Bay Trail (a recreational and
commuter trail) and Mount Umunhum Road (a vehicular and bicycle route).
Under both scenarios, District staff will evaluate and bring back their findings on the constraints, issues, and potential
challenges in enforc ing District regulations. In addition, District staff will present information gathered from outside
sources regarding the different impacts, if any, between analog and e-bikes on the natural resources and visitor
experience. The references you provide in your letter will be reviewed by staff as part of this additional study and
have also been provided to the Board.
Please know that the Board has yet to take an action on whether e-bike use will be allowed on District lands. There is
still significant amount of evaluation and study that District staff needs to complete prior to bringing this item back to
the full Board to receive either additional direction or a decision. Given the current shelter-at-home order and
multiple higher priorities, this item is not expected to return to the Board until 2021. Once the item is scheduled for
Board review, staff will post the Board Agenda and Report on our website and notify persons and groups who are on
our interested parties contact list. Your name and contact information will be added to this interested parties list so
that you too receive future notices.
Thank you again for your early input. We appreciate receiving your thoughts and concerns as we further evaluate
whether e-bikes is a compatible use for District lands and our mission.
Sincerely,
Karen Holman
Board President
CC: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors
Matt Anderson, District Chief Ranger and Visitor Services Manager
R-20-31
Meeting 20-07
April 6, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Report from the Bond Oversight Committee to the Board of Directors for the review period from
July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Bond Oversight Committee recommends that the Board of Directors accept this report.
SUMMARY
In the opinion of the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC), the Schedule of Program Expenditures
as presented in the Measure AA Bond Annual Accountability Report covering the period from
July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 conforms with the Measure AA Expenditure Plan. Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (District) staff compiled the Measure AA Bond Annual
Accountability Report for BOC review.
In coming to its opinion, the BOC reviewed the Annual Accountability Report, sampled
transactions representing 52% of the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2019 (FY19) expenditures, and
requested and reviewed additional documentation as needed.
The BOC met three times. During those meetings it reviewed its Agreed-Upon Procedures
(confirmed annually) for conducting its review of FY19 Measure AA expenditures, sampled and
reviewed selected transactions, heard a verbal report from the District’s outside independent
auditor, and developed its report to the Board of Directors on the BOC’s findings and
recommendations.
Sheldon Chavan from the District’s external auditor, Chavan & Associates LLP, outlined the
processes, procedures, and sampling method for the District’s total fiscal year expenditures that
included the Measure AA expenditures. Chavan & Associates reported that in its opinion, the
Schedule of Program Expenditures for the Measure AA Bond Program is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
There were no proposed amendments to the Measure AA Expenditure Plan for the BOC to
review.
R-20-31 Page 2
DISCUSSION
Committee Formation
The Measure AA ballot included a section to establish the BOC:
“An independent Citizen Oversight Committee will be formed to verify expenditures of bond
proceeds. The independent citizen oversight committee, consisting of seven at-large
members, all of whom shall be District residents. The Citizen Oversight Committee will be
selected by the Board of Directors and interviewed and approved in open session, and will be
subject to the conflict of interest constraints of the California Political Reform Act.”
(NOTE: the independent Citizen Oversight Committee was established as the Bond
Oversight Committee.)
As an integral part of the implementation of Measure AA, the Board adopted, as part of the
Board Policy Manual, the Measure AA Oversight Committee Bylaws. Policy 1.10 states the
BOC’s purpose as follows:
The Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee (Committee) is appointed by the Board of
Directors (Board) for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) in order to
promote transparency, and ensure oversight and accountability for all funds collected and
allocated under Measure AA.
Committee Responsibilities
Per its Bylaws, the BOC has the following three responsibilities for each of the years the
Measure AA general obligation tax is collected or revenues expended:
1. Review Plan expenditures on an annual basis to verify conformity with the Expenditure Plan.
2. Review the District’s Annual Audit and Annual Accountability Report and present the
BOC’s findings to the Board at a public meeting.
3. Review any proposed amendments to the Expenditure Plan.
Committee Composition
The Board formed the BOC in accordance with Measure AA in 2016. The BOC’s present
members and their terms are as follows:
Paul Betlem (term expiring 2020)
Carla Dorow (term expiring 2022)
Denise Gilbert (term expiring 2022)
Tom Scannell (term expiring 2020)
Bruce Tolley (term expiring 2020)
Timothy Tomlinson (term expiring 2022)
Jo Zientek (term expiring 2020)
Committee Activity
January 15, 2020 meeting
The BOC elected Denise Gilbert as Chair and Bruce Tolley as Vice-Chair.
R-20-31 Page 3
Staff presented the FY19 Annual Accountability Report (see Attachment 1). The report includes
the following chapters:
- Executive Summary
- Priority Portfolio Actions by Region (from Measure AA Expenditure Plan)
- Portfolio Expenditure Summary (Numerically by Portfolio Number)
- Financial Report by Project
- Measure AA Bond Program Schedule of Program Expenditures, as included in the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)
The Accountability Report includes a reference to the CAFR posted on the District’s website
(https://www.openspace.org/about-us/district-reports#CAFR).
The BOC discussed the Annual Accountability Report and received answers to its questions
from District staff. The BOC reaffirmed that it would perform its duties in accordance with its
Agreed-Upon Procedures.
District staff provided the BOC with a complete list of all transactions charged as Measure AA
expenditures in FY19. The BOC requested back-up documentation for the following FY19
transactions:
- All three expenditures related to land purchases
- Fourteen other expenditures from the top 25 transactions with the highest dollar values
- Five project expenditures selected by BOC members as representative of various types of
expenditures coded as Measure AA expenditures
The non-land sampled transactions included one credit card invoice, one journal entry correction,
and one payroll related transaction for the reimbursement of staff time charged to Measure AA
projects. The selected land purchase expenditures cover 20% of the total Measure AA
expenditures for the FY19 and the other selected expenditures cover 32%, for a combined
coverage of 52% of the expenditures.
February 4, 2020 meeting
The BOC and staff discussed the documentation supporting the transactions selected at the prior
meeting. Sheldon Chavan from Chavan & Associates was present and discussed the audit
procedures and level of testing on Measure AA expenditures with the BOC. Mr. Chavan
reported that the audit found no instances where funds were inappropriately charged to Measure
AA and that approximately 70% of total Measure AA expenditures were tested as part of the
FY19 audit.
The BOC thanked staff for their professionalism and thoroughness in supporting the work of the
BOC, including preparation of the documentation for selected transactions. The BOC requested
that in the future, in addition to providing the web-based link to the CAFR, staff include the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance and the Balance Sheet
Government Funds from the CAFR in the Annual Accountability Report appendices.
February 27, 2020 meeting
The Committee reviewed, discussed and approved the final report of the BOC to be forwarded to
the Board.
R-20-31 Page 4
Staff provided a preview of expected portfolio progress during FY20 and beyond.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
After the Annual Audit and Accountability Report for the Fiscal Year 2019-20 is completed, the
BOC will reconvene to review the transactions during that fiscal year and report their findings
and/or recommendations to the Board in 2021.
Attachments:
1. Materials provided to the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee may be viewed on the
Committee’s web page: http://www.openspace.org/our-work/measure-aa/oversight
Responsible Department Head:
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Prepared by:
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Bond Oversight Committee
Contact:
Denise Gilbert, Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Chair
Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager
R-20-32
Meeting 20-07
April 6, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Proclaim a Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and discuss District actions to
address the Emergency
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a Resolution proclaiming a local Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
2. Discuss and consent to the formation of a new COVID-19 Ad Hoc Committee, and authorize
the Board President to appoint three Directors to serve on the Committee.
3. Discuss actions taken by the General Manager to address the Emergency and provide
direction regarding authority to undertake future actions.
4. Adopt a Resolution affirming the important role of access to open space during the COVID-
19 Public Health Order while recognizing the need to protect the health and safety of District
employees and Preserve visitors.
SUMMARY
The attached Resolution makes findings under the California Emergency Services Act allowing
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) to proclaim a local emergency in
response to COVID-19, and authorizes the General Manager to take certain actions in response
to the emergency.
DISCUSSION
On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency for the
State of California. Between March 16 and March 18, 2020, all nine counties in the San
Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, issued an order
requiring residents to shelter in place through April 7, 2020 and subsequently extended through
May 3, 2020 (“Public Health Order”) unless extended even further, in order to slow the spread of
the COVID-19 virus.
The attached Resolution makes the findings under the California Emergency Services Act that
the District is operating under the existence of an emergency. It authorizes the General Manager
to undertake certain actions that may be warranted in such an emergency, including making
emergency purchases and taking personnel actions in order to ensure that the District is in
compliance with the Public Health Order.
R-20-32 Page 2
The Public Health Orders in Santa Clara County and San Mateo County provide that engaging in
outdoor activity such as walking, hiking, or running, so long as individuals comply with the
prescribed Social Distancing Requirements, are among the “Essential Activities” permitted under
the Order.
Existing District policies empower the General Manager to take a number of emergency and
temporary actions, including closing trails or Preserves, making emergency purchases, and
taking personnel actions when necessary for District operations. Examples include:
• Board Policy 3.03, Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant
Selection, and Purchasing Policy, Section IV.A., provides that “in the case of an
emergency determined by the District, or federal, state, or other local jurisdictions
requiring an immediate purchase, the General Manager may authorize District staff to
secure… at the lowest obtainable prices, any services, supplies, material, or labor
required to respond to the emergency, regardless of the amount of the expenditure.” Such
expenditures must subsequently be fully described in writing to the Board.
• The District’s Personnel Policies and Procedures, Section 1.4, states that the General
Manager “shall have the authority to make exceptions to or modify the strict application
of any provision of the Personnel Manual when such application would create undue
hardship for the District or the employee and/or when the General Manager determines
that such variance is necessary and appropriate for the efficient operation of the District.”
• The District’s Land Use Regulation ordinance, specifically Sections 200 and 805, afford
administrative discretion to administer a permit program, and to temporarily close
Preserves for public health and safety reasons, among other things.
To date, the General Manager has taken the following actions in response to the Public Health
Order and consistent with her authority:
• Delayed project schedules and suspended the performance by contractors for non-
essential District projects.
• Ordered Rangers to close heavily-trafficked Preserves (Rancho San Antonio; Mount
Umunhum) when parking areas fill up, in order to foster social distancing as dictated by
the Governor and local health officers.
• Temporarily closed Windy Hill Open Space Preserve on March 28 per the request of the
Town of Portola Valley
• Approved telecommuting for all employees who are eligible under Administrative
Policies.
• Placed certain employees on administrative leave when they are unable to telecommute,
or in order to shelter in place at home due to their age or medical condition.
• Encouraged unrepresented Administrative Office employees to donate sick leave to the
District’s “catastrophic leave bank” by temporarily waiving the prerequisite of requiring
donors to donate vacation or other leaves along with sick leave.
• Proposed to the Field Employees Association (FEA) to enter into a temporary side letter
encouraging donation of sick leave to the District’s “catastrophic leave bank” that does
not include the prerequisite of requiring donors to donate vacation or other leaves along
with sick leave.
R-20-32 Page 3
In 2016 the District administratively implemented an “Emergency Operations Plan”, which
anticipates a variety of emergency conditions and provides guidance and resources for
responding to emergencies and coordinating with other agencies during emergency events. This
administrative manual was also intended to prepare the District to recover response costs from
the state and federal government.
Consistent with all of the above and in an effort to continue to implement the Public Health
Order, the General Manager will continue to act consistent with the resources and sources of
authority listed above. The proposed Resolution would affirm existing authority, and further
delegate authority to act in other situations where the public health emergency necessitates swift
action. The proposed Resolution requires that the General Manager subsequently report her
actions to the Board as soon as feasible. As described below, the General Manager will consult
as needed and as time and availability permits with the Board, or a subcommittee of the Board.
The Board President, consistent with Policy 1.04 regarding Board Committees, has proposed
creation of a COVID-19 Ad Hoc Committee to assist in steering the District’s near-term
response to the COVID-19 emergency. The ad hoc committee would serve as a resource to
support the General Manager or designee(s) in policy decision-making, where discussion with
Board members might be of assistance.
The Public Health Orders clearly recognize the value of engaging in outdoor activity. The
second Resolution (Attachment 2) affirms the important role of the District in providing access
to open space and trails while recognizing the need to protect the health and safety of District
employees and Preserve visitors.
FISCAL IMPACT
To date, the fiscal impacts of the ongoing local emergency on the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget
have been minimal. The General Manager will track direct costs incurred related to the COVID-
19 emergency that may be reimbursable through the state and federal government.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
There was no committee review of this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
The General Manager will proceed consistent with the authority conferred by the Board and in
accordance with local, state, and federal orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
R-20-32 Page 4
Attachments:
1. Resolution Proclaiming a Local Emergency
2. Resolution affirming the important role of access to open space during the period of the
COVID-19 Public Health Order while also recognizing the need to protect the health and
safety of District employees and Preserve visitors.
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
Staff contact:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
Resolutions/2020/20-__ProclaimLocalEmergency 1
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PROCLAIMING
A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act, Chapter 7 of the California
Government Code commencing with section 8550, confers upon the governing bodies of political
subdivisions of the state emergency powers necessary to protect health and safety and preserve lives
and property; and
WHEREAS, the definition of “political subdivision” in California Government Code section
8557(b) includes special districts such as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”);
and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of California proclaimed a state of
emergency for the State of California, related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that included a
waiver of the 30-day renewal requirement for a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, nine counties within the San Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County
and San Mateo County within which the District’s jurisdictional boundaries are situated, declared a
local public health emergency and Shelter in Place Orders (“Shelter in Place Orders”) effective
between March 17 and March 20, 2020, through May 3, 2020 unless further extended; and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property
within the District exist and necessitate that the Board of Directors proclaim the existence of a local
emergency for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and that such emergency is expected
to continue until the Santa Clara County and San Mateo County Health Departments terminate the
local emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. A local emergency now exists.
2. To allow the District to respond to this emergency and to comply with the Shelter in Place
Orders, the Board affirms all temporary administrative measures implemented by the General
Manager to date, and authorizes similar additional measures during the emergency, including
but not limited to the following:
a. Approval of telecommuting arrangements for administrative office employees where
appropriate.
b. Placing employees on administrative leave when appropriate.
c. Delaying project schedules for projects programmed in the current Fiscal Year 19-20
Capital Improvement and Action Plan and carried out by District staff and its
contractors and consultants, in particular those not deemed “Essential Infrastructure”
projects as described in the Shelter in Place Order.
d. Temporarily closing areas or preserves if warranted.
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolutions/2020/20-__ProclaimLocalEmergency 2
e. Waiving and/or modifying certain procedures related to the use of the District
employee Catastrophic Leave Bank as described in the District’s Personnel Policies
and Procedures and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Field Employees
Association, respectively.
3. The General Manager is hereby authorized to suspend, interpret, or modify District policies,
including contracting and personnel policies, in a manner that protects District employees,
property, and resources, and implements the Shelter in Place Order, provided that such
actions are reported to the Board.
4. The General Manager is authorized to execute any documents and perform any acts necessary
or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this Resolution.
5. The District Emergency shall be deemed to continue to exist until it is terminated by the
Board.
6. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Director of the Governor's Office of
Emergency Services.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _______, 2020, at a special meeting thereof, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Resolutions/2020/20-__Importance of Open Space 1
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AFFIRMING
THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE DURING THE
COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS WHILE ALSO RECOGNIZING
THE NEED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF DISTRICT
EMPLOYEES AND PRESERVE VISITORS
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of California proclaimed a state of
emergency for the State of California related to the COVID-19 health emergency; and
WHEREAS, nine counties within the San Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County
and San Mateo County within which the District’s jurisdictional boundaries are situated, declared a
local public health emergency and issued Public Health Shelter in Place Orders (“Public Health
Orders”) effective between March 17 and March 20, 2020, through May 3, 2020 unless further
extended; and
WHEREAS, the Orders recognize that engaging in outdoor activity such as walking,
hiking, or running, is among the “Essential Activities” permitted under the Orders, provided that
individuals comply with the prescribed Social Distancing Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the District is charged with fulfilling its essential government function to
provide open space for outdoor activity, while maintaining the health and safety of District
employees and preserve visitors; and
WHEREAS, the District recognizes the physical, mental, and emotional health benefits
of spending time in nature; and
WHEREAS, the District plays an important role in both Santa Clara County and San
Mateo County in providing a regional greenbelt, and strives to ensure that the District can deliver
its services to the community to the greatest extent possible while heeding the Public Health
Orders; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the health and safety of District employees and members of the
public is the District’s highest priority; and
WHEREAS, under the unprecedented current conditions, the District wants to be able to
continue to allow for public access to its trails and open spaces, provided that it can be done safely
and within the Social Distancing Requirements set forth in the Public Health Orders.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board affirms that maintaining public access to open space and trails is an important
objective during the Shelter in Place Orders.
2. The Board recognizes the critical role that District employees play in operating and
maintaining the Preserves, and that their health and safety, along with that of members of
the public, is the District’s priority.
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolutions/2020/20-__Importance of Open Space 2
3. The General Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to take any steps
necessary to allow for safe and healthy access to District Preserves, in a manner that
protects the health of the public and District employees and is consistent with the Orders
and any other applicable guidelines or directives from local, state, or federal health
officials.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _______, 2020, at a special meeting thereof, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
DATE: April 6, 2020
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager
SUBJECT: Bear Creek Redwoods Multi-Use Trail Alignment
_____________________________________________________________________________
In January 2017, the Board of Directors (Board) approved the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve
Plan (Preserve Plan) and certified the Environmental Impact Report. The Preserve Plan identified
a phased implementation of the trail network. Phase II projects include the construction of new
trails, improvements to existing roads and trails, and new stream crossings. The Phase II trail
network includes a significant segment of the proposed multi-use trail alignment, as shown in
Figure 3-1 from the Preserve Plan (Attachment 1). The intent of the multi-use trail is to provide a
connection from the Lexington Basin through the Preserve to the Skyline/Summit area. The
Preserve Plan envisioned the multi-use trail as fronting the east side of Bear Creek Road between
Highway 17 and the Alma College area to potentially reduce user conflicts between mountain
bicyclists and equestrians originating from Bear Creek Stables.
In Fall 2018, District staff and field crew investigated the proposed alignment and expressed
concern about the constructability of a potential new segment of trail that crossed through steep
and heavily constrained topography. Additionally, staff raised concerns regarding ongoing
maintenance of this route. In May 2019 the District retained Questa Engineering, along with their
subconsultants Sequoia Ecological and Basin Research, to design, engineer, and permit the Phase
II trail network project. Questa evaluated the multi-use trail as originally proposed in the
Preserve Plan. Questa found that significant segments (shown in red on Attachment 2) of the
proposed trail were infeasible due to required slope stabilization efforts, numerous tree removals,
construction of two long span bridges, and additional impacts on the environment.
Questa proposed two alternative alignments for the multi-use trail in consultation with District
staff. Alignment 1 follows a similar route as proposed in the Preserve Plan and would require
new trail construction. Alignment 2 follows existing routes where trail improvements are already
planned as part of the greater Phase II trail network. Due to various factors discussed below,
Alignment 2 was selected as the preferred multi-use trail alignment.
Alignment 1 – Not Preferred
Although this alignment (shown in yellow on Attachment 2) is technically feasible, current
estimates suggest that construction of this new 2,500-foot long, 10 to 12-foot wide multi-use trail
would cost approximately $1.6 million. Additionally, higher operational and maintenance costs
would be required due to steep slopes and unstable underlying geology. The alignment would
need to follow the Bear Creek Stables driveway for approximately 200 linear feet to avoid an
infeasible crossing over Briggs Creek. Due to these factors, this alignment was rejected in favor
of Alignment 2, which uses existing roads and trails to accommodate the multi-use trail.
Alignment 2 – Preferred Alignment
The preferred alignment (shown in green on Attachment 2) utilizes existing road and trail routes
that range from eight to 12 feet wide. This route significantly reduces construction costs by
eliminating bridge crossings and utilizing existing roads and trails that will already be improved
as part of the Phase II Trails scope (i.e. no new trail construction). Operational and maintenance
requirements, along with environmental impacts are minimized since existing roads and trail
routes will be used (no new construction = no additional large vegetation removal). Staff will
continue to develop the design of the multi-use trail along this alignment.
Conformance with the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan
The Preserve Plan recognized that the multi-use trail alignment was subject to change during the
design process as stated below:
The northeastern segment of the multi-use trail, beginning at the intersection of Bear Creek
Road and the HWY 17 interchange, will be designed and constructed to avoid established
equestrian trails, neighboring properties, unstable geologic features, and other topographic
constraints to the greatest extent possible. The conceptual alignment shown on Figure 3-1 is
therefore subject to change during the design and engineering process (Preserve Plan 03-12).
The trail will incorporate the following design guidelines per the Preserve Plan:
• Width and alignment should allow for safe and adequate visibility and safety for all users
to the maximum extent possible, including horses and novice equestrians, and be
accessible to patrol vehicles;
• Alignment minimizes intersections with other trails, particularly those in the immediate
vicinity of the Stables or otherwise frequently used by equestrians; and
• Grade should be gentle (generally less than 10%) where possible to enable efficient
drainage, or drainage improvements should be made to minimize erosion and allow year-
round use.
Alignment 2 for the multi-use trail meets the intent of the Preserve Plan and adheres to these
listed design guidelines.
Next Steps
A contract amendment with Questa Engineering is before the Board at this meeting to complete
the design, engineering, and permitting for the Phase II trail network. Construction of the Bear
Creek Phase II trails is anticipated for summer 2021 through 2022. Staff will also communicate
the selection of Alignment 2 to the Bear Creek Stables community.
Upper
Lake
Mud
Lake
Lower
Lake
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
ir
We b b C r e e k
C olli n s C r ee k
AldercroftCreek
A l d e r c r oft Creek
Briggs
Creek
Briggs Creek
D y er C r e e k
Za
y
a
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
FUTURE CONNECTION TO
SKYLINE-SUMMIT AREA
FUTURE
CONNECTION
TO BAY AREA
RIDGE TRAIL
NORTH
PARKING
AREASTABLES
PARKING AREA
ALMA COLLEGE
PARKING AREA
Bear Creek
Stables
Alma
College
Presentation
Center
Moody Gulch
Old
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
u
m
m
it
R
o
a
d
Be a r C r e e k R o a d!1
!3 !7
!7
!7 !7
!1
!1
!1
!1
!2!2
!7
!10
!10
!11
!11
!10
!10
!10
!9
!9
!9
!4
!4
!5 !5
!6
!6
!6
!8
Ä17
Ä35
æ
è
!
!
!
Madrone
Knoll
2,400'
Vista
Point
22
0
0
18
0
0
160
0
1400
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
140
0
120
0
1
8
0
0
16
0
0
2200
200
0
20
0
0
2
0
0
0
180
0
1
8
0
0
1800
16
0
0
1600
140
0
1400
10
0
0
120
0
2200
2
0
0
0
20
0
0
18
0
0
1400
100
0
22
0
0
2000
1
4
0
0
12
0
0
100
0
80
0
8
0
0
#1000 Feet
Public Access Plan
ROADS TRAILS FEATURES
LEGEND
æ Regional Connection
FIGURE 3-1
Contour Interval: 40'
Westside Redwoods Trail (3.9 mi)
Madrone Knoll Trail (1.0 mi)
Upper Lake Path (0.3 mi)
Alma College Loop (1.1 mi)
Briggs Creek Trail (0.6 mi)
Stables Loop Trail (1.2 mi)
Multi Use Links (1.3 mi)
Webb Creek Loop (0.7 mi)
Presentation Loop (2.0 mi)
Aldercroft Creek Trail (3.8 mi)
Hunt Trail (2.1 mi)
!6
!11
!10
!9
!8
!7
!5
!4
!3
!2
!1
Highway
Major
Public
Private
Patrol Use Only
Improve Existing Road for Increased Use
Construct New Trail
Multi-use
!#Point of Interest
!Ï Old Growth Redwoods
03-1103 PRESERVE PLAN
FIGURE 3-1 Public Access PlanLEGEND
Upper
Lake
Mud
Lake
Lower
Lake
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
ir
We b b C r e e k
C olli n s C r ee k
AldercroftCreek
A l d e r c r oft Creek
Briggs
Creek
Briggs Creek
D y er C r e e k
Za
y
a
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
FUTURE CONNECTION TO
SKYLINE-SUMMIT AREA
FUTURE
CONNECTION
TO BAY AREA
RIDGE TRAIL
NORTH
PARKING
AREASTABLES
PARKING AREA
ALMA COLLEGE
PARKING AREA
Bear Creek
Stables
Alma
College
Presentation
Center
Moody Gulch
Old
San
t
a
C
r
u
z
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
u
m
m
it
R
o
a
d
Be a r C r e e k R o a d!1
!3 !7
!7
!7 !7
!1
!1
!1
!1
!2!2
!7
!10
!10
!11
!11
!10
!10
!10
!9
!9
!9
!4
!4
!5 !5
!6
!6
!6
!8
Ä17
Ä35
æ
è
!
!
!
Madrone
Knoll
2,400'
Vista
Point
22
0
0
18
0
0
160
0
1400
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
140
0
120
0
1
8
0
0
16
0
0
2200
200
0
20
0
0
2
0
0
0
180
0
1
8
0
0
1800
16
0
0
1600
140
0
1400
10
0
0
120
0
2200
2
0
0
0
20
0
0
18
0
0
1400
100
0
22
0
0
2000
1
4
0
0
12
0
0
100
0
80
0
8
0
0
#1000 Feet
Public Access Plan
ROADS TRAILS FEATURES
LEGEND
æ Regional Connection
FIGURE 3-1
Contour Interval: 40'
Westside Redwoods Trail (3.9 mi)
Madrone Knoll Trail (1.0 mi)
Upper Lake Path (0.3 mi)
Alma College Loop (1.1 mi)
Briggs Creek Trail (0.6 mi)
Stables Loop Trail (1.2 mi)
Multi Use Links (1.3 mi)
Webb Creek Loop (0.7 mi)
Presentation Loop (2.0 mi)
Aldercroft Creek Trail (3.8 mi)
Hunt Trail (2.1 mi)
!6
!11
!10
!9
!8
!7
!5
!4
!3
!2
!1
Highway
Major
Public
Private
Patrol Use Only
Improve Existing Road for Increased Use
Construct New Trail
Multi-use
!#Point of Interest
!Ï Old Growth Redwoods
Improve Existing Road/Trail for Increased Use
B E A R C R E E K
R E D W O O D S O P E N
S P A C E P R E S E R V E
BEAR CREEK
STABLES
ALMA
COLLEGE
M u l t i U s e T r a il
M u d
L a k e
U p p e r
L a k e
AlmaTrail
B e a r C r e e k R o a d
Old Santa Cruz Highway
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ17
L e x i n g t o n
R e s e r v o i r
L o w e r
L a k e
æFuture
Connection
To Bay Area
Ridge Trail
(Proposed)
Briggs Creek
A l d e r c r o f t Creek
W e b b Creek
Br iggs Creek
1
400
1200
1000
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
800
1
2
0
0
8 0 0
1000
M i d p en i n su la Re g i on a l
Op e n Sp a ce Di str i c t
(M ROS D)
Be ar C re e k R ed w oo ds P h as e I I Pu bl ic Ac c es sATTACHMENT 2:
Path: G:\Projects\Bear_Creek_Redwoods\PhaseII_Trails\PhaseII_Trails\BCR_PhaseII_Trails_20190305_2.mxd
Created By: flopez
0 500250
FeetI
MR OSD Pres er ve
While the D istrict strives to u se the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal sur vey and are merely a graphi c il lustration of geographi c f eatures.
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ85
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Area of
Detail
Ex ist in g Tra il
^_Propo s edImprovem ent s Pr o po s ed N ew Tr ai l
Pr o po s ed M u lt i-use
Tr ail A lig nm en t
Existing Road/Trail
to be Improved
X
Crossing infeasible
due to topographic
constraints
X
Crossing infeasible
due to topographic
constraints
Preferred Multi-Use Trail
Alignment
Alternative - Multi-Use Trail
Infeasible Multi-Use Trail
Segment
February 2020