The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20180314 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 18-10 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, March 14, 2018 Special Meeting starts at 6:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 6:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION ROLL CALL 1. Preserve Use Survey – Intercept Survey Update (R-18-04) Staff Contact: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Informational item only. No Board action required. ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance 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 28, 2018 Minutes Meeting 18-10 Rev. 1/3/18 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract for Tenant Improvements at 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, in the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-18-20) Staff Contact: Jean Chung, Property Management Specialist I, Land and Facilities Services Acting General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Award a contract to Belz Construction, Inc., of Orangevale, CA, for residence improvements at 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, in the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve for a base contract amount of $73,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contract contingency of $11,000, to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $84,000. 4. Approval of the Updated Classification and Compensation Plan (R-18-23) Staff Contact: Alicia Gonzales, Human Resources Supervisor Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plan, to set the compensation for out-of-classification appointments pursuant to AB 1487. 5. Cost Sharing Agreement with Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal, Inc., for the Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Coordinated Monitoring Program (R-18-22) Staff Contact: Matt Baldzikowski, Senior Resource Management Specialist Acting General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Determine that the recommended action is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Authorize the Acting General Manager to execute the Cost Sharing Agreement to participate in the Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Coordinated Monitoring Program. BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 6. Alpine Road Trail Repair Project (R-18-19) Staff Contact: Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land & Facilities Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve selection of repair Option Three (3) for the Alpine Road Trail Repair Project, as described further in the staff report, to proceed with design plans and environmental review. The Board of Directors will have an opportunity to consider final approval of the design, including consideration of the environmental review findings, at a future public meeting. 7. Project Delivery Process for the Administrative Office Development Project and Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of Directors to Guide the Design Team Hiring Process and Public Engagement Approach (R-18-21) Staff Contact: Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager Acting General Manager’s Recommendations: Rev. 1/3/18 1. Select a preferred project delivery process for the new Administrative Office: i. Option 1: Design-Build ii. Option 2: Design-Bid-Build (Recommended) 2. Direct the formation of a new Administrative Office Development Ad Hoc Committee, and authorize the Board President to appoint three Directors to serve on the Committee. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Cooley Landing – Project Update • Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study • Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Renovation Project at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve • Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve – Opening Timeline 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 and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on March 9, 2018, 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 R-18-04 Meeting 18-10 March 14, 2018 STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Preserve Use Survey – Intercept Survey Update ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Informational item only. No Board action required. SUMMARY San Francisco State University (SFSU) researcher, Professor Patrick Tierney, will provide an update and analysis of the intercept survey data collected from September to November 2017 as part of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen, District) Preserve Use Survey project. DISCUSSION The Fiscal Year 2017-18 Action Plan includes the Preserve Use Survey Project to learn more about the people who currently use Midpen preserves, their preferences, and areas for potential improvement. With a total budget allocation of $172,000 (research contract and temporary hire salaries), the District contracted with San Francisco State University, which has conducted several similar surveys across the Bay Area, including San Mateo County Parks, Marin County Parks, and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Early in the project, staff consulted with the Board’s Diversity Ad Hoc Committee to refine the project approach, goals, and objectives. The project is divided into two phases: Phase 1) Trailhead intercept surveys of visitors exiting the preserves, and Phase 2) Focus group discussions with residents who represent important demographics of underserved communities and growing populations within the District. The data presented in this study session represent the Phase I project findings. Project Details Project Goals: Conduct a scientifically valid representative survey and collect baseline data on visitors and non-visitors to understand who and why people visit Preserves, their preferences, and areas of potential improvement, and also understand the barriers and challenges that keep others from visiting or being aware of their local public open space lands. Project Objectives: • Gather and analyze information on MROSD preserve visitor characteristics, trip purpose, and planning; • Understand the MROSD preserve visitor experience; R-18-04 Page 2 • Determine visitor desires and preferences regarding preserve themes, experiences, facilities, and resources; • Count and estimate total number of visitors to District preserves; • Gather and analyze data on resident nonusers and underserved communities; • Identify key barriers to visitation and strategies for increasing use of District preserves by nonusers and underserved residents; and • Understand visitor and non-visitor attitudes towards stewardship of preserves. Project Timeline: Date Activity July 2017 Review goals, objectives, timeline with Diversity Committee Finalize contract with survey firm August 2017 First draft of survey instruments and sampling plan MROSD feedback on sampling plan surveys Receive revised sampling plan and instruments Final survey instrument and sample plan approved Begin hiring for temporary survey team Surveyors and counter training September – November 2017 Intercept survey data collection November 2017 Intercept survey final report December 2017 – April 2018 Conduct focus groups: • Seniors (San Mateo & Santa Clara County) • Youth • South Asian (Indian) • East Asian (Chinese) • Latino (East Palo Alto and Pescadero) March 2018 Board presentation of intercept survey results Late April 2018 Focus group final report Late May 2018 Final presentation to the Board Intercept Survey Locations: Between September 4 and November 5, 2017, temporary District survey staff collected almost 1500 intercept surveys from visitors exiting trails from the following 19 preserves: Coal Creek El Corte de Madera Creek El Sereno Fremont Older Long Ridge Los Trancos Monte Bello Picchetti Ranch Pulgas Ridge Purisima Creek Redwoods Rancho San Antonio Ravenswood Russian Ridge Saratoga Gap Sierra Azul Skyline Ridge St Joseph's Hill Thornewood Windy Hill Preserves not sampled were excluded for a variety of reasons, including remote location (Teague Hill), lack of facilities (Stevens Creek Nature Study Preserve), or extremely low attendance (Foothills). R-18-04 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT None. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by Board Committees. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS The SFSU researcher will provide an informational update on focus group findings of the Preserve Use Survey project in early May 2018. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Intercept survey questions 2. SFSU Visitor survey report Responsible Department Head: Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager Prepared by: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist Help Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Receive a Gift The Midpeninsula Region Open Space District (Midpen) would like to know about your experiences in this open space preserve today to help them serve you and other visitors better in the future. Upon completing this brief survey you will receive a complimentary gift. Your responses will be kept confidential. You are one of the few persons taking the survey so your feedback is very important. SFSU is providing technical and analytical support in this effort. If you have questions about the survey ask the survey attendant, or feel free to contact Joshua Hugg, Government Affairs Specialist, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space, 650.691.1200 or Patrick Tierney, Professor, Dept. of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, San Francisco State University, at 415.338.2030. GO TO QUESTIONS BELOW 1) Today’s Date:_________ Time: ____________ 2) What is the name of this Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Preserve you are in now? Select one name from the drop down list.* ( ) Coal Creek ( ) El Corte de Madera ( ) El Sereno ( ) Foothills ( ) Fremont Older ( ) Long Ridge ( ) Los Trancos ( ) Monte Bello ( ) Picchetti Ranch ( ) Pulgas Ridge ( ) Purisima Creek Redwoods 3) Including today, how many times have you visited __this Midpen preserve__ in the last 12 months?* ___ 4) On this visit, what kind of personal group (alone, family and/or friends, not a guided group or other organized group) are you with today? Mark just one.* ( ) Alone ( ) Friends ( ) Family and friends ( ) Family ( ) Other Describe: _________________________________________________ ( ) Rancho San Antonio ( ) Ravenswood ( ) Russian Ridge ( ) Saratoga Gap ( ) Sierra Azul ( ) Skyline Ridge ( ) St. Joseph's Hill ( ) Stevens Creek ( ) Thornewood ( ) Windy Hill Attachment 1 5) Including yourself, how many people are in your personal group today at __ this preserve__?* ____ 6) Are you and/or your personal group with one of the following? * ( ) Commercial guided tour group ( ) Family reunion of more than 25 people ( ) School/educational group ( ) Commercial fitness group ( ) Other commercial group ( ) I am not with any commercial or large organized group 7) How did you and/or your group get information about _this preserve_? (Check all that apply)* [ ] Past experience in preserve [ ] Called Midpen [ ] Friend or family member [ ] Midpen website [ ] Other Website or Social Media - Write In: _____________ [ ] Visited Midpen office [ ] Talked with a Midpen staff person [ ] Preserve map [ ] Use of cell phone/iPad/tablet/laptop in this preserve [ ] Signs along trail [ ] Other Source - Write In: _____________________ [ ] Guidebook 8) What forms of transportation did you and/or your group use to arrive at _this preserve_ today? (Check all that apply)* [ ] Drove/Rode in a vehicle [ ] Walked [ ] Rode a bicycle [ ] Arrived by public transit (bus, train) [ ] Group bus [ ] Arrived by a ride sharing service (Uber, Lyft, etc.) [ ] Other - Write In: ________________________________ 9) Did you have substantial problems with transportation to or parking at _this preserve_ today?* ( ) Yes ( ) No (If No, Skip to Question 11) 10) Answer if you had substantial problems with transportation. Since you had substantial transportation or parking problems getting to or at the preserve today, check all the most important issues you experienced. (Check all that apply) [ ] It was very difficult to find the preserve parking lot/entrance [ ] I did not have a car to get to the preserve [ ] Public transportation to the preserve was not available or very limited [ ] Public transportation to the preserve took too long [ ] I had difficulty finding an empty parking space in the parking lot [ ] I had to park a long distance away and walk [ ] Bicycle access was limited or dangerous [ ] There was no secure place to park my bicycle [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ Attachment 1 11) If you visited Rancho San Antonio Preserve, answer this question. Several alternatives have been proposed to help reduce transportation issues at Rancho San Antonio Preserve. For each alternative below describe how supportive you are for each alternative. Very supportive Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Greatly oppose Don't know Provide a free shuttle from nearby parking areas to park entrance ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Build a bike/walking spur trail from the Stevens Creek regional trail to the park entrance ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 12) What LAND-BASED activities did you participate in today at _this preserve_? (check all that apply)* [ ] Walk/Hike [ ] Run/jog [ ] Walk dog [ ] Group exercise [ ] Bike unpaved trails [ ] Bike on fire road [ ] Ride horses [ ] Picnic [ ] Use restroom [ ] Take a scenic drive [ ] Volunteering [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ [ ] I did not participate in any land activities [ ] Geo cache [ ] Special event Attachment 1 13) What NATURE-BASED activities did you participate in today at _this preserve_? (check all that apply)* [ ] Relax outdoors [ ] Photography/Art [ ] Enjoy being with family/friends [ ] Bird watching [ ] Explore outdoors [ ] Wildlife viewing [ ] Nature walk [ ] Look at wildflowers [ ] Enjoy views [ ] Docent-led tours [ ] Meditation/solitude [ ] Volunteering [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ [ ] I did not participate in any Nature-Based activities 14) Which ONE from the activities above (Land or Nature) was your primary reason for visiting _this preserve_ today? (check only one (1) from the list below).* ( ) Walk/hike ( ) Relax outdoors ( ) Run/jog ( ) Enjoy being with family/friends ( ) Bike unpaved trail ( ) Bike fire road ( ) Explore outdoors ( ) Bird watching ( ) Wildlife viewing ( ) Nature walk ( ) Look at wildflowers ( ) Other - Write In: _____________________ 15) Please rate your satisfaction with interactions you had with other visitors at _this preserve_ today, on a scale of Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied? (Please mark only one)* ( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neutral ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied 16) Answer if you felt very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with your interactions with other visitors at _this preserve_ today, briefly describe what caused you to feel that way. (check all that apply) [ ] Too crowded [ ] Conflicts with bicyclists [ ] Not enough parking [ ] Conflicts with hikers and runners [ ] Unpleasant or loud visitors [ ] Conflicts with horses [ ] Conflicts with dogs [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ ( ) Walk dog ( ) Photography/Art ( ) Enjoy views ( ) Docent-led tours ( ) Meditation/solitude ( ) Group exercise ( ) Ride horse ( ) Picnic ( ) Use restroom ( ) Take scenic drive ( ) Geo cache ( ) Special event Attachment 1 17) Please indicate how personally safe you felt at _this preserve_ today on a scale of Very Unsafe to Very Safe ? (Please mark only one response.)* ( ) Very Unsafe ( ) Unsafe ( ) Neutral ( ) Safe ( ) Very Safe 18) Check below the most important reasons which caused you to feel at all unsafe during your visit today. (check all that were important reasons) [ ] Scary people I encountered [ ] Too few people [ ] Concerns about mountain lions and other wildlife [ ] I did not feel welcome [ ] Dogs I encountered [ ] Bugs and insects [ ] Horses on trails [ ] Unsafe trail conditions [ ] Too many people [ ] Bikes on trails [ ] Weather (too hot, too cold or rain) [ ] Too isolated [ ] Presence of rangers/staff [ ] I felt vulnerable to attack [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 19) Overall, how would you rate the quality of your experience at _this preserve_ during this visit? (Select just one)* ( ) Very poor ( ) Poor ( ) Neutral ( ) Good ( ) Very good 20) If you rated your experience today Very Poor or Poor, please briefly describe the most important reasons you feel that way? (check all that apply) [ ] Too crowded [ ] Dogs I encountered [ ] Trail conditions [ ] Lack of enforcement of preserve rules [ ] Lack of restrooms [ ] Conflicts with bicyclists [ ] Unclean restrooms [ ] Bugs, bees [ ] Fear of mountain lion attack [ ] Lack of parking [ ] Weather, too hot /cold [ ] Lack of shade [ ] Poor signage, lack of way-finding signs, lack of map displays [ ] Animal (dog or horse) poop (or bags) along trail [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 21) Do you have any suggestions on how your experience today at _this preserve_ could be improved? Describe. ________________________________________________________________________________ Continue Attachment 1 22) Midpen focuses on three main activities; 1)To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; 2) protect and restore the natural environment; and 3) provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. In your opinion, how important is it for Midpen to pursue each of these main activities? Rate the importance of each below on a scale of 10 Extremely Important to 1 Not At All Important.* 10 - Extremely Important 9 8 7 6 5 -Neither Important or Unimportant 4 3 2 1 - Not At All Important Acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Protect and restore the natural environment ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 23) Are you a resident of the USA?* ( ) Yes ( ) No (If NO Skip to Question 27) 24) What is the Zip Code of your residential address* 25) What city is your primary residence?* _____________________________________ 26) Do you live within one mile of this survey site at _this preserve_? * ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Not applicable 27) Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?* ( ) Yes ( ) No Attachment 1 28) What is your primary race(s)? (check all that apply) [ ] American Indian/Alaska Native [ ] Asian/Asian American [ ] Black/African American [ ] Caucasian/White [ ] Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 29) What language is most frequently spoken in your home?* ( ) English only (Skip to Question 31) ( ) Language other than English 30) What language other than English is most frequently spoken in your home?* [ ] Spanish [ ] Vietnamese [ ] Mandarin/Cantonese [ ] Tagalog [ ] German/Italian/French [ ] Hindi [ ] Other Language - Write In: _________________________________________________ 31) Do you or anyone in your personal group have a physical condition that made it difficult to access or participate in preserve activities or services? ( ) Yes ( ) No (If No Skip to Question 34) 32) What activities or services did you or the person(s) have difficulty accessing or participating in today? Please be specific. ______________________________________________________________________________ 33) Because of the physical condition, what specific problems did you or the person(s) have? Please mark all that apply. [ ] Hearing (difficulty hearing docent programs, or office staff, even with hearing aid) [ ] Visual (difficulty seeing directional signs, visual aids that are part of programs, etc. even with prescribed glasses or due to blindness) [ ] Mobility (difficulty accessing facilities, services, or programs, even with walking aid and/or wheelchair) [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 34) In what year were you born? _________________________________________________ Attachment 1 35) What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? Mark only one.* ( ) 12th grade or less ( ) Some college, no degree ( ) Graduated high school or equivalent ( ) Vocational or trade school ( ) Associate 2 year degree ( ) Bachelor's 4 year degree ( ) Post-graduate or professional degree 36) What was your sex assigned at birth* ( ) Female ( ) Male 37) What gender do you identify with now? ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 38) Which ONE of the following categories best describes your total annual household income for the last calendar year? ( ) Less than $25,000 ( ) $100,000 to $124,999 ( ) $25,000 to $34,999 ( ) $125,000 to $149,999 ( ) $35,000 to $49,999 ( ) $150,000 to $249,999 ( ) $50,000 to $74,999 ( ) $250,000 or more ( ) $75,000 to $99,999 ( ) Prefer not to answer ** Win a $100 Gift Card from REI or Trader Joes ** The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District would like to know just a little more about your experiences at its preserves through completion of a brief follow-up survey. Complete the next questions and the follow-up survey to be entered in a drawing to win a $100 gift card at Recreational Equipment Company (REI) or Trader Joes Markets and further help the MROSD preserves. The follow-up survey will be sent to you in the next several days. You must complete the follow-up survey to be eligible to win the prize. You can only enter once. Please go to the next question. 39) Are you willing to provide your email address, or a phone number, so we can have you complete a follow-up survey and be entered into a drawing for that $100 prize and help improve Midpen preserves? * SFSU and Midpen will not share your email address or phone number with anyone.* ( ) Yes (If Yes Continue) ( ) No (If NO Skip to END) 40) Please provide your name so we can contact you if you win. _________________________________________________ 41) How do you prefer to have the follow-up survey "given" to you? ( ) Email a link to the online survey ( ) Call me so I can take the survey over the phone (USA residents only) Attachment 1 42) Provide your email address so you can be entered in a drawing to win a prize after completing the follow-up survey. Go to the next question if you prefer to have us call you to take the follow-up survey. PRINT CAREFULLY __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 43) If you prefer to have the follow-up survey given over the phone, instead of online, provide your phone number, with area code first. _________________________________________________ 44) What are the best days of the week and times to call you? _________________________________________________ THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEY TO THE PERSON WHO GAVE IT TO YOU BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE AREA AND RECEIVE YOUR FREE GIFT. PLEASE ANSWER A BRIEF FOLLOW-UP SURVEY WHICH WILL BE SENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. An email with a link to the follow-up survey will be delivered to those who agreed to take it (or you'll be called if you choose that option). RESPONDENTS COULD WIN A $100 GIFT CERTIFICATE. The follow-up survey will help the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District better understand its visitors and improve its services to you. All responses and your contact information will be kept confidential and not shared with any organization. Thanks in advance for completing the follow-up survey. Joshua Hugg, Government Affairs Specialist, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Patrick Tierney, Professor, Dept. of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, San Francisco State University If you have questions about this survey, contact Patrick Tierney, rpt@sfsu.edu. Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Visitors Survey Report Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Prepared by: Patrick Tierney, Ph.D. Dept. of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism San Francisco State University ptierney@sfsu.edu January 22, 2018 Attachment 2 ii January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Executive Summary The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) contracted with San Francisco State University (SFSU) for a study of visitors to 19 of their open space preserves. This report describes the findings of the Phase I intercept and follow-up surveys and visitor counts. A later report will present Phase II focus group results. Methodology: The intercept survey was administered to a systematic sample of visitors between September 4 and November 5, 2017. Concurrently, the link to an online follow-up survey was sent out to respondents of the intercept survey who provided their email address. Visit counts were made at the same time and place as the intercept survey. The intercept survey used computer tablets on which visitors entered responses to survey questions. There were several challenges to gathering the data in a timely manner, including difficulty in hiring staff to conduct the field work and wet/unfavorable weather during some assigned survey times. Results: Visit Counts: Over the survey period a total of 10,152 visits were counted, with almost three fifths of use occurred during weekends and just over a two fifths on weekdays. The average number of visits per three hour survey period was 46. Total visitation (counts) varied widely between specific surveyed sites, ranging from 4,502 visits at Rancho San Antonio preserve to 47 at Coal Creek preserve. The three surveying periods each had nearly equal numbers of visits. Based on average counts there were an estimated total of 129,462 visits to all 19 surveyed sites in the study during the full day between September 4 and November 5, 2017. Survey Respondent Characteristics: A grand total of 1,453 intercept surveys were completed. Results showed that respondents made an average of 42 visits per year to the surveyed preserve, two-thirds were with a group of family and friends, 3% were with an organized group and the average group size was 2.1 persons. About 16% lived within one mile of the preserve and the most frequent cities of respondent residence were San Jose, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Redwood City. The average respondent was 49 years old, with one in four being between the ages of 45-54 years old. There were slightly more males than females. Over eight in ten had a bachelor degree or higher level of formal education. Nearly one in ten indicated their 2016 household income was less than $50,000 and two out of five reported annual income over $150,000. Eight in ten respondents were white, followed by one in five of Asian heritage and one percent being African Americans (respondents could list multiple races). Overall 6.7% were Hispanic or Latino and 21% spoke a language other than English at home, with Mandarin/Cantonese, Spanish, German, Italian, or French, Russian and Hindi being the most common languages. About 0.9% of respondents had a person in their visitor group with a disability. Visit Characteristics: The most frequently identified sources of information about the preserve visited were: past experience, friend or family; the Midpen website, the preserve map/brochure and social media. Over eight in ten drove/rode in a car to the preserve and one in ten rode a bicycle or walked. Only 0.2% surveyed used public transit. Overall, 4% of respondents indicated they had a substantial problem with transportation to or parking at the preserve they visited, but this varied greatly by preserve. The most commonly cited transportation problems at Rancho San Antonio were: Difficulty in finding an empty parking space; had to park a long distance away; difficulty finding the preserve; and public transportation was not available or limited. Eight in ten of those with a transportation problem supported building a walking and biking spur trail from the Stevens Creek trail to Rancho San Antonio; while over five in ten supported a free shuttle from nearby parking areas to the Rancho preserve entrance. Attachment 2 iii January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University The most popular land based activities undertaken in the preserves were: Walk/hike, run/jog, bike on unpaved trails, use restroom and walk dog. The most popular nature-based activities were: relax outdoors, enjoy views; exploring outdoors, nature walk, and enjoy being with family/friends. The primary reasons for visiting the preserve that day, in order of popularity, were: hiking/walking, bicycling on unpaved trails/fire roads, jogging/running, and walking a dog. Evaluation of Experience: In total, about nine out of ten respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their interactions with other visitors at the surveyed preserve. The few conflicts were with bikes on trails and dogs off leash. Over 96% of respondents indicated they felt safe or very safe at the site. Concerns about mountain lions, dogs, scary people and bikes on trails were most frequent reasons for feeling unsafe or very unsafe. About eight of ten agreed the quality of their overall preserve experience on the survey date was very good. When asked what could be done to improve the quality of their preserve experience items mentioned were: Better enforcement; more/cleaner restrooms; and reduce conflicts with bikes and dogs. Respondents provided many open-ended suggestions for how their experience at that preserve could be improved, with the top five being: More trash cans; more or better maintained trails; improve parking; more/better signs and maps; and reducing dog wastes bags along trails; and dogs off leash. Importance of Midpen Goals: Respondents were asked to rate how important the three main Midpen goals/activities are to them. “Protect and restore the natural environment” was rated extremely important by 75% of respondents; “acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land” – 73%; and “provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education; – 63%. Follow-Up Survey: A total of 602 intercept respondents provided an address so SFSU could email them a link to a follow-up online survey. 154 (25.6%) completed the follow-up survey. The primary reasons selected for the original visit were: Improve my physical fitness; connect with nature; experience scenic views; improve my mental wellbeing; and convenient to where I live. Overall, the majority of respondents to the follow-up survey were satisfied with preserve facilities. The facilities/characteristics with the largest percentage of unsatisfied or very unsatisfied responses were: Parking; availability of benches and water fountains; and cleanliness of restrooms. Information and staffing areas with the largest percentage of unsatisfied or very unsatisfied responses were: Lack of information about activities or events in preserves; and availability of outdoor displays/exhibits. The most common preferred methods to receive information about preserves were: Email (eight in ten); and the Midpen website (one in ten). Overall, two-thirds of respondents did not have any serious concerns at the preserve, but the most frequently mentioned problems were: Limited parking, dog waste; speeding bikes; too many visitors; and horse waste on trails. Facility and Service Evaluation and Suggested Changes: A question asked to describe any special qualities or aspects of the preserve. The most frequently mentioned items were: Beauty/nature/views; trails and paths; convenient; hiking opportunities; and clean and well maintained. About two-thirds of respondents would not like to see any amenity or facility improvements/changes in the future at that preserve, they liked it the way it is. For those who wanted a facility improvement the most commonly cited were: More trash cans; increase parking ; increase legal mountain bike trails; more restrooms; and improved cleanliness of restrooms. The most frequently indicated service or staffing improvements were: They want to learn more about the flora and wildlife of preserve; outdoor evening programs; self-guided nature walks; races/competitions; and docent led hikes Attachment 2 iv January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University There were a wide variety of other open-ended comments about their visit to the survey preserve or other Midpen preserves. The most common responses were: No improvements needed or thanks to Midpen; concerns about dog and horse wastes on trails; more signs; more bike access; and more parking. Respondent Interest In Volunteering: Follow-up survey respondents were asked if they would be interested in assisting Midpen in the future and how they would assist. Just under two-thirds stated Yes or Maybe about their interest in helping Midpen. The most common ways they would help were: Maintain trails; restore creek sides/buildings/native plants; get more information about preserves; teach kids about preserves; attend public meetings; and answer questions and pass out information while hiking trails. Who Is Not Visiting: The next section of this report describes who is not visiting Midpen preserves, based on a comparison of demographic characteristics of intercept survey respondents and the 2010 population characteristics from the U.S. Census for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Preserve respondents were older on average (49 versus 39 and 37 years, respectively). Preserve visitors were slightly less likely to be female; a third as likely to be Hispanic/Latino; less likely to be of any race besides White; and half as likely to speak a language other than English at home, than the general population of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties in 2010, respectively. Summary Statistics for Each Preserve: Section F in the report identifies summary statistics for each preserve and compares them with the average for all preserves. This shows unique characteristics of each preserve and can provide preserve managers with solutions to identifying issues, as well as ways to increase experience quality. Differences Between Midpen and Other Agency Visitor Survey Results: Study findings showed Midpen preserve visitor survey respondents had some key differences from visitor studies by the author at parks and preserves in San Mateo, Marin County, and Los Angeles. But they also had many commonalities. Nearly all (98%) of Midpen survey respondents rated the quality of their experience as good or very good. This is truly remarkable, and it is even slightly higher than what was recorded in recent Marin and San Mateo County park visitor studies. But high levels of satisfaction should not mean Midpen can stop efforts to improve because many survey respondents had comments and suggested improvements that are needed. Midpen respondents were generally more likely to cite connecting with nature, experiencing scenic views and improving their mental wellbeing as reasons for visiting, compared to other recent studies. A greater percentage were interesting in volunteering to assist the agency. Almost two-thirds of Midpen respondents did not want any changes in preserve facilities, but a higher percentage of Midpen respondents, compared to other studies, cited a need for more parking. Midpen non-visitor group characteristics were similar to those from other Bay Area county park agency visitor studies. Summary: The amount and types of non-visitors suggests additional outreach efforts, programming, and transportation are needed to encourage visitation to preserves by a broader spectrum of district residents. Upcoming focus groups with residents of under-served communities in the district are being conducted as part of Phase II of this research and should identify important barriers to visitation and how to overcome these. Focus groups have not all been completed, so they are not included in this report, but will be in the final project report. Attachment 2 v January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University This analysis of Midpen survey respondents provides a scientifically valid assessment of how many visits each preserve had during the period of September 4 through November 5, 2017. It also identifies who is visiting; why they are not visiting; their evaluation of preserve resources, facilities, services and information; suggested changes; and their level of support for the three overall goals of the district. It would be beneficial to complete additional seasons of data collection to see if seasonal visitors and visitation patterns change significantly. Ideally, this study will be performed every five years to evaluate differences over time and to indicate the efficacy of any new initiatives by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Attachment 2 vi January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Contents Executive Summary ii Introduction 1 Methodology 3 Results 4 A.Visit Counts 4 B. Intercept survey results 7 C. Follow-up survey results 34 D. Who isn't visiting Midpen preserves 49 E. Statistical summary and comparison of each preserve surveyed 51 Summary 71 Appendix A: Intercept survey 75 Appendix B: Follow-up survey 86 Attachment 2 vii January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University List of Figures Figure 1: Map of Midpen preserves included in study .................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Intercept survey respondents by Midpen preserve ........................................................................ 8 Figure 3: Respondent number of visits in last year ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 4: Type of personal group………………………………………………………………………………....10 Figure 5: Number of persons in group today .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 6: Type of transportation used to arrive at preserve ........................................................................ 13 Figure 7: Did you have substantial problems with transportation to or parking at preserve …………….…14 Figure 8: Most important transportation or parking problems at preserve ……………………………….…. 14 Figure 9: Top ten primary reasons for visiting preserve ............................................................................. 17 Figure 10: Level of satisfaction with interactions with other visitors at all preserve ................................ …18 Figure 11: How personally safe respondent felt at preserve ...................................................................... 19 Figure 12: Quality of experience at preserve .............................................................................................. 20 Figure 13: Live within one mile of preserve ................................................................................................ 23 Figure 14: Top ten respondent cities of residence ……………………………………………………………..23 Figure 15: Percent Hispanic or Latino visitors by preserve ........................................................................ 25 Figure 16: Respondent’s primary races, check all that apply ..................................................................... 26 Figure 17: Language frequently spoken other than English by preserve ................................................... 27 Figure 18: Name of language other than English most frequently spoken in home ................................... 28 Figure 19: Because of the physical condition, what specific problems did you or the person(s) have?.....30 Figure 20: Intercept survey respondent age……………………………………………………………………..30 Figure 21: Respondent highest level of formal education…………………………………………………...…32 Figure 22: Respondent annual household income ..................................................................................... 33 Figure 23: Response to follow-up survey, by site ....................................................................................... 35 Figure 24: Importat reason for visting Midpen preserve………………………………………………………..37 Figure 25: Primary reason for visit to preserve on the day completed initial survey, follow-up survey respondents .................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 26: Preferred method to receive information about Midpen preserves…………………………….. 42 Figure 27: Issues that were moderate or serious problem at preserve by follow-up survey respondents . 43 Figure 28: Information, stories, history or features of preserve respondent would like to learn about ....... 44 Figure 29: Special qualities of preserve ...................................................................................................... 45 Figure 30: Age of survey respondents and 2010 San Mateo County population…………………...……….50 List of Tables Table 1: List of Midpen preserves included in study.....................................................................................1 Table 2: Visit count and average during 3 hour survey period, by survey site, by weekday/weekend.........5 Table 3: Visit counts and average by survey site during 3 hour survey period, by time...............................6 Table 4: Estimated number of visits to Midpen preserves between Sept. 4 and Nov. 5, 2017…………......6 Table 5: Number of completed intercept and follow-up surveys, and response rates..................................7 Table 6: Number of persons in group today ……………….........................................................................11 Table 7: With commercial or other organized group ..................................................................................11 Table 8: Sources of information about preserve.........................................................................................12 Table 9: Support for alternatives to help reduce transportation issues at Rancho San Antonio ……...…..15 Table 10: Participation in land-based activities, all preserves....................................................................16 Table 11: Participation in nature-based activities at preserve…………………………….............................16 Table 12: Primary reason for visiting preserve today..................................................................................17 Table 13: What caused yout to feel dissatisfied with other preserve users?..............................................19 Table 14: Most important reasons which caused respondent to feel unsafe or very unsafe......................20 Table 15: Reasons you had a poor or very poor experience......................................................................20 Attachment 2 viii January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 16: Suggestions on how your experience at preserve could be improved......................................21 Table 17: Importance of three main Midpen activities...............................................................................22 Table 18: Resident of the United States……….........................................................................................22 Table 19: Ten most frequent respondent zip codes……………………………………………………………24 Table 20: Is intercept survey respondent Spanish, Hispanic or Latino ......................................................24 Table 21: Language most frequently spoken in respondent home …………………………..……..............26 Table 22: Other write-in languages most frequently spoken in respondent home………………………….29 Table 23: Does anyone in group have physical condition that made it difficult to access or participante in preserve activities or services.............................................................................................................29 Table 24: Intercept survey respondent age …………………………………………………………………….31 Table 25: Respondent sex assigned at birth……………………………………………………………………31 Table 26: What gender do you identify with now ………………………………………………………………31 Table 27: Willing to provide email address to send follow-up survey……………………………………......34 Table 28: Been back to preserve since you completed the on-site survey………………………………….36 Table 29: Satisfaction with facilities during visit to preserve, follow-up survey......................................... 40 Table 30: Satisfaction with staffing and information availability, follow-up survey ....................................41 Table 31: Does preserve have special qualities that make it important ………………………………….....44 Table 32: Would like amenitity or facility improvements to preserve in the future ………………………....46 Table 33: Suggested facility improvements...............................................................................................46 Table 34: Programs and services of interest in the future, follow-up survey respondents………………...46 Table 35: Summary of comments about recent visit to preserve or comments about other preserves ....47 Table 36: Would be interested in volunteering to assist Midpen in the future……………….……………...47 Table 37: Ways you would assist Midpen in the future……………………………..………………………....48 Table 38: Comparison of demographics of survey respondents versus 2010 San Mateo and Santa Clara County populations..............................................................................................................49 Table 39: Age of survey respondents and 2010 San Mateo County population........................................50 Table 40: Statistics dashboard for: Coal Creek preserve ...........................................................................51 Table 41: Statistics dashboard for: El Corte de Madera preserve..............................................................52 Table 42: Statistics dashboard for: El Sereno preserve…………...............................................................53 Table 43: Statistics dashboard for: Fremont Older preserve......................................................................54 Table 44: Statistics dashboard for: Long Ridge preserve………………….................................................55 Table 45: Statistics dashboard for: Los Trancos preserve……..................................................................56 Table 46: Statistics dashboard for: Monte Bello preserve..........................................................................57 Table 47: Statistics dashboard for: Picchetti Ranch preserve................................................................... 58 Table 48: Statistics dashboard for: Pulgas Ridge preserve.......................................................................59 Table 49: Statistics dashboard for: Purisima Creek Redwoods preserve..................................................60 Table 50: Statistics dashboard for: Rancho San Antonio preserve............................................................61 Table 51: Statistics dashboard for: Ravenswood preserve .......................................................................62 Table 52: Statistics dashboard for: Russian Ridge preserve.....................................................................63 Table 53: Statistics dashboard for: Saratoga Gap preserve......................................................................64 Table 54: Statistics dashboard for: Sierra Azul preserve...........................................................................65 Table 55: Statistics dashboard for: Skyline Ridge preserve......................................................................66 Table 56: Statistics dashboard for: Saint Joseph’s Hill preserve………....................................................67 Table 57: Statistics dashboard for: Thornewood preserve……………......................................................68 Table 58: Statistics dashboard for: Windy Hill preserve ...........................................................................69 Attachment 2 1 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Introduction The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) contracted with Dr. Patrick Tierney, a professor at San Francisco State University (SFSU), for a study of visitors to their open space reserves. This two-phase project consisted of Phase I, preserve visitor surveys (both intercept and online follow up) and counts of all visitors; and Phase II, focus group interviews of select community group members. This report only describes the findings of the Phase I intercept and follow-up surveys and visitor counts. A later report will present Phase II focus group results. Overall Goals of the project were:  To gather and analyze information on Midpen preserve visitor characteristics, trip purpose, planning and activities  To understand the Midpen preserve and trail visitor experience  To count and estimate number of visits to district reserves  To understand visitor desires and preferences regarding preserve themes, experiences, facilities and resources  To understand visitor interests in stewardship of preserves In order to achieve these goals the project employed a mixed-method approach. It consisted of an intercept survey of visitors from September 4 – November 5, 2017 at nineteen (19) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves (see Table 1). These preserves are in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and their locations are shown in Figure 1. All Midpen preserves open to the public in August 2017 were selected to have visitor surveys. Visit counts were made while collecting intercept survey data. Those visitors who agreed to provide their email address at the end of the intercept survey where later emailed a follow-up survey to gather additional information. Table 1: List of Midpen preserves included in study with gate number of survey location 1. Coal Creek (CC03) 8. Picchetti Ranch (PI03) 15. Sierra Azul (SA06) 2. El Corte Madera (CM01, 03) 9. Pulgas Ridge (PR03) 16. Skyline Ridge (SR04) 3. El Sereno (ES03) 10. Purisima Crk. Redwoods (PC05) 17. St.Joseph’s Hill (SJ01, 02) 4. Fremont Older (FO01) 11. Rancho San Antonio (RS13) 18. Thornewood (TW01a) 5. Long Ridge (LR01) At 12. Ravenswood (RW01) 19. Windy Hill (WH05) 6. Los Trancos (LT03) 13. Russian Ridge (RR00) 7. Monte Bello (MB00) 14. Saratoga Gap (SG01) Attachment 2 2 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 1: Map of Midpen preserves included in study Attachment 2 3 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Methodology The intercept survey was designed by Dr. Patrick Tierney of SFSU, based on previous research and input from the Midpen staff. The survey was pre-tested and the final version was approved by Midpen before implementation (see Appendix A). This intercept survey gathered data on: Previous visits to that preserve; group and respondent characteristics; information sources; activities undertaken in preserve; interactions with other visitors; perceived safety; overall quality of the experience; reasons they felt unsafe or dissatisfied; and their interest in stewardship of preserves. The survey was available in English (online and in paper form) and Spanish (in paper). Data collection was based on a sampling plan developed by SFSU to provide a representative sample of use at each preserve. The sampling plan provided for a nearly equal number of surveying periods at each preserve and nearly an equivalent number of times during the three daily survey periods for each site. Surveys were conducted at three systematically-selected times during the day, morning (7:30 -10:30am), afternoon (11:30-2:30pm) and evening (3:30-6:30pm). Data was collected from a sample weekend days and weekdays (except Tuesday) from September 4 to November 5, 2017. At preserves with two survey locations, half the survey period was spent at each. The start of data collection was delayed about two weeks due to difficulty in hiring staff to conduct the surveys. On the assigned date and time to administer intercept surveys, a systematic sampling approach was utilized to determine when and which visitor to contact. A systematic sample was undertaken at the preserve site, where every “Nth” group of visitors to exit at a designated sampling site was contacted by a trained Midpen surveyor; the visitor was read a prepared script asking if one of the individuals in the party would complete the survey. The sampling interval was either every group (at sites with low visitation) to pass the survey location or every 5th group (at higher volume sites). As soon as the survey was started by one visitor from a group, the surveyor would use the assigned sampling interval to contact the appropriate next group. This was an exit survey only in order to avoid double counting of visitors and to allow the visitor to describe their experience within the preserve. An incentive of a free a Midpen lapel pin was offered to those who completed the survey. For each group contacted by the surveyor an entry into a log was completed, even for refusals, and the following data was recorded: Contact time, date, weather, sampling interval, group size, sex of group members, group activity (e.g., walk, bike, horseback, jog) and for those agreeing to take the survey, and a unique survey number. The log entries allowed for a count of the number of persons contacted, response rates and the determination if there were significant differences between those who completed and those who refused to take the survey. Responses to the intercept survey were collected on Samsung 7-inch and iPad tablets using an electronic off-line survey which SFSU prepared on SurveyGizmo (professional online survey software), with paper surveys as backup. The intercept survey was stored on the tablet so it did not require WiFi or cellular phone service. Skips and data validation were programmed into the survey by SFSU to help speed up its completion and improve the accuracy of data entered by the visitor. Survey responses were also stored on the tablet and later uploaded to the SFSU database on SurveyGizmo by the Midpen survey coordinator, or by the surveyors if cellular service was available. The Midpen survey coordinator and Dr. Tierney reviewed surveys and log sheets entered for Attachment 2 4 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University obvious errors to ensure a complete set of accurately entered data. Surveys were not administered during rain periods and therefore, some initial survey dates were cancelled and later surveyed at the same time and day of the week. Initial and limited data (frequency) analysis was done automatically by the SurveyGizmo software. Dr. Tierney then downloaded all the intercept survey data to a password protected database on the SPSS statistics program for further analysis. Accuracy checks, recoding, descriptive functions and a sample of crosstabulations were performed. Comparisons were made between survey sites and respondent groups to illustrate if there were any substantial differences between them. A question on the intercept survey asked respondents if they would be willing to provide their name and email address so a follow-up survey could be sent to them (see Appendix B). The follow-up survey was designed to allow for more open-ended questions to gather data on respondent evaluation of facilities and services used; staff encounters; issues at the preserve; information they would like to learn more about; improvements and programs of interest in the future; and their willingness to assist Midpen in the future. If they agreed to provide their name and email, then SFSU programmed SurveyGizmo to email them an invitation with an imbedded link to the follow-up survey. An incentive of being entered into a drawing for a $100 gift card from either REI or Trader Joes grocery stores was included in the invitation. The invitation was sent out two days after the visitor contact and three reminder emails were later delivered to non-respondents. The same data analysis methods were employed for the follow-up survey as was done in for the intercept survey. Results The following section describes the results of the three visitor study components: A) visitor counts; B) intercept survey and C) follow-up survey. Results section D provides a summary comparison of all the sites. Section E provides a description of characteristics of non-visitors to Midpen preserves. The final results Section F presents summary statistics for each preserve site and comparable data for all respondents. A. Visit Counts All visitors passing an intercept survey site in the exit direction at the assigned data collection times were counted. The results were number of visits and this data is presented below. A total of 10,152 visits were counted at the 19 sites over the late summer and fall survey time. Table 2 presents a breakout of visit counts by weekday/weekend and Table 3 shows visit counts by morning, afternoon and evening surveying periods. Table 4 presents the estimated total number of visits during the data collection time at all 19 preserves. Attachment 2 5 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 2: Visit counts and average during 3 hour survey period, by survey site, by weekday and weekend Preserve Total Visits Count Weekday Weekend All Sessions Weekday Weekend Coal Creek 47 8 39 4.3 1.6 6.5 El Corte Madera 214 52 162 15.3 6.5 27.0 El Sereno 51 13 38 4.6 1.9 9.5 Fremont Older 892 408 484 63.7 41.0 121.1 Long Ridge 62 25 37 4.4 2.5 9.3 Los Trancos 105 8 97 8.1 1.3 13.9 Monte Bello 182 24 158 14.0 3.0 31.6 Picchetti 408 99 309 34.0 12.4 77.3 Pulgas Ridge 474 198 276 33.9 22.0 55.2 Purisima Creek Redwoods 514 201 313 36.7 22.3 62.6 Rancho San Antonio 4,502 1,981 2,521 346.2 220.1 630.3 Ravenswood 138 49 89 11.5 5.4 29.7 Russian Ridge 188 61 127 14.5 7.6 25.4 Saratoga Gap 97 15 82 6.9 1.5 20.5 Sierra Azul 161 69 92 12.4 7.7 23.0 Skyline Ridge 141 25 116 8.8 3.1 23.2 St. Joseph's Hill 1,306 642 664 100.5 71.3 166.0 Thornewood 88 20 68 6.8 2.5 13.6 Windy Hill 582 204 378 44.8 25.5 75.6 Grand Total Visits 10,152 4,102 6,050 40.6 24.2 74.8 Total Percent 100.0% 40.4% 59.6% Visits Count Mean Average Counts Attachment 2 6 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 3: Visit counts and average by survey site during 3 hour survey period, by time Table 4: Estimated number of visits to Midpen preserves between September 4 and November 5, 2017 Note: Some of these total visits are repeat visits by nearby residents An estimate of total use (visits) over the study period is based on average number of visits in a survey period per weekend and weekday, multiplied by the number of weekdays and weekend days during the data collection time period, times 3 periods per day. Using this method there were an estimated 129,462 total visits to all 19 study preserves during the survey period. However, this clearly underestimates visitation because most preserves only had one surveying station, whereas many preserves had multiple other locations where non-counted visitors could have entered and exited. The surveying method used and agreed upon was much more cost effective and does provide a reasonable estimate of actual total visitation over the entire eight-week data collection timeframe. Preserve Total Visits Count Morning Afternoon Evening Morning Afternoon Evening Coal Creek 47 7 19 21 2.3 3.8 5.3 El Corte Madera 214 61 51 102 15.3 17.0 14.6 El Sereno 51 17 14 20 3.4 3.5 10.0 Fremont Older 892 322 279 291 64.4 46.5 97.0 Long Ridge 62 23 25 14 4.6 8.3 2.3 Los Trancos 105 34 44 27 11.3 8.8 5.4 Monte Bello 182 61 74 47 15.3 14.8 11.8 Picchetti 408 178 100 130 35.6 20.0 65.0 Pulgas Ridge 474 144 157 173 36.0 39.3 28.8 Purisima Creek Redwoods 514 164 180 170 32.8 45.0 34.0 Rancho San Antonio 4502 1515 1423 1564 303.0 474.3 312.8 Ravenswood 138 23 38 77 4.6 12.7 15.4 Russian Ridge 188 70 68 50 17.5 13.6 12.5 Saratoga Gap 97 24 39 34 4.8 13.0 5.7 Sierra Azul 161 45 65 51 9.0 10.8 17.0 Skyline Ridge 141 36 56 49 9.0 11.2 12.3 St. Joseph's Hill 1306 372 465 469 74.4 93.0 156.3 Thornewood 88 22 33 33 5.5 8.3 6.6 Windy Hill 582 216 201 165 54.0 50.3 33.0 Grand Total 10152 3334 3331 3487 37.0 47.1 44.5 Visits Count Mean Average Counts Number of Days In Period Estimated Number of Visits Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends Weekdays Weekends 430 1323 45 18 19346 23809 43,154 Average Visits Per Day Total Visits Per Period Total Visits Number of Per Period Periods/Day 43,154 3 Total Visits In Survey Length All Sites, Full Day 129,462 Attachment 2 7 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University B. Intercept Survey Results The following section presents the results of the intercept survey of visitors to 19 Midpen preserves between September 4 and November 5, 2017. Table 6 illustrates the number of completed intercept and follow-up surveys and the percent response rate for each. A total of 2,309 persons were contacted by surveyors. There were a total of 1,453 completed intercept surveys, resulting in a 62.9% response rate. The 1,453 completed responses allows for a 95% confidence level with a +/- 5% margin of error for the intercept survey analysis results. There were no significant differences between intercept survey respondents and non-respondents in their group size and sex. There was a substantial difference for activities, in which bicyclists and joggers were more likely to refuse to answer the survey, versus hikers. Sites which were more likely to have bikers were substantially more likely to have refusals than were all the other locations. Readers of this report should keep in mind that walkers/hikers are somewhat over-represented and bicyclists and joggers are somewhat under-represented in the survey results. Nonetheless, these differences do not threaten the validity of the study findings. A total of 602 intercept survey respondents provided their email address so we could send them the follow-up survey. An email with a link to this online survey was sent and non-respondents received three additional requests to complete the survey. A total of 154 persons responded to the follow-up survey, resulting in a 25.6% response rate. Table 5: Number of completed intercept and follow-up surveys and response rates Total Visitor Groups Contacted 2,309 Total Number of Completed Intercept Surveys 1,453 Percent Response Rate Intercept Survey 62.9% Number Respondents Providing Email Address For Follow-Up Survey 602 Total Number Completed Follow-Up Surveys 154 Percent Response Rate Follow-Up Surveys 25.6% Attachment 2 8 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 2: Intercept survey respondents by Midpen preserve site Preserve Survey Counts Percent Coal Creek 21 1.4% El Corte de Madera 35 2.4% El Sereno 21 1.4% Fremont Older 154 10.6% Long Ridge 24 1.7% Los Trancos 30 2,1% Monte Bello 52 3.6% Picchetti Ranch 73 5.0% Pulgas Ridge 125 8.6% Purisima Creek Redwoods 116 8.0% Rancho San Antonio 260 17.9% Ravenswood 35 2.4% Russian Ridge 50 3.4% Saratoga Gap 29 2.0% Sierra Azul 44 3.0% Skyline Ridge 37 2.5% St. Joseph's Hill 200 13.8% Thornewood 30 2.1% Windy Hill 118 8.1% Total: 1,453 100% Attachment 2 9 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 3: Respondent number of visits in last year Number of Visits In Last Year Count Percent 1 249 18.0 2-3 163 11.8 4-5 119 8.6 6-10 142 10.3 11-25 244 17.6 26-50 178 12.9 51+ 290 20.9 Average # Visits 41.8 Attachment 2 10 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 4: Type of personal group Type Group Percent Count Alone 41.3% 600 Family 26.8% 390 Friends 22.4% 325 Family and friends 7.3% 106 Other 2.2% 32 Figure 5: Number of persons in group today 42.4 38.5 7.4 5.5 1.7 2.8 1.3 0.4 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6-15 16-25 26 or more Pe r c e n t Number of Persons Attachment 2 11 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 6: Number of persons in group today Number of Persons Percent Frequency 1 42.4% 597 2 38.5% 543 3 7.4% 104 4 5.5% 77 5 1.7% 24 6-15 2.8% 40 16-25 1.3% 18 26 or more 0.4% 6 Total 100.0% 1409 Average 2.1 persons Table 7: With commercial or other organized group Group Type Percent Count School/educational group 1.4% 11 Family reunion of more than 25 people 0.6% 5 Commercial fitness group 0.1% 1 Commercial guided tour group 0.1% 1 Other commercial group 0.8% 6 Not with commercial or large organized group 97.0% 767 Attachment 2 12 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 8: Sources of information about preserve Information Source Percent Count Past experience in preserve 59.7% 868 Friend or family member 29.1% 423 Midpen website 12.0% 174 Preserve brochure/map 11.4% 166 Signs along trail or highway 8.8% 128 Other Website or Social Media - Write In 5.6% 81 Google (25), Yelp (6), Alltrails.com (5) Use of cell phone/iPad/tablet/laptop in preserve 3.4% 49 Guidebook 1.9% 28 Talked with a Midpen staff person 0.8% 12 Visited Midpen office 0.3% 5 Write-in 8.1% 118 Live close by (20), drove by (13), Google (11) Attachment 2 13 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 6: Type of transportation used to arrive at preserve Transportation Type Percent Count Drove/rode in a vehicle 85.1% 1,237 Rode a bicycle 8.6% 125 Walked 8.5% 123 Arrived by ride sharing service (Ube, Lyft, etc) 0.3% 4 Arrived by public transit (bus, train, ferry) 0.2% 3 Group bus 0.1% 2 Other - Write In 1.2% 18 Jogged (8), drove (3), horseback (1) Attachment 2 14 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 7: Did you have substantial problems with transportation to or parking at preserve Figure 8: Most important transportation or parking problems at preserve Response Percent Count I had difficulty finding an empty parking space in the parking lot 64.4% 29 I had to park a long distance away and walk 35.6% 16 It was very difficult to find the preserve parking lot/entrance 24.4% 11 Public transportation to the preserve was not available or very limited 6.7% 3 Attachment 2 15 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Public transportation to the preserve took too long 2.2% 1 There was no secure place to park my bicycle 2.2% 1 Other 11.1% 5 School traffic (2) Table 9: Support for alternatives to help reduce transportation issues at Rancho San Antonio preserve Very supportive Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Greatly oppose Don't know Responses Provide a free shuttle from nearby parking areas to park entrance 30.0 % 6 25.0% 5 15.0 % 3 15.0 % 3 0.0 % 0 15.0 % 3 20 Build a bike/walking spur trail from the Stevens Creek regional trail to the park entrance 40.0 % 8 40.0 % 8 10.0 % 2 5.0 % 1 0.0 % 0 5.0 % 1 20 Table 10: Participation in land-based activities, all preserves Land Based Activity Percent Count Walk/Hike 77.2% 1,113 Running/jogging 16.7% 241 Bike on unpaved trails 12.5% 180 Use restroom 12.5% 180 Walk dog or pet 11.6% 167 Bike fire road 9.2% 133 Picnicking 2.5% 36 Attachment 2 16 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Group exercise 1.7% 25 Take a scenic drive 1.5% 22 Volunteering 0.6% 8 Geo-cache 0.4% 6 Special event 0.4% 6 Ride horses 0.2% 3 Docent-led tour 0.0% 0 Other - Write In 17% 17 Photography (3), wildlife (3) Table 11: Participation in nature-based activities at preserve Nature Based Activity Percent Count Relax outdoors 58.2% 839 Enjoy views 54.6% 787 Explore outdoors 48.7% 702 Nature walk 44.4% 640 Enjoy being with family/friends 40.6% 586 Wildlife viewing 25.5% 367 Meditation/solitude 15.9 229 Wildflower viewing 13.0% 187 Bird watching 13,0% 187 Photography/Art 11.7% 168 Volunteering 0%.6 9 Docent-led tour 0.4% 6 Other - Write In 2.8% 41 Exercise (16), dog walk (7), wildlife (2), bike (2) I did not participate in any nature-based activities 3.9% 56 Total 1,442 Attachment 2 17 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 9: Top ten primary reasons for visiting preserve Table 12: Primary reason for visiting preserve today Reason Percent Count Hiking, walking 53.1% 766 Bike unpaved trails/fire rd. 13.1% 189 Jogging, running 10.1% 146 Walk dog/pet 6.0% 86 Relax outdoors 4.4% 64 Enjoy being with friends 2.6% 37 Nature walk 2.3% 33 Scenic viewing 1.5% 21 Explore outdoors 1.3% 19 Meditation/solitude 1.0% 15 Photography/Art 0.9% 13 Wildlife & Bird Watching 0.7% 10 Picnicking 0.4% 6 Group exercise 0.4% 5 Use restroom 0.4% 5 Ride horse 0.2% 3 Attachment 2 18 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Other 1.6% 24 Exercise (3), volunteer (3), run (2), explore (2) Figure 10. Level of satisfaction with interactions with other visitors Response Percent Count Very Dissatisfied 1.4% 20 Dissatisfied 0.6% 9 Neutral 8.1% 116 Satisfied 28.3% 407 Very Satisfied 61.6% 884 Total 1,436 Attachment 2 19 January 22, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 13: What caused you to feel dissatisfied with other preserve users? Reason Count Unpleasant or loud visitors 5 Not enough parking 5 Too crowded 3 Conflict with dog 3 Conflict with bicyclist 3 Conflict with hikers/runners 1 Write-in: Rude visitor (3), hikers won’t share path (2) Figure 11: How personally safe respondent felt at preserve Level of Personal Safety Percent Count Very Unsafe 1.4% 20 Unsafe 0.5% 7 Neutral 3.3% 48 Safe 29.0% 417 Very Safe 65.7% 944 Total 1,436 Note: Only 1.4% of respondents felt unsafe or very unsafe Attachment 2 20 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 14: Most important reasons respondent felt unsafe or very unsafe Reason Percent Count Concerns about mountain lions 28.6% 4 Dogs encounters 14.3% 2 Scary people I encountered 14.3% 2 Bikes on trail 14.3% 2 Other 28.6% 4 Mountain lions (1) Total 14 Note: Only 1.9% of respondents felt unsafe or very unsafe Figure 12: Quality of experience at preserve Satisfaction Percent (%) Count Very Poor 0.1 2 Poor 0.1 2 Neutral 1.3 18 Good 19.0 273 Very Good 79.5 1,141 Total 100.0 1,436 Attachment 2 21 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 15. Reasons you had a poor or very poor experience Table 16. Suggestions on how your experience at preserve today could be improved, write-in responses Suggestion Percent Responses None 22.7% 133 More trash cans 12.3% 72 More trails, better trail maintenance 11.8% 69 Improve parking 11.8% 69 Signs, maps 8.9% 52 Dog poop bags along trail, dogs off leash 8.2% 48 More, cleaner restrooms 6.7% 39 Drinking fountain 5.8% 34 Midpen is doing a great job, thanks 5.0% 29 Problems with bikes 5.0% 29 More enforcement 4.6% 27 Improve bike access 4.3% 25 More dog access, dog-friendly trails 2.9% 17 Protect resources 2.6% 15 More benches and picnic tables 2.4% 14 Remove horse droppings 0.7% 4 More shade 0.5% 3 More rangers 0.5% 3 Satisfaction Count Lack of enforcement of preserve rules 1 Lack of restrooms 1 Conflicts with bicyclists 1 Dogs I encountered 1 Animal droppings or bags along trail 1 Bugs/bees 1 Attachment 2 22 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 17: Importance of three main Midpen activities 10 - Extremely Important 9 8 7 6 5 -Neither Important or Unimportant 4 3 2 1 - Not At All Important Acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity 72.5 % 1,041 11.1 % 159 9.5 % 137 3.3 % 47 1.1 % 16 1.9 % 28 0.1 % 1 0.2 % 3 0.0 % 0 0.3 % 4 Protect and restore the natural environment 74.9 % 1,076 10.3 % 148 8.3 % 119 3.5 % 50 1.2 % 17 1.5 % 22 0.1 % 1 0.0 % 0 0.1 % 1 0.1 % 2 Provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education 63.4 % 910 10.7 % 153 13.4 % 193 5.2 % 75 3.2 % 46 3.0 % 43 0.4 % 6 0.1 % 2 0.1 % 2 0.4 % 6 Table 18: Resident of the United States Response Percent Count Yes 96.8% 1,376 No 3.2% 45 Attachment 2 23 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 13: Live within one mile of preserve Figure 14: Top ten respondent cities of residence Attachment 2 24 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 19. Ten most frequent respondent zip codes ZIPCODE Count 95014 89 94087 63 94024 62 94062 60 95032 58 95030 53 95070 51 94070 40 95008 34 94129 33 Table 20: Is intercept survey respondent Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? Value Percent Count Yes 6.7% 94 No 93.4% 1,322 Totals 1,416 Attachment 2 25 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 15. Percent Hispanic or Latino visitors by preserve Attachment 2 26 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 16: Respondent’s primary races, check all that apply, percent Value Percent Count American Indian/Alaska Native 1.9% 26 Asian/Asian American 20.8% 280 Black/African American 1.4% 19 Caucasian/White 79.1% 1,066 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1.6% 21 Totals 1,347 Table 21: Language most frequently spoken in respondent home Language Percent Count English only 84.5% 1,197 Language other than English 20.8% 280 Total 1,416 Attachment 2 27 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Attachment 2 28 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 17. Language most frequently spoken other than English, by preserve Attachment 2 29 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 18: Name of language other than English most frequently spoken in home Language other than English Percent Responses Mandarin/Cantonese 23.2% 53 Spanish 13.6% 31 German/Italian/French 12.3% 28 Hindi 5.3% 12 Tagalog 2.2% 5 Vietnamese 1.3% 3 Other languages (write-in) 46.5% 106 Attachment 2 30 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Attachment 2 31 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 22: Other write-in language most frequently spoken in respondent home Table 23: Does anyone in personal group have a physical condition that made it difficult to access or participate in preserve activities or services? Value Percent Count Yes 0.9% 13 No 99.1% 1,403 Totals 1,416 Language Count Russian 13 French 7 Hebrew 6 Japanese 6 Tamil 6 Korean 5 Dutch 4 Farsi 4 Persian 4 Swedish 4 Attachment 2 32 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 19: Because of the physical condition, what specific problems did you or the person(s) have? Figure 20: Intercept survey respondent age 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Visual (difficulty seeing directional signs, visual aids that are part of programs, etc. even with prescribed glasses or due to blindness) Mobility (difficulty accessing facilities, services, or programs, even with walking aid and/or wheelchair) Other - Write In 4.2 14.7 17.1 26.8 24.3 9.6 3.3 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 -74 75 or more Pe r c e n t Age Group Attachment 2 33 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 24: Intercept survey respondent age Table 25. Respondent sex assigned at birth Value Percent Count Female 45.0% 637 Male 55.0% 779 Table 26: What gender do you identify with now Value Percent Count Female 44.9% 606 Male 54.7% 738 Other 0.0% 0 Other - Write In Confidential (3) 0.4% 6 Totals 1,350 Age Group Percent Count 18-24 4.2% 52 25-34 14.7% 180 35-44 17.1% 209 45-54 26.8% 328 55-64 24.3% 288 65-74 9.6% 117 75 or more 3.3% 41 Mean Age All Sites 49.1 years Attachment 2 34 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 21: Respondent highest level of formal education Value Percent Count 12th grade or less 1.8% 26 Graduated high school or equivalent 3.4% 48 Vocational or trade school 1.0% 14 Some college, no degree 6.9% 98 Associate 2 year degree 4.0% 57 Bachelor's 4 year degree 34.1% 483 Post-graduate or professional degree 48.7% 690 Totals 1,416 49% 34% 4% 7% 1% 3% 2% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% Post-graduate or professional degree Bachelor's 4 year degree Associate 2 year degree Some college, no degree Vocational or trade school Graduated high school or equivalent 12th grade or less Percent Fo r m a l E d u c a t i o n Attachment 2 35 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 22: Respondent annual household income Value Percent Count Less than $25,000 2.8% 32 $25,000 to $34,999 2.6% 30 $35,000 to $49,999 2.8% 32 $50,000 to $74,999 6.7% 76 $75,000 to $99,999 9.3% 106 $100,000 to $124,999 10.3% 117 $125,000 to $149,999 9.3% 106 $150,000 to $249,999 19.3% 220 $250,000 or more 21.7% 247 Prefer not to answer 15.3% 175 Totals 1,141 Attachment 2 36 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 27: Willing to provide email address to send follow-up survey Response Percent Count Yes 42.5% 602 No 57.5% 814 Totals 1,416 C. FOLLOW-UP SURVEY RESULTS The following section presents the results of the follow-up survey of visitors to the 19 Midpen preserves. An invitation with a link to the follow-up survey was emailed within five days after an intercept survey response (602 total). Data collection ended December 3, 2017. There were a total of 149 complete and 6 partial but usable follow-up surveys, resulting in a total of 154 usable follow-up surveys, for a 25.6% response rate. The 154 responses allows for a 90% confidence level with a +/- 10% margin of error for the follow-up survey analysis results. There were not enough completed follow-up surveys to allow a statistical comparison between different preserves. Attachment 2 37 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 23: Response to follow-up survey, by site Preserve Percent Responses Fremont Older 18.8% 29 Rancho San Antonio 15.6% 24 St. Joseph's Hill 13.0% 20 Pulgas Ridge 10.4% 16 Sierra Azul 7.1% 11 Purisima Creek Redwoods 5.8% 9 Skyline Ridge 4.5% 7 Monte Bello 3.9% 6 Russian Ridge 3.9% 6 Windy Hill 3.9% 6 Picchetti Ranch 3.2% 5 Attachment 2 38 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 28: Been back to preserve since you completed the on-site survey? Response Percent Responses Yes 56.5% 87 No 42.9% 66 Don't remember 0.6% 1 Total 154 Long Ridge 2.6% 4 Saratoga Gap 1.9% 3 El Corte de Madera 1.3% 2 El Sereno 1.3% 2 Coal Creek 0.6% 1 Los Trancos 0.6% 1 Foothills (excluded from analysis) 0.6% 1 I do not recall which preserve 0.6% 1 Total: 154 Attachment 2 39 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 24: Important reason for visiting Midpen preserve Reason Percent Responses Improve my physical fitness 87.7% 135 To connect with nature 77.9% 120 Experience scenic views 72.1% 111 Improve my mental well being 70.8% 109 Convenient to where I live 58.4% 90 Experience natural sounds and quiet 47.4% 73 Experience solitude 39.0% 60 Be with family/friends 38.3% 59 Enjoy an affordable outing 32.5% 50 Enjoy a safe environment 31.2% 48 For recreation and play 29.9% 46 Learn about nature 16.9% 26 Attachment 2 40 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Dog walking 12.3% 19 Convenient to where I work 9.1% 14 Learn about history & culture 8.4% 13 Participate in an organized group outing 3.9% 6 Volunteer 3.2% 5 Other write-in 10.1% 15 Bicycle (5), watch butterflies (2), horseback (1) Attachment 2 41 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 25: Primary reason for visit to preserve on the day completed initial survey, follow- up survey respondents Primary Reason Percent Count Improve my physical fitness 87.9% 131 To connect with nature 77.9% 116 Experience scenic views 71.8% 107 Improve my mental well being 70.5% 105 Convenient to where I live 59.1% 88 Experience natural sounds and quiet 48.3% 72 Experience solitude 38.9% 58 Be with family/friends 38.3% 57 Enjoy an affordable outing 32.9% 49 Enjoy a safe environment 30.9% 46 For recreation and play 29.5% 44 Learn about nature 16.1% 24 Dog walking 12.8% 19 Other - Write In 10.1% 15 Learn about history & culture 8.7% 13 Attachment 2 42 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Convenient to where I work 8.1% 12 Participate in an organized group outing 4.0% 6 Volunteer 3.4% 5 Table 29: Satisfaction with facilities during visit to preserve Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied Not Applicable/Did Not Use Condition of trails 90 60.4% 53 35.6% 2 1.3% 2 1.3% 1 0.7% 1 0.7% Availability of bicycling trails 27 18.1% 23 15.4% 15 10.1% 2 1.3% 1 0.7% 81 54.4% Benches, water fountains, and trash cans 28 18.8% 34 22.8% 21 14.1% 16 10.7% 4 2.7% 46 30.9% Availability of parking 46 30.9% 52 34.9% 18 12.1% 17 11.4% 2 1.3% 14 9.4% Availability of restrooms 33 22.1% 45 30.2% 27 1 8.1% 7 4.7% 0 0.0% 37 24.8% Cleanliness of restrooms 18 12.1% 36 24.2% 23 15.4% 11 7.4% 2 1.3% 59 39.6% Condition of natural resources at the site 74 49.7% 59 39.6% 9 6.0% 2 1.3% 1 0.7% 4 2.7% Condition of historic resources at the site 26 17.4% 28 18.8% 14 9.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 81 54.4% Visitor or nature centers 15 10.1% 20 13.4% 13 8.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 101 67.8% Attachment 2 43 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 30: Satisfaction with staffing and information availability, follow-up survey Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Unsatisfied Very Unsatisfied Not Applicable/Did Not Use Availability of Midpen staff 37 24.8% 24 16.1% 18 12.1% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 69 46.3% Interactions with preserve staff 40 26.8% 28 18.8% 7 4.7% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 73 49.0% Availability of outdoor displays or exhibits about the natural and cultural history of site 26 18.5% 45 30.2% 16 10.7% 3 2.0% 0 0.0% 59 39.6% Availability of information about activities and/or events in the preserve 24 16.1% 44 29.5% 21 14.1% 6 4.0% 0 0.0% 54 36.2% Directional signage to get to the preserve 33 22.1% 55 36.9% 23 15.4% 3 2.0% 0 0.0% 35 23.5% Maps of preserve 58 38.9% 55 36.9% 8 5.4% 4 2.7% 1 0.7% 23 15.4% Way-finding signs, trail names and mileage signs 58 38.9% 64 43.0% 13 8.7% 5 3.4% 0 0.0% 9 6.0% Attachment 2 44 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 26: Preferred method to receive information about Midpen preserves Method Percent Count Email 83.2% 124 U.S. Post Office mail 2.7% 4 Text message 1.3% 2 Phone call 0.0% 0 Midpen website 8.1% 12 Other 0.0% 0 I am not interested in receiving information about preserves, programs or activities 4.7% 7 Totals 149 Attachment 2 45 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 27: Issues that were a moderate or serious problem at preserve by follow-up survey respondents Value Percent Responses I did not have any issues of concern 42.4% 64 Limited parking near site 19.9% 30 Dog waste 15.2% 23 Speeding bikes on trails 12.6% 19 Too many visitors at site 9.9% 15 Horses and/or their deposits on trails 9.9% 15 Dogs off-leash 7.3% 11 Lack of information about the site’s plant and animal habitats 7.3% 11 Trash/litter at preserve site 7.3% 11 Unclean restrooms 6.6% 10 Lack of enforcement of preserve rules 6.0% 9 Number of visitors encountered on trail 5.3% 8 Trail conflicts between different types of users 5.3% 8 Hikers unwilling to move to the side or share trail 5.3% 8 Lack of public transit to sites 1.3% 2 Visitor-caused noise or disturbances 1.3% 2 Other- Write-In Trail Conditions (5) 11.9% 18 Attachment 2 46 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 31: Does preserve have special qualities that make it important? Figure 28: Information, stories, history or features of preserve respondent would like to learn more about, follow-up survey respondents Value Percent Responses Plants and wildflowers of the preserve 69.4% 93 Wildlife in preserve 66.4% 89 Origin of the preserve name and history of the preserve 62.7% 84 Native Americans who lived in area 50.7% 68 Ways to minimize my impact on preserve 40.3% 54 Other 3.7% 5 Funding (2), signs (1), wildlife (1), changes over time (1) Value Percent Responses Yes 68.0% 102 No 24.7% 37 Don't know 7.3% 11 Totals: 150 Attachment 2 47 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Figure 29: Special qualities or aspects of preserve Value Percent Responses Beauty, nature, views 79.6% 78 Trails and paths 78.6% 77 Close, convenient, accessible 72.4% 71 Hiking 62.2% 61 Clean and well maintained 44.9% 44 Quiet, peaceful 44.9% 44 Safe 40.8% 40 Wildlife 38.8% 38 Water, streams 33.7% 33 Biking opportunities 23.5% 23 Not crowded, solitude 23.5% 23 Has adequate parking 16.3% 16 Great place for kids, families 14.3% 14 No dogs 4.1% 4 Other - Write In 16.3% 16 Attachment 2 48 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 32: Would like amenity or facility improvements to preserve in the future Value Percent Responses No, I like it just the way it is 61.7% 92 Yes, I'd like to see some improvements 38.3% 57 Totals: 149 Table 33: Suggested facility improvements Improvement Percent Count More trash recycle bins 29.8 17 Increase parking 24.6 14 Increase availability of mtn. bike trails 21.1 12 More restrooms 17.5 10 Improve condition of trails 12.3 7 Improve cleanliness of restrooms 12.3 7 More benches 10.5 6 More trails for bikes 3.5 2 Improve conditions of natural resources 3.5 2 Improve conditions of historic resources 3.5 2 Other, write-in 42.1 24 Signs (7), water fountains (5), trails (2) Table 34: Programs and services of interest in the future, follow-up survey respondents Value Percent Responses Learning more about the flora and wildlife of the preserve 35.3% 18 Outdoor evening programs (e.g., campfire, night sky programs) 25.5% 13 Self-guided nature walks 19.6% 10 Races and competitions 17.6% 9 Docent-led hikes 15.7% 8 Special events/festivals/outdoor concerts 15.7% 8 Attachment 2 49 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Family activities (e.g., nature quests, all-age volunteer program) 13.7% 7 Children’s or youth programs 13.7% 7 Art/photography classes 11.8% 6 More outdoor kiosks and displays 9.8% 5 Digital information, such as on-site electronic kiosks, downloadable pdf files or park apps 5.9% 3 Presentations about preserve in my community 3.9% 2 I do not want any of these programs or services 21.6% 11 Other program or service improvements or changes- 7.8% 4 Keep WiFi-free (1), QR codes for info at trailheads (1), limit number of people on trails (1) Table 35: Summary of comments about recent visit to preserve or comments about other Midpen preserves Comment Percent Count Good job, appreciation 37.2% 16 Trash, litter, dog waste, horse waste 25.6% 11 Signs 16.3% 7 More bike access 14.0% 6 More parking 11.6% 5 More trails 11.6% 5 Too crowded on weekends 7.0% 3 Problems with dogs 7.0% 3 Ability to communicate with rangers 4.7% 2 Table 36: Would be interested in volunteering to assist Midpen in the future Value Percent Responses Yes 20.1% 30 Maybe 32.9% 49 No 47.0% 70 Totals: 149 Attachment 2 50 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 37: Ways you would assist Midpen in the future Ways to assist Very Interested Count/% Somewhat Interested Count/% Not very Interested Count/% Help maintain trails (22) 33.8% (33) 50.8% (4) 6.2% Help restore creek sides, buildings or native plants, and remove invasive non-native plants (20) 31.7% (34) 54.0% (3) 4.8% Get more information about the preserves (18) 29.5% (32) 52.5% (7) 11.5% Teach kids about resources of preserves (14) 23.0% (18%) 29.5 (19) 31.1% Attend public meetings or workshops about preserves near you (11) 18.6% (27) 45.8% (13) 22.0% Attend public meetings or workshops about preserves near you (11)18.6% (27) 45.8% (13) 22.0% Answer questions and pass-out preserve information while hiking/riding on trails (10) 16.9% (19) 32.2% (17) 28.8% Answer questions and pass-out preserve information at a trailhead (8) 13.3% (10) 16.7% (28) 33.3% Lead educational tours at a preserve, after receiving training (8) 12.9% (18) 29.0% (20) 32.3% Other Leverage my project management skills to help manage a project (1) 100% 0 0 Attachment 2 51 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University D. Who isn’t visiting Midpen preserves Demographic data from intercept survey respondents were compared with current population statistics for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties provided in the 2010 U.S. Census to estimate the characteristics of residents who are less likely to visit Midpen preserves. This provides an approximate comparison of preserve visitors versus county residents. The tables that follow provide summary demographic data for both Santa Clara County and San Mateo Counties intercept survey respondents on their sex, race, age, household income and education. The comparisons suggest that survey respondents and preserve visitors are much more likely to be white, non-Hispanic, speaking English only at home, older, with higher education levels and household income, compared to the overall population of both counties. Table 38: Comparison of demographics of survey respondents versus 2010 San Mateo and Santa Clara County populations Statistic Intercept Survey Respondents Total San Mateo County Total* Santa Clara County Total** Percent male 55.0 % 49.2% 50.2% Percent female 45.0% 50.8% 49.8% Percent Hispanic or Latino 6.7% 25.4% 26.9% Percent White 79.0% 62.5% 47.0% Percent Asian 20.8% 24.8% 22.0% Percent Black, African American 1.4% 2.8% 2.6% Percent other race(s) 3.5% 9.9% 12.4% Percent speak language other than English at home 20.8% 46.0% 52.1% Mean age 49.1 years 39.3 years 36.8 years Median HH income (reporting) $100-124,000 $75-99,000 $100 -124,000 Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 82.7% 45.0% 45.8% * Source: U.S. Census Bureau, San Mateo County, 2010. ** Source: American Community Survey, Santa Clara County 2010 Census Attachment 2 52 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 39: Age of survey respondents and 2010 San Mateo County population Years All Preserves SM County Total* 18-24 4.2% 7.3% 25-34 14.7% 18.3% 45-54 26.8% 19.4% 55-64 24.3% 19.7% 65-74 9.6% 9.9% 75 or more 3.3% 8.5% Median Age 49.1 years 39.3 years * Source: American Community Survey, San Mateo County 2010 Census Figure 30: Age of respondents and 2010 San Mateo County population 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 or more Percent Ag e G r o u p Age of MidPen Visitors and 2010 San Mateo County Population San Mateo County MidPen Attachment 2 53 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University E. Statistical summary and comparison of each preserve surveyed The following tables compare select visitor count and visitor survey data for each preserve and compare the statistics to those for all preserves. This statistical dashboard allows for a quick comparison showing any unique characteristics of each preserve. Note the Germanic language category includes German, French, and Italian. Table 40: Statistics dashboard for: Coal Creek preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 4.3 visits 22.6 visits Percent live within one mile of park 5.0% 15.5% Percent Hispanic or Latino 0.0% 6.7% Percent white race 94.7% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 21.1% 15.7% Most common language other than English Russian, Dutch, Korean Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 84.3% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, relax Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 71.4% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Trails, signs, trash cans Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 54 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 41: Statistics dashboard for: El Corte de Madera preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 15.3 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 2.8% 6.7% Percent white race 69.4% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 11.1% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 75.1% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, views Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 83.3% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Signs, trails, bike access Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 55 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 42: Statistics dashboard for: El Sereno preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 4.6 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 4.8% 6.7% Percent white race 85.7% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 19.0% 15.7% Most common language other than English Russian, Japanese Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 100.0% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Bike, hike, jog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 4.8% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 81.0% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions More dog friendly, bike access, trails Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 56 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 43: Statistics dashboard for: Fremont Older preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 63.7 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 3.9% 6.7% Percent white race 68.1% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 13.8% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Chinese, Germanic, Hindi, Tamil Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 82.3% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, walk dog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 12.1% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 2.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.7% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 75.3% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Parking, trash cans, dog waste bags Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 57 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 44: Statistics dashboard for: Long Ridge preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 4.4 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 4.3% 6.7% Percent white race 95.7% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 8.7% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 82.6% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, jog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 3.7% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 81.5% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Bike access, more trails, restrooms Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 58 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 45: Statistics dashboard for: Los Trancos preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 8.1 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 3.3% 6.7% Percent white race 75.9% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 43.3% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic, Chinese, Japanese Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 96.6% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Walk, relax, explore Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 3.2% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 73.3% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Signs, drinking fountain, parking Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 59 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 46: Statistics dashboard for: Monte Bello preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 14.0 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 2.0% 6.7% Percent white race 80.4% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 11.8% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic, Japanese, Chinese Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 86.3% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, jog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 96.2% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Drinking fountain, protect resources, signs Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 60 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 47: Statistics dashboard for: Picchetti Ranch preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 34.0 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 7.1% 6.7% Percent white race 70.1% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 27.1% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic, Chinese, Russian, Tamil Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 87.1% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Walk, picnic, be with friends Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 1.4% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 1.4% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 81.7% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Signs, more trails, protect resources Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 61 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 48: Statistics dashboard for: Pulgas Ridge preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 33.9 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 8.1% 6.7% Percent white race 88.2% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 9.7% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Chinese, Hebrew Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 75.8% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, walk dog, jog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.8% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 1.6% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 3.2% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 75.2% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Trash cans, dog waste bags, trails Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 62 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 49: Statistics dashboard for: Purisima Creek Redwoods preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 36.7 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 6.2% 6.7% Percent white race 80.2% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 14.2% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 79.7% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, relax Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 2.5% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.8% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.8% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 90.7% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Restroom, parking, signs Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French and Italian. Attachment 2 63 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 50: Statistics dashboard for: Rancho San Antonio preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 346.2 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 6.5% 6.7% Percent white race 64.6% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 20.8% 15.7% Most common language other than English Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Tagalog, Korean Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 86.9% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, jog, be with friends Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 10.3% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 2.3% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 2.6% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 75.9% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Parking, restrooms, trails Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 64 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 51: Statistics dashboard for: Ravenswood preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 11.5 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 31.4% 6.7% Percent white race 71.4% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 40.0% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Chinese, Farsi, Germanic Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 47.5% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, relax, job Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 2.9% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 5.9% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 52.9% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Trails, restrooms, trash cans Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 65 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 52: Statistics dashboard for: Russian Ridge preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 14.5 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 4.1% 6.7% Percent white race 95.9% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 12.2% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic, Dutch Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 89.8% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, jog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 92.0% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Signs, drinking fountain, picnic tables/benches Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 66 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 53: Statistics dashboard for: Saratoga Gap preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 6.9 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 0.0% 6.7% Percent white race 69.0% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 31.0% 15.7% Most common language other than English Chinese, Germanic Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 82.8% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Bike, hike, be with friends Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 3.3% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 3.3% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 3.3% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 73.3% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Signs, trails, bike access Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 67 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 54: Statistics dashboard for: Sierra Azul preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 12.4 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 13.6% 6.7% Percent white race 78.6% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 11.4% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Chinese, Russian Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 74.9% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, bike, jog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 11.4% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 2.3% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 2.3% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 65.9% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Parking, drinking fountain, trails Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 68 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 55: Statistics dashboard for: Skyline Ridge preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 8.8 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 8.6% 6.7% Percent white race 84.4% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 14.3% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Farsi, Serbian Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 82.9% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, relax, bike Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.0% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 86.5% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Enforcement, horse droppings, dog waste bag Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 69 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 56: Statistics dashboard for: St. Joseph’s Hill preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 100.5 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 8.1% 6.7% Percent white race 89.4% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 7.1% 15.7% Most common language other than English Germanic, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 78.7% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, jog, bike Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 3.4% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 4.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 4.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 79.2% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Problem with bikes, enforcement, trails Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 70 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 57: Statistics dashboard for: Thornewood preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 6.8 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 3.4% 6.7% Percent white race 82.1% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 13.8% 15.7% Most common language other than English Chinese, Germanic Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 89.6% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, walk dog, nature walk Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 3.3% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.0% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 6.7% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 80.0% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Trails, parking, more dog friendly Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 71 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Table 58: Statistics dashboard for: Windy Hill preserve* Statistic Preserve All Preserves Average visit count per 3 hour period 44.8 visits 22.6 visits Percent Hispanic or Latino 6.3% 6.7% Percent white race 92.7% 79.0% Percent speak language other than English 10.7% 15.7% Most common language other than English Spanish, Germanic, Hindi, Chinese Chinese, Spanish, Germanic, Russian, Hindi Percent under $75,000 HH income (reporting) 7.7% 14.8% Percent bachelor’s degree or higher education 90.2% 82.7% Top three primary reasons for visit Hike, jog, walk dog Hike, bike, jog Had transportation or parking problems 0.8% 4.6% Percent dissatisfied with other visitors 0.8% 2.0% Percent felt unsafe at preserve 0.0% 1.9% Percent rated experience as very good 85.0% 79.5% Most frequent suggestions Trash cans, dog waste, trails Trash cans, trails, parking * Germanic language refers to German, French, and Italian. Attachment 2 72 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University VI. Summary The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District visitor surveys sought to identify use levels, visitor characteristics and their evaluations at 19 Midpen open space preserves. This study employed an intercept survey and visitor counts from September 4 to November 5, 2017. Those visitors who provided their email address at the end of the intercept survey where later emailed a follow-up survey to gather additional information. This report presents results of the visitor counts, intercept and follow-up surveys conducted in late summer and early fall 2017. A total of 10,152 visits were counted at the 19 sites over the survey period, 59.6% of counts occurred during weekends and 40.4% on weekdays. The average number of visits per three hour survey period in all preserves was 46. Total visitation the entire survey period varied widely between specific surveyed sites, ranging from 4,502 visits at Rancho San Antonio preserve to 47 at Coal Creek preserve. The three surveying periods each had nearly equal numbers of visits. The morning surveying session from 7:30-10:30am had 32.8% of visits, the afternoon 11:30-2:30pm also recorded 32.8% and the evening 3:30-6:30pm session had 34.4% of the visitor counts. There were an estimated total of 129,462 visits to all 19 surveyed sites in the study during the full day between September 4 and November 5, 2017. A grand total of 1,453 intercept surveys were completed. The number of completed surveys ranged from 21 at Coal Creek preserve to 260 at Rancho San Antonio. Results showed that respondents made an average of 42 visits per year to the Midpen preserve where they were contacted. 59% were with a group of family and friends, while 41% were alone. Only 3% were with an organized group. Average group size was 2.1 persons. Just over 16% lived within one mile of the preserve in which they were surveyed. The most frequent cities of respondent residence were San Jose, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Redwood City. The average respondent was 49 years old, with 27% being between the ages of 45-54 years old. Just 4% of respondents were between the ages of 18-24 years. There were slightly more males than females. Over 83% had a bachelor degree or higher level of formal education. Household income in 2016 varied greatly among respondents, with 8% indicating less than $50,000 and nearly 41% reporting annual income over $150,000. The racial characteristics of respondents were 79% white, followed by Asian heritage at 21% and 1.4% African Americans (respondents could list multiple races). Overall 6.6% were Hispanic or Latino. Almost 21% spoke a language other than English at home, with Mandarin/Cantonese (23.2%) being most frequent, with Spanish (13.6%), European languages of German, Italian, or French (12.3%), Russian (6%) and Hindi (5%) being the next most common languages. However, non-English speaking characteristics varied a great deal between preserves. For example, 43% of Los Trancos visitor respondents but only 9% of Long Ridge respondents spoke a language other than English at home. About 0.9% of respondents had a person in their visitor group with a disability. The most common disability was “mobility.” The most frequently identified sources of information about the preserve visited were: past experience (59%); friend or family (29%); the Midpen website (12%), the preserve map/brochure (11.4%) and social media (6%). About 85% drove/rode in a car to the preserve, 9% rode a bicycle or walked to it. Only 0.2% surveyed used public transit. Overall, 4% of respondents indicated they had a substantial problem with transportation to or parking at the preserve they visited. The most commonly cited problems were: Difficulty in finding and empty parking space (64% of those with a problem); had to park a long distance away (36%); difficulty finding the preserve (24%); and public transportation was not available or limited (7%). Those Attachment 2 73 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University with a transportation problem were asked to rate their support for two alternative to help reduce the transportation issues at Rancho San Antonio and 80% supported building a walking and biking spur trail from the Stevens Creek trail to Rancho San Antonio; while 55% supported a free shuttle from nearby parking areas to the Rancho preserve entrance. The most popular land based activities that were undertaken that day in the preserve were: Walk/hike (77%); run/jog (17%); bike on unpaved trails (13%); use restroom (13%); and walk dog (12%). The most popular nature-based activities were: Relax outdoors (58%); enjoy views (55%); exploring outdoors (49%); nature walk (44%); and enjoy being with family/friends (41%). The primary reasons for visiting the preserve that day, in order of popularity, were: Hiking/walking (53.1%); bicycling on unpaved trails/fire roads (13%); jogging/running (10%); and walking a dog (6%). In total, about nine out of ten respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their interactions with other visitors at the surveyed preserve. Conflicts with bikes on trails and dogs off leash were reasons for being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Over 96% of respondents indicated they felt safe or very safe at the site. Concerns about mountain lions, dogs, scary people and bikes on trails were most frequent reasons for feeling unsafe or very unsafe. Almost all respondents (80%) agreed the quality of their overall preserve experience on the survey date was very good. When asked what could be done to improve the quality of their preserve experience items mentioned were: Lack of enforcement; more/cleaner restrooms; and conflicts with bikes or dogs. Respondents provided many suggestions for how their experience at preserve could be improved, with the top five being: More trash cans; more/better maintained trails; improve parking; more/better signs and maps; reducing dog wastes bags along trails; and dogs off leash. Respondents were asked to rate how important the three main Midpen activities are to them. “Protect and restore the natural environment” was rated extremely important by 75% of respondents; “acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land” – 73%; and “provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education” – 63%. At the end of the intercept survey 602 respondents provided an address so SFSU could email them a link to a follow-up online survey. A total of 154 (25.6% of the 602 who provided an address) completed the follow-up survey. Although there is a smaller number of completed follow-up surveys, results still have a 90% confidence level with a +/- 10% margin of error. The number of completed follow-up surveys ranged from 29 and Fremont Older preserve to one at Coal Creek. Just over half of follow-up survey respondents visited the original preserve site where they were intercepted since the original contact. The primary reasons selected for the original visit were: Improve my physical fitness (88%); connect with nature (78%); experience scenic views (72%); improve my mental wellbeing (71%); and convenient to where I live/work (59%). Overall, the majority of respondents to the follow-up survey were satisfied with preserve facilities. The facilities with the largest percentage of unsatisfied or very unsatisfied responses were: Parking (13%); availability of benches and water fountains (13%); and cleanliness of restrooms (10%). Another question asked about the availability of preserve information and staff. Areas with the largest percentage of unsatisfied or very unsatisfied responses were: Information about activities or events in preserves (4%); and availability of outdoor displays/exhibits (3%). The most common preferred methods to receive information about preserves were: Email (83%); and the Midpen website (8%). Overall, 58% of respondents did not have any serious concerns at the preserve, but the most frequently mentioned problems Attachment 2 74 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University were: Limited parking, dog waste; speeding bikes; too many visitors at site; and horse waste deposits on trails. A question asked to describe any special qualities or aspects of the preserve. The most frequently mentioned items were: Beauty/nature/views; trails and paths, convenient, hiking opportunities; and clean and well maintained. Over 61% of respondents would not like to see any amenity or facility improvements in the future at that preserve, they liked it the way it is. For those who wanted a facility improvement the most commonly cited were: More trash cans; increase parking, increase legal mountain bike trails; more restrooms; and improve cleanliness of restrooms. The most frequently indicated service or staffing improvements were: They want to learn more about the flora and wildlife of preserve; outdoor evening programs; self -guided nature walks; races/competitions; and docent led hikes. Another question asked for respondent comments about their visit to the preserve or other Midpen preserves. There were a wide variety of comments. The most common responses were: No improvements needed or thanks to Midpen; concerns about dog and horse wastes on trails; more signs, more bike access; and more parking. Follow-up survey respondents were asked if they would be interested in assisting Midpen in the future and how they would assist. Over 63% of follow-up survey respondents stated Yes or Maybe about their interest in helping Midpen. The most common ways they would help were: Maintain trails; restore creek sides/buildings/native plants; get more information about preserves; teach kids about preserves; attend public meetings; and answer questions and pass out information while hiking trails A section of this report describes who is not visiting Midpen preserves, based on a comparison of demographic characteristics of intercept survey respondents and the 2010 population characteristics from the U.S. Census for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. It assumes differences are due primarily to actual visitation patterns, not the survey method. Results showed preserve visitors were slightly less likely to be female; a third as likely to be Hispanic/Latino (6.7% versus 25.4% and 26.9%); 12 to 23% less likely to be of any race besides White; and two times less likely to speak a language other than English at home than the general population of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties in 2010, respectively. Preserve respondents were older on average (49 versus 39 and 37 years, respectively) than the 2010 San Mateo and Santa Clara County populations. Younger adults, ages 18-24, were half as likely to be a visitor to Midpen preserves, compared to the county population. The age groups of 45-54 and 55-64 were much more likely to be visitors compared to the San Mateo county population. Preserve visitors were 40% more likely to be adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher formal education, compared to the county populations. In summary, visitors to Midpen preserves were less likely to be young or late senior adults, Asian, Black, Hispanic or Latino; speak a language other than English at home; and had higher levels of formal education. Study findings showed Midpen preserve visitor survey respondents had some key differences from visitor studies by the author at parks and preserves in San Mateo, Marin County and Los Angeles. But they also had many commonalities. Nearly all (98%) of Midpen survey respondents rated the quality of their experience as good or very good. This is truly remarkable, and it is even slightly higher than what was recorded in recent Marin and San Mateo County park visitor studies. But high levels of satisfaction should not mean Midpen can stop efforts to improve because many survey respondents had comments and suggested improvements that are needed. Midpen respondents were generally more likely to cite connecting with nature, Attachment 2 75 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University experiencing scenic views and improving their mental wellbeing as reasons for visiting, compared to other recent studies. A greater percentage were interesting in volunteering to assist the agency. Almost two-thirds of Midpen respondents did not want any changes in preserve facilities, but a higher percentage of Midpen respondents, compared to other studies, cited a need for more parking. Midpen non-visitor group characteristics were similar to those from other Bay Area county park agency visitor studies. The amount and types of non-visitors suggests additional outreach efforts, programming, and transportation are needed to encourage visitation to preserves by a broader spectrum of district residents. Upcoming focus groups with residents of under-served communities in the district are being conducted as part of Phase II of this research and should identify important barriers to visitation and how to overcome these. Focus groups have not all been completed, so they are not included in this report, but will be in the final project report. This analysis of Midpen survey respondents provides a scientifically valid assessment of how many visits each preserve had during the period of September 4 through November 5, 2017. It also identifies who is visiting; why they are not visiting; their evaluation of preserve resources, facilities, services and information; suggested changes; and their level of support for the three overall goals of the district. It would be beneficial to complete additional seasons of data collection to see if seasonal visitors and visitation patterns change significantly. Ideally this study will be performed every five years to evaluate differences over time and to indicate the efficacy of any new initiatives by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Attachment 2 76 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Appendix A. Intercept Survey The following pages provide a copy of the intercept survey used in the research. Note this is a written version and does not show programmed skips and data validation used in the online survey provided to the visitor using the computer tablet. Help Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Receive a Gift The Midpeninsula Region Open Space District (Midpen) would like to know about your experiences in this open space preserve today to help them serve you and other visitors better in the future. Upon completing this brief survey you will receive a complimentary gift. Your responses will be kept confidential. You are one of the few persons taking the survey so your feedback is very important. SFSU is providing technical and analytical support in this effort. If you have questions about the survey ask the survey attendant, or feel free to contact Joshua Hugg, Government Affairs Specialist, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space, 650.691.1200 or Patrick Tierney, Professor, Dept. of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, San Francisco State University, at 415.338.2030. GO TO QUESTIONS BELOW Attachment 2 77 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 1) Today’s Date:_________ Time: ____________ 2) What is the name of this Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Preserve you are in now? Select one name from the drop down list.* ( ) Coal Creek ( ) El Corte de Madera ( ) El Sereno ( ) Foothills ( ) Fremont Older ( ) Long Ridge ( ) Los Trancos ( ) Monte Bello ( ) Picchetti Ranch ( ) Pulgas Ridge ( ) Purisima Creek Redwoods 3) Including today, how many times have you visited __this Midpen preserve__ in the last 12 months?* ___ 4) On this visit, what kind of personal group (alone, family and/or friends, not a guided group or other organized group) are you with today? Mark just one.* ( ) Alone ( ) Friends ( ) Family and friends ( ) Family ( ) Other Describe: _________________________________________________ 5) Including yourself, how many people are in your personal group today at __ this preserve__?* ____ 6) Are you and/or your personal group with one of the following? * ( ) Commercial guided tour group ( ) Family reunion of more than 25 people ( ) School/educational group ( ) Commercial fitness group ( ) Other commercial group ( ) I am not with any commercial or large organized group 7) How did you and/or your group get information about _this preserve_? (Check all that apply)* [ ] Past experience in preserve [ ] Called Midpen [ ] Friend or family member [ ] Midpen website [ ] Other Website or Social Media - Write In: _____________ [ ] Visited Midpen office ( ) Rancho San Antonio ( ) Ravenswood ( ) Russian Ridge ( ) Saratoga Gap ( ) Sierra Azul ( ) Skyline Ridge ( ) St. Joseph's Hill ( ) Stevens Creek ( ) Thronewood ( ) Windy Hill Attachment 2 78 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University [ ] Talked with a Midpen staff person [ ] Preserve map [ ] Use of cell phone/iPad/tablet/laptop in this preserve [ ] Signs along trail [ ] Other Source - Write In: _____________________ [ ] Guidebook 8) What forms of transportation did you and/or your group use to arrive at _this preserve_ today? (Check all that apply)* [ ] Drove/Rode in a vehicle [ ] Walked [ ] Rode a bicycle [ ] Arrived by public transit (bus, train) [ ] Group bus [ ] Arrived by a ride sharing service (Uber, Lyft, etc.) [ ] Other - Write In: ________________________________ 9) Did you have substantial problems with transportation to or parking at _this preserve_ today?* ( ) Yes ( ) No (If No, Skip to Question 11) 10) Answer if you had substantial problems with transportation. Since you had substantial transportation or parking problems getting to or at the preserve today, check all the most important issues you experienced. (Check all that apply) [ ] It was very difficult to find the preserve parking lot/entrance [ ] I did not have a car to get to the preserve [ ] Public transportation to the preserve was not available or very limited [ ] Public transportation to the preserve took too long [ ] I had difficulty finding an empty parking space in the parking lot [ ] I had to park a long distance away and walk [ ] Bicycle access was limited or dangerous [ ] There was no secure place to park my bicycle [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 11) If you visited Rancho San Antonio Preserve, answer this question. Several alternatives have been proposed to help reduce transportation issues at Rancho San Antonio Preserve. For each alternative below describe how supportive you are for each alternative. Very supportive Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Greatly oppose Don't know Attachment 2 79 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Provide a free shuttle from nearby parking areas to park entrance ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Build a bike/walking spur trail from the Stevens Creek regional trail to the park entrance ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 12) What LAND-BASED activities did you participate in today at _this preserve_? (check all that apply)* [ ] Walk/Hike [ ] Run/jog [ ] Walk dog [ ] Group exercise [ ] Bike unpaved trails [ ] Bike on fire road [ ] Ride horses [ ] Picnic [ ] Use restroom [ ] Take a scenic drive [ ] Volunteering [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ [ ] I did not participate in any land activities [ ] Geo cache [ ] Special event Attachment 2 80 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 13) What NATURE-BASED activities did you participate in today at _this preserve_? (check all that apply)* [ ] Relax outdoors [ ] Photography/Art [ ] Enjoy being with family/friends [ ] Bird watching [ ] Explore outdoors [ ] Wildlife viewing [ ] Nature walk [ ] Look at wildflowers [ ] Enjoy views [ ] Docent-led tours [ ] Meditation/solitude [ ] Volunteering [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ [ ] I did not participate in any Nature-Based activities 14) Which ONE from the activities above (Land or Nature) was your primary reason for visiting _this preserve_ today? (check only one (1) from the list below).* ( ) Walk/hike ( ) Relax outdoors ( ) Run/jog ( ) Enjoy being with family/friends ( ) Bike unpaved trail ( ) Bike fire road ( ) Explore outdoors ( ) Bird watching ( ) Wildlife viewing ( ) Nature walk ( ) Look at wildflowers ( ) Other - Write In: _____________________ 15) Please rate your satisfaction with interactions you had with other visitors at _this preserve_ today, on a scale of Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied? (Please mark only one)* ( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neutral ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied 16) Answer if you felt very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with your interactions with other visitors at _this preserve_ today, briefly describe what caused you to feel that way. (check all that apply) [ ] Too crowded [ ] Conflicts with bicyclists [ ] Not enough parking [ ] Conflicts with hikers and runners ( ) Walk dog ( ) Photography/Art ( ) Enjoy views ( ) Docent-led tours ( ) Meditation/solitude ( ) Group exercise ( ) Ride horse ( ) Picnic ( ) Use restroom ( ) Take scenic drive ( ) Geo cache ( ) Special event Attachment 2 81 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University [ ] Unpleasant or loud visitors [ ] Conflicts with horses [ ] Conflicts with dogs [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 17) Please indicate how personally safe you felt at _this preserve_ today on a scale of Very Unsafe to Very Safe ? (Please mark only one response.)* ( ) Very Unsafe ( ) Unsafe ( ) Neutral ( ) Safe ( ) Very Safe 18) Check below the most important reasons which caused you to feel at all unsafe during your visit today. (check all that were important reasons) [ ] Scary people I encountered [ ] Too few people [ ] Concerns about mountain lions and other wildlife [ ] I did not feel welcome [ ] Dogs I encountered [ ] Bugs and insects [ ] Horses on trails [ ] Unsafe trail conditions [ ] Too many people [ ] Bikes on trails [ ] Weather (too hot, too cold or rain) [ ] Too isolated [ ] Presence of rangers/staff [ ] I felt vulnerable to attack [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 19) Overall, how would you rate the quality of your experience at _this preserve_ during this visit? (Select just one)* ( ) Very poor ( ) Poor ( ) Neutral ( ) Good ( ) Very good 20) If you rated your experience today Very Poor or Poor, please briefly describe the most important reasons you feel that way? (check all that apply) [ ] Too crowded [ ] Dogs I encountered [ ] Trail conditions [ ] Lack of enforcement of preserve rules [ ] Lack of restrooms [ ] Conflicts with bicyclists [ ] Unclean restrooms [ ] Bugs, bees [ ] Fear of mountain lion attack [ ] Lack of parking [ ] Weather, too hot /cold [ ] Lack of shade [ ] Poor signage, lack of way-finding signs, lack of map displays [ ] Animal (dog or horse) poop (or bags) along trail [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ Attachment 2 82 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 21) Do you have any suggestions on how your experience today at _this preserve_ could be improved? Describe. ________________________________________________________________________________ Continue 22) Midpen focuses on three main activities; 1)To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; 2) protect and restore the natural environment; and 3) provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. In your opinion, how important is it for Midpen to pursue each of these main activities? Rate the importance of each below on a scale of 10 Extremely Important to 1 Not At All Important.* 10 - Extreme ly Importa nt 9 8 7 6 5 -Neither Important or Unimportn at 4 3 2 1 - Not At All Importa nt Acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Protect and restore the natural ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Attachment 2 83 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University environme nt Provide opportuniti es for ecologicall y sensitive public enjoyment and education ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 23) Are you a resident of the USA?* ( ) Yes ( ) No (If NO Skip to Question 27) 24) What is the Zip Code of your residential address* 25) What city is your primary residence?* _____________________________________ 26) Do you live within one mile of this survey site at _this preserve_? * ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Not applicable 27) Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?* ( ) Yes ( ) No 28) What is your primary race(s)? (check all that apply) [ ] American Indian/Alaska Native [ ] Asian/Asian American [ ] Black/African American [ ] Caucasian/White [ ] Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 29) What language is most frequently spoken in your home?* ( ) English only (Skip to Question 31) ( ) Language other than English 30) What language other than English is most frequently spoken in your home?* [ ] Spanish [ ] Vietnamese [ ] Mandarin/Cantonese [ ] Tagalog Attachment 2 84 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University [ ] German/Italian/French [ ] Hindi [ ] Other Language - Write In: _________________________________________________ 31) Do you or anyone in your personal group have a physical condition that made it difficult to access or participate in preserve activities or services? ( ) Yes ( ) No (If No Skip to Question 34) 32) What activities or services did you or the person(s) have difficulty accessing or participating in today? Please be specific. ______________________________________________________________________________ 33) Because of the physical condition, what specific problems did you or the person(s) have? Please mark all that apply. [ ] Hearing (difficulty hearing docent programs, or office staff, even with hearing aid) [ ] Visual (difficulty seeing directional signs, visual aids that are part of programs, etc. even with prescribed glasses or due to blindness) [ ] Mobility (difficulty accessing facilities, services, or programs, even with walking aid and/or wheelchair) [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 34) In what year were you born? _________________________________________________ 35) What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? Mark only one.* ( ) 12th grade or less ( ) Some college, no degree ( ) Graduated high school or equivalent ( ) Vocational or trade school ( ) Associate 2 year degree ( ) Bachelor's 4 year degree ( ) Post-graduate or professional degree 36) What was your sex assigned at birth* ( ) Female ( ) Male 37) What gender do you identify with now? ( ) Female ( ) Male ( ) Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ Attachment 2 85 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 38) Which ONE of the following categories best describes your total annual household income for the last calendar year? ( ) Less than $25,000 ( ) $100,000 to $124,999 ( ) $25,000 to $34,999 ( ) $125,000 to $149,999 ( ) $35,000 to $49,999 ( ) $150,000 to $249,999 ( ) $50,000 to $74,999 ( ) $250,000 or more ( ) $75,000 to $99,999 ( ) Prefer not to answer ** Win a $100 Gift Card from REI or Trader Joes ** The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District would like to know just a little more about your experiences at its preserves through completion of a brief follow-up survey. Complete the next questions and the follow-up survey to be entered in a drawing to win a $100 gift card at Recreational Equipment Company (REI) or Trader Joes Markets and further help the MROSD preserves. The follow-up survey will be sent to you in the next several days. You must complete the follow-up survey to be eligible to win the prize. You can only enter once. Please go to the next question. 39) Are you willing to provide your email address, or a phone number, so we can have you complete a follow-up survey and be entered into a drawing for that $100 prize and help improve Midpen preserves? * SFSU and Midpen will not share your email address or phone number with anyone.* ( ) Yes (If Yes Continue) ( ) No (If NO Skip to END) 40) Please provide your name so we can contact you if you win. _________________________________________________ 41) How do you prefer to have the follow-up survey "given" to you? ( ) Email a link to the online survey ( ) Call me so I can take the survey over the phone (USA residents only) 42) Provide your email address so you can be entered in a drawing to win a prize after completing the follow-up survey. Go to the next question if you prefer to have us call you to take the follow-up survey. PRINT CAREFULLY __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Attachment 2 86 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 43) If you prefer to have the follow-up survey given over the phone, instead of online, provide your phone number, with area code first. _________________________________________________ 44) What are the best days of the week and times to call you? _________________________________________________ THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEY TO THE PERSON WHO GAVE IT TO YOU BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE AREA AND RECEIVE YOUR FREE GIFT. PLEASE ANSWER A BRIEF FOLLOW-UP SURVEY WHICH WILL BE SENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. An email with a link to the follow-up survey will be delivered to those who agreed to take it (or you'll be called if you choose that option). RESPONDENTS COULD WIN A $100 GIFT CERTIFICATE. The follow-up survey will help the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District better understand its visitors and improve its services to you. All responses and your contact information will be kept confidential and not shared with any organization. Thanks in advance for completing the follow-up survey. Joshua Hugg, Government Affairs Specialist, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Patrick Tierney, Professor, Dept. of Recreation, Parks and Tourism, San Francisco State University Attachment 2 87 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Appendix B. Follow-Up Survey Below is the follow-up online survey sent to those who provided email at end of intercept survey. Follow-Up 2017 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Survey 1. In which Midpen preserve did you complete the initial survey? Select one name from the drop down list. If you do not remember, select that option and continue.* ( ) Coal Creek ( ) El Corte de Madera ( ) El Sereno ( ) Foothills ( ) Fremont Older ( ) Long Ridge ( ) Los Trancos ( ) Monte Bello ( ) Picchetti Ranch ( ) Pulgas Ridge ( ) Purisima Creek Redwoods ( ) Rancho San Antonio 2) Have you been back to _preserve name_ since you completed the on-site survey?* ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Don't remember ( ) Ravenswood ( ) Russian Ridge ( ) Saratoga Gap ( ) Sierra Azul ( ) Skyline Ridge ( ) St. Joseph's Hill ( ) Stevens Creek ( ) Thornewood ( ) Windy Hill ( ) I do not recall which preserve Attachment 2 88 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 3) People can have many reasons for visiting Midpen preserves. Below is a list of potential reasons for visiting. Please check all responses below that were an Important or Very Important reason for you visiting _preserve name_ on the day you completed the initial survey. * [ ] To connect with nature [ ] Convenient to where I live [ ] Convenient to where I work [ ] Dog walking [ ] Experience solitude [ ] Enjoy a safe environment [ ] Be with family/friends [ ] Experience scenic views [ ] Improve my physical fitness [ ] Other - Write In: ____________________ 4) Which of the above reasons was the primary reason you visited this _preserve name_ on the day you completed the initial survey? Select just one reason from the list below. ( ) To connect with nature ( ) Convenient to where I live ( ) Convenient to where I work ( ) Walk/hike ( ) Experience solitude ( ) Dog walking ( ) Enjoy a safe environment ( ) Be with family/friends ( ) Experience scenic views ( ) Improve my physical fitness ( ) Other - Write In: _____________________ Continue [ ] Improve my mental well being [ ] Learn about history & culture [ ] Learn about nature [ ] Volunteer [ ] Experience natural sounds and quiet [ ] For recreation and play [ ] Enjoy an affordable outing [ ] Participate in an organized group outing [ ] Attend an event ( ) Improve my mental well being ( ) Learn about history & culture ( ) Learn about nature ( ) Volunteer ( ) Experience natural sounds and quiet ( ) For recreation and play ( ) Enjoy an affordable outing ( ) Attend an event ( ) Participate in an organized group outing Attachment 2 89 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 5) Think about all the facilities (e.g., trails, tables, restrooms, parking lots, or trailheads) that you used/saw during your visit to _preserve name_ when you completed the initial survey. How satisfied were you with each of the following? Rate each facility on a scale of Very Satisfied to Very Unsatisfied.* Very Satisfie d Satisfie d Neutra l Unsatisfie d Very Unsatisfie d Not Applicable/Di d Not Use Condition of trails ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Availabilit y of bicycling trails ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Benches, water fountains, and trash cans ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Availabilit y of parking ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Availabilit y of restrooms ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Cleanlines s of restrooms ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Condition of natural resources at the site ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Condition of historic resources at the site ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Attachment 2 90 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Visitor or nature centers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 6) Next we’d like to know how satisfied you were with the staffing and information (e.g. docents present, information on the preserve, etc.) at _preserve name_ on the day you completed the initial survey. Please indicate if you were Very Satisfied-Very Unsatisfied with items on list. Very Satisfie d Satisfie d Neutr al Unsatisfi ed Very Unsatisfi ed Not Applicable/ Did Not Use Availability of Midpen staff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Interactions with preserve staff ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Availability of outdoor displays or exhibits about the natural and cultural history of site ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Availability of information about activities and/ or events in the park/preserve ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Directional signage to get to the preserve ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Attachment 2 91 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Maps of preserve ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Way-finding signs, trail names and mileage signs ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Continue 7) What is your preferred method to receive information from Midpen about preserves, programs and activities? Select just one.* ( ) Email ( ) Phone call ( ) U.S. Post Office mail ( ) Text message ( ) Midpen website ( ) Other ________________ ( ) I am not interested in receiving information about preserves, programs or activities 8) Next is a list of issues that sometimes concern open space preserve visitors. Please check all that were a Moderate Problem, or a Serious Problem at _preserve name_ when you visited. [ ] Too many visitors at site [ ] Number of visitors encountered on trail [ ] Dogs off-leash [ ] Dog waste [ ] Horses and/or their deposits on trails [ ] Speeding bikes on trails [ ] Lack of info about site’s plant and animal habitats [ ] Trail conflicts between different types of users [ ] Lack of public transit to sites [ ] Hikers unwilling to move to the side or share trail [ ] Limited parking near site [ ] Lack of enforcement of preserve rules [ ] Visitor-caused noise or disturbances Attachment 2 92 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University [ ] Unclean restrooms [ ] Trash/litter at preserve site [ ] I did not have any issues of concern [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 9) What information, stories, history or features of _preserve name_ would you like to learn more about? Check all that apply. [ ] Origin of the preserve name and history of the preserve [ ] Native Americans who lived in area [ ] Wildlife in preserve [ ] Plants and wildflowers of the preserve [ ] Ways to minimize my impact on preserve [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 10) Are there any special qualities about _preserve name_ that make it important to you? ( ) Yes (Continue to Q11) ( ) No (Skip to Q12) ( ) Don't know (Skip to Q12) 11) What are these special qualities or aspects? Check all the most important qualities listed below. [ ] Beauty, nature, views [ ] Wildlife [ ] Trails and paths [ ] Close, convenient, accessible [ ] Hiking [ ] Water, streams [ ] Clean and well maintained [ ] Safe [ ] Quiet, peaceful [ ] Biking opportunities [ ] Not crowded, solitude [ ] No dogs [ ] Great place for kids, families [ ] Has adequate parking [ ] Other - Write In: _________________________________________________ 12) Would you like some facility, program or service improvements to _preserve name_ to enhance your visit there in the future?* ( ) No, I like it just the way it is (Skip to Q15) ( ) Yes, I'd like to see some improvements Attachment 2 93 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University 13) What important facility (e.g., trails, restrooms, parking lots, or trailheads) improvements or changes would you like to see at _preserve name_. District funding is limited so only check the important improvements and changes listed below. * [ ] Improve condition of trails [ ] Increase availability of mountain bike trails [ ] More trails without bikes [ ] More benches [ ] Increased parking [ ] More restrooms [ ] Improved cleanliness of restrooms [ ] More trash and recycling bins [ ] Provide a visitor or nature center [ ] Improve condition of natural resources at the site [ ] Improve condition of historic resources at the site [ ] Other Facility improvements/changes- Write In: ________________ [ ] I do not want any of these facility improvements or changes 14) On a future visit to _preserve name_ which of the following types of programs and services (docent-led hikes, special events, etc.) would you and/or your group be interested in attending or using? Check only the programs and services for which you are most interested.. [ ] Children’s or youth programs [ ] Learning more about the flora and wildlife of the preserve [ ] Family activities (e.g., nature quests, all-age volunteer program) [ ] Docent-led hikes [ ] Outdoor evening programs (e.g., campfire, night sky programs) [ ] Special events/festivals/outdoor concerts [ ] Races and competitions [ ] Art/photography classes [ ] Digital information, such as on-site electronic kiosks, downloadable pdf files or park apps [ ] More outdoor kiosks and displays Attachment 2 94 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University [ ] Self-guided nature walks [ ] Presentations about preserve in my community [ ] Provide WiFi access in most of preserve [ ] Other program or service improvements or changes- Write In: _____________________ [ ] I do not want any of these programs or services 15) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your recent visit to _ preserve name_ or comments about other Midpen preserves or trails? (continue to next question) ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 16) There are many ways you could get involved and assist the Midpen protect, restore or help others learn about the preserves. Would you be interested in volunteering to help the Midpen in the future?* ( ) Yes ( ) Maybe ( ) No (Skip to Q19) 17) Since you are or might be interested in volunteering to help Midpen in the future, tell us your interest level for each of the following. Very interested Somewhat interested Not very interested Not at all interested Get more information about the preserves ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Attend public meetings or workshops about preserves near you ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Share information about preserves with others ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Attachment 2 95 January 8, 2018 San Francisco State University Teach kids about resources of preserves ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Lead educational tours at a preserve, after receiving training ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Answer questions and pass-out preserve information at a trailhead ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Help restore creek sides, buildings or native plants, and remove invasive non- native plants ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Answer questions and pass-out preserve information while hiking/riding on trails ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Help maintain trails ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Thank You! You have completed the follow-up survey and helped Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District! Attachment 2 February 28, 2018 Board Meeting 18-09 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, February 28, 2018 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Cecily Harris Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Acting Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Specialist Allen Ishibashi Public comments opened at 6:00 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 6:00 p.m. 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Santa Clara County APN(s): 562-23-007 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Ismael Benhamida, Broker, Marcus & Millichap Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms Meeting 18-09 Page 2 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(B)(1) Title of Employee: Acting General Manager ADJOURNMENT President Cyr continued the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to the close of the regular meeting at 6:58 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Cyr called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:03 p.m. President Cyr reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Cecily Harris Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, Acting Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Planner II Whitney Berry, Planner III Gretchen Lausten, and Executive Assistant/ Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent.) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:06 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m. Meeting 18-09 Page 3 Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent.) 1. Approve February 14, 2018 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Board Policy 3.10 – District Grantmaking Program (R-18-19) Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve Board Policy 3.10 – District Grantmaking Program as a Replacement to the Resource Management Grant Program. 4. Establishment of a Post-Employment Benefits Section 115 Trust to Pre-Fund a Portion of Future Pension Obligations (R-18-21) Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the adoption of the Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits (Section 115) Trust as administered by Public Agency Retirement Services to provide an alternative investment strategy for pre-funding pension obligations, and authorizing the General Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to establish the trust. 5. Contract Amendment with O.C. Jones and Sons, Inc., for an additional $82,110.62 for the fabrication and installation of pre-cast concrete barriers for the Mount Umunhum Road Project (R-18-17) Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Amend a contract with O.C. Jones and Sons, Inc., for the Mount Umunhum Road Project in the amount of $82,110.62, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $5,846,782.62, for the fabrication and installation of 672 feet of pre-cast concrete barriers on Mount Umunhum Road. BOARD BUSINESS 6. Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update (R-18- 20) Planner III Gretchen Lausten provided the staff presentation explaining it will give the Board and public an opportunity to share information, ask questions, and give feedback on this project. Ms. Lausten reported MIG, the Districts consultants, initiated the early phases of work by evaluating District programs, policies, preserves, and facilities. The District completed its original Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan in 1993 based on the 1991 Standards for Accessible Design. While the obligation for programmatic access today remains unchanged, technical design standards have evolved and expanded to include more information on outdoor recreation and site conditions. Ms. Lausten introduced the consultant team from MIG, Ashley Tomerlin and Tim Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert provided an overview of the ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan update process, including background on recommended accessibility guidelines for elements and features in Meeting 18-09 Page 4 preserves, such as trails, that are not governed by the building codes and solicited feedback on the District-wide American’s with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update. Director Siemens indicated the District does have wheelchair access trails but suggested other trails could be identified as low impact trails by designating them with a separate symbol on District preserve maps. Mr. Gilbert explained people often seek and expect different levels of challenge in their activities. Rather than attempting to identify the different range of difficulty, the nationwide approach is to provide information about the resource, such as trail grades, surface conditions, etc. for the trail, to allow the public to determine their ability to utilize the trails. Planner II Whitney Berry reiterated key considerations regarding what triggers ADA improvements to the built environment. The ADA Standards apply differently depending on whether the District is providing access to programs or services in existing facilities, altering an existing facility, or building a new facility. When a public entity chooses to alter any of its facilities, the elements and spaces being altered must comply with the 2010 Standards. All new facilities built by public entities must be accessible and usable by people with disabilities. The 2010 Standards set out minimum accessibility requirements for newly constructed facilities, which are also used when designing new District facilities. The 2010 Standards introduced the concept of safe harbor, a new exception that allows facilities that were built prior to March 15, 2012 and were in compliance with the 1991 ADA Standards to remain as-is until a public entity plans an alteration to the structural feature. Ms. Berry explained that for accessible programs and services are viewed in their entirety, the District’s public programs and services must be accessible to people with disabilities, but not all facilities must necessarily be made accessible. Director Siemens asked if the new trail at Mt. Umunhum was surveyed and whether it is ADA compliant. Ashley Tomerlin reported the Mt. Umunhum trail was not surveyed as part of the 20 miles of trail surveyed, which is likely because staff already knew that the trail would exceed the 12% grade considered an easy access trail by the District’s definition. Ms. Tomerlin reported MIG did survey the upper and lower parking areas, pedestrian walkway above, summit stairs, new picnic area, and brochure board. Director Siemens suggested he would be interested in having MIG survey the trail since it is a new trail not previously assessed. Director Siemens also requested that MIG assess the elevator of the new Administration Office building being remodeled for ADA compliance, and inquired if there are any exceptions to the new standards. Director Riffle commented the District would need to consider the varying levels of mobility of preserve visitors when planning for future trail use and budget purposes. Public comment opened at 8:03 p.m. No speakers present. Meeting 18-09 Page 5 Public comment closed at 8:03 p.m. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Project Update for the Cooley Landing Park Business and Operating Plan Project and Upcoming Open House Event at the Education Center INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No Committee reports. B. Staff Reports Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz reported that Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak and the Finance Department has been working with the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) to review the previous fiscal year’s Measure AA expenditures. The BOC will be presenting to the Board the Annual Bond Oversight Committee Report on April 11, 2018. Ms. Ruiz also stated that the General Manager’s Office along with the Managers are preparing for the March 15, 2018 Board Retreat. Mr. Ruiz also reported the Executive Director of Sempervirens Fund Sara Barth contacted her to provide her perspective on the development of Sempervirens Funds’ five-year strategic plan in order to understand the opportunities Midpen sees for their organization, past and future partnership opportunities, and opportunities for potential growth. C. Director Reports Director Hanko reported the Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Hassett commented that he was impressed with the retirement party for the former General Manager Steve Abbors. Director Hassett thanked the following individuals: Board President Cyr and Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz for their speeches along with all the other guest speakers; Master of Ceremonies Controller Mike Foster; the committee of Board members who worked on the retirement party Director Cyr, Director Kishimoto, himself; and especially District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth and Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria. Director Siemens and Director Riffle agreed with Director Hassett. President Cyr reported he has been asked by Senator Beall to reach out to seven members of the Legislature who supported SB 492 to sign on to a budget request letter that Senator Beall will be sending to the Finance Committee for $10 million. Senator Jerry Hill has already agreed to sign on to the letter. President Cyr adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District into closed session at 8:15 p.m. Meeting 18-09 Page 6 President Cyr adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:55 p.m. ________________________________ Maria Soria Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk page 1 of 2 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 18-10 DATE 03-14-18 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Payment Type Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 77409 Check 11709 - D-LINE CONSTRUCTORS, INC.Retainage Release from Mt. Umunhum Summit Projects 02/28/2018 434,010.55 77446 Check *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2/A03/A04 Rent - March 02/28/2018 29,982.00 77407 Check 11897 - CBEC, INC Horseshoe Lake On-Call Hydrologic Services 1/1/18 - 2/10/18 02/28/2018 26,851.38 77410 Check *10214 - DELTA DENTAL March 2018 Dental Premium 02/28/2018 17,727.00 77414 Check 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Cooley Landing - Native Planting + Interpretive Project + Volunteer Stewardship Agreement Oct - Dec 2017 02/28/2018 17,715.38 77480 Check 11854 - RECON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.Plant Maintenance & Revegetation Sites - Various OSP 03/07/2018 16,625.55 77425 Check 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Professional Services - Sears Ranch Rd Dec 2017 + Alma College Implementation Rehab 02/28/2018 11,964.32 77412 Check 11803 - ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP Water Law Counsel December 2017 - January 2018 + San Gregoria Adjudication Jan 2018 02/28/2018 10,246.50 77404 Check 11766 - BLANKINSHIP & ASSOCIATES, INC.CEQA Pesticide Review 02/28/2018 9,979.43 77424 Check *10180 - PG & E Electricity & Gas Services - 21 Locations 02/28/2018 9,633.41 77466 Check 11890 - Institute for Local Government Board Training 1/27/18 03/07/2018 8,718.02 77431 Check 11912 - RHINO ADVENTURE GEAR LLC SFO - Electric Bicycle with Pannier Standard Bag - To be used on trails to help transport equipment rather than ATV 02/28/2018 8,624.18 77436 Check 11403 - SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE/ACCOUNTING Registration - 3 Rangers at Academy 02/28/2018 8,457.00 77432 Check 11912 - RHINO ADVENTURE GEAR LLC SFO - Electric Bicycle - To be used on trails to help transport equipment rather than ATV 02/28/2018 8,145.67 77476 Check 11823 - Periscope Intermediate Corporation Bid Sync Software Intitial Set-up + License 03/07/2018 7,300.00 77420 Check *10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MPOSD-BL-490450 AD&D/Life/LTD Benefit 02/28/2018 6,962.10 77428 Check 11908 - QCON Battery Operated Badger Meters 02/28/2018 6,798.11 77453 Check 11161 - CARNEGHI-NAKASAKO AND ASSOCIATES Appraisal Gupta-Khan Property 03/07/2018 6,500.00 77416 Check 10452 - IFLAND SURVEY Survey & Legal Descriptions - Charcoal Road + Morales/Wagner Road 02/28/2018 6,487.50 77486 Check 11895 - TIMMONS GROUP, INC.Work Order System: Project managemetn & Quality Control 03/07/2018 6,000.00 77488 Check 11834 - WRECO Mud Lake Improvements 03/07/2018 4,585.00 77472 Check 11802 - PACHECO RANCH Clean Spring Box & Bury Water Line 03/07/2018 3,820.00 77464 Check 10223 - HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Phase I Public Access - (BCR)03/07/2018 3,450.00 77411 Check 11821 - DUNKINWORKS Leadership Academy Training Sessions 02/28/2018 3,000.00 77470 Check 10064 - MCB REMODELING Repair and Replace Doors and Awning 03/07/2018 3,000.00 77423 Check 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.M217 BIT Inspection & Oil Change - (M217), (M220) & Replace Battery + Exhaust System Repair (Wt01)02/28/2018 2,958.23 77459 Check 11748 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING Lobbying and Consulting Services for February 2018 03/07/2018 2,916.67 77402 Check 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC Archaelogical Services - (BCR)02/28/2018 2,841.85 77487 Check *10583 - TPX COMMUNICATIONS AO Telephone Monthly Service 03/07/2018 2,627.22 77474 Check 10925 - PAPE` MACHINERY T-34 Service 03/07/2018 2,201.86 77475 Check 11144 - PENINSULA MOTOR SPORTS Maintenance Service & Repairs (ATV3), (P18), (ATV1), (RTV Kubota)03/07/2018 2,195.89 77437 Check *11730 - STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY RV Basic Life + Supplemental Life - Benefits 02/28/2018 2,099.07 77461 Check 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT New Chainsaws & Equipment Supplies (SAO)03/07/2018 1,868.06 77426 Check *10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower rental - Crown site id 871823 02/28/2018 1,852.43 77440 Check 10146 - TIRES ON THE GO New Tires (M29), (M223)02/28/2018 1,829.19 77419 Check 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE Professional Legal Services Through 1/31/18 02/28/2018 1,782.00 77433 Check 10130 - ROESSLER, CINDY Refund of Rental Housing Deposit 02/28/2018 1,750.00 77403 Check 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Design of Partnering Brochure 02/28/2018 1,740.00 77445 Check *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Mobile Device Monthly Utilities 1/13-2/12/18 02/28/2018 1,632.38 77460 Check 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Locks & Rekeys (RSACP) + Pad Locks (SFO)03/07/2018 1,616.34 77485 Check 10307 - THE SIGN SHOP Aluminum Signs - Skyline OSP, (RSACP) + Bo Gimbal Trail (RR)03/07/2018 1,586.93 77458 Check 11707 - CUMMING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC.Construction Cost Consulting - HWY 17 Trail Crossing #2 03/07/2018 1,500.00 77417 Check 11141 - JARVIS FAY DOPORTO & GIBSON LLP Legal Services Public Contract & Construction Issues Jan 2018 02/28/2018 1,282.50 34 EFT 11295 - TAYLOR, ANDREW Reimburse - CSMFO Conference Registration & Travel Expenses 03/07/218 1,286.46 77477 Check *10180 - PG & E Electricity & Gas - 6 Locations 03/07/2018 1,079.55 77439 Check 10435 - THE FERGUSON GROUP LLC Consultant Services for GSA Matter at Mt. Umunhum 02/28/2018 1,044.00 77468 Check 11808 - JORDAN, RYAN Reimbursement for Academy Expenses 03/07/2018 1,012.50 77469 Check 11900 - LUND, HAVEN Reimbursement for Academy Expenses 03/07/2018 1,012.50 77483 Check 11901 - SMITH, ANDREW Reimbursement for Academy Expenses 03/07/2018 1,012.50 77454 Check 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY Fire Hoses & Equipment (FFO), (SFO)03/07/2018 919.10 77401 Check 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE WH (lower) & PC (Northridge) Restroom Vault pumping 02/28/2018 900.00 77443 Check 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Services (FOOSP), (SA)02/28/2018 867.36 77415 Check 11177 - HARRIS CONSTRUCTION Replace Toilet & Repair Leak 02/28/2018 729.68 77438 Check 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies 02/28/2018 691.44 77450 Check 11801 - BAY ALARM COMPANY Camera Installation & Service - (WH)03/07/2018 552.00 77427 Check 10265 - PRIORITY 1 P101 - Spotlight 02/28/2018 526.90 77457 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Maintenance & Repair Service - (M26), (M215)03/07/2018 518.58 77462 Check 10040 - GREAT PRINTING Spaces & Species Booklet Covers 03/07/2018 476.34 Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for account payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 2 of 2 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 18-10 DATE 03-14-18 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Payment Type Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for account payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors 77482 Check 11732 - SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY Slender False Brome Research Cost Reimbursement Jan 2018 03/07/2018 445.29 77478 Check 11335 - PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC Postage Machine Lease 12/30/17 - 3/29/18 03/07/2018 422.37 77435 Check 11117 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY/CITIES MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION 2018 SCCCMA Membership Dues 02/28/2018 400.00 77448 Check 11784 - CITIBANK, N.A.Lin air travel SJC-PDX/fees for CalTravel Store 03/05/2018 361.40 77456 Check 10168 - CINTAS Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)03/07/2018 352.66 77463 Check 11917 - HES - HEARTREADY AED Maintenance & Smart Pads II 03/07/2018 298.83 77434 Check *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (BCR)02/28/2018 285.30 77449 Check 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Parts (FFO)03/07/2018 275.44 77430 Check 10228 - RHF INC Radar Unit Repair Calibration SAO-03 + SAO-05 02/28/2018 271.36 77408 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC M33 Service 02/28/2018 240.38 77405 Check *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water Service For Rental Properties 02/28/2018 237.82 77484 Check 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Rock for Culvert (RSA)03/07/2018 237.06 77406 Check *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 AO Water Services 02/28/2018 208.05 77442 Check 11529 - TRAFX RESEARCH LTD Licenses for TrafX Website 02/28/2018 200.00 77455 Check 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repairs (SA-MT UM)03/07/2018 200.00 77413 Check 10186 - FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping Charges - AO 02/28/2018 177.50 77467 Check 11041 - INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER - SILICON VALLEY P103 - New Battery 03/07/2018 163.21 77471 Check 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Radio Microphone Installation For P88 03/07/2018 151.89 77444 Check 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services-HR 02/28/2018 150.00 77421 Check 11913 - NICK ARNETT Critical incident debriefing services 02/28/2018 125.00 32 EFT 11605-JASKULAK, STEFAN CSMFO Annual Conference - Meals Reimbursement 03/07/2018 103.00 33 EFT 11449 -MARK, JANE CEQA Conference - Reimbursement for Meals & Parking 03/07/2018 81.00 77473 Check 10481 - PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE MB-Pay Phone 03/07/2018 78.00 77451 Check 11744 - BERRY, WHITNEY CEQA Essentials Conference Expenses Reimbursement 03/07/2018 75.00 77489 Check 10455 - HUGG, IANTHINA CEQA Compliance Conference Expenses Reimbursement 03/07/2018 75.00 77479 Check 11662 - PITNEY BOWES INC Mailing Supplies for AO (4 EZ Seal Pint Bottle)03/07/2018 74.11 77441 Check 11916 - TOKATLIAN, KARINE Meals and Incidental Expenses Reimbursement 02/28/2018 72.00 77418 Check 10714 - LANGAN ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC Professional Services - Sears Ranch Rd Parking Area 02/28/2018 62.50 77452 Check *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water (WH)03/07/2018 52.68 77429 Check 11625 - REITER, HEATHER Mileage Reimbursement 1/2/18-2/6/18 02/28/2018 48.23 77422 Check 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies - Planner, Quad Pads (FFO)02/28/2018 43.58 77481 Check 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC P103 Tire Repair 03/07/2018 39.99 77400 Check *11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Monthly Service - Call Box at Mt Um - SAU 02/28/2018 39.13 77465 Check 10421 - ID PLUS INC Ranger Name Tags 03/07/2018 32.00 77447 Check 11176 - ZORO TOOLS LH - Aluminum Clip Board 02/28/2018 26.23 Grand Total 731,598.64$ *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses CCIWS = Central California Invasive Weed Symposium MISAC = Municipal Information Systems Association of California BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA(U) = Sierra Azul (Mt Um) WH = Windy Hill ECM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO2, 3, 4 = Administrative Office lease space ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge RV = Ravenswood SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature FFO = Foothills Field Office FH = Foothills MB = Monte Bello RR = Russian Ridge TH = Teague Hill SFO = Skyline Field Office FO = Fremont Older PIC= Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill PR = Pulgas Ridge DHF = Dear Hollow Farm OSP = Open Space Preserve P## or M## = Patrol or Maintenance Vehicle Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-20 Meeting 18-10 March 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract for Tenant Improvements at 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, in the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Award a contract to Belz Construction, Inc., of Orangevale, CA, for residence improvements at 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, in the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve for a base contract amount of $73,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contract contingency of $11,000, to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $84,000. SUMMARY District staff issued a Request for Bids for tenant improvements at 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, in the Russian Ridge Open space Preserve on December 28, 2017. One (1) bid proposal was received and opened on Thursday, February 1, 2018. The Acting General Manager recommends awarding the contract to this lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Belz Construction, Inc., for a total not-to-exceed amount of $84,000. The improvements are necessary to replace an aging deck for safety, repair water intrusion and dry rot in the master bedroom windows, and address other minor maintenance needs. The budget contains sufficient funds for this work. DISCUSSION A District rental property located at 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, in the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, has a deck and windows in need of replacement to ensure resident safety and keep the house watertight. Given the height of this deck, the proposed deck replacement will address structural and safety issues. To reduce the replacement cost, the total square footage of the deck will be reduced from 209 square feet to 115 square feet, and an escape ladder will replace the stairs. The remodel will also replace existing west-facing master bedroom windows near the deck, address dry-rot issues during construction, repair a leaking valve in the laundry area, investigate the laundry area floor for any repairs needed, and paint new materials to match existing finishes. Contractor Selection A Request for Bids was issued on December 28, 2017 and sent to contractors, subcontractors, and consultants who had requested to be notified of the Project, as well as to five builders’ exchanges. Legal notices were posted in the San Mateo County Times and Half Moon Bay Review. An Invitation to Bid was also posted on the District website. A mandatory pre-bid R-18-20 Page 2 meeting and site walk was held at the Project site on January 10, 2018 and was attended by four (4) general contractors. Sealed bids were due on February 1, 2018, and one (1) bid was received and opened. Belz Construction is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for this project. Table 1: Remodel and Rodent Abatement (Base Bid) Bidder Location Total Bid Percent Difference from Project Estimate of $115,000 1. Belz Construction, Inc. Orangevale, CA $73,000.00 -37% FISCAL IMPACT The FY2017-18 budget includes $139,200 for the 5755 Alpine Master Bedroom Windows Replacement and Deck Safety Project 20086-44. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. FY2017-18 5755 Alpine MB Window Replacement and Deck Safety (Project #20086-44) $139,200.00 Spent–to-Date (as of 2/12/18): $8,740.64 Encumbrances: $1,562.50 Belz Construction Contract with Contingency: $84,000.00 Remaining Budget (if approved): $44,896.86 The recommended action is not eligible for Measure AA reimbursement. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW There was no prior Committee review for this agenda item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice provided as required by the Brown Act, including adjoining property owners. CEQA COMPLIANCE The house is under 50 years old and not historically significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These improvements are categorically exempt under section 15301, Existing Facilities, which exempts the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination, including the demolition of individual small structures. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the Acting General Manager would enter into a contract with Belz Construction, Inc., to perform general construction services for the Project. Activation of the R-18-20 Page 3 contract is subject to the contractor meeting all District requirements, including required insurance and bonding. The Project is scheduled to be completed by June 2018. Attachments: 1. Site Map 2. Structure Detail Map Responsible Department Head: Elaina Cuzick, Acting Manager Land and Facilities Services Prepared by: Jean Chung, Property Management Specialist I, Land and Facilities Services Graphics prepared by: Jamie Hawk, GIS Data Analyst Lambert C r e e k Trail Butano View O l d P a g e M ill T rail I p i w a Trail IndianCr e e k Bella V i s taTrail A d o b e C r eek Trail M o nte Bello Road Steve n s C r e e k N atur e Trail C anyon Trail WhiteOakTrail Old MindegoTrail M i n d e g o Trail AncientOaksTrail A lderSpri n g T r a i l H a w k T r a i l C l o u d s RestTrail Meadow Tr ail V e h icle s ) ( C l o s e dto P ageMi l l Trail Trail SunnyJim T rail Ipiwa T rail Tr e e Farm Trai l FirKnollTrail Chestn u tTrail Franciscan Loop Trail Borel Hill Vista Point Skyline Blvd. Page Mill R d . AlpineRd . B a y A r e a RidgeTrail Mindego Hill RussianRidge SkylineRidge 1 2 0 0 2200 1000 2400 1800 8 0 0 1400 2000 1600 1600 2 2 0 0 2400 2400 2200 2400 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 2200 1800 1800 2 2 0 0 2200 1800 2000 2 2 0 0 2400 2 4 0 0 1400 2200 1400 2000 M indegoCreek Stevens Creek La m b ert C r e e k Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District August, 2015 Path: G:\Projects\Russian_Ridge\SilvaProperty\SilvaSiteMap_BoardPacket_Landscape_8.5x11.mxd Created By: jhawk 0 0.50.25MilesI (MROSD)MROSD Pr eser ves Private Property While the District strive s to use t he best availab le digit al data, this d at a d oes not repr esen t a leg al survey and is merely a graphic illust ration of geograph ic feat ures. Urban Area Trail Highway or Major Road ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Palo Alto Redwood City Area ofDetail Highli g ht ed Pr o per t y 5755 Alpine Rd £¤84 £¤1 £¤35 £¤280 £¤35 House Water Tanks Water Tanks Fire Hydrant Garage Russian Ridge OSP Skyline Ridge OSP Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Ear thstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District August, 2015 Path: G:\Projects\Russian_Ridge\SilvaProperty\SilvaSiteMap_BoardPacket_Landscape_8.5x11_detail.mxd Created By: jhawk 0 0.10.05MilesI (MROSD) While the District strive s to use t he best availab le digit al data, this d at a d oes not repr esen t a leg al survey and is merely a graphic illust ration of geograph ic feat ures. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Palo Alto Redwood City Area ofDetail Highli g ht ed Pr o per t y £¤84 £¤1 £¤35 £¤280 Alpine R o a d R-18-23 Meeting 18-10 March 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Approval of the Updated Classification and Compensation Plan ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution amending the Classification and Compensation Plan, to set the compensation for out-of-classification appointments pursuant to AB 1487. SUMMARY The recommended update to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Classification and Compensation Plan complies with a new state law, which requires compensation for out-of-classification appointments to be set forth in a collective bargaining agreement or publicly available pay schedule. It also limits “acting” pay to 960 hours per fiscal year. The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) requires agencies to keep the Classification and Compensation Plan current. DISCUSSION AB 1487, approved in September 2017 and effective January 1, 2018, enacts Government Code section 20480, which limits out-of-class or “acting” pay to 960 hours per fiscal year. This limitation applies to employees working out-of-class in a vacant position during recruitment for a permanent employee to fill the position, but not to employees working out-of-class to fill in for an employee who is on temporary leave. The new law requires employers to track hours worked in upgraded positions and report them to CalPERS 30 days after the end of the fiscal year. Section 7.4 of the District’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Field Employees Association, a collective bargaining agreement, states that an employee placed in an acting position shall be paid at least 5% more than her/his current salary. With respect to the District’s office, supervisory, and management employees, the District’s Personnel Policies and Procedures provide that the compensation for an employee’s temporary out-of-class/Acting Assignment shall be at least 5% and not more than 10% above her/his current salary. The new law also requires the compensation for out-of-classification appointments to be set forth in a collective bargaining agreement (which it is, as noted above), or posted on a publicly available pay schedule. R-18-23 Page 2 Therefore, updating the District Classification and Compensation Plan to reflect out-of- class/Acting pay complies with the new law. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Committee. 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 Upon approval of the resolution, staff will send the revised resolution to CalPERS to comply with CalPERS and state law. Attachments: 1. Resolution to Amend the Classification and Compensation Plan Responsible Department Head: Candice Basnight, Human Resources Manager Prepared by: Alicia Gonzales, Human Resources Supervisor Attachment 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 18-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT UPDATING THE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, The state of California Code of Regulations 570.5(a)(1) requires that all pay schedules (compensation plans) be duly approved and adopted by and employer’s governing body in accordance with the requirements of applicable public meeting laws; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the California Code of Regulations 570.5 and as directed by CalPERS, all updated compensation plans are presented for Board approval; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with Assembly Bill 1487 (codified as California Government Code section 20480), the compensation for out-of-classification appointments must be set in a publicly available pay schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as follows: The Board hereby adopts the Compensation Plan updated on March 14, 2018, set forth in the exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on March 14, 2018, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: General Counsel Attachment 1 2 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. District Clerk Exhibit A: Classification & Compensation Plan Step Full/PT Range #Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Time Seasonal Open Space Technician 6 20.1000 25.0962 3,484 4,350 41,808 52,200 PT Seasonal Ranger Aide 6 20.1000 25.0962 3,484 4,350 41,808 52,200 PT Seasonal Ranger 16 25.6558 32.0308 4,447 5,552 53,364 66,624 PT Farm Maintenance Worker 19 27.6000 34.4712 4,784 5,975 57,408 71,700 FT Open Space Technician*19 27.6000 34.4712 4,784 5,975 57,408 71,700 FT Administrative Assistant 20 28.2865 35.3077 4,903 6,120 58,836 73,440 FT Accounting Technician 22 29.6885 37.0731 5,146 6,426 61,752 77,112 FT Human Resources Technician 22 29.6885 37.0731 5,146 6,426 61,752 77,112 FT Information Technology Technician I 22 29.6885 37.0731 5,146 6,426 61,752 77,112 FT Facility Maintenance Specialist 23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT GIS Technician 23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT Lead Open Space Technician*23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT Volunteer Program Lead 23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT Risk Management Coordinator 24 31.1712 38.9365 5,403 6,749 64,836 80,988 FT Senior Administrative Assistant 24 31.1712 38.9365 5,403 6,749 64,836 80,988 FT Public Affairs Program Coordinator 25 31.9558 39.9058 5,539 6,917 66,468 83,004 FT Ranger 25 31.9558 39.9058 5,539 6,917 66,468 83,004 FT Senior Finance & Accounting Technician 26 32.7288 40.8750 5,673 7,085 68,076 85,020 FT Equipment Mechanic/Operator 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Executive Assistant 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Information Technology Technician II 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Lead Ranger 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Public Affairs Specialist I 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Property Management Specialist I 28 34.3731 42.9173 5,958 7,439 71,496 89,268 FT Real Property Specialist I 28 34.3731 42.9173 5,958 7,439 71,496 89,268 FT Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk 29 35.2327 43.9904 6,107 7,625 73,284 91,500 FT Planner I 29 35.2327 43.9904 6,107 7,625 73,284 91,500 FT Data Analyst I 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Docent Program Manager 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Resource Management Specialist I 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Volunteer Program Manager 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Accountant 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Capital Project Manager II 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Planner II 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Management Analyst I 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Data Analyst II 34 39.7846 49.6904 6,896 8,613 82,752 103,356 FT Resource Management Specialist II 34 39.7846 49.6904 6,896 8,613 82,752 103,356 FT Grants Specialist 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Maintenance, Construction & Resource Supv.35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Management Analyst II 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Procurement & Contracting Agent/Specialist 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Property Management Specialist II 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Real Property Specialist II 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Supervising Ranger 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Training & Safety Specialist 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Applications Engineer 36 41.7808 52.1712 7,242 9,043 86,904 108,516 FT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District - CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN Fiscal Year 2017/2018 - Effective 3/14/2018 (Pay Period 18-4) Last revised: 1/24/18, 12/13/2017, 7/1/17, 5/10/17, 4/12/2017, 2/22/2017, 10/26/16, 8/29/16, 7/01/16, 4/28/2016 Classification Title Hourly Range $Monthly Range $Annual Range $ Exhibit A Public Affairs Specialist II 36 41.7808 52.1712 7,242 9,043 86,904 108,516 FT Data Administrator 38 43.8635 54.7904 7,603 9,497 91,236 113,964 FT Governmental Affairs Specialist 38 43.8635 54.7904 7,603 9,497 91,236 113,964 FT Senior Technologist 38 43.8635 54.7904 7,603 9,497 91,236 113,964 FT Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Capital Projects Field Manager 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Capital Project Manager III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Planner III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Public Affairs Specialist III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Resource Management Specialist III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Senior Property Management Specialist 40 46.0615 57.5192 7,984 9,970 95,808 119,640 FT Senior Real Property Specialist 40 46.0615 57.5192 7,984 9,970 95,808 119,640 FT Special Projects Manager 40 46.0615 57.5192 7,984 9,970 95,808 119,640 FT Senior Accountant 41 47.2038 58.9615 8,182 10,220 98,184 122,640 FT Senior Management Analyst 41 47.2038 58.9615 8,182 10,220 98,184 122,640 FT Area Manager 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Area Superintendent 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT District Clerk/Assistant to General Manager 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT GIS Program Administrator 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Information Technology Program Administrator 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Human Resources Supervisor 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Senior Capital Project Manager 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Senior Planner 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Senior Resource Management Specialist 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Budget & Analysis Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Finance Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Human Resources Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Information Systems & Technology Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Engineering & Construction Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Land & Facilities Services Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Natural Resources Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Operations Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Planning Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Public Affairs Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Real Property Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Visitor Services Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Assistant General Counsel I 53 63.2596 79.0096 10,965 13,695 131,580 164,340 FT Assistant General Counsel II 55 66.4269 82.9615 11,514 14,380 138,168 172,560 FT Assistant General Manager 59 73.2404 91.4654 12,695 15,854 152,340 190,248 FT Chief Financial Officer/Director Administrative Services 59 73.2404 91.4654 12,695 15,854 152,340 190,248 FT * OST will receive an additional 1% stipend for Class A or B license; Lead OST 1% for Class A. Board Appointee Group Compensation Hourly Monthly Annual Effective General Manager $122.6077 $21,252 $255,024 12/13/2017 Controller - Part-time position $84.9750 $3,682 $44,187 12/13/2017 General Counsel $110.3072 $19,120 $229,439 12/13/2017 Elected Officials Compensation Board Director Last Revised 7/1/2016 11/1/2016 7/1/2016 Effective DateMonthly MaximumPer Meeting $100.00 $500.00 The District’s Personnel Policies and Procedures provide that the compensation for an employee’s temporary out-of-class / Acting Assignment shall be at least 5% and not more than 10% above her/his current salary. Pursuant to Government Code 20480, out of class appointments shall not exceed a total of 960 hours in each fiscal year. 1/1/2006 Exhibit A Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-22 Meeting 18-10 March 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Cost Sharing Agreement with Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal, Inc., for the Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Coordinated Monitoring Program ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended action is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Authorize the Acting General Manager to execute the Cost Sharing Agreement to participate in the Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Coordinated Monitoring Program. SUMMARY In 2010, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) established the Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to reduce mercury levels in sediment loads and fish tissue for the protection of wildlife and human health. The TMDL specifically imposes contaminant allocations, implementation plans, and monitoring requirements for mine and reservoir owners in the watershed. To address the monitoring requirement, the District and the three other large landowners within the historic New Almaden Mining District formed a Coordinated Monitoring Program in 2010 to implement a 5- year monitoring program. At the conclusion of this 5-year monitoring effort, the District received a new regulatory letter directing the continued monitoring of mercury levels within the watershed for Phase II, ending in 2023. This requirement is best accomplished through continued coordinated monitoring by all four landowners. The Acting General Manager recommends executing the coordinated Cost Sharing Agreement for a not-to-exceed total cost of $60,630 to be paid over the five-year monitoring period. The budget includes sufficient funds for the first year of work. DISCUSSION The District purchased the Rancho de Guadalupe Property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve in 1995 (Report R-95-87). At the time of purchase, inspections identified several sites associated with the former Guadalupe Mine, one of several mines within the historic New Almaden Mining District. R-18-22 Page 2 In 1988, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) identified several water bodies in the Guadalupe River Watershed as being impaired by the presence of mercury according to provisions in the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). Placement on this list triggered the TMDL process for the watershed to address mercury loading to San Francisco Bay. A TMDL determines the maximum “load” or quantity of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards. On October 8, 2008, the Regional Board adopted a TMDL for mercury in the Guadalupe River Watershed, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved on June 1, 2010. Mercury has contaminated the Guadalupe River Watershed, which originates from the former New Almaden Mining District, North America’s oldest and most productive mercury production area. Multiple mines operated between the 1870’s and 1970’s in this region, producing an estimated 39 million kilograms of mercury, or 5% of the world’s total historic production. Legacy mercury contamination continues to impact the region, primarily within the reservoirs and streams of the watershed. The Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury TMDL, completed in 2010, established contaminant allocations, implementation plans, and monitoring requirements for mine and reservoir owners in the watershed with the goal of reducing mercury levels in sediment loads and fish tissue to protect wildlife and human health. In 2010, the Regional Board issued regulatory letters to the largest landowners in the former mining district (County of Santa Clara, Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal, Inc., Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District). This letter was issued under the authority of California Water Code Section 13267 and requires the development and implementation of a monitoring plan for mercury downstream of the New Almaden Mining District. In issuing these ‘13267 letters’, the Regional Board encouraged the large landowners to coordinate monitoring through a Coordinated Monitoring Program (CMP). The Board approved the initial cost sharing agreement for the first five-year period (Phase I, 2011-2016) of the CMP on November 10, 2010 (R-10-129). The Water Board approved the Phase I monitoring plan submitted by the CMP partners on February 1, 2011. The required Final CMP Report for Phase I was submitted to the Regional Board in March 2017 (Attachment 1). The Phase I Final CMP Report results show a variation in fish mercury levels within seasons and between years. In general, fish mercury concentrations were greater than Regional Board criteria. Due to drought conditions, sediment load monitoring only provided valuable data for low-water years. Since sediment loads are highly dependent on precipitation and stream-flow, reductions in mercury loads to the San Francisco Bay over the five year period were inconclusive. The Regional Board issued a subsequent Section 13267 regulatory letter on June 29, 2017, which detailed requirements for the next phase of monitoring (i.e. Phase II) based on their review and findings from the Phase I Final Report and discussions with CMP partners. The Phase II study design addresses fish sampling difficulties encountered in the Phase I study where possible, and focuses load monitoring on higher rainfall/flow events, when and if they occur. The Acting General Manager recommends entering into a new Cost Sharing Agreement to complete the required Phase II monitoring (from 2018 through 2023) of the CMP to comply with the Regional Board’s Section 13267 letter of June 29, 2017. R-18-22 Page 3 The new Cost Sharing Agreement continues the District’s 11% contribution for Phase II, the same as agreed to for Phase I. District costs for the 5-year Phase II monitoring are for a total amount not-to-exceed $60,630, slightly less than the Phase I cost of $61,270. Annual costs are expected to be evenly distributed across the 5-year agreement term, not exceeding $12,126 per year. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are budgeted for Fiscal Year 2017-18 within the Natural Resources Budget (GL# 10-80-850-5299, Project 80010) for the first year of the study. Natural Resources will continue to carry the budget for this project through Phase II completion in 2023, for a total Project cost not-to-exceed $60,630. The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Board previously approved Phase I of the Coordinated Monitoring Plan Cost Sharing Agreement on November 10, 2010 (R-10-129). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Coordinated Monitoring Plan for the Guadalupe River Watershed Mercury TMDL entails basic data collection that will not result in major disturbance to an environmental resource. CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 exempts basic data collection and research that do not result in major disturbances to an environmental resource. Therefore, the funding of the Coordinated Monitoring Program is exempt under Section 15306. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, the Acting General Manager will execute the CMP Cost Share Agreement. Staff will continue to work with CMP partners and the Regional Board to complete the required monitoring study. A report back to the Board will be prepared in 2023 at the conclusion of the Phase II monitoring period. Attachment 1: Executive Summary, Guadalupe River Coordinated Monitoring Program 5-Year Report, AECOM, March 2017 Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Prepared by: Matt Baldzikowski, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-19 Meeting 18-10 March 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Alpine Road Trail Repair Project ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve selection of repair Option Three (3) for the Alpine Road Trail Repair Project, as described further in the staff report, to proceed with design plans and environmental review. The Board of Directors will have an opportunity to consider final approval of the design, including consideration of the environmental review findings, at a future public meeting. SUMMARY The Alpine Road Trail is an important regional trail connection through Coal Creek Preserve for cyclists and hikers traveling from Portola Valley to upper Page Mill Road near Skyline Boulevard that avoids public roads. Alpine Road Trail is in very poor condition and in need of upgrades. During the 2012 Vision Plan process, the public ranked the repairs to Alpine Road Trail as a Tier 1 Priority Action. Following Board approval, this and other Tier 1 Priority Actions formed the basis for the Measure AA Expenditure Plan. More specifically, this project falls under MAA Portfolio #10. To date, District staff and community volunteers have completed temporary repairs to reopen trail access. However, trail access is not sustainable without major road and trail improvements. Road maintenance has been the responsibility of San Mateo County (County), who owns a segment of the road in fee and otherwise holds easements through private property. The County closed the road to vehicles in 1979. This road is no longer on the County’s list of maintained roads, and is therefore no longer eligible for County maintenance funds. During the last several decades, the road has lacked maintenance except for small access repairs and two projects performed by the District under permits-to-enter with the County. The lack of ongoing maintenance has significantly degraded the roadbed and drainage features. Two large failures during the winter of 2016-17 constrained vehicle access and further threatened ongoing trail access. Repairing these two large failures and improving surface drainage are essential to prevent further road degradation and sediment delivery to the creek. The Acting General Manager recommends moving forward with repair Option 3, which repairs a portion of the alignment to road-width and the remainder to trail-width to retain a drivable section, reduce total cost, and allow for future conversion of the entire alignment to road-width, when and if desired. Sufficient funds remain in budget to begin the design work. R-18-19 Page 2 BACKGROUND Upper Alpine Road Trail is an existing County dirt road that runs approximately 2.3 miles between the end of paved Alpine Road above Portola Valley to the north and Page Mill Road near Skyline Boulevard to the south. It provides a valuable regional trail connection between Portola Valley and Woodside up to the District’s South Skyline region preserves and trails. Alpine Road Trail travels through Coal Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) (see Attachment 1). The District purchased what is now the Preserve in 1982 and used Alpine Road Trail for patrol, maintenance, and emergency access until the mid-1990s when a large slide closed the road. In 1894, the County received a 40-foot easement over the road and purchased fee title to a small, wider and irregular shaped segment in 1960. The County owns a Right-of-Way across the entire Alpine Road Trail alignment. The County closed the road to vehicles at the southern end of Portola Valley in 1979 in response to neighbor concerns over illegal uses. The District owns only a portion of Alpine Road Trail, with the remainder located on private lands (See Attachment 1). As a partial landowner of Alpine Road Trail, the District has an easement to travel over the County easement even though the road is closed to public vehicle use. During the mid-1990s, a large landslide eliminated a section of the road, bisecting the County road and eliminating the District’s ability to expedite travel between Portola Valley and Page Mill Road for patrol and maintenance purposes. County maintenance of the road ceased at this time. In 2007, District staff completed drainage improvements to stabilize the northern section of Alpine Road Trail to prevent degradation and erosion along that segment. During the winter storms of 2013-14, a sinkhole developed at the site of a 220-foot long, 48-inch wide culvert. District staff contacted the County, and the County Public Works department applied for funds from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for the culvert repair. They received funding approval and developed plans to slip line the culvert in consultation with District staff. Higher priority County projects delayed implementation of the repair. During the winter of 2016-17, the road at the culvert site completely failed. The original solution to slip line the culvert was no longer sufficient to repair the new road failure. With insufficient time to develop new culvert repair plans before the funding deadline, the County stopped work on the project. The road failure at the culvert site along with another 60-foot failure of the road edge have further restricted District vehicle access on Alpine Road Trail, prohibiting access north of the junction with the Meadow Trail. These failures prevent through vehicle access along the upper and mid sections of the road and pose a continuing risk of sediment input into Corte Madera Creek downstream, which is a tributary in the San Francisquito Creek watershed. Several other sites along the road also require repair stemming from a lack of maintenance over the past two decades (See Attachment 2). The Regional Water Quality Control Board lists the San Francisquito Creek watershed as impaired due to sediment and siltation. The Watershed Analysis and Sediment Reduction plan prepared by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority identifies Alpine Road as a chronic contributor of sediment and prioritizes it as a treatment site. Completing the recommended repairs will reduce future sediment delivery to the watershed and help further the goals of improving water quality in the watershed. R-18-19 Page 3 DISCUSSION Repair Approach and Options To proceed with a long-term repair, the District hired a geotechnical consultant in August 2017 to evaluate the two large-scale failures, and provide preliminary repair designs and cost estimates for various repair options. Additionally, the consultant updated the 2007 Coal Creek Road & Trail Inventory to identify all of the failing drainage features, sediment issues, and road tread deficiencies. The following (3) repair options were evaluated; each option affects the scale and cost of the repair, and future level of access. Repair Options and Preliminary Cost Estimates Option Description Cost Estimate* 1 Repair full length of Alpine Road Trail to road width (12 feet) $ 2,600,000+ 2 Repair full length of Alpine Road Trail to trail width (6 feet) $ 1,430,000+ 3 Repair Alpine Road Trail to Clouds Rest Trail to road width (12 feet) and from Clouds Rest to Portola Valley to trail width (6 feet) $ 2,000,000+ *Costs for engineering, construction inspections, permitting, and escalation are assumed to be 30% of the estimated construction cost. Note: these are preliminary, based on concept drawings and not on detailed construction drawings. Option 1: Restores Alpine Road Trail to road width and includes constructing a new road through the Central Section to replace the “Bypass Trail.” Completion of this project would allow vehicular passage from Portola Valley (Windy Hill Preserve and Hawthorn Property) to Page Mill Road and Skyline Boulevard, a route that improves response times for patrol and emergency access for the District and other emergency services. Option 2: Repairs the road failures to a six-foot wide trail standard and constructs a new, six-foot wide trail through the Central Section to replace the “Bypass Trail.” This option provides a narrower trail experience and is less costly to maintain. However, emergency vehicle access would be limited or restricted. Option 3: Repairs the road failures to road width allowing vehicle access to Clouds Rest Trail and constructs a new, six-foot wide trail through the Central Section to replace the “Bypass Trail.” Construction of this option provides a patrol vehicle route through the Preserve and retains the option to reopen the entire length of the Alpine Road Trail for patrol vehicle access at a later date. All repair options require permits from various regulatory agencies, including California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army Corps of Engineers, and San Mateo County, as well as compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additional permitting requirements related to sensitive resources may surface, which could extend the project schedule. Option 3 provides the most benefits to the District and leaves the option of reopening the rest of the road for patrol, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. For these reasons, the Acting General Manager recommends proceeding with Option 3. If approved by the Board, the Acting General Manager will direct District staff to apply for a permit-to-enter with the County to prepare design plans and conduct CEQA review. Staff would return to the Board for final approval of the repair along with the environmental review findings prior to commencing the permitting and bidding process. R-18-19 Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT The Fiscal Year 2017-18 budget includes $258,800 under MAA10-001 - Alpine Road Regional Trail Improvements project. These funds were originally budgeted to assist the County in its repair of the major culvert failure. Given expiration of the Cal OES grant that resulted in the County no longer taking the lead for the repair, the project scope has changed. The District is now the project lead and will use the available budget to proceed with detailed repair designs and CEQA review to prepare for permit submittals. After a permit-to-enter is secured, expenses and encumbrances to date will be transferred from the General Fund to the Measure AA Fund as shown in the table below. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. FY2017-18 MAA10-001 Budget $258,800 Spent–to-Date (as of 2/12/18): $0 Encumbrances: $0 Transfer Expenses in Support of to MAA: $27,120 Transfer Encumbrances in Support of to MAA: $4,950 Initiate Design, CEQA (estimate for FY17-18): $100,000 Budget Remaining (Proposed): $126,730 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #10 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal impact related to the MAA10-001 - Alpine Road Regional Trail Improvements project at this time. MAA #10 Portfolio Appropriation $8,017,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 2/12/18): $4,286 Encumbrances: $0 Transfer Expenses in Support of to MAA: $27,120 Transfer Encumbrances in Support of to MAA: $4,950 Initiate Design, CEQA (estimate for FY17-18): $100,000 Balance Remaining (Proposed): $7,880,644 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW No Committee review has occurred for this project. This item is coming to the full Board given Board interest in the project. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act, including interested parties and adjacent landowners. CEQA COMPLIANCE Staff will perform appropriate California Environmental Quality Act review of any proposed project before it is implemented. R-18-19 Page 5 NEXT STEPS The Acting General Manager will direct staff to request a permit-to-enter from San Mateo County to develop the design documents and complete CEQA review. The Board will have an opportunity to review the CEQA findings as part of the final design approval at a future date. Concurrently, the Acting General Manager will work with staff to explore cost-sharing opportunities with potential partners. Finally, any proposed changes to the ownership and/or maintenance responsibility of the Alpine Road Trail easement, including any new infrastructure, would come before the full Board at a later date for review and consideration. Attachments 1. Alpine Road Trail Map 2. Sediment Treatment Priority Map Responsible Department Head: Elaina Cuzick, Acting Land & Facilities Services Manager Prepared by: Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land & Facilities Permit Only Stevens C r e e k C oal C re ek C orte M a d e r a C r e e k L o s Tr a n c o s C r e e k Alpine Road Ridge Trail R i d g e T r a i l Alpin e Road Lo s Tra ncos Tr a i l Alpine Road CrazyPete's R o a d B y p a s s T r a i l C h arquin Trail Alder Spring T r a i l Clo u d s Rest Trail Meadow Trail C o a l R oad V i s t a Verde Wy Ciervos Rd R ocky Creek R d OldSpanishTrail Page MillRoad SkylineBlvd. RR01 CC05 CC03 CC04 MB04 MB05 L i t t l e f i e l d P o n d L o r i 's o t h e r p o n d L o r i 's P o n d C O A L C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E L O S T R A N C O S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E M O N T E B E L L O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E R U S S I A N R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E M id p en i n sul a R eg i on a l Op en Sp a ce D i s t ri c t (MROS D) Marc h 2 0 18 A t t a c h ment 1: Coal Cr eek - Alpi ne Ro ad Path: G:\Projects\Coal_Creek\AlpineRoad\AlpineRoad20180212.mxd Created By: bapple 0 0.250.125 MilesI MR O SD P r es er v es Pr iv ate P r o per ty While the Dis trict s trive s to u se the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. No n M R OS D Co ns er vat io n E as e m ent ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ280 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Menlo Park Cupertino Area of Detail Tra il Min o r Un pa ved Ro a d Unm a int ain ed Ro a d Wi dthCentral S ec tio n No r t her n S ec tio n So u th er n Se c tio n !(Roa d F ailu r e - I m pass able !( !( !( Central Section: Bypass Trail Northern Section: MROSD Upgraded Drainage in 2007 1990's Landslide Road Failure - Impassable 2017 Culvert Failure - Impassable 2017 Road Fill Failure - Impassable Sa n M ate o Co u n ty R igh t-of -w ay Southern Section ") ") !. !. ") # !( !.!( ") ") !( !( !. ") !( !( !( !. ") !( !( G !. ") !( G !( ") !( !( !. # !. G à ") !( !( ") !( G !( !( ") ") ") !( !( G !( ") COAL CREEK OSP C A S t a t e R o u t e 3 5 C r a z y Pete's Trail Co a l R o a d Clouds RestTrail Meado w Trail u p p e r A l p i n e R o a d T r a i l By p a s s T r a i l lo w er Alp i n e R o a d T r a i l Alpi n e R o a d Page Mill Road 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 11 12 13 14 15 10 16 17 18 27 26 25 23 22 21 29 24 20 28 30 53 5251 50 49 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 47 48 4556 55 46 45 36 35 32 31 33 40 42 41 43 34 37 39 38 44 1 1 54 Date: 11/30/2017 Job: MPEN-2017-COALCREEK-RTI-779 TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax) ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District SEDIMENT TREATMENT PRIORITY MAP2017 Coal Creek Road and Trail Reassessment FIGURE 4 Roads and Trails Paved Road Unpaved Road Trail Undesignated Trail Features !(Culvert ")Ditch relief culvert à Bridge ß Puncheon G Ford #Fill Failure !.Gate Watercourses Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Sediment Priority: Sites High Moderate to High Moderate Low to Moderate Low Sediment Priority: Reaches High Moderate to High Moderate Low to Moderate Low ´ 0 940 Feet SEDIMENT TREATMENT PRIORITYAttachment 2 R-18-21 Meeting 18-10 March 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Project Delivery Process for the Administrative Office Development Project and Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of Directors to Guide the Design Team Hiring Process and Public Engagement Approach ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Select a preferred project delivery process for the new Administrative Office: i. Option 1: Design-Build ii. Option 2: Design-Bid-Build (Recommended) 2. Direct the formation of a new Administrative Office Development Ad Hoc Committee, and authorize the Board President to appoint three Directors to serve on the Committee. SUMMARY In late 2017, staff evaluated short and long-term space and programming needs for a new Administrative Office (AO) with the assistance of an architectural strategist. At the regular meeting of December 6, 2017, the Board of Directors (Board) accepted the Space Needs Assessment & Basic Program Report (R-17-128). The report findings inform the next steps for the AO project, including the scope of work for an upcoming Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire a design architect team. At the same December meeting, Board members expressed interest in forming an ad hoc committee to closely follow and provide input during the first phase of the project. Consistent with Board interest, the Acting General Manager is returning to the Board with a recommendation to form a new, limited-term ad hoc committee whose charge focuses on the hiring process for an architect and design team, and development of the public engagement approach for the project. Effective January 1, 2018 and following passage of Senate Bill 793, the District now has the option to pursue one of two project delivery methods for the AO project: (1) Design-Build and (2) Design-Bid-Build. On March 14, 2018, the Board will have an opportunity to review and deliberate on these two options and consider the Acting General Manager’s recommendation to proceed with the Design-Bid-Build approach. DISCUSSION Facilities Planning and Property Acquisition Chronology: In 2015, the District completed a staff facilities opportunities and constraint analysis, examined the real estate market for office space purchase opportunities, and evaluated the feasibility of R-18-21 Page 2 rebuilding at 330 Distel Circle. In August 2016, the Board appointed a Facilities Ad Hoc Committee to guide the selection and implementation of a preferred long-term facility option for the AO (R-16-102). Throughout 2016-17, the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee met four times to discuss long-term options and solutions with the assistance of an architectural strategist (MKThink, Inc.). In January 2017, the Board directed the General Manager to pursue the construction of a new, three-story, 40,000 square foot building on site while continuing to monitor the real estate market for purchase opportunities (R-17-08). During the summer of 2017, staff became aware of an opportunity to acquire an existing office building near 330 Distel Circle. The property located at 5050 El Camino is a two-story, 39,010- square foot office building built in 1982 located on a 63,162-square foot lot (1.45-acres). The current owner leases the interior office space to 26 tenants. The property includes 153 parking spaces, 51 of which are underground. The current floorplan divides the building into numerous separate, private office spaces, with long circulation corridors providing access to each office. A complete reconfiguration of the floorplan is needed to accommodate District office space needs, including ADA-accessible public facilities, a public lobby, large Board meeting room, and open, collaborative workstation areas. The District anticipates needing approximately 30,000 square feet for District office use and leasing the remainder until and if additional space is needed. The property’s proximity to District preserves and facilities, its accessible and centralized Peninsula location within the agency’s jurisdiction, and the size and available square footage met District goals. As a result, in July 2017, the Board authorized a purchase and sale agreement for the office property at 5050 El Camino Real, Los Altos (R-17-90) at a cost of $31,550,100 ($808 per square foot). The District may not take possession of the building until close of escrow, which at the very latest is set for January 22, 2019. To date, it appears that the current owner may retain possession of the property until January 2019. A majority of the design work cannot commence until after the District takes possession since the design relies heavily on an examination of the structural integrity, which requires access to the enclosed walls. AO Proposed Project Delivery Process and Tentative Timeline: To proceed with the new AO design and development work, selection of a project delivery process is required from the start. As referenced above, effective January 2018, the District may proceed with one of two project delivery methods: Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build. Below are the definitions, advantages, disadvantages, and examples of best-suited projects for each method. • Design-Build is a process whereby the design and construction work are contracted through one entity, and the process of design and construction are allowed to overlap. This process can provide time and cost savings by allowing portions of the work to be constructed early and by leveraging construction knowledge to reduce materials costs and improve value engineering throughout the project. For public sector agencies, the gain in time and cost savings is at the expense of maintaining full control over the design. With Design-Build, public agencies typically maintain control through 30% designs, with the design-build firm completing the final design and construction based on these preliminary plans on which they base their fee. Late changes requested by a public agency are often at a very high expense with potential impacts to the schedule. (Private sector firms and homeowners are not subject to the same purchasing guidelines as the R-18-21 Page 3 public sector and may not experience the same cost consequences when design changes are made later in the process.) Projects that work well with this approach include: standard road and highway improvements; some housing projects such as modular construction; parking lots; hospitals; and jails. • Design-Bid-Build is a process whereby design and construction occur sequentially. For public sector entities, this process provides maximum control over the design process from start to finish, and therefore greater flexibility in responding to technical and political uncertainties that may warrant significant design modifications. Due to the sequential nature of the project, there are few opportunities to expedite the schedule since construction cannot begin until the final design plans are completed. In addition, since the design team and construction contractor are not collaborating during the design, there is the potential for the design to pose constructability issues, or for material specifications to be unavailable or at a significant high cost. Addressing these issues during construction can slow the project and raise the total cost. Projects that work well with this approach include: construction projects where fine-tuning of the design continues over the life of the project and unique or one-time construction projects. The table in Attachment 1 provides another perspective of the two project delivery methods and outlines the milestones, deliverables, Board input opportunities, and timelines for both approaches. The AO project is located along a visible, well-traveled corridor that is of high public interest to the Cities of Los Altos and Mountain View, and people following the “Grand Boulevard” initiative for El Camino Real. Due to the scale of the project, interest from the larger community, including District Preserve users, partner agencies, and docent/volunteers, is also likely. Moreover, the full Board has expressed strong interest in providing input throughout the design process. Given the anticipated level of internal and external interest in the AO project, it may be prudent to retain maximum flexibility during the design process to be able to respond to input and concerns raised as the design evolves. With this in mind, the Acting General Manager recommends following the conventional Design-Bid-Build project delivery process for the AO project. It is also important to note that Design-Build is a brand new tool in the District’s project delivery toolbox. Although staff will kick-off application of this project delivery method in 2018, the District is still developing internal processes, templates, and documentation to support this new approach. As such, the District as a whole may not be ready to pursue Design-Build on such a large and specialized project. The Mindego Pond Restoration and La Honda Agricultural Workforce Housing projects appear to be better candidates to utilize Design-Build for the first time. Construction for both of these projects is scheduled to begin in late 2018 or early 2019. Board Engagement Approach Finally, acknowledging the high level of Board member interest in the AO Project, the Acting General Manager recommends a hybrid approach for Board engagement that includes the following: • Formation of an AO Development Ad Hoc Committee – The Committee’s charge and focus would include: review of the Request for Proposals solicitation, evaluation and narrowing of the design team candidates, site tours of similar office facilities, and R-18-21 Page 4 development of the public engagement process. The Board President would appoint three Board members to serve on the Committee for a limited term. • Board Study Sessions – Periodic Study Sessions to update the full Board on project progress, solicit Board input on key program, policy, and design elements, and discuss emerging issues that affect the overall project scope, schedule, and/or budget. • FYI Memorandums – Periodic project updates to keep the Board informed throughout the process. The recommended hybrid approach allows the Committee to work through technical items with staff in preparation for full Board discussions while ensuring that the full Board remains fully apprised of the project and has an opportunity to weigh in on key policy issues as the project moves forward. This approach would integrate within the proposed tentative project schedule to ensure efficient use of Board and staff time. FISCAL IMPACT Design-Bid-Build maintains high design control throughout the project at the potential expense of added costs and time during construction while Design-Build provides the opportunity for cost savings at the expense of retaining design control as the project evolves. The actual cost difference between the two project delivery methods is speculative and difficult to quantify. The full project budget is shown here for context only. Project #31202 Prior Year Actuals FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 Estimated Future Years Total Amended Budget $161,000 Spent–to-Date (as of 2/13/2018): $73,865 $42,422 Encumbrances: - Budget Remaining (Low estimate)*: $118,578 $600,000 $1,000,000 $2,200,000 $4,000,000 $7,918,578 Budget Remaining (High estimate)*: $118,578 $600,000 $1,900,000 $3,000,000 $7,500,000 $13,118,578 * Low estimate is based on $200/sf for 30,000 sf. Therefore, $6 million in construction costs and $1.8 million (30% of construction costs) for soft costs. The remaining 10,000 sf will be leased and not covered under this assumption. High estimate is based on $250/sf for 40,000 sf. Therefore, $10 million in construction costs and $3 million (30% of construction costs) for soft costs. Formation of a new AO Development Ad Hoc Committee may result in a modest fiscal impact. Per Board policy on Compensation of Directors and Payment of Expenses, the maximum allowable total compensation per Board member shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day and five hundred dollars ($500.00) per calendar month, irrespective of the number of meetings attended each day or each month (Chapter 6, Policy 6.03). The Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget does not include a specific allocation for the proposed AO Development Ad Hoc Committee. However, the Budget may be sufficient depending on the total number of compensable meetings that are scheduled during this fiscal year. R-18-21 Page 5 The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The full Board met on this project on December 6, 2017 and accepted the final report on the Space Needs Assessment and Program for the New AO. Previously, on October 25, 2017, MKThink conducted an interactive workshop with the Board, seeking input regarding public and Board space needs (R-17-116). 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. Future environmental review will be conducted on the proposed property improvements as part of the permitting process. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, the Acting General Manager will proceed with scheduling meetings with the AO Development Ad Hoc Committee, and working with the Committee and staff to develop a draft RFP for the design consultants. MKThink is under contract to provide technical assistance with the development of this RFP document. Attachment: 1. Milestones, Deliverables, Board Input Opportunities, and Timelines for Design-Bid- Build and Design-Build Options Responsible Department Head: Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager Prepared by: Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Jason Lin, Engineering & Construction Manager Staff Contact: Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager Attachment 1 Milestones, Deliverables, Board Input Opportunities, and Timelines for Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build Options *Assumes the District does not have access to the building until January 22, 2019 to conduct additional investigations that require entry into the walls to confirm structural integrity. If access is allowed prior, the timeline would shift accordingly. **City of Los Altos, who will be the lead agency for CEQA, requires design documents to be at 60% or greater to begin CEQA review. Based on early consultation, City staff indicated a categorical exemption for streamlined CEQA review is possible, pending the District’s 60% design documents. ***Some construction work may begin sooner for Design-Build work (e.g. purchase of materials, mobilization, and demolition). Design-Bid-Build Design-Build Milestones Opportunity for Board Input Tentative Timeline Milestones Opportunity for Board Input Tentative Timeline Select Architect and Engineering Firm X Mar - Sept 2018 Select Architect and Engineering Firm to Prepare Bridging Documents X Mar - Sept 2018 Programming and Preliminary Design X Sept 2018 - Mar 2019 Prepare Bridging Documents (30% Design and Programming) X Sept 2018 - Jun 2019* ESCROW CLOSES As late as January 22, 2019 ESCROW CLOSES As late as January 22, 2019 Design Development and Environmental Review** X Mar – Sept 2019 Select Design Build Team X Jun – Sept 2019 Construction Documents and Permitting (permitting starts concurrent with construction docs) X Sept 2019 - Mar 2021 Design through 60%; Environmental Review** Sept 2019 – Mar 2020 Construction Documents and Permitting Mar 2020 – Mar 2021 Construction Mar 2021 - Mar 2022 Construction*** Mar 2021 - Jan 2022 Move-In Mar 2022 Move-In Jan 2022 DATE: March 14, 2018 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager FROM: Cydney Bieber, Acting Public Affairs Manager SUBJECT: Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve – Opening Timeline _____________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY Opening western Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to public access is a priority in the FY2017-18 Action Plan and work will continue into FY2018-19. This Public Access and Education Program element is funded through Measure AA Portfolio 21. A Groundbreaking Ceremony will be held at this new public access site on May 1, 2018. Invited guests will include Midpen Board Members and staff, partners, elected officials, and local media. The event will provide an opportunity to highlight the completed natural resources work and preview the improvements that will be in place when the preserve opens. Originally, the grand opening was envisioned for late 2018. Although work continues on numerous fronts (parking lot, road crossing, roads and trails, invasive weed management, pond improvements), given recent District experience with the openings of both the Mount Umumhum Summit and Lower La Honda, we anticipate needing a few additional months past December to complete the finish work and solidify the grand opening logistics. More specifically, the District faced challenges working in the same area as the contractor to complete the site improvements, which resulted in compressed timelines for District crew to complete the finish work once the contractor had left the site. Finishing work includes constructing final segments of new trail to connect to new contractor-constructed facilities, final signage/gates/fencing, and final cleanup work. Given past lessons learned, the Grand Opening Celebration is now tentatively scheduled for March/April 2019. Construction work is expected to be complete by end of January, but given unpredictable winter rains, the actual public event would be scheduled a few months out to allow for better weather conditions. BACKGROUND On January 11, 2017, the Board approved the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan. The plan calls for a multi-phased implementation of actions over a 20-year period, opening new areas to low-intensity recreation at the Preserve, constructing additional trails and parking areas for public use, enhancing native habitats and protecting sensitive biotic resources, interpreting and protecting cultural resources, and maintaining and operating Preserve facilities over the long term. Staff are finalizing a working timeline for completing Phase I Key Actions and opening the preserve to the public by early spring of 2019. Key actions underway to open the preserve to the public include: • Constructing a new parking area at Alma College • Designating a trail crossing at Bear Creek Road • Improving existing roads in the western zone for trail use • Replacing Webb Creek Bridge for improved public safety and emergency vehicle use • Replacing and improving fencing around the Alma College buildings • Protecting cultural resources during construction • Removing invasive vegetation • Protecting native species populations The recent openings of Mount Umunhum and La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve have provided the District with several opportunities to gather “lessons learned” about the process of opening a new area to public access. These lessons include: • Developing a project timeline that allows contractors adequate time to complete all tasks. • Scheduling sufficient time at the end of a project for crew to complete finish work. • Including a buffer in the schedule to accommodate unforeseen delays that arise due to permitting, inspections, weather or other complications. • Identifying a tentative opening date after developing a full timeline. • Publically announcing the opening date only after reaching significant construction milestones. • Confirming site capacity and identifying parking/transportation options prior to developing an event plan. TENTATIVE PROJECT SCHEDULE AND SCOPE Using these guidelines, the Bear Creek Redwoods Project Team developed a tentative schedule of required tasks prior to opening the preserve to the public. This schedule opens the preserve without negatively impacting other projects throughout the District. It is important to note that certain Phase I Key Actions will likely continue after the preserve is open to the public, some of which may trigger short-term trail closures at specific locations. One improvement that may require a temporary closure is the replacement of Webb Creek Bridge, which will depend on when final permits are approved by the various regulatory agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The high-level project schedule is included below. DATE TASK March 2018 Request for Bids released for Construction Services April 2018 Award of Contract for Construction Services May 1, 2018 Groundbreaking Ceremony May 2018 Contractor begins work: • construction of a 50-space parking lot at the Alma College • removal and replacement of the Webb Creek Bridge • construction of a new road retaining wall • improvements to roadway surface and drainage features • upgrade and replacement of the Alma College fencing July 2018 Trail names presented to LFPAC August 2018 Board approval of trail names September 2018 Preserve signage designed/ordered October/November 2018 Contractor completes work November 2018 Land & Facilities begins work in the former contractor-controlled areas: • roadway surface and drainage improvements • installation of fences and gates • installation of preserve signage • landscaping • any additional required site finish January 2019 Land & Facilities completes work Spring 2019 Grand Opening Ceremony Attachment: - Bear Creek Redwoods Phase I Public Access Map "S "S "S "S "S "S "S "S== Construct Parking Lot Construct Retaining Wall Remove Fu el Tanks Replace Bridge @ Webb Creek ^_ P H A S E I P H A S E I I P H A S E I I I A l d e r c r o ft Creek Briggs C r e e k Zayante Cr e e k D y er C r ee k C o l l i n s C r e e k Br i g g s C r e e k W e b b C r e e k AlmaCollege Road B e a r C r e e k R o a d S u m m it R o a d ÄÆ17 ÄÆ17 M i dp e n i ns ula R eg i on a l Op e n S p a c e D i s t ri c t (M RO S D) Mar ch 2 0 1 8 20 1 8 I m p r o v em en t s a t B e a r C r ee k R ed w o o d s Path: G:\Projects\Bear_Creek_Redwoods\PreservePlan\Implementation\BC_2018Improvements_BoardMemo_20180308.mxd Created By: jhawk 0 0.40.2 Miles I While the Di stri ct strives to u se the bes t available digital data, thes e data do not repre se nt a l egal s ur ve y and are me rely a graphic illu stration of geographi c f eatures . Existing Paved R oad Existing Unpaved R oad Existing Trail Existing Unm aintained Road Im prove E xisting Road / Trail for Increased U se "S Existing Bridge/Puncheon =Abandoned Fu el Tank DATE: March 14, 2018 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager FROM: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Cooley Landing – Project Update _____________________________________________________________________________ On March 22, 2017, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized $1.25M in Measure AA funds to support design, permitting, and construction of the following six park elements at Cooley Landing Park, consistent with the Cooley Landing Vision Plan (Attachments 1 and 2): 1. Motion-activated roadway lighting 2. Freestanding restroom 3. Outdoor classroom area 4. Path around the Education Center to complete a trail loop through the site 5. Secondary unpaved trails 6. New entry sign On August 9, 2017, the Board of Directors approved Amendment Three (3) to the Partnership Agreement with the City of East Palo Alto (City) to formalize the funding partnership. The City’s Public Works Department hired Callander Associates (Callander) to complete the design, prepare drawings, coordinate permitting, and participate in bidding and construction. To date, Callander has completed 90% design drawings, submitted permits, and coordinated with regulatory agencies. Throughout, District staff has reviewed the design, submitted comments, and provided cost estimate peer review support. The current cost estimate for District-funded improvements is within the $1.25M authorized by the Board. The initial project schedule divided construction over two years (2017 and 2018) given the limited window of construction between September 1 and January 1 to avoid the nesting season of the federally endangered Ridgway’s Rail. The City’s original approach was to fast track the roadway lights and prefabricated restroom. However, due to the project’s tight construction window, lead time for US Fish and Wildlife’s review of the lights, and lead time for the prefabricated restroom, it was not feasible to design, permit, bid, and construct this discreet scope of work before the 2017 construction window closed. The focus has pivoted to constructing all of the proposed site work improvements in one season (2018). Callander is finalizing discussions with regulatory agencies for permission to begin construction earlier in July rather than September. Construction is scheduled to be completed in January 2019. The new schedule will still allow the City to complete the project ahead of the State Parks’ Prop 84 grant deadline of June 2019. As discussed in previous FYIs and Board Reports, the City must complete several elements to fulfill the Prop 84 grant requirements and receive final reimbursements from State Parks. Measure AA is funding several of those elements, including the freestanding restroom, outdoor classroom, and roadway lighting. COO G CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO July 15, 2010 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES THE ACORN GROUPRON YEO FAIA ARCHITECT 09058ConceptPlan_100113.indd © 2010 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Bus Waiting Area Área de Espera del Autobús Turnaround and Parking Área de Retorno de Carros Concept Plan Plan Conceptual Bay Road Existing Parking (dedicated to Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and Bay Trail visitors) Estacionamiento Existentes (dedicada a visitantes a la Ravenswood Open Space Preserve y Bay Trail) Expanded Parking Estacionamiento Ampliado Secured Access Gate Puertas de Acceso Seguro Secondary Unpaved Trail Camino Secundario sin Pavimento Historical Dredge Interpretive Area and Windbreak Área Interpretativo de Dragado Histórica y Cortavientos Overlook Puesto de Observación Viewing Pier Muelle de Observación Flexible Use Zone (exhibits, events, etc.) Zona de uso ﬂ exible (exposiciones, eventos, etc.) Restored Tidal Marsh Pantano de Marea Restaurado Boat House Building Ediﬁ cio de Casa de Bote Open Meadow Prado Abierto Family Water Access Area Área del acceso del agua para las familias Cantilevered Overlook/ Fishing Pier Vista Voladizo / Muelle de Pesca Outdoor Classroom Aula al Aire Libre Picnic Tables Mesas de Picnic Viewing and Interpretive Area Área de Vistas y Rótulos Interpretativos Security Lighting with Non-Glare Fixture, Typ. Iluminación de Seguridad con Pantalla Anti-reﬂ ectiva Main Paved Trail (Approx. 1/3 mile) Camino Principal Pavimentado (aprox. 1/3 de milla) Split-Rail Fencing Esgrima de división-ferroviario City of East Palo Alto City of Menlo Park City of East Palo Alto City of Menlo ParkBay Trail A A’ B B’ Parking Area Área de Estacionamiento Restrooms Baños Existing Pedestrian Bridge Puente peatonal existente Picnic Tables Mesas de Picnic Entry Plaza and Gathering Area Plaza de Entrada y Área para Reuniones Viewing and Interpretive Area Área de Vistas y Rótulos Interpretativos BikeRacks Porta- bicicletas Seating Area Zona de asientos Wetland Pantanos/homedales Existing Tree, Typ. Árbol existente Trash EnclosureRecinto de la Basura Ravenswood Open Space Preserve Owned by MROSD; City of Menlo Park Jurisdiction Baylands Nature Preserve Owned by City of Palo Alto; City of East Palo Alto Jurisdiction Owned by MROSD; City of East Palo Alto Jurisdiction March 14, 2018 Board FYI Attachment 1 2010 Cooley Landing Vision Plan COOLEY LANDING SITE PLAN FEBRUARY 27, 2018 RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE BAY ROAD Roadway Lighting PALO ALTO BAYLANDS Picnic Area Education Center Outdoor Classroom Secondary Trails Restroom DATE: March 14, 2018 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager FROM: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III SUBJECT: Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Renovation Project at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve _____________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY A historic and structural assessment of the White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm concluded that the structure is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, and that significant structural improvements are required to ensure its long-term stability. Pending Board Committee review and Board of Directors approval, a combination of funds from donations, Measure AA, and the City of Mountain View are available for the renovation. Implementation is targeted for late 2019. BACKGROUND The District and the City of Mountain View (City) jointly operate Deer Hollow Farm, with financial support from Santa Clara County and the Friends of Deer Hollow Farm (FODHF). In 2016, the Walter Tindall Estate gifted approximately $165,000 each to the District and FODHF to fund improvements at the Farm. District, City, and FODHF staff determined that renovation and structural stabilization of the White Barn is the highest priority improvement. Staff solicited proposals from four pre-qualified historic architecture firms to evaluate the historic significance and perform a conditions assessment of the White Barn. District and City staff evaluated proposals and selected Page and Turnbull Inc., to perform the work. Conclusions of the Historic Structure Report are presented below. DISCUSSION The White Barn, located prominently near the center of the Deer Hollow Farm homestead, is currently used to process milk, house the Farm’s goats, and for storage. Constructed prior to 1948, the barn is a wood frame building about 30-feet wide by 58-feet long and 25-feet tall at its highest point. The roof is clad with corrugated metal panels. The barn has a concrete slab foundation in the northwest corner and otherwise supported by low brick piers. In the northwest extension, there is a milk room and a goat pen. The center section is dedicated to hay storage, with a hay loft in the gable above that is accessed by a steep wood staircase. In the southeast extension, horse stalls are used for storage. The majority of the barn is closed to the public. When staff are present, there is limited public access into the milk room. The project proposes no change in use. Historic Significance The White Barn and Deer Hollow Farm are not currently listed on Federal, State, or local historic registers. However, the Historic Structures Report concludes that the White Barn is historically significant. It is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 (Events), Criterion 2 (Persons), and Criterion 3 (Architecture). The Barn retains integrity of its location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. As such, repairs to the barn should be designed to minimize impacts on features that define its historic character. Conditions Assessment The White Barn is in fair and serviceable condition due to regular use and maintenance. However, the preliminary structural analysis indicates inadequate capacity in the roof structural supports, siding, and foundation connections to brace the roof and walls during seismic and wind events. In addition, the existing brick foundation piers do not have adequate capacity to resist their code-required load without replacement or additional strengthening. These structural deficiencies threatens its long-term stability. Furthermore, a number of hazards and minor deficiencies exist at the barn. Insect damage is present in wood materials throughout the building, and the vertical siding that terminates at grade is in poor condition. The supporting wood frame posts are also degraded and damaged, resulting in posts moving and creating a pronounced sag in the northwest corner. While the metal roof is in fair condition, many rafter ends show pronounced rot. Finally, the interior stair to the hay loft, which is used for storage, is unstable. Stabilization Recommendations The Historic Structures Report includes recommendations and conceptual designs for a number of treatment measures to ensure the long-term stability of the White Barn (Attachment 1). Major treatment measures include improved site drainage, foundation replacement, and strengthening the roof and wall structural supports. Staff would design these measures to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the following project goals: 1. Mitigate hazardous and structurally unsound conditions. 2. Allow for safe and accessible public access into the first floor (milk room). 3. Replace degraded materials for maximum longevity. Project Funding The cost estimate for the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Renovation Project is between $350,000 and $500,000. The District, FODHF and City of Mountain View would jointly fund the repairs, with the work executed by the District. Partnership agreements with FODHF and City of Mountain View are currently under development and will be considered by the District’s Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee on March 27, 2018. The Mountain View City Council will consider project funding as part of their annual FY2018-2019 budget process. NEXT STEPS Tasks Tentative Timeline LFPAC review of funding and partnership agreements March 27, 2018 Board review and approval of the FY2018-2019 Action Plan, which will include the White Barn Renovation Design and Implementation Project April – May 2018 Board review and approval of funding and partnership agreements June 2018 Design and Permitting July 2018 – January 2019 Construction (tentative) Fall 2019 ATTACHMENT 1. DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS TASK Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task ACCESSIBLITY & EGRESS Make the interior ground floor spaces ADA accessible: lower the threshold at the main entry door. Ensure that the path of travel into milking area and other public areas is to current ADA code.X Modify the existing wood stair so that it complies with the requirements of a ladder per Section 304.3 of the California Mechanical Code. X Evaluate the code requirements for sprinklering or egress exits for the barn use. X GENERAL Clean and repair existing gutters along the south façade and extend the north façade gutter and drainpipe.X Install gutters and drainpipes to direct water away from the building and livestock yards.X Provide overall site and foundation drainage to keep site water away from the existing or new foundations and to prevent infiltration and accumulation of surface water near the foundations.X Provide more obvious and numerous signage for areas of hazards, including stair ladder access, floor openings, and overhead dangers in the hay loft. X Verify electrical components are protected from weather and pests. Replace as necessary to mitigate fire hazards.X INSECT & RODENT INFILTRATION Fumigate the barn so as to kill all insect infiltrations within the wood members of the structure. X Remove rat droppings or any other pest feces. Sanitize and repair areas following required governmental regulations and best practices for historic buildings.X FOUNDATIONS Provide new reinforced concrete stem walls and foundations under all of the exterior walls (and any interior walls, where applicable) as well as new reinforced concrete pad footings under all interior support posts , except where previously improved at the perimeter of the existing Milk Room. X ALT 1: Provide new stem walls and foundations, including restoring the appearance of the historic footings with a brick veneer using the exisitng bricks. X ALT 2: Design Alternative to Required Stabilization Measure above: Install concrete slab under entire structure (except where existing) with footings and concrete stem wall as described above. X ALT 3: Recommended Preservation Measure (for Design Alternative): Restoring the appearance of the historic bricks at former footing locations X STRUCTURE Provide proper, code required, wood-earth separation between the bases of the existing interior and exterior vertical wood support posts and the existing or new interior and exterior wall wooden sill plates and vertical siding and the adjacent soil grades X Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area , vertical post method X Strengthen existing roof framing at the innermost higher roof area, truss method X Improve roof diaphragm capacity with the addition of new 19/32-inch plywood sheathing throughout over the existing 1x skip sheathing at both the high and low roof areas. Replace all roofing materials.X ALTERNATE: Install new plywood sheathing as noted. Retain reusable skip sheathing and corrugated roofing and reinstall.X Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1. DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS TASK Minimum Stabilization Measure Recommended Preservation Measure - in lieu of minimum stabilization Recommended Preservation Measure - add-on task Improve floor - wall - suppport beam connections with framing clips or nailing. Bolt new exterior wall foundation sill plates to the new foundations. X Add new plywood sheer walls for seismic and wind resistance.X WOOD SIDING & EXTERIOR DOORS Reattach siding to structurally improved frame. Reuse nails where possible, solidly anchoring all boards in original locations. Where replacements are required, replace boards to match wood type, texture, color, and size. X Re-secure shakes over awning at screened opening on the north façade. Remove moss growth. X Replace or Dutchman repair deteriorated edges of boards near grade.X Prep, prime, and paint the wood exterior to improve weatherproofing and protection.X Anchor hay loft floor where loose.X Remove doors over hay loft floor openings and replace with wood boards (board should differentiate from the rest of the floor in some manner). X Re-secure floor in south storage area (at former horse stalls); reuse historic nails.X Install wire mesh under floor to prevent animal intrusion through gaps in flooring (but maintain historic gaps in flooring). (Applicable only if the wood floor is selected to remain in lieu of a concrete slab)X Re-secure sliding barn doors where needed (replace missing bolts with cast bolts to match).X Clean, prep, and paint all existing hardware to prevent any further corrosion. Tighten all anchors and add reinforcing blocking where necessary. X ROOF Replace missing rafter tails and repair those exhibiting deterioration; sistered ends should not extend visually beyond the top plate of the exterior wall. X Install bird netting or other mesh materials to prevent bird access and nesting in the barn rafters.X Remove any existing white rust. Insert gapping material where the sheets overlap to prevent water dwelling at these points of contact causing the white rust. X Page 2 of 2 DATE: March 14, 2018 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, AICP, Acting General Manager FROM: Whitney Berry, AICP, Planner II SUBJECT: Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study _____________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The Fiscal Year 2017-18 Action Plan includes the Rancho San Antonio Non-motorized Mobility, Transit Connections and Parking Alternatives Project under the Public Access and Education Program Category. Staff proposes to rename the project to Rancho San Antonio Carrying Capacity and Multimodal Access Study to reflect better the scope of work. This Project furthers Vision Plan Priority Action/Measure AA Portfolio #11 and engages stakeholders and partner agencies to explore non-motorized mobility, transit options and parking alternatives for Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve (“Rancho”). In the summer of 2017, staff convened partner agencies to review issues and challenges in accessing Rancho. In early 2018, staff developed a preliminary project scope. The next steps include additional coordination with agency partners to finalize the scope for a study of carrying capacity, parking, and multimodal access opportunities at Rancho. This multi-year project is included in the proposed FY2018-19 Action Plan, which the Board will review and consider at the upcoming March 15 retreat. BACKGROUND Challenges at Rancho San Antonio The Project evolved in response to major parking challenges facing visitors when accessing Rancho by car. In 2017, approximately 700,000 visitors arrived at Rancho by car, with countless more who walk or bike in from nearby neighborhoods. The parking demand is so high during peak and weekend visiting hours that visitors often wait for a considerable time to secure a parking space. This detracts from the overall park experience and can lead to visitor frustration and at times conflicts. Due to the high parking demand, nearby residents experience parking overflow in their neighborhoods. Last year, in response to these concerns, the City of Cupertino eliminated public parking along neighborhood streets closest to the Park and Preserve, and established resident permitted parking. In a separate action, the Los Altos Hills City Council closed Mora Drive to public parking, a popular neighborhood access point to Rancho. While these actions have addressed resident concerns, the parking prohibitions exacerbate the lack of public parking and affect the ability to access public open space lands. Convening of Stakeholders With these growing challenges in mind, the District convened a stakeholder meeting in June 2017 attended by representatives of Santa Clara County Parks, Cities of Cupertino, Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Each of these agencies is an important stakeholder with interests that converge at Rancho pertaining to resident and worker access via local streets, expressways, and trails. In addition, the cities jointly worked on the Four Cities Stevens Creek Feasibility Study, a coordinated trail planning effort that included an evaluation of routes to connect Stevens Creek Trail to Rancho. At this meeting, stakeholders discussed the challenges at Rancho, each agency’s interests, and solutions that may already be underway. The group also brainstormed ideas and solutions worth pursuing further. Everyone confirmed that the challenges at Rancho needed further study. Directors Curt Riffle and Yoriko Kishimoto attended this stakeholder meeting. Accordingly, District staff have been developing a draft scope for a study of visitor carrying capacity, parking issues, and opportunities to improve multimodal access to Rancho. NEXT STEPS District staff will coordinate a final draft scope of work with County Parks and other interested partner agencies. Staff will bring the final draft scope to a Board Committee for review and confirmation this summer. Staff will subsequently issue a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for consultant services to complete the study. Task Timeframe Finalize draft scope of work with agency partners Spring 2018 Committee review Summer 2018 Procure consultant services Summer 2018 Study underway August 2018 – February 2019 Committee review of study findings and recommendations Spring 2019 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact of this item. This current scope of work is not eligible for Measure AA reimbursement because it involves pre-planning work with stakeholders to develop a planning study. The Rancho study may recommend capital improvements to improve multimodal access to Rancho; future improvements may be eligible for Measure AA reimbursement. From:Jennifer Woodworth Bcc:BOARD; Christine Butterfield; Stefan Jaskulak; Brian Malone Subject:Response to Board Questions for 3/14/18 Agenda Date:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 9:12:44 AM Good morning all, Below in blue please find the responses to questions submitted by the Board regarding tonight’s agenda items. Please let me know if you need anything else. Jen Director Riffle 77428: What are Battery Operated Badger Meters? The badger meters are water meters that measure flow through a pipe. Certain water diversions require meters to measure and report water use as part of State Water Rights law. For example, the Aldercroft diversion and pipe that serves Bear Creek Stables in Bear Creek Redwoods OSP needs one of these meters. 77472: Clean Spring Box and Bury Water Line - Where did this take place? This work was performed at Blue Brush Canyon Ranch in Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve along Purisima Creek Road. The work included unplugging mud from the pipe and removing an air lock in the supply lines. The spring serves a grazing lease and a District residence. 77470: Repair/replace doors and awning - Where did this take place? Stevens Canyon Ranch – 16891 Stevens Canyon Road - Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. 77439: Consultant services for GSA Matter at Mt. Um - What is GSA? General Services Administration Director Kishimoto Claims Item 11803 - water law counsel - San Gregorio adjudication. Please provide additional information. This claim represents multiple smaller invoices (hourly billings) that were processed together. The District periodically consults with outside counsel on District rights and obligations under the State Water Rights law. More information is coming to the Board shortly regarding the District’s water resources program (including work within the San Gregorio watershed and water rights in general) both at an April PNR committee meeting, and a subsequent May Board meeting. Director Harris Check 77466 ILG for $8,718.02 The claim reflects all work completed by the Institute for Local Government and associated expenses to hold the January 27, 2018 Board training, including preparation work, the full day of training, and travel expenses for the trainer. Preparation work included multiple discussions with District staff to review training goals, purpose, approach, and to customize and refine the agenda outline and training topics; phone interviews with multiple Board members in advance of the training to further inform goals and desired outcomes; outreach to set up and confirm the calls with Board members; and creation and refinement of the training documents. Cooley Landing - Project Update Has the Open House already happened – was a date announced? The Open House was held on March 1, 2018. An announcement was included in the Biweekly Report dated February 12, 2018, and in a Board FYI memo for the February 28, 2018 meeting. A second Board FYI memo provided for the March 14, 2018 meeting includes a brief summary of the outcomes of the Open House and next steps. See excerpt below: OPEN HOUSE EVENT As a component of Lily and Audree’s Phase One work, an open house event took place at the Education Center on March 1, 2018. The event was attended by 62 people representing 31 organizations and provided a chance for potential operators to hear from East Palo Alto leadership about the City’s expectations of a future Education Center operator, network with other organizations, and brainstorm about challenges and opportunities associated with the long-term operation of the facility. Director Kishimoto attended the event and gave a speech about the District’s historic involvement with Cooley Landing following remarks from City’s Mayor. NEXT STEPS The City of East Palo Alto City Council will receive a presentation on the Cooley Landing Park Business and Operating Plan Project on March 20, 2018 from Lily and Audree. After this meeting takes place, the District and City will jointly release a Request for Letters of Interest to solicit proposals to operate the Education Center from interested organizations. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager jwoodworth@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 E-mail correspondence with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.