Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20170125 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 17-03
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 TELECONFERENCE NOTICE Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, Subdivision (b), the Special meeting will include teleconference participation by Director Pete Siemens from: El Camino Hospital 2500 Grant Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040. Room number information may be requested at the front desk. This Notice and Agenda will be posted at the teleconference location. Accessibility to and public comment from this address shall be provided as required by Government Code Section 54954(b)(3). Wednesday, January 25, 2017 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL 1. Selection of Preferred Option for the New Administrative Main Office Project (R-17-08) Staff Contact: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Select one of the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations regarding proposed options for a new Administrative Office: 1. Majority recommendation: Construct a new, three-story office building at the existing location with a rooftop common area. 2. Minority recommendation: Construct a new, two-and-a-half story office building, with half of the third floor to be used as non-office/common area, e.g. meeting room, kitchen, cafeteria, and the other half as an open rooftop common area. 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 Meeting 17-03 complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of staff O Jay Marvin, Ranger O Kyle Shank, Ranger O Ashley Ryder, Ranger 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 January 11, 2017 Minutes 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Appointment of Board of Directors Standing Committee Members and District Representatives to the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority for Calendar Year 2017 (R-17-14) Staff Contact: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Board President’s Recommendation: Approve the Board President’s appointments to the Board Standing Committees and the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority, as well as approve the appointments of Board representatives to other bodies, and determine the compensation status for attendance at Board Committee meetings. 4. Contract Amendment with PGA Design, Inc., for Additional Design, Engineering, and Permitting Services for the Sears Ranch Parking Area at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-17-02) Staff Contact: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with PGA Design, Inc., for additional services related to the Sears Ranch Parking Area Project at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in the amount of $42,626, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $123,821. 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. 5. Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Making Certain Findings of Fact, Approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Approving the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (R-17-15) Staff Contact: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District): • Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report • Adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan • Approving the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan 6. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Quarter 2 District Budget Amendments (R-17-16) Staff Contact: Nicole Gonzales, Finance & Budget Analyst II General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2016-17 Quarter 2 District Budget amendments, and affirming the adopted FY2016-17 District Budget by fund. 7. Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Appointment (R-17-13) Staff Contact: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Appoint a member to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee to serve the vacant term expiring December 31, 2020. 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 factual information; request staff to report back 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. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. 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 January 20, 2017, 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-17-08 Meeting 17-02 January 25, 2017 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Selection of Preferred Option for the New Administrative Main Office Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Select one of the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations regarding proposed options for a new Administrative Office: 1.Majority recommendation: Construct a new, three-story office building at the existing location with a rooftop common area. 2. Minority recommendation: Construct a new, two-and-a-half story office building, with half of the third floor to be used as non-office/common area, e.g. meeting room, kitchen, cafeteria, and the other half as an open rooftop common area. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) executed a contract with a futurist / architectural strategist, MKThink, to help determine the optimal Administration Office (AO) option to solve short- and long-term space needs. MKThink worked with a staff project team, the General Manager’s Office (GMO), and the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) to assess the operational culture of the District, evaluate forces that influence how the District delivers its mission in the future, consider various future scenarios that the District may face, and propose solutions that address those futures. MKThink conducted a charrette with the GMO and presented the products of the charrette and the concluding GMO’s recommendation for a three- story building to the Committee on December 13, 2016. The Committee’s opinions were divided, resulting in two Committee recommendations for Board consideration: (1) a majority recommendation for a new, three-story building and (2) a minority recommendation for a new, two-and-a-half-story building. MEASURE AA This is not Measure AA project. DISCUSSION On November 18, 2015, District staff presented a Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report describing the existing conditions of the District’s four main staff facilities and recommended actions (R-15-157). The report confirmed the Administrative Office (AO) lacked capacity to accommodate additional staff growth and ran the risk of inhibiting the District’s R-17-08 Page 2 ability to ramp up its project delivery capacity to fulfill Measure AA commitments. Following the November meeting, staff conducted a site feasibility of the existing AO site and a surrounding real estate market study, and hired a futurist / architectural strategist, MKThink. The Board of Directors approved the formation of a Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) (R- 16-102), which has met four times over the last five months to review MKThink’s work and arrived at recommendations for full Board consideration. The attached Board FYIs (see Attachments 6 – 9) provide details on the materials prepared to date and Committee discussions. The FYIs and other supporting materials were issued to the full Board after each Committee meeting to ensure that the full Board remained up to date with Committee work and with project progress (if hard copies of the supporting materials are desired, please contact District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth). At the Committee’s most recent meeting of December 13, 2016, MKThink presented the following three refined real estate solutions for the AO (see Attachments 1, 2 and 3). 1. One-story option – very dense work station layout, relies on satellite offices to accommodate future growth, infeasible to meet parking requirements. (Note: the site already lacks sufficient parking for the current number of employee and fleet vehicles.) 2. Two-story option – accommodates current staffing and future projected staff growth, but constrains the room and flexibility to accommodate unanticipated future growth and to creatively plan and design. Eliminates the need for satellite offices; requires underground parking. 3. Three-story option – like two-story option; also includes space for revenue generation to substantially offset construction costs; allows room and flexibility to creatively plan and design; provides greatest assurance to accommodate 40+ years of future growth; maximizes site development potential for El Camino Real corridor; provides opportunities for partner and/or community space; offers opportunity to increase internship and volunteer programs accommodates space to hold employee and volunteer trainings, District events, all-staff meetings onsite. As part of the presentation, the GMO discussed its recommendation for a third-story option given its many long-term benefits and opportunities for the District and the community at large (see Attachment 9). The GMO also highlighted its support for a rooftop common area that could accommodate outdoor meeting areas, picnic spaces, and/or demonstration gardens. Staff is has confirmed with the City of Los Altos the ability to access the rooftop on a three-story building under current height limits set by zoning code. In addition, staff presented the findings of a cost analysis (see Attachment 4) that looks at potential rough order-of-magnitude costs for the various options, including renting temporary space while a new AO building is under construction. The Committee discussed in detail the three options and did not support the one-story option due to its density and reliance on satellites. In addition, the highly likely inability to meet Town of Los Altos parking requirements essentially eliminated this option from further consideration. Committee Recommendations In the end, the Committee voted to forward two recommendations for Board consideration: R-17-08 Page 3 Majority recommendation: Construct a three-story option with a rooftop common space on top of the third floor. Minority recommendation: Construct a two-and-a-half story option with two floors of dedicated office space and, above that, half of the third floor for use as a common area that may include a kitchen, cafeteria, and/or meeting rooms. The second half of the third floor would be open rooftop common space. Looking Forward MKThink developed a process flowchart (see Attachment 5) that describes the anticipated steps and timeline to implement the project. The flowchart identifies key “jump points” in the process that would allow the Board to change the direction of the project in the event that a suitable office building becomes available for purchase. This is the first of many decisions that the Board will need to make for the new building. This first decision will define the scale of the project to continue early consultations with the City of Los Altos and to help set the basic program parameters that will be included in a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for architectural design services. Other upcoming decisions will focus on the quality and range of desired amenities, the desired character and aesthetic of the building, as well as conceptual and schematic designs. FISCAL IMPACT The FY2016-17 budget includes $120,000 for the Administrative Office Project (Project #31202). Remaining funds are sufficient to begin implementation of the design phase if a Board decision is reached. FY2016-17 Project #31202 Budget $120,000 Spent to Date (as of 11/22/16): $40,017 MKThink Contract Balance: $9,983 MKThink Amended Contract Amount: $19,000 Budget Remaining (Proposed): $51,000 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Committee met on August 29, September 12, October 17, and December 13, 2016 (see attached Board FYIs), asked clarifying questions, provided direction and input, and arrived at recommendations for full Board consideration. 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 (CEQA). CEQA review is required and will be completed prior to awarding a construction contract. R-17-08 Page 4 NEXT STEPS Following Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to begin drafting a Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQP)for architectural design services. The conceptual program and other elements will be presented to the full Board for review and approval prior to issuance of the RFQP. Attachments: 1. January 25, 2017 Future of the AO Scenarios & Conceptual Solutions 2. January 25, 2017 Solutions Options Detailed 3. January 25, 2017 Evaluation Summary 4. January 25, 2017 Cost Analysis – Rebuild, Temporary Rental, and Rental Offset 5. January 25, 2017 New AO Development Process Flowchart 6. September 14, 2016 Board FYI August 29, 2016 Committee meeting – Initial Findings 7. September 14, 2016 Board FYI September 12, 2016 Committee meeting – Real Estate Market Analysis and Site Benchmark Feasibility Study 8. November 9, 2016 Board FYI October 17, 2016 Committee meeting – Partnership Potential, Staff Survey Results, Future Scenarios, Draft Evaluation Criteria 9. January 11, 2017 Board FYI December 13, 2016 Committee meeting – Development Options, Process Flowchart, General Manager’s Office Recommendation, Committee Discussion on Recommendation, Next Steps for AO, Discussion about South Area Office Feasibility Study, Next Steps for South Area Office Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: FUTURE OF THE AO SCENARIOS & CONCEPTUAL SOLUTIONS Confidential & Proprietary. Do not distribute without consent.Updated: 12.07.16 Solution Options Future Scenario S1: 1-Story | 12,500GSF S2: 2-Story | 30,800GSF S3: 3-Story | 46,200GSF 1: TALENT FUTURE Increased pressure on non-profits hiring top talent In the future, the marketplace becomes increasingly competitive due to demand for talent and increased costs of living that have driven up salaries. In this sce- nario, Midpen focuses its resources on talent attraction and retention, investing in high quality spaces, amenities, competitive salaries, benefits, and professional development and satellite locations/remote work policies to ease commute stress. SPACE QUALITY: Higher space quality - build less, build better COMMUTE DURATION: Commute duration stays the same WORK FLEXIBILITY: Work flexibility (remote/ flex hours/etc.) increases to accommodate smaller space SPACE QUALITY: Space quality balanced with space quantity COMMUTE DURATION: Commute duration stays the same WORK FLEXIBILITY: Work flexibility (remote/flex hours/etc.) stays the same unless satellites are used (being considered separately) SPACE QUALITY: Space quality balanced with space quantity COMMUTE DURATION: Commute duration stays the same WORK FLEXIBILITY: Work flexibility (remote/flex hours/etc.) stays the same unless satellites are used (being considered separately) 2A: PARTNER FUTURE A Opportunities to consolidate/coordinate efforts In the future, greater coordination between government and non-profit orga- nizations working to preserve open spaces is required to manage and execute initiatives. Midpen sees an opportunity to accelerate the fulfillment of its vision through strong collaborations with partner organizations by maximizing the development potential of its land and building a multi-story new office build- ing, creating suites for partner orgs and shared spaces to host meetings or joint events. SPACE QUANTITY: High density space for MROSD staff without extra for partnering SPACE QUANTITY: 1/2 - 1 floor of partnering space available SPACE QUANTITY: 1 - 1-1/2 floor(s) of partnering space available 5: ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE Resources scarce, gov. entities forced to cut, “greening” In the future, increased scarcity of land, water, and other resources force greater pressure on organizations to ration their resource use. Midpen emphasizes strong environmental values in its AO with a renovation that brings the existing building up to the Living Building Challenge standards and provides more flex- ibility for staff to reduce emissions and commute times; Midpen also subsidizes technology for home offices and transit costs. EMBODIED ENERGY: Reuse existing space avoiding large-scale new construction OPERATIONAL ENERGY: Selected system retrofits for increased efficiency SITE USE: Low development of the site, reducing site density pushing dev elsewhere EMBODIED ENERGY: Medium-level of construction using new materials OPERATIONAL ENERGY: Full envelope and system redesigns for maximum efficiency SITE USE: Medium development of the site EMBODIED ENERGY: High-level of construction using new materials OPERATIONAL ENERGY: Full envelope and system redesigns for maximum efficiency SITE USE: High development of the site, optimizing site density avoid dev elsewhere Preface: In all Solution Options the AO remains in its current location given that MROSD owns the property (tax benefits), that its geographically centered to both open spaces and employee housing, and has zoning to allow expansion as needed. Also, Satellite offices have been removed from this discussion and will be evaluated in parallel, separately, but are considered highly important to the Talent Future and will be crucial to long-term talent stability given increasing commute times. NOTES: Future Scenarios reduced from 6 to 3 during 10/16 Facilities Ad-Hoc Committee meeting; removed Partner Future B, Value Future & Expansion Future Solution S1 was removed during the 11/29 GMO meeting because parking requirements due to increased people on site would make the option infeasible Scoring is qualitative based on MKThink opinion of each solution’s strength of response to the future scenario described Growth Projections for AO only: 2015: 70, 2016: 99, 2020: 104, 2045: 119 (based on FOSM projections for AO) Current Density of AO (Gross Square Feet (GSF) / Person): 190 GSF / Person (based on 63 Persons in 12,000 GSF from Opps/Constraints, Oct 20, 2015) ExcellentNot Good Good Option Removed during 11/29 GMO meeting GMO Preferred Option ATTACHMENT 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: SOLUTION OPTIONS DETAILED Confidential & Proprietary. Do not distribute without consent.Updated: 11.22.16 Solution Options S1: 1-Story | 12,500GSF S2: 2-Story | 30,800GSF S3: 3-Story | 46,200GSF DESCRIPTION The AO retains its building shell and is renovated to accommodate from 70- 100% of administrative personnel in office at any given time. The remaining personnel would schedule individual or collaborative work at one of poten- tially two satellite offices located near centroids of where AO staff live, or they would work remotely from home. During renovation, deferred mainte- nance in the existing AO would be addressed and money saved from avoid- ing new construction could be allocated to upgrades in amenities, green features and office space technology to support denser and more dynamic operations. The AO demolishes its current building and rebuilds onsite to accommodate 100% of administrative peronnel in office at any given time. The renovated AO would have an additional floor allowing for more programmed spaces per person or enabling some limited partnerships with other non-profit/gov- ernmental organizations or commercial entities. Amenities, green features, and office technology may be more modest than the S1 option to offset costs of construction. The AO demolishes its current building and rebuilds onsite to accommodate 100% of administrative peronnel in office at any given time. The renovated AO would have two additional floors to accommodate more MROSD pro- grammed space and future growth as well as partnerships with non-profits/ governmental organizations or commercial entities. Amenities, green fea- tures, and office technology may be more modest than the S1 /S2 options to offset costs of constructing additional floors; however, they may also be the same if Type A office buildings are in high demand, affording increased investment in amenities that will be offset by rental income. FUTURE SCENARIOS RATIONALE •SPACE QUALITY: Higher space quality - build less, build better •COMMUTE DURATION: Commute duration stays the same •WORK FLEXIBILITY: Work flexibility (remote/flex hours/etc.) increases to accommodate smaller space •SPACE QUANTITY: High density space for MROSD staff without extra for partner •EMBODIED ENERGY: Reuse existing space avoiding large-scale new construction •OPERATIONAL ENERGY: Selected system retrofits for increased efficiency •SITE USE: Low development of the site, reducing site density pushing development elsewhere •SPACE QUALITY: Space quality balanced with space quantity •COMMUTE DURATION: Commute duration stays the same •WORK FLEXIBILITY: Work flexibility (remote/flex hours/etc.) stays the same unless satellites are used (being considered separately) •SPACE QUANTITY: 1/2 - 1 floor of partnering space available •EMBODIED ENERGY: Medium-level of construction using new materials •OPERATIONAL ENERGY: Full envelope and system redesigns for maximum efficiency •SITE USE: Medium development of the site •SPACE QUALITY: Space quality balanced with space quantity •COMMUTE DURATION: Commute duration stays the same •WORK FLEXIBILITY: Work flexibility (remote/flex hours/etc.) stays the same unless satellites are used (being considered separately) •SPACE QUANTITY: 1 - 1-1/2 floor(s) of partnering space available •EMBODIED ENERGY: High-level of construction using new materials •OPERATIONAL ENERGY: Full envelope and system redesigns for maximum efficiency •SITE USE: High development of the site, optimizing site density avoid development elsewhere OTHER RATIONALE •EXPEDITE SATELLITES: Savings on space could expedite use of satellites through pressure on space needs •COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Space limits opportunities for community engagement onsite unless satellites are used (being considered separately) •WORK CONTINUITY: Disruption is shorter in duration but basically has the same impact as options S2/S3 since there would be a one-time move to another location before moving back in after significant renovations are made to the existing building •COST/VALUE: Lesser initial cost ($3-6mil), but less value over time with no revenue generation from tenants •EXPEDITE SATELLITES: Less pressure on space needs so limited incentive to invest in satellites •COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: More opportunities for community engagement via dedicated community spaces; at a regional planning level, more opportunities for other organizations to work from the AO reducing office space needed elsewhere that could be used for housing instead •WORK CONTINUITY: Disruption is basically the same as S3 with some difference in duration of time relocated •COST/VALUE: Greater initial cost ($25-30mil), but has tenant revenue that creates value over time that would offset the initial investment; comes with some rental risk and additional admin time •EXPEDITE SATELLITES: Least pressure on space needs and most financial pressure, reducing incentive for satellites •COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Largest opportunity to provide community engagement areas onsite; in keeping with local/regional direction to focus jobs and housing creation on transit corridors, sees MROSD as a key member of the Plan Bay Area effort to densify in Priority Development Areas, contributing to the overall community by providing maximum office area on-site, reducing the housing sprawl, which benefits the whole community as well MROSD •WORK CONTINUITY: Disruption is basically the same as S2 with some difference in duration of time relocated; increased security in growth potential if actual growth exceeds FOSM projections in the future •COST/VALUE: Greatest initial cost ($35-45mil), but has maximum tenant revenue that creates large value over time to payback initial investments Preface: In all Solution Options the AO remains in its current location given that MROSD owns the property (tax benefits), that its geographically centered to both open spaces and employee housing, and has zoning to allow expansion as needed. Also, Satellite offices have been removed from this discussion and will be evaluated in parallel, separately, but are considered highly important to the Talent Future and will be crucial to long-term talent stability given increasing commute times. Option Removed during 11/29 GMO meeting GMO Preferred Option NOTES: MKThink Strategy Model includes 4 primary dimensions: Space Quantity, Space Operations (including location(s), work processes (remote, tech use, etc.)), Space Density & Space Quality. The combination of options within and across dimensions yields a total number of Solution Options available. Then, based on constraints certain options are filtered out and based on organizational goals/priorities/values certain options are prioritized. The options above represent 3 of 12 considered (Large/Med/Small, Stay/Go, Satellites/No Sat) explor- ing the Space Quantity option of Large/Medium/Small across different evaluation criteria. ATTACHMENT 2 Attachment 3 Evaluation Summary Terminology Term Definition Commute duration Duration of employees’ commutes including those using transit Work flexibility Flexible work practices such as telecommuting or flexible hours that help relieve commute stress and space needs Space quantity (growth/partner) Amount of space left for future growth or shared space Embodied energy Energy used to produce and embodied in, materials used in new construction / renovation Operational energy Daily energy use from building systems (lights, heating, plug loads, etc.) generally associated with “energy efficiency” improvements Site use Development potential of the AO site Work continuity Disruption to the agency during construction Present value “today’s dollar” Value of current funds Development opportunity Opportunity to secure the greatest stability and flexibility for the District’s future (50+ years) Growth flexibility Ability to accommodate unanticipated long term growth or operational changes in the organization Community engagement / land stewardship Opportunities to engage community and encourage land stewardship Revenue potential Revenue generating by leasing some or all of one floor Partnership Opportunities to partner with like-minded organizations and provide shared community space Responsible infill density Achieving the most sustainable solution that maximizes the zoning potential of this transit corridor that eases commutes and helps prevent future sprawl Buffer space for city review Ability to accommodate design changes or requirements without losing critical office space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT - MROSD AO FUTURE STUDY COMBINING ALL OF THE CRITERIA DISCUSSED INTO A SINGLE EVALUATION ŏ ŏ SOLUTION OPTIONS Evaluation Criteria S1: 1-Story | 12,500GSF S2: 2-Story | 30,800GSF S3: 3-Story | 46,200GSF SPACE QUALITY COMMUTE DURATION WORK FLEXIBILITY SPACE QUANTITY (GROWTH/PARTNER) EMBODIED ENERGY OPERATIONAL ENERGY SITE USE WORK CONTINUITY PRESENT VALUE “TODAY’S DOLLAR” DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY GROWTH AND OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT / LAND STEWARDSHIP REVENUE POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIP RESPONSIBLE INFILL DENSITY BUFFER SPACE FOR CITY REVIEW OVERALL SCORE ExcellentNot Good Good GMO Preferred Option MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: NEW AO DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FLOWCHART Confidential & Proprietary. Do not distribute without consent.Updated: 12.07.16 Problem Statement Determine Site/Building Criteria Monitor Identify Decide Help New Build Design Process Research Questions Findings Options Priorities RECOMMENDATION JUMP POINT = POINT AT WHICH DECISION TO CONTINUE TO SEARCH FOR A BUILDING TO PURCHASE BECOMES EXPONENTIALLY MORE COSTLY Solicit/Secure Design Consultants Determine Search Criteria Search Time Allowance Board Approval Solicit/Secure T.I.* Design Consultants T.I. Design & Documentation T.I. Building Permit Review Bid & Contractor Selection *T.I. = Tenant Improvements Construction Schematic Design/Planning Application Design Development Construction Documents Building Permit Review Bid & Contractor Selection Construction Move-In Move-In Planning Review MONITORING OPPORTUNITIES T.I. DESIGN FOR NEW SITE/BUILDING NEW BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SWING SPACE PROCESS MKTHINK PROCESS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 JU M P P O I N T # 1 JU M P P O I N T # 2 JU M P P O I N T # 3 JU M P P O I N T # 4 Be f o r e c o m m i t t i n g $1 0 k ’ s t o p l a n n i n g Be f o r e c o m m i t t i n g $1 0 0 k ’ s t o l e a s e Be f o r e c o m m i t t i n g $1 0 0 k ’ s t o r e n o v a t i o n Be f o r e c o m m i t t i n g m i l l i o n s t o ne w b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n ATTACHMENT 4 Cost Analysis ‐ Rebuild, Temporary Rental, and Rental Offset Board Meeting January 25, 2017 Abbreviations RWC = Redwood City ROI = Return on investment Yrs = Years IT = Information technology LG = Los Gatos SQ FT = Square Feet TI = Tenant improvements Solutions AO Remodel or Rebuild Hard Costs Soft and Other Costs (30%) Cost for Temp Rental for 3 yrs AO2 ‐ AO4 Rental Savings over 30 yrs AO Rental Offset Net Building Cost 2‐story AO $24,205,000 $7,261,500 $3,560,717 ($9,548,100) $0 $25,479,117 3‐story AO $35,844,000 $10,753,200 $3,560,717 ($9,548,100) (19,057,500)$ $21,552,317 AO2 ‐ AO4 during Construction Year SQ FT SQ FT Rate (with 3% Escalation)Per Year Sum Running Sum Year Per Year Cost for AO2 ‐ AO4 1 12,000 $8.00 $1,152,000 $1,152,000 1 $300,000 2 12,000 $8.24 $1,186,560 $2,338,560 2 $309,000 3 12,000 $8.49 $1,222,157 $3,560,717 3 $318,270 $7,051,277 Total $927,270 Satellite Lease 5K SF in RWC for 30 Yrs Satellite Lease 5K SF in LG for 30 Yrs Total Satellite Cost AO Rent Offset Satellite Cost After Rent Offset $14,272,625 $10,989,921 $25,262,546 $0 $25,262,546 $14,272,625 $10,989,921 $25,262,546 (19,057,500)$ $6,205,046 Purchase and Remodel Elsewhere Location (Downtown Mountainview)Cost per SQ FT Desired SQ FT Cost for Purchase Cost to Remodel per SQ FT (higher end) Remodel Cost (30% soft and other costs) Existing AO Sale Price ($7.3 low, $8.3M high) Total Cost Purchase and Remodel Non‐Transit Oriented Development $966 30,000 $28,984,200 $200 $7,800,000 $8,300,000 $28,484,200 Non‐Transit Oriented Development $966 45,000 $43,476,300 $200 $11,700,000 $8,300,000 $46,876,300 Transit Oriented Development $1,476 30,000 $44,279,700 $200 $7,800,000 $8,300,000 $43,779,700 Transit Oriented Development $1,476 45,000 $66,419,550 $200 $11,700,000 $8,300,000 $69,819,550 AO rental offset ‐ 15,400 s.f. (1 floor) ‐ $5.50/ s.f., no escalation ‐ 2016 dollars, over 30 yrs No rental offset w/2‐story AO Comments Includes minor TI, no moving costs or IT relocation Same as above Same as above Same as above Purchase cost based on 02/2016 Colliers real estate market study with 3% escalation; remodel cost from MKThink; sale cost for existing AO from Colliers 01/2017 MKThink Solution Options ROI for extra floor in 21 yrs. AO rental offset breakdown: ‐ 20 years 15,400 s.f. (1 floor), 10 years 7,700 s.f. (1/2 floor) ‐ $5.50/ s.f., no escalation ‐ 2016 dollars, over 30 yrs No rental offset w/2‐story AO Comments Comments Temporary Rental During Construction Total Potential Satellite Costs and Offset Same as above Same as above Comments ATTACHMENT 5 DATE: September 14, 2016 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Summary from August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting _____________________________________________________________________________ At its August 24, 2016 meeting, the Board of Directors approved the formation of the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) (R-16-102). The charge of the Committee is to (1) identify any potential gaps in the Administrative Office (AO) site benchmark feasibility study, real estate market analysis, and futurist/architectural strategist report, and (2) arrive at a recommended preferred option, possible alternatives, and next steps to forward to the full Board at a later date for its consideration and decision. The Committee has met twice since formation. Below is a summary of the August 29, 2016 meeting. Materials given to the Committee have been provided to the Board for more detail. The Committee selected Director Kishimoto as Chair, discussed its purpose, and the purpose of the futurist/architectural strategist, MKthink. The Committee discussed how and when to bring items to the full Board for consideration during the process. The project team was introduced and the process and schedule discussed. The status of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) building across from the AO was reviewed. Please see to details provided below. Committee Purpose The Committee’s overarching purpose is to provide policy level guidance on staff facilities. For this current effort, the Committee felt that they should focused immediately on the AO and that the recommendations prepared for the AO need to consider and relate to other District staff facilities, including field offices or potential new satellites, and whether AO staff can deploy out of those locations. The Committee discussed their goal, which includes bringing forth to the full Board a recommendation for the AO to move forward with and also to act as a strike force by which to consider new opportunities to allow staff to act quickly if necessary. Futurist Purpose Because of the substantial investment anticipated to address the District’s long-term administrative office needs, the purpose of MKThink’s work is to test staff’s assumptions with regard to viable solutions for a new AO and to unearth potential options that staff did not consider. They are exploring external factors or forces that may influence the way the District conducts its work in the future and where a new AO might best be located to effectively and efficiently deliver the District’s services. Unlike the futurist used for the Packard Foundation, this scope of work is less about work space planning within the building and more about determining the type, size, and location of the ATTACHMENT 6 Summary from August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 2 Committee Meeting building. MKThink will touch upon conceptual space planning insofar as it affects the building the District might seek. Process and Schedule Board FYIs will be provided to keep the full Board apprised of the project’s progress. The Committee will meet at each milestone to provide policy guidance. The Committee will also determine which items should be brought to the full Board for their input, e.g. decision-making criteria. The initial schedule was to have a preferred recommended option by the end of the calendar year. The schedule will need to be adjusted to accommodate Board meetings when the Committee feels items should be brought to the full Board. MKThink Draft Initial Findings MKThink is currently in their Research and Findings stages. To learn more about the District, they have been provided background material and reports such as the Vision Plan and the Financial and Organizational Sustainability Model (FOSM). MKThink will move on to assessing the District’s current and future operational needs and weighing those with external factors that will either be challenges to overcome or opportunities to take advantage of, as they develop options for a new AO. MKThink presented their proposed process and draft initial research findings centered around six study areas. The Committee was asked if there were any questions or gaps in the analysis. They were also asked if any study area seemed more important than the others, and what other information might be needed to inform a recommended preferred option and a decision. The Committee posed the following questions: •What’s the future of the cubicle? •What’s the future of the work week? •How do we share desks? •Can District staff share space? •What is the future of El Camino Real? •Which cities will expand or build along El Camino Real? •Can we partner with other like-minded organizations, e.g. Peninsula Conservation Center? •How will we use space? How much storage will we need? Are we heading towards a paperless office? •Diversity – how do we ensure our office is accessible? •Childcare – how do we retain talented women and support families? •Environmental sustainability – how do we minimize our environmental footprint? •Symbolism of the building – is it a statement? Is it more low key? The Committee expressed interest in monitoring the real estate market more actively. Status of PAMF Building An update on the PAMF building located across from the AO was provided by Real Property. A proposal to purchase the building was sent and no response had yet been received. PAMF is not interested in swapping properties with the District. PAMF seems amenable to leasing half the building to the District, but only for two years. If the decision is made to build on site, design and Summary from August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 3 Committee Meeting permitting are anticipated to take two years with construction taking another two years. Timing of a temporary lease will be critical. The Committee asked Real Property to update them at the next meeting regarding PAMF and asked for an update on the Real Estate Market Study and the AO Site Benchmark Feasibility Study. Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Project Team Staff 1.General Manager’s Office – General Manager Stephen E. Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, and District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth 2.Department Managers – Jane Mark (Planning), Jason Lin (Engineering & Construction), and Mike Williams (Real Property) 3.Staff – Tina Hugg (Planning, day-to-day contact), Aaron Hebert (formerly Engineering & Construction, now Natural Resources – will be replaced with and Engineering and Constructions representative at the end of the strategist report), Allen Ishibashi (Real Property) Attachments: 1. August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Presentation 2.MROSD AO Future Study by MKThink The attachments for this documents are extensive. If you would like a paper copy, please contact Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, or they are accessible on the District’s website or the Board’s Dropbox account. DATE: September 14, 2016 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) Meeting _____________________________________________________________________________ This FYI Memorandum summarizes the Committee’s discussions at their September 12, 2016 meeting, where staff presented the findings of the Real Estate Market Analysis and Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study. The Committee also clarified and reconfirmed their purpose, the purpose of the futurist, and the process and expected milestones. The General Manager emphasized that this investment would be the single biggest purchase ever made by the District, and hiring a futurist/ architectural strategist, MKThink, for their recommendations helps ensure the best decision can be made. The Committee discussed key factors to consider in the facilities evaluation that the District and futurist/architectural strategist are conducting. These factors include: (a) feasibility of retaining AO as a centralized office or developing a separate satellite office; (b) minimizing new office construction costs with consolidated underground parking; (c) opportunity to build additional office space in the new AO in order to lease out to a partner entity or other; (d) prioritizing the search of office properties within close proximity to public transit; (e) initial Committee preference for a two to two-and-a-half story building even though the site development potential could be as large as a four-story option; and (f) what how the AO may be staffed in the future. Process and Milestones MKThink is developing options to solve the AO space needs by considering the District’s current and future operational needs and external challenges or opportunities that may influence the way the District conducts its work in the future. Certain options may be ruled out by constraints that make them infeasible, e.g. extremely cost prohibitive. The remaining options will be evaluated through a value system that MKThink will develop with the Committee and Board. Each option will have pros and cons or tradeoffs, values which the Committee and Board will consider when weighing the options, e.g. smaller individual work areas to achieve higher quality, larger common areas. How the Committee and Board prioritizes these values will influence which options perform better than others. A decision-making matrix will be developed that shows how each option performs for each value. The goal is to arrive at a preferred recommended option to present to the full Board. Staff expects this scope of work to continue through the end of the calendar year with a recommended option potentially in December/January. ATTACHMENT 7 Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 2 Committee Meeting Real Estate Market Analysis Colliers International prepared a Real Estate Market Analysis last December (see attachment for more detail), and updated their data on September 1, 2016 (see attachment). Little has changed. The analysis looked at the office lease and sale market from San Carlos to Los Gatos for buildings between 20,000 to 40,000 square feet. It also compared the cost differential between transit-oriented buildings (located along Caltrain) versus non-transit-oriented buildings. The key takeaways are that the commercial real estate market is highly opportunistic and competitive, and there is little to no availability in the 20,000 to 40,000 square foot size range. This is true along the entire Peninsula and south. Property located near Caltrain stops are significantly higher in cost. Finally, leasing is not a recommended long-term solution, as lease rates continue to rise and the District would be paying property taxes folded into the lease rates. The challenges in purchasing a new building include the uncertainty of where and when an opportunity might arise. In addition, there is no way of knowing what type of building may become available and whether it would need significant remodeling to create a work environment needed by the District, e.g. a Board room. When the Committee inquired about the status of the office across the street, staff reported that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) is not interested in selling. They may still be interested in short-term leasing to the District for only two years. However, the District would need to carefully determine when to start this two-year lease. It will likely take two years to design and permit a new building, and two years for construction. Thus, entering into a lease at this point in time is premature, and there is no guarantee that the building will be available later. Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study Tannerhecht Architecture completed the Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study earlier this year (see attachment for more detail) under the General Manager’s authority. The firm was selected to perform this straightforward site development analysis for expediency and efficiency, given the firm’s knowledge of the AO building, the property, the City of Los Altos’ (City’s) planning and building processes, and the current design and construction environment. The firm assessed the site’s development potential and provided ballpark conceptual costs for a series of different sized buildings. Simple building shapes were used. No detailed design work was required for this level of assessment. The site’s development potential is affected by many factors, which include but are not necessarily limited to the City’s planning and building code requirements, property size and configuration, and the site’s proximity to residential community. The firm was asked to push the envelope, which means that for one or more options, some negotiation with the City might be necessary if or when the project moved into a design phase. The key takeaway is that the site has can support a two- to three-story building, ranging from 30,800 square feet to 46,000 square feet. A larger building will allow flexibility to house the District over the next 30 years if growth follows the projections of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM). Unused space could potentially be leased out until needed. Pending negotiations with the City and a change in materials that allow for shorter floor-to-floor heights, four stories may be possible. All options require underground parking, currently two to four levels. Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 3 Committee Meeting Committee Comments The Committee expressed concerns about the process and schedule to arrive at a recommended AO building option for the Board to consider. The current schedule looks at December/January for a final recommendation, anticipating several key milestone meetings for Committee and Board review and action. The next Committee meeting is being scheduled for early October at which time MKThink and staff will present a series of options as well as a preview of decision- making work products. There was discussion around searching for a new building in the real estate market. However, currently there are no defined parameters around size, locations, etc., pending work by the futurist that may outline the characteristics needed in a new building, whether purchased or built on site. The Committee confirmed that an aggressive search of the real estate market can wait until MKThink completes their work, so that their recommendations can be folded into parameters that Real Property needs. Real Property will continue to stay abreast of real estate opportunities that may arise in the meantime. The Committee discussed whether the AO should be split into two, as that could lessen costs. It was pointed out that although cost is a significant factor, functionality and operational efficiency are other factors that MKThink will bring forward for consideration. Staff at the AO may work more efficiently if housed in one location. Toward the end of the meeting, the Committee expressed concerns with multiple AO offices, e.g. two AOs or one main AO and smaller satellites. Some of the Committee members observed that District staff rely heavily on collaboration and communication. It was noted that there have been challenges with the current separate lease spaces, which are just next door. The Committee discussed the geographic location that would be most central for the AO. They concurred that the current site is well located, with easy access to highways and to the Preserves, unlike downtown Palo Alto. The Committee discussed the future growth of AO staff and whether growth would continue more in the field and if AO staffing would contract. It was pointed out that, per FOSM, growth in the AO may plateau but the need for administrative staff will be ongoing to support long term administrative and operational functions, and complete life cycle facility repairs. The Committee acknowledged infrastructure life cycles and the need for ongoing planning, design and engineering/construction positions to complete this work. The Committee directed staff to remove the four-story option for the current AO building from further consideration. The Committee supports two to two-and-a-half stories and is willing to consider three stories particularly if a partner is willing to help offset the cost. Three stories may allow flexibility to design a building that allows for more natural light like the Packard Foundation building. Interest was expressed in limiting underground parking to one level, which would require purchasing the Carl’s Jr. property and extending underground parking below that footprint. Real Property will look into the property ownership and status of the adjacent Carl’s Jr. property to determine if this is a possible option. MKThink will look into the feasibility of this option. The Committee discussed the justification for the investment in a new AO office building. Delivery of Measure AA projects is a priority and this requires more staff and the space for staff Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 4 Committee Meeting to deliver the projects and the services to the public. It was also noted that General Funds, not Measure AA, will be used for the new building. The Committee discussed what elements they would like to see in a new building if this option is ultimately selected: rooftop garden with cafeteria seating, solar panels, waterless urinals. Staff confirmed that stormwater runoff in excess of what currently exits the site would need to be retained on site. Staying within a mile of the Caltrain corridor is desirable to keep transit options open. Next Steps At the next Committee meeting, scheduled for October 17, 2016, MKThink will bring options that respond to the District’s present and future operational needs and consider external forces that affect how the work environment may change in the future. Selection of prioritization criteria to inform decision-making will follow at a subsequent meeting. Finally, using the criteria, the goal is to narrow down the options to a preferred recommended option with potential alternatives. Real Property will look into who owns the Carl Jr.’s property and its status, and report back. Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Attachments: 1. September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Presentation 2.December 10, 2015 Real Estate Market Study by Collier’s International with Updates from September 1, 2016 3. February 1, 2016 Site Development Concept Feasibility Study by TannerHecht Architecture The attachments for this documents are extensive. If you would like a paper copy, please contact Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, or they are accessible on the District’s website or the Board’s Dropbox account. DATE: November 9, 2016 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Summary of the October 17, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting _____________________________________________________________________________ This FYI Memorandum summarizes the discussion and comments at the October 17, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) meeting, where staff presented information on the adjacent Carl’s Jr. property and MKThink presented potential options to meet the long-term Administrative Office needs and a draft set of evaluation criteria for narrowing down and selecting a preferred final option. This FYI also includes input from Director Hassett who was absent for the Committee meeting, but attended a separate meeting with the District project team on October 24. Partnership Potential Jerry Hearn, Chair of the Peninsula Center Trust Fund (Trust), addressed the Committee to speak about a possible partnership arrangement for a future Administrative Office (AO) building. He had previously spoken to General Manager Abbors and staff about the partnership idea. The Trust owns the Peninsula Conservation Center building, which it leases out to the Peninsula Center Management Council, who then subleases the building to eight non-profit organizations (Committee for Green Foothills, Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, Acterra, Grassroots Ecology, Canopy, California Native Plant Society, the Trail Center, and the League of Women Voters). The Peninsula Center Management Council includes a representative of each member organization. While the current Peninsula Conservation Center building meets each organization’s needs in general, its location on the east side of Highway 101 is not transit friendly and is perceived to be challenging to access. Mr. Hearn indicated that the Trust might be interested in a potential partnership if the opportunity was feasible. The Trust has no timeline and is not aggressively looking for a new space, but Mr. Hearn felt they would be able to accommodate the District’s schedule, which targets the beginning of 2017 for a decision on the AO. The Committee discussed the partnership potential and concluded it would be a very complicated process. It would also require a large building, at least three stories, to accommodate both the District and a partner organization or group of organizations. Director Hassett concurred with the Committee. The idea of a partnership may be revisited as a preferred option for the AO is selected, to determine if such an arrangement is feasible and beneficial. ATTACHMENT 8 Summary from October 17, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 2 Committee Meeting Parking Potential at the Carl’s Jr. Site Staff was asked to look at the feasibility of building one level of underground parking on the Carl’s Jr. site to avoid the cost of building two stories of underground parking under a new two- story AO on the current AO site (Attachment 2). The Committee discussed the cost and implications of purchasing the Carl’s Jr. site and building surface or underground parking on it. Conservatively using the 2006 purchase price ($1.65M) for the Carl’s Jr. property, one level of underground parking under that site and one level under the AO site would cost $4.3M. In contrast, two levels of parking on the existing AO site would cost $2.7M. Thus, the Carl’s Jr. underground parking option would increase the underground parking cost by over $1.5M compared to constructing two levels of underground parking under the AO site. Additional related costs and issues include the true cost of the property itself (anticipated to be higher than the 2006 purchase price of $1.65M), the challenges and cost of buying out the Carl’s Jr. lease and relocating the business, the political implications of lost jobs when the business either relocates or closes, and the planning and permitting effort for combining and developing the lots, particularly if our intended use does not meet the City of Los Altos’ desire for high density development. The Committee members in attendance were not comfortable with taking on the role of a developer and felt the process would be too costly and complex, with far too many unknowns. Committee consensus at the meeting was to take this option off the table. However, Director Hassett felt $1.5M was not a large enough cost difference to warrant removing this option particularly if the District were considering an alternate site near transit, which would in comparison result in even greater total project costs. However, it was noted that MKThink’s futures and solution alternatives do not currently include seeking another property for the main AO, as the current AO site functions well given its proximity to District lands, services, mass transit, and major thoroughfares. Satellite office space in other cities is an option. MKThink Presentation MKThink presented three items: (1) AO staff survey results, (2) six potential options for the AO (described below as future scenarios), and (3) draft value criteria. A summary follows below, but more information is contained in the attached presentation document. Staff Survey A survey was sent to AO staff and the Area Superintendents and Managers who interface regularly with the AO to assess the existing work environment and conditions. Topic areas included information about staff, commuting (modes, motivation, barriers, distance and duration), field offices, current workplace environment, remote work, and satellite offices. The survey also asked staff about their thoughts of the future, including suggested improvements, future challenges, and future opportunities. The Committee discussed incentivizing the use of mass transit. Although it was noted that staff who drive often do so because they need their vehicles for activities outside work, such as daycare drop off and pick up, personal errands, and evening meetings or commitments. The City of Los Altos’ (City) current parking requirements were also discussed, including whether the City would consider reducing their parking requirements. District staff’s recent conversations with City staff and attendance at two City Council meetings regarding zoning regulations appear to indicate that parking requirements will likely remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. Summary from October 17, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 3 Committee Meeting The Committee asked how these findings compared with MKThink’s other clients. MKThink explained they see the same results in other organizations, which are facing similar external trends. Although MKThink recommends a proactive approach to change, they have observed that a radical change to work culture can be challenging without external or internal pressures that motivate or prompt the need for change, e.g. lease rate increases, retention issues caused by lengthening commute times, or lack of sufficient workspace. Future Scenarios MKThink then presented six future scenarios, based on their research and assessment of the District staff and work culture, that respond to the District’s present and future operational needs and consider external forces that affect how the work environment may change in the future. Each scenario envisions a specific future with a particular focus that influences how the District would need to position itself and the new AO to address a particular future work environment and AO building. For example, a Talent Future scenario that focuses on attracting and retaining top talent in an increasingly competitive market may offer more attractive amenities and higher quality equipment in the new AO and allow more flexible work hours or telecommuting opportunities. MKThink noted scenarios are not mutually exclusive, and elements can overlap. For example, the Talent Future scenario that focuses on talent recruitment and retention can also incorporate environmental design elements that would be part of the Environmental Future scenario. For the purpose of this discussion, MKThink also prepared one potential real estate solution for each future scenario with the understanding that these would be expanded, refined and vetted following the Committee’s discussion. All solutions for all future scenarios utilize the existing AO location in some form (a complete rebuild with additional floors or retaining and renovating the existing footprint). None envision the main AO relocating to a new site although some of the solutions also envision separate satellite office(s) to address the need for additional work space and to alleviate long (3+ hour) daily commutes. Three potential real estate solutions are provided below: 1. Keep the existing AO and renovate it – requires an extensive renovation as well as highly dense work spaces. The feasibility of this option is still being explored and it could require satellite offices to distribute and accommodate the projected number of staff. It is also unclear how parking requirements may be affected by an increase in use and this may affect the feasibility of this solution. 2. Rebuild on-site with a two- or three-story building – requires demolition of the existing building. Because of the resources needed to build new, this option would be less green than renovating the existing building, but allow the District to meet its long term needs in one centralized location. Satellite offices could still be employed to better handle community engagement and alleviate long commutes. 3.Utilize satellite offices, e.g. Los Gatos, Redwood City – these could be leased at least initially to allow the District to pilot how a satellite scenario would work logistically. MKThink envisions that satellite office(s) would work with a central AO. Satellite office(s) could either become the main reporting site for select employees and/or act as remote work locations for drop-in work similar to how the District’s existing field offices function for AO staff. In either configuration, space in the AO would be denser and more efficient, with greater Summary from October 17, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 4 Committee Meeting focus on collaborative work areas and meeting space. A comment was raised from a Committee member who expressed an interest in utilizing field offices as these satellite work stations. Concerns about the field offices include their remote location which would not solve commute issues and their lack of space to accommodate more staff. Satellite offices that are located near or in urban areas could help with community engagement by providing a meeting location closer to the north and/or south areas of the District or a place where visitors could drop by for information or to speak to staff. The Committee members, including Director Hassett, were divided on support for a satellite option. Although the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) has indicated it is not currently willing to sell its building across from the AO, Director Hassett wished to keep it as an option even if the decision is made to build on the existing AO site and while design is under way. The PAMF building could be ideal given that the building and site are larger than the AO. For further refinement of real estate solutions, all Committee member selected 1: Talent Future, 2a: Partner Future A, and 3: Environmental Future as their top three future scenarios. Draft Evaluation Criteria Based on prior Board goals, MKThink developed a matrix of draft evaluation criteria to measure how a potential real estate solution for a future scenario would perform and alleviate the issues the District will be facing. The criteria will assist in future decision making. The Committee decided against prioritizing the criteria or placing them in weighted tiers. However, the Committee made the following changes to the criteria: 1.Added Community Engagement – to address how well the District would interact with the communities it serves; 2. Combined Staff Retention (Retention) and Staff Diversity – these are very similar; and 3. Removed Staff Survey Feedback. Next Steps The next Committee meeting is currently targeted for December. The goal is to develop more refined real estate solutions that address the top three future scenarios. Using the criteria, the next goal would be to narrow down the options to a preferred recommended option with potential alternatives. These deliverables would be presented to the full Board next January or February. Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Attachments: 1. October 17, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Presentation (This attachment is large. If you would like a paper copy, please contact Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, or they are accessible on the District’s website or the Board’s Dropbox account.) 2.Memo to Facilities ad hoc committee Re: High level assessment of Carl’s Jr. property DATE: January 11, 2017 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Summary of the December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting _____________________________________________________________________________ This FYI Memorandum presents the discussion and comments at the December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) meeting, where MKThink presented three development options to address long-term Administrative Office needs (see Attachment 5). These were refined during a four-hour long charrette with the General Manager’s Office on November 29, 2016. In summary, the Committee arrived at a split recommendation: a majority recommendation to build a new, onsite, three-story office building, and a minority recommendation to build a two-and-a-half story office building (half of the third floor being non- office/common area space and the other being outdoor rooftop common area space). Future Scenarios and Development Options MKThink presented one-story, two-story, or three-story development options. In all options, the Administrative Office (AO) remains in its current location. As part of the presentation, MKThink explained how well each option responded to key success attributes of the three future scenarios (Talent Future, Partner Future, and Environmental Future) deemed of most importance to the Committee (see Attachments 1 and 2). For example, in the Talent Future, the attributes that help attract and retain talent would be quality and quantity of space (to attract staff), lowered commute time (to retain staff by addressing commute stress), and work flexibility (also to retain staff by addressing commute stress). One-Story Option This option relies on gutting the existing AO and creating highly dense work areas to fit into the existing footprint and walls of the building. It also relies on locating some staff permanently into satellite offices. This option leaves no extra space for potential tenants. Ultimately, the one-story option was deemed infeasible given the lack of available parking on site to accommodate more employees, which would likely raise a permitting issue by the City of Los Altos. Two-Story Option The two-story option requires two levels of underground parking. Any initial extra space could be leased. Director Hassett asked whether there had been any thought on a creative use for the roof top. Director Kishimoto followed with a question about putting solar panels or a garden on the roof to enhance the quality of the work environment. Solar panels and a garden would be desirable and can be included as part of the subsequent building design process. ATTACHMENT 9 Summary from December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 2 Committee Meeting Three-Story Option The three-story option requires three levels of underground parking. With the greatest square footage of the three, this option offers the greatest opportunity for lease space with the District initially occupying the majority of the building. Renting the lease space would help offset some of the overall construction cost and provide for more expansion space to ensure that office space needs are met over a much longer timeframe. Director Hassett inquired whether the City of Los Altos’ current height limit of 45 feet includes the elevator shaft, which MKThink is researching. Staff indicated that the City of Los Altos appears to support height limits above 45 feet for housing. The Committee revisited the feasibility of purchasing and developing the Carl’s Jr. property to avoid two levels of parking. After discussion, the Committee concluded that the challenges and complexity of pursuing this option, rather than the cost, made it undesirable. Director Siemens stated a preference for a two and a half story option where common space, such as a kitchen and cafeteria, would take up half the third (top) floor with an outdoor rooftop garden or other common space encompassing the other half. The two floors below would be office space. Director Siemens felt that there would be greater public support for two versus three full floors of office space. Satellite Office Space The discussion of office space options raised an interest in the potential for satellite office space to relieve the increasing commute strain that has affected District staff over recent years. Although satellite office space is not a requirement of either the two-story or three-story options, the General Manager will separately explore satellite office space needs and opportunities, particularly during the design of new field offices. The new AO must therefore be large enough to house all future staff for the foreseeable future. Commute stress would remain as is without the use of satellite offices, which is reflected in both two- and three-floor options. New AO Development Process Flowchart The flowchart (see Attachment 3) outlines the tasks and rough timeline for implementing any one of the three options. Acknowledging that it is in the District’s best interest to remain ready and nimble to jump on an opportunity to purchase a new building while design of a new building is underway, the flowchart shows four “jump points”. These jump points are where the Board may decide to pivot and instead pursue a new property. The last jump point shown would be just before groundbreaking occurs on the AO site after which point the District would be far too committed to building a new AO on site. At each jump point, there would be costs involved depending how far along the process the project is. Note that to rebuild onsite, costs will include the design and construction of tenant improvements for a temporary leased “swing” space to house staff while a new building is under construction. In addition, the choice to pursue a new property at any jump point would also restart the design, permitting, and construction timeline, as a new property would require tenant improvement work. Director Hassett pointed out that lease spaces would likely not have Board meeting room space, so during this time, Board meetings could be conducted in a shared space, e.g. City of Los Altos council chambers. Staff concurred that these options would be evaluated. Summary from December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 3 Committee Meeting Director Siemens asked if base criteria would be developed before a design consultant is hired. Staff concurred that a scope of work describing desired or required elements would need to be developed. This would occur in early 2017 and may take longer than what is currently shown on the flowchart’s timeline. Director Siemens asked if an Environmental Impact Report would be required. Environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required, but staff has not yet determined which type of document would need to be prepared. The City of Los Altos is expected to rely on this document as part of the permit review process. General Manager Abbors suggested that the Board consider meeting with City of Los Altos elected officials to discuss the project. Staff indicated that the City Council has expressed support for higher density on El Camino Real, as it would allow the downtown to maintain lower building heights. Cost Analysis Staff prepared a rough order of magnitude cost analysis (see Attachment 4) of the two- versus three-story options with moderate, mid-grade finishes. Costs will be revisited in the early design phase. The rental offset for leasing one floor of the three-story option would pay for the third additional story in roughly 15 years using escalated dollars. The offset could conversely be seen as paying for future satellite office space if desired. Director Siemens asked if the current leased spaces (AO2, AO3, and AO4) were maxed out. Staff responded that those spaces are close to full. The cost analysis also looked at purchasing a new building elsewhere, both inside and outside of transit-oriented areas. Transit-oriented areas command a premium. Director Hassett pointed out that the sale of the existing AO could offset the purchase of a new building somewhere else. There was discussion as to the value of the existing AO, and Director Kishimoto requested that information be added to the analysis. General Manager’s Office (GMO’s) Recommendation Assistant General Manager Ruiz provided the Committee with the GMO’s rationale on its recommendation to pursue the three-story option. The GMO discussed the two- and three-story options at length and overall the GMO leaned toward three stories for the following reasons: 1. Today’s dollar will go further now than in the future, making it more cost effective to build larger now in one fell swoop, than to incrementally build additional space over time. 2.This is likely the one time within our working lifetimes that the District will rebuild its site. 3.The additional space provides the greatest flexibility to adapt to operational changes in the coming decades (over the very long term). 4.The extra space would allow the District to consider significantly growing its internship program and volunteer programs, and encourage land stewardship and greater public engagement. 5.Leasing out office space can generate substantial revenues to pay for a portion or most of the investment (note: this was the approach used when the current AO building was purchased, with the District incrementally occupying previous leased space). 6.Three stories provide the capacity to include a partnership element, whether the space is leased out to partners or is a shared space for partners to use. Summary from December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 4 Committee Meeting 7. A larger building also allows the capacity to provide communal space for the community at large. 8.Three stories maximize the building’s density, thus promoting infill development along the El Camino corridor, which is a planned high transit corridor. 9. As a planning strategy, by designing for a larger facility, the District is better poised to negotiate a scaling down of the building envelope and mass during the City of Los Alto’s planning review. Committee Discussion on Recommendation Director Hassett said that he came to the meeting leaning towards two stories, but after hearing the discussions, prefers 3 or 3+ stories. With regard to leasing to partner organizations, he has concerns with subsidizing rent to partners since the public’s tax dollars would be used on something not approved by the public. Director Hassett said that he could support building housing above the AO, as there is always a need for it and he felt he could defend a project that has a housing element. Director Siemens said that he initially supported 3+ stories, but since developed reservations about using a third of the space as rental space. He did not know how he would explain why the District was building more than currently needed. He prefers two and a half stories, which would include two stories or 30,000 square feet of office space with half of the third floor space allocated as common, meeting, or cafeteria space and the other half to outdoor rooftop common space. Director Siemens felt that going higher to three full stories could cause issues and increase the project timeline. He felt that the District would only need to grow larger in the field offices. Director Kishimoto was open to a three-story building due to its location on El Camino Real and the additional flexibility and revenue potential. She felt that the one-story option has less environmental impact and leaves more resources for potential future satellite office space. Satellites would allow for shorter commutes, but could negatively affect the current collaborative work environment. However, based on Assistant General Manager Ruiz’ comments on today’s dollars having more value now, Director Kishimoto felt that if she voted today, she would support the 3+ stories as long as it incorporates an element like a light well for quality of space and does not just maximize square footage. General Manager Abbors felt that having dedicated gathering or meeting space for the community would be a public benefit and help to better integrate the District into the community. District Clerk Woodworth added that the need for community space exists. General Counsel Schaffner suggested, because of the split in the Committee members’ opinions, that the Committee’s recommendation to the full Board could include a majority recommendation and a minority recommendation. MKThink indicated that the design team hired for the next phase of work could prepare early concept designs to determine how much space is desired. Based on a preferred concept, the design team could then prepare a fee proposal to move from concept design to design development (i.e. construction plans). On a separate topic, Director Siemens asked why the District would lease satellite space. He was unsure whether providing Board meeting space in satellites was necessary or whether satellites would have a significant impact on employee commutes. Perhaps a better option would be to provide transit subsidies and provide transportation between transit stations and the AO. Results from MKThink’s earlier staff survey indicate, however, that staff need their cars for a variety of Summary from December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 5 Committee Meeting reasons cannot easily be accommodated by transit, e.g. child care drop off and pick up, personal errands, or off-site commitments. MKThink suggested that working out of a satellite or increasing the number of days employees may telecommute would help reduce commute stress. A satellite office also has the benefit of facilitating face-to-face collaboration. Next Steps for the AO Director Hassett requested that MKThink show what a rooftop space could look like to help illustrate its use and benefit. Director Kishimoto asked about quality of light and how it might be brought into the building, such as through a light well or similar architectural element. Staff will request images from MKThink to give the Board a sense as to how a space or building might be designed. The Committee’s recommendation (a majority recommendation to support three stories and a minority recommendation to support two stories) will be presented to the full Board at a Study Session on January 25, 2017. The desired outcome is for the Board to reach a decision and direct staff to proceed with implementation of one approved option. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Discussion about South Area Office Feasibility Study Real Property staff requested guidance from the Committee on whether to pursue properties in urban areas outside the District jurisdictional boundary. The South Area Office Feasibility Study is currently on the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Action Plan and initial research indicates major challenges and costs to develop a field office onsite at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. In addition to cultural resources on site, there is no utility infrastructure (electrical, sewer, water, internet connection). Particularly challenging would be internet connectivity, given that none exists and it could cost the District $2M to bring high speed fiberoptic cable to the site. Because of these challenges, Real Property staff looked in nearby urban areas for suitable industrial sites that already have services. General Counsel has confirmed that the District is legally allowed to purchase real property outside its boundaries. Campbell and San Jose (near Camden) are potential locations, close to the current South Area Outpost. The Committee unanimously supported the recommendation to include areas outside the District’s jurisdiction as staff looks at potential developed sites to purchase for use as a South Area Office. Next Steps for the South Area Office Staff will continue to seek opportunities in urban areas, particularly Campbell and San Jose, and keep the Committee apprised if a property comes up. Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Attachments: 1. December 7, 2016 Future of the AO Scenarios & Conceptual Solutions 2. December 7, 2016 Solutions Options Detailed 3.December 7, 2016 New AO Development Process Flowchart 4. December 13, 2016 Cost Analysis – Rebuild, Temporary Rental, and Rental Offset 5. December 13, 2016 MKThink Presentation January 11, 2017 Board Meeting 17-01 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, January 11, 2017 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Kishimoto called the special meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Legislative/External Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg 1. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title of Employees: General Manager 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to 54956.9(b): (one potential case) Public comments opened at 6:01 p.m. No speakers. Public comments closed at 6:01 p.m. The Board convened into closed session. The Board returned to open session, and President Kishimoto continued the closed session to the close of the regular meeting at 6:27 p.m. Meeting 17-01 Page 2 SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, and Legislative/External Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg President Kishimoto called the special meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. President Kishimoto reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken. President Kishimoto presented a proclamation to retiring Assemblymember Rich Gordon in Appreciation for his support of the District Assemblymember Rich Gordon thanked the District’s Board and staff for their years of friendship and service. The members of the Board of Directors and General Manager Steve Abbors individually thanked Assemblymember Gordon for his exemplary years of public service and service to the District. President Kishimoto adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 6:50 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Kishimoto called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Chief Financial Officer/ Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Legislative/External Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Meeting 17-01 Page 3 No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:06 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve December 14, 2016 Minutes 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Agreement with Esri for GIS (Geographic Information Systems) Software Licenses (R-17-03) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into an Esri Small Municipal and County Government Enterprise License Agreement for the total amount of $114,189 to access a comprehensive suite of GIS software licenses. BOARD BUSINESS 4. Election of the Calendar Year 2017 Officers for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors (R-17-04) President Kishimoto called for nominations for Board President. Director Siemens nominated Director Hassett for President and Director Kishimoto seconded the nomination. No further nominations were presented. MOTION: Upon motion by Director Cyr, seconded by Director Hanko, the nominations for Board President were closed. VOTE: 7-0-0 By a vote of 7 to 0, the Board elected Director Hassett as Board President for Calendar Year 2017. Meeting 17-01 Page 4 President Hassett called for nominations for Board Vice President. Director Hanko nominated Director Riffle for Vice President and Director Harris seconded the nomination. No further nominations were presented. MOTION: Upon motion by Director Cyr, seconded by Director Siemens the nominations for Board Vice President were closed. VOTE: 7-0-0 By a vote of 7 to 0, the Board elected Director Riffle as Board Vice President for Calendar Year 2017. President Hassett called for nominations for Board Treasurer. Director Kishimoto nominated Director Cyr for Board Treasurer and Director Riffle seconded the nomination. No further nominations were presented. MOTION: Director Siemens moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to close the nominations for Board Treasurer. VOTE: 7-0-0 By a vote of 7 to 0, the Board elected Director Cyr as Board Treasurer for Calendar Year 2017. President Hassett called for nominations for Board Secretary. Director Kishimoto nominated Director Siemens for Board Secretary and Director Harris seconded the nomination. No further nominations were presented. MOTION: Upon motion by Director Cyr, seconded by Director Riffle, the nominations for Board Secretary were closed. VOTE: 7-0-0 By a vote of 7 to 0, the Board elected Director Siemens as Board Secretary for Calendar Year 2017. 5. Filling the Volunteer Ombudsperson Role with a Pool of three Qualified Volunteers (R-17-05) Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz presented the staff report describing the creation of the ombudsperson role following the 2004 Coastal Area Annexation. Ms. Ruiz explained in the most recent recruitment three applications were received, and all applicants demonstrate a willingness and capability to serve as the District’s ombudsperson. The involvement of the ombudsperson has diminished over the past couple of years as fewer problems have arisen. The three applications were reviewed by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) and recommend appointing the three applicants to serve in the Volunteer Ombudsperson Role. Ms. Ruiz described the qualifications of each of the three applicants. Director Siemens inquired regarding the process for the three individuals filling the ombudsperson role to respond to inquiries from the public. Meeting 17-01 Page 5 Ms. Ruiz explained a procedure will be developed in coordination with the appointed individuals and District staff to ensure the needs of the public are met. Public comment opened at 7:27 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:27 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to appoint Lisa Zadek of Half Moon Bay, Kristen Yawitz of Belmont, and Bob Rosenberg of San Jose to serve as a pool of volunteer ombudspersons. VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Legislative Items for 2017 (R-17-06) Legislative/External Affairs Specialist Josh Hugg discussed several pieces of legislation for the Board of Directors to consider for possible action. • Correction of a language inconsistency in Public Resources Code Section 5544.2 General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner provided additional information related to AB 612 to resolve a language inconsistency in Section 5544.2 of the Public Resources Code. The language needs to be resolved to reflect the intent of the original legislation that extended the rate of Midpen’s indebtedness to 30 years implemented in Section 5544.2 through the passage of AB 612. By consensus the Board directed staff to pursue legislation to correct the language inconsistency. • Possible increase of Board compensation Mr. Hugg explained Board members in the past have suggested a modification to current compensation amounts and criteria. This will require additional scheduled Board deliberations to determine the change desired (if any) and the appropriate approach to pursue. President Hassett inquired regarding the process used by East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) used to update their compensation. Mr. Hugg explained the change for EBRPD only applied to that agency. The Board discussed whether the item should be discussed by LFPAC or an ad hoc committee. By consensus, the Board directed staff to research the item and bring it to LFPAC for discussion. • Pursuit of a parks bond similar to AB2244 related to the definition used to identify disadvantaged communities. Mr. Hugg described and defined disadvantaged communities (DAC) and severely disadvantaged communities. Due to the high median income of the Bay Area, many of the District’s Meeting 17-01 Page 6 disadvantaged communities (SDAC) do not qualify for state funding opportunities. Changing the definition to better acknowledge the cost of living landscape across California by using the county median income as the reference would help level the playing field and expand funding eligibility in high-cost regions like Silicon Valley. Under the proposed change, the District would gain an additional six eligible DAC census tracts and eleven SDAC census tracts. General Manager Abbors explained a change to this definition would help the District leverage Measure AA funds to better serve the disadvantaged communities in the District. Director Siemens inquired if any legislation addressing this issue currently exists. Mr. Hugg explained the definition was created by Proposition 84 and would therefore require voter approval to amend the definition. However, the District could pursue individual legislation on this topic on a case-by-case basis, including two upcoming 2018 bond measures. Director Harris provided comments regarding the level of funding that goes to Southern California due to its higher percentage of urban communities. By consensus, the Board directed staff to pursue opportunities related to this issue. • Pursuit of design-build authority for the District related to some of the District’s capital projects. The District is not currently eligible for design-build authority. Mr. Hugg described the difference between the design-build and design-bid-build processes. If the District was eligible to use the design-build process, some projects may be completed more expeditiously and cost effectively. Depending on the project, the District would still be able use the design-bid-build process as needed. • Enhancement of Authority to Pursue Potential Acquisition of Lands in the Guadalupe and Los Gatos Creek Watershed. Staff is working to draft legislation that will enable the District to acquire and protect important natural resource lands in Guadalupe and Los Gatos Creek Watershed. The General Manager is seeking Board approval to allow the District to sponsor legislation that will enable it to acquire and protect important natural resource lands in this critical watershed. By consensus, the Board directed staff to pursue legislation related to this opportunity. Public comment opened at 7:58 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:58 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to direct the General Manager to pursue the legislative priorities as outlined in the staff report and to provide the Board with updates throughout the year and seek future Board approvals as necessary in accordance with Board Policy 1.11 “Positions on Ballot Measures and Legislative Advocacy.” Meeting 17-01 Page 7 7. Options for Filling a Vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee (R- 17-07) District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth provided the staff report describing two options for the Board to fill a vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee. The Board may consider pursuing a recruitment effort similar to the one done in 2015 or fill the vacancy from a list of applicants previously considered by the Board. Director Siemens suggested filling the vacancy from the previously considered applicants and asked staff to provide the applications for the candidates for the Board to review. President Hassett asked staff to please also provide a list of the current Committee members and the applicants being considered, so the Board could see which wards were already represented on the Committee. Public comment opened at 8:12 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 8:12 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to direct staff to send the applications for the candidates previously considered to fill a vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee, and the Board would appoint a new member to the Committee at its next regular meeting on January 25, 2017. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Summary of the December 13, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Director Siemens provided comments on the minority recommendation stating his concern is related to using the additional space as commercial rental space. Additionally, the Board may want to consider having a charrette related to the design of the building, including basic design principles and criteria. Director Kishimoto provided comments related to the ability of additional office space to pay for itself in rental revenue. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Cyr reported the LFPAC met on December 20, 2016 to discuss proposed updates to the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual and on January 10, 2017 to discuss proposed signage guidelines for redwood memorial groves in the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. B. Staff Reports Meeting 17-01 Page 8 Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz reported she met with City of East Palo Alto staff related to work at Cooley Landing. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Riffle commented on a recent article discussing the importance of connecting lands and wildlife corridors. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION President Hassett adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and reconvened into closed session at 8:40 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT The Board of Directors returned to open session at 9:12 p.m. General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner reported the Board met in closed session and the Board gave its approval for a $72,000 payment to Shelly Lewis as part of a settlement and release agreement regarding her employment and separation from service with the District. The vote was seven in favor, none opposed, none abstaining. ADJOURNMENT President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District into closed session at 9:14 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk page 1 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-03 DATE 01-25-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74129 11196 - FREEWAY TOYOTA OF HANFORD 2017 Toyota Tacoma (qty 2), Toyota Prius V 01/11/2017 107,207.67 74175 10413 - DOWNTOWN FORD Two F150 Patrol Trucks 01/18/2017 74,900.58 74166 11369 - BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $216.76 Fuel for rental truck - Mt Um Summit 01/18/2017 49,911.22 $4,114.65 Santa Clara County Building Permit - Mt Um Road $420.09 Visitor Use Count Supplies, Meeting Food $1,927.32 Steel Gate (1,392.50), 3 ATV Helmets, Permit $7,687.50 Fabricate 5 District Pipe Gates (2nd half of payment) $92.40 Webcam $-10.89 Hardware Store Credit $3,616.14 SFO Shelves & Brackets $366.21 Office Supplies, Store credit, Keys and Toter repair $554.86 Website Services, Software, Monitor Stand $1,243.07 Holiday Lunchean (1,355), Postage, (-300) Refund $1,920.00 Permits for Sears Ranch Road MAA07-007 $175.79 Fire Suppression Class, Trailer Hitch Ball $820 Rodent Proof 1185 Skyline Residence - MB $471.10 Tie down chains, Water Hose $315.91 SFO: 6 Heavy Duty Toilet Seats/Covers for public restrooms $779 Emergency Replacement / Repair of AO Toilet Valve $282.53 Signs, Valve repair kit, Shelving $569.98 Public safety equipment $275.51 Concrete mix, Truck bed liner $287.20 Field Supplies $192.03 Calendar, Refreshments- Docent Quarterly Meeting $73.17 Volunteer Supplies $123.71 Vehicle Battery $458.19 Locks and Shop Paint $110.24 Hard Hats, Safety Vests, and Printer Paper Organizer $317.15 Software, Plotter Printing Supplies $551.00 Pesticide Cert, Septic Service and Membership $2,709.61 Internet service (1,455), IT Hardware, Software $75.00 Drop Box subscription $552.36 GFOA Policy Meeting travel expenditures $1,657.07 Uniform Samples & Supplies; Vehicle Equipment & Repair $64.18 Calendars, Traffic Paint for Parking Lots $1,364.42 Tractor Parts, Supplies $2,147.32 Employee Commuter Check Benefit Provider (quarterly) $700.76 Camera equipment $112.00 Wildfire Class registration $2721 AO Water Heater $268.14 Tea, 3 Chair Mats, Stamps $922.81 AO Office and Kitchen Supplies page 2 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-03 DATE 01-25-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount $1445.40 22 pieces of Rain Gear (1,426.75) , Keys $339.49 Recruitment advertising $247.77 Building Materials, Auto Parts $76.28 Flashlights $1,181.73 Trail camera equipment $26.10 Field Supplies $399.06 Election Law Conference Monterey expenditures $7.50 Bridge toll $1,014.35 FFO Internet, iPad cases, CD and webcams $360 UCD Water Law Course 1-18-17 H. Stevenson $408.68 District Logo Clothing for staff, Food for Mt Um Tour $340.21 recruitment expenses and an onboarding webinar $132.02 Lumber and Hardware $796.78 Storage, ofc. supplies, holiday event supplies $77.20 Volunteer Recognition Giftcard for Claudia Newbold $521.11Docents -program meeting, training, supplies, onlintools $1,161.81 Election Law Conf. Hotel, Fac. Rentals- Board, Holiday $88.61 Office supplies $41.83 Toilet Seat, Hardware 74172 *10161 - CalPERS FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION - DB Pension Plan Unfunded Accrued Liability - January 2017 01/18/2017 46,014.51 74189 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.Inspection & Repairs 4 vehicles 01/18/2017 11,289.26 74130 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY 1,107 Native Plants for Mt Umunhum Project 01/11/2017 7,035.00 74171 10723 - CALLANDER ASSOCIATES Bay Trail Design and Environmental Review 01/18/2017 6,188.78 74207 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 01/18/2017 6,025.72 74187 10925 - PAPE` MACHINERY CM Dozer Rental 10/17-11/03/16, Service/ Repair JD 6330 tractor 01/18/2017 5,032.17 74138 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE HR Consulting 01/11/2017 3,731.00 74131 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Bulldozer Rental 10/29-11/28/16 01/11/2017 3,539.81 74179 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Bulldozer Rental 11/28-12/28/16 01/18/2017 3,539.81 74150 11108 - SAN MATEO COUNTY Semi-annual installment of fire compensatory fee (Coastside)01/11/2017 3,263.12 74209 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Event Center Electrical parts - LHC, Tools for new truck, shop tools 01/18/2017 2,882.98 74183 11617 - MIG, INC.Bear Creek Preserve Plan Phase 1 - Alma Trailhead Design 01/18/2017 2,830.00 74211 0000A - DSOTO TREE & ARBORIST SERVICES MC Dead Monterey Pine removal 01/18/2017 2,450.00 74178 10287 - GRAINGER INC Fall Protection Gear 01/18/2017 2,358.13 74156 10069 - THE WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Professional Services -Leadership/Organizational Effectiveness 01/11/2017 2,350.00 74132 10123 - HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Building Materials, Hardware, Supplies 01/11/2017 2,319.58 74163 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District vehicles 01/11/2017 2,228.25 74188 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Printing: Annual Report, Holiday Cards, Business Cards 01/18/2017 2,193.28 74203 10112 - TIMOTHY C. BEST Sears Ranch Road Drainage Geotechnical Consulting 01/18/2017 2,011.50 74119 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC Fire Extinguisher Maintenance - AO, FFO, SFO and vehicles 01/11/2017 1,948.75 74201 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Gravel for General House Common Area - ECM, Base Rock (FOOSP)01/18/2017 1,942.33 74158 *10786 - U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE Monthly Lease payment for 7 copier/printers 01/11/2017 1,877.04 74180 10043 - HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP Legal fees for Mahronich vs Presentation Center - BCR 01/18/2017 1,817.39 74153 *10580 - SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS AO Printing Costs 01/11/2017 1,611.41 page 3 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-03 DATE 01-25-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74142 11616 - MAUREEN KANE & ASSOCIATES Technical Training for Clerks - Series 300 (M. Soria)01/11/2017 1,550.00 74205 10230 - UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC Mt Um Summit Pickup Truck Rental 12/12/16 - 1/09/17 01/18/2017 1,432.26 74165 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC SFO Fire Extinguishers Service 01/18/2017 1,411.31 74192 10324 - RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC Transportation of Baserock for El Corte de Madera residence 01/18/2017 1,379.00 74154 10959 - STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Annual Permit Fee - Mt Um Storm Water Protection Permit 01/11/2017 1,338.00 74137 11682 - LAFLEUR ELECTRIC SERVICE Repair Kitchen Light - SR, Install Bathroom Vent Fan - RSA 01/11/2017 1,281.00 74160 10230 - UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC Pickup Truck Rental for Mt Um Road Project 12/06/16-1/03/17 01/11/2017 1,212.85 74124 11680 - BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC Harrington Bridge Structural Consultant - PCR 01/11/2017 1,182.00 74149 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP)01/11/2017 1,141.44 74200 11627 - SOUTH BAY ACCESS SOLUTIONS WH gate Repair, Purchase and installation of 2 gate timers - PCR 01/18/2017 1,135.00 74195 11008 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT Vector Control - 7/2016 to 6/2017 01/18/2017 1,103.02 74155 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Uniform items - Kyle Shank 01/11/2017 1,086.73 74141 11463 - MARLENE EYRE 1st Payment - Ranger Academy Housing 1-2017 01/11/2017 1,075.00 74143 11536 - MTECH HVAC Repairs - AO 01/11/2017 1,064.00 74169 11431 - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Mt Um Summit Bird Surveys during construction - SAU 01/18/2017 1,045.70 74170 10840 - CALIFORNIA PENSION GROUP, LLC Consulting - December 2016 01/18/2017 1,000.00 74194 10697 - SANDIS Mt Umunhum Road QSP Inspections 01/18/2017 960.00 74118 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Public restroom vault pumping 01/11/2017 825.00 74202 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Duty gear for 2 new rangers 01/18/2017 802.24 74182 10062 - MARK HYLKEMA Montebello OSP Archaeological Consulting 01/18/2017 595.00 74206 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Electrical for Construction Trailer - Mt Um Summit 01/18/2017 480.54 74196 11732 - SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY Slender False Brome Research 01/18/2017 448.24 74125 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Vehicle Service and Repair - 4 vehicles 01/11/2017 425.03 74208 11656 - WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.Mt Um Summit Mobile Office Rental 12/30/16-1/29/17 01/18/2017 401.76 74134 11070 - JENKINS, WARREN Tutition Reimbursement - vehicle electrical systems 01/11/2017 398.08 74152 11614 - Sequoia Union High School District Transportation reimbursement SUHSD 01/11/2017 393.35 74184 10031 - MILLS DESIGN Field Staff "Redi-Ref" Update 01/18/2017 371.25 74168 10322 - CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CA Law Labor Digest & Regulatory Compliant Posters 01/18/2017 347.81 74199 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Quarterly Chlorination System - PCR, Emergency Plumbing Repairs - LHC 01/18/2017 331.95 74128 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY SFO Nuts, Bolts, Drill Bits 01/11/2017 302.22 74122 11436 - BAY TRAILRUNNERS LLC Event deposit refund 01/11/2017 300.00 74157 10326 - TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CORP. (TASC)FSA Administration Fees 2017 01/11/2017 300.00 74164 0000C - NUTRITIOUS MOVEMENT Event deposit refund 01/11/2017 300.00 74135 11315 - KIM, AMANDA Mileage Reimbursement, Parking 01/11/2017 282.68 74197 11262 - SERVICE STATION SYSTEMS Fuel Tank Nozzle Repair (FFO)01/18/2017 268.93 74198 10102 - SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Legal services for Ravenswood Bay Trail agreement with SFPUC 01/18/2017 268.00 74186 10080 - PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION Medical Services - HR Dept 01/18/2017 243.00 74147 *11526 - REPUBLIC SERVICES Monthly garbage services - ECM 01/11/2017 242.35 74174 10867 - CUZICK, ELAINA Cell Phone Reimbursement Jul-Dec 2016, Mileage Reimbursement 01/18/2017 237.70 74193 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT Stormwater permit Case #2014-0019, 2014-00020 01/18/2017 200.00 74136 10119 - KWIK KEY LOCK & SAFE CO INC Keys/Keyless Remotes for M218 01/11/2017 199.99 74210 0000A - ALEX COLLIER Reimbursement for Dog kennel / eagle scout project 01/18/2017 189.26 74176 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)01/18/2017 173.63 page 4 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-03 DATE 01-25-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74204 10561 - ULINE SFO 4x6 Slip Guard Mat 01/18/2017 172.04 74190 *10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO ALARM SERVICES 01/18/2017 164.85 74133 11041 - INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER - SILICON VALLEY Auto Battery (P83)01/11/2017 162.62 74139 10369 - MANNING, MEREDITH Mileage, Cell Phone reimbursement Oct-Nov-Dec 2016 01/11/2017 137.22 74185 *10664 - MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS AO garbage services 01/18/2017 126.90 74127 10185 - COSTCO Office Supplies, Holiday Luncheon Food 01/11/2017 118.84 74126 *11530 - COASTSIDE.NET SFO Internet Monthly Service 01/11/2017 109.00 74123 11744 - BERRY, WHITNEY Field Supplies - Boot allowance reimbursement for Employee purch 01/11/2017 100.00 74140 11449 - MARK, JANE Reimbursement for CEQA Conf. Travel Expenses Dec 12-13, 2016 01/11/2017 97.08 74146 *10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO ALARM SERVICES 01/11/2017 79.55 74173 10496 - CHUNG, JEAN Cell Phone Reimbursement Oct-Dec 2016, Mileage Reimbursement 01/18/2017 77.82 74144 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Vehicle Supplies 01/11/2017 77.53 74159 11137 - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Migratory bird collection permit MB839740-0 01/11/2017 75.00 74162 *10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Waste Disposal (SA)01/11/2017 67.66 74151 11403 - SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE/ACCOUNTING Parking Fee for Ranger at Academy 01/11/2017 60.00 74148 10130 - ROESSLER, CINDY Mileage, Cell Phone reimbursement Nov-Dec 2016 01/11/2017 57.50 74120 *10120 - ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC Alarm Service (FFO)01/11/2017 45.82 74181 10440 - LOS ALTOS HARDWARE Field Supplies 01/18/2017 31.28 74121 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Parts (AO)01/11/2017 27.97 74191 *10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)01/18/2017 27.25 74177 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Equipment Parts 01/18/2017 23.76 74167 11744 - BERRY, WHITNEY Cell Phone Reimbursement Dec 2016 01/18/2017 20.00 74161 10165 - UPS Shipping charges 01/11/2017 6.70 74145 *10180 - PG & E Monthly Electricity Service - WH 01/11/2017 2.20 GRAND TOTAL 390,093.20$ *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses 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 R-17-14 Meeting 17-02 January 25, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Appointment of Board of Directors Standing Committee Members and District Representatives to the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority for Calendar Year 2017 BOARD PRESIDENT’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the Board President’s appointments to the Board Standing Committees and the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority, as well as approve the appointments of Board representatives to other bodies, and determine the compensation status for attendance at Board Committee meetings. SUMMARY Every year, the newly elected Board President appoints members to each of the Board’s Standing Committees, the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority (“Authority”) and to represent the District on outside bodies, with consent of the full Board. DISCUSSION The Board Policy on Committees (1.04) states that the Board President appoints Board members to annual Standing Committees and to represent the District on outside bodies, with the consent of the Board. According to Board Policy 1.04, appointments to the standing committees are made at the first regular meeting following the meeting at which officers of the Board are elected. The five Board Standing Committees are: 1. Action Plan and Budget Committee (ABC) 2. Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) 3. Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) 4. Real Property Committee (RPC) 5. Board Appointee Evaluation (BAE) Following the Board Policy on Committees, Director Cyr (Board Treasurer) will be assigned as one of the three members of ABC. Also the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee shall include the Board President and Vice President as two of the three members of the Committee. The Governing Board of the Authority consists of five members. In accordance with the Joint Powers Agreement and its bylaws, the District’s Board President shall automatically be the Chairperson of the Authority, and the Board Treasurer shall also serve on the Authority Board. R-17-14 Page 2 Two of the other four members are appointed by the Board President, to be selected from among the District’s Board of Directors. The fifth member is the member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors whose district encompasses the greatest territory of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and who is appointed to the Board of the Financing Authority by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Simitian continues to serve on the Authority Board as appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Board Policy 6.03 (Compensation of Directors & Payment of Expenses) of the Board Policy Manual states that all Standing Committees are compensable and compensability for attendance of Ad Hoc Committee meetings is determined on an as-needed basis by the Board. It is recommended that Board members be compensated for attendance at all Board Committee and Authority meetings. It is further recommended that Board member attendance at meetings of the two outside bodies, the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CalJPIA), remain non-compensable. In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5536 and Board Policy 6.03, each District Board member may receive compensation in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each attendance at a Board meeting and no Board member may receive more than five hundred dollars ($500) compensation in any one calendar month. Accordingly, with seven Board members, the maximum the entire Board could receive pursuant to state law is $42,000 per year. The District’s current proposed budget for Board meeting compensation is $26,000 for fiscal year 2017-18. If it is later determined that additional funds are required, a budget adjustment may be requested. The proposed committee assignments for 2017 are as follows: Action Plan and Budget: • Jed Cyr • Yoriko Kishimoto • Curt Riffle Board Appointee Evaluation: • Larry Hassett • Yoriko Kishimoto • Curt Riffle Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs: • Jed Cyr • Nonette Hanko • Cecily Harris Planning and Natural Resources: • Jed Cyr • Curt Riffle • Pete Siemens Real Property: • Nonette Hanko • Cecily Harris R-17-14 Page 3 • Pete Siemens Governing Board of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority • Larry Hassett • Jed Cyr • Curt Riffle • Yoriko Kishimoto FISCAL IMPACT There will be no new or incremental fiscal impact associated with this action. Board compensation for committee work is included in the annual budget. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice was provided pursuant to the requirements of the Brown Act. No further notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS If approved, staff will prepare a new roster of Board Committee assignments for posting internally and on the District website. Responsible Department Manager: Steve Abbors, General Manager Prepared by: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Contact person: Larry Hassett, Board President R-17-02 Meeting 17-03 January 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Contract Amendment with PGA Design, Inc., for Additional Design, Engineering, and Permitting Services for the Sears Ranch Parking Area at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with PGA Design, Inc., for additional services related to the Sears Ranch Parking Area Project at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) in the amount of $42,626, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $123,821. SUMMARY The contract with PGA Design requires an amendment to ensure that sufficient funds remain in the contract to complete design plans, secure permits, and administer the construction work for the new Sears Ranch Road Parking Area. In an effort to keep the project on schedule and meet the fall 2017 grand opening date, the District utilized the Board-approved 5% contingency and shifted contracts funds that were allocated for future phases of work to direct PGA Design to address new permitting requirements from San Mateo County related to the parking area entrance. The additional work required geotechnical services and greater design and engineering work to incorporate new pull-outs, additional signage, and a paved and widened surface to a segment of the Sears Ranch Road Preserve entrance. The amendment also includes a 15% contingency to address other permitting requirements, if any. The project remains on schedule for construction in Summer 2017. MEASURE AA This project is part of Measure AA Expenditure Plan (MAA) Portfolio #7, La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access Endangered Wildlife Protection, and Conservation Grazing, with a total funding allocation of $14.825 Million to, in part, “provide biking/hiking/equestrian trails, limited dog access, parking areas, and interpretive displays.” DISCUSSION In March 2016, the General Manager executed a contract with PGA Design Inc., (PGA) in the amount of $49,880 for design, engineering, and construction administration and oversight of a gravel parking area at the Sears Ranch Road entrance to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. In May 2016, the Board approved an amendment to the contract to expand the scope of the design and engineering services to modify the parking area layout from the original small, 9 R-17-02 Page 2 vehicle space, gravel parking lot to a larger, 20 vehicle space, paved parking lot, bringing the total contract amount to $81,195. The amendment also included widening a portion of the Sears Ranch Road entrance between the Preserve gate and the new parking lot. Additional Services: Additional widening and resurfacing, pull-outs, signage, and paving In June 2016, staff consulted with County Planning, Public Works, Fire, Environmental Health, and Cal Fire on the conceptual parking area design. During consultation, County officials expressed concerns regarding the 1000-foot long, narrow, gravel segment of the Sears Ranch Road entrance that extends from outside of Preserve gate to the La Honda Elementary School; this segment of the road entrance was not previously planned for widening and paving, but will experience increased use with Preserve opening. This section of road is currently used only by District vehicles and the grazing tenant. Based on a comparative analysis with the Mindego Gateway parking area, use is projected to increase by up to 172 vehicle trips per day. The current road width does not accommodate two vehicles passing, nor is there adequate space to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver around traffic. In response to County concerns, engineering and geotechnical studies were completed to determine the feasibility of widening the road, given the topography. These studies concluded that widening the southernmost section (a 250-foot segment just north of the school) would be cost prohibitive due to steep, unstable road banks on either side of the driveway. The remaining 750-foot segment can be feasibly widened to 16 feet, and minimally one fire truck pullout will need to be installed since the road cannot be widened to meet typical fire requirements of 22 feet. Finally, to ensure that the driveway surface withstands the additional Preserve visitor use, the entire stretch of driveway will be paved. These added improvements are anticipated to cost $220,000 (a third-party cost estimator will be retained to confirm the engineer’s estimate, once finalized). The District is proposing to install traffic-control signs along the road segment that cannot feasibly be widened. Early consultation with the County indicates that these improvements should be sufficient to meet requirements; however, it is possible that additional requirements may be imposed before the process is complete and the permit is issued. Replenish Contingency and Funds for Future Phases Because the Sears Ranch Parking Area was originally planned as a small, gravel lot with little design and engineering necessary, a very small 5% contingency was added to the contract, instead of the typical 10-15% contingency. To avoid project delays and promptly respond to recent County permitting requirements, both the 5% contingency and the contract funds allocated for future phases of work were redirected to authorize the additional permitting consultation, geotechnical studies, and engineering work. The General Manager is therefore requesting a contract amendment in the amount of $42,626 to provide an additional 15% contingency and contract funds to complete the remaining phases of work, including final construction documents, potential permit resubmittals, the bidding process, and construction administration. The additional contingency of 15%, which amounts to $16,151, would be used to address additional permitting requirements which may be imposed as the permit process continues, or for additional construction administration services that may be required due to the expanded project scope. Upcoming Measures Improve Contract and Expenditure Tracking Although in this case there was a deliberate action to reallocate funds from later phases to complete newly required project tasks, the General Manager would like to inform the Board of upcoming improvements to better track expenditures against the approved contract amounts. R-17-02 Page 3 The District’s new Procurement and Contracting Agent/Specialist has identified an immediate interim measure to ensure that as part of invoice approvals, new invoices include the total approved contract amount and total expensed amount, along with the new invoice charges, to compare the percent of work completed to date against the percent of contract expensed to date. At the present time, not all invoices received and routed for approvals contain this amount of information on the invoice itself. The required information will provide another quick and reliable “check” for project managers during invoice review to confirm that the work completed and billed is tracking as expected, and whether funding issues are potentially arising that need a discussion with the vendor and/or a potential new contract amendment. More permanent solutions are expected in the coming months as we identify additional New World capabilities and unroll our formal project tracking system. These and other new procurement and contracting improvements will be presented at a later date to the full Board as part of an informational presentation. FISCAL IMPACT The FY2016-17 Planning budget includes $137,900 for the Sears Ranch Parking Area project (MAA 07-009). There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. FY 2016-17 MAA 07-009 Planning Budget $137,900 Spent to Date (as of 1/10/17): $83,094 Encumbered: $3,441 PGA Design Contract Amendment: $42,626 Budget Remaining (Proposed): $8,739 The following table outlines the Measure AA 07 Portfolio appropriation, budgets, costs to date, and the fiscal implications related to the recommended PGA contract amendment: MAA 07 Portfolio Appropriation $14,825,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 1/10/2017): $10,449,407 Encumbered: $45,551 Fisheries Restoration Apple Orchard (07-003) Remaining Budget: $1,098 La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure (07-005) Remaining Budget: $69,878 Driscoll Ranch Remediation and Demolitions (07-007) Remaining Budget: $319,810 Sears Ranch Parking and Trail Connections (07-009) Remaining Budget* $233,359 Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade (07-010) Remaining Budget: $39,552 Balance Remaining (Proposed): $3,666,345 *Includes fiscal impact of proposed PGA Design Contract Amendment. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Planning and Natural Resources Committee reviewed the location and conceptual design for the Sears Ranch Parking Area at their April 20, 2016 meeting, which was held at the La Honda Elementary School (see Report R-16-48). Approximately 30 members of the public attended the meeting. The proposed expanded size and paved surfacing of the new parking area was presented to the full Board at their May 25, 2016 meeting (see Report R-16-65). R-17-02 Page 4 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Execution of a contract amendment does not constitute a project under CEQA. Construction of the Sears Ranch Parking Area was included in the La Honda Creek Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which the Board approved in August 2012. The proposed parking area remains consistent with the Master Plan project description. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to execute a contract amendment with PGA Design for the additional services rendered for the design of new driveway improvements and complete the permitting and construction-phase tasks. A construction contract is anticipated to be brought to the Board in Summer 2017. Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning Department Prepared by: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III, Planning Department R-17-15 Meeting 17-02 January 25, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Making Certain Findings of Fact, Approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Approving the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District): • Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report • Adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan • Approving the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan SUMMARY The Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan ("Preserve Plan") was developed to identify long-term public access and stewardship actions for Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, which is currently closed to the public. The Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Preserve Plan, which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and changes to the Draft EIR, is presented for review and certification, along with associated findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Final EIR concludes that all impacts potentially associated with the Preserve Plan can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, with the exception of impacts to Historic Resources resulting from demolition of structures at the former Alma College site. These impacts are significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations describes the social, recreational, environmental, and economic benefits of the Preserve Plan which balance these impacts. The Board will consider adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and final approval of the Preserve Plan. All costs associated with Year 1 implementation of the Preserve Plan are included FY2016-17 Planning, Natural Resources, and Engineering and Construction budgets, and ongoing implementation costs will be included in future year’s budgets. The Preserve is targeted for opening to general public use in 2018. MEASURE AA This project supports Measure AA (MAA) Portfolio #21, Bear Creek Redwoods Public Recreation and Interpretation Projects, which specifies: Open for hiking, equestrian activities. R-17-15 Page 2 Provide parking areas, trails; upgrade stables. Restore & protect habitats for various species. Repair roads and trails to reduce sediment. Rehabilitate Alma College site. Measure AA allocated $17.478M for all eligible Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve projects. DISCUSSION The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan (Preserve Plan) includes the Draft EIR, responses to comments received during the public review period, responses to these comments, and changes made to the Draft EIR. Comments, responses, and changes made to the Draft EIR are provided as an attachment to the Final EIR. The Draft EIR and Preserve Plan are available on the District’s website at http://www.openspace.org/our- work/projects/bcr-plan. A summary of the Preserve Plan project and environmental review process is provided below. Project Description The District is the lead agency for the Preserve Plan, as defined in Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Preserve is located in the south-central portion of Santa Clara County (and one parcel within Santa Cruz County), just west of Lexington Reservoir and nine miles south of Los Gatos. Existing facilities include legacy roads and trails, a small informal parking area, the former Alma College Site, and Bear Creek Stables. The Preserve is currently open for use by permit only for stable riders and hikers. The Preserve Plan would open new areas to low- intensity recreation at the Preserve, construct additional trails and parking areas for public use, enhance native habitats and protect sensitive biotic resources, interpret and protect cultural resources, and maintain and operate Preserve facilities over the long term. Preserve-wide actions would be implemented incrementally over the next 20 years. Phase I Actions would be implemented within the first 1-3 years following Plan approval. Phase II Actions would be implemented during years 4-10 and Phase III during years 11-20. Phase I Key Actions • Construct Alma College parking area and Bear Creek Road crossing • Improve existing roads in western zone for trail use; replace Webb Creek bridge; prepare road maintenance plan • Treat high-priority weed infestations • Provide alternate bat habitat structures • Open western Preserve zone to hiking and equestrian use (eastern zone remains open to neighbor and stables permit-holders) Phase II Key Actions • Construct new trails and stream crossings in the eastern Preserve zone, including new segments of a multi-use trail; close unwanted trails to public access and restore if feasible • Continue to treat high-priority weed infestations • Stabilize and enhance ponds • Open eastern Preserve zone to hiking and equestrian use • Once regional connections have been formalized, open multi-use trail to hiking, equestrian, and bicycle use R-17-15 Page 3 Phase III Key Actions • Construct northern parking area • Construct southeastern trails and Webb Creek Trail Bear Creek Stables Site Plan The Preserve Plan incorporates actions, guided by Stables Improvement Standards, to renovate infrastructure, restore natural areas, and improve public access at Bear Creek Stables (Table 1). The Preserve Plan also includes Stables Management Guidelines for long-term tenant operation to ensure a safe and healthy environment for horses, boarders, and visitors. All costs associated with the stables are included in Objectives PU-6, NR-6, MO-5 of the Preserve Plan Implementation Table, and actions summarized in Table 3-6 of the Preserve Plan. These actions and costs are also provided below. Table 1. Bear Creek Stables Actions Actions/Priority Cost/ Funding Preserve Plan Phasing HIGH PRIORITY ACTIONS • Establish San Jose Water Company connection, and provide water storage tanks • Provide a public restroom with flush toilets • Stabilize old stables building; demolish other dilapidated structures • Restore and revegetate degraded pastures • Construct a livery stables and public arena • Complete initial improvements to boarding facility and site infrastructure (roads, parking) • Solicit long-term tenant operator and execute lease agreement $4.5M MAA Phase I – Phase II (Years 1-10) LOWER PRIORITY ACTIONS • Replace caretaker house/office (may be implemented as part of high priority actions, if feasible) • Construct Stables parking areas (vehicle and trailer parking) • Complete boarding facility and site infrastructure upgrades (replace hay barn, maintenance and storage buildings, upgrade paddocks, shelters, boarder arena and round pen, restroom) • Restore old stables building $3.4M General Fund, Tenant/ Operator, Grant TBD Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan The Preserve Plan includes rehabilitation of the Alma College cultural landscape (Table 2). The vision for the former Alma College site is to implement a fiscally-sustainable, clean-up and rehabilitation plan that allows the site’s cultural significance to be understood and safely enjoyed by the public, while remaining within the District’s mission. R-17-15 Page 4 Table 2. Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Actions Actions/Priority Cost /Funding Preserve Plan Phasing HIGH PRIORITY • Demolish and cleanup dilapidated structures (garage, classroom, and 1950 library) • Improve site safety and security, remediate hazardous materials, manage vegetation • Stabilize chapel; rehabilitate shrines, lily pond, and roman plunge • Install interpretive elements, select native plants $4.3M MAA Phase I – Phase II (Years 1-10) HIGH PRIORITY • Install native plants to convey historic landscape • Stabilize the 1934 library roof • Stabilize the north retaining wall $3.2M General Fund, Partner, Grant Phase II (Years 4-10) LOWER PRIORITY • Rehabilitate 1909 chapel for re-use • Modify 1934 library for open air pavilion • Install restroom facility and related infrastructure $4.0M Partner, Grant TBD CEQA Overview The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts to: biological resources (impacts to heritage trees, special-status bats, reptiles, amphibians, nesting birds, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, ringtail, and sensitive natural communities); cultural resources (historical structures and undiscovered human remains); hazardous materials (potential exposure of workers to soil contamination); and geology and soils (potential risk of seismically-induced dam failure). The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce all of these impacts to a less-than-significant level with the exception of impacts to historic resources related to demolition of select structures at the former Alma College site, that are listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the project’s impacts to historic resources below the threshold of significance. Thus the impact arising from the demolition of select structures at the former Alma College site remains significant and unavoidable, even with the recognition that these structures are highly dilapidated and pose a serious health and safety risk. A project impact is considered significant and unavoidable if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the environment that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a less-than- significant level if the project is implemented. If a lead agency proposes to approve a project with significant unavoidable impacts, the agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to explain its actions (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093(b)). The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in the Findings of Fact (Exhibit B to the attached resolution. Project Alternatives The Draft EIR discusses several project alternatives to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives analyzed in detail include the No Project Alternative, the No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative, and the No Special Events Alternative. R-17-15 Page 5 Under the No Project Alternative, no Preserve Plan actions would be taken and the existing condition of the Preserve would continue. Bear Creek Stables would remain in the current condition, and the former Alma College site would remain closed to the public and existing structures would not be removed or rehabilitated. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives related to increased public access, enhancing the public benefit of the Stables, providing interpretive and educational opportunities, and addressing wildfire risk and other environmental hazards, and is therefore rejected. Under the No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative, public access would not be permitted at the former Alma College site because the existing structures would not be stabilized, posing an increasing public safety hazard as the structures continue to degrade over time, resulting in greater overall impacts to Cultural Resources than would occur with site rehabilitation. Additionally, the public would not be able to access and understand the historic significance of the site. The No Alma College Alternative is therefore rejected. Under the No Special Events Alternative, all proposed features of the Preserve Plan would be implemented except for special events that would potentially occur at Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site. Special events may include weddings, equestrian events, or other group gatherings accommodating up to 250 guests. The No Special Events Alternative was found to be the environmentally superior alternative, due to slightly reduced impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and noise. However, these slight reductions do not change the level of significance of these impacts (which are all considered to be less than significant under the full project). Therefore, the District rejects the No Special Events Alternative because it does not substantially reduce impacts of the project, would remove a potential key funding opportunity for the proposed project and could preclude development of full public benefits at Bear Creek Stables, and therefore does not meet the project objectives as fully as the proposed project. Environmental Review and Compliance In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the District, as the lead agency, prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and filed the Project with the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse). The District issued the NOP on June 11, 2015 to public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period, which ended on July 10, 2015. In addition, the District held a public scoping meeting on June 24, 2015, to obtain public input on the proposed scope and content of the Draft EIR. The District prepared a Draft EIR to assess the potential environmental consequences of adopting a Preserve Plan for Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR is a Project EIR that examines the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Project EIR examines the potential environmental effects of all phases of the project: design, construction, and operation. The District circulated the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review period from September 16 to October 31, 2016. The District held a public hearing on September 28, 2016, to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. Public Review and Comments The District received a total of ten comment letters from public agencies, individuals, and organizations during the public comment period. Issues raised included: R-17-15 Page 6 • Traffic impacts (increased vehicle traffic on Bear Creek Road and Skyline Boulevard, safety and need for proposed at-grade pedestrian crossing of Bear Creek Road) • Historic resources (interpretation of a historic-era radio tower, re-use of Alma College structures) • Bear Creek Stables site design and operating details • Neighbor easement to and water quality of a spring water source • Need for additional water storage capacity for community wildfire protection Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the lead agency evaluate comments on environmental issues received from parties who reviewed the Draft EIR and prepare a written response addressing each of the comments. The District has responded to all comment letters received. The District’s responses are included in the Final EIR, which was posted on the District website and circulated for public review on January 13, 2017. All public agencies and members of the public who submitted comments were mailed individual response letters. A minor error in DEIR was also identified during the final review process, which is addressed in Attachment 2. Response to comments and the errata are considered minor insignificant changes and did not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. FISCAL IMPACT The District’s FY2017 Budget and Action Plan includes a total of $1,882,730 for Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve projects: The following table outlines the status of the Measure AA Portfolio Expenditure Plan allocation, and the fiscal impact related to the Preserve: MAA 021 Portfolio Allocation $17,478,000 Spent Life to Date: $545,819 Encumbrances: $258,789 FY 2016-17 BCR Projects Budgeted*: $1,519,941 Balance Remaining (Proposed): $15,153,451 *FY2017 BCR Projects Budgets less the encumbrances, reflecting current fiscal commitments to other BCR projects this fiscal year. FY 2017 Bear Creek Redwoods (BCR) Projects Budget BCR Preserve Plan and EIR (GF) $90,000 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan (GF) $14,000 General Fund (GF) Subtotal: $104,000 BCR Water Infrastructure Improvements (AA 21-3) $487,500 BC Stables Site Plan Implementation (AA 21-4) $139,000 BCR Phase I Public Access Projects (AA 21-5) $516,200 BCR Alma College Site Rehabilitation Plan (AA 21-6) $419,250 BRC Invasive Weed Treatment (AA 21-7) $128,880 BCR Pond Restoration (AA 21-8) $87,900 MAA 21 Portfolio Subtotal : $1,778,730 Total FY 2017 BCR Projects Budget $1,882,730 R-17-15 Page 7 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Preserve Plan Actions incorporate extensive direction from the District’s Board of Directors and Planning and Natural Resources Committee, as well as robust input from stakeholders, staff, and the general public. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notice was provided to neighbors, residents along Bear Creek Road, and other interested parties. An electronic copy of the Final EIR was provided to all public agencies and members of the public who submitted comments, and posted on the District website. NEXT STEPS Following adoption of the Final EIR and project approval, the District will file the Notice of Determination (NOD) with the State Clearinghouse to fulfill CEQA requirements. With Board approval, staff will move forward with the Board-approved Action Plan projects listed in the Fiscal Impact section. Attachments 1. Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, Making Certain Findings, Approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and Approving the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Exhibits to the Resolution a. Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Final Environmental Impact Report including Errata to the Final EIR b. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Electronic copies of the Preserve Plan, Draft EIR and Final EIR are available at: http://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/bcr-plan. Hard copies can be found at the District Administration Office (contact District Clerk, Jennifer Woodworth) at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, and the Los Gatos Public Library at 100 Villa Avenue, Los Gatos. Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, APPROVING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN, AND APPROVING THE BEAR CREEK REDWOODS PRESERVE PLAN INCLUDING THE BEAR CREEK STABLES SITE PLAN AND THE ALMA COLLEGE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REHABILITATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the District) is a lead agency, as provided for under §21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the District desires to approve a combined Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan, Bear Creek Stables Site Plan, and Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (collectively “Preserve Plan” or “Project”), which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the District determined that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and thusly concluded an environmental impact report (EIR) would be needed to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to informing the public and the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Board of Directors) as to the environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and alternatives to said Project; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research on June 11, 2015 and distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period that concluded on July 10, 2015, to initiate the EIR process and collect written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on June 24, 2015 to gather public input on the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR were published on September 16, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day period that concluded on October 31, 2016; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on September 28, 2106 to gather public comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, during the public review period, the District received written comments on the Draft EIR, and responses to these comments have been prepared and included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project (“Final EIR), as follows, and attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A: a) The Draft EIR, including all of its appendices, b) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR c) Copies of all letters received by the County during the Draft EIR public review period and responses to significant environmental points concerning the Draft EIR raised in the review process. d) Revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain impacts that have the potential for significant impacts, but are mitigated to a less than significant level through recommended mitigation and monitoring requirements, which impacts can and will be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level through adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”); and WHEREAS, the Board’s adoption of the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, will ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and WHEREAS, certain project impacts related to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible mitigation measures to lessen these impacts, due to demolition of structures at the former Alma College site that are listed on the County of Santa Clara Heritage Resource Inventory, resulting in a significant impact to historic resources; and WHEREAS, CEQA requires that the District determine whether specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations may outweigh any significant, unavoidable environmental effects of the Project which cannot be fully mitigated; and WHEREAS, staff has analyzed such benefits and summarized them in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B: WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, the Final EIR was published and addressed all comments raised on the environmental issues associated with the project; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2017 the Board of Directors, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, now finds that: 1. Notice has been given in the time and in the manner required by State Law. The Final EIR for the Preserve Plan was presented to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, including comments received from the public, before approving the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan or any elements thereof. 2. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference . 3. That the Final EIR identifies all potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, specifically, potentially significant impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Hydrology and Water Quality, which impacts can and will be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level through adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project and included in the MMRP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference; and 4. That the Final EIR identifies certain impacts of the Project related to Historic Resources that will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference; and 5. That the Final EIR reflects the Board of Directors’ independent judgment and analysis. BE IT RESOLVED AND CERTIFIED by the Board of Directors that the Board hereby acts as follows: A. Directs that the Clerk of the Board and the District and collectively designated as the location and custodian of the documents and other material constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based; and B. Determines that the social, recreational, environmental, and other benefits of the Project described herein and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, and so the environmental impacts are acceptable; and. C. Certifies the Final EIR for the Project and adopts the MMRP. D. Approves the Project described in the Preserve Plan including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on _____, 2017, 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 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 EXHIBITS TO THIS RESOLUTION Exhibit A: Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Exhibit B: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Exhibit A Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan SCH# 2015062029 PREPARED FOR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact: Lisa Infante Bankosh, Open Space Planner III PREPARED BY Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Mike Parker, AICP, Project Manager January 2017 15010027.01 Exhibit A Exhibit A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter/Section Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................ii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Organization of Final EIR ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 List of Commenters ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Project Modifications................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Revisions to the Draft EIR ........................................................................................................... 2-3 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ............................................................................... 3-1 4 REPORT PREPARERS .......................................................................................................................... 4-1 Tables Table 1-1 List of Commenters ..................................................................................................................... 1-3 Exhibit A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ APN assessor’s parcel number BMPs best management practices CEQA California Environmental Quality Act DN Delaware North FCMWC Fish Camp Mutual Water Company Final EIR Final Environmental Impact Report NOP notice of preparation RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board WDRs wastewater discharge requirements WWTP wastewater treatment plant Exhibit A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 1-1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15132). This Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan project (Preserve Plan). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and this document, which includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR. BACKGROUND On June 11, 2015, MROSD issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A of the Draft EIR) to inform agencies and interested parties that an EIR was being prepared for the above-referenced project, and invited comments on the scope and content of the document and participation at a public scoping meeting. The purpose of an NOP is to provide sufficient information about the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR, including mitigation measures that should be considered and alternatives that should be addressed (14 CCR Section 15082[b]). The NOP was posted with the State Clearinghouse, posted on the MROSD website, and distributed to public agencies, interested parties and organizations. A determination of which impacts would be potentially significant was made for this project based on review of the information presented in the NOP, comments received as part of the public review process for the project, and additional research and analysis of relevant project data during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was released on September 16, 2016 for a 45-day public review and comment period ending on October 31, 2016. The Draft EIR and Preserve Plan were available for public review online at: http://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/bcr-plan. The Draft EIR evaluated the potential for the Preserve Plan project to result in significant environmental impacts and determined that most impacts would be less than significant, or would be mitigable to a level of less than significant. The Draft EIR found that project impacts related to historic structures would be significant and implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the impact below the threshold of significance; therefore, the Draft EIR concluded that project impacts to historic structures would be significant and unavoidable. The Draft EIR and Preserve Plan were also available for public review at the following locations: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 (650) 691-1200 Office hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays) Los Gatos Library 100 Villa Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Hours: 11:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. Monday and Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Wednesday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Saturday, 12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Sunday. A public meeting to provide the opportunity for public comments on the Draft EIR was held at the MROSD Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022, on September 28, 2016 at 7 p.m. Public comments were received at this meeting; however, no commenters raised environmental issues or issues with the Draft EIR’s analysis. Exhibit A Introduction Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR ORGANIZATION OF FINAL EIR This Final EIR is organized as follows: Chapter 1, “Introduction,” provides an introduction and overview of the Final EIR, describes the background and organization of the Final EIR, and lists all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period. Chapter 2, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft EIR text made in response to comments, or by the lead agency to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. Changes in the text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by double-underline where text is added. Chapter 3, “Comments and Responses,” contains copies of the comment letters and public hearing comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period and responses to the comments. Chapter 4, “Report Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final EIR. LIST OF COMMENTERS Table 1-1 indicates the numerical designation for each comment letter received on the Draft EIR, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter. The letters are organized by agency, and individuals. Table 1-1 List of Commenters Letter # Commenter Date of Comment 1 Dennis Gurka September 28, 2016 2 Michael Barnes October 2, 2016 3 Kimberly Brosseau, Senior Planner County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department October 7, 2016 4 Michael and Kristine McNamara October 12, 2016 5 Melany Moore, Summit Riders Vice President October 30, 2016 6 Rick Parfitt, Member FireSafe Council Board Member Friends of Bear Creek Stables October 30, 2016 7 Karl Doll October 30, 2016 8 Friends of Bear Creek Stables October 30, 2016 9 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit November 1, 2016 10 County of Santa Clara, Department of Planning and Development No date 11 Aruna Bodduna, Associate Transportation Planner County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department November 8, 2016 Exhibit A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 2-1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This chapter presents revisions to the Draft EIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections to information in the Draft EIR (Section 2.2 of this chapter). Changes in the text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by double-underline where text is added. The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR and does not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Since publication of the Draft EIR in August 2016, MROSD made a minor modification to the Preserve Plan in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR. Santa Clara County provided comments related to the proposed at-grade pedestrian crossing. As discussed in detail in response to comment 2-1 (See Chapter 3 “Response to Comments on the Draft EIR” of this document), MROSD will continue to coordinate with County staff regarding the pedestrian crossing and is considering a pedestrian undercrossing as an alternative to the at-grade crossing. Therefore, Chapter 3, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in double-underline. The following text change is hereby made to the first paragraph of page 3-10 of the Draft EIR: PUBLIC USE AND FACILITIES ELEMENT The Public Use and Facilities Element of the Preserve Plan seeks to promote, enhance, and protect wilderness values by creating new trail connections with key Preserve destinations and adjacent open space areas, providing low-impact, site-sensitive interpretation and environmental education activities, and actively involving the public in the use and management of the Preserve. Key actions of the public use and facilities element include opening approximately 20 miles of trails to expanded hiking and equestrian use, creating a multi-use through-trail connecting the Lexington Basin to the Skyline area, construction of up to three new parking areas, creation of a safe pedestrian crossing under or across Bear Creek Road, formalization of key trailheads, expanding public equestrian programs at Bear Creek Stables, and interpreting the former Alma College historic site and other cultural resources. Dogs would not be permitted in the Preserve because of the high volume of visitation expected and potential conflicts with horses, and the relatively high availability of dog- accessible trails in the local region. Each of these actions is described in more detail below. The following text change is hereby made to the last paragraph of page 3-11 of the Draft EIR: Road Crossings. Providing safe crossings across Bear Creek Road is important for the integration of existing and future trails within the Preserve. A road pedestrian crossing at grade is proposed along the section of Bear Creek Road near former Alma College. This site was chosen based on its adequate lines of sight, safe ingress and egress, ability to connect to the trail system, adjacency to parking areas, history of prior use, and anticipated level of existing and future use. OtherThe pedestrian crossing would be implemented contingent on the results of feasibility studies, issuance of necessary permits from the County, and acquisition of funding, and may be either an at-grade crossing, an undercrossing, or both. pPotential improvements at this for an at- grade crossing may include signage, limiting speeds along this segment of Bear Creek Road, and/or adding “pedestrian crossing” flashing safety lights, subject to Santa Clara County permitting requirements. Exhibit A Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR The following text change is hereby made to page 3-28 of the Draft EIR: Phase 1 Key Construction Actions (Years 1-3) Implement high priority resource management projects, including invasive species removal, drainage improvements to reduce erosion, and pond enhancement. Construct the Alma College Parking Area formalize an at-gradeand pedestrian crossing (undercrossing, at-grade crossing, or both) of Bear Creek Road, and construct a new, 0.5-mile connector trail to the existing trail network in the western Preserve; Open the western Preserve to hiking and equestrian use: treat invasive species, improve roads, and install gates and signage. Construct one vehicle bridge and one retaining wall, and repair or replace the Webb Creek culvert under Bear Creek Road; Implement Phase 1 improvements to Bear Creek Stables, including construction of a livery stables and public arena, improvements to paddocks and shelters in the boarder area, hillside restoration, improvements to driveway, parking, and other critical facilities, new restroom, demolition of dilapidated structures, and stabilization of old stables building. Construct water infrastructure and distribution system. Construction is likely to continue into Phase 2. At former Alma College site, manage vegetation, demolish hazardous structures, remove and properly dispose of debris and stabilize chapel and library (dependent on outside approval, may be completed in Phase 2); or install safety fencing as needed to restrict access; The minor text changes to Chapter 4.12, “Traffic and Transportation” are shown below under Section 2.2 “Revisions to the Draft EIR.” The addition of the proposed undercrossing alternative does not result in substantial changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR for the following reasons: The option of an proposed undercrossing is anticipated to be a prefabricated structure, which would be installed within an elevated segment of Bear Creek Road, thereby minimizing grading and construction of retaining walls. The undercrossing option is located at the same approximate location as a proposed major culvert upgrade. These two features may be installed simultaneously (or may be a combined culvert/undercrossing); therefore, the undercrossing option would require very little additional ground disturbance or traffic disruption beyond what was already considered in the Draft EIR. For the two reasons stated above, the addition of the undercrossing option would not substantially affect the Draft EIR’s analysis of environmental impacts that relate to ground disturbance and construction activity (including air quality, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic). The addition of the pedestrian undercrossing option would therefore not result in a new impact or substantially increase the severity of an environmental impact. Both the at-grade crossing and trail undercrossing are potential viable safe options for directing trail use across Bear Creek Road. An at-grade crossing is considered safe in the proposed location due to adequate line of sight and proposed safety measures such as flashing lights and pedestrian chicanes. A trail undercrossing would separate vehicles and pedestrians entirely and have no effect on traffic flow. Consistent with CEQA Section 15088.5, the changes identified above do not constitute significant new information because the Draft EIR was not changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponent (MROSD) has declined to implement. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 2-3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This section presents specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review (in addition to the text changes to Chapter 3, “Project Description,” identified above). The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in double-underline. The following revisions do not change the intent or overall results of the analysis or reduce the effectiveness of mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR. In fact, these changes provide clarity and increase the effectiveness of mitigation. The changes also extend the analysis and enhance the Draft EIR’s mitigation to reduce impacts associated with tree removal such that the analysis and mitigation addresses the potential additional tree removal generated by the increased mitigation for western pond turtle breeding habitat. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Section 15088.5, the changes identified above do not constitute significant new information because the Draft EIR was not changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponent (MROSD) has declined to implement. Revisions to Chapter 4.3, “Biological Resources” The text on pages 4.3-21 and 4.3-22 of Chapter 4.3, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: Impact 4.3-3: Loss of special-status wildlife. Implementation of environmental protection measures (See Appendix C) as part of Preserve Plan would ensure that proposed activities would not result in the degradation of habitat and loss of special-status wildlife species, including nesting birds and special-status mammals. However, improvements proposed in or adjacent to ponds, waterways, or wetlands could affect special-status amphibians and reptiles. Special-status species are protected under ESA, CESA, California Fish and Game Code, CEQA, or other regulations. Ground-disturbing activities related to construction could result in disturbance or removal of habitat for these species or loss of individuals. Therefore, the potential loss of special-status wildlife would be potentially significant. Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles Although previous surveys failed to detect either species, the Preserve provides suitable habitat for California red-legged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog including three ponds and several streams on-site. The quality of the habitat provided for these species at the three ponds is reduced by the presence of non-native fish, turtles, crayfish, and bullfrogs. Western pond turtles breeding habitat has been observed on-site within approximately 2.8 acres of grassland adjacent to Upper Lake. An additional 2.67 acres of potential western pond turtle breeding habitat exists in and around former Alma College, although no breeding has been observed to date in this area. Breeding habitat adjacent to Upper Lake is considered particularly important, as a breeding population in this location could be a source for a regional metapopulation of western pond turtle. An endemic species with a small geographic range, Santa Cruz black salamander is also found within the Preserve. Potential habitat for California giant salamander is also present within the Preserve. Construction activities adjacent to or within waterways on-site including, construction of the Alma College parking area adjacent to Upper Lake, and construction of pipeline crossings, bridges, and culverts across streams on-site have the potential to remove habitat or result in direct or indirect effects to California red- legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander and western pond turtle. Therefore, construction-related impacts on special-status amphibians and western pond turtle would be potentially significant. It should be noted that although construction of the Alma College parking area could result in removal of up to one acre of potential western pond turtle breeding habitat, other habitat for western pond turtle occurs in the region, including within other ponds on the project site. Exhibit A Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-4 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR The Preserve Plan also includes potential actions to enhance habitat for special-status amphibians and reptiles by working to eradicate or control non-native species through implementation of an invasive species control (integrated pest management) program. A pond management plan will be developed to determine the feasibility of these actions and a hydrology and hydraulic analysis as well as a structural assessment of the three ponds will be conducted. Pond inputs, outlets, and current capacity will be documented. A structural analysis, including geotechnical and engineering geology investigations will be completed for each of the ponds. Recommendations to improve or maintain the pond basins and berm for downstream flood protection as well and long-term pond viability for native wildlife habitat will be made and will include coordination with CDFW. Recommendations will be reviewed by MROSD staff for feasibility. Once approved for long-term use and management, any required engineering plans and specifications will be drafted for permitting and re-construction. Pond restoration recommendations will be specific to each pond and may involve inlet and/or outlet improvements, berm reconstruction, de-sedimentation, connection to existing water infrastructure, or installation of appropriately sized drainage features. Implementation of Environmental Protection Measures BIO-15, including monitoring for red-legged frog and other sensitive aquatic species and modifying recreational facilities or uses that could adversely affect these species, would ensure that sensitive aquatic species would be protected from potential recreation- and maintenance-related impacts. The Preserve Plan also requires a qualified biologist to assist with the design of the Alma College parking area to minimize operations-related effects to individual western pond turtles and other sensitive aquatic species. Design features could include (but would not be limited to) siting the parking area away from areas immediately adjacent to the pond, installing signage to warn drivers that sensitive wildlife could be present, and requiring visitors to stay on trails. Although the project will be designed to avoid impacts to western pond turtle individuals and minimize the conversion of habitat, the loss of up to 0.75 acre of western pond turtle nesting habitat associated with development of the parking area near Upper Lake would be considered a potentially significant impact, due to the possible importance of the onsite breeding habitat with respect to the viability of the regional population of the species. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a on page 4.3-23 of Chapter 4.3, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Implement measures to protect special-status amphibians and western pond turtle. MROSD shall implement the following measures during construction within suitable habitat for special- status amphibians: Construction within or adjacent to waterways will be avoided during the breeding season for California red-legged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog (November – March) and western pond turtle (May -- mid-July). If construction cannot be avoided within or adjacent to waterways during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-activity survey for California red- legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle prior to implementing actions that include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities within or adjacent to potential habitat that could otherwise harm California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or western pond turtle. A qualified biologist shall inspect the work area while vegetation and debris is removed during the initial phase of construction. Because Santa Cruz black salamander lay and brood eggs below ground, prior to ground disturbance, rocks, logs, and other debris shall be turned over and visually inspected. If no California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or western pond turtle are observed during either the pre-activity survey or during removal of vegetation and debris, then work may proceed without a qualified biologist present. If any of these sensitive species are observed at any time before or during construction within the work area by anyone involved in the project, work shall cease and USFWS and/or CDFW shall be contacted. Measures to avoid and minimize disturbance to sensitive reptiles and Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 2-5 amphibians shall be implemented and may include delaying the disturbance until after eggs or larvae have metamorphosed, redesigning the project footprint to avoid the species, moving individuals to areas of suitable habitat outside of the disturbance area, or other feasible measures acceptable to the wildlife agencies. The loss of western pond turtle breeding habitat due to development of the Alma College parking area will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. If it is determined that the full amount of replacement breeding habitat cannot all feasibly be located at Upper Lake, the remainder of the replacement breeding habitat will be located at Lower Lake, which also supports western pond turtle. The replacement breeding habitat will be located within 300 feet of the pond’s ordinary high water mark and will be designed to avoid adverse effects to native plant communities and other sensitive species habitat. The replacement habitat will be located away from areas that attract concentrated visitor use, or trail use will be limited as necessary during breeding periods. Design of the replacement breeding habitat, as well as a maintenance and monitoring plan to control encroachment of brush, invasive species, and manage visitor access, will be prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW. The maintenance and monitoring plan will also include baseline population surveys and ongoing population and breeding habitat monitoring. The text on pages 4.3-21 and 4.3-22 of Chapter 4.3, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: Impact 4.3-5: Effects of increased recreation on wildlife and inference with wildlife movement. Implementation of the Preserve Plan would result in increased public access to wildlife habitats that previously have experienced limited human disturbance. Proposed trail connections would provide recreational opportunities for hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians. However, these activities are unlikely to substantially adversely affect native wildlife or plant communities. The construction and use of trails are also not likely to substantially interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. The proposed trail connections would be constructed in phases in the future to increase opportunities for public access and recreation within the Preserve. The trail connections would link the Preserve to Lexington Reservoir and Skyline-Summit trail to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. These trails would be open to hiking, equestrian use, and mountain biking (although biking will not be allowed on all trails). Dogs would not be permitted. Recreational use of the trails in previously undisturbed areas may deter some wildlife species from using the area immediately adjacent to the trails, but the effect is not expected to be severe enough in magnitude to cause localized extinctions or restrict the range of native species. A wildlife corridor connects habitat areas and, by doing so, helps to increase movement and gene flow between core habitat areas resulting in improved fitness for a species. Creation of trail connections from the Preserve to other existing trails is unlikely to substantially deter wildlife movement through the project region. The maximum trail width would be 12 feet; however, many of the trails would be narrower. These trails would not present a substantial barrier to wildlife movement. While construction of trails would not likely create a wildlife barrier, some movement patterns may shift or change, as some species would avoid areas with trails and human scent, and other species may prefer to use the trails for easier access routes. However, these changes are expected to be minor and would not constitute a significant change in wildlife movement patterns. As discussed under Impact 4.3-3, breeding habitat for western pond turtle exists near Upper Lake. Some of the breeding habitat will be lost due to development of the Alma College parking area; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a requires a 1:1 replacement of this breeding habitat in areas within the Preserve that do not attract concentrated visitor use, or where trail use Exhibit A Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-6 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR would be limited as necessary during breeding periods, , thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Other areas that provide potential breeding habitat will not be affected by the proposed parking area, but some of these areas (primarily grassland) will be traversed by narrow trails and require landscape maintenance. The recreational and maintenance activities could adversely affect breeding western pond turtles through accidental disturbance or removal of nesting sites, and, consequently, the success of this population which is potentially an important source of turtles in the region. Implementation of Environmental Protection Measures BIO-10 through BIO-1415, which require identification of invasive species, limiting trail use in areas with habitat for special-status species (including western pond turtle), periodic monitoring of sensitive species, and allow for adaptive management to protect and enhance sensitive species habitat, would also further reduce the potential impacts of recreational use on wildlife and wildlife habitat by reducing the potential to introduce invasive species, limiting trail use in sensitive areas, monitoring sensitive species, and closing trails as needed to reduce impacts to wildlife. The effects of special events within the Preserve on wildlife would be minimal because they would be limited to Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site where there is existing development, no amplified sound or music that could be heard beyond the Preserve boundaries would be allowed, event parking would be within designated staging areas, and no events would occur at nighttime. Therefore, events within the Preserve are not expected to have a substantial impact on wildlife. In addition, garbage that could degrade habitat and attract pest species could increase with recreational use of the Preserve. However, MROSD implements measures on preserve lands consistent with MROSD’s IPM Guidance Manual (MROSD 2014), discussed above, including ensuring garbage is contained and food is properly stored, to deter pest species, such as rats, raccoons, jays, and crows. Large populations of predatory pest species can reduce the number of other native species, including migratory birds. MROSD avoids concentrating recreational picnic sites in large areas that may become feeding stations for pest species. In addition, recreational users of MROSD preserves are instructed to dispose of all garbage in proper locations, under a “pack it in, pack it out” approach. Therefore, the recreational use of the Preserve would not have a substantial adverse effect on native species and is not expected substantially interfere with wildlife movement. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Because the additional text to mitigation measure 4.3-3a could potentially result in the removal of additional trees, due to increased habitat restoration for breeding western pond turtle, the text on pages 4.3-27 and 4.3-28 of Chapter 4.3, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: Impact 4.3-7: Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting biological resources. Although some tree removal would be required for the Preserve Plan, tree removal would be avoided to the extent possible and any trees removed would be done in accordance with local policies and ordinances. Because the proposed project is a plan, detailed improvement programs and grading plans will not be prepared until specific improvements are funded and authorized, which would occur after approval of the Preserve Plan. Once these detailed plans are available, MROSD will coordinate with Santa Clara County to adhere to the requirements of the Ordinance. However, impacts to trees are considered potentially significant until MROSD complies with the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Revisions to the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 2-7 The Santa Clara County General Plan includes policies and goals related to protecting biological resources. In addition, the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, Sections C16.1 to C16.17) serves to protect all trees measuring 12 inches dbh in areas zoned as Hillside (HS), any heritage trees, and any trees within road rights-of-way. The Preserve Plan is designed to avoid tree removal to the extent possible; however, some tree removal will be required for construction of roadway improvements and staging areas. Up to six pine trees (non-native) over 12 inches dbh would need to be removed along Bear Creek Road for the Alma College parking area; up to 10 large redwood trees would need to be removed within the interior of the Preserve for western pond turtle habitat restoration; and two large coast live oak trees would need to be removed for construction of the Lower Parking Area. These two trees are not currently listed as heritage trees, but given their species and size, they at least several of the 10 redwood trees and the two oak trees would likely qualify if nominated. Oak woodland is present within the Preserve (See Exhibit 4.3-1); however, the proposed tree removal would not affect 0.5-acre of the oak woodland canopy. Implementation of the Preserve Plan would include BMPs for Sudden Oak Death, including removing hazard trees. Because the proposed project is a plan, detailed improvement programs and grading plans will not be prepared until specific improvements are funded and authorized, which would occur after approval of the Preserve Plan. Once these detailed plans are available, MROSD will coordinate with Santa Clara County to adhere to the requirements of the Ordinance. However, impacts to trees are considered potentially significant until MROSD complies with the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. Mitigation Measure 4.3-7: Remove and replace trees consistent with the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, Sections C16.1 to C16.17). MROSD will comply with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance as applied to parcels greater than 3 acres in lands zoned HS and as applied to trees located within County right-of-way. For removal of large oak trees, MROSD will replace each of the redwood trees and two oak trees removed at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon trees, in-kind, or other ratio as approved by the County and in compliance with current best management practices to prevent the spread of soil pathogens. MROSD will maintain each of the replacement trees. Significance after Mitigation Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts associated with tree removal to a less-than-significant level by providing replacement trees and complying with the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. Revisions to Chapter 4.12, “Traffic and Transportation” The text on page 4.12-17 of Chapter 4.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: The second location, approximately 800 feet south of Alma College Road, also provides adequate sight distance and is the proposed location for both a new driveway and pedestrian crosswalk. The new driveway would replace Alma College Road, which does not currently provide adequate sight distance, as the primary Preserve driveway entrance to a new parking area and trailhead at the former Alma College site. In addition, a pedestrian undercrossing or an at-grade pedestrian crossing (crosswalk) would be formalized at this location to allow visitors to safely cross Bear Creek Road and access the western portion of the Preserve. The driveway and undercrossing/crosswalk are located at the historic entrance to the site along a relatively straight section of roadway. Exhibit A Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-8 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR The text on page 4.12-18 of Chapter 4.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: MROSD will coordinate with the County of Santa Clara traffic engineer to obtain the necessary permitting approval to install a pedestrian undercrossing and/or formalize a crosswalk at the Driveway 2/Alma College Parking Area location. If recommended by the County of Santa Clara, MROSD would install additional signage (e.g. “Crosswalk Ahead” signs) and/or other safety improvements such as flashing lights in advance of the crosswalk, to improve the visibility of a crosswalk to motorists and improve safety for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists crossing to the western portion of the Preserve. Construction of the new entrance driveways and pedestrian crossing in accordance with applicable design standards for adequate lines of sight and installation of signage would ensure that these improvements to the Preserve would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. In addition, the County of Santa Clara would review and approve the design of the intersection of proposed driveways with County roadways to ensure the access points meet County standards. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are necessary. Exhibit A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 1 Dennis Gurka September 28, 2016 The commenter expresses concerns related to the impacts of the Preserve Plan on traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety, as well as emergency access, on Bear Creek Road. The comment does not identify any areas of disagreement with the Draft EIR’s traffic analysis or raise new issues that are not considered in the Draft EIR’s traffic analysis. However, the following response is provided to address these concerns. 1-1 Traffic impacts could potentially result from additional vehicle use of Bear Creek Road from new Preserve visitors, as well as, potentially, from increased use of the area by bicyclists, once the Preserve opens to general public use. The District Board of Directors shares these concerns and is aware of current traffic patterns on Bear Creek Road, particularly, high vehicle speeds frequently observed during the commute hours. As part of Preserve Plan development, a thorough traffic analysis was performed by Hexagon Transportation Engineers, to identify potential impacts of opening the Preserve on both safety and level of service on Bear Creek Road. This traffic analysis is included as Appendix B, and described in Chapter 4.12, of the Draft EIR. The analysis is summarized briefly below. Regarding impacts of new Preserve traffic on existing conditions on Bear Creek Road, Hexagon used visitation data from two Open Space Preserves with similar use-generating characteristics (e.g., number and type of trails and trail uses, proximity to dense population centers, ease of access) to develop a conservative estimate of new vehicle trips potentially generated by the Preserve. This trip generation estimate was added to existing traffic volumes, as determined through traffic count strips, to determine if the additional traffic would negatively impact the level of service of Bear Creek Road and its closest intersections. The analysis found that the increased traffic would not change the level of service, primarily measured in congestion delays, of the roadway or intersections (see Draft EIR p. 4.12-11). Related to this level of service, emergency vehicle access on Bear Creek Road would not be impacted by additional Preserve traffic, since traffic congestion would not substantially increase, as described above. Regarding stopped traffic at Preserve entrances, all proposed public entrances would be designed to provide adequate ingress and egress capacity in the form of level landings, as well as sufficient clearance for emergency vehicle access and maneuvering, as discussed on page 3-24 of the Preserve Plan. It should also be noted that there are currently no on-street parking spaces available near the proposed entrance areas (the lack of road shoulder would physically prevent parking), and on-street parking would not be possible because there is only one lane in each direction, and there is not sufficient shoulder to park without blocking a lane. MROSD is also coordinating with Santa Clara County staff regarding the potential installation of formal “no parking” signs along Bear Creek Road in specific target areas, which would further minimize the potential for congestion. Furthermore, emergency vehicle access within the Preserve would be significantly enhanced as a result of the Preserve Plan. The proposed new multi-use trail, which traverses the Preserve from north to south, will be constructed (or existing road will be improved) to allow for both patrol and emergency vehicle passage. The Webb Creek Bridge Replacement Project, which would be implemented in Phase I, was specifically identified to improve access for fire trucks to the western Preserve. Regarding bicycle safety on Bear Creek Road, the proposed multi-use trail would provide an alternative through-access route for bicyclists from the Lexington Basin to Skyline Boulevard, Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-3 allowing bicyclists to avoid not only this roadway but also other nearby roads that access the Skyline area, such as Black Road. Although the trail is anticipated to be used primarily by mountain bicyclists, the trail surface will be rocked and maintained as an all-season trail, and may accommodate road bicycles. The District would work with the County and Caltrans to install proper safety improvements and traffic control signage at roadway connections prior to opening the trail to bicycle use. Once safe connection points are established and the trail is opened to bicycle use, it is anticipated that the volume of bicycle traffic on Bear Creek Road (and other nearby roads) may decrease. Finally, regarding the volume of Preserve visitation, the Preserve Plan includes the immediate provision of two additional ranger staff who could address potential traffic conflicts (see p. 4-09 of the Preserve Plan.) It is anticipated that visitation levels would warrant frequent patrol of the new Preserve entrances, particularly during weekends. Augmenting the current ranger staffing levels would help ensure that adequate patrol staff are available to meet this additional need immediately upon Preserve opening and would adaptively manage visitor use as necessary to provide for continued traffic safety throughout the life of the Preserve Plan. 2 Michael Barnes October 2, 2016 2-1 The commenter expresses concern regarding pedestrian safety at the proposed at-grade trail crossing of Bear Creek Road, due to the high traffic volumes during certain times of day, and speeds in excess of 40 miles per hour (mph). According to the Draft EIR, Section 4.12 “Traffic and Transportation,” (which is based on a traffic analysis by Hexagon Traffic Consultants), the location of the proposed trail crossing is such that a pedestrian would have adequate line of sight in both directions on Bear Creek Road (with proposed tree removal). The 85th percentile speed for vehicles traveling in the downhill direction toward the potential crosswalk location was found to be 36 mph. The sight distance analysis was increased and Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-4 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR evaluated for a speed of 40 mph. The required sight distance at that speed is 360 feet. With removal of two large trees (as proposed), the new pedestrian crossing would provide a line of sight greater than 400 feet. Although this standard safety requirement is met, Hexagon also identified additional signage to further improve the visibility of any crosswalk installed on Bear Creek Road. The signage may include “crosswalk ahead” signs and may also include rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) that are activated by pedestrians. These and other additional safety measures, such as speed limit signs and additional spee d enforcement, would be addressed during consultation with Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department. (See Draft EIR pages 4.12-17 and 4.12-18 for the detailed discussion.) Furthermore, pedestrian safety measures, including fencing, signage, trail chicanes, and adequately-size landing/waiting areas, would be identified as part of the design of the Alma College parking area, as discussed on page 3-24 of the Preserve Plan. Additionally, a trail undercrossing option is being added to the Preserve Plan and EIR that would separate trail user circulation from the road circulation. The following text will be added to page 3-22 of the Preserve Plan: Bear Creek Road is a steep, winding, mountain roadway, a designated scenic route owned and maintained by Santa Clara County. Traffic is typically light, but during weekday commute hours, traffic increases to moderate-to-heavy levels, and average speeds exceed posted speed limits. (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2015). Observational data confirm that despite severe curves and steep grades, drivers on Bear Creek Road consistently exceed speed limits. Further constraining the crossing is steep topography (lack of level areas west of the road for landings or trail approaches), and unstable geologic conditions, and the resulting prohibitive cost of either an undercrossing tunnel or overcrossing bridge. Despite these constraints, MROSD has added an undercrossing to the Preserve Plan as an option, either in place of, or in addition to the at-grade crossing, contingent on the results of feasibility studies, design constraints, acquisition of any required permits from other agencies, securing of adequate funding through partnerships, grants, and/or other sources, and the anticipated timing for implementation, Please see Section 2 of this document for changes to the Draft EIR text that address the addition of the pedestrian undercrossing. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-5 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-6 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3 Kimberly Brosseau, Senior Planner County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department October 7, 2016 3-1 The County of Santa Clara Department of Parks and Recreation (County Parks) provided a comment regarding the future transfer of the County’s Moody Gulch property to MROSD. Specifically, the comment letter states that final agreement will need to be executed before the property transfer can take place. MROSD acknowledges this anticipated future property transfer and looks forward to completing the final agreement with County Parks. Since MROSD does not currently own the property, MROSD does not currently have plans for future use of the property. Therefore, the property transfer, or any potential future use for the property, is not included in the Preserve Plan or Draft EIR. Subsequent planning and environmental review would be conducted prior to the property transfer, as well as any other Board decisions regarding future planned uses. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-7 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-8 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-9 4 Michael and Kristine McNamara October 12, 2016 4-1 The commenters, who are neighboring landowners, provide information regarding a spring water source in the southeastern Preserve and request that the EIR recognize this right and acknowledge the continuous use of this water. The commenters lay out the basis for their assertion of rights to the water source and easement over the portion of the access trail on Preserve land. Water issues are discussed in the Water Resources section of the Preserve Plan, however, this comment regarding potential adjacent property owners’ water rights does not raise an environmental issue relevant to CEQA. Nonetheless, MROSD acknowledges that the commenters are asserting this water right. MROSD respects and honors all legitimate real property easements, but takes no position on the water rights to this source, which are regulated by the State of California. 4-2 The commenters express concern regarding water quality impacts caused by visitor use and facilities in the southeastern Preserve and request that MROSD continue to respect the property owners’ right to enter the Preserve via the access trail to maintain the water system. Regarding potential water quality impacts, no new development would be located in the vicinity of the spring mentioned by the commenters. Trails would be the only recreation feature located in this vicinity. Section 4.8 “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of the Draft EIR evaluates potential project-related impacts to surface water. As discussed in Impact 4.8-1, implementation of the proposed project would be carried out in compliance with state and federal regulations, including compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements regarding Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-10 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Draft EIR describes, in detail, the types of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be included in the SWPPP and how those BMPs minimize potential impacts to water quality. In addition to these requirements, the project includes additional stormwater pollution prevention measures in Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-3 (See Appendix C of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR also describes how several additional proposed environmental protection measures would minimize the project’s potential to cause erosion-related impacts to water quality during project operation. Page 4.8-14 of the Draft EIR states: Where bank seeps and springs are located near a road or trail, they can cause the trail to become chronically wet and muddy. These chronically wet areas are potential sediment sources where they are located in close proximity to a watercourse (Best 2010). However, elements of the proposed project, including environmental protection measures (Appendix C), would effectively limit the potential for erosion. These include: maintaining the roads and trails according to MROSD standard practices for activities in or near watercourses (Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-1); rocking sections of roads and trails that are near creeks, spring or seeps (Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-4); limiting new equestrian trails near creeks (Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-5); improving all stream crossings to accommodate flood events consistent with County and MROSD standards (Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-6); removing existing culverts on abandoned roads (Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-7); replacing ford crossings in areas expected to have high use (Environmental Protection Measure HYDRO-8); design and use guidelines (Environmental Protection Measure GEO-1 through GEO-3); and other erosion control measures (Environmental Protection Measure GEO-4). The improved infrastructure would benefit water quality by reducing ongoing sedimentation and erosion, as well as minimizing the potential for flooding and water quality degradation during larger storm events. The Draft EIR (p. 4.8-15) also describes how MROSD’s Best Management Practices and Standard Operation Procedures for Routing Maintenance Activities in Water Courses would minimize potential impacts to water quality resulting from maintenance activities. The Draft EIR demonstrates that the proposed project would not substantially affect the water quality of the existing spring. The commenters raise general concern related to water quality impacts associated with the spring and do not raise specific issues with the Draft EIR’s analysis; therefore, no additional response can be provided. Regarding ongoing access to maintain the water system, as stated in response to comment 4-1, MROSD respects all legitimate real property easements. No actions in the Preserve Plan would preclude the property owners’ access to the water system, nor are any such actions Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-11 anticipated. All reasonable actions to access and maintain the water system, by the property owners or their agents, would be allowed according to the terms of the easement. Property access is not an environmental issue relevant to CEQA; no additional response is needed. 4-3 The commenters express further concern regarding a conceptual trail alignment proposed by the Preserve Plan, the future “Hunt Trail” (temporary name), which would potentially cross or would potentially be in close proximity to the spring diversion and associated access trail. The “Hunt Trail” alignment is currently conceptual and would not undergo detailed planning or design until Phase III of Preserve Plan implementation. It is possible that the new trail could not be designed to entirely avoid the spring diversion area, or the access trial, due to topographic constraints (steep, unstable slopes with limited viable routes to traverse them). If intersection or close visible proximity is not avoidable, potential trespass concerns would be addressed through standard MROSD operating procedures including signage (“stay on trail” and “private property ahead” signs), ranger patrol, and, if necessary, fence installation and other physical security methods. The trail would not obstruct access to the water system, and would be constructed to avoid damage to the system. Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-12 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-13 5 Melany Moore, Summit Riders Vice President October 30, 2016 5-1 Comments 5-1 through 5-3 and 5-5 are related to specific facilities and whether they will be retained/rebuilt during the stables renovations. For the CEQA record, we would like to note that these comments pertain to the stables improvements and operations that are a component of the Preserve Plan and do not address an environmental issue relevant to CEQA. Related to the comment regarding Preserve Plan Objective MO-2.2, the Preserve Plan includes retaining the original barn structure for potential future rehabilitation. Also, the cross-tie station will be provided as part of the new arena (this has been clarified in the implementation table, see Preserve Plan OBJ PU-6.2). Related to the comment regarding Preserve Plan Objective NR-6.2, a compost facility is not included in the site plan; however, the manure dump would be improved and would serve all horses utilizing the site, as described on pages 3-41 to 3-44 of the Preserve Plan. While the basic elements of the stable improvements are identified as part of the Preserve Plan (specifically, the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan), detailed design and implementation plans, consistent with the more basic Site Plan, would be prepared to provide precision guidance for development of the site. The implementation plan would address new procedures to accommodate the boarding facility during demolition and implementation of high priority improvements (for example, loss of Cat House tack storage). Unless deemed infeasible or cost prohibitive, water conservation practices and new equipment, such as installation of rainwater storage units, solar panels, etc will be included, in implementation of high priority improvements. . 5-2 See response to comment 5-1, above. Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-14 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 5-3 See response to comment 5-1, above. 5-4 Comment 5-4 is related to allowing for an increase in water storage capacity from 20,000 gallons to 100,000 gallons. The 20,000-gallon number included in the Lexington Hills Community Wildfire Protection Program (LHCWPP), referred to on page 4.7-9 of the Draft EIR, was presumably a preliminary tank capacity estimate. The LHCWPP is separate from the Preserve Plan; the Preserve Plan includes greater storage capacity. Based on pre-permit application discussions with the County of Santa Clara Deputy Fire Marshall McNair Bala, 30,000 gallons of water storage would be required for fire suppression needs at Bear Creek Stables. Coupled with storage requirements for several days of potable water supply, the actual amount of water storage that will be provided at the Stables is 55,000 gallons. In other words, the MROSD’s plan for the water system and emergency access improvements exceed the estimate in the LHCWPP, and are considered adequate to meet the Preserve’s water needs at this time. Therefore, upgrades are not currently necessary or warranted. For further detail on the Plan’s water system and emergency access improvements, see response to comment 6-1. 5-5 See response to comment 5-1, above. 5-6 The commenter raises concern related to a historic-era radio tower, which was installed and used during the Alma College period for ham radio, and which is now on the ground in ruins. As mentioned by the commenter, the radio tower reportedly received some of the earliest West Coast transmissions from Hawaii regarding the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The radio tower was first evaluated for historical significance prior to MROSD acquisition of the property and determined to be ineligible for listing as a historic resource, either independently or as a contributor to the Alma College historic site (Laffey and Laffey 1994). This finding was confirmed during development of the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (Knapp Architects 2010) and is also reflected in the Draft EIR (See Table 4.4-4 EIR on pages 4.4-13 and 4.4-14 of the Draft EIR). Although the tower has been evaluated on two occasions and is not considered a historic resource, the Preserve Plan nevertheless calls for retaining a portion of the tower for interpretive purposes. Interpretive materials and programming would also be developed as part of the Preserve Plan, which would incorporate facts and features of historic interest, including the radio tower and its reported role in transmission of the Pearl Harbor news. 5-7 This comment is related to the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan, which includes actions to rehabilitate and interpret the former Alma College site so its historic significance can be understood by Preserve visitors. Five main buildings remain on the former Alma College site, none of which are considered to be individually historically significant. (See Draft EIR page 4.4-37 and 4.4-38 for the full impact discussion.) All buildings are highly dilapidated. Although the site is fenced off, the buildings represent a public safety hazard as well as an “attractive nuisance” for vandalism and trespass. The Rehabilitation Plan would retain and stabilize the chapel building and the 1934 library superstructure, which retain the greatest architectural value and have the highest potential for re-use. Three other structures, including the classroom, the 1950 library, and the garage, would be demolished. The commenter requests that MROSD retain these additional buildings and make them available for re-use. The classroom and garage buildings are located within 50 feet of a subsidiary trace of the San Andreas Fault and therefore cannot be occupied per County restrictions. A portion of the garage foundation, which overlooks Webb Creek, may be retained as a viewing platform. The 1950 library, a concrete, open-hall style structure appended to the 1934 library, was considered by MROSD for re-use as an event venue. Due to noise, traffic, and parking considerations, re-use of the building for large events was found to be incompatible with the Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-15 MROSD mission and the open space character of the Preserve. Furthermore, according to the Rehabilitation Plan (PGA Design 2015), construction of the new classroom alters the spatial organization of the site as it was originally designed and obstructs the view of the site from the Upper Pond, which is the central organizing element of the landscape. Finally, the new library is constructed with a utilitarian style that does not complement the site aesthetically. While these factors do not necessarily preclude retention of the 1950 library, preserving this building in place, without commercial re-use as a funding source, would be cost prohibitive. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 of the Draft EIR requires a high level of documentation of the buildings, which are listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. However, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, Impact 4.2-2 (demolition of historic structures) is considered significant and unavoidable. The comment does not raise issues with the adequacy of the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis related to potential impacts to historic resources. Regarding bat roosts, as mentioned above, the buildings proposed for demolition are in a poor, compromised condition and/or are within such close proximity to the San Andreas Fault trace to render them uninhabitable. Recognizing that potential bat habitat may be removed from the site as part of this proposed demolition, the Preserve Plan (page 03-27) includes implementation of the Alma College Bat Exclusion & Roost Habitat Replacement plan, which would humanely exclude and relocate bats currently inhabiting the Alma College buildings. Common and special-status bats would be relocated into appropriately-designed structures designed to suit the needs of the bat species and colony size(s). A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures would be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Roosting habitat would be replaced in coordination with CDFW, and replacement structures will be monitored for successful colonization. This replacement will be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. Once confirmed that special-status bats are not present in the original roost site, the buildings may be removed or sealed. As mentioned by the commenter, in addition to replacement habitat structures, retention of the Tevis mansion carport, located near the eastern boundary of the Alma College site, is also recommended. The carport currently provides important night- roosting habitat for a mixed colony of over 500 bats, as well as limited day-roosting habitat. Daytime habitat can be enhanced at this structure through relatively minor modifications. If feasible, the carport structure would be retained and stabilized as bat habitat and for interpretive purposes. The plan also includes regular monitoring to ensure that bat colonies remain viable and that artificial roosts are functional in the long term. In addition, the Draft EIR evaluated potential impacts to bats resulting from implementation of the Preserve Plan. Section 4.3, “Biological Resources,” of the Draft EIR concludes that demolition of buildings, tree removal, or other construction activities that cause noise, vibration, or physical disturbance could directly or indirectly affect the survival of adult or young bats, including special-status bat species. Loss of an active bat colony or take of an individual special-status bat resulting from construction disturbance or demolition of structures would be a potentially significant impact. The Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures to minimize impacts to bats. These include pre-construction surveys for roosting bats and a program for bat exclusion. The mitigation measures also establish protective measures to minimize impacts to bats as a result of tree removal. Replacement roosts are required for each roost lost. The Draft EIR concludes that, with implementation of mitigation Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-16 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR measures, the potential impacts to bats resulting from implementation of the Preserve Plan would be less than significant. The commenter does not identify any issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis related to potential impacts to bats; therefore, no further response is needed. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-17 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-18 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 6 Rick Parfitt, Member FireSafe Council Board Member Friends of Bear Creek Stables October 30, 2016 6-1 Comment 6-1 is related to the water system at Bear Creek Stables (Stables), wildfire protection, and future partnerships. The Preserve Plan includes provision of adequate water storage to address fire suppression needs at an improved stables facility. Based on preliminary consultation with the County of Santa Clara Deputy Fire Marshall McNair Bala, and needs for several days of potable water supply, approximately 55,000 gallons of storage will be provided at the Stables. As part of the County’s Use Permit process that MROSD would need to complete for the proposed stables improvements, the amount of water storage may be refined. MROSD values its ongoing partnership with the Santa Clara County FireSafe Council and appreciates the request for additional water storage for wildland fire suppression. To help address the need for wildland fire suppression, Phase I Implementation of the Preserve Plan includes installation of a filtered intake and standpipe, which would be accessible to fire trucks, adjacent to Upper Lake (near the former Alma College site). The water-storage capacity of Upper Lake, at more than 6 million gallons, far exceeds storage capacity of the tank the commenter is requesting. Furthermore, the Preserve Plan includes a new connection to a municipal water supply and retains the existing 500,000-gallon tank as part of the Alma Water System. Regarding the provision of a system of pressurized hydrants throughout the Preserve, MROSD Open Space Preserves are managed to remain as close to their natural state as possible, which precludes installation of such a system. However, the Preserve Plan contains a number of improvements to emergency access roads, including re-surfacing vehicular dirt roads to allow for all-season use, and replacing bridges to allow for fire truck access. These measures, coupled with the increased storage tanks and improved access to Upper Pond storage, are considered more than adequate to serve Preserve fire suppression needs. The Draft EIR evaluated potential impacts related to wildland fire risk. (See Draft EIR pages 4.7-17 and 4.7-18.) The Draft EIR concluded that the impact is less than significant. The commenter does not raise issues related to the Draft EIR’s analysis; therefore, no additional response is provided. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-19 7 Karl Doll October 30, 2016 7-1 Response to comment 5-6 addresses concerns related to the radio tower. Please refer to response to comment 5-6. Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-20 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-21 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-22 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 8 Friends of Bear Creek Stables October 30, 2016 8-1 Comment 8-1 relates to water supply, maintaining the existing surface water system, the water demand analysis, and water storage quantity. The comments pertain to the Bear Creek Stables operations and future water resources for the Preserve Plan and does not raise issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The existing Aldercroft water diversion will remain in use at least in the interim during the development of a new water system. Maintenance of this existing water system will remain a responsibility of the Bear Creek Stables’ tenant. MROSD will consider the possibility of retaining this existing water system in the longer term for the Stables non-potable water use. A new potable water system, required by the County of Santa Clara as part of the permitting for the Stables improvements, will be developed using water from San Jose Water Company. The Draft EIR (page 4.13-9) states that current water demand on the project site (all currently attributed to Bear Creek Stables) is estimated to range between 1,500 gpd and 7,200 gpd (Balance Hydrologics 2016). The water demand for Bear Creek Stables is not anticipated to substantially change with implementation of the proposed project. Additional proposed uses, including restrooms and the reuse of the former Alma College Site are Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-23 expected to increase the current demand by 500 to 800 gpd, with a total water demand between 2,000 gpd and 8,000 gpd (Balance Hydrologics 2016). The lower end of this estimate was determined through water delivery data collection during the 2015 summer dry season. This data collection was summarized in the Balance Hydrologics report, “A temporary totalizing flow meter was installed by Balance on the supply pipe to the stables. To provide a direct estimate of water delivered to the stables, away from other users across Highway 17, the totalizer was located between tank at the stables and downhill of the pipe junction to the residences across Highway 17…Data from the totalizer readings indicate flow rate to the stables during the dry summer were from 0.68 to 1.13 gallons per minute (985 to 1,628 gallons per day), with an overall average diversion of 1.03 gpm (1,486 gpd) based on totalizer readings, including service interruptions that may have occurred over the monitoring period. This is an estimate on the low end, during very dry conditions.” The source of the upper end of the water demand estimate is summarized in the Balance Hydrologics reports, “To provide an alternate estimate for total water use at the stables, UC Davis (2014) indicates a drinking requirement of 12 gpd per horse (1,000-pound horse, low activity) to about 40 to 50 gpd per horse (Personal communications with UC Davis, 2015). Additional facility uses include horse washdowns, equipment washdowns, dust control (as feasible in drought years) and water supply to the household for the stable manager 1. Some assumptions were made about level of effort and elective water use, such as daily wash down of 45 out of the 72 horses (see Table 1). Based on Wheeler (2008) and Greenwood (1987) total water use for these additional purposes is about 4,025 gpd, which indicates a total daily water use at the stables of about 5,025 to 7,225 gpd (70 to 100 gpd per horse) for 72 horses, the resident population of horses (Balance Hydrologics 2016) Regarding the commenter’s requested increase in water storage capacity, MROSD based the planned water storage capacity on the preliminary requirements provided by the County of Santa Clara. With regards to upgrading the capacity of water storage, the MROSD plan for water system and emergency access improvements are considered adequate to meet the Preserves water needs. For further detail on the Plan’s water system and emergency access improvements, see response to comment 6-1. 8-2 Comment 8-2 is a request to include Bear Creek Stables, an equestrian facility with boarders, in the Preserve Vision Statement. The comment pertains to a component of the Preserve Plan and does not address an environmental issue relevant to CEQA. The Preserve Vision Statement is an overarching statement that is a description of the long-term desired direction for the overall Preserve and should not call out specific features like Alma College or Bear Creek Stables. The goals and objectives of the Preserve Plan highlight the importance of specific elements within the Preserve. Bear Creek Stables is addressed in various goals and objectives that include, but are not limited to, Goals PU6, NR6 and MO5 in Section V, Key Areas of the Preserve Plan. 8-3 Comment 8-3 relates to trails, parking, and Preferred Alternative A2 improvements and phasing. The comments pertain to the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan, which is a component of the Preserve Plan and does not address an environmental issue relevant to CEQA. The Preserve Plan identifies the A-2 Site Alternative for the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan, which includes retaining the original barn structure for potential future rehabilitation. Chapter 3, page 47 of the Preserve Plan has been revised to state, “Provide public restrooms and visitor parking. This may include a parking structure that would be placed on the current location of the old stables barn building.” (Note that the strike-though text was not included in the Draft EIR; therefore, no revision to the Draft EIR is needed.) A bypass trail is included as a key element to allow boarded horses to access the Preserve’s trail system without traveling Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-24 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR through public and parking areas. The Preserve Plan also includes outreach to educate trail users on etiquette and speeds for safe trail use. While the basic elements of the stable improvements are identified as part of the Preserve Plan (specifically, the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan), detailed design and construction plans, consistent with the more basic Bear Creek Stables Site Plan, would be prepared to provide precision guidance for development of the site. Comments regarding detailed components, such as speed deterrents and paddock dimensions, are noted and will be considered during design development. To address health, safety, and environmental concerns, MROSD is focused on high priority improvements (those that will be implemented first and funded by MROSD). A farm animals barn is not identified as part of the initial improvements for the stables and will not be implemented until funding becomes available for the barn. In the interim, the Stables Implementation Plan will be developed during the specific site design process, and will specify when small farm animals, currently on site, would be relocated offsite to accommodate demolition and construction. Tenant or grant funding would potentially allow the small animals barn to be replaced on a more accelerated timeline (see Preserve Plan Objective PU6.2k). Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-25 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-26 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 9 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit November 1, 2016 9-1 This is the standard letter issued be the State Clearinghouse. The letter indicates that no comments were received from state agencies. No further response is necessary. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-27 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-28 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 10 County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department No date 10-1 The Draft EIR indicates (page 1-5) that the project may be subject to the permitting requirements of the County of Santa Clara. MROSD will consult with the County Land Development Engineering Office regarding grading permits, when applicable. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed. 10-2 The Draft EIR indicates (page 1-5) that the project may be subject to the permitting requirements of the County of Santa Clara. MROSD will coordinate with the County as needed regarding use permits for events. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed. 10-3 The Draft EIR indicates (page 1-5) that the project may be subject to the permitting requirements of the County of Santa Clara. MROSD will coordinate with the County as needed regarding demolition permits and will comply with the permit requirements. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed. Exhibit A Ascent Environmental Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 3-29 Exhibit A Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-30 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 11 Aruna Bodduna, Associate Transportation Planner County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department November 8, 2016 11-1 The comment relates to the mid-block pedestrian crossing at Bear Creek Road in an area where the roadway bisects the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. The commenter suggests that MROSD should evaluate the need for this pedestrian crossing once the Preserve is opened for public use. The Preserve Plan identifies a parking area at the former Alma College site, which is located on the east side of Bear Creek Road, to service future visitors to Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. The project includes hiking trails on the opposite side of Bear Creek Road from the parking area. Therefore, there would be a need to provide a safe pedestrian crossing for hikers to get from the parking lot and for equestrians from Bear Creek Stables to access the trail head on the west side of Bear Creek Road. To avoid potential risks for Preserve users crossing the road in an unsafe manner, the Preserve Plan identifies a crosswalk in a location that the traffic engineer has carefully evaluated and chosen to provide adequate sight distance for the prevailing vehicular speeds on Bear Creek Road. The Plan also includes installation of fencing, signage, trail chicanes, and adequately-size landing/waiting areas to ensure that pedestrian and equestrian crossings happen in a safe manner and only at the crosswalk. Furthermore, since the release of the Draft EIR, MROSD added an undercrossing option to the Preserve Plan. MROSD may pursue the undercrossing option contingent on feasibility studies. See response to comment 2-1 above for more details regarding the undercrossing. If the undercrossing is determined to be infeasible, MROSD will coordinate with County staff regarding the at-grade pedestrian crossing. In consultation with County staff, MROSD may install flashing beacons at the crosswalk to enhance its visibility. MROSD will work with the County Roads & Airports Department to ensure that the crosswalk is designed and installed in accordance with their standards. Exhibit A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR 4-1 4 REPORT PREPARERS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (LEAD AGENCY) Lisa Infante Bankosh .............................................................................. Project Manager/Open Space Planner III Gretchen Laustsen ............................................................................................................... Open Space Planner III ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION) Gary Jakobs, AICP ........................................................................................................................ Principal-in-Charge Mike Parker, AICP ............................................................................................................................ Project Manager Stephanie Rasmussen .................................................................................................... Assistant Project Manager Linda Leeman ...................................................................................................................... Senior Wildlife Biologist Gayiety Lane .......................................................................................................... Document Production Specialist HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. (TRAFFIC) Gary Black .................................................................................................................................................... President Exhibit A Report Preparers Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4-2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR This page intentionally left blank. Exhibit A ERRATA TO THE FINAL EIR INTRODUCTION Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) has prepared this Errata sheet to clarify and correct information in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR or FEIR) for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Project (or Project). This Errata sheet includes a minor edit to the Final EIR for the Project and does not contain significant new information that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Additionally, information clarified in the Final EIR does not present a feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the Draft EIR. The information added to the Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications in the Draft EIR. New information added to the Final EIR is not “significant”, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). MROSD has reviewed the information in this Errata sheet and has determined that it does not change any of the findings or conclusions of the Final EIR and does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In conformance with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR, technical appendices and reports thereof, together with the Errata, are intended to serve as documents that will generally inform the decision-makers and the public of environmental effects of the Project. CHANGES TO DRAFT EIR TEXT Revisions to the Draft EIR are shown below as excerpts from the EIR text. Added or modified text is underlined, while deleted text will have a strikeout through the text. Chapter 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems Impact Analysis – Page 4.13-9 Impact 4.13-1: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. With implementation of the proposed project, water demand on the project site would increase from a maximum of 7,200 gpd to a maximum of 8,000 gpd. Based on the indication of availability of municipal water from SJWC, and results of the groundwater pumping and water quality testing completed for the existing well, it is anticipated that one or both of these on-site water sources would be able to provide adequate water supply to serve project demands. This impact is considered less than significant. ### Exhibit A Page 1 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT B CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT and STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT for the BEAR CREEK REDWOODS PRESERVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JANUARY 25, 2017 Page 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations I. INTRODUCTION On January 13, 2017, the final environmental impact report (EIR) prepared on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) was released. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, MROSD, acting through its Board of Directors, adopts the following findings for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan (the project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15000 et seq.). This document is organized as follows: Section I introduces the findings. Section II describes the project proposed for approval, and the approval actions to be taken. Section III describes the environmental review process for the project, including public scoping and review of the project. Section IV identifies the Record of Proceedings for this matter, including the administrative record upon which MROSD’s approval of the project is based and the location of records. Section V provides general guidance regarding MROSD’s adoption of these findings. Section VI includes MROSD’s findings with respect to the project’s potentially significant impacts. Attached to these findings is a table summarizing the findings for each environmental impact evaluated, including specific mitigation measures, to be adopted by MROSD in connection with its approval of the project. Exhibit C to the Board Resolution includes the full text of each mitigation measure adopted by MROSD. Section VI also addresses mitigation measures and project modifications proposed by commenters, and MROSD’s findings with respect to these proposals. Section VII adopts and incorporates the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”) for the mitigation measures that have been proposed for adoption. In adopting these findings, MROSD hereby adopts and commits to implement the MMRP. The measures set forth in the MMRP represent binding commitments to which the project applicant must comply. Section VIII sets forth MROSD’s findings with respect to recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section IV sets forth MROSD’s findings with respect to alternatives to the project. These findings are adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21081, subdivision (a)(3). Section V sets forth MROSD’s statement of overriding considerations concerning the project. These findings are adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (b). The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project and the EIR. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Although the findings below identify specific pages within the Draft EIR and Final EIR documents (which, together, constitute the Final EIR) in support of various conclusions reached below, MROSD incorporates by reference and adopts as its own, the reasoning set forth in the Final EIR, and thus relies Exhibit B Page 3 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations on that reasoning, even where not specifically mentioned or cited below, in reaching the conclusions set forth below, except where additional evidence is specifically mentioned. MROSD further intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, any finding required or permitted to be made by MROSD with respect to any particular subject matter of the project must be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings or findings elsewhere in the record. These Findings, along with the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section X, the table of findings set forth below, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”) set forth in Exhibit C to the Board Resolution, are made with respect to the project approvals for the project and state the findings of the MROSD Board of Directors relating to the potentially significant environmental effects of the project in accordance with the project approvals. The following Findings, along with the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP are hereby adopted by the MROSD Board of Directors as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21002, 21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 through 15093. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following text briefly describes the project. See Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for a complete and detailed description of the project. Note that changes to the project description are provided in Section 2 of the response to comments document. A. Preserve Description and Project Location Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (“Bear Creek Redwoods” or “Preserve”) encompasses more than 1,400 acres of native evergreen forests, grasslands, and oak woodlands, as well as nonnative stands of grassland and shrub habitat. There are also areas of widespread invasive species. Much of Bear Creek Redwoods is steep and rugged, with several seasonal and perennial streams draining northeast to Lexington Reservoir. Three small human-made ponds are located in the northeastern portion of the Preserve. Existing facilities located onsite include trails, unpaved roads, ponds, a small parking area, the former Alma College Site, and Bear Creek Stables. The Preserve is located almost entirely on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains, with two small areas at the extreme south end of the preserve extending over the summit to the western slope. Elevations within the Preserve range from approximately 680 to 2,400 feet. Bear Creek Redwoods is located in the south-central portion of Santa Clara County, just west of Lexington Reservoir and 9 miles south of Los Gatos. (The far southwest parcel is located within Santa Cruz County; however, the Preserve Plan includes no facilities, trails, or any changes in existing use for that parcel, and it will remain closed to the public.) El Sereno Open Space Preserve and Sanborn-Skyline County Park are located to the north, and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve is located to the northeast. Private property abuts the entire Preserve except for the southeast corner, which is bordered by the Moody Gulch property that is currently owned by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. Highway 17 is adjacent to the northeast corner of the Preserve, from which Bear Creek Road provides access to the Preserve. Bear Creek Stables Bear Creek Stables occupies a roughly 25-acre area that is located within the northeastern sub-zone of the Preserve, off of Bear Creek Road, approximately 0.75 mile west of Highway 17. Several unpaved roads provide access and circulation on the property. The Stables contain a main arena, a smaller secondary arena, and paddocks for a maximum of 72 horses. A small number of paddocks are located along the top of the ridge accessed by steep hillsides. Structures include a caretaker residence, cottage, stable, small Exhibit B Page 4 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations animal barn, hay barn, storage/maintenance shop, and office trailer. Alma College The former Alma College site is an approximately 30-acre complex of ponds, dilapidated structures, terraced grounds, former gardens, and remnant landscape features in the central portion of the Preserve. Originally developed as a sawmill in the 1850s, by the early 1900s the site had been transitioned into a country estate. The estate was greatly expanded by its subsequent owners into a complex, manicured landscape of formal gardens, grounds, and a stables (now Bear Creek Stables). Many of the remaining historic-era features on the site, including the mansion foundation, massive retaining walls, an aqueduct, terraces, pools, fountains, remnant gardens, other landscape elements, a bungalow-style clubhouse, water and road infrastructure, and the Stables buildings, date from 1905-1933. B. Project Overview Implementation of the proposed Preserve Plan would expand public access to the Preserve and create additional trails for public use, enhance native habitats and protect sensitive biotic resources, interpret and protect cultural resources, provide public access to public equestrian programs, and maintain and operate Preserve facilities over the long term. Expansion of Preserve public access facilities and implementation of resource protection and enhancement projects will be phased over the course of 20 years. The Preserve Plan includes four Preserve-wide elements: 1) Public Use and Facilities, 2) Natural Resource Management, 3) Cultural Resource Management, and 4) Maintenance and Operations. In addition, the Preserve Plan focuses on two key areas: Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site. Four site design alternatives were evaluated for the Bear Creek Stables area. MROSD is adopting Alternative A2, which includes necessary improvements to the existing Stables facilities to accommodate 62 boarded horses and a new caretaker residence. Public access improvements would include a livery stable (for public program horses), visitor information kiosk, visitor parking, restroom, and a public open air riding arena. Pasture areas would be fully restored to a natural landscape and the paddock area would be rebuilt for improved drainage and equestrian health and safety. The former Alma College site would be rehabilitated and enhanced for interpretive and educational purposes. The chapel building and 1934 library superstructure would be retained and stabilized for potential re-use by a partner, while the 1950 library, garage, and classroom buildings cannot feasibly be retained and would be demolished for public safety reasons. C. Project Objectives The objectives for the project are as follows: The proposed project is intended to achieve the following primary objectives. These objectives reflect the goals of the Preserve Plan: allow general public access and enhance low-intensity recreational opportunities in the Preserve; provide low-impact, high-value, site-sensitive interpretation and environmental education activities; expand opportunities for people with diverse physical abilities to enjoy the Preserve; provide regional and local trail connections; Exhibit B Page 5 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations actively involve the public in the use and management of the Preserve; maximize public benefits of Bear Creek Stables by broadening public access and use of the facility; increase the acreage of protected habitat and connectivity to wildlife corridors; protect habitats that support diverse biological resources, are unique, or are important for the conservation of rare, threatened, and endangered species; protect native wildlife; repair and monitor ecologically damaged and disturbed areas; protect waterways and associated natural lands to maintain water quality, watershed function, and healthy aquatic habitat; protect and interpret significant historical and cultural resources; within MROSD’s basic mission, rehabilitate the former Alma College site so it can be integrated into the Preserve, while respecting the site’s history, character, and cultural landscape; maintain trails and facilities to protect the natural environment and provide for a quality visitor experience; address environmental hazards; reduce wildfire risk; develop a viable plan that is financially feasible for both a tenant and MROSD that allows for long-term maintenance and operations of Bear Creek Stables; and ensure that all leases, easements, access agreements, and other legal arrangements are consistent with Preserve Plan goals and MROSD’s mission, Strategic Plan, and Open Space Vision Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 3-8) D. Discretionary Approvals Project approval requires MROSD, as lead agency under CEQA, as well as certain “responsible agencies” to take various planning and regulatory actions to approve the overall project. Described below are discretionary actions necessary to carry out the project. (See also Draft EIR Table 1-1.) In addition to MROSD’s certification of the Final EIR and adoption of these Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (CEQA requirements), the project may be subject to the permitting requirements of the County of Santa Clara, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS Exhibit B Page 6 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations In accordance with section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, MROSD prepared and distributed an NOP for this EIR on June 11, 2015. The NOP provided a brief description of the project, a map of the project location, and an overview of the environmental review process. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the project would be prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. The NOP invited all interested parties to provide comments during a 30-day period. The NOP was mailed or emailed to several hundred individuals and organizations, including property owners and/or residents within the vicinity of the project site. The NOP was also filed with the State Clearinghouse and County Recorder-Clerk’s Office, and was posted on MROSD’s website. A public notice announcing NOP availability and scoping meeting was posted on site. The scoping meeting was held on June 24, 2015, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Grant Park Community Center in Los Altos. Responsible agencies and members of the public were invited to provide input on the scope of the EIR. The comments received on the NOP and at the scoping meeting were addressed, as applicable, in each technical section of the Draft EIR. Appendix A of the Draft EIR contains a copy of the NOP and comment letters received on the NOP. The EIR includes an analysis of the following issue areas: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use; Noise; Recreation; Traffic and Transportation; and Utilities. On September 16, 2016, the Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review and comment period that ended on October 31, 2016 (this public review period is consistent with the review period set forth in Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines). The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, posted on the MROSD website (http://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/bcr-plan), and made available at the MROSD Administrative Office and the Los Gatos Public Library. In addition, the Draft EIR was distributed directly to public agencies (including potential responsible and trustee agencies), interested parties, and organizations. On January 13, 2017, MROSD released the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the text of the Draft EIR, and other information required by CEQA. MROSD distributed copies of the Final EIR to public agencies submitting comments on the Draft EIR, as required by Public Resources Code section 21092.5. On January 25, 2017, MROSD held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final EIR and the Preserve Plan, including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan. The Board received public comment, and concluded the public hearing. The Board of Directors has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis Exhibit B Page 7 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, MROSD’s planning consultants, and by staff, and after receiving and considering public comment, makes the findings set forth herein. IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for MROSD’s decision on the project includes the following documents: The NOP and all other public notices issued by MROSD in conjunction with the project; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the NOP; The Draft EIR for the project (September 2016) and all appendices; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the Draft EIR; The Final EIR for the project, including comments received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments and appendices (December 2016); Documents cited or referenced in the Final EIR; The mitigation monitoring and reporting plan for the project; All findings and resolutions adopted by MROSD in connection with the project and all documents cited or referred to therein; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the project prepared by MROSD, consultants to MROSD, as well as responsible or trustee agencies with respect to MROSD’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the MROSD’s action on the project; All documents submitted to MROSD by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, up through the close of the Board’s public hearing on January 25, 2017; Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by MROSD in connection with the project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to MROSD at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; Any and all resolutions adopted by MROSD regarding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions; Matters of common knowledge to MROSD, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). Exhibit B Page 8 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations MROSD has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the project, even if not every document was formally presented to MROSD. Without exception, any documents set forth above not so presented fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which MROSD was aware in approving the project. Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to Planning Department staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the General Manager for recommendations to the Board of Directors. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for MROSD’s decisions relating to the adoption of the project. The record of proceedings does not include documents or other materials subject to the attorney/client privilege, the common-interest doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, or other privileges recognized by statute or common law. Administrative draft documents that were prepared at MROSD’s direction, but were not provided to the public or other agencies, and intra-County communications with respect to such administrative draft documents, are not part of the record of proceedings; rather, such documents reflect MROSD’s deliberative process, and reflect initial drafts of documents that later appeared in final form in the record of proceedings. Because these initial working drafts do not reflect the final evidence and analysis relied upon by MROSD, they are not part of the record of proceedings. In adopting these findings, MROSD does not waive its right to assert applicable privileges. Pursuant to Public Resource Code section15091, the MROSD is the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based, and such documents and other materials are located at MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022. Copies of the Draft and Final EIRs are also available at the MROSD’s website at http://www.openspace.org/our- work/projects/bcr-plan. V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. and the regulations implementing that statute, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, section 15000 et seq. (the “CEQA Guidelines”) (collectively, the act and the CEQA Guidelines are referred to as “CEQA”) require public agencies to consider the potential effects of their discretionary activities on the environment and, when feasible, to adopt and implement mitigation measures that avoid or substantially lessen the effects of those activities on the environment. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The three possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Exhibit B Page 9 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd (a); see also CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417 (City of Del Mar).) “[F]easibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [after weighing “‘economic, environmental, social, and technological factors’ … ‘an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impracticable or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground’”].) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) In making these findings and the determination regarding the project approvals, the Board of Directors recognizes that the project implicates potentially controversial environmental issues and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to those issues. The Board of Directors has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters and reports regarding the Final EIR and the merits of the project. The Board of Directors has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, MROSD’s technical consultants, and by staff, addressing these comments. In particular, the Board of Directors has considered the alternatives presented in the EIR, as well as the proposed comments submitted by various commenters and the responses of the EIR preparers and staff to those comments. The Board of Directors has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the Exhibit B Page 10 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations environmental issues presented by the project. In turn, that understanding has enabled the Board of Directors to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. Accordingly, the Board of Directors certifies that its findings are based on a full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR. These findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the Board of Directors regarding the environmental impacts of the project and the mitigation measures included as part of the Final EIR and adopted by the Board of Directors as part of the project. To avoid duplication and redundancy, and because the Board of Directors agrees with, and hereby adopts, the conclusions in the Final EIR, these findings will not always repeat the analysis and conclusions in the Final EIR, but instead incorporates them by reference herein and relied upon them as substantial evidence supporting these findings. Because the EIR identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA presented above, the Board of Directors hereby adopts these findings as part of the approval of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan. These findings constitute the Board of Directors’ best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that come into effect with the Board of Directors’ approval of the project. VI. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The EIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the project will cause or contribute to. These significant effects can be avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. The MROSD Board of Directors’ findings with respect to the project’s significant effects and mitigation measures are summarized in a table hereinbelow. The table does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, the table provides a summary description of each impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by MROSD, and states MROSD’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found the Draft EIR and Final EIR. MROSD has adopted all of the mitigation measures identified in the table. Some of the measures identified in the table are also within the jurisdiction and control of other agencies. To the extent any of the mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of other agencies, MROSD finds those agencies can and should implement those measures within their jurisdiction and control. For this project, the following impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable. That is, these impacts remain significant, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid these impacts: Impact 4.4-2: Change the significance of a historical resource (Structures). Many extant structures on the Preserve have been evaluated for eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Structures at Bear Creek Stables were found to be ineligible. The classroom, 1934 and 1950 libraries, chapel, and garage at the former Alma College site have also been found ineligible for listing on the CRHR, nor is the site eligible as a historic district. However, the “Alma College Complex” remains listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory; it was originally listed in 1995. The proposed project would result in the demolition of four buildings that are Exhibit B Page 11 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations listed as part of the “Alma College Complex” on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. There are also other unevaluated historic-era structures, or structural remnants, that could be affected by the project. Demolition of historic resources would result in a significant impact because the historic resources would no longer exist. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, Documentation of historic buildings prior to removal, would lessen the impacts related to the loss of the classroom building, 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library, but the structures, which are listed on the Santa Clara Heritage Resource Inventory, would no longer exist. This impact is significant and unavoidable. VII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN MROSD has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the project. A copy of the MMRP is attached to the Board Resolution as Exhibit C. MROSD, in adopting these findings, also approves the MMRP. MROSD will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The MMRP is attached to and incorporated into the project and is approved in conjunction with certification of the EIR and adoption of these Findings of Fact. In the event of any conflict between these findings and the MMRP with respect to the requirements of an adopted mitigation measure, the more stringent measure shall control, and shall be incorporated automatically into both the findings and the MMRP. VIII. RECIRCULATION OF DRAFT EIR In the course of responding to comments received during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, certain portions of the Draft EIR have been modified and new information has been added. No information has revealed the existence of: (1) a significant new environmental impact that would result from the project or an adopted mitigation measure; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure not adopted that is considerably different from others analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project; or (4) information that indicates that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Consequently, MROSD finds that the amplifications and clarifications made to the Draft EIR in the Final EIR do not collectively or individually constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Recirculation of the Draft EIR or any portion thereof, is therefore not required. IX. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” All of the environmental impacts associated with the project may be substantially lessened or avoided with the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in these findings, with the exception of Impact 4.4- 2, “Change the significance of a historic resource (structures).” The Draft EIR discussed several alternatives to the project in order to present a reasonable range of options. To be suitable for consideration in the EIR, alternatives must be “potentially” feasible and “attain most of the basic objectives of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6, subd. (a).) The Exhibit B Page 12 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations alternatives analyzed in detail in the EIR are: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative 3: No Special Events B. Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR MROSD adopts the following findings with respect to each alternative. Alternative 1: No Project Under the No Project Alternative, no Preserve Plan actions would be taken and the existing condition of the Preserve would continue. The Bear Creek Stables would remain in the current condition, and the former Alma College site would remain closed to the public and existing structures would not be removed or rehabilitated. Impacts associated with the No Project Alternative are generally similar or slightly less than those that would occur with the project. However, impacts to Cultural Resources would be greater under the No Project Alternative, because the former Alma College site would remain closed to the public and would continue to deteriorate. Also, impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality would be greater if the Preserve Plan was not implemented because the Preserve Plan includes many actions to reduce erosion and sedimentation into creeks. Furthermore, as shown in Table 6-2 of the Draft EIR, with the exception of three objectives pertaining to protection of natural resources, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives related (but not limited) to public access, enhancing the public benefit of the Stables, providing interpretive and educational opportunities, and addressing wildfire risk and other environmental hazards. This alternative would also conflict with MROSD’s Open Space Vision Plan, which identifies increased public access, Stables renovation, and Alma College site rehabilitation as priority projects at Bear Creek Redwoods. These priorities were reaffirmed by the public at large through the passage of Measure AA in 2014, to secure the necessary funding to implement these priorities. Because Alternative 1 is not environmentally superior to the Project and would not meet most of the project objectives, MROSD rejects Alternative 1. Alternative 2: No Alma College Rehabilitation The No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative includes all of the components of the proposed project except that the former Alma College site would not be rehabilitated. Under this alternative, public access would not be permitted at the former Alma College site because the existing structures would not be stabilized, posing an increasing public safety hazard as the structures continue to degrade over time, especially given the proximity to the San Andreas Fault. Parking, interpretation and recreation-supporting facilities would not be included at the former Alma College site. Impacts from the No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative would be similar to impacts from the project, with exception of the unavoidable significant impact to historic resources, which would not occur, and additional, temporary air quality and greenhouse gas emissions related to construction/demolition. However, overall impacts to Cultural Resources are greater under the No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative, because deterioration of the structures slated for stabilization would continue under the natural influence of time, weather, and seismic activity. Additionally, the public would not be able to access the site and learn about the interpretation of the site, and therefore its historic significance could not be understood. In terms of project objectives, the No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative does not meet the Preserve Plan’s public access objective, which includes parking, Exhibit B Page 13 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations interpretation and other visitor facilities at the site. If these facilities were not built as part of the project, access to the western Preserve would be less easily accessible, requiring the public to park further away and hike much longer distances. Because the No Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative is not environmentally superior to the project, and does not meet key Preserve Plan objectives, MROSD rejects Alternative 2. Alternative 3: No Special Events Under the No Special Events Alternative, all proposed features of the Preserve Plan would be implemented except for the special events that are currently proposed to occur at Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site. This alternative would slightly reduce impacts in issue areas that are affected by vehicular trip generation, but would not substantially reduce any environmental impacts. While the No Special Events Alternative would result in a slight reduction in impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and noise, without increasing any environmental impacts compared to the proposed project, none of the slight differences would alter the significance conclusions identified for these impacts. The No Special Events Alternative meets the basic project objectives. However, special events at Bear Creek Stables, which would be limited to a maximum of 250 people and would prohibit amplified sound, could contribute to the Preserve Plan objective to maximize public benefits of the Stables by broadening public access and use of the facility. Occasional events such as 4-H exhibitions or equestrian trainings, could significantly increase the financial sustainability of the Stables operation. Such events would be permissible by MROSD permit only. Special events at the former Alma College site, such as MROSD staff events, environmental education tours and hikes, or recreational events such as group hikes or runs, would also be limited to a maximum of 250 people, would not permit amplified sound, and would occur by MROSD permit only. These types of events also serve to enhance the public benefit and extent of public outreach by providing a wider range of recreational opportunities and group interaction that facilitates interpretation and education. MROSD rejects the No Special Events Alternative due to the fact that it does not substantially reduce impacts of the project, it would remove a potential key funding opportunity for the proposed project, it does not meet the project objectives as fully as the proposed project, and it could preclude development of full public benefits at Bear Creek Stables. A. Other Alternatives State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c) provides that an EIR “should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.” The following alternatives were considered, but were dismissed from further consideration, as explained below. MROSD adopts the following findings with respect to these alternatives. Full Alma College Rehabilitation. This Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, except that rather than any demolition of structures at the former Alma College site, it would rehabilitate all existing structures. This alternative would avoid project-related significant and unavoidable impacts associated with removal of historic structures that are listed on the County’s Heritage Resource Inventory. However, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration for two primary reasons. First, most structures identified for demolition are located on or within 50 feet of a trace fault associated with the San Andreas Fault. Compliance with California Building Code (CBC) to rehabilitate these structures for reuse would be prohibitively expensive and limitations that would need to be placed on the extent and hours of habitable use would render the buildings impractical to upgrade, keep, and maintain. Second, damage Exhibit B Page 14 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations from previous earthquakes, as well as exposure and age, has deteriorated these structures such that the repair and rehabilitation alone, absent the seismic code requirements, would be prohibitively expensive. The expense associated with this alternative renders it financially infeasible and the limitations on use question the appropriateness of using public funds for rehabilitation. Furthermore, retaining the 1950 library for large events, such as weddings or conventions, would require cost-prohibitive utility upgrades (including substantially greater water demand) and potentially result in noise, traffic, or hazards- related impacts. This level of “concentrated use” is also outside the mission of MROSD, which provides for “low-intensity” public use only. For these reasons, the Full Alma College Rehabilitation Alternative has been eliminated from further consideration and is rejected by MROSD. Former Bear Creek Stables “Alternative C.” MROSD considered and presented to the public a different iteration of Alternative C for Bear Creek Stables. The primary feature that distinguished former Alternative C from Bear Creek Stables Alternatives A, B, and the current Alternative C, which are evaluated throughout Chapter 4, is that it would include a multi-purpose structure combining residential space for the caretaker, as well as office and hay storage space. This multi-purpose structure would have been three stories tall. Development of the multi-purpose structure would have required demolition of the oldest barn associated with Bear Creek Stables. MROSD dismissed Alternative C from further consideration because the height and mass of the multi-purpose structure was not considered to be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding environment. Furthermore, Bear Creek Stables Alternative C included more intense development than the other two alternatives and would not reduce or avoid any of the impacts associated with the proposed project. For all of these reasons, Bear Creek Stables Alternative C has been eliminated from further consideration and is rejected by MROSD. B. Environmentally Superior Alternative The Board finds that because none of the project alternatives would avoid a significant effect of the proposed project while still meeting the basic project objectives, the proposed project is considered environmentally superior. Exhibit B Page 15 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations X. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS For Significant Unavoidable Impacts Identified in the Findings and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan, including the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and the Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (Project) State Clearinghouse Number 2015062029 January 2017 CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has made a reasonable good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. MROSD recognizes, however, that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the project will have significant and unavoidable impacts. In particular, the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to historic resources, arising from the demolition of structures at the former Alma College site that are listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. These significant unavoidable impacts are identified and discussed in Section VI of these Findings and in a table included hereinbelow. MROSD further specifically finds that these significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the proposed project’s benefits which constitute an overriding consideration warranting approval of the proposed project. MROSD also notes that implementation of the No Project Alternative would not avoid the significant impact. MROSD finds that any one of the benefits set forth below is sufficient by itself to warrant approval of the proposed project, and justify the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts from the project. This determination is based on the findings herein and the evidence in the record. Having balanced the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts against each of the benefits, pursuant to CEQA section 21081 and CEQA Guideline 15093, MROSD adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the following reasons: A. Social and Recreational Benefits The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan provides social and recreational benefits by opening a regional open space preserve, including hiking and equestrian trails and a multi-use trail connection, for use by the general public. Bear Creek Redwoods is located in close proximity to the dense urban centers of the South Bay Area, and is easily accessible via Highway 17 and an established regional trail system. Visitor use of the Preserve is therefore expected to be high. The Preserve Plan includes actions to ensure that trails and facilities will be accessible, safe, and enjoyable for a wide range of users. Exhibit B Page 16 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Findings of Fact and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Statement of Overriding Considerations As an integral part of the Preserve Plan, rehabilitation of the Alma College cultural landscape will provide important interpretive and educational opportunities to the public. Opening the former Alma College site will allow preserve visitors to understand the broad patterns of California history that are reflected in the multi-layered cultural landscape and presented in the interpretive features. Parking and other facilities at the Alma College site will enable easy access to the entire western Preserve, which otherwise would require visitors to park further away and hike much longer distances, thus potentially making the western trails inaccessible to visitors with mobility constraints. The Preserve Plan also includes renovation of Bear Creek Stables, an important resource to the equestrian community, and provision of greatly expanded public programming at the site including, potentially, a livery stable for public program horses. B. Environmental Benefits A fundamental objective of the Preserve Plan project is to protect and enhance the natural environment. The project prioritizes improvements to existing roads, trails, and other facilities that aim to reduce erosion, improving water quality in creeks and in downstream waterbodies, including the Lexington Reservoir. Other Preserve Plan actions will restore degraded habitat areas by cleaning up historic-era debris and controlling invasive weeds; stabilize dams and spillways to protect aquatic habitat; monitor and manage Sudden Oak Death to improve forest health; and construct habitat to protect bats. Demolition of certain buildings and rehabilitation of the former Alma College site will remove dilapidated structures, including the garage, a former automotive utility building located on the bank of Webb Creek, and clean up other potential sources of contamination. Although the site is fenced off, structures remain a physical hazard due to their dilapidated condition and proximity to seismic fault traces, as well as attracting vandalism and trespass. Rehabilitation will improve overall aesthetics of the site and restore historic views and spatial organization of the cultural landscape, since the 1950 addition of the large concrete library structure blocked longitudinal views along the ridgeline, that were integral to the estate’s landscape design. C. Economic Benefits The Preserve Plan project will allow for social, recreational, and environmental benefits as discussed in Sections A and B, while reserving the limited available funds on stabilizing and rehabilitating structures that can actually be feasibly re-used. Demolition of unsafe structures and stabilization of the chapel and 1934 library superstructure would allow the former Alma College site to open for public use and open the opportunity for partner-funded re-use and long-term maintenance of the site. D. Policy The Preserve Plan project complies with Board-adopted Policies for Acquisition and Maintenance of District Lands. Regarding potential rehabilitation of structures at the former Alma College site, the project is in compliance with MROSD Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition. Under this policy, the MROSD Board of Directors considers adopted policies, compatibility with open space character, historic and educational value, partnership opportunities, cost, including liability and management, potential use, public sentiment, regional importance, strategic fit, tradeoffs and impacts on MROSD resources, and visitor experience, when considering which structures to retain at the site. The resulting project balances these factors, in accordance with District policy. Exhibit B Page 1 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact 4.1 Aesthetics Impact 4.1-1: Effects to a scenic vista or substantial degradation of the site’s existing visual character or quality. The project site is part of the overall scenic vista associated with the Santa Cruz Mountains portion of the Pacific Coast Range. This scenic vista, including the project site, is visible from Highway 17, SR 35, and surrounding rural residences. The visual character of the project site is primarily a natural setting dominated by views of dense evergreen and deciduous forests. Proposed improvements at Bear Creek Stables would not result in a substantial adverse change to the scenic vista or degrade the visual character or quality of the site. Instead, it would provide a more unified appearance to the existing developed area of the Stables property. At the former Alma College site, the visual character of the project site would change with proposed demolition of several existing dilapidated and hazardous structures. Although the change would be noticeable to those familiar to the site, because the former Alma College site access is currently restricted, any changes to the visual character would be mostly unnoticed. In addition, the change to the visual character would not be considered an adverse visual change, but would rather benefit from the overall rehabilitation and reuse of the former Alma College site, which would allow the public to gain access and appreciate the visual qualities of the site and structures proposed for rehabilitation. Other project components, such as trails, restrooms, and parking areas, would be designed consistent with County and MROSD policies related to visual quality. Overall, changes in the views of the Preserve’s recreational facilities would be barely perceptible and would not obstruct the panoramic views of the site and surrounding areas. Therefore, these activities No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact would not substantially degrade the visual quality and character of the sites or have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. This would be considered less-than- significant. Impact 4.1-2: Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway or local scenic road. Activities proposed that may result in tree removal include the establishment of new recreation trails and construction of parking areas and driveway access. Specifically, construction of parking areas near the former Alma College site would result in removal of several medium- to small-sized trees, and construction of the driveway to the Lower Parking Lot would require removal of several trees (to maintain adequate line of site) near Bear Creek Road, a Santa Clara County local scenic roadway. Two of the trees to be removed would likely qualify as heritage trees, due to their species (coast live oak) and size. No tree removal is proposed within view of SR 35 and Highway 17, and rock outcroppings located on the site would not be removed or altered. Historic- era buildings located at the former Alma College site are proposed for demolition or rehabilitation; however, views of the former Alma College site are not available from Highway 17 or SR 35, and are only fleetingly available from Bear Creek Road. Some distant and limited views of proposed structures within the Bear Creek Stables property may become available to Highway 17 motorists and distant views of new recreational trails may become available to Bear Creek Road, Highway 17, and SR 35 motorists. Consistent with MROSD Policy SA-1, proposed trails and associated signage would be located in areas that minimize their visibility from a distance and in a way that blends in with the natural environment. In addition, No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 3 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact implementation of Environmental Protection Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would ensure that proposed trail alignments blend in with the surrounding natural setting and that siting of trails would avoid noticeable changes to open hillsides and ridgelines. Overall, these activities would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources within the vicinity of a state scenic highway or local roadway. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Impact 4.1-3: Substantial new source of light or glare. Limited nighttime lighting is currently used at the Bear Creek Stables arenas. This lighting would continue to be used with implementation of the Preserve Plan. New lighting associated with proposed structures on the Bear Creek Stables property would be limited to safety lighting. Outdoor lighting is not provided within MROSD preserve parking areas, and limited special events at the former Alma College site or Bear Creek stables would occur only during posted Preserve (daytime) hours. Environmental Protection Measure AES-4 requires that new lighting include light shields and other devices to ensure that no new light or glare will impact sensitive receptors. This would be a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.2 Air Quality Impact 4.2-1: Short-term construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Short-term construction- generated emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s significance threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors (i.e., ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10 and PM2.5). The project also includes dust control and other construction-related measures required in BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices. Therefore, fugitive dust emissions would not contribute to No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 4 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS and other construction-related emissions would not exceed recommended thresholds. This would be a less-than- significant impact. Impact 4.2-2: Long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Operation of the proposed plan under full buildout would not result in emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 that exceed applicable mass emission thresholds. Thus, long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would not conflict with the air quality planning efforts or contribute substantially to the nonattainment status of Santa Clara County with respect to the NAAQS or CAAQS for ozone, PM10, or PM2.5. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.2-3: Mobile-source carbon monoxide emissions. Though buildout of the plan would result in additional vehicle trips on the surrounding roadway network, project operation would not result in increases in traffic such that the BAAQMD screening criteria for local carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations would be triggered. Therefore, the project would not result in increased concentrations of CO that would expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy levels. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.2-4: Exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants. Construction activities would not result in substantial emissions of diesel PM, even during the most intense construction season, and would not take place in the same locations affecting the same off-site receptors in the plan area every construction season during the buildout period. During major construction of proposed project features, the Preserve area under construction would be closed to the No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 5 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact public (consistent with MROSD practice), avoiding exposure of Preserve users to toxic air contaminants. TACs associated with long-term operations of the BCRPP would also be intermittent and relatively low. Therefore, levels of TACs from project-related construction and operations would not result in an increase in health risk exposure at off-site sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.2-5: Exposure of sensitive receptors to odors. The proposed project would not result in any new sources of odor into the area or introduce new odor-sensitive receptors where they would be exposed to substantial objectionable odors. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.3 Biological Resources Impact 4.3-1: Loss of special-status plants. Although there have been no documented occurrences of special-status plants within the Preserve, there is potential habitat for a number of special-status plant species on-site. Special-status species are protected under ESA, CESA, or CEQA. Ground- disturbing activities related to the trail construction, road improvements, water conveyance pipelines, improvements to Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site, or road and trail improvements/maintenance could result in disturbance or removal of habitat for special-status species; however, implementation of environmental protection measures, which includes pre- construction surveys and avoidance measures would further minimize potential effects on special-status plants. In addition, recreational use of the Preserve is expected to be primarily limited to previously disturbed areas. Therefore, the potential for loss of special- status plants would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 6 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Impact 4.3-2: Loss of bat colonies or special-status individuals. Implementation of the Preserve Plan would involve modifications to existing abandoned buildings within the former Alma College site and some tree removal. Previous surveys have documented the presence of bat colonies within several of the former Alma College buildings. Rehabilitation, demolition, sealing, or other construction activities at these facilities could result in disturbance to active bat colonies that could affect the survival of young or adult bats. In addition, removal of large trees that provide roosting habitat could affect survival of young or adult bats. Loss of an active bat colony or special-status bats would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: Implement measures to protect bat colonies. To mitigate for activities requiring removal of roosting bats from buildings, pre- construction surveys for roosting bats within areas of potential disturbance in the Preserve will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergence survey to note the presence or absence of bats. The type of survey will depend on the condition of the buildings. If no bat roosts are found, then no further study is required. If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts, but are not required. If roosts of Townsend’s big-eared bats, pallid bats, or western red bats are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the facility is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) will be replaced in coordination with CDFW and may include construction and installation of bat boxes or other structures suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, which has been required as part of the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level, by requiring surveying, avoidance and minimization of impacts to bat colonies. MROSD hereby adopts these mitigation measures. MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: Project rehabilitation, demolition, sealing or other construction activities could result in potential impacts to bat colonies and special- status bats. Mitigation 4.3-2 would reduce significant impacts to bat individuals and colonies to a less-than-significant level by surveying for bats before disturbance to potential roosting habitat, and minimizing impacts if they are present by providing alternative roost habitat and excluding the bats from the roost habitat to be removed. Impact 4.3-3: Loss of special-status wildlife. Implementation of environmental protection measures (See Appendix C) as part of Preserve Plan would ensure that proposed activities would not result in the degradation of habitat and loss of special- status wildlife species, including nesting birds and special- Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Implement measures to protect special- status amphibians and western pond turtle. MROSD shall implement the following measures during construction within suitable habitat for special-status amphibians: LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a through 4.3-3c, which has been required as part of the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, by requiring avoidance and minimization of impacts to Exhibit B Page 7 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact status mammals. However, improvements proposed in or adjacent to ponds, waterways, or wetlands could affect special-status amphibians and reptiles. Special-status species are protected under ESA, CESA, California Fish and Game Code, CEQA, or other regulations. Ground-disturbing activities related to construction could result in disturbance or removal of habitat for these species or loss of individuals. Therefore, the potential loss of special- status wildlife would be potentially significant. Construction within or adjacent to waterways will be avoided during the breeding season for California red-legged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog (November – March) and western pond turtle (May -- mid-July). If construction cannot be avoided within or adjacent to waterways during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-activity survey for California red- legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle prior to implementing actions that include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities within or adjacent to potential habitat that could otherwise harm California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or western pond turtle. A qualified biologist shall inspect the work area while vegetation and debris is removed during the initial phase of construction. Because Santa Cruz black salamander lay and brood eggs below ground, prior to ground disturbance, rocks, logs, and other debris shall be turned over and visually inspected. If no California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or western pond turtle are observed during either the pre-activity survey or during removal of vegetation and debris, then work may proceed without a qualified biologist present. If any of these sensitive species are observed at any time before or during construction within the work area by anyone involved in the project, work shall cease and USFWS and/or CDFW shall be contacted. Measures to avoid and minimize disturbance to sensitive reptiles and amphibians shall be implemented and may include delaying the disturbance until after eggs or larvae have metamorphosed, redesigning the project footprint to avoid the species, moving individuals to areas of suitable habitat outside of the disturbance area, or other feasible measures acceptable to the wildlife agencies. special-status wildlife and habitat during construction. MROSD hereby adopts these mitigation measures. MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: Project construction activities could result in potential impacts to California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle. Mitigation Measure 4.3- 3a would generally limit the potential for disturbance to, or loss of, special-status wildlife to a less-than-significant level by requiring pre-construction surveys to determine presence/absence of California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle. If the species is observed at any time during construction, work shall cease and USFWS and/or CDFW shall be contacted. Avoidance of impacts may include delaying the disturbance until after eggs or larvae have metamorphosed, redesigning the project footprint to avoid the species, moving individuals to areas of suitable habitat outside of the disturbance area, or other feasible Exhibit B Page 8 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact The loss of western pond turtle breeding habitat due to development of the Alma College parking area will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. If it is determined that the full amount of replacement breeding habitat cannot all feasibly be located at Upper Lake, the remainder of the replacement breeding habitat will be located at Lower Lake, which also supports western pond turtle. The replacement breeding habitat will be located within 300 feet of the pond’s ordinary high water mark and will be designed to avoid adverse effects to native plant communities and other sensitive species habitat. The replacement habitat will be located away from areas that attract concentrated visitor use, or trail use will be limited as necessary during breeding periods. Design of the replacement breeding habitat, as well as a maintenance and monitoring plan to control encroachment of brush, invasive species, and manage visitor access, will be prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW. The maintenance and monitoring plan will also include baseline population surveys and ongoing population and breeding habitat monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b: Implement measures to protect nesting birds. To minimize potential disturbance to nesting birds, project activities shall occur during the non-breeding season (September 16 through February 14), unless it is not feasible to do so, in which case the following measures shall be applied: measures acceptable to the wildlife agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b would reduce potentially significant impacts on special-status and otherwise protected bird species, including golden eagle and other raptors, to a less-than-significant level because it would require preconstruction surveys to identify active nests and measures to avoid or minimize disturbances of active nests so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c would reduce potentially significant impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat to a less- than-significant level by surveying for woodrats prior to disturbance. If woodrats are determined to be present buffers will be required around active nests, and if necessary the relocation of active nests will occur in consultation with CDFW. Exhibit B Page 9 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact During trail construction, road improvements, and other construction activities, removal of trees greater than 6 inches dbh shall be limited to the greatest degree possible. If construction activity is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 15 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys to identify active nests that could be affected by construction. The surveys shall be conducted before the approval of grading and/or improvement plans and no less than 14 days and no more than 30days before the beginning of construction in a particular area. If no nests are found, no further measures are needed. If active nests are found, impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishment of appropriate buffers around the nests. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that any young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. A 500-foot buffer for large raptors such as buteos, 250-foot buffer for small raptors such as accipiters, and 250-foot for passerines are generally adequate to protect them from disturbance, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW depending on site-specific conditions. For trail construction, use of non-power hand- tools may be permitted within the buffer area if the behavior of the nesting birds would not be altered as a result of the construction. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. Exhibit B Page 10 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c: Implement measures to protect San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. To minimize potential disturbance to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, the following measures will be implemented: Prior to removal of any buildings or vegetation within riparian, oak woodland, montane hardwood, or coastal scrub, redwood or Douglas fir forests, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for woodrat nests within the area to be disturbed. If no woodrat nests are found, no further measures are necessary. If woodrat nests are found, they should be avoided if possible and a minimum buffer of 10 feet shall be established around the nest(s). This buffer may be adjusted in consultation with CDFW. If the nests cannot be avoided, MROSD will consult with CDFW in areas where removal of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is required. Consultation will occur prior to removal of the nests. Actions needed to protect woodrat nests will be determined in consultation with CDFW and may include the live capture and relocation of woodrats to suitable adjacent habitats and removal of nesting sites. Trapping activities will occur prior to April and after July each year to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young or young woodrats. Nest middens will be dismantled by hand under the supervision of a biologist. Nest material will be moved to suitable adjacent areas that will not be disturbed. As woodrats exhibit high site fidelity, buildings with previous woodrat nests will be regularly inspected for potential intrusion to prevent infestation. Impact 4.3-4: Loss of sensitive natural communities and fill of waters of the United States. Although pipelines, trails, bridges, and other recreational facilities would be located to avoid Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive natural communities and compensate for loss of riparian and wetland habitats. LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation 4.3-4, which has been required as part of the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant Exhibit B Page 11 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact sensitive natural communities and wetlands to the extent possible, construction of these facilities, including temporary use of cofferdams, could require removal of riparian and wetland vegetation and could result in the placement of fill material into waters of the United States. This impact would be potentially significant. MROSD will seek to avoid wetland impacts through siting, design, and other avoidance measures. However, if avoidance is not possible, MROSD will review its Routine Maintenance Agreements with CDFW and the RWQCB to determine if the proposed activities are covered by these permits. If so, MROSD will comply with the terms of these existing agreements. If MROSD determines that one or more activities are not covered by existing permits, a jurisdictional wetland delineation will be conducted by a qualified wetland specialist for sensitive areas that cannot be avoided. The preliminary delineation shall be submitted to USACE for verification. The wetlands may be subject to CDFW regulation under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. No grading, fill, or other ground disturbing activities shall occur until all required permits, regulatory approvals, and permit conditions for effects on wetland habitats are secured. If the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, the project may qualify for use of a Nationwide Permit if certain criteria are met. For those wetlands that cannot be avoided, MROSD shall commit to replace, restore, or enhance on a “no net loss” basis (in accordance with USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) the acreage of all wetlands and other waters of the United States that would be removed, lost, and/or degraded with project implementation. Wetland habitat shall be restored, enhanced, and/or replaced at an acreage and location and by methods agreeable to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, depending on agency jurisdiction, and as determined during the permitting processes. level, by avoiding loss or modification of sensitive natural communities and fill or disturbance of wetlands in USACE, CDFW, or RWQCB jurisdiction. MROSD hereby adopts these mitigation measures. MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: Although the project avoids wetland features through siting and design and other avoidance measures, the proposed project could result in loss and/or modification sensitive natural communities and fill of waters of jurisdictional. Significant impacts associated with loss of sensitive natural communities and fill of waters of the United States would be reduced to a less- than-significant level by implementing jurisdictional wetland delineations, obtaining all required regulatory authorizations, and compensation for loss of sensitive natural communities and wetland habitats. Impact 4.3-5: Effects of increased recreation on wildlife and inference with wildlife movement. Implementation of the Preserve Plan would result in increased public access to wildlife habitats that previously have experienced limited human disturbance. Proposed trail connections would provide recreational opportunities for hikers, mountain No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 12 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact bikers, and equestrians. However, these activities are unlikely to substantially adversely affect native wildlife or plant communities. The construction and use of trails are also not likely to substantially interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.3-6: Introduction or spread of invasive plants. Invasive species have been documented within the Preserve, and construction, recreational use, and maintenance has the potential to introduce additional invasive plants or cause invasive plant populations to spread. Noxious weeds and other invasive plants could inadvertently be introduced or spread within the Preserve during grading and construction and maintenance activities if nearby source populations passively colonize disturbed ground, or if personnel and equipment is transported to the site from an infested area. Soil, vegetation, and other materials transported to the Preserve from off-site sources could contain invasive plant seeds or plant material that could become established on- site. Additionally, invasive species could be introduced or spread through use of trails by hikers and equestrians. The introduction and spread of invasive species would degrade terrestrial plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitats, including sensitive communities within the Preserve. However, implementation of environmental protection measures and measures in MROSD’s IPM Guidance Manual would minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.3-7: Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting biological resources. Although some tree removal would be required for the Preserve Plan, tree removal would be avoided to the extent possible and any trees removed Mitigation Measure 4.3-7: Remove and replace trees consistent with the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, Sections C16.1 to C16.17). LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.3-7, which has been required as part of the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level, by complying with the Santa Exhibit B Page 13 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact would be done in accordance with local policies and ordinances. Because the proposed project is a plan, detailed improvement programs and grading plans will not be prepared until specific improvements are funded and authorized, which would occur after approval of the Preserve Plan. Once these detailed plans are available, MROSD will coordinate with Santa Clara County to adhere to the requirements of the Ordinance. However, impacts to trees are considered potentially significant until MROSD complies with the County’s Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. MROSD will comply with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance as applied to parcels greater than 3 acres in lands zoned HS and as applied to trees located within County right-of-way. For removal of large oak trees, MROSD will replace each oak tree removed at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon trees, in- kind, or other ratio approved by the County. MROSD will maintain each of the replacement trees. Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance. MROSD hereby adopts these mitigation measures. MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project will require some tree removal. Implementation of Mitigation 4.3-7 would ensure that the project will remove trees in accordance with local policies and ordinances. Mitigation 4.3-7 also replaces removed large oak trees with 15 gallon trees at a ratio of 3:1. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. 4.4 Cultural Resources Impact 4.4-1: Change the significance of a historic resource (cultural landscape). The Rehabilitation Plan includes a variety of design features that, when incorporated, result in overall compliance with eight out of ten of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. The alterations proposed in the Rehabilitation Plan would allow the site to convey its layered historic significance and retain its eligibility as a CRHR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 14 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Impact 4.4-2: Change the significance of a historical resource (Structures). Many extant structures on the Preserve have been evaluated for eligibility for listing on the CRHR. Structures at Bear Creek Stables were found to be ineligible. The classroom, 1934 and 1950 libraries, chapel, and garage at Alma College have also been found ineligible for listing on the CRHR, nor is the site eligible as a historic district. However, the “Alma College Complex” remains listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory; it was originally listed in 1995. The proposed project would result in the demolition of four buildings that are listed as part of the “Alma College Complex” on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. There are also other unevaluated historic-era structures, or structural remnants, that could be affected by the project. Demolition of historic resources would result in a significant impact because the historic resources would no longer exist. Mitigation 4.4-2: Document historic buildings prior to removal. The Preserve Plan includes documentation of buildings before demolition; however, because the buildings are considered historical resources, a higher level of documentation is necessary. MROSD will complete documentation of the classroom building, 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library, prior to any construction/demolition work initiated at these buildings. Documentation shall consist of a written history of the property and drawings and photographs, as described below. Written History. The Knapp Architects report, Alma College Conditions Assessment Project Phase I: Assessment of Existing Conditions, shall be used for the written history of each building. The report shall be reproduced on archival bond paper. Drawings and Photographs. An architectural historian (or historical architect, as appropriate) shall conduct research into the availability of plans and drawings of the classroom building, 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library as the buildings currently exist. Drawings: select existing drawings, where available, may be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar in accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act, as amended. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views where available and produced in accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act, as amended The documentation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect as appropriate, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The documentation shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Library and the Jesuit Archives in Berkeley. SU Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives beyond those identified in the Draft EIR. However, MROSD finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the Project’s impacts on changing the significance of a historical resource, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: Most structures within the Preserve have been evaluated and identified as ineligible for listing on state or federal registers, including the classroom, 1934 and 1950 libraries, chapel, and garage at Alma College. However, the “Alma College Complex” was listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory in 1995 and remains listed. The proposed project would result in the demolition of four buildings that are listed as part of the “Alma College Complex.” There are also other unevaluated historic-era structures, or structural remnants, that could be affected by the project. Demolition of historic resources would result in a significant impact because the historic resources would no longer exist. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 would lessen the impacts related to the loss of the classroom building, 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library, but the structures, which are listed on the Santa Clara Heritage Exhibit B Page 15 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Resource Inventory, would no longer exist. This impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.4-3: Cause a substantial change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Archaeological resources are known to exist on the project site. Some are documented, some are undocumented. Not all of the resources have been evaluated for eligibility for listing on the state or national register. The existence of these resources suggests that there is potential that unknown archaeological resources also exist on the project site. Also, project-related ground-disturbing activities could cause a substantial change in the significance of an as yet undiscovered archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Implementation of MROSD’s Resource Management Policies and environmental protection measures would minimize impacts to archaeological resources. This impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.4-4: Disturb Human Remains. Although unlikely, construction and excavation activities associated with project development could unearth previously undiscovered or unrecorded human remains, if they are present. This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: Halt ground-disturbing activity. If human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the remains will cease immediately. MROSD will contact the Santa Clara County coroner to evaluate the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains will occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which will be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify NAHC within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-4, which has been required as part of the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level, by minimizing effects in the event that human remains are discovered during construction. MROSD hereby adopts this mitigation measure. MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Exhibit B Page 16 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: There is potential for unknown human remains to be uncovered during project construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains because actions would be implemented to avoid, move, record, or otherwise treat the remains appropriately, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. By providing an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.4-5: Potential impacts to archaeological resources due to increased visitor use. Increased visitor use associated with implementation of the Preserve Plan, including development of new trails and visitor serving facilities, could place people in the vicinity of documented and undocumented archaeological resources. Implementation of MROSD’s Resource Management Policies and environmental protection measures would minimize visitor-related impacts to cultural resources. This impact is less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.4-6: Destroy a unique paleontological resource. No paleontological resources are known to occur within the project site or a one-mile radius of the site. However, because paleontological sites have been recorded in Santa Clara Formation sediments, earth-disturbing activities could potentially damage previously unknown paleontological resources. Resource Management Policy CR-3 requires that No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 17 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact MROSD staff receive training in the recognition of sensitive cultural resources and that in the event of a find, work in the area is halted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find; Resource Management Policy GS-3 calls for the protection of paleontological resources by identifying locations and documenting the condition of unique or exceptional geologic features. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impact 4.5-1: Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. The Preserve Plan includes demolition of several structures that currently occupy the former Alma College site, including the classroom and garage, as well as the 1950 library. It would include rehabilitating the 1909 chapel, and potentially retaining only the roof structure of the 1934 library. Existing retaining walls would either be structurally improved or have measures in place, such as planting dense vegetation or installing low fences to act as barriers in order to maintain distance between the walls and future site visitors. Rehabilitation of the preserved structures and any new development would be conducted in compliance with applicable building codes, which regulate the proximity of buildings to identified faults, as well as their design. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.5-2: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The project site sits atop a deep layer of gravelly, sandy loam with a high potential for soil erosion to occur. The loose, coarse quality of the loam allows it to move easily and No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Exhibit B Page 18 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact requires special consideration to prevent soil degradation. Construction of trails, parking areas, and public restrooms could cause temporary erosion. The continued use of the Bear Creek Stables may also result in erosion on the project site. However, through implementation of environmental protection measures combined with measures included in the Preserve Plan to reduce erosion, the project’s effect on soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.5-3: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The Preserve is located on an inactive, deep seated landslide in an area that is potentially unstable because of identified faults. In addition, soils in the area are susceptible to shallow landsliding where slopes are oversteepened or excessive precipitation results in saturated soils. However, because the geotechnical studies for new, habitable structures required by Environmental Protection Measure GEO-6 would include design recommendations for site-specific geologic conditions that would avoid contributing to potential for on- or offsite landsliding, there would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.5-4: Be located on expansive soils, creating a substantial risk to life or property. Soils on the project site have a low shrink-swell potential and are not considered expansive. Additionally, new structures would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.5-5: Installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system on soils incapable of adequately supporting such use. The project would require new and No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Exhibit B Page 19 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact upgraded septic systems. Santa Clara County regulations require a site evaluation to allow proper system design and to determine compliance with the site suitability criteria identified in the applicable ordinance and the 2014 Onsite Systems Manual. Potential effects related to installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system on soils incapable of adequately supporting such use would be reduced through compliance with Santa Clara County’s regulations related to septic system location and design. This would be a less-than-significant impact. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 4.6-1: Project-generated greenhouse gas emissions. The level of GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year (MT CO2e/year)). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be considered a substantial cumulative contribution to climate change and the project would be consistent with statewide efforts to reduce GHGs. This would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.6-2: Impacts of climate change on the project. Climate change is expected to result in a variety of effects that would influence conditions on the project site. These effects include increased temperatures, increased wildfire risk and sea level rise; and changes to timing and intensity of precipitation, resulting in increased stormwater runoff and flood risk. However, numerous state and County programs and policies would enhance the project’s resiliency to these risks. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Exhibit B Page 20 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Impact 4.7-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction and maintenance activities would increase the regional transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and petroleum products. Improper handling, unsound disposal methods, transportation accidents, or fires, explosions or other emergencies could expose construction workers, nearby persons or residents, and the surrounding environment to accidental releases of potentially hazardous materials. However, MROSD and its contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations for handling hazardous materials, including requirements related to reporting accidental releases. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential risk of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials during construction. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.7-2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials could be associated with building materials, other historical uses of the Preserve (such as USTs and chemical application to Mud Lake), and areas of contamination that have not yet been identified. There is potential for site activities to result in the release of these hazardous materials into the environment, which would create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a: Conduct a hazardous materials survey and limited Phase II investigation. An in-depth hazardous materials survey shall be conducted to further assess the presence of hazardous materials onsite and to provide an inventory of equipment containing hazardous materials that will need to be removed and appropriately disposed. Before initiation of grading or other groundwork, MROSD will conduct focused soil sampling at the former Alma College site. This investigation will follow the American Society for Testing and Materials standards for preparation of a Phase II ESA and/or other appropriate testing guidelines. Specifically, soil and groundwater samples shall be collected in the areas of former structures near the rear entrance to the former Alma College site (e.g., print shop, machine shop, landfill at village site, storage) and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and priority pollutant metals. LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.7-2a through 4.7-2e which have been required as part of the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a hazardous materials survey and limited Phase II investigation. MROSD hereby adopts these mitigation measures. MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Explanations/Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project site could create a significant hazard to the public or environment through Exhibit B Page 21 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Based on the results and recommendations of the ESA-level investigation described above, MROSD shall prepare a work plan that identifies any necessary remediation activities, including excavation and removal of on-site contaminated soils, and redistribution of clean fill material on the project site. The plan shall include measures that ensure the safe transport, use, and disposal of contaminated soil removed from the site and will be implemented under the oversight of applicable regulatory agencies. These measures may include: soil profiling and identification of appropriate landfill facilities for contaminated materials and onsite application locations for other soils, plans for stockpile of soil that segregates clean and potentially contaminated materials, preparation of a health and safety plan for protection of workers, and preparation of a transportation plan that identifies approved haul routes for transport of contaminated materials. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2b: Conduct a geophysical survey in the suspected locations of USTs. A geophysical survey shall be conducted at the former Alma College site to confirm the presence or absence of additional underground structures and to determine the extent of associated piping, primarily in the suspected locations of additional USTs (south of the dormitory/plant building, downslope from the pool/Roman Plunge, and south of the former main house). Soil and/or groundwater sampling shall be conducted in the vicinity of these structures and piping to determine whether there is potential subsurface contamination. Soil and groundwater samples shall be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and priority pollutant metals. If the results indicate that contamination exists at levels above regulatory action standards, the site will be remediated in accordance with recommendations made by accidental release of hazardous materials. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a, MROSD would further characterize the potential for there to be undocumented areas of contamination on the site. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-b through 4.7-2e, additional survey of the areas suspected of having additional contamination would be conducted. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2e would establish procedures to follow if additional hazardous materials are encountered during construction. With the implementation of these additional studies and any remediation that is developed as a result of the investigations, as well as the contingency procedures for other potentially hazardous wastes, this impact would be less than significant. Exhibit B Page 22 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact applicable regulatory agencies, including Santa Clara County DEH, RWQCB, and DTSC. The agencies involved shall depend on the type and extent of contamination. Mitigation Measure 4.7-c: Notify Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health before conducting earth work near the former Alma College underground storage tank. MROSD shall identify the location of the former Alma College UST on maps used for planning facilities on the project site. If any earthwork or water wells are proposed on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the UST site, MROSD shall notify the Santa Clara County DEH before grading or evacuation of the site, or the installation of water wells. MROSD shall implement any actions identified by Santa Clara County DEH to mitigate the disturbance of remedial contamination. These actions may include additional sampling or preparation of a health risk assessment. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2d: Conduct sediment and surface water sampling in Mud Lake Before opening the site to public access, MROSD shall conduct sediment and surface water sampling to determine whether historical chemical use in the lake has resulted in residual impacts. Sediment and surface water should be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and pesticides. MROSD will coordinate with Santa Clara County DEH to determine what, if any, further actions are necessary based on the results of the water and soil sample analyses. Recommended actions may include localized removal of materials, in situ remediation actions, and limitations on public access to the site. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2e: Prepare a hazardous materials contingency plan. A hazardous materials contingency plan shall be prepared before the initiation of ground disturbing activities that describes the actions Exhibit B Page 23 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact that would be taken if evidence of contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction. The contingency plan shall identify conditions that could indicate potential hazardous materials contamination, including soil discoloration, petroleum or chemical odors, presence of USTs, or buried building material. The plan, and obligations to abide by and implement the plan, shall be incorporated into the construction and contract specifications of the project. If at any time during the course of constructing the proposed project evidence of soil and/or groundwater contamination with hazardous material is encountered, MROSD shall immediately stop the project and contact the CUPA. The project shall remain stopped until there is resolution of the contamination problem (through such mechanisms as soil or groundwater sampling and remediation if potentially hazardous materials are detected above threshold levels) to the satisfaction of the CUPA and RWQCB. Impact 4.7-3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Because of the limited quantities of potentially hazardous materials required for the project, and the applicability of federal, state, and local regulations that would reduce the potential for hazard associated with the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the school within 0.25-mile of the project site following completion of the consultations required by PRC Section 21151.4. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.7-4: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Exhibit B Page 24 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact residences are intermixed with wildlands. While the introduction of persons into open space, including construction and maintenance workers and trail users, has the potential to increase the risk of fire, the preparation of the Preserve Plan provides an opportunity to enhance MROSD’s fire safe practices to further reduce the risk and potential severity of a wildfire. Implementation of the practices outlined in MROSD’s Resource Management Policies and Environmental Protection Measures would reduce the potential for construction, maintenance, and routine use to ignite dry vegetation through introduction of ignition sources (including construction vehicles and equipment such as power tools and torches that may create sparks). With these BMPs, construction and operation activities would have a less- than-significant impact. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Impact 4.8-1: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. The quality of surface water in the Preserve is currently affected by ongoing erosion due to the design and condition of the existing roads and trails, lack of vegetation in some developed areas, and alterations to surface hydrology that impair surface runoff. The Preserve Plan includes road and trail improvements, revegetation, and upgraded stream crossings to address these conditions. Environmental protection measures (Appendix C) have been incorporated into the project that would effectively limit the potential for the proposed actions to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or to otherwise degrade water quality during associated construction and management activities. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 25 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Impact 4.8-2: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Preliminary analysis of pumping the existing MROSD well at the proposed seasonal demand of 2,000 to 8,000 gpd (or at a maximum 1-day demand of 30 gpm) suggest insignificant drawdown effects to nearest known well. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.8-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Implementation of the Preserve Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area such that there would be a substantial increase in erosion or siltation. Due to the limited scope of potential development, and the design standards and infrastructure upgrades that MROSD has committed to implementing, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.8-4: Result in runoff that would either create or contribute to on- or offsite flooding or exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system. Implementation of the Preserve Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area such that there would be a substantial increase or change in the surface runoff on the site. Localized improvements would be implemented, including upgrading stream crossings, and general measures related to drainage improvements along the trails, that would reduce the potential for runoff to contribute to flooding or exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 26 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact Impact 4.8-5: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or a dam. Generally, the additional design and maintenance activities proposed in the Preserve Plan would reduce the potential for flooding to have a negative effect on the site. There is potential that an existing dam on Aldercroft Creek is located on a trace of the San Andreas Fault, and the potential for failure of this dam to result in flooding is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 4.8-5: Conduct a geologic and geotechnical investigation of the dam located on Aldercroft Creek. Within the first five years of implementing the Preserve Plan, MROSD will conduct an in- depth geologic and geotechnical investigation of the dam at the southern end of Alma Lake on Aldercroft Creek that is suspected of being located on a trace of the San Andreas Fault. Upgrade or removal of the dam will be completed according to recommendations of the investigations, and, if necessary, use of trails in the potentially affected areas downstream of the dam will be restricted until the recommendations have been fulfilled. LTS Finding: Compliance with Mitigation 4.8-5, which has been required or incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level, by requiring the applicant to prepare and implement a geologic and geotechnical investigation of the dam located on Aldercroft Creek. MROSD hereby adopts these mitigation measures. The MROSD, therefore, finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Explanation/Facts in Support of Finding: There is potential for a significant risk of loss, injury or death as a result of the failure of a dam located on Aldercroft Creek. Mitigation Measure 4.8-5 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a geotechnical and geologic investigation of the dam. Upgrade or removal of the dam will occur pending the recommendations from the investigation and trail use in the area downstream of the dam will be restricted, if deemed necessary, until these recommendations are implemented. 4.9 Land Use Impact 4.9-1: Conflict with land use plans, policies, or existing zoning. The portion of the Preserve where actions would be implemented under the Preserve Plan is designated as Other Public Open Lands under the Santa Clara County General Plan and is zoned HS. Use of the Preserve for recreation and open space preservation would not conflict with the existing land No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 27 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact use designation or zoning. Commercial stables are also conditionally allowed under the HS zoning designation. Continued operation of Bear Creek Stables within the site would therefore require a Conditional Use Permit from the County. Obtaining a Conditional Use Permit would ensure that the uses proposed under the Preserve Plan would not conflict with land use plans, policies, or existing zoning. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.9-2: Conflict with Williamson Act contracts. Three parcels within the Preserve are subject to Williamson Act contract. However, no facilities are proposed within these parcels and the Williamson Act contract for these parcels is currently in the non- renewal process. In addition, recreation is an allowable use within the Williamson Act contract for these parcels. Therefore, implementation of the Preserve Plan would not conflict the existing Williamson Act contract. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.10 Noise Impact 4.10-1: Short-term, construction-related noise impacts. Project construction activities would involve the use of heavy- duty construction equipment. Construction noise would occur at various levels over a 20-year period at different locations in the project area. Construction activities would be conducted during weekday and limited Saturday daytime hours. In addition, construction activities would not occur within 126 feet of an existing occupied residence; therefore, construction noise would not exceed the County’s standards identified in the Noise Ordinance. As a result, this would be a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.10-2: Short-term, construction-related vibration impacts. Site preparation and grading activities could require No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than Exhibit B Page 28 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact the use of construction equipment that would generate ground vibration. However, the levels of construction- generated ground vibration at nearby sensitive receptors would not be excessive. This impact would be less than significant. significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.10-3: Long-term increase in noise levels from operation of on-site stationary noise sources. The project would include new stationary noise sources including activities in parking lots and at event spaces, and new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Project- generated stationary noise sources would not result in noise levels that exceed applicable Santa Clara County noise standards or levels that would result in a substantial long-term increase in noise. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.10-4: Project-related traffic noise increase. Traffic generated by the project would result in less than a 2 dBA increase in traffic noise along Bear Creek Road and SR17. This level of noise increase would not be perceptible to the human ear and, therefore, would not be considered substantial. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.11 Recreation Impact 4.11-1: Increase the use of other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed project would provide a regional trail connection to the adjacent Lexington Reservoir County Park and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and a regional trail connection to Sanborn- Skyline County Park via the proposed Skyline-Summit bike trail adjacent to SR 35. These regional trail connections may add new recreational users to these surrounding parks. However, the project’s regional trail connections are No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 29 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact consistent with the Bay Area Ridge Trail and Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan. The project also includes the opening of additional trail opportunities and parking and restrooms facilities onsite which would appropriately serve new recreational users. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the demand for or use of other parks and open space facilities, such that new or expanded facilities would be required. This impact would be less than significant. 4.12 Traffic and Transportation Impact 4.12-1: Construction-related traffic impacts. Traffic generated during construction of the Preserve Plan elements would be attributable to delivery trucks and construction workers’ trips to and from the site. These trips would be temporary and would occur occasionally over 20 years. One of the intersections in the project vicinity is currently operating at LOS F during the a.m. peak commute hour; however, construction trucks would access the Preserve directly from Highway 17 and would not affect traffic at this intersection. All other roadways and intersections affected by construction traffic are operating at acceptable LOS. This impact would be less than significant No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.12-2: Existing plus project roadway level of service impacts. With implementation of the Preserve Plan, peak hour trips would be added to Bear Creek Road; however, it would continue to operate within its capacity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.12-3: Existing plus project intersection level of service impacts. Under existing conditions, the Highway 17 northbound ramps/Bear Creek Road intersection is operating No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Exhibit B Page 30 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. Implementation of the proposed Preserve Plan would generate minor peak hour trips in this direction, which would add several seconds of additional time to navigate through this intersection during a.m. peak hour traffic. All other intersections would operate acceptably. This impact would be less than significant. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.12-4: Future plus project intersection level of service impacts (Cumulative). Under the cumulative plus project scenario, the Highway 17 northbound ramps/Bear Creek Road intersection would continue to operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak period. The small amount of traffic generated by the proposed Preserve Plan would result in an insignificant contribution to the overall delays experienced at this intersection under cumulative conditions. All other intersections would operate acceptably. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Impact 4.12-5: Safety Impacts. Because Bear Creek Road has many grades and curves, sight distance is limited in several locations, and locating the Preserve entrance off of Bear Creek Road could result in a hazard due to a design feature. However, a new entrance driveway would be constructed in accordance with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Construction of a driveway in accordance with applicable design standards for adequate lines of sight would ensure the entrance to the Preserve would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) 4.13 Utilities Impact 4.13-1: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed. With implementation of the proposed project, water demand on the project site would No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Page 31 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Summary Table: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measure Significance after Mitigation Findings of Fact increase from a maximum of 7,200 gpd to a maximum of 8,000 gpd. Based on the indication of availability of municipal water from SJWC, and results of the groundwater pumping and water quality testing completed for the existing well, it is anticipated that one or both of these on-site water sources would be able to provide adequate water supply to serve project demands. This impact is considered less than significant. Impact 4.13-2: Generate solid waste that could adversely affect landfill capacity. Proposed demolition of on-site buildings and implementation of phased elements of the Preserve Plan would result in a small increase of solid waste generation at the project site. However, adequate landfill capacity is available at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill to accommodate solid waste generated by the project. This is a less-than- significant impact. No mitigation measures necessary. LTS Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Exhibit B Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines §15097 (a), when significant effects are identified in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or negative declaration, the Lead Agency is required to adopt a program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of approval for the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been developed for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan project, consistent with the requirements of §15097. The intent of the MMRP is to prescribe and enforce a means for properly and successfully implementing the mitigation measures identified within the EIR for this project. Unless otherwise noted, the applicant shall be responsible for complying with and paying for all mitigation measures identified herein. 1.2 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMRP is intended to be used by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMRP were developed in the EIR prepared for the proposed project. The MMRP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by MROSD. The table attached to this report identifies the mitigation measure, the responsible agency for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. MROSD will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMRP and for ensuring compliance. 1.2.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the mitigation measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation timing, and an area to record monitoring compliance. Note that changes made since the Draft EIR was released to the public are identified using strikethrough text for deleted text and double-underline text for added text. Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-2 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) 4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: Implement measures to protect bat colonies. To mitigate for activities requiring removal of roosting bats from buildings, pre-construction surveys for roosting bats within areas of potential disturbance in the Preserve will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergence survey to note the presence or absence of bats. The type of survey will depend on the condition of the buildings. If no bat roosts are found, then no further study is required. If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts, but are not required. If roosts of Townsend’s big-eared bats, pallid bats, or western red bats are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the facility is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures will be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation. Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) will be replaced in coordination with CDFW and may include construction and installation of bat boxes or other structures suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. Roost replacement will be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. MROSD has successfully constructed bat boxes elsewhere that have subsequently been occupied by bats. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the structures may be removed or sealed. To mitigate for removal of large trees during the April through August nursery season to tree roosting bats: Avoid removal of trees greater than 16 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) during the April through August nursery season when possible. If removal of trees greater than 16 inches dbh during the April through August nursery season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for roosting bats where suitable large trees are to be removed. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary, evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of roosting bats is found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required. MROSD CDFW, as appropriate Prior to demolition of structures and removal of large trees Exhibit C Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan 1-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) If bat roosting sites are located in trees to be removed during the nursery season, no nursey sites will be disturbed until a qualified biologist confirms that there are no lactating females and that young are fully independent of flight and thermoregulation. If a non-nursery bat roost is to be removed, a roost removal plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW. The roost removal plan will describe the method of exclusion of bats from the roost. Possible methods include installation of one-way doors or sealing roost entrances for bats that roost within tree cavities. Netting or other methods may be used to prevent bats from roosting within vegetation. No bats will be excluded until the plan is approved by CDFW and alternative roosting habitat is available. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the site is closed. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Implement measures to protect special-status amphibians and western pond turtle. MROSD shall implement the following measures during construction within suitable habitat for special-status amphibians: Construction within or adjacent to waterways will be avoided during the breeding season for California red-legged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog (November – March) and western pond turtle (May -- mid-July). If construction cannot be avoided within or adjacent to waterways during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-activity survey for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and western pond turtle prior to implementing actions that include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other activities within or adjacent to potential habitat that could otherwise harm California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or western pond turtle. A qualified biologist shall inspect the work area while vegetation and debris is removed during the initial phase of construction. Because Santa Cruz black salamander lay and brood eggs below ground, prior to ground disturbance, rocks, logs, and other debris shall be turned over and visually inspected. If no California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or western pond turtle are observed during either the pre-activity survey or during removal of vegetation and debris, then work may proceed without a qualified biologist present. If any of these sensitive species are observed at any time before or during construction within the work area by anyone involved in the project, work shall cease and USFWS and/or CDFW shall be contacted. Measures to avoid and minimize disturbance to sensitive reptiles and amphibians shall be implemented and may include delaying the disturbance until after eggs or larvae have metamorphosed, redesigning the project footprint to avoid the species, moving individuals to areas of suitable habitat outside of the disturbance area, or other feasible measures acceptable to the wildlife agencies. The loss of western pond turtle breeding habitat due to development of the Alma College parking area will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. If it is determined that the full MROSD CDFW, as appropriate USFWS, as appropriate Prior to and during construction Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-4 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) amount of replacement breeding habitat cannot all feasibly be located at Upper Lake, the remainder of the replacement breeding habitat will be located at Lower Lake, which also supports western pond turtle. The replacement breeding habitat will be located within 300 feet of the pond’s ordinary high water mark and will be designed to avoid adverse effects to native plant communities and other sensitive species habitat. The replacement habitat will be located away from areas that attract concentrated visitor use, or trail use will be limited as necessary during breeding periods. Design of the replacement breeding habitat, as well as a maintenance and monitoring plan to control encroachment of brush, invasive species, and manage visitor access, will be prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW. The maintenance and monitoring plan will also include baseline population surveys and ongoing population and breeding habitat monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b: Implement measures to protect nesting birds. To minimize potential disturbance to nesting birds, project activities shall occur during the non- breeding season (September 16 through February 14), unless it is not feasible to do so, in which case the following measures shall be applied: During trail construction, road improvements, and other construction activities, removal of trees greater than 6 inches dbh shall be limited to the greatest degree possible. If construction activity is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 15 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys to identify active nests that could be affected by construction. The surveys shall be conducted before the approval of grading and/or improvement plans and no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days before the beginning of construction in a particular area. If no nests are found, no further measures are needed. If active nests are found, impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishment of appropriate buffers around the nests. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that any young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. A 500-foot buffer for large raptors such as buteos, 250-foot buffer for small raptors such as accipiters, and 250-foot for passerines are generally adequate to protect them from disturbance, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW depending on site-specific conditions. For trail construction, use of non-power hand-tools may be permitted within the buffer area if the behavior of the nesting birds would not be altered as a result of the construction. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. MROSD CDFW, as appropriate Prior to and during construction Exhibit C Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan 1-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c: Implement measures to protect San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. To minimize potential disturbance to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, the following measures will be implemented: Prior to removal of any buildings or vegetation within riparian, oak woodland, montane hardwood, or coastal scrub, redwood or Douglas fir forests, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey for woodrat nests within the area to be disturbed. If no woodrat nests are found, no further measures are necessary. If woodrat nests are found, they should be avoided if possible and a minimum buffer of 10 feet shall be established around the nest(s). This buffer may be adjusted in consultation with CDFW. If the nests cannot be avoided, MROSD will consult with CDFW in areas where removal of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is required. Consultation will occur prior to removal of the nests. Actions needed to protect woodrat nests will be determined in consultation with CDFW and may include the live capture and relocation of woodrats to suitable adjacent habitats and removal of nesting sites. Trapping activities will occur prior to April and after July each year to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young or young woodrats. Nest middens will be dismantled by hand under the supervision of a biologist. Nest material will be moved to suitable adjacent areas that will not be disturbed. As woodrats exhibit high site fidelity, buildings with previous woodrat nests will be regularly inspected for potential intrusion to prevent infestation. MROSD CDFW, as appropriate Prior to and during vegetation or structure removal, as specified Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d: Implement measures to protect ringtail. If any trees that are 6 inches or greater in dbh need to be removed, MROSD and its contractors shall implement the following measures to protect ringtail: A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys to identify any potential ringtail den sites. If no den sites are identified, no further measures are needed. If a ringtail den site is identified, it will not be removed from May through August. The den site may be removed or sealed from September through April. A qualified biologist will verify the den is not occupied immediately prior to removing or sealing the den. MROSD Prior to removal of trees 6 inches dbh or greater Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive natural communities and compensate for loss of riparian and wetland habitats. MROSD will seek to avoid wetland impacts through siting, design, and other avoidance measures. However, if avoidance is not possible, MROSD will review its Routine Maintenance Agreements with CDFW and the RWQCB to determine if the proposed activities are covered by these permits. If so, MROSD will comply with the terms of these existing agreements. If MROSD determines that one or more activities are not covered by existing permits, a jurisdictional wetland delineation will be conducted by a qualified wetland specialist for sensitive areas that cannot be avoided. The preliminary delineation shall be submitted to USACE for verification. The wetlands may be subject to CDFW regulation under Section 1602 of MROSD CDFW, as appropriate RWQCB, as appropriate Prior to ground disturbing activities near wetlands or other jurisdictional waters Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-6 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) the Fish and Game Code. No grading, fill, or other ground disturbing activities shall occur until all required permits, regulatory approvals, and permit conditions for effects on wetland habitats are secured. If the wetlands are determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction, the project may qualify for use of a Nationwide Permit if certain criteria are met. For those wetlands that cannot be avoided, MROSD shall commit to replace, restore, or enhance on a “no net loss” basis (in accordance with USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) the acreage of all wetlands and other waters of the United States that would be removed, lost, and/or degraded with project implementation. Wetland habitat shall be restored, enhanced, and/or replaced at an acreage and location and by methods agreeable to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, depending on agency jurisdiction, and as determined during the permitting processes. USACE, as appropriate Mitigation Measure 4.3-7: Remove and replace trees consistent with the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, Sections C16.1 to C16.17). MROSD will comply with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance as applied to parcels greater than 3 acres in lands zoned HS and as applied to trees located within County right-of-way. For removal of large oak trees, MROSD will replace each of the redwood trees and two oak trees removed at a 3:1 ratio with 15-gallon trees, in-kind, or other ratio as approved by the County and in compliance with current best management practices to prevent the spread of soil pathogens. MROSD will maintain each of the replacement trees. MROSD Santa Clara County Prior to removal of large trees 4.4 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Document historic buildings prior to removal. The Preserve Plan includes documentation of buildings before demolition; however, because the buildings are considered historical resources, a higher level of documentation is necessary. MROSD will complete documentation of the classroom building, 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library, prior to any construction/demolition work initiated at these buildings. Documentation shall consist of a written history of the property and drawings and photographs, as described below. Written History. The Knapp Architects report, Alma College Conditions Assessment Project Phase I: Assessment of Existing Conditions, shall be used for the written history of each building. The report shall be reproduced on archival bond paper. Drawings and Photographs. An architectural historian (or historical architect, as appropriate) shall conduct research into the availability of plans and drawings of the classroom building, 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library as the buildings currently exist. MROSD Prior to demolition of identified structures Exhibit C Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan 1-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) Drawings: select existing drawings, where available, may be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar in accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act, as amended. Photographs: photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views, or historic views where available and produced in accordance with the U.S. Copyright Act, as amended The documentation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect as appropriate, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The documentation shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Library and the Jesuit Archives in Berkeley. Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: Halt ground-disturbing activity. If human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the remains will cease immediately. MROSD will contact the Santa Clara County coroner to evaluate the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains will occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which will be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify NAHC within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. MROSD County Coroner, as appropriate NAHC, as appropriate During construction 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a: Conduct a hazardous materials survey and limited Phase II investigation. An in-depth hazardous materials survey shall be conducted to further assess the presence of hazardous materials onsite and to provide an inventory of equipment containing hazardous materials that will need to be removed and appropriately disposed. Before initiation of grading or other groundwork, MROSD will conduct focused soil sampling at the former Alma College site. This investigation will follow the American Society for Testing and Materials standards for preparation of a Phase II ESA and/or other appropriate testing guidelines. Specifically, soil and groundwater samples shall be collected in the areas of former structures near MROSD Prior to initiating grading or other groundwork near the former Alma College site Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-8 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) the rear entrance to the former Alma College site (e.g., print shop, machine shop, landfill at village site, storage) and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and priority pollutant metals. Based on the results and recommendations of the ESA-level investigation described above, MROSD shall prepare a work plan that identifies any necessary remediation activities, including excavation and removal of on-site contaminated soils, and redistribution of clean fill material on the project site. The plan shall include measures that ensure the safe transport, use, and disposal of contaminated soil removed from the site and will be implemented under the oversight of applicable regulatory agencies. These measures may include: soil profiling and identification of appropriate landfill facilities for contaminated materials and onsite application locations for other soils, plans for stockpile of soil that segregates clean and potentially contaminated materials, preparation of a health and safety plan for protection of workers, and preparation of a transportation plan that identifies approved haul routes for transport of contaminated materials. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2b: Conduct a geophysical survey in the suspected locations of USTs. A geophysical survey shall be conducted at the former Alma College site to confirm the presence or absence of additional underground structures and to determine the extent of associated piping, primarily in the suspected locations of additional USTs (south of the dormitory/plant building, downslope from the pool/Roman Plunge, and south of the former main house). Soil and/or groundwater sampling shall be conducted in the vicinity of these structures and piping to determine whether there is potential subsurface contamination. Soil and groundwater samples shall be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and priority pollutant metals. If the results indicate that contamination exists at levels above regulatory action standards, the site will be remediated in accordance with recommendations made by applicable regulatory agencies, including Santa Clara County DEH, RWQCB, and DTSC. The agencies involved shall depend on the type and extent of contamination. MROSD Santa Clara County DEH, as appropriate RWQCB, as appropriate DTSC, as appropriate Prior to ground disturbance at the former Alma College site Mitigation Measure 4.7-c: Notify Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health before conducting earth work near the former Alma College underground storage tank. MROSD shall identify the location of the former Alma College UST on maps used for planning facilities on the project site. If any earthwork or water wells are proposed on, or in the immediate vicinity of, the UST site, MROSD shall notify the Santa Clara County DEH before grading or evacuation of the site, or the installation of water wells. MROSD shall implement any actions identified by Santa Clara County DEH to mitigate the disturbance of remedial contamination. These actions may include additional sampling or preparation of a health risk assessment. MROSD Santa Clara County DEH, as appropriate Prior to any earthwork in the vicinity of a UST (if identified in previous mitigation measures) Exhibit C Ascent Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan 1-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Measure Description Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Monitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) Mitigation Measure 4.7-2d: Conduct sediment and surface water sampling in Mud Lake Before opening the site to public access, MROSD shall conduct sediment and surface water sampling to determine whether historical chemical use in the lake has resulted in residual impacts. Sediment and surface water should be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs, and pesticides. MROSD will coordinate with Santa Clara County DEH to determine what, if any, further actions are necessary based on the results of the water and soil sample analyses. Recommended actions may include localized removal of materials, in situ remediation actions, and limitations on public access to the site. MROSD Santa Clara County DEH, as appropriate Prior to opening the site to public access Mitigation Measure 4.7-2e: Prepare a hazardous materials contingency plan. A hazardous materials contingency plan shall be prepared before the initiation of ground disturbing activities that describes the actions that would be taken if evidence of contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction. The contingency plan shall identify conditions that could indicate potential hazardous materials contamination, including soil discoloration, petroleum or chemical odors, presence of USTs, or buried building material. The plan, and obligations to abide by and implement the plan, shall be incorporated into the construction and contract specifications of the project. If at any time during the course of constructing the proposed project evidence of soil and/or groundwater contamination with hazardous material is encountered, MROSD shall immediately stop the project and contact the CUPA. The project shall remain stopped until there is resolution of the contamination problem (through such mechanisms as soil or groundwater sampling and remediation if potentially hazardous materials are detected above threshold levels) to the satisfaction of the CUPA and RWQCB. MROSD Santa Clara County DEH (CUPA), as appropriate RWQCB, as appropriate Prior to initiating ground disturbing activities and during construction 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation 4.8-5: Conduct a geologic and geotechnical investigation of the dam located on Aldercroft Creek. Within the first five years of implementing the Preserve Plan, MROSD will conduct an in-depth geologic and geotechnical investigation of the dam at the southern end of Alma Lake on Aldercroft Creek that is suspected of being located on a trace of the San Andreas Fault. Upgrade or removal of the dam will be completed according to recommendations of the investigations, and, if necessary, use of trails in the potentially affected areas downstream of the dam will be restricted until the recommendations have been fulfilled. MROSD Within the first five years of implementing the Preserve Plan Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Ascent Environmental Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-10 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan For Document Production use. Please do not remove File Contents 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 Project Components ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5 Summary of Project Alternatives ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6 Areas of Controversy ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.7 Issues to be Resolved in the EIR ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendices Exhibits No table of contents entries found. Tables Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit C R-17-16 Meeting 17-03 January 25, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Year 2016-17 Quarter 2 District Budget Amendments GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2016-17 Quarter 2 District Budget amendments, and affirming the adopted FY2016-17 District Budget by fund. SUMMARY This report presents the Quarter 2 proposed budget amendments by fund. Requests for budget increases for services and supplies, and capital improvements have been funded by savings, resulting in no change to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 (FY2016-17) Budget as amended. Following recommendations from the District’s auditors, the District will revise its policy to adopt fund-by- fund budgeting. This report outlines the recommendation and revised FY2016-17 budget adoption by fund. All subsequent budget amendments will be presented and approved by fund. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors (Board) adopted the FY2016-17 Budget and Action Plan at the June 22, 2016 regular meeting (Reports R-16-71). The FY2016-17 adopted budget was $58.1 million. As of December 31, 2016, the Board had authorized budget amendments increasing the adopted budget by $9,101,214 to cover personnel services, unanticipated services and supplies expenses, as well as unanticipated capital improvement project costs, and new land purchases. The proposed Quarter 2 budget amendments will result in no change to the FY2016-17 budget as amended. Requests for budget increases in Quarter 2 have been funded by savings, resulting in net-zero budget amendments across District departments and funds. R-17-16 Page 2 Table 1A lists the Board authorized budget amendments through December 31, 2016. Table 1A: Year-to-Date Board Approved Budget Amendments Under the General Manager’s authority, net-zero transfers/budget amendments have been administratively processed to cover unanticipated capital improvement project costs. Table 1B lists the administratively approved budget amendments. Table 1B: Year-to-Date Administratively Approved Budget Amendments Proposed Quarter 2 Amendments to the FY2016-17 Budget The proposed Quarter 2 budget amendments result in no change to the amended FY2016-17 Budget total of $67.2 million. Budget increases have been funded by savings across departments and funds, resulting in net-zero budget adjustments for Quarter 2. Table 2 summarizes the FY2016-17 adopted budget, YTD approved budget amendments, and proposed Quarter 2 budget amendments by Department. Table 2: Summary of FY2016-17 Budget by Department Budget Amendment Description Adopted Budget Budget Amendment Amended Budget Mt. Umunhum Summit Restoration (MAA 23-004)$5,423,250 $3,466,450 $8,889,700 Mt. Umunhum Road Rehabilitation (MAA 23-006)$3,566,400 $2,764,672 $6,331,072 Red Barn Public Access Area (MAA 05-005)$165,000 $60,000 $225,000 Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade (MAA 07-010)$265,000 $207,150 $472,150 Rosetta Property Purchase $0 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 BCR Invasive Weed Management (MAA 21-007)$91,880 $37,000 $128,880 Navid Exchange $0 $39,000 $39,000 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments $876,942 Board-Approved Amendment Subtotal $9,101,214 Budget Admendment Description Board Approved Amendments Budget Amendment Amended Budget Mt. Umunhum Road Rehabilitation (MAA 23-006)$6,331,072 ($79,000)$6,252,072 Mt. Umunhum Summit Restoration (MAA 23-004)$8,889,700 $60,000 $8,949,700 Mt. Umunhum Trail & Bridge (MAA 23-002)$0 $19,000 $19,000 Administrative Amendment Subtotal $0 FY2017 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 12/31/2016) Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2017 Proposed Amended Budget Administrative Services $16,275,246 $16,275,246 ($76,806)$16,198,440 Engineering & Construction $12,715,769 $6,438,272 $19,154,041 $18,524 $19,172,565 General Counsel $573,071 $573,071 $0 $573,071 General Manager's Office $1,902,242 $1,902,242 ($400)$1,901,842 Land & Facilities $10,933,161 $178,590 $11,111,751 $34,989 $11,146,740 Natural Resources $3,465,029 ($225,956)$3,239,073 ($0)$3,239,073 Planning $3,608,172 $168,000 $3,776,172 $5,060 $3,781,232 Public Affairs $1,763,266 $1,763,266 $4,220 $1,767,486 Real Property $1,790,866 $2,389,000 $4,179,866 $0 $4,179,866 Visitor Services $5,091,219 $153,308 $5,244,527 $14,413 $5,258,940 Total $58,118,040 $9,101,214 $67,219,254 $0 $67,219,254 R-17-16 Page 3 Operating Budget Services and Supplies The services and supplies budget (Funds 10 and 20) is proposed to decrease by $13,605. Services and supplies line item budget reductions have been used to fund requests for budget line increases, resulting in a total net savings of $13,605. The following is a highlight of significant budget savings: • Net savings of $76,806 in Administrative Services due to savings from the recently approved Ersi Enterprise License Agreement, and the reduction in GIS software needs for the GIS Enterprise project based on consultant recommendation. • Savings of $21,846 in Natural Resources Department resulting from delays associated with the Prescribe Fire Burn program development. Savings have been re-appropriated to fund budget increases in the Department’s services and supplies budget. Unanticipated services and supplies expenses have been funded with the use of significant budget reductions within the services and supplies budget category. The following expenses were funded with budget savings: • Purchase of laptops for all District Rangers (25 laptops). • Additional staff training across the District. • Improved internet connectivity and bandwidth at the South Area Outpost Field Office. The net savings of $13,605 in the services and supplies budget category will be re-appropriated to fund Measure AA (Fund 30) capital budget increases. Capital Budget General Fund Capital Budget The general fund (Fund 40) capital budget is proposed to decrease by $80,000. Due to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) requirements, the BCR Cultural Resource Assessment project budget will be re-appropriated to the Measure AA (Fund 30) capital budget. During the EIR preparation for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan, it was determined that formal cultural assessment surveys are required prior to implementation of improvement activities necessary to open the preserve for public access. The project was originally budgeted in General Fund-Capital, but EIR requirements make it eligible for Measure AA funding. The proposed reduction in the BCR Cultural Resource Assessment project will result in a net- zero budget transfer from the General Fund (Fund 40) capital budget to the Measure AA (Fund 30) capital budget. Measure AA Capital Budget The Measure AA (Fund 30) capital budget is proposed to increase by $93,605. The proposed Measure AA budget increase reflects the net-zero budget transfer of $80,000 from the General Fund (Fund 40) capital budget for the BCR Cultural Resource Assessment project. Net savings of $13,605 from the services and supplies budget category will fund budget increases for unanticipated capital project expenses. Unanticipated vehicle rental expenses for R-17-16 Page 4 project management staff working on the Mt. Umunhum projects require a budget increase of $13,052. A minimal budget increase of $554 is requested to cover unbudgeted expenses associated with legal/classified for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment/Restoration (AA21-007) project. Formation of Debt Service Fund Following recommendations from the District’s auditors, a Debt Service Fund (Fund 50) has been established, resulting in a net-zero budget transfer of $11,084,840 from Fund 10 and Fund 30. Fund-by-Fund Budget Adoption Subsequent to the FY2015-16 Annual Financial Audit, the District’s auditors recommended that the District revise its policy to implement fund-by-fund budgeting. The Auditor’s Recommendations to Management letter states the following: “In order to ensure the financial stability of each fund reported by the District, improve overall financial reporting and ensure comparability to the final “actual” numbers presented in reports by the District, we recommend that the District update its budget policy to require a fund-by-fund budget that matches internal and external District financial reporting.” To comply with the auditors’ recommendation, the FY2016-17 Adopted Budget will be revised to reflect budget adoption by fund. All subsequent budget amendments will be presented and approved by the Board in alignment with the adopted budget by fund. Table 3 below outlines the FY2016-17 Budget by Fund. Table 3: Affirm FY2016-17 Budget by Fund FISCAL IMPACT Board approval of the FY2016-17 proposed budget amendments result in no change to the District’s FY2016-17 Budget of $67,219,254. Significant savings were used to fund budget increases for unanticipated services and supplies expenses, as well as unanticipated project expenses. DISTRICT BUDGET BY CATEGORY FY2016-17 Adopted Budget DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUND Amended by Fund FY2016-17 Adopted Budget Operating $27,342,350 General Fund Operating (Fund 10)$27,209,300 Hawthorns (Fund 20)$133,050 Capital (MAA)$15,066,450 Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30)$15,674,800 Land (MAA)$608,350 Capital (GF)$3,616,300 General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40)$4,016,050 Land (GF)$399,750 Debt $11,084,840 Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,084,840 TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $58,118,040 $58,118,040 R-17-16 Page 5 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 Board approval, staff will make the necessary Budget amendments. Attachments: 1. Resolution Amending the FY2016-17 Budget by Fund 2. FY2016-17 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category 3. Quarter 2 Budget Amendments Detail Responsible Department Head: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer Prepared by: Nicole Gonzales, Finance & Budget Analyst II FY2016-17 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 12/31/2016) Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2016-17 Proposed Amended Budget $27,209,300 $187,834 $27,397,134 ($12,405)$27,384,729 Hawthorns (Fund 20)$133,050 $0 $133,050 ($1,200)$131,850 $15,674,800 $7,303,380 $22,978,180 $93,605 $23,071,785 $4,016,050 $1,610,000 $5,626,050 ($80,000)$5,546,050 Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $58,118,040 $9,101,214 $67,219,254 $0 $67,219,254 General Fund Operating (Fund 10) General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40) DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUNDING SOURCE Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30) Resolutions/2017/17-__FY16-17 Q2 Budget Adjustments 1 RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 WHEREAS, on June 22, 2016 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District adopted the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2016 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District amended the FY2016-17 Budget; and WHEREAS, the General Manager recommends amending the FY 2016-17 Budget to adopt the budget by fund to adhere to the District auditor’s recommendation; and WHEREAS, the General Manager recommends amending the FY 2016-17 Budget to reflect requests for budget increases for services and supplies, and capital improvements which have been funded by savings, resulting in no net increase; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. Affirm the FY2016-17 Budget as adopted on June 22, 2016 by fund. SECTION TWO. Approve the recommended budget amendments to the FY2016-17 Budget for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as follows: SECTION THREE. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget by fund. DISTRICT BUDGET BY CATEGORY FY2016-17 Adopted Budget DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUND Amended by Fund FY2016-17 Adopted Budget Operating $27,342,350 General Fund Operating (Fund 10)$27,209,300 Hawthorns (Fund 20)$133,050 Capital (MAA)$15,066,450 Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30)$15,674,800 Land (MAA)$608,350 Capital (GF)$3,616,300 General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40)$4,016,050 Land (GF)$399,750 Debt $11,084,840 Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,084,840 TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $58,118,040 $58,118,040 FY2016-17 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 12/31/2016) Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2016-17 Proposed Amended Budget $27,209,300 $187,834 $27,397,134 ($12,405)$27,384,729 Hawthorns (Fund 20)$133,050 $0 $133,050 ($1,200)$131,850 $15,674,800 $7,303,380 $22,978,180 $93,605 $23,071,785 $4,016,050 $1,610,000 $5,626,050 ($80,000)$5,546,050 Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 $0 $11,084,840 TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $58,118,040 $9,101,214 $67,219,254 $0 $67,219,254 General Fund Operating (Fund 10) General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40) DISTRICT BUDGET BY FUNDING SOURCE Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30) ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION FOUR. Except as herein modified, the FY 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution No. 16-25 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on _____, 2017, 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 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 1/17/201711:16 AM FY2017 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 12/31/2016) Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2017 Proposed Amended Budget Administrative Services Salaries and Benefits $3,564,339 $3,564,339 $3,564,339 Services and Supplies $1,099,367 $1,099,367 ($76,806)$1,022,561 Total Operating Expenditures $4,663,706 $4,663,706 ($76,806)$4,586,900 General Fund Capital $526,700 $526,700 $526,700 Debt Service $11,084,840 $11,084,840 $11,084,840 $16,275,246 $16,275,246 ($76,806)$16,198,440 Engineering & Construction Salaries and Benefits $661,344 $661,344 $661,344 Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($152,917)($152,917)($152,917) Net Salaries and Benefits $508,427 $508,427 $508,427 Services and Supplies $59,550 $59,550 $5,473 $65,023 Total Operating Expenditures $567,977 $567,977 $5,473 $573,449 General Fund Capital $532,750 $532,750 $532,750 Measure AA Capital $11,615,042 $6,438,272 $18,053,314 $13,052 $18,066,366 Total Capital Expenditures $12,147,792 $6,438,272 $18,586,064 $13,052 $18,599,116 $12,715,769 $6,438,272 $19,154,041 $18,524 $19,172,565 General Counsel Salaries and Benefits $511,956 $511,956 $511,956 Services and Supplies $61,115 $61,115 $61,115 Total Operating Expenditures $573,071 $573,071 $0 $573,071 $573,071 $573,071 $0 $573,071 General Manager Salaries and Benefits $1,500,452 $1,500,452 $1,500,452 Services and Supplies $401,790 $401,790 ($400)$401,390 Total Operating Expenditures $1,902,242 $1,902,242 ($400)$1,901,842 $1,902,242 $1,902,242 ($400)$1,901,842 Land & Facilities Salaries and Benefits $5,099,687 $5,099,687 $5,099,687 Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($657,176)($657,176)($657,176) Net Salaries and Benefits $4,442,511 $4,442,511 $4,442,511 Services and Supplies $3,244,861 $178,590 $3,423,451 $34,989 $3,458,440 Total Operating Expenditures $7,687,372 $178,590 $7,865,962 $34,989 $7,900,951 General Fund Capital $2,196,650 $2,196,650 $2,196,650 Measure AA Capital $1,049,139 $1,049,139 $1,049,139 Total Capital Expenditures $3,245,789 $3,245,789 $0 $3,245,789 $10,933,161 $178,590 $11,111,751 $34,989 $11,146,740 Natural Resources Salaries and Benefits $1,336,729 $1,336,729 $1,336,729 Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($193,837)($193,837)($193,837) Net Salaries and Benefits $1,142,892 $1,142,892 $1,142,892 Services and Supplies $1,148,720 ($144,064)$1,004,656 ($554)$1,004,102 Total Operating Expenditures $2,291,612 ($144,064)$2,147,548 ($554)$2,146,994 General Fund Capital $120,000 ($40,000)$80,000 ($80,000)$0 Measure AA Capital $1,053,417 ($41,892)$1,011,525 $80,554 $1,092,079 Total Capital Expenditures $1,173,417 ($81,892)$1,091,525 $554 $1,092,079 $3,465,029 ($225,956)$3,239,073 ($0)$3,239,073 FY 2017 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 2) Total Administrative Services Expenditures Total General Manager Expenditures DISTRICT BUDGET BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Total Natural Resources Expenditures Total General Counsel Expenditures Total Engineering & Construction Expenditures Total Land & Facilities Expenditures 1/17/201711:16 AM FY 2017 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 2) FY2016-17 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget Amendments Amended Budget (as of 09/30/2016) Quarter 1 Proposed Budget Amendments FY2016-17 Proposed Amended Budget Planning Salaries and Benefits $1,352,252 $1,352,252 $1,352,252 Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($33,752)($33,752)($33,752) Net Salaries and Benefits $1,318,500 $1,318,500 $1,318,500 Services and Supplies $700,620 $700,620 $5,060 $705,680 Total Operating Expenditures $2,019,120 $2,019,120 $5,060 $2,024,180 General Fund Capital $240,200 $240,200 $240,200 Measure AA Capital $1,348,852 $168,000 $1,516,852 $1,516,852 Total Capital Expenditures $1,589,052 $168,000 $1,757,052 $0 $1,757,052 $3,608,172 $168,000 $3,776,172 $5,060 $3,781,232 Public Affairs Salaries and Benefits $969,616 $969,616 $969,616 Services and Supplies $793,650 $793,650 $4,220 $797,870 Total Operating Expenditures $1,763,266 $1,763,266 $4,220 $1,767,486 $1,763,266 $1,763,266 $4,220 $1,767,486 Real Property Salaries and Benefits $626,896 $626,896 $626,896 Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs $0 $0 $0 Net Salaries and Benefits $626,896 $626,896 $626,896 Services and Supplies $155,870 $155,870 $155,870 Total Operating Expenditures $782,766 $782,766 $0 $782,766 General Fund Land and Associated Costs $399,750 $1,650,000 $2,049,750 $2,049,750 Measure AA Land and Associated Costs $608,350 $739,000 $1,347,350 $1,347,350 Total Land and Associated Costs $1,008,100 $2,389,000 $3,397,100 $0 $3,397,100 $1,790,866 $2,389,000 $4,179,866 $0 $4,179,866 Visitor Services Salaries and Benefits $4,588,744 $159,621 $4,748,365 $4,748,365 Services and Supplies $502,475 ($6,313)$496,162 $14,413 $510,575 Total Operating Expenditures $5,091,219 $153,308 $5,244,527 $14,413 $5,258,940 $5,091,219 $153,308 $5,244,527 $14,413 $5,258,940 Total Planning Expenditures Total Public Affairs Expenditures Total Visitor Services Expenditures DISTRICT BUDGET BY EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Total Real Property Expenditures Quarter 2 Budget Amendments Detail (Attachment 3) Budget Categories / Accounts Amended Budget (as of 12/31/2016) Quarter 2 Re-Forecast Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendment 10-10-110-6601 - Training & Conferences $33,250.00 $31,550.00 ($1,700.00) 10-10-110-6601 - Training & Conferences $0.00 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 10-30-310-6001 - Liability Insurance $0.00 $5,060.28 $5,060.28 10-35-315-6001 - Liability Insurance $0.00 $3,373.52 $3,373.52 10-35-315-6002 - Property Insurance $0.00 $2,099.10 $2,099.10 10-40-410-5020 - Other Outside Services $40,000.00 $29,075.13 ($10,924.87) 10-40-410-5205 - Legislative Consultant $48,000.00 $51,955.04 $3,955.04 10-40-410-5299 - Other Professional Services $35,000.00 $40,629.22 $5,629.22 10-40-410-6001 - Liability Insurance $0.00 $5,060.28 $5,060.28 10-40-410-6902 - Office Supplies $1,000.00 $1,500.38 $500.38 10-50-510-6001 - Liability Insurance $92,130.00 $33,735.20 ($58,394.80) 10-50-520-7204 - Sales & Use Taxes $5,000.00 $6,326.00 $1,326.00 10-50-530-6601 - Training & Conferences $13,950.00 $7,000.00 ($6,950.00) 10-50-530-6801 - Computer Software $157,550.00 $55,554.45 ($101,995.55) 10-50-540-5002 - Bank Service Fees $2,500.00 $8,398.71 $5,898.71 10-50-540-5005 - Payroll Services $0.00 $1,796.56 $1,796.56 10-50-540-5299 - Other Professional Services $7,600.00 $12,503.30 $4,903.30 10-50-540-5403 - Membership (Organizational) & Dues $0.00 $425.00 $425.00 10-50-540-6601 - Training & Conferences $14,200.00 $15,139.26 $939.26 10-50-550-5705 - Utilities - Telephone $480.00 $17,373.06 $16,893.06 10-50-550-6601 - Training & Conferences $42,600.00 $59,706.50 $17,106.50 10-50-550-6803 - Computer Hardware $49,500.00 $98,177.13 $48,677.13 10-50-560-5219 - Legal Services $55,000.00 $60,157.50 $5,157.50 10-50-560-5299 - Other Professional Services $95,470.00 $90,223.44 ($5,246.56) 10-50-560-6101 - Legal/Classified $10,000.00 $14,016.95 $4,016.95 10-50-560-6601 - Training & Conferences $36,500.00 $27,680.17 ($8,819.83) 10-50-560-6606 - Recognition Activities $18,000.00 $15,461.05 ($2,538.95) 10-61-611-6002 - Property Insurance $19,367.00 $42,821.40 $23,454.40 10-61-621-6002 - Property Insurance $5,948.00 $0.00 ($5,948.00) 10-61-631-5006 - Alarm Services $3,000.00 $8,000.34 $5,000.34 10-61-631-5701 - Utilities - Electrical $19,000.00 $14,941.69 ($4,058.31) 10-61-631-5702 - Utilities - Water $15,000.00 $12,000.13 ($2,999.87) 10-61-631-5703 - Utilities - Propane, Gas $3,500.00 $4,500.43 $1,000.43 10-61-631-7101 - Facility Maint - Structures - Exterior/Interior $26,660.00 $36,238.64 $9,578.64 10-61-631-7104 - Facility Maint - Water Systems $0.00 $7,237.71 $7,237.71 10-61-631-7111 - Facility Maint - Protective Barriers $6,000.00 $15,601.42 $9,601.42 10-61-631-7112 - Facility Maint - Resource Mgmt/Lanscaping $12,000.00 $16,999.76 $4,999.76 10-61-631-7113 - Facility Maint - Pest Control $2,500.00 $1,000.00 ($1,500.00) 10-61-641-5006 - Alarm Services $5,600.00 $3,341.68 ($2,258.32) 10-61-641-5009 - Internet Provider $0.00 $1,354.00 $1,354.00 10-61-641-5701 - Utilities - Electrical $20,600.00 $12,943.82 ($7,656.18) 10-61-641-5705 - Utilities - Telephone $5,400.00 $3,689.32 ($1,710.68) 10-61-641-6901 - Office Equipment $1,450.00 $2,500.00 $1,050.00 10-61-641-6903 - Office Furniture $5,000.00 $10,000.21 $5,000.21 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments Detail (Attachment 3) Budget Categories / Accounts Amended Budget (as of 12/31/2016) Quarter 2 Re-Forecast Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendment 10-61-641-7001 - Field Equipment/Shop Supplies $85,000.00 $89,999.89 $4,999.89 10-61-641-7006 - Restroom Supplies $6,200.00 $7,460.11 $1,260.11 10-61-641-7112 - Facility Maint - Resource Mgmt/Lanscaping $10,000.00 $5,000.00 ($5,000.00) 10-61-671-5008 - Radio Dispatch Services Contract $166,913.00 $168,806.00 $1,893.00 10-61-671-6705 - Maintenance & Repair - Radios $20,000.00 $10,889.99 ($9,110.01) 10-65-615-5219 - Legal Services $3,000.00 $2,000.00 ($1,000.00) 10-65-615-5901 - Printing Services $4,000.00 $15,891.55 $11,891.55 10-65-615-6903 - Office Furniture $8,000.00 $5,500.00 ($2,500.00) 10-65-625-5214 - Patrol Contract Services $3,500.00 $0.00 ($3,500.00) 10-65-625-5217 - Medical Services $1,250.00 $0.00 ($1,250.00) 10-65-625-7004 - Uniforms - District Provided $12,900.00 $15,198.41 $2,298.41 10-65-635-5299 - Other Professional Services $30,000.00 $32,200.00 $2,200.00 10-65-635-5699 - Rents & Leases - Special Event Rentals $12,000.00 $14,000.00 $2,000.00 10-65-645-7607 - Docent & Volunteer Recognition Events/Items $26,000.00 $30,272.57 $4,272.57 10-80-810-6001 - Liability Insurance $0.00 $6,747.04 $6,747.04 10-80-810-6002 - Property Insurance $0.00 $2,099.10 $2,099.10 10-80-810-6601 - Training & Conferences $10,000.00 $8,050.00 ($1,950.00) 10-80-810-6601.01 - Training & Conferences - Travel/Food - Training $0.00 $1,159.50 $1,159.50 10-80-810-6602 - Educational Assistance/Tuition Reimbursement $0.00 $790.00 $790.00 10-80-820-5503 - Grant Award Agreements $0.00 $12,999.83 $12,999.83 10-80-820-7002 - Field Supplies - Consumables $4,650.00 $4,097.00 ($553.00) 10-80-820-7112 - Facility Maint - Resource Mgmt/Lanscaping $417,534.00 $395,688.00 ($21,846.00) General Fund (10)($12,405.23) 20-61-641-5214 - Patrol Contract Services $4,800.00 $3,600.00 ($1,200.00) Hawthorn Fund (20)($1,200.00) 30-35-325-6301 - Vehicle Expense $8,000.00 $21,051.70 $13,051.70 30-80-820-6101 - Legal/Classified $0.00 $553.53 $553.53 30-80-850-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $192,000.00 $272,000.00 $80,000.00 MAA - Capital (30)$93,605.23 40-80-850-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $80,000.00 $0.00 ($80,000.00) General Fund - Capital (40)($80,000.00) Total Budget Amendments - Increase / (Decrease)$0.00 Debt Service Transfer Adopted Budget Quarter 2 Fund Transfer Net-Zero Fund Transfer Change 10-50-540-9101 - Interest - Notes - Individuals $5,227,900.00 $0.00 ($5,227,900.00) 10-50-540-9201 - Principal - Notes - Individuals $4,397,021.00 $0.00 ($4,397,021.00) 30-50-540-9102.01 - Interest expense - MAA GO Bonds $684,919.00 $0.00 ($684,919.00) 30-50-540-9202.01 - Principal - MAA GO Bonds $775,000.00 $0.00 ($775,000.00) 50-90-XXX-9101 - Interest - Notes - Individuals $0.00 $5,227,900.00 $5,227,900.00 50-90-XXX-9101.01 - Interest expense - MAA GO Bonds $0.00 $684,919.00 $684,919.00 50-90-XXX-9102 - Principal - Notes - Individuals $0.00 $4,397,021.00 $4,397,021.00 50-90-XXX-9102.01 - Principal - MAA GO Bonds $0.00 $775,000.00 $775,000.00 Debt Service Fund (50)$11,084,840.00 $11,084,840.00 $0.00 R-17-13 Meeting 17-03 January 25, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Appointment GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Appoint a member to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee to serve the vacant term expiring December 31, 2020. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION There is currently one vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee (Committee). Measure AA and the Committee’s bylaws (Board Policy 1.10) states that the Committee shall consist of seven members, who are residents of the District. At its January 11, 2017 Board meeting the Board decided to fill the vacancy from among candidates previously considered by the Board (R-17-07). The names of the candidates are listed below: • Susan Dunn • Bruce Tolley The term will be effective immediately and expire December 31, 2020. The process for appointing the seven Committee members will be as follows: - The District Clerk will provide ballots listing the two applicants’ names. - Each Board member may vote for one applicant, and the District Clerk will tabulate the results. - The applicant receiving the most votes will be appointed to the Committee. - In the event of a tie, the General Counsel shall choose the Committee member for the open seat by flipping a coin. MEASURE AA The Committee is appointed by the Board in order to promote transparency, and ensure oversight and accountability for the use of all funds under Measure AA. FISCAL IMPACT There is no additional fiscal impact associated with the Board’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the Committee. R-17-13 Page 2 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not 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 appointment to the Committee, the District Clerk will notify the candidates of their appointment or non-appointment. The appointed member of the Committee will be sworn in to serve the vacant term ending December 31, 2020. Attachments: 1. Susan Dunn Application 2. Bruce Tolley Application 3. List of current Committee members and Committee applicants 4. R-17-07 Options for Filling a Vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Responsible Department Head: Steve Abbors, General Manager Prepared by: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, Assistant to the General Manager From:Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District To:Clerk Subject:Measure AA BOC - Susan Dunn Date:Monday, December 07, 2015 9:16:14 PM Name *Susan Dunn Email *susan@thedunns.com Address * Palo Alto , CA 94301 United States Primary Phone Number * Alternate Phone Number * Why do you want to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee? * First, I am looking for an opportunity to apply my skills and experience for the benefit of environmental causes. I have enjoyed volunteering for workdays sponsored by Acterra and the Coastside Land Trust. I feel I could contribute even more in a role that draws on my legal training and business knowledge. Second, I would like to learn more about how MROSD operates in order to identify other ways to contribute. Since moving to Palo Alto in 1983, I have visited most of MROSD's properties. I feel that MROSD's unique success has materially improved my quality of life. I would like to find a way to give back. Do you have any training, expertise or experience that you would like the Board to consider as they review your application for the Bond Oversight Committee? * Since graduating from Stanford Law School in 1986, I have provided legal services to high technology companies in Silicon Valley. I have always preferred counseling smaller companies because I can gain insight into business decisions in addition to giving legal advice. I worked at Fenwick & West until 2000, then moved in-house to serve as General Counsel to a series of four venture-backed start-ups. I am currently General Counsel of WePay, Inc., a payments company with its headquarters in Redwood City. I have acted as Secretary at many Board of Directors meetings, learning about multiple functions, including product development, marketing, and finance. I am familiar with financial statements, both through my participation in Board meetings, and through preparing disclosures and negotiating definitive documents in connection with financings and acquisitions. I am an eager adopter of new technologies, and I am excited to see how they can aid nonprofit endeavors in addition to supporting new companies. If you have served on other oversight committees or advisory boards/commissions please list and briefly describe your role: * I currently serve on the Board of Directors of Acterra, an environmental organization with its headquarters in Palo Alto. Acterra has a very successful stewardship program that works closely with MROSD and local parks. From 2008 to 2015, I acted as Corporate Secretary of Woodside Vaulters, a local youth equestrian sports club. Reference #1 Name *David Pine Attachment 1 Reference #1 Address * Redwood City, CA 94063 United States Reference #1 Phone Number * Reference #1 Relationship Friend and former colleague at Fenwick & West Reference #2 Name *Nancy Grove Reference #2 Address * Atherton , CA 94027 United States Reference #2 Phone Number * Reference #2 Relationship President and fellow director at Acterra Applicant Requirements: - I am 18 years of age or older. - I am a resident living within the boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. - I am not an elected official or a public employee of any agency that oversees or benefits from the proceeds of the Measure AA parcel tax or have any economic interest in any Measure AA-funded projects or programs. - I have no economic interest (no contracts, no payments, etc) in the District. * I agree Attachment 1 From:Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District To:Clerk Subject:Measure AA BOC - Bruce Tolley Date:Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:13:04 PM Name *Bruce Tolley Email * Address * Los Altos, CALIFORNIA 94024 United States Primary Phone Number * Alternate Phone Number * Why do you want to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee? * First, am looking to expand the amount time I invest in volunteering beyond my current service as a trip leader in the Sierra Club and a high adventure outdoor trek leader in Scout Troop 30, Los Altos. Second and perhaps more important, the committee would enable me to leverage the skills I have from the business world including extensive experience serving as a member of the board of directors for several not for profit corporations while supporting my interests in conservation, open space, preservation and environmental education. Do you have any training, expertise or experience that you would like the Board to consider as they review your application for the Bond Oversight Committee? * While at my last company, Solarflare Communications, built business plans, prepared budgets for board (investors) review, 2006 to 2015. While at Cisco, built business plans, managed P&L budget for line business that grew to $850M, 1999 to 2005 Served on governing boards of multiple not for profit corporations, listed below Former conservation volunteer, San Francisco Bay Chapter, Sierra Club MBA, Haas School of Business. PhD, Stanford If you have served on other oversight committees or advisory boards/commissions please list and briefly describe your role: * Governing board member and corporate officer at not for profit corporations: Ethernet Alliance, corporation > 50 company members and annual budget of > $10M. Member board of directors and corporate secretary. Responsible for corporate governance and fiduciary accountability. Reviewed budget quarterly and annually. Guided reviews of bylaws through proper procedure. Liaison to corporate counsel. 2010 to Feb. 2014. Ethernet in the First Mile Alliance, vice president, member board of directors, and corporate secretary. Led team that wrote founding bylaws. As secretary, filed state incorporation papers. Worked with treasurer on building and executing budgets. Also worked with president and legal counsel to dissolve company. 2001 to 2003. Vice President, 10 Gigabit Ethernet Alliance. member board of directors and corporate secretary. Led team that wrote founding bylaws. As secretary filed state incorporation papers. Guided several changes to bylaws though proper procedure. Worked with treasurer to create and execute budgets. Attachment 2 2000-2003. Reference #1 Name *Alan Truman Reference #1 Address * Los Altos, CALIFORNIA 94022-1617 United States Reference #1 Phone Number * Reference #1 Relationship Fellow outdoor trek leader, Troop 30, Los Altos Reference #2 Name *Stephen Garrison Reference #2 Address * Palo Alto , CALIFORNIA 94303 United States Reference #2 Phone Number * Reference #2 Relationship Colleague from Ethernet Alliance Board of Directors Applicant Requirements: - I am 18 years of age or older. - I am a resident living within the boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. - I am not an elected official or a public employee of any agency that oversees or benefits from the proceeds of the Measure AA parcel tax or have any economic interest in any Measure AA-funded projects or programs. - I have no economic interest (no contracts, no payments, etc) in the District. * I agree Attachment 2 Name Last City District Ward Tom Scannell Cupertino Ward 1 Elizabeth Eischen Los Gatos Ward 1 Jo Zientek Los Gatos Ward 1 Carla Dorow Los Altos Ward 4 Denise Gilbert Portola Valley Ward 6 Paul Betlem Woodside Ward 6 Bruce Tolley Los Altos Ward 4 Susan Dunn Palo Alto Ward 5 Attachment 3 R-17-07 Meeting 17-01 January 11, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Options for Filling a Vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to schedule a special meeting to interview applicants from among the applicant pool previously considered to fill a vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee. SUMMARY On December 14, 2016, the District Clerk received John Melton’s notice of resignation from the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee (Committee). The District Clerk notified the Board of Mr. Melton’s resignation at the December 14, 2016 Board meeting and was asked to research options for filling the vacancy. Due to the ongoing work of the Committee, it is important to fill the vacancy as quickly as possible. As a result, it is recommended the Board choose to appoint from the pool of applicants previously considered by the Board in April 2016. MEASURE AA The Committee is appointed by the Board in order to promote transparency, and ensure oversight and accountability for the use of all funds under Measure AA. DISCUSSION On December 14, 2016, the District Clerk received John Melton’s notice of resignation and notified the Board. Mr. Melton’s resignation was effective December 14, 2016, and he was serving a term set to expire in December 2020. Board Policy 1.10, Measure AA Oversight Committee Bylaws, states “The General Manager’s Office shall make efforts to fill Committee vacancies as soon as practical. Upon notification of a vacancy, whether planned or unplanned, staff shall inform the Board of the status of recruitment efforts to fill the vacancy.” At its December 14, 2016 meeting, the Board directed the District Clerk to research options for filling the vacancy. The Committee met on November 29, 2016 and is currently scheduled to meet again on January 17, 2017 to begin review of the District’s Measure AA expenditures through June 30, 2015. As a result, it is recommended the Board choose to appoint from the pool of applicants previously considered by the Board in April 2016. This option will be more efficient than completing a second Committee recruitment process, similar to that which was conducted from October through December 2015. At its March 2, 2016 special meeting, the Board interviewed ten applicants to consider for appointment to the Committee. At its April 13, 2016 meeting, the Board proceeded through two Attachment 4 R-17-07 Page 2 rounds of voting and appointed seven members to serve on the Committee. It is recommended the Board meet with the two applicants who were included in the second round of voting but not appointed, and choose one to appoint to serve the remainder of Mr. Melton’s term. Both candidates have been contacted and are interested in serving on the Committee. If the Board chooses this option, a special meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible, and the Board may choose to appoint at either the special meeting or a subsequent Board meeting. Alternatively, the Board may direct staff to complete a more extensive recruitment effort throughout the District and/or reach out to other candidates who submitted applications during the 2015 recruitment. FISCAL IMPACT If the Board chooses to interview and select to fill the vacancy from among those previously considered at a special meeting, the fiscal impact will include the meeting stipend for those Directors who attend, but not more than $700.00, which is included in the FY2016-17 budget. If the Board chooses to interview and select to fill the vacancy from among those previously considered at a previously scheduled regular meeting, no additional fiscal impact will be incurred. If the Board directs staff to complete a more robust recruitment throughout the District, staff will return with information related to publishing and translating advertisements for publication in local newspapers. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not 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 If the Board decides to interview the previously considered candidates at a special meeting, the District Clerk will contact the candidates to determine a time they can attend. Following the interviews, at a public meeting the Board will select a candidate to serve on the Committee. Attachments: 1. John Melton’s resignation letter 2. Board Policy 1.10, Measure AA Oversight Committee Bylaws 3. Responsible Department Head: Steve Abbors, General Manager Prepared by: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, Assistant to the General Manager Attachment 4 From:JOHN MELTON To:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:Resignation Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:21:18 AM Hi Jen, With regret, I must resign from the District's Bond Oversight Committee. After my discussion with the District's attorney to fully understand the Form 700 disclosure requirements, Eve and I, as Co-Trustees of our Family Trust choose not to comply with the State's disclosure requirements. I understand that choosing not to fully disclose means that I also choose not to serve. So be it! Best holiday wishes to you and all the other District staffers I have recently been working with, John Melton Attachment 1 Attachment 4 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Measure AA Oversight Committee Bylaws Policy 1.10 Chapter 1 – Administration & Government Effective Date: 8/12/15 Revised Date: N/A Prior Versions: N/A Attachments: Bond Oversight Committee Application Board Policy 1.10 Page 1 of 3 Purpose: The Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee (Committee) is appointed by the Board of Directors (Board) for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) in order to promote transparency, and ensure oversight and accountability for all funds collected and allocated under Measure AA. Committee Responsibilities: The Committee has the following three responsibilities for each of the years the Measure AA general obligation tax is collected or revenues expended: • Review Plan expenditures on an annual basis to verify conformity with the Expenditure Plan. • Review the District’s Annual Audit and Annual Accountability report and present the Committee’s findings to the Board at a public meeting. • Review any proposed amendments to the Expenditure Plan. The Committee Chair shall report the Committee’s findings at a public meeting of the Board of Directors. The Committee shall not have authority to recommend, advise, or direct any such matters that may fall under its responsibility to review. The Committee is not advisory to the Board of Directors and has no power to determine how General Fund monies are spent. The Board of Directors retains its authority to make such decisions and determinations. Committee Composition: The Committee shall consist of seven members, who are residents of the District. • All members must be at least 18 years of age and reside within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. • Committee members may not be current District employees, District Board members, or any vendor, contractor, or consultant with active contracts or agreements with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. • If at any time during his/her term, a Committee member becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest by a potential contract for services or other possible financial interest in or with the District, the Committee member must notify both the staff contact and the District Counsel immediately for legal review of the issue. • If at any time during his/her term, a Committee member ceases to maintain his/her principal place of residence within the District’s boundaries, then such person shall Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Board Policy 1.10 Page 2 of 3 become ineligible to continue to serve as a member of the Committee and said position shall be declared vacant by the Board of Directors. Committee Operations: Quorum and voting: A majority of the Committee constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. The Committee shall make decisions only by an affirmative vote of at least a majority of all members of the Committee. Attendance: Members will actively support Committee activities and regularly attend meetings. Accordingly, more than three absences during an 18-month period may be cause for removal from the Committee by the Board of Directors. Record: The Committee shall maintain a record of its meetings. Minutes of all meetings consisting of actions taken and the time and place of each meeting shall be kept on file at the District’s administrative office. District staff will prepare the minutes for each Committee meeting with the assistance of the Committee Chair. A member roster and record of Committee member attendance shall be maintained by the District Clerk. Location of meetings: The Committee shall meet in the Board Room, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA, at a time convenient to Committee members and the public or at some other location designated by the Committee within the boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, which is available to members of the public and complies with state and federal laws regarding accessibility. Termination: A member’s term shall terminate on the occurrence of any of the following: • The member voluntarily resigns by written notice to the Committee Chair or District staff. • The member fails to continue to meet the qualifications for membership, including attendance and residency requirements. Committee Lifespan: The Committee shall sunset (cease to exist) once it has reviewed and reported on all audit reports covering the 30 years of Measure AA revenue collection. No Board action is required to terminate the Committee. Committee Member Terms of Office: The seven seats on the Committee will have the following staggered terms of office: Member Seats First Term Second Term Appointment Expiration Appointment Expiration 1, 3, 5, 7 July 2016 December 2020 January 2020 December 2024 2, 4, 6 July 2016 December 2018 January 2018 December 2022 Each of the seats will be for four year terms, with the exception of seats 2, 4 and 6 during the first term only. The first term for seats 1, 3, 5, and 7 will serve from July 2016 to December Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Board Policy 1.10 Page 3 of 3 2020, and seats 2, 4, and 6 will serve from July 2016 to December 2018. All subsequent terms will be for four years running from January through December. Committee Meeting Schedule: The Committee shall meet at least once annually. The District’s fiscal year currently ends on June 30 of each year with the Annual Financial Audit Report typically being provided in October each year. Consequently, the Committee shall meet each fall to review the Annual Financial Audit Report to verify that District expenditures conform to the Expenditure Plan. The exact meeting schedule will be dependent on the budget preparation schedule and available meeting dates for Committee members, which may vary from year to year. When necessary the Committee shall meet to discuss any proposed amendments to the Expenditure Plan. These meetings may occur without regard to the budget cycle. All meetings of the Committee will be public and noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Committee Organization and use of Existing District Practices: The Committee shall follow all relevant existing District practices in terms of organization and conduct. Specifically, that the Committee: • Shall choose a Chair and Vice-Chair at the first regular meeting of each year • Shall operate in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act • Shall comply with all state and local mandated conflict of interest/economic interest disclosure requirements • Shall receive no compensation for his/her service on the Committee • Shall comply with all applicable District policies and procedures In the event of any conflict between these bylaws and the Expenditure Plan or other provisions of law, the Expenditure Plan or law shall prevail. Recruitment: The General Manager’s Office shall make efforts to fill Committee vacancies as soon as practical. Upon notification of a vacancy, whether planned or unplanned, staff shall inform the Board of the status of recruitment efforts to fill the vacancy. Appointments: Appointments of Committee members shall be placed on the agenda at a Board of Directors meeting. Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Board Policy 1.10(a) Bond Oversight Committee Application MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPLICATION FOR MEASURE AA BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Please print or type Name: Home Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Email Address: Cell Phone: Why do you want to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee? Do you have any training, expertise or experience that you would like the Board to consider as they review your application for the Bond Oversight Committee? If you have served on other oversight committees or advisory boards/commissions please list and briefly describe your role: Please provide two references including name, address, phone number, and relationship: Please submit your application by email or mail to: Bond Oversight Committee c/o Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 jwoodworth@openspace.org Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Board Policy 1.10(a) Bond Oversight Committee Application Applicant Requirements: I am 18 years of age or older. I am a resident living within the boundaries of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. I am not an elected official or a public employee of any agency that oversees or benefits from the proceeds of the Measure AA parcel tax or have any economic interest in any Measure AA-funded projects or programs. I have no economic interest (no contracts, no payments, etc) in the District. MORE ABOUT THE MEASURE AA BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The Committee is appointed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Board of Directors pursuant to Measure AA to ensure accountability, transparency, and public oversight of all funds collected and allocated under Measure AA. The Expenditure Plan approved as part of Measure AA defines the Committee’s roles and responsibilities as follows: • Review Plan expenditures on an annual basis to verify conformity with the Expenditure Plan. • Review District’s Annual Audit and Annual Accountability report and present the Committee’s findings to the Board at a public meeting. • Review any proposed amendments to the Expenditure Plan. The Committee does not oversee any other District financial information nor does it set policy or provide input or direction on projects, budgets, work plans, or financial matters pertaining to other District funds. All actions, including decision about selecting projects for funding, will be made by the Board in public meetings. Attachment 2 Attachment 4 From:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:Board Questions Re: 1/25/17 Agenda Date:Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:42:57 PM Attachments:Settlement_MID_2212015.pdf Settlement_MID_6272014.pdf Good afternoon all, Please find responses to questions submitted below in blue. Copies will also be provided at tonight’s meeting. Jen Director Kishimoto 1. Claims - Items 74129 and 74175 More new vehicles! What are our criteria for when to replace vehicles and how much are we getting for selling old vehicles? The fleet replacement guideline for patrol vehicles is 6-8 years and 70-80,000 miles and maintenance vehicles is 10-15 years and 90-100,000 miles. The repair records and maintenance history of a particular vehicle will also affect replacement timelines. This year we added more additional vehicles to our fleet than normal due to the increase in new staff positions. An estimate of the costs of trucks associated with the new staff positons was included in the new positions proposal approved as part of the FY 16-17 Action Plan and Budget. Due to additional funds left in the budget, we are proposing through the second quarter review process purchasing one additional crew supervisor vehicle for a new maintenance supervisor, which would otherwise have waited until next fiscal year. Retired vehicles are sold at auction to receive the highest possible market price. A couple of recent auction lists, including prices received for District trucks, are attached. 2. Bear Creek redwoods - Items exclusively for the boarder horse owners, such as the “boarder- only” trail connection - is It legal to use Measure AA/public taxpayer funds for private use? (and I assume when the time comes, we will discuss policy of how to rotate or randomly select who gets to board horses here since public tax funds are being used? ) The $5 million in Measure AA taxable bonds allows the District to finance revenue generating projects, such as some of the high priority Stables improvements that would be used primarily by the boarders (e.g. “boarder-only” trail connection). With the future Stables tenant lease, the amount of revenue generated from tenant or concessionaire activities would likely be minimal and not come close to invoking the IRS rule requiring taxable bonds. Further taxable/tax-exempt analysis will be conducted with our bond counsel when we issue the next tranche of Measure AA funds. The Land and Facilities Services Department will issue a request for proposals (RFP) once the stable improvements are partially designed. The development of the RFP will include requirements on public access to horse boarding. 3. Budget amendments - what is update with prescribed burn program? Work on the Prescribed Fire Program has been included in the FY2017-18 work plan. We expect to restart work on the prescribed fire program in June and expect the program development to take 18 months. Director Riffle 1. Check 74166 - $2147 - Employee Commuter Check - what is this? Employees have the option to have pre-tax money deducted from their paycheck to purchase mass-transit commuter passes and tickets. This check transfers those deductions to the administrator for employees to draw down when they either purchase passes or seek reimbursement for the mass-transit passes or tickets. This program grew out of an employee suggestion and was developed by staff. 2. Check 74156 - $2350 - Jarvis Institute - Leadership/OE - more explanation please Invoices from Minh Le for organizational coaching and employee relations consulting Lot Equip#Description BIDTransportation PIFOther 553 P P80 2008 FORD F-350 XL SUPER DUTY 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 8149 $11,000.00 Y$50.00 567 P P70 2004 FORD F-350 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 3244 $9,750.00 Y 570 P P73 2006 FORD F-350 XL SUPER DUTY 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 7423 $11,000.00 Y$50.00 600 P P74 2007 FORD F-350 XL SUPER DUTY 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 2961 $12,000.00$50.00 686 PD M46 2003 CHEVROLET 2500 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 6555 $3,750.00 Y 690 P P53 2003 CHEVROLET 2500 EXTENDED CAB PICKUP 7785 $6,400.00 Y$50.00 856 P A40 1995 JEEP CHEROKEE SUV 4036 $2,500.00 Y$110.00 Total Bids $56,400.00$310.00 Less 7% Commission ($3,948.00) Less Other ($310.00) Net to Seller $52,142.00 Phone:707-552-0739 Vallejo, Ca 94590 50 Solano Ave. First Capitol Auction, Inc. Fax#:707-552-8613 Commercial Liquidations & Appraisals Bond#:14663700622 Name:MICHAEL JURICH Company:MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Address:330 DISTEL CIRCLE City:LOS ALTOS,CA 94022 Phone#:Work#:650-691-1200 Fax#:650-691-0465 © 2004 Monarch Business Systems, Inc. Auction#:Auction date:02/21/2015150221 Settlement Statement for Code: MID Cell#: Lot Equip#Description BIDTransportation PIFOther 565 P M65 2001 DODGE RAM 2500 QUAD CAB 4X4 PICKUP 5151 $4,750.00 Y 736 P M36 1999 DODGE RAM 2500 QUAD CAB 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 9721 $2,800.00 834 PD M61 2001 DODGE RAM 2500 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK (BAD TRANS) 6429 $2,000.00 Y$50.00 839 P M67 2002 DODGE RAM 2500 4X4 UTILITY TRUCK 8998 $4,100.00 Y$50.00 Total Bids $13,650.00$100.00 Less 7% Commission ($955.50) Less Other ($100.00) Net to Seller $12,594.50 Phone:707-552-0739 Vallejo, Ca 94590 50 Solano Ave. First Capitol Auction, Inc. Fax#:707-552-8613 Commercial Liquidations & Appraisals Bond#:14663700622 Name:MICHAEL JURICH Company:MID PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Address:330 DISTEL CIRCLE City:LOS ALTOS,CA 94022 Phone#:Work#:650-691-1200 Fax#:650-691-0485 © 2004 Monarch Business Systems, Inc. Auction#:Auction date:06/27/2014140627 Settlement Statement for Code: MID Cell#: