Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170208 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 17-04 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, February 8, 2017 Special Meeting starts at 6:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 6:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION. (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of Case: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space v. Mount Umunhum Limited Partnership, et al; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 1-15-CV-289553 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to 54956.9(b): (one potential case) ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of staff o Deborah Bazar, Support Services Management Analyst II Meeting 17-04 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 24, 2017 and January 25, 2017 Minutes 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Award of Contract with Waterways Consulting, Inc. for the preparation of construction documents, construction bid process support, and construction oversight for road infrastructure improvements to facilitate public access at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-17-17) Staff Contact: Matt Baldzikowski, Senior Planner, Natural Resources Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year professional services contract with Waterways Consulting, Inc. to prepare construction documents, support the construction bid process, and to provide technical construction oversight, including a 15% contingency of $21,216 to cover potential unforeseen requirements, for necessary road upgrades to facilitate public access at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a not-to- exceed total contract amount of $162,651. 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. 4. New Board Policy Titled Housing Policy (R-17-11) Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the new Board Housing Policy as recommended by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee, which supersedes the Board’s 1982 Employee Residence Policies. 5. Revision of Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition (R-17-10) Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve revisions to Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition as recommended by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee. 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 February 3, 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 Board Meeting 17-02 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Mitchell Park Community Center - Matadero Room 3700 Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:30 AM DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER President Hassett called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 9:34 a.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Nonette Hanko and Pete Siemens Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Assistant General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Interim Public Affairs Manager Christine Butterfield, Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin, Human Resources Supervisor Candice Basnight, Information Systems Technology Manager Garrett Dunwoody, Visitor Services Manager Michael Newburn, Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. Meeting 17-02 Page 2 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Siemens absent) BOARD BUSINESS General Manager Steve Abbors provided opening comments summarizing the agenda topics for the retreat. Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz presented key elements and takeaways from this year’s environmental scan, including the impact the economy may have on the District’s projects in the coming year. Overall, the robust local economy and higher assessed values result in higher property tax revenues and added income from cash investments, creating strong economic growth for the District. However, the strong economy has further escalated costs, resulting in higher bids that are above project estimates and intensified livability stressors related to housing costs and longer commutes for District employees. Currently, the District is able to afford the cost escalations, and therefore retain its strong emphasis on project delivery, including improving its business processes to support and expedite projects and services. The economy will need continued monitoring to ensure large cost items, such as major land purchases and new office facilities, remain fiscally sustainable and that bond issuances are structured to keep the property Measure AA tax rate at or below $3.18 per $100k of assessed valuation as promised to the voters. The District now has the capacity to effectively monitor the uncertain political environment and track legislation to protect District interests, and establish effective working relationships with the new members of the local delegation who will be instrumental in championing open space goals and funding. Director Harris inquired regarding the level of resources that will be devoted to Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Ms. Ruiz explained resources would be used on a regional basis throughout the District. Director Riffle commented on the increasing traffic in the area due to companies expanding and an influx of new employees, which may lead to an increased demand for the District’s preserves. The District will need to seek solutions to address this demand, including transit options. This will also lead to an increased need to seek partnership opportunities. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of being at the forefront on wildfire prevention, increasing transit opportunities for preserves, working with the District’s Coastside residents, and monitoring the impact of inflation on District projects. Director Harris spoke in favor of transit opportunities, including subsidized transit tickets for employees, spoke regarding increased pressure on housing in the area, and spoke regarding opportunities for increasing awareness of the District by the public. Public comments opened at 10:10 a.m. No speakers present. Meeting 17-02 Page 3 Public comments closed at 10:10 a.m. Ms. Ruiz spoke regarding the informational materials provided regarding District socio- demographics. Director Riffle suggested including Measure AA voting results with the demographic data provided by the Diversity ad hoc committee. Director Riffle requested additional information regarding the visitor use survey for the District’s preserves and suggested providing the information on an annual basis as part of the environmental scan. Visitor Services Manager Michael Newburn reported the visitor use survey is ongoing and will continue for a year. The survey has started in the Rancho San Antonio preserve. Ms. Ruiz reported the Public Affairs Department will be doing its own survey to monitor preserve visitor demographics. Mr. Abbors commented on the District continuing its outward focus to reach out to elected officials, partner agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse described District achievements and progress related to the current language included in the Strategic Plan. Mr. Woodhouse then summarized proposed edits to the Strategic Plan as suggested by staff. The Board of Directors reviewed the proposed edits to the Strategic Plan and made further suggested edits to the language for each of the goals and associated objectives. Public comments opened at 10:46 a.m. Frank Bakonyi spoke in favor of the Board’s approach to the Strategic Plan. Bruce Tolley spoke regarding the District’s method of measuring success on the Strategic Plan. Public comments closed at 10:48 a.m. Director Riffle spoke in favor of staff reporting to the Board on the District’s success in meeting the Strategic Plan goals and objectives. Mr. Abbors commented on the annual List of Accomplishments as a possible method of reporting on this matter. Public comments opened at 11:08 a.m. Mr. Tolley commented on how the word “diversity” is being used in the Strategic Plan stating that it is not defined in the document. Meeting 17-02 Page 4 Ms. Woodworth explained numerous types of diversity are included in the Board-adopted Diversity policy. Public comments closed at 11:09 a.m. The Board suggested having a future study session regarding the District’s Coastal Annexation to review District’s obligations under it, including progress since the 2004 annexation. Public comments opened at 11:20 a.m. Mr. Tolley inquired how success would be measured for Goal 4. Mr. Jaskulak explained these are measured through the District’s processes, including project tracking and budget forecasting. Additionally, the procurement process being restructured and streamlined as well as streamlining other processes, such as the bid process. Public comments closed at 11:24 a.m. Director Kishimoto said that in light of rising construction costs, the District might need to look at the estimates included in Measure AA to confirm they are still accurate. Director Riffle spoke regarding the need to address the Coastal community concerns and needs. Director Harris commented on the location of District-owned land in the Coastal area as compared to where coastal residents live, stating most of the owned land is in the southern area, but most residents live in the northern area. Therefore, preserve use in the Coastal area will likely be from non-residents. President Hassett suggested continuing this discussion at the Coastal Area study session previously mentioned. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the proposed changes to the Strategic Plan, as amended by the Board. VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Siemens absent) The Board recessed at 11:48 p.m. and reconvened at 12:26 p.m. with Directors Cyr, Harris, Hassett, Kishimoto, and Riffle present. ADJOURNMENT President Hassett adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 1:10 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk January 25, 2017 Board Meeting 17-03 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, January 25, 2017 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING President Hassett called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Cecily Harris, Nonette Hanko, and Pete Siemens Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/ Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Marvin, and Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi 1. Selection of Preferred Option for the New Administrative Main Office Project (R- 17-08) General Manager Steve Abbors provided introductory comments providing an overview of the project and the process used to date. Senior Planner Tina Hugg provided the staff presentation describing the majority and minority recommendations from the Facilities ad hoc committee and introduced Signo Uddenberg from MKThink. Mr. Uddenberg described the various steps of the process used by District staff, the Committee, and the project team to create various scenarios for consideration, including real estate analysis and site feasibility studies, future trends and emerging issues, and a staff survey. Meeting 17-03 Page 2 Director Riffle inquired if the number of commuters that would be using the building in the future was considered by the project team. Mr. Uddenberg reported staff was asked questions related to commutes and use of mass transit in the staff survey. The results of the survey demonstrated many staff members use their vehicles for other reasons that may not be resolved by an increased availability of mass transit. Director Riffle inquired regarding housing availability near workplaces and whether it was a factor in the process. Ms. Hugg explained housing shortages would unfortunately continue to exist due to rapid increase in job availability with high salaries, such as in the technology sector. Additionally, due to the age range of staff members, many are seeking to live in family-friendly areas with green space and are less likely to seek urban or infill housing. Mr. Uddenberg described the future scenarios the District could best position itself for through its future Administrative Office. The scenarios were discussed by the ad hoc committee, and three were determined to be most probable and beneficial to the District’s future. Based on the recommendation of the General Manager’s Office and the ad hoc committee, it was determined that a one-story option was not feasible at this time. The ad hoc committee moved forward with a minority and majority recommendation for a two-story or three-story design. President Hassett questioned the amount of square footage needed by the District and whether the District may choose to build beyond the amount needed for potential commercial rental. Additionally, questioned if three stories of underground parking would be needed for a three- story building that was not built to the maximum allowable size. Mr. Uddenberg explained the square footage amounts provided are the maximum levels possible in the various options presented. Mr. Abbors described the District’s current and projected future needs for staff space, which, using current density levels, would require approximately 27,000 square feet. Director Kishimoto commented on the design flexibility that would be allowed for in a larger building, such as designing a light well in the building. Ms. Hugg described the full evaluation criteria used by the project team to evaluate the three options, including growth flexibility, revenue potential, partnership potential, responsible infill density, maximizing value for “today’s dollar,” community engagement, etc. Based on the various criteria, the General Manager’s Officer recommends the three-story option to maximize the benefits and flexibility of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to position the District for the future. Mr. Abbors commented on the benefits of the three-story option to help the District be a leader in the community for expanded land stewardship and public engagement, providing space for partners and community use, and providing the greatest stability and flexibility for the District’s long-term future. Meeting 17-03 Page 3 Mr. Uddenberg and Matt Pietras, an architect with MKThink, presented conceptual visualizations of how the future Administrative Office may be used, including solar panels or shades, social gathering spaces, water capture systems, creation of a rooftop garden, etc. Ms. Hugg described the proposed next steps of the project, including various jump points in the process where the Board may act on an unforeseen real estate opportunity if one arises. Ms. Hugg presented a cost analysis based on the previously completed Tanner-Hecht, a study based on square footage costs for the Peninsula area plus an additional 20 percent allowance for design elements. Mr. Pietras explained the cost analysis represents a middle range of costs. President Hassett commented on conversations at ad hoc committee meetings related to the minority recommendation. President Hassett explained Director Siemens’s main concern related to the District building additional square footage not needed by the District and acting as a landlord. Director Kishimoto commented on the work of the ad hoc committee and her preference for the three-story option, including its location along El Camino Real and near transit options, the high likelihood of finding a tenant for additional space, and the lower net cost of the building if it is offset by rental revenue. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of reducing parking as much as possible. Director Cyr spoke in favor of the three-story option due to its ability to provide the District the most flexibility and value for today’s dollar. Director Riffle spoke regarding the need to identify goals of the project. Ms. Hugg shared the project goals approved by the Board November 18, 2015. Director Riffle commented on the Board’s need to adhere to the goals of the project and the ability to provide a facility for the public to begin to understand and experience open space. Additionally, a space must be built to help staff do their jobs effectively and efficiently and provide a community benefit. Public comments opened at 6:50 p.m. Jerry Hearn representing the trust funding owning the Peninsula Conservation Center commented on the thoughtful and thorough process being used by the District for this project. Mr. Hearn also spoke regarding the high likelihood of the District finding renters if additional square footage is built. Public comments closed at 6:55 p.m. President Hassett spoke in favor of the three-story option, which may be smaller than the 46,000 square foot estimate once building design begins. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to select construction of a new, three-story office building at the existing location with a rooftop common area as the preferred option for a new Administrative Office. Meeting 17-03 Page 4 VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Harris, and Siemens absent) President Hassett adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Hassett called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Cecily Harris, Nonette Hanko, and Pete Siemens 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 No speakers present. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of Staff O Jay Marvin, Ranger O Kyle Shank, Ranger O Ashley Ryder, Ranger ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Harris, and Siemens absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:15 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:15 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, as amended. Meeting 17-03 Page 5 VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Harris, and Siemens absent) 1. Approve January 11, 2017 Minutes Director Riffle requested the minutes be changed to reflect that he, not Director Siemens, made the suggestion to appoint to fill the Bond Oversight Committee vacancy. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth noted the change. 2. Approve Claims Report Director Kishimoto commented on the District’s recent vehicle purchases, including the District’s vehicle policy, expressing her belief that newer vehicles may last longer than previous vehicle models. Mr. Abbors spoke regarding the terrain on which the vehicles are used causes more wear and tear than may be seen on paved roads. 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) 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) 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 4. 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) Planner III Lisa Bankosh provided the staff report describing the project, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, and Preserve Plan, including stewardship, public access, Alma College Rehabilitation Plan, and Bear Creek Stables Site Plan. Based on the extensive planning process, public access to the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve would be Meeting 17-03 Page 6 opened in a phased approach to include stewardship actions to prepare for increased use, reopening and constructing new trails, and construction of parking areas and trail crossings. Portfolio 21 of Measure AA includes funds for various projects at the Preserve, including Alma College, Bear Creek Stables, environmental stewardship, parking lots, trails, etc. The Alma College Site Rehabilitation Plan allows for enhanced access and use, minimal stabilization and rehabilitation, and site cleanup, where necessary. Planner III Gretchen Laustsen summarized the main elements of the Preserve Plan specific to Bear Creek Stables. The Site Plan emphasizes protection of the site’s natural resources, maximizes public benefits by broadening public access, and develops a financially feasible plan for a stables tenant and the District. Ms. Laustsen summarized several high-priority improvements and associated cost estimates for the site planned for phase 1 of the Preserve Plan. Finally, Ms. Laustsen provided a project schedule for the Site Plan. Director Riffle inquired regarding the cost of the water system for the Bear Creek Stables. Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin reported the estimate received was $1 million, and the current request for proposals posted by the District includes an estimate of $500K to $1 million with a large portion of the cost going to a large water tank and pipe installation. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the next steps for Alma College and whether it would need to be referred to the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission. Ms. Bankosh reported the Santa Clara County Planning Director may decide whether to issue a demolition permit or whether to refer the item to the Historical Heritage Commission to make that determination. Public comment opened at 7:55 p.m. Melany Moore with the Summit Riders and Friends of Bear Creek Stables thanked staff for responding to her letter and questions. Ms. Moore asked if the manure dump could be used as a composting site to allow Bear Creek Stables to possibly pursue grant funding. Ms. Moore also commented on a large amount of Scotch Broome invasive species in the area. Finally, the Friends of Bear Creek Stables recently received grant funding for a gutter improvement. Jenny Whitman thanked staff for their work on the project and spoke in favor of the District keeping the radio tower currently on site. Ms. Whitman thanked Ms. Moore for the help to secure grant funding to create defensible space. Peter Hargreaves requested clarification on when public access would begin on the western side of the Preserve and how long would public access be closed for western and eastern sides of the Preserve. Frank Bakonyi requested clarification for the phased implementation of the Site Plan at Bear Creek Stables and stated the parking area should be able to accommodate the large demand this preserve will have due to its proximity to urban areas. Mr. Bakonyi suggested moving the arena closer to the public areas to provide separation for the stables’ tenants. Mr. Bakonyi spoke in favor of holding small events at the Bear Creek Stables and spoke against limiting amplified Meeting 17-03 Page 7 sound to event attendees to hear the event. Finally, spoke in favor accelerating the project schedule. Public comment closed at 8:06 p.m. Ms. Bankosh explained that the entire western side of the preserve would be opened in 2018, which will allow for the large stewardship projects and construction of the Alma College parking lot to be completed prior to public access. Ms. Laustsen clarified any composting station would have to be in addition to the manure dump due to the site’s constraints. Mike Parker of Ascent Environmental summarized the CEQA process and schedule to date for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Preserve Plan was designed to mitigate impacts through avoidance, minimization, compensation, and adaptive management. Mr. Parker described several impacts that were mitigated to less than significant, including biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and dam safety. There was one significant and unavoidable impact associated with the demolition of historic structures associated with the “Alma College Complex.” Mitigation includes documentation of the 1950 library, utility garage, and 1934 library prior to removal, but the impacts to historic structures would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Mr. Parker described public comments received and explained public comments received did not change the conclusion of the EIR nor were changes necessary. The Board will be adopting a statement of overriding considerations, which is required when there is a significant and unavoidable impact. The District did add enhanced mitigation language to project the Western Pond Turtle and a trail undercrossing option to the Preserve Plan. President Hassett requested additional information related to the limits on amplified sound. Ms. Bankosh explained the restriction is not a District policy and would need to be evaluated separately from the EIR. The Preserve Plan does prohibit amplified sound. Director Kishimoto requested clarification related to the removal of redwood and oak trees. Ms. Bankosh explained the removal of the trees is related to mitigation measures for the Western Pond Turtle and needed for line-of-site requirements for the parking area. General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner provided additional comments on amplified sound on the site explaining a neighboring site studied the impact of amplified sound on open space, including the District’s preserve and found that it had a negative environmental impact. Public comment opened at 8:29 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 8:29 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District: • Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report Meeting 17-03 Page 8 • 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 VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Harris, and Siemens absent) 6. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Quarter 2 District Budget Amendments (R-17-16) Finance & Budget Analyst II Nicole Gonzales presented the staff report describing the creation of a new debt service fund and affirmation of the District’s budget by fund both resulting from the District auditor’s recommendation. Ms. Gonzales described proposed Quarter 2 budget amendments, which have been funded by savings resulting in net-zero budget amendments across District departments and funds. Public comment opened at 8:45 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 8:45 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2016-17 Quarter 2 District Budget amendments, and affirming the adopted FY2016-17 District Budget by fund. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Harris, and Siemens absent) 7. Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Appointment (R-17-13) District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth provided the staff report and provided ballots for the Board to select a candidate to fill the vacancy. Public comment opened at 8:47 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 8:47 p.m. The Board voted 2-2 for Bruce Tolley and Susan Dunn, resulting in a tie with Director Cyr and Riffle voting for Mr. Tolley and Directors Hassett and Kishimoto voting for Ms. Dunn. The Board members commented on their selections to determine if the tie could be broken. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to appoint a member to serve on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee by coin flip. Susan Dunn will be assigned heads. Bruce Tolley will be assigned tails. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Harris, and Siemens absent) Meeting 17-03 Page 9 Ms. Schaffner flipped a coin, and District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth acted as a witness. The result of the coin flip was tails, and Bruce Tolley was appointed to fill the vacancy on the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports President Hassett reported his appointment of Director Kishimoto to serve on the Santa Clara Valley Water Commission and Director Cyr to serve as an alternate for the Commission. B. Staff Reports Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz provided an update on the La Honda Creek demolition project reporting the wood from the project will be salvaged and reused. Ms. Ruiz has been appointed to serve on the San Francisco Bay Authority Advisory Committee. Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse on a recent presentation by Legislative/External Affairs Specialist Josh Hugg, on “disadvantaged communities,” at the Bay Area Caucus. The presentation was well received, and staff hopes it will lead to a concerted policy effort to enable Midpen and other Bay Area public agencies to better serve their low-income communities. Mr. Abbors provided updates on legislation the Board directed staff to pursue, including the Guadalupe and Los Gatos Creek Watershed and disadvantaged communities. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Kishimoto reported her attendance at the Santa Clara Valley Water District groundbreaking event for the Permanente Creek restoration project and attendance at a meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Water Commission. ADJOURNMENT President Hassett adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:14 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk page 1 of 3 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-04 DATE 02-08-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74305 11709 - D-LINE CONSTRUCTORS, INC.Mt Um Summit Construction 02/02/2017 274,044.12 74257 11293 - RANDAZZO ENTERPRISES, INC Driscoll Ranch Remediation and Demolition - LHC 01/25/2017 205,887.80 74224 *10215 - CalPERS-FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION - HB Health Insurance ID:2857159579 01/25/2017 170,401.27 74306 10094 - RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP, INC.Mt Um Design Consult 02/02/2017 38,340.84 74274 *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2/3/4 Rent - February 01/25/2017 25,497.00 74242 11501 - HARRIS DESIGN BCR Public Access Design & Engineering 01/25/2017 22,031.73 74293 10094 - RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP, INC.Mount Umunhum Summit Area Construction Oversight/Design Consult 02/01/2017 21,270.30 74230 10463 - DELL BUSINESS CREDIT 15x Dell Latitude E7470 Laptops 01/25/2017 21,251.42 74223 10723 - CALLANDER ASSOCIATES Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design - RW 01/25/2017 17,619.50 74227 11230 - COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - Dental Dental Insurance - Group #1766-0006 01/25/2017 16,325.79 74212 11434 - 2M ASSOCIATES Zion Property Planning Analysis - MR 01/25/2017 14,665.00 74241 11177 - HARRIS CONSTRUCTION Replace Deck - RR/Roof Repair MB 01/25/2017 14,001.25 74254 10086 - PHYTOSPHERE RESEARCH Sudden Oak Death Research 01/25/2017 8,526.31 74290 *10180 - PG & E Electricity/Gas 12/16 - 20 Locations 02/01/2017 7,339.25 74263 11432 - SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT Slender False Brome Treatment - Oct-Nov 2016 01/25/2017 6,976.54 74238 11609 - GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting services - IT Infrastructure Upgrade Project Contract 01/25/2017 6,900.00 74270 *10419 - THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MROSD-BL-490450 AD&D/Life/LTD 01/25/2017 6,644.09 74219 10012 - BIOSEARCH ASSOCIATES Wildlife friendly springbox design 01/25/2017 5,984.26 74288 10530 - MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY INC Sudden Oak death treatment - Fungicide spray 02/01/2017 5,700.00 74281 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Volunteer Stewardship Partnership 02/01/2017 5,615.12 74266 11703 - SHIFT KEY SOLUTIONS Microsoft Word Beginner/Advanced training 1/04/17 01/25/2017 4,837.50 74271 11618 - TRAIL PEOPLE Highway 17 Crossing feasibility study 01/25/2017 4,600.00 74285 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE HR Consulting Fees 02/01/2017 4,291.08 74250 11679 - MKTHINK Futurist Consultant - AO Office 01/25/2017 3,593.00 74261 10094 - RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP, INC.Mount Umunhum Summit Area Design Consultant 01/25/2017 3,441.63 74229 *10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE AO Carpet Cleaning/Monthly janitorial servs & supplies 01/25/2017 3,089.88 74268 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Uniform purchases for new rangers 01/25/2017 3,073.27 74276 *10294 - AMERIGAS-SAN JOSE Propane Tank Service - ECM/SFO 02/01/2017 2,766.58 74226 11520 - COMMUNITY INITIATIVES Latino Outdoors Project Partnership 01/25/2017 2,500.00 74239 11236 - GRADETECH SFO Driveway Paving 01/25/2017 2,456.23 74216 11695 - AMERICAN EXPRESS Car rental/Airfare Conf Land Trust All/Protection Training VS/Nat Interpret 01/25/2017 2,429.16 74298 10959 - STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Mindego landfill closure permit fee 02/01/2017 2,409.49 74296 11745 - SHANK, KYLE Reimbursement for Travel Expenses to Academy 02/01/2017 2,316.60 74246 11326 - LEXISNEXIS Online Subscription/CA Penal & Vehicle Code Handbook 01/25/2017 2,214.55 74300 *10583 - TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS District Telephone + SAO Internet Service 02/01/2017 2,211.84 74232 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Slender False Brome removal at LHC 01/25/2017 2,208.00 74251 10073 - NORMAL DATA Contact/Incidents Database Consultant 01/25/2017 2,092.50 74267 *11730 - STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Basic/Supplemental Life 00-752598-0008 County of Santa Clara MROSD 01/25/2017 2,026.42 74265 11745 - SHANK, KYLE Reimbursement for Academy Expenses - Meals 01/25/2017 2,000.00 74289 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 3 Radio Speaker/Microphones, Install Radios M215/A104 02/01/2017 1,814.97 74256 10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower rental - Crown site id 871823 01/25/2017 1,764.22 74275 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT General Plan Conformity Fee - Conley property 01/27/2017 1,744.50 page 2 of 3 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-04 DATE 02-08-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74304 11176 - ZORO TOOLS SFO Fire Extinguishers/Ladder/Sump Pump 02/01/2017 1,696.14 74253 *10180 - PG & E Electric Service (SA-MT UM)/SFO Locations 01/25/2017 1,620.73 74218 10830 - BIMARK INC.Mt. Um lapel pins for outreach/promotion 01/25/2017 1,595.73 74273 *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Vision Premium 00 106067 0010 01/25/2017 1,344.00 74277 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC A93/A95/A96/P86/P99 Vehicle Service 02/01/2017 1,336.13 74243 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Bulldozer Rental 12/28/16-1/04/17 01/25/2017 1,312.85 74269 10046 - TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC.Materials Testing - Mt Um Summit 01/25/2017 1,267.54 74215 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Design of Video Titles/Nature Ad Mt Um/Rich Gordon Proclamation 01/25/2017 1,015.00 74213 11722 - ADLER TANK RENTALS LLC Water Tank rental 12/2016 - Mt Um Summit 01/25/2017 1,011.38 74278 11013 - CONFIDENCE UST SERVICES INC Annual Tank Test (FFO/SFO)02/01/2017 900.00 74286 11098 - M-T METAL FABRICATION INC Replacement Sign Board Parts 02/01/2017 858.88 74214 *10120 - ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC SFO ALARM 01/25/2017 841.68 74302 *10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Service (FOOSP/SA)02/01/2017 816.30 74236 10768 - GARRAHAN OFF-ROAD TRAINING, LL Off Road Training - 5 Students 01/25/2017 750.00 74240 *11551 - GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSACP)01/25/2017 640.19 74235 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Exterior Door Repair (FFO) - replace lockset + cut extra keys 01/25/2017 626.10 74272 *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Wireless devices monthly charges 01/25/2017 618.81 74252 10397 - OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY Annual Roll-up Door Maintenance - FFO Shop 01/25/2017 595.00 74222 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service AO/FFO 01/25/2017 551.54 74291 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Lumber & Hardware (SA-MT UM)02/01/2017 527.38 74279 10284 - DAVISON, STEVE Reimbursement - training course UC Davis + mileage 02/01/2017 501.24 74262 11479 - ROOTID Rootid: Website Maintenance 01/25/2017 472.50 74231 11455 - DITCH WITCH EQUIPMENT CO., INC.Toter (Trail Vehicle) Parts 01/25/2017 446.32 74245 11099 - LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES INC Pre-employment Screening 01/25/2017 400.00 74295 11117 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY/CITIES MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION Santa Clara County Cities Managers' Association 2017 Membership 02/01/2017 400.00 74248 10774 - MICHAEL DEMPSEY, PATRICK DEMPSEY CM Ranger Parking Lot rock 01/25/2017 348.81 74280 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)02/01/2017 347.26 74259 10589 - RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Recycling Debris Box - FFO 01/25/2017 333.00 74260 *10093 - RENE HARDOY 12/16 Gardening Services 01/25/2017 325.00 74294 11554 - SANKARANARAYANAN, AMUDHA New World Conference expenses 02/01/2017 289.18 74292 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO To correct inv 610 incorrectly sent as credit memo by vendor 02/01/2017 270.14 74283 10043 - HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP Mahronich vs Presentation Center - BCR 02/01/2017 246.45 74258 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Canycom (trail vehicle) Materials 01/25/2017 243.41 74233 10186 - FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping charges 01/25/2017 226.10 74221 *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water Service for Rentals 01/25/2017 202.05 74255 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Storage Container Material (FFO)01/25/2017 200.54 74220 10363 - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Water Rights Registration Renewal 01/25/2017 200.00 74299 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies (RSA&CP)02/01/2017 162.58 74301 10162 - TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER AO PEST CONTROL 02/01/2017 160.00 74297 10954 - SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY PC 832 Class 02/01/2017 141.00 74225 11587 - CIFELLI, JOHN Home Depot Purchase Reimbursement 01/25/2017 137.68 74247 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Remove Radio and Repeater - P92 01/25/2017 125.00 74234 10779 - FIRST CALL AUTO PARTS Vehicle Battery for M24 01/25/2017 123.06 page 3 of 3 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 17-04 DATE 02-08-2017 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 74282 10341 - HOOPER, STAN CALIFORNIA RANGELAND SUMMIT MILEAGE 02/01/2017 118.77 74237 10548 - GARTSIDE, ELLEN Reimbursement for Volunteer Equipment/Supplies 01/25/2017 117.65 74249 10917 - MILLS, AMANDA Mileage Reimbursement 01/25/2017 67.39 74264 11289 - SANTA CLARA CO. PUBLIC HEALTH LAB Water Tests (SAO)01/25/2017 60.00 74287 11449 - MARK, JANE Cell Phone Reimbursement Nov -Dec 2016, Jan 2017 02/01/2017 60.00 74284 10421 - ID PLUS INC Name tags 02/01/2017 46.50 74228 11210 - DATA SAFE AO Shredding Services 01/25/2017 40.00 74217 10485 - AMERICAN RED CROSS-SVC CPR-FPR Class 01/25/2017 35.00 74303 10165 - UPS Shipping charges 02/01/2017 29.86 74244 10119 - KWIK KEY LOCK & SAFE CO INC Keys made for filing cabinet 01/25/2017 21.33 GRAND TOTAL 981,726.21$ *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-17-17 Meeting 17-04 February 8, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract with Waterways Consulting, Inc. for the preparation of construction documents, construction bid process support, and construction oversight for road infrastructure improvements to facilitate public access at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year professional services contract with Waterways Consulting, Inc. to prepare construction documents, support the construction bid process, and to provide technical construction oversight, including a 15% contingency of $21,216 to cover potential unforeseen requirements, for necessary road upgrades to facilitate public access at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a not-to-exceed total contract amount of $162,651. SUMMARY A qualified consultant with experience in forest and ranch road upgrades is needed to complete construction documents, provide assistance to the District during the contractor bid process, and to provide construction oversight for implementation of necessary road and trail upgrades at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to support opening the Preserve to public access. Staff conducted two separate proposal solicitation processes to contract for services to complete all necessary actions to provide for the District’s road and trail construction needs for Phase 1 of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan. A single firm, Waterways Consulting, Inc. was the selected consultant from both solicitation processes, and therefore the General Manager recommends awarding a single contract to Waterways Consulting, Inc. for a total amount not-to- exceed $162,651. MEASURE AA A 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting and includes Project #21-05 (Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Roads and Trails). This proposed contract serves the goals of Project #21-05 by completing necessary construction documents to be utilized for permits, construction bidding, construction by contractor, and to provide appropriate technical oversight of construction for successful project completion. DISCUSSION In December 2015, a Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFPQ) was released to provide road and trail inventory, assessment, and design services for the District. A total of 8 proposals were received and a list of qualified firms was established for a period of four years. R-17-17 Page 2 In April 2016, the District initiated substantial effort aimed at opening Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to public access. Included in this effort was a need for road and trail inventory related services. Waterways Construction Inc. (Waterways) was selected from the established pre-qualified list to complete a road and trail inventory for the roads and trails within the Phase 1 area of Preserve, located on the west side of Bear Creek Road (Attachment 1). In July 2016, Waterways successfully completed their inventory on time and within budget. The 2016 Road and Trail Inventory (RTI) completed by Waterways included two components of work; 1) an inventory report with upgrade prescriptions for the road and trail network, and 2) focused geotechnical assessments and preliminary design work for specific locations on the road and trail network that required additional technical investigation and more specialized design. This work produced focused geotechnical reports, as well as substantial preliminary designs for these critical road and trail locations. The District now requires services to turn the RTI into construction documents that can be used for permitting, contractor bidding, and construction, and also to finalize the specialized preliminary design work completed to date for specific site locations. Staff initiated two approaches to expedite the selection of firms to complete this work: 1. Three firms were solicited from the established pre-qualification list for the preparation of construction documents based on the RTI to address the more standard, typical road and trail upgrades needed. One proposal from Waterways was received. The other two firms solicited (Timothy Best, CEG and Stillwater Sciences) declined to submit proposals. This is likely due to the substantial volume of work available given the booming construction climate and the compressed time frame to complete the work. Additionally, Waterways had already completed substantial field and technical work to complete the inventory and a new consultant would likely need to repeat some of this work, necessitating additional time and expense. The proposal was reviewed by staff from the Natural Resources and Engineering and Construction Departments. The proposal is acceptable based upon the work proposed and cost ($87,680). 2. The second work component for the road and trail upgrades is to finalize the substantial preliminary design work that was completed with the RTI. This includes more specialized design for two new trail segments which will connect existing roads to provide public access, a road realignment, a retaining wall, and a containment structure for potential slide debris. Given the substantial preliminary design work already completed, staff determined that sole sourcing the completion of this focused work was justified. In essence, it would be difficult for another firm to pick up the technical work done by another licensed professional without having to spend additional time and money to essentially “catch up”. Staff therefore solicited an additional proposal from Waterways and reviewed and determined it to be reasonable to complete the work desired by the District at a fair price ($53,755). Both proposals include a required construction monitoring and oversight component which is necessary to see the road and trail construction phase through successful completion and is required by Santa Clara County Building permits. Given that Waterways is the choice for completing all necessary actions to provide for the District’s road and trail construction needs for Phase 1 of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan, staff has worked with Waterways to reduce costs where economies of scale could be R-17-17 Page 3 achieved, such as with combining inspections and fieldwork time. If approved by the Board, these two work items will be consolidated into a single one contract for services. FISCAL IMPACT The District’s FY2016-17 Budget and Action Plan includes $368,200 in the Natural Resources Department budget for Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Roads and Trails projects (MAA 21-005), which is sufficient to fund the scheduled work to occur in FY2017. The proposed FY2018, budget will include funds for construction monitoring services associated with this multi-year contract. FY2017 FY2018 MAA 21-005 Natural Resources Budget $368,200 Spent to date: (as of 1/26/17): $5,900 Encumbrances: $0 Waterways Consulting Contract $103,692 $58,959 Budget Remaining (Proposed) $258,608 $58,959 MAA 21 Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000 Life-to-Date Spent: $548,649 Total Encumbrances: $258,789 FY 2016-17 BCR Projects Budget Balances*: $1,278,010 Balance Remaining (Proposed): $15,392,552 *FY2017 BCR Project Budget balances (less the encumbrances and current expenditures). BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan development process and adoption have included numerous Committee and Board reviews. The Phase I road and trail improvements have been presented and discussed within the Preserve Plan context, and were presented to the Board at the January 25, 2017 meeting (Report R-17-15) for approval of the Preserve Plan and adoption of the associated Final Environmental Impact Report. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Road and Trail improvements are identified and included in the Draft and Final EIR completed for the Preserve Plan. NEXT STEPS Upon Board authorization, the General Manager will direct staff to enter into contract with Waterways Consulting, Inc. to complete construction documents, provide bid assistance, and R-17-17 Page 4 provide construction observation and oversight for implementing Phase I of the proposed Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Road and Trail improvements. These road and trail improvements are anticipated to be constructed in 2017 and 2018. Attachment: 1. Map of Construction Phasing Areas from the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan DEIR, September 2016 Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Manager Prepared by: Matt Baldzikowski, Senior Planner, Natural Resources Department Attachment 1 R-17-11 Meeting 17-04 February 8, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM New Board Policy Titled Housing Policy GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the new Board Housing Policy as recommended by the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee, which supersedes the Board’s 1982 Employee Residence Policies. SUMMARY The Board adopted its existing Employee Residence Policies in 1982 and last revised it in 1994. Revisions to the District’s housing policy is a Board-approved Action Plan work item for Land and Facilities Services for FY2016-17. The existing policy provides guidelines for renting District residences to District employees, primarily uniformed field staff. The recommended new policy incorporates various types of rental tenants, including all employees that provide services, agricultural tenants, employees of other public agencies, and the public. In addition, a new category of District employees -- employees who rent District housing but do not provide any services -- is included. The new policy specifies rental discount guidelines applicable to various types of rental tenants, and sets forth an order of priority for selection of tenants based on the location of the housing. These policy updates are recommended by the General Manager and the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee to help address the District’s business needs to fulfill the mission, and help counter the regional housing, traffic, and cost of living pressures that are increasingly challenging recruitment and retention of District employees. MEASURE AA This is not a Measure AA project. DISCUSSION The current regional housing market, especially the rental housing market, has experienced significant increases in rental rates over the last three to four years. This trend presents a current (and increasingly in the future) challenge for recruitment and retention of public-sector employees in the region, including for the District. The Board’s 2015 District Environmental Scan (Scan) noted this challenge. The Scan recommended revisiting the District Housing Policy for tenant residences and the Board approved this work item in the FY2016-17 Action Plan. Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and the Field Employees Association (FEA) noted in Section 2.8 “During 2015, the District and the FEA will discuss updates to the District’s policy governing employee use of District-owned housing.” To address this Action Plan item, staff assembled a cross-departmental team to make R-17-11 Page 2 recommendations to the Board on a new District Housing Policy to supersede the 1982 Employee Residence Policy. The following objectives guided staff’s research and development of the new policy: 1) Understand the policies and types of housing offered by agencies similar to the District; 2) Broaden the types of District tenants to include all employees, agricultural tenants, employees of other agencies, and the general public; 3) Provide guidelines for potential rental discounts for each tenant classification; and 4) Provide criteria for what type of tenant classification will have priority for District residences. The FEA, pertinent department managers and the General Manager’s office reviewed/discussed the draft policies. A summary of the primary additions and changes, and the rationale for each change follows. The existing policy only covers employees who provide after-hours services. The proposed policy expands tenant classifications to cover the types of tenants anticipated to be in District housing. The proposed categories and associated rental rates, in order of priority, are: • Employees who provide services - Discount commensurate with services rendered up to 50% discount from market rate, or an affordable housing rate, whichever is lower. The affordable housing rate is based on federal guidelines, generally no more that 30% of gross household income (The affordable housing rate is added to ensure employees assigned to housing can afford to live there.). Employee housing is only eligible for these discounts when there is an operational need for onsite employees. • Agricultural tenants, both leaseholders and laborers - Rental rates set in lease agreement, Market Rate, or affordable housing rate. Agricultural tenant housing can become a first priority if there is a need for agricultural housing on a particular property. (A category for agricultural tenants is required, since the District has acquired and manages grazing and other agricultural properties. This category allows flexibility in setting rental rates to include setting rates within the lease, in conjunction with a local affordable housing program, or setting it at market rate.) • Employees who do not provide services - Up to 25% off Market Rate. (Affirms change in practice to allow District employees to live in District housing even if they do not provide services and adds a discount to help attract and retain employees.) • Employees of other public agencies or non-profit - Market Rate (Adds category of tenant whose site presence assists in the land stewardship of District lands.) • Public - Market Rate (Continues existing practice of providing market rate housing to the public.) In addition to the above employee categories, the proposed new policy would allow the General Manager flexibility to develop policies to provide housing (if available), such as providing a housing stipend, to facilitate the recruitment and retention of employees. Historic and caretaker lease agreements were not included in this new policy because they are generally special circumstances requiring a Board approved long-term lease. Development of this policy discussed occupancy term limits. The FEA has requested that there are no term limits for FEA members. However, the General Manger’s recommendation is to have some level of term limits to allow opportunities for new staff to have access to District housing. R-17-11 Page 3 The General Manager recommends this provision be set forth in the housing-related administrative policy (to be approved by the General Manager) in order to implement the Board- adopted policy. FISCAL IMPACT In 2017, rental income from 15 houses rented to the public will equal approximately $354,000. The primary fiscal impact of the proposed change is the 25% off market rate policy for employees who do not provide services. Discounted residences may be more attractive to District employees than the general housing market. Over time as the public vacates District housing stock, public houses may transition to 25% off market rate employee houses. Under the current situation, that impact would be a loss of $88,500 per year if all public houses became employee housing. That transition could take place over a period of 10 years or longer and given the remote locations of District housing, some houses may stay as general public rentals due to a lack of employee interest. See Attachment 3 and 4 for a complete listing of the District housing and a map. Greatest Possible Revenue Loss if all General Public Market Rate Houses Became Discounted Employee Housing: Tenant Annual Revenue Public Market Rate (Actual) $354,000 Employee No Services 25% Discount from Market Rate (Projected) $265,500 Projected Loss of Revenue ($88,500) As the District expands, it will house more employees who provide direct services, generally uniformed field employees, in District housing. While that will have a fiscal impact due to moving more of the District’s housing stock into a 50% discount from market rate, that trend would occur under existing policy regardless of the proposed new policy changes. Affordable housing rates will not have a significant impact on revenue; no current tenants would qualify for an affordable housing rental rate reduction. However, there is a potential minor future fiscal impact if rental rates continue to rise faster than income and a few tenants become eligible for affordable housing rates. There are also potential minor administrative costs to manage the program. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The District’s Legislative Funding and Public Affairs Committee held a meeting on November 15, 2016. The Committee voted 3-0 to recommend the approval of the new Housing Policy to the full Board of Directors. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. R-17-11 Page 4 NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the new Housing Policy will be incorporated into the Board’s Policy Manual. Staff will also develop a new administrative policy for the General Manager’s approval to begin implementation of the new Board Policy. Attachment(s) 1. Draft Board Policy District Housing Policy 2. Board Policy Employee Residence Policies 3. District housing stock spreadsheet 4. District housing stock map 5. November 15, 2016 LFPAC Minutes Responsible Department Head: Brian Malone, Land and Facilities Services Manager Prepared by: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Housing Policy Policy # Chapter # - Chapter Name Effective Date: XX/XX/XXXX Revised Date: XX/XX/XXXX Prior Versions: Employee Residence Policies 3/23/94 Board Policy __ Page 1 of 3 Attachment 1 Purpose: Open space acquired by the District often includes structures. Some of these structures may be suitable for residential rentals. Residential structures may also be constructed if there is a District need to provide housing. District residential housing shall be used to support the District’s mission. Such uses may include housing for District employees, housing for agricultural tenants and tenants’ employees in support of resource management grazing and agriculture. Rentals may also be used to recoup the costs of structural maintenance and repair and provide financial support to the District. This policy defines tenant classifications for District Housing, guidelines for potential rental discounts and site selection criteria. Included in this policy is the process for the Board to approve filing an unlawful detainer action if the District is required to regain possession of a residential rental. A set of administrative policies developed by the General Manager will cover occupancy criteria, required agreements, tenant rights and responsibilities, term limits and the determination of monthly rent. Definitions: Market Rate: Rental costs based on current market prices. The market rate will be reassessed periodically. Affordable Housing: Housing which costs 30% or less of gross household income. Agricultural Lands: District lands under lease for grazing, row crops or other agricultural operations. Tenant Classifications: 1. Employee. Employed by the District Employees who live in District housing fall into two categories: a. Employees who provide direct services- generally field employees but can be any employee assigned to housing based on a District need for services. b. Employees who provide no direct services- No requirements other than typical tenant responsibilities. 2. Agricultural. Tenants who live District housing that is required to support an agricultural use on District lands. a. Agricultural Lease Holder-District residential tenant who also leases District agricultural land. b. Agricultural Laborer- employee of agricultural lease holder who is assigned to work on District lands as part of their responsibilities. 3. Other Agency Employees. Tenants who are employees of another agency or non-profit who live in District housing and whose site presence assists in land stewardship of District lands. An example is a government employee in the law enforcement services. 4. General Public. Any person not in any of the above categories. Guidelines for Potential Rental Discounts: 1. Employees. a. Employees that provide direct services: The administrative policies developed by the General Manager, may provide rental discounts to an employee commensurate with the direct services they provide to the District up to 50% off market rate. The administrative policies will also include provisions for employees to apply for an affordable housing rate, if that rate is lower than 50% off the market rate. b. Employees that provide no direct services: The administrative policies developed by the General Manager, may provide rental discounts to an employee up to 25% off market rate. This discount is based on the value of recruitment and retention of employees in the Bay Area housing market. c. The Board of Directors authorizes the General Manger to develop policies for the recruitment and retention of employees that include housing benefits. For example, the General Manager may offer housing benefits in order to facilitate the recruitment and retention of management-level employees. Such benefits could include, but are not necessarily limited to a rental discount equivalent to the 25% discount mentioned above in paragraph 1b, or an equivalent housing stipend. 2. Agricultural. a. Agricultural Lease Holder. District housing offered for agricultural lease holder will either be negotiated in conjunction with an agricultural lease or be market rate. b. Agricultural Labor. District housing offered for agricultural labor is generally governed by a District lease or license. Agricultural housing rents and associated discounts are negotiated on a case-by-case basis and brought to the Board consistent with the policy regarding Improvements on District Lands (Policy 4.02). If District housing is made available to agricultural labor outside of a District Lease or License, the agricultural labor tenant is required to work for a District agricultural tenant on District Lands. Rent will either be negotiated in the agricultural lease, market rate, or an affordable housing rate. 3. Affordable Housing. The General Manager may develop affordable housing administrative policies for District employees and agricultural labor housing that provides for setting rent at an affordable housing rate. This discounted rate shall generally be 30% of gross household income. This rate is based on the federal definition of affordable housing but may not comply with all the requirements of particular federal programs. Affordable Housing rates may also conform to local applicable guidelines. 4. Other Agency Employees and the General Public. Both of these tenant classifications are not eligible for any rental discounts. Other agency employees whose site presence provides a benefit to the District may be given priority over the general public. Site Selection Criteria: 1. Employees that Provide Services. The highest priority will generally be given to providing housing to employees when there is an operational need to have staff living on site. Typically, this will be ranger and maintenance field staff who are available for emergency response, but may include other classes of employees that provide important on-site direct services. The selection of employee housing sites shall be based on geographic location and specific needs of the District. Strategic locations for easy surveillance and access to roads and trails, public accessibility, need for increased security, and proximity to field offices will be primary considerations. 2. Agricultural. The selection of agricultural residential sites shall be based on their proximity to the District agricultural leases on District Lands. Due to the need for an on-site presence for some agricultural lands, this use may take priority over employees that provide direct services in some cases. 3. Employees that Don’t Provide Services. Housing for District employees who do not perform direct services will be considered after operational and agricultural needs are met and before other agencies and the general public. 4. Other Agency/Non Profit Employees. The selection of a site for this type of housing shall be based on District need. 5. General Public. No site selection criteria. Sites for general public housing are superseded by the above noted tenant classifications. Unlawful Detainer If an Unlawful Detainer action is required for the District to regain possession of rental premises, initial action and any required pre-litigation procedures will be initiated by the Property Management Program in the Land and Facilities Services Department in consultation with the General Manager, and in conjunction with and under the guidance of District General Counsel. The Board of Directors will approve the filing of a required Unlawful Detainer lawsuit. If necessary to regain possession of District property in a timely manner under the procedures set out in State law, or in the event of an imminent threat to health, safety or welfare, the General Manager, with approval of the District’s General Counsel, may approve the initial filing of an Unlawful Detainer action and report the filing to the Board at the earliest possible time to obtain the Board’s approval and direction as to the action. Attachment 2 Attachment 2 1 Picchetti Ranch 13100 Montebello Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 2 Purisima Creek 2050 Purisima Creek Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 3 Tunitas Creek 20080 Cabrillo Highway South, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 4 La Honda Creek 5711 La Honda Rd., San Gregorio, CA 5 El Corte de Madera Creek 16060 D Skyline Blvd, Woodside, CA 94062 6 El Corte de Madera Creek 16060 C Skyline Blvd, Woddside, CA 94062 7 Fremont Older 22500 Prospect Road, Cupertino, CA 95070 8 La Honda Creek 12049 La Honda Road, Woodside, CA 94062 53 La Honda Creek 4150 Sears Ranch Road, La Honda, CA 94020 9 Monte Bello 1405 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94304 10 Monte Bello 1195 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94304 11 Purisima Creek 13130 Skyline Blvd, Woodside, CA 94062 12 Rancho San Antonio 10688 Mora Drive, Los Altos, CA 94022 13 Rancho San Antonio 10698 Mora Drive, Los Altos, CA 94022 14 Russian Ridge 5755 Alpine Road, La Honda, CA 94020 15 Sierra Azul 18171-B Pheasant Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 16 Skyline Ridge 5750 Alpine Rd., La Honda, CA 94020 17 Skyline Ridge 21161 Skyline Road, Woodside, CA 94062 18 Skyline Ridge 21170 Skyline Road, Woodside, CA 94062 19 Windy Hill 4411 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 20 El Corte de Madera Creek 16060 B Skyline Blvd, Woodside, CA 94062 21 El Corte de Madera Creek 16060 A Skyline Blvd, Woodside, CA 94062 22 La Honda Creek 16995 Skyline Blvd, Woodside, CA 94062 23 La Honda Creek 486 Allen Road, Woodside, CA 94062 24 Monte Bello 1185 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94304 25 Purisima Creek 2040 Purisima Creek Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 26 Purisima Creek 2310 Purissima Creek Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 27 Purisima Creek 2200 Lobitos Creek Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 28 Russian Ridge 20000 Skyline Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94062 (Old) 29 Russian Ridge 20000 Skyline Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94062 (Main House) 30 Russian Ridge 20300 Skyline Blvd, Woodside, CA 94062 31 Russian Ridge 105 Rapley Ranch Road, Woodside, CA 94062 32 Russian Ridge 20000 Skyline Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94062 (Guest) 33 Saratoga Gap 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 34 Skyline Ridge 22322 Skyline Blvd, La Honda, CA 94020 35 Fremont Older 22800 Prospect Rd, Cupertino, CA 95070 36 Thornewood 895 La Honda Road, Woodside, CA 94062 37 Windy Hill 800 Los Trancos Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 38 La Honda Creek 5701 La Honda Road, La Honda, CA 94020 39 Rancho San Antonio 11924 Rhus Ridge, Los Altos, CA 40 Skyline Ridge 5705 Alpine Road, La Honda CA 94020 41 Skyline Ridge Alpine Road, La Honda, CA 94020 42 Long Ridge 3500 Portola Heights Road, La Honda, CA 94020 43 Thornewood 897 La Honda Road, Woodside, CA 94062 44 Bear Creek Stables 19100 Bear Creek Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033 (2) 45 El Sereno 16075 Overlook Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030 46 La Honda Creek 1150 Sears Ranch Road, La Honda, CA 94020 47 Long Ridge 12800 Skyline Blvd, Los Gatos, CA 95030 48 Russian Ridge 20000 Skyline Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94062 (Grannie) 49 Russian Ridge 20000 Skyline Blvd, Redwood City, CA 94062 (Cottage) 50 McKannay 51 Landre 52 Tunitas Creek Public Employee Alamitos Road, San Jose,95120 100 School House Road, La Honda, CA 94020 333 Tunitas Creek Road, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Attachment 3 - District Residential House Inventory Agriculture Determinable Fee/Life Estate Proposed for Future Demolition Caretaker Other Agency/Non Profit Historical C O A L C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E E L C O R T E D E M A D E R A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E L O S T R A N C O S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E P U R I S I M A C R E E K R E D W O O D S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E R U S S I A N R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E T E A G U E H I L L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E T H O R N E W O O D O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E W I N D Y H I L L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E L A H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E T U N I T A S C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E W O O D S I D E P O R T O L A VA L L E Y L A H O N D A A T H E R T O N P H L E G E R E S T A T E H U D D A R T C O U N T Y P A R K P E A R S O N - A R A S T R A D E R O P R E S E R V E P O M P O N I O S T A T E B E A C H S A N G R E G O R I O S T A T E B E A C H W U N D E R L I C H C O U N T Y P A R K C O A L M I N E R I D G E F O O T H I L L S P A R K 1 J A S P E R R I D G E B I O L O G I C A L P R E S E R V E T U N I T A S C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E ÃÆ35 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ35 ÃÆ35 ÃÆ35 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ1 ÃÆ1 ÃÆ1 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ280 31 30 41 17 28 29 32 48 49 19 37 11 26 2 25 27 52 3 22 8 23 46 53 38 4 5 6 20 21 36 43 !=!= != != != != != != != !=!=!= != != != !=!= != != != != != !=!= != != != != != != != != Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\ResidenceLeaseBoundaryMaps\_MXD\DistrictResidentialHouseInventor y.mxd Created By: ngreig While the Distric t strives to use the best av ail able digital data, these data do not represent a legal su r vey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic f eatures. Mid pen i ns ula Regi o na l O p en S pac e Dis t ri ct (MR OS D) F ebruar y 2017 D i s t r i c t R es i d e nt i a l H o u s i n g 0 21 Miles I Ag ri cu lt u r e Em p lo yee Pu b lic Histo r ic al Oth er A gen c y/ No n P r o fit Car et ak er De ter m ina ble F ee / Lif e Es tat e Pr o po sed fo r Fu t u r e D em o lit io n != != != != != != != != C O A L C R E E K O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E F O O T H I L L S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E F R E M O N T O L D E R O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E L O N G R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E L O S T R A N C O S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E M O N T E B E L L O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E P I C C H E T T I R A N C H O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E R U S S I A N R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S A R A T O G A G A P O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S K Y L I N E R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E W I N D Y H I L L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E P O R T O L A VA L L E Y L A H O N D A S A R A T O G A C U P E R T I N O L O S A L T O S H I L L S L O S A L T O S S U N N Y V A L E P E A R S O N - A R A S T R A D E R O P R E S E R V E P E S C A D E R O C R E E K C O U N T Y P A R K P O R T O L A R E D W O O D S S T A T E P A R K S A M M C D O N A L D C O U N T Y P A R K S T E V E N S C R E E K C O U N T Y P A R K U P P E R S T E V E N S C R E E K C O U N T Y P A R K A L P I N E R A N C H C O A L M I N E R I D G E F O O T H I L L S P A R K 1 H I D D E N V I L L A (D U V E N E C K R A N C H ) S F B A Y Y O U T H A U T H O R I T Y H A K O N E G A R D E N S ÃÆ35 ÃÆ35 ÃÆ82 ÃÆ85 ÃÆ85 ÃÆ9 ÃÆ9 ÃÆ84 ÃÆ280 ÃÆ280 ÃÆ35 Q U A R R Y P A R K 1 35 7 12 13 39 33 47 51 42 34 9 10 24 18 31 30 14 16 40 41 17 28 29 32 48 49 19 37 !=!= != != != != != != != != !=!=!= != != != != != != !=!= != != != !=!= != != != != Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\ResidenceLeaseBoundaryMaps\_MXD\DistrictResidentialHouseInventor y.mxd Created By: ngreig While the Distric t strives to use the best av ail able digital data, these data do not represent a legal su r vey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic f eatures. Mid pen i ns ula Regi o na l O p en S pac e Dis t ri ct (MR OS D) F ebruar y 2017 D i s t r i c t R es i d e nt i a l H o u s i n g 0 21 Miles I Ag ri cu lt u r e Em p lo yee Pu b lic Histo r ic al Oth er A gen c y/ No n P r o fit Car et ak er De ter m ina ble F ee / Lif e Es tat e Pr o po sed fo r Fu t u r e D em o lit io n != != != != != != != != E L S E R E N O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S T . J O S E P H 'S H I L L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S I E R R A A Z U L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E B E A R C R E E K R E D W O O D S O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E F E L T O N S T A T I O N M O N T E S E R E N O L O S G A T O S A L M A D E N Q U I C K S I L V E R C O U N T Y P A R K R A N C H O C A Ñ A D A D E L O R O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E V I L L A M O N T A L V O C I T Y O F S A N T A C R U Z O P E N S P A C E L O M P I C O S I E R R A A Z U L O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S L V W D ÃÆ35 ÃÆ9 ÃÆ17 ÃÆ17 ÃÆ17 L E X I N G T O N R E S . C O . P A R K 45 44 15 50 != != != != Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\ResidenceLeaseBoundaryMaps\_MXD\DistrictResidentialHouseInventor y.mxd Created By: ngreig While the Distric t strives to use the best av ail able digital data, these data do not represent a legal su r vey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic f eatures. Mid pen i ns ula Regi o na l O p en S pac e Dis t ri ct (MR OS D) F ebruar y 2017 D i s t r i c t R es i d e nt i a l H o u s i n g 0 21 Miles I Ag ri cu lt u r e Em p lo yee Pu b lic Histo r ic al Oth er A gen c y/ No n P r o fit Car et ak er De ter m ina ble F ee / Lif e Es tat e Pr o po sed fo r Fu t u r e D em o lit io n != != != != != != != != *Approved by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee on December 20, 2016 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Tuesday, November 15, 2016 APPROVED MINUTES* CALL TO ORDER Director Cyr called the meeting of the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee to order at 2:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, and Curt Riffle Members absent: None Staff present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone. Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick, and District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved and Director Hanko seconded to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 3-0-0 COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Approve the November 8, 2016 Legislative, Funding, & Public Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 2 November 15, 2016 Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the November 8, 2016 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee meeting minutes. VOTE: 3-0-0 2. New Board Policy Titled Housing Policy (R-16-152) Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided introductory comments related to the proposed housing policy and the cost of housing in the District. Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick provided the staff presentation summarizing the process of developing the proposed policy, including creation of a multi- departmental team to study policies at similar public agencies, prioritize tenant classifications, and provide guidelines for potential rental discounts for each tenant classification. Ms. Cuzick described the potential fiscal impact of transitioning market rate housing to employee residences. Director Riffle suggested including a complete inventory of the District’s housing stock and inquired regarding current demand for District housing. Ms. Cuzick explained there is a pent-up demand for District housing, especially among new members of District staff who provide a persistent demand for District housing. For agricultural housing, there is also demand from District tenants for farm labor housing. For general public housing, the District receives one to two inquiries per month with several people currently on the waiting list. Finally, for other public agencies, there are ongoing requests for District housing. Director Riffle requested additional information related to the prioritized tenant classifications. Ms. Cuzick explained where there is an identified agricultural need it may be prioritized above staff requests. Director Riffle requested additional information regarding the definition of “other agencies” and whether staff considered offering a rental discount. Ms. Cuzick explained employees from other public agencies would take priority, but the District would consider employees from other nonprofits, etc. that provide a benefit from site presence. A discounted rental rate was considered and rejected by the staff committee, but the Board may direct staff to include a discounted rate in the proposed policy. Public comment opened at 2:39 p.m. Sarah Rosendahl, representing San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley, spoke in favor of the proposed policy and expansion of farm labor housing on the San Mateo Coast and affordable housing throughout San Mateo County. Ms. Rosendahl provided to the Committee a report completed by the Home for All San Mateo County task force related to affordable housing in San Mateo County. Additionally, Ms. Rosendahl commented on the negative effect limited housing availability has on agricultural production on the San Mateo Coast. Director Riffle inquired if the County will be able to assist with grants, permitting process, etc. to help the District invest in farm labor housing. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 3 November 15, 2016 Ms. Rosendahl reported on grant funds available for farm labor housing rehabilitation and efforts to streamline the farm labor housing permit process. Public comment closed at 2:51 p.m. Director Hanko inquired if the District has considered making farm labor housing on District properties not located near the San Mateo Coast. Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone explained District residences throughout the District would be available for farm labor housing and are not limited to the San Mateo Coast. Ms. Cuzick explained however farm labor housing is most useful when it is located close to agricultural lands. Director Riffle commented on the importance of attracting exceptional employees to work at the District, and providing housing options may help. Additionally, the District may want to explore proactively providing housing options for employees, other public agencies, and non-profits, through building new structures and/or rehabilitating existing structures. Finally, Director Riffle commented on various operational aspects to be determined if the Board adopted the proposed housing policy. Mr. Malone explained District staff will draft administrative policies and procedures to help administer the program similar to Director Riffle’s suggestions. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to recommend approval of the new draft Board Housing Policy to the Board of Directors. VOTE: 3-0-0 3. Revision of Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition (R-16-153) Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick explained several revisions are being proposed to the two policies describing how the District manages District residences and structures based on the proposed housing policy, including direction on what uses the District makes of improvements and what factors should be taken into account when making decisions on the disposition of District improvements. Proposed revisions include: • Incorporating the need for agricultural housing. • Language changed to allow for the maintenance of structures that are compatible with the open space character solely for the purpose of revenue generation. • Allow retention and maintenance of structures for revenue generation that do not serve a District purpose • Language was added so that the criteria could be used to evaluate constructing new structures as well as determining the disposition of existing structures. Director Hanko suggested keeping structures if they serve a purpose as a wildlife habitat. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 4 November 15, 2016 Ms. Cuzick explained District staff evaluates District structures before there are considered for demolition, including biological surveys and monitoring and/or providing an alternate habitat. The Committee recessed at 3:35 p.m. and reconvened at 3:38 p.m. with all Committee members present. Director Riffle requested clarification regarding several aspects of the revised policies and suggested removing language from Board policy 4.09 (G) and combine the section with 4.09 (H). Additionally, Director Riffle suggested including creating a factor specific to agricultural uses in Board policy 4.09, including farm labor housing and associated agricultural infrastructure. Public comment opened at 4:04 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 4:04 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the Improvements on District Lands and Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition Board policies to the Board of Directors, as amended. VOTE: 3-0-0 ADJOURNMENT Director Cyr adjourned the meeting of the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee at 4:05 p.m. ____________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Attachment 5 R-17-10 Meeting 17-04 February 8, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Revision of Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve revisions to Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition as recommended by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC). SUMMARY As the District revisits its Housing Policy, two other Board policies, Improvements on District Lands (Improvements) and Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition (Factors), require revisions to reflect the handling of District improvements and structures, including District residences. The revisions to these policies are required to be consistent with the new recommended Housing Policy, if that policy is approved by the Board, and to reflect anticipated operational needs. The Improvements policy proposed language clarifies the General Manager and Board authority for the disposition of structures and allows for the retention of structures consistent with open space character for the purpose of revenue generation. The Factors policy proposed language further clarifies the Financial Cost factor, adds two new factors for analyzing the disposition of a structure: 1) Agricultural Value factor; and 2) Condition of a Structure factor, and removes the Public Sentiment and Input factor, incorporating language from that factor elsewhere in the policy. MEASURE AA This is not a Measure AA project. DISCUSSION Improvements policy: This policy provides Board direction on what uses the District makes of improvements on District lands. Structures and improvements are limited to uses that further the District’s mission and goals. The following changes are recommended for this policy: 1. Enlarges the definition of improvements. 2. Provides evaluation milestones throughout the improvement’s life cycle. R-17-10 Page 2 3. Defines the General Manager authority over disposition of non-residential improvements less than 1,500 square feet. 4. Incorporates the need for agricultural housing. 5. Updates language regarding leases to reflect the $50,000 Board approval level. 6. Changes language to allow for the maintenance of structures that are compatible with open space character solely for the purpose of revenue generation. 7. Removes unlawful detainer section (proposed for addition to the new Housing Policy). Most of the proposed changes to the Improvements policy are minor changes recommended for consistency with other policies and changing conditions. The two significant changes from existing policy are the definition of the General Manager’s authority for structures disposition and the change to allow the maintenance of structures for the purpose of revenue generation. The current Improvements policy does not define when a project involving structure disposition requires Board approval. The only reference to the type of structure the Board would consider is in the policy statement: “In other than emergency situations, public notice will be given to the degree specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process and the Public Notification Policy before any decision is made by the Board to remove a major structure.” However, this statement is only in reference to public notice and there is not a definition of “major structure.” Defining the size and nature of structures requiring Board approval for a disposition ensures that staff does not demolish or construct a structure the Board may have an interest in, without Board approval first. At the same time, it gives the General Manager the authority to remove or build small non-residential structures. Allowing the General Manger to make decisions on minor structures increases efficiency and speeds up the delivery of District projects. The current Improvements policy states “structures will not be maintained or constructed solely for the purpose of producing revenue.” It goes on to describe that renting a structure temporarily for revenue production is permissible. It directs staff that the end game for all structures, not used for a District purpose, is demolition. In practice, houses that are structurally sound, in good condition, have good driveway access, and sufficient water availability have not been demolished. The amended policy allows for the retention and maintenance of structures whose primary value to the District is revenue generation. The reason for this recommendation is to allow the District to take advantage of the potential revenue from structures with significant value instead of demolishing them. The amended policy would continue to prohibit the construction of new structures purely for revenue generation. Factors: This policy lays out all the factors to consider when making decisions on the disposition of District infrastructure and structures. This policy aided in the process for evaluating the Mt. Umunhum radar tower and provided the Board a general framework for all disposition decisions. The changes to this policy include: 1. New language outlining the criteria used to evaluate constructing new structures as well as determining the disposition of existing structures. 2. New language defining how agricultural value affects the disposition of a structure. R-17-10 Page 3 3. Removal of the Public Sentiment and Input factor and incorporating language from that factor elsewhere in the policy. 4. Augmenting language in the Regional Importance or Value factor with some of the language removed from Public Sentiment and Input factor. 5. New language regarding the condition of the structure and site conditions as factors to consider. FISCAL IMPACT These policy changes may affect future decisions that have a fiscal impact. However, the adoption of the policies in and of themselves has no fiscal impact. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The District’s Legislative Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) held a meeting on November 15, 2016. The Committee voted 3-0 to recommend the approval of amendments to the Improvements and Factors policies to the full Board of Directors with the following changes as directed by LFPAC in the Factors policy: 1. Removing Public Sentiment and Input factor (section 4.09 (G)) and incorporating language from that factor elsewhere in the policy. 2. Including the sentence, “It is common for buildings to elicit strong and varied responses from the public and staff since buildings often touch on people’s values, personal experiences, memories, and desires,” in section 4.09 (H), the Regional Importance or Value factor. 3. Create an Agricultural Value factor, which includes farm labor housing and associated agricultural infrastructure. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS District Clerk completes revisions to Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition and incorporates into the Board’s Policy Manual. Attachments 1. Board Policy “Improvements on District Lands” 2. Revised Board Policy “Improvements on District Lands” Redline Strikeout 3. Board Policy “Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition” 4. Revised Board Policy “Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition” Redline Strikeout 5. November 15, 2016 LFPAC Minutes R-17-10 Page 4 Responsible Department Head: Brian Malone, Land and Facilities Services Manager Prepared by: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Improvements on District Lands Policy 4.02 Chapter 4 – Acquisition & Maintenance of District Lands Effective Date: 3/24/16 Revised Date: XX/XX/XX Prior Versions: 2/22/78, 3/23/83, 10/10/84, 7/25/07, 11/13/13, 3/23/16 Board Policy 4.02 Page 1 of 4 Purpose: Open space lands purchased by the District often have structures and other improvements of varying condition, usefulness and value. Some of these improvements are appropriate to the open space around them, and others are not. As use of District lands increases, there will be additional pressure on the District to construct new facilities such as visitor use buildings, parking lots, housing, and field offices. Since there are many costs involved with the maintenance, patrol, and liability of structures, it is important that the District establish a policy for the use, construction and/or removal of structures on District lands. Information on specific structures and their use, potential uses and final disposition will be found in the site planning documents. The following policy statements are intended as a guide for staff in the preparation of recommended actions concerning structures and improvements to inform the Board’s decision. A. Definitions. For the purpose of these policies, improvements include but are not limited to all improvements such as buildings, houses, barns, , visitor-serving and sanitary facilities, utility structures, communication towers, dams, water storage facilities, fences, gates, corrals, roads, trails and parking lots. B. Policy Statement. All structures and other improvements existing on District lands at the time of acquisition are potential resources and as such will be considered for retention and will be addressed in site planning documents. The District will retain, renovate or build a structure or other improvement only if it is complementary to the objectives of the District outlined in the Basic Policy. Important considerations in the decision to retain or build an improvement will be its compatibility with the open space character of the site, its potential financial burden to the District in terms of liability and management, historic value, and its proposed use. Further considerations are outlined in the Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition board policy 4.09. Improvements that don’t meet the criteria for retention will be removed as soon as practicable. The Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion board policy (4.08) provides guidelines for the disposition of materials resulting from an improvement- construction or demolition project. Structures or improvements should be evaluated at the time of acquisition, during the site planning process and when renovations in excess of $200,000 or that exceed the value of the structure are required. Attachment 1 Board Policy 4.02 Page 2 of 4 The Board will review and approve the demolition of residential structures of any size, any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet, and any structure determined to be historically significant. The Board must also approve the construction of a residential structure of any size or any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet. The General Manager or his/her designee may authorize the demolition of any structure that does not meet the guidelines above as well as any structure that has had a major structural failure such as a collapsed wall or roof. The General Manager or his /her designee may approve the construction of any non-residential structure under 1,500 square feet on a case by case basis. In cases of particular public interest or that are controversial, the General Manager may bring the decision to the Board for final disposition. In other than emergency situations, public notice will be given to the degree specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process board policy 4.02 and the Public Notification board policy 1.09 before any decision is made by the Board on the disposition of a structure or improvement. C. Discussion. (1) Improvements Used for Site Protection, Management, and Stewardship: (e.g., Field Office, Employee Residence, Agricultural Labor Residences, Equipment and Water Storage Facilities, Outbuildings, Corrals, Fences and Gates) If it is deemed necessary or desirable to have a field office or employee residence in order to properly care for a site and to accomplish the District’s land management, resource management and stewardship goals, the decision to use an existing structure or to build a new structure should be based on this policy and Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition board policy 4.09. As the District acquires agricultural properties, housing is needed for agricultural lease holders and their agricultural workers. Residences on District agricultural properties should be evaluated as potential housing for agricultural labor. Some improvements, including but not limited to outbuildings, corrals, fences, gates, equipment and water storage facilities may be required for the proper maintenance and protection of a site. Such improvements will be constructed and/or maintained as required. (2) Improvements for Public Utilization of the Site: (e.g., Education and Recreation Facilities, Restrooms, Drinking Water, Trails, Roads, Bridges and parking Lots) One of the District’s principal roles is providing low intensity recreational use of its lands. Improvements such as trails and parking lots will be considered as part of the site planning process. Improvements which have potential for more intensive recreational, environmental, historic, or educational use will also be considered for retention or construction; however, the Attachment 1 Board Policy 4.02 Page 3 of 4 willingness of other agencies or partners to bear any major costs of construction and/or management will be an important consideration. Facilities required for the health and safety of the public will be constructed and maintained as required. In emergency cases, the staff will have discretion for immediate mitigation of hazards. (3) Improvements which Contribute to the Character of the Site: (e.g., Buildings with Unique Historical or Architectural merit, Barns, Sheds and Fences) In order for the Board to determine the historical, cultural or architectural significance of a structure, the District will notify and consult such agencies as specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process board policy 4.01. As an aid to this determination, the District will conduct and maintain a survey of significant structures within the planning area. When the District considers acquisition of a site which includes a structure or structures which are listed on the National Register for Historic Places or are clearly eligible for inclusion on that register, the District has a special responsibility to seek some means to protect these structures. An important consideration in the decision to retain such structures will be the availability of special funding programs or resources from other public agencies, private organizations or individuals for the costs of their restoration, maintenance and operation. In extraordinary situations involving structures of exceptional historical or architectural merit, when other resources are not available, the District will either exclude the structures from its acquisition or accept the responsibility to protect and preserve them for an indefinite period while seeking other means for continued preservation and/or restoration as identified in the historical resources inventory. An Historic Structures policy is currently under development which will provide a detailed process for evaluating and determining the disposition of potentially historic structures. Some structures associated with agriculture or other former uses of the site can contribute significantly to the site without detracting from its open space character. When economically feasible within the constraints of the land management budget, examples of these structures will be retained, maintained, and when possible put to use. (4) Improvements for Agriculture and Other Special Uses: Agricultural use which is consistent with the open space use of a site is encouraged by the District. Improvements for agriculture or other special uses will be retained or constructed as approved by the Board and stated in the site planning documents. In the Coastside Protection Area; leases, use, and improvements shall be consistent with the District’s Service Plan Policies. (5) Improvements as Income Sources: Improvements may be maintained solely for the purpose of producing revenue if they do not detract from the open space character of the site. Structures that do not serve a District purpose as listed in sections C 1-4 may be rented or leased to provide a revenue source for the District. When a structure or improvement is retained for these Attachment 1 Board Policy 4.02 Page 4 of 4 purposes, it should generally be rented for the fair market value consistent with possible special restrictions due to its location on open space lands, or in accordance with the Housing Policy board policy XXXX and guidelines approved by the General Manager. Structures that are slated for demolition or are retained for a future District purpose may be rented temporarily as a means of revenue production. Improvements will not be constructed solely for producing revenue but may be constructed if they also serve a District purpose. (6) Leases The Board of Directors will review and approve leases or licenses which are long term (over one year) and/or involve an anticipated annual income in excess of $50,000, excluding month-to-month agreements. The General Manager or his/her designee may enter into leases, license agreements, or rental agreements on behalf of the District without specific Board approval if they are: (a) In amounts not exceeding $50,000 anticipated annual income to the District (including in-kind services), and (b) No more than one year in duration, or month-to month, and (c) Pursuant to a Board adopted planning document, and (d) Do not create commitments which go beyond the scope of the Board adopted site planning documents (e.g., extensive tenant improvements which could imply a longer term commitment by the District). The General Manager will have the discretion to enter into leases specifying either cash or in- kind services or a combination of the two as payment. If in-kind services are being accepted, they will in no circumstance exceed three year’s full cash value of the lease, the cash value of the remaining time on the lease, or $50,000, whichever is less, without Board approval, to preclude the expectation of a continuing relationship. Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Improvements on District Lands Policy 4.02 Chapter 4 – Acquisition & Maintenance of District Lands Effective Date: 3/24/16 Revised Date: 3/23/16XX/XX/XX Prior Versions: 2/22/78, 3/23/83, 10/10/84, 7/25/07, 11/13/13, 3/23/16 Board Policy 4.02 Page 1 of 5 IntroductionPurpose: Open space lands purchased by the District often haveIn the process of fulfilling its primary function of acquiring open space, the District also becomes the owner of structures and other improvements of varying condition, usefulness and value. Some of these improvements are appropriate to the open space around them, and others are not. Frequently structures have some degree of historical value. As use of District lands increases, there will be additional pressure on the District to construct new facilities such as visitor userecreational buildings and, parking lots, housing, and field offices. Since there are many costs involved with the maintenance, patrol, and liability of structures, it is important that the District establish a policy for the use, construction and/or removal of structures on District lands. Information on specific structures and their use, potential uses and final disposition will be found in the specific site plans and use and management plans planning documents (site plans). The following policy statements are intended as a guide for the staff in the preparation of recommended actions concerning structures and improvements of such site plans to be approved by to inform the Board’s decision. A. Definitions. For the purpose of these policies, improvements will include but are not limited to all constructions improvements such as buildings, houses, barns, recreation , visitor-serving and sanitary facilities, utility structures, communication towers, dams, water storage facilities, fences and gatesfences, gates, corrals, roads, trails and parking lots. B. Policy Statement. All structures and other improvements existing on District lands at the time of acquisition are potential resources and as such will be considered for retention and will be addressed inthe site planning documents. In other than emergency situations, public notice will be given to the degree specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process and the Public Notification Policy before any decision is made by the Board to remove a major structure. The District will retain, and maintainrenovate or build a structure or other improvement only if it is complementary to the objectives of the District outlined in the Basic Policy. Important considerations in the decision to retain or build an improvement will be its compatibility with the open space character of the site, its potential financial burden to the District in terms of liability and management, historic value, and its proposed use. Further considerations are outlined in the Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition board policy (4.09). Existing structures which have identified potential uses may be retained for a specified period as stated in the use and management plan for the site. Other iImprovements that don’t meet the criteria for retention will be removed from the site as soon as practicable. The time scale for the Attachment 2 Board Policy 4.02 Page 2 of 5 removal will be determined on the basis of both the cost of removal and the degree of negative impact on the site. The site plan will consider the cost and practicality of salvaging materials being removed. The Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion board policy (4.08) provides guidelines for the disposition of materials resulting from an improvement- construction or demolition project. Structures or improvements should be evaluated at the time of acquisition, during the site planning process and when renovations in excess of $200,000 or that exceed the value of the structure are required. The Board will review and approve the demolition of residential structures of any size, any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet, and any structure determined to be historically significant. The Board must also approve the construction of a residential structure of any size or any structure in excess of 1,500 square feet. The General Manager or his/her designee may authorize the demolition of any structure that does not meet the guidelines above as well as any structure that has had a major structural failure such as a collapsed wall or roof. The General Manager or his /her designee may approve the construction of any non-residential structure under 1,500 square feet on a case by case basis. In cases of particular public interest or that are controversial, the General Manager may bring the decision to the Board for final disposition. In other than emergency situations, public notice will be given to the degree specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process board policy 4.02 and the Public Notification board policy 1.09 before any decision is made by the Board on the disposition of a structure or improvement. C. Discussion. (1) Improvements Used for Site Protection, Management, and Stewardship: (e.g., Field Office, Ranger, Employee , and Caretaker Residences, Agricultural Labor Residences, Equipment and Water Storage Facilities, Outbuildings, Corrals, Fences and Gates) If it is deemed necessary or desirable to have a field office or ranger employee (caretaker) residence in order to properly care for the a site , or other employee residence in orderand to accomplish the District’s land management, resource management and stewardship goals, the decision to use an existing structure or to build a new structure should be made on the basis of cost effectiveness and site compatibilitybased on this policy and Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition board policy 4.09.. When a structure is used as an employee, ranger or caretaker residence, rental will be at fair market value minus the value of services rendered to the District. Allowances may be made for the fact that available facilities may exceed the actual need of the occupant. Attachment 2 Board Policy 4.02 Page 3 of 5 As the District acquires agricultural properties, housing is needed for agricultural lease holders and their agricultural workers. Residences on District agricultural properties should be evaluated as potential housing for agricultural labor. Some improvements, such asincluding but not limited to outbuildings, corrals, fences, gates, equipment and water storage facilities may be required for the proper maintenance and protection of a site. Such improvements will be constructed and/or maintained as required. (2) Improvements for Public Utilization of the Site: (e.g., Education and Recreation Facilities, Restrooms, Drinking Water, Trails, Roads, Bridges and parking Lots) Because One of the District’s principal roles is that of providing low intensity recreational uses of its lands., Iimprovements such as trails and parking lots will be considered as part of the each site planplanning processdocuments. Improvements which have potential for more intensive recreational, environmental, historic, or educational use will also be considered for retention or construction; however, the willingness of other agencies or partners to bear any major costs of construction and/or management will be an important consideration. Facilities required for the health and safety of the public will be constructed and maintained only as required. In emergency cases, the staff will have discretion for immediate mitigation of hazards. (3) Improvements which Contribute to the Character of the Site: (e.g., Buildings with Unique Historical or Architectural merit, Barns, Sheds and Fences) In order for the Board to determine the historical, cultural or architectural significance of a structure, the District will notify and consult such agencies as specified in the Open Space Use and Management Planning Process board policy 4.01land Use and Management Planning Process Document. As an aid to this determination, the District will conduct and maintain a survey of significant structures within the planning area. When the District considers acquisition of a site which includes a structure or structures which are listed on the National Register for Historic Places or are clearly eligible for inclusion on that register, the District has a special responsibility to seek some means to protect these structures. An important consideration in the decision to retain such structures will be the availability of special funding programs or resources from other public agencies, private organizations or individuals for the costs of their restoration, maintenance and operation. In extraordinary situations involving structures of exceptional historical or architectural merit, when other resources are not available, the District will either exclude the structures from its acquisition or accept the responsibility to protect and preserve them for an indefinite period while seeking other means for continued preservation and/or restoration as identified in the historical resources inventory. An Historic Structures policy is currently under development which will provide a detailed process for evaluating and determining the disposition of potentially historic structures. Attachment 2 Board Policy 4.02 Page 4 of 5 Some structures associated with agriculture or other former uses of the site can contribute significantly to the site without detracting from its open space character. When economically feasible within the constraints of the land management budget, examples of these structures will be retained, maintained, and whenever possible put to use. (4) Improvements for Agriculture and Other Special Uses: Agricultural use which is consistent with the open space use of a site is encouraged by the District. Improvements for agriculture or other special uses will be retained or constructed as approved by the Board and stated in the site planning documents. In the Coastside Protection Area; leases, use, and improvements shall be consistent with the District’s Service Plan Policies. (54) Improvements as Income Sources: Structures Improvements will may not be maintained or constructed solely for the purpose of producing revenue if they do not detract from the open space character of the site. Rentals may be employed to maintain a structure which is being retained for another potential use or on a temporary basis in order to help defray the cost of removal of an undesirable structure. Structures that do not serve a District purpose as listed in sections C 1-4 may be rented or leased to provide a revenue source for the District. . The overall time for interim rental will be determined through the use and management planning process. When a structure or improvement is is temporarily retained for the purposethese purposes of revenue production, it should generally be rented for the fair market value consistent with possible special restrictions due to its location on open space lands, or . , Iand its availability will be advertised in accordance with the Housing Policy board policy XXXX and guidelines approved by the General Manager. Structures that are slated for demolition or are retained for a future District purpose may be rented temporarily as a means of revenue production. Improvements will not be constructed solely for producing revenue but may be constructed if they also serve a District purpose. (6) LeasesIn some cases , land will be purchased under the condition that the site or a portion thereof will be leased on a long term basis, sold, or sold with retention of necessary trail or other land rights. Timelines for making final decisions on rights to be retained will be established at the outset and during the regular planning process. Generally, the decision to lease an improvement will be made to optimize special factors related to properly managing District lands. The Board of Directors will review and approve leases or licenses which are long term (over one year) and/or involve an anticipated annual income in excess of $50,000, excluding month-to-month leases or licensesrental agreements. The General Manager or his/her designee may enter into leases, or license agreements, or rental agreements on behalf of the District without specific Board approval if they are: (a) In amounts not exceeding $50,000 anticipated annual income to the District Attachment 2 Board Policy 4.02 Page 5 of 5 (including in-kind services), and (b) No more than one year in duration, or month-to month, and (c) Pursuant to a Board adopted use and management planning document, and (d) Do not create commitments which go beyond the scope of the Board adopted use and management plansite planning documents (e.g., extensive tenant improvements which could imply a longer term commitment by the District). The General Manager will have the discretion to enter into leases specifying either cash or in- kind services or a combination of the two as payment. If in-kind services are being accepted, they will in no circumstance exceed threeone year’s full cash value of the lease, the cash value of the remaining time on the lease, or $2550,000, whichever is less, without Board approval, to preclude the expectation of a continuing relationship. (5) If an Unlawful Detainer action is required for the District to regain possession of rental premises, initial action and any required pre-litigation procedures will be initiated by the Property Management Program in the Land and Facilities Services Department in consultation with the General Manager, and in conjunction with and under the guidance of District General Counsel. The Board of Directors will approve the filing of a required Unlawful Detainer lawsuit. If necessary to regain possession of District property in a timely manner under the procedures set out in State law, or in the event of an imminent threat to health, safety or welfare, the General Manager, with approval of the District’s General Counsel, may approve the initial filing of an Unlawful Detainer action and report the filing to the Board at the earliest possible time to obtain the Board’s approval and direction as to the action. (6) Improvements for Agriculture and Other Special Uses: Agricultural use which is consistent with the open space use of a site is encouraged by the District. Improvements for agriculture or other special uses will be retained or constructed as approved by the Board and stated in the use and management plan (preliminary included)site planning documents. In the Coastside Protection Area, leases, use and improvements shall be consistent with the District’s Service Plan Policies. Attachment 2 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition Policy 4.09 Chapter 4 – Acquisition and Maintenance of District Lands Effective Date: XX/XX/XXXX Revised Date: XX/XX/XXXX Prior Versions: 9/19/2012 Board Policy 4.09 Page 1 of 4 Purpose Disposition of existing structures or the construction of new structures requires, at a minimum, an evaluation of existing conditions, a determination of the structure’s value to the District and its constituents, short-term and long-term costs, maintenance, and staffing requirements. These factors provide a framework for discussion to assist the Board with considering the disposition or construction of a structure and to provide the public with an understanding of the factors that normally must be considered as part of the decision-making process. Policy Decision Making Factors to Consider for Existing or New Structures A. Board-Adopted District Policies B. Compatibility with Open Space Character of the Site C. Historic and Educational Value D. Partnership Opportunities / Cooperation E. Potential Financial Cost, Including Liability and Management F. Proposed and Potential Uses G. Public Sentiment and Input H. Regional Important or Value I. Strategic Fit J. Tradeoffs and Impacts on District Resources K. Visitor Experience L. Condition of the Structure A. Board-Adopted District Policies The District Board of Directors has adopted various policies to guide day-to-day administration, operation, and management of District Preserves and to lay out the District’s objectives and means by which it accomplishes its mission “to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education”. One factor to consider is whether the structure under review is consistent with Board-adopted policies. The underlined headings B. through K. below were extracted or inferred from existing Board policies and include a brief summary to help lead a discussion of how they might apply to the disposition of District structures. B. Compatibility with Open Space Character of the Site Consistent with the board policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands, it is important to consider whether a structure is believed to be compatible with and/or add to the character of the site and its Attachment 3 Board Policy 4.09 Page 2 of 4 surrounding landscape. This includes whether the structure provides a sense of place as seen from afar, or whether the structure detracts from the natural surroundings. C. Historic and Educational Value The policy, Improvements on District Lands, calls for the gathering of information pertaining to the historical, cultural, or architectural significance of a structure. Existing historic-era structures inherited through past purchases or under consideration for purchase require surveys conducted by an expert consultant to evaluate the structure’s potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). As part of this survey, the history and significance of individual buildings and structures should be placed in context of any remaining or demolished larger facility in order to determine eligibility for listing. Taken together, these assessments would determine historic significance and integrity. This factor also includes “Educational” value given the high value placed by the public on the educational opportunities that exist for visitors, and especially younger generations, to gain a greater understanding of why a structure exists and its relevance to historic events. D. Partnership Opportunities/Cooperation The District’s Basic Policy includes a commitment to cooperatively engage with other agencies, community organizations, and individuals to preserve open space and to facilitate development and management of recreation facilities and public use. Beyond this, private organizations and entities could also provide cost-sharing and partnership opportunities to retain and/or manage structures. Existing structures may be more attractive to an entity if accessory amenities are already provided or are anticipated, or if a portion of the structural improvements are already completed. The Board may also want to consider the minimum match amount needed for the District to retain a structure. Consideration may be given to a cost-sharing situation where only a portion of the necessary funding to retain a structure is actually obtained by outside sources. E. Potential Financial Cost, Including Liability and Management Cost is an important decision-making consideration in either retaining or building a new improvement. Costs may include initial construction costs, one-time renovation costs, ongoing and long-term maintenance and management costs, and eventual demolition costs. Costs should be evaluated by the Board on a case-by-case basis and weighed proportionally with all other factors outlined in this policy. F. Proposed and Potential Uses The policy, Improvements on District Lands, identifies the structure’s proposed use as an important consideration in the decision to retain or remove it. An evaluation of the structural conditions can inform what repairs are necessary and the associated cost to ‘repurpose’ the structure into an occupied structure for public use. Although it is typically desirable to re-use existing structures, building a new facility that meets current code and/or meets a specific District need may be much more cost effective. Also, consideration should be taken on the remoteness of the structure since location may impede its accessibility and usefulness. G. Public Sentiment and Input (District Constituents and Residents Living Outside District Boundaries) This factor considers input from not only constituents whose property taxes support the District, but also from the larger regional constituency outside the District boundary. The District is divided into seven geographic wards, each represented by an elected Board member for a four-year term. Wards are drawn to divide the population evenly among Board members; in 2010 each Director represented approximately 107,000 constituents (2010 census), or 1/7th of the population residing within the Attachment 3 Board Policy 4.09 Page 3 of 4 District boundary, which was approximately 749,000. Wards are redrawn at the conclusion of every national census, or when land is annexed for incorporation as part of the District. It is the responsibility of every Board member to provide representation to his or her individual constituents, and to also integrate the opinions of the larger public that reside outside the drawn boundary, particularly when decisions affect the larger region. It is common for buildings to elicit strong and varied responses from the public and staff since buildings often touch on people’s values, personal experiences, memories, and desires. As such, it is important to consider and evaluate each single comment that is received as part of the decision-making process. H. Regional Importance or Value Even if a structure cannot be seen from miles away, many buildings hold intangible values associated with memories of past personal experiences, important events, or regional occurrences that affect a wide distribution of people. The Board of Directors will consider this criterion in the context of the District’s mission to “…protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” Although some structures may not be deemed eligible for historic listing, the District might consider whether a structure is seen by some members of the public as a historic or cultural symbol, or a visual landmark, for current, former and future residents of the area. I. Strategic Fit Strategic Fit ensures that decisions regarding District structures further the District’s long-term goals, consistent with the District’s Strategic Plan. When viewed in context with the District’s other priorities, projects and processes that affect the management of public land, the Board will consider how each particular structure aligns with the District’s mission: to acquire land, protect and restore it, and provide public access and education. In 2011, the Board of Directors approved a Strategic Plan for the District (refer to Report R-11-96) to address the new challenges that the District is facing, including a reduced ability to purchase land while adequately addressing its resource management needs. As a result, consideration of any management decision on a District structure will be evaluated against the guidelines set forth in the Strategic Plan. A determination should be made of how each structure aligns with the Strategic Plan goal of balancing the three-part mission within the context of other current and future projects, as well as its role in fostering partnerships, enhancing public support, and expanding District financial and staffing resources. J. Tradeoffs and Impacts on District Resources Every budget cycle brings tough decisions to the District. In an environment of competing resources, some projects move forward while others must be deferred. This requirement to choose one project over another forces the District to compare the values and priorities of each project: for example, the value of completing one highly worthwhile resource management project ahead of another. Any determination about a radar tower, or any other structure(s) will also need to be judged against other competing projects, new land purchases, regulatory mandates, etc., in terms of cost, maintenance requirements, and staffing. K. Visitor Experience The Mission Statement of the District includes “opportunities for ecologically-sensitive public enjoyment and education”. The goal of the Project is aligned with this mission, and consideration should be given as to whether a structure adds value to, or takes away from the visitor experience. L. Condition of the Structure Attachment 3 Board Policy 4.09 Page 4 of 4 One of the most important factors to consider is not derived from Board policy and is simply the condition of the structure. The condition of the structure clearly impacts the costs associated with stabilization, maintenance and renovation. In addition, many structures are not salvageable due to structural problems, rot and decay. If not addressed either through stabilization repairs, renovation or demolition, many structures can present hazards to District employees and the public including hazardous material exposure, rodent infestations, and structural hazards. Site conditions including the condition of access roads, availability of water, septic and power, and geologic stability play a key role in determining the disposition of existing structures, as well as the appropriateness of new construction. Attachment 3 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition Policy 4.09 Chapter 4 – Acquisition and Maintenance of District Lands Effective Date: XX/XX/XXXX9/19/2012 Revised Date: XX/XX/XXXX Prior Versions: 9/19/2012 Board Policy 4.09 Page 1 of 4 Purpose Disposition of existing structures or the construction of new structures requiresthat are acquired as part of District land purchases typically involves, at a minimum, an evaluation of existing conditions, a determination of the structure’s value to the District and its constituents, short-term and long-term costs, maintenance, and staffing requirements. These factors provide a framework for discussion to assist the Board with determining considering the outcome fordisposition or construction of any structure and to provide the public with an understanding of the factors that normally must be considered as part of the decision-making process. Policy Decision Making Factors to Consider for Existing or New Structures A. Board-Adopted District Policies B. Compatibility with Open Space Character of the Site C. Historic and Educational Value D. Partnership Opportunities / Cooperation E. Potential Financial Cost, Including Liability and Management F. Proposed and Potential Uses G. Public Sentiment and Input H. Regional Important or Value I. Strategic Fit J. Tradeoffs and Impacts on District Resources K. Visitor Experience L. Condition of the Structure A. Board-Adopted District Policies The District Board of Directors has adopted various policies to guide day-to-day administration, operation, and management of District Preserves and to lay out the District’s objectives and means by which it accomplishes its mission “to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education”. One factor to consider is whether the structure under review is consistent with Board-adopted policies. The underlined headings B. through K. below were extracted or inferred from existing Board policies and include a brief summary to help lead a discussion of how they might apply to the disposition of District structures. B. Compatibility with Open Space Character of the Site Board Policy 4.09 Page 2 of 4 Consistent with the board policy 4.02, Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands, it is important to consider whether a structure is believed to be compatible with and/or add to the character of the site and its surrounding landscape. This includes whether the structure provides a sense of place as seen from afar, or whether the structure detracts from the natural surroundings. C. Historic and Educational Value The policy, Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands, calls for the gathering of information pertaining to the historical, cultural, or architectural significance of a structure. Existing historic-era structures inherited through past purchases or under consideration for purchase require surveys conducted by an expert consultant to evaluate the structure’s potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). As part of this survey, the history and significance of individual buildings and structures should be placed in context of any remaining or demolished larger facility in order to determine eligibility for listing. Taken together, these assessments would determine historic significance and integrity. This factor also includes “Educational” value given the high value placed by the public on the educational opportunities that exist for visitors, and especially younger generations, to gain a greater understanding of why a structure exists and its relevance to historic events. D. Partnership Opportunities/Cooperation The District’s Basic Policy includes a commitment to cooperatively engage with other agencies, community organizations, and individuals to preserve open space and to facilitate development and management of recreation facilities and public use. Beyond this, private organizations and entities could also provide cost-sharing and partnership opportunities to retain and/or manage structures. Existing structures may be more attractive to an entity if accessory amenities are already provided or are anticipated, or if a portion of the structural improvements are already completed. The Board may also want to consider the minimum match amount needed for the District to retain a structure. Consideration may be given to a cost-sharing situation where only a portion of the necessary funding to retain a structure is actually obtained by outside sources. E. Potential Financial Cost, Including Liability and Management The Policies Regarding Improvements on District Lands identifies cCost as is an important decision- making consideration into either retaining or building a new an improvement. Costs may include up frontinitial construction costs, one-time costs for improvements (such as safety repairs)renovation costs, and ongoing and long-term maintenance and management costs, and eventual demolition costs.. Depending on the stage in a structure life cycle, cCosts should be evaluated by the Board on a case-by- case basis and weighed proportionally with all other factors outlined in this policy. F. Proposed and Potential Uses The Policies pPolicy, Regarding Improvements on District Lands, identifies the structure’s proposed use as an important consideration in the decision to retain or remove it. An evaluation of the structural conditions can inform what repairs are necessary and the associated cost to ‘repurpose’ the structure into an occupied structure for public use. Although it is typically desirable to re-use existing structures, building a new facility that meets current code and/or meets a specific District need may be much more cost effective. Also, consideration should be taken on the remoteness of the structure since location may impede its accessibility and usefulness. G. Agricultural Value Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Not Italic, No underline Formatted: Font: Not Italic, No underline Formatted: Font: Not Italic, No underline Board Policy 4.09 Page 3 of 4 As more acres within the District are dedicated to conservation grazing and agriculture, especially along the San Mateo Coast; houses, structures, and infrastructure located on District grazing and agricultural properties or on District land adjacent to such properties should be evaluated for their value to the agricultural operation of District tenants. Housing for both agricultural tenants and laborers is limited on the San Mateo Coast. Agricultural housing, where feasible, should be preserved and maintained. Often existing housing on properties acquired by the District need significant repairs just to meet to state habitability standards. Construction of new farm labor housing should be considered where housing for either an agricultural tenant or laborer is required to ensure conservation grazing and agricultural goals are met. In the Coastside Protection Area; leases, uses, and improvements shall be consistent with the District’s Service Plan Policies. Public Sentiment and Input (District Constituents and Residents Living Outside District Boundaries) This factor considers input from not only constituents whose property taxes support the District, but also from the larger regional constituency outside the District boundary. The District is divided into seven geographic wards, each represented by an elected Board member for a four-year term. Wards are drawn to divide the population evenly among Board members; currently each Director represents approximately 107,000 constituents (2010 census), or 1/7th of the population residing within the District boundary, which is approximately 749,000. Wards are redrawn at the conclusion of every national census, or when land is annexed for incorporation as part of the District. It is the responsibility of every Board member to provide representation to his or her individual constituents, and to also integrate the opinions of the larger public that reside outside the drawn boundary, particularly when decisions affect the larger region. It is common for buildings to elicit strong and varied responses from the public and staff since buildings often touch on people’s values, personal experiences, memories, and desires. As such, it is important to consider and evaluate each single comment that is received as part of the decision-making process. H. Regional Importance or Value Even if a structure cannot be seen from miles away, many buildings hold intangible values associated with memories of past personal experiences, important events, or regional occurrences that affect a wide distribution of people. It is common for buildings to elicit strong and varied responses from the public and staff since buildings often touch on people’s values, personal experiences, memories, and desires. The Board of Directors will consider this criterion in the context of the District’s mission to “…protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” Although some structures may not be deemed eligible for historic listing, it is important to the District might consider whether a structure is seen by some members of the public as a historic or cultural symbol, or a visual landmark, for current, former and future residents of the area. I. Strategic Fit Strategic Fit ensures that decisions regarding District structures further the District’s long-term goals, consistent with the District’s Strategic Plan. When viewed in context with the District’s other priorities, projects and processes that affect the management of over 61,000 acres of public land, the Board will consider how each particular structure aligns with the District’s mission: to acquire land, protect and restore it, and provide public access and education. In 2011, the Board of Directors approved a Strategic Plan for the District (refer to Report R-11-96) to address the new challenges that the District is facing, including a reduced ability to purchase land while Commented [BM1]: New section requested by LFPAC Commented [BM2]: Deleted per LFPAC edit Commented [BM3]: LFPAC edit moved from deleted “Public Sentiment and Input” Board Policy 4.09 Page 4 of 4 adequately addressing its resource management needs. As a result, consideration of any management decision on a District structure will be evaluated against the guidelines set forth in the Strategic Plan. A determination should be made of how each structure aligns with the Strategic Plan goal of balancing the three-part mission within the context of other current and future projects, as well as its role in fostering partnerships, enhancing public support, and expanding District financial and staffing resources. J. Tradeoffs and Impacts on District Resources Every budget cycle brings tough decisions to the District. In an environment of competing resources, some projects move forward while others must be deferred. This requirement to choose one project over another forces the District to compare the values and priorities of each project: for example, the value of completing one highly worthwhile resource management project ahead of another. Any determination about athe radar tower, or any other structure(s) , will also need to be judged against other competing projects, new land purchases, regulatory mandates, etc., in terms of cost, maintenance requirements, and staffing. K. Visitor Experience The Mission Statement of the District includes “opportunities for ecologically-sensitive public enjoyment and education”. The goal of the Project is aligned with this mission, and consideration should be given as to whether a structure adds value to, or takes away from the visitor experience. L. Condition of the Structure One of the most important factors to consider is not derived from Board policy and is simply the condition of the structure. The condition of the structure clearly impacts the costs associated with stabilization, maintenance and renovation. In addition, many structures are not salvageable due to structural problems, rot and decay. If not addressed either through stabilization repairs, renovation or demolition, many structures can present hazards to District employees and the public including hazardous material exposure, rodent infestations, and structural hazards. Site conditions including the condition of access roads, availability of water, septic and power, and geologic stability play a key role in determining the disposition of existing structures, as well as the appropriateness of new construction. Formatted: Underline Formatted: No underline *Approved by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee on December 20, 2016 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Tuesday, November 15, 2016 APPROVED MINUTES* CALL TO ORDER Director Cyr called the meeting of the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee to order at 2:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, and Curt Riffle Members absent: None Staff present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone. Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick, and District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved and Director Hanko seconded to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 3-0-0 COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Approve the November 8, 2016 Legislative, Funding, & Public Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 2 November 15, 2016 Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the November 8, 2016 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee meeting minutes. VOTE: 3-0-0 2. New Board Policy Titled Housing Policy (R-16-152) Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided introductory comments related to the proposed housing policy and the cost of housing in the District. Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick provided the staff presentation summarizing the process of developing the proposed policy, including creation of a multi- departmental team to study policies at similar public agencies, prioritize tenant classifications, and provide guidelines for potential rental discounts for each tenant classification. Ms. Cuzick described the potential fiscal impact of transitioning market rate housing to employee residences. Director Riffle suggested including a complete inventory of the District’s housing stock and inquired regarding current demand for District housing. Ms. Cuzick explained there is a pent-up demand for District housing, especially among new members of District staff who provide a persistent demand for District housing. For agricultural housing, there is also demand from District tenants for farm labor housing. For general public housing, the District receives one to two inquiries per month with several people currently on the waiting list. Finally, for other public agencies, there are ongoing requests for District housing. Director Riffle requested additional information related to the prioritized tenant classifications. Ms. Cuzick explained where there is an identified agricultural need it may be prioritized above staff requests. Director Riffle requested additional information regarding the definition of “other agencies” and whether staff considered offering a rental discount. Ms. Cuzick explained employees from other public agencies would take priority, but the District would consider employees from other nonprofits, etc. that provide a benefit from site presence. A discounted rental rate was considered and rejected by the staff committee, but the Board may direct staff to include a discounted rate in the proposed policy. Public comment opened at 2:39 p.m. Sarah Rosendahl, representing San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley, spoke in favor of the proposed policy and expansion of farm labor housing on the San Mateo Coast and affordable housing throughout San Mateo County. Ms. Rosendahl provided to the Committee a report completed by the Home for All San Mateo County task force related to affordable housing in San Mateo County. Additionally, Ms. Rosendahl commented on the negative effect limited housing availability has on agricultural production on the San Mateo Coast. Director Riffle inquired if the County will be able to assist with grants, permitting process, etc. to help the District invest in farm labor housing. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 3 November 15, 2016 Ms. Rosendahl reported on grant funds available for farm labor housing rehabilitation and efforts to streamline the farm labor housing permit process. Public comment closed at 2:51 p.m. Director Hanko inquired if the District has considered making farm labor housing on District properties not located near the San Mateo Coast. Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone explained District residences throughout the District would be available for farm labor housing and are not limited to the San Mateo Coast. Ms. Cuzick explained however farm labor housing is most useful when it is located close to agricultural lands. Director Riffle commented on the importance of attracting exceptional employees to work at the District, and providing housing options may help. Additionally, the District may want to explore proactively providing housing options for employees, other public agencies, and non-profits, through building new structures and/or rehabilitating existing structures. Finally, Director Riffle commented on various operational aspects to be determined if the Board adopted the proposed housing policy. Mr. Malone explained District staff will draft administrative policies and procedures to help administer the program similar to Director Riffle’s suggestions. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to recommend approval of the new draft Board Housing Policy to the Board of Directors. VOTE: 3-0-0 3. Revision of Board Policy 4.02, Improvements on District Lands and Board Policy 4.09, Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition (R-16-153) Senior Property Management Specialist Elaina Cuzick explained several revisions are being proposed to the two policies describing how the District manages District residences and structures based on the proposed housing policy, including direction on what uses the District makes of improvements and what factors should be taken into account when making decisions on the disposition of District improvements. Proposed revisions include: • Incorporating the need for agricultural housing. • Language changed to allow for the maintenance of structures that are compatible with the open space character solely for the purpose of revenue generation. • Allow retention and maintenance of structures for revenue generation that do not serve a District purpose • Language was added so that the criteria could be used to evaluate constructing new structures as well as determining the disposition of existing structures. Director Hanko suggested keeping structures if they serve a purpose as a wildlife habitat. Attachment 5 LFPAC Page 4 November 15, 2016 Ms. Cuzick explained District staff evaluates District structures before there are considered for demolition, including biological surveys and monitoring and/or providing an alternate habitat. The Committee recessed at 3:35 p.m. and reconvened at 3:38 p.m. with all Committee members present. Director Riffle requested clarification regarding several aspects of the revised policies and suggested removing language from Board policy 4.09 (G) and combine the section with 4.09 (H). Additionally, Director Riffle suggested including creating a factor specific to agricultural uses in Board policy 4.09, including farm labor housing and associated agricultural infrastructure. Public comment opened at 4:04 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 4:04 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the Improvements on District Lands and Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition Board policies to the Board of Directors, as amended. VOTE: 3-0-0 ADJOURNMENT Director Cyr adjourned the meeting of the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee at 4:05 p.m. ____________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Attachment 5