HomeMy Public PortalAbout20151118 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 15-30
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
5:30 PM
A G E N D A
5:30 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. Change, Growth and Planning: Open Space Challenges of Santa Clara County 3.0
Presented by Don Weden, Retired Principal Planner, Santa Clara County Planning Department
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 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 the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily
be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the
Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a
speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this
section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve Board Meeting Minutes:
October 22, 2015
November 4, 2015
Meeting 15-30
2. Approve Claims Report
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.
3. Contract Amendment with Restoration Design Group for Final Design Development,
Production of Construction Documents, Interpretation Design, and Initial Grading
Oversight for the Mount Umunhum Summit Project and Construction Oversight for the
Guadalupe Creek Overlook (R-15-160)
Staff Contact: Meredith Manning, Senior Planner
General Manager’s Recommendation: Amend a contract with Restoration Design Group for an
additional $605,000 to complete final design development, interpretive design, production of
construction documents, and oversight for the initial phase of grading for the Mount Umunhum
Summit Project, plus construction oversight for Guadalupe Creek Overlook at Sierra Azul Open
Space Preserve; the contract includes a 12% contingency of $65,000 for unforeseen requirements,
for a not-to-exceed total contract amount of $979,595.
4. Presentation of Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report (R-15-156)
Staff Contact: Aaron Hébert, Capital Project Manager and Tina Hugg, Senior Planner
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Receive the Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report describing the
existing conditions of four main staff facilities and recommended actions.
2. Confirm the Planning and Natural Resources Committee’s proposed goals of staff facility
planning.
3. Provide input and confirm the short-term, medium-term, and long-term staff facilities
recommendations and priority projects.
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
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property: Portions of the following properties identified as Santa Clara County Assessor
Parcel Numbers 562-04-014, 562-08-012, and 562-22-017
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Scott McQueen and Michael Rossetta
Under Negotiation: Terms of real property transactions
ADJOURNMENT
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 meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on November 13, 2015, 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, CMC
District Clerk
Board Meeting 15-26
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Thursday, October 22, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 10:02 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto Curt Riffle, and
Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, General Counsel Sheryl
Schaffner, Senior Management Analyst Lisa Tulee, District Clerk Jennifer
Woodworth
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
BOARD BUSINESS
General Manager Abbors provided opening comments summarizing the agenda topics for the
retreat.
Director Hanko arrived at 10:12 a.m.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz presented information regarding the District’s efforts
related to diversity awareness, outreach, and integration.
Meeting 15-26 Page 2
Director Kishimoto provided comments in support of a Visitors Center at Cooley Landing.
Director Riffle suggested possible formation of an advisory committee to study diversity.
Directors Kishimoto and Harris expressed their support for a Visitor Usage Survey and reaching
out to the District’s constituents.
Directors Harris and Hanko expressed their concerns regarding adopting a Board policy on
diversity.
Directors Hassett and Cyr expressed their opinions that continued outreach at schools and
internship opportunities will help increase interest in the District.
Ms. Ruiz provided information describing opportunities for members of the Board of Directors
to perform outreach, including connecting with community leaders, speaking with local elected
officials, and speaking at partner and community events.
Members of the Board expressed their support for increasing Board outreach efforts.
Mr. Abbors suggested Public Affairs staff can meet with the Board members individually to help
determine what types of outreach efforts each would like to engage in.
The Board directed staff to research the topic of providing information to potential Board
members regarding Board member outreach opportunities.
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided comments regarding the District’s
response to the drought and current District work on the San Mateo Coast.
Director Hanko expressed her concerns regarding the effects fog harvesting on the water cycle
and redwood trees.
Mr. Woodhouse explained District staff is working with United States Geological Survey
(USGS) to study fog harvesting and can forward any information or data received as a result of
the study to the full Board.
Director Hassett expressed his opinion that the District be more vigilant regarding marijuana
grow sites, including partnering with other agencies, due to the negative effects of grow sites on
the environment.
Director Hassett expressed his opinion that the District can do a better job of informing coastal
communities of the District’s commitment to work with residents there and past efforts in the
area.
The Board recessed at 12:11 p.m. and reconvened at 12:26 with all directors present.
Ms. Ruiz presented information describing the current District guidelines, which promote low
intensity use of preserves, and suggested potential adjustments the Board may consider, such as
larger signs, interpretive centers, restrooms, picnic tables, etc.
Meeting 15-26 Page 3
Director Hassett provided comments concerning the role of the District as it relates to the roles
provided by other local park agencies. Director Hassett spoke in favor of keeping the intensity
levels similar to their current state with the exception of shade structures or restrooms where
required.
Directors Harris and Riffle spoke in favor considering moderate intensity uses in preserves,
where appropriate, such as occasional picnic tables, shade shelters, and trash cans.
Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of opening more trails to dogs and spoke in favor of continued
low intensity uses for the District preserves, including gravel parking lots, restricting trash cans.
Director Cyr spoke in favor of larger signs at the preserves to help visitors locate and orient
themselves at the preserves.
Director Hanko stated that any adjustments should be studied on an individual basis for each
preserve based on its level of use.
Director Siemens expressed his concerns regarding trash cans and more intense uses at the
preserves.
Ms. Ruiz presented key elements and takeaways from this year’s environmental scan, including a
strong emphasis on building internal systems, providing adequate staff capacity, completing
organizational restructuring, and making decisions on staff facilities to establish the District’s
new business model. Ms. Ruiz explained additional staff time is largely devoted to major
Measure AA projects, namely Mt. Umunhum, Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and
La Honda Open Space Preserve.
Mr. 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.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to adopt the proposed
changes to the Strategic Plan, as amended by the Board.
VOTE: 7-0-0
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 3:11 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
Board Meeting 15-28
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
Vice President Kishimoto called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 5:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, and Yoriko
Kishimoto
Members Absent: Curt Riffle and Pete Siemens
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, General Counsel Sheryl
Schaffner, and District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Riffle and Siemens absent.)
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
• Proclamation honoring Judy and David Daniels
Meeting 15-28 Page 2
Docent Program Manager Renee Fitzsimons presented the proclamation to Mr. and Mrs. Daniels
describing their many contributions and services to the District.
Dave Daniels shared his appreciation for the District and its many volunteers and shared
memories of working at the Daniels Nature Center.
Audrey Rust, former president of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, thanked the Daniels for their
time and their love of open space. Ms. Rust also shared memories of working with Dave and
Judy.
Dennis Danielson, former District ranger, shared memories of his daughter spending time at the
Daniels Nature Center and thanked Dave and Judy.
Vice President Kishimoto thanked Dave and Judy for their service to the District and its visitors.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve the revised October 14, 2015 and October 28, 2015 Board Meeting
Minutes.
2. Approve Claims Report
Motion: Director Hassett moved and Director Hanko seconded the motion to adopt the Consent
Calendar.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Riffle and Siemens absent.)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No Committee reports.
B. Staff Reports
No staff reports.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
President Siemens adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District into closed session at 5:14 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
The Board of Directors returned to open session at 6:25 p.m. President Siemens reported the
Meeting 15-28 Page 3
Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District into closed session at 6:25 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 3
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-30
DATE 11-18-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name
Invoice Description
Check Date Payment
Amount
70761 10350 - VALBRIDGE PROPERTY ADVISORS Appraisal reports for access easements/rights on Mt.Um Road - SA 11/04/2015 25,000.00$
70729 *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS Security Deposit/Rent for 4984 El Camino Real Ste. 110 (AO4)10/29/2015 21,000.00$
70747 11177 - HARRIS CONSTRUCTION Bathroom repair at 2310 Purisima Creek - PC 11/04/2015 18,804.80$
70730 *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2/AO3 Rent - November 10/29/2015 14,089.00$
70799 10222 - HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC Excavator rental for Sears Ranch Road work - LH 11/12/2015 12,533.12$
70836 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 11/12/2015 8,267.77$
70790 10540 - CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Printing of envelopes/brochures/business cards 11/12/2015 7,113.35$
70821 11585 - REBUILDING TOGETHER PENINSULA Trailer rental during house repair at 900 Sears Ranch Road (Aug-Sept)- LH 11/12/2015 6,880.24$
70776
11396 - AGCO HAY LLC Reimburse trailer rental for tenant housing during house repair at 900 Sears Ranch Road
(Oct-Nov) - LH 11/12/2015 5,720.00$
70802 10452 - IFLAND SURVEY Review and plot certificates of compliance for property of interest - MR 11/12/2015 5,595.00$
70784 11537 - CLIENTFIRST TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING Information Systems and Technology Strategic Plan Consulting 11/12/2015 5,025.00$
70812 10073 - NORMAL DATA Incidents/Permits & Citations Database work 11/12/2015 3,900.00$
70785 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC P84/P79/P99/M24 Vehicle Service & Repairs 11/12/2015 3,755.40$
70824 11552 - ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY Temporary Information Technology Staff 11/12/2015 3,422.40$
70791 10027 - CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS Excavator Rental 11/12/2015 3,333.45$
70807 10064 - MCB REMODELING Window replacement for rental residence - SR 11/12/2015 3,000.00$
70837 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District vehicles 11/12/2015 2,951.08$
70814 10076 - OFFICE TEAM Temporary Administrative Assistant 11/12/2015 2,816.35$
70831 11055 - SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY Background Check - Ranger Candidate 11/12/2015 2,738.90$
70742 11537 - CLIENTFIRST TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING Information Systems and Technology Strategic Plan Consulting 11/04/2015 2,522.75$
70768 *10211 - PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES Legislative Advocacy Services 11/04/2015 2,368.34$
70819 10265 - PRIORITY 1 Install radio & light bar on two vehicles 11/12/2015 2,114.16$
70797 11195 - GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER P88/P99 New Tires 11/12/2015 1,907.33$
70734 *10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE October Building Maintenance Services 11/04/2015 1,815.00$
70832 10468 - TANNERHECHT ARCHITECTURE, INC.AO Remodel Plans and Permits/Staff Facility Consulting 11/12/2015 1,746.16$
70740 10141 - BIG CREEK LUMBER CO INC Fencing Material for Jacques Ridge Parking Lot SA 11/04/2015 1,737.25$
70777 *10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Radio repeater site lease-Coyote Peak 11/12/2015 1,735.00$
70838 11586 - WH DEMPSEY ENGINEERING Install risers at horse stable septic system - LH 11/12/2015 1,700.00$
70800 10123 - HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Field supplies FFO/SFO 11/12/2015 1,641.20$
70767 10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS INC Tower rental - Crown site id 871823 11/04/2015 1,600.20$
70841 0 - ROBERT COYAN Return of security deposit - 20300 Skyline Blvd 11/12/2015 1,600.00$
70818 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Lumber Retaining Wall (PiR)11/12/2015 1,577.32$
70750 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 4 Kenwood TK290 Radios 11/04/2015 1,568.13$
70815 10641 - OVERLOOK ROAD MAINTENANCE ASSOC Road Association Annual Dues (ES)11/12/2015 1,501.00$
70788 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Mindego Gateway Planting & Landscape Maintenance 11/12/2015 1,434.50$
70810 10125 - MOFFETT SUPPLY COMPANY INC Public Restroom Supplies 11/12/2015 1,402.53$
70752 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies 11/04/2015 1,312.01$
70804 11169 - KENNETH T. HICKMAN Contract for Wildlife Study - Natural Res Dept./Honorarium Mt Un Nat History 11/12/2015 1,287.00$
70826 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Replace pump at rental residence - TOTO Ranch 11/12/2015 1,284.18$
70839 **10203 - WOODSIDE & PORTOLA PRIVATE PATROL Patrol services for Hawthorn property 11/12/2015 1,200.00$
70787 *10445 - COMMUNICATION & CONTROL INC Radio repeater site lease rental payment 11/12/2015 1,172.00$
70796 10509 - GEOCON CONSULTANTS INC Mt Um Summit Hydrology Consulting - SAU 11/12/2015 1,162.50$
70816 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Patsons - printing geocache passports 11/12/2015 1,076.63$
70827 10585 - SOL'S MOBILE AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR, INC.M02/M26/M29/M207/WT02/M22/M17/T37/T07 Vehicle BIT Inspections 11/12/2015 1,043.54$
page 2 of 3
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-30
DATE 11-18-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name
Invoice Description
Check Date Payment
Amount
70755 11184 - PURCHASE POWER - PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE AO POSTAGE 11/04/2015 1,005.00$
70781 11443 - CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION Excavator Rental for Mt Umunhum Trail Construction 11/12/2015 1,003.29$
70731 10383 - SMUTNAK, GREG Return of security deposit - El Sereno Residence 10/29/2015 1,000.00$
70751 11270 - MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC.VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS-SFO 11/04/2015 875.12$
70746 10272 - GUY PLUMBING & HEATING INC INE Ranch tenant residence plumbing repairs - MB 11/04/2015 859.61$
70834 *10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Service (SA/FOOSP)11/12/2015 745.52$
70772 10091 - R & B COMPANY WATER SYSTEM REPAIRS-Sherrill residence-MB 11/05/2015 744.20$
70817 *10180 - PG & E Electricity/gas charges for rental residence - PCR 11/12/2015 670.24$
70798 **11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING Construction Management for Silva house repair - RR and Hawthorn - WH 11/12/2015 665.00$
70801 10043 - HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP Legal services - Gullicksen Encroachment/Presentation Ctr - BCR 11/12/2015 659.75$
70795 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Equipment Parts/Supplies SFO 11/12/2015 648.94$
70833 10307 - THE SIGN SHOP Entrance & No Vehicles Signs - RSA/WH 11/12/2015 620.02$
70757 10936 - ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT Herb Grench Memorial Bench Plaque 11/04/2015 565.85$
70803 11041 - INTERSTATE ALL BATTERY CENTER - SILICON VALLEY Portable Radio Batteries 11/12/2015 489.27$
70840 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Water System Parts 11/12/2015 470.90$
70829 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS UNIFORM ITEMS 11/12/2015 433.91$
70744 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Tools 11/04/2015 433.06$
70764 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights Consulting - District Wide 11/04/2015 430.15$
70749 11366 - MADE BY TESS EMBROIDERY MROSD Logo Shirts for Staff 11/04/2015 427.95$
70792 11074 - CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Summer Nature Day Camp bus transportation 11/12/2015 424.73$
70760 10370 - STILES TRUCK BODY & EQUIPMENT Labor and materials - Add tie-downs to truck 11/04/2015 404.14$
70773 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Septic Service (PR)11/12/2015 385.00$
70809 10774 - MICHAEL DEMPSEY, PATRICK DEMPSEY Water delivery to test plumbing at INE - MB 11/12/2015 383.63$
70780 10340 - BARRESI, CHRIS Municipal Management Association of Northern Calif Conference 11/12/2015 350.00$
70765 10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Wood Debris Disposal 11/04/2015 314.95$
70823 10935 - RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM Water delivery at TOTO Ranch - TC 11/12/2015 304.50$
70735 *10050 - JED CYR October Director meetings 11/04/2015 300.00$
70736 *10057 - LARRY HASSETT October Director meetings 11/04/2015 300.00$
70811 11536 - MTECH HVAC Maintenance Work 11/12/2015 298.00$
70835 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Exam Services - HR Dept 11/12/2015 278.00$
70806 10440 - LOS ALTOS HARDWARE Vehicle Safety Items/Supplies 11/12/2015 267.73$
70741 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Service (SA)11/04/2015 255.00$
70828 10105 - STERLING UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION Septic Services (RSA)11/12/2015 250.00$
70830 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD Vehicle Repair - Reprogram control unit 11/12/2015 250.00$
70774 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC Fire ext. recharge & vehicle brackets/first aid supplies 11/12/2015 241.57$
70808 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Radio Repair 11/12/2015 212.73$
70733 *10029 - CURT RIFFLE October Director meetings 11/04/2015 200.00$
70737 *10072 - NONETTE HANKO October Director meetings 11/04/2015 200.00$
70738 *10084 - PETE SIEMENS October Director meetings 11/04/2015 200.00$
70739 *10118 - YORIKO KISHIMOTO October Director meetings 11/04/2015 200.00$
70748 10260 - LUND PEARSON MCLAUGHLIN AO QUARTERLY INSPECTIONS 11/04/2015 180.00$
70743 10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE AO JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 11/04/2015 157.64$
70813 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Vehicle Parts 11/12/2015 153.54$
70745 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)11/04/2015 151.61$
70794 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)11/12/2015 151.61$
page 3 of 3
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-30
DATE 11-18-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name
Invoice Description
Check Date Payment
Amount
70763 11406 - VILLEGAS, JENNY Mileage Reimbursement 11/04/2015 142.03$
70778 10533 - ANDERSEN, JULIE Field gear reimbursement 11/12/2015 141.38$
70805 10490 - KOOPMANN, CLAYTON Mileage Reimbursement 11/12/2015 136.97$
70762 *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Phone Service 11/04/2015 126.88$
70775 11575 - ADLAO, DAMON Mileage, office supplies and toll charges 11/12/2015 120.08$
70822 11526 - REPUBLIC SERVICES Garbage services 11/12/2015 119.49$
70786 11530 - COASTSIDE.NET INTERNET SERVICES-SFO 11/12/2015 109.00$
70820 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Metal Shop Materials 11/12/2015 107.56$
70732 *10018 - CECILY HARRIS October Director meetings 11/04/2015 100.00$
70758 11042 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF HR applicant background checks 11/04/2015 100.00$
70759 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Washed Sand (RSA-DHF)11/04/2015 97.06$
70779 10181 - BANKOSH, MICHAEL Reimbursement CA Invasive Plant Council Conference 11/12/2015 94.44$
70753 10253 - PETERSON TRACTOR CO Tractor Supplies 11/04/2015 93.63$
70783 11587 - CIFELLI, JOHN Reimbursement CA Invasive Plant Council Conference 11/12/2015 85.99$
70782 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Service (SA)11/12/2015 85.00$
70754 *10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO ALARM SERVICES 11/04/2015 70.18$
70793 10174 - FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC 3 Hard Hats 11/12/2015 59.43$
70789 10185 - COSTCO Office Supplies 11/12/2015 51.51$
70756 *11426 - RIDGE WIRELESS INC.FFO Internet Monthly Service 11/04/2015 50.00$
70825 11578 - ROBERT MILLS Reimbursement - Interpretive Intern Daniels Nature Center project 11/12/2015 41.77$
GRAND TOTAL 216,949.15$
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
BC = Bear Creek LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek
CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA = Sierra Azul WH = Windy Hill
ECdM = 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 OSP = Open Space Preserve WT02/M22/M17/T37/T07 P88/P99/P84/P79/P99/M24 = Vehicle/equip numbers
R-15-160
Meeting 15-30
November 18, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment with Restoration Design Group for Final Design Development, Production
of Construction Documents, Interpretation Design, and Initial Grading Oversight for the Mount
Umunhum Summit Project and Construction Oversight for the Guadalupe Creek Overlook
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Amend a contract with Restoration Design Group (RDG) for an additional $605,000 to complete
final design development, interpretive design, production of construction documents, and
oversight for the initial phase of grading for the Mount Umunhum Summit Project (Summit
Project), plus construction oversight for Guadalupe Creek Overlook (Overlook) at Sierra Azul
Open Space Preserve; the contract includes a 12% contingency of $65,000 for unforeseen
requirements, for a not-to-exceed total contract amount of $979,595.
SUMMARY
Funds for this contract amendment were anticipated as part of the total project cost and included
during development of the Expenditure Plan for Measure AA Project#23-4, Mount Umunhum
Summit Area Restoration and Improvements. Additions to an existing contract with RDG are
necessary to complete: 1) final engineering and landscape architectural design, 2) interpretive
design and fabrication oversight, 3) construction documents for public bidding, and 4) initial
grading oversight for the implementation of public access facilities at the summit of Mount
Umunhum, and construction oversight at the Guadalupe Creek Overlook along the Mt.
Umunhum Trail. To meet the target opening date of fall 2016, the General Manager recommends
amending the contract with RDG to include an additional amount of $605,000 to initiate
construction in early summer 2016. This contract amendment does not include actual
construction of the summit amenities, construction oversight of summit amenities, nor
fabrication or installation of interpretive elements. Given the three month extension to the
existing fiscal year to transition to a June-July calendar, a change that was not anticipated when
the fiscal year budget was developed and approved, and the Board selection for more developed
summit amenities, approximately $200,000 of additional funding will be requested as part of the
Midyear Review to ensure that sufficient funds for the recommended contract amendment are
allocated in the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget.
MEASURE AA
The 5-year Measure AA Project List approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting
includes the voter-approved Priority Action 23 (Portfolio 23) that encompasses all of the Mt.
Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects, in the amount of $27.972 Million. The
Expenditure Plan included an allocation of $1,034,500 specifically for these design and
R-15-160 Page 2
engineering “soft” costs at the summit and along the Mt. Umunhum Trail to the summit, which
includes the Guadalupe Creek Overlook. The proposed total contract amount is about 6% less
than the Expenditure Plan estimate. This contract amendment furthers the goals of Portfolio 23
and Project #23-4 by providing the necessary design documents suitable for public bidding and
construction of the Mount Umunhum public access facilities.
BACKGROUND
In January 2015, the Board awarded a contract to RDG for $325,735 with a contingency of
$48,860, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $374,595 to design and engineer ecological
restoration, visitor amenities, and interpretation on the summit of Mount Umunhum and at the
Guadalupe Creek Overlook at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-15-18). The original contract
award included the conceptual design and preliminary and final engineering phase and
construction documents of a modest amount of amenities for the Summit Project and Overlook
components. Since that time, the Board has approved a higher-than-minimal level of construction
for both projects. This contract amendment reflects this elevated level of full design and
construction, as well as other unanticipated additions to support the Summit Project.
DISCUSSION
At the August 26, 2015 regular meeting, the Board of Directors (Board) selected a mid-level
public access facilities option known as the “Preferred Option” for the summit (R-15-126). This
option includes a substantial shelter at the trailhead, a summit stairway, accessible trails, vault
restrooms, and parking. In addition, the Board requested two additional shade structures at the
summit (one at the vehicle turnaround and one on the east summit), resulting in an estimated
total construction cost of $4.8 million. This estimate does not include costs for development of a
groundwater well at the summit, the feasibility of which is currently being investigated under a
separate contract.
With the Preferred Option confirmed, it is now possible to begin finalizing the design plans and
preparing construction documents for bidding purposes. The proposed contract amendment
would allow for the next phase of design development to proceed. In addition, the proposed
contract amendment would replenish the contingency, which has been used to fund a number of
unanticipated changes to the design of the Project and Overlook, including a series of digital
renderings to visualize the three long-term options for the radar tower, boring exploration for the
Overlook, assistance at additional Board and Committee meetings to review the concept and
schematic phases of the project, and the addition of two shade structures, summit stairs, and
modifications to the equestrian area as part of the Board-approved Preferred Option.
This contract amendment represents approximately $324,000 in public access design work,
$75,000 in interpretive design work, $141,000 for initial rough grading oversight at the summit
and construction oversight at the Overlook, plus a contingency of $65,000, equaling $605,000.
The total recommended contract amount of $979,595 for this phase of work so far represents
20% of the grand total overall Summit Project budget of approximately $4.8 million. This
percentage cost for design work falls at the low end of the industry standard for projects of
similar magnitude, whereby the standard cost allowance ranges between 20% and 30%. Without
contingency, cost for design and engineering alone (approximately $725k) represents about 15%
of the total project cost, and initial construction oversight (approximately $141k) represents
about 3% of the total project cost to date. Moreover, the $979,595 recommended total contract
cost accounts for approximately 94% of the soft cost allocation that has been set aside for this
R-15-160 Page 3
work as part of the Measure AA Expenditure Plan, or $1,034,500 of the total $27,972,000 set
aside for Portfolio 23 that includes all of the Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation
Projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Planning Department’s FY2015-16 budget includes $611,000 for design and initial
construction of public access improvements and site amenities at the summit, as well as
$213,000 for the Guadalupe Creek Overlook construction and steel bridge installation along Mt.
Umunhum Trail. Additional funds will be requested during the mid-year budget process to
accommodate a portion of this contract amendment, with the remainder requested during the
FY2016-17 budget process to complete construction of the Summit Project, including
interpretive fabrication and installation. In addition, funds will also be requested during the
FY2016-17 budget process to complete the Mt. Umunhum Trail. Generous funding from the
State Coastal Conservancy will reimburse a portion of the summit area work. Remaining costs
will be reimbursed through Measure AA funds.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Planning and Natural Resources Committee forwarded the Preferred Option to the Board at
their August 11, 2015 meeting (R-15-120). The Board confirmed the Committee’s
recommendation at their August 26, 2015 meeting (R-15-126) with the addition of two shade
structures at the summit, and directed staff to proceed with final design development and
production of construction documents.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Construction of the Mount Umunhum Summit Area was included in the Mount Umunhum
Environmental Restoration and Public Access Plan EIR, which was certified by the Board on
October 17, 2012 (R-12-91).
NEXT STEPS
Pending Board approval, the General Manager would amend the contract with RDG to develop
final design documents, which will form the basis for permit submittals and a Request for Bids
package. Three conceptual options for interpretive signage and exhibits will be presented for
Board consideration at a study session on December 9. A final contract amendment is anticipated
to be brought to the Board in spring 2016 to cover construction oversight once the final designs
are developed. The additional amount is fully expected to be aligned with the soft cost estimate
allocated under Measure AA.
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager, Planning Department
Prepared by:
Meredith Manning, Senior Planner, Planning Department
R-15-157
Meeting 15-30
November 18, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report and Goals of Staff Facility
Planning
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive the Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report describing the
existing conditions of four main staff facilities and recommended actions.
2. Confirm the Planning and Natural Resources Committee’s proposed goals of staff facility
planning.
3. Provide input and confirm the short-term, medium-term, and long-term staff facilities
recommendations and priority projects.
SUMMARY
With the successful passage of Measure AA in June 2014, the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District (District) anticipates increased staff growth agency-wide to effectively deliver
Measure AA projects while fulfilling other core functions. Existing staff facilities cannot
accommodate the additional staff growth. These staff facilities come with a legacy of deferred
capital improvements and retrofits that would require major investments even if they could house
the increased staff growth. If left unchanged, the existing configuration and space limitation of
staff facilities would significantly impede the District’s ability to effectively pursue project
timelines. Staff has: (1) evaluated the capacity, constraints, and issues of each facility, (2)
evaluated potential alternative sites, and (3) prepared key findings. The Staff Facilities
Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report contains the proposed project goals and an
analysis conducted by staff on the District’s four main facilities and recommendations on the
priority projects that should be the focus on the next phase of work. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-
16 Budget includes sufficient funds to conduct the tasks associated with this research and retain
consultant services.
BACKGROUND
Each of the four District staff facilities has its own history and unique site opportunities and
challenges, and they share a central theme—each has been gradually expanded, remodeled, and
used more intensely than originally intended and originally designed. This increased intensity of
use has been managed over the years, but there are now fundamental constraints at each facility
R-15-157 Page 2
that would ultimately impede the District’s ability to ramp up the staff capacity needed to
implement the expanded work program brought on by Measure AA.
Facility Year
Built
Desks and
Spaces
Available
Estimated
number of
Desks and
Spaces
Needed in
2020
Estimated
number of
Desks and
Spaces
Needed in
2045
Limitations
Administrative
Office 1973 5 34 49
Outdated energy
infrastructure
(HVAC), class C
office space,
remodel not
effective.
Foothills Field
Office* 1993 1 3 3
Located in the
middle of the busiest
preserve, limited
parking and
conference room
meeting space
Skyline Field
Office* 1996 0 8 27
Limited water and
parking for staff,
need space for
equipment
maintenance and
storage
South Area
Outpost* 1930s 0 6 25
Remodeled 1930s
house, inadequate
septic capacity,
locker space, and
showers, end of
functional life.
*Field staff have different space requirements; the spaces available reflect parking, locker room
space, and other constraints. The actual distribution of staff between offices and areas is to be
determined. The estimations above illustrate the scale of the challenge.
Proposed goals and an approach for conducting the District-wide Long-term Staff Facilities Study
were presented to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) on March 10, 2015 to
kick-off the project and ensure that the proposed approach was supported by the PNR before staff
proceeded with next steps. The ensuing analysis built upon and updated the existing baseline
information that was assembled in 2009 and 2010 during prior facilities analysis work. The Staff
Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report was presented to the PNR Committee
on October 20, 2015 for preliminary feedback prior to a presentation to the full Board.
DISCUSSION
R-15-157 Page 3
The Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report (Facilities Report) is provided
as Attachment 1. The November 18 presentation will summarize the report’s findings and final
recommendations, organized as follows:
I. Goals and Context for Staff Facility Planning
Review and confirm the PNR Committee’s goals (page 6 of the attached report);
review past facility work and anticipated staff growth to inform the context of
planning for long-term staff facilities.
II. Existing and Potential Facilities Analysis
Review each existing staff facility, opportunities and constraints, and possible
alternatives to address capacity issues.
a. Administrative Office Area (AO)
i. Administrative Office Complex and Alternatives Analysis
1. Demolish Existing Building and Rebuild On Site
2. Purchase and Remodel a New Existing Building
3. Establish Multiple AO Offices (requires further evaluation of work
place policies and organizational structure)
4. Other Alternatives Considered But Not Recommended
b. Skyline Area
i. Skyline Field Office
ii. Coastal Field Office (CFO) Alternatives Analysis - Location
1. Skyline Blvd/ Highway 35 Area
2. Highway 84 Corridor
3. Half Moon Bay/Highway 1 Corridor (Preferred)
c. Foothills Area
i. Foothills Field Office
ii. South Area Outpost
1. South Area Office Potential new site off lower Pheasant Road
III. Key Recommendations and Next Steps (end of page 6 of the attached report)
Review and confirm key recommendations informed by the analysis and next
steps.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Planning Department’s FY2015-16 Budget includes sufficient funds ($169,000) for tasks
associated with the District-wide Long-term Staff Facilities Study. In November 2014, the
Board adopted a $15M reserve for new facilities. The Controller’s financial model assumes that
the District will spend $20M on facilities over the next 3 to 4 years, half of which will come out
of the reserve and the other half from uncommitted general funds. These expenditures are
consistent with the District’s 30-year Financial model and considered financially sustainable.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was presented to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee on October 20, 2015.
The Committee provided preliminary feedback on the information provided, requested additional
R-15-157 Page 4
data, suggested that staff keep all options open, and supported the next step recommendations for
each staff facility site and their recommended priority order.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
No compliance is required as this action is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Future actions to implement staff facility improvements would be subject
to CEQA review.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board confirmation, the General Manager would direct staff to proceed with the
recommended next steps for each staff facility site.
Attachments
1. Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis Report
2. Memorandum Re: Greenhouse Gases Modeling and Staff Facilities
3. Memorandum Re: Lessons Learned from Touring Partner Agency Staff Facilities
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department
Prepared by:
Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Aaron Hébert, Capital Project Manager, Planning Department
Contact person:
Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Aaron Hébert, Capital Project Manager, Planning Department
Staff Facilities
Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Date: October 20, 2015
Attachment 1
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 2 of 50
(this page left intentionally blank)
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 3 of 50
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Introduction
Goals of Staff Facility Planning
Key Recommendations
Context for Current Facilities Planning
2009 - 2012 Staff Facility Strategic Plan
Current Context
Projected Staff Growth
Facilities Analysis
General Overview
Administrative Office
Administrative Office Complex – Existing Conditions
Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 1: Demolish Existing Building and Rebuild On Site
Alternative 2: Purchase and Remodel New Existing Building
Alternative 3: AO Satellite Offices
Alternatives Considered But Not Recommended
Skyline Area
Skyline Field Office – Existing Conditions
Temporary Coastal Area Outpost Site – Driscoll Event Center
New Coastal Field Office – Coastal San Mateo County
New Coastal Field Office Alternatives Analysis
Alternative 1: Skyline Blvd/ Highway 35 Area
Alternative 2: Highway 84 Corridor
Alternative 3: Half Moon Bay/Highway 1 Corridor (Preferred)
Foothills Area
Foothills Field Office – Existing Conditions
South Area Outpost
Potential New Site off Lower Pheasant Road
Conclusion and Next Steps
Appendices
Appendix 1: Park Agency Facility Comparisons
Appendix 2: Housing Data Maps
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 4 of 50
(this page left intentionally blank)
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 5 of 50
Introduction
Executive Summary
In 2009, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) began a systematic
evaluation of its staff facilities in response to ongoing operational, maintenance, and energy
infrastructure challenges. This effort led to the remodeling of space in the Administrative Office
and the Skyline Field Office, but deferred major expenditures, such as new buildings, until a later
date. Modest growth in staff resulted in additional lease space near the administrative office and
a temporary field facility, the South Area Outpost. Since 2009, the District has increased the
intensity of use at all of its aging staff facilities while maintaining these facilities in their current
condition.
In response to the successful passage of Measure AA in June 2014, the District embarked
on a District-wide Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) Study that evaluated
existing District workflow processes, staff capacity, and organizational structure to identify
options for accelerating the completion of high priority projects, including Measure AA projects.
Aligned with the FOSM recommendations, which were accepted by the Board in May 2015, the
District has and will continue to experience a considerable increase in staff to provide the needed
capacity to accelerate project delivery, expand service delivery, and properly manage and
maintain new public access facilities and open space properties. The general trend of FOSM
implementation will be an immediate and substantial increase in administrative staff to support
the implementation of Measure AA projects, an immediate and moderate increase in field staff to
support newly opened preserves, and long-term growth in field staff as the focus of the
organization shifts from capital project construction into maintenance and land management. All
of these increases are projected to be financially sustainable.
Existing District staff facilities are at capacity and can accommodate only minimal staff
growth, and if left unchanged, the constraints will significantly impede the District’s ability to
maintain desired Measure AA project timelines. Each facility has its own history and unique site
opportunities and challenges, but they share a central theme—each has been gradually expanded,
remodeled, and used more intensely over time. This increased intensity of use has been managed
over the years, but there are now fundamental constraints at each facility that will ultimately
impede the District’s ability to add staff. The age and condition of the Administrative Office and
South Area Oupost, in particular, requires major and costly remodeling regardless of the
anticipated staff growth. Addressing the infrastructure challenges and limitations in the District’s
existing staff facilities at the same time as providing space for staff growth represents a
significant opportunity for the District.
The District currently operates out of four (4) staff facilities:
1. Skyline Field Office (SFO) – Santa Clara County
Includes office, shop, and assorted outbuildings
2. Foothills Field Office (FFO) – Cupertino
Includes office, shop, and assorted outbuildings
3. South Area Outpost (SAO) – Santa Clara County
Repurposes existing residence into an office
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 6 of 50
4. Administrative Office complex (AO) – Los Altos
Includes a main administrative office in a building owned by the District and
two leased office spaces adjacent to main office
The purpose of this opportunity and constraints analysis is to provide a high level
overview of the current state and capacity of staff facilities, anticipated staffing growth and
functional reorganization, potential concept solutions to accommodate future facility needs, and
recommendations as to which facilities to prioritize over the next two to three years. This report
includes high-level conceptual alternatives for each facility and analyzes each alternative in light
of the proposed project goals, which have been reviewed and revised by the Board Committee,
and are now being forwarded to the full Board for confirmation.
Proposed Goals of Staff Facility Planning
The goals of long-term staff facility planning should reflect the Board’s policy decisions
and guide staff in reviewing the consistency of a proposal with the Board’s intent. Any particular
facilities project will meet each goal at different levels. During an earlier strategic staff facility
planning effort in 2012, a number of goals were discussed with the former Ad Hoc Facilities
Committee and these goals were reviewed and updated by the Planning and Natural Resource
Committee in March 2015 (updates are shown in bold below). These goals provide an
understanding of how existing and new facilities should successfully manifest District culture
and core values, and create an achievable and cost-effective plan that translates District goals
into appropriate staff facilities.
Ranking the importance of individual goals will help provide staff and the Board with a
clear framework and understanding to evaluate and implement the facility solutions contained in
this report.
1. Utilize forward looking and imaginative approaches for evaluating and designing
each facility.
Proposed Staff Facility Planning Goals
2. Build in sufficient capacity for the duration of a facility’s expected lifetime (30
years).
3. Optimize staff deployment per FOSM recommendations and how departments
and staff will work in the future.
4. Strive to locate within proximity to public transportation or major thoroughfares.
5. Seek flexible and adaptable options to meet evolving needs.
6. Pursue sustainable design and construction options that are cost-effective.
7. Consider how new facilities could minimize cost-of-living impacts by their
location, especially if they were near transportation corridors.
8. Improve the outward facing or public side of facilities, so visitors have a more
welcoming experience when entering District facilities.
9. Minimize relocation disruption to staff by thoughtful transition planning.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 7 of 50
Key Recommendations
Based on the current and projected rates of staff growth and the lack of capacity at
District facilities to accommodate the growth, staff recommends the District pursue and complete
two focused facilities projects, the Administrative Office and the permanent South Area Field
Office, concurrently within the next three years. Staff also recommends that further evaluation
and planning for a new coastal field office begin as well. In addition, staff recommends obtaining
the services of a futurist so that external trends (housing, transportation, job growth, etc.)
affecting how the District will function in the future may be considered in light of our facilities
planning. These recommendations include short-term and medium-term measures to both
address immediate needs over the next three years and make progress on longer term solutions
that require additional analysis and study. The recommendations below assume that the
Committee will provide input and the Board will consider and approve specific project
milestones. These recommended next steps are further spelled out into more detailed actions in
the following table.
Page 8 of 50
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Immediate High Priority Actions Medium Priority Actions Low Priority
Actions
Administrative
Office
• FUTURIST – Work with a futurist to
understand external trends that may affect the
manner in which the District will deliver its
mission and how it will develop its facilities.
• BENCHMARK STUDY – With a consultant
team, complete a quick benchmark assessment
on the existing AO property to assess maximum
building envelope possible and develop
benchmark cost estimate for demolishing the
existing AO and constructing a multi-story,
minimum 30,000+ square foot building with
underground parking.
• REAL ESTATE MARKET – Explore real
estate market to assess range of cost and site
locations for purchasing another existing
building as a comparison to building on the
existing AO site.
• ADDITIONAL LEASE SPACE –Temporarily
lease an additional 2,880 square feet of office
adjacent to AO2 to accommodate expected
administrative staff growth over the next two
years – until new office is available.
• REBUILD ON SITE – If building on the AO
site is determined to be feasible, issue an RFP
for consultant services to begin design work.
• REAL ESTATE MARKET – If building on
the AO site is determined to be infeasible, define
the operating parameters for a commercial
broker to identify suitable lands or buildings in
the target real estate market and request Board
authorization up to a certain dollar amount for
the General Manager to promptly act when real
estate opportunities arise. -
South Area
Office
• FEASBILITY ANALYSIS – With a consultant
team, evaluate the programming and feasibility
of constructing a new South Area Field Office at
the flat open space area near Hicks and Pheasant
Roads (Rancho de Guadalupe Area of Sierra
Azul).
- -
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 9 of 50
Future Coastal
Field Office
• EXPLORE OPTIONS – Explore options for a
Coastal Field Office. Consult with potential
partners on the San Mateo County Coast on the
suitability and interest for a multi-agency field
office.
• IMPLEMENT – Identify and select a
option/office location and proceed with
implementation. -
Skyline Field
Office
• MAINTENANCE/REPAIR – Implement
necessary maintenance projects (pave driveway,
automate gate, paint water tank). -
Pursue building
and site
modification
projects at SFO.
Coastal Area
Outpost
• MODULARS/TRAILERS – Secure permits to
purchase and install modular buildings and
trailers to provide temporary staff facilities
establish a temporary field office at the Driscoll
Event Center site (La Honda Creek).
- -
South Area
Outpost
• MODULARS/TRAILERS – Secure permits to
purchase and install modular buildings and
trailers to provide temporary staff facilities for
the South Area Outpost.
- -
Foothills Field
Office - -
Pursue building
and site
modification
projects at FFO.
Page 10 of 50
2009 - 2012 Staff Facility Strategic Plan
Context for Current Facilities Planning
During an effort between 2009 and 2012 to plan for long-term staff facilities, staff
analyzed a range of issues related to strategic facility planning and discussed them with the
former Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (whose charge is now performed by the Planning and
Natural Resources Committee). Many of the same issues that were discussed during this process
apply to current facilities planning. The Committee recognized that staff’s productivity and
performance depend in part on the right facilities and tools to achieve the District’s mission. As
the District continues to purchase additional property, more emphasis will need to be placed on
having adequate staff capacity to manage and restore the land, and to provide the facilities to
support public access. Future land purchases and preserve growth will likely continue to occur
predominantly on the coast, a remote area currently without staff facilities. Overall visitor use
will likely increase throughout the District’s lands given that new public access areas are opening
across many different preserves in the north, south, and central areas, e.g. Mt Umunhum Summit
area at Sierra Azul OSP, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, and La Honda Creek OSP on the coast.
Moreover, the desire to have “green” District facilities will need to be balanced with achievable
and affordable solutions that are creative and achieve the greatest return on investment.
The Committee acknowledged that staff facility planning is influenced by a number of
external factors and constraints such as organizational restructuring and growth, a changing
socio-economic environment of the Bay Area, cost and availability of new land acquisitions,
emerging technology, and new work practices and operational requirements. Unfortunately
between 2010 and 2012 and prior to Measure AA, the District was forecasting a long-term and
drastic reduction in funding for new land purchases and budget constraints for operating
expenses. With these looming forecasts and shifting priorities, the staff facilities work was on put
on hold.
Board Committee Goals of Staff Facility Planning
Just a few years later, the District environment has changed significantly with a
burgeoning Bay Area economy; housing supply issues (see Appendices 3 and 4); a booming
commercial and residential real estate market and construction environment; the successful
passage of Measure AA and increased District revenues; and implementation of FOSM. Yet, at
the same time, many of the assumptions, expectations, and considerations of the prior planning
exercise still hold true. The importance of realizing the ideal combination of staff facilities
cannot be understated, yet the planning around such efforts cannot miss the critical milestones
the District must meet in order to staff up, as recommended by FOSM, for the implementation of
Measure AA.
The recent focus on implementing FOSM, expanding staff facilities, and streamlining
work processes provides the District with the opportunity to consider new ways of working in a
more mobile and technologically-enabled work environment that can facilitate the ability of staff
to operate remotely from the field or conduct web-based meetings instead of driving to them.
Work area and storage needs will change as the District shifts increasingly towards
digital/electronic or online ways of conducting business. The District’s Information Systems and
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 11 of 50
Technology Strategic Plan incorporates these elements, and work space planning will in turn
need to accommodate them as part of a functional, workplace setting.
More than ever, facility locations and the competitive housing market are affecting the
District’s business model and ability to recruit and retain high-quality staff. The locations of
District offices can influence staff’s ability to rent or buy housing, impact staff’s commute time
to reach project construction sites, meetings, etc., impact the feasibility of staff to take transit to
work, and affect the District’s integration into local communities and ability to leverage
collaborative opportunities with other regional agencies, partner agencies and organizations.
While more centralized facilities can create more uniform culture and work practices,
distributed facilities can facilitate different processes and ways of deployment that better fit
specific regional needs. Distributed facilities can have the potential added benefits of allowing
staff to deploy efficiently to work sites, reducing driving time for staff, and broadening housing
options. For more discussion and comparison of other agencies’ facilities, see Appendix 1:
Park Agency Facility Comparisons.
Other forces that will affect the District’s ability to realize its ideal facility plan is the
surrounding economy dominated by tech start-ups and tech giants such as Google that are buying
properties up and down the Peninsula, reducing commercial real estate inventory, and driving up
costs. Real estate negotiations in the current market are challenging and fleeting, and if the
District ultimately seeks to relocate any of its facilities, it will be important for the Board to
confirm specific parameters and authorize the General Manager to take action quickly.
Projected Staff Growth and Facility Capacity
FOSM recommends significant staff growth ranging between 84 and 104+ positions over
the next 30 years. By 2020, FOSM calls for roughly 51 additional positions (34 administrative
positions and 17 field positions). By 2045, FOSM recommends an additional 53 positions (15
administrative and 38 field positions). The following table shows the estimated
distribution of
growth identified as part of the FOSM.
ESTIMATED STAFF GROWTH
Year Administrative
Office Staff
Skyline Area
Field Staff
Foothills Area
Field Staff Total Staff Count
2015
Current 70 34 33 137
2020
Projected 104 42 42 188
2045
Projected 119 61 61 241
In addition to accommodating staff growth, staff facilities must incorporate sufficient
staff and visitor parking, a larger Board room at the AO, multi-purpose meeting room space,
visitor services areas, storage areas, drop-in or temporary work stations, equipment and
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 12 of 50
infrastructure at field offices, and adequate expansion area for unanticipated growth. To address
the uncertainty of staff growth, the FOSM report recommends periodic reassessment of the
staffing projections to guide the District. Further, FOSM Recommendation 16 in the report
suggests the District evaluate how new projects and acquisitions may affect staffing (both
administrative and field) so the Board may consider these impacts before approving a new
capital project, opening a closed preserve, and/or approving an acquisition. For the purposes of
facilities planning, staff is incorporating a 10% contingency on top of the FOSM-recommended
staff levels to allow for potential unanticipated, added growth.
Staff projections become more uncertain the farther into the future the District looks. This
is especially true for the Visitor Services and Land and Facilities Departments, whose staffing
level is tied to the number of structures, miles of trail, acres of preserves (open or closed), and
levels of public visitation. For this reason, this report projects an additional contingency in field
staff facilities in accordance with the general trend of long-term growth in operations and
maintenance.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 13 of 50
General Overview
Facilities Analysis
The AO is the hub for many of the District’s centralized functions and infrastructure, and
has managed to accommodate changes in technology and staff growth for 20 years. Various
remodels have extended the life of the facility and allowed it to adapt to the changing
environment over the years. The building has reached its capacity to house the rising number of
staff and adequately provide the offices, work stations, and shared common spaces that allow the
agency to function, leading to the leasing of additional office space nearby. Other constraints at
the current facility include an aging building infrastructure, such as the HVAC system, lack of
sufficient Board room space for large meetings, severe lack of storage, lack of meeting room
space (including one to hold All Staff meetings), and limited parking for visitors and field staff
attending meetings at the AO.
Two lease spaces have relieved some of the pressure, but resulted in departments being
further away from one another and affecting the ease of communication and coordination. In
less than a year, without additional lease space, the AO complex will be at full capacity. The
need to solve the space issues at the AO is at a critical juncture.
Field offices have a different combination of constraints. Desks and offices are needed by
administrative staff, supervising rangers, maintenance supervisors, patrol superintendents, and
maintenance managers. The growth of field staff requires additional supervisory capacity and
associated office space. There are currently no additional desks or office spaces available at the
field offices although minor remodeling at FFO can accommodate the supervising ranger
anticipated to be hired by the end of the fiscal year. Staff is proposing to buy modular trailers
that will provide a necessary bridge for the next few years while lasting solutions are pursued.
These moveable buildings may be reused as construction management trailers through the 30
year implementation of Measure AA. Non-supervisory field staff require shared workstations,
locker rooms, showers, and storage for equipment and supplies.
Parking is also a significant constraint at the field offices. Over the last 20 years, the
District has increased the number of work vehicles and equipment for field staff in order to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. The District has also increased the
number of field staff. The remote nature of these sites requires parking for personal vehicles.
Limited flat accessible land is a constraint in many of the District’s properties. Another
important constraint on new development or increased utilization is the availability of water. A
certain amount of water is necessary for using the site but a much greater portion is required by
CALFIRE for fire protection. Water and potential other services are limiting factors at a number
of potential field sites and at SFO currently.
The split of Operations into two new departments, Land and Facilities and Visitor
Services, combined with the growth of the field staff over the next 30 years, from 67 to 122,
requires the District to consider new models and deployment of staff. The District is also opening
several preserves for the first time and will require increased field staff presence to effectively
manage these preserves. The optimal deployment of field staff is an important consideration in
where and how much to build for.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 14 of 50
Visitor Services now includes docent and volunteer staff and Land and Facilities will
include lease and tenant management. One of the Board’s goals in designing new field facilities
is to improve the visitor experience. A facility that fully incorporates staff and visitor functions
would be a first for the District, but there are examples of similar facilities in other parks
agencies. Maintenance and patrol in those cases are often separate from public access to avoid
conflicts between emergency response, heavy equipment, and visitors strolling around the park.
Interpretation staff, visitor services aides, or even volunteers/docents tend to serve as points of
contact for the public at these facilities. See Appendix 1: Park Agency Facility Comparisons.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 15 of 50
Administrative Office
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 16 of 50
Administrative Office Complex – Existing Conditions
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction
• AO: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos – City of Los Altos
• AO2: 4984 El Camino Real, Suite 115, Los Altos
• AO3: 4984 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Los Altos
Current Staffing 80 FTEs, 5 PTEs, 89 work stations (AO: 63, AO2: 17, AO3: 9)
Site Footprint AO: 0.83 acres
Existing Buildings
• AO: 12,000 sq ft
• AO2: 3520 sq ft – leased
• AO3: 1564 sq ft – leased
Existing Parking Capacity AO: 44 (8 District vehicles, 34 employee vehicles, 2 ADA)
Construction AO: 1973
Upgrades Completed
• Successive interior remodels of AO since 1992
• 2008-2009 kitchen, Planning Department wing, and
server room
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 17 of 50
AO Discussion
The District houses its administrative staff in three locations. Despite the addition of two
leased office spaces, work station space at the AO complex is nearing capacity with only five (5)
stations remaining. At the current rate of hiring and recruiting to implement FOSM
recommendations and deliver MAA projects, the District will be unable to hire new
administrative positions by the end of 2016, a little more than a year from now. Space
remodeling of the main work area could add several desks, but would be costly and disruptive
and would not accommodate all the administrative positions projected to be hired by 2020. By
2045, the District will need an administrative office that can accommodate almost 119 staff,
about twice as many people as the District AO roster in 2009.
A variety of alternatives are available to address the AO capacity issue and a more
detailed discussion of each is contained in this report. In summary, they include:
1. Demolish existing AO and rebuild a larger building on site (two floors above ground, two
floors of parking below) while temporarily leasing elsewhere for at least two years.
2. Purchase and remodel an office building in the Palo Alto/East Palo Alto-Sunnyvale area
to accommodate all of the administrative staff.
3. Continue to lease additional office space (not recommended).
4. De-centralize administrative functions and relocate some AO staff to field offices (not
recommended).
AO Recommendations
• Complete a benchmark feasibility analysis to establish the maximum development
potential of the current AO site and associated benchmark level cost.
• Simultaneously research real estate market conditions for existing buildings to purchase
and remodel. Seek comparable buildings recently sold in the area.
• Compare potential costs, goals achieved, and return on investment of both options and
decide which option to pursue.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 18 of 50
AO Alternative 1: Demolish Existing Building and Rebuild On Site
AO Alternatives Analysis
Constraints
Opportunities
• Temporary disruption to staff and
business continuity (including IT
disruption to all
• Limited lot size and height restriction
District facilities)
• Costly underground parking
• Temporary rent of office space for two
to three years (potentially $1M+ per
year) while new building is under
construction
• Avoids uncertainty of real estate market
• Custom design new building to fit
needs
• More effectively accommodate green
strategies and infrastructure
• Known location that works for current
staff, partner agencies, and for access to
other District facilities
• Better serve the public with a larger
Board meeting room that can
accommodate most large public
meetings
Rebuilding at the current location is a reasonable option given that the District already
owns the property, which is located conveniently near major thoroughfares and relatively close
to the San Antonio Caltrain station. Housing the projected number of staff would require a
multi-story building, which would be fully customizable to the District’s needs, and likely
several levels of underground parking. A benchmarking feasibility study currently being
prepared by a consultant team will quickly determine the maximum square footage allowed by
City of Los Altos zoning, the number of parking spaces required, building height limits, and
benchmark level costs. This information is typical for developers (the District, in this case) to
determine the feasibility of a project on a particular site.
Discussion
Preliminary findings from the draft benchmark study show that the site can accommodate
a three- to four-story building with two to three stories of underground parking. The study will
provide more detail and benchmark level costs to inform the District about the feasibility of
rebuilding on site. Initial research based solely on rough, order of magnitude, square footage
pricing suggest that a new 30,000 sq ft building could cost over $25M (2015 dollars) including
soft costs (consultant fees) and hard costs (construction). The benchmark study will provide
more detail that will better define costs and help the District determine the feasibility of
rebuilding on site.
The costs of underground parking ($40,000 to $50,000 per space), the temporary
disruption to staff and business continuity, and the cost of renting another facility to house staff
and office equipment/files during construction are considerations. Note that staff is researching
the possibility of leasing space nearby at an existing, mostly vacant Palo Alto Medical
Foundation (PAMF) building across Distel Circle, a more modest move that would minimize
impact to staff. The costs and issues of rebuilding on the current site could be offset by the
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 19 of 50
opportunity to custom build a facility that best meets the needs of the District. In addition,
purchasing and remodeling another building elsewhere could result in comparable cost.
Thus, staff recommends that the feasibility and cost of this alternative be evaluated
against the opportunities and constraints of navigating the real estate market and buying a
suitable building elsewhere that will require additional funds and time to remodel to meet the
organization’s needs.
This option allows the District to custom design a building that suits its needs and goals:
a new building can be designed to improve the visitor experience at the AO, utilize a forward
looking and creative design, pursue sustainable and cost effective designs, and provide enough
capacity for staff through the next 30 years. This option will have no net effect with respect to
mass transit options, access to major thoroughfares, travel to and from field offices, commute
times, or the cost of living. The parcel appears to be adequate for the number of staff projected to
work at the AO in 2045 plus other uses yet to be considered. It is a discrete commitment to a
particular building but can be thoughtfully designed to be flexible enough to accommodate how
the District’s way of doing business may evolve in the future. This option is disruptive to staff,
as it will require the temporary relocation of staff, IT server and infrastructure, office equipment
and files to another facility or facilities for at least two years and a second move into the
completed facility.
Alignment of Alternative 1 with Committee Goals
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 20 of 50
AO Alternative 2: Purchase and Remodel an Existing Building
Constraints
Opportunities
• Unknown location and availability
(affecting commutes)
• Unknown permitting requirements and site
restrictions
• High property cost and remodel cost
• Property cost near transit is known to be
high
• Need to work with existing building to
effectively accommodate green strategies
and infrastructure
• Less disruption to staff and business
continuity (IT disruption)
• Potentially faster implementation that
eliminates need to move staff
• No temporary rental
• Potential to move location nearer to
transit or highway
• Sell AO site to offset property and
remodel cost
Buying an existing building with the purpose of remodeling it into a new AO would
require navigating and responding rapidly to the volatile and highly competitive commercial real
estate market of Silicon Valley. This option is inherently opportunistic in nature and will only be
effective and feasible if the Board approves the parameters within which the General Manager
and a commercial real estate broker may be authorized to act quickly and bring a specific
property forward for consideration.
Discussion
The District would need to seek a particular size building, which narrows down the
inventory of suitable properties, so purchasing a new building will likely result in moving the
AO from Los Altos. However, relocating the AO too far from its current location could affect its
central access to District preserves and staff retention, particularly if it increases already long
commutes. Ideally, this alternative would explore the real estate market in the general vicinity of
Los Altos between Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, and would need to improve on the qualities already
inherent in the current site, e.g. proximity to existing and future field offices, major
thoroughfares, mass transit, public services, etc. In addition, when these properties might become
available is uncertain and will likely require a quick response, so staff recommends that the
Board provide the General Manager and commercial broker a set of parameters within which to
operate, such as:
• Stay in the general vicinity of the current location
• Seek a 30,000+ sq feet office and associated parking
• Focus on buildings that can be easily retrofitted to sustainable design standards and
would not require complete demolition and rebuild
It cannot be determined yet how this alternative will align with the Committee’s goals, as
this depends greatly on the type and design of buildings that come on the market, how easily they
can be remodeled to fit the District’s needs, and where they are located with respect to mass
transit options, access to highways, and travel to and from field offices. Locating the AO
Alignment of Alternative 2 with Committee Goals
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 21 of 50
anywhere within the District’s boundary, particularly the Palo Alto to Sunnyvale corridor, is
unlikely to a have a significant effect on the cost of living due to the high housing prices in the
general Bay area. There is an opportunity with this alternative to purposefully seek properties
that are closer to the Caltrain corridor, particularly with the 2020 electrification of the Caltrain. If
the office were located nearer to transit, staff may find it easier to live further away in areas with
a lower cost of living and use mass transit to get to work. However, there is great demand to be
near Caltrain, so the costs of buying near transit are considerably higher. In addition, locations
near Caltrain tend to have more compact land uses and increased densification of uses, have
more traffic and less parking, and can be far from highways, making access to and from field
offices challenging. However, if the District desires to manage its carbon footprint and budget,
the cost premium of relocating the AO near Caltrain may be worthwhile in light of reduced
carbon emissions from reduced commuting.
This alternative has a wide range of cost implications with a recent, preliminary search on
comparables revealing ranges such as $15M to $30M depending on building age, size, condition
and location. After remodeling, the cost could be equivalent or more to rebuilding on the
existing AO site. This option is also vulnerable to the whims of the real estate market and what
space is available at that time, but it could also have a chance at meeting many of the
committee’s goals. It is also less disruptive to staff by requiring them to move only once.
Maximizing transit options could increase the attractiveness of working for the District and
broaden housing options for staff. If a suitable building is found, it could be remodeled and
designed to meet District needs.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 22 of 50
AO Alternative 3: AO Satellite Offices
Constraints
Opportunities
• Unknown location and availability
(affecting commutes)
• Challenge to existing business model
• Requires changing organizational structure
• Cost of long term lease or purchase of
additional office space elsewhere
• Increased local presence
• Expanded housing opportunities –
reduced cost of living
• If located with new field offices,
geographic work focus
A third alternative that will require additional study is leasing or purchasing small,
satellite AO offices that may be located in urban centers within the District’s jurisdictional
boundary, along transit corridors, or combined with new field offices (see discussion below on
the new Coastal Field Office and South Area Office). These satellite offices would allow small
groups of AO staff to permanently or temporarily report to a location other than the main AO,
relieving the capacity pressure on the main AO and lessening the need for a large, centralized
office. Depending how much AO staff they could accommodate, satellite offices could
potentially allow the District to remodel the existing AO to improve efficiency and capacity of
current work space areas rather than rebuild or move it. However, a remodel of the existing AO
might also result in significant disruption to staff particularly if aging, system-wide infrastructure
such as the HVAC system or the energy inefficient window system were to be addressed. In
addition, since the District would have to lease or purchase AO satellite space, there could be
significant costs to long term leasing or purchasing new office space in a competitive real estate
market. In contrast, building capacity for work stations into new field offices would be an
efficient way to accommodate temporary or permanent AO staff.
Discussion
This alternative also requires an evaluation of the organizational structure and business
model and how they would need to change to accommodate departments or portions of
departments reporting to different AO locations. This option may serve the District’s business
interests if the location of these offices increases the connection with local communities,
government, better integrates field and administrative work cultures, and attracts new employees
that might not otherwise be willing or able to work in Los Altos.
This alternative could be a creative solution to solving the capacity issues at the existing
AO but because it requires additional thought and analysis, may not be able to remedy immediate
space needs at the AO. The services of a futurist would be needed to study trends that may
influence the District’s delivery of services in the decades to come and how that may affect the
need for a centralized or decentralized AO.
Recommendations
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 23 of 50
AO Alternatives Considered but Not Recommended
Leasing would be the simplest and easiest measure to provide immediate space for new
staff, but it would not provide a lasting solution and would cost the District more over time.
More importantly, because the District depends and thrives on the synergistic and networked
approach where its departments are continually communicating and coordinating with one
another on projects and issues, continuing to maintain separate lease spaces can impede
departmental relationships and streamlined project delivery.
Long Term Leasing
Any new lease requires retrofitting the space with new furniture and IT infrastructure as
well as moving departments and their staff into a new space. Smaller facilities projects often
require much of the same planning and project management that a larger project requires.
Leasing is a pragmatic solution to an immediate capacity problem but it cannot achieve
any of the Committee’s goals for long term staff facilities in terms of staffing levels in 2045,
optimizing staff deployment, encouraging sustainability, improving the visitor experience at the
AO, being near public transportation or major thoroughfares, reducing cost of living, being
creative and flexible, or minimizing ongoing disruption to staff.
For these reasons, staff is not recommending this option except as a temporary measure if
necessary to provide for staff growth while a new office is bought or constructed. Leasing an
entire building was not considered due to the inherent impermanence of a rental situation and the
high long term cost to rent a space large enough to accommodate the entire AO staff.
The number of AO staff who could feasibly report out of the existing field offices is
currently a small percentage of the entire organization and would likely have little effect on
relieving space pressures on the AO. However, staff recommends building capacity for as many
drop-in work stations in new field offices as possible for AO staff who may be working in the
field on discrete projects, so that future deployments of small numbers of AO staff to those field
offices on a temporary or permanent basis remain a possibility. Permanently moving AO staff to
field offices will take further evaluation in terms of reporting structures and work policies, and is
recommended for future new field offices that can be designed to accommodate a small number
of temporary or permanent AO staff.
Co-location of Administrative and Field Staff
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 24 of 50
Skyline Area
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 25 of 50
Skyline Field Office– Existing Conditions
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction 21150 Skyline Blvd., La Honda, CA – Santa Clara County, San
Mateo County (for septic system only)
Current Staffing 34 FTEs (includes seasonal employees) – maxed out
Site Footprint 1.5 acres
Existing Buildings
• Main Office: 2500 sq ft
• Shop: 1100 sq ft
• Equipment and Tool Storage: 4300 sq ft
Existing Parking Capacity 45 (25 District vehicles, 20 employee vehicles)
Construction 1996 office, 1930s shop and other auxiliary buildings
Upgrades Completed
• Limited expansion to parking and driveway resurfacing
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit
replacement
• Floor replacement
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 26 of 50
Constraints
Opportunities
• Limited land to accommodate new
facilities or structures
• Limited parking with no expansion
possibilities
• Limited storage space
• Limited locker room space for line staff
• Limited office expansion for new
supervisors
• Issues with access road
• Requires use permit update and
associated costs
• Historic structures to work around
• Could make minor remodel
improvements to improve employee
and workplace efficiency
• Could add new standalone locker
room building
• Could add new standalone shop
• Could add new equipment shelters
• Could revisit use permit conditions
Prior to 1996, SFO temporarily housed field staff in existing ranch buildings. In 1996, a
permanent office and yard were constructed to provide for staff growth in the future. Staff also
continues to use existing ranch buildings for storage, washer/dryer, and extra locker and shower
space. Improvements to SFO were the subject of considerable analysis and discussion by the
Board from 2009 to 2012. The original scope of work was limited to a new mud room,
replacement and relocation of the heating ventilation and cooling (HVAC) unit off the roof
where cold temperatures would cause it to malfunction during the winter, and a new meeting
room. Additional facility needs were discovered during the programming phase of the project
and expanded the scope of work, but high costs to remodel the 1996 residential style office
building led to the consideration of two new buildings instead, a standalone locker room building
and a new shop building. Consultation with the County of Santa Clara resulted in a requirement
to make substantial and costly infrastructure improvements to the access road and water system.
Due to other competing priority projects, the SFO improvements were deferred. In 2014, the
District replaced the HVAC system to provide reliable heat to staff during the winter.
Discussion of Issues
Pressure on SFO staff will increase with the passage of Measure AA, implementation of
FOSM, ongoing purchases on the San Mateo County coast, and the commitment to provide
public access to currently closed preserves like La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. The
programming and use of SFO need to be evaluated in light of these developments and the build
out of a new Coastal Field Office.
SFO has enough land to build the new shop, convert the tennis courts into a heavy
equipment shelter, and provide the new, detached locker room building in order to maximize site
utilization. However, limited parking and a low producing existing well are primary constraints
to adding additional staff at SFO. In addition, although the site provides easy access to preserves
along Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard), it is far from coastal San Mateo County, where future
land acquisition is expected to occur, and La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, which is due to
open in a couple years with its associated patrol and maintenance requirements. A coastal field
office will become necessary to manage the land.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 27 of 50
Any major improvements to SFO will first need to take into account for what role a
coastal field office will play to accommodate staff growth and what each facility will need to
contribute to the overall Skyline and coastal area. As such, staff recommends that long term
plans for SFO be folded into that process and coupled with the development of a coastal field
office, so that they may complement one another.
Discrete maintenance and repair projects, such as repairing the driveway, painting the
water tank, and automating the entrance gate, should be undertaken in the short term, as none of
these projects would be made redundant by future long term improvements. In addition, a locker
room/shower trailer could also be placed on site to temporarily accommodate a small increase in
staff while long term plans are developed for SFO and the coastal field office.
• Focus on short term repair and maintenance work at SFO.
Recommendations
• Pursue a temporary field office at the Driscoll Event Center to allow for modest staff
growth.
• Consider long term options for the coastal field office first, but also evaluate with SFO to
maximize field staff deployment and organization for both offices.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 28 of 50
Temporary Coastal Area Outpost Site – Driscoll Event Center
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction 5460 La Honda Road (Hwy 84) La Honda – San Mateo County
Site Footprint 7 acres
Parcel Size 12 acres
Zoning Resource Management – Scenic Corridor – Not Coastal Zone
Special Considerations San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 29 of 50
Constraints
Opportunities
• Spring-fed water system needs to be
improved
• Other existing and as yet undetermined
future uses (equestrian, ranch,
agriculture)
• Limited housing or services nearby
• Future site planning process to be
undertaken to address long-term public
uses
• Large area of flat land
• Near increased public visitation (La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve)
• On-site presence
• Potential for multiple site uses (patrol,
maintenance, public, events).
Discussion
In 2013, the District entered in a Lease and Management Agreement with POST for the
Driscoll Event Center property, including the use for livestock, equestrian, rodeo, and other
similar agricultural and environmental uses. The District purchased the property in July, 2015
and continued the “Event Center Facilities Use Agreement” until “long term uses” are identified
through a future site planning process (R-15-101). The Board report described the long term and
master plan considerations for the property:
“Event Center: Concurrent to studying new use patterns, the District will compile
information on the type and frequency of events at the Event Center and
determine if any changes are warranted. The District will also consider other
possible uses for the Event Center such as public staging to access Preserve trails,
a satellite field office to better serve the Coastside area, and additional natural
resource protection of San Gregorio Creek.”
An existing office in poor condition and a staging area (roughly 0.33 acres), located on
the eastern end of the property, could serve as the site of a temporary satellite office for the
Skyline area while a permanent solution for a coastal field office is explored. Another unused
area includes the barn and and butler building that would have same benefits. The use of these
areas would not interfere with the two events planned for 2015 and five to six events currently
planned for 2016 (maximum is eight). Long term planning would need to evaluate the site’s
continued use as agricultural event space and potential use for public parking area. A full build
out of the site for a field office and corporation yard may be incompatible with the use as event
space. Staff’s initial analysis suggests this site should be studied as potential, permanent location
for a coastal field office. In the mean time, a modular office with locker room, shower, and
restrooms could provide enough space for a contingent of patrol staff.
Alignment of Alternative with Committee Goals
This project will help optimize the deployment of field staff and provide the time needed
to site and plan for the District’s first permanent coastal staff facility. This site is located along
Highway 84, a major rural thoroughfare and is not accessible by public transportation.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 30 of 50
Accommodating public facilities at this site would require study of and reconciliation with other
site uses.
This short term solution is creative in that it utilizes existing disturbed areas to
temporarily increase staffing capacity in order to manage the expected opening of and growth in
visitation at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve within the next 3-5 years.
Recommendations
• Utilize trailers at the Driscoll Event Center site as a temporary Coastal Area Outpost.
• Pursue a location for a new Coastal Field Office in an area along coastal San Mateo
County (possible site location options include the Event Center).
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 31 of 50
New Coastal Field Office – Coastal San Mateo County
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction San Mateo County and City of Half Moon Bay
Site Footprint TBD
Parcel Size TBD
Zoning TBD
Special Considerations Partly in the Coastal Zone and Coastal Annexation Area
Discussion
The need for a new coastal field office stems from the long-term growth of the District’s
lands along the San Mateo coast, including the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Cloverdale Ranch, and
the opening of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, that will shift the focus of Skyline area
field staff to west of Skyline Blvd. The coast has much of the District’s grazing operations, row
crop operations, special status species, and is the furthest from urban development. Preserve land
in the coastal area in general requires more maintenance, coordination with the agricultural
community, and natural resource management. Public visitation is limited by comparison to the
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 32 of 50
Foothills area, but, where constructed, public access has proved quite popular. The Cowell-
Purisima Trail, the lower Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve’s parking lot, and all of the
beaches near Half Moon Bay receive heavy use on the weekends. Increased public visitation will
require increased patrol and site presence. The construction of new trails, bathrooms, etc.,
requires dedicated maintenance staff and capital project management staff. The Coastal Field
Office will need to accommodate the majority of field staff growth expected to serve the Skyline
area.
A site within the area bounded by Highways 35, 84, 1, and 92 would provide more
superior and efficient access to the District’s coastal properties than SFO. A staff facility that
combines patrol, maintenance, volunteer, and docent programs requires more acreage than the
District has at any of its existing field offices. Further, incorporating a public parking lot and
visitor center adds to that challenge in addition to the conflict that emergency response and
heavy equipment could have with public use if not properly designed. However, the benefits of
such an integrated facility, where space permits, likely outweigh the design challenges.
The District could evaluate the feasibility of sharing a facility with another park agency,
since the San Mateo County coast also lacks government and parks facilities in general. San
Mateo County Parks, California State Parks, Peninsula Open Space Trust, or other organizations
may be potential partners in developing a shared facility. A partnership represents a significant
opportunity and yet also introduces a complicated planning and coordination element to the
project. Examples of such facilities exist in the Bay Area, including the Presidio Trust/Golden
Gate National Recreation (GGNRA), Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy\GGNRA, the
Peninsula Conservation Center, and the Multi-Agency Facility in Big Sur (State Parks, US Forest
Service, Caltrans). Staff is recommending the District begin a consultation process with potential
partners and revisit this opportunity once the potential of this option is evaluated.
Staff recommends further guidance and direction from the Committee and/or Board on
the development of the Coastal Field Office based on discussion of alternatives following this
section.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 33 of 50
New Coastal Field Office Alternatives Analysis
Coastal Field Office Alternative 1: Northern Highway 35 (Skyline Blvd) Area
Constraints
Opportunities
• Located too close to SFO to provide
effective coverage of coastal areas
• Does not change deployment and
distribution of field staff
• Steep topography along Highway 35 – few
potential developable sites
• Less desirable for partnership opportunity
• Limited housing and services
• Low use during the work week
• Permitting not affected by the coastal
zone/annexation area restrictions
• No potential impact on agriculture
Discussion
There are only few developed and disturbed sites along Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard)
that could provide what the District requires but none of them are on District land. In addition,
the topography of Highway 35 constrains the buildable footprint of any project, so that it may
not be able to accommodate uses beyond patrol and maintenance. A site along Hwy 35 would
also not increase the District’s presence in the coastal area and may cause future deployment
issues as the District takes on greater coastal management. Housing in the northern portions of
Highway 35 is also limited and expensive. Because this project will be challenged to meet the
majority of committee goals, staff is not recommending a focused search in the Highway 35 area
for a new Coastal Field Office.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 34 of 50
Coastal Field Office Alternative 2: Highway 84 Area
Constraints
Opportunities
• Majority of sites are in the coastal
zone/annexation area
• Limited potential developable sites
• Limited water availability in San Gregorio
watershed
• Remote location
• Limited housing and services
• Potential conflicts with agriculture
• Low use during the work week
• Improves deployment and geography
of field staff
Discussion
The Highway 84 area from “Skyline to the Sea” may contain a number of potential sites
on District and privately owned lands. Several properties in the area, including the event center,
have a prior history of disturbance and development that can provide adequate buildable areas
for patrol, maintenance, volunteer and docent programs, public parking areas and a visitor center.
However, limited housing will likely create longer commutes for most staff assigned there
barring those who live in relatively nearby District housing. If the Coastal Field Office were built
in this area, housing an additional 30 staff in the La Honda area will be difficult. Half Moon Bay
is at least half hour west and north of the Town of La Honda. The remoteness of the location
from services will make certain aspects of building and managing the facility a challenge, similar
to those faced by SFO (supply procurement, building maintenance and contracts, etc.). Water
may also be the limiting factor in the area. The growth of public visitation to La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve after it opens is unknown at this time. Planning for a permanent field office
that features a visitor center in this area may not be appropriate until some level of use can be
estimated. Highway 84 area presents a number of potential opportunities, but appears unlikely to
meet majority of Committee goals and is not considered the preferred alternative.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 35 of 50
Coastal Field Office Alternative 3: Half Moon Bay and Highway 1 (Preferred)
Constraints
Opportunities
• In the coastal zone/annexation area
• Heavy commute and weekend traffic
• Potential conflicts with agriculture
• Limited commercial space
• Potential restrictions on development
• Located near San Mateo coast
population
• Housing and cost of living
• Greatest partnership opportunity
• Public and staff meeting space on coast
– better presence for District
• Improves deployment and geography
of field staff
Discussion
The majority of Highway 1 on the coast between Highways 92 and 84 is undeveloped
open space, farmland, and rural homes. While some development for the purposes of facilitating
recreation is part of San Mateo County's local coastal program, waterfront development is a
difficult regulatory challenge to overcome, if permissible at all at some locations. Yet the lack of
a coastal visitor center, public parking, and District field staff represents a significant opportunity
to fill that need. Few existing facilities appear suitable for District purposes on the Highway 1
coast, but a more in depth review of real estate opportunities needs to be further evaluated and
considered. Further research needs to be conducted on the Local Coastal Program in San Mateo
County to consider the feasibility of such a Coastal Field Office in this area.
The City of Half Moon Bay could be another potential location and provide other
advantages than development along or off Highway 1. The lack of park facilities in this general
region, make this location ideal for the partnership opportunity described above. For staff who
currently live in Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, this would be an attractive
temporary or permanent reporting location. Housing is limited in Half Moon Bay area but more
available than the La Honda and Skyline area. Weekend tourist traffic and weekday commute
traffic are significant. However, limited commercial space is available in Half Moon Bay, so this
alternative would need an in depth review of commercial real estate facilities A project of this
scale on in the coastal zone is not a simple undertaking, but the overall benefits to the District’s
business model, District staff and the public are significant. An integrated facility that includes a
public facing visitor center on the coast would be an attractive public amenity.
Preferred Project Alternative Review with Committee Goals
Further planning is required before a specific approach is recommended to the Board. Of
the three general New Coastal Field Office alternatives, the Half Moon Bay and Highway 1 area
appears to meet the majority of Committee goals and is analyzed here. This option is creative in
that it could create a visitor center that would attract the diverse users of Highway 1, looks into
the future of District growth in the coastal area, and may provide space for all of the District
functions and potential partners throughout the facility’s lifetime, but only once a more discrete
project is identified can this goal be fully evaluated. Highway 92 and 1 are relatively accessible
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 36 of 50
thoroughfares, but there are only limited bus lines that provide public transportation. This
alternative will be challenged to be flexible into the future if, as anticipated, the availability of
commercial real estate and coastal regulations constrain the scale of buildings. An existing
building will be challenging to be retrofit for sustainable design in a cost-effective manner, but a
new facility could provide that opportunity. This option creates a field office where staff could
live on the coast, which is similar to the cost of living in the Boulder Creek area, but is
significantly less than the Peninsula. This facility would likely include some visitor center
component and improve District’s brand association with communities along the coast. This
option will require planning and political support effort by staff and the Board to implement, but
will minimize disruption to current staff. The challenge for staff on this project is to balance the
operational needs for a new facility with the more ambitious opportunities for a visitor center and
potential partnership project.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 37 of 50
Foothills Area
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 38 of 50
Foothills Field Office – Existing Conditions
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction 22500 Cristo Rey Dr., Cupertino – City of Cupertino
Current Staffing 27 FTEs (includes seasonal employees)
Site Footprint 2 acres (including 0.5 acres for Annex building)
Existing Buildings
• Main Office: 2200 sq ft
• Shop: 5500 sq ft
• Equipment and Tool Storage: 3400 sq ft
• Annex: 3000 sq ft
Existing Parking Capacity 40 (25 District vehicles, 20 employee vehicles)
Existing Outdoor Use Area Outdoor patio area adjacent to office
Construction • 1993 office
• 2004 shop
Upgrades Completed • Shop and equipment shelters
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 39 of 50
Constraints
Opportunities
• Very limited parking
• No additional offices for supervisors
• Limited locker room space for line staff
• Limited land to expand
• Access through District’s busiest preserve
on roadway shared with public
• Build locker room expansion
• Install additional equipment shelters
• Create new meeting space at Annex
Discussion of Issues
FFO functions generally well and includes an office, shop, equipment storage shelters,
corporation yard, and the Annex (repurposed house). The main office is in fair condition and
does not require major upgrades in the foreseeable future, but it cannot accommodate more than
a few additional positions due to locker room space limitations. The shop was constructed in
2004 and also does not require major upgrades in the foreseeable future. Few improvements are
necessary to FFO as long as the anticipated staff growth is located at another field office
location. Reconfiguration of the copy room to accommodate another desk, increased locker
space, and a few other minor improvements would improve the functionality of the facility. The
chief constraint at FFO is the heavy public use of the main access road to the office and Annex.
The Annex is frequently used by FFO, SFO and AO staff for trainings of less than 30
people, and provides overflow storage for AO and FFO. It is not available for public use. The
HVAC system and building foundation are nearing the end of their functional lives, and the
Annex is only expected to be usable for a number of years into the future. Replacing it is
questionable due to inadequate parking and the building’s location in the middle of the preserve.
The cost of retrofitting the building should be weighed against building a new conference space.
Recommendations
• Prioritize other, more pressing facilities planning and improvement projects before FFO.
• Evaluate the long-term use of the Annex when other facility projects are complete or an
imminent infrastructure issue occurs.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 40 of 50
South Area Outpost
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction 18171 Pheasant Rd., Los Gatos – Santa Clara County
Current Staffing 6 FTEs (Patrol staff)
Site Footprint 1.5 acres
Existing Buildings • Main Office: 2000 sq ft
• District Residence: 2000 sq ft
Existing Parking Capacity 12 (10 District vehicles, 2 employee vehicles)
Existing Outdoor Use Areas N/A
Construction 1930s
Upgrades Completed • Outbuilding and barn demolitions
• Parking area and septic system improvements
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 41 of 50
Constraints
Opportunities
• Narrow and windy road constrains access
• Existing septic system is near capacity
• No additional offices for supervisors
• Limited locker room space for line staff
• Limited land to expand
• Addition of temporary trailers/modular
buildings to accommodate minimal
staff growth
• Potential use of site as extra office,
storage area, or staff housing if lower
area on Pheasant Road is developed
into a new, permanent South Area
Office
Discussion
The SAO is a 1930s home repurposed into an office containing one walled office, four
open work stations, a shower and locker area, and two small bathrooms. One supervising ranger
and five rangers work out of this facility. One equipment mechanic operator and one open space
technician have also temporarily reported to the SAO during the construction of the Mt.
Umunhum Trail. The septic system is at capacity. Water to the SAO is provided by the
Guadalupe pond and water system, and has been steady and productive through the current
drought and prior droughts. The SAO also contains an employee residence of the same vintage
and condition, a water tank storage shed, tool shed, and space for roughly 10 gravel parking
spaces. Four outbuildings and barns on site were demolished in 2014.
Access to the site is from Pheasant Road, a narrow, winding road that gains in elevation
quickly from Hicks Road and is maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The limited line of
sight, steep slope, and narrow width fundamentally constrain the ability to the District to
substantially increase use of the SAO site, particularly for staging and storage of large equipment
and materials. Although Pheasant Road serves only District-owned properties, significantly
increasing vehicle and equipment traffic beyond the lower stretches of the road may create an
unsafe condition.
The District could maintain the existing number of rangers (6) reporting to SAO and add
a small group of maintenance staff if a modular office and locker room were added. Another
long-term conceptual alternative for the site is to buy and install several modular houses for staff
housing, which could facilitate coverage for Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, particularly with
the future opening of the Mount Umunhum summit area in Fall of 2016. All of the above
concepts would require consultation with the County of Santa Clara. It is anticipated that the
existing SAO building will remain an asset into the future under almost any long term facility
alternative.
Recommendations
Evaluate the long-term use of the existing SAO site and building in conjunction with
planning for a permanent location for the South Area Office, potentially in the lower Pheasant
Road area. Ultimate use of the existing SAO site will be depend on where the permanent office
will be located and how and what staff will be deployed out of that site.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 42 of 50
South Area Office Potential Site – Lower Pheasant Road Area
Fact and Figures
Location and Jurisdiction Hicks and Pheasant Rd., Los Gatos -- Santa Clara County
Site Footprint 2.5 acres
Parcel Size 22 acres
Zoning Agriculture – Hillside Design Review – Scenic Road
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 43 of 50
Constraints
Opportunities
• Limited flat area (grading and setbacks)
• Zoning
• Developing new land
• Visible from road and neighbors
• Too many uses, not enough space
• New uses and programmed space
• Parking lot and visitor center
• Known reporting location
• Adds staff where visitation grows
Discussion
The District owns a 22-acre parcel at the intersection of Hicks and Pheasant Roads with a
moderately sloping and potential building area of 2.5 acres. This site is one of three relatively flat
suitable spots along Hicks Road and the Rancho de Guadalupe area. In 2011, the draft (not yet
adopted) master plan for Sierra Azul identified a potential parking area at this location. Both
potential uses (field office and parking area) at the 22-acre site need to be evaluated
simultaneously, as well as alternative options if the site cannot support both uses. Because SAO
has proved to be a satisfactory and functional reporting location for Sierra Azul patrol and
maintenance staff, the 22-acre parcel would provide the same advantages in a larger footprint
that could theoretically incorporate visitor services (including interpretive staff), land and
facilities, a public parking lot, and, if cost-effective, a visitor center. The grassy area is highly
disturbed and appears to have adequate line of sight from Hicks Road. This site is within the
‘scenic corridor’ of Hicks Road and would require Santa Clara County review. This site also
marks the transition between a number of single-family luxury homes and the relatively
undeveloped Sierra Azul OSP.
The South Area Field Office would be the first field office constructed since SFO and
FFO in the 1990s. A new facility provides the District with the opportunity to incorporate new
functions into field operations, including increased hotelling space for AO staff, dedicated space
for the volunteer and docent programs, and possibly a visitor center. The District may consider
permanently posting a limited number of AO staff to this office if the space permits. The design
and function of the new field office needs to accommodate nearly all of the long-term staffing
growth for the South Foothills Area. It must also consider its function relative to FFO. Rancho
San Antonio OSP receives the highest visitation of any preserve and requires a proportionate
number of patrol staff. The management agreement between the District and Santa Clara County
Parks necessitates greater operations and management responsibilities at this preserve. Heavy
equipment is rarely used within Rancho and yet mobilizing the equipment in and out of the
preserve requires going 5 mph through the main hiking and biking route. Staff’s initial analysis
suggests programming more patrol in FFO and more maintenance in the South Area Office.
Project Review with Proposed Goals
The option is creative in that it would blend multiple functions into a single project. It can
potentially provide all of the needed growth in the South Foothills area for its anticipated lifetime
(30 years). This option will significantly alter the deployment of field staff, but only doing so
towards the area where the District anticipates increased public visitation. Hotelling work
stations for AO and work space for docent/volunteer staff would provide the opportunity for
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 44 of 50
flexible work environments in the future. If cost limits the ability of the District to construct a
facility to accommodate all of the South Foothills’ area growth over the next 30 years, the
District should consider modular buildings that can be added to accommodate new staff. This
site is located close to Highway 85 and is nearer to where a number of field staff currently reside.
This area has a slightly lower cost of living than Cupertino. Transit to the site is very limited.
The nearest bus line is 1 mile away. This option can consider a number of sustainable design
elements and minimize its environmental footprint through careful planning. The option can
improve the visitor experience by providing a gateway to Sierra Azul and Mt. Umunhum. This
option minimizes disruption to Foothills area staff by constructing on a separate site and is in
response to the anticipated public visitation in Sierra Azul and Bear Creek OSP.
For these reasons, staff is recommending the consultant team conduct a rigorous
evaluation of the 22-acre site for constructing a parking lot, field office, and visitor center, and
other parking areas if needed, consult with the County of Santa Clara and return to the Board
with conceptual design alternatives and cost-estimates for the project.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 45 of 50
Conclusion and Next Steps
Per the FOSM report, the District’s workload is poised to more than double over the next
30 years through Measure AA funding. It is an exciting and dynamic time for the District, and it
will be critical to provide staff with the necessary tools and facilities to implement this work into
the decades beyond.
With confirmation and approval from the Board, staff will begin implementing the
recommendations to meet the long term facility needs of the entire District, so that the agency
can be better positioned to meet its mission.
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 46 of 50
Appendices
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 47 of 50
Appendix 1: Park Agency Facility Comparisons
The District is one of many governmental parks agencies that operate on the San
Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Cruz Mountain bioregion (Figure 1). Other agencies include
California State Parks, National Park Service (Golden Gate National Recreation Area), Bureau of
Land Management, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Mateo County Parks, Santa
Clara County Parks, and municipal parks. Each organization has a blend of administrative
functions common to all governmental agencies and field operations tailored to the nature of the
organization’s mission and reflective of its organizational and budgetary constraints.
In the summer of 2015, District staff toured several of these facilities, including East Bay
Regional Parks District, California State Parks, Santa Clara County Parks, East Bay Municipal
Utilities District, and the National Park Service (Golden Gate National Recreation Area), as well
as several privately-owned buildings. While organizational structures vary, all of the facilities
were put together on an ad-hoc basis in response to evolving institutional and public need.
Unlike a university where the campus buildings directly facilitate the mission, parks
organizations’ facilities master planning is not a central part of their missions and cultures. New
buildings are considered in response to staffing increases or reductions, changes to the
geographic distribution of field staff, or as real estate or partnership opportunities arise.
All of the organizations divide their service areas into geographic units for the purposes
of managing the parks. Certain field positions are replicated for each area and scaled to fit the
number of visitors or size of the area: patrol, maintenance, and sometimes interpretative staff.
Other specialized field positions, like mechanics, equipment operators, or natural resource
management positions tend to be more centralized, as their work is not area specific. For
example, vehicle and equipments shops and their mechanics tend service larger areas, whereas
rangers or maintenance crews might only service one park or trail. Administrative staff tend to be
housed in a central facility, though a minimum of administrative support in larger field offices is
common.
Administrative Offices
Distribution of administrative functions varies among park agencies. Generally,
administrative staff is centralized in one location, sometimes in a standalone building or as part
of a larger complex of trailers. In some cases, interpretive staff are folded into the field
operations of a particular park rather than housed in the main administrative office. Challenges
with administrative spaces include insufficient number of meeting rooms, inadequate storage
areas for materials and documents, dated and inefficient cubicle work station layouts, ADA
accessibility, and a slow conversion to electronic filing.
Field Offices
A typical field office has a number of elements: light to medium duty equipment storage
(“tool sheds”); heavy equipment and materials storage (“a corporation yard”); equipment
maintenance shops and circulation areas; large parking areas for personal and fleet vehicles;
locker rooms, showers, break room with kitchenette; and offices for supervisors and
administrative staff. This combination of space and function reflects the intent of organizations
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 48 of 50
to maximize efficiency and the time field staff spend in the field. These facilities reflect a
function-first approach. For example, one 10,000 square foot shop housed mechanics and a
road/trail crew. At first, the shop appeared too sparse for the road/trail crew supervisor, but he
grew to appreciate the functionality of the large space to their operations. Tools were well
organized, work vehicles could be parked inside the shop, and it was quick to mobilize and
demobilize each day.
Other Field Facilities
Staff toured a number of field facilities not currently found in the District: dedicated large
equipment shops, stand alone corporation yards, visitor centers staffed by interpretive staff
and/or volunteers/donors, shops and stores run by ‘friends of’ organizations or concessionaires,
centralized supply warehouses, and conference and training centers. Findings from these visits
are provided below:
• Equipment shops with mechanics on staff are worth considering if there are no local
alternatives, the fleet becomes large enough to justify in-house services, and space is
available on site.
• Corporation yards isolate heavy equipment use from other operations and the public.
• Visitor centers are family-friendly, may generate modest revenues, emphasize
interpretation, and provide a central destination and gateway for the public. Stores and
shops can also attract families, add a visitor-serving element, and include amenities like
restrooms, interpretive elements, food and drink in remote locations. Shops and visitor
centers also provide a place for ‘friends of’ organizations and volunteers to work from
without interfering with other field functions. As such, shops and visitor centers tend to
be separated from other park facilities.
• Supply warehouses centralize procurement and storage, reduce per unit costs, and require
formalized business systems around supply management.
• Large, multi-purpose conference spaces provide organizations with space for staff
trainings, large public meetings, and ‘all staff’ meetings. They also allow for outside
agencies or non-profits to rent the space. In more remote areas, they can be the only such
meeting and assembly space and can serve as critical infrastructure in disaster service
management (e.g. Emergency Operations Center).
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 49 of 50
Figure 1. Regional Parks Staff Facilities
Staff Facilities Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Page 50 of 50
Appendix 2: Housing Data Maps
Ione
HalfMoon Bay Redwood City
SanBruno
San Leandro
Castro Valley
Danville
San Ramon
Newark
SantaCruz
Novato
Petaluma
RohnertPark Napa
SanRafael
Richmond
Fairfield
Vacaville
Walnut Creek
RanchoCordovaDavis
Lodi
AntiochPittsburg
ElkGrove
Woodland Citrus Heights
Roseville
Arden-Arcade
NorthHighlands Folsom
Livermore
Pleasanton
Gilroy
Watsonville
Milpitas
Tracy
Manteca
Turlock
SanFrancisco
Berkeley
Oakland
Hayward
Santa Rosa
Vallejo
Concord Stockton
Sacramento
Salinas
San Jose
Modesto
0 10 205 Miles
Midpen Employee Locations
Midpen Boundary
Midpen Open Space Preserves
District AO
Employee Location
32
MorganHill
LosGatos
Saratoga
Campbell
LosAltos
Emeryville Moraga
Albany
Orinda
El Cerrito Lafayette
ClaytonPleasantHill
Pacifica
MillValley
FosterCity
SanCarlos
Belmont MenloPark
BurlingameMillbrae
Tiburon
Gilroy
Cupertino
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
MilpitasMountain View
PaloAlto
Newark Fremont
Union CityHayward
Pleasanton
Livermore
SanLeandro Dublin
SanRamonAlameda
Danville
Oakland
Berkeley
WalnutCreek
BrentwoodAntiochConcordRichmond
RedwoodCity
South SanFrancisco
DalyCity
SantaCruz
Tracy
Watsonville
SanBruno
SanMateo
San Jose
SanFrancisco
Midpeninsula Regio nalOpen Space District
Median Ho me S al e P rices: B a y A r ea Ci t i e s
October, 2015
Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\Housing\HousingCosts\HousingCosts_FacilitiesAnalysis2015Appendix_MedianCost.mxd
Created By: jhawk
0 105MilesI
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey an d is mer ely a graphic illustration of geograp hic featur es.
S A N M AT E O C O U N T Y
S A N TA C L A R A C O U N T Y
S A N TA C R U Z C O U N T Y
A L A M E D A C O U N T Y
M A R I N C O U N T Y C O N T R A C O S TA C O U N T Y
S A NFRANCISCOCOUNTY
Data source: Zillo w, August 2015
$1M - $1.25M
$750K - $1M
< $750K
$1.5M - $1.75M
$1.25M - $1.5M
$1.75M - $2M $2M+
No Data
MROSD Administrative Office
32
MorganHill
LosGatos
Saratoga
Campbell
LosAltosHills LosAltos
Piedmont
Emeryville Moraga
Albany
Orinda
El Cerrito Lafayette
ClaytonPleasantHill
HalfMoonBay
Pacifica
MillValley
CorteMadera
FosterCity
Woodside
SanCarlos
Belmont
Hillsborough
MenloPark
BurlingameMillbrae
Capitola
EastPaloAlto
Sausalito
Tiburon
Gilroy
Cupertino
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
MilpitasMountain View
PaloAlto
Newark Fremont
Union CityHayward
Pleasanton
Livermore
SanLeandro Dublin
SanRamonAlameda
Danville
Oakland
Berkeley
WalnutCreek
BrentwoodAntiochConcordRichmond
RedwoodCity
South SanFrancisco
DalyCity
SantaCruz
Tracy
Watsonville
SanBruno
SanMateo
San Jose
SanFrancisco
Midpeninsula Regio nalOpen Space DistrictMedian R en tal Ra tes p er Squ a r e Fo o t : B a y A r ea Ci t i e s
October, 2015
Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\Housing\HousingCosts\HousingCosts_FacilitiesAnalysis2015Appendix_MedianRentSqFt.mxd
Created By: jhawk
0 105MilesI
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey an d is mer ely a graphic illustration of geograp hic featur es.
S A N M AT E O C O U N T Y
S A N TA C L A R A C O U N T Y
S A N TA C R U Z C O U N T Y
A L A M E D A C O U N T Y
M A R I N C O U N T Y
C O N T R A C O S TA C O U N T Y
S A NFRANCISCOCOUNTY
Data source: Zillo w, August 2015
No Data
$2.00 - $2.25
< $2.00
$2.50 - $2.75
$2.25 - $2.50
$2.75 - $3.00
$3.00 - $3.25
$3.25+
MROSD Administrative Office
DATE: November 18, 2015
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager
FROM: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, and Aaron Hébert, Project Manager
CC: Jane Mark, Planning Manager, and Michael Newburn, Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Greenhouse Gases Modeling and Staff Facilities
_____________________________________________________________________________
To support the Board’s consideration of several conceptual alternatives for each staff facility at
its November 18, 2015 meeting, staff has developed some preliminary analysis on greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions on the various alternatives. A complete modeling of the District’s
operational GHG emissions is anticipated to begin with a consultant in Fiscal Year 2016-17 with
the goal of creating a Climate Action Plan.
DISCUSSION
GHG emissions related to staff facilities are influenced by (1) their locations, which affect
commutes and work driving distances, and (2) the sustainability of their construction (“green
building”).
Table 1: Summary Analysis of Staff Facilities and GHG Emmissions
Facility /
Alternative Commuting
Work-
Related
Driving
One-time
Construction
Emissions
Operationa
l
On-going
Emissions
Notes on Alterative
and GHG emissions
Administrative
Office (AO)
Rebuild on Site
No effect No effect More Less
High amounts concrete-
related CO2 for
underground parking.
AO
New Construction
New Location
?
Likely
slightly
negative
More Less
The final design and
location will drive
GHGs
AO
Remodel
New Location
?
Likely
slightly
negative
Less More
Minimizing GHGs
from operations
depends on the building
and design
South Area Field
Office
New Construction
Likely
positive Positive More Less
Will be more efficient
than current field
offices
Coastal Field
Office
New Construction
Likely
positive Positive More Less
Will be more efficient
than current field
offices
Attachment 2
2
1. Properly Locating Staff Facilities
Staff’s initial long term facilities analysis recommends considering new locations for three staff
facilities: the South Area Field Office (SAFO), the Coastal Field Office (CFO), and potentially
the Administrative Office (AO).
AO: Current administrative staff drive an average of approximately 21 miles to work each way.
Actual drive times vary with traffic conditions; accidents can easily double drive times. More
staff live southeast of the office than elsewhere, but there is a wide distribution in all directions,
since the current office location is accessible from much of the peninsula, some sections of the
East Bay, and San Francisco. Because of its current relatively centralized location, moving the
AO office will decrease commute times for some while increasing times for others. Moving the
office, for example, to Sunnyvale could reduce some vehicle trips by 6 miles each way for San
Jose area commuters. This may not substantially reduce GHG emissions because the traffic jams
that cause long commute times are located in the greater San Jose area and not between
Sunnyvale and Los Altos. Because wait times in traffic increase GHG emissions on a per mile
basis, reduced total commute mileage only has a partial effect on GHG emissions. Sub-25 miles
per hour (mph) driving can produce 1.5 to 3 times the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile
compared to freeway driving.1
In addition, any potential reductions in GHG emissions by
reduced commuting for San Jose area commuters will be partially negated by increased commute
time for other employees.
The current set of employees (dubbed “Generation 2015”) will also change over time.
Retirements and attrition will gradually remake who works at the District. At the same time, the
District is hiring a new set of employees commuting from unknown locations and the number of
new staff will someday exceed the number who work at the District today. Staff’s initial analysis
suggests that by 2020, based on current retirement and attrition rates, Generation 2015 could
constitute less than 50% of the total administrative staff. By 2033, almost none of the current
administrative staff are likely to still work at the District.
Table 2: Administrative Staff Generation 2015
Staff Year Total Projected
Retirements
from
Generation
2015
Estimated
Attrition
from
Generation
2015
Remaining
Generation
2015 staff
Generation
2015 as a
percent of
total
2015 70 - - - -
2020 104 11 14 45 43%
2025 107 21 24 24 23%
2030 110 32 28 10 9%
2035 113 43 29 0 0%
2040 116 - - 0 0%
2045 119 - - 0 0%
Although existing staff would be immediately affected by the decision of where to locate the
AO, in the long term, the AO’s location will have greater effect on all of the employees the
District has not yet hired—as soon as 2020. While the geographic distribution of staff is likely to
change in the future, the current distribution does suggest the District is an attractive employer
from diverse geographies, given its central location on the Peninsula. A new site may be closer to
future District employees, but it also may not. In addition, future potential employees will be self
1 http://www.uctc.net/access/35/access35_Traffic_Congestion_and_Grenhouse_Gases.pdf
Attachment 2
3
selecting, choosing for themselves if the location of the office fits within their lives before
applying for District positions.
Locating closer to public transit is the only alternative that will maximize the potential and
likelihood of substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions for District commuters. Currently,
anywhere from two to four employees take transit to work every day (three of whom use a bike
for the “last mile”). Another two employees bike to work. In total, anywhere from 3 to 10% of
employees take non-driving commutes to the office. Taking public transit can be less convenient,
take more time, require additional coordination with childcare arrangements and not always fit
into people’s dynamic schedules and childcare drop-off and pickup. In addition, the “first” and
“last” miles can also be fairly significant hurdles to taking public transit. The cost of housing and
cost of living are often increased by nearby public transit. Poor public transportation
infrastructure in the San Jose area and from the East Bay to Silicon Valley severely limits the use
of transit for those employees that live in those areas. Locating the office near transit is less
likely to induce the use of public transit by those employees. If the office is located near public
transit or the “last mile” is bridged with a shuttle, for example, future District employees are
more likely to take transit to work. At the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), their
administrative office is located in downtown Palo Alto at a major Caltrain stop, where
approximately 50% of employees take transit to work.
The current location of the AO is roughly equidistant from the District’s furthest locations: Half
Moon Bay and Sierra Azul Mt. Umunhum. Work driving miles vary geographically year over
year with different projects. For example, more trips occur at preserves that have active projects,
such as Mt. Umunhum and Bear Creek Redwoods, which are being prepared for opening. In
contrast, preserves like Long Ridge are less visited by administrative staff. Predicting where
administrative staff will drive during the 30-year study period is infeasible. If the effective
service area is the entire range of District preserves, maintaining a centralized location will be
important. Field staff occasionally report to the administrative office for meetings, particularly
supervisory staff that must meet more regularly. Any relocation of the AO away from the
geographic center of District preserves can be presumed to have a negative effect on GHG
emissions related to work driving miles to and from preserves as well as between some field
offices and the AO. Work-related driving is a relatively low proportion of GHG emissions
related to an employee’s commute driving, estimated at 900 miles/employee/year or 5-20% of
driving miles depending on the commuter.
SAFO: Of the future staff facilities, only the SAFO has a particular site identified, which is very
close to the existing South Area Outpost’s location. If the site is feasible for a new facility and it
is constructed, it is presumed to have no net affect on the existing six (6) ranger staff that work
there, but GHG emissions will change as the result of an additional 28 positions anticipated to
staff the new facility. Many of the existing Foothills area field staff live in the greater San Jose
area. Both the existing Foothills Field Office (FFO) and the proposed SAFO are distant from
public transportation; commutes are entirely by car. The proposed SAFO is therefore likely to
continue attracting San Jose area driving commuters as employees. The proposed SAFO will
therefore provide for relatively short commutes from the San Jose area. The site is in an area
with relatively limited traffic and is located near the perimeter of Sierra Azul Open Space
Preserve. Work vehicle miles are presumed to be decreased as a result of locating the facility
closer to the patrol and work areas of field staff, as current trips to Sierra Azul and Bear Creek
Redwoods from the FFO are 30 miles round trip. Patrol trucks average 8,800 miles per year at an
estimated 12 mpg average. The proposed SAFO will therefore reduce GHG emissions related to
work driving distances.
Attachment 2
4
CFO: The CFO site has not yet been identified. Currently, the Skyline Field Office (SFO) must
remotely service the San Mateo County coast and the San Gregorio area. Staff’s initial analysis
suggest siting the CFO somewhere in the San Gregorio, Highway 1, or Half Moon Bay area to
provide superior access and response time to these remote preserves. In the long-term, however,
servicing coastal areas south of Highway 84 may become more important as new properties are
acquired. Housing in this region is confined to La Honda, Half Moon Bay, and Skyline/Sky
Londa. The relatively lower cost of living in these areas (compared to the Peninsula) means staff
could likely live and work in the same area. Only a few District field staff currently live in these
areas (in District housing); it is hard to predict where the approximate 27 staff anticipated for this
new office will live within the region. If they are evenly distributed among the La Honda, Half
Moon Bay, and Sky Londa, commutes will range from 5 to 20 minutes, which is less than almost
any other office. The CFO is presumed therefore to have a positive effect on GHG emissions
related to commuting. The area serviced by the CFO and associated work driving miles are
anticipated to reduce current GHG emissions that are currently associated with staff deploying
from SFO. Further analysis is needed to optimize the location of the CFO for work driving miles.
2. Green Building
GHG emissions associated with staff facilities are generated from the ongoing operations of the
facility (“energy efficiency”) and the embodied energy within the building materials
themselves.2
Where new facilities are planned, it is important to account for the one-time GHG
emissions related to construction and construction materials and the ongoing emissions (if any)
related to operation of the facility. There is a broader environmental footprint to consider outside
of the buildings that include stormwater runoff, water quality, and other sustainable elements that
are part of LEED and green building principles. These elements will be considered as each
project and site are developed.
Two new facilities are proposed for the CFO and SAFO. They will be sited in remote, wild areas
with more challenging climatic conditions. These projects can be designed to suit the District’s
needs, including the reduction in GHG emissions. No alternative building types are included in
the preliminary analysis and will be evaluated as the individual sites are developed further.
The future AO will either involve the retrofit/remodel of an existing building or the construction
of a new facility. The retrofit of an existing building utilizes existing materials and their
embedded energies and therefore will likely reduce one-time GHG emissions. On the other hand,
retrofits are challenged to utilize existing materials to reduce ongoing GHG emissions related to
energy efficiency and can be costly relative to the value they produce. New buildings will have
large one-time GHG emissions related to construction and construction materials but will offset
those impacts over time. In most scenarios, operations-related emissions exceed one-time
construction-related emissions by 3x to 10x, depending on the lifespan of the building. Which
conceptual alternative is preferable from a GHG perspective will depend greatly on the particular
requirements of the remodel and the ingenuity of the architect and design team.
2 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.8646&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Attachment 2
1
DATE: November 18, 2015
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager
FROM: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, and Aaron Hébert, Project Manager
CC: Jane Mark, Planning Manager, and Michael Newburn, Operations Manager
SUBJECT: Lessons Learned from Touring Partner Agency Staff Facilities
_____________________________________________________________________________
This memorandum serves to respond to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee’s request
for more detail regarding the staff facilities tours that District staff scheduled with outside
agencies, including a ‘Lessons Learned’ summary with key takeaways.
The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men
The majority of the staff facilities toured were purchased and built as part of a deliberative
planning process, but the ‘ultimate’ project was frequently not Plan A or Plan B. Rather, the
facilities responded to and reflected the political, economic, and real estate environment at the
time a decision had to be made. Purchasing or constructing buildings was recognized to be an
expensive proposition by the agencies we met, and as public agencies, they share a sensitivity to
public perception of large amounts of money spent on staff facilities. This sentiment led initially
to a thoughtful analysis of ideals, costs, programming, etc. Most project managers and planners
recognized that the planning process can delay decision making, create ‘analysis paralysis’, and
is sometimes set aside at the time of decision making.
Lesson 1: This lesson suggests a right-sized planning effort that is thorough (but not
unnecessarily exhaustive), agile and responsive to the authorizing environment, and is
transparent about the inherent uncertainties and costs that come with the real estate
market.
The Stars Won’t Align
Real estate prices and the costs of business generally trend upward over time and suggest staff
facilities would be a lot cheaper if built during a recession. Both revenues and the political
environment rise and fall with the economy and make significant capital expenses and
commitments very challenging during recessions. The years of planning, design, and permitting
leading up to these types of facilities projects means the ultimate go/no-go decision may occur in
a different economic and political environment than when the project began. Some projects
ended up involving negotiations within upper management or leadership over what was and was
not included in a project even while it was under construction.
Lesson 2: Long-term plans must accommodate some political and economic
uncertainty. Conservative budgeting and cost-escalation assumptions support realistic
understanding of project costs. This lesson also suggests that early identification of
Attachment 3
2
elements that the organization must, should, or could have in the project is important
when unexpected budget cuts necessitate altering the project’s scope. It also suggests
modular designs and phased build-outs should be considered.
All Facilities Are Not Alike
Across organizations, a ‘make-do’ attitude was found, particularly in field operations staff where
it was seen in their makeshift, repurposed facilities. Whether these organizations underestimated
the needs of field staff or organizational growth in the general, a pattern of over-use was evident
with ‘make-do’ facilities. This approach minimizes short-term costs, avoids scrutiny, and focuses
project staff on other capital projects. Which facilities are upgraded and when was often a
complex decision involving many internal and external stakeholders. Few of the tours gave a
holistic view of what makes an inadequate facility or what standards might be used to make that
determination. Sometimes different facilities within an organization reflected the different
cultures of those departments/divisions and could serve to unite or divide the organizational
culture.
Lesson 3: Recognizing the unique space and facility needs of staff, particularly in the
field, can help unify organizational culture across geographies. Organization-wide
evaluation and planning for staff facilities is important, even if not all problems can be
addressed in the short-term.
Every Office is an Emergency Operations Center
Every government employee is a disaster service worker and large meeting spaces often serve as
emergency operations centers. Facilities in rural areas may often be the only such facility and can
serve as important meeting space in general. This requires additional IT and infrastructure
improvements.
Lesson 4: Incorporate Emergency Operations Center requirements into our facility
planning and meeting room design, especially in remote field offices. Design separated
access for off-hours use by the public.
Deploy Groups and Functions in Satellite Offices, Not Individuals
New properties often challenge existing deployment models and geographies. Our partner
agencies employed different organizational models to address the challenges of decentrailized
administrative and field support functions between a central office and the broad landscapes that
they manage. Our partners found that remote outposts and satellite field offices do not work well
when staff are not supported by a supervisor. The supervision, mentorship, and integration with
the main offices can be lost without the right local leadership. Police and ranger staff appear to
be the most suitable job for satellite deployment while the specialized equipment and spaces
required by maintenance can be a challenge to deploy remotely. Routine and on-going
maintenance (trash, mowing, bathrooms, etc.) can be decentralized. Supervisory and
administrative staff can work effectively in satellite offices if they serve a business need in that
geography (i.e. are not specialists serving the whole geography; most main offices are
geographically centralized).
Lesson 5: Use satellite deployments if the location requires multiple staff and a
supervisor, particularly patrol staff. Satellite offices need to serve a geographic purpose
to function effectively.
Attachment 3
3
Visitor Centers Mirror the Organization
The mission to serve the public was often reflected in visitor centers that are generally higher
quality, more inviting, and more sustainably designed than staff facilities. Visitor centers often
educate the public about the natural and built environment. Some offer meeting spaces that can
be reserved and used by other agencies for regional meetings or trainings. Well-designed
facilities that also incorporated staff offices provided separate public interface experience from
the business functions of the organizations.
Lesson 6: Public-facing facilities provide an opportunity to present sustainable design
concepts to the public, build institutional knowledge about these concepts, and provide
better-than-average staff facilities. They can also provide much needed regional
training and meeting space for other organizations to use.
Park Buildings Attract Families
Visitor centers often have a welcome area with park brochures, maps and exhibits. In addition,
they provide a retail function that sell miscellaneous items like sunscreen, beverages, nature
guides, keepsakes, and even toys. These visitor centers are often staffed by volunteer
organizations (“Friends of” groups), are used to raise funds for local stewardship efforts, and
generally attract families. These built environments often serve as the gateway to the regional
open space and surrounding natural environments for first-time visitors and families. These
buildings provide welcoming information and familiar amenities (e.g. public restrooms, water
fountains, etc.) to acquaint visitors with what to do after they get out of their vehicle.
Lesson 7: Understanding the current and future demographics of visitors can help
planners and decision-makers evaluate the function, costs and benefits of visitor
centers.
Every Job Classification Needs a Different Space
Large institutions like the University of California school system have guidelines about what job
classifications require in terms of work space (large office, medium office, cubicle, etc.). Our site
tours highlighted how small to medium size organizations tend not to conduct proper space
planning and make do with existing buildings as their office needs grow. Like us, space
remodeling for our partner agencies is often triggered by staff growth and generally shared
recognition that private offices are necessary for management staff. Partner agencies also
recognized that remodeling is highly disruptive and generally solicits a fair amount of
complaining from staff. It was clear from the tours that different types of jobs require different
space needs. Equipment, construction documents, large format printing, legal, personnel and
financial records all require special consideration in space planning.
Lesson 8: When designing a new facility, cluster jobs with similar work space
requirements near each other, especially for positions that collaborate. Understanding
how current work space requirements might change in the future will help with future
designs.
If You Build Storage, They Will Come and Fill It
Storage was an issue shared by most of our partner agencies in some way, whether they dealt
with uniforms, brochures, cleaning supplies or documents. On-site storage can provide for the
efficient use of resources (buying vs. renting supplies/equipment), but can also take the place of
highly valuable work space. The pre-digital era of office work required extensive paper storage.
The transition away from those practices challenges the IT infrastructure and work culture. A
Attachment 3
4
survey of staff asking whether they have ‘sufficient’ storage is likely to produce a wide array of
results.
Lesson 9: When designing a new building, define a process for what needs to be stored
and, if not, what the alternative solution is. Appoint a ‘storage czar’ to prevent essential
storage space from being misappropriated. Explore the additional engineering costs of
attic storage where feasible.
Attachment 3