Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150408 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 15-08 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, April 8, 2015 SPECIAL MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 AMENDED A G E N D A 5:00 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: Ashworth Property Purchase , Parcel Number: 075-340-240 (San Mateo County) Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Parties: Scott Hayes, Agent Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (California Code Section 54956.8) Real Property: Santa Clara County APN 558-27-007, 558-51-005, 558-27-008 Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Negotiating Parties: Tricia Suvari, Vice President, Land Transactions, Peninsula Open Space Trust (owner) Ngoc Nguyen, Engineering Unit Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) One matter: Regarding Public Access on Mount Umunhum. ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 15-08 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 SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Introduction of Bryan Apple, Planner I 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 Revised Minutes of the February 25, 2015 and Minutes of the March 25, 2015 Board Meeting 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Purchase of the Mount Umunhum Bridges (R-15-59) Staff Contact: Meredith Manning, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manger to enter into a contract with Contech Engineered Solutions for an amount not-to-exceed $53,620 to engineer, manufacture, store, and deliver three prefabricated trail bridges. In addition, authorize a contingency of $10,000 for design and engineering refinements, as required to adapt to field conditions, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $63,620. 4. Contract Amendment for Construction Administration Services related to the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project (R-15-60) Staff Contact: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Approve a contract amendment of $12,660 to the current Board-approved contract amount of $67,910 for Grossmann Design Group to complete full construction administration services for the Radar Tower Interim Repair Project, resulting in a new contract amount of $80,570. 2. Approve retaining the original contract contingency amount of $4,000, to be utilized only if unforeseen conditions arise during project implementation that require additional professional services, for a total not-to-exceed potential contract amount of $84,570. BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 5. Informational Presentation on San Mateo County’s Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative (R-15-48) Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Receive an informational presentation by San Mateo County Supervisor, Don Horsley on the San Mateo County Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative. 2. Refer the County’s Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to consider the District’s potential inclusion in the Pilot Program and forward a recommendation to the full Board. 6. Authorization to Purchase Vehicles and Equipment (R-15-62) Staff Contact: Michael Jurich, Support Services Program Administrator General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for four patrol vehicles, one administrative vehicle, and five maintenance vehicles, for a total cost not to exceed $505,000. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for one replacement chipper and tractor with mower attachment for a total cost not to exceed $280,000. 3. Authorize the General Manger to execute a purchase contract with Cascade Fire Equipment for two additional fire fighting pumpers for a total cost not to exceed $36,000. 7. Proposed Partnership for the Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (R-15-49) Staff Contact: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Approve the proposed phased partnership approach with Richard and Ann Crevelt (Crevelt) for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC). 2. Approve issuance of a one-year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to begin initial planning, site cleanup, and other preliminary work. 3. Approve ongoing discussions with Crevelt to further develop the terms and conditions for a future long-term partnership. 4. Approve deferral of the second proposal for a nature center until the Public Access Plan for the Hawthorn Property is initiated. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Legislative Support Letters and Comment Letters 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 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, Maria Soria, Deputy District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the Special and Regular Meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on April 3, 2015, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. Agenda materials are also available on the District’s website at http://www.openspace.org. Signed April 3, 2015 at Los Altos, California. SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, April 8, 2015 SPECIAL MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 A G E N D A 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) One matter: Regarding Public Access on Mount Umunhum. 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (California Code Section 54956.8) Real Property: Santa Clara County APN 558-27-007, 558-51-005, 558-27-008 Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Negotiating Parties: Tricia Suvari, Vice President, Land Transactions, Peninsula Open Space Trust (owner) Ngoc Nguyen, Engineering Unit Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Ashworth Property Purchase , Parcel Number: 075-340-240 (San Mateo County) Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Parties: Scott Hayes, Agent Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 15-08 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 SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Introduction of Bryan Apple, Planner I 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 Revised Minutes of the February 25, 2015 and Minutes of the March 25, 2015 Board Meeting 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Purchase of the Mount Umunhum Bridges (R-15-59) Staff Contact: Meredith Manning, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manger to enter into a contract with Contech Engineered Solutions for an amount not-to-exceed $53,620 to engineer, manufacture, store, and deliver three prefabricated trail bridges. In addition, authorize a contingency of $10,000 for design and engineering refinements, as required to adapt to field conditions, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $63,620. 4. Contract Amendment for Construction Administration Services related to the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project (R-15-60) Staff Contact: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Approve a contract amendment of $12,660 to the current Board-approved contract amount of $67,910 for Grossmann Design Group to complete full construction administration services for the Radar Tower Interim Repair Project, resulting in a new contract amount of $80,570. 2. Approve retaining the original contract contingency amount of $4,000, to be utilized only if unforeseen conditions arise during project implementation that require additional professional services, for a total not-to-exceed potential contract amount of $84,570. BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 5. Informational Presentation on San Mateo County’s Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative (R-15-48) Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Receive an informational presentation by San Mateo County Supervisor, Don Horsley on the San Mateo County Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative. 2. Refer the County’s Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to consider the District’s potential inclusion in the Pilot Program and forward a recommendation to the full Board. 6. Authorization to Purchase Vehicles and Equipment (R-15-62) Staff Contact: Michael Jurich, Support Services Program Administrator General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for four patrol vehicles, one administrative vehicle, and five maintenance vehicles, for a total cost not to exceed $505,000. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for one replacement chipper and tractor with mower attachment for a total cost not to exceed $280,000. 3. Authorize the General Manger to execute a purchase contract with Cascade Fire Equipment for two additional fire fighting pumpers for a total cost not to exceed $36,000. 7. Proposed Partnership for the Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve (R-15-49) Staff Contact: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Approve the proposed phased partnership approach with Richard and Ann Crevelt (Crevelt) for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC). 2. Approve issuance of a one-year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to begin initial planning, site cleanup, and other preliminary work. 3. Approve ongoing discussions with Crevelt to further develop the terms and conditions for a future long-term partnership. 4. Approve deferral of the second proposal for a nature center until the Public Access Plan for the Hawthorn Property is initiated. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM  Legislative Support Letters and Comment Letters 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 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, Maria Soria, Deputy District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the Special and Regular Meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on April 3, 2015, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. Agenda materials are also available on the District’s website at http://www.openspace.org. Signed April 3, 2015 at Los Altos, California. February 25, 2015 Board Meeting 15-05 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, February 25, 2015 REVISED DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER President Siemens called the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors to order at 6:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Meredith Manning, Planner III Lisa Bankosh, Planner II Gretchen Laustsen, Supervising Ranger Mike Perez, Ranger Steve Gibbons, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, and Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith 1. Discussion Regarding Potential Donor Recognition for Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower Director Yoriko Kishimoto said that the Mt. Umunhum Conservancy had gone to staff to request a policy to allow some acknowledgement of donors, and asked for a general outline of the suggested framework. It is beneficial for the Conservancy to tell donors how they will be recognized. She reminded the Board members that the District has already agreed that they would wait for the Conservancy to raise half the amount before proceeding with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Director Kishimoto said she had asked staff to provide examples of what had done with other major donors, which was handed out Meeting 15-05 Page 2 recently, and to include the existing donor recognition policy in the packet. She suggested a motion which would convey the board’s willingness to include major donor recognition as a part of the MOU. Director Hanko said it was the charge of the Legislative, Financial and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) to the question of a policy change, and suggested that the matter be referred to that committee. Director Harris said that the current donor policy addresses significant supporters and founders, and it may not be appropriate to add another category for financial supporters. prior to the execution of a formal agreement between MidPen and the Mt Umunhum Conservancy. Director Siemens referred to the donor policy which was in the packet, and sections of that may be applicable. At 6:45 p.m. the public discussion was opened. Mr. Brandon Lewke said he was a volunteer for the District and at Mt. Umunhum. He said that there is already signage in open space areas, and donor recognition is given at a certain threshold. If the Conservancy fails to reach its 50% share, the question is moot, but he did not see why there would be opposition to the Conservancy having a policy for major donors once that was reached. He talked about his personal experience with a family donation to the Computer History Museum. Mr. Sam Drake, President of the Umunhum Conservancy, said it was important to tell major donors how they would be recognized, so he requested that the District agree that signage is appropriate, and give an approximation how many square inches would be allowed for signage. He said the Conservancy had also been asked about the opportunity for donors to purchase personalized bricks. Mr. Drake said they have been fundraising for several months already, and he hoped to have an answer from the District in the next six weeks, if possible. The Board members discussed whether the matter should be referred to the LFPAC for further study. General Manager Steve Abbors explained that this request had originally been brought to staff, but he stopped their work on it and asked Mr. Drake to make the request directly to the Board under Public Comment. He noted that if the issue is sent to the LFPAC, the discussion should be whether a major donor policy is the appropriate thing to do or not, and if it is, what should that policy be. Motion: Director Kishimoto offered a motion to refer to LFPAC (1) the request to consider a donor plaque and/or personalized bricks. Director Riffle seconded. Director Cyr was opposed because he felt it would address details before a general policy had been developed. Director Hassett said he would like to see the MOU in place first. Meeting 15-05 Page 3 The motion failed VOTE: 32-45-0 (Directors Kishimoto, and Hanko and Riffle voted aye, Directors Hassett, Cyr, Riffle, Siemens, and Harris voted no). Motion: Director Kishimoto moved to refer to LFPAC the possible revision of district- wide policy 5.01, Site Naming, Gift and Special Recognition regarding donor recognition. Director Hanko seconded. Directors Harris and Cyr commented on the amount of time this would take at committee and the impact on staff. General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner said that, absent any amendment to the current policy, the section of the policy which appears to apply to this request says “LFPAC shall be the committee designated to discuss all requests that meet the criteria in the policy for special recognition…and after deliberation shall decide which requests shall be referred to the full board for a vote.” She said that just referring the matter to the committee will let LFPAC do its normal job. She wanted the board to be aware that the current motion goes a little beyond that policy, because right now it’s at the discretion of LFPAC whether to send a referral to the full board. After further discussion, Director Siemens called for the vote. The motion failed. VOTE: 2-5-0 (Directors Kishimoto and Hanko voted aye, Directors Hassett, Cyr, Riffle, Siemens, and Harris voted no). Director Siemens reviewed the outcome of this discussion and staff is not directed to do any work, and it appears the Board would be willing to consider more details when the MOU is developed. In the meantime, the existing policy would be followed. General Counsel Schaffner clarified that this particular site is not an historic site, so the pertinent section of Policy 5.01 would be Section III, Special Recognition. II. ADJOURNMENT Director Siemens adjourned the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors at 7:20 p.m. Meeting 15-05 Page 4 REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER President Siemens called the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors to order at 7:20 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Controller Michael Foster, Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson, Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Planner II Gretchen Laustsen, Planner III Lisa Bankosh, and Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers were present. IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 V. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes of the February 11, 2015 Board Meeting Motion: Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith noted a grammatical correction to page 7 of the minutes. 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Contract Award for a Deck Safety Replacement of a Tenant Residence at 20000 Skyline Boulevard Located at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-15-27) Meeting 15-05 Page 5 Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with TKO Construction of Woodside, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $30,458, which includes the base bid amount of $27,689 and a 10% contingency amount of $2,769, to complete a Deck Safety Replacement Project at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. 4. Approval of Santa Clara County Funding Agreement to support the Purchase of the former Sargent Lysons Family Trust property as an Addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve located at 17251 Stevens Canyon Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number 351-16-020). (R-15-35) Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute a Funding Agreement with Santa Clara County for their contribution of half the purchase price of the former Sargent Lysons Family Trust property, or $740,000, in exchange for the conveyance of a Conservation Easement. 5. Revisions to Management Partners’ Professional Services Contract for a Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study and Master Agreement Authorization for On-going Implementation Assistance. (R-15-34) Staff Contact: Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to increase Management Partners’ Professional Services Contract for a Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study by $9,985 to a not-to- exceed amount of $128,675. 2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a separate master professional services agreement with Management Partners, of San Jose, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $125,000 to provide on-going implementation assistance through June 2016 related to organizational changes identified in the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, including the amendment to the minutes of October 21, 2014. VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 15-05 Page 6 VI. BOARD BUSINESS 6. Appointment of Jessica Lucas as Peace Officer (R-15-20) Operations Manager Michael Newburn introduced Ms. Jessica Lewis, the District’s newest ranger. He reviewed her qualifications, which included park ranger positions for other agencies. She attended the Santa Rosa Park Ranger Academy, and has met all the Penal Code requirements for a Peace Officer. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District appointing Jessica Lucas as a Peace Officer. VOTE: 7-0-0 Operations Manager Newburn administered the oath of office to Ms. Lucas, and Supervising Park Ranger Mike Perez pinned on her badge. 7. Consideration of the Controller’s Report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget (R-15-36) Controller Michael L. Foster presented his report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget. He said that the District was entering the year in very sound financial condition, with a total cash balance of about $35 million. He highlighted the General Fund, the Measure AA Capital Fund, and the Hawthorn Fund. He said that the General Fund is about what the District used to have, with an overall forecasted growth of 6.5% for FY2015-16. The General Fund operating budget is $21.2 million, and even if this district spent 95% of this budget, operational spending would be at 55% of tax revenue, which is consistent with the post- Measure AA long-term financial model. He said the budget includes 9 new employees next year and could accommodate an additional 25 employees in the following 2 years. This is affordable and sustainable even at lower tax growths. He reviewed a series of charts including the FY2015-16 Cash Budget, the MROSD 30-year Cash Flow Projection using a variety of tax growth percentages, and the MROSD Projected Measure AA Tax Rate. Mr. Foster said that Measure AA Capital budget includes $18.03 million of spending on projects, partially funded by grants, for net MAA-funded spending of $17.57 million. That includes $1.3 million for staff labor for project management and construction He said that the Hawthorn Endowment fund will end the year with a cash balance of $1.1 million even after spending $543,800 from this budget. Meeting 15-05 Page 7 Director Harris asked for an explanation of the Measure AA Grants and Gifts category, which sounded like funds from Measure AA were being used toward grants and gifts. Mr. Foster said that on land projects sometimes they record the full value of what they buy, even though a lesser amount was paid. The title means grants and gifts for Measure AA projects, and he estimated noted that his Financial Model assumes thatthose would be about 8% of the Measure AA capital expenditure budget would be derived from gifts and grants over the long term. Director Riffle asked why there was such a large jump in the non-Measure AA capital expenditures in FY2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. Mr. Foster said it has $20 million of additional staff facilities. Director Riffle said that the board was considering hiring a lot more people in the coming years, and this will create space for them. Director Kishimoto asked if there is anything in the financial forecast that was worrying him, such as a period of inflation. Mr. Foster said that if cost inflation was not reflected in assessed valuation growth, which is not very likely in real estate, that would be a problem because the $300 million would not be worth as much, but hopefully inflation and assessed value growth are related. Director Siemens asked if operating expenses included compensation increases. Controller Foster said he did make some assumptions based his long history with the District and on what he had heard board members and staff members say, and those are included in the budget. General Manager Steve Abbors said, with respect to the Controller’s financial model, decisions that the board makes today must pencil out 30 years from now, and that those decisions will be affected by assessed valuations. The Directors thanked Mr. Foster for an excellent report. The report was accepted by consensus and no action was taken. 8. Initial Review of the Proposed Action Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16 (R-15-33) General Manager Steve Abbors said the controller’s report was an important prelude to this budget discussion, and it is a good reminder that there is not a huge acceleration in what the District is proposing to do. Rather, there is a supplement of $10 million from Measure AA, and the District is building the organization in order to spend that over a long period of time at the rate the controller has indicated. He noted that some of the department heads capacities had changed so they could focus more on their core functions, and that the budget includes a 20% to 30% contingency rate to address uncertainties at this particular time. He thanked the staff for the tremendous amount of work it took to produce this budget under very difficult circumstances. Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson distributed copies of the slide presentation and highlighted a few items, including an explanation of how the projects were prioritized. She then highlighted the projects by program and funding source, and said that of the 156 projects, 46 of them were in public access and education. About 26% of the total projects are funded by Measure AA. Ms. Drayson highlighted the Administration and General Counsel budgets shown on pages 3-6 of Attachment I to the staff report, including project to replace IT and communications equipment, Meeting 15-05 Page 8 an upgrade to the Microsoft Office software, completing the document management system, and hiring a consultant to develop an IT strategic plan. Director Harris asked about the number of items in the budget column that carry a zero cost. Ms. Drayson explained that those items represent staff time. The only staff expenses identified here are those for Measure AA projects because of the reimbursement. Director Harris asked for an explanation of the phrase “building and testing an image” in the IT section, and the replacement of Fund Ware. Ms. Drayson said it is a technical term which references how each person’s computer profile is built. She said that Fund Ware replacement started two years ago, but the payroll section was delayed until now because of staff turnover. Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington highlighted the key projects in the action plan, including La Honda Creek grazing plan and the Highway 17 wildlife passage, including retaining an engineer to work on the conceptual design and feasibility study. Director Hassett asked about cost-sharing on the wildlife passage. Mr. Lenington said that Caltrans will assist with permitting and construction oversight, and possibly funding in a larger manner but that would delay the project. He said that that Santa Cruz only received a minor portion of the Caltrans grant they requested to their project has been delayed. Director Hanko asked if there has been community feedback on the wildlife passage. Mr. Lenington said that outreach will come later. He explained it would be an underpass for the animals, and people would go over. They originally looked at land bridges as done in Canada, but this area is not suited for a land bridge because of landslides, so instead they are looking for culverts as a solution. Director Harris said a lot of projects on page 7 of the attachment have to do with fencing and water systems, but is water going to be available for the tenants? Mr. Lenington said no, last year the properties ran out of water, and this year the tenants are being asked to stock the properties at a very low rate, anticipating that there may be water problems again. Mr. Lenington also highlighted the Prescribed Fire program development. Director Kishimoto asked why some of these items, including sudden oak death and prescribed fires, are priority 2. Mr. Lenington said these projects did not meet the priority 1 criteria set forth by the Administrative Services Manager. They will still get done, but may be delayed if the priority 1 projects fall behind. Director Hanko remarked about the salamander undercrossing, and said that Palo Alto had a similar problem with salamanders coming onto the road in the rain, and perhaps that city could offer some suggestions. Mr. Lenington said in this section of Alpine Road there are hundreds that are killed every year. Director Harris asked if they had talked to the Committee for Green Foothills and some other partner conservation groups about the Restoration Forestry Demonstration, because they were strongly opposed to the County doing something similar. Mr. Lenington said they had worked closely with the Committee for Green Foothills when developing the Forest Management policy, and the desire is to do a demonstration project to show what the District means when it talks Meeting 15-05 Page 9 about forest management and restoration. Director Siemens asked if the data was still available from the time when there was logging at Bear Creek, and he asked that Ms. Lennie Roberts be kept up to date on this project, since she had voiced a concern that the District would start to depend upon the money from logging, and she was active with many of the conservation groups. Mr. Lenington said he had the data from Bear Creek. Mr. Lenington highlighted the Watershed Protection programs at Corte Madera and La Honda Creek. Director Kishimoto noted that the wording in the scope of project for La Honda Creek Watershed protection should be changed from “design” of the road upgrade to “construction.” Operations Manager Michael Newburn highlighted the Stevens Canyon Trail Bridges project and the Seasonal Ranger Program. He explained that the ranger program will probably have two stages. The first ranger position would not be badged, and would help with public outreach, assisting with events, etc. The second ranger position would be badged, and would be recruited from the Santa Rosa Ranger Academy. Director Hanko asked that the board be notified when new events are happening, particularly in public access and education projects, so that the board members could attend. Mr. Newburn also highlighted the Preserve Entrance Signage Upgrades project, the AEDs for District Emergency Response Vehicles, District-wide Bridge Inventory, and District-wide Structures and Demolitions Inventory. Director Hassett asked if the Skyline Filed Office Safety and Maintenance budget will bring the road up to Cal Fire/County standards. Mr. Newburn explained that these are maintenance projects only, to repair potholes or crumbling roads, and will not be up to County standards. If the building were changed, the road improvement costs would be up to $1 million. Planning Manager Jane Mark gave an overview of her action plan, and said that of the 32 total projects, 15 are a continuation from the current action plan and budget, and the upcoming action project would have 11 new projects, and in total the department will be working on 22 public access and education projects. She that in order to expedite the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve plan and environmental review, they will be contracting for some planning assistance. She said the key projects in this action plan are the Radar Tower Interim Repair, Mt. Umunhum Trail Construction, the Summit Restoration Parking and Landing Zone Project, the Guadalupe Creek Overlook and Bridges Project, and the Mt. Umunhum Road Design, Permitting and Implementation. She also highlighted the Mindego Public Access, Mindego Hill Trail, Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve, La Honda Red Barn Parking Area and Trail Connections as well as the Sears Ranch Interim Parking and Trail Connections. Ms. Mark also provided some responses to questions asked of staff by Director Kishimoto. Regarding the La Honda Sears Ranch, the proposed scope includes the planning work for the Meeting 15-05 Page 10 future trail connections as well as minor grading and improvements such as wheel stops, gates, fencing and signage. Also the scope of work for the Mt. Umunhum road will include design, engineering, and permitting for approximately 5.5 miles of paved road improvements, including consulting services for geotech, civil engineering, biologists, hazardous materials, and traffic, as well as permitting fees and contingencies. Director Harris asked about costs for the Cooley Landing Interpretive Design and Implementation Ms. Mark said the City of East Palo Alto is still the lead on the Cooley Landing project, and they are finishing the interpretive center at the site, but the District will work only on its own lands. Director Harris asked for more information about Bear Creek Alma College Site Rehabilitation Plan. Ms. Mark said that an inventory and assessment of the structures on the college site has been done, but at some point the Board redirected the planning staff to refocus on Mr. Umunhum, which put the combined master plan for Sierra Azul and Bear Creek Redwoods on hold. The Board has not made a decision on the master plan alternative which was developed, but the plan is to bring the preserve plan to committee and to the Board. Ms. Mark clarified language on the Mt. Umunhum Overlook and Bridges to indicate that “helicopter” means delivery of construction materials by helicopter. Director Siemens referred to the Mindego Hill Trail and True Ranch demolishing project, and said that public documents should no longer include the True Ranch name, and should just be referred to the Mindego Ranch House. He also suggested that staff consider establishing design standards for wheel stops and square curbs so that cars can roll up against them without scraping. Director Kishimoto referred to page 25, the Trail Database for the District’s website, and suggested that the advanced volunteers be recruited for this project. Director Hassett asked about page 24, District-wide Longterm Facilities Plan. Ms. Mark said that at this time, the team is composed only of internal staff and no consultants have been hired. Director Siemens asked if there were any plans to develop a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Mateo County. Ms. Mark said that was considered as part of their core function, and it was also part of the Financial and Operational Stability Model (FOSM) recommendations for process delivery improvements. Discussions have been initiated with the San Mateo County Planning Director. Director Siemens said that perhaps it would be good to have a board member present at a future meeting to indicate their level of interest. Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis highlighted key projects in the Public Affairs category, including Measure AA ribbon cuttings and project tours, updating Measure AA information materials and signage in the preserves, an educational campaign about Restoration Forestry, a new annual report at the end of each fiscal year, and a more robust legislative program. Director Hanko asked about the possibility of a state parks commission bond measure. Ms. Lewis said that a bare bones measure was introduced yesterday, but so far no dollar amount has been specified. General Manager Steve Abbors said that the District needs to plan for a Park Bond in 2016, but also in 2018, which might be more likely, so it must be closely monitored. Meeting 15-05 Page 11 Director Harris asked for more information about the project tours. Ms. Lewis said that not all the details have been decided, but she expected that invitations would go out to elected officials and other interested parties, and the open house tours are for the public as well as invited guests. Real Property Manager Mike Williams highlighted the Lot Line Adjustment/Property Transfer of Purisima Uplands, the Event Center and Apple Orchard Purchase, Bear Creek Redwoods – Moody Woods Gulch, improving existing rights to the road on Mt. Umunhum, and Ravenswood Bay Trail, CEQA, Permits and Implementation. Director Hanko noted that this is the missing link to the entire Bay trail, and she asked if Menlo Park has agreed to be the lead agency. Mr. Williams said that Menlo Park is not interested, although they will share management responsibility of portions of the trail. East Palo Alto has grant funds, but not the staff to manage it. He said that there is a grant proposal for construction, and there is a Santa Clara County/Stanford grant for $400,000 to get permits, and there are a lot of other opportunities and partnerships. This work is all happening at the staff level and has not yet gone to Menlo Park city council. Director Kishimoto asked for more information about the Alpine Road Regional Trail Connection. Mr. Williams said that they were in preliminary talks with San Mateo County Parks and Public Works staff and hoped to set up a tour to look at culvert failure areas and other sedimentation problem areas, and then discuss how much of that cost the County would bear and how much of the trail would go on District land. Ultimately the County would have to abandon or quitclaim the land for public trail purposes. Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson reviewed the funding sources for the budget of $55.76 million, which is comprised of 2/3 from the General Fund, 32% from Measure AA, and 1% from grants. Operating expenses are about $21.2 million, which is 38% of the District budget. She said in prior years that was higher, so this reflects a shift of the resources to the Capital and Land programs. She noted that salaries and benefits increased by 15%, but when Measure AA reimbursable staff costs are removed it drops the increase to only 6%. She said the total Capital budget increased by 113% reflecting the influx of Measure AA funding and projects, and Land increased by 32% largely due to the Apple Orchard purchase. She said the total District budget increased by 27%. Ms. Drayson also highlighted the salary and benefits increase, staffing increases, retirement costs and the decrease in the CalPERS rate, increased costs for workers compensation, and she reviewed the costs for supplies, and additional staff positions. Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz highlighted new positions shown on the organizational chart in Section II, page 7 of the staff report. The four high-priority staff positions are the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services, the Engineering and Construction Manager, the Information Systems Manager, and the Special Projects Manager. She also discussed the Legislative and External Affairs Specialist, an additional GIS specialist and IT specialist position, and new Ranger and Supervising Ranger positions needed because of the opening of Mt. Umunhum and Bear Creek Redwoods. Director Kishimoto said she did not agree with adding another position for legislative activities, because there are already 6 people in the General Manager’s Office and 10 people in Public Meeting 15-05 Page 12 Affairs, and felt the public would be watching closely to make sure the District is watching its spending. Director Hanko said she felt it was time for the District to be paying close attention to all the bills that could affect the district or which could bring in grants. Director Cyr said that, given the extensive public affairs and outreach planned for next year, it would be easy to miss this important legislative connection. He felt this was a critical position. Ms. Ruiz added that without this new position the responsibility will fall to existing staff, and their review may not be as robust, or it would impact other projects. General Manager Abbors said that up to 2000 bills move through the legislature each year, and it is important to understand which ones may impact the District in order to address opportunities and threats. Sometimes action is required in a day or two, and current staff cannot respond that quickly. He said that there is a move to bring redevelopment back, which the cities want, and it’s important for the District to monitor that subject as well. Ms. Ruiz said that the position will also look for grant opportunities. Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson reviewed the summary of the FY2015-16 Five- year Capital Improvement Program, and said that years four and 5 are very rough estimates, and there are often permitting delays, so the General Manager is recommending that the District go back to a 3-year CIP Program. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved to delete the Legislative and External Affairs Specialist from the budget. The motion failed for lack of a second. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to direct staff to replace the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program with a Three-Year Capital Improvement Program. VOTE: 7-0-0 This was the first hearing on the budget, and the Final Action Plan and Budget will be presented for Board adoption at the March 25 meeting. VII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Riffle reported that the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee met on February 24 to review the Guadalupe Creek Overlook design guidelines and preliminary conceptual design, as well of the proposed closure of two trail segments Director Hanko reported that the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) met on February 19, and had an informational report from Mr. Ralph Heim of Public Policy Advocates. The members also discussed the future role and emphasis of the committee, and that discussion will continue at the March meeting, along with review of a short list of bills to watch. B. Staff Reports Controller Michael L. Foster reported that the decision was made to hire Sohail Bengali as[MS1] the Meeting 15-05 Page 13 District Financial Advisor for the initial sale of government obligation bonds. General Manager Steve Abbors said that he had been invited to the Palo Alto Fellowship Forum and spoke about Measure AA, and as a result he has two recruits for the bond oversight committee. He said today he also spoke about the measure to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, about Measure AA and the Open Space Authority spoke on Measure Q. Mr. Abbors said he had also been working with the Bay Area Open Space Council which is recruiting an executive director. Mr. Abbors presented a monogrammed gavel to former President Cecily Harris, as a acknowledgement of her service. C. Director Reports Director Hassett reported that he attended the Midpeninsula and Cooley Landing event at which Director Hanko did a great job with remarks, as well as the 75th Anniversary for the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, at which Director Harris did an excellent job representing the District. He and Director Harris noted they had both been asked to speak on a panel before the Coastside Democrats. Director Cyr said he attended both of those events. He said that he and Director Riffle planned to attend the Special Parks District Forum in Michigan in June. He said he would forward sign-up information on this event to all of the Board members. Director Kishimoto said she went on a Sempervirens walk to the Lagomarsino Redwoods. Director Hanko said she enjoyed the Cooley Landing event, which was very well attended, and she talked about the history of the Buffalo Soldiers. Director Riffle congratulated staff on their efforts for that event. Director Harris said she and some staff went to one of the Public Open Space Trust (POST) lectures and heard an interesting presentation about how livestock can stop desertification. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Director Siemens adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors at 10:18 p.m. ___________________________________ Kim Marie Smith, MMC Interim District Clerk SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, March 25, 2015 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Director Siemens called the Special Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Operations Manager Michael Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson, and Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith 1. Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study Final Recommendations (R-15-58) Mr. Andy Belknap, Christine Butterfield, and Nancy Hetrick with Management Partners, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation titled Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study Update. They highlighted the project’s milestones, the District’s changing environment, the fiscal model, the projected staffing profile, and recommendations as to how to implement the changes. Director Riffle expressed concern that there may be too much focus on getting more projects done, and more emphasis may be needed on how to relate to and connect with the public. General Manager Steve Abbors said that the Public Affairs Department has been brought up into the General Manager’s Office in the organizational structure to deal with that concern. Meeting 15-07 2 The speakers also discussed fiscal model stress testing, and Mr. Belknap said that even if some of the risk factors came to pass, the District would still have years to respond and change its approach. General Manager Abbors added that by 2045, all of the debt will be paid off, and there would be $10 million of debt service from the tax increment that would come back to the District unencumbered. Director Harris remarked upon the “significant pressure to deliver more projects” shown on slide 4, and asked whether the District was growing too fast. Ms. Hetrick said that Measure AA and its visioning process created new expectations in the community. Mr. Abbors added that this model shows what the District would be able to afford, but the Board will still conduct annual goal- setting sessions and can control the pace of growth internally. He said that some time pressure is created when tax-free bonds are issued, because for each segment of project funded there must be reasonable expectation that 85% will be completed in three years. He explained that breaking projects up into smaller segments/phases could control the pace of those projects. Ms. Hetrick compared charts showing the existing and proposed organizational structures. She highlighted the major changes and additional positions, the bulk of which would take place in Visitor and Field Services. Director Riffle said that as well as growing the organization, he felt the District should also focus on growing its employees. Ms. Hetrick responded that that one of the key principles of the model is to develop opportunities for professional development through rotating assignments, succession planning, etc. Director Riffle suggested that future versions of the report capture that commitment to professional development. Director Siemens referred to slide 4 and asked that the final report be reworded to clarify “heightened expectations for transparency” to show the District’s intent to continue outreach to constituents. The Board of Directors received the report, and no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT Director Siemens adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER Director Siemens called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Operations Manager Michael Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, 3 Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson, and Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Kishimoto moved and Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda, with the exception of item No. 8, which was postponed. VOTE: 7-0-0 Director Siemens read statements announcing the voluntary recusal of Board members, and said that in regard to all claims presented in the upcoming fiscal year, Director Hanko will recuse herself concerning payments to AT&T, PG&E, Verizon, and Caterpillar; Director Kishimoto will recuse herself concerning payments to Apple and Wells Fargo, and Director Harris will recuse herself concerning payments to AT&T and Apple. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes of the February 25, 2015 and March 11, 2015 Board Meetings Board members made the following corrections to the minutes of February 25: (1) Correct the vote summary on the top of page 3 to read VOTE: 3-4-0 (Directors Kishimoto, Hanko, and Riffle voting yes, and Directors Hassett, Cyr, Siemens and Harris voting no); and (2) Include comments from Director Harris about the donor policy which she had previously provided to the General Manager; Board members made the following corrections regarding the minutes of March 11: (1) Correct a typographical error in the title “Regular Meeting”; and (2) On page 5, item VI, correct the title of the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Written Communications Andrea Heitmann 4. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Claims List (R-15-45) Staff Contact: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Approve the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Claims List, including debt service payments. 2. Approve the exclusion of claims with a cumulative total of $25,000 or less from future Annual Claims Lists. 4 5. Contract Extension for Graphic Design Services for FY2015-16 (R-15-55) Staff Contact: Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to extend the contracts for graphic design services, one with Design Concepts and a second with Alexander Atkins, Inc., for an additional amount not-to-exceed $60,000 each. 6. Contract Extension for Mailing Services for FY2015-16 (R-15-56) Staff Contact: Peggy Koenig, Public Affairs Specialist General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract for mailing services with Craftsmen Printing for an additional amount not to exceed $38,000. 7. Contract Extension for Printing Services for FY2015-16 (R-15-57) Staff Contact: Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to extend a contract for printing services with Craftsmen Printing for an additional amount not to exceed $110,850. Motion: Kishimoto moved and Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the Consent Calendar, with the exception of the minutes of February 25, which will be reviewed at the next meeting, and with the corrections noted to the minutes of March 11. VOTE: 7-0-0 BOARD BUSINESS 8. Informational Presentation on San Mateo County’s Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative (R-15-48) Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Receive an informational presentation by San Mateo County Supervisor, Don Horsley on the San Mateo County Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative. 2. Refer the County’s Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to consider the District’s potential inclusion in the Pilot Program and forward a recommendation to the full Board. This item was postponed. 9a. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Action Plan and Budget (R-15-46) Staff Contact: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Action Plan and Budget Committee Recommendation: Adopt the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Fiscal Year 2015-16 Action Plan and Budget as proposed by the General Manager (Refer to Item 9b). Director Riffle spoke on behalf of the Action Plan and Budget Committee. He said the action plan and budget proposal is ambitious, and he read a section of the Action Plan and Budget Committee report that covered the key points. Director Hanko suggested that those remarks be 5 included in the minutes: “The ABC recommends having the General Manager reassess the Action Plan as the year progresses, and bring forward to the Board any recommended adjustments to align the Action Plan with organizational capacity. While project completion is important, equally important is implementing the FOSM recommendations so that the organization is optimally structured to effectively deliver Measure AA projects. In addition, the ABC also recommends a further streamlined Midyear Review that focuses more on providing a status update of the approved Action Plan and Budget rather than including many new projects and initiatives with associated budget adjustments.” Director Siemens said that it was also the Committee’s intent to reduce the amount of staff work necessary for the midyear budget, since project-by-project detail is not needed. 9b. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Action Plan and Budget (R-15-44) Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson said that the action plan contains 157 key projects, 41 of which are Measure AA projects. She said that changes as of the February 25 Board meeting include one new Priority 2 project in the General Manager’s Office and text edits to four Planning projects. Director Harris asked about the status of the Measure AA ad hoc committee. General Manager Steve Abbors said it may be time to dismantle that committee, and he would report back with more information. Board members asked questions of clarification on various sections of the proposed District Action Plan and received answers from staff members. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. There were no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Director Hassett moved to approve the General Manager’s recommendations. Director Hanko seconded the motion. The recommendations were as follows: 1. Adopt the Fiscal Year 2015-16 (FY2015-16) Action Plan, which includes numerous first tier high priority implementation projects as recommended by the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) Study to establish new and efficient business systems. 2. Adopt a Resolution approving the FY2015-16 Budget and Classification and Compensation Plan. 3. Approve nine new positions, including four positions that reflect the first tier, high priority organizational restructuring recommendations of the FOSM Study. VOTE: 7-0-0 A. Committee Reports Director Riffle reported that the Planning and Natural Resources Committee had two very constructive meetings at Bear Creek Stables on March 16 and 18. He and Director Cyr commented on the excellent feedback they received about the consultants on that project. Public Affairs Manager Shelley Lewis and Directors Hanko and Harris gave an update on the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee meeting, which included legislative activity, an overview of the Latino outreach program, recognition of community members, and Chambers of 6 Commerce memberships. B. Staff Reports Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson announced the hiring of a new Finance and Budget Analyst. Real Property Manager Mike Williams gave an update on a term interest sold to Tom Anderson. He said it was ultimately closed on a cash basis, and some additional protections were added so there can be no deeds of trust put on the property. General Manager Steve Abbors reported that he and members of staff went to Mt. Umunhum and other locations with Doug McConnell, and their conversations were filmed for a future episode of Mr. McConnell’s television show Open Road, which is slated to air on May 3. He also reported that (1) He attended the Bay Nature awards; (2) He recently spoke with former General Manager Herb Grench and updated him on the evolution of the district; (3) He has been in discussions with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and the Assistant County Executive about the Mt. Umunhum tower and how that issue may be addressed with the Historical Heritage Commission; and (4) Labor negotiations have begun. C. Director Reports Director Hassett reported that he attended the Coastside Democrats meeting as a panelist. Director Cyr reported that last week he hiked along the Baylands in Mountain View. Director Kishimoto reported that she went to the new parking lot off Alpine Road, and it was almost full. Director Hanko reported that she recently visited Yosemite National Park. Director Harris reported that she enjoyed the Bay Nature annual event; last week she went to the State of the City event in San Carlos; and this week she planned to attend the Berkeley conference on the Future of Parks. Director Siemens reported that he also attended the Bay Nature event. ADJOURNMENT Director Siemens adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:20 p.m. _____________________________ Kim Marie Smith Interim District Clerk CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 15‐08 DATE 04‐08‐2015 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check  Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 69069 11398 ‐ RIVERVIEW INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, LLC 2015 International WorkStar Dump Truck 04/01/2015 $160,128.15 69043 * 10215 ‐ CALPERS‐FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION Health Insurance Customer id 2857159579 04/01/2015 $126,025.16 69044 * 10845 ‐ CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW‐FINANCE Dispatch Services City of Mountain View 04/01/2015 $37,848.75 68992 * 10258 ‐ HUNT LIVING TRUST Semi annual note interest payment  ‐ 31 March 03/26/2015 $37,500.00 69080 10532 ‐ US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SFGS population monitoring ‐ RR 04/01/2015 $36,951.06 68989 11478 ‐ GEHRELS CUSTOM HOMES Garage wall replacement at 20300 Skyline Blvd ‐ RR 03/26/2015 $29,945.00 Remove & replace deck at 13130 Skyline Blvd ‐ PCR 69070 11479 ‐ ROOTID Website Development 04/01/2015 $22,235.00 68984 10540 ‐ CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Printing of Spring Open Space Views Newsletters 03/26/2015 $15,243.25 69029 * 11152 ‐ WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2/AO3 Rent ‐ April 03/26/2015 $14,089.00 68996 11462 ‐ MANAGEMENT PARTNERS Dev organiz bld out FOSM models & plan for final Board session 03/26/2015 $10,159.00 69051 11501 ‐ HARRIS DESIGN Completion of conceptual designs for Parking Safety Project ‐ FO 04/01/2015 $8,772.08 69064 * 10180 ‐ PG & E Electricity/gas 04/01/2015 $7,906.11 69076 * 10419 ‐ THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MPOSD‐BL‐490450 AD&D 04/01/2015 $4,925.65 MPOSD‐BL‐490450 LIFE MPOSD‐BL‐490450 LTD 68999 10073 ‐ NORMAL DATA Training Database Development ‐ OPS/Contact Database Maintenance 03/26/2015 $3,613.40 69015 11403 ‐ SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE/ACCOUNTING Ranger Academy Tuition ‐ OPS 03/26/2015 $3,124.00 68977 11490 ‐ AQUATEK PLUMBING, INC Boiler Maintenance ‐ AO 03/26/2015 $3,085.00 69049 11478 ‐ GEHRELS CUSTOM HOMES Bathroom repairs at 16060 # C Skyline Blvd ‐ ECM 04/01/2015 $3,000.00 Garage window repair at 16060 # A Skyline Blvd ‐ ECM 69062 10271 ‐ ORLANDI TRAILER INC Motorcycle Trailer for South Area Outpost 04/01/2015 $2,867.98 69007 11241 ‐ QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION Harkins Bridge Engineering ‐ PCR 03/26/2015 $2,662.76 69058 10135 ‐ MADCO Welding Supplies (SA‐MT UM) 04/01/2015 $2,375.10 69067 * 10211 ‐ PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES Legislative Advocacy Services 04/01/2015 $2,333.34 68974 11089 ‐ SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK RECORDER CEQA filing fee for Henrys Creek Long Term Management Plan 03/19/2015 $2,260.00 69050 10509 ‐ GEOCON CONSULTANTS INC Mindego corrals soil sampling & remediation plan ‐ RR 04/01/2015 $2,047.50 69010 10324 ‐ RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC Road & Trail Repairs‐MB 03/26/2015 $1,891.20 69075 * 10583 ‐ TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS District Telephone Service + SAO Internet 04/01/2015 $1,859.73 69037 10115 ‐ VINCE FONTANA Partial refund of rent due to drought restrictions 03/30/2015 $1,853.30 69032 * 10032 ‐ DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE March building maintenance services 03/30/2015 $1,815.00 69077 * 11003 ‐ UNITED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GLUG‐45Y5 Basic & Supplemental Life 04/01/2015 $1,609.53 69065 * 10212 ‐ PINNACLE TOWERS INC Tower rental ‐ Crown communication site id 871823 04/01/2015 $1,600.20 69018 * 10952 ‐ SONIC.NET, INC. AO Internet Service for 04/2015 03/26/2015 $1,573.63 69082 11388 ‐ WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights Consulting assistance 04/01/2015 $1,490.85 69002 10076 ‐ OFFICE TEAM Temporary Office Help ‐ GM 03/26/2015 $1,488.64 68983 11318 ‐ CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Mindego Gateway Planting & Landscape Maintenance Jan 2015 ‐ RR 03/26/2015 $1,434.00 68986 10871 ‐ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREA Trails Training ‐ CA State Parks 03/26/2015 $1,355.50 69039 10606 ‐ ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC Hendry's Creek Restoration CEQA IS/MND preparation ‐ SAC 04/01/2015 $1,319.50 69073 10447 ‐ SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Replace waste pipe at 21150 Skyline Blvd ‐ SR 04/01/2015 $1,305.60 69040 10011 ‐ BILL'S TOWING SERVICE Towing service ‐ P92/WT02 04/01/2015 $1,230.00 68975 10005 ‐ ACTERRA Plants for Bald Mt. Staging Area ‐ SAU 03/26/2015 $1,164.71 69028 11176 ‐ ZORO TOOLS Public Safety ‐ traffic flares ‐ SFO 03/26/2015 $1,164.59 68982 10014 ‐ CCOI GATE & FENCE Bald Mtn. Automatic Gate ‐ SAU 03/26/2015 $1,140.00 page 1 of 3 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 15‐08 DATE 04‐08‐2015 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check  Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 69027 11209 ‐ ZICH, JANET Vision Plan document proofreading 03/26/2015 $1,100.00 69081 * 10213 ‐ VISION SERVICE PLAN‐CA Vision Premium 00 106067 0010 04/01/2015 $1,071.66 69014 11493 ‐ SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL Event Advertising ‐ Public Affairs 03/26/2015 $1,000.00 69041 10840 ‐ CALIFORNIA PENSION GROUP, LLC Pension Consulting Services ‐ March 2015 04/01/2015 $1,000.00 69004 10249 ‐ PATERSON, LORO Park Rangers Assoc. of Calif.  Conference Expenses 03/26/2015 $875.53 69009 10176 ‐ RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Construction materials ‐SFO 03/26/2015 $846.64 68976 10120 ‐ ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC Security System ‐SFO 03/26/2015 $841.68 69000 11063 ‐ O'BRIEN, PAT Legislative Advocacy Services for February 03/26/2015 $750.00 69019 10231 ‐ STANTON, ELISA Expenses at FTO Training 03/26/2015 $653.56 69055 10259 ‐ LENINGTON, KIRK Mileage/Cell Phone Reimbursement 04/01/2015 $651.04 69047 10567 ‐ EXAMINETICS INC Annual hearing testing field staff (SAO) 04/01/2015 $637.50 68978 10289 ‐ CAL‐LINE EQUIPMENT INC M11 Vehicle Service / Repair 03/26/2015 $610.00 69012 * 10136 ‐ SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP) 03/26/2015 $569.75 69005 10355 ‐ POWERLAND EQUIPMENT INC Vehicle maintenance and repairs ‐SFO 03/26/2015 $568.28 69031 * 10029 ‐ CURT RIFFLE March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $500.00 69033 * 10050 ‐ JED CYR March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $500.00 69034 * 10057 ‐ LARRY HASSETT March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $500.00 69066 11335 ‐ PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC Lease for postage meter 04/01/2015 $465.69 69063 10209 ‐ PETTY CASH‐MROSD AO Petty cash reimbursement 04/01/2015 $438.42 68981 * 10454 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐949 Water Service (FFO) 03/26/2015 $384.56 69078 10403 ‐ UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Services (SA) 04/01/2015 $368.24 68979 11431 ‐ CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Woodrat bio‐surveys ‐ LR 03/26/2015 $359.65 69006 10261 ‐ PROTECTION ONE AO Alarm quarterly service 03/26/2015 $359.44 69083 10237 ‐ WILLIAMS, MICHAEL Mileage/Cell Phone Reimbursement 04/01/2015 $327.68 69011 10130 ‐ ROESSLER, CINDY Mileage/Cell Phone Reimbursement 03/26/2015 $313.96 69056 11198 ‐ LEWIS, SHELLY Mileage Reimbursement 04/01/2015 $307.05 68987 11311 ‐ EAST PALO ALTO CENTER FOR COMMUNITY MEDIA Event Newspaper Advertising 03/26/2015 $304.00 69030 * 10018 ‐ CECILY HARRIS March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $300.00 69035 * 10072 ‐ NONETTE HANKO March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $300.00 69013 11059 ‐ SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPT Water and tick testing for rental residences 03/26/2015 $295.00 69016 10447 ‐ SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Replace broken shower head at 5701 La Honda Rd ‐ LHC 03/26/2015 $257.48 69084 11504 ‐ REI Return of refundable event deposit 04/01/2015 $250.00 69048 10186 ‐ FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping charges 04/01/2015 $246.83 68991 10493 ‐ HSIEH, BENNY Cell Phone Reimbursement 03/26/2015 $240.00 69046 10867 ‐ CUZICK, ELAINA Cell Phone Reimbursement 04/01/2015 $240.00 69026 11360 ‐ YUNKER, CHRISTINA Cell Phone Reimbursement 03/26/2015 $220.00 69071 11503 ‐ RYAN, ELISH CA Council of Land Trust & AEP CEQA workshop travel expenses 04/01/2015 $219.54 69023 10403 ‐ UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Portable restrooms for Mindego SFGS Habitat Implementation ‐ RR 03/26/2015 $206.83 69036 * 10084 ‐ PETE SIEMENS March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $200.00 69038 * 10118 ‐ YORIKO KISHIMOTO March Director meetings 03/30/2015 $200.00 69060 11449 ‐ MARK, JANE American Planning Association Membership 04/01/2015 $200.00 69057 10189 ‐ LIFE ASSIST 1st Aid Supplies 04/01/2015 $197.83 69022 10146 ‐ TIRES ON THE GO Tires for trailer 03/26/2015 $191.28 68995 11392 ‐ LENNIHAN LAW Water Rights Legal Consulting assistance 03/26/2015 $190.80 page 2 of 3 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 15‐08 DATE 04‐08‐2015 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check  Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 69042 * 10454 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐949 AO Water 04/01/2015 $187.38 68994 10490 ‐ KOOPMANN, CLAYTON Rustici Rangeland Synopsium conference expenses 03/26/2015 $173.72 69054 10492 ‐ LAUSTSEN, GRETCHEN Local Business Meetings & Mileage Reimbursement 04/01/2015 $164.18 68980 * 10172 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐3525 Water service ‐WH/PCR/ECM 03/26/2015 $152.37 68988 10138 ‐ FITZSIMONS, RENEE NAI Sierra Pacific Spring Workshop 03/26/2015 $150.00 69045 10021 ‐ COASTAL CHIMNEY SWEEP Chimney sweep and inspection for 10688 Mora Drive ‐ RSA 04/01/2015 $150.00 69020 10414 ‐ STATCOMM INC Gate Repair (RSACP) 03/26/2015 $147.75 69059 10369 ‐ MANNING, MEREDITH Mileage & Cell Phone Reimbursement 04/01/2015 $146.80 69072 11042 ‐ SANTA CLARA COUNTY‐OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Live Scan Background Checks ‐ H.R. 04/01/2015 $115.00 69017 10383 ‐ SMUTNAK, GREG Park Rangers Assoc. of Calif. Conference expenses 03/26/2015 $104.02 69052 10043 ‐ HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP MROSD vs. Arcadis Legal Fees ‐ ECDM 04/01/2015 $101.05 69025 11037 ‐ US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services ‐ HR 03/26/2015 $94.00 68998 10144 ‐ MCKOWAN, PAUL Mileage Reimbursement 03/26/2015 $93.73 68993 11377 ‐ JOHNSON, KRISTIN EMT Certificate Renewal 03/26/2015 $87.00 69074 10157 ‐ STAPLES CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies 04/01/2015 $81.99 69003 10481 ‐ PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE Telephone ‐  Camp Pay Phone ‐MB 03/26/2015 $78.00 69061 10670 ‐ O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Auto Parts 04/01/2015 $67.73 69021 10960 ‐ STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL Water Treatment Cert. Renewal (SFO) 03/26/2015 $55.00 69068 * 11426 ‐ RIDGE WIRELESS INC. FFO Internet service 04/01/2015 $50.00 69079 10165 ‐ UPS Shipping charges 04/01/2015 $47.01 69053 10899 ‐ JAVELCO EQUIPMENT SERVICE, INC Equipment repairs: Gas Hammer 04/01/2015 $45.00 68990 10525 ‐ HCD Modular Trailer‐SFO 03/26/2015 $41.00 68985 * 11210 ‐ DATA SAFE AO Document Shredding 03/26/2015 $40.00 69008 10134 ‐ RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP) 03/26/2015 $26.25 69024 10165 ‐ UPS Shipping charges 03/26/2015 $21.93 69001 10670 ‐ O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Auto Parts 03/26/2015 $16.27 68997 11449 ‐ MARK, JANE Parking Fee 03/26/2015 $7.00 GRAND TOTAL $587,097.37 * 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                                                          AO = Administrative Office 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                                  PR = Picchetti Ranch                       SJH = St Joseph's Hill                        TW = Thornewood                                                        SAO = South Area Outpost RR/MIN = Russian Ridge ‐ Mindego Hill  page 3 of 3 R-15-59 Meeting 15-08 April 08, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Purchase of the Mount Umunhum Bridges GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manger to enter into a contract with Contech Engineered Solutions for an amount not-to-exceed $53,620 to engineer, manufacture, store, and deliver three prefabricated trail bridges. In addition, authorize a contingency of $10,000 for design and engineering refinements, as required to adapt to field conditions, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $63,620. SUMMARY The proposed contract with Contech Engineered Solutions includes the design, engineering, manufacture and delivery of three prefabricated weathered steel (i.e. Corten™) bridges to be installed at drainage crossings along the new Mount Umunhum Trail, which will be a key trail connection between the new Bald Mountain Staging Area and the Mount Umunhum summit. The Fiscal Year 2015-16 budget includes sufficient funds for the recommended bridge contract. MEASURE AA The Mount Umunhum Guadalupe Creek Overlook and Bridges Project would further the District’s Vision Plan Priority Action Items and Measure AA Projects. The Measure AA Project List, which was approved by the Board on October 29, 2014, includes Project 23-5 - Mt. Umunhum Guadalupe Creek Overlook and Bridges Planning & Design, which is part of Project Portfolio 23 - Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation. The bridge project furthers the goals of Project Portfolio 23 as it allows for public access to the summit of Mount Umunhum via the new Mount Umunhum Trail. DISCUSSION The new Mount Umunhum trail will require three bridges over watercourse crossings. The bridge lengths are between twenty feet and twenty-six feet. All construction, including the abutments and bridge foundations, will be well outside the wetted channel of the watercourse. District crews are currently building the trail, and will build the foundations and abutments for the prefabricated bridges. The bridges had originally been envisioned to be hand-built by District crews. However, the difficult logistics of bringing in construction materials to the remote bridge sites necessitated staff to consider utilizing helicopters to transport prefabricated R-15-42 Page 2 bridges as a safer and more expedient option. The prefabricated bridges would be constructed in weathered steel, which allows for a longer lifespan as compared to wood. Two of the bridges would be flown in complete, and set on foundations built by District crews. One of the bridges cannot be flown in complete due to existing tree cover. This bridge will be prefabricated as a kit-of-parts, flown in near the bridge site, and assembled by District crews. The District issued a Request for Quotes (RFQ) to three prefabricated bridge manufacturers and one local steel structures manufacturer. Three quotes were received. The scope of work includes design and engineering coordination, provision of signed stamped bridge drawings for permitting in Santa Clara County, as well as fabrication and delivery to Mount Umunhum. The quote from Excel was disqualified because the proposal included errors in the length and design for Bridges #1 and #2, which would impact the costs quoted for these bridges. Contech was deemed qualified and provided a fair and reasonable quote. Staff contacted the references for Contech and reviewed their proposal package to ensure they had fully complied with the RFQ requirements. FISCAL IMPACT The FY 2015-16 Action Plan includes sufficient funds ($213,000) as part of the Mount Umunhum Guadalupe Creek Overlook and Bridges Project to fund the recommended contract for the purchase and installation of the bridges. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The construction of the Mount Umunhum trail, which includes the installation of the three new bridges, is covered by the EIR that was prepared for the Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project and certified by the Board on June 12, 2012. CONTECH BIG R EXCEL Bridge #1 $16,490 $18,495 $14,500 Bridge #2 $20,410 $26,950 $17,000 Bridge #3 $16,720 $18,875 $20,000 Total $53,620 $64,320 $51,500 R-15-42 Page 3 NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager will direct staff to finalize negotiations with Contech and coordinate the design, engineering, and shop drawing submittal process. Staff will also coordinate between Contech and the bridge foundation design engineers, Tim Best and Steve Mayone, to ensure the foundations are designed to meet the structural requirements for the prefabricated bridges. Staff will submit the final bridge drawings and foundations design plans to the Santa Clara County for plan check review. Once drawings are approved, the bridges will take approximately eight weeks to manufacture and deliver to Mount Umunhum. The bridges will be staged at the summit and flown via helicopter down to the bridge sites along the Mount Umunhum trail. Attachment A: Photos of typical Contech pedestrian bridges Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Gina Coony, Planning Department Contact person: Meredith Manning, Planning Department ATTACHMENT A – Photos of typical Contech pedestrian bridges R-15-60 Meeting 15-08 April 08, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Contract Amendment for Construction Administration Services related to the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S) 1. Approve a contract amendment of $12,660 to the current Board-approved contract amount of $67,910 for Grossmann Design Group to complete full construction administration services for the Radar Tower Interim Repair Project, resulting in a new contract amount of $80,570. 2. Approve retaining the original contract contingency amount of $4,000, to be utilized only if unforeseen conditions arise during project implementation that require additional professional services, for a total not-to-exceed potential contract amount of $84,570. SUMMARY In May 2013, the Board awarded a contract to Grossmann Design Group (GDG) for $67,910 with a contingency of $4,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $71,910 (R-13-52). The original contract award included limited construction administration services, as the District project manager was expected to handle the majority of this work. With the imminent departure of the project manager, and current staffing commitments to Measure AA and Action Plan projects, it is essential to contract with GDG to complete full construction administration services for this project. The General Manager recommends contracting out the construction administration services with GDG to support District staff and expedite completion of the interim repairs. District staff will remain responsible for oversight of both the GDG and construction contracts, and will provide overall construction project coordination, schedule control, and approve contract amendments and change orders. Although a midyear budget adjustment will be necessary to account for the increase in contract amount, expenses should not to exceed the total project budget of $414,885. DISCUSSION GDG and their structural sub-consultant, Rutherford and Chekene (R&C), propose to perform comprehensive construction administration services in support of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Interim Repair Project (Project) on a time-and-materials basis estimated at $17,200. These services include:  Five (5) trips to the project site by GDG  Two (2) trips to the project site by R&C  Submittal review R-15-60 Page 2  Request for Information (RFI) and Change Proposal review  Project coordination and project management The current GDG contract balance is $4,540. Therefore, an amendment of $12,660 is required for GDG to complete comprehensive construction administration services ($17,200 - $4,540 = $12,660). In addition, the General Manager recommends retaining the original contract contingency amount of $4,000 in the event that unforeseen conditions during construction arise that require additional design and engineering services. FISCAL IMPACT Originally, construction work for the Project was anticipated to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014- 15 and continue into FY 2015-16. This schedule and allocation of expenditures is reflected in the budgets for both fiscal years. Given Board direction to reduce the scope and cost of the repair project, the construction contract was not awarded until late January 2015, resulting in scheduling delays. As a result, construction will not begin until late April 2015 and should be completed by June 2015. As such, most of the expenses will be incurred in FY2015-16. Therefore, a midyear adjustment will be required to account for this shift and to include the recommended contract amendment with GDG. Notwithstanding the delay and midyear adjustment, the additional $12,660 for construction administration services and the $4,000 contingency will not exceed the total project budget of $414,885. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE On June 12, 2012 (R-12-59), the Board approved the adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project, which included an environmental analysis of the radar tower interim repairs. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will issue a contract amendment with GDG for comprehensive construction administration services. Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Gina Coony, Open Space Planner III R-15-48 Meeting 15-08 April 8, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Informational Presentation on San Mateo County’s Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Receive an informational presentation by San Mateo County Supervisor, Don Horsley on the San Mateo County Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative. 2. Refer the County’s Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to consider the District’s potential inclusion in the Pilot Program and forward a recommendation to the full Board. SUMMARY As part of the Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative, San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley’s office and the Department of Housing have created the Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program (Pilot Program) to facilitate the rehabilitation/repair of farm labor housing and the replacement of dilapidated mobile home units. Supervisor Horsley’s office is interested in potentially partnering with the District as a public agency landowner on the San Mateo coast to improve farm labor housing located on open space preserves. The partnership includes funding from the County in the form of a no-interest forgivable loan. In turn, the District would agree to use the housing for low income agricultural workers and to hold rental payments at an agreed upon level for the duration of the loan. In addition to the District, Supervisor Horsley’s office has approached Peninsula Open Space Trust, and two coastal farmers are also participating in the Pilot Program. At its completion, the County will assess the Pilot Program to determine the feasibility of establishing a permanent program. DISCUSSION Availability of farm/ranch labor housing is essential to the long term viability of San Mateo County agricultural operations. The condition of much of the available farm/ranch housing is considered substandard by the County. This type of housing was originally built for seasonal, single, male, farm/ranch workers. Today’s agricultural workforce is far less transient. The coast’s growing season is extended due to nurseries that grow year-round and specialty crops, leading to year-round occupancy of available housing. Many farm/ranch workers are now bringing their families with them to establish residency, which increases use and general R-15-48 Page 2 overcrowding of facilities. Both of these new trends in occupancy have accelerated the overall physical decline of the County farm/ranch labor housing stock. Without significant leadership and an influx of funding, this situation will likely deteriorate and may prompt regulatory agencies to shut down housing for health and safety reasons, further reducing the housing stock and impacting the viability of local agricultural uses. In response to this key County-wide issue, Supervisor Horsley’s office has developed the Agricultural Workforce Housing Initiative, which includes a two-pronged approach to address farm/ranch worker housing. The first component of this Initiative is an Agricultural Workforce Needs Assessment (Assessment) that is primarily focused on new housing. The second component is the Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program (Pilot Program) that focuses on the rehabilitation/repair of existing housing. The overall goal of the Initiative is to expand housing opportunities for agricultural workers as well as preserve existing housing through replacement and/or rehabilitation of current substandard housing. Funding for this program will be provided by the County Department of Housing - Affordable Housing Fund and County Measure A funds. These funds will generally be provided to housing stock owners in the form of a no-interest forgivable loan. In turn, the owner would pledge to use the housing for low-income agricultural workers and hold rental payments at an agreed level for the duration of the loan. The commitments of the loan would be monitored by the County. The non-profit, Rebuilding Together, is assisting with the rehabilitation/repair of housing where needed under this Pilot Program. As the District is a public agency landholder on the San Mateo coast, Supervisor Horsley’s office approached the District to possibly partner in improving farm labor housing located on Coastside open space preserves. Toward this same effort, Supervisor Horsley is also working with Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) and two private farmers. In May of 2014, District staff, Supervisor Don Horsley, and Sarah Rosendahl toured the McDonald House near the Red Barn (La Honda Creek), the ranch worker house at Sears Ranch Road (La Honda Creek) and the in- law unit at October Farm (Purisima Creek) as representative examples of possible farm/ranch worker housing. The McDonald House was considered too dilapidated for rehabilitation whereas the October Farm in-law unit may qualify in the future. The ranch worker housing at Sears Ranch Road met many of the requirements for the County’s Pilot Program and may be worthy of Board consideration. The purpose of the informational presentation is to brief the Board on a potential partnership opportunity and potential inclusion in the County’s Pilot Program. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated from receiving this informational presentation. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item may be referred by the Board to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee for review and recommendation. R-15-48 Page 3 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA REVIEW No compliance is required as this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the General Manager will direct staff to work with the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to evaluate the District’s inclusion in the County’s Farmworker Housing Rehabilitation Pilot Program. Responsible Department Manager: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent Contact person: Same as above R-15-62 Meeting 15-08 April 8, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Purchase Vehicles and Equipment GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for four patrol vehicles, one administrative vehicle, and five maintenance vehicles, for a total cost not to exceed $505,000. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for one replacement chipper and tractor with mower attachment for a total cost not to exceed $280,000. 3. Authorize the General Manger to execute a purchase contract with Cascade Fire Equipment for two additional fire fighting pumpers for a total cost not to exceed $36,000. SUMMARY The Board-approved Fiscal Year 2015-16 (FY2015-16) Budget includes $821,000 for the purchase of the following capital equipment: replacement of four field vehicles, which have reached the end of their useful life; the addition of one Administrative Office vehicle, which will be assigned to the Operations Department Project Manager; the addition of two new patrol and three new maintenance trucks to accommodate staff growth and needs; a replacement chipper that will be assigned to the Foothills Field Office; and an additional tractor mower that will be assigned to the Skyline Field Office. The General Manager recommends purchase of these eleven pieces of capital equipment through the District’s existing contract with the State Department of General Services and associated contract dealers, in order to achieve cost savings and minimize staff time during the purchase process. DISCUSSION For FY2015-16, the District's five-year capital equipment schedule provides for two replacement and two new patrol vehicles, one new administrative vehicle, two replacement and three new maintenance trucks, one replacement chipper, and one new tractor with mower attachment. The District's ability to purchase vehicles through an existing contract with the California Department R-15-62 Page 2 of General Services (CA DGS) provides significant cost savings and greatly reduces the staff time that would otherwise be required if the District conducted its own bid process for vehicle and equipment purchases. If the required vehicles and equipment are not available thru CA DGS contracts, staff will attempt to purchase using contacts from other approved cooperative purchasing agreements. If no contracts are available that meet District needs, staff will return to the Board for authorization to solicit bids directly from the manufacturer. The two new patrol vehicles and two new maintenance vehicles will replace current District vehicles that have reached the end of their useful service life and will be sold at public auction. The new administration vehicle will be assigned to the Operations Project Manager for field work; the current vehicle’s mileage exceeds the District’s vehicle replacement guidelines. The two new patrol vehicles and three new maintenance vehicles are being added to the fleet to accommodate current and anticipated increases in field staff. The purchase of a new wood chipper for the Foothills Office will replace the current chipper, which is reaching the end of its useful life. Additionally, the current chipper does not meet the new minimum State of California Air Resources Board emission standards for diesel engines that go into effect in 2020. Replacing this equipment now will enable the District to purchase a cleaner emissions unit and select features that will improve staff efficiency and safety. The purchase of a medium size tractor with a side arm mower will enable staff to mow the narrower patrol roads more safely and efficiently. In addition, the new tractor will allow for the attachment of a three-point rear mower that can mow the center of roads and clear areas for emergency landing zones. The current large Kubota tractor with side arm mower is set-up for the wider patrol roads, firebreaks, and clearing brush along disc lines. The two new patrol vehicles to accommodate field staff growth will be outfitted with the standard District 125 gallon fire pumper with foam unit. These will be purchased from Cascade Fire using the GSA’s cooperative purchasing contract. FISCAL IMPACT The FY2015-16 Budget includes $821,000 for the purchase of the field vehicles and equipment outlined in this report. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The funding for these purchases was included in the FY15-16 Budget, which was reviewed by the Action Plan and Budget Committee on January 29, February 2, and February 5 of 2015. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. R-15-62 Page 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE No environmental review is required as the recommended action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the General Manager will direct staff to prepare purchase orders for the vehicles and equipment utilizing the State of California Department of General Services contracts or other approved cooperative procurement contracts. Responsible Department Head: Michael Newburn, Operations Manager Prepared by: Michael Jurich, Support Services Program Administrator Contact person: Michael Jurich, Support Services Program Administrator R-15-49 Meeting 15-08 April 08, 2015 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Proposed Partnership for the Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S) 1. Approve the proposed phased partnership approach with Richard and Ann Crevelt (Crevelt) for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC). 2. Approve issuance of a one-year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to begin initial planning, site cleanup, and other preliminary work. 3. Approve ongoing discussions with Crevelt to further develop the terms and conditions for a future long-term partnership. 4. Approve deferral of the second proposal for a nature center until the Public Access Plan for the Hawthorn Property is initiated. SUMMARY On February 18, 2014, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) confirmed the issuance of a Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) to solicit proposals for a potential partnership to rehabilitate and maintain the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC). On April 3, 2014, an RLOI was released and on June 20, 2014, four proposals were received. One proposal was deemed nonresponsive and removed from further consideration. Interviews were conducted with the remaining three proposers. Following the interviews, one proposer withdrew. Of the two remaining, the proposal from Richard and Ann Crevelt for reuse of the site as a private residence was deemed to best meet the goals of the RLOI and the HHC partnership project, the requirements of the conservation easement that affects the entire HHC, and the overall intent of the Woods Family for transferring the property to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). Although the second proposal by the Friends of Historic Hawthorns Ranch (Friends Group) for a nature center is not recommended for the HHC partnership, this proposal does merit further consideration as part of the overall Public Access Plan that will be prepared for the Hawthorn Property in the future. These findings and recommendations were reviewed and confirmed by the PNR on March 10, 2015. R-15-49 Page 2 BACKGROUND On April 3, 2014, a RLOI was released with the goal of identifying potential partners who would propose to rehabilitate and maintain the historic structures at the site with minimal cost to the District. This approach is consistent with District policy 4.02 addressing improvements on District lands that hold historic value: Paragraph C. (3) except: “When the District considers acquisition of a site which includes a structure or structures which are listed on the National Register for Historic Places or are clearly eligible for inclusion on that register, the District has a special responsibility to seek some means to protect these structures. An important consideration in the decision to retain such structures will be the availability of special funding programs or resources from other public agencies, private organizations or individuals for the costs of their restoration, maintenance and operation.” In addition to meeting District goals for the partnership project, a viable partnership proposal must also meet the conditions of the conservation easement that underlies the Hawthorn Property and HHC. This conservation easement was prepared by the Woods, the Grantor of the property, in 2005. Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) is the grantee and is responsible for ensuring that all future development on the property is aligned with the conditions of the easement. The conservation easement is extremely conservative, reflecting the Woods’ desires to have the property maintained in its original and natural condition. For example, no new structures are allowed unless these replace an existing structure or unless these are specifically associated with public access requirements. No commercial activities, including commercial agriculture, can be conducted onsite. No new roads or parking are allowed except as needed to allow for public access to trails and to meet District operational and maintenance requirements. Therefore, the potential uses that can take place at the HHC are restricted to residential use, or a use that is complimentary with public access and public education. On June 20, 2014, four proposals were received in response to the RLOI (Attachment A). A proposal from Portola Valley Scouting was deemed to be non-responsive, as the proposal did not include an intention to steward the structures, and was therefore eliminated from further consideration. Nonetheless, the Scouting group has been added to the public notification list for any future public access planning work at the Hawthorn Property. Following review of the proposals, interviews were conducted with the three responsive proposers (please refer to Attachment B for a summary of the findings from the interviews). Subsequent to the interviews, Jasper Ridge Farms informed the District that they were withdrawing their proposal because they felt they could not meet their program requirements without demolishing the lower barn. The RLOI specifically indicated that the lower barn is one of the four key structures contributing to the historic fabric of the Hawthorn Historic Complex. It is also considered to be one of the oldest structures in Portola Valley. Therefore, the proposal to demolish the lower barn was not aligned with the RLOI and would likely not obtain approval from the Town of Portola Valley. The District therefore has two remaining active proposals for consideration: Crevelt and the Friends Group. R-15-49 Page 3 DISCUSSION Recommend Crevelt Proposal for the HHC Partnership Project Based on a full analysis of each remaining proposal, including the revised Friends Group proposal (refer to Attachment B), the General Manager recommends pursuing a potential HHC partnership with Crevelt. The Crevelt proposal best aligns with the underlying zoning requirements for the property, the constraints of the existing underlying conservation easement (refer to Attachment C), the goals of the RLOI and the HHC partnership project, and the overall intent of the Woods Family for transferring the property to the District. Recommend Forwarding Friends Group Proposal for Inclusion in the Public Access Plan The revised proposal from the Friends Group for a 500 square foot nature center may require an amendment to the conservation easement and submittal of an application for either re-zoning or a special use permit from the Town of Portola Valley. This proposal is also not consistent with the intention of the Woods Family gift or the historic use of the site, and is not well aligned with the goals of the RLOI. Nonetheless, the concept of a nature center at the Hawthorn Property may be considered well aligned with the overall goals of the District for the larger property, versus the HHC. For this reason, the General Manager recommends forwarding the Friends Group nature center proposal for inclusion and further consideration as part of the Public Access Plan that will be developed for the Hawthorn Property. This Public Access Plan is envisioned to be initiated within the next 5 years. Recommended Phased Partnership Approach with Crevelt The General Manager recommends a phased partnership approach given that the viability of the Crevelt Proposal is dependent on a number of yet outstanding factors. As part of this phased approach, the District would first issue a one (1) year HHC access permit (permit-to-enter) to Crevelt to allow for initial planning and design work to commence, as well as onsite cleanup and additional stabilization prior to the actual rehabilitation of the structures and future reuse of the site. The HHC access permit may include a “Letter of Agreement” that further details the agreed upon responsibilities referenced below to avoid misunderstandings regarding Crevelt’s responsibility for fundraising and disclaim any District responsibility for accounting, fundraising, use of non-profit funds, or obligations to any donors pledging funds to the non-profit. Benefits of initiating the partnership with a one-year permit-to-enter include: a) partner ability to address immediate project needs; b) long-term partnership terms and conditions can simultaneously be more fully developed, and c) deterioration of the structures will be arrested. Crevelt Responsibility During the first phase of the phased partnership approach, Crevelt would be responsible for the following:  Secure non-profit status; legal paperwork for this non-profit has already commenced; however, the entire process can take 12-18 months to complete.  Successfully develop and implement a fundraising plan.  Raise adequate funds to complete initial work on site (currently estimated to be approximately $2.01 million).  Secure “pro-bono” services for design, engineering, and interior furnishings.  Coordinate with District staff and volunteers to conduct volunteer projects for site clean- up and broom removal. R-15-49 Page 4  Work with the District and Town of Portola Valley to confirm permitting requirements and discuss the potential to reduce and/or waive permitting fees.  Work with POST to discuss conformance with the conservation easement, including the allowance of future fundraising events to occur at the site. Once the non-profit is established and assuming clearance from POST, Crevelt would work with their extensive community contacts to conduct fundraising events. As funds are raised, Crevelt would a) finalize their negotiations for a lease with the District; b) work with architects and engineers to complete the design documents; c) obtain required permits, and d) begin rehabilitation at the site, starting with the Garage and then completing the work at the House. Ultimately, their goal would be to raise sufficient additional funds for future rehabilitation of the Barn and the Cottage (refer to Site Plan, Attachment D). District Responsibility In order to facilitate a phased partnership with Crevelt, the District would be responsible for the following:  Review and approve minimal, near-term stabilization work as required to deter any continued deterioration.  Participate in meetings with the Town of Portola Valley to review permitting and development requirements.  Coordinate with District volunteers and other community volunteers to organize and lead volunteer restoration and cleanup events at the site.  Participate in discussions with POST to monitor and confirm ongoing compliance with the conservation easement. Future Actions (refer to Partnership Development Timeline, Attachment E) If the Board approves the phased partnership approach, a permit-to-enter would be issued for one (1) year. After one year, staff will return to the PNR with either: a) proposed terms and conditions for a long term lease; or b) proposal to extend the permit for up to one additional year. After two years, if a partnership between the District and Crevelt has not been successfully negotiated and no alternate partner is identified, the District would evaluate the options for completing long-term stabilization or mothballing of the structures. FISCAL IMPACT The HHC Partnership Project is a Priority 1 project on the Planning Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 Action Plan. If rehabilitation of these structures is not implemented as soon as possible, deterioration will accelerate. The HHC Partnership Project scope for FY2015-16 includes partnership development activities and minor near-term stabilization measures with a corresponding budget of $343,000, which includes a placeholder amount of $293,000 should the potential partnership with Crevelt be unsuccessful and additional long-term stabilization or mothballing measures deemed necessary. The larger Hawthorn budget also includes $200,800 for improvements to the Alpine Road House to prepare the house for lease or use as a ranger residence. All costs are to be funded by the Hawthorn endowment. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW On March 10, 2015, the PNR confirmed the General Manager’s recommendations for a phased approach to partner selection, issuance of a permit-to-enter to Richard and Ann Crevelt, and R-15-49 Page 5 deferral of the nature center proposal to be considered as a part of the future Hawthorn Property Public Access project. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Interested parties and neighbors within 300 feet of the property have also been notified. CEQA COMPLIANCE The proposed actions do not constitute a physical change to the environment, and are therefore not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any future proposal to make improvements or repairs to the structures would be subject to CEQA review prior to implementation. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board, the District would negotiate and enter into an initial partnership with Richard and Ann Crevelt for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex and issue a one (1) year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to allow initial site planning and cleanup/stabilization actions to begin. In addition, the District would inform the Friends Group that their proposal is recommended to be evaluated as a part of the future Public Access Plan for the Hawthorn Property. Attachment(s) A. List of Proposals Received in Response to the Request for Letters of Intent B. Summary of HHC Partnership Proposal Interviews C. Hawthorn Property Conservation Easement D. Hawthorn Property Site Plan E. Partnership Development Timeline Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Gina Coony, Planner III R-15-38, ATTACHMENT A Planning & Natural Resources Committee R-15-38, AttachmentA Page 1 of 1 List of Proposals Received in Response to the Request for Letters of Intent A. Jasper Ridge Farms  Scope: Existing non-profit “light commercial” type use; replace or reconstruct the Barn for lodging of therapy animals and use an auxiliary building for an office;  Project Cost: $400K; already raised $300K.  Schedule: Had architect and contractor on board; requirements considered to be simple and straightforward. B. Richard & Ann Crevelt (Crevelt)  Scope: Private residential; creation of a non-profit for Crevelt to obtain private donations to complete initial rehabilitation of the House & Garage; remaining site (Barn & Cottage) would be funded and rehabilitated over time. Crevelt family would live on site and provide basic maintenance of the facility.  Project Cost: $2,010,000. Cost assumes substantial amount of volunteer and pro- bono work to complete design, construction management, site cleanup.  Schedule: Phased approach; approximately three (3) years to complete first portion of work (Garage & House) C. Friends of Historic Hawthorns Ranch (Friends Group)  Scope: Museum Complex; rehabilitation of entire site, including higher intensity uses such as a nature center (within a converted garage) and a history museum (within the restored house).  Project Cost: 8.5M; no current funds in hand.  Schedule: 3 years for design, permitting and construction; very aggressive implementation schedule raises feasibility concerns (e.g. 3 months for design, 2 months for permitting). D. Portola Valley Scouting  Scope: General scouting use; no proposal to rehabilitate or steward structures  Project Cost: None provided  Schedule: None provided . ### R-15-38, ATTACHMENT B Planning & Natural Resources Committee R-15-38, AttachmentB Page 1 of 2 Summary of HHC Partnership Proposal Interviews A. Jasper Ridge Farms (JRF):  Proposal stated intent to “reconstruct or rebuild” the Barn. In the interview, JRF clarified that their plan was to tear down the Barn and build a new barn in its place.  JRF was informed that the Barn was among the oldest surviving structures in Portola Valley, and that demolishing a structure that contributed to the historic complex was infeasible; they would therefore need to build within the interior of the old Barn and/or within the footprint of adjacent structures.  JRF would require additional infrastructure (e.g. electrical, parking) that might not be compatible with the conservation easement.  The proposed use is likely not in conformance with the Town’s underlying zoning, but due to low intensity use, may be granted via a conditional use permit.  Proposed use would be in conformance with the historic use of the site. Woods family had many animals and took in many “retired” animals. B. Crevelt:  Richard Crevelt is a General Contractor with extensive experience in building and maintaining estate properties.  Proposal is to establish non-profit and fundraise to complete rehabilitation of the structures.  Non-profit would fund all rehabilitation work.  Crevelt proposes to first refurbish the Garage, then use it to store materials from the House that have to be removed to complete the rehabilitation of the House. Once the House is complete, Crevelt family (Richard, wife, and two children) would move into and inhabit the House. They would then fundraise to complete rehabilitation of the Barn and the Cottage.  At a conceptual level, the Crevelt proposal appears to comply with the conservation easement, however, there may be proposed work (like installing sewer lateral) that may require an amendment to the conservation easement.  Proposal relies heavily upon donated services and volunteer activities.  Crevelt proposal requested lease terms similar to Fremont Older house.  Crevelt indicated being amenable to ”sharing” use of the larger HHC site with other partners as long as other uses does not impact his family’s privacy.  Crevelt proposal agrees to allow public tours, per RLOI conditions, minimum two per year. C. Friends of Historic Hawthorns Ranch (Friends group):  The Friends group was informed that their $8.5 M proposal for an expansive museum complex did not comply with the Town’s underlying zoning or with major provisions of the conservation easement.  The Friends group was asked to re-evaluate their proposal, and issue a letter revising their proposal to better align with the conservation easement and the underlying zoning.  On October 02, 2014, the Friends Group submitted a letter with a revised proposal to limit development to a nature center onsite. The revised proposal is for a smaller (approximately 500 SF) nature center to be located in place of the upper barn near Los Trancos Road.  On December 8, 2014, staff met with the Friends Group to discuss their alternate proposal.  On January 20, 2015 the Friends Group issued a more detailed description of their October revised proposal letter, as requested by District staff. . ### 2005-063400 CONF 01:42pm 04!19/05 CVE Fee: 55,00 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Peninsula Open Space Trust 3000 Sand Hill Road, 1-155 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attention: President Count of pages 17 Recorded in Official Records County of San Mateo Warren Slocum Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder 111111 111111 111111 1111 111 111 11 GRANT DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (Woods Portola Valley Property) THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT is granted this t i day of April, 2005 ("Effective Date"), by Frederick N. Woods, ,III, as Trustee under that certain trust agreement dated June 14, 2002 ("Grantor"), to the Peninsula Open Space Trust, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("Grantee"), RECITALS A, Grantor is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located within the Town of Portola Valley, County of San Mateo, State of California, commonly known as 4411 Alpine Road and 800 Los Trancos Road, and consisting of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 079-080-050, 079-080-080 and 079-080-090 (hereafter "Real Property"), The Real Property is comprised of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, as described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B. (Exhibit A and Exhibit B are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.) B. The Real Property is approximately 78.71 acres and contains limited improvements; a substantial majority of the Real Property is in a natural and undisturbed state. The portion of the Real Property that contains the substantial majority of the limited improvements is listed and described as Parcel 1 in Exhibit A and shown and labeled as Parcel 1 in Exhibit B ("Improved Portion"); the Improved Portion is approximately 42.07 acres. The portion of the Real Property that contains only very limited improvements is listed and described as Parcel 2 in Exhibit A and shown and labeled as Parcel 2 in Exhibit B ("Unimproved Portion"); the Unimproved Portion is approximately 36.64 acres. C. Grantor desires to preserve the Real Property, in perpetuity, in its present mostly natural and undisturbed state and thereby preserve the natural, scenic, historical and open space values of the Real Property, Accordingly, Grantor desires to grant to Grantee a conservation easement over the Real Property. The prohibited and permitted uses set forth below in more detail for the Improved Portion differ slightly from those of the Unimproved Portion, recognizing that the Improved Portion contains some improvements that presently are occupied and used, D. The Real Property contains important natural conservation values in that the Real Property contains a ridge top of open grassland and native oak woodland, and affords spectacular views of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, Lower areas of the Real Property are forested with oaks, California buckeye and California bay laurel. 1-SF/72039'75 12 1, CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY E. The Real Property contains the potential for important recreational conservation values in that portions of the Real Property are highly visible from heavily used trails in both Portola Valley Ranch and Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. The Real Property also is visible from Alpine Road and various points in the Town of Portola Valley. The Real Property also contains a potential connection between two existing trails: the Hillbrook trail to the northwest and the Deer Path trail to the southeast. In addition, a spur off of the existing Sweet Springs trail may afford views from the top of the ridge, F. The Real Property contains potential historic conservation values in that the Real Property contains several structures or areas of possible historic value, A large unoccupied house, apparently was constructed in the late 1800s and may be a Town of Portola Valley designated historic structure. In addition, remnant olive orchards, several barns and a concrete silo located on the Real Property may provide historic values. The Real Property also has been the subject of some attempt to document its history, as reflected in the section regarding "The Hawthornes" — the historical name of the property -- in the book "Life on the San Andreas Fault" (page 172) by Nancy Lund and Pamela Gullard. G. The Real Property appears to contain important habitat and riparian protection values in that the Real Property appears to support a wide variety of plant and animal life including habitat for species such as the federally endangered Bell's vireo and the federally threatened California red legged frog. There may also be habitat for a number of federal and state species of concern, including the ferruginous hawk, the California newt and the dusky - footed woodrat. The southeast portion of the Real Property borders Los Trancos Creek for approximately one -quarter of a mile. This area provides good riparian vegetative cover and contains potential habitat for the federally threatened steelhead trout. H. The general conservation values set forth above in Recitals D, E„ F and G ("Conservation Values") are to be documented in more specific detail in an inventory, conducted by Grantee at Grantee's cost, of relevant features, conditions and natural resources of the Real Property ("Conservation Values Documentation"). The Conservation Values Documentation will be provided to Grantor upon completion, and copies will be kept on file at the offices of Grantee. The Conservation Values Documentation will consist of reports, maps, photographs, and other documents that collectively provide an accurate representation of the Real Property at the time of the grant of this easement (i.e., spring of 2005) and are intended to serve as an objective basis for monitoring compliance with the terms of this easement. I. The parties desire that the Real Property be used as a natural and scenic and open space area and managed in a manner compatible with the Conservation Values of the Real Property. J, Grantor intends, as owner of the Real Property, to convey a conservation easement to Grantee over the Real Property including the right to preserve and protect in perpetuity the natural, scenic, open space and other Conservation Values of the Real Property, subject to the restrictions contained herein. 1-5F/7203975 12 2 CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY K. Grantee is authorized to acquire and hold title to interests in real property and is an entity that may acquire and hold conservation easements pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815,3(a), L. Grantee intends, in accepting this grant, to honor the intentions of Grantor stated herein and to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Real Property for the benefit of this generation and generations to come, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the mutual covenants, terms conditions, and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of California and in particular, inter alia, Sections 815 et seq. of the California Civil Code, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a conservation easement in perpetuity over the Real Property, subject to the following terms and conditions. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this easement is to assure that the Real Property will be retained in perpetuity in its natural scenic and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Real Property that will significantly impair or interfere with its Conservation Values. Accordingly, this easement restricts the use of the Real Property to activities involving enjoyment of views, open space, natural habitat and environmental protection, as well as continuation of the existing limited rural residential use, and other uses which are consistent with this easement, as set forth below in more detail. 2. Rights of Grantee, To accomplish the purposes of this easement, Grantor conveys to Grantee the right; (a) To preserve and protect the open space values of the Real Property. (b) To enter upon the Real Property at a reasonable time, twice per year, in order to monitor Grantor's compliance with the terms of this easement and to enforce such terms; provided that such entry shall be upon reasonable prior notice to Grantor, or its successors in interest, and occupants of the Real Property and that Grantee shall not unreasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the Real Property by Grantor or its successors in interest or by any occupants of the Real Property. (c) If Grantee has substantial and credible reason to suspect a potential violation of compliance with the terms of this easement, to enter upon the Real Property at any time in order to monitor such potential violation of compliance; provided that Grantee shall make a good faith effort to contact Grantor and Grantor's attorney by telephone (at the numbers listed in Paragraph 13 hereof) prior to entering the Real Property. (d) Pursuant to Paragraph 7 hereof ("Disputes and Remedies"), to prevent any activity on or use of the Real Property which is inconsistent with the purposes of this easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Real Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use. (e) To enter the Real Property one time in order to prepare the Conservation Values Documentation; provided that such entry shall be upon reasonable prior notice to Grantor, or its successors in interest, and occupants of the Real Property and that Grantee shall 1-SF77293975 12 3 CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY not unreasonably interfere with the use and quiet enjoyment of the Real Property by Grantor or its successors in interest or by any occupants of the Real Property, The parties intend that the Conservation Values Documentation shall be used by Grantee to monitor future uses of the Real Property, condition thereof, and practices thereon; provided that, in the event a controversy arises with respect to the condition of the Real Property or a particular resource thereof, the parties shall not be foreclosed from utilizing any other relevant document, survey, or report to assist in the resolution of the controversy, (f) Except for the access rights specifically granted by Paragraphs 2(b), 2(c) and 2(e) above, Grantee shall have no other right to access or enter the Real Property. 3, Prohibited Uses. Any activity on or use of the Real Property which is inconsistent with the purposes of this easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited: (a) Subdivision, Subdivision of the Real Property, as "subdivision" is defined by the Subdivision Map Act, California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., is not permitted, except as otherwise provided by this Paragraph 3(a). Obtaining issuance of certificates of compliance from the Town of Portola Valley ("Town") under the Subdivision Map Act to validate the claimed existence of parcels based on any actions that occurred prior to the Effective Date hereof, is not permitted, except as necessary to facilitate conveyance, by separate conveyance and separated in time, of the Improved Portion and the Unimproved Portion to a charitable organization described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A), 170(c), 2055(a) and 2522(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as that Code may be amended from time to time. Lot line adjustments approved by the Town are permitted; provided that lot line adjustments that result in transfer of property in excess of one hundred square feet are subject to the prior written approval of Grantee. Any land transferred by lot line adjustment shall remain subject to the terms of this easement. Conveying a part of the Real Property to a government entity (including, but not limited to, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District) for purposes of holding it in open space is not a subdivision under the terms of this easement, Neither owning the Real Property as undivided interests, nor the creation of a life estate or future estate, nor ownership all or in part by any corporation, partnership, trust or other entity, nor transfer between trusts (where the equitable ownership interest is not transferred) is a subdivision under the terms of this easement. (b) Commercial or Industrial Use. Any commercial or industrial development, use, or activity on the Real Property, including commercial agriculture, is expressly prohibited. Growing of foodstuffs and flowers for consumption by and/or use of occupants of the Real Property is permitted, provided that no more than one -quarter acre may be used/disturbed for such purpose. (c) Building, The placement or construction of any additional buildings, structures or other improvements of any kind on the Real Property (including without limitation, fences, roads, signs and parking lots) is prohibited. The removal, repair'or replacement of any existing building, structure or improvement located on the Real Property, as identified in the Conservation Values Documentation, is permitted (Grantor shall have no obligation to replace improvements that are removed); provided, however, that a repaired or replaced building shall 1-SFI7243975 12 4 CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY not result in increased square footage and, to the extent reasonably feasible, shall be located in the same location as the building repaired or replaced. (d) Soil Erosion or Degradation. Any use or activity which causes, or is likely to cause, significant soil degradation or erosion or significant pollution of any surface or subsurface waters is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to the use of agrochemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides which are used in accordance with law and USDA, manufacturer's, and the San Mateo County regulations, directions, and policies, or those of their successors. (e) Tree Cutting. The cutting down, or other removal of live trees, except when required for safety, fire protection or sound resource management purposes (such as to prevent the spread of disease to other trees), and subject to the prior written approval of Grantee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, is prohibited. Any removal shall be performed in accordance with all federal, state and local applicable laws, (f) Dumping. The dumping or other disposal of wastes, refuse, or debris on the Real Property is prohibited. (g) New Utilities, The installation of new utility systems or extensions of existing utility systems, including, without limitation, water, sewer, power, fuel, and communication lines and related facilities is prohibited. The repair, replacement and/or relocation of any existing utility system (including moderate increases in quality or capacity of such systems), as identified in the Conservation Values Documentation, necessary to serve the Real Property is permitted, (h) Mineral Rights. The exploration for, or development and extraction of, minerals and hydrocarbons by any mining method is prohibited. Drilling for and pumping of groundwater for use on the Real Property is permitted, but only as necessary to serve the uses permitted under this easement. CONsr grazing of li �esto .� (i) Grazing. The grazing of lidestock is prohibited. A {j) Off Road Vehicles. Use of off -road or all -terrain vehicles or motorcycles is prohibited, unless used on existing roads, paths and trails (improved or unimproved), as identified in the Conservation Values Documentation and solely for purposes of management of the Real Property, for travel between improvements located on the Real Property or for matters of public safety. (k) Hunting and Commercial Shooting Ranges. Hunting or trapping of wildlife is prohibited, except as necessary to prevent damage to any existing improvements or as necessary for resource management and public safety purposes (which shall be permitted with the prior approval of Grantee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld). Commercial shooting or commercial shooting ranges are prohibited. (1) Noise Limits. No activities such as concerts shall be permitted on the Real Property which produce sustained noise levels in excess of 65 decibels as measured on trails surrounding the Real Property. Agricultural and landscaping equipment such as tractors, 1-SF/7203975 12 5 CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY ehai.nsaws, and leaf blowers, and any equipment reasonably necessary for the repair, reconstruction or relocation of existing improvements (as permitted by Paragraphs 3(c) and 3(g) above) are specifically excluded from this provision, (m) Junk Yards/Auto Repair and Restoration, Storage or disassembly of inoperable automobiles and trucks for purposes of sale or rental of space for that purpose is expressly prohibited. Any existing inoperable automobiles, trucks or similar vehicles located on the Real Property (as identified in the Conservation Values Documentation) may remain on the Real Property and shall not be required to be removed. Auto repair, rehabilitation, restoration and renovation for commercial purposes is prohibited. (n) Excavation, Alteration of land forms by grading or excavation of topsoil, earth, or rock is prohibited. (o) Scenic and Natural Character. Activities such as clearing, stripping of native vegetation, grading, or storage of materials that would clearly degrade the scenic and natural character of the Real Property is prohibited. (p) Disturbance of Wetlands and Riparian Areas. The draining, filling, dredging, clearing, or diking of wetland and riparian areas, or the cultivation or other disturbance of the soil within wetland and riparian areas, except as noted below in Paragraph 3(q), is prohibited. (q) Alteration of Streams or Ponds, The alteration or manipulation of the ponds and watercourses located on the Real Property or the creation of new water impoundments or watercourses for any purpose is prohibited, other than permitted agricultural and ecological enhancement uses of the Real Property; provided that any existing water impoundments, stream crossings and protection from erosion or damage of any existing improvements located on the Real Property, may be maintained, repaired, rebuilt, and periodically dredged to maintain their capacity. When alterations to ponds are made, damage to riparian and wetland vegetation around the perimeter shall be minimized, (r) Signs and Billboards. The placement of any signs or billboards on the Real Property is prohibited, except that signs whose placement, number, and design do not significantly diminish the scenic character of the Real Property may be displayed to state the name and address of the Real Property and the names of persons living on the Real Property, to advertise an on -site activity permitted pursuant to Paragraph 6, or to meet requirements of Grantee, or to inform the public about the natural, scenic, and other resources of the site, or by the owner of the Real Property to control unauthorized entry or use. (s) Golf Courses, Driving Ranges and Sport Courts, Golf courses or driving ranges used for commercial purposes are prohibited. Sport courts (e g., for basketball, racquet sports, etc.) are prohibited. (t) Archeological Resources. The excavation, removal, destruction, or sale of any archeological artifacts or remains found on the property, except as part of an archeological investigation approved by Grantor, is prohibited, All excavation plans shall be reviewed by an archeologist prior to the start of, and during, the excavation. 1-SF/7203g75 12 6 CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY 4. Mineral Rights. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee all of Grantor's right, title, and interest in all mineral rights belonging to the Real Property, Grantee covenants that it will not use such mineral rights in any way that would adversely affect the agricultural, ecological, conservation, or scenic uses of the Real Property, Grantor expressly reserves all of Grantor's right, title and interest in all surface, ground and other water rights belonging to or associated with the Real Property; provided such rights are exercised consistent with the terms of this easement. 5. Transfer Density Rights, Grantor covenants for itself and all its successors that Grantor shall not transfer, for use on any property anywhere (including the Real Property), any development rights that the Real Property currently may possess, and that otherwise may be transferable under local ordinances and regulations; provided that, however, any development rights that may be created on the Improved Portion by virtue of whole or partial removal of any structure on the Improved Portion may be reused on or applied to the Improved Portion (in order to permit repair, reconstruction or replacement of existing structures, as permitted by Paragraph 3(c)). 6. Permitted Uses and Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves unto itself and to its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Real Property which are not transferred, conveyed or granted hereby to Grantee or prohibited herein and which are not inconsistent with the purposes of this easement, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Real Property which are not expressly prohibited herein and which are not inconsistent with the purposes of this easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following rights and uses are expressly reserved by Grantor to itself and its successors in interest, and are agreed by the parties to be consistent with the purpose and intent of this easement and are not precluded by it (the following list is not an exhaustive recital of reserved rights and consistent uses): (a) To take reasonable measures necessary and appropriate for fire safety and erosion control; and to remove trees as described in Paragraph 3(e), (b) To remove exotic non-native invasive vegetation and restore the area with native vegetation. (c) Maintenance of existing paved and unpaved roadways, passages and trails to the standard, status and quality identified in the Conservation Values Documentation, and usage of such roadways, passages and trails. (d) Any use permitted by Paragraph 3, above. (e) To use and maintain the existing natural spring and ground water system and improvements, as identified in the Conversation Values Documentation, to service the water needs of the Real Property. (f) Passive recreational uses such as hiking, bicycling and equestrian use, (g) Construction of unpaved trails or paths for non -motorized uses. 1-SF/72O3975 12 7 CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY (h) Use and occupancy of the Real Property and existing buildings and improvements as a residence is permitted, If the Real Property is ever conveyed to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, or any similar governmental or non -governmental entity intending to use the Real Property for public open space and passive recreational uses, use and occupancy of the Real Property and existing buildings and improvements as an on -site office, ranger station, ranger residence or other facility directly related to the public open space operations of the entity holding fee title to the Real Property is permitted, as is the repair, reconstruction and replacement of structures as permitted by Section 3(c). (i} If the Real Property is ever conveyed to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, or any similar governmental or non -governmental entity intending to use the Real Property for public open space and passive recreational uses, construction of a limited staging area (gravel parking lot, pit toilets, wood rail fencing, trail markers, etc) around the perimeter of the Improved Portion as necessary to facilitate public access to, and use of, the Real Property for hiking and other uses permitted by this easement. 7, Disputes and Remedies. (a) Notice, If Grantee determines that Grantor, or Grantor's successors in interest or any occupant of the Real Property is conducting or allowing a use, activity, or condition on the Real Property which is prohibited by the terms of this easement or that a violation is threatened, Grantee shall give written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand corrective action sufficient to cure the violation, and, where the violation involves injury to the Real Property resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the purposes of this easement, to restore the portion of the Real Property so injured. (b) Consultations Regarding Interpretation and Enforcement of Easement. When any disagreement, conflict, need for interpretation, or need for enforcement arises between the parties to this easement, each party shall first consult with the other party in good faith about the issue and attempt to resolve the issue without resorting to mediation or legal action. (c) Mediation of Disputes. If, after the notice and consultation required above, the parties to this easement are unable to resolve a dispute that arises between them over the consistency with this easement of a use or activity that Grantor or Grantee intends to conduct, and if the party proposing the use or activity agrees to immediately postpone or cease said use or activity pending resolution of the dispute, then either party may refer the dispute to mediation by notice in writing to the other party. The parties shall jointly select one mediator who shall be a retired or former judge of the Superior Court of California. The mediation shall be conducted in accordance with the rules set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1280 et.. seq. If the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator, the mediation shall be conducted by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) in accordance with the rules thereof (d) Grantee's other Remedies. If, after the notice, consultation and mediation required above, Grantor fails to cease any alleged violation so as to permit mediation, Grantee may bring an action at law or in equity in court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this easement, to enjoin the violation, ex parte as necessary, by temporary or permanent injunction, to recover any damages to which it may be entitled for violation of the terms of this 1-SF/7203975 12 8 CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY easement, including damages for the loss of scenic, aesthetic, or environmental values, and to require the restoration of the Real Property to the condition that existed prior to injury, Without limiting Grantor's liability therefor, Grantee, in its sole discretion, may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Real Property. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent future damage to the Conservation Values of the Real Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this Paragraph 7 without prior notice to Grantor, except as otherwise required by law, or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. Grantee's rights under this Paragraph 7 apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this easement, and Grantor agrees that Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this Paragraph 7, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this Paragraph 7 shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereinafter existing at law or in equity. (e) Costs of Enforcement; Attorney's Fees. In the event any litigation between the parties to enforce or to interpret the terms of this easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover court costs and reasonable fees of attorneys, accountants and expert witnesses incurred by such party in connection with the litigation, including such costs and fees incurred because of any appeals. The prevailing party also shall be entitled to recover all such costs and fees that may be incurred in enforcing any judgment or award, and this provision shall not be merged into any judgment but shall survive any judgment. (f) Grantee's Discretion, Enforcement of the terms of this easement shall be at the discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance by Grantee to exercise its rights under this easement in the event of any breach of any term of this easement by Grantor shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by Grantee of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this easement or of any of Grantee's rights under this easement, No delay or omission by Grantee in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by Grantor shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver, (g) Acts Beyond Grantor's Control, Nothing contained in this easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury to or change in the Real Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor's control, including without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Real Property resulting from such causes. 8. Access. No right of access by the general public to any portion of the Real Property is conveyed by this easement, 9. Costs and Responsibilities. Grantor retains the responsibility for ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Real Property, including all taxes, assessments, fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed against the Real Property by competent authority (collectively "taxes"). i-SF/7203975 12 9 CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY 10, Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to or modification of this easement would be appropriate, Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this easement; provided that no amendment shall be allowed that contravenes the purpose of this easement (as set forth in Paragraph 1 above) or that will affect the qualification of this easement or the status of Grantee under any applicable laws, including Sections 815 etseq. of the California Civil Code, or Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, Any such amendment shall be in writing, shall refer to this easement by reference to its recordation data, and shall be recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County, California. 11. Conveyance of Easement. Upon thirty (30) days prior notice to Grantor, Grantee may convey this easement in whole or in part but only to an organization that is a qualified organization at the time of transfer under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (or any successor provision then applicable), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder, and authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under Section 8153 of the California Civil Code (or any successor provision then applicable), As a condition of such transfer, Grantee shall require the transferee to expressly agree in writing to assume Grantee's obligations hereunder in order that the purposes of this easement will continue to be carried out, Any such transfer or conveyance shall be recorded. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee (or subsequent transferee) may not convey this easement at any time to the fee owner of the Real Property except if (a) the Grantee or subsequent transferee shall cease to exist or to be qualified to hold conservation easements under California Civil Code Section 815.3, or its successor statute, and (b) no qualified organization (including the State of California), other than the fee owner, has agreed to accept transfer of this easement after commercially reasonable efforts by the Grantee or subsequent transferee to effectuate transfer of this easement to such a qualified organization. 12. Subsequent Conveyance of the Real Property. Grantor shall incorporate by reference hereto the terms of this easement in any deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Real Property, including, without limitation, a leasehold interest. Except in the case of a proposed transfer of any portion of the Real Property to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District or to a trust for the benefit of Frederick N. Woods, III, or his son Frederick Newhall Woods, Grantor shall give written notice to Grantee of the transfer of any interest in any portion of the Real Property at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of such transfer. Grantor shall provide a complete copy of this easement to its transferee prior to any such transfer. The failure of Grantor to perform any act required by this Paragraph shall not impair the validity of this easement or limit its enforceability in any way, 13. Notices. Unless otherwise specified in this easement, any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other shall be in writing and either served personally, or sent via overnight mail, addressed as follows: 1-SP/72x3975 12 10 CONSERVATION EASEMENT -- WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY To Grantor: To Grantee: Mr. Frederick N, Woods, Ill Trustee 800 Los Trancos Road Portola Valley, CA 94028 With a copy to: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Attn: Max Gutierrez, Esq, One Market Street, Spear Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Ph: (415) 442-1000 President Peninsula Open Space Trust 3000 Sand Hill Road, Bldg. 1 Suite 155 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: (650) 854-7696 or to such other address as either party from time to time shall designate by written notice to the other, 14, Recordation. This instrument shall be recorded by Grantee in the Official Records of San Mateo County, California, Grantee may rerecord this easement whenever rerecording is required to preserve Grantee's rights in this easement, 15. General Provisions. (a) Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. (b) Liberal Construction, Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, this easement shall be liberally construed in favor of Grantee to effect the. purposes of this easement and the policy and purpose of Section 815 et, seq of the California Civil Code. If any provision in this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purposes of this easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid, This instrument shall be construed in accordance with its fair meaning and it shall not be construed against either party on the basis that that party prepared this instrument. (c) Severability, If any provision of this easement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this easement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby so long as the purposes of this easement can still be carried out. (d) No Third Party Rights, This instrument is made and entered into for the sole benefit and protection of Grantor and Grantee and their respective successors and assigns. No person or entity other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns shall have any right of action under this easement or any right to enforce the terms and provisions hereof. I-SW72O 975 12 11 CONSERVATION EASEMENT — WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY (e) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein is intended to result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor's fee title in any respect. Grantor specifically reserves the right to convey fee title to the Real Property, or any portion thereof, subject to this easement. (f) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Real Property. (g) Termination of Rights and Obligations. Except as expressly provided otherwise in this instrument, a party's rights and obligations under this easement shall terminate upon the transfer of the party's interest in this easement or the fee title to the Real Property, as the case may be, except that rights, obligations, and liability relating to acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer. (h) Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. (i) Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. Grantor and Grantee may execute this instrument in two or more counterparts; each counterpart shall be deemed an original instrurent. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts produced, the recorded counterpart shall be controlling. Facsimile and photocopied signatures shall be treated as originals. (j} Exhibits. All Exhibits referred to in this easement are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has set their hand on the Effective Date. GRANTOR Frederick N. Woods, III, Trustee GRANTEE PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation By: Audrey C. ` •t, President t-SF/7203975.t2 12 CONSERVATION EASEMENT -- WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY STATE OF N aCfijll- COUNTY OF &Az , )ss.. On April f!' .00 .5- before me, —Fire j 1161 - Notary Public, personally appeared Wo-c d , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose narne(s) is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my band and official seal. 1ERESA HI11StROM Comm. # 1423418 rr� NOIARY PUBLIC-CAIIFCRNIA Y� Solo Clain Caunly • "' My Comm. Who Juno )9, 2902 Signature of Notary (SEAL) STATE OF Cat)--C-0111L0,--' COUNTY OF3fV VY[ O On AP:11 t? { 2005 before me, 01 t(,V C If 6-0 (4,--1 Notary Public, personally appeared tAtA,dIv� personally known to me (or proved to me on basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose names) is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal, Signature of Notary 1-SF/72O3975.12 13 (SEAL) 5 CONSERVATION EASEMENT - WOODS PORTOLA VALLEY PROPERTY 1-SI/72O3975.12 14 k In March 29, 2005 BKF Job Number 20040099-10 ENGINEERS LEGAL DESCRIPTION SURVEYORS PARCEL 1 PLANNERS All that real property situate in the Town ofPortola Valley, County of San Mateo, State of California, being all of the lands described in the deed to Francis Newhall Woods recorded July 5, 1916 in Book 247 of Deeds at page 416, San Mateo County Records, California; excepting therefrom the lands described in that certain deed recorded September 18, 1950 in Book 1939 of Official Records at Page 299, San Mateo County Records, California; also excepting therefrom the lands described in that certain deed recorded April 30, 1959 in Book 3591 of Official Records at Page 465, San Mateo County Records, California; also excepting therefrom the lands described below as Parcel 2; also excepting therefrom the lands described in that certain, Grant Deed recorded July 31, 1998 in Document No. 14311804, Santa Clara County Records, California. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2 All that real property situate in the Town of Portola Valley, County of San Mateo, State of California, being a portion of the lands described in deed to Francis Newhall Woods recorded July 5, 1916 in Book 247 of Deeds at page 416, San Mateo County Records, California, and being more particularly described as follows; BEGINNING at the westerly comer of the lands described in deed to F. N. Woods 111 recorded December 12, 1961 in Volume 4111 of Official Records at page 167, San Mateo County Records; thence along the southwesterly line of said lands, South 34°18'52" East, a distance of 1000.02 feet to the southwesterly corner of said lands; thence along the southeasterly line of said lands and its northeasterly prolongation, North 52°40'00" 'East, a distance of 560.04 feet; thence leaving the prolongation of said southeasterly line the following nine courses: 540 Price Avenue Redwood City California 94o6314 22 phone 650,48z6300 fax 650.482 6399 www bkf com 1) North 13°39'38" East, a distance of 220.24 feet; 2) North 59°03'47" West, a distance of 115.99 feet; 3) South 45°28'14" West, a distance of 12931 feet; 4) North 50°09' 16" West, a distance of 210.43 feet; 5) North 31°22'12" East, a distance of 222.50 feet; 6) South 88°18'16" East, a distance of 206.05 feet; 7) South 56°31'24" East, a distance of 337.40 feet; 8) South 4°35'01" East, a distance of 652.47 feet; 9) South 16°30'32" West, a distance of 381.80 feet to the southerly line of the lands described in said deed recorded in Book 247 at page 416; Thence along the general southerly and southwesterly lines of the lands described in last said deed the following eight courses: Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 2 i 1 BkF ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 540 Price Avenue Redwood City California 94063-x4 za phone 65o,48z,6300 fax 65o.482 6399 www bkf com 1) North 52°00'00" West, a distance of 447.48 feet; 2) South 32°30'00" West, a distance of 621.06 feet; 3) South 50°00'00" West, a distance of 73.92 feet; 4) North 64°30'00" West, a distance of 130.02 feet; 5) North 61°30'00" West, a distance of 54.78 feet; 6) North 62°00'00" West, a distance of 506.88 feet; 7) North 52°30'00" West, a distance of214.50 feet; 8) North 48°30'00" West, a distance of 613.26 feet to the southeasterly line of the lands described in said document recorded in Book 3591 of Official Records at Page 465; thence along said southeasterly line North 50°32'00" East, a distance of 361.58 feet and North 45°28'48" East, a distance of 328.89 feet to the southerly corner of the lands described in said document recorded in Book 1939 of Official Records at Page 299; thence along the southeasterly line of the lands described in said last document North 52°40'00" East, a distance of 273.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing an area of 36.64 acres, more or less, A plat showing the above described lands is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit B", This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. a ` Billy Magi., P.L.S. 5797 License Expires: 6/30/06 ILAMAIM2D0450045AStuvrA12014N132405 Descriptiem.dac BILLY MARTIN XF. 06/3u/200a Na, 5797 Exhibit "A" Page 2 oft Dated:.. ,doe.e. P.O.B. k .O.B. (MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF 4111 O,R. 167) 3591 O.R. 465 4/3. 4.74 1939 Q.R. 299 PARCEL 1 42.07 ACRES± ry ry• 'h° 589.18'16"E -P, • 206.05' ,ys 1 4'3 go, Ob9 jk i 0�..3• �(t9y;31?, p' 47 Ora• c.11� cDi- • N N /� yM aP S PARCEL 2 36.64 ACRES± 11, 0 HOC *14311804 1J0 32' 0001Y ©VOS SO3Ntlal S01 LI► Bid Eimmume immumm i MEM 540 PRICE AVENUE REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 650-482-6300 650--462-6399 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" Job No. 040099-10 By CRM pate 3/29/05 Chkd,CRC SHEET 1 OF 1 0 0,2 ALPINE ROAD HOUSE ♦ APPROX, PROPERTY LINE • f I f r r COTTAGE GARAGE DOG SHEDS (2) WATER PUMP AT MISSING TANK LOWER BARN CARRIAGE SHED /�\I � 11 1/ CORRALS /^ 1 RACCOON SHED SHED ♦ v APPROX. PROPERTY LINE UPPER BARN HSC NORTH DRIVEWAY HAWTHORN HOUSE HSC SOUTH DRIVEWAY HSC LOOPED ACCESS ROAD PUMP HOUSE COACHMAN'S QUARTERS CORRAL HORSE SHEDS (4) RACE TRACK LOOP NORTH SCALE HORIZONTAL.' f" m 150' 0 sAY 75' ISO' 2dr Thfs Bile &scram is for study use only and does not represent fhe occurate confgurotion of site features and boundaries, April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March 1st QTR 2nd QTR 3rd QTR 4th QTR ON-GOING COMMUNITY OUTREACH VOLUNTEER PROJECTS CREVELT PREPARE & SUBMIT NON-PROFIT PAPERWORK NON-PROFIT ESTABLISHED NON-PROFIT SPONSORED FUNDRAISING JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY NEAR-TERM STABILIZATION PARTNERSHIP WITH CREVELT LONG-TERM STABLIZATION / MOTHBALLING IF PARTNERSHIP NOT IN PLACE BY FY 2017-18 LONG TERM U&M PLAN ON-GOING DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATION WITH POST & CREVELT HAWTHORN HISTORIC COMPLEX - PARTNER DEVELOPMENT 2015-2018 FY 2015-2016 FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 CREVELT PERMIT TO ENTER RENEW PERMIT TO ENTER ENTER INTO PARTNER LEASE BY END OF FY DATE: March 21, 2015 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager FROM: Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager CC: Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager; Jane Mark, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Legislative Support Letters and Comment Letters _____________________________________________________________________________ This memorandum serves to inform the Board that the District has submitted support or comment letters for the following proposed legislation and other items of interest: 1. AB 327 (Gordon D) – Public Works: volunteers. This legislation would permanently make into law an exemption to allow volunteers to continue on a volunteer basis without an agency being subjected to pay a prevailing wage for duties performed. The General Manager co-signed a letter with partner agencies. The letter was reviewed by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) at their regular meeting on 3/18/2015. (ATTACHMENT 1) 2. AB 495 (Gordon D) – Regional park and open-space districts: general manager: powers. This legislation would increase the purchasing authority of the general managers of MROSD and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), with district board approval, from $25,000 to $50,000. The District co-sponsored this bill with EBRPD. Assembly Member Rich Gordon authored the legislation. A letter of thanks to Assembly Member Gordon was approved by LFPAC on 3/18/2015 and was sent on 3/20/15 (ATTACHMENT 2). The District also co-wrote a support letter for AB 495 with EBRPD, which was signed by both board presidents (ATTACHMENT 3). The letter was hand delivered to Assembly Member Brian Maienschein, Chair, Assembly Local Governments Committee, on 3/20/15. General Manager Abbors and Board President Siemens are scheduled to attend the Committee hearing for AB 495 on 4/8/15 in Sacramento. 3. SB 317 (De Leon D) – The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2016. Last year, Senator Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) introduced the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2014, SB 1086, as a placeholder for a new state park bond. While it passed the Senate Appropriations Committee in May 2014, it stalled as the legislature debated the water bond. On 2/23/2015, Senator de Leon, now Senate President pro Tempore, introduced a similar bill for 2016. The details of the bill still need to be added. One specific issue of importance for the Bay Area, which may currently have less emphasis for the Pro Tempore, is per capita distribution of funds and the Bay Program of the Coastal Conservancy. The General Manager provided an update to LFPAC about the current status on a future state park bond. The General Manager signed a Support in Concept/Amendment Consideration Coalition letter on 3/20/15 with other partners (ATTACHMENT 4). 4. UPDATE: Proposition 1: Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. California voters approved Prop 1 on November 4, 2014, a general obligation bond in the amount of $7.545 billion. It includes funding for ecosystems and watershed protection and restoration, water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and drinking water protection. The bond allocates $100.5 million to the State Coastal Conservancy to protect and restore California rivers, lakes, streams, and watersheds. The Coastal Conservancy anticipates availability of a portion of the $100.5 million at the start of the 2015-16 fiscal year, at which time projects will be solicited following established guidelines and will be evaluated and taken to the Coastal Conservancy board for consideration. Planning Manager, Jane Mark, updated LFPAC on 3/18/2015 (ATTACHMENT 5). District Planning Department staff submitted comments on the proposed grant guidelines on 3/21/15 (ATTACHMENT 6). ATTACHMENTS: 1) AB 327 (Gordon D) – Public Works: volunteers. SUPPORT LETTER 2) AB 495 (Gordon D) – Regional park and open-space districts: general manager: powers. APPRECIATION LETTER 3) AB 495 (Gordon D) – Regional park and open-space districts: general manager: powers. SUPPORT LETTER 4) SB 317 (De Leon D) – The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2016. SUPPORT IN CONCEPT WITH AMENDMENTS - COALITION LETTER 5) Overview of Proposition 1 Grant Program Guidelines for California Coastal Conservancy– PRESENTED TO LFPAC (3/18/15) 6) Proposition 1 Grant Program Guidelines (Draft February 2015) for Grants Funded by the 2014 Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act through California Coastal Conservancy – DISTRICT COMMENT LETTER       March 17, 2015    The Honorable Rich Gordon  California State Assembly  State Capitol Building  Sacramento, CA  95814  RE: Assembly Bill 327 – SUPPORT  Dear Assembly Member Gordon:    We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for Assembly Bill 327, which will permanently allow  the continued reliance and use of California’s vast pool of volunteers to work on important community,  environmental and conservation projects without being subject to the state’s prevailing wage laws.      As you well know, volunteerism is a critical component to maintaining vital, healthy and sustainable  communities throughout California.  Many Californians volunteer their valuable time on community  environmental and natural resources projects designed to benefit their local communities and  surroundings, such as restoring and enhancing wildlife habitat, building and repairing trails, creating  neighbourhood parks, planting community gardens and trees, cleaning up beaches and other  waterways, and restoring streams and wetlands.  Most of these community projects would simply not  occur without the time and dedication given by volunteers.                 California’s civic history has amply demonstrated time and time again that its residents are eager for  volunteer opportunities for themselves and their children.  In fact, volunteerism and civic duty has long  been a deeply‐held value ingrained in the lives of generations of Americans seeking to enrich their lives,  their communities, and their environment.  As such, it is important that California’s lawmakers support  state policies that foster, rather than inhibit or restrict, the ability of people to volunteer their time and  energy on projects intended to enhance their communities and our natural landscapes.   In the more than ten years since the Legislature wisely enacted this volunteer exemption into state law,  this statute has proven itself a vital tool in helping to keep Californians from all walks of life, young and  old, urban and rural, connected to both their local community and our state’s environment and natural  resources in a meaningful, productive way.  Moreover, these positive attributes have accrued without  any evidence of examples of abuse having arisen from this statute’s enactment into law.  In other words,  we now have more than a decade’s worth of experience that conclusively shows that the volunteer  exemption continues to work as originally intended and works remarkably well.     In closing, we strongly agree with you that the time has come to make this exemption for volunteers a  permanent fixture in state law, thereby allowing California to continue to tap into one of our greatest,  most robust and economical resources on behalf of community, environmental and conservation  stewardship – the generosity of the human spirit.    We are pleased to support Assembly Bill 327 and thank you for carrying this critical measure for  maintaining healthy natural and human communities.    Sincerely,    John Howell  Arroyos & Foothill Conservancy    Lynnel Pollock  Cache Creek Conservancy    Ann Muscat  Catalina Island Conservancy    Catherine Koehler  Lake County Land Trust    Terry Corwin  Land Trust of Santa Cruz County    Tom Lisle  McKinleyville Land Trust      Stephen E. Abbors  Midpeninsula Regional Open  Space District    Linus Eukel  Muir Heritage Land Trust    Brian Stark  Ojai Valley Land Conservancy    Andrea Vona  Palos Verdes Peninsula Land  Conservancy    Walter Moore  Peninsula Open Space Trust    Jeff Darlington  Placer Land Trust  Gail Egenes  Riverside Land Conservancy    Dave Koehler  San Joaquin River Parkway and  Conservation Trust    Rob Brown  Save Mount Diablo    Nicole Byrd  Solano Land Trust    Rico Mastrodonato  Trust for Public Land    Patrick Shea  Wildlife Heritage Foundation   Regional OpenSpace March 19, 2015 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District The Honorable Rich Gordon California State Assembly State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 495 (Gordon): Regional park and open space districts: general managers: powers Dear Assembly Member Gordon: On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for authoring Bill AB 495, which would increase the District's general manager purchasing authority with District Board approval, from $25,000 to as high as $50,000. As you know, the $25,000 limit has not been changed since 2002, while inflation and local project costs have increased substantially. The District prides itself on adhering to a long standing practice of fiscal responsibility, including efficient administrative processes. This increase in purchasing authority would enable us to save hundreds of hours of staff time and thousands of dollars each year by limiting the time it takes in preparing Board approval reports, while continuing to maintain competitive public contracting procedures in compliance with law and District policy. This time and cost savings means we can dedicate more resources to opening preserves, trails, and other amenities to the public at a much faster pace, offering many more new opportunities for outdoor recreation close to home. We appreciate your leadership in the California State Assembly and your dedication to and understanding of the need for government agencies to serve the public efficiently. We also thank you for your long standing support to open space and regional parks and trails, adding to the quality of life to the constituents of District 24 and neighboring Districts. Pete Siemens Board President 33o Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 r 650.691.1200 F 650.691.0485 www.openspace.org ®sat '" 6�eiccuo sma March 17, 2015 The Honorable Brian Maienschein Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee California State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Sponsor/Support AB 495 (Gordon) - Sponsor/Support: Regional park and open space districts: general managers: powers Dear Assembly Member Maienschein, On behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), we are writing to respectfully request your favorable consideration of the above referenced letter. As you may know this bill would increase the purchasing authority of the general managers of EBRPD and MROSD, with the respective boards of director approval, from $25,000 to $50,000. EBRPD and MROSD serve a combined 3.3 million constituents and are among the largest special park districts in the nation. The $25,000 purchasing authority limit has not been increased since 2002, while inflation and project costs have increased substantially. Authorizing this increase would allow both districts to alleviate redundant report writing and process review time, saving considerable taxpayer dollars. Improving administrative efficiencies are important to fulfilling our organizations' missions related to protecting natural resources and offering enjoyable outdoor healthy recreation opportunities. Changes to the authority limit will make both districts more effective for our common park and open space objectives. We therefore strongly support AB 495 and respectfully urge your aye vote. Sincerely, Whitney Dotson Pete Siemens President President EBRPD Board of Directors MROSD Board of Directors cc: Members of the Assembly Local Government Committee and Consultants The Honorable Richard Gordon Page 1 of 6 SUPPORT IN CONCEPT – SB 317 Park Bond (de León) Ewfkl;jafd;’kv;kag’;lkav’; March 20, 2015 The Honorable Kevin de León, President pro Tem California State Senate State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 317 - Support in Concept/Amendment Consideration: “Investing in Public Access, Communities of Diversity, and Local Park Improvements” Dear President pro Tem de León: As you know, it has been thirteen years since the passage of a “true park bond”. Proposition 84 (2006) contained elements such as the Statewide Park Program (AB 31) and funding for state parks. In contrast to Proposition 84, both Propositions 12 and 40 called for significant investments in park infrastructure at Page 2 of 6 the local level. Our agencies, comprised of both state and local park professionals, look forward to working with you, your office, and your legislative colleagues to infuse much needed financial resources into all neighborhood, regional, and state parks. As California recovers from the recession, there is an urgent need to fix, repair, and maintain the infrastructure we already have. Nowhere is that more profound than in park and recreation departments which have backlogs of major maintenance projects that add up to billions of dollars. In order to reconcile infrastructure need, create greater public access, and balance this need with the demand for new park space in underserved urban areas, we recommend the following program expenditures for SB 317: 1. Per Capita Program ($600 Million)  Both Propositions 12 and 40 contained nearly $600 million in discretionary funds to local agencies (Per Capita and Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris grants).  Recent polling suggests that fair and equitable distributions statewide are strongly supported by registered voters.  Allows for statewide equitable distributions since it is based on population and permits agencies to address individual needs (new parks, expansion, rehabilitation, acquisition)  Establishes reasonable minimums for entities ($250,000 for cities and districts/$500,000 for counties, authorities and regional park districts). 2. Heavily Urbanized Per Capita Program ($150 Million)  Polling results from Propositions 84, 40, and 12 revealed that voters from heavily urbanized jurisdictions (Los Angeles, San Diego, Silicon Valley, East Bay, and San Francisco) strongly favor park/resources bonds when compared to the state’s more suburban and rural areas.  Propositions 12 and 40 contained $200 million for the Roberti-Z’Berg-Harris Program, a Per Capita program that favored larger urbanized and heavily urbanized jurisdictions. Also, Proposition 40 contained a specific set-aside of $20 million and $10 million for Los Angeles county and city respectively.  Create a program that allocates funds to those cities and districts with a population greater than 100,000 and counties and regional park districts and authorities of 500,000 or more. 3. Statewide Park Program (AB 31, de León) ($650 Million)  Program encourages the creation of new parks in disadvantaged communities statewide with particular emphasis on urban areas.  There is a general correlation between high rates of childhood obesity/diabetes and inadequate recreational facilities and green space which this program seeks to address.  Locating parks near population clusters reduces “Vehicle Miles Traveled” (VMTs) and the state’s reliance on auto related transport thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  During its two grant cycle rounds, program funding demand exceeded the availability of funds nine fold. Page 3 of 6 4. Planning and Capacity Building Grant Program ($50 Million)  Provide funding for qualified disadvantaged communities and NGOs in California to mobilize community resources.  Identify and leverage local, state, and federal funds to develop community based solutions and models to improve recreational access, amenities, and programming. 5. County and Regional Park and Open Space District and Authorities Program ($100 Million)  There was reference to this program in previous iterations of park bond vehicles (SB 783 and SB 1086)  This would serve as a compliment to aforementioned AB 31. Of the $362 million available for competitive grants through this program, less than $8 million was awarded to county and regional park entities. 6. Self-Help County/City/District/Authority Match Program ($100 Million)  Voters within many counties and open-space agencies (Marin County Open Space, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Francisco Park and Recreation, and Santa Clara County Open Space Authority) have recently approved measures by super- majority to locally underwrite park improvements throughout their jurisdiction. Other entities including Los Angeles County, the East Bay Regional Park District, and Sonoma County are contemplating the placement of measures on the 2016 ballot for park improvements.  This scenario presents opportunities and possible conflicts for a statewide park measure in 2016. A program designed in this manner can incent voters of future election cycles including 2016 to approve both state and local measures by providing for a state share of funds to leverage local resources and, in addition, reward those entities that have already gone to the local electorate to enhance or maintain service levels. 7. Recreation Trails Program (Non-Motorized) ($50 Million)  Trail use is the number one form of outdoor recreation in the state. Accounting for billions of dollars in economic activity in California.  Funding for the Recreation Trails Program (RTP) has been severely curtailed over the years by virtue of reductions in federal awards and the reversion of RTP funds to the Active Transportation Program (ATP).  It is estimated that only $2 million to $3 million is available annually through competitive grants for trail improvements in the state. 8. State Parks Operated by Local Agencies ($30 Million)  There are more than 30 units of the state park system that are operated by agencies such as Los Angeles County, East Bay Regional Park District, and others entirely at local taxpayer expense.  Proposition 12 contained $18 million to assist these entities in funding improvements at the associated units.  Although there was funding in both Propositions 40 and 84 for state park improvements, very little of the combined $650 million were expended at units operated by locals.  Funding for this program would demonstrate and reinforce the importance of local/state cooperative partnerships. Page 4 of 6 9. Renovation/Restoration and Repair (“RRR”) Program ($100 million).  Much of California’s local park infrastructure was developed back in the 1960-1970s and is “aging out.” During the recent recession, many communities in response to lagging tax receipts had few alternatives but to reduce maintenance schedules and close public park assets.  In survey after survey conducted by the California Park & Recreation Society of its 400 park agency membership, existing park facility restoration consistently ranks as the highest funding priority.  A grant program designed to address the most critical of deficiencies in existing local park infrastructure is needed. Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to working with you, your staff, and your legislative colleagues in advancing this important measure. For more information, please contact Doug Houston at (916) 447-9884. Sincerely, Stephanie Stephens Executive Director, California Park & Recreation Society (CPRS) Robert E. Doyle General Manager, East Bay Regional Park District Rue Mapp Founder & Chief Executive Officer, OutDoor Afro Rick Sloan President, California Association of Recreation and Park Districts (CARPD) Page 5 of 6 José G. González Founder, Latino Outdoors Douglas D. Houston Executive Director, State Park Partners Coalition (SPPC) Caryl Hart, Ph.D. Director, Sonoma County Regional Parks Matthew O’Grady Chief Executive Officer, San Francisco Parks Alliance Stephen E. Abbors General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Andrea Mackenzie General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Page 6 of 6 John Woodbury General Manager, Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Laura R. Cohen, J.D. Director, Western Region, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Steve Hoagland President, California Association of Park & Recreation Commissioners & Board Members Phil Ginsburg General Manager, San Francisco Recreation and Park District Mark Stanley Executive Director, Watershed Conservation Authority cc: Honorable Members of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee Mr. Bill Craven, Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee Mr. Kip Lipper, Office of Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León 1    Overview of Proposition 1 Grant Program Guidelines for the   Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC)  March 17, 2015 Committee Meeting    Proposition 1, approved in November 2014, will provide $100.5 million to the California Coastal  Conservancy to fund multi‐benefit water quality, water supply, watershed protection and  restoration projects over the course of a decade.      Proposition 1 requires the Conservancy administer competitive grants in an open and  transparent process.    The Conservancy has developed draft Proposition 1 Grant Program Guidelines to detail  that process.   The Coastal Conservancy has set the dates and locations for three public meetings to  receive comments on its draft Proposition 1 grant guidelines:   March 11th in Sacramento, 901 P street, from 9‐11am;   March 19th in Oakland, 1330 Broadway 11th floor, from 2‐4pm; and   March 20th in Los Angeles, 320 West 4th Street, 7th floor conference room,  from 10am‐12pm    Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Planning Manager Jane Mark and Senior Planner Tina  Hugg will be attending the March 19th public meeting to submit comments and receive  additional information on the grant program.    The deadline for written comments is March 20th, so that comments can be compiled and  presented to the Conservancy Board for their March 26th meeting in Napa.     Proposition 1 directs the Conservancy to prioritize projects that benefit disadvantaged  communities, achieve multiple benefits, and result in quantifiable outcomes.  Proposition 1  defines a disadvantaged community as “a community with an annual median household income  that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income.” Proposition 1  does not require a specific portion of funding go to disadvantaged communities. However, the  Conservancy will strive to ensure that a significant portion of its Proposition 1 funding benefit  these communities.    In addition, the Conservancy has identified four priorities for Proposition 1 expenditures based  on the priority issues within our jurisdiction, reviewing existing state plans, and screening for  projects that achieve multiple benefits, serve disadvantaged communities, and result in  quantifiable outcome.  These four priorities include:   Water Sustainability   Anadromous Fish  2     Wetland Restoration   Urban Greening  The grant application will be evaluated on a number of criteria, which include achieving at least  one of the Conservancy’s 13 specific purposes for allocation of the funds, including but not  limited to:   Protection and restoration of aquatic, wetland, and migratory bird ecosystems including  fish and wildlife corridors   Removal of barriers to fish passage   Implementation of fuel treatment projects to reduce wildfire risks, protection of  watershed tributary to water storage facilities and promotion of watershed health, and  many other purposes for these funds,   And other purposes identified in their Program guidelines.    Proposition 1 funds must be spent consistent with the General Obligation Bond law which  means projects must entail the construction or acquisition of capital assets and/or activities  that are incidentally but directly related to construction or acquisition, such as planning, design  and engineering.    The grant application will be evaluated and scored against 11 criteria and weighted with  different points system.    In addition to the Coastal Conservancy administering Proposition 1 grant funds, there are other  state agencies administering the grant funds, such as:   California Department of Fish and Wildlife will administer Proposition 1 grants for  coastal wetland and watershed restoration,   Wildlife Conservation Board will administer grants to secure in stream flows and    Dept of Water Resources will administer grants related to water sustainability.                      March 20, 2015 California State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway #1300 Oakland, CA 94612 SUBJECT: Proposition 1 Grant Program Guidelines (Draft February 2015) for Grants Funded by the 2014 Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act Dear Coastal Conservancy: The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) appreciates the opportunity to review the Coastal Conservancy’s (Conservancy’s) draft guidelines for the Proposition 1 Grant Program and submits the following comments. The District has been fortunate to be a grantee of Conservancy administered grants and has appreciated the efficiency and expediency of the Conservancy’s process in granting and administering these funds. We truly hope that additional future grant requirements and process elements will remain streamlined to avoid negatively impacting funding opportunities and delaying or precluding an agency’s ability to implement new projects that benefit the public. Related to the regional planning work that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is implementing with Plan Bay Area and Priority Conservation Areas (PCA), the District recommends that the Conservancy consider the use of PCA designations as one of the project selection criteria, in one or more of the following ways: • For the criterion addressing “whether the project is consistent with best available science,” PCAs are based on best available science for long-term conservation planning and can be weighted with 3-4 points out of this 8-point criterion. • Assign additional bonus points for projects that are located within a PCA designation approved by ABAG. • Include the PCA program as a regional planning program that is similar to the objectives related to Chapter 6 of Proposition 1. The Conservancy’s update of the Strategic Plan should include the objectives of the PCA program which Proposition 1 funded projects would also be able to achieve. Please find below specific comments related to various sections of the Program guidelines. B. Conservancy Required Project Selection Criteria For the eight (8) Project Selection Criteria included in Appendix C, the Conservancy should acknowledge that not all worthy projects would be located within areas vulnerable to future sea level rise, such that this criterion may or may not apply to all projects and should be qualified as such. Would a project have to meet ALL eight of these criteria to be eligible for the grant funding? We strongly urge that projects not be required to meet this criterion to be considered eligible for funding as this criterion would eliminate many beneficial projects that meet the intent and goals of Proposition 1, and would thus potentially eliminate or delay many beneficial public projects from being completed to improve the quality of life for current and future Californians. F. Project Eligibility On page 5, under the second paragraph, the guidelines state, “all projects funded by Proposition 1 must be consistent with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the State’s five-year infrastructure plan prepared pursuant to Government Code section 13100.” What year is the State’s five-year infrastructure plan and how frequently is this infrastructure updated? How can local projects be added to this infrastructure plan? It appears that this requirement may be overly burdensome for local public agencies and small organizations, particularly those with limited staff and funding. This requirement may result in the disparate distribution of funding, where only those agencies and organizations that possess the resources to complete these additional requirements will be able to benefit from the grant program. III. Grant Application Process and Timeline B. Project Solicitation Periods The November 1 – December 31 project solicitation period is shortened by at least two business days, as this transpires over two holidays. Moreover, this is a time period when many people tend to take long, extended vacations and leaves due to the holidays, religious affiliations, and school scheduled. We strongly urge this period to be extended to mid-January for this reason to ensure sufficient time. C. Application Review and Evaluation 1. When and how would the Conservancy notify a grantee that the grantee’s application is incomplete and needs additional work to complete and resubmit? How much time would be allowed for re-submittals? Under Screening, the guidelines state, “The Conservancy has discretion to either return the application or assist the applicant with gathering additional information and modifying the proposal to enable the application to pass the screening process.” How would the Conservancy notify the grantee that the Conservancy has decided to gather additional info and modify the proposal or not? 2. If there is a discrepancy in scoring by the three initial reviewers, will there be a set number of reviewers added? An average can be affected by a higher number of reviewers. D. Grant Award Please allow additional time for the Grantee Agency’s elected officials (boards, councils, etc.) to adopt a resolution accepting the grant funds as part of the agency’s revenues. The scheduling of new Agenda Items onto board and council Agendas can require multiple months to allow sufficient time for report production, review, and finalization for inclusion in a future Board/Council Agenda packet. E. Board Meetings Would the Grantee be required to attend the Conservancy Board meeting during which the Conservancy Board would approve the grant? If the meeting is being held a significant distance away, is it possible to attend the meeting via videoconference or teleconference to save travel time and associated costs. IV. Grant Evaluation and Scoring B. Evaluation Scoring Criteria For the excerpted criterion below, what percentage of the local matching funds could include in-kind labor (e.g. Construction Crew, Project Management time, CCC hours) in lieu of or in addition to matching monetary funds? For the excerpted criterion below, how would this method or metric for measuring/reporting project effectiveness be evaluated consistently for all the project applications since each project is different and can be measured differently? “The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a clear and reasonable method for measuring and reporting the effectiveness of the project.” For the excerpted criterion below, how would this criterion be measured when there is continually new technology that is made available? Can this criterion include innovative use or development of new geographic data and analysis? “The extent to which the project employs new or innovative technology or practices.” For the excerpted criterion below, would the application require an Operations and Management (O&M) Plan and funds to demonstrate long-term sustainability? Or would the project need to demonstrate how similar projects have proven their long-term viability? It may be difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of long-term outcomes, if the project were the first of its kind and pioneering new outcomes. Also, we urge against requiring an O&M Plan and set aside O&M funds, as these become additional burdens for project applicants. Moreover, it would also become overly burdensome for the grantor to review, monitor, and enforce such requirements. Furthermore, the required Resolution from the board/council should be sufficient to explicitly state the grantee’s commitment to maintain and operate the grant-funded project in the long-term. “The extent to which the project will deliver sustainable outcomes in the long-term.” BONUS POINTS The guidelines state, “Projects that have >100% matching funds from private, federal, or local funding sources will receive 5 bonus points.” Please clarify that non-profit funding from foundations and etc., would be included as a matching fund, and that in-kind labor (e.g. construction crew time, project management time, etc.) would be allowed as a local funding source. Please also clarify that for multi- phased projects, initial planning and design funding can also qualify as matching funds for projects that are seeking construction grant support. It also states that “Projects that use the California Conservation Corps for project implementation will receive 5 points.” If other local Conservation Corps were used, such as San Jose Conservation Corps or American Conservation Experience, would there be additional bonus points assigned as well, even if the San Jose Conservation Corps may not be state-funded? V. Additional Information 1. What is the maximum and minimum requested amount for a grant application? 2. Is there a limit to the number of applications that can submitted by an agency at any one time? C. Grant Provisions Regarding these provisions, the guidelines state that, “the grant agreement must be signed by the grantee before funds will be disbursed.” Since the grant reimbursement is paid in arrears, then the grantee agency must have funds to cover the initial implementation costs and submit for reimbursement. Recognizing that many agencies will seek grant funds because of insufficient capital funding to otherwise implement new project, we urge that the grant agreement be signed before funds are incurred, rather than disbursed. D. Environmental Documents Would the Coastal Conservancy need to be cited as a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the environmental documents, since there will be state funding used for project implementation? Would the grant application require a Notice of Exemption (NOE) or Notice of Completion (NOC) associated with the project’s environmental compliance as part of the reimbursement submittals? Would the application require a Resolution of findings related to the adoption/certification of the environmental documents (e.g. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Report)? When would these notices or resolutions need to be provided? Would the notices be required at the time of application, within a certain time of award of the grant funding, or at the time of grant reimbursement submittals? E. Project Monitoring and Reporting The guidelines state, “The grant application evaluation will assess the robustness of the proposed monitoring program.” How would “robustness” be assessed for varying types of projects? Would there be a range of measures to evaluate a project for robustness? How frequent would reports need to be submitted? Please note that the more frequent and extended these requirements are, the greater the burden placed both on both the grantees and Coastal Conservancy staff who will need to review the information. F. Leveraging Funds In order to demonstrate need, the project would need to show that there is insufficient funding for project implementation thereby needing this grant funding. For the matching funds, we urge the Conservancy to allow in-kind labor (e.g. construction crew time, project management time, volunteer hours, etc.) as well as early project funding (initial planning, design, CEQA compliance) as part of the matching funds. These are true, substantial, and necessary costs that an agency will bear to complete new projects and therefore demonstrate a real commitment to pursue and complete these projects. Thank you for your consideration of these comments on the Draft Program Guidelines. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate in contacting me at Jmark@openspace.org or at (650) 691- 1200. Sincerely, Jane Mark, AICP Planning Manager CC: Ana Ruiz, AICP, Assistant General Manager Tina Hugg, Senior Planner