HomeMy Public PortalAbout20141210 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 14-34
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
7:00 p.m.
A G E N D A
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – PUBLIC
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
Introduction of District Staff: Lupe Hernandez
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Minutes of the November 25, 2014 Board Meeting
2. Approve Claims Report
3. Contract Amendment for Administrative Office Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling System
Repairs (R-14-134)
Staff Contact: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to amend an existing
contract with ACCO Engineered Systems, increasing the amount by $24,570, which includes a
15% contingency of $3,205, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $31,297, to repair and recalibrate
the Administrative Office Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling System.
4. Amendments to the District’s Conflict of Interest Code (R-14-137)
Staff Contact: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending the District’s Conflict of
Interest Code.
Meeting 14-34
BOARD BUSINESS
5. Proposed Exchange of Real Property Interests between Ridge Vineyards, Inc., located at
18100 Montebello Road, Cupertino, CA (Portions of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 351-38-006, -009, -011, and -012) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(District) at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Portion of Santa Clara County Assessor’s
Parcel Number 351-39-004), and Approval of the Re-circulated Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (R-14-147)
Staff Contact: Mike Williams, Real Property Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve the Re-circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and adopt the findings set out in the draft Resolution.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the execution of the Fee and Easement Exchange Agreement
between Ridge and the District and all other documents needed for the property exchange.
3. Adopt the Use and Management Plans as recommended, and designate the property interests
conveyed to the District as an addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve.
4. Dedicate the fee and easement property interests as public open space pursuant to the
District’s Annual Policy for Dedication of Lands.
6. Adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Integrated Pest Management
Program, and Approval of the Integrated Pest Management Program and Policy (R-14-148)
Staff Contact: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District adopting a Final Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for the Integrated Pest Management Program.
2. Approve the Integrated Pest Management Policy for incorporation into the District’s
Resource Management Policies as a replacement for the Invasive Species Management
chapter (Attachment 2).
3. Approve the Integrated Pest Management Program.
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
ADJOURN MEETING TO CLOSED SESSION
1. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(1))
Title of Employees: District Controller
General Counsel
General Manager
TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the
Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a
written communication, which the Board appreciates.
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.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting,
will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda
for the Special and Regular Meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on December 5, 2014, 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 this 5th day of December, 2014, at Los Altos, California.
November 25, 2014
Board Meeting 14-33
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
FINANCING AUTHORITY
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
November 25, 2014
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Harris called the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
District Controller Mike Foster
III. CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – POTENTIAL
LITIGATION (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2))
One Case: Discuss with Legal Counsel the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
Municipal Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative
IV. ADJOURNMENT
President Harris adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 5:56 p.m.
Meeting 14-33 Page 2
SPECIAL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
President Harris called the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 6:01 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, District Controller Mike Foster, and District Clerk Jennifer
Woodworth
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 7-0-0
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Minutes of the Special and Regular Board Meetings of November 12, 2014.
2. Approve the Claims Report
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 7-0-0
VI. BOARD BUSINESS
3. Fund Balance Policy and Initial Reserve Commitments (R-14-150)
District Controller Mike Foster provided a brief summary of the proposed Fund Balance Policy
including the various components of the District’s fund balance, specific reserved funds and
amounts, committed funds, assigned funds, unassigned funds, etc. Mr. Foster also described the
initial amounts for each of the reserve funds and minimum general fund balance. The amounts
may be reviewed annually as part of the annual budget process or more often if desired.
Meeting 14-33 Page 3
Director Kishimoto suggested altering the language for 2004 Bond Reserve Fund to read “Bond
Reserve Fund” and remove the minimum amount to avoid having to bring the policy back to the
Board of Directors to alter the amount.
Public hearing opened at 6:15 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 6:15 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the
proposed new District Fund Balance Policy, and approve initial amounts for committed reserves and
minimum general fund balance, as amended.
4. Resolution approving a Board Policy on Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating
to Bond Issuances (R-14-149)
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner presented the staff report summarizing the proposed policy
which will guide staff and the Board of Directors through bond disclosure requirements. Ms.
Schaffner explained the policy’s provision that the General Manager may amend the policy on a
temporary basis in order to meet legal requirements and that the policy will not take effect until
April 1, 2015.
Director Siemens suggested that the training required under the proposed policy be organized by
District staff to ensure training obligations are met by the District staff and Board members.
Public hearing opened at 6:29 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 6:29 p.m.
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
approving a new Board Policy: “Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances.”
At 6:30 p.m., the Board adjourned the special Board meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Board of Directors and convened the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Financing Authority, with Directors Hanko, Harris, Riffle and
Siemens present.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY
SPECIAL MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Joseph Simitian
Meeting 14-33 Page 4
Staff Present: Executive Director Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
Controller Mike Foster, and Secretary Jennifer Woodworth
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Director Simitian absent)
III. BOARD BUSINESS
1. Annual Financial Report of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Financing Authority (R-14-144)
District Controller Mike Foster presented the Annual Financial Report of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Financing Authority.
Public hearing opened at 6:34 p.m.
No speakers were present.
Public hearing closed at 6:34 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to accept the
Annual Financial Report of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Director Simitian absent)
2. Resolution Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of Documents in Connection
with the Refinancing of the 2004 Revenue Bonds (R-14-146)
District Controller Mike Foster presented the staff report summarizing the prepayment clause
included in the 2004 bond note. Substantial savings may be realized by refinancing the 2004
Revenue Bonds. If authorized by the Financing Authority and District Board of Directors, the
notes will be sold at the best financial advantage to the District.
Public hearing opened at 6:38 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 6:38 p.m.
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Financing Authority authorizing the execution and delivery of documents in connection with the
refinancing of the Authority’s outstanding 2004 Revenue Bonds, and approving related
documents and official actions.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Director Simitian absent)
Meeting 14-33 Page 5
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Director Harris adjourned the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Financing Authority at 6:38 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING – OPEN SESSION (RECONVENED)
President Harris reconvened the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Board of Directors at 6:39 p.m. with Directors all directors present.
VII. BOARD BUSINESS
5. Resolution Approving Documents Relating to Issuance of 2014 Refunding
Promissory Notes (R-14-145)
District Controller Mike Foster presented the staff report and introduced Eileen Gallagher with
Stiefel who explained the process for selling the bonds and anticipated savings from reissuing the
2004 Revenue Bonds.
Public hearing opened at 6:46 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 6:46 p.m.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to adopt a Resolution of
the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District authorizing the
issuance of a series of Refunding Promissory Notes, approving an Official Statement, and
providing other matters properly related thereto.
VOTE: 7-0-0
VIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Director Kishimoto reported that the Action Plan and Budget Committee met twice recently to
receive the midyear budget, which will be going to the Board of Directors on December 17,
2014.
Director Harris reported that the ad hoc committee for the January Board retreat met to discuss
the agenda for that meeting.
Director Harris reported that the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee met and has requested
a closed session of the Board of Directors to discuss the appointee evaluations on December 10,
2014.
IX. STAFF REPORTS
No staff reports.
Meeting 14-33 Page 6
X. DIRECTOR REPORTS
The Board submitted their compensatory forms to the District Clerk.
XI. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
President Harris reconvened the closed session at 6:56 p.m.
The Board returned to open session at 6:58 p.m.
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner reported out of closed session:
“In closed session the board discussed the item listed on the agenda: the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s Municipal Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative.
The Board directed and authorized the General Manager and General Counsel to continue its
review of the District’s compliance with the initiative, and to take any and all steps and to
execute any and all documents relating to the results of that review.”
XII. ADJOURNMENT
President Harris adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:00 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 14‐34
DATE 12‐10‐2014
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check
Date
Payment
Amount
68162 * 10215 ‐ CALPERS‐FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION Health Insur Customer ID 2857159579 12/01/2014 $117,019.79
68138 11293 ‐ RANDAZZO ENTERPRISES, INC Lobner Demolition (MB) 11/26/2014 $114,232.75
68179 11454 ‐ DECON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Sierra Azul Demolitions ‐ Maas Property (SA) 12/03/2014 $103,917.31
68112 11452 ‐ EARTHFLOW DRILLING COMPANY Drilling of the 360 Foot Water Well at the Rogers property (MB) 11/26/2014 $20,940.00
68141 10447 ‐ SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Water System Improvements ‐CalFire Compliance ‐ Silva Property (RR) 11/26/2014 $13,750.00
68175 10014 ‐ CCOI GATE & FENCE Automatic Gate ‐ Bald Mtn Staging Area (SAU) 12/03/2014 $12,240.00
68091 * 11230 ‐ SANTA CLARA COUNTY‐C/O UNITED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE Dental ‐ Group #1766‐0006 11/20/2014 $11,476.08
68096 * 10702 ‐ BARBARA S BERGMAN TRUST Interest on note 11/30/2014 11/24/2014 $8,500.00
68160 * 11152 ‐ WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2 Rent ‐ December 11/26/2014 $8,339.00
68135 * 10180 ‐ PG & E Electric ‐ FO, RSA/CP, MB, SFO, FFO, Event Center (LHC), AO, AO2 11/26/2014 $7,017.22
Electric Service ‐ Rental Residences 11/26/2014
Gas ‐ AO 11/26/2014
68194 11293 ‐ RANDAZZO ENTERPRISES, INC Retainage Release ‐ Lobner Remediation & Demolition (MB) 12/03/2014 $6,012.25
68101 10827 ‐ BAY AREA OPEN SPACE COUNCIL 2015 Annual Dues ‐ BAOSC 11/26/2014 $5,000.00
68095 10540 ‐ CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Mailing Cost of Winter Newsletter 11/21/2014 $4,923.81
68165 * 10419 ‐ THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MPOSD‐BL‐490450 AD&D 12/01/2014 $4,582.83
MPOSD‐BL‐490450 LIFE 12/01/2014
MPOSD‐BL‐490450 LTD 12/01/2014
68182 11177 ‐ HARRIS CONSTRUCTION Installation & Repairs of Windows, Trim, Paint ‐ Rental Residences 12/03/2014 $4,330.90
68204 10585 ‐ SOL'S MOBILE SERVICE Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs ‐ M35/P75/T02/P89/M18 12/03/2014 $3,537.11
Vehicle Bit Inspection ‐ M04/M07/M23/M27/M31/WT01 12/03/2014
68200 10096 ‐ RON'S TRANSMISSION Rebuild Transmission ‐ A68 12/03/2014 $3,297.20
68201 10936 ‐ ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT Benches for Horseshoe Lake (SR) 12/03/2014 $3,022.25
68143 11300 ‐ STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Consulting Services ‐ November 2014 11/26/2014 $3,000.00
68109 11318 ‐ CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Bald Mtn Staging Planting/Weekly Maintenance (SAU) 11/26/2014 $2,940.00
68103 11430 ‐ BIOMAAS Biomonitoring at Mindego Grazing Infrastructure 11/26/2014 $2,694.04
68193 10265 ‐ PRIORITY 1 Installation of Laptop Mount ‐ P89 12/03/2014 $2,539.53
Installation of Radio, Mini Lightbar ‐ A97 12/03/2014
68128 10058 ‐ LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE Employee Relations Legal Consulting 11/26/2014 $2,508.50
68164 * 10211 ‐ PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES Legislative Advocacy Services 12/01/2014 $2,333.34
68093 10201 ‐ TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP CO Service & Repair Club Car 11/20/2014 $2,252.01
68113 10546 ‐ ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Weed Treatment at Skyline Ridge & Los Trancos 11/26/2014 $2,236.00
Water Trailer for Skyline Ridge Restoration Site 11/26/2014
ECDM Watering and Maintenance 11/26/2014
68178 11318 ‐ CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Mindego Gateway Planting Maintenance ‐ October 2014 12/03/2014 $2,164.33
68180 * 10032 ‐ DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE November Janitorial Services 12/03/2014 $1,815.00
68172 10141 ‐ BIG CREEK LUMBER CO INC Lumber for Roads and Trails (LHC/GP) 12/03/2014 $1,720.65
68144 * 10583 ‐ TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS AO Telephone Service + SAO Internet 11/26/2014 $1,632.26
68146 10069 ‐ THE WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Leadership & Organizational Effectiveness Consulting 11/26/2014 $1,600.00
68166 * 11003 ‐ UNITED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GLUG‐45Y5 Basic Life 12/01/2014 $1,539.65
GLUG‐45Y5 Supplemental Life 12/01/2014
68163 * 10212 ‐ PINNACLE TOWERS INC Crown Site ID 871823 12/01/2014 $1,524.00
68122 10043 ‐ HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP ECDM Staging Area Legal services 11/26/2014 $1,357.15
68125 11456 ‐ KELLY INSPECTIONS GROUP INC Bear Creek Stables Inspection 11/26/2014 $1,305.00
page 1 of 3
68107 10843 ‐ CITY OF LOS ALTOS Sewer Service (AO) 11/26/2014 $1,239.98
68188 10190 ‐ METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Radio Maintenance & Repairs 12/03/2014 $1,125.25
68140 * 10580 ‐ SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS Copy charges (AO) 11/26/2014 $1,017.51
68167 * 10213 ‐ VISION SERVICE PLAN‐CA Vision 00 106067 0010 12/01/2014 $1,011.00
68104 10840 ‐ CALIFORNIA PENSION GROUP, LLC Consulting Services ‐ October 2014 11/26/2014 $1,000.00
68136 * 11184 ‐ PURCHASE POWER ‐ PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE Postage (AO) 11/26/2014 $1,000.00
68119 10344 ‐ GREG'S TRUCKING SERVICE INC Transportation of 40 Tons of Rock ‐ Ancient Oaks Trail (RR) 11/26/2014 $994.85
68134 10160 ‐ OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Folders, Sheet Protectors, Tape, Scissors, Dividers 11/26/2014 $961.48
68092 11369 ‐ BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $650.00 ‐ IRWA Registration Fee 11/20/2014 $938.14
$288.14 ‐ Networking & Speed Coaching Reg., Board Meeting Meals 11/20/2014
68169 10004 ‐ ACCOUNTEMPS Accounting Temp 12/03/2014 $855.48
68133 10073 ‐ NORMAL DATA MAAP Database Development Services 11/26/2014 $797.50
68173 10684 ‐ BUTANO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Final Engineering Review ‐ Ancient Oaks Trail (RR) 12/03/2014 $795.00
Geotechnical Services for Pond DR05 12/03/2014
68139 10194 ‐ REED & GRAHAM INC Materials for Hendrys Creek Road Restoration 11/26/2014 $753.64
68148 * 10403 ‐ UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Services (FO) & (SA) 11/26/2014 $745.52
68099 11457 ‐ ANDREINI BROTHERS INC Water Delivery ‐ Rental Residence 11/26/2014 $699.46
68118 * 10173 ‐ GREEN WASTE‐11089 Garbage (SFO) 11/26/2014 $677.59
68176 10352 ‐ CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Vehicle Maintenance & Repair ‐ P84 12/03/2014 $674.63
68121 11043 ‐ HOPKINS TECHNICAL PRODUCTS, INC. Water System (SFO) 11/26/2014 $673.09
68208 10561 ‐ ULINE Work Gloves (SFO) 12/03/2014 $669.03
68114 * 10218 ‐ EDD Unemployment Benefits 3rd Qtr (7/1/14 ‐ 9/30/14) 11/26/2014 $635.00
68203 11268 ‐ SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Fee to Review Survey Record for Mt. Umunhum Property 12/03/2014 $600.00
68126 11376 ‐ LAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Hwy 17 Wildlife Connectivity Study 11/26/2014 $545.00
68189 11063 ‐ O'BRIEN, PAT Executive Services for October 2014 12/03/2014 $525.00
68181 10187 ‐ GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Chainsaw Maintenance & Repairs 12/03/2014 $513.56
68111 10031 ‐ DESIGN CONCEPTS Design and Layout of Ranger Redi‐Reference Booklet 11/26/2014 $495.00
68170 * 10294 ‐ AMERIGAS‐SAN JOSE Propane for Rental Residence 12/03/2014 $464.15
68098 10004 ‐ ACCOUNTEMPS Accounting Temp 11/26/2014 $454.44
68191 10160 ‐ OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Labels, Index Cards, Mousepad, Binders, Laminating Supplies, Pens 12/03/2014 $417.14
68196 * 10589 ‐ RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Garbage Service (RSA/CP) 12/03/2014 $393.93
68186 11099 ‐ LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES INC Assessment of Ranger Applicant ‐ HR 12/03/2014 $375.00
68147 10146 ‐ TIRES ON THE GO Tires & Installation of Tires ‐ M24 11/26/2014 $334.70
68198 * 10093 ‐ RENE HARDOY 11/14 Gardening Services 12/03/2014 $325.00
68102 11264 ‐ BENDLIN FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. Safety Vests 11/26/2014 $305.41
68154 * 10018 ‐ CECILY HARRIS November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $300.00
68155 * 10029 ‐ CURT RIFFLE November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $300.00
68161 * 10118 ‐ YORIKO KISHIMOTO November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $300.00
68187 11458 ‐ LOU'S BBQ Food for Operations Leadership Retreat 12/03/2014 $300.00
68171 11457 ‐ ANDREINI BROTHERS INC Water Delivery ‐ Rental Residence 12/03/2014 $299.77
68195 10176 ‐ RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Steel Sign Posts (GP) 12/03/2014 $250.17
68117 11195 ‐ GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER New Tire Replacement ‐ P99 11/26/2014 $244.37
Tire Repair ‐ P89 11/26/2014
68152 11165 ‐ WOODHAMS ELECTRICAL Electrical Repairs ‐ Rental Residence 11/26/2014 $238.00
68108 10352 ‐ CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs ‐ P86/A93 11/26/2014 $208.01
68120 10267 ‐ HALF MOON BAY REVIEW Harkins Bridge IS/MND Advertising 11/26/2014 $200.00
68151 10237 ‐ WILLIAMS, MICHAEL Reimbursement ‐ Professional Dues (IRWA) 11/26/2014 $200.00
68156 * 10050 ‐ JED CYR November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $200.00
68157 * 10057 ‐ LARRY HASSETT November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $200.00
68159 * 10084 ‐ PETE SIEMENS November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $200.00
68202 10182 ‐ ROYAL BRASS INC Vehicle Maintenance Parts ‐ T32 12/03/2014 $193.89
68205 10157 ‐ STAPLES CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies (AO) 12/03/2014 $189.16
68106 * 10454 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐949 Water Service (AO) 11/26/2014 $185.47
page 2 of 3
68132 11270 ‐ MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC. Parts for Mower (SFO) 11/26/2014 $183.88
68197 10194 ‐ REED & GRAHAM INC Erosion Control Blanket and Staples ‐ Bald Mtn Staging (SAU) 12/03/2014 $169.65
68145 10706 ‐ THE MERCURY NEWS Legal Ad ‐ McDonald Ranch Fencing Bid 11/26/2014 $164.78
68129 10190 ‐ METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Radio Parts & Supplies 11/26/2014 $153.34
68150 10527 ‐ WASTE MANAGEMENT Disposal Service (SAO) 11/26/2014 $139.87
68115 10168 ‐ G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO) 11/26/2014 $137.84
68206 10302 ‐ STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Boulders for Parking Lot (SAU) 12/03/2014 $135.49
68149 * 10309 ‐ VERIZON WIRELESS Cellphone ‐ November 2014 11/26/2014 $125.16
68130 * 10664 ‐ MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS Weekly Garbage Service (AO) 11/26/2014 $120.16
68177 10385 ‐ COASTAL SIERRA INC Internet Services (SFO) 12/03/2014 $109.00
68105 * 10172 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐3525 Water Service for Rental Residences 11/26/2014 $103.95
1198 ** 10850 ‐ COMPLETE PEST CONTROL Pest Control ‐ Hawthorn 11/26/2014 $100.00
68158 * 10072 ‐ NONETTE HANKO November Director Meetings 11/26/2014 $100.00
68127 11392 ‐ LENNIHAN LAW Water Rights Legal Consulting 11/26/2014 $95.40
68110 * 11210 ‐ DATA SAFE Shredding Service (AO) 11/26/2014 $95.00
68184 10394 ‐ INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO Traffic Signs for Bald Mt. 12/03/2014 $94.61
68123 10421 ‐ ID PLUS INC Employee Name Tags 11/26/2014 $81.00
68183 10421 ‐ ID PLUS INC Employee Name Tags 12/03/2014 $81.00
68192 10481 ‐ PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE Telephone (MB) 12/03/2014 $78.00
68207 10162 ‐ TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER Pest Control ‐ AO 12/03/2014 $74.00
68142 * 10952 ‐ SONIC.NET, INC. Internet Service (AO) 11/26/2014 $72.28
68097 * 10810 ‐ A T & T Fax Line (FFO) 11/26/2014 $68.14
68116 10187 ‐ GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Small Equipment Parts (GP) 11/26/2014 $61.93
68100 10340 ‐ BARRESI, CHRIS Reimbursement ‐ Professional Membership 11/26/2014 $56.25
1197 ** 10172 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐3525 Water Service ‐ Hawthorn 11/26/2014 $50.77
68174 * 10172 ‐ CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO‐3525 Water Service (WH) 12/03/2014 $50.59
68199 11426 ‐ RIDGE WIRELESS INC. Internet Service (FFO) 12/03/2014 $50.00
68190 10670 ‐ O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Headlamp ‐ P80 12/03/2014 $49.39
Wiper Fluid for District Vehicles 12/03/2014
Tire Gauge, Tread Gauge, Dig Multimeter (GP) 12/03/2014
68124 11377 ‐ JOHNSON, KRISTIN Reimbursement ‐ ATV/Motorcycle Goggles 11/26/2014 $49.04
68185 10051 ‐ JIM DAVIS AUTOMOTIVE Smog Check ‐ P82 12/03/2014 $45.00
68131 10288 ‐ MISSION VALLEY FORD TRUCK SALES, INC Washer, Nut & Clamps 11/26/2014 $41.84
68137 10299 ‐ RANCHO COBBLER & CLEANER Sew Patches on Employee Uniforms 11/26/2014 $40.00
68168 * 10811 ‐ A T & T Telephone ‐ Daniel Nature Center 12/03/2014 $31.84
1199 ** 10180 ‐ PG & E Electric ‐ 4411 Alpine Rd 11/26/2014 $5.16
$517,335.64
* Annual Claims
** Hawthorn Expense
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-14-134
Meeting 14-34
December 10, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment for Administrative Office Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling System
Repairs
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to amend an existing contract with ACCO Engineered Systems,
increasing the amount by $24,570, which includes a 15% contingency of $3,205, for a total not-
to-exceed amount of $31,297, to repair and recalibrate the Administrative Office Heating,
Ventilation, and Cooling (HVAC) System.
SUMMARY
After performing an initial assessment of the Administrative Office HVAC system, ACCO
Engineered Systems (ACCO) has submitted a proposal for $21,366 to repair and recalibrate the
HVAC system to correct the wide fluctuation in temperature throughout the building. The
General Manager recommends increasing the existing contract amount of $6,728 by $24,570,
which includes a 15% contingency, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $31,297.
BACKGROUND
The Administrative Office HVAC system is quite old and prone to calibration issues, resulting in
wide fluctuations in temperature throughout the building that lend to high staff discomfort and
greater energy use as employees try to offset the temperature issues using personal floor heaters
and cooling fans. The condition has become considerably worse over the past year, resulting in
the use of personal heaters and cooling fans year-round. The Board Room and the Long Ridge
Conference Room also experience extreme temperature variances.
The last recalibration was performed in 2009 and was successful in moderating the building
temperature variances. Due to the age of the HVAC system and the older system technology
from 1992, the system needs periodic recalibration, approximately every three to five years, in
order to function as effectively and efficiently as possible.
DISCUSSION
On September 11, 2014, the District entered into a contract for $6,728 with ACCO to conduct an
inspection and assessment of the HVAC system and make minor repairs where possible as an
initial first step to improving the system. This assessment identified the a number of significant
R-14-134 Page 2
deficiencies within thermostats and air control systems as well as within the rooftop air
conditioning unit.
The ACCO assessment also included the following proposed scope of work to complete more
extensive repairs to address temperature variances and pressure differentials throughout the
Administrative Office building:
Remove and replace two actuators and non-digital thermostats;
Remove and replace seven thermostats with digital thermostats; calibrate and check set
point on the thermostats;
Remove and clean reheat coil strainers on nine Variable Air Volume (VAV) boxes;
Perform air balance on nine VAV boxes; and,
Remove and replace failed components on rooftop air conditioning unit.
Consistent with the requirements of the Board’s Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and
Professional Consultant Selection, and Purchasing Policy (Section II.B.), the District used the
ACCO proposal to solicit written proposals from a minimum of three vendors as follows:
Vendor Proposal
Air-Co of San Jose Declined
United Mechanical of San Jose Declined
ACCO of Pleasanton $21,366
The ACCO proposal includes a cost estimate that is consistent with the cost for the recalibration
performed in 2009, which was completed by a different vendor. Given the lack of interest by
other contacted contractors, the reasonable cost estimate from ACCO, and ACCO’s solid
understanding of the District’s HVAC system, the General Manager recommends awarding the
contract to ACCO. Although the proposal is under the General Manager’s authority of $25,000,
the aggregate contract amount, which includes the already completed inspection, assessment, and
initial minor repairs, would bring the total contract amount above the General Manager’s
authority, thus this item requires Board approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
The original contract amount of $6,728 is included in the FY2014-15 Adopted Budget. The
additional $24,570 will be covered by savings in other expense accounts. No additional funds
are required.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
R-14-134 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, the General Manager will execute the contract amendment with ACCO
and the contractor will begin work.
Responsible Department Head:
Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
Prepared by:
Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
R-14-137
Meeting 14-32
December 10, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Amendments to the District’s Conflict of Interest Code
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution amending the District’s Conflict of Interest Code.
SUMMARY & DISCUSSION
The Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its Conflict of
Interest Code biennially to determine if the Code is accurate, or alternatively, that the Code must
be amended. An amendment would be necessary to include new positions which have either
been added or deleted in the District’s classification plan, revise titles of existing positions or
revise disclosure categories.
The District’s Conflict of Interest Code was last amended on October 24, 2012. Consistent with
requirements for the Political Reform Act, the District conducted a biennial review of its Conflict
of Interest Code and submitted a notice to its code reviewing body, the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC), that an amendment is necessary.
The proposed amendments to the Code are as follows:
Add the new position title of “Contingent Project Manager.”
Eliminate the Senior Administrative Assistant position, which is currently included in the
Code, but does not participate in making governmental decisions that may foreseeably have a
material effect on any financial interest.
In accordance with the FPPC regulations, the District’s Notice of Intention to amend its Conflict
of Interest Code has been posted for at least 45 days prior to tonight’s Public Hearing on the
matter. The review period provides officers, employees, and members of the public an
opportunity to present their views. As of the writing of this report, the District Clerk has
received no public or staff comments regarding the proposed changes. A complete copy of the
proposed amended Conflict of Interest Code is attached for your review.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal or budgetary impact to adoption of the Conflict of Interest Code.
R-14-137 Page 2
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
Board Committee review is not required for amendment of the District’s Conflict of Interest
Code as it is reviewed by the FPPC for compliance with the Political Reform Act.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Copies of this report were provided to
staff members in position affected by revisions to the disclosure list.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, staff will transmit the proposed amendments to the District’s Code to
the FPPC for final review and approval. Once approved by the FPPC, staff will implement the
amended Code.
Attachments
1. Proposed Amended Conflict of Interest Code
2. Resolution Amending Conflict of Interest Code
Responsible Department Head:
Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager
Prepared by:
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Attachment 1
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 650-691-1200
Fax: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: info@openspace.org • Web site: www.openspace.org
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
The Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) requires state and
local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict-of-interest codes. The Fair Political
Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 California Code of Regulations Section
18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict-of-interest code, which can be incorporated
by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing, the standard code may be
amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political
Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any
amendment to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby
incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendices, designating positions
and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict-of-interest code of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District).
Individuals holding designated positions shall file their statements with the District,
which will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Gov. Code
Sec. 81008.) All statements will be retained by the District.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE FOR THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
2
APPENDIX A- DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Designated Positions
Assigned Disclosure
Categories
Accountant 2
Administrative Services Manager 2
Area Superintendent 1, 2
Assistant General Counsel (All Levels) 1, 2
Assistant General Manager 1, 2
Board Members 1, 2
Contingent Project Manager 2
District Clerk 2
Docent Program Manager 3
Executive Assistant 2
General Counsel 1, 2
General Manager 1, 2
GIS Administrator 1, 2,
Human Resources Supervisor 3
Information Technology Administrator 3
Maintenance, Construction and Resource Supervisor 2
Management Analyst (All Levels) 2
Media Communications Supervisor 2
Natural Resources Manager 3
Operations Manager 1, 2
Planner (All Levels) 1, 2
Planning Manager 1, 2
Public Affairs Manager 1, 2
Public Affairs Specialist 2
Real Property Manager 2
Real Property Specialist 1, 2
Resource Management Specialist (All Levels) 1, 2
Senior Administrative Assistant 2
Senior Management Analyst 1, 2
Senior Planner 1, 2
Supervising Ranger 1, 2
Training and Safety Specialist 3
Volunteer Program Manager 3
Website Administrator 3
Consultants/New Positions *
*Consultants and new positions shall be included in the list of designated positions and shall
disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following
limitation:
3
The General Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant or new position,
although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and
thus is not required to comply fully with the disclosure requirements described in this section.
Such determination shall include a description of the consultant’s or new position’s duties and,
based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The General
Manager’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the
same manner and location as this conflict-of-interest code. (Gov. Code Section 81008.)
The following positions are NOT covered by the conflict-of-interest code because they must file
under Government Code Section 87200 and, therefore, are listed for informational purposes
only:
• Controller
An individual holding one of the above listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices
Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe that
their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes
the final determination whether a position is covered by Government Code Section 87200.
4
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CODE FOR THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
APPENDIX B-DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1 – Interests in real property are reportable interests if:
The real property to which the interest pertains is located in whole or in part within the District’s
boundaries or sphere of influence, or within two miles of the District’s boundaries or sphere of
influence, or within two miles of any land owned by the District. (A residence used solely for
personal purposes is not reportable pursuant to Gov. Code Section 87206.)
Category 2
A. Income (including the receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments), investments, and business
positions:
1. In any business entity engaged in business within the District and which is of the type
that has contracted with the District to provide employee testing or training,
professional services, consulting services, financial services, other services, supplies,
materials, machinery, books, uniforms, publications, equipment, vehicles or
insurance.
2. In any business entity that engages in the design, planning, engineering, construction,
materials supply or project management of private or public construction projects
with the District.
3. In any business entity that engages in the business of brokerage, acquisition, leasing,
marketing or disposal of real property within the District.
4. In any business entity that engages in the preparation of reports, surveys, evaluations
or investigations of the type used by the District, including environmental documents
such as Environmental Impact Reports, real property appraisals, land surveys,
environmental assessments, hazardous waste investigations, percolation evaluations,
engineering reports, biological assessments, geologic or hydrologic evaluations, or
evaluation of the physical condition of real property.
Category 3
Investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income (including receipt
of loans, gifts, and travel payments) from sources of the type for which the employee’s division
has purchasing authority.
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 14-___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
AMENDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 12-41, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District adopted a Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political
Reform Act of 1974; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 87306.5 requires a biennial review of the
District’s Conflict of Interest Code; and
WHEREAS, the District, in accordance with the California Fair Political Practices
Commission Regulation 18750.1 (Title 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18750.1), has
prepared code amendments, noticed affected staff members and the public of its intent to amend
the code, and conducted a public hearing to consider the amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does hereby resolve to repeal Resolution No. 12-41 and adopt the amended Conflict of
Interest Code as contained herein, to be effective on the thirtieth (30) day following approval of
the District’s amended code by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2014, at a special meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
Attachment 2
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held
and called on the above day.
District Clerk
R-14-147
Meeting 14-34
December 10, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed Exchange of Real Property Interests between Ridge Vineyards, Inc., located at 18100
Montebello Road, Cupertino, CA (Portions of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
351-38-006, -009, -011, and -012) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) at
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Portion of Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number
351-39-004), and Approval of the Re-circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the Re-circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and adopt the findings set out in the draft Resolution.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the execution of the Fee and Easement Exchange Agreement
between Ridge and the District and all other documents needed for the property exchange.
3. Adopt the Use and Management Plans as recommended, and designate the property interests
conveyed to the District as an addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve.
4. Dedicate the fee and easement property interests as public open space pursuant to the
District’s Annual Policy for Dedication of Lands.
SUMMARY
The District is considering entering into an agreement with Ridge Vineyards, Inc., (Ridge) to
exchange fee and easement property interests to protect scenic views, prohibit residential and
non-agricultural development, protect existing wildlife corridors, provide for sensitive
reestablishment of historic vineyards through sustainable and organic agricultural uses that are
compatible with existing public trail use, and resolve a long-standing encroachment at Monte
Bello Open Space Preserve (Preserve). The land exchange would result in 46.15 acres of
protected open space, agriculture, and scenic views for the District (11.93 acres in fee title and
34.22 acres under a conservation easement), and 42.85 acres of new land for vineyard cultivation
for Ridge (8.94 net acres in fee title and 33.91 acres under an agricultural easement).
R-14-147 Page 2
DISCUSSION
The District and Ridge have long sought to protect the scenic and rural character along Monte
Bello Ridge, restrict future residential and non-agricultural development, protect existing wildlife
corridors, conserve the world-class agricultural resources in a manner which mutually benefits
public and private interests, and resolve a building encroachment issue. The proposed project
reflects a partnership between Ridge and the District to meet these goals and consists of an
exchange of property interests between Ridge and the District.
On December 11, 2013, the District’s Board of Directors was scheduled to consider the proposed
exchange agreement with Ridge; however, at the end of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) circulation period for public comments, a number of Montebello Road neighbors raised
concerns regarding groundwater use and other issues. In response to these concerns,
consideration of the proposed exchange agreement was postponed so that staff could gather
additional information from the community and respond to their concerns. To better understand
the community’s concerns, the following public meetings were held:
December 3, 2013, District staff met with Montebello Road neighbors at the District
Administrative Office
April 14, 2014 a community meeting was held a Picchetti Winery focused on a hydrology
study of the project area
May 19, 2014, Ridge held a meeting at their property to discuss Ridge’s vehicle use of
Montebello Road and Ridge’s vineyard irrigation practices
June 14, 2014, a site tour of the proposed exchange properties from Waterwheel Creek
and the Ridge Vineyard facility was held
At these four meetings, some community members raised concerns about the impacts of the
proposed property exchange on hydrology, traffic, vineyard implementation, recreational use,
and habitat fragmentation. The Re-circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been revised to address these issues and include additional mitigation measures to ensure
any impacts will not be significant. The property exchange documents require compliance with
these mitigation measures.
Proposed Property Exchange (Fee and Easement)
The proposed property exchange includes the following components:
Fee Title Land Exchange (see Attachment 1)
The District and Ridge will exchange equal amounts of fee title property (11.93 acres):
Ridge will convey 11.93 acres of natural open space land to the District. This land is
located east of, and is highly visible from, the western segment of Waterwheel Creek
Trail.
The District will convey 11.93 acres of land to Ridge, resolving the winery facility
encroachment, providing for covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) on a portion
of the acreage, and providing for vineyard farming subject to a conservation easement on
the remaining acreage.
R-14-147 Page 3
Agricultural and Conservation Easement Exchange (see Attachment 2)
The District and Ridge will exchange conservation and agricultural easements:
Ridge will convey to the District a conservation easement of 34.22 acres, protecting
scenic and rural characteristics, restricting residential development and non-agricultural
uses, and allowing continued vineyard agricultural use.
The District will convey to Ridge an agricultural easement of 33.91 acres of public land
within the Preserve allowing for the sensitive reestablishment of vineyards in areas
historically cultivated with vineyards in the early 20th Century.
A detailed accounting of the proposed land and easement exchange is shown below:
Land Exchange to the District
Fee Title Conservation Easement over
Ridge Land
Total Acreage of Protected Open
Space/Agriculture/Views
11.93 ac.
- open space
- prohibits development of 1
legal parcel
34.22 ac.
- 8.94 ac. open space to
vineyards
- 25.28 ac. in vineyard use
prohibits development of 3
legal parcels
46.15 ac.
- Protects open space and prohibits
any future development of 4 legal
parcels
In addition, as noted below, 2.99 ac. of other land to be conveyed in fee by the District to Ridge would be subject to
CC&R’s to minimize impacts of future site improvements.
Land Exchange to Ridge
Fee Title Agricultural Easement over
District Land Total Acreage for New Vineyards
11.93 ac.
- 8.94 ac. open space to
vineyards
- 2.99 ac. , resolves
encroachment, subject to
CC&Rs to protect
viewshed
33.91 ac.
- open space to vineyards
where historic terraces are
located
42.85 ac.
= (8.94 + 33.91)
Total Acreage Exchange to Ridge
45.84 ac.
= (42.85 + 2.99)
The proposed exchange will result in permanently prohibiting the development of four legal
parcels, and 25.28 acres of Ridge’s existing vineyard land will be protected by easement from
residential development or conversion to non-agricultural uses. The 11.93 acre fee property
proposed for conveyance to Ridge will be restricted for vineyard planting (8.94 acres) or subject
to a recorded CC&R’s (2.99 acres) to protect views from Waterwheel Creek Trail and
surrounding open space and park land.
The 11.93 acre fee property and the 33.91 acre agricultural easements being conveyed to Ridge
are dedicated public open space and can be exchanged under Public Resources Code section
5540.5. However, a maximum of 40 acres may be exchanged in a calendar year. Therefore, the
R-14-147 Page 4
proposed exchange includes the transfer of the 11.93 acre fee property by December 31, 2014,
and transfer of the agricultural and conservation easements transfer by March 31, 2015.
Property Description and Regional Context
As shown in Attachments 1 and 2, the subject properties are located on Montebello Ridge within
and along the perimeter of the Preserve in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Included within
the project area is Ridge’s production winery located at 18100 Montebello Road, Cupertino, CA.
The project area slopes downward from Montebello Road, which defines most of the northern
boundary.
Monte Bello Ridge sits on a rare patch of limestone, created by San Andreas Fault movement.
Cresting at approximately 2,657 feet, the project area is highly visible from public open space
and County parkland in the upper Stevens Creek watershed. At its highest point, the project area
is also highly visible from the Santa Clara Valley floor to the east. In recent years, large visible
estate residences have been developed on Monte Bello Ridge, altering the scenic natural
character of the area.
The properties involved in the land and easement exchange currently consist of both active and
abandoned vineyards, a portion of Ridge’s existing production winery, and undeveloped
grassland and chaparral.
District Land
The subject portion of the Preserve primarily consists of undeveloped open space in a natural
condition, although remnants of old rootstock vines are detectable in some areas where
farming previously occurred. Annual grassland with interspersed native perennial grasses
carpet the rolling plateaus, and coyote brush scrub, chamise chaparral, and scrub oak
chaparral grow profusely on slopes. Underneath this vegetation lies the limestone-based
soils that are renowned for wine-grape growing. Public access facilities in the project area
consist of an unpaved permit parking area and the eastern segment of Waterwheel Creek
Trail. A historic unpaved road system interconnects Ridge’s vineyards to Waterwheel Creek
Trail and other historic ranch roads on the Preserve. At the eastern edge of the parking area
and Waterwheel Creek Trail is a steep and densely vegetated drainage which provides a
wildlife habitat corridor from Monte Bello Ridge to Stevens Creek to the south, which will
be preserved as part of the proposed exchange agreement.
Ridge Vineyards Land
Ridge’s Montebello facility is a privately-owned vineyard and winery originally established
as Monte Bello Vineyards in 1886. The subject portion of Ridge’s land includes existing
vineyards, a production winery, farm labor housing, related agricultural buildings and
facilities, and undeveloped open space. However, Ridge’s winery building and related
facilities encroach onto a small portion of the Preserve, dating prior to public purchase of the
land by the District in 1974.
Approximately 25.28 acres of the conservation easement property already contain vineyards.
On its vineyards, Ridge uses sustainable, organic practices, such as cover cropping, minimal
tilling, and integrated pest management. Raptor roosts and bird boxes are employed to assist
R-14-147 Page 5
in insect and rodent control. The unfarmed portions of the property are steeply sloping, with
rocky outcrops in between annual grassland, oak woodlands and chaparral.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS / PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The properties being proposed for exchange are within unincorporated Santa Clara County and
are zoned as HS (Hillside) requiring a 20- to 160-acre minimum lot size based upon a slope
density formula. The Ridge-owned properties consist of four legal parcels having a potential
density of four residential sites. These four parcels are considered legal nonconforming parcels.
The proposed conservation and agricultural easements will restrict future use of the affected land
to organic and sustainable agriculture and agriculture-related activities and preserve it as open
space. The proposed District conservation easement on Ridge Vineyards’ property (34.22 acres)
will limit future use to open space and agriculture. Access to the conservation easement area is
limited to easement monitoring purposes only, and no public access rights are granted.
Cultivation of vineyards will be the only permitted use of the agricultural easement. The District
will monitor the conservation and agricultural easements and the farming practices pursuant to
the provisions of the conservation and agricultural easements to ensure ongoing compatibility
with natural resources and adjacent low-intensity recreation at the Preserve.
As part of the transaction, a 2.99-acre portion of District land conveyed to Ridge, which includes
the winery building encroachment, will become subject to a recorded Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) that require new site improvements to be visually compatible with, or
screened from view from surrounding open space vantage points.
Additionally, the District will grant Ridge a road license allowing trails and roadways on District
land to be used for agricultural purposes in three locations:
A 500 foot long unsurfaced path parallel to Montebello Road connecting Ridge’s
conservation easement property to the District agricultural easement property. This
roadway does not affect public trail use;
A 500 foot segment of unsurfaced roadway near Ridge’s winery, which does not affect
public trail use; and
Waterwheel Creek Trail to Montebello Road Trail and Montebello Road Trail to the
northwest boundary of Ridge’s property with prior notification to District (use would
occur during harvest season between September 1 through November 15).
Recreational use of Waterwheel Creek Trail, Montebello Road Trail, and the permit parking area
will continue, and as part of the license, Ridge will coordinate with the Skyline Field Office to
post warning signs alerting trail users to the possible presence of farm equipment on the trail,
which will typically result in 3 to 6 trips during weekday mornings during each harvest season,
but will not exceed 10 trips overall.
Ridge has the legal rights to 50% of the water from the spring below Waterwheel Creek Trail,
which is located on District property. Ridge used the existing springwater system for
agricultural watering until 2006 when the electrical system failed. As part of the exchange,
Ridge will be granted a water infrastructure license to access, repair, rehabilitate, and operate this
R-14-147 Page 6
spring water system and to transport water via underground waterlines through a portion of
District property. Rehabilitation work may require installation of a new springbox and water
lines within a small, shallow wetland area. Ridge will consult with the State Department of Fish
and Wildlife on a Streambed Alteration Agreement for this work.
Ridge plans to use the proposed land and easements conveyed by the District to reestablish
vineyards on land historically used for viticulture and access the farmed properties. New
vineyards will follow organic and sustainable practices. Approximately 42.85 acres may be
planted with new vines, (8.94 acres of the conservation easement property and 33.91 acres of the
agricultural easement property). Ridge would incorporate erosion control, irrigation
management, and disease, weed, and pest management practices into the project. The
establishment of vineyards would be phased and would take place over a period of more than
fifteen years.
Ridge will need to prepare land for the planting of new wine grapevines. Existing grassland or
chaparral vegetation would be removed in each block prior to starting. In a 9.33-acre area above
Waterwheel Creek Trail, the land was terraced in the early 1900s to accommodate grapevines.
Minor grading will be required to restore these existing terraces to a usable condition, and a 1.67-
acre plot would be newly terraced. The remainder of the new vineyard areas (approximately 31
acres) would be tilled to a depth of 1.5 to 2.5 feet to facilitate new grapevine root penetration. All
vine rows will follow the land contour to the extent possible to minimize erosion potential. Deer
fencing consisting of six-foot woven galvanized mesh would be installed to protect the newly
planted vines. In addition, the new vineyard area would include unpaved farm roads (“avenues”)
to provide access and setbacks to create a buffer between planted acreage and adjacent uses.
Vineyard development will not occur between November 16 and March 31 to reduce the
potential for erosion during the rainy season.
The easterly 21.97 acre area of the agricultural easement is proposed to be planted on the south
east facing slopes, which will minimize the scenic impact from the eastern segment of
Waterwheel Creek Trail and the permit parking area. On the easterly 21.97 acre area of the
agricultural easement, Ridge plans to install one or two new groundwater wells to provide water
for irrigation and fire protection purposes, and install up to two new 10,000 gallon water tanks
partially below-grade, as well as water distribution lines, electrical lines, and solar panels. Ridge
will consider the geology, rock formation and location of nearby wells to ensure the new wells
are located an adequate distance from existing wells on private properties to avoid affecting
water levels at neighbor’s wells. In addition the project includes pumping rate limitations for
any new wells installed by Ridge.
Drip irrigation systems would irrigate the newly planted vines, which are typically watered only
during the first 10 years after planting, except in extreme drought conditions. New agricultural
structures permitted within the conservation and agricultural easements will be rustic in nature,
limited to 14 feet in height using earth tones, and will not exceed 250 square feet.
Before Ridge can begin installation of its vineyards, the District must first approve an
Installation Plan. Then, before Ridge can begin operation of the vineyard, the District must
approve a Management and Operations Plan. Before approval of these plans, the District will
ensure improvements are consistent with the conservation and agricultural easements,
compatible with the use and enjoyment of nearby public trails, and consistent with the Initial
R-14-147 Page 7
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. In addition, a third party, paid for by Ridge, will
review and comment on both the Installation Plan and Management and Operations Plan, and
Ridge must incorporate the final recommendations of the reviewer into the plans. During
drought conditions, the planting of new vineyards will be prohibited until after a normal rain
year.
USE AND MANAGEMENT
Preliminary Use and Management Plan (Next Steps)
The principal purpose of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) is to establish an
initial land management approach to be effective in the interim between the purchase and the
completion of a subsequent long-term plan. A Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (including the exchange project lands) was adopted on
November 29, 1989 and amended on June 25, 1997.
A separate Use and Management Plan is provided for each of the following areas (See
Attachment 3): 1) the property conveyed to the District in fee, 2) the conservation easement area
(Ridge lands), and 3) the agricultural easement area and vicinity (existing District lands subject
to the prior Comprehensive Use and Management Plan). These Use and Management Plans will
take effect at the close of each escrow and remain effective until the plan is amended or a revised
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Master Plan is approved for Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve.
Use and management of the exchange project lands will entail ongoing coordination between the
District and Ridge to ensure compatibility and consistency with the exchange agreements and
easements.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
After receiving comments on the mitigated negative declaration prepared in 2013, District staff
prepared a Re-circulated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
proposed District / Ridge Vineyards Land Exchange, which is for CEQA purposes, “the Project”
(See Attachment 4). Given that this Project will result in the long term protection of open space
and agricultural resources, the MND found that the Project would not result in significant
impacts for many of the topic areas evaluated. The MND found that the Project could have
potentially significant effects with respect to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
and hydrology and water quality, but the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project
would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The attached Resolution makes
specific findings regarding these impacts and mitigation measures (See Attachment 5). The
Initial Study and MND explain the basis for the findings in more detail.
Notification of Public and Agencies
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a MND was submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerk-
Recorder on October 6, 2014 for public posting stating that the public review period would start
on October 6, 2014 and end on November 5, 2014 (a 30-day period, 30 days is required). On
October 6, 2014, the Notice was posted at the District’s Administrative Office, posted to the
District’s website (www.openspace.org), and mailed to more than 186 persons. Those notified
included owners and occupants of property within approximately 300 feet of the project site,
R-14-147 Page 8
owners and occupants along Montebello Road, other interested parties previously requesting
notice, and the Santa Clara County Planning Department. During the comment period, the
Notice, MND, and Initial Study were made available for public review at the District’s
Administrative Office and on the District’s website. Therefore, all legal notice requirements of
CEQA have been met.
Comments Received
As of November 15, 2014, the District received comments from five parties concerning the
Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which are attached to this staff
Report. In the attached Comments and Responses these comments were acknowledged and
responses provided (See Attachment 6). The responses to comments address the issues raised by
the commenters and clarify the description of the project regarding the siting of and pumping
rate for the new wells on the Agricultural Easement property. In summary, the comments
received did not raise any significant new environmental impacts, and did not result in any
changes to the MND’s conclusions regarding the Project’s environmental impacts.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), which describes the project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring
process (see Attachment 7). The MMRP ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate
potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. The project incorporates all
of these new mitigation measures.
FISCAL IMPACT
An independent appraiser jointly commissioned by the District and Ridge determined that the
fair market value of the property interests the District proposes for exchange is of equal value to
the property interests Ridge proposes to exchange. Therefore no funds will change hands
between the parties. Ridge and the District are sharing (50/50) in the cost of the title and escrow
fees. The District’s share is estimated at $5,300. The District’s portion of these funds are
budgeted in the Real Property Department’s New Land Budget.
BOARD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The District’s Real Property Committee, a standing committee of the Board of Directors, held a
public meeting on the property to become familiar with the property and to receive public input
on the proposed exchange. This meeting was held on June 26, 2012, after notice was distributed
to property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the property. The Committee
members expressed support for the proposed exchange terms. The District’s Board of Directors
held a special meeting on November 5, 2013 to view the project site and Ridge’s vineyard
practices. At the meeting, staff described the property and how it would be managed as open
space and agricultural land, the proposed use and management plan, and the proposed exchange
terms.
R-14-147 Page 9
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. In addition, 186 property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the project area, neighbors along the full length of Montebello Road
and interested parties were sent notice of this meeting. No additional notice is required.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board and the Exchange Agreement is signed by Ridge, the District will
proceed to close escrow on the fee title exchange by December 31, 2014. After completing the
easement and CC&R baseline documentation, the District will close escrow on the easements
and record the remaining transactional documents by March 31, 2015. Ridge will submit
Vineyard Installation Plans to the District for review and approval prior to starting development
of new vineyards on the Agricultural Easement and the 8.94 acre portion of the Conservation
Easement.
Attachments:
1. Map of Fee Title Land Exchange
2. Map of Conservation and Agricultural Easements
3. Ridge Vineyards Use & Management Plans
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
5. CEQA Resolution
6. CEQA Comment Letter(s) and Response(s)
7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8. Exchange Resolution
Prepared by:
Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Graphics prepared by:
Jon Montgomery, GIS Intern
C
a
n
y
o
n
Trail
W a ter
wheel C r e e k Trail
Swiss Creek
Stevens Creek
G o ld M i n e C re ek
M id p e n in s ul a R eg i o n a lOpen S p a ce D i s t r i ctAttachment 1: Fee Ti t l e L a nd Exc h a n ge
Dec em ber, 2 0 1 4
Path
:
G:
\P
roj
ect
s
\Mon
te
_Bel
lo\
Rid
ge_Vi
neyar
d\
RV
_No
v_201
3\A
tt
ach
men
t1_
Boar
dPa
cket
_Lan
ds
cape_
8.5
x11.
mxd
Cr
eat
ed
By:
mch
ilds
0 0.20.1Miles
(M R O SD)
O th e r P r o t e c te d O p e n S p a c eor P a rk L a n d s
O pen S p a c e Di s tr i c t to R i d g e V i n e y a rd s
Ri dg e Vi n e y a rd s t o O pen S p a c e Di s tr i c t
M RO S D P r e s e rv e s
Pri v a t e P r o p e rt y
Whi le th e Dis t r ict s t ri ves t o us e t he b es t avai lab le digi ta l d at a, t his d at a d oe s not r ep r es ent a le gal s ur vey and is m er el y a gra ph ic i llu st r at ion of ge ogr ap hic fe at ur es .
R a n c h o S a nAntonio O S P
Ar e a o fDetail
28 0
Att ac h m e n t1 _Bo a r d Pa c k e t_L a n d sc a p e _8 .5 x 1 1 &".m xd "
Ri dg e Vi ne yar ds
Mo nt e B el loOpen Sp ac e Pre se rve
City
of
P
alo A
lt
o
U
ninc
orporated
S
ant
a C
la
ra
C
ount
y
35
Ri d g e Vi n e y a rd s
Ga teMB09
(B y P er m it On l y)
Ri dg e to M R OSD
Win e r y E n c r o a c h m e n t
Ri dg e to Dis tri ct11.9 3 acre s
Dist rict t o Ri d ge11.9 3 acre s
8.9 4 A c re s
2.9 9 a c re s
9.2 8 a c re s
2.6 5 a c re s
Pri va t e
Sp ri n g
C up e rti n o
M o n t eBelloOSP
MonteBelloRo
ad
To R idg e(C C&R's)
W i ne r y
SwissCreek
Stevens Creek
G old M in e C re ek
Mi d p en in su la Re g io na lOpen S p ac e Di st r ic tAttachment 2 : A g ri c u l t u ra l & C o n s e r v a t i o n E a s em e n t E x c h a n ge
No vember, 2014
Path: G:\Projects\Monte_Bello\Ridge_Vineyard\RV_Nov_2013\Attachment2_1.mxd
Created By: jmontgomery
0 0.20.1MilesI
(M RO S D )
Ot her Pr o t ect ed O p en S p ac eor Pa rk La nds
Op en Sp ac e D i st r ic t A g ri cu lt ur alEasement t o R i dg e Vi ne yar ds
Ri dg e Vi neya rd s C o ns erv at io nEasement t o O pe n S p ace D ist rict
MR O SD Pr ese rves
Pr i va te Pr op er t y
While the District strive s t o u se t he best availab le digit al d at a, this data does not rep resent a legal survey an d is mer ely a graphic illustration of geographic featur es.
!
!
!
!
Area ofDetail
£¤280
At ta c hm e n t2 _1&".m xd"
Ridge ConservationEasement to District34.22 acresRidge Vineyards
"
Monte BelloOpen Space Preserve
City of Palo Alto
Unincorporated Santa Clara County
Wine ry
Ridge CC&R'sto District
RIDG E e asement
District AgriculturalEasement to Ridge33.91 acres
£¤35
Ri dg e Vi neya rd s
GateMB09
(By Permit Only)
CanyonTrail
WaterwheelC r e e k T r a il
R a n c h o S a nAntonio O S P
Cupertino
M o n t eBelloOSP
MonteBelloRoad
+RSpring
!!!
Priva te
11.94 acres
21.97acres
Attachment 3
Ridge Vineyards Use & Management Plans
Preliminary Use & Management Plan for Fee Title Property Conveyed to the District
Public Access: 1. Open the 9.28-acre parcel to public access.
2. Close the 2.65-acre parcel to public access, except for Monte Bello
Road Trail which shall remain open to public trail use.
Structures and
Improvements:
Allow operation and maintenance of existing water facilities on the 2.65-acre
parcel consistent with the deeded easement rights held by the adjoining
private property owner.
Water
Infrastructure
License
Ridge may install water improvements on District land, pursuant to the
Water Infrastructure License. If water is needed in an emergency, the District
is permitted to use Ridge’s water tanks.
Resource
Management:
Manage lands in a natural condition, consistent with District Resource
Management Policies. Conduct a detailed resource assessment, covering
such topics as vegetation management and special status species.
Conduct resource management activities, non-native invasive species and
forest disease management activities on exchange project lands consistent
with the District’s standard policies and procedures, incorporating additional
environmental review, if needed, once site specific projects have been
identified. Coordinate with Ridge Vineyards on an on-going basis, so that
District resource management practices are compatible with organic farming
practices.
Wildfire Fuel
Management:
Further assess vegetative communities on the property to determine wildfire
management needs, coordinate with the adjoining private property owner
and Ridge Vineyards, and consult with appropriate fire agencies in
developing a site-specific fuel modification and management program as part
of the subsequent planning process. Maintain appropriate defensible space
clearances around improvements.
Roads and
Trails:
Allow roadway access to the adjoining private property and Ridge’s lands,
consistent with deeded access rights.
Attachment 3
Signs, Safety,
and Site
Security:
Install a vehicle gate at an appropriate location adjacent to Montebello Road.
Routinely patrol the property using Monte Bello Road and existing roads.
Install fences and gates as necessary to prevent unauthorized vehicular entry
at the property boundaries. In coordination with Ridge, remove and relocate
existing vineyard fence line. Install private property, closed area, and
preserve boundary signs where appropriate to identify lands available for
public access.
No evidence of any recognized hazardous condition has been found on the
property. As with every situation involving past and ongoing agricultural
use, perform a thoughtful analysis of the specific working conditions before
all future maintenance and repairs.
Mitigation
Measures:
Ensure implementation of all applicable Mitigation Measures from the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Subsequent
Planning:
Develop a long-term plan for the property in conjunction with other
additions to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. The planning process should
include public workshops to gather input, and public hearings to review draft
and final plans, consistent with the District’s Use and Management Planning
Policy. This long-term plan will be subject to further environmental review
under CEQA.
Dedication: Indicate your intention to dedicate the property as open space at this time.
Attachment 3
Preliminary Use & Management Plan for Conservation Easement Lands and CC&R Area
(Lands of Ridge Vineyards)
Public Access: No public access is allowed.
Conservation
Easement:
Monitor the conservation easement to ensure ongoing compatibility with
natural resources and adjacent low-intensity recreation at Monte Bello Open
Space Preserve.
Pursuant to the Conservation Easement, work with a mutually agreeable
third party reviewer to review, approve, and monitor implementation of
Ridge’s Vineyard Installation Plans, and Maintenance and Operation Plans.
Covenants,
Conditions, and
Restrictions
(CC&Rs)
Monitor new site improvements adjacent to Ridge’s winery building to
ensure that they are visually compatible with, or screened from view from,
surrounding open space vantage points, consistent with the CC&Rs.
Signs, Safety,
and Site
Security:
Coordinate with Ridge regarding vineyard fencing and boundary signage at
the Conservation Easement as part of the Vineyard Installation Plan process.
Mitigation
Measures:
Ensure implementation of all applicable Mitigation Measures from the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Attachment 3
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan Amendment for Agricultural Easement and
Adjacent District Lands
Public Access: Close the Agricultural Easement area to public access with implementation
of each phase of vineyard development, to avoid interference with
agricultural activities.
Water Wheel Creek Trail and the permit parking lot remain open for public
use. Limited farm vehicle use may occur seasonally on this trail, following
District notification and signing, consistent with the Agricultural Easement
terms.
Structures and
Improvements:
Ridge may install water tanks, water lines and wells, pursuant to the
Agricultural Easement and Water Infrastructure License. If water is needed
in an emergency, the District is permitted to use Ridge’s water tanks.
Resource
Management:
On District lands adjacent to the Agricultural Easement, coordinate with
Ridge so that the District’s non-native invasive species and forest disease
management practices are compatible with organic farming practices.
Wildfire Fuel
Management:
Further assess vegetative communities adjoining the Agricultural Easement
area to determine wildfire management needs, coordinate with Ridge, and
consult with appropriate fire agencies in developing a site-specific fuel
modification and management program as part of the subsequent planning
process. Together with Ridge, maintain appropriate defensible space
clearances around improvements.
Agricultural
Easement:
Monitor the farming practices pursuant to the agricultural easement to ensure
ongoing compatibility with natural resources and adjacent low-intensity
recreation at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, consistent with the
Agricultural Easement.
Pursuant to the Agricultural Easement, work with a mutually agreeable third
party reviewer to review, approve, and monitor implementation of Ridge’s
Vineyard Installation Plans, and Maintenance and Operation Plans.
Water
Infrastructure
License
Ridge may access and improve the spring, and install water improvements
on District land, consistent with the Water Infrastructure License.
Roads and
Trails:
Allow Ridge to use roads and trails pursuant to the Agricultural Easement,
Water Infrastructure License, and Road License.
Signs, Safety,
and Site
Security:
Coordinate with Ridge regarding vineyard fencing at the Agricultural
Easement as part of the Vineyard Installation Plan process.
Routinely patrol the Agricultural Easement property using existing roads and
trails until vineyard development begins, at which time Ridge will take over.
Attachment 3
Mitigation
Measures:
Ensure implementation of all applicable Mitigation Measures from the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Dedication: Indicate your intention to dedicate the property as open space at this time.
641348.1
Resolutions/2014/14-___Ridge – Adopt MND 1
RESOLUTION NO. 14-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISTRICT/RIDGE VINEYARDS LAND
EXCHANGE PROJECT AT MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
I. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has
reviewed the proposed District/Ridge Vineyards Land Exchange Project (“Project”)
within and adjacent to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Preserve).
II. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively, MND), attached to the
Board Report, was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et
seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.).
III. The MND identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the
proposed project, but found that mitigation measures for the proposed Project and made
as part of the proposed Project would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to below a
level of significance.
IV. The MND and a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration were
circulated for public review from October 6, 2014 to November 5, 2014.
V. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared to ensure compliance with
the MND’s mitigation measures.
VI. On December 10, 2014 the Board of Directors conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on the adequacy of the MND at which oral and written comments and a staff
recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Board of Directors. The
Board of Directors reviewed and considered the information in the MND, administrative
record, and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the District Board of Directors that, based upon
the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record
presented, the Board of Directors finds that:
1. Notice of the availability of the MND and all hearings on the MND was given as required
by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.
2. All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to
submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the
Board of Directors and all comments raised during the public comment period and at the
public hearings on the MND were responded to adequately.
Attachment 5
Resolutions/2014/14-___Ridge – Adopt MND 2
3. Prior to approving the Project that is the subject of the MND, the Board has considered
the MND, along with all comments received during the public review process.
4. The MND finds potentially significant effects with respect to certain impacts as described
in the MND, and the Board hereby finds that these effects will be mitigated or avoided by
the changes made in the Project as described in the MND.
5. The Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the MND and
all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a
significant effect on the environment in that, although the Project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case since
Mitigation Measures have been made a part of the Project to avoid such effects.
6. The Board adopts the MND and determines that the MND reflects the District’s
independent judgment and analysis.
7. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and finds
that contractual documents between the District and Ridge Vineyards ensure that these
mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be
implemented as part of the Project.
8. The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the offices of the General
Manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los
Altos, California 94022.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2014, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
Resolutions/2014/14-___Ridge – Adopt MND 3
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Email from Bill Betchart, dated November 1, 2014 (Letter A)
Comment A‐1:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced
Notice of Intent and the accompanying Draft Recirculated Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the MROSD and Ridge
Exchange. Please acknowledge that you have received this comment
email prior to the November 5 deadline.
Given other obligations, I have again allocated my limited time to
reviewing the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the revised Initial
Study. This is my area of professional expertise.
The Groundwater Investigation (Appendix D in the revised Initial Study)
provides appropriate broad background information for beginning to
evaluate whether “potentially significant environmental impacts” can be
identified. This allows a substantial improvement in the thinking and
analysis when compared with the previous version of the Initial Study.
Thank you for providing it.
Response A‐1:
The District acknowledges that this letter was received by the end
of the public circulation period, November 5, 2014. Comments
acknowledged.
Comment A‐2:
A. Regarding Hydrogeology in various sections —
Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Groundwater Conditions
Section 4.9.1.3 Existing Water Use
Section 4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
(especially Checklist Item 2 and discussion of “Groundwater Supplies”)
Response A‐2:
As noted in the comment, a groundwater availability study
(Appendix D of the Initial Study) was completed for the project.
The study concluded that, as described in Section 4.9.2.1 of the
Initial Study, net water use both with and without the proposed
project is a small percentage of mean annual groundwater
recharge. Moreover, the long‐term post‐exchange net water use
would be less than the existing water use given the significant
reduction of water use over time needed to sustain well‐
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Appendix D Groundwater Investigation Monte Bello Ridge
Although the revised Initial Study again diligently discusses each item in
the “Setting” section and then does so again in its “Checklist and
Discussion of Impacts” section, its treatment of checklist item 2 on page
62 (depletion of groundwater) is still inadequate – even grossly
inadequate (if you happen to adopt a neighbor’s viewpoint) – and in
error by finding a "Less Than Significant Impact" rather than a
“Potentially Significant Impact.”
The fundamental flaw in the treatment of this topic in the Groundwater
Investigation (and then also in the revised Initial Study) is the failure to
consider the potential non‐static impacts on neighboring wells (i.e.,
weekly and monthly average local water table levels and changes near
existing wells during intensive pumping) – changes that may be caused
or exacerbated by either of the two new wells that are being authorized
by as part of the Project.
If a new well (authorized by the MROSD) is located near an existing well
or happens to tap a groundwater source (a system of joints, fractures, or
shear zones) that is already being used by an existing well, then the
specific question in item 2 becomes relevant at a smaller scale (than
Study‐Area wide) and the answer must be yes. There would be a
significant potential that the new well will “… interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge [to the joint, fracture, or shear zone system]
such that there will be … a lowering of the local [joint, fracture, or shear
zone system] groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre‐
existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing
land uses…).” This is clearly a “Potentially Significant Impact” to the
established vineyards. While the project would initially result in a
temporary overall increase in net water use of up to
approximately 17% of the mean annual groundwater recharge to
establish the vines, once the existing and future vines are mature,
overall water use would be 7% less than existing conditions (Table
4.9‐1 of the Initial Study). For this reason, it has been determined
that the proposed land exchange would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table.
The comment refers specifically to impacts to neighboring wells, as
opposed to the project’s overall impacts to the local water table.
Well interference occurs when the water level in one well is
significantly lowered as a result of the pumping of a nearby well.
When pumping in a well begins, the water level around the well
goes down as the aquifer supplies water to the well. This drop in
water levels in a well is called drawdown. The area of drawdown is
termed a “cone of depression” and is shaped like a cone, centered
on the well. Drawdown is greatest near the pumping well and
decreases to essentially zero at a distance from the pumping well
termed the “radius of influence.” The depth and radius of
influence of the cone of depression are determined by the ability
of the aquifer to transport and store water, the discharge rate, and
the duration of pumping.
Interference occurs when the cone of depression from one well
intercepts another well and lowers the water level in that well.
The locations of the two proposed land exchange wells as
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
existing well owner, – even a devastating impact, as in “my‐property‐
value‐just‐dramatically‐decreased because of the new MROSD well(s).”
described in the MND were conceptual. Ridge could install a
maximum of two wells. To ensure that any new wells will not
interfere with existing nearby wells, the following are incorporated
into the project description to clarify the location of future wells
and their pumping rates:
1. Radius of Influence and Geology:
a. New wells will be located at least 600 feet from existing
wells in the same geologic formation. Wells in the same
geologic formation also will likely be in the same system of
joints, fractures, or shear zones.
b. New wells will be located at least 300 feet from existing
wells in different geologic formations. Wells in different
geologic formations also will likely be in different systems
of joints, fractures, or shear zones.
The above distances are based on the following conservative
assumptions:
Maximum new vines gross water use of 570,000 gallons per
year divided equally between the two new wells: 285,000
gallons per year per well (Groundwater Investigation, July
31, 2014, Table 4). If the new wells irrigate less than the
total land exchange area of 32 acres, then their discharge
would be less.
Irrigation will occur during six months of the year (285,000
gallons divided by six): May through October, resulting in
47,500 gallons per month per well (1,600 gallons per day
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
per well or a pumping rate of 26 gallons per minute for 60
minutes per day per well).
Radius of influence was calculated for a worst‐case scenario
by assuming that the entire discharge for a month is
pumped continuously (e.g., 26 gallons per minute for 1826
minutes).
The calculated radius of influence for a Ridge new well was
140 feet. This distance was doubled for wells in different
geologic formations and doubled again for wells in the
same geologic formation.
2. Pumping Rate:
Total discharge from each new well will be no more than 285,000
gallons per year (one half of 570,000 gallons per year) and no
more than 47,500 gallons per month, exclusive of potential fire‐
fighting use. The wells will include totalizing flow meters to record
monthly flows.
These clarifications to the project description provide assurance
that the land exchange would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre‐existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted.) The project will not result in significant impacts to
neighboring wells.
Property value issues are not considered environmental issues
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
under CEQA and are not evaluated in the Initial Study.
Nonetheless, with the additional assurances provided above, the
installation of up to two wells should have no bearing on water
availability or its link to property values.
Comment A‐3:
The error in the Groundwater Investigation and in the Revised Initial
Study is a failure to consider multiple scales in space and time. The
Groundwater Investigation conclusion (final paragraph page 19) is
correct only if you consider the “local groundwater table” to be the
entire Study Area as compared to (say) all of the Santa Clara County
Coast Range and if you look only at long‐term, multi‐year averages and
ignore seasonal effects and the potential that drought years are
becoming more frequent. What the Groundwater Investigation
addressed is valuable background – a first step well done.
However, the important potential impacts to neighbors require a second
step – considering potential impacts of each of the two new wells that
are proposed as part of the project on local groundwater levels near
each existing well on a seasonal/monthly basis especially during dry
years, the dry season (July through October), and with intensive
pumping in both the existing wells and both new wells. The
hydrogeologist will not be able to predict such impacts, but he can make
an informed judgment on whether there is even a remote possibility of a
“Potentially Significant Impact” on the each existing well and its
landowner. This judgment will be affected by two factors: (1) the
distance to existing wells from the possible locations of the new wells
(not yet indicated, except as parcel 5f), and (2) the nature of the Study
Area aquifers – in which groundwater occurs and flows primarily “within
Response A‐3:
The information contained in the Initial Study is correct. As stated
on page 57 (Section 4.9.1.2) of the Initial Study, the study area for
the groundwater availability report was defined as the area that
could potentially be affected by groundwater use from Ridge
Vineyards wells. This was the appropriate study area and long‐
term, multi‐year averages were evaluated. Drought conditions
were also described throughout Section 4.9 of the Initial Study and
are described in Appendix D. The evaluation conducted included
drought conditions.
Distances to the neighboring wells and the nature of the aquifer
will be taken into account when determining well locations.
Please refer to Response A‐2 clarifications to the project
description regarding the siting of and pumping rates for new
wells. As discussed in Response A‐2, the land exchange would not
result in significant impacts to neighboring wells.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
secondary openings such as joints, fractures, shear zones and faults;
because the rock itself is not porous” (Groundwater Investigation p. 3).
Because the water paths (e.g., the system of fractures) can be
extensively interconnected and some may allow rather rapid flow of
substantial water volumes, the interference impacts on existing wells
can potentially occur quickly and propagate a substantial distance. This
is especially possible and devastating if the new well taps an
interconnected fracture system at a lower elevation than the existing
well; the higher existing well can simply go dry. Because of this
phenomenon, it seems to me (as a Professional Engineer) that the
hydrogeologist must conclude there is a “Potentially Significant Impact”
on existing wells and their associated landowners.
Comment A‐4:
Fortunately for Ridge and the MROSD, this “Potentially Significant
Impact” can be mitigated. Assurances can be extended by MROSD and
Ridge to potentially impacted neighbors protecting them against
significant well interference. Such assurances can be implemented in a
contractually binding way. The assurances could include restricting the
location of the new wells to provide separation from existing wells,
restricting water use from the new wells to irrigation of the new
vineyard acreage proposed by the Project (except for occasionally use
for firefighting), restricting the rate and timing of pumping and overall
annual withdrawal, and/or committing to keep existing well owners
whole by providing an alternate source of water. The mitigation cost
would likely be minor. Actual well interference may not occur at all. In
such case, the only expense might be the routine metering and
monitoring of Ridge’s wells (existing and new) and of the potentially
impacted neighboring wells – the monitoring that was suggested in the
Response A‐4:
Please refer to Response A‐2 for clarifications regarding the siting
of and pumping rates for new wells. These clarifications ensure
that existing wells are not adversely affected by the new proposed
wells. Ridge’s new wells would be monitored, which is currently a
standard practice on their property. As stated in this comment,
the monitoring of Ridge’s wells was described in Appendix D of the
Initial Study. As described in Response A‐2, the land exchange
would not result in significant impacts to neighboring wells. The
transactional documents restrict planting of new vineyards during
drought conditions, and water can only be used on the agricultural
and conservation easement properties.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
final sentence of the Groundwater Investigation. Although some owners
are reluctant to have their wells and water use monitored, their
cooperation/participation would be a reasonable precondition for
receiving any assurance of impact mitigation offered by MROSD and
Ridge.
Comment A‐5:
B. Regarding Water Quality in Various Sections –
Section 4.9.1.1 Regulatory Background
Section 4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts
The statement on page 56 of the revised Initial Study that “Farming on
the Ridge Vineyards property is conducted under the jurisdiction of the
Central Coast RWQCB” seems to be in error. Although Ridge may be
following Central Coast regulations, guidelines, and procedures, the
Ridge property and the entire proposed exchange Project are in territory
under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area RWQCB. So the Initial Study is
deficient in addressing the relevant regulations, guidelines, procedures,
requirements, and/or orders from the Bay Area RWQCB. Similarly the
Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts sections and any
proposed mitigations may not adequately respond to Bay Area RWQCB
concerns – particularly Checklist Items 1. Water Quality Standards and
Items 3. through 6. regarding drainage, erosion and other water quality
issues.
Typically, the CEQA documents posted by the MROSD on October 6
would have been circulated to the Bay Area RWQCB for review and
Response A‐5:
The comment is correct that the project would fall under the
jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The Initial Study was
distributed to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for review during the
public circulation period, and no comments were received. The
reference in the Initial Study regarding the Central Coast RWQCB is
erroneous and no longer applicable, based on updated
information. The project is within the jurisdiction of, and would be
required to comply with, all relevant San Francisco Bay RWQCB
regulations, including Provision C.3 and C.5 of the Municipal
Regional Permit and Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater
management requirements. Compliance with relevant San
Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations would ensure hydrology and
water quality impacts remain at a less than significant level. Given
that the project will need to comply with San Francisco Bay
RWQCB regulations and the fact that the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB did receive a copy of the Initial Study and no comments
were received, the conclusions in the Initial Study are still valid,
and no extension of the comment period is needed.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
comment. This may have been missed because of the apparent
jurisdictional error. If so, an extension of the comment period for review
by the Bay Area RWQCB may be required and other interested parties
(especially neighbors on Montebello Road) would appreciate the same
extension of time for additional review and comment. I request that
additional extension of time for my Montebello neighbors.
Comment A‐6:
C. Regarding Mandatory Findings of Significance
Section 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance, particularly Checklist
Item 4. “Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?”
The possibility of Potentially Significant Impacts by interference of
either of the two wells (authorized by this CEQA‐proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration) with water levels, production, or even the
continued viability of existing neighboring wells is a vivid example of
how the project could cause substantial adverse impacts on human
beings, either directly or indirectly. The present version of the project’s
draft Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
contains no recognition of (nor proposal to mitigate) this “potentially
significant impact.”
Thank you for considering these comments.
Response A‐6:
Please refer to Responses A‐2 through A‐4 for clarifications
regarding the siting of and pumping rates for new wells. As
described in Response A‐2, the land exchange would not result in
significant impacts to neighboring wells.
Email and Letter from Howard Levitan, dated November 5, 2014 (Letter B)
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Comment B‐1:
I write in opposition to the proposed MROSD/Ridge Vineyards Property
Exchange which is inexplicably in direct opposition to all of the District’s
primary mission statement and, further, presents an unnecessary
financial burden, and potential financial calamity to the District.
I have been (and still am) a proud volunteer, supporter and advocate
for the District since 1978, as a hiker, project volunteer and organizer
and as a District Crew Leader and Trail Patroller . In addition, I am a
resident on Montebello Road and very familiar with the Ridge and MBO.
I will try to be brief as possible, but there is so much at fault here, that I
beg you to heed my views which are shared by a large community of
Montebello home owners, excluding a very few who have close financial
and other ties with Ridge.
Response B‐1:
Comment acknowledged. The comment does not address the
adequacy of the Initial Study and states the commenter’s opinion
on the project. The project is well aligned with the District’s
mission as it would protect scenic ridgeline views by prohibiting in
perpetuity residential and non‐agricultural development along an
important scenic corridor while ensuring that existing wildlife
corridors remain protected and public trail use impacts are less
than significant and also simultaneously resolve a long‐standing
encroachment issue at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
(Preserve).
Comment B‐2:
Using part of the mission statement as a guide: “…to purchase,
permanently protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space
greenbelt, preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed,
viewshed, and fragile ecosystems, and provide opportunities for low‐
intensity recreation…”
“..permanently protect and restore..” The agricultural easement will
permanently destroy the extraordinarily beautiful terraces along
Waterwheel Creek Trail, one of the true jewels of all the hiking trails.
Rather than the terraces continuing their return to a natural state and
being a key home to wildlife well re‐ established in that open space, that
land will be scarred forever. Rows of metal‐staked vineyards, fenced all
Response B‐2:
The comment paraphrases the MROSD’s Mission Statement. As
described in Section 4.1.2.1 of the Initial Study, any proposed
alterations that would occur on what is currently MROSD land
would be subject to Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) requiring visual compatibility with surrounding open
space character or screening. The alterations would be subject to
MROSD review and approval. The CC&Rs include the use of
construction materials that blend with the surrounding open
space, screening with native trees and/or landscaping so that
alterations cannot be seen from surrounding public open space
areas, and height restrictions. For this reason, aesthetic impacts
associated with the proposed project would be less than
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
around and within, terraced in a much different configuration, gates and
roads installed for vehicle access onto the trail displacing, water delivery
systems will be as ugly and commercial as other Ridge property adjacent
to Montebello Road, both within MBO and along the upper public parts.
significant as described in Section 4.1 of the Initial Study.
The proposed agricultural easement over 33.91 acres of District
land allows for organic and sustainable vineyard cultivation in two
main areas. The first vineyard area is 21.97 acres, which is located
east of Waterwheel Creek Trail and separated by a steep, densely
vegetated riparian and wildlife habitat corridor. New vineyards
would be planted on a southeast facing ridgeline and would only
be partially visible at the crest of the ridgeline from the District’s
permit parking area and Waterwheel Creek Trail. The second
vineyard area is 11.94 acres which is located below and south of
Ridge’s property and above the middle segment of Waterwheel
Creek Trail. Ridge would plant above the side slopes of the trail
with an additional 20 to 30 foot setback for vineyard plantings on
historically terraced hillside. The side slopes will retain native
vegetation buffers from the edge of the trail. This setback and
vegetative buffer will help to minimize vineyard visibility from the
middle segment of the trail.
Vineyard fencing will be installed above the side slopes of the trail,
and native vegetation will provide a buffer to minimize the
visibility of the vineyard fencing from the trail.
Before Ridge can begin planting vineyards, Ridge is required to
prepare an Installation Plan and a Vineyard Management and
Operation Plan subject to District prior review and approval.
Before approval of these plans, the District will ensure that
vineyard planting and fencing will be located to minimize impacts
to the use and enjoyment of Waterwheel Creek Trail.
In addition, as part of the transaction, Ridge, must record CC&Rs
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
on one of the parcels it will own requiring that future
development be screened and compatible with the surrounding
landscape. These CC&Rs will protect the scenic viewshed and rural
character as viewed from the surrounding open space, District
park lands, and the Waterwheel Creek Trail. Thus, the proposed
transaction protects the viewshed consistent with the District’s
mission.
Comment B‐3:
Why is the District giving away 34 acres for highly profitable
development to Ridge for free and getting virtually nothing in exchange
except for a conservation easement which impacts Ridge not at all? The
only reason offered is that it would preclude Ridge from converting that
space to homes (a very minor impact and far preferable to the proposed
destruction of open space).
Response B‐3:
The District proposes to grant a 33.91 acre agricultural easement
to Ridge for organic and sustainable vineyard cultivation. In
exchange, Ridge would grant a 34.21 acre conservation easement
to the District, which will prohibit residential development and
nonagricultural uses on Ridge’s property in perpetuity. The future
development of homes on one or more of the four legal parcels on
the Ridge conservation easement property would have a
significant impact on the views from over 6,000 acres of protected
open space and park land, including Monte Bello, Saratoga Gap
Open Space Preserves and Upper Stevens Creek County Park. This
transaction will prevent forever non‐agricultural development on
this sensitive privately owned property thereby providing a
substantial benefit to the public and to all users of the District’s
preserves.
The Ridge property includes four legal parcels with a potential for
four (4) residential building sites. Though Ridge has not proposed
or submitted building permit applications to Santa Clara County,
the County’s Hillside (HS) zoning allows residential development as
has occurred on the north side of Monte Bello Road with large
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
estate residences, some surrounded by private vineyards. Even if
not built now, under this zoning, Ridge or a future owner of the
property could build large highly visible homes on this visually
sensitive property. The conservation easement will permanently
prevent this from occurring.
The valuation of the proposed exchange agreement with Ridge
was initially done in 2000 and most recently updated in 2010 by
Popish Appraisal & Consulting with value benefit to the District of
approximately $400,000. The appraisal valuation supports the
proposed exchange as being of equal or greater value to the
District.
Comment B‐4:
“..preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat..” The opposite is
being proposed with no benefit to the District or its public. I have
observed and photographed wildlife that are flourishing and being
naturally wary of humans near those terraces (unlike Rancho’s tamed
critters). They will have to move away as they are fenced out.
Response B‐4:
As described in Sections 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 of the Initial Study, the
project includes mitigation measures to ensure impacts to wildlife
are less than significant. These measures include preconstruction
surveys, worker education seminars, construction monitoring, and
relocation by a qualified biologist, as appropriate (pages 31 – 37 of
the Initial Study). Additionally, the fencing proposed by the
project would be designed to allow small animals, such as lizards
and rodents, to pass through.
Comment B‐5:
“..preserve … watershed..” The natural springs that currently benefit
small hillside greenbelts/wetlands without interference will be severely
diminished, if not squelched, by allowing Ridge to drill more wells and
add more water storage tanks. Wildlife and plants will be totally
disrupted or destroyed. Further, given Ridge’s insatiable need for more
Response B‐5:
As described in Section 4.9.2.1 of the Initial Study, net water use
both with and without the proposed project is a small percentage
of mean annual groundwater recharge and long‐term post‐
exchange net water use would be less than the existing water use.
The proposed project would result in a temporary increase in net
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
water, they have no interest in preserving watershed. Their CEO has told
our representatives that all the water is theirs to use as they want
without regard to the watershed or neighborhood water supplies.
water use of up to 17% of the mean annual groundwater recharge,
followed by a 7% decrease over time when compared to existing
conditions. Impacts associated with the use of groundwater for
vineyard irrigation would be less than significant. Please also refer
to Response C‐2, below.
Comment B‐6:
“..preserve … viewshed..” With the lovely and unique views for the
public along Waterwheel Creek Trail permanently converted to
commercial use and with absolutely no compensation to the District, this
again is a severe violation of the mission statement.
Response B‐6:
As described in Section 4.1.2.1 of the Initial Study, any
improvements on the Ridge Vineyards property would be required
to be screened with trees, trellises, evergreen landscaping, or
other methods acceptable to the District so that they are screened
or cannot be seen from Waterwheel Creek Trail and the
surrounding public open space and park land including Skyline
Boulevard (Highway 35) and Table Mountain on Upper Stevens
Creek County Park. For this reason, aesthetic impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant.
Please refer to Response B‐3 for information regarding
compensation to the District. The District would receive a 34.21
acre conservation easement, which will prohibit residential
development of up to four potential estate home sites and
nonagricultural uses on Ridge’s property in perpetuity. The
proposed exchange of easement interests is a cost effective way to
protect the viewshed from over 6,000 acres of surrounding public
open space and park land. The valuation of the proposed
exchange agreement with Ridge was initially done in 2000 and
most recently updated in 2010 by Popish Appraisal & Consulting
with value benefit to the District of approximately $400,000. The
appraisal valuation supports the proposed exchange as being of
equal or greater value to the District.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Comment B‐7:
“..provide opportunities for low‐intensity recreation..” Use of
Waterwheel Creek Trail will be diminished or curtailed by Ridge trucks
and heavy equipment at various times and the view‐shed so attractive to
users will be largely eliminated.
Response B‐7:
As described in Section 4.15.2.1 of the Initial Study, allowing
seasonal (between September 1 and November 15) agricultural
vehicle use of Waterwheel Creek Trail could infrequently affect
trail use. The proposed vehicle use will be very limited and
expected to occur only three to six days annually during the
harvest season. Vehicle speed will be limited to 10 miles per hour.
MROSD will post warning signs regarding the presence of
agricultural equipment so that the agricultural activities would not
pose substantial interference with recreational use of the trail.
MROSD will also post notices regarding time periods when
agricultural equipment will be present on Waterwheel Creek Trail
on the District’s website.
Refer to response B‐6 for a discussion of views from Waterwheel
Creek Trail.
Comment B‐8:
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
The NOI to Adopt a MND is grossly inaccurate. This project does not
qualify since there is no actual mitigation of any CEQA mandated factors
including Hydrology, Safety, Transportation, Land Use and Planning,
Noise and Environmental and Habitat impacts. As stated above, rather
than mitigation, there is only exacerbation. Why is the District intent on
helping Ridge by GIVING them 33.91 acres to develop more vineyards for
only a minimal conservation easement on existing vineyards?
Response B‐8:
Mitigation measures are included in the project and identified in
the Initial Study that will reduce or avoid potentially significant
effects as required by CEQA; therefore a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15070). The Initial Study identifies mitigation measures
for impacts associated with hydrology (page 65), hazardous
materials/safety (page 55), Noise (page 73), and biological
resources (pages 31 – 40). Impacts related to transportation and
land use/planning would not occur; therefore, mitigation
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
measures are not required.
The mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study would
reduce all environmental impacts to a less than significant level
and are considered adequate mitigation under CEQA.
As stated previously, the District would receive a 34.21 acre
conservation easement in exchange for the 33.91 acre agricultural
easement granted to Ridge Vineyards. This transaction will
prevent forever non‐agricultural development on this sensitive
privately owned property and will provide a substantial benefit to
the public, including users of the District’s preserves.
Comment B‐9:
Financial Risks/Deficits to the District
If the District is now regarded effectively as a acquiescing partner (by
essentially gifting so much valuable acreage and water rights) with Ridge
in its unfettered depletion of available water to the area homeowners,
and if those homeowners’ property values should plummet as a result,
the inevitable lawsuit likely would name the District as defendants as the
only available “deep pockets”. As a Realtor, I have calculated that
hypothetical loss could range from $50 to 150 million or more. Ridge
would claim historic legal precedent for its water rights and probably
win, but the District would have no such defense. That would more than
wipe out the District’s hard won ballot initiative proceeds.
Response B‐9:
As described in Section 4.9 of the Initial Study, the proposed
project would not affect groundwater resources. Please refer to
Response A‐2 for clarifications regarding the siting of and pumping
rates for new wells and a discussion of why individual wells will
not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Also during
drought conditions, the planting of new vineyards will be
prohibited until after a normal rain year.
Comment B‐10:
Response B‐10:
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
If the District proceeds with the proposal, no mention has been made
regarding staff resources and expenditures needed to provide the
extensive oversight by the District of those mitigation measures
described in the MND. Further, the staff needed to guard the trail and
stop hikers when vehicles are present, will be costly. During hard budget
times, these tasks may be regarded as low priority and not done at all,
and Ridge will have free rein to ignore the various agreements and
“mitigations”.
The District has adequate staff resources to uphold its
responsibilities under the terms of the land exchange. District
staff will annually monitor the conservation and agricultural
easements for compliance with the terms of the easement and the
mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Annual monitoring will involve two staff
members and take two days. A third party reviewer with the Fish
Friendly Farming Program (established by the California Land
Stewardship Institute) will accompany District staff on easement
monitoring to provide expertise in erosion control, sedimentation
and vineyard planting.
Ridge is responsible for paying for the third party reviewer.
Ridge is responsible for implementing the mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the phasing
of the vineyard implementation and ongoing vineyard
operation and management.
Ridge is required to notify the District’s Skyline Field Office in
advance of any use of Waterwheel Creek Trail for vineyard
operations or maintenance of the spring system.
Ridge must also post signs notifying the public of vehicle use
on Waterwheel Creek trail at the Monte Bello Trail junction
and at the permit parking area. Vehicles may not exceed 10
miles per hour.
Ridge may use vehicles for vineyard operations only during the
harvest season (September 1 through November 15), which
will typically be on weekdays from morning until 1pm.
Between 3 and 6 vehicle trips will typically use the trail during
the harvest season, and the number of vehicle trips may not
exceed 10 trips.
If Ridge does not comply with these requirements, the District
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
can revoke the use of Waterwheel Creek Trail and Monte Bello
Trail. Waterwheel Creek Trail will remain open to public use
during this use. In addition to routine patrol of this trail, field
staff may decide to provide additional patrol when Ridge uses
the trail for their agricultural operation.
Comment B‐11:
Recommendation
Since the District is getting very little and proposing giving away so much
taxpayer funded land to a highly profitable enterprise, I recommend
breaking the proposal into components.
The Land Fee exchange could be one part and proceed.
The Terraces part and vehicular use of the trail should be scrapped as an
unsupportable violation of the mission statement and environmentally
irresponsible. Ridge does not need that acreage anyway as it has other
sources of grapes from other locales.
The remainder of the Agricultural Easement should be sold to Ridge, not
given away, for a substantial lump sum or an annual annuity. This could
fund the District’s additional oversight costs.
The District should require Ridge to provide some form of remedy and
water sharing to current and future nearby homeowners whose wells
have gone dry, and to fire‐fighters for emergency use, such as accessible
hydrants, storage tanks and/or piping. This should remove the risk of
financial calamity to the District described above.
Response B‐11:
Comment acknowledged. The commenter’s suggested proposal
of limiting the exchange to the fee conveyances and allowing
Ridge to purchase an agricultural easement would not prevent
Ridge or future property owners from developing the highly visible
conservation easement property.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Thank you so much. I, and most of the homeowners, will be very grateful
and relieved to see this current proposal discarded. The District need not
face the specter of a public outcry if this proposal is adopted.
I, as a devoted District volunteer and benefactor, will be grateful to see
the District return to its mission and benefit its public.
Letter from Lynne Farris Schafer, dated November 5, 2014 (Letter C)
Comment C‐1:
Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment on these
documents. Given the extremely short period of time we have been
allocated (30 days or less) to comment on the voluminous
documentation, and given that I only have a limited amount of time to
review these documents, I am only able to focus on one or two
important areas of concern and ask a few questions that remain
unanswered.
Response C‐1:
As stated in California Public Resources Code Section 21091,
Mitigated Negative Declarations subject to review by State
agencies are required to circulate to the public for 30 days. The
30‐day review period provided was adequate under CEQA. The
public also has an opportunity to provide additional comments at
the public hearing scheduled for December 10, 2014 which
provides an additional seven days for public to prepare comments.
Comment C‐2:
Depletion of Limited Water Supply: My first and biggest concern is
access to water. All of us residents on Montebello Ridge have wells
without any access to city water. The proposed land exchange allows
Ridge to tap into one of the most productive springs on Montebello
Ridge, Waterwheel Spring. This spring, which is located near the top of
the mountain, is likely the source of much water for the rest of the
residents on the hill. That spring will be used for irrigation purposes,
depriving wildlife of water it too needs to survive. The land exchange
agreement further allows Ridge to drill additional wells at the top of the
hill, potentially endangering the water supply so surrounding residential
Response C‐2:
As described in Section 4.9.2.1 and Table 4.9‐1 of the Initial Study,
net water use both with and without the proposed project is a
small percentage of mean annual groundwater recharge and long‐
term post‐exchange net water use would be less than the existing
water use. The proposed project would result in a temporary
increase in net water use of up to 17% of the mean annual
groundwater recharge, followed by a 7% decrease over time when
compared to existing conditions. The water provided by the spring
is included in the analysis as is the water used in the production of
wine. Please refer to Appendix D of the Initial Study for further
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
wells, which would necessarily negatively impact property values when
the wells go dry.
Planting the vineyards and supplying them with sufficient water to grow
is just one use of the scarce water supply, but it fails to address the
additional amount of water used in the expanded production of wine,
which can be double the amount used to grow the vines. This is a serious
concern, especially during this ongoing drought, whose end cannot be
predicted.
information. Existing net water use in the hydrologic study area is
approximately 1,421,000 gallons per year, which equates to 1.7%
of mean annual groundwater recharge. Without the proposed
project, future water use with the recently planted vines in a
mature state would ultimately drop to approximately 1,177,000
gallons per year, or 1.4% of mean annual groundwater recharge.
The project will not result in any expansion of wine production as
Ridge will be using grapes grown on the Property as opposed to
hauling in grapes from offsite vineyards as they currently do.
Comment C‐3:
In Section 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance, Item 4, "Does the
project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?" The answer to
that is a resounding negative. Without access to water, we residents
would suffer substantial loss to our property values, as well as be at
physical and safety risk during a fire.
Response C‐3:
As described in Section 4.9.2.1 of the Initial Study, net water use
both with and without the proposed project is a small percentage
of mean annual groundwater recharge and long‐term post‐
exchange net water use would be less than the existing water use.
Please refer to Responses A‐2 through A‐4 for clarifications
regarding the pumping rates for and siting of new wells. As
described in Response A‐2, the land exchange would not result in
significant impacts to water supply in the area. Thus, there would
be no environmental effects related to water access and/or supply
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Comment C‐4:
Destruction of Natural Habitat: Allowing this land exchange to proceed
will remove the natural habitat, destroying land that is used by birds and
wildly roaming mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and certain
endangered species. I have seen all of that wildlife in my backyard
before Ridge leased a neighbor’s open land and began planting
Response C‐4:
Please refer to Response B‐4. In addition, the project will preserve
the steep and densely vegetated drainage which provides a
wildlife habitat corridor from Monte Bello Ridge to Stevens Creek
at the eastern edge of Waterwheel Creek Trail and the permit
parking area.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
vineyards, so I know first‐hand how the land will change. In its place will
be six‐foot‐high deer fence, high posts, and acres and acres of vineyards
with 1,350 vines planted per acre, each of which requires an enormous
amount of water each year for the first ten years of its Iife.
Comment C‐5:
Gift of Public Funds: This proposed land exchange will give to Ridge
Vineyards, at no cost, land that is currently in trust to MROSD for the
preservation of natural habitat. Turning natural habitat into vineyards
seems inconsistent with your mission statement, taken from the website
below:
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's purpose is to purchase,
permanently protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space
greenbelt, preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed,
viewshed, and fragile ecosystems, and provide opportunities for low-
intensity recreation and environmental education.
It is unclear how this exchange complies with the mission statement of
MROSD to maintain and preserve natural habitat.
Response C‐5:
As stated previously, the District proposes to grant a 33.91 acre
agricultural easement to Ridge for organic and sustainable
vineyard cultivation. In exchange, Ridge would grant a 34.21 acre
conservation easement to the District, which will prohibit
residential development of up to four potential estate home sites
and nonagricultural uses on Ridge’s property in perpetuity. The
future development of homes on one or more of the four legal
parcels on the Ridge conservation easement property would have
a significant impact on the views from over 6,000 acres of
protected open space and park land, including Monte Bello,
Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves and Upper Stevens Creek
County Park. This transaction will prevent forever non‐agricultural
development on this sensitive privately owned property and will
provide a substantial benefit to the public, including users of the
District’s preserves.
The Ridge property includes four legal parcels with a potential for
four (4) residential building sites. Though Ridge has not proposed
or submitted building permit applications to Santa Clara County,
the County’s Hillside (HS) zoning allows residential development as
has occurred on the north side of Monte Bello Road with large
estate residences, some surrounded by private vineyards. Even if
not built now, under this zoning, Ridge or a future owner of the
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
property could build large highly visible homes on this visually
sensitive property. The conservation easement will permanently
prevent this from occurring.
This transaction will prevent forever non‐agricultural development
on this sensitive privately owned property and will provide a
substantial benefit to the public and to all users of the District’s
preserves.
Comment C‐6:
Additionally, it is important to note that Ridge Vineyards is owned by a
publicly owned, multi‐million dollar, international conglomerate, Otsuka
Holdings, Inc., traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. In essence, MROSD
is gifting this land, which belongs to taxpayers and in trust to MROSD, to
a company whose profits go to its shareholders.
Given that MROSD has a fiduciary duty to protect the land in its trust,
how does this exchange benefit taxpayers, or how does it comply with
the MROSD mission statement?
Response C‐6:
Please refer to Response C‐5.
The valuation of the proposed exchange agreement with Ridge
was initially done in 2000 and most recently updated in 2010 by
Popish Appraisal & Consulting with value benefit to the District of
approximately $400,000. The appraisal valuation supports the
proposed exchange as being of equal or greater value to the
District. Moreover, the proposed exchange of easement interests
is a cost effective way to protect the viewshed from over 6,000
acres of surrounding public open space and park land.
Comment C‐7:
I would also like an opportunity to read the entire text of the valuation
report on this land exchange. It is my understanding that the valuation
was conducted by a reputable company, but I have not been able to find
a copy of it on line.
Response C‐7:
You may schedule a time to review the appraisal reports and
analysis at the District office. Please call (650) 691‐1200 Ext 542 to
schedule a time to review the appraisal.
Comment C‐8: Response C‐8:
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Summary: I believe it would be in taxpayers' best interest to allow
additional time to review the relevant documents, conduct additional
water studies, and evaluate the proposal again at a later time.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
As stated in Response C‐1, a 30‐day public review period is
standard for Mitigated Negative Declarations that are subject to
review by State agencies (refer to Public Resources Code §21091).
The public also has an opportunity to provide additional
comments at the public hearing scheduled for December 10, 2014
which provides an additional seven days for public to prepare
comments.
Letter from Hannes Vogel, dated November 5, 2014 (Letter D)
Comment D‐1:
This message regards the proposal under consideration between the
MROSD and Ridge Vineyards/ Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd. I am a resident
of the Montebello Road region and a frequent and devoted user of the
MROSD with my wife and children. I have communicated my concerns to
you and Mr. Williams in the past but would like to reiterate my deep
concerns over this proposal in light of your upcoming decision.
In short, this proposal retains the stigma of overwhelming benefit which
accrues to Ridge/Otsuka with little or no tangible benefit to the public as
stakeholders in the integrity of the MROSD. The details of this proposal
would seem to have been scripted by Ridge/Otsuka in their favor while
asking the leadership of the MROSD to abrogate their responsibility to
preserve and protect unspoiled Open Space habitat, as follows:
1. One of the basic aspects of this proposal is founded upon the
completely hypothetical and untested possibility that residential housing
would be built within the current vineyard property to the detriment of
the viewshed of the MROSD. Rather than list actual plans as a
foundation for negotiation, representatives of Ridge/Otsuka have only
Response D‐1:
As stated previously, the District proposes to grant a 33.91 acre
agricultural easement to Ridge for organic and sustainable
vineyard cultivation. In exchange, Ridge would grant a 34.21 acre
conservation easement to the District, which will prohibit
residential development and nonagricultural uses on Ridge’s
property in perpetuity. The future development of homes on one
or more of the four legal parcels on the Ridge conservation
easement property would have a significant impact on the views
from over 6,000 acres of protected open space and park land,
including Monte Bello, Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves and
Upper Stevens Creek County Park. This transaction will prevent
forever non‐agricultural development on this sensitive privately
owned property and will provide a substantial benefit to the
public, including users of the District’s preserves.
The Ridge property includes four legal parcels with a potential for
four (4) residential building sites. Though Ridge has not proposed
or submitted building permit applications to Santa Clara County,
the County’s Hillside (HS) zoning allows residential development as
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
offered the possibility, based upon an untenable comparison with similar
activity in Napa Valley wineries which have done so under financial
duress, which is highly improbable considering the considerable
international success of Ridge/Otsuka. Local authorities have also rated
the chances of building approval to be slight. And yet, this “threat”
forms a basis for the proposed conservation easement affecting the
vineyard property and the acquisition of unspoiled MROSD land for
vineyard development in exchange.
has occurred on the north side of Monte Bello Road with large
estate residences, some surrounded by private vineyards. Even if
not built now, under this zoning, Ridge or a future owner of the
property could build large highly visible homes on this visually
sensitive property. The conservation easement will permanently
prevent this from occurring.
This transaction will prevent forever non‐agricultural development
on this sensitive privately owned property and will provide a
substantial benefit to the public, including users of the District’s
preserves.
Comment D‐2:
2. Even if the Board were to find merit in obtaining a conservation
easement on the basis of the faulty reasoning described above, the
determination of amount of land to be gained by Ridge/Otsuka does not
fairly reflect that area which the easement would in fact protect since it
gives full credit for the entire vineyard acreage whereas several acres are
already used for winery operations, at least five residences (accounting
in part for the encroachment listed in this proposal) and active vineyards
which Ridge/Otsuka would maintain even in the unlikely event that
additional residences were constructed. Accordingly, the conservation
easement specifies 34.22 acres whereas only a fraction of that area
would be at any risk of real estate development, and yet by this proposal
this entire amount of land is to be gained by Ridge/Otsuka for habitat
destruction and vineyard development.
Response D‐2:
As a point of clarification, Ridge’s Winery production facilities are
not included in the conservation easement. These facilities are
located in a 5‐acre building area. In addition, the historic winery
encroachments covering 2.99 acres are a part of the 11.93 acre fee
parcel being proposed for exchange to Ridge. The 2.99 acre
encroachment area will be subject to recorded Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that require improvements to
be visually screened and compatible with surrounding open space.
The remaining 8.94 acres of this fee parcel will be subject to the
conservation easement and restricted to organic and sustainable
vineyard farming.
Comment D‐3:
3. The stated purpose of the MROSD is “to purchase, permanently
Response D‐3:
Refer to Response D‐1.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
protect, and restore lands forming a regional open space greenbelt,
preserve unspoiled wilderness, wildlife habitat, watershed, viewshed,
and fragile ecosystems, and provide opportunities for low‐intensity
recreation and environmental education.” The net result of this proposal
poses an egregious violation of this mandate. In a state that has
witnessed an explosion in vineyard growth, and where locally
Ridge/Otsuka has exhausted almost every possibility for vineyard
development on their own and leased land, they have now fabricated a
threat of residential construction in order to gain untilled limestone‐
bearing soil for even greater profit, at the expense of MROSD native
habitat.
The District has always taken a long‐term view of development
impacts from private properties next to its public open space
lands. For more than 40 years, the District has worked to preserve
Monte Bello Ridge and the Stevens Creek watershed. During this
timeframe, the District has also seen various neighboring
properties sold and developed including on the north side of
Monte Bello Road, resulting in largely irrevocable changes to the
environment, including major impacts to scenic views.
Since the District purchased the 760 acre Black Mountain Ranch,
which borders the Ridge’s Winery Property in 1974, the District
has discussed with Ridge a potential exchange of property right
interests to protect the scenic viewshed of Monte Bello Ridge and
resolve existing Winery encroachments. In 2006, Ridge began
tilling for vineyard planting the highly visible 2 acre parcel near the
western trailhead of Waterwheel Creek Trail. District staff asked
Ridge to stop further work and negotiated with Ridge to include
the 2 acre parcel in the proposed fee title exchange to protect as
undisturbed open space land. In 2009, the District acquired as
part of a separate exchange agreement with Hanson Cement a 48
acre property along Monte Bello Ridge which included the western
trailhead of Waterwheel Creek to protect the scenic ridgeline as
public open space. The protection of the scenic viewshed of
Monte Bello Ridge continues to be one of the District’s goals.
As stated in Response B‐2, the proposed agricultural easement
over 33.91 acres of District land consists of two vineyard areas.
The first vineyard area is 21.97 acres, which is located east of
Waterwheel Creek Trail and separated by a steep, densely
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
vegetated riparian and wildlife habitat corridor, and new vineyards
would be planted on a southeast facing ridgeline and would only
be partially visible at the crest of the ridgeline from the District’s
permit parking area and Waterwheel Creek Trail. The second
vineyard area is 11.94 acres which is located below and south of
Ridge’s property and above the middle segment of Waterwheel
Creek Trail. Ridge would plant above the side slopes of the trail
with an additional 20 to 30 foot setback for vineyard plantings on
historically terraced hillsides. The side slopes will retain native
vegetation buffers from the edge of the trail. This setback and
vegetative buffer will help to minimize vineyard visibility from the
middle segment of the trail. In summary, the vineyard location
and planting setbacks have been carefully considered to minimize
visual impacts along Waterwheel Creek Trail, protect the viewshed
and wildlife corridor consistent with the District’s mission.
In addition, a CC&R will be recorded on southern portion of the
Winery property requiring that future development be screened
and compatible with the surrounding landscape to protect views
from the Preserve and Waterwheel Creek Trail.
Comment D‐4:
4. The notion that previously terraced land for vineyards nearly a
century ago, land which has gradually reverted to wild habitat for scores
of animal species and to the visual and aesthetic enjoyment of users of
the MROSD, represents a legitimate cause for razing and vineyard
development is anathema to those who cherish the unspoiled aspects of
the MROSD. This line of reasoning would be entirely predicted from
Ridge/Otsuka but would seem to be completely unacceptable by its own
virtue to responsible leadership of the MROSD.
Response D‐4:
Refer to Responses D‐1 and D‐3.
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
Comment D‐5:
5. The impact of vineyard development upon the aesthetic of the
immediate Waterwheel Trail vicinity would be highly detrimental to its
current pristine condition, whereby the trail would be bordered by deer
fencing, subject to dusty conditions and actual heavy equipment access
during harvest time, and rather than be within a wildlife corridor, hikers
would be confronted with a highly effective barrier to any ground‐
dwelling species and the conversion of natural habitat to one which
allows the propagation of a single species, namely wine grapes plants.
The proposal does not provide adequate detail as to how the dust
management guidelines will be enforced and the allowance for heavy
equipment on the trail is again, another example of how this proposal
accrues to the essentially unilateral benefit of Ridge/Otsuka. Any
discussion of the effect of hypothetical residential construction and
preservation of viewshed would seem to be entirely contradicted by
allowing the degradation of undeveloped MROSD land adjacent to the
trail.
Response D‐5:
As described in Section 4.15.2.1 of the Initial Study, allowing
seasonal (between September 1 and November 15) agricultural
vehicle use of Waterwheel Creek Trail could infrequently affect
trail use, but the proposed use is expected to be only 3 to 6 days
annually and at no time occur for more than 10 days during each
harvest year. Vehicle use will be limited to 10 miles per hour.
MROSD will post warning signs regarding the presence of
agricultural equipment so that the agricultural activities would not
pose substantial interference with recreational use of the trail.
MROSD will also post notices regarding time periods when
agricultural equipment will be present on Waterwheel Creek Trail
on the District’s website. Impacts to the recreational use of the
trail would be less than significant.
As described in Sections 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 of the Initial Study, the
project includes mitigation measures to ensure impacts to wildlife
remain at a less than significant level. Additionally, the fencing
proposed by the project would be designed to allow small animals,
such as lizards and rodents, to pass through. In addition, vineyard
fencing will be installed above the side slopes of the trail, and
native vegetation will provide a buffer to minimize the visibility of
the vineyard fencing from the trail.
As described in Section 4.3.2.1 of the Initial Study, the project
includes mitigation for impacts related to dust. This mitigation
includes posting a publicly visible sign along Waterwheel Creek
Trail and Montebello Road with the telephone number and person
to contact at MROSD regarding dust complaints during initial
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
vineyard development activities. This person shall respond and
take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Comment D‐6:
6. There are a host of other issues which local residents have found very
troubling, including yet further water well and storage tank
development, traffic issues, and for many of these reasons, this proposal
has sadly resulted in a bitter adversarial relationship between what in
moderation we would be proud to call a neighborhood business and
ourselves. Ridge/Otsuka will continue to be spectacularly successful
were this proposal to be rejected by you, but the lasting negative effect
upon the public will never improve if you approve.
Response D‐6:
Comment acknowledged.
As discussed above, the project is well aligned with the District’s
mission as it would protect scenic ridgeline views by prohibiting in
perpetuity residential and non‐agricultural development along an
important scenic corridor while ensuring that existing wildlife
corridors remain protected and public trail use impacts are less
than significant, while also simultaneously resolve a long‐standing
encroachment issue at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
(Preserve).
Comment D‐7:
I ask the Board to deconstruct this proposal to its separate components
and consider them individually, to be mindful of a legacy whereby you
would be allowing the destruction of unspoiled MROSD land, and the
following revisions if your majority fails to disapprove of the proposal
entirely:
1. Revise the allowance of land to be gained for vineyard development
to accurately reflect the actual amount of land to be covered by the
conservation easement.
2. Restrict the development of new vineyards to current grassland
without destruction of riparian growth that provides valuable nesting
Response D‐7:
This comment is acknowledged.
1. The conservation easement will cover 34.22 acres which
consists of 25.28 acres of existing Ridge vineyard land, and
8.94 acres of the proposed 11.93 acre fee parcel being
proposed for conveyance to Ridge. The remaining 2.99
acre of the fee parcel includes the Winery encroachment
and will be subject to the CC&Rs.
2. New vineyard development will be planted on historically
terraced grasslands and brush. The main riparian and
habitat corridor in the project area from Monte Bello
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
and other wildlife habitat.
3. Prohibit absolutely any use of MROSD trails for heavy equipment
under the belief that the considerable technical ingenuity of a major
enterprise such as Ridge/Otsuka can convey harvest grapes by roads
within their property that would be used at other times of the year for
non‐harvest activity without interrupting use of the trail for their own
business purposes.
4. If the proposal inevitably allows for agricultural development of Open
Space along the Waterwheel Trail, consider allowing leashed dogs on the
trail as the essential character of the trail would be altered, and as a
positive gesture to the public who would otherwise have no tangible
benefit from this proposal.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Ridge to Stevens Creek is located east of Waterwheel
Creek Trail will remain in an undisturbed and natural
condition.
3. Ridge may only use vehicles on Waterwheel Creek and
Monte Bello Road Trails for vineyard operations during the
harvest season (September 1 through November 15). The
vehicle use will be very limited and expected to occur only
three to six days annually during the harvest season, and
the number of vehicle trips may not exceed 10 trips
annually. Vehicle speed will be limited to 10 miles per
hour. Ridge must also post signs notifying the public of
vehicle use of trails. Trails will remain open to public use
during this time. If Ridge does not comply with these
requirements, the District can revoke the use of
Waterwheel Creek Trail and Monte Bello Trail.
4. The leashed dog use request is acknowledged and will be
forwarded to the list of potential projects that the Board
may wish to consider for future review and evaluation.
Email from Mike Alexander, dated November 15, 2014 (Letter E) received ten days after the comment deadline.
Comment E‐1:
1. This will certainly change the look and feel of the Waterwheel Ck Trail,
especially if a deer fence is installed right alongside it. That's a shame. I
appreciate that the agreement settles lots of issues for both parties,
but it feels like Ridge is gaining more than they're giving up.
Response E‐1:
Vineyard fencing will not be installed right alongside the trail.
Vineyard fencing will be installed above the side slopes of the trail,
and native vegetation will provide a buffer to minimize the
visibility of the vineyard fencing from the trail.
Before Ridge can begin planting vineyards, Ridge is required to
prepare an Installation Plan and a Vineyard Management and
Operation Plan subject to District prior review and approval.
Before approval of these plans, the District will ensure that
Attachment 6
Five Comment Letters on Ridge Vineyards Initial Study
(all comments and responses have been forwarded to the District Board of Directors for review and consideration)
Comment Response
vineyard planting and fencing will be located to minimize impacts
to the use and enjoyment of Waterwheel Creek Trail.
The District will obtain property interests that are equal to or
greater in value than the value of the property interests granted to
Ridge. The proposed fee exchange will result in the exchange of
equal sized 11.92 acre fee parcels. For the proposed easement
exchange, the District would grant a 33.91 acre agricultural
easement to Ridge for organic and sustainable vineyard
cultivation. In exchange, Ridge would grant a 34.21 acre
conservation easement to the District, which will prohibit
residential development and nonagricultural uses on Ridge’s
property in perpetuity.
Comment E‐2:
1. The hydrology report doesn't raise any alarms. I think the concern for
everyone (Ridge, MROSD, and the public) is whether the vineyard will
drain the aquifer, and how that question interacts with the drought. The
recharge and usage data indirectly indicate that that won't happen if
average rainfall stays roughly the same as historic average rainfall. I
think it's prudent, though, to have an agreement that requires routine
monitoring/reporting of water table depth at new and existing wells, to
be able to know if and how depth changes over time, and in relation to
vineyard operations and rainfall variation. Whether some "action
threshold" could be established is doubtful. Still, it's a good opportunity
to collect data that might be helpful going forward.
Response E‐2:
Ridge’s new wells would be monitored, which is a current standard
practice on their property. The agricultural easement requires new
wells be monitored. During drought conditions, the planting of
new vineyards will be prohibited until after a normal rain year.
Attachment 6
MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING PROGRAM
MROSD/Ridge Vineyards Land Exchange
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Santa Clara County, CA
September 29, 2014
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
MROSD/Ridge Vineyards Land Exchange
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) includes a brief discussion of the
legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion
and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself.
LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code (PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring
or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report or mitigated negative
declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted
through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.
MONITORING MATRIX
The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigation measures incorporated
into the MROSD/Ridge Vineyards Land Exchange at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (the
project). These mitigation measures are reproduced from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the project. The columns within the tables have the following meanings:
Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the
mitigation measure is discussed.
Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the
mitigation will be completed. The mitigation measures are organized by
order in which they appear in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Who will
verify?
This column references the District staff that will ensure implementation
of the mitigation measures.
Agency /
Department
Consultation:
This column references any public agency or District Department with
which coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife is listed as CDFW. The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service is listed as USFWS. The Native
American Heritage Commission is listed as NAHC.
Verification: This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to
confirm implementation.
NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS
Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measure
associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the District’s General Manager in
written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager
shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with
the mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall take appropriate actions to remedy any
violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the
investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.3.2.1 MM AIR-1:
The proposed project shall include the following Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures1 recommended by BAAQMD for all projects,
to be implemented during initial vineyard development of Areas 5b,
5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f:
Stop grading operations when wind levels exceed 15-20 mph.
Treat all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) to minimize fugitive
dust emissions, using one of the following methods:
o Wet down surfaces two times per day
o Cover surfaces with straw, compost, or other material
o Erect windbreaks
o Other similar method that covers or stabilizes soil.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material
off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads
shall be removed using wet methods at least once per day.
The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15
mph.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting off
equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling
time to five minutes (as required by ATCM measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
1 “Construction” is the term used by BAAQMD and, for purposes of this mitigation, these measures apply to the conversion of are as 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f to viticultural use.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All
equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions
evaluator.
Post a publicly visible sign along Water Wheel Creek Trail
and Montebello Road with the telephone number and person
to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This
person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible
to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
4.3.2.1 MM BIO-1.1:
A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of the project site for
CRLF and CTS prior to new vineyard development. If no CRLF or
CTS are found, no further mitigation is necessary.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with
spring rehabilitation
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-1.2:
If the survey finds California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) or California
Tiger Salamander (CTS) are present and cannot be avoided, USFWS
and CDFW shall be consulted as required by the Endangered Species
Act. Because potential impacts to aquatic habitat may also require a
Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) (see Discussion under Wetlands below and Impact BIO-
7), consultation with USFWS could occur during the wetland
permitting process. Ridge Vineyards shall implement all
conservation measures included in the Biological Opinion issued by
USFWS as a result of the consultation to minimize potential impacts
to CRLF and CTS.
Unless otherwise determined by the responsible regulatory agency,
conservation measures shall include:
a. Worker Education Seminar. Prior to new vineyard
development, all staff, contractors and persons associated with
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with
spring rehabilitation.
MROSD USFWS
USACE (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
the project shall attend a worker-education seminar delivered
by a qualified biologist. The seminar will include written
information regarding identification, natural history, legal
status, observations of CRLF and CTS within one mile of the
project site, and related information. Biologist contact names
and phone numbers shall be included in the written
information. A signature sheet of attendees will be
maintained to document compliance.
b. Pre-construction Surveys. Prior to
beginning ground disturbing actions
associated with new vineyard
development, pre-construction surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified
biological monitor to search for special
status or other wildlife species. If any
wildlife species are encountered, the
animal will be allowed to move out of
the area on its own under the direct
observation of the qualified biological
monitor prior to construction
beginning.
c. Avoid Aquatic Habitats. The access route to the spring box
shall be primarily constructed on the slight slope above the
perennial wetland below Waterwheel Creek Trail. If standing
water is encountered while clearing vegetation along the route
to the spring box, a temporary or permanently raised wooden
walkway (depending on long term access needs) shall be
installed to provide access over the wet area.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
d. Avoid impacts to CRLF and CTS. A biological monitor must
be present if any draining or diverting of water into or out of
the existing spring box is required. No draining of the spring
box shall be allowed to occur until after August 15 when the
tadpole life stage is presumed to have ended. Prior to
draining, a biological monitor shall inspect the spring box to
ensure all species are in the post metamorphic stage. If
tadpoles are encountered, no draining shall occur until the
tadpoles have morphed into juvenile species. If at any time
juvenile or adult species are encountered they shall be allowed
to leave the area on their own. If any species must be
relocated, a qualified biologist shall relocate into nearby
suitable habitat. If pumping of the spring box is required, a
one quarter inch mesh screen must be used to prevent sucking
aquatic wildlife into the pump. A biological monitor shall be
present on-site during all pumping activities.
e. Upland Habitat. Impacts to upland habitat will be avoided to
the extent feasible dependent on the results of the pre-vineyard
development surveys. Mitigation for impacts to upland non-
breeding habitat will be conducted on-site if suitable areas can
be converted to dispersal habitat, as determined by a qualified
biologist.
If project-specific mitigation for impacts to CRLF and CTS
habitat is necessary, a wildlife ecologist will develop an on-
site species specific HMMP in consultation with the USFWS
and CDFW, which will contain the following components:
1. Summary of habitat impacts and proposed mitigation
ratios.
2. Goal of the habitat mitigation.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
3. Location of mitigation site(s) and description of
existing site conditions.
4. Mitigation design:
Habitat enhancement measures
Remedial measures/adaptive management, etc.
5. Monitoring plan (including performance and final
success criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis,
reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.). At
a minimum, success criteria will include the presence of
the species, suitable burrows, and quantitative measures
of vegetation characteristics for suitable habitat.
6. Contingency plan for mitigation elements that do not
meet performance or final success criteria.
At least five years of monitoring shall be conducted to
document whether the success criteria are achieved and to
identify any remedial actions that must be taken if the
identified success criteria are not met. At a minimum, success
criteria will include the presence of suitable habitat conditions
for CRLF and CTS, and provision of ecological functions and
values equal to or exceeding those in the habitat that is
impacted. There will be no net loss of upland habitat for
CRLF or CTS.
If on-site potential dispersal habitat is not located, mitigation
will consist of the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank
that serves the project area. If no banks or credits are
available, then the project will develop and implement a plan
for the preservation and enhancement of non-breeding habitat
at off-site location(s). The project-specific mitigation
measures described above shall apply to off-site locations, in
coordination with CDFW and USFWS.
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.1:
To the extent feasible, avoid tree removal between May 1 and
September 15 to avoid breeding season impacts to roosting bats.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-2.2:
If tree removal will take place during the breeding season identified
in MM BIO-2.1, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for
roosting bats prior to ground disturbing activities. If roosting bats
are detected, Ridge Vineyards will coordinate with the CDFW to
adopt appropriate avoidance measures including buffer zones.
Activities within this buffer shall commence only after young are
flying (generally after July 31) and end before maternity colonies
form, unless other suitable avoidance or protective measures are
recommended by the biologist, and are acceptable to CDFW for
protected species or protected roosts. CDFW considers the
maternity season to occur from March 1 to August 31.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD CDFW (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-3.1:
To the extent feasible, avoid vegetation removal, grading, and other
activities associated with preparing Areas 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f for
viticultural use between February 1 and August 31 to avoid breeding
season impacts to protected bird species.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-3.2:
If ground disturbing activities in Areas 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f will
take place during the breeding season identified in MM BIO-3.1, a
qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for nesting birds within
500 feet of the disturbance area. If the biologist finds nests are
inactive or the habitat is unoccupied, no further mitigation is
required. If the biologist finds active nests, a 250-foot buffer around
active raptor nests and a 50 to 100-foot buffer around all other active
bird nests shall be implemented until breeding season ends or the
qualified biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. The
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD CDFW (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
qualified biologist shall have the authority to adjust the size of these
buffers, in consultation with the CDFW.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.1:
A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Coast horned lizards
to identify their location and establish baseline population
information, prior to any vegetation clearing. If no Coast horned
lizards are found, no further mitigation is necessary.
Prior to vegetation
clearing associated
with initial vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.2:
If the survey finds Coast horned lizards, then during grading
operations, loose dirt/sand piles in temporarily impacted areas that
will be left overnight shall be covered with tarps or plastic with the
edges sealed to prevent Coast horned lizards from burrowing into the
dirt.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.3:
If the survey finds Coast horned lizards, then the disturbance and/or
removal of vegetation within the project site shall not exceed the
minimum reasonably necessary to accomplish ground disturbing
activities. Precautions to avoid damage to areas outside the project
boundary shall include construction flagging, clearly defined access
routes, and minimized turning areas.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.4:
If the survey finds Coast horned lizards, then an employee education
program shall be conducted prior to vegetation removal and grading.
The program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons
knowledgeable in California Species of Special Concern including
the Coast horned lizard and legislative protection to explain concerns
to all personnel involved with vegetation removal and grading. The
program would include the following: a description of the Coast
horned lizard and its habitat, an explanation of the status of the Coast
Prior to vegetation
clearing and grading
associated with initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
horned lizard, and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to
the species during project activities. Crews shall be instructed that if
a Coast horned lizard is found, it is to be left alone and the
construction manager must be notified immediately. Ridge
Vineyards or MROSD shall notify a qualified biologist of the
sighting and the biologist will make further recommendations. It
will be made clear to all staff that only a qualified biologist is
permitted to capture, handle, or relocate Coast horned lizards.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.5:
If the survey finds Coast horned lizards, then vehicles shall not drive
more than five miles per hour within the areas where clearing and
grading are underway. If a Coast horned lizard is seen in the path of
a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until the lizard is out of its path.
Parked vehicles within the project site shall be checked underneath
before they are moved to ensure no Coast horned lizards are on the
ground below the vehicle.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-4.6:
If the survey finds Coast horned lizards, and the biologist determines
the mitigation measures included in this project are insufficient to
protect the Coast horned lizard population on the project site,
MROSD and Ridge Vineyards shall initiate consultation with the
CDFW to determine what further mitigation measures are necessary
to ensure the project will not result in substantial adverse effects on
Coast horned lizards.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD CDFW (if
necessary)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.1:
Prior to ground disturbing activities associated with the conversion
of land to viticultural use, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey
for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within 10 feet of
proposed ground disturbance. If the nests are found to be
uninhabited, no further action is required. If any nest is active, the
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD CDFW (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
qualified biologist shall determine the appropriate course of action
which may include, in consultation with the CDFW, relocation of the
nest to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve under the direction of
MROSD.
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.2:
If the survey identifies active dusky-footed woodrat nests, an
employee education program shall be conducted prior to
construction. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by
persons knowledgeable in California Species of Special Concern
including the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and legislative
protection to explain concerns to all personnel involved with
vegetation removal and grading. The program would include the
following: a description of the woodrat and its habitat, an
explanation of the status of the woodrats, and a list of measures
being taken to reduce impacts to the woodrats during project
activities. Crews shall be instructed that if a woodrat or a woodrat
nest is found, it is to be left alone and the construction manager must
be notified immediately. Ridge Vineyards or MROSD shall notify a
qualified biologist of the sighting and the biologist will make further
recommendations. It will be made clear to all staff that only a
qualified biologist is permitted to capture, handle, or relocate
woodrats and their nests.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-5.3:
If the survey identifies active dusky-footed woodrat nests, vehicles
shall not drive more than five miles per hour within the areas where
clearing and grading are underway. If a San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat is seen in the path of a vehicle, the vehicle shall stop until
the woodrat is out of its path. Parked vehicles within the project site
shall be checked underneath before they are moved to ensure no
woodrats are on the ground below the vehicle.
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-6.1:
Prior to ground disturbance associated with the conversion of land to
agricultural use, a qualified botanist shall conduct a survey in Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f to identify any special status plants
occurrences. Surveys shall occur during the blooming season to the
extent possible. If special status plant species are identified within
the vegetation removal and grading areas, these plant populations
shall be permanently avoided and fenced off prior to the start of
vegetation removal. Construction workers shall be notified to avoid
and protect the fenced off area.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-6.2:
If MROSD determines that it is not feasible to avoid special status
plants located within Areas 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f using the methods
described in MM BIO-5.1, MROSD shall implement other feasible
alternatives such as seed collection, transplanting, and/or other
measures that will minimize or mitigate impacts to ensure the project
will not result in a substantial adverse effect on special status
species.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-7.1:
Spring rehabilitation, including spring box, piping, and wiring
repairs shall be designed to avoid wetland fill or discharges to
jurisdictional wetlands. Manual construction methods shall be used,
and permanent infrastructure shall be located outside of wetlands, to
the extent feasible.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with
spring rehabilitation.
MROSD N/A
4.4.2.1 MM BIO-7.2:
If wetlands cannot be avoided during spring rehabilitation, no
grading, fill, or other ground disturbing activities shall occur until all
required permits, regulatory approvals, and permit conditions for
effects on wetland habitats are secured.
Prior to ground
disturbing activities
associated with
spring rehabilitation.
MROSD USACE
RWQCB (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
Typical mitigation measures required by regulatory agencies for
permitting are provided below; however, additional or slightly
different measures may be required by the agencies during the
permit process to be completed prior to activities that could affect
wetlands. Implementation of all measures required by the agencies
during the permit process would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Regulatory Agency Mitigation. If required by the pertinent
regulatory agencies, agency mitigation requirements shall be
satisfied by compensating for aquatic impacts at a 1:1
replacement-to-loss ratio either on-site or off-site. There will
be no net loss of wetlands.
An on-site mitigation and monitoring plan (MMP) would be
developed to mitigate for impacts to these features. At a
minimum, the MMP shall:
Define the location of all restoration/creation activities;
Provide evidence of a suitable water budget to support
any created aquatic and riparian habitats;
Identify the species, amount, and location of plants to
be installed in the aquatic and riparian habitats;
Identify the time of year for planting and method for
supplemental watering during the establishment period;
Identify the monitoring period. This should be not less
than 5 years for aquatic restoration.
Define success criteria that will be required for
restoration efforts to be deemed a success;
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
Identify adaptive management procedures that
accommodate the uncertainty that comes with
restoration projects. These include, but are not limited
to, measures to address colonization by invasive
species, unexpected lack of water, and excessive
foraging of installed plants by native wildlife;
Define management and maintenance activities
(weeding of invasive plants, providing for supplemental
water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.); and
Provide for surety in funding the monitoring and
ensuring that the created aquatic and riparian habitats
fall within lands to be preserved and managed into
perpetuity.
Any remaining mitigation required by the regulatory agencies to
satisfy the 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio would be obtained off-site
(e.g., via the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation
bank).
4.5.2.1 MM CUL-1:
If cultural, paleontological, archeological or historic resources are
discovered during vegetation removal and grading for the new
vineyards, all work on the site will stop immediately until a qualified
professional archaeologist can assess the nature and importance of
the find and recommend appropriate treatment to avoid a substantial
adverse change in the significance of the resource. In the event
human remains are discovered, it will be the responsibility of the
construction manager to notify the County Coroner’s Office and the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) of the discovery.
No further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
During initial
vineyard
development of Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD County of
Santa Clara,
Coroner
NAHC (if
necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which
shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is
notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will
notify the NAHC within 24 hours, which will determine and notify
the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend
within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains
and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure
of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains
and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
4.8.2.1 MM HAZ-1:
In the event indications of hazardous materials or soil or
groundwater contamination are discovered during excavation and
grading while preparing Areas 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f for viticultural
use, the following mitigation measure is included in the project to
prevent hazardous materials impacts:
The work will be stopped in the immediate area and soil
samples will be collected and analyzed by a qualified
environmental professional and the results shared with the
County to determine the type and extent of release and the
potential health effects to workers. The analytical results will
be compared against applicable hazardous waste criteria and,
if necessary, the investigation will provide recommendations
regarding the management and disposal of affected soil and
groundwater. Any contaminated soil and/or groundwater
found in concentrations above established thresholds shall be
During initial
vineyard
development in Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD County of
Santa Clara
(if necessary)
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
removed and disposed of according to California Hazardous
Waste Regulations. In the unlikely event that contaminated
soils are found on the project site, they shall be managed or
removed and disposed of in accordance with all appropriate
local, state, and federal regulations that are designed to protect
workers and the environment.
4.9.2.1 MM HYD-1:
Prior to vineyard installation, MROSD shall require Ridge
Vineyards to determine, by appropriate hydrologic calculations or
surface flow modeling, whether peak stormwater flow, down-
gradient of the proposed vineyard blocks (Areas 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and
5f), would increase over existing conditions. If the calculations or
modeling reveal that an increase in stormwater flow would occur,
Ridge Vineyards shall design and install an appropriately engineered
system to dissipate the flow energy and distribute the stormwater to
eliminate the concentrated peak flows that have the potential to
cause erosion and transport sediment to Stevens Creek and its
tributaries. Flow dissipation systems could include, but shall not be
limited to, vegetated swale, rock-lined catchments, detention basins,
or a combination of these. Recommended stormwater control
systems shall reduce and distribute peak flows, as feasible, to pre-
project conditions, and must eliminate the potential for concentrated
flows from the vineyards. Once installed, Ridge Vineyards shall
monitor the performance of the flow dissipation and distribution
system and conduct repairs of the system if downstream erosion is
detected as quickly as possible given weather and site conditions.
Monitoring shall be coordinated with MROSD and Ridge Vineyards
shall inform MROSD of any unacceptable erosion caused by
drainage from the vineyard. If identified, Ridge Vineyards shall
provide MROSD with detailed plans to correct the problem within a
Prior to initial
vineyard
development in Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
Number Mitigation Timing Who will
verify?
Department
or Agency
Consultation
Verification
(Date &
Initials)
mutually agreed upon timeframe.
4.12.2.1 MM NOI-1:
The following mitigation measures are included in the project to
reduce potential temporary noise impacts during the conversion of
land to viticultural uses:
Noise generating activities shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00AM and 7:00PM Monday through Saturday in
accordance with Santa Clara County Code Chapter VIII
Section B11-154 (b)(6).
“New technology” power construction equipment with state-
of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devises shall be used.
All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall
be equipped with adequate mufflers and shall be in good
mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or
poorly maintained equipment.
Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be
prohibited.
During initial
vineyard
development in Areas
5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 5f.
MROSD N/A
641309.2
Resolutions/2014/14-___Ridge – Exchange Agmt 1
RESOLUTION 14- ____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF FEE AND EASEMENT
EXCHANGE AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE GRANT DEED
AND AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT’S REAL PROPERTY
BEING EXCHANGED, AND EXECUTE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR
RIDGE’S PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF
ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT DEED, CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TO DISTRICT, AND
AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE
TRANSACTION (MONTE BELLO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE – LANDS OF RIDGE
VINEYARDS, INC.)
The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows:
Section One. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does
hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Fee and Easement Exchange Agreement
(“Agreement”) between Ridge Vineyards, Inc. (Ridge) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (District), a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and
authorizes the President and/or appropriate officers to execute the Agreement on behalf of the
District.
Section Two. The General Manager or President of the Board of Directors and/or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Grant Deed and Agricultural Easement for title to
the real property being conveyed to Ridge, and a Conservation Easement, and Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the District’s property interests on property owned by
Ridge.
Section Three. The General Manager or President of the Board of Directors and/or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute Certificates of Acceptance on behalf of the District
for the property interests being conveyed to the District from Ridge.
Section Four. The General Manager of the District or the General Manager’s designee shall
cause to be given appropriate notice of execution to Ridge and to extend close of escrow if
necessary. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any
technical revisions to the attached Agreement and any other transactional documents that do not
involve any material change to any term of the Agreement or other transactional documents that
are necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of this transaction.
Section Five. The General Manager of the District is authorized to expend up to $10,000 to
cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs related to this
transaction.
Section Six. The Board of Directors finds and determines that, pursuant to Section 5540.5 of the
Public Resources Code of the State of California, the granting and acceptance of these fee and
Attachment 8
Resolutions/2014/14-___Ridge – Exchange Agmt 2
easement property interests are consistent with Public Resources Code 5540.5, and that the real
properties being acquired by the District are of equal or greater value than the real property being
transferred to Ridge and are necessary to be acquired for open space purposes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2014, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
R-14-148
Meeting 14-34
December 10, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Adoption of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Integrated Pest Management Program,
and Approval of the Integrated Pest Management Program and Policy
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (MROSD) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting
Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Integrated Pest Management Program
(Attachment 1).
2. Approve the Integrated Pest Management Policy for incorporation into the District’s
Resource Management Policies as a replacement for the Invasive Species Management
Policy (Attachment 2).
SUMMARY
The Integrated Pest Management Policy and the Integrated Pest Management Program (‘IPMP’
or ‘project’) would comprehensively guide management of all pests on District properties. The
project establishes procedures for careful management of pests throughout the District’s open
space preserves (OSPs) while protecting natural resources and public health. The Board of
Directors (Board) is considering certification of the Environmental Impact Report, and approval
of an Integrated Pest Management Policy and Program.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The District is implementing a formal IPMP to provide comprehensive guidance for the
management of plant and animal pests on District properties through the adoption of an IPM Policy
and an IPM Guidance Manual. The IPM Policy identifies the Board’s goals and direction for pest
management. The IPM Guidance Manual provides comprehensive guidance to those who will
implement the IPM Policy on District properties.
Within the District, the situations that trigger the need for pest control fall into five distinct pest
management categories: (1) buildings; (2) recreational facilities; (3) fire managment areas; (4)
rangelands and agriculture properties; and (5) natural areas. The IPM Guidance Manual
identifies specific pest management actions including: preventative and maintenance measures;
damage assessment procedures; tolerance levels and thresholds for action; and manual,
mechanical and chemical treatment options. These IPM management categories and treatment
R-14-148 Page 2
methods are summarized in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Draft Environemental Impact Report
(DEIR) and described in greater detail in Chapters 6 through 10 of Appendix B of the DEIR.
IPM is a process of efficiently managing pests while protecting human health and environmental
quality. IPM is a long-term, science-based, decision-making system that uses a specific methodology
to manage damage from pests. IPM requires monitoring site conditions before, during, and after
treatment to determine if objectives are being met and if methods need to be revised. IPM requires
that non-chemical methods be considered before chemical methods (i.e., herbicides, insecticides). If
chemical methods are necessary to meet a pest control objective, the potential for harm to the public
and workers are carefully considered, as are effects on the environment, and then the least toxic and
most effective, efficient, and target-specific method is chosen.
Overall objectives of the IPM Program include: preservation of biodiversity and natural resource
values; demonstrated use of lower pesticide worker health/exposure classifications in buildings
and recreational structures; public notification and communication regarding IPM activities;
compliance with the list of approved pesticides; reduction of pesticide use in buildings; and
reduction in per-acre herbicide use at individual sites in natural areas over time.
As part of the IPMP, the District will designate an IPM Coordinator and an IPM Coordination
Team. The IPM Coordinator and the IPM Coordination Team would review pest management
projects for consistency with the IPM Guidance Manual, and oversee licensing, training and
safety. Pest management activities would be reviewed and approved and priorities would be set
through the development and approval of an Annual IPM Work Plan that describes pest control
projects planned for the upcoming year. Any new pest management activities not originally
included in the Annual IPM Work Plan would be reviewed on an individual basis throughout the
year. Chapter 3 of Appendix B of the DEIR provides a detailed description of the IPMP roles and
responsibilities, management systems, and organizational processes that would be used to
implement IPM on District lands.
An Annual IPM Report presented to the Board of Directors would summarize the work
completed in the previous year, evaluate the program’s progress in meeting overall goals, and
would recommend any modifications to the program.
The District has developed Best Management Practices (BMPs) that consist of management
actions the District would incorporate into IPM proposals for the purpose of protection of human
health and preventing significant environmental effects. The District would implement the BMPs
as an element of the project. District BMPs for IPMP are presented in Table 3-4 of the DEIR.
The IPM Guidance Manual is intended to have a ten-year planning timeframe. The EIR covers the
program of activities described in the IPM Guidance Manual. The IPM Guidance Manual is
intended to provide the District flexibility in the design of its annual IPM activities and to allow
incremental growth in the program. The District would need to reassess the EIR and the IPM
Guidance Manual if new chemicals with different active ingredients are proposed, or if future
IPM activities are of either substantially different type or substantially greater amount from those
described in the IPM Guidance Manual and EIR. The District may need to amend the IPM
Guidance Manual and prepare appropriate subsequent/supplemental environmental documents if
the original EIR does not adequately evaluate impacts resulting from these new activities.
R-14-148 Page 3
Project Alternatives
Pursuant to CEQA, the Draft EIR evaluates three project alternatives: the No Project Alternative,
the Enhanced Early Detection and Rapid Response Alternative, and the Pesticide Avoidance in
Buildings Alternative.
The Enhanced Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) Alternative was considered the
environmentally superior alternative in the EIR because it would require increased surveys for
pests and rapid treatment to eradicate them from District lands. Implementing a comprehensive
EDRR program under this alternative would require a significant increase in staffing and funding
above current levels in order to survey all existing and new properties for pest problems and to
quickly treat a majority of these pest populations.
The preferred alternative assumes future IPM activities would be conducted without an increased
level of staff or funding except for the addition of a new Integrated Pest Management
Coordinator. The preferred alternative achieves the overall objectives of the project and includes
some additional early detection surveys for new pest problems and gradual treatment of the
highest priority pest problems over time but lower priority pest problems will not be managed.
Recommended Actions
As lead agency, the District has principal responsibility for approving and carrying out the
proposed project. At the December 10, 2014 meeting, the Board is being asked to consider
taking the following actions:
1) Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting
Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with
CEQA (Attachment 1);
2) Approve the Integrated Pest Management Policy for incorporation into the District’s
Resource Management Policies as a replacement for the Invasive Species Management
chapter of that policy document (Attachment 2).
CEQA Overview
The environmental analysis revealed potentially significant impacts in the following areas:
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology and Water Quality. All potential
impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels through the incorporation of standard
mitigation measures. Potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures discussed in the
EIR are summarized below.
Biological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIR, “Biological Resources,” manual, mechanical, or chemical
IPM treatments could result in direct mortality of special-status amphibian, reptile, fish,
invertebrate and mammal species, and impacts to their federally designated critical habitat and to
federally protected wetlands. The Draft EIR includes best management practices and mitigation
measures that will avoid, reduce or compensate for impacts to these special-status species, their
critical habitat and wetlands, and will reduce the potentially significant effects of the project to a
less-than-significant level.
R-14-148 Page 4
Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.3, “Cultural Resources,” manual and mechanical IPM treatments for
control of rodents and insect pests in buildings could change the significance of an historical
resource by incorporating retrofits to structures. Ground-disturbing IPM treatments could
unearth human remains. The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures that require specific
procedures if IPM activities would result in changes that would be visible on the exterior of
historic-age structures (greater than 50 years). These procedures require that a qualified
architectural historian evaluate the structure for eligibility for listing on the California Register of
Historic Resources. If eligible, the District would follow the Secretary of the Interior’s
recommendation for alteration of the structure. The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures that
require specific federal and state code and procedures be followed if human remains are
encountered during earth-disturbing activities. These mitigation measures would reduce
potential impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.4, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” manual IPM treatments could
result in discharge of sediments into aquatic areas, and chemical IPM treatments could result in
violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Draft EIR includes
best management practices and mitigation measures that will reduce the potentially significant
effects of the project to a less-than-significant level.
Public Review and Comments
The Draft EIR public review period ended on November 10, 2014. The announcement of
availability of this document was given wide distribution among the public and responsible
agencies.
In accordance with §15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, MROSD, as the lead agency, has reviewed
the comments received on the Draft EIR for the Project and has prepared a Final EIR, which
includes written responses to the comments received. The Draft EIR generated two individual
written comment letters. The written comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to
those comments are provided in the Final EIR, which was released on December 5, 2014 for
public review. Major themes of comments and responses are summarized below.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection states that it is hopeful that the
District will develop additional shaded fuel breaks in the future and that maintenance of
these fuel breaks are included within the scope of the IPMP. If new fuel breaks are
developed on District lands as part of separate fuel management projects, the
maintenance activities associated with these new fuel breaks will be reviewed to
determine if they are included within the scope of the IPMP and EIR.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) acknowledges a statement in
the DEIR that the District will comply with more stringent pesticide regulations on non-
District lands in which they have agreements with other agencies to utilize their land such
as one MROSD trail in Pulgas Ridge OSP that crosses SFPUC property. The District
intends to comply with San Francisco Pesticide Ordinance where MROSD IPM activities
occur on lands under the control of the City and County of San Francisco and SFPUC,
and will comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Stipulated Injunction
regarding pesticide use as it pertains to California red-legged frog critical habitat.
R-14-148 Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
Future increased costs associated with implementation of the Integrated Pest Management
Program will be primarily from the hiring of an Integrated Pest Management Coordinator to
manage and monitor the program and provide annual reporting to the Board. The IPM
Coordinator will be a new position with the job duties anticipated to require between one half to
full time. The position will also fulfill other Natural Resources Department vegetation
management duties with the balance of the time. Actual job duties and time allocation will be
reported to the Board during the program annual review. This IPM Coordinator position will be
considered by the Board as part of the mid-year budget recommendations on December 17, 2014,
with recruitment to occur in the January to March 2015 timeframe. Limited duties of the IPM
program will be assumed by existing Natural Resources Department staff in the meantime, or if
the position is not approved by the Board.
Implementation of the IPM Program may result in additional staff workload impacts in the
Operations Department related to managing District lands according to the methods and
principles established in the IPM Program. Although difficult to predict at this time, the annual
review and monitoring components of the IPM Program will allow the General Manager the
opportunity to review staffing and operational impacts of the program and make adjustments as
necessary.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
Review of the Integrated Pest Management Program was requested by the full Board of
Directors.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notices providing information about this meeting of December 10, 2014 and where to review or
download the Final EIR and project documents were sent to all responsible and trustee agencies
on December 3, 2014. Similar notices were sent to 372 interested parties and tenants by postal
or electronic email; posted on all signboards in all District OSPs, in two newspapers, on the
District’s website and with the County Clerks of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz
Counties and the State Clearinghouse; and review copies of the Draft EIR were provided at the
City of Mountain View library, and the Administrative, Skyline and Foothill offices of MROSD.
Copies of the Final EIR were mailed on December 3, 2014 to the agencies that commented on
the Draft EIR. Review copies of the Final EIR and other documents were made available at the
District’s administrative office in Los Altos, and provided for download on the District’s
website.
As stated in the EIR, the Draft EIR was circulated on September 26, 2014 and the comment
period concluded on November 10, 2014. Two comments were received as described above.
Additional public outreach and notification regarding the IPMP occurred for the May 8, 2013
and July 23, 2013 Board Study Sessions on the IPM Policy (R-13-22); a September 30, 2013
CEQA Scoping meeting on the IPMP; an August 20, 2014 Board Special Study Session on the
IPMP (R-14-106); and an October 21, 2014 Public Information Meeting on the IPMP.
R-14-148 Page 6
NEXT STEPS
If the Board adopts the EIR and the IPM Program as proposed, staff will move forward with
implementation of the Integrated Pest Management Program, phasing in the program as staffing
and resources allow. The General Manager will be recommending to the Board in the mid-year
budget recommendations on December 17, 2014 approval of a new IPM Coordinator position in
the Natural Resources Department. The Integrated Pest Management Policy will be incorporated
into the District’s Resource Management Policies (see Report R-12-05) and will replace the
Invasive Species Management Policy (Chapter 4).
Attachment(s)
1. Resolution Certifying the Final EIR and adopting Findings of Fact and the Mitigated
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Integrated Pest Management Program
2. Integrated Pest Management Policy
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager
Prepared by:
Cindy Roessler, Senior Resources Management Specialist
Contact Person:
Cindy Roessler, Senior Resources Management Specialist
RESOLUTION NO. 14-xx
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a lead
agency, as provided for under §21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
and
WHEREAS, the District is proposing a project known as the Integrated Pest Management
Program (“IPMP” or “Project”) to comprehensively guide management of pests on District
properties, with the intent of formalizing and streamlining the procedures for careful
management of pests throughout the District’s open space preserves (“OSPs”) while protecting
natural resources and public health; and
WHEREAS the District determined that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and thusly concluded an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) would be needed to
satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to informing
the public and the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“Board
of Directors”) as to the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to said
project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) was filed with the California Office of
Planning and Research on September 16, 2013 and distributed to involved public agencies and
interested parties for a 30-day scoping period that concluded on October 15, 2013, to initiate the
EIR process and collect written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft
EIR; and
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on September 30, 2013 to gather public
input on the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR were
published on September 26, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day period that concluded on
November 10, 2014 and filed with the California State Office of Planning & Research under
State Clearinghouse No. 2013092033; and
WHEREAS, a public information meeting on the Draft EIR was held on October 21,
2014 to provide information to the public regarding the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2014, the Final EIR was published and addressed all
comments raised on the environmental issues associated with the project; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, Section 21000 et. seq. of the California Public Resources Code and Section
15000 et.seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) which
govern the preparation, content, and processing of environmental impact reports, have been fully
implemented in the preparation of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2014, the Final EIR for the Project was presented to the
Board of Directors. The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, all comments and recommendations
received on the Draft EIR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting
on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments made on environmental issues associated with the
project, and all revisions to the Draft EIR (collectively, the Final EIR for the Project).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors, as follows:
1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (Cal. Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), as amended,
and the State Guidelines thereto (Cal. Code of Regs. 15000 et seq.).
2. The Final EIR was presented to the Board of Directors and was independently
reviewed and considered by the Board of Directors.
3. The Final EIR reflects the Board of Directors’ independent judgment and analysis.
4. Exhibit A, Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein, are made by the
Board of Directors. The Project will not result in any significant and unavoidable
environmental impact which cannot be mitigated. The findings contained in Exhibit
A are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
5. Exhibit B, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, is adopted to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
The mitigation measures shall be binding upon the District and any affected parties. The
Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and
alternatives to the project. The Board of Directors hereby certifies the Final EIR in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
6. The General Manager or designee shall file a Notice of Determination.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
18
IV. INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT
BACKGROUND
Pesticide is a broad term that
includes any material
(natural, organic, or
synthetic) used to control or
prevent pests including
herbicides (weed or plant
killers), insecticides (insect
killers), and rodenticides
(rodent killers) as a few
examples.
Invasive species can alter
ecosystem processes by
changing biotic ecosystem
characteristics (such as plant
community composition,
structure, and interactions;
trophic relationships; and
genetic integrity) and abiotic
characteristics and
processes (such as fire
regimes, erosion,
sedimentation, hydrological
regimes, nutrient and mineral
conditions, and light
availability).
Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management (IPM) is a process for efficiently managing
pests while protecting human health and environmental quality. IPM is a
long-term, science-based, decision-making system that uses a specific
methodology to manage damage from target pests. IPM requires monitor-
ing site conditions before, during, and after treatment to determine if objec-
tives are being met and if methods need to be revised. IPM requires that
non-chemical methods be considered in addition to chemical methods (i.e.,
pesticides, herbicides, insecticides). If chemical methods are necessary
to meet a pest control objective, the potential for harm to the public and
workers are carefully considered, as are effects on the environment and
non-target organisms, and then the least toxic and most effective, effi-
cient, and target-specific method is chosen.
The Problem with Invasive Species
Invasive species are animal or plant species that invade and dominate
sufficiently large areas causing a reduction in biodiversity. They prolif-
erate in the absence of natural control and interfere with the natural pro-
cesses that would otherwise occur on wildlands. Once established, in-
vasive species can become difficult to manage and they can eliminate
native species or otherwise alter the ecosystem. This chapter addresses
the management of invasive species in order to protect the native spe-
cies and natural processes of the preserves.
ATTACHMENT 2
19
M I D P E N I N S U L A R E G I O N A L O P E N S P A C E D I S T R I C T
R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P O L I C I E S
I N T E G R A T E D P E S T M A N A G E M E N T
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants have greatly altered many of California's natural plant
communities. Because they originated elsewhere, many invasive plants
are not susceptible to predation or diseases of this region. They are
extremely adaptable and can thrive in a wide range of conditions. They
can grow quickly, reproduce early, produce many long-lasting seeds, and
tolerate disturbance. They reduce native biodiversity by gradually crowd-
ing out or competing with native plants for water and sun, and by reduc-
ing or modifying wildlife habitat.
Invasive Animals
Ranking second to loss of habitat resulting from human intrusion, inva-
sive animals pose another threat to native wildlife. Escaped domestic
animals and other non-native wildlife species can thrive in the favorable
climate of the San Francisco peninsula. Once established in a preserve,
they compete for valuable resources and disturb the sensitive balance
of natural food webs. Bullfrogs and wild pigs are examples of invasive
introduced animals found in District preserves that physically displace or
predate upon native plants and wildlife.
Programs to manage pests require long-term commitment. With many
invasive plant and animal species, short-term lapses in management
activity may negate years of expensive control programs.
Wild (feral) pigs are an
example of an invasive
wildlife species with obvious
impact on District lands.
They have been widespread
in the central coast of
California since about 1970,
reproduce rapidly, dig up
meadows and wetlands, and
carry diseases that can
affect people and livestock.
They eat acorns, bulbs, and
soil animals, and are difficult
to control. Feral pigs were
abundant in the South
Skyline region in the 1990s.
The District has been
trapping feral pigs since
2000 and has substantially
reduced their population and
damage from their rooting.
20
M I D P E N I N S U L A R E G I O N A L O P E N S P A C E D I S T R I C T
R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P O L I C I E S I
N T E G R A T E D P E S T M A N A G E M E N T
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND
IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Goal IPM- Control pests by consistent implementation of
IPM principles to protect and restore the natural
environment and provide for human safety and
enjoyment while visiting and working on District
lands.
Best management practices
for preventing the
introduction of invasive
species include cleaning
equipment before leaving a
weedy site, and using seed,
plant, forage, fill, erosion-
control and other materials
that are free of weed seeds.
The California Invasive Plant
Council maintains an
Invasive Plant Inventory that
rates the threat of non-native
plant species by evaluating
their ecological impacts,
invasive potential and
ecological distribution. Along
with local knowledge, the
District uses this list to
evaluate the invasive risk of
existing and new non-native
plants found on District
preserves.
Policy IPM-1 Develop specific pest management strategies and priori-
ties that address each of the five work categories.
♦ Manage pests in buildings to support existing uses, while also
protecting human health and surrounding natural resources.
♦ Manage pests and potential human interactions in recreational
facilities to minimize conflict, ensure visitor safety and enjoy-
ment, and protect the surrounding natural resources.
♦ Manage pests in fuel management areas to reduce risk to hu-
man life and property, while also protecting natural resources.
♦ Manage pests in rangelands and on agricultural properties to
support existing uses, while also protecting human health and
surrounding natural resources.
♦ Manage invasive species in natural areas and set priorities for
their control based on the potential risk to sensitive native spe-
cies and loss of native biodiversity.
Policy IPM-2 Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new
pest species to District preserves, especially new invasive
plants in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural prop-
erties.
21
M I D P E N I N S U L A R E G I O N A L O P E N S P A C E D I S T R I C T
R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P O L I C I E S
I N T E G R A T E D P E S T M A N A G E M E N T
Policy IPM-3 Manage pests using the procedures outlined in the follow-
ing eight implementation measures.
♦ Develop and implement tolerance levels for pests within
each of the Work Categories to determine when to under-
take pest control.
♦ Identify the pest, determine its life cycle and disruptive po-
tential, and identify relevant site conditions prior to imple-
menting a pest control activity. Review pest control objec-
tives for consistency with other site goals and establish tol-
erance levels that must be exceeded before pest control is
undertaken.
♦ Choose site-specific strategies and times of treatment that
provide the best combination of protecting preserve re-
sources, human health, and non-target organisms and that
are efficient and cost effective in controlling the target pest.
Whenever feasible, direct the control method narrowly at
vulnerable points in the target organism’s life cycle to avoid
broad impacts.
♦ Monitor results and modify control methods over time as site
conditions and treatment techniques change and as needed
to obtain an effective level of control.
♦ Use the least harmful method(s) to control identified pests.
Where the use of pesticides is necessary, apply according to
the label using all safety precautions and take all measures
needed to protect the environment, the health and safety of
visitors, employees, neighbors, and the surrounding natural
areas including water and soil resources.
♦ Plan for repeat treatments as indicated by the pest’s regen-
erative capabilities.
♦ Coordinate and cooperate with adjacent landowners, neigh-
bors, and other responsible agencies to control pests and
limit secondary effects.
♦ If eradication of a pest from a distinct location is not feasible,
apply measures to achieve containment, sustained control,
slow down a pest’s rate of spread, or minimize pest damage.
Policy IPM-4 Monitor pest occurrences and results of control actions and
use adaptive management to improve results.
Prior to the approval of the
use of any new biological
control agent, the US and
California Departments of
Agriculture conduct years of
laboratory and field studies
to assess the candidate’s
host specificity and its
potential impact on target
and nontarget species and
environmental safety.
The District coordinates with
the San Mateo County and
Santa Clara County Weed
Management Areas, the
California Invasive Plant
Council, the California
Department of Fish and
Game, the California
Department of Food and
Agriculture, County
Agricultural Departments,
and the Cooperative
Extension Service to stay
informed on invasive plants
and animals, IPM
techniques, and pesticide
regulations.
22
M I D P E N I N S U L A R E G I O N A L O P E N S P A C E D I S T R I C T
R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T P O L I C I E S I
N T E G R A T E D P E S T M A N A G E M E N T
Policy IPM-5 Develop and implement an IPM Guidance Manual to
standardize pest management and IPM procedures across
all District Lands.