Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20160914 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 16-22
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, September 14, 2016 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Portions of San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 093-590-030, 093-590-050 and 093-590-060 Agency Negotiator: Michael Williams Real Property Manager Negotiating Party: Brian Morelli, Senior Right of Way Agent, San Francisco Public Utility Commission Under Negotiation: Public Trail Easement Negotiating Party: Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager, City of East Palo Alto Under Negotiation: Memorandum of Understanding regarding Public Trail Easement 2. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title of Employees: Controller General Counsel General Manager CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency designated representatives: Board of Directors Unrepresented Employees: District Controller General Counsel General Manager ADJOURNMENT Meeting 16-22 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board President will invite public comment on items not the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Informational Presentation by Project Manager Lotina Nishijima from the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding the Permanente Creek Flood Protection Project at Rancho San Antonio ADOPTION OF AGENDA CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. 1. Approve August 10, 2016 and August 24, 2016 Minutes 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Vegetation Management for Fire Protection at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-16-108) Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, IPM Coordinator General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ecological Concerns, Inc. of Santa Cruz, California in the amount not to exceed $47,000.00 to provide vegetation management services at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve in Fiscal Year 2016- 17. 2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the above contract in the amount not to exceed $28,000 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to provide vegetation management services at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve if the Board approves this funding in the FY2017-18 budget. 4. Update Board Policies 3.01 (Financial Instrument Signatories) and 3.02 (Safe Deposit Box) to include the Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services as an authorized signatory (R-16-115) Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Senior Accountant General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve a resolution to add the position of Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services to the list of authorized signatories and access to the District’s safe deposit box. BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 5. Proposed purchase and settlement agreement for the Rossetta property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve located on Mt. Umunhum Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number 562-22-017) (R-16-111) Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase and settlement agreement for the Rossetta property at a cost of $1,650,000 with a corresponding authorization for a budget adjustment/increase of the same amount. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report. 4. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to file, upon close of escrow, a notice of Williamson Act nonrenewal with the County of Santa Clara for Assessor’s parcel number 562-22-017. 5. Withhold dedication of the Rossetta property as public open space at this time. 6. Award of Contract and Related Professional Services Contract Amendment for the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project (Project) at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-16-114) Staff Contact: Dale Grogan, Capital Project Manager, Engineering & Construction General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Grade Tech, Inc., of Castro Valley, CA, for a base contract amount of $415,960. 2. Authorize a 10% construction contract contingency in the amount of $41,596 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contact amount not-to-exceed $457,556. 3. Authorize the General Manager to amend an existing professional services agreement with Tim Best, CEG, for additional design services to support the Project in the amount of $2,594. 4. Adopt a Resolution approving a budget adjustment/increase in the amount of $207,150 to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 District budget to fund the Project. 7. Site Cleanup and Demolition of Structures in the former Driscoll Ranch Area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-16-112) Staff Contact: Aaron Hébert, Water Resource Specialist, Natural Resources Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the removal of debris piles and the demolition of the following 12 structures in the former Driscoll Ranch area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to prepare the area for public use: 2 houses (one of which is County red-tagged); 2 standing barns with rotting substructures; 4 collapsed barns; and 4 outbuildings. 8. Final report on the sale of the 2016 Green Bonds Refunding (R-16-113) Staff Contact: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive final report. No action required. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDA • Disclosure of “Remote Interest” (Gov’t Code section 1091(a)) • Status of Housing Policy Revisions INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for factual information; request staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. Director Reports ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on September 9, 2016, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk August 10, 2016 Board Meeting 16-18 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 August 10, 2016 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Kishimoto called the special meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, and Curt Riffle Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi, Planning Manager Jane Mark, and Senior Planner Tina Hugg 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION. (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of Case: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space v. Michael Rossetta, et al; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 1-15-CV-289568 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 517-24-007 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Marita Quint Meeting 16-18 Page 2 Under Negotiation: Fee Title, Trail and Road Easements or Rights Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 517-24-020 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Ann Dunham Under Negotiation: Fee Title, Trail and Road Easements or Rights Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 510-33-006 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Andrew Gere Under Negotiation: Fee Title, Trail and Road Easements or Rights Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 510-48-002 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Ken Crafford Under Negotiation: Fee Title, Trail and Road Easements or Rights Property: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 510-48-001 Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Negotiating Party: Oakley Fairview Company Under Negotiation: Fee Title, Trail and Road Easements or Rights 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9) M. Mahronich, et al v. Presentation Center, Los Gatos, Inc. Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-15-CV-276706 Public comments opened at 5:03 p.m. No speakers. Public comments closed at 6:03 p.m. The Board convened into closed session. Director Hanko arrived at 5:13 p.m. Director Riffle arrived at 5:18 p.m. Director Harris arrived at 6:20 p.m. President Kishimoto adjourned the special meeting at 6:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING – BOARD MEETING President Kishimoto called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:00 p.m. President Kishimoto reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken. Meeting 16-18 Page 3 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, Chief Financial Officer/ Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Senior Administrative Assistant Amy Schmitt, Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin, Capital Project Manager III Damon Adlao, Capital Project Manager II Zachary Alexander, Controller Mike Foster, Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis, and Senior Planner Meredith Manning. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of Staff: Amy Schmitt, General Manager’s Office, Senior Administrative Assistant CONSENT CALENDAR Director Kishimoto pulled Item 6 from the Consent Calendar. Director Siemens pulled Item 5 from the Consent Calendar. Public comment opened at 7:05 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:05 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Items 5 and 6. VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve the Minutes for the July 27, 2016 Board meetings Meeting 16-18 Page 4 2. Approve Claims Report 3. Renewal of Investment Authority and Adoption of Annual Statement of Investment Policy (R-16-77) General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution to renew the District Controller’s investment authority until August 10, 2017 and approve the District’s Revised Statement of Investment Policy. 4. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Annual Claims List (R-16-83) General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Annual Claims List, including debt service payments. 5. Measure AA Logo (R-16-99) Director Siemens suggested modifying the signboard logo to state “your taxes at work” and include the name of the project completed. Director Riffle spoke in favor of specifying “Measure AA funds are at work” used over stating “taxes at work.” Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis explained only the logo is being considered for approval by the Board, and the sign will be modified depending on the project. The examples provided show how the logo may be used but will differ depending on the location, project, etc. Public comment opened at 7:15 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:15 p.m. Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee’s recommendation for Measure AA logo design, with the addition of “funded by” and “2014 Open Space Bond” wording. VOTE: 7-0-0 6. Resolution Approving a Second Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project (R-16-96) Senior Planner Meredith Manning responded to a letter submitted by neighbor Dave Leeson stating many of the concerns raised by Mr. Leeson were evaluated in the original Environmental Impact Report. The additional project work addressed by the proposed Second Addendum does not expand upon the original project scope. General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner described the proposed Second Addendum as a refinement of the previously approved Environmental Impact Report. An addendum is required when changes Meeting 16-18 Page 5 are being made to the projects or its elements, but the overall impacts are not in excess of those impacts previously identified and mitigated. President Kishimoto questioned the amount of exhaust anticipated from the equipment stating it is just below the allowed limit. Mike Parker the District’s consultant from Ascent Environmental provided additional information regarding exhaust limits stating conservative estimates and extensive modeling was used for the calculations and confirmed the data in the report was correct and below the allowable limit. Director Hanko asked staff to notify any neighbors that may be disturbed by the noise to alert them as to when work is being done. Ms. Manning stated she will contact the neighbors and provide a schedule for the work if the Board approves the contract to repave Mt. Umunhum Road. Staff will also work with the contractors and neighbors to minimize the impact of noise. General Manager Steve Abbors stated staff has been in contact with Mr. Leeson and will continue discussions as the project progresses. Public comment opened at 7:37 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:37 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt a resolution approving a Second Addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and related minor project modifications. VOTE: 7-0-0 BOARD BUSINESS 7. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of a Series 2016 Green Bonds and Approving Related Documents and Associated Actions (R-16-97) Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak introduced the internal and external members of the bond team and provided the staff presentation, including an overview of the District’s debt. By refinancing the 2007 and callable 2011 bonds and issuing the 2016 Green Bonds, the District will reduce overall District debt service payments by approximately $15 million over the next twenty-five years. Mr. Jaskulak described the various documents proposed for approval by the Board of Directors and the District’s Financing Authority. Public comment opened at 8:07 p.m. No speakers. Meeting 16-18 Page 6 Public comment closed at 8:07 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded a motion to adopt a Resolution authorizing issuance of not to exceed $68 million in Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Green Bonds, 2016 Refunding (the “2016 Green Bonds”); approving the related forms and execution of an indenture, a bond purchase agreement, an escrow agreement, and a continuing disclosure agreement; approving form of and distribution of an official statement for said refunding bonds; and authorizing taking of necessary and incidental actions, and documents and certificates. VOTE: 7-0-0 At 8:09 p.m., the Board adjourned the regular 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 Cyr, Hassett, Riffle, and Siemens present. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY SPECIAL MEETING Director Riffle called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 8:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Joseph Simitian Staff Present: Executive Director Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Controller Mike Foster, and Secretary Jennifer Woodworth AUTHORITY BUSINESS Motion: Director Hassett nominated, and Director Cyr seconded the nomination of Director Riffle to serve as the Chairperson for the Financing Authority. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Supervisor Simitian absent) Motion: Director Hassett nominated, and Director Cyr seconded the nomination of Director Siemens to serve as the Treasurer for the Financing Authority. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Supervisor Simitian absent) General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner requested a brief recess to consult the bylaws of the Financing Authority. The Authority recessed at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at 8:18 p.m. with Directors Hassett, Cyr, Riffle, and Siemens present. Ms. Schaffner explained that according to the bylaws of the Financing Authority, the Treasurer of the Board of Directors also serves as the Treasurer of the Financing Authority. Meeting 16-18 Page 7 Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to reconsider the selection of the Financing Authority Chair and Treasurer. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Supervisor Simitian absent) Motion: Director Siemens nominated, and Director Riffle seconded the nomination of Director Hassett to serve as the Chairperson for the Financing Authority. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Supervisor Simitian absent) 1. Resolution Authorizing the Early Redemption and Execution of All Necessary Documents in Connection with the 2016 Green Bonds (R-16-98) Public hearing opened at 8:21 p.m. No speakers. Public hearing closed at 8:21 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr 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 early redemption of the 2007 Series A Revenue Refunding Bonds and 2011 Revenue Bonds, and Approving Forms and Execution of an Escrow Agreement, and Authorizing the taking of all necessary actions in connection with the 2016 Green Bonds. VOTE: 4-0-0 (Supervisor Simitian absent) Director Hassett adjourned the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Financing Authority at 8:22 p.m. REGULAR MEETING – OPEN SESSION (RECONVENED) President Kishimoto reconvened the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors at 8:22 p.m. with Directors all directors present. Items 8 and 9 were presented together. 8. Award of Contract to O.C. Jones & Sons Inc. for construction of the Mount Umunhum Road Rehabilitation Project (Project) at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve for a Base Amount Not-to-Exceed $5,012,758 and a Separate 15% Contingency (R-16-101) 9. Award of Contract to D-Line Constructors for Construction Services for the Mount Umunhum Summit Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve for a Base Amount Not-to- Exceed $7,385,000 and a Separate 10% Contingency (R-16-82) Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz provided an overview of Mt. Umunhum Road and Mt. Umunhum Summit projects and the cost of the two projects in comparison to current and projected construction markets. The District is in a good financial position to afford both projects at this time, and both the Road and Summit Projects are fully eligible for Measure AA reimbursement under Portfolio 23. Approval of the contracts will allow for the proposed June Meeting 16-18 Page 8 2017 opening and fulfill one of the top-rated projects included in the Vision Plan and Measure AA. Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin described the various elements of the Mt. Umunhum Road project previously approved by the Board. Staff conducted extensive outreach to solicit bids for the project, and three bids were received. Director Riffle suggested limiting use of automatic contingencies to help control project costs and whether staff could manage the project to a lower contingency. Mr. Lin explained that due to the complex nature and size of the project, a 15% contingency is recommended. Mr. Abbors reports staff previously analyzed use of contract contingencies and found they were used minimally. Also per past Board direction, staff often uses the Biweekly Report to the Board to report on contract contingencies used. Public comment opened at 9:04 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Lin described the various elements of the Mt. Umunhum Summit project previously approved by the Board and described new safety elements of the projects for Board approval, including guardrail installation and crosswalks. Staff conducted extensive outreach to solicit bids for the project, and one bid was received. The bid was subsequently negotiated downward by $500,000 through materials substitution, minor design changes, etc. Finally, Mr. Lin outlined four alternatives for moving forward and how well each alternative meets the project’s goals. Public comment opened at 9:20 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 9:20 p.m. Directors Kishimoto and Harris commented on the high cost of the projects. Directors Hassett and Riffle spoke in favor of moving forward with the projects. Mr. Abbors spoke regarding current District spending of Measure AA funds stating 5% of the $300 million has been spent, and 5% of the 30-year timeframe of Measure AA has passed. Director Hanko spoke in favor of approving the projects and the District’s original purchase of Mt. Umunhum in 1986. Director Siemens spoke regarding the enormity of the project and the District’s cost-savings elsewhere. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Hanko seconded a motion to: Meeting 16-18 Page 9 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with O.C. Jones & Sons of Berkeley, CA for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $5,012,758. 2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency in the amount of $751,914 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contact amount not-to-exceed $5,764,672. 3. Adopt a Resolution approving a budget line item adjustment in the amount of $2,764,672 to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 District budget to fund construction of the Project. VOTE: 7-0-0 Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded a motion to: 1. Approve the Mount Umunhum Summit Project Design and Plans, and delegate to the General Manager or designee the authority to approve any necessary changes to the Project Design and Plans, and Direct that the “As Built” Designs Come Back to the Board for Final Approval. 2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with D-Line Constructors of Oakland, CA, for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $7,385,000. 3. Authorize a 10% construction contract contingency in the amount of $738,500 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing a total contract amount not-to-exceed $8,123,500. 4. Adopt a Resolution approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $3,466,450 to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget. VOTE: 7-0-0 10. Determination of Compensability for Diversity Outreach Ad Hoc Committee Meetings (R-16-100) District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth presented the staff report. The Board discussed pursuing legislation to raise the monthly threshold for Director compensation from $500 per month to $1,000 similar to the East Bay Regional Park District. By consensus, the Board directed staff to research the requirements and steps necessary to pursue legislation related to their compensation. Public comment opened at 9:44 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 9:44 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Hassett seconded a motion to make the meetings of the Diversity Outreach Ad Hoc Committee compensable. VOTE: 6-0-1 (Director Riffle abstained.) Meeting 16-18 Page 10 INFORMATION MEMORANDA • Proposed Prospect Road Parking Area (Net Canopy) Safety Structure at Fremont Older Open Space Preserve • Salmonid Habitat Restoration Projects, San Gregorio Creek • Vida Verde Nature Center Grant Report INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Harris reported the Planning and Natural Resources Committee held an open house on August 2, 2016 to provide information regarding the proposed Highway 17 wildlife and trail crossings. B. Staff Reports District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth inquired if the Board would like to create an ad hoc committee related to the upcoming Board Development retreat in November. The Board by consensus directed formation of an ad hoc committee and directed staff to return to the Board at a future meeting to authorize compensation for meeting attendance. President Kishimoto appoints Directors Riffle, Cyr, and Kishimoto to serve on the ad hoc committee. Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis provided copies of two new District brochures to help District visitors, which include information regarding easy access trails and volunteer opportunities. Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse reported the District recently received a gift of $140,000 as did Deer Hollow Farm. Staff is researching how to work with Deer Hollow Farm to combine the gifts to potentially do restoration work on the White Barn located at Deer Hollow Farm. Director Riffle reported on another gift received by the District and suggested a Board committee look at policy options related to accepting gifts from the public. By consensus the Board directed the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to work on this issue. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Harris spoke in favor of installing trash cans at Pulgas Ridge and considering benches or picnic tables at preserve parking lots or trailheads. Director Harris also shared she has seen many cyclists on the trail there and suggested having larger signage at the trail head. Director Kishimoto spoke regarding a constituent who contact her regrading tree trimming by PG&E. Meeting 16-18 Page 11 Mr. Woodhouse reported staff has contacted the constituent and staff has in the past worked closely with PG&E related to their tree trimming practices and will continue to monitor the activities. Director Hanko left at 10:12 p.m. citing her recusal regarding items related to PG&E. Mr. Woodhouse provided an update on staff’s response to the constituent stating staff ADJOURNMENT President Kishimoto adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 10:14 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk August 24, 2016 Board Meeting 16-20 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 August 24, 2016 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Kishimoto called the special meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner 1. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title of Employees: General Counsel General Manager Public comments opened at 6:01 p.m. No speakers. Public comments closed at 6:01 p.m. The Board convened into closed session. General Counsel Schaffner left closed session at 6:00 p.m. General Manager Abbors entered closed session at 6:01 p.m. President Kishimoto continued the special meeting at 6:56 p.m. to the close of the regular meeting. Meeting 16-20 Page 2 REGULAR MEETING President Kishimoto called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:02 p.m. President Kishimoto reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken. 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, Chief Financial Officer/ Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Planner II Leslie Chan, and Human Resources Supervisor Candice Basnight ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 CONSENT CALENDAR Director Riffle pulled Item 2 from the Consent Calendar. Public comment opened at 7:06 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item 2. VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve Claims Report Meeting 16-20 Page 3 2. Award of Contract with Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman (MIG), Inc. for site planning, CEQA environmental review, design, engineering, construction documents, and permitting assistance, for the proposed Red Barn public access area and new entrance at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-16-103) Planner II Leslie Chan provided a presentation describing the current status of implementing the La Honda Master Plan. Ms. Chan described various elements of the Red Barn project and reported the La Honda Master Plan implementation remains on schedule. Director Hassett requested clarification regarding the requested budget amendment and contract total amount. Ms. Chan explained the budget amendment is for the current fiscal year, but the contract covers several years of work. Director Hassett inquired if staff is moving towards moving this type of work in-house. General Manager Steve Abbors explained that bringing this type of specialized work in-house will limit planners from being able to work on other projects. Additionally, due to the generalized nature of the La Honda Master Plan, further study of the location and design of the paring area is needed prior to implementation. Public comment opened at 7:34 p.m. Mike Bushue spoke in favor of including equestrian parking at the Red Barn staging area. Public comment closed at 7:35 p.m. Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year professional services contract with MIG, Inc. to complete site planning, CEQA environmental review, design, engineering, construction documents, and permitting assistance for the proposed new public access area, Preserve entrance, and other associated improvements at the Red Barn area at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $400,000. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $60,000 to cover unforeseen requirements, for a not-to- exceed total contract amount of $460,000. 3. Adopt a Resolution approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $60,000 to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget. VOTE: 7-0-0 3. Caltrans Cooperative Agreement for Highway 17 Wildlife Passage and Bay Area Ridge Trail Crossing Project (R-16-105) Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Resource Specialist III, Natural Resources Department General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans in a not-to-exceed amount of $165,000 to fund Caltrans’ Meeting 16-20 Page 4 oversight of the development of a Project Initiation Document for the Highway 17 Wildlife Passage and Bay Area Ridge Trail Crossing Project. 4. Proposed Purchase of the Petersen property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, located off of Hicks Road east of Reynolds Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number 575-11-022) (R-16-106) Staff Contact: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in this report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Petersen property at a cost of $700,000. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in this report. 4. Approve a budget adjustment of $700,000 to the Real Property Land Purchase Fund. 5. Indicate the intention to withhold dedication of the Petersen property as public open space at this time. 5. Formation of a Board Retreat Ad Hoc Committee (R-16-107) Staff Contact: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize formation of a Board Retreat Ad Hoc Committee. 2. Approve the Board President’s appointments to the Committee. 3. Authorize Director compensation for Committee meeting attendance. BOARD BUSINESS 6. Restructuring of the Information Systems and Technology Division of the Administrative Services Department, and related changes to the Classification and Compensation Plan (R-16-104) Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse introduced the agenda item explaining its relation to the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study and the subsequent Information Technology Strategic Plan. Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak outlined the proposed restructuring of the Information Systems and Technology (IST) department and explained approval of the General Manager’s recommendation does not create any new staff positions at this time. Human Resources Supervisor Candice Basnight described each of the proposed classifications and reclassifications and explained the roles of each. Ms. Basnight outlined the benefits of the proposed IST restructuring, including meeting District technology and business needs, achieving market alignment, and preparing for succession planning within the IST department. Mr. Jaskulak outlined the fiscal impact of the proposed classifications and reclassifications. Public comment opened at 8:05 p.m. Meeting 16-20 Page 5 No speakers. Public comment closed at 8:05 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded a motion to approve the following classification recommendations for the Information Systems and Technology Division to restructure current positions, without adding new staff, into a Division structure that fulfills the District’s current and future IST business needs: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the District’s Classification and Compensation Plan with the following changes: a. Addition of Data Administrator classification; b. Addition of Senior Technologist classification; c. Addition of Applications Support Engineer classification; d. Addition of Data Analyst I/II classification. 2. Approve the following reclassifications of positions in the Information Systems and Technology Division of the Administrative Services Department: a. Reclassification of the Geographic Information Systems Administrator to a Geographic Information Systems Program Administrator; b. Reclassification of the Information Technology Administrator to an Information Technology Program Administrator; c. Reclassification of the Information Technology Specialist to a Data Administrator; d. Reclassification of Geographic Information Systems Technician to a Data Analyst I; e. Reclassification of Information Technology Technician to an Information Technology Technician I/II. VOTE: 7-0-0 7. Formation of the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (R-16-102) Senior Planner Tina Hugg provided the staff presentation describing the Action Plan project to select and begin implementation of a long term Administrative Office solution and outlined the purpose of the proposed Facilities Ad Hoc Committee. Ms. Hugg described the next steps for the proposed committee before it provides a recommendation to the Board for a long term solution. Director Kishimoto suggested defining the Committee’s authority to identifying any potential gaps in the AO site feasibility analysis, real estate market study, and futurist/architectural strategist report, and (2) arriving at a recommended preferred option, possible alternatives, and next steps to forward to the full Board in November or December 2016 for its consideration and decision. Additionally, the Board may want to weigh in on the information presented to the committee before the proposed November or December 2016 decision point. Staff will work with the committee to determine what items will return to the full Board and when. Directors Harris and Hassett requested additional information on the project team members. Ms. Hugg stated staff from the Planning, Engineering and Construction, General Manager’s Office, and Real Property departments will help make up the project team. Meeting 16-20 Page 6 Public comment opened at 8:22 p.m. No speakers. Public comment closed at 8:22 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Hanko seconded a motion to: 1. Form a new Facilities Ad Hoc Committee. 2. Authorize the Board President to appoint three Directors to serve on the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee. 3. Determine the meetings of the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee should be compensable. VOTE: 7-0-0 President Kishimoto appointed Directors Hassett, Kishimoto, and Siemens to serve on the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee. Director Harris stated that the Committee should not be able to decide what is brought back to the Board of Directors. Director Kishitmoto stated the committee is advisory, and items would be brought to the Board for final decision. Director Cyr discussed the parameters the committee will be working under and thanked staff for their work thus far on the project. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No Committee reports. B. Staff Reports Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided an update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District retention basin project at Rancho San Antonio and its impacts on the parking lot there. Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz provided an update on the Sears Ranch Road project and the bids received for this project. Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak provided an update on 2016 bonds stating the AAA rating for these bonds and the proposed schedule for the bond sales. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Meeting 16-20 Page 7 Director Harris reported her attendance at the California Sierra Club lobbyist event and commented on various bills of interest to the District. Director Harris also suggested referring to Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to study placing benches in preserve parking lots. By consensus, the Board referred studying bench placement in parking lots to LFPAC. Director Riffle announced he has accepted the Vice-President of Land position at the Peninsula Open Space Trust. As a result, he will be bringing forward a memo to outline any potential conflict of interests he may have related to his new position and the District. President Kishitmoto stated she will be signing on to the rebuttal argument for Measure B. ADJOURNMENT President Kishimoto adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District back into closed session at 8:56 p.m. Director Hanko left at 9:01 p.m. President Kishimoto adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:55 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk page 1 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 16-21 DATE 09-14-2016 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 73187 *10215 - CALPERS-FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION Employee monthly Health Insurance 09/02/2016 156,754.70 73202 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Invasive species management - District wide 09/07/2016 45,872.00 73137 *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2-03-04 Rent - September 08/29/2016 25,012.00 73117 11708 - RACING HEARTS Purchase of 20 AEDs and Associated Supplies 08/24/2016 16,000.00 73178 *11230 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-C/O UNITED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVI Employee monthly Dental Insurance 09/01/2016 15,529.41 73170 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Sears Ranch Road Parking Area Design Consulting 09/01/2016 13,471.95 73114 *10180 - PG & E Electricity/gas 08/16 08/24/2016 10,598.78 73169 10665 - PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC Mount Umunhum Road Design Consulting 09/01/2016 10,530.00 73200 11707 - CUMMING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC.3rd Party Construction Cost Estimate for Mt Um 09/07/2016 10,450.00 73136 10578 - OLD REPUBLIC TITLE CO Escrow Deposit for Rossetta Property 08/29/2016 10,000.00 73209 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Excavator Rentals (2) for Mt Um Road Project, PCR 09/07/2016 9,024.36 73221 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT Purisima Creek Grading Permit 09/07/2016 8,211.05 73215 11462 - MANAGEMENT PARTNERS GMO Analysis and Recommendations (FOSM)09/07/2016 7,875.00 73172 10276 - PORTOLA PARK HEIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC Portola Heights road association dues 09/01/2016 7,780.00 73160 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Excavator rental -- Borden Hatch Trail work, PCR 09/01/2016 6,965.10 73201 11699 - DAKOTA PRESS Printing & Mailing of Fall Views Newsletter 09/07/2016 6,611.00 73190 *10419 - THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Employee monthly AD&D, Life, LTD Insurance 09/02/2016 6,570.60 73096 *10218 - EDD Unemployment - Apr to June 30 2016 08/24/2016 6,362.00 73231 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel For District Vehicles - August 2016 09/07/2016 6,273.13 73214 10791 - LSA ASSOCIATES INC Red Barn Historical Resource Evaluation 09/07/2016 5,998.20 73204 11354 - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Stevens Creek Trail Bridges Engineering 09/07/2016 5,839.38 73171 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Lumber (SAO, PIC, SAO, RSA)09/01/2016 5,796.73 73166 10687 - PACIFIC LEGACY INC Cultural Resource Evaluation - BCR Preserve Plan 09/01/2016 5,383.62 73211 11344 - HOLM BASE Product for web store: - 500 water bottles 09/07/2016 5,218.88 73132 11618 - TRAIL PEOPLE Hwy 17 Crossing Feasibility Study 08/24/2016 4,789.75 73219 10094 - RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP, INC.Mount Umunhum Summit Area Design Consultant 09/07/2016 4,735.50 73210 10223 - HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC Red Barn Staging Area Traffic Study (La Honda OSP)09/07/2016 4,557.50 73115 10086 - PHYTOSPHERE RESEARCH Sudden Oak Death Data Analysis : District-wide 08/24/2016 4,474.48 73127 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Water Tank Installation - LHC, Repair water leak 08/24/2016 4,246.83 73116 11519 - PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP Mt.Um Road and Trail property rights - SA 08/24/2016 3,682.50 73103 10222 - HERC RENTALS INC Equipment Rental 08/24/2016 3,539.81 73097 10524 - ERGO WORKS Ergo Chairs, Desk, Installation work 08/24/2016 3,192.08 73128 10585 - SOL'S MOBILE AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR, INC.Service for 11 Vehicles 08/24/2016 3,151.99 73208 11593 - H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Alma College Bat Surveys 09/07/2016 2,782.00 73183 10775 - TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC Payroll implementation consulting services 09/01/2016 2,520.00 73094 11520 - COMMUNITY INITIATIVES Latino Outdoors Project Partnership 08/24/2016 2,500.00 73179 10585 - SOL'S MOBILE AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR, INC. Inspections M04, T25, Service M210, M07, M04 09/01/2016 2,426.05 73189 10211 - PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES Legislative Advocacy Services 09/02/2016 2,391.34 73195 10616 - BKF ENGINEERS Survey, platmaps & legal descriptions - Ravenswood Bay Trail 09/07/2016 2,340.00 73229 10438 - VP II LLC 200 Volunteer/Docent Recognition Giveaway Blankets 09/07/2016 2,330.00 73197 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY Fire Shelters 09/07/2016 2,285.82 73182 *10583 - TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS District Telecommunications + SAO Internet Services 09/01/2016 2,256.40 73126 11703 - Shift Key Solutions Training classes for multiple Microsoft Applications 08/24/2016 2,125.00 73129 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Drain & Base Rock (SAO & GP)08/24/2016 2,028.16 73091 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repair (SA-MT UM)08/24/2016 1,933.83 73133 10786 - U.S. BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE Sharp Copier lease for all offices 08/24/2016 1,877.04 73141 10012 - BIOSEARCH ASSOCIATES Bull frog control at Mindego Lake - RR 09/01/2016 1,873.40 page 2 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 16-21 DATE 09-14-2016 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 73108 10189 - LIFE ASSIST First Aid Supplies 08/24/2016 1,832.55 73149 *10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE August Services 09/01/2016 1,815.00 73168 10082 - PATSONS MEDIA GROUP Printing of Purisima maps 09/01/2016 1,744.00 73188 10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS INC Tower rental - Crown site id 871823 09/02/2016 1,680.21 73222 11075 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY - DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SFO Permit Fees 09/07/2016 1,660.00 73088 11556 - BAY AREA MONITOR Sponsorship of bay area monitor 1st ed. of new pub year 08/24/2016 1,500.00 73147 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Mindego Gateway planting & landscape maintenance - RR 09/01/2016 1,434.50 73180 10107 - SUNNYVALE FORD Installed flight recorder and stability control module / P89 09/01/2016 1,376.39 73156 11696 - GEO WEST LAND SURVEYS Aerial survey of Petersen Property - SA 09/01/2016 1,350.00 73212 10394 - INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO Post Parts (PicR)09/07/2016 1,283.25 73191 *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Employee monthly Vision Insurance 09/02/2016 1,260.00 73111 10073 - NORMAL DATA Database Work - Incidents & Contacts 08/24/2016 1,123.75 73228 10201 - TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP CO John Deere 390 tractor mower repair 09/07/2016 1,103.24 73148 11007 - COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Encroachment Permit for Mt Um Road Project 09/01/2016 1,000.00 73194 10340 - BARRESI, CHRIS Release Security Deposit for 10698 Mora Dr 09/07/2016 980.00 73100 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Hard Hat annual maintenance supplies, Brush cutter repair 08/24/2016 942.00 73125 *10580 - SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS AO Print Costs 08/24/2016 927.25 73092 10018 - CECILY HARRIS Reimbursement for Land Trust Alliance Rally Costs 08/24/2016 903.20 73192 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Septic Tank Services - MB/SR 09/07/2016 900.00 73162 11700 - IMAGEX Printing of #10 envelopes (2-color)09/01/2016 891.93 73165 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies 09/01/2016 873.80 73150 11455 - DITCH WITCH EQUIPMENT CO., INC.SFO-Canycom Mower replacement blades 09/01/2016 869.26 73140 11680 - BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC Harrington Bridge Structural Consultant - PCR 09/01/2016 864.00 73131 10706 - THE MERCURY NEWS Advertisement for Mt. Um. Road bid 08/24/2016 791.25 73134 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Services (FOOSP, SA)08/24/2016 781.64 73106 11376 - LAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Bio-monitoring for Hwy 17 08/24/2016 760.00 73199 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Vehicle Service/Repair A91, A101, P106 09/07/2016 751.63 73225 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Baserock for small projects -- trucking cost 09/07/2016 750.07 73098 11545 - ERIN ASHFORD PHOTOGRAPHY LLC Staff Recognition Event Videographer 08/24/2016 750.00 73102 *11551 - GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSA, SAO)08/24/2016 738.47 73227 11715 - SUNNYVALE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Sunnyvale Chamber of Commerce membership 09/07/2016 725.00 73138 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Septic Tank Service (RSA & DHF)09/01/2016 700.00 73151 11050 - F&S AUTO BODY INC Body damage repair 09/01/2016 675.40 73217 11714 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mtn View Chamber of Commerce membership 09/07/2016 650.00 73181 10113 - T-SQUARED HVAC Service Furnace at Rental - LHC 09/01/2016 645.00 73104 10043 - HOWARD ROME MARTIN & RIDLEY LLP Mahronich vs Presentation Center - BCR 08/24/2016 641.05 73220 10324 - RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC Baserock for small projects 09/07/2016 591.00 73085 10652 - ARB/PERP Air Resources Board Chipper Permit Fee 08/24/2016 570.00 73164 11664 - LSQ FUNDING GROUP LC Temporary HR Staff - Week ending 6/19/16 09/01/2016 544.00 73224 10585 - SOL'S MOBILE AUTO & TRUCK REPAIR, INC.P86, P88 Service 09/07/2016 541.05 73086 10327 - ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENT Annual Dues: FY 16-17 08/24/2016 500.00 73090 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)08/24/2016 492.92 73163 10189 - LIFE ASSIST First Aid Supplies 09/01/2016 474.08 73121 11479 - ROOTID District Website Maintenance 08/24/2016 472.50 73113 10925 - PAPE` MACHINERY Machinery Parts 08/24/2016 454.58 73226 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Uniform-New Hire 09/07/2016 446.96 73223 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Water Main Reconfiguration - WH 09/07/2016 440.19 73107 11099 - LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES INC Pre Employment Evaluation 08/24/2016 400.00 page 3 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 16-21 DATE 09-14-2016 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 73177 11224 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY - COMMUNICATIONS DEPT repair radio repeater 09/01/2016 384.00 73146 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC M201 Service / Repair 09/01/2016 382.75 73174 10097 - ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY AO Kitchen Sink Repairs 09/01/2016 378.95 73145 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repair (RSACP)09/01/2016 367.97 73184 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services - HR 09/01/2016 363.00 73105 10421 - ID PLUS INC Name tags 08/24/2016 360.00 73139 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Supplies (RSACP)09/01/2016 354.96 73120 10589 - RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Recycling 08/24/2016 333.00 73157 10345 - GLOBAL STEEL FABRICATORS INC Sign Brackets 09/01/2016 327.00 73093 10321 - COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY & BASS Consulting for trademarking logo 08/24/2016 324.50 73124 11059 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPT Water Testing 08/24/2016 320.00 73205 10524 - ERGO WORKS delivery and installation of ergo items 09/07/2016 315.00 73230 10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Debris Disposal 09/07/2016 306.39 73175 11179 - SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR OFFICE GIS Data for adjacent properties 09/01/2016 305.00 73101 11713 - GLENN HARMATZ Refund of deposit - Los Gatos Athletic Association 08/24/2016 300.00 73130 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies 08/24/2016 295.80 73154 10174 - FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC Weather Meter 09/01/2016 285.34 73089 *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water Service for Rental 08/24/2016 275.33 73119 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Metal Materials (FFO, SA)08/24/2016 256.19 73144 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 AO WATER 09/01/2016 242.86 73158 *10173 - GREEN WASTE SFO GARBAGE 09/01/2016 230.50 73185 *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Monthly Cell Phone Service (4x Public Safety)09/01/2016 197.69 73213 11326 - LEXISNEXIS Online subscription service August 2016 09/07/2016 188.84 73110 11270 - MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC.Parts for Kubota Tractor 08/24/2016 183.28 73155 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)09/01/2016 173.63 73099 10186 - FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping charges 08/24/2016 171.75 73084 11575 - ADLAO, DAMON Cell phone reimbursement, American Society of Civil Engineers Lecture 08/24/2016 162.00 73206 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Equipment, Parts, Safety Equipment 09/07/2016 137.78 73109 10664 - MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS AO garbage services 08/24/2016 126.90 73142 11186 - CALIFORNIA DEPT FISH AND WILDLIFE-NAPA OFFICE Streambed Alteration Maintenance Fee 09/01/2016 122.75 73196 11186 - CALIFORNIA DEPT FISH AND WILDLIFE-NAPA OFFICE Maintenance Project Fee - Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Toto 09/07/2016 122.75 73186 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Saftey Glasses 09/01/2016 118.32 73123 11173 - SAN MATEO COUNTY FARM BUREAU Membership fees 08/24/2016 100.00 73152 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Shop Supplies (FFO)09/01/2016 86.61 73122 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water service for rental - ES 08/24/2016 83.32 73167 *10481 - PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE MB campsite pay phone 09/01/2016 78.00 73203 11596 - ELECTRO IMAGING SYSTEMS INC.Plotter Printing Supplies 09/07/2016 63.65 73112 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Auto Parts 08/24/2016 54.38 73143 *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 WH Water 09/01/2016 53.46 73232 00000 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HISTORY MUSEUM Images for Interpretive Signs - LHC 09/07/2016 50.00 73159 11570 - GROGAN, DALE ASCE Water Main Installation by Directional Drilling Seminar 09/01/2016 47.00 73173 10091 - R & B COMPANY Hawthorn Alpine residence water valve box cover 09/01/2016 45.69 73207 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Locks / Keys 09/07/2016 45.40 73095 11210 - DATA SAFE AO File Destruction Services 08/24/2016 40.00 73087 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Supplies 08/24/2016 36.87 73216 11717 - MARTINEZ, ELISSA Mileage Reimbursement 09/07/2016 32.40 73118 *10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)08/24/2016 26.25 73161 10421 - ID PLUS INC Name tags 09/01/2016 24.50 page 4 of 4 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 16-21 DATE 09-14-2016 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 73218 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.M207 Repair 09/07/2016 20.53 73176 11289 - SANTA CLARA CO. PUBLIC HEALTH LAB Water Testing (FFO)09/01/2016 20.00 73198 *10192 - CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Electrical Utilities for MB Backpack Camp 09/07/2016 19.56 73193 10485 - AMERICAN RED CROSS-SVC EMR Recertification 09/07/2016 19.00 73135 10165 - UPS Shipping charges 08/24/2016 17.43 73153 10688 - FORENSIC ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES Materials Test (SA-MT UM)09/01/2016 17.00 GRAND TOTAL 529,163.77$ *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA(U) = Sierra Azul (Mt Um) WH = Windy Hill ECM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO2, 3, 4 = Administrative Office lease space ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge RV = Ravenswood SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature FFO = Foothills Field Office FH = Foothills MB = Monte Bello RR = Russian Ridge TH = Teague Hill SFO = Skyline Field Office FO = Fremont Older PIC= Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill PR = Pulgas Ridge DHF = Dear Hollow Farm OSP = Open Space Preserve P## or M## = Patrol or Maintenance Vehicle R-16-108 Meeting 16-22 September 14, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Vegetation Management for Fire Protection at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ecological Concerns, Inc. of Santa Cruz, California in the amount not to exceed $47,000.00 to provide vegetation management services at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve in Fiscal Year 2016- 17. 2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the above contract in the amount not to exceed $28,000 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to provide vegetation management services at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve if the Board approves this funding in the FY2017- 18 budget. SUMMARY The Santa Cruz Mountains are highly susceptible to wildfire and pose a significant risk to structures along the wildland-urban interface. Creating a shaded fuel break along Highway 17 (approximately 15.2 acres) and a 100’ shaded fuel break for defensible space around the Bear Creek Stables (approximately 14.1 acres) within the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) will significantly reduce the risk of damage from wildfire and enhance wildland fire suppression efforts. A Request for Bids was sent to eleven (11) selected vegetation management firms, local builders exchanges, and posted on the District website; two (2) proposals were received. After thorough review of the proposals, Ecological Concerns, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA was determined to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The cost for these services will not exceed $75,000.00 over the two-year period. The Board approved $47,000 in the FY2016-17 Budget for the first year of this work. The FY2017-18 Budget will include a request for the second year cost of $28,000 and, if approved by the Board, the contract will be extended to complete the work. MEASURE AA A 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting and includes Portfolio #21, Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation Project, with a total allocation of $17.478 Million. This project (#21-7, BCR Invasive Weed Treatment) supports the removal of pests to prepare the Preserve for public access. As such, these costs are eligible for Measure AA reimbursement. R-16-108 Page 2 DISCUSSION As part of the work efforts to prepare Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for greater public visitation and to improve safety for our tenant, visitors, and neighboring landowners, the District is implementing several vegetation management projects. The first phase of project work is vegetation management targeting invasive vegetation control and wildland fire fuels management. A Request for Bids (RFB) was released in May of 2016, which generated significant interest from contractors (5 attended the initial mandatory pre-bid meeting), however no contractors submitted bids for the original scope of work. As a result, staff separated the vegetation management for fire protection purposes project from the roadside and invasive vegetation mowing project and released the RFB for the fire protection vegetation management project. The scope of work for this contract is to clear two emergency landing zones, construct a shaded fuel break at the Northeast corner of the Preserve that borders Highway 17, and to clear vegetation within 30 feet of all facilities at Bear Creek Stables to “Clean and Green” CalFire standards, with an additional 70 feet of “Defensible Space” to CalFire Standards (Fig. 1). Contractor Selection The RFB was issued on July 21, 2016 and posted on the District website and sent to local builder’s exchanges. Eleven (11) firms, known to have experience managing vegetation in park environments using mechanical means, were directly notified by staff of the RFB. Eight (8) firms attended a mandatory pre-bid tour on July 28, 2016 at Bear Creek Redwoods. Addendums were issued on August 4, 2016 clarifying questions on the RFB during and after the pre-bid tour. Bids were due on August 10, 2016. The results are as follows: Bidder Location Total Bid for first year Percent of Cost Estimate (Year-1 Tasks) $45,800 1 Ecological Concerns, Inc. Santa Cruz, CA $47,000.00 102.62% 2 California Reforestation, Inc. Sonora, CA $66,403.60 144.99% Ecological Concerns, Inc. is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The duration of the contract will be a two-year term, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $75,000.00, with each year’s work subject to Board approval of the budget for that year. FISCAL IMPACT The Natural Resources Department FY2016-17 Budget includes $91,880 for Vegetation Management at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP with a vegetation management contractor. The Natural Resources Department FY2017-18 Budget request for Board consideration will include $28,000 for the continued work by the selected vegetation management contractor. R-16-108 Page 3 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW No Committee review has occurred for the above project. The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan is under development and is subject to future approval, following the completion of the Environmental Impact Report for the Preserve Plan. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE The vegetation management activities covered by this contract have been previously reviewed in the following environmental document under the California Environmental Quality Act, and the associated mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: • Final Environmental Impact Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program approved by the Board on December 10, 2014. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will be authorized to enter into a one-year contract, extendable to a second year, with Ecological Concerns, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA, with the second year’s work subject to Board approval of the budget for that year. Attachment 1. Figure-1: Locations of work for shaded fuel breaks and emergency landing zones Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Manager Prepared by: Clayton Koopmann, Resource Management Specialist II Contact person: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, IPM Coordinator Graphics prepared by: Jamie Hawk, GIS Technician !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P > > +R +R +R BEAR CREEK REDWOODS MOODY GULCH (S. CL. CO.) Howell Reservoirs Lexington Reservoir Lower Lake A l d e r croft Creek Z a y a n t e C r e e k Dye r C r e e k C o l l i n s C r e e k Brig g s Cr e ek Webb C r e e k Ã35 Ã17 B e a r C r e e k Road 12A E llege Road T h o mps o n Road OldSantaCr uzHighway Chase Road S u m m i t R o ad BC05 BC09 BC01 BC02 BC04 BC06 BC12 BC07 BC08 BC03 BC10 BC11 BC13 BC15 BC14 BC17 BC18BC19 BC20 Fig 1: Locations of Work Areas for Shaded Fuel Breaks and Emergency Landing Zones July 2016 Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ B e a r _ C r e e k _ R e d w o o d s \ V e g e t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t \ B C R _ V e g M g m t _ F i g 1 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : j h a w k 0 0.50.25 MilesI While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. MROSD Preserve Other Protected Land Other Public Agency Watershed Land (Public) Watershed Land (Private) MROSD Easement over Other Protected Land Freeway Highway or Major Road Important Road Minor Paved Road Minor Unpaved Road Unmaintained Road Width Trail !P Gate >Emergency Landing Zone +R Water Tank Hwy 17 Shaded Fuel Break BC Stables Shaded Fuel Break Primary Water Source and Required Site for Herbicide Mixing Attachment 1 R-16-115 Meeting 16-22 September, 14 2016 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Update Board Policies 3.01 (Financial Instrument Signatories) and 3.02 (Safe Deposit Box) to include the Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services as an authorized signatory. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve a resolution to add the position of Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services to the list of authorized signatories and access to the District’s safe deposit box. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION With the approval of Measure AA and the implementation of the organizational and management structure in the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM), Board Policies should be updated to include the Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services (CFO) as an authorized signatory. The CFO was hired in January 2016, and best practices dictate that signatory authority on bank accounts should be limited to those exercising the highest level of management oversight and management authority to only include the General Manager, Assistant General Managers, and the CFO. Signatories No Change/Add/Delete General Manager Assistant General Manager Administration & Human Resources Manager Operations Manager Public Affairs Manager Planning Manager Real Property Manager CFO/Director of Administrative Services No Change No Change Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Add Signatory authority for the Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services shall include all bank and investment accounts of the District, as well as access to the safe deposit box. In addition, the CFO will be granted the same signatory authority as the Controller to sign bond documents for the issuance of District bonds. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not reviewed by any Committee. R-16-115 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT No financial impact. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE The recommended action is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS The affected policies will be updated and included in the Board Policy Manual. Attachments 1. Board Policy 3.01: Financial Instrument Signatories 2. Board Policy 3.02: Safe Deposit Box 3. Resolution Granting Signatory Authority to the Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Prepared by: Andrew Taylor, Senior Accountant Responsible Department Head: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Financial Instrument Signatories Policy 3.01 Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management Effective Date: 09/13/16 Revised Date: 11/13/13 Prior Versions: Board Policy 3.01 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 1 A. The authorized signatories to checks, warrants, withdrawal applications and the Santa Clara County claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for payroll or for amounts less than $5,000 shall be any one of the following seven four employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) either of the Assistant General Managers, (iii) the Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services DirectorAdministration and Human Resources Manager, (iv) the Operations Manager, (v) the Public Affairs Manager, (vi) the Planning Manager, or (vii) the Real Property Manager. B. The authorized signatories to checks, warrants, withdrawal applications and Santa Clara county claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in amounts of $5,000 or greater (excluding payroll) shall be any two of the employee in A. above.following employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) the Assistant General Manager, (iii) the Administration and Human Resources Manager, (iv) the Operations Manager, (v) the Public Affairs Manager, (vi) the Planning Manager, or (vii) the Real Property Manager. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board Policy Manual Safe Deposit Box Policy 3.02 Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management Effective Date: 09/13/16 Revised Date: 11/13/13 Prior Versions: Board Policy 3.02 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2 The authorized signature for entrance into the District’s safe deposit box is any of the following: General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director, District Clerk, and Accounting TechnicianSr. Accounting Specialist. Attachment 3 Resolutions/2016/16-__CFO-SignatoryAuthority 1 RESOLUTION 16-___ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT GRANTING SIGNATORY AUTHORITY TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR WHEREAS, with the implementation of the organizational and management structure in the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model, Board Policies should be updated to include the Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services (CFO) as an authorized signatory; and WHEREAS, best practices dictate that signatory authority on bank accounts should be limited to those exercising the highest level of management oversight and management authority; and WHEREAS, Stefan Jaskulak became the CFO in January 2016, necessitating a change in the authorized signatures; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The signatory authority for the CFO shall include all bank and investment accounts of the District and access to the safe deposit box. 2. The CFO will be authorized the same signatory authority as the Controller to sign bond documents for the issuance of District bonds. 3. The CFO will be authorized to sign the signature cards and other normal ministerial functions which accompany such authority for the District business accounts held by the following banks: • Bank of America • Wells Fargo • Torrey Pines • Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. • State of California Local Agency Investment Fund • Bank of the West (purchasing cards) • ZB, N.A. (formerly Zions Bank) • Bank of New York Mellon 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2016, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Attachment 3 Resolutions/2016/16-__CFO-SignatoryAuthority 2 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-16-111 Meeting 16-22 September 14, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Proposed purchase and settlement agreement for the Rossetta property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve located on Mt. Umunhum Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number 562-22-017) GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase and settlement agreement for the Rossetta property at a cost of $1,650,000 with a corresponding authorization for a budget adjustment/increase of the same amount. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report. 4. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to file, upon close of escrow, a notice of Williamson Act nonrenewal with the County of Santa Clara for Assessor’s parcel number 562-22-017. 5. Withhold dedication of the Rossetta property as public open space at this time. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is proposing to settle the outstanding eminent domain litigation through the purchase of the 27.98-acre Rossetta property (Property), which includes the disputed 19-acre property that may overlap adjacent District land at a settlement and purchase price of $1,650,000. This Property would be a critical addition to the Mount Umunhum Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (Preserve) by taking ownership of a private inholding that has inhibited public trail and road access. As part of the purchase approval, a line item budget adjustment/increase of $1,650,000 to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget is required to proceed with the settlement and acquisition. The following report presents a description of the Property, a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, the District’s environmental review, the settlement and purchase terms, and financial considerations. MEASURE AA Although this proposed property purchase supports the goals of Measure AA Portfolio #23, Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects, Measure AA funds would not be utilized for this settlement and purchase. R-16-111 Page 2 DISCUSSION The Property is an inholding in the 18,934-acre Preserve and consists of an undisputed 27.98- acre site and a disputed 19-acre site that may overlap with adjacent District property (one parcel with a total of 46.98-acres). The entire Property is within the Guadalupe watershed and is visible from Mount Umunhum within the Preserve. Mt. Umunhum Road bisects this Property and a portion of Woods Trail may also cross this Property. The reasons for this purchase include: settling outstanding eminent domain litigation to (1) secure public vehicular access to the Mount Umunhum summit and (2) resolve a dispute on fee title ownership of 19-acres thereby solidifying public trail access on Woods Trail; increasing the acreage of protected lands for the Preserve; and protecting the Guadalupe watershed. Background After 3.5 years of unsuccessful negotiations to address public access and property title issues at the Preserve, the District Board of Directors, as a last resort adopted a Resolution of Necessity (RON) on December 9, 2015 (see report R-15-168). The RON set out to secure through eminent domain a 60-foot wide general public access and drainage easement over Mt. Umunhum Road as it crosses the Property, and fee title to a 19-acre (approximate) parcel boundary overlap to resolve a long standing dispute that affects the Woods Trail (segment of the Bay Area Ridge Trail). On May 5, 2016, the District was successful in securing an order for possession of the 60- foot wide easement through the Property over Mt. Umunhum Road (Easement). Trials to settle the right to take and compensation are still pending. The proposed purchase and settlement with Mr. Rossetta resolves a long-standing boundary dispute over the 19 acres and includes the purchase of the adjacent 27.98-acre Rossetta property. The purchase and settlement would resolve the possibility of future disputes on Mt. Umunhum Road and the Woods Trail, and result in a dismissal of the outstanding eminent domain litigation. Property Description and Regional Context (see attached map) The triangular 27.98-acre undisputed portion of the Property and 19-acre disputed overlapping portion total 46.98-acres and consists of one legal parcel, situated in unincorporated Santa Clara County (County). Access to the Property is from Mt. Umunhum Road. The Property is approximately 0.6 miles west of the intersection of Mt. Umunhum Road and Hicks Road, and a quarter mile north of Bald Mountain and the Bald Mountain parking lot. Rising to approximately 1,840 feet in elevation, the Property offers views of the Preserve, Almaden Quicksilver County Park, Santa Clara Valley, and the Diablo Range. Situated within the Guadalupe watershed, the property drains into Guadalupe Creek and then flows into Guadalupe Reservoir. The landscape of the property consists of oak woodland and mixed chaparral on a ridgeline above a steep canyon. The Property contains stands of oak woodland, including tan oak and canyon live oak, as well as manzanita, chamise, and other plants associated with mixed chaparral. The Property provides varied habitat for animals associated with the middle elevations of the Preserve, including large mammals such as deer, coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions. A wide variety of bird species occupy and migrate through the general area. Land Use and Improvements The Property is unimproved with no permanent structures. A graded dirt road network provides direct access to both Mt. Umunhum Road and Woods Trail. A number of personal property R-16-111 Page 3 items, such as vehicles, trailers, construction items, and debris, are concentrated within one area of the Property. Water Rights An existing spring provides water to a residential trailer on the Property. USE AND MANAGEMENT Planning Considerations The Property is comprised of one legal parcel, located in the unincorporated County, and outside the urban service area or sphere of influence of any incorporated municipality. The General Plan designation is Hillside, with a zoning designation of Hillside District (HS District). Per the County General Plan and zoning regulations, recreation, open space, and natural preserves are allowable uses in HS Districts. A finding of compliance with the County’s General Plan for all open space acquisitions by the District was made by the County Planning Department in 1999. If purchased, the Property would be incorporated into the Preserve. Subsequent planning for the Property would include consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations, as well as public workshops to gather input on draft and final plans. Further environmental review would be prepared as needed. Williamson Act Considerations The Property is subject to a Land Conservation Agreement between the County and James F. Peckham under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (also known as the Williamson Act), recorded in 1975 (Document #4952815). The Williamson Act Contract (Contract) is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the County to encourage ongoing commercial agricultural use in exchange for a property tax reduction. The Contract provides for the compatible uses of open space and recreation. If the purchase is approved, the District will comply with the Contract provisions for the term of the Contract and file a notice of non-renewal with the County. A Resolution for the Board’s approval of that filing is attached and part of the recommended actions. Preliminary Use and Management Plan The Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) establishes an interim status quo land management approach until a subsequent long-term plan is completed. The PUMP would take effect at the close of escrow and remain effective until the PUMP is amended or a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Preserve Plan is approved. The PUMP includes clean-up and minor restoration and maintenance of the Property, as described more fully below. Public Access: Designate Mt. Umunhum Road and Woods Trail as open to the public, subject to regular day-to-day controls and closures for preserve and construction management as needed, with the remaining Property closed to public use at this time. Signs and Site Security: Install preserve boundary and closed area signs. Fences and Gates: Install gates and fencing on access roads to prevent unauthorized entry and use R-16-111 Page 4 Roads and Trails: Maintain access roads for District patrol, maintenance, and emergency purposes. Implement maintenance and minor erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with District standards. Improve portions of the Property underlying Mt. Umunhum Road per the contract with O.C. Jones and Company, which was approved on August 10, 2016 (R-16-101). Maintain Woods Trail per District Standards (status quo). Water Rights and Water Resources: Determine if the existing spring should be maintained or restored. Patrol: Routinely patrol property. Structures and Improvements Upon expiration of the six-month license allowing the former owner to enter and remove personal property, remove and dispose of all remaining temporary structures, incidental improvements, and personal property per District Policy 4.08, Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion. Resource Management: Conduct invasive plant and animal management activities consistent with the District’s Resource Management Policies. Wildfire Fuel Management: Implement standard District-wide fuel management and defensible space practices consistent with the District’s Resource Management Policies. Name: Name the property as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. Dedication: Withhold dedication of the subject property as open space at this time. Subsequent Planning: Subsequent planning for the property, including additional trail corridors, trail connections, and potential access points would be coordinated with the District’s continuing planning efforts for the Preserve and/or planning for the Mount Umunhum area of the Preserve. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of the purchase of the 46.98-acre Rossetta Property as an addition to the District’s Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve and concurrent adoption of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP), including clean-up/removal of personal property items remaining after the close of escrow and minor sediment control measures conducted along existing driveways and roads to prevent erosion and water quality degradation. Resource management activities may be conducted to control invasive plants. R-16-111 Page 5 CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15316, 15317, and 15061 as follows: Section 15301 exempts the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. The PUMP specifies no alteration or expansion of use at this time beyond the clean-up, maintenance of existing access roads, installation of standard District access gates, and minor maintenance activities and erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with District standards. Section 15316 exempts the acquisition of land to create parks if the land is in a natural condition and the management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition. The PUMP specifies that the land will not be developed, will remain in a natural condition, and will be designated as an addition to the Preserve. Section 15317 exempts the acceptance of fee interests to maintain the open space character of an area. The District will acquire fee interest to maintain the open space character of the property. Section 15061(b)(3) exempts actions recommended in the PUMP as it has been determined that there is no possibility the recommended actions will have a significant effect on the environment. TERMS AND CONDITIONS The 46.98-acre (including the 19-acre overlap area) Rossetta Property is proposed for settlement at a sale price of $1,650,000 ($35,121 per acre). The District’s fair market appraisal for the entire Property is $1,226,000 (27.98-acres at $30,000 and 19-acres at $20,000) and the Rossetta fair market appraisal for the entire property is $1,879,000 ($39,995 per acre). The property would be purchased on an “As-Is” and all-cash basis. Escrow would close by December 31, 2016. As part of the transaction, Mr. Rossetta would have the ability to exercise a 6-month license to enter the property after the close of escrow and remove any remaining personal items (the District would be responsible for removing all remaining items at an estimated cost of $50,000 to $100,000). Finally, Mr. Rossetta may install a small sign/plaque on the Property to recognize his parents. FISCAL IMPACT Beginning in FY2016-17, the District amended its approach on budgeting for land acquisitions. For FY2016-17, the District only budgeted for costs associated with appraisals, property purchase research, and early negotiations. Land acquisitions bought before the Board for approval would include a budget adjustment/increase to the adopted budget. If the purchase of the Rossetta Property is approved, a budget adjustment/increase of $1,650,000 to Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget is required. Rossetta Property Purchase Amount $1,650,000* Total Land purchases approved to date for FY 2016-2017 $ 700,000 Total Land Purchases (if approved) $2,350,000 R-16-111 Page 6 *The District currently has $452,225 in the State condemnation escrow account that would be refunded to the District if the purchase is approved. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Property owners of land located adjacent to or surrounding the subject property have been mailed a copy of the agenda for this meeting. All notice required by the Brown Act has been provided. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, staff would proceed with the close of escrow by December 31, 2016, and take the next steps identified in the enclosed PUMP. The District’s South Area Outpost Field Office would manage the property as an addition to the Preserve. Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Purchase and Settlement Agreement Authorizing General Manager or Other Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17, Authorizing General Manager to Execute any and all Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Lands of Rossetta), and Authorizing the General Counsel to Dismiss the Related Condemnation Action. 2. Resolution authorizing the General Manager to file, upon close of escrow, a notice of Williamson Act nonrenewal. 3. Location Map Responsible Department Manager: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent Attachment 1 Resolutions/2016/R-16-__Rossetta Purchase 1 RESOLUTION 16-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF PURCHASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL BUDGET, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER OR OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF ROSSETTA), AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO DISMISS THE RELATED CONDEMNATION ACTION, AND AMEND THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Purchase and Settlement Agreement between Michael Rossetta, a single man, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which purchase and settlement agreement is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President of the Board of Directors, General Manager, or other appropriate officer to execute the Agreement and all related transactional documents on behalf of the District to acquire the real property described therein (“the Rossetta Property”). SECTION TWO. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District authorizes the expenditure of $1,650,000.00 covering the purchase and settlement of the Rossetta Property, including a deposit of $10,000.00. SECTION THREE. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District authorizes amending the Budget and Action Plan for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Fiscal Year 2016-17 by increasing the General Fund Capital budget in the amount of $1,650,000.00. Except as herein modified, the FY 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution No. 16-25 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION FOUR. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance for the Grant Deed on behalf of the District. SECTION FIVE. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to provide notice of acceptance to the seller and to extend escrow if necessary. SECTION SIX. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to expend up to $10,000.00 to cover the cost of title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction and up to $100,000 for the clean-up of the property. SECTION SEVEN. The General Counsel is authorized to dismiss the pending condemnation action, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space v. Michael Rossetta, et al (Santa Clara Attachment 1 Resolutions/2016/R-16-__Rossetta Purchase 2 County Superior Court Case Number 1-15-CV-289568), after close of escrow as provided by the settlement agreement. SECTION EIGHT. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any technical revisions to the attached Agreement and documents, which do not involve any material change to any term of the Agreement or documents, which are necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of this transaction. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ________, 2016, 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 Attachment 2 Resolutions/2016/R-16-__Rossetta-Williamson Act Nonrenewal 1 RESOLUTION 16-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51245 APPROVING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF NONRENEWAL OF THE WILLIAMSON ACT LAND CONSERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND JAMES F. PECKHAM WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”), upon close of escrow, will own a parcel of land in the County of Santa Clara, known as Assessor Parcel Number 562-22-017, which is subject to a Land Conservation Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and James F. Peckham under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (also known as the Williamson Act); and WHEREAS, the mission of the District includes preservation of open space lands in perpetuity so that acquisition of such contracted lands accomplishes the purposes of the Williamson Act; and WHEREAS, the procedures established by the County of Santa Clara for administering such contracts serve no useful purpose when land is owned by a park or open space agency preserving such lands’ open space resources, yet such procedures can impose a procedural and financial burden on the District’s ability to efficiently carry out its operations; and WHEREAS, the benefits of reduced property tax in exchange for such land preservation is no longer relevant once the District has acquired such lands, as the District is exempt from property tax in most situations. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. Authorizes the General Manager of the District, pursuant to Government Code Section 51245, to file a notice of nonrenewal with the County of Santa Clara for Assessor’s Parcel Number 562-22-017 upon close of escrow. SECTION TWO. Authorizes the General Manager as agent of the District to execute and submit all documents and take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to accomplish the purpose of this Resolution, or to comply with the requirements of the County of Santa Clara or the State Williamson Act, in order to accomplish the nonrenewal of the contract described above. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ________, 2016, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Attachment 2 Resolutions/2016/R-16-__Rossetta-Williamson Act Nonrenewal 2 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 ALMADEN QUICKSILVER PARK (S. CL. CO.) SANTA CLARA OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY Almaden Reservoir Guadalupe Resevoir R i n c o n C r e e k Los C a pitancillo s C r e e k Jacques G ulch G u a d a l u p e C reek B a y Are a RidgeTr a il B a l d MountainTrail Mine H i l l T r a i l RandolTrail April T r a i l Castillero Tail YellowKid T r a il Hid a l g oCem e t e r y Trail R a n dol T r a i l En g li s h C a m p T r a il Mine H ill T r a i l DeepGulch Tra i l R a n d o l Trail R a n dol Tr a il Barl o w R oad W o od Road Trail W o o d s T r a i l M t .U m u n h u m R oad A la m itos R o a d Hicks Rd Rossetta Property Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ S i e r r a _ A z u l \ M t _ U m u n h u m _ A F S \ R o s s e t t a _ E a s e m e n t \ B o a r d R e p o r t _ 2 0 1 6 0 8 2 6 \ S A _ R o s s e t t a _ B o a r d R e p o r t _ 2 0 1 6 0 8 2 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g 0 0.40.2 MilesI While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE 19 Acre Overlap San Jose Ã9 Ã880 Ã101 Ã17 Ã1 Ã35 Cupertino Santa Cruz Area of Detail Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2016 MROSD Preserves Private Property Watershed Land (Public) Non-MROSD Easement Over MROSD Preserve MROSD Easement Over Other Open Space Highlighted Property Other Protected Lands Dispute Area Rossetta Property APN 562-22-017 Attachment 3 R-16-114 Meeting 16-22 September 14, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract and Related Professional Services Contract Amendment for the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project (Project) at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Grade Tech, Inc., of Castro Valley, CA, for a base contract amount of $415,960. 2. Authorize a 10% construction contract contingency in the amount of $41,596 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contact amount not-to-exceed $457,556. 3. Authorize the General Manager to amend an existing professional services agreement with Tim Best, CEG, for additional design services to support the Project in the amount of $2,594. 4. Adopt a Resolution approving a budget adjustment/increase in the amount of $207,150 to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 District budget to fund the Project. SUMMARY A Request for Bids for the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project (Project) was released on July 11, 2016. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) completed the bid process on Thursday, August 11, 2016 and identified GradeTech, Inc., as the apparent low bidder. The Project will repair and upgrade drainage on almost two (2) miles of ranch road to facilitate the opening of the former Driscoll Ranch area of the Preserve to public access in the Fall of 2017, and to improve the road for ongoing staff patrol and grazing tenant use. The Project will add rock to 1.3 miles of existing dirt roadway to reduce sediment transport into adjacent waterways. The General Manager recommends awarding the contract to GradeTech, Inc., for a total not-to-exceed amount of $457,556, which includes a 10% contingency amount of $41,596. In addition, a small increase to a professional services contract with Tim Best, CEG, who is providing engineering and special inspections support during the construction is required in the amount of $2,594. An increase to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Budget in the amount of $207,150 is required to fund the project through construction and close-out. MEASURE AA The Board approved a 5-year Measure AA (MAA) Project List on October 29, 2014. This list includes Portfolio #7, La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection and Conservation Grazing”, with a total allocation of $14.825 Million. This project was added at Midyear in FY2015-16 to prepare the Preserve for public access. As such, these R-16-114 Page 2 costs are eligible for Measure AA reimbursement and is designated as project MAA 7-10 (Sears Ranch Road Repair Phase III). DISCUSSION The District acquired the Driscoll Ranch portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) in 2006. The existing road network is linked to the property’s more than 100 year ranching history. The road network has been historically minimally maintained, resulting in erosion of the roadway and sediment delivery to the surrounding creeks. Repairs to the highest priority treatment sites along the main ranch road were completed in 2015 as part of the Driscoll Ranch Road Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project. This road repair project, known as the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project, will repair two (2) additional miles of road that need attention. The scope of work includes: • Install and clean reverse grade dips • Install and clean knicks (semi-circular, shaved-down edges of the outside road/trail) • Install and clean inboard ditches • Rock inboard ditches • Rock drainage outlets • Install ditch relief culverts • Clean culvert inlets • Rock the 12-foot wide roadway Contractor Selection The bid package was released to five (5) builders’ exchanges. A legal notice was also posted in the San Mateo County Times, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, and the San Jose Mercury News, and an Invitation to Bid was posted on the District website. Finally, Staff contacted 20 contractors to notify them of this project prior to the bid. A pre-bid meeting was held on July 19, 2016. Six contractors attended the pre-bid tour. Sealed bids were due on Thursday, August 11, 2016, and one bid was received as shown below: Bidder Location Base Bid Percent Difference from Base Bid Estimate of $311,600 1. GradeTech, Inc. Castro Valley, CA $415,960 +33.5% Given the discrepancy between the estimate and the bid, the District retained Cumming Construction Management (Cumming) to perform a third party construction cost estimate of the Project on August 17, 2016. The estimate was done without the estimator’s knowledge of the bid result, used the same information that was given to potential bidders, and took into consideration the unique factors characteristic of this project. Cumming estimated a total construction cost of $396,671. Cumming’s estimate is 27.3% above the Engineer’s Estimate, and just 4.9% below the GradeTech, Inc., bid. The table below shows a summary and comparison: R-16-114 Page 3 Source Total Estimate or Bid Percent +/- from Engineer’s Estimate Engineer’s Estimate $311,600 0% Cumming Third Party Cost Estimate $396,671 +27.3% Grade Tech, Inc. Bid $415,960 +33.5% The results of the third-party engineer’s estimate indicate that the bid proposal received from GradeTech, Inc., represents a fair price given current construction market conditions. GradeTech, Inc., presented a complete and responsive bid package and has successfully completed similar projects for other public agencies, and is therefore deemed to be a responsive and responsible contractor. Additionally, GradeTech, Inc., submitted a competitive proposal that is just 4.9% above the third party cost estimate for the work and aligns with current market data for similar improvement work within the greater Bay Area. Therefore, the General Manager recommends awarding the contract for construction services for the Project to Grade Tech, Inc., in the base amount of $415,960. In addition, due to the potential for unforeseen construction and drainage issues with the Project, the General Manager is recommending a 10% contingency in the amount of $41,596. The contingency will not be included in the contract at this time, but will be authorized through change orders or contract amendments as warranted for any unanticipated conditions encountered during construction. Professional Services Contract Amendment At the Spring 2016 field review of the project site, staff identified additional sections of the roadway that are in need of repair. To include these additional areas as part of the engineering and special inspections work during construction, a contract amendment with Tim Best, CEG, in the amount of $2,594 is necessary. Tim Best is the consulting engineer that has prepared the construction plans and provided engineering and permitting assistance for the Project. ALTERNATIVE To keep the Project within the FY 2016-2017 allocated budget, the Board may choose to instead phase the Project into two years and reduce the current scope. The first Phase would complete portions of the scope of work up to the budgeted amount and the second phase would follow in Fall 2017 to complete the remainder of the scope. Phasing the project may result in a higher total costs given the need for a contractor to mobilize twice and would require additional staff time. FISCAL IMPACT The FY2016-17 budget includes $265,000 for completion of the project, which includes construction costs, allowances for contingencies and unforeseen conditions, consultant fees for general conditions, oversight, and construction administration, inspections and other soft costs. The recommended construction contract amount is greater than the $253,000 amount budgeted for the road repairs. To fully fund the project, including amending an existing professional services agreement with Tim Best, CEG in the amount of $2,594, a budget adjustment/increase R-16-114 Page 4 of $207,150 is required. If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendation, it is anticipated the project will be 100% complete by November of 2016. MAA 007 Portfolio Appropriation $14,825,000 Spent to Date: $9,910,275 Encumbrances: $41,529 FY 2017 Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade: $472,150 Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $4,401,046 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW No Committee review has occurred for the above project. The Master Plan was approved by the Board at the August 22, 2012 meeting (R-12-83). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice for the award of bid was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE Awarding the bid and issuing a contract agreement to implement the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the La Honda Creek Master Plan, approved by the Board on August 22, 2012 (see Report R-12-83). No negative environmental impacts are anticipated from this project beyond what was analyzed in the MND/MMP. NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Grade Tech, Inc., for implementation of the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project. Final contract signature is subject to meeting all District requirements, such as having all required insurance and bonding in place. Project construction is scheduled to begin in September 2016 and be completed by the end of November 2016. Attachment 1. Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project Map 2. Resolution Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Responsible Department Head: Jay Lin, Engineering & Construction Department Manager Prepared by/Contact Person: Dale Grogan, Capital Project Manager, Engineering & Construction !P ÃÆ84 ÃÆ35 BearGulch R d Se a r s Ra nch Road Bear G ulch R d C A State R o u t e 8 4 R o q uena D r Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) August 2016 Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project - Site Access and Project Site Map Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ L a _ H o n d a _ C r e e k \ D r i s c o l l \ R o a d R e p a i r s _ 2 0 1 6 0 3 2 1 \ S e a r s R a n c h R o a d D r a i n a g e U p g r a d e P r o j e c t _ 2 0 1 6 0 8 1 0 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : n g r e i g 0 0.50.25 MilesI MROSD Preserves Private Property While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Ã1 Ã92 Ã9 Ã84 Ã280 Ã35 Half Moon Bay Redwood City Palo Alto Area of Detail S e a r s R a n c h R o a d Drainage/Road Repair Project Sites !P Project Entrance Site (Gate LH11) ÄÆ84 Project Entrance Site (Gate LH11) LHC OSP Phase 1 - Main Ranch Road Open to Hiking/Equestrian Use Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Resolutions/2016/R-16-__FY2016-17BudgetAdjust_SearsRanchRdDrainage 1 RESOLUTION NO. 16-___ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 WHEREAS, on June 22, 2016 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District adopted the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan; and WHEREAS, unanticipated expenses associated with the Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade Project have arisen and additional funds are required to complete the project; and NOW, THEREFORE, The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. Amend the Budget and Action Plan for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the Fiscal Year 2016-17 as follows: Project Name Current Budget Revised Budget Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade $265,000 $472,150 SECTION TWO. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget. SECTION THREE. Except as herein modified, the FY 2016-17 Budget and Action Plan, Resolution No. 16-25 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on September 14, 2016, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors Attachment 2 Resolutions/2016/R-16-__FY2016-17BudgetAdjust_SearsRanchRdDrainage 1 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-16-112 Meeting 16-22 September 14, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Site Cleanup and Demolition of Structures in the former Driscoll Ranch Area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Approve the removal of debris piles and the demolition of the following 12 structures in the former Driscoll Ranch area of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to prepare the area for public use: 2 houses (one of which is County red-tagged); 2 standing barns with rotting substructures; 4 collapsed barns; and 4 outbuildings. SUMMARY A number of capital improvements are underway to facilitate the public opening of lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve). The structures recommended for demolition are immediately adjacent to or visible from the hiking and equestrian trail that will open in the fall of 2017 as part of the Phase 1 public access improvements. These structures consist of 6 barns (4 of which are collapsed and 2 with rotting substructures) and 4 outbuildings from the 1930s, two houses (Wool Ranch house and Lake Ranch house), and assorted debris piles that include tires and cars. None of the structures are historically significant, as confirmed by the San Mateo County Historic Resource Advisory Board. None of the structures are of use to the District or to the grazing tenant nor are they necessary for future grazing operations. All structures are in poor condition and pose a public safety hazard of considerable concern as the District prepares this area for public use. Approval by the Board will allow staff to move forward with a Request for Bids for demolition work and return at a later date with a recommended Award of Contract. MEASURE AA A 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting and includes Portfolio #7, La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection and Conservation Grazing”, with a total allocation of $14.825 Million. This project (#7-7, La Honda Creek Demolitions and Restorations) supports the removal of hazardous structures and debris to prepare the Preserve for public access. As such, these costs are eligible for Measure AA reimbursement. DISCUSSION In August, 2012, the Board of Directors approved the La Honda Creek Master Plan. The Master Plan divided the existing structures on the property into three categories: those that would be R-16-112 Page 2 kept because of their condition, utility, or historical significance; those structures that should be demolished because of their poor condition; and those structures that required further evaluation due to their potential historical significance (Attachment 1). More recently, District staff have reviewed these lists in greater detail and have held conversations with the current grazing tenant on the utility of some of these structures. This work has resulted in a revised list and the recommended demolition of 12 dilapidated, collapsed, and/or obsolete structures and outbuildings. Policy and Action Plan Review Board policies 4.02 “Improvements on District Lands” and 4.09 “Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition” direct staff to consider a number of factors when recommending a change of use or disposition of a structure. Policy 4.02(c.1) directs staff to construct and maintain improvements, such as the outbuildings, corrals, etc., that may be required for the proper maintenance and protection of the site. Policy 4.02(c.3) directs staff to retain, maintain, and use examples of past agricultural uses or other structures that contribute to the character of the site where economically feasible. The policy allows for the removal of structures that offer no utility to the District or a grazing tenant, and may only provide visual interest, where large-scale and costly repairs or rebuilding is required. The Action Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 describes the scope work for the La Honda Creek Demolitions Project as the demolition of four dilapidated barns, the Wool Ranch house compound, the former residence at 900 Sears Ranch Road (also known as the Lake Ranch house), and assorted debris throughout the former Driscoll Ranch area. The Action Plan only listed the major structures and did not include all outbuildings, sheds, and collapsed structures that are essentially debris piles. Moreover, subsequent to Board approval of the Action Plan, tenants vacated the Lake Ranch house and Guerra-Zanoni Ranch (site of the former dog kennel), providing an opportunity to evaluate the condition of several additional accessory structures at both locations. Additional outbuildings from both ranches are included in the proposed demolition project. Barns and Outbuildings The 10 barns and outbuildings recommended for demolition are not used or desired by the grazing tenant and are deteriorated beyond cost effective repair. Six (6) barns that were considered desirable at the time of the master plan are no longer desired for use. Four (4) of these barns are partially or completely collapsed. An additional four (4) accessory structures that previously provided storage or similar uses are also degraded and not desired for grazing or residential uses. Houses Lake Ranch House - In 2015, preliminary repair work at the Lake Ranch house revealed that the walls and foundations are irreparable and structurally deficient. As a result, the house was red- tagged by San Mateo County as uninhabitable and has since remained unoccupied. The former tenant was relocated to another nearby house. No element of the house is in suitable condition for remodeling, and therefore demolition is recommended. A separate evaluation is currently underway to identify the options for providing replacement farm worker housing in or near this area of the Preserve. The demolition would leave the site in good condition for rebuilding. Wool Ranch House - At the time of the 2012 Master Plan, the Wool Ranch house was considered potentially suitable housing for the grazing tenant. The grazing tenant originally placed a tenant R-16-112 Page 3 in the Wool Ranch house, but they were unable to continue occupancy due to its dilapidated condition and extensive rodent issues. It has remained unoccupied because there is no other viable use for this structure. Its remote location with the Preserve, impractical year-round access (2.3-miles from the Sears Ranch gate entrance), its immediate adjacency to the ranch road that will be opened to public use, lack of potable water, and deteriorated condition make use of the structure undesirable and costly over the long-term. A key section of the ranch road leading to the Wool Ranch house crosses Harrington Creek bridge and the road may not be feasible to upgrade to year round residential access without very costly upgrades. Moreover, the structure was evaluated in 2001 when the property was under Peninsula Open Space Trust ownership by a property management professional who described it as in “poor condition” and listed a number of significant issues that needed to be addressed. The structure and the cottage behind it have substantially deteriorated over the last 15 years due to lack of maintenance. Significant dry-rot of the structure is found throughout. Repair is estimated to cost $632,615 plus an additional ~15% in design and permitting costs and occupy 25% of senior-level staff time over the course of 2-3 years to work through the programming, scoping, environmental review, design, and construction of the house. Demolition of the Wool Ranch house would open an available flat space to relocate a much needed corral in this area; the existing nearby corral is unusable because of contaminated soils. If demolition is approved, staff would work with the tenant to construct a new corral on the site once the house is removed and reuse the site to support the grazing operation. Lack of Historic Significance The proposed demolition plan retains structures that are economically cost-efficient to maintain and will be used by the grazing tenant. Each historic ranch area (Lake Ranch, Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, Wool Ranch, and Folger Ranch) will retain original structures that speak to past and current land uses. A professional evaluation conducted by Cogstone Resource Management, Inc., concluded that none of the structures proposed for demolition are historically significant (though the Folger Barn was potentially significant before it collapsed). This conclusion has been reviewed and confirmed by the San Mateo County Historic Resource Advisory Board. Hazardous Materials Almost all of the painted surfaces on the structures are either lead-based or lead-containing paint. Asbestos is present in moderate quantities and concentrated in the houses. All hazardous materials would be remediated. The untreated wood in the barns is potentially suitable for salvage, though dry-rot and termite/beetle infestations have degraded much of the wood. Salvageable Materials During the course of de-construction, salvageable materials, whether suitable for structural or aesthetic purposes, will be source segregated on site. Base bids would include material salvage and segregation as well as a deductive alternate for limited or no salvage to compare costs. Small appliances and wood stoves would also be salvaged. Any salvageable materials that are cannot be used by the District may be sold to local salvage companies for resale. FISCAL IMPACT The Fiscal Year 2016-17 budget includes $348,150 for the La Honda Demolitions project. This project is eligible for Measure AA reimbursement. R-16-112 Page 4 Budget MAA 007 Portfolio $14,825,000 Spent to Date: $9,910,275 Encumbrances: $41,529 FY 2017 Sears Ranch Road Drainage Upgrade: $459,146 FY 2017 La Honda Creek Demolitions: $348,150 Balance Remaining (Proposed): $4,065,900 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW No Committee review has occurred for the above project. The Master Plan was approved by the Board at the August 22, 2012 meeting (R-12-83). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Notification was also provided to Supervisor Don Horsley’s Office and the San Mateo County Farm Bureau. CEQA COMPLIANCE Structures previously approved for demolition were analyzed by the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with the Master Plan. Additional structures recommended for demolition are categorically exempt under section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Existing Facilities, which exempts the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination, including the demolition of individual small structures. The categorical exemption was recorded on June 3, 2016 for 30 days. No comments were received. NEXT STEPS If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendation, staff will solicit bids for the work and return to the Board for an award of contract. Demolition and septic removal permits would be obtained from San Mateo County. Additional contracts would be entered into for third-party hazardous materials monitors and biological monitors, estimated at $20,000 and $8,000 respectively. Attachments 1. List of Structures to be Demolished 2. Pictures of Structures to be Demolished 3. Maps of Structures to be Demolished Responsible Department Head: Jay Lin, Engineering & Construction Prepared by: Aaron Hébert, Water Resource Specialist, Natural Resources Department Graphics prepared by: Jamie Hawk, GIS Technician Attachment 1 List of structures in the former Driscoll Ranch area, their approved disposition from the Master Plan, and the General Manager’s updated recommended action (structures proposed for demolition are highlighted in white, structures proposed to remain are shown in gray). *Refer to Attachment 2 for pictures of each structure and Attachment 3 for Preserve and structure location map. Ranch Complex ID* Figure Number Type of Structure Master Plan Disposition Historic Significance According to Master Plan Recommended Action Ray’s Ranch – AKA Sears Ranch / Lake Ranch (note: RR-3 and 4 are corrals) RR-1 1 Large Barn Keep for grazing None No change (keep) RR-2 2 Partially Collapsed Storage Shed Demolition None No change (demo) RR-5 3 Large Barn Keep for grazing Potentially Historic No change (keep) RR-6 4 Lake Ranch House Tenant residence Potentially Historic Demolish RR-7 5 Shed Demolition None No change (demo) RR-8 6 Bunkhouse Keep for grazing Potentially Historic Demolish RR-9 7 Partially Collapsed Barn Keep for grazing None Demolish Guerra Zanoni Ranch (note: GZ-2 and 3 are corrals) GZR-1 8 Small Barn Storage for Tenant Potentially Historic Demolish GZR-4 9 Ranch House Tenant residence Potentially Historic No change (keep) GZR-5 10 Shed or Workshop Demolition None No change (demo) GZR-6 11 Cabin/Shed Demolition None No change (demo) GZR-7 12 Storage Shed Storage for tenant None No change (keep) GZR-8 12 Foundation Demolition None No change (demo) GZR-9 13 Dog Kennels Not evaluated None Demolish Wool Ranch WR-1 14 Lower Collapsed Barn Keep for grazing None Demolish WR-2 15 Wool Ranch House Tenant residence None Demolish WR-3 16 In-Law Cottage Tenant residence None Demolish WR-4 17 Upper Barn Demolition None No change (demo) Upper Folger Ranch UFR-1 18 Animal Shelter Keep for grazing None No change (keep) UFR-2 19 Bunk House Keep for grazing Potentially Historic Demolish UFR-3 20 Large Collapsed Barn Keep for grazing None Demolish Lower Folger Ranch LFR-1 21 Ranch House Tenant residence None No change (keep) LFR-2 22 Small Barn Keep for grazing Potentially Historic Demolish LFR-3 23 Workshop/Shed Storage None No change (keep) LFR-4 24 Collapsed Barn Keep for historic Likely Historic Demolish Attachment 2 Ray’s Ranch AKA Sear’s Ranch, Lake Ranch Figure 1. Cattle feeding and hay barn, RR-1, south elevation (No change - KEEP) Attachment 2 Figure 2. RR-2, Partially collapsed storage shed, north and east elevations (Previously approved for DEMO) Figure 3. RR-5, Large Barn, east and north elevations (No change - KEEP) Attachment 2 Figure 4. RR-6, ranch house, west elevation (Recommend DEMO) Figure 5. RR-7, shed, north and west elevations (Previously approved for DEMO) Attachment 2 Figure 6. RR-8, Bunkhouse, east and north elevations (Recommend DEMO) Figure 7: RR-9, partially collapsed barn, west elevation (Recommend DEMO) Attachment 2 Guerra Zanoni Ranch AKA Upper Ranch Figure 8. GZR-1, small barn, east elevation (Recommend DEMO) Attachment 2 Figure 9. GZR-4, ranch house, east and north elevations (No change - KEEP) Figure 10. GZR-5, shed, east and north elevations (previously approved for DEMO) Attachment 2 Figure 11. GZR-6, small shed, south and east elevations (previously approved for DEMO) Figure 12. GZR-7, storage shed, east elevation (No change - KEEP) Attachment 2 Figure 13. GZR 8 and GZR 9 (left and right respectively) Dog Kennel and Foundation (Recommend DEMO dog kennel, Foundation was previously approved for DEMO) Attachment 2 Wool Ranch Figure 14 WR-1, lower collapsed barn, view to southeast (Recommend DEMO) Attachment 2 Figure 15. WR-2, ranch house and pool, rear elevation (Recommend DEMO) Figure 16. WR-3, cottage, northwest and southwest elevations (Recommend DEMO) Attachment 2 Figure 17. WR-4, large barn, northeast elevation (Previously approved for DEMO) Attachment 2 Folger Ranch Figure 18. UFR-1 animal shelter, north and west elevations (No change - KEEP) Figure 19. UFR-2, bunkhouse, north and east elevations (Recommend DEMO) Attachment 2 Figure 20. UFR-3, collapsed barn, north elevation (Recommend DEMO) Figure 21. LFR-1, ranch house, east elevation (No change - KEEP) Attachment 2 Figure 22. LFR-2, barn, west and south elevations (Recommend DEMO) Figure 23. LFR-3, workshop/shed, east elevation (No change - KEEP) Attachment 2 Figure 24. LFR-4, collapsed hay barn (Recommend DEMO) ns\FY1516\LHC DriscollDemoFY1 51 6 Overview.mxd G:\Prof ects\La_Honda_C reek\Driscoll\De a V Half Moon Bay Folger Ranch Attachment 3: Ranch Complexes, La Honda Creek Openspace Preserve RUSSIAN RID OPEN SPAC - PRESERVE MROSD Preserves Other Protected Lands Private Property S'< Watershed Land Land Trust Other Public Agency Phase I Trail Mo Structure See Attachment 1 for a list of structures by ID, type, and recommended action. Miles. 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) June 2016 0.5 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ns\FY1516\LHC DriscollDemoFY1 51 6 DDPseries.mxd G:\Projects\La_Honda_C reek\Driscoll\De Ray's Ranch, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Wool Ranch Guerra-Zanoni Ranch Structure Corral Minor Unpaved Road* *Not all features are displayed Phase I Trail Demolition See Attachment 1 for a list of structures by ID, type, and recommended action. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 0 June 2016 Feet 0 250 500 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ns\FY1516\LHC DriscollDemoFY1 51 6 DDPseries.mxd G:\Prof ects\La_Honda_C reek\Driscoll\De -o -o a V LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE , Wool Ranch Guerra-Zanoni Ranch • • • ♦ • ♦♦♦ ♦♦ OO GZR=1 GZR-5 GZR-4 GZR-6 N GZR-7 GZR-8 GZR-9 GZR-3 Guerra-Zanoni Ranch, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Structure Corral Minor Unpaved Road* *Not all features are displayed Phase I Trail Demolition See Attachment 1 for a list of structures by ID, type, and recommended action. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 0 June 2016 Feet 0 250 500 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ns\FY1516\LHC DriscollDemoFY1 51 6 DDPseries.mxd G:\Projects\La_Honda_C reek\Driscoll\De LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE , Wool Ranch Guerra-Zanoni Ranch Folger Ranch +r. Ili Ray's Ranch 84 i WR-2 WR-3 ill ON* i f' • • • I ♦ • • .WR-1 Wool Ranch, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Structure Corral Minor Unpaved Road* *Not all features are displayed Phase I Trail Demolition See Attachment 1 for a list of structures by ID, type, and recommended action. Feetu 0 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 0 June 2016 250 500 nr3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ns\FY1516\LHC DriscollDemoFY1 51 6 DDPseries.mxd Gi\ Projects \La_Honda_C reek\Driscoll\De LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE , Wool Ranch Guerra-Zanoni Ranch i i Folger 1 hianchAni • 41g- Ray's Ranch i UFR-5 OoUFR-1 UFR-2 UFR-3 LFR-4 LH12 OLH10 CA State Route 84 Folger Ranch, La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Structure Corral Minor Unpaved Road* *Not all features are displayed Phase I Trail Demolition See Attachment 1 for a list of structures by ID, type, and recommended action. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 0 June 2016 Feet I 0 250 500 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. R-16-113 Meeting 16-22 September 14, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM Final report on the sale of the 2016 Green Bonds Refunding GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Receive final report. No action required. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) issued the 2016 Green Bonds Refunding on September 8, 2016, refunding the 2007A bonds and the callable portion of the 2011 bonds. The sale was successful on the financial front and was also successful in expanding our presence in the local community, including, issuing the District’s first Green Bonds and marketing and selling the Green Bonds to our local constituency and the public. The retail reach surpassed expectations: 15% were sold to individual retail with an additional 50% to professional retail, saving the District $15.7 million and reducing the final maturity of the debt by 3 years. MEASURE AA These are not Measure AA bonds. DISCUSSION The 2007A and the callable portion of the 2011 bonds were refunded into the new 2016 Green Bonds Refunding to capture significant cash flow savings for the District. This effort to refund the 2007 and 2011 bonds started in February/March of this year. The internal executive bond team, supported by internal staff, consists of: Steve Abbors General Manager Mike Foster Controller Sheryl Schaffner General Counsel Stefan Jaskulak CFO Lisa Tulee Senior Management Analyst The first step was to assemble a new bonds team via 4 simultaneous Requests For Proposal (RFP): Underwriter, Financial Advisor, Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel. In total, 28 responses were received. After review and interview of the finalists, the following external bond team was assembled: Morgan Stanley Underwriter Backstrom, McCarley Berry & Co Financial Advisor R-16-113 Page 2 Orrick Bond Counsel Shiff Hardin Disclosure Counsel The 2016 bonds were self-designated as Green Bonds to allow socially responsible investors an investment opportunity that supports the true goal of ‘green’ bonds. The proceeds from the refunding bonds (2007, 2011 and bonds which been ‘rolled’ into these bonds) were for land acquisition. In addition to self-designating the 2016 bonds as Green Bonds, a heavy retail marketing effort specific to the District constituency was conducted, at minimum, to • Publicize that the District would be refunding bonds • Bring awareness to the fact that these new bonds are Green Bonds and • To reach out to the public in the District and San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The bonds team presented to Standard & Poor’s and Fitch rating agencies, both of which assigned a AAA rating to the 2016 Green Bonds Refunding and affirmed the existing AAA rating for the bonds already outstanding (2011 authority bonds remain at AA+). The 2016 Green Bonds Refunding were sold on Thursday September 8, 2016. The order period ran from 10:30AM to 12:30AM ET. After the initial order period, the sale was 2.6 times over- subscribed, which enabled the team to lower the yield to capture additional savings. The next table provides a breakdown of the bonds, with the following highlights: • Reduction in par outstanding by $5,745,000 • Reduction in average coupon of 0.8146% • Reduction in average life by 0.8380 years • Reduction in final maturity by 3 years • Savings of $15,718,237 • Net Present Value Savings of $12,694,441 • Percentage savings of refunded bonds of 20.1% 2007A 2007A 2011 Total Tax-Exempt Taxable Callable Bond Par Amount 35,055,000$ 2,920,000$ 19,435,000$ 57,410,000$ All-in True Interest Cost 1.4128%1.8637%2.6877%2.0822% Average Coupon 4.7799%0.7300%4.2623%4.4737% Average Life 6.591 0.942 14.72 9.056 Par amount of refunded bonds 41,360,000$ 2,705,000$ 19,090,000$ 63,155,000$ Average Coupon of refunded bonds 4.9893%4.9877%5.5253%5.2883% Average Life of refunded bonds 6.269 6.269 18.26 9.894 Savings 8,317,988$ 618,577$ 6,781,672$ 15,718,237$ Net PV Savings 8,807,554$ 493,396$ 3,393,491$ 12,694,441$ Percentage savings of refunded bonds 21.3%18.2%17.8%20.1% R-16-113 Page 3 The savings include all expenses for the cost of issuance (counsel, financial advisor, rating agencies, advertising, etc), underwriter fees and also include addressing tax issues with the 2007 and 2011 bonds. The 2007 bonds were a refunding bonds themselves, with various refunding and new money legacy bonds. Originally, the 2007 bonds had a tax-exempt and taxable component. As a result of the various legacy bonds and the complexity previous refunding efforts, the taxable component should have been higher. This is remedied with the 2016 bonds. The District will also self-report with the Internal Revenue Service under their Voluntary Closing Agreement Program and essentially make the IRS whole. The 2011 bonds were originally capital appreciation bonds and are subject to a transfer or proceeds penalty with the IRS, which is also included in the 2016 bond calculations. Retail Sales The bond team (internal and external), working together with Public Affairs, made a strong retail marketing effort. Various materials were developed with the District’s house style: • Newspaper advertisement on Friday 9/2, Saturday 9/3 and Sunday 9/4 in the Mercury News and San Mateo Sentinel • Postcard mailing to approximately 14,000 District subscribers • E-Newsletter to approximately 8,000 District subscribers • Information on the District website, Facebook and Twitter • Morgan Stanley local branch office designated wealth management experts • Morgan Stanley Investing with Impact team awareness (socially responsible investing) • Internet Roadshow with slides and voice over by GM and CFO The final sales numbers reflect a very strong retail participation of 15% individual retail and an additional 50% professional retail, wrapping up with 35% for the institutional investors: CEQA COMPLIANCE Not applicable FISCAL IMPACT The District is saving $15.7 million over the next 25 years. The distribution of the savings of the 2007 bonds is level between 2017 and 2027. The savings for the 2011 is back-loaded to remover Order (#)Orders ($000)Allotments Individual Retail Santa Clara/San Mateo 41 770 13% Other 12 1085 20% Subtotal 53 8785 15% Professional Retail 50% Insitutional 35% Total 100% R-16-113 Page 4 the 2039, 2040 and 2041 maturities, paying the bonds off 3 years early. The annual savings are as follows: BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. Responsible Department Manager: Stefan Jaskulak, CFO/Director of Administrative Services Prepared by: Stefan Jaskulak, CFO/Director of Administrative Services 2017 767,313.26$ 2018 823,525.00$ 2019 821,575.00$ 2020 818,825.00$ 2021 815,575.00$ 2022 823,575.00$ 2023 822,075.00$ 2024 819,312.50$ 2025 818,862.50$ 2026 819,137.50$ 2027 822,412.50$ 2028 3,162.50$ 2029 3,662.50$ 2030 4,912.50$ 2031 25.00$ 2032 4,050.00$ 2033 2,075.00$ 2034 4,362.50$ 2035 525.00$ 2036 4,925.00$ 2037 2,175.00$ 2038 837,325.00$ 2039 1,921,675.00$ 2040 1,958,775.00$ 2041 1,998,400.00$ Total 15,718,238.26$ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Steve Abbors, General Manager FROM: Curt Riffle, Director RE: Disclosure of “Remote Interest” (Gov’t Code section 1091(a)) DATE: September 1, 2016 As discussed with the Board on August 24, 2016, I have accepted a position with the Peninsula Open Space Trust. I will be employed as the Vice-President of Land starting on September 19, 2016. I will be a salaried employee. I consulted with both the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s General Counsel and the Fair Political Practices Commission as to whether I could serve in both roles without running afoul of conflicts of interest rules. They both said yes. This is because POST is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and under applicable statutes, my financial interest in my employment with them is therefore a “remote” interest such as to not disqualify me from continuing to serve on the MROSD Board of Directors. The only caveat is that I am required to provide written disclosure of this remote interest, and to recuse myself from Board actions on financial transactions with POST. This memorandum is offered to fulfill the disclosure requirement. I will work with POST and District staff to anticipate any and all Board agenda items that would affect financial dealings with POST, and recuse myself on all such items. Typically, such items have in the past and are anticipated in the future to include periodic real property transactions such as fee purchases and conservation easements, and possibly property management service agreements among others. My initial estimate of the number of such items is approximately three per year. Beyond the legal requirements, in the interests of ensuring the continuing smooth operation of the District and to avoid any complications that might threaten that relationship, it is my intention to remain sensitive to any tensions that could arise from serving in both roles as well. If after periodically consulting with the MROSD General Manager and the POST Executive Director it appears counter-productive to either entity, I will carefully consider submitting my resignation from the MROSD Board. DATE: September 14, 2016 MEMO TO: Board of Directors MEMO THROUGH: Steve Abbors, General Manager FROM: Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager-Visitor & Field Services Brian Malone, Land & Facilities Services Manager SUBJECT: Status of Housing Policy Revisions _____________________________________________________________________________ Staff is continuing work on updating the District’s policies related to structures and residences in District preserves for the Board’s review beginning with the Legislative, Finance, and Policy Committee (LFPAC) in November. This memorandum outlines the scope of staff’s work on this policy update and other related topics so that the Board is aware of this upcoming policy work and because the Board will be considering several time-critical decisions in the near future related to structures and residences in District preserves that the General Manager recommends are necessary to make based on existing policy and practice in order to keep projects on schedule. Scope of Policy Update The FY2016-17 Action Plan includes a project to review and update several District policies that govern the District’s housing program, including three Board policies: Employee Residence Policies, Improvements on District Lands, and Factors to Consider for Structures Disposition. Staff began review during spring 2016, and has identified the following key policy considerations for Board deliberation, beginning with LFPAC in November: • Demolition vs. Restoration vs. Replacement a. Review the evaluation process and decision guidelines for assessing whether to demolish, restore, or replace a structure or residence. b. Capital cost thresholds – Review current guidelines for when a project is cost- effective, decide if any changes should be made or should this decision be on a case-by-case basis? c. On-going maintenance cost thresholds -- Review current guidelines on when maintenance costs outweigh the benefit, decide if any changes should be made or should this decision be on a case-by-case basis? d. Define “major structures” that require Board action vs. structure decisions that can be authorized by the General Manager. e. Decide whether to change Board policy to allow the retention of structures for the primary purpose of providing housing and revenue that do not support other District needs. • New Residence Construction? f. Review circumstances under which the District would consider constructing (or installing modular) housing where a house did not previously exist. g. Review circumstances under which the District would consider constructing (or installing modular) housing on the site of a structure that had to be demolished? • Housing for Whom and at What Rental Price? h. Develop occupancy criteria for District residences – employee operational need, grazing tenant need, farm labor need, other employee housing, other agency need, and general public; i. Decision on whether to provide discounted housing to District employees that do not provide service for the District related to their housing, primarily for employee recruitment and retention. j. Property management program financial considerations – How much does the program cost to manage vs. the revenue vs. fulfilling mission objectives; k. Assess comparable property management programs at other public agencies; The timeline for the policy work includes the following steps and milestones: • November 2016: LFPAC provides policy direction on housing and structures disposition; • December-January 2016/17: Additional LFPAC meetings as necessary to finalize recommendations to full Board; • March 2017: Board consideration of LFPAC recommendations; • April 2017- Administrative policies reflecting Board direction are implemented. Other Action Plan Projects Concurrent with Housing Policy Update Work While the Committee and Board are working on this policy update, the following important Action Plan projects are underway and require Board direction case-by-case based on existing policy and practice: • Demolitions in La Honda: The demolition of unsound structures in the former Driscoll Ranch area of La Honda Creek Preserve (former Driscoll) that are required in order to prepare for public access at Sears Ranch Road. (September 2016 Board authorization) • El Sereno House: The support structure of the former ranger residence at El Sereno is unsound. A recommendation will be brought to the Board for demolition of the structure. (November 2016 Board authorization; April 2017 demo contract approval) • Meyer Property Structure Evaluation: The opening of Mt. Umunhum will increase the demand for ranger services in that area including for afterhours call-outs. There are currently no ranger residences in the Mt. Umunhum area of Sierra Azul Preserve. A recommendation will be presented to the Board for the use of the Meyer property and the structures on the property. (June 2017 decision on use of property; pending use decision, April 2018 Construction contract approval) Farm Labor housing evaluation in La Honda: The house used by a farm laborer and his family at the former Driscoll property is unsound and is proposed for demolition in the La Honda Creek Preserve demolitions report. He and his family have been moved to another District owned residence on the preserve. After a staff evaluation of the potential options, the Board will be presented with a recommendation for providing farm labor housing to support the Agco Hay LLC grazing lease on the former Driscoll property. (December 2016 Board authorization of preferred alternative; March 2017 construction contract approval) Bear Creek Stables Site Plan: The stables site plan includes the disposition of many structures at the stables. (March 2017 award of stables site plan design contract) In addition, several other housing or structure related issues that are ongoing or have arisen recently include: Farm Bureau request to San Mateo County for a moratorium on demolitions on government and non-profit owned property within the county. Supervisor Horsley replied to the Farm Bureau that the county would not pursue a moratorium. Evaluation of the recently purchased Petersen property, adjacent to Hicks Road in the Sierra Azul, will be included in the ranger residence evaluation at same time as the Meyer property evaluation. Interim General Manager decision to open District residences, not identified for operational needs, to all District employees at full market value. The Memorandum of Understanding with the Field Employees Association includes a commitment to discuss updates to the District’s policy governing employee use of District-owned housing; staff has held several meetings with the FEA’s Housing Committee during the housing policy work to date. Again, these updates are provided here about work underway or forthcoming to inform the Board with the full picture of housing and structures-related issues as the Board begins to make project decisions case-by-case under existing policies and practices. DATE: September 14, 2016 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Summary from August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting _____________________________________________________________________________ At its August 24, 2016 meeting, the Board of Directors approved the formation of the Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) (R-16-102). The charge of the Committee is to (1) identify any potential gaps in the Administrative Office (AO) site benchmark feasibility study, real estate market analysis, and futurist/architectural strategist report, and (2) arrive at a recommended preferred option, possible alternatives, and next steps to forward to the full Board at a later date for its consideration and decision. The Committee has met twice since formation. Below is a summary of the August 29, 2016 meeting. Materials given to the Committee have been provided to the Board for more detail. The Committee selected Director Kishimoto as Chair, discussed its purpose, and the purpose of the futurist/architectural strategist, MKthink. The Committee discussed how and when to bring items to the full Board for consideration during the process. The project team was introduced and the process and schedule discussed. The status of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) building across from the AO was reviewed. Please see to details provided below. Committee Purpose The Committee’s overarching purpose is to provide policy level guidance on staff facilities. For this current effort, the Committee felt that they should focused immediately on the AO and that the recommendations prepared for the AO need to consider and relate to other District staff facilities, including field offices or potential new satellites, and whether AO staff can deploy out of those locations. The Committee discussed their goal, which includes bringing forth to the full Board a recommendation for the AO to move forward with and also to act as a strike force by which to consider new opportunities to allow staff to act quickly if necessary. Futurist Purpose Because of the substantial investment anticipated to address the District’s long-term administrative office needs, the purpose of MKThink’s work is to test staff’s assumptions with regard to viable solutions for a new AO and to unearth potential options that staff did not consider. They are exploring external factors or forces that may influence the way the District conducts its work in the future and where a new AO might best be located to effectively and efficiently deliver the District’s services. Unlike the futurist used for the Packard Foundation, this scope of work is less about work space planning within the building and more about determining the type, size, and location of the Summary from August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 2 Committee Meeting building. MKThink will touch upon conceptual space planning insofar as it affects the building the District might seek. Process and Schedule Board FYIs will be provided to keep the full Board apprised of the project’s progress. The Committee will meet at each milestone to provide policy guidance. The Committee will also determine which items should be brought to the full Board for their input, e.g. decision-making criteria. The initial schedule was to have a preferred recommended option by the end of the calendar year. The schedule will need to be adjusted to accommodate Board meetings when the Committee feels items should be brought to the full Board. MKThink Draft Initial Findings MKThink is currently in their Research and Findings stages. To learn more about the District, they have been provided background material and reports such as the Vision Plan and the Financial and Organizational Sustainability Model (FOSM). MKThink will move on to assessing the District’s current and future operational needs and weighing those with external factors that will either be challenges to overcome or opportunities to take advantage of, as they develop options for a new AO. MKThink presented their proposed process and draft initial research findings centered around six study areas. The Committee was asked if there were any questions or gaps in the analysis. They were also asked if any study area seemed more important than the others, and what other information might be needed to inform a recommended preferred option and a decision. The Committee posed the following questions: • What’s the future of the cubicle? • What’s the future of the work week? • How do we share desks? • Can District staff share space? • What is the future of El Camino Real? • Which cities will expand or build along El Camino Real? • Can we partner with other like-minded organizations, e.g. Peninsula Conservation Center? • How will we use space? How much storage will we need? Are we heading towards a paperless office? • Diversity – how do we ensure our office is accessible? • Childcare – how do we retain talented women and support families? • Environmental sustainability – how do we minimize our environmental footprint? • Symbolism of the building – is it a statement? Is it more low key? The Committee expressed interest in monitoring the real estate market more actively. Status of PAMF Building An update on the PAMF building located across from the AO was provided by Real Property. A proposal to purchase the building was sent and no response had yet been received. PAMF is not interested in swapping properties with the District. PAMF seems amenable to leasing half the building to the District, but only for two years. If the decision is made to build on site, design and Summary from August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 3 Committee Meeting permitting are anticipated to take two years with construction taking another two years. Timing of a temporary lease will be critical. The Committee asked Real Property to update them at the next meeting regarding PAMF and asked for an update on the Real Estate Market Study and the AO Site Benchmark Feasibility Study. Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Project Team Staff 1. General Manager’s Office – General Manager Stephen E. Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Chief Financial Officer/Administrative Services Director Stefan Jaskulak, and District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth 2. Department Managers – Jane Mark (Planning), Jason Lin (Engineering & Construction), and Mike Williams (Real Property) 3. Staff – Tina Hugg (Planning, day-to-day contact), Aaron Hebert (formerly Engineering & Construction, now Natural Resources – will be replaced with and Engineering and Constructions representative at the end of the strategist report), Allen Ishibashi (Real Property) Attachments: 1. August 29, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Presentation 2. MROSD AO Future Study by MKThink The attachments for this documents are extensive. If you would like a paper copy, please contact Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, or they are accessible on the District’s website or the Board’s Dropbox account. FACILITIES AD HOC PREPARED FOR: 29 AUGUST 2016 PREPARED by: COmmITTEE mEETING 30 year vision FuTurE HOmE FOr mIDpEN 3midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study AGENDA midpeninsula regional open space district - mROSD AO FUTURE STUDy prOCESS: HOW DO WE GET THERE? FINDINGS: WHAT ARE THE CURRENT TRENDS? AppENDIx: OTHER iTEmS , NExT STEPS how do we get there? prOCESS BOArD ApprOVED GOALS 5midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study future real estate options prOCESS 1. DEmOLISH & rEmODEL 1. DEmOLISH & rEmODEL 2. purCHASE & rEmODEL 3. OpEN SATELLITE OFFICES 4. LEASE AND rEmODEL 5. CO-LOCATE (FIELD OFFICES) 6midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study potential future real estate options prOCESS DEmOLISH & rEmODEL purCHASE & rEmODEL 6. 7. 9. 11. 17. 19. 20. .... 13. 14. 15. 16. 5. OpEN SATELLITE OFFICES 3. CONTrOL CENTEr 4. TrADITIONAL FuTurIST 21. 7midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study prOCESS problem statement research questions INTErNAL ExTErNAL findings priorities recommend. CONCEpTuAL STrATEGy - QUANTiTy - DENSiTy - QUAliTy - OPERATiONS - OWNERSHiP E.G. RETENTiON PARTNERiNG VALuES CONSTrAINTS OpErATIONAL NEEDS CONTExTuAL CHALLENGES / OppOrTuNITIES options INDuSTry ExpErTISE (mKTHiNK / OTHER) summary FINDINGS BOArD ApprOVED GOALS 9midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study matrix: broad factors/study areas FINDINGS 10midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study FINDINGS What is missing? Were we unclear? Would you add anything else? Are some things more important than others? What does the board need to feel confident in making a decision? questions for facilities ad hoc committee 11midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study prOCESS problem statement research questions INTErNAL ExTErNAL findings priorities recommend. CONCEpTuAL STrATEGy - QUANTiTy - DENSiTy - QUAliTy - OPERATiONS - OWNERSHiP E.G. RETENTiON PARTNERiNG VALuES CONSTrAINTS OpErATIONAL NEEDS CONTExTuAL CHALLENGES / OppOrTuNITIES options INDuSTry ExpErTISE (mKTHiNK / OTHER) (other / future items AppENDIx BOArD ApprOVED GOALS 13midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study system model FOR STRATEGiC REGiONAl ANAlySiS FINDINGS 14midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study mKthinK solution: strategy tool FINDINGS (operations and values) EmErGING TOpICS BOArD ApprOVED GOALS 16midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study operations: example EmErGING TOpICS a. tuesday and wednesday days can be spent at the administrative office building; monday, thursday and friday in the field. this allows the administrative office to be customized and optimized for collaboration. individual work is supported in the field. there is a high utilization and occupancy. vs. b. the traditional monday to friday, 9 am to 5 pm model, where both individual and collaborative work happen at the administrative office building. it results in more square footage at lower quality with redundancies in the field. there is a lower utilization and occupancy. 17midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study values EmErGING TOpICS rent savings vs. connectivity sustainability vs. first costs flexibility vs. resiliency access to homes vs. access to sites individual work vs. collective work proximity to colleagues vs. time spent in field high level of community engagement vs. meeting short term goals next steps prEVIEw BOArD ApprOVED GOALS 19midpeninsula regional open space district - mrosd ao future study strategy tool prEVIEw MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 1 MROSD AO Future Study “Current State” Initial Findings: DRAFT (Updated 8/26) August 29, 2016 Assignment Description MKThink has been hired by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to provide “futurist”/ architectural strategist services related to the District’s decision-making needs about siting the future Administrative Office (AO). District Research Statement Analyze broad factors that the District should consider as it evaluates the local real estate market and the future of work at the District, and provide conceptual recommendations to inform AO options such as, but not limited to: - Demolish and rebuild onsite - Lease or purchase a new site (and remodel or rebuild) - Open satellite offices and remodel the existing AO - Other or hybrid solution Key Questions for Research The following questions serve to clarify the ‘broad factors’, or study areas, to be researched related to the research statement: 1. What are regional and local socio-economic and demographic trends? 2. What are the emerging innovations/trends in transportation, building materials, sustainability, information technology, and remote work environments? 3. What are the environmental resiliency future challenges? 4. What are the geographical influences that may affect talent acquisition and longevity? 5. What is the future of how people work? 6. What do real estate strategies look like in the future? MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 2 Initial Findings from Research The following pages detail the initial summary findings from this research. To clarify: - “Internal Findings” = the District’s internal conditions - “External Findings” = the broader external influences or context of the region / locality MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 3 QUESTION 1. WHAT ARE REGIONAL AND LOCAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS? SUMMARY FINDINGS CHALLENGES Regional economic disparities occur on two levels: 1) between heavily funded tech sector companies and other business sectors, and 2) individuals with access to high salaries and those who do not. Regional governments and non-profits have and will continue to respond to this challenge by being efficient with resources, while competition among firms in creative and innovation industries will grow. OPPORTUNITIES Increased access to Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), maker spaces, short- term certification programs, and other alternative modes of education and training (not requiring traditional 4-year degrees) will widen access to professional careers including those in the conservation sector. P rivate investment -- through vehicles such as public-private partnerships -- in social services, urban environments, and general sustainability may ameliorate the growing regional socio-economic gap and be beneficial for non-profit and government agencies. SPECIFIC FINDINGS INTERNAL (DISTRICT SPECIFIC) FINDINGS - Housing prices are high and the District employees’ homes are dispersed around the wider Bay Area region (from Santa Rosa and Walnut Creek in the north, to Aptos and Gilroy in the south), lengthening commute times. - District’s operations are expanding, which requires adding capacity in terms of people, expertise and services. - Midpen is expected to add between 84 and 104 total positions by the year 2045 (FOSM, 2015, p. 69). MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 4 - Baby boomers are expected to be gradually be replaced by Millennials by the year 2030, with Generation X moving into more senior roles (FOSM, 2015). - See question 4 for interrelated findings. EXTERNAL (CONTEXTUAL) FINDINGS - Job growth is accelerating in all major areas of economic activity. - Per capita and median household incomes are increasing, although there are major issues with income inequality across groups. - The residents of the Silicon Valley and the Bay Area generally are increasingly burdened by housing costs. - Low housing inventory continues to drive up home and rental prices, while income gains (for most workers) are insufficient to accommodate the rising living costs, resulting in increased displacement of workers seeking more affordable housing outside the immediate Bay Area. - There is a rapid population growth in Silicon Valley; at the same time, the Valley has an increasingly aging population (Institute for Regional Studies, 2016). MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 5 QUESTION 2. WHAT ARE THE EMERGING INNOVATIONS/TRENDS IN TRANSPORTATION, BUILDING MATERIALS, SUSTAINABILITY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, AND REMOTE WORK ENVIRONMENTS? SUMMARY FINDINGS CHALLENGES Age, scale, and cost of building infrastructure will impede the ability of architecture to move at the pace of operational needs. The moment a building opens, new technologies and organizational needs challenge the space to operate as intended. Transportation systems are also outdated and over capacity, and the political will to implement significant projects, such as high-speed rail and bus rapid transit, is challenged by Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) attitudes. Technology is not yet utilized to its full potential to enable productive remote work, in part because many companies maintain traditional operational models. OPPORTUNITIES By diversifying, distributing, decentralizing, and mobilizing real estate assets, companies will be able to overcome structural inefficiencies in architecture and real estate, which are moving slower than innovation and technology. Companies like Uber, Lyft, Chariot, and corporate shuttles are bridging the “last mile” gaps between existing transit and work locations. The region is taking initiative to improve BART and Caltrain connections to minimize individual car use. Simultaneously, self-driving cars may regularize traffic flows, minimize accidents, and upgrade passenger experience. Nevertheless, as these processes take time to develop, remote work employing improved communication technology (e.g. the software applications Zoom and Slack) is a feasible interim and possible long-term solution to bridge the transportation gaps, manage employee burn out, and reduce carbon emissions. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 6 SPECIFIC FINDINGS INTERNAL FINDINGS - The AO staff drives to work on average about 21 miles each way daily; the regional public transit connections are poor (MROSD Memorandum, 2015). - The current AO building is outdated (originally built in the 1970s) and over capacity. It would need to be modernized in the future to include sustainable features currently desired by the District (TANNERHECHT Architecture, 2016). - Measure AA provides revenues to the District for capital projects that will focus on land preservation, habitat restoration, and public access opportunities (FOSM, 2015). EXTERNAL FINDINGS - Inter-modal transit is becoming increasingly important (e.g. bike to train and then ride). - The new trends in building materials show improvements in durability, elasticity, modularity, energy efficiency, insulation, and recyclability. - Silicon Valley is taking measures to address environmental sustainability issues. For instance, Title 24 is influencing baseline green building design. In addition, larger companies are investing in sensors to monitor building energy use, installing solar panels, and prioritizing permeable native landscaping. - Information technology’s current phase of development is the ‘Internet of Things’, where appliances and equipment communicate seamlessly through the internet (i.e. the Nest technology that allows for remote control over home utilities, such as lights and heat). - Remote work is the growing trend to accommodate growing operational flexibility and to alleviate difficult commutes. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 7 QUESTION 3. WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCY CHALLENGES? SUMMARY FINDINGS CHALLENGES There are many environmental challenges that face the Bay Area. Natural resources, especially water, will continue to be constrained at increasing rates, impairing business as usual. In addition, the tech company trend to fit more workers in smaller work areas will strain existing infrastructure, whose capacity was designed for less dense use (i.e. parking, utilities, etc.). With many areas near sea level, there is a great probability that climate change and sea level rise will irreversibly affect Silicon Valley if mitigations are not pursued aggressively. According to USGS, there is a 72% chance of an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or higher to hit the Bay Area in the next 30 years. OPPORTUNITIES Access to knowledge and information through education, social media, and other channels will lead to expanded social awareness and eventually provide the tools to adapt to and mitigate growing environmental challenges. One of the Bay Area’s greatest resources in responding to catastrophic events related to climate change (flooding, sea level rise, liquefaction) is the bay land, which is classified as tidal wetlands. The Midpen AO could serve as an emergency command center for district operations during a crisis affecting the Midpen preserves (e.g. 100 year storm, earthquake, or land slide). SPECIFIC FINDINGS INTERNAL FINDINGS - The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to the AO are affected by the site location and the sustainability of the building’s construction (MROSD Memorandum, 2015). MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 8 - Due to long commute distances and issues related to access to public transit, the employees mainly use private cars, which contributes to the GHG emissions. - Construction of a new building would result in a high level of the one-time GHG emissions related to construction; however, the building-operation related emissions in most cases over time exceed one-time related GHG emissions. EXTERNAL FINDINGS - Silicon Valley is seismically unstable and there is a high chance that a high magnitude earthquake will hit the area in the next 30 years, which could results in damages nearing $200 Billion for the Bay Area (Investor’s Business Daily News, 2016). - Silicon Valley is increasingly vulnerable to the effect of climate change and sea level rise; a 40-inch sea level rise would place 270,000 people at risk of a 100-year flood, resulting in replacement cost of $49 Billion. Costly infrastructure such as Highway 101 and San Francisco Airport are also at great risk. It is predicted that seas will climb as much as 16 inches by the mid-century and 65 inches by 2100 (Pacific Institute, 2012). MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 9 QUESTION 4. WHAT ARE THE GEOGRAPHIC INFLUENCES ON TALENT ACQUISITION AND LONGEVITY? SUMMARY FINDINGS CHALLENGES Extreme economic conditions will cause a dearth of talent in the young family age group. In addition, the lack of affordable housing near places of work and public transit will affect people’s decisions to move to or stay in Silicon Valley and add stress due to increasingly long commute times. Traditional companies may not be attractive to Millennials who demand flexibility and increased blending of life and work. OPPORTUNITIES Silicon Valley is a strong educational and technological center, home to the majority of the world’s leading innovation companies; therefore, it will continue to attract highly paid, motivated talent. Companies with the strongest brands, culture, equity, and flexibility will be more successful in overcoming obstacles related to talent acquisition. SPECIFIC FINDINGS INTERNAL FINDINGS - The D istrict is an attractive employer for people of diverse backgrounds. - The main reason why talent is attracted to the District is its mission. - Several factors may impact the District’s ability to attract staff in the near future. These include the high cost of living, income relative to the general costs of living, traffic congestion and long commutes, lack of sufficient public transit options, and quality of working space. - However, housing subsidies such as those given to Google employees, flexible schedules, and telecommuting could help to compensate for the above challenges. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 10 EXTERNAL FINDINGS - As housing prices continue to increase, the local population is progressively moving out or being displaced. However, an influx of foreign workers is causing overall population growth (Institute for Regional Studies, 2016). - Talent acquisition in Silicon Valley is on the one hand influenced by the employees’ access to well paid jobs, affordable housing, and transit options, and on the other hand by company brands, culture, equity, professional development, flexibility, etc. - Traditional modes of staffing, which emphasized recruiting workers who perform predefined roles and prescriptive assignments, are being replaced by strategic modes of talent acquisition (Silicon Valley Bank, 2015), which focus on finding individuals who can easily adapt to a multitude of tasks and grow into new roles as the company evolves and strengthens its brand. The new model also includes hiring people through social media tools and professional websites (e.g. LinkedIn, Indeed.com, Glassdoor, etc.) and creating opportunities for internal candidates. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 11 QUESTION 5. WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF HOW PEOPLE WORK? SUMMARY FINDINGS CHALLENGES Employees who choose to work for an established company will be constrained by traditional workplace operations, which include set work hours, limited time off, and poor benefits (when compared with similarly advanced countries worldwide). The ability for individuals to self-sustain through entrepreneurship or independent contracting will in turn put pressure on companies to improve their cultural and operational practices (e.g. brand recognition, workplace employee alignment, interpersonal teaming dynamics, workplace amenities, location/hours flexibility). OPPORTUNITIES Mission-driven companies and public agencies with a focus on sustainability have a better chance of thriving due to strong cultures and values. The ability to rapidly adapt to new conditions will continue to be a major asset for Silicon Valley to respond to the aforementioned challenges. Globalization increases opportunities to be more selective in life, culture, and work choices. Workers change jobs, more frequently throughout their careers due to shifting aspirations, life situations and opportunities. SPECIFIC FINDINGS INTERNAL FINDINGS - The District is organized around one administrative office and three satellite service-oriented field offices. - Due to the passage of Measure AA, the District can be compared to a ‘start- up’ company with newly designated venture capital funding (FOSM, 2015). - The District faces challenges to accommodate an increase in service demands, growing staff, and workspace demands. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 12 - The District is considering introducing collaborative technologies, such as Skype for Business and SharePoint, to its workspace model, which would be essential if the District were to opt for utilizing satellite offices in a distributed model of employee deployment. - The District is considering different organizational and staff deployment models that enable flexibility, autonomy, and customization. - The District has centrally located administrative staff, while service operations are decentralized to the field offices. In the long-term, maintaining a centrally located AO could have a negative impact on staff well being (due to increasingly long commutes), sustainability (due to carbon emissions), and real- estate costs (in terms of accommodating growing staff through additional leased offices or on-site expansion). EXTERNAL FINDINGS - Offices are focusing on building strong teams that can manage even in a remote work environment to increase flexibility and efficiency. - Offices are introducing flexibility, autonomy, and customization to their workplace practices to compensate for the regional challenges (i.e. long commutes). - Managers and executives are shifting from the ‘command and control’ mode to the ‘roles of coaches and mentors’ along the lines of the model promoted by International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Technology will enable this and Millennials will demand it. - Employees are increasingly measured by deliverables and results rather than time spent at work. - Offices are embracing collaborative technologies (e.g. telecommunication, smartphones, smart TVs, smart walls, groupware such as SharePoint, etc.). MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 13 QUESTION 6. WHAT DO REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE? SUMMARY FINDINGS CHALLENGES Traditional office buildings (low density, high quality leased/owned space) will be more difficult to implement due to rising costs of commercial real estate, in part driven by the physical limitations of the Bay Area as a peninsula surrounded by bodies of water and open space. OPPORTUNITIES Maintaining commercial real estate ownership combined with smart operational strategy will help mitigate challenges. In plain words, owning real estate means that a company has an asset it can lease out, sell, or occupy, and remain resilient if and when the commercial market fluctuates. Zoning changes could allow increased density and possibilities for income generation. Traditional companies may consider moving to extra-urban, suburban, and/or smaller urban centers with more available and affordable space, such as Sacramento, or Livermore, or hiring workers who telecommute and don’t require any office space. SPECIFIC FINDINGS INTERNAL FINDINGS - The District is considering three real estate options: 1. Demolish and rebuild (TANNERHECHT Architecture, 2016), 2. Purchase new and remodel, and/or 3. Open satellite offices. The futurist study will offer additional options for consideration. - District currently owns the AO building and the field offices, which are valuable future real estate asset. - The AO building has a traditional office configuration with private offices and some collaborative spaces. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 14 - Field offices mainly house field operations staff. - The District is building partnerships with other organizations and companies (FOSM, 2015). EXTERNAL FINDINGS - Offices are reducing overall square footage per person in response to higher lease/purchase rates (e.g. GSF/Person was 250 in 2000, is 150 in 2017). - Organizations are promoting flexible office space configurations; this requires a new workplace model and culture where higher quality, shared (collaborative, meeting) spaces are replacing the emphasis on individual ownership/assignment. - Change management services are growing to accommodate rapid office transitions. - Traditional office configurations are being redesigned and some office campuses now accommodate housing, services, childcare, health care, and recreation on-site. - Companies are renting co-working spaces (i.e. the Impact Hub in San Francisco) separated from the central locations and decentralizing operations across multiple locations (Forbes, 2016). This model requires a transition period due to changes in communication and reliance on technology to achieve results; in the long term, this increased flexibility and decentralized model allows companies to respond at the pace of societal and technological change. - Partnerships among companies are becoming increasingly important to mitigate real estate challenges. - Commercial rents continue to increase, while the vacancy rates continue to decline: demand outweighs supply. MKThink | 1500 Sansome Street, San Francisco CA 94111 15 EMERGING QUESTIONS 1. [new question from Ana] What adjustments are necessary to reduce reliance on floor space, storage space, and work space? 2. [new question from Ana] How do we maintain continuity and increase efficiency of public service over the next 30 years (considering phasing, sequencing)? MKThink Confidential & Proprietary. Do not distribute without consent. MIDPEN RESEARCH QUESTIONS SUMMARY MATRIX QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 QUESTION 5 QUESTION 6 What are regional and local so- cio-economic and demographic trends? What are the emerging innova- tions/trends in transportation, building materials, sustainability, information technology, and re- mote work environments? What are the environmental re- siliency future challenges? What are the geographical influ- ences on talent acquisition and longevity? What is the future of how people work? What do real estate strategies look like in the future? INTERPRETATIVE FINDINGS Challenges Regional disparities (i.e. heavily funded tech companies vs. other sectors, individu- als with access to high salaries vs. those without) create challenges for regional governments and non-profits. Challenges Architecture and construction move at a slower pace than the operational needs. Transportation systems are outdated, while the political will to implement significant changes is challenged by Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) attitudes. Technology is not yet utilized to its full potential to enable productive remote work. Challenges The environmental challenges that face the Bay Area are: depleting natural resources, climate change and sea level rise, and seismic activity. Challenges Extreme economic conditions, including the lack of affordable housing, will affect people’s decisions to move to or stay in Silicon Valley. Millennials migh not be at- tracted to traditional companies, as they increasingly demand flexibility and blend- ing of life and work. Challenges Employees are increasingly constrained by traditional workplace operations (e.g. set work hours, limited time off, and poor benefits) . The ability for individuals to self-sustain through entrepreneurship will in turn put pressure on companies to improve their cultural and operational practices. Challenges Traditional office buildings will be more dif- ficult to implement due to rising costs of commercial real estate. The Bay Area, as a peninsula surrounded by bodies of water and open space, has physical limitations to accomodate new commercial spaces. Opportunities Increased access to alternative modes of education and training will widen access to professional careers, including those in the conservation sector. Private-public part- nerships and private investments in shared services may ameliorate the growing social gap. Opportunities By diversifying real estate assets, com- panies will be able to bridge the gap between real estate/architecture and technology/innovation. The region is taking initiative to improve public tran- sit. Remote work employing improved communication technology appears to be a solution to bridge the transportation gaps. Opportunities Growing awareness about environmen- tal resiliency challenges is the first step towards adaptation to and mitigation of growing environmental challenges. Tidal wetlands ere expected to help mitigate the catastrophic events related to climate change. The Midpen AO could serve as an emergency command center for dis- trict operations during a crisis affecting the Midpen preserves. Opportunities Silicon Valley is a strong educational and technological center and it will continue to attract talent. Companies with the stron- gest brands, culture, equity, and flexibility will more successful in overcoming obsta- cles related to talent acquisition. Opportunities Mission-driven companies and public agencies with a focus on sustainability have a better chance of thriving due to strong cultures and values. The ability to rapidly adapt to new conditions will continue to be a major asset for Silicon Valley to respond to the aforementioned challenges. Opportunities Maintaining commercial real estate own- ership combined with smart operational strategy will help mitigate challenges. Zon- ing changes could allow increased density. Traditional companies may consider moving to other locations with more available and affordable space, or hiring workers who tele- commute and don’t require any office space. Internal findings - Housing prices are high - District employees’ homes are dispersed around the wider Bay Area region - District’s operations are expanding, which requires adding capacity in terms of people, expertise and services - Millenials are expected to replace the Generation X by 2030 External findings - Job growth is accelerating - Per capita and median household income are increasing - There is growing income inequality ac- cross groups - The residents of the Silicon Valley are burdened by housing costs - There is a rapid population growth - The Silicon Valley has an increasingly ag- ing population Internal findings - The AO staff drives 21 miles each way daily (average) - The AO building is outdated and over capacity - Measure AA provides revenues to the District for environmentally sustainable capital projects External findings - Inter-nodal transportation is becoming increasingly important - New trends in building materials show improvements - There are regional sustainable measures that address environmental issues - Information technology is focusing on the ‘Internet of Things’ - Remote work is a growing trend Internal findings - The greenhouse gas emissions related to the AO are affected by the site loca- tion (i.e. commute distances) and sus- tainability of building construction (e.g. incremental retrofits of the AO building vs. one-time related greenhouse gas emissions External findings - There is a high chance that a high mag- nitude earthquake will hit the region in the next 30 years - The region is increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and sea level rise Internal findings - The main reason why talent is attracted to the District is its mission - The District’s ability to attract talent in the future will depend on regional living costs, income, public transit options, and quality of working space. External findings - Due to high housing costs the local population is increasingly moving out of Silicon Valley, while there is an influx of foreign workers - Future talent acquisition will depend on employees’ access to well paid jobs, af- fordable housing, transit options, company brands, culture, equity, professional devel- opment, flexibility, etc. - Traditional modes of “staffing” are being replaced by “strategic” modes of talent acquisition Internal findings - The District is organized around one administrative office and three satellite service-oriented field offices. - The District can be compared to a ‘start-up’ company with newly designated venture capital funding - The District is considering introducing collaborative technologies and different organizational and deployment models External findings - Offices are embracing teamwork, which is expected to increase efficiency and flexibility (especially in remote work envi- ronments) - Offices are introducing flexibility, au- tonomy, and customization to their work- place practices - Managers and executives are shifting from the ‘command and control’ mode to the ‘roles of coaches and mentors’ - Offices are embracing collaborative technologies Internal findings - The District is considering different real estate options - The District currently owns the AO build- ing and the field offices, which are valuable future real estate assets - The AO building has a traditional office configuration - The District is building partnerships with other organizations and companies External findings - Commercial rents continue to increase - Companies are reducing overall square footage per person, while also promoting flexible spatial configurations - Companies are introducing services (e.g. health care, child care, recreation, etc.) - Companies are renting co-working spaces - Partnerships among companies are be- coming increasingly important to mitigate real estate challenges MKThink Confidential & Proprietary. Do not distribute without consent. MIDPEN BOARD APPROVED GOALS 1. Utilize forward looking and imaginative approaches for evaluating and designing each facility, for example hotelling of staff, videoconferencing, and telecommuting. 2. Build in sufficient flexible capacity for the duration of a facility’s expected lifetime (30 years). 3. Optimize staff deployment per FOSM recommendations and how departments and staff will work in the future. 4. Strive to locate within proximity to public transportation or major thorough fares. 5. Seek flexible and adaptable options to meet evolving needs. 6. Pursue sustainable design and construction options that are cost-effective and that are evaluated through a lifecycle analysis. 7. Consider how new facilities could minimize cost-of-living impacts by their location, especially if they were near transportation corridors. 8. Improve the outward facing or public facilities, so visitors have a more welcoming experience when visiting our facilities. 9. Minimize relocation disruption to staff by thoughtful transition planning. DATE: September 14, 2016 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors FROM: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager SUBJECT: Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) Meeting _____________________________________________________________________________ This FYI Memorandum summarizes the Committee’s discussions at their September 12, 2016 meeting, where staff presented the findings of the Real Estate Market Analysis and Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study. The Committee also clarified and reconfirmed their purpose, the purpose of the futurist, and the process and expected milestones. The General Manager emphasized that this investment would be the single biggest purchase ever made by the District, and hiring a futurist/ architectural strategist, MKThink, for their recommendations helps ensure the best decision can be made. The Committee discussed key factors to consider in the facilities evaluation that the District and futurist/architectural strategist are conducting. These factors include: (a) feasibility of retaining AO as a centralized office or developing a separate satellite office; (b) minimizing new office construction costs with consolidated underground parking; (c) opportunity to build additional office space in the new AO in order to lease out to a partner entity or other; (d) prioritizing the search of office properties within close proximity to public transit; (e) initial Committee preference for a two to two-and-a-half story building even though the site development potential could be as large as a four-story option; and (f) what how the AO may be staffed in the future. Process and Milestones MKThink is developing options to solve the AO space needs by considering the District’s current and future operational needs and external challenges or opportunities that may influence the way the District conducts its work in the future. Certain options may be ruled out by constraints that make them infeasible, e.g. extremely cost prohibitive. The remaining options will be evaluated through a value system that MKThink will develop with the Committee and Board. Each option will have pros and cons or tradeoffs, values which the Committee and Board will consider when weighing the options, e.g. smaller individual work areas to achieve higher quality, larger common areas. How the Committee and Board prioritizes these values will influence which options perform better than others. A decision-making matrix will be developed that shows how each option performs for each value. The goal is to arrive at a preferred recommended option to present to the full Board. Staff expects this scope of work to continue through the end of the calendar year with a recommended option potentially in December/January. Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 2 Committee Meeting Real Estate Market Analysis Colliers International prepared a Real Estate Market Analysis last December (see attachment for more detail), and updated their data on September 1, 2016 (see attachment). Little has changed. The analysis looked at the office lease and sale market from San Carlos to Los Gatos for buildings between 20,000 to 40,000 square feet. It also compared the cost differential between transit-oriented buildings (located along Caltrain) versus non-transit-oriented buildings. The key takeaways are that the commercial real estate market is highly opportunistic and competitive, and there is little to no availability in the 20,000 to 40,000 square foot size range. This is true along the entire Peninsula and south. Property located near Caltrain stops are significantly higher in cost. Finally, leasing is not a recommended long-term solution, as lease rates continue to rise and the District would be paying property taxes folded into the lease rates. The challenges in purchasing a new building include the uncertainty of where and when an opportunity might arise. In addition, there is no way of knowing what type of building may become available and whether it would need significant remodeling to create a work environment needed by the District, e.g. a Board room. When the Committee inquired about the status of the office across the street, staff reported that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) is not interested in selling. They may still be interested in short-term leasing to the District for only two years. However, the District would need to carefully determine when to start this two-year lease. It will likely take two years to design and permit a new building, and two years for construction. Thus, entering into a lease at this point in time is premature, and there is no guarantee that the building will be available later. Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study Tannerhecht Architecture completed the Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study earlier this year (see attachment for more detail) under the General Manager’s authority. The firm was selected to perform this straightforward site development analysis for expediency and efficiency, given the firm’s knowledge of the AO building, the property, the City of Los Altos’ (City’s) planning and building processes, and the current design and construction environment. The firm assessed the site’s development potential and provided ballpark conceptual costs for a series of different sized buildings. Simple building shapes were used. No detailed design work was required for this level of assessment. The site’s development potential is affected by many factors, which include but are not necessarily limited to the City’s planning and building code requirements, property size and configuration, and the site’s proximity to residential community. The firm was asked to push the envelope, which means that for one or more options, some negotiation with the City might be necessary if or when the project moved into a design phase. The key takeaway is that the site has can support a two- to three-story building, ranging from 30,800 square feet to 46,000 square feet. A larger building will allow flexibility to house the District over the next 30 years if growth follows the projections of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM). Unused space could potentially be leased out until needed. Pending negotiations with the City and a change in materials that allow for shorter floor-to-floor heights, four stories may be possible. All options require underground parking, currently two to four levels. Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 3 Committee Meeting Committee Comments The Committee expressed concerns about the process and schedule to arrive at a recommended AO building option for the Board to consider. The current schedule looks at December/January for a final recommendation, anticipating several key milestone meetings for Committee and Board review and action. The next Committee meeting is being scheduled for early October at which time MKThink and staff will present a series of options as well as a preview of decision- making work products. There was discussion around searching for a new building in the real estate market. However, currently there are no defined parameters around size, locations, etc., pending work by the futurist that may outline the characteristics needed in a new building, whether purchased or built on site. The Committee confirmed that an aggressive search of the real estate market can wait until MKThink completes their work, so that their recommendations can be folded into parameters that Real Property needs. Real Property will continue to stay abreast of real estate opportunities that may arise in the meantime. The Committee discussed whether the AO should be split into two, as that could lessen costs. It was pointed out that although cost is a significant factor, functionality and operational efficiency are other factors that MKThink will bring forward for consideration. Staff at the AO may work more efficiently if housed in one location. Toward the end of the meeting, the Committee expressed concerns with multiple AO offices, e.g. two AOs or one main AO and smaller satellites. Some of the Committee members observed that District staff rely heavily on collaboration and communication. It was noted that there have been challenges with the current separate lease spaces, which are just next door. The Committee discussed the geographic location that would be most central for the AO. They concurred that the current site is well located, with easy access to highways and to the Preserves, unlike downtown Palo Alto. The Committee discussed the future growth of AO staff and whether growth would continue more in the field and if AO staffing would contract. It was pointed out that, per FOSM, growth in the AO may plateau but the need for administrative staff will be ongoing to support long term administrative and operational functions, and complete life cycle facility repairs. The Committee acknowledged infrastructure life cycles and the need for ongoing planning, design and engineering/construction positions to complete this work. The Committee directed staff to remove the four-story option for the current AO building from further consideration. The Committee supports two to two-and-a-half stories and is willing to consider three stories particularly if a partner is willing to help offset the cost. Three stories may allow flexibility to design a building that allows for more natural light like the Packard Foundation building. Interest was expressed in limiting underground parking to one level, which would require purchasing the Carl’s Jr. property and extending underground parking below that footprint. Real Property will look into the property ownership and status of the adjacent Carl’s Jr. property to determine if this is a possible option. MKThink will look into the feasibility of this option. The Committee discussed the justification for the investment in a new AO office building. Delivery of Measure AA projects is a priority and this requires more staff and the space for staff Summary from September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Page 4 Committee Meeting to deliver the projects and the services to the public. It was also noted that General Funds, not Measure AA, will be used for the new building. The Committee discussed what elements they would like to see in a new building if this option is ultimately selected: rooftop garden with cafeteria seating, solar panels, waterless urinals. Staff confirmed that stormwater runoff in excess of what currently exits the site would need to be retained on site. Staying within a mile of the Caltrain corridor is desirable to keep transit options open. Next Steps At the next Committee meeting, scheduled for October 17, 2016, MKThink will bring options that respond to the District’s present and future operational needs and consider external forces that affect how the work environment may change in the future. Selection of prioritization criteria to inform decision-making will follow at a subsequent meeting. Finally, using the criteria, the goal is to narrow down the options to a preferred recommended option with potential alternatives. Real Property will look into who owns the Carl Jr.’s property and its status, and report back. Prepared by: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner Attachments: 1. September 12, 2016 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Presentation 2. December 10, 2015 Real Estate Market Study by Collier’s International with Updates from September 1, 2016 3. February 1, 2016 Site Development Concept Feasibility Study by TannerHecht Architecture The attachments for this documents are extensive. If you would like a paper copy, please contact Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk, or they are accessible on the District’s website or the Board’s Dropbox account. Frank Crossman MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Real Estate Market Analysis and Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting September 12, 2016 Purpose of Committee Meeting – Expected Outcomes •Review and confirm process and milestones •Receive reports on Real Estate Market Analysis and Administrative Office Site Benchmark Feasibility Study •Provide input and feedback on analysis and study 2 Committee Purpose and Process Committee Purpose: Current focus on space for administrative staff. •Options to be developed in context of other staff facilities and potential future work style and staff deployment •Committee as strike force to act quickly Purpose of Futurist: Prepare recommendations for Committee •Consider traditional vs. futurist work environments •Study current District work culture •Develop feasible options Process: •Committee to identify preferred recommendation for Board •Staff to move on recommendation and Committee to act as strike force and provide policy level guidance on the Board approved plan. 3 Process – Overview 4 Process – Milestones 5 Problem Statement Research Findings Options – informed by: –Operational needs (Internal) –Contextual challenges and opportunities (External) Priorities (decision making) – informed by: –Values –Constraints Conceptual Strategy Options: –Demo and build on-site –Purchase elsewhere –Etc. Recommended Preferred Option (tentative target Nov/Dec 2016) Currently here Real Estate Market Analysis Scope: •Provide overview of office lease and sale market within the following cities: Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, E. Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos •Focus on buildings between 20,000 and 40,000 square feet •Provide a cost estimate of class B/C Office buildings •Provide data comparing the cost of a transit oriented building vs a non-transit oriented building •Provide a list of properties available for lease or sale within the above mentioned cities. 6 Real Estate Market 7 Real Estate Market Analysis Summary of Lease Activity: •47 lease comps from January 2014 to December 2015 •26 of which could meet our basic needs •Price range is $3.75 to $10.15 psf •$1,350,000 to $3,654,000 per year for a 30,000 sf building Lease Strategy: •Leasing is an effective short term solution not a long term one •Leases space is easier to find than a purchase •District cannot write-off lease expenses •District is exempt from property taxes (included in lease rate) 8 Real Estate Market Analysis Summary of Sale Activity: •18 sale transactions from January 2014 to December 2015 •4 of which could meet our basic requirements (one over 30k sf) •Price range $620 psf to $1,121 psf •$18,600,000 to $33,630,000 for 30,000 square foot building Purchase Strategy: •Purchase is a good long term strategy •There are no buildings on the market that meet our basic needs •An off the market sale is hard but not impossible to complete •We need a solid set of criteria and we need the ability to move quickly 9 Real Estate Market Analysis Transit vs non-Transit Oriented Buildings: •Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a mixed-use and commercial area designed to maximize access to public transit (Caltrain corridor) •Transit oriented buildings command a premium in the market •The premium for TOD is 30% to 55% over non-TOD •Sunnyvale and San Mateo have the smallest difference between TOD vs Non-TOD and Palo Alto has the largest •In a hypothetical scenario for Mt View a 30,000 sf non-TOD office would be valued at $28,000,000 and a TOD office would be valued at $43,000,000 which is a 53% premium 1 0 Real Estate Market – Caltrain 1 1 Real Estate Market Analysis – Key Takeaways •Highly opportunistic and competitive market •Low to no availability in 20,000 to 40,000 s.f.size range •Little variation throughout market on Peninsula •Property located near Caltrain significantly more expensive •Purchase and rental prices are increasing •Real Property needs solid parameters in which to search, if purchase option becomes a recommended option 1 2 Pros / Cons: Purchase Elsewhere (and Remodel) 1 3 Constraints Opportunities Unknown availability and duration Duration of search limits any further AO staff growth Unknown location (affecting commutes) Limitations of existing building’s layout and design High purchase and remodel cost Need for quick response to opportunity Less disruption because no temporary move of staff required Potentially faster implementation No need for temporary rental Higher possibility to locate nearer to transit or highways Potential to sell AO to offset purchase and remodel Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study 1 4 Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – Scope •High level overview of development potential of current site –Consider maximum potential of site given property limitations and City of Los Altos planning and building constraints –Current target is 30,000 s.f.given number of staff per FOSM and s.f per person •Site constraints and opportunities –General design and construction parameters –High level review of City of Los Altos planning and building code –Communication with City planning staff •Concept massing and costing –No detailed design plans or cost estimates –High level concept costs 1 5 Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 3-story (Option A) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 3-story (Option A) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 3-story (Option A) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 3-story (Option A) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 2-story (Option A.1) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 2-story (Option A.2) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – 4-story (Option B) Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – Comparison Matrix 2 3 Administrative Office Benchmark Site Feasibility Study – Key Takeaways •Zoning: Commercial Thoroughfare – greater development potential •Potential for 3- to 4-story building, 46,000 to 66,000 s.f. •Support from City of Los Altos –Conservation organizations like District and Packard Foundation –Increased commercial development – more jobs –Prefer higher stories on El Camino and not downtown •Sustainability requirements •Required step back from residential property on side •One parking space to 300 s.f.occupied space –Causes need for subsurface parking –Less s.f.means less parking required •Higher cost per s.f.for 4-story building versus 2- or 3-story 2 4 Pros / Cons: Rebuild On Site 2 5 Constraints Opportunities Temporary disruption to staff,but public services to be maintained Board meetings potentially held off site, e.g. Mountain View Cost to rent temporary office space Limitations of lot size,code requirements,and design parameters Premium of underground parking Accessible to general public Known quantity – avoids uncertain and competitive real estate market Known location that currently attracts staff from greater Bay area and Santa Cruz Easy access to highways and transit Custom design to fit long term needs, build in flexibility, and incorporate sustainability goals Next Steps •MKThink continues assessing work culture, developing options, and decisionmaking matrix •To provide MKThink more time, propose rescheduling September Facilities Ad Hoc Committee meeting to October 2 6 Next Steps – Deliverables 2 7 Discussion and Questions 2 8 Page 1 of 2 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting September 12, 2016 Summary and Takeaways from Dec. 10, 2015 Real Estate Market Study Summary Collier’s commercial real estate market study shows a small range of prices for commercial properties in the size range and in the locations the District may consider. While there has been significant movement in the rental and lease market, few properties have sold in the last two years (including only three in 2015) and many before “officially” hitting market. This suggests that purchasing a building will be a time- consuming and lengthy process on top of the high prices found in the area, as the District will compete with investors interested in the high returns from the rental market. The report also shows that Transit Oriented Development (i.e. downtowns with Caltrain) are 30%-55% higher in costs than non-transit developments (such as 330 Distel), equating to $5 to $15 million premiums. While certain areas, such as downtown Sunnyvale, may provide a high value to the District, the nature of the market suggests opportunity will drive the decision making and not the preferred location. Scope of study • Focus area: Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos • Type of comparable: Office, 20,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet, sold or leased within last two years • Comparison of valuation of property near transit versus those not near transit Key takeaways • Highly opportunistic and highly competitive market – particularly with investors interested in rental revenues • No existing office space for sale that matches MROSD space needs – not much has sold in the last two years either • Very similar market up and down Peninsula – relatively little variation on purchase and lease costs • Cities around Administrative Office very costly and have very little vacancy (Palo Alto/Mountain View core is approaching zero) • Properties around transit command a big premium • Very few properties in MROSD’s size range have sold in last two years with only three in 2015 and out of the 18 sale comparables, only 7 were in the 30,000 to 40,000 s.f. range Overall Silicon Valley office real estate market • Overall office availability is 8.9%, lowest rate since first quarter 2001 – historical average 13.1% • MROSD would likely seek a building in the 30,000 s.f. to 40,000 s.f. range. However, the data reveals that office space in the 20,001 to 50,000 s.f. category is currently only 7% of the overall Page 2 of 2 market and that includes building inventory that is too small to accommodate MROSD into the future. Peninsula (San Mateo County, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos) office real estate market • Office vacancy rates on Peninsula at historic lows o Los Altos 1.46% o Mountain View 1.42% o Sunnyvale 2.5% o Palo Alto 2.04% o East Palo Alto 3.87% • Rental rates rising with decreasing vacancy and increasing demand • Current new office construction benefiting larger users Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) vs Non TOD • Transit appears to mean rail service (rather than bus) • Rental rates for TOD office space command a premium (30-55%) due to increased cost of development and demand for proximity to public rail service • Sale prices also command higher price per square foot because of the high rents that can be had • Investors place a significant amount of value on the rent a project or property can command • Valuation of 30,000 s.f TOD development vs non-TOD development in Mountain View o Non-TOD: $28M or $938/s.f. o TOD: $43M or $1,433/s.f. (53% premium over non-TOD valuation) Lease and Sale Comparables • 47 lease transactions between January 2014 and December 2015 in the 20,000 to 40,000 s.f. range in the area defined as Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos • 18 sale transactions between January 2014 and December 2015 in the 20,000 to 40,000 s.f. range in the area defined as Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos o Menlo Park and Sunnyvale had lower sale costs per s.f. compared to other cities 1 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services December 10, 2015 Allen Ishibashi Midpeninsula Open Space 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 94022 RE: CONSULTING ASSIGNMENT Type: Market Study Product: Office Location: Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos Per your request we have completed the necessary viewing and analysis to perform a market study of the above referenced office markets. The purpose of this assignment is to compile all the necessary information required to author a study detailing the commercial office market in the cities of Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City. The market study will include the following: I. Provide a general overview of the office markets in the above mentioned cities including office lease rates for the past five years; II. Provide sale and lease comparable information for buildings ranging in size from 20,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet that have sold or leased within the past two years in the above mentioned cities; III. Provide an estimated value range for a “typical” class B/C office building containing 20,000 to 40,000 square feet in the above mentioned cities; IV. Provide data detailing the distinction between transit oriented buildings and non-transit oriented buildings for the sale and lease of a 30,000 square foot building; V. Provide a list of properties that are currently available for sale or lease that range in size from 25,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet within the above mentioned cities; The market study is qualified by certain definitions, limiting conditions, and certifications set forth in the attached report. This assignment has been prepared at the request of and for the sole use of Mid-Peninsula Open Space. The intended use of this appraisal is understood to be for internal purposes. The property was viewed by Joel C. Yungen and the report was prepared by Donn H. Byrne, Jr., MAI, MRICS, ASA and Joel C. Yungen. The undersigned have met all of the requirements of the Competency Provision of the current USPAP. The market study was prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. It has also been written in accordance with our interpretation of the Regulation CFR Parts 208 and 225 of the Federal Reserve System regulation titled Appraisal Standards for Federally Related Transactions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Standards Board. Our undertaking of this assignment was not conditioned on providing a minimum valuation or a specific valuation. 2 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services Respectfully submitted, COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Appraisal & Property Tax Division Appraisal & Property Tax Division Donn H. Byrne, Jr., MAI, MRICS, ASA Joel C. Yungen California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG024033 No. AG044779 3 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services OFFICE MARKET OVERVIEWS SILICON VALLEY OFFICE MARKET During the third quarter of 2015 tenant demand for office space was robust throughout the Silicon Valley. New user activity topped out at 3.2 million square feet of gross absorption. This level of activity is 31.5% higher than 2.4 million square feet measured during the second quarter and brings the year to date total to 8.4 million square feet, only 6% less than the total amount of gross absorption recorded in all four quarters of 2014. During the third quarter tenants only gave back 1.5 million square feet of office space to the market. With the combination of solid demand and a low level of “roll-over” space, the Silicon Valley office market recorded another occupancy gain during the period, measuring 1.7 million square feet. This is the thirteenth straight quarter that the office market has recorded positive net absorption, and the 1.7 million square foot occupancy gain is the highest on record since Colliers began tracking stats in 1988. The office market has absorbed more than 3.7 million square feet year to date, and is nearly twice the total occupancy gain measured in all four quarters of 2014 combined. While occupancy gains hit record highs, available space in the Silicon Valley office market continues to thin. The overall office availability rate sits at 8.9%, the lowest it has been since the first quarter of 2001. Currently, Colliers is tracking 33 tenant requirements that are seeking more than 100,000 square feet. According to Colliers’ available inventory, these 33 tenants have only 16 options for contiguous office spaces 100,000 square feet or greater to choose from. Of the 16 spaces, only eight are existing, seven are under construction, and one is undergoing renovation. Developers and investors are doing what they can to meet the growing demand for office space in the Silicon Valley. Currently more than 6 million square feet of office space is under construction, with total potential development reaching more than an astounding 47 million square feet in the form of proposed developments. New completions recorded during the third quarter include Samsung’s North San Jose 680,000 square foot build-to-suit project on North First Street, and two buildings preleased by Netflix in Los Gatos totaling 242,500 square feet; which the developer, Sandhill Properties sold to CBRE Global Investors during the quarter for a reported $179 million. As a result of the heightened demand and tight availability, the office market measured an uptick in starting rates during the third quarter of 2015. Average starting rates for office space in the Silicon Valley have climbed 18.3% over the twelve months, closing the quarter at $3.88 per square foot, full service. Average asking rents in the office sector followed a similar trend line and office space in the Silicon Valley is now being marketed at an average rental rate of $3.75 per square foot, full service. 4 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 5 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 6 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services PENINSULA OFFICE MARKET The office vacancy rate on the Greater San Francisco Peninsula (includes San Mateo County, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos) continues to find new historic lows, closing the third quarter of 2015 at a startling rate of 5.97%. San Mateo County broke the long term trend with a very nominal increase to 7.72%; for all intents unchanged from last quarter’s rate of 7.68%. Surprisingly, given the dearth of total space available in the market, gross absorption (a measure of all leasing activity) for the Greater San Francisco Peninsula remains robust, while the total for San Mateo County is 707,506 square feet, falling below long term averages. The broader market of the Greater San Francisco Peninsula saw gross absorption of 1,325,358 square feet for the quarter, largely driven by strong leasing activity in Palo Alto, which absorbed 555,348 square feet. While rent growth continues in the region’s strongest markets, overall rates on the Peninsula remained essentially unchanged for the quarter. Slight retreats in some peripheral markets such as Burlingame and South San Francisco offset the 3.12% increase seen in the past quarter in Palo Alto and the 10.58% rise in Mountain View. The most significant lease this quarter, and one of the largest of the year, is SurveyMonkey’s 210,000 square foot relocation to San Mateo, kicking off Wilson Meany’s transit-oriented Bay Meadows Station development. Palantir leased 38,700 square feet at 261 Hamilton Avenue and Amazon leased 59,000 square feet at 101 Lytton Avenue (the former SurveyMonkey.com headquarters). These were two of the largest leases in that submarket this year. Another large Peninsula deal is Rovi’s 103,904 square foot sublease at 2 Circle Star Way in San Carlos. With the flood of new construction on the Peninsula, larger users have been able to, for the time being, return to the market. We anticipate leasing activity to remain strong through the end of 2015 and beyond. 7 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 8 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 9 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services LOS ALTOS OFFICE MARKET Los Altos Office Market The Los Altos Office Market is contains 1,153,224 square feet of office space of which 21,207 square feet of new office space was added in 2015. The rising demand for office space in the Los Altos Market has caused leasing activity to remain positive over the past five years. Aside from 2010 and 2012, net absorption or the overall “change” in total space leased through expansion or net in-migration was positive. Vacancy has declined from a high of 21.16% in 2010 to its current position of 1.46%, a five-year low. Even with the addition of 21,207 square feet of office space added to the Los Altos Market in 2015, the amount of current available space equates to only 16,877 square feet. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 1st quarter of 2012. Between the 1st quarter of 2012 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $3.53 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $5.37/SF, FS representing a 3.3% quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 10 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 11 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 12 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services MOUNTAIN VIEW OFFICE MARKET Mountain View Office Market The Mountain View Office Market is contains 5,327,631square feet of office space. The rising demand for office space in the Mountain View Market has caused leasing activity to remain positive over the past five years. Aside from 2010, net absorption or the overall “change” in total space leased through expansion or net in-migration was positive. Vacancy has declined from a high of 11.05% in 2010 to its current position of 1.42%, a five-year low. The amount of current available space equates to only 75,831 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 1st quarter of 2012. Between the 1st quarter of 2012 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $3.70 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $6.69/SF, FS representing a 4.77% average quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 13 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 14 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 15 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services SUNNYVALE OFFICE MARKET Sunnyvale Office Market The Sunnyvale Office Market is contains 10,913,330 square feet of office space of which approximately 2.75 million square feet were constructed over the past five years. The rising demand for office space in the Sunnyvale Market has caused leasing activity to remain positive over the past five years. Aside from 2010, net absorption or the overall “change” in total space leased through expansion or net in-migration was positive. Vacancy has declined from a high of 39.14% in 2010 to its current position of 2.50%, a five-year low. The amount of current available space equates to only 272,323 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 1st quarter of 2012. Between the 1st quarter of 2012 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $3.09 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $4.58/SF, FS representing a 3.05% average quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 16 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 17 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 18 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services PALO ALTO OFFICE MARKET Palo Alto Office Market The Palo Alto Office Market is contains 10,212,141 square feet of office space of which 295,581 square feet were constructed over the past five years. The rising demand for office space in the Palo Alto Market has caused leasing activity to remain positive over the past five years. Aside from 2010, net absorption or the overall “change” in total space leased through expansion or net in-migration was positive. Vacancy has declined from a high of 10.91% in 2010 to its current position of 2.04%, a five-year low. The amount of current available space equates to only 207,912 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 1st quarter of 2012. Between the 1st quarter of 2012 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $5.05 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $7.61/SF, FS representing a 3.11% average quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 19 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 20 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 21 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services MENLO PARK OFFICE MARKET Menlo Park Office Market The Menlo Park Office Market is contains 5,799,814 square feet of office space. The rising demand for office space in the Menlo Park Market has caused leasing activity to remain mostly positive over the past five years. Vacancy has declined from a high of 16.79% in 2010 to its current position of 4.77%, a five-year low. The amount of current available space equates to only 207,912 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 1st quarter of 2012. Between the 3rd quarter of 2011 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $4.41 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $8.46/SF, FS representing a 4.67% average quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 22 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 23 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 24 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services REDWOOD CITY OFFICE MARKET Redwood City Office Market The Redwood City Office Market is contains 4,822,919 square feet of office space. The rising demand for office space in the Redwood City Market has caused leasing activity to remain positive over the past five years. Vacancy has continued to decline even as the market experienced negative net absorption in 2010 and 2014. Vacancy has declined from a high of 28.96% in 2010 to its current position of 5.77%, a five-year low. The amount of current available space equates to only 278,362 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 3rd quarter of 2011. Between the 3rd quarter of 2011 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $2.96 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $4.74/SF, FS representing a 3.23% average quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 25 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 26 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 27 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services SAN CARLOS OFFICE MARKET San Carlos/Belmont Office Market The San Carlos/Belmont Office Market is contains 1,849,020 square feet of office space. The rising demand for office space in the San Carlos/Belmont Market has caused leasing activity to remain mostly positive over the past five years. Vacancy has declined from a high of 33.05% in 2010 to its current position of 1.63%, a five-year low. The amount of current available space equates to only 30,130 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 3rd quarter of 2011. Between the 3rd quarter of 2011 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $2.91per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $4.22/SF, FS representing a 2.49% average quarterly increase. The following charts display the building base, absorption and vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 28 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 29 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 30 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services EAST PALO ALTO OFFICE MARKET East Palo Alto Office Market The East Palo Alto Office Market is contains 1,059,813 square feet of office space. The rising demand for office space in the East Palo Alto Market has caused leasing activity to remain mostly positive over the past five years. Vacancy has declined from a high of 16.69% in 2010 to its current position of 3.87%. The amount of current available space equates to only 41,046 square feet for the entire market. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since December 2014. Between December 2014 and 2015, the weighted average asking rents increased from $4.45 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $5.37/SF, FS. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 31 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 32 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 33 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services LOS GATOS/SARATOGA OFFICE MARKET 34 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services Los Gatos/Saratoga Office Market The Los Gatos/Saratoga Office Market is contains 1,1,863,760 square feet of office space of which 282,500 square feet of new office space was added in 2015. The rising demand for office space in the Los Gatos/Saratoga Market has caused leasing activity to remain positive over the past five years. Net absorption or the overall “change” in total space leased through expansion or net in-migration was positive. Vacancy has declined from a high of 16.44% in 2010 to its current position of 1.85%, a five-year low. Even with the addition of 282,500 square feet of office space added to the Los Gatos/Saratoga Market in 2015, the amount of current available space equates to only 34,536 square feet. The demand for office space has driven asking rents to rise since the 1st quarter of 2012 for the Los Gatos and Saratoga Markets. Between the 1st quarter of 2012 and the 3rd quarter of 2015, the Los Gatos weighted average asking rents increased from $2.60 per square foot on a full-service basis (/SF, FS) to $3.79/SF, FS and Saratoga asking rents increased from 22.18/SF, FS to $3.70/SF, FS representing. The following charts display the building base, absorption, vacancy and rental rates for the period ranging from 2010 to 3rd quarter of 2015. 35 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 36 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services Saratoga Office 37 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services Los Gatos Office 38 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services AVAILABILITIES The defined market area that includes the cities of Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos currently has 45 spaces available for lease in the 20,000 to 40,000 square feet range totaling 1,239,323 square feet. The asking rents for the available spaces ranges from $1.95 per square foot on a triple-net basis to $12.00 per square foot on triple-net basis. The condition of the spaces range from projects under construction to projects that are in move-in condition. Landlord’s are offering tenant improvement packages from zero to $50.00 per square foot for the available space and free rent is considered negotiable. Following is a summary of the details pertaining to each availability and a map showing their location. Please note that our database does not currently show any buildings for sale within the defined market are that includes the cities of Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos. 39 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 40 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 41 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 42 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 43 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 44 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 45 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 46 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services TRANSIT ORIENTED BUILDINGS Overview A Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a mixed-use residential and commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport and often incorporates features to encourage transit ridership. TOD’s are also known as communiteis that areas that are compact, dense, walkable and centered around high quality train systems. Transit Oriented Developments have recently gained in popularity as individuals and companies have recognized the need to stave off the growing problems concerning climate change and global energy security. Transit Oriented Developments and Rental Rates The average asking rental rates described in our overview of the individual office markets and available space for lease contained a mixture of asking rates in TOD and Non TOD markets. Typically, transit oriented developments command a premium in rents in comparison to non-transit oriented developments primariliy due to the increased cost of development and companies or corporations desire to be near public rail service in order to better accommadate the needs of their employees. In the following the chart produced by Colliers International Research Department, Transit Oriented Development rental rates were compared to the Non-Transit Oriented Development rental rates. As can be seen, the TOD comparables commanded a premium ranging from 30% to 55% over Non TOD comparables. The cities of Sunnyvale and San Mateo had the smallest difference between TOD and Non TOD rental rates and the city of Palo Alto had the largest difference between TOD and Non TOD rental rates. 47 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services Sale Prices Transit Oriented Developments typically command a higher price per square foot when offered sale in comparison to developments that are not Transit Oriented Developments primarily due to their ability to command premium rents. Investors seeking to purchase real estate place a significant amount of value on the rent a project can command and those that have the ability to command a higher rent become more desirable to the investor. Overall, the sale prices are function of the rent a building can command and Transit Oriented Developments are currently commanding higher rents as evidenced in the chart above. HYPOTHTICAL EXAMPLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS AND VALUE The following charts contain a simple hypothetical valuation of a 30,000 square foot Transit Oriented Development and a 30,000 square foot Non-Transit Oriented Development. We used the Mountain View TOD and Non-TOD Rents from the chart above or $7.00/SF, NNN and $5.00/SF, NNN, respectively to determine the Annual Potential Gross Income (PGI) for each scenario. The hypothetical values are determined by deducting a Vacancy and Collection Loss factor from the PGI to determine the Effective Gross Income (EGI). Then Net Operating Income (NOI) is calculated by deducting a Management Fee and Reserves for the EGI. The NOI is then divided by our hypothetical capitalization rate to arrive at a value. Size Annual Potential Gross Income (PGI) 30,000 SF 7.00$ /SF, NNN 2,520,000$ 3% (75,600)$ 2,444,400$ Management 3% of EGI (73,332)$ Reserves 0.20$ /SF (6,000)$ Net Operating Income 2,365,068$ Capitalization Rate:5.50% As Is Fee Simple Value Conclusion: 43,001,236$ Rounded:43,000,000$ Per Square Foot 1,433$ Transit Oriented Development - Mountain View Effective Gross Income (EGI) Expenses: DIRECT CAPITALIZATION VALUE CONCLUSION Market Rent Minus: Vacancy & Collection Loss @ of PGI 48 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services Size Annual Potential Gross Income (PGI) 30,000 SF 5.00$ /SF, NNN 1,800,000$ 3%(54,000)$ 1,746,000$ Management 3% of EGI (52,380)$ Reserves 0.20$ /SF (6,000)$ Net Operating Income 1,687,620$ Capitalization Rate:6.00% As Is Fee Simple Value Conclusion: 28,127,000$ Rounded:28,130,000$ Per Square Foot 938$ Non-Transit Oriented Development - Mountain View Market Rent Minus: Vacancy & Collection Loss @ of PGI Effective Gross Income (EGI) Expenses: DIRECT CAPITALIZATION VALUE CONCLUSION Summary In both scenarios, rent and capitalization rates are the main contributing factors to determining value. The rent is higher and the capitalization rate would typically be lower for Transit Oriented Developments when compared to Non-Transit Oriented Developments resulting in a higher value for the Transit Oriented Developmen. In the hypothetical valuation above, the TOD was valued at $1,433 per square foot and the Non TOD was valued at $938 per square foot. This resulted in a difference of $496 per square foot equating to an approximate 53% premium given to the TOD oriented development. 49 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services LEASE COMPARABLES According to our records, there were 47 lease transactions that occurred between January 2014 and December 2015 in the 20,000 to 40,000 square foot range in the area defined as Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos. The transactions are summarized below: Cities: Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos. Size Range: 20,000 to 40,000 square feet Date: January 2014 to December 2015 Lease Rates: High - $8.00 per square foot on a triple net basis Low - $1.25 per square foot on a triple net basis Effective Rents: High - $9.39 per square foot on a triple net basis Low - $1.25 per square foot on a triple net basis Tenant Improvements High - $60.00 per square foot Low - $0.00 per square foot Free Rent High – 6 Months Low – 0 Months The following is a list of the lease comparables and maps showing their location. 50 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 51 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 52 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 53 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 54 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 55 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 56 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 57 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 8 58 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 59 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 60 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 61 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 62 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 63 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 64 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 65 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 66 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 67 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 68 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 69 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 70 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services SALE COMPARABLES According to our records, there were 18 sale transactions that occurred between January 2014 and December 2015 in the 20,000 to 40,000 square foot range in the area defined as Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos. The transactions are summarized below: Cities: Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City and San Carlos Size Range: 20,000 to 40,000 square feet Date: January 2014 to December 2015 Sale Prices High - $1,121.76 per square foot Low - $160.56 per square foot The following is a list of the sale comparables and maps showing their location. 71 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 72 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 73 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 74 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 75 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 76 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 77 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services 78 Colliers International is a worldwide affiliation of independently owned and operated companies specializing in commercial real estate services APPRAISAL CERTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and is our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. No significant facts or information have been knowingly withheld. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. Our compensation and engagement are not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of the Appraisal Institute, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and American Society of Appraisers and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and American Society of Appraisers relating to review by their duly authorized representatives. We certify that our State of California general real estate appraiser certificate has never been revoked, suspended, canceled, or restricted. In accordance with the Competence Provision in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, we certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property being appraised and that no appraiser provided significant professional assistance other than the co-signing appraiser, if any. As of the date of this report we have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and American Society of Appraisers. Joel C. Yungen and Donn H. Byrne Jr., MAI, MRICS, ASA provided research and analysis for the consulting assignment. ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Donn H. Byrne, Jr., MAI, MRICS, ASA Joel C. Yungen California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG024033 No. AG044779 Page 1 of 2 Facilities Ad Hoc Committee Meeting September 12, 2016 Summary and Takeaways from February 1, 2016 Site Development Concept Feasibility Study Summary The site development concept feasibility study indicates that the current site of the Administrative Office (AO) is able to accommodate a new two- to four-story building with two to four levels of parking. The ultimate design of the building including the parking ratio would depend on further programming internally and discussions with the City of Los Altos (City). The City planner consulted for this study felt that four stories might meet resistance from the community but also indicated that the City would like to work with MROSD to achieve its long term development goals so that its headquarters remain in Los Altos. The conceptual cost estimates range from $23.3M to $47.9M which includes a design contingency of 20% because of the preliminary nature of the study. Note that in preparation for the Board meeting, the project team is assembling a lump sum cost for demolition that would be added to the cost estimates. In addition, cost for renting an office space to temporarily house AO staff will also need to be taken into account. Based on this concept feasibility study, the current site of the AO has the development potential to accommodate a large enough office building to meet MROSD’s long term capacity needs. Scope of study • Summary of office building development potential for 330 Distel Circle • Intended to provide high level criteria to guide MROSD if we move forward with a project • Based on general design and construction parameters for contemporary office building standards and City of Los Altos (City) Planning and Zoning development standards • Highlights constraints and opportunities of site based on development standards, building code requirements, and construction cost climate • Not a detailed design study – actual design will require a consultant team and a thorough programming effort to clarify MROSD future facility needs including budget, schedule, level of sustainable design desired, types of work environments, staff meeting spaces, public gathering spaces, technology infrastructure, storage needs, etc. Key takeaways • Site may technically be able to accommodate a building four stories tall although according to City planning staff, a four-story building may meet with community resistance • However, City planning staff also indicated that MROSD is an organization that the City would like to see in Los Altos and MROSD is encouraged to develop a building that reflects the values and mission of MROSD • City planning staff encourages MROSD to meet with the City Manager as early in the design and planning process so that the City may assist in determining the most effective process and path to gain necessary entitlements Page 2 of 2 • Concept designs assume that building will meet the City’s green building standards (based on California Green Building Standards) such that it will be much more efficient than existing AO which was constructed in the 1970s • Cost per square foot comparable from two to three stories, but higher cost in parking per square for four-story building • One level of parking is not possible give minimum dimensions required for drive aisles, structural support, and parking spaces Summary of Design Options Design Option Office Parking Estimated cost (w/ 20% design contingency) COST $/S.F. Stories Area (sf) Levels Building Parking Site A 3 46,200 3 34.5M 592 126 30 A.1 2 30,800 2 23.3M 599 124 30 A.2* 2 30,800 2 23.3M 599 124 30 B 4 66,024 4 47.9M 586 166 29 * Option A.2 differs from A.1 in that the second floor is setback to provide greater distance between the building and a nearby residential property. This is not technically required, but was recommended by the City. Note that site demolition costs are approximately $160,000 to $200,000 and would be added to each of the above. In addition, cost for renting a temporary office to house AO staff for two years would also be added to each of the above. As an example, using the Silicon Valley average office rental rate of $3.75/s.f., per the December 10, 2015 Real Estate Market Study, and rounding that rate up to $4/s.f., a 15,000 s.f. office building would cost $120,000 for two years. The leases at AO2, AO3, and AO4 would be maintained. Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California 1 February 2016 www.tannerhecht.com 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 1 February 2016 Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Feasibility Concept Basis of Design Concept Design Options Summary Feasibility Concept Design Conclusions Appendix A: Los Altos Planning Department Phone Notes Los Altos Land Use Map Los Altos Zoning Map Los Altos Planning Code Excerpts Los Altos Zoning Code Requirements Summary Los Altos Parking Code Excerpts Appendix B: Concept Design Option Drawings Appendix C: Concept Design Construction Cost Estimates 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 1 February 2016 Tina Hugg Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California RE: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY INTRODUCTION Dear Tina: We are pleased to present the MROSD Administrative Office (AO) Site Development Concept Feasibility Study for the existing AO site located at 330 Distel Circle in Los Altos, California. TANNERHECHT Architecture was retained by the District in September of 2015 to study the development potential of for a new administrative office building to accommodate the District’s anticipated staff growth over the next thirty years. The study assumed that the existing one-story AO building and site improvements would be removed and replaced in their entirety. The intent of the study was to determine the maximum office building size allowable on the site within the development standards of the Los Altos planning and zoning codes as well as the California Building Code. Several concept designs were developed ranging from two to four stories tall and these options were then reviewed by Hatten Construction Management who provided conceptual construction cost estimates for three schemes. In addition to conferring with the District about the general design parameters required by the District TANNERHECHT also contacted the Los Altos Planning Department to clarify the development standards that apply to the 330 Distel Circle site and determine the anticipated entitlement and approval process required by the City of Los Altos. The Planning Department clarifications and anticipated entitlement process are summarized in our telephone record of October 16th, which is located in Appendix A of the report. Also included in the appendices are the Los Altos zoning and land use maps, excerpts from the Los Altos zoning code, and the drawings for the various concept design options. It should be noted that while the zoning code allows for a four-story building, the planner that was contacted suggested that a four-story building would probably meet resistance for approval from the community since smaller scale buildings are desired. However, the planner noted that the City of Los Altos would like to see the MROSD headquarters remain in Los Altos and would work with the District to achieve their long term development goals. We have enjoyed working with you to understand the development potential for the site and hope that this report provides you, General Manager Abbors, and the Board of Directors with the information necessary to evaluate a development strategy for the District headquarters. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding any portion of this report. Sincerely, David Hecht AIA IIDA LEED AP Principal, TANNERHECHT Architecture 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY CONCEPT BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY Below are brief summaries of the parameters and assumptions that were used to guide the development of the various office building concept designs. General: The concept designs presented in this study are for the purposes of evaluating the development feasibility (physical, financial, and scheduling) of a new office building on the property located at 330 Distel Circle in Los Altos, California. Technical parameters used to develop the concepts are based on current Los Altos Zoning Code development standards and building codes and are subject to change. Concept design assumptions are based on current regional industry standards for commercial office buildings and are not the result of extensive architectural, geotechnical, structural, mechanical, electrical or plumbing programming and design. The concept designs assume an occupant density of one person per 200 square feet, which is an average for contemporary office design planning and is inclusive of common areas such as circulation and meeting spaces. This occupant density would be confirmed with a detailed program analysis and verification by District staff during a more detailed design effort. The concept designs also address required setbacks from the adjacent residential properties to the south of the administrative office site. Limitations of Concept Study: The concept designs are based on general building planning parameters and not on detailed District space or activity program requirements. Detailed program requirements are beyond the scope of this feasibility study and would be required to develop a building design that is tailored to the District workplace and public needs. A detailed design will also require clarification of various planning issues from the City of Los Altos. These macro issues will need be resolved prior to beginning any detailed building design. Zoning Code Parameters: The concept designs are based on the City of Los Altos Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) zoning development standards, which include a 45-feet height limit, 25-feet front yard setback, and a parking ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet of building area. There is also an existing utility easement along the Distel drive frontage that restricts certain improvements. For the purposes of this study the Gross Floor Area was used instead of Net Floor Area as defined in the parking standards. Net Floor Area does not include vertical penetrations for stair, elevators, or mechanical shafts. The final number of parking spaces required may be subject to the Los Altos Citywide Parking Committee (LACPC) review and application of parking ratios based on a specific project design. The LACPC has been reviewing the possibility of lower parking ratios for office uses. Future detail design exercises should confirm if the District could participate in a Public Parking District, which could potentially reduce the number of required parking spaces. Building Code Parameters: The current California Building Code is utilized for the concept designs and determines the side and rear yard setbacks for the design options, maximum area per floor, and maximum building height based on type of construction. For the concept designs presented, the buildings would be constructed with non-combustible framing systems and non-fire-rated exterior wall assemblies. This avoids more costly fire-rated wall assemblies and systems. MROSD AO Development Concept Feasibility Study Basis of Design 1 February 2016 Page 2 of 2 Building Material Assumptions: The exterior form and materials have not been specifically designed since the purpose of this study is to define probable maximum size of an office building given the site constraints, zoning development standards, and building code limitations. However, certain material criteria were established in order to determine probable construction costs and material standards. Below is a brief summary of the materials assumed in the designs: - Subgrade parking structure: - Reinforced Concrete - Office building structure: - Steel - Exterior façade materials: - Aluminum and glass curtain wall system with 65% glazing, including operable windows, and 35% solid materials. Green Building Design Criteria “Every building is a forecast. Every forecast is wrong.” Futurist Stewart Brand The concept designs assume that the new building will meet City of Los Altos green building standards. The City of Los Altos is supportive of a statewide approach to green construction and adopted the California Green Building Standards Code with minor amendments effective January 1, 2014. The California green building and energy codes continue to evolve with a goal of new buildings being net-zero-energy buildings, which is not currently mandated but may be in the future. Net-Zero-Energy buildings are intended use no more energy over the course of a year than they produce from onsite renewable sources. An example of a Net-Zero-Energy Certified building is the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in downtown Los Altos. The California Green Building Code mandates minimum requirements for energy and water efficiency that would result in a building that is much more efficient than the existing administrative office building that was constructed in the 1970s. Examples of building elements that are required by the current Green Building Code included in the concept design and budgets include: Insulated glass at exterior windows High efficiency heating and ventilation equipment and controls High efficiency light fixtures and controls including daylight responsive controls Low flow water fixtures and fittings Low VOC materials Noise mitigation measures from exterior sources Also, California Title 24 Energy Standards require new commercial buildings with 3 occupied floors or less, to reserve 15% of roof area as “Solar Ready”, i.e. unshaded by the proposed building itself, and free of penetrations. Other green building measures that could be considered for the new office building but were not included in the concept designs and budgets include: Solar panels for power generation Solar water heaters Gray or black water recycling Green/planted roofs The concept designs do not specifically include LEED certification criteria per the United States Green Building Council but certain criteria are mandated by the California Green Building code. LEED certification criteria should be established at the time of actual schematic design. 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 1 February 2016 Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY CONCEPT DESIGN OPTIONS SUMMARY Below are brief descriptions of the design approach for each of the concepts that were developed and included in this report according to the Concept Basis of Design described in the previous section. Drawings for each scheme can be found in Appendix B. Option A: Three stories of office space above grade and two and a half levels of subgrade parking. Primary pedestrian and parking garage entries are on Distel Circle. Side and rear year yard setbacks are provided to allow non-fire-rated windows at the south, west and north sides of the building. The east side, which also faces a public way, and is not fire-rated. There is also a ten feet wide public utility easement at the east property line that restricts improvements within it. Side and rear yards would be developed with plant materials and hardscapes. Option A.1: Two stories of office space above grade and two levels of subgrade parking. Two levels of parking are required due to the minimum parking space dimensions and driveway widths, which cannot be accommodated on one level. The building setbacks above grade are not required below grade except at utility easements. Primary pedestrian and parking garage entries are on Distel Circle. Side and rear year yard setbacks are provided to allow non-fire rated-windows at the south, west and north sides of the building. The east side, which also faces a public way, and is not fire-rated. Side and rear yards would be developed with plant materials and hardscapes. Option A.2: Two stories of office space above grade and two levels of subgrade parking, similar to Option A.1. However, the south end of the second floor is set back to provide an outdoor terrace and less building mass to the adjacent single family residential properties to the south. This setback was recommended by the Los Altos Planning Department even though the development standards do not technically require a setback at the upper level. For cost estimate purposes the total square footage for Option A.2 is the same as Option A.1 since District staff felt that the area of interior area that is reduced would have its cost put into the second level terrace hard scape and waterproofing. Option B: Four stories of office space above grade and four levels of subgrade parking. Primary pedestrian and parking garage entries are on Distel Circle. Side and rear year yard setbacks are provided to allow non-fire rated-windows at the south, west and north sides of the building. The east side, which also faces a public way, and is not fire-rated. The west side is setback is greater than the minimum required and is not fire-rated. Side and rear yards would be developed with plant materials and hardscapes. This scheme shows the maximum amount of building area though the final maximum area will depend on lower floor-to-floor heights. A concrete structure, instead of a streel framed structure, could allow for thinner floor slabs that could result in taller ceilings within office areas. This scheme’s feasibility is a challenge due to community attitude toward four-story buildings, as noted during a discussion with the Los Altos Planning Department, and accommodating mechanical equipment within the height limit. Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY CONCEPT DESIGNS STATISTICS SUMMARY HEIGHT OCCUPANTS 1 COST ($) STORIES AREA (SF) LEVELS AREA (SF) # SPACES BUILDNG PARKING SITE 3 46,200 36' 231 3 52,386 158 34.8M 592 126 42 2 30,800 24' 154 2 34,352 103 23.5M 599 124 42 2 30,800 24' 154 2 34,352 103 23.5M 599 124 42 4 66,024 44' 330 4 78,586 234 48.2M 586 166 41 Notes: 3. Scheme A.2 is similar to Scheme A.1 except that the second floor is set back at the south end to comply with the City of Los Altos zoning code for commercial buildings that are located within one hundred feet of adjacent residential properties. This setback was recommended by the Los Altos Planning Department during preliminary project review discussions. The overall plan dimensions are altered from Scheme A.1 in order to provide the same gross building square footage and occupant load as Scheme A.1. PARKING COST ($) / SQ. FT. 1. Number of occupants based on 200 square feet per person and is inclusive of workspaces, circulation paths, exits, conference rooms and common rooms. Actual occupant load to be confirmed with MROSD programming requirements. 2. Scheme A.1 is similar to Scheme A except the building is two stories instead of three in the same building footprint. A DESIGN OPTION OFFICE A.1 2 B A.23 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 1 February 2016 Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study summarizes the office building development potential for 330 Distel Circle based on general design and construction parameters for contemporary office building standards and the City of Los Altos Planning and Zoning development standards. The concept designs presented herein highlight the constraints and opportunities for this site based on these development standards, building code requirements, and the current construction cost climate. Should any of the concept design options be selected for development into an actual building there will need to be a thorough design programming effort to clarify the District’s future facility needs including types of work environments, staff meeting spaces, public gathering spaces, technology infrastructure, storage requirements, budget, and schedule to name but a few. The results of the programming effort will guide the District and a design team comprised of District staff, architects, landscape architects, engineers (structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, data, geotechnical, energy, etc.), through a comprehensive, multi-phased design effort. Each phase of this design process will require periodic review and approval by District stakeholders as well as Los Altos Planning and Building officials. The initial research presented in this study has identified various issues that are unresolved at this stage but would be determined through the design process in order to realize an appropriate office building for the District. These issues will raise other matters as is customary during the design process. The current items requiring further study include: Building height and massing with mechanical systems infrastructure Parking requirements including possible participation in a Public Parking District Loading space requirements Exterior rooftop terraces and setbacks from adjacent residential properties Sustainable design standards the District desires beyond Green Building code minimums Structural systems: concrete, steel, possibly wood, or a hybrid system Power generation on-site Water reuse on-site Finish materials at exterior and interior Landscape design Aesthetic goals that reflect the District’s mission and values The scope of this feasibility study is complete and provides adequate high level criteria to guide the District should it decide to proceed with a concept design. If the District moves forward with a concept design the initial steps would include designating an internal building committee to steer the process, retain a design consultant team, and confer with the City of Los Altos to clarify the entitlement process and establish an overall approval schedule. N:\_TANNERHECHT-word\Jobs\2015\1515_MROSD AO Feasibility\A-Project Administrtion\Reports\160201 Report\06_330 DISTEL CIRCLE DRIVE_AO Feasibility Design Conclusions-DRAFT.doc 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California APPENDIX A: Los Altos Planning Department Phone Notes Los Altos Land Use Map Los Altos Zoning Map Los Altos Zoning Code Requirements Summary Los Altos Planning Code Excerpts Los Altos Parking Code Excerpts 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 Project: MROSD Administrative Office Development Feasibility Study 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA THA Job No. 1515 Date & Time: October 16 2015, 11:20 AM – 12:10 PM Call With: Zach Dahl, AICP (ZD) Planning Services Manager, Current Planning City of Los Altos, Community Development Department Phone No.: 650-947-2633 By: David Hecht (DH) THA Purpose: Review Administrative Office Building Development Option B File: B2 Distribution: Tina Hugg, MROSD CC: File Item #: Item: 1. DH reviewed aspects of Option B, a four-story scheme with three levels of underground parking. 2. Floor Heights: ZD commented that floor-to-floor heights might be low, in his opinion, and suggested that taller heights would be expected based on his experience with similar office buildings, which may preclude a four-story building scheme. DH noted that the adequate ceiling heights could be achieved with eleven-foot floor-to-floor heights since a concrete structural system could be used with exposed concrete slabs and potentially have ten-foot clear ceiling heights. This would be studied in more detail during a schematic design phase that would engage a structural engineer. 3. Building Setbacks at upper levels due to proximity to nearby residential properties: 330 Distel Circle is located within a “Thoroughfare Commercial” zone, which does not have any setback requirements except at the front yard unless the property is located adjacent to a residential zone. Thoroughfare Commercial properties that abut a residential properties are Telephone Call Record MROSD A.O. Development Feasibility Study THA #1515 Phone Record 10.16.15 Page 2 of 4 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 required to set back upper floors of building that are within one hundred feet of the residential property. ZD noted that while the MROSD property does not actually abut a residential property, there is a single family residential property just southwest of 330 Distel and is essentially abutting. Therefore, ZD would expect that as part of the design review process required for the entitlement approvals, the Planning Department would request that upper floors of the new office building that are within one hundred feet of the residential property be set back. Below is a detail from the Los Altos zoning map with 330 Distel outlined in green. The red color denotes the “Thoroughfare Commercial” zone while the yellow lots are single-family residential lots. Detail of Los Altos Zoning map NORTH 4. Side yard setbacks: ZD asked what determined the distance of the side yard setbacks indicated on the scheme since the zoning code does not require side yard setbacks. DH noted that the side yard setbacks are based on building code requirements to eliminate the need for fire-rated wall assemblies. ZD said that the side yard setbacks indicated are preferred and that he would prefer to see the yards with adequate landscaping (see below). 5. Landscaping: ZD noted that the landscaping over the subgrade garage should be substantial, more than just ground covers, and that the depth of the planting beds should be adequate to accommodate mature trees. Therefore, the depth of the garage roof should be deeper, which would make the entire garage deeper. At the northwest and southwest property lines, the garage may need to be stepped to allow for adequate planting depths. MROSD A.O. Development Feasibility Study THA #1515 Phone Record 10.16.15 Page 3 of 4 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 6. Building Height, Four vs. Three-story building scheme: ZD thinks that a three-story building would be more “digestible” than a four-story building from an entitlement approval perspective based on the current community opinions. Four-story buildings are generally frowned upon during community review meetings and three-story buildings are seen as more compatible with the sense of scale that is currently preferred in Los Altos. 7. Roof Deck: ZD said a roof deck would be desirable for the proposed building but it should be located away from the residential lots to the south and should be located at the northern end of the building. DH noted that functionally a roof deck would be preferred on the south end of the building for solar access and not have the deck in shadow. Final location and configuration would be developed during design review with Planning. 8. Shaft Enclosures: ZD noted that any shaft enclosures from the subgrade garage (exhaust shafts, stairs, elevators, mech. shafts, etc.) are deducted from the floor area calculations for the purposes of parking space requirements/calculations. However, for conceptual parking calculations these areas are generally included. 9. Parking Requirements: ZD noted that the Los Altos Citywide Parking Committee currently has a parking reduction “bent” but that this should not be counted on as a way to reduce parking ratio requirements. The proposal should assume that the current parking ratio of 1 space per 300 square feet of building be used in the design. A “Low Traffic Demand Development” could be part of the development concept, which is what the Packard Foundation incorporated into its design. Packard Foundation incorporated a Traffic Management Plan that included commuter shuttle buses to bring staff to their site. Packard Foundation performed traffic studies and purchased a separate property nearby that could be used to build a separate parking facility if the need arose in the future. 10. Green Building: ZD noted that Los Altos encourages green building and would encourage a net- zero energy building with solar panels and other alternative energy sources. DH noted that the building would have to meet CA Green Building Code and that the District supports green building practices. MROSD A.O. Development Feasibility Study THA #1515 Phone Record 10.16.15 Page 4 of 4 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 11. Entitlements & Design Review Process and Probable Schedule: DH asked how long of an entitlement time period could be expected to receive necessary Los Altos approvals. ZD estimated approximately nine (9) to twelve (12) months from the time of initial preliminary meeting with staff. It is recommended that the city manager be involved early in the process to help establish an entitlements “road map”. A likely entitlement scenario would include the following: A. Project Review Meeting: Schedule a preliminary design review meeting with planning staff, planning director, and City Manager. B. Study Session: Submit for Study Session with Transportation Committee. Present two to three concepts for discussion. C. Design Review Application: Submit formal Design Review Application with intended design. D. Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee review meeting. E. Planning Commission hearing. F. City Council hearing (if necessary due to appeals or special approvals required). 12. In summary, ZD said that MROSD is an organization that Los Altos would like to see in Los Altos and would encourage MROSD to develop a building that reflects the values and mission of MROSD. ZD encourages the District to meet with the city manager early in the design and planning process so that the city can assist the District with determining the most effective process and path to gain necessary entitlements. END OF NOTES ATTACHMENTS: MROSD AO Development Feasibility Concept Option B dated 14 October 2015. END OF NOTES N:\_TANNERHECHT-word\Jobs\2015\1515_MROSD AO Feasibility\B-Agencies\B02 Planning Department\Emails to Zach D\151016_DH- ZD phone notes_MROSD AO Optn B_typed Draft.doc PR E L INA R Y C O N C NC E P T RY C O N C E P T NA R Y C O N C E P T IM I N A EL I M IM YYYYYY IM NNANAANAAAAAAAAAAANA MIMI N NNA YYYY PT NNNNNNNA PPPPPPPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTTTTTTTTPPPPPPPPPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTTTTT EEEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPPPPPPEEEEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPPPPPP CECECEEPEPEPEEPEPEEEPPP CCCCCECECEEEEE NNNCNCCCNCCCCCNNNNNNNNNNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNC ONONONONONONONONONONONONONONNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LIMLILI ELELEL RYRYRYRYRYRYRRRRRRRRRRRY TTTTTTTTTTTTTT AN CYYCCCCCCCCCCCCYCYCYCYCYCYCCCCCCCCCCCYY PR E PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP TELEPHONE CALL RECORD ATTTACHMENT FOR REFERNCE ONLY PR ERE L I M I N A R Y C O N C E P T CO N C E P T CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCYCYCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC RYRYRRY T COCCO T CCON TTTTTT C ON CNCCEEPPT CECEE NNCCC OONN PPTPPTT CO CCNCNC OO CEEPPTTT CCC CEEE CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CEPEPEPEPEPEPEPPP ONONONONONON PPPP COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO RYYYYRRYRYRYRYRYRYYYYYYCCCYY PR E PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP TELEPHONE CALL RECORD ATTTACHMENT FOR REFERNCE ONLY DISTE L C I R C L E EL CA M I N O R E A L 330 DI S T E L C I R C L E PR E L I M I N A R Y C O N C E P T AMIN O R E A L PR E PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP TELEPHONE CALL RECORD ATTTACHMENT FOR REFERNCE ONLY SITE PLAN 44’ - ROOF GROUND FLOOR PR E L I M I N A R Y C O N C E P T NA GROUND FLOO PR E PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP TELEPHONE CALL RECORD ATTTACHMENT FOR REFERNCE ONLY (10 du/net acre) (15 du/net acre) (28 du/net acre) (38 du/net acre) Single Family, Small Lot Low Density Multi-Family Senior Housing Medium Density Multi-Family Neighborhood Commercial Downtown Commercial Thoroughfare Commercial Public and Institutional Public School Private School Park Open Space Planned Community Planning Area Boundary Park School City Boundary nm l (1 du/net acre) General Plan Designation Single Family (2 du/net acre) (4 du/net acre) Single Family Single Family, Small Lot WÆ ?¾E %&j( %&j( ?»E Revised by: AECOM Updated: June 17, 2010 City of Los Altos Land Use Policy Map 0 2,000 4,000 Feet GRANT RD SPRINGER RD EL M O N TE A V E CUESTA DR COVINGTON RD LOS ALTOS AVE SAN AN TONIO RD PINE LN OAK AVE 1 S T S T UNIVERS ITYAVE FALLEN LEAF LN EL C A MIN O REAL J U N I P E R O S E R R A F W Y ALMOND AVE PORTOLAAVE 2 N D S T BERRY AVE HOLT AVE MIRAMO TN EA VE JARDIN DR M O R A D R PARMA WY PACO DR S U M M E R H IL L A V E MORTON AVE EL M O N T E D R E V A A V E EN WCASTLE RD CL A R K A V E KENTDR SOLANA DR CAMPB E LL AVE EDITH ST JAY ST LYELL ST 3 R D S T CASITA W Y M A I N S T AUSTIN AVE TERRACEDR SUNKI ST LN CHERRY AVE ORANGEAVE F A R N D O N A V E ECHO DR TRUMAN AVE ARBOLEDA DR BEN ROE DR PA N CHITA W Y VALEN CIA DR ROSITA AVE BORDERRD PORTLAND AVE LO S NIN AS WY G R A N G E R A V E HILLVIEW AVE ANGELA DR ALFORD AVE JO RD A N AVE GOLDEN WY OAKHURST AVE A RB O RET U M D R RUSSEL AVE ALVARADOAVE YERBA SANTA AVE ARRAYO RD DISTEL DR MANOR WY D E O D O R A D R HOLLY AVE JUAREZ AVE S T A T ES T PALM AVE ALTOS OAKS DR LINDEN AVE SAN LUIS AVE S T.J O S E P H A V E JULIE LN EDGE LN ELEANOR AVE Q U I N N H IL L A V E DOUD DR ALICIA WY BENVENUE AVE MERRIT RD CLAY DR TORWO OD LN C R IS T D R PEPPER DR EUREKA AVE RANCHITA DR EW SSEX AVE MERCEDES AVE ALMAC T L A U RELES D R SYLVIA WY E S B E R G R D VAN BUREN AVE LASSEN ST J U A N I T A W Y GALLI DR AVALON DR HOMESTEAD RD LISA LN ARBUELO WY GIRALDA DR STONEHAVEN D R DEL MONTE AVE M.HAMILTON AVE VERANO AVE PASA ROBLES AVE FILIP CT OAK ST GABILAN ST LUNDY LN AURA WY B ST EDITH AVE TYNDALL ST SANTA RITAA VE RAQUEL LN SEENA AVE PATRICK WY HIG H L A N D S CIR MIRAVALLE AVE GIFFIN RD ALTAMEAD DR HOLLINGSWORTH DR VIEW ST C RIST O R EY D R OSAGE AVE BROOKMILL DR WINDIMERDR SPARGUR WY CLARK WY MIGUEL AVE CLINTON RD SPRINGER TERR MCKENZIE AVE C H U R T O N A V E RAYMUNDO AVE RIVERSIDE DR M A RI C H W Y PA N C HITA W Y MOUNTAIN UNIVERSITYAVE STARLITE L N H I L L S L O P E P L VALLEY V I E W D R GR O N W A L L L N COUNTRYCLUB DR T O P A R A V E VILLADR F A IR W A Y D R FAIRWAY DR VINEYARD D R FREMONT RD YERBA BUENA AVE S C O TT L N SYLVIA DR VISTA GRANDE AVE BEEC H W O O D LN CARMEL TERR RE D W O O D D R L I N C O L N A V E HAVENHURST DR A N N E T T E L N CHRISTINA PARKHILLS AVE M A G D A L E N A A V E Y O R K S H I R E D R CORONADA AVE LEONELLO AVE RICHARDSON AVE DIXON WY LOUCKS AVE N A S H R D MIDDLETON AVE CAMELLIA WY MUNDEL WY MARVINAVE GUADALUPE DR HIGGINS AVE HAWTHORNE AVE DISTEL CIR DELPHI CIR M A D O N N A W Y S E Q U O I A W Y SEVILLA DR MILLS AVE CARMEL AVE 4 T H S T JOEL WY VALLEY ST THURSTON AVE SIESTA DR EL S E R E N O A V E STAGILN D EL M E D I OAV E SUFFOLK WY MILVERTONLN ROSE CIR W H I T N E YS T RAY AVE HARWALT DR LO U I S E L N P O RTOLA CT REGENT DR LA PRENDA RD CHELSEA DR RAVENSWOOD DR RIVIERA DR PAYNE AVE LA VERNE H IE R R A C T PI N E C R E S T D R DON KIRK DR B L U E O A K L N GORDON WY M O N T C L A I R W Y THATCHER DR BRUCITO AVE GLEN ALTO DR SELIGLN C O R T E V I A K N O L L D R VERA CRUZ AVE S HE R M A N S T LORAINE AVE GARLAND WY L A M M Y P L FRIARS LN S H ER W O O D A VE GARTHWICK DR DARTMOUTH LN S H E R I D A N S T WOODVIEW TERR MUIR WY MARLBAROUGH AVE KAY DR TERESI LN SPENCER WY ESTATE DR SUNSHINE DR D A L E H U R S T A V E TOYON AVE FRANCES AVE TOMI LEA ST TRAVERSO AVE BUCKINGHAM DR STARDUST LN ELMHURST DR KENSINGTON AVE ALEGRE AVE L A N G T O N A V E STANLEY AVE CIELITO DR OTIS WY HARRINGTONAVE KATHY LN PATLEN DR M ARIC H W Y WAKEFIELD TERR ALEXANDER WY L A N TI S L N LOCKHAVEN DR B E L V O IR D R VI AHU E RTA CAROB LN SANTA BARBARA DR C Y P R E S S D R LOCKHART LN O U T L O O K D R MEADOW LN VIA MADEROS ORTEGA AVE AZALEA WY V I E W A V E CORRA L C T CUESTA DR BENVENUE AVE C O V I N G T O N R D COVINGTON RD B I R C H WOOD CT LOS A M BER L N 2 N D S T 1 S T S T EL M O N TE A V E S T .J O S E P H A V E TOELN FALLEN LEAF LN DAL L A S CT PA R K L N H O L LI D A L E N E W C A S T L E D R C O LLEE N D R FALLEN LEAF LN F A L L E N L E AF LN FARNDON AVE FREMONT AVE L N C E D AR PL FIR L N AS P E N D R SIER R A V E N T U RA DR S T.MARKCT M A T T H E W W Y O X F O R D DRANDOVER WY C R O O K E D C R EEK D R ST.JO SEP H AVE H I G H L A N D S C I R L U N D Y L N B E L L E V U E C T M I M O S A C T LINDA VISTA WY CONCORD AVE KINGSWOOD WY HAYMAN PL B U RKE D R N E S T O N A V E RAMON DR CATALINA WY A N IT A A V E R O BI N H O O D D R ENSENADA WY A S T STEVENS PL BRIGHT OAKS CT BREN WT OODS T DE ANZA LN MARSHALL CT M A N R E S A L N MARINOVICH WY RILMA LN V E R D E C T GREEN OAK LN AWALT CT WESTMINSTER LN CHATE AU CT CARVO CT LIVE CHAMISAL AVE PRITCHETT CT MARIPOSA AVE RINCONADA CT EASTWOOD CT CANDACE WY VIO LA PL JONES LN SUNRISE CT TIP ANDERSON DR AURA CT MARGARITA CT VOLTI DR HAWKINS DR OAKLEY DR SAN MARTIN PL SAN JUAN CT EASTWOOD PL CHESTER CIR TEMPLEBAR WY GRANT K R I N G W Y S H A D O W C R EE K PL ORR CT ROSEMONT CT CT L A V E R C T SURREY PL LARKELLEN LN W OODSTOCKLN A R B O R A V E MIRAFLORES WY CARRIAGE CT M O N T C L A IR P L JOLLY CT M. HAMILTO N CT LISA CT ALVINA CT L A R N EL P L K N O L L W O O D L N S T.C H A R L E S C T OAKRIDGE DR WAVERLY LN M I D D L E B U R Y L N DAMIAN WY S HI RLY N N C T MEDFORD DR AUTUMN LN PAULA CT NANCY CT STRATFORD PL SANF ELICIA WY C O S T E L L O D R SHELBY LN LERIDA AVE W I S T A R I A WASHINGTONST LEAF CT COLLEGECT PAJARAS CT S A N D A L W O O D L N BENDIGO DR PENNY WY BRIARWOOD CT THAMES LN MAYNARD WY BLINNCT ALBA CT BECKER LN NELALN HAWTHORNE CT BRADDALE AVE RONALDCT CRESTVIEWDR G R E E N V IE W CT F R O N T E R O A V E C O UNTRY C L U B DR PLATEAU AVE N I B L I C K A V E SHIRLEYA VE W HITHAM AVE MIL LER AV E WESTBRO OK AV E JOANDRA CT H ILL VIE W D R F O O T H IL L E W Y SANA NTONIO RD ALM A ST ARASTRADERO RD SH ORELINEBLVD CASTROST EL C A MIN O REAL MIRAMONTE AVE G R A N T R D ALM A ST STEVENS CREEK FWY BERNARDOAVE BERNARDO AVE JU NIPER O SERRA F W Y EL MONTE DR QUEENSBURY AVE RENGSTOR FFAVE PICO LN RUNNYMEAD CT EUREKA CT EDITHAVE FREMONT AVE GORDONW YFOOTHILL EWYYERBABUENAAVE AVALOND R HAWTHORNE AVE L O Y O L A D R SANA NTO NIO RD ALICIA W Y HAWTHORNE AVE EDITH AVE SOLANA DRFOOTHILL EWYPA RMA WY S T E V E N S C R E E K F W Y D E O D O R A D R RICHARDSON AVE L Y E L L S T GOLDEN WY L O Y O L A D R DISTEL DR LOUCKS AVE RIVERSIDEDRCRESTVIEW DRL U N ADA DR LOS ALTOS AVE L O S A LT O S A V E S A N D O M I N G O W Y H A C I E N D A W Y TO R W O O D L N PINE LN OAK LN A L T A V I S T A AVE S T U A R T C T D I O R TERR City of Mountain View City of Sunnyvale City of Cupertino Town of Los Altos Hills City of Palo Alto 330 DISTEL CIRCLE USE: THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILTY STUDY LOS ALTOS LAND USE MAP EXCERPT R1-10 Single-Family R1-H Single-Family R1-20 Single-Family R1-40 Single-Family R3-4.5 Multiple-Family R3-5 Multiple-Family R3-3 Multiple-Family R3-1.8 Multiple-Family R3-1 Multiple-Family OA Office-Administrative R1-S Single-Story Overlay CD/R3 Commercial Downtown/Multiple Family CN Commercial Neighborhood CD Commercial Downtown CT Commercial Thoroughfare PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning Designations Park School l nm CRS Commercial Retail Sales CRS/OAD Commercial Retail Sales/Office Planning Area Boundary City Boundary LCSPZ Loyola Corners Specific Plan Overlay PCF Public and Community Facilities PCF/R1-10 Public and Community Facilities/Single Family PC Planned Community WÆ ?¾E %&j( %&j( ?»E Revised by: AECOM Updated: December 5, 2011 City of Los Altos Zoning Map 0 2,000 4,000 Feet GRANT RD SPRINGER RD EL M O N TE A V E CUESTA DR COVINGTON RD LOS AL TOS AV E SAN AN TONIO RD PINE LN OAK AVE 1 S T S T UNIVERSITYAVE FALLEN LEAF LN EL C A MIN O REAL J U N I P E R O S E R R A F W Y ALMOND AVE PORTOLAAVE 2 N D S T BERRY AVE HOLT AVE MIRAMO TN EA VE JARDIN DR M O R A D R PARMA WY PACO DR S U M M E R H IL L A V E MORTON AVE EL M O N T E D R E V A A V E EN WCASTLE RD CL A R K A V E KENTDR SOLANA DR CAMPB ELL AVE EDITH ST JAY ST LYELL ST 3 R D S T CASITA W Y M A I N S T AUSTIN AVE TERRACE D R SUNKIST LN CHERRY AVE ORANGEAVE F A R N D O N A V E ECHO DR TRUMAN AVE ARBOLEDA DR BEN ROE DR PAN C HITA WY VALEN CIA DR ROSITA AVE BORDERRD PORTLAND AVE LO S NINAS W Y G R A N G E R A V E HILLVIEW AVE ANGELA DR ALFORD AVE JO RD AN AVE GOLDEN WY OAKHURST AVE A RB O RET U M D R RUSSEL AVE ALVARADO AVE YERBA SANTA AVE ARRAYO RD DISTEL DR MANOR WY D E O D O R A D R HOLLY AVE JUAREZ AVE S T A T E S T PALM AVE ALTOS OAKS DR LINDEN AVE SAN LUIS AVE S T.J O S E P H A V E JULIE LN EDGE LN ELEANOR AVE Q U I N N H IL L A V E DOUD DR ALICIA WY BENVENUE AVE MERRIT RD CLAY DR TORWO OD LN C R IS T D R PEPPER DR EUREKA AVE RANCHITA DR WESSEX AVE MERCEDES AVE ALMAC T L A U RELES D R SYLVIA WY E S B E R G R D VAN BUREN AVE LASSEN ST J U A N I T A W Y GALLIDR AVALON DR HOMESTEAD RD LISA LN ARBUELO WY GIRALDA DR STONEHAV EN DR DEL MONTE AVE M.HAMILTON AVE VERANO AVE PASA ROBLES AVE FILIP CT OAK ST GABILAN ST LUNDY LN AURA WY B ST EDITH AVE TYNDALL ST SANTAR ITA AVE RAQUEL LN SEENA AVE PATRICK WY HIG H L A N D S CIR MIRAVALLE AVE GIFFIN RD ALTAMEADDR HOLLINGSWORTH DR VIEW ST C RIST O R EY D R OSAGE AVE BROOKMILL DR WINDIMER DR SPARGUR WY CLARK WY MIGUEL AVE CLINTON RD SPRINGER TERR MCKENZIE AVE C H U R T O N A V E RAYMUNDO AVE RIVERSIDE DR M ARIC H W Y PA N CHITA W Y MOUNTAIN UNIVERSITYAVE ST ARLITE L N H I L L S L O P E P L VALLEY V I E W D R GR O N W A L L L N COUNTRY CLUBDR T O P A R A V E VILLA DR F A IR W A Y D R FAIRW AYDR VINEYARD D R FREMONT RD YERBA BUENA AVE S C O TT L N SYLVIA DR VISTA GRANDE AVE BEEC H W O O D LN CARMEL TERR RE D W O O D D R L I N C O L N A V E HAVENHURST DR A N N E T T E L N CHRISTINA PARKHILLS AVE M A G D A L E N A A V E Y O R K S H I R E D R CORONADA AVE LEONELLO AVE RICHARDSON AVE DIXON WY LOUCKS AVE N A S H R D MIDDLETON AVE CAMELLIA WY MUNDEL WY MARVIN AVE GUADALUPE DR HIGGINS AVE HAWTHORNE AVE DISTEL CIR DELPHI CIR M A D O N N A W Y S E Q U O I A W Y SEVILLA DR MILLS AVE CARMEL AVE 4 T H S T JOEL WY VALLEY ST THURSTON AVE SIESTA DR EL S E R E N O A V E STAGILN DEL M E DIO A V E SUFFOLK WY MILVERTONLN ROSE CIR W H I T N E Y S T RAY AVE HAR AW LT DR LO U I S E L N PO RTOLA CT REGENTDR LA PRENDA RD CHELSEA DR RAVENSWOOD DR RIVIERA DR PAYNE AVE LA VERNE H IE R R A C T PI N E C R E S T D R DON KIRK DR B L U E O A K L N GORDON WY M O N T C L A I R W Y THATCHER DR BRUCITO AVE GLEN ALTO DR SELIG LN C O R T E V I A K N O L L D R VERA CRUZ AVE S HE R M A N S T LORAINE AVE GARLAND WY L A M M Y P L FRIARS LN S H ER W O O D A VE GARTHWICK DR DARTMOUTH LN S H E R I D A N S T WOODVIEW TERR MUIR WY MARLBAROUGH AVE KAY DR TERESI LN SPENCER WY ESTATE DR SUNSHINE DR D A L E H U R S T A V E TOYON AVE FRANCES AVE TOMI LEA ST TRAVERSO AVE BUCKINGHAM DR STARDUST LN ELMHURST DR KENSINGTON AVE ALEGRE AVE L A N G T O N A VE STANLEY AVE CIELITO DR OTIS WY HARRINGTON AVE KATHY LN PATLEN DR M ARIC H W Y WAKEFIELD TERR ALEXANDER WY L A N TI S L N LOCKHAVEN DR B E L V O I R D R VI AHUER T A CAROB LN SANTA BARBARA DR C Y P R ESS D R LOCKHART LN O U T L O O K D R MEADOW LN VIA MADEROS ORTEGA AVE AZALEA WY V I E W A V E CORRA L C T CUESTA DR BENVENUE AVE C O V I N G T O N R D COVINGTON RD B I R C H WOOD CT LOS A M BER L N 2 N D S T 1 S T S T EL M O N TE A V E S T .J O S E P H A V E TOELN FALLEN LEAF LN DAL L A S CT PA R K L N H O L LI D A L E N E W C A S T L E D R C O LLEE N D R FALLEN LEAF LN F A L L E N L E A F LN FARNDON AVE FREMONT AVE L N C E D AR PL FIR L N AS P E N D R SIER R A V E N T U R A DR ST.MARKCT M A T T H E W W Y O X F O R D DRANDOVERWY C R O O K E D C R EE K D R ST.JO SEPH AVE H I G H L A N D S C I R L U N D Y L N B E L L E V U E C T M I M O S A C T LINDA VISTA WY CONCORD AVE KINGSWOOD WY HAYMAN PL B U RKE D R N E S T O N A V E RAMOND R CATA LINA WY A N IT A A V E R O BI N H O O D D R ENSENADA WY A S T STEVENS PL BRIGHT OAKS CT BRENTWOOD ST DE ANZA LN MARSHALL CT M A N R E S A L N MARINOVICH WY RILMA LN V E R D E C T GREEN OAK LN AWALT CT WESTMINSTER LN CHATE AU CT CARVO CT LIVE CHAMISAL AVE PRITCHETT CT MARIPOSA AVE RINCONADA CT EASTWOOD CT CANDACE WY VIO L A P L JONES LN SUNRISE CT TIP ANDERSOND R AURA CT MARGARITA CT VOLTI DR HAWKINS DR OAKLEY DR SAN MARTIN PL SAN JUAN CT EASTWOOD PL CHESTER CIR TEMPLEBAR WY GRANT K R I N G W Y S H A D O W C REEK PL ORR CT ROSEMONT CT CT L A V E R C T SURREY PL LARKELLEN LN W OODSTOCKLN A R B O R A V E MIRAFLORES WY CARRIAGE CT M O N T C L A IR P L JOLLY CT M. HAMILTONC T LISA CT ALVINA CT L A R N EL P L K N O L L W O O D L N S T.C H A R L E S CT OAKRI DGE DR WAVERLY LN M I D D L E B U R Y L N DAMIAN WY S HI RLY N N C T MEDFORDD R AUTUMN LN PAULA CT NANCY CT STRATFORD PL SAN FELICIA WY C O S T E L L O D R SHELBY LN LERIDA AVE W I S T A R I A WASHINGTONST LEAF CT COLLEGECT PAJARAS CT S A N D A L W O O D L N BENDIGO DR PENNY WY BRIARWOOD CT THAMES LN MAYNARD WY BLINNCT ALBA CT BECKER LN NELA LN HAWTHORNE CT BRADDALE AVE RONALD CT CRESTVIEWDR G R E E N V IE W CT F R O N T E R O A V E C O UNTRY C L U B DR PLATEAU AVE N I B L I C K A V E SHIRLEYA VE W HITHAM AVE MILLER AVE WESTBROOK AVE JOANDRA CT H ILL VIE W D R F O O T H IL L E W Y SANA NTONIORD AL M A ST ARASTRA DER O RD SH ORELINEBLVD CASTRO ST EL C A MIN O REAL MIRAMON ET AVE G RA N T R D ALM A ST STEVENS CREEK FWY BERNARDO AVE BERNARDO AVE JU NIPER O SERRAFW Y EL MONTE DR QUEENSBURY AVE RENGSTORFFAVE PICO LN RUNNYMEAD CT EUREKA CT EDITHAVE FREMONT AVE GORDON WYFOOTHILLEWYYERBABUENAAVE AVALON DR HAWTHORNE AVE L O Y O LA D R SANA NTO NIO RD ALICIA W Y HAWTHORNE AVE EDITH AVE SOLANA DRFOOTHILL EWYPA RMA WY S T E V E N S C R E E K F W Y D E O D O R A D R RICHARDSON AVE L Y E L L S T GOLDEN WY L O Y O L A DR DISTEL DR LOUCKS AVE RIVERSIDEDRCRESTVIEW DRLU N ADA DR LOS ALTOS AVE L O S A LT O S A VE S A N D O M I N G O W Y H A C I E N D A W Y TO R W O O D L N PINE LN OAK LN A L T A V I S T A AVE S T U A R T C T D I O R TERR ! 70-PUD/CLUSTER-13 ! 85-PUD/CLUSTER-1 ! OA-4.5 ! PUD/SC/R1-10 ! 88-PUD/CLUSTER-1 ! PUD/R1 CLUSTER ! 91-PUD/SC-1 ! 62-PUD/C7 ! 60-PUD/C2 ! OA-1 ! ! 93-PUD/R-1 ! OA-1 ! ! ! 71-PUD/CLUSTER-15 ! OA-1 City of Mountain View City of Sunnyvale City of Cupertino Town of Los Altos Hills City of Palo Alto 330 DISTEL CIRCLE CT: COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILTY STUDY LOS ALTOS ZONING MAP EXCERPT 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 Administrative Office Building SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY Address: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA Assessor No.: 170-04-051 Site area gross: 35,826 +/- square feet (0.82 acre) Based on available site plan from previous permit drawings. Zoning: CT (Commercial Thoroughfare) FAR Limits: None Height of Structures: Forty-Five (45) feet maximum. Los Altos Zoning Code Section 14.66.240-Height Limits- Exceptions (edited) A. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, radio and television antennas, and transmission towers, except as noted below, may be erected to a height not more than fifteen (15) feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located provided no such structure shall be used for dwelling purposes or for commercial or advertising purposes. E. Completely enclosed penthouses or other similar roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, or electrical or mechanical equipment required to operate and maintain the building, and parapet walls and skylights may project not more than eight feet above the roof and the permitted building height, provided the combined area of all roof structures does not exceed four percent of the gross area of the building roof. However, no penthouse or roof structure or any space above the height limit shall be allowed for the purpose of providing additional usable floor space for dwelling, retailing, or storage of any type Setbacks: Front: Twenty-five (25) feet with min. 50% landscaped Side: None (unless abutting R uses, which site does not) Rear: None (unless abutting R uses, which site does not) Easements: Ten (10) feet public utility easement parallel to Distel Circle Drive property line. Parking Requirements; 1:300 square feet of net floor area. For purposes of this analysis the ratio of 1:300 was applied to gross floor area. Final number of parking spaces required may be subject to the Los Altos Citywide Parking Committee (LACPC) review and application of parking ratios based on a specific project design. The LACPC has been reviewing lower parking rations for office uses. See LACPC memorandum of Sept. 10, 2015 regarding parking ratios. Loading space Requirements: To be confirmed with Planning Dept. and design review and approval process. N:\_TANNERHECHT-word\Jobs\2015\1515_MROSD AO Feasibility\B-Agencies\B00 Code Check\Zoning\330 DISTEL CIRCLE DRIVE_AO Site Feas_Zoning Code summary.doc MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review Page 1 Chapter 14.50 - CT COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT* Sections: 14.50.010 - CT District. The regulations, general provisions, and exceptions set forth in this chapter and in Chapter 14.66 of this title shall apply in the CT District. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.020 - Specific purposes (CT). Specific purposes for CT Districts are as follows: A. To promote the economic and commercial success of Los Altos commercial districts; B. To strengthen the city's economic base through promotion of El Camino Real for high-revenue, destination commercial uses; C. To encourage aggregation of parcels; D. To buffer the impacts of commercial land uses on neighboring residential properties; E. To emphasize a healthy proportion of retail uses as opposed to office and service uses; and F. To allow for mixed uses of commercial and residential. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.030 - Permitted uses (CT). The following uses shall be permitted in the CT District: A. Professional and office-administrative services; B. Restaurants, excluding drive-through facilities; C. Retail and personal services; D. Emergency shelters; and E. Uses which are determined by the city planner to be of the same general character. (Ord. 05-280 § 8 (part): Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) (Ord. No. 2015-406, § 2, 2-10-2015; Ord. No. 2015-408, § 2, 6-9-2015) 14.50.040 - Conditional uses (CT). Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of this title, the following uses shall be permitted in the CT District: A. Animal clinics, hospitals, and kennels; B. Business, professional, and trade schools; MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review Page 2 C. Cocktail lounges; D. Commercial recreation; E. Day care centers; F. Hotels and motels; G. Medical and dental clinics; H. Medical and dental offices that are five thousand (5,000) gross square feet or more; I. Mixed-use projects, including a combination of multiple-family dwelling units and nonresidential uses; J. Mortuaries; K. Multiple-family housing; L. Pet shops; M. Printing shops; N. Single-room occupancy housing; O. Upholstery shops; and P. Uses which are determined by the planning commission and the city council to be of the same general character. (Ord. 05-280 § 8 (part): Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) (Ord. No. 2015-406, §§ 3, 4, 2-10-2015; Ord. No. 2015-409, § 2, 6-9-2015) 14.50.050 - Limited conditional uses (CT). Upon the granting of a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of this title, the following uses shall be permitted except on parcels within fifty (50) feet of an R District: A. Automotive display or salesrooms, servicing and repair; B. Cabinet and carpenter shops; C. Drive-through facilities, including car washes; D. Service stations provided the site has at least one hundred (100) feet of frontage on a street with a minimum site area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; E. Sheet metal shops; F. Sign painting shops; and G. Theaters and auditoriums. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) (Ord. No. 10-348, § 6, 4-13-2010) 14.50.060 - Required conditions (CT). The following conditions shall be required of all uses in the CT District: MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review Page 3 A. All businesses, services, and processes shall be conducted within a completely enclosed structure, except for recycling facilities, parking and loading areas, outdoor dining areas, nurseries, the sale of gasoline and oil at service stations, bus depots, or as permitted under the terms of a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 14.80 of this title. B. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment, or materials shall be employed which are found by the commission to be objectionable by reason of odor, dust, noise, vibration, illumination, glare, unsightliness, or electrical disturbances which are manifested beyond the premises in which the permitted use is located. C. No property owner, business owner, or tenant shall permit or allow the operation of a business, which violates the requirements of this chapter, including the following general criteria: 1. General screening standard. Every development shall provide sufficient screening to reasonably protect the privacy, safety, and environment of neighboring residential properties and shield them from adverse external effects of that development. Walls up to twelve (12) feet in height shall be required for the purpose of attenuating noise, odor, air pollution, artificial light, mitigation for grade differential between properties, and providing privacy and safety. 2. Sites for screening of refuse collection. Every development will be required to provide suitable space for solid waste separation, collection, and storage, and shall provide sites for such that are located so as to facilitate collection and minimize any negative impact on persons occupying the development site, neighboring properties, or public rights-of-way. 3. Lighting. Lighting within any lot that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot or substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of such other lot is prohibited. Lighting shall be designed to minimize the glare and intensity of external illumination, and to respect the privacy of neighbors by avoiding direct and reflected illumination onto adjacent properties. 4. Air pollution. Any use that emits any "air contaminant" as defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall comply with applicable state standards concerning air pollution. 5. Maintenance of common areas, improvements, and facilities. Maintenance of all common areas, improvements, or facilities required by this chapter or any permit issued in accordance with its provisions shall be required except those areas, improvements, or facilities with respect to which an offer of dedication to the public has been accepted by the appropriate public authority. 6. Odors. No use may generate any odor that reasonably may be found objectionable as determined by an appropriate agency such as the Santa Clara County health department and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District beyond the boundary occupied by the enterprise generating the odor. All mechanical, venting, and/or exhausting equipment that generates odors shall be located away from residential properties. 7. Noise. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level, when measured on any other property, either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed standards as set forth in Chapter 6.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. All mechanical, venting, and/or exhausting equipment that generates noise shall be located away from residential properties. Exterior heating, venting, and air-conditioning facilities shall be muffled. In order to attenuate noise associated with commercial development, walls up to twelve (12) feet in height shall be required at a commercial or residential interface. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review Page 4 14.50.070 - Site area (CT). The minimum site area shall be twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. The minimum site frontage shall be seventy-five (75) feet. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.080 - Residential density (CT). The maximum permitted residential density shall be thirty-eight (38) dwelling units per net acre of land. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.090 - Front yard (CT). The minimum front yard depth shall be twenty-five (25) feet, with a minimum of fifty (50) percent of which shall be landscaped. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.100 - Side yards (CT). No side yards shall be required, unless the property abuts an R district (excluding access corridors) in which case the following requirements shall apply: A. When the side property line of the site is across a street or alley from property in an R District, in which instance the minimum width of that side yard shall be thirty (30) feet; B. When the side property line of the site abuts on property in an R District, in which instance the minimum width of that side yard shall be forty (40) feet; C. A minimum twenty (20) foot landscape buffer of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide screening shall be provided, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. No below grade garage construction or excavation is permitted within this landscape buffer. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.110 - Rear yard (CT). No rear yard shall be required, unless the property abuts an R district (excluding access corridors) in which case the following requirements shall apply: A. When the rear property line of the site is across a street or alley from property in an R District, the rear yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet for all structures thirty (30) feet or less in height and seventy (70) feet for all structures over thirty (30) feet in height; B. When the rear property line of the site abuts on property in an R District, the rear yard setback shall be forty (40) feet for all structures thirty (30) feet or less in height and one hundred (100) feet for all structures over thirty (30) feet in height; C. A minimum twenty (20) foot landscape buffer of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide screening shall be provided, all of which shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. No below grade garage construction or excavation is permitted within this landscape buffer. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review Page 5 (Ord. No. 10-351, § 1, 5-25-2010) 14.50.120 - Off-street parking (CT). As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.130 - Off-street loading (CT). As provided in Chapter 14.74 of this title. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.140 - Height of structures (CT). No structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. Commercial and mixed-use projects that include ground floor commercial floor area shall provide a ground floor with a minimum interior ceiling height of twelve (12) feet. (Ord. 08-323 § 1: Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) (Ord. No. 10-351, § 2, 5-25-2010) 14.50.150 - Design control (CT). All structures in the CT District shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 14.78 of this title. A. No structure shall be built or altered including exterior changes in color, materials, and signage except as prescribed in Chapter 14.78 of this title. B. Scale: Because of the relationship of this district to a larger region, a mixture of scales may be appropriate with some elements scaled for appreciation from the street and moving automobile and others for appreciation by pedestrians. C. The proportions of building elements, especially those at ground level, should be kept close to human scale by using recesses, courtyards, entries, or outdoor spaces. D. The proportions of building elements at a commercial or residential interface shall be designed to limit bulk and to protect residential privacy (including but not limited to window placement), daylight and environmental quality. E. Rooftop mechanical equipment must be within the height limit and screened architecturally from public view. F. Firewalls: Consideration should be given to the aesthetic treatment of firewalls including increased side yard setback, contouring the firewall to the building, use of noncombustible roofing materials, and creative use of architectural features in the firewall. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.160 - Signs (CT). As provided in Chapter 11.04 of Title 11. MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review Page 6 (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.170 - Fences (CT). As provided in Chapter 14.72 of this title. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) 14.50.180 - Nonconforming use regulations (CT). As provided in Chapter 14.66 of this title. (Ord. 04-259 § 1 (part)) MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review PARKING REQUIREMENTS Page 1 14.74.100 ‐ Office uses in CRS/OAD, OA, CN, CD, CD/R3, CRS and CT Districts. For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall be required for the net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the lot area. Parking shall be required for any net square footage in excess of one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did not participate in a public parking district and shall be not less than one parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of net floor area. (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part): prior code § 10-2.2307) (Ord. No. 10-348, § 8, 4-13-2010; Ord. No. 2012-375, § 12, 1-24-2012) 14.74.110 ‐ Commercial uses in CRS/OAD, OA, CN, CD, CD/R3, CRS and CT Districts. For those properties which participated in a public parking district, no parking shall be required for the net square footage which does not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the lot area. Parking shall be required as follows for any net square footage in excess of one hundred (100) percent of the lot area and for those properties which did not participate in a public parking district. A. For intensive retail uses and personal services, not less than one parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet of net floor area; B. For extensive retail uses, not less than one parking space for each five hundred (500) square feet of net floor area; C. For business, professional and trade schools, one parking space for every three employees, including teachers and administrators, plus one additional space for every two students; D. For bars, cafes, nightclubs, restaurants, and soda fountains, one parking space for every three employees, plus one space for every three seats provided for patrons, and such additional parking spaces as may be prescribed by the commission; E. For bowling alleys, one parking space for every three employees, plus six additional parking spaces for each alley; F. For pool halls, one parking space for every three employees, plus one additional parking space for each pool table; G. For other types of commercial recreation establishments, one parking space for every three employees, plus such additional parking spaces as may be prescribed by the planning commission; H. For hotels and motels, one parking space for every three employees, plus one additional space for each sleeping room or suite, and additional parking spaces as prescribed in subsection A of this section for any store, service establishment, shop, or studio located on the site, and additional parking spaces as prescribed in subsection C of this section for any bar, cafe, nightclub, restaurant, or soda fountain located on the site; I. For mortuaries, one parking space for every three employees, and one additional space for each hearse and funeral car owned or hired by the mortuary, plus the number of spaces prescribed by the planning commission for visitors and persons attending funerals; J. For theaters and auditoriums, one parking space for every four seats, plus one additional space for every three employees; and K. For automobile display or salesrooms, bus depots, drive-in banks, drive-in restaurants, repair garages, and storage garages, one parking space for every three employees, plus such additional parking spaces as prescribed by the planning commission or city council. MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review PARKING REQUIREMENTS Page 2 (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 07-306 § 7: Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part): prior code § 10-2.2308) (Ord. No. 2012-375, § 13, 1-24-2012) 14.74.150 ‐ Mixed use development. Where more than one use is included in one building or on a single parcel, the parking requirements shall be the sum total of the requirements of all the uses; provided, however, when determined by the city that a conflict in demand for parking will not occur, parking requirements may be combined. Appropriate legal documents, as approved by the city attorney, shall be executed when such combination is approved. Any use or building requiring five-tenths or more parking space shall be deemed to require a full space. (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part); prior code § 10-2.2314) (Ord. No. 10-348, § 10, 4-13-2010) 14.74.160 ‐ Off‐street loading spaces. Loading spaces shall be provided on the site of each of the permitted uses in the CN, CN-T, CD, CT, Community Facilities, and Plant Nursery districts when found by the commission to require the receipt or distribution of materials by vehicles or when found to be necessary for the public safety or welfare. The number of spaces shall be determined on the basis of the number of anticipated truck movements. (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part); prior code § 10-2.2315) 14.74.170 ‐ Common parking facilities. Parking space requirements prescribed in this chapter may be satisfied by the permanent allocation of the required area or number of spaces for each permitted use in a common parking facility, cooperatively established and operated, either under private auspices or a public assessment district, which includes the site of any use permitted under this chapter, provided the total number of spaces allocated shall be not less than the sum of the individual requirements, and provided also that the parking facility shall be within three hundred (300) feet of the site of the permitted use, and further provided that the parking facility meets the design standards set forth in this chapter. When off-site parking spaces are provided as prescribed, appropriate legal documents, as approved by the city attorney, shall be executed to insure permanent use of such spaces. (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part); prior code § 10-2.2316) 14.74.180 ‐ Off‐street parking and loading spaces. No parking space or loading space provided on one site for a structure or a use in compliance with the regulations for the district in which it is located shall be deemed to provide a parking space or loading space for a structure or use on any other site. (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part); prior code § 10-2.2317) MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review PARKING REQUIREMENTS Page 3 14.74.190 ‐ Reduction of off‐street parking and loading spaces. No parking space or truck loading space provided for a structure or use in compliance with the regulations for the district in which it is located shall be reduced in area or capacity without sufficient additional area or capacity being provided to comply with the district regulations. (Ord. 07-312 § 9 (part); Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part); prior code § 10-2.2318) 14.74.200 ‐ Development standards for off‐street parking and truck loading spaces. A. Off-street parking facilities shall conform to the following standards: 1. Perpendicular parking space size. Each standard parking space shall consist of an area not less than nine feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long, except as noted on the drawing labeled "Parking Standards Exhibit A" on file in the office of the planning department. 2. Handicapped persons perpendicular parking space size. Parking stalls for the use of the physically handicapped shall comply with the requirements set forth in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and Chapter 9 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code of the state. 3. Truck loading space size. Truck loading spaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide by twenty- five (25) feet long. 4. Clearance. Standard and compact parking spaces shall have a vertical clearance of at least seven feet over the entire area. In addition, the spaces shall be clear horizontally (for example, pillars in a basement or parking structure shall not be located in required parking spaces). Truck loading spaces shall have a vertical clearance of at least fourteen (14) feet. B. Each parking and loading space shall be accessible from a public street or alley. C. The parking and loading area shall be paved with an all-weather asphaltic concrete or portland cement concrete pavement and marked in accordance with the city engineering standards (not applicable for single-family dwellings). D. Concrete bumper guards or wheel stops shall be provided for all parking spaces, except as provided in this section. The concrete curb around a perimeter landscaped area shall not be used as a bumper stop unless approved by the commission and the council. In such cases, the commission and the council may allow a parking space length to be reduced by two feet. E. Lighting shall be deflected downward and away from any residential property. F. No advertising or sign, other than identification or direction signs, shall be permitted in the parking or loading area. G. No repair or servicing of vehicles shall be permitted in the parking or loading area. H. No area which lies within the precise plan line for a public street or alley adopted by the council shall be computed as satisfying the parking and loading space requirements of this chapter. I. A parking area abutting on property in an R District or across a street or an alley from property in an R District shall be screened, subject to the approval of the planning department, by a solid fence or wall or a compact evergreen hedge or other screening not less than six feet high, subject to the provisions of Chapter 14.72 of this title regulating fences (not applicable for single-family dwellings). J. The minimum width of a one-way drive shall be twelve (12) feet. K. The minimum width of a two-way drive shall be eighteen (18) feet. MROSD AO Site Feasibility Study THA Job No. 1515 Los Altos Zoning Code Review PARKING REQUIREMENTS Page 4 L. Space for turning around on the site shall be provided for parking areas of three or more spaces so that no cars need back into the street (not applicable for single-family dwellings). M. Parallel and acute angle parking shall be designed for one-way traffic only, unless otherwise specified by the commission. N. The minimum standards for the design of off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with those shown on the drawing labeled "Parking Standards Exhibit A" on file in the office of the planning department. O. If found to be necessary or desirable by the city, the design standards set forth in this section may be waived for public and community facility uses or commercially operated public parking facilities in order to permit attended or supervised parking. P. District requirements resulting in one-half or greater parking space shall be deemed to require a full space. Q. For the purposes of this section, "net square footage" shall mean the total horizontal area in square feet on each floor, including basements, but not including the area of inner courts or shaft enclosures. (Ord. 07-312 §§ 9 (part), 10; Ord. 05-294 § 3 (part); prior code § 10-2.2319) (Ord. No. 10-348, § 11, 4-13-2010; Ord. No. 2012-375, § 14, 1-24-2012) 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California APPENDIX B: Concept Design Option Drawings 330 DISTEL CL. EL C A M I N O R E A L DIS T E L C I R C L E 330 DISTEL CIRCLE R-2 DISTRICTR-2 DISTRICT r------=---=�=I !c::::::==-:::��=LA�N-D=S�C:=PE= 24 = 3 =· -=, '.=�=5·=�=9 .. ��------=-----=----=-='=�:--�-f 1 ! OPTION 'A' SUMMARY: 3 STORIES OFFICE/3 LEVELS PARKING f I I t--PROPERTY OFFICE AREA: PARKING SPACES: 46,200 S.F. W/ 3 STORIES (15,400 S.F./FLOOR, GROSS) (47,400 S.F. MAX. W/ PARKING SHOWN) 1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. OF OFFICE REQUIRED 46,200 S.F. 7 300 S.F./OCCUPANT = 154 SPACES REQ. 158 SPACES PROVIDED 39'-6" N CX) a a a 3 STORIES OFFICE (3 @ 15,400/FL = 46,200 S.F.) OVER 3 LEVELS GARAGE (52,386 S.F.) a a a GARAGE AREA: OCCUPANCY: BUILDING TYPE: 52,386 S.F. W/ 3 LEVELS SUB-GRADE B, OFFICE S2, PARKING OFFICE: TYPE 118, STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE BASEMENT: TYPE 118, REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE I---. I I I FACE OF PARKING ]_ GARAGE BELOW ---- DRIVEWAY /PARKING (E)SIDEWALK __j SITE PLAN DISTEL CIRCLE PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT SETBACKS: 1 O' MIN., PER CBC CHAPTER 6, TABLE 602 FIRE SPRINKLERS: YES, VOLUNTARY FIRE RATING: NO NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS/STAFF: 1 OCCUPANT PER 200 S.F.* = OCCUPANTS/STAFF PER FLOOR = 231 (46,200 7 200/0CCUPANT) 77 AVERAGE (231 7 3 FLOORS) *OCCUPANT DENSITY BASED ON AVERAGE CONTEMPORARY OFFICE DESIGN, TOBE CONFIRMED WITH DETAILED PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION BYMROSD. --fr_ -HEIGHT -LIMIT --45' -TO -AVERAGE -HEIGHT - OF -THE -HIGHEST -ROOF -SURFACE - (LOS -ALTOS -ZONING -CODEL -- --fr_ HEIGHT LIMIT -45' I SECTION A-A LOOKING NORTHWEST www.tannerhecht.com ta., _,e.-hecht architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE ROO F ---;-'• 0 I "' ____::, . 'a 0 I I "' I� ____::, . �I 0 I "' PARKING LEVEL G1 I -��0 PARKING LEVEL G2 I -��0 PARKING LEVEL G3 I NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBIUlY OF THE PROPERlY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL omcE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. ® NORTH OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE r---__ PARKING LEVEL G 1 ,___ - - � -- - - -- - - -PARKING LEVEL G2-PARKING LEVEL G3 SECTION 8-8 LOOKING SOUTHWEST OPTION A· 3 STORIES OFFICE, 3 LEVELS GARAGE I-MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACEuw ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY -, 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 0 0::: Q. THA JOB# 1515 I SCALE: I-w w ::c u, 10.14.15 1 /32"= 1 '-0" A-1 © 2015 TANNERHECHT ArchiteciUlll, PJI nghls reseN� 19'-0" 19'-6" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 19'-0" f 238'-0" 17, 4 RAMP DOWN 0 HC HC UP PARKING LEVEL G1 49 PARKING SPACES 158 PARKING SPACES TOTAL (6 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PER CBC TABLE 11B-208.2) ® — INDICATES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN ROW www.tannerhecht.com tannerhechi: architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco. CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 AUTO RAMP HC LC) RAMP UP 0 ❑ ❑ n ❑ 12 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ O RAMP 12 DOWN j / 0 /7/ o o r/ ---------?- PARKING LEVEL G2 81 PARKING SPACES 238'-0" PARKING LEVEL G3 28 PARKING SPACES NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. NORTH RAMP UP OPTION A - 3 STORIES OFFICE, 3 LEVELS GARAGE 10.14.15 PROJECT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 THAJOB# 1515 SHEET SCALE: 1132°=1-0" A-2 © 2015 TANNERHECHT Architecture, All rights reserve( DISTE L C I R C L E EL CA M I N O R E A L 330 DI S T E L C I R C L E SITE PLAN 36’ - ROOF HEIGHT CD OPTION 'A.1' SUMMARY: 2 STORIES OFFICE/2 LEVELS PARKING a a a 2 STORIES OFFICE (2 @ 15,400/FL = 30,800 S.F.)OVER 2 LEVELS GARAGE (34,352 S.F.) N CX) FACE OF PARKINGlGARAGE BELOW --- - SITE PLAN a a DISTEL CIRCLE a PUBLIC UTILITIESEASEMENT OFFICE AREA: PARKING SPACES: GARAGE AREA: OCCUPANCY: BUILDING TYPE: SETBACKS: FIRE SPRINKLERS: FIRE RATING: 30,800 S.F. W/ 2 STORIES (15,400 S.F./FLOOR, GROSS) (30,900 S.F. MAX. W/ PARKING SHOWN) 1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. OF OFFICE REQUIRED 30,800 S.F. + 300 S.F./OCCUPANT = 103 SPACES REQ.103 SPACES PROVIDED 34,352 S.F. W/ 2 LEVELS SUB-GRADE B, OFFICE S2, PARKING OFFICE: TYPE IIB, STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE BASEMENT: TYPE IIB, REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE 1 O' MIN., PER CBC CHAPTER 6, TABLE 602 YES, VOLUNTARY NO NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS/STAFF: 1 OCCUPANT PER 200 S.F.* = OCCUPANTS/STAFF PER FLOOR = 154 (30,800 + 200/0CCUPANT) 77 AVERAGE (154 + 2 FLOORS) *OCCUPANT DENSITY BASED ON AVERAGE CONTEMPORARY OFFICE DESIGN, TOBE CONFIRMED WITH DETAILED PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION BY MROSD. fr_ HEIGHT LIMIT -45'-fr_ - -HEIGHT -LIMIT --45' -TO -AVERAGE -HEIGHT -OF THE HIGHEST ROOF SURFACE (LOS ALTOS ZONING CODEL I SECTION A-A LOOKING NORTHWEST www.tannerhecht.com ta.,.,erhecht architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 - - - I - - - - - - - -- OFFICE OFFICE ROO F I "" 19 I b -:.r I N "" PARKING LEVEL G1 I b PARKING LEVEL G2 I "' NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. NORTH OFFICE OFFICE ----- PARKING LEVEL G1 -PARKING LEVEL G2SECTION 8-8 LOOKING SOUTHWEST OPTION A.1 -2 STORIES OFFICE, 2 LEVELS GARAGE I-MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACEw ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 0:: THA JOB# 1515 SCALE: I-w w "' 10.14.15 1 /32"= 1 '-0" A.1-1 © 2015 TANNERHECHT Architectura}JI nghls reserw 19'-0" 19'-6" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" jr 30'-0" / 30'-0" � 19'-0" 238'-0" 0_I PARKING LEVEL G1 49 PARKING SPACES 103 PARKING SPACES TOTAL (6 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PER CBC TABLE 11B-208.2) - INDICATES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN ROW www.tan 1:annechechi: architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 PARKING LEVEL G2 54 PARKING SPACES NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. NORTH RAMP UP 12 0 o OPTION A.1 - 2 STORIES OFFICE, 2 LEVELS GARAGE 10.14.15 PROJECT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 THA JOB# 1515 SHEET SCALE: 1132"=1'-0" / Q ► • 1 2 © 2015 TANNERHECHT Architecture, XI fights reserve DISTE L C I R C L E EL CA M I N O R E A L 330 DI S T E L C I R C L E SITE PLAN 24’ - ROOF HEIGHT CD 243'-11" � r----=--�:---�= -=-�:--=LA�N=D-S=CA=-PE==1 =85=,--8:::-1=-=g·=·�----=====-= I, =�--=-, 1: ! OPTION 'A.2' SUMMARY: 2 STORIES OFFICE/2 LEVELS PARKING � I } 100' SETBACK OF 2NO LEVEL I t OFFICE AREA: 30,800 S.F. W/ 2 STORIES (1 ST FL = 16,580 S.F., 2ND FL = 14,220 S.F.) (30,900 S.F. MAX. W/ PARKING SHOWN) r 11 FROM R-2 DISTRICT � PROPERlY 39'-6" 11 r---Iij I A :I /O"> 00 I 26'-6" a a a I a I 2 STORIES OFFICE (16,580 + 14,220 = 30,800 S.F.) OVER 2 LEVELS GARAGE (34,352 S.F.) I [I[] I a I� LINE OF 2ND FL. ABV. a J_,I �CE _O_F P -AR-KING=1- - --.--�-.�� - - - -GARAGE BELOW I ]25'-0" MIN. DRIVEWAY /PARKING : SETBACK I I / /£1= I ""' �-�-+---+-+--�---+-------+-'--�-/���������������-\� (E)SIDEWALK __j DISTEL CIRCLE SITE PLAN PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT �-ft_ -HEIGHT -LIMIT --45' -TO -AVERAGE -HEIGHT - OF -THE -HIGHEST -ROOF -SURFACE - (LOS -ALTOS -ZONING -CODEL - - - -ROO F ___, I OFFICE I I N I� I___::, I • < -:.i-0 N OFFICE I N PARKING LEVEL G1 I en 0 PARKING LEVEL G2 I en SECTION A-A LOOKING NORTHWEST NOTE: PARKING SPACES: GARAGE AREA: OCCUPANCY: BUILDING lYPE: SETBACKS: FIRE SPRINKLERS: FIRE RATING: 1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. OF OFFICE REQUIRED 30,800 S.F . .;. 300 S.F./OCCUPANT = 103 SPACES REQ. 103 SPACES PROVIDED 34,352 S.F. W/ 2 LEVELS SUB-GRADE 8, OFFICE S2, PARKING OFFICE: lYPE 118, STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE BASEMENT: lYPE 118, REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE 1 O' MIN., PER CBC CHAPTER 6, TABLE 602 YES, VOLUNTARY NO NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS/STAFF: 1 OCCUPANT PER 200 S.F.* = OCCUPANTS/STAFF PER FLOOR = 154 (30,800 .;. 200/0CCUPANT) 77 AVERAGE (154.;. 2 FLOORS) *OCCUPANT DENSllY BASED ON AVERAGE CONTEMPORARY OFFICE DESIGN, TOBE CONFIRMED WITH DETAILED PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION BYMROSD. ft_ HEIGHT LIMIT -45' I OFFICE OFFICE -----SECTION 8-8 LOOKING SOUTHWEST PARKING LEVEL G1 -PARKING LEVEL G2 OPTION A.2 • 2 STORIES OFFICE, 2 LEVELS GARAGE www.tannerhecht.com ta., _,e.-hecht architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBIUlY OF THE PROPERlY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL omcE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. NORTH I-MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACEw ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 a::: F 415.979.1530 THAJOB#1515 10.23.15 SCALE: 1 /32"= 1 '-0" I-w w A.2-1IA © 2015 TANNERHECHT Architecture, All righls reseive, 19'-0" 19'-6" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" i 30,-0" i 30'-0" 19'-0" 238'-0" 0 0) -01 CD M CO -01 RAMP DOWN 17 HC HO UP a_I AUTO RAMP HC L PARKING LEVEL G1 49 PARKING SPACES 103 PARKING SPACES TOTAL (6 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PER CBC TABLE 11B-208.2) ® - INDICATES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN ROW www.tannerhecht,com 1:annerhecht architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco, CA 54133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 PARKING LEVEL G2 54 PARKING SPACES NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. NORTH RAMP UP i ° ° j 4 OPTION A.2 - 2 STORIES OFFICE, 2 LEVELS GARAGE 10.23.15 PROJECT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 THAJOB#1515 SHEET SCALE: 1I32"=1'-0" A.2-2 0 2015 TANNERHECHT Architecture, All fights reserver DISTE L C I R C L E EL CA M I N O R E A L 330 DI S T E L C I R C L E SITE PLAN 24’ - ROOF HEIGHT 243'-1 1 " 00 CO Al < FACE OF PARKING GARAGE BELOW 30'-0" 0 0 LANDSCAPE 185' - 9" 0 1 / 0 ❑ 0 0 0 4 STORIES OFFICE (4 Q 16,506/FL = 66,024 S.F.) OVER 3 LEVELS GARAGE (78,586 S.F.) 0 UP 30,-0" pp SITE PLAN HEIGHT LIMIT - 45' TO AVERAGE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ROOF SURFACE (LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE) DRIVEWAY/PARKING (E) SIDEWALK DISTEL CIRCLE AUTO .RAMP \DN 0 JA f m PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE PARKING LEVEL G1 PROPERTY LINE ROOF PARKING LEVEL G2 SECTION A -A LOOKING NORTHWEST www.tannerhecni.com tannechecht architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415979.1530 PARKING LEVEL G3 PARKING LEVEL G4 OPTION 'B' SUMMARY: 3 STORIES OFFICE/4 LEVELS PARKING OFFICE AREA: 66,204 S.F. W/ 4 STORIES (16,024 S.F./FLOOR, GROSS) (70,500 S.F. MAX. W/ PARKING SHOWN) PARKING SPACES: 1 SPACE PER 300 S.F. OF OFFICE REQUIRED 66,204 S.F. - 300 S.F./OCCUPANT = 221 SPACES REQ. 235 SPACES PROVIDED GARAGE AREA: 78,586 S.F. W/ 4 LEVELS SUB -GRADE OCCUPANCY: B, OFFICE S2, PARKING BUILDING TYPE: OFFICE: TYPE IIA, FIRE PROOFED STEEL FRAME STRUCTURE BASEMENT: TYPE IIA, REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE SETBACKS: 30' MIN., PER CBC CHAPTER 6, TABLE 602 FIRE SPRINKLERS: YES FIRE RATING: YES 25'-0" MIN. SETBACK NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS/STAFF: 1 OCCUPANT PER 200 S.F.* = 330 (66,204 _ 200/OCCUPANT) OCCUPANTS/STAFF PER FLOOR = 82 (330 _ 3 FLOORS) *OCCUPANT DENSITY BASED ON AVERAGE CONTEMPORARY OFFICE DESIGN, TO BE CONFIRMED WITH DETAILED PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION BY MROSD. HEIGHT LIMIT - 45' NOTE: THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE PARKING LEVEL G1 PARKING LEVEL G2 PARKING LEVEL G3 PARKING LEVEL G4 SECTION B -B LOOKING SOUTHWEST OPTION B - 4 STORIES OFFICE, 4 LEVELS PARKING 10.14.15 PROJECT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 THA JOB# 1515 SHEET SCALE: 1132"=1'-0" - B1 © 2015 TANNERHECHT Architecture, All rights reserve, 19'-0" 19'-6" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" i 30'-0" 19'-0" 238'-0" -01 0 r) D //I i 4 RAMP DOWN 1 RAMP DOWN HC HC HC UP HC PARKING LEVEL G1 49 PARKING SPACES 235 PARKING SPACES TOTAL (8 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PER CBC TABLE 11 B-208.2) ® — INDICATES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN ROW www.tannerhecht.com I:anneghechi: architecture 1831 Powell Street San Francisco. CA 94188 T 415.9791 hog F 415.979153o AUTO RAMP HC HC 0 I o 14 RAMP / UP '' o 0 © ❑ ❑ / j ❑ ,, --- > o ❑ 12 ❑ i ❑ F RAMP © DOWN /// O 14 O HC HC j d—/ PARKING LEVEL G2 & G3 (NO ACCESSIBLE SPACES ON G3) G2: 80 PARKING SPACES G3: 81 PARKING SPACES 238'-0" PARKING LEVEL G4 29 PARKING SPACES NOTE THIS DRAWING IS A CONCEPT DESIGN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 DISTEL CIRCLE. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPTS ARE BASED ON CURRENT LOS ALTOS ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE BUILDING CODES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. CONCEPT DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON CURRENT REGIONAL INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ARE NOT THE RESULT OF EXTENSIVE ARCHITECTURAL, STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING PROGRAMMING AND DESIGN. NORTH RAMP UP OPTION B - 4 STORIES OFFICE, 4 LEVELS PARKING 10.14.15 PROJECT MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY 330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS, CA 94022 THA JOB# 1515 SHEET SCALE: 1/32°:11-0e B-2 © 2015 TANNERHECHT Architecture, All rights reserver DISTE L C I R C L E EL CA M I N O R E A L 330 DI S T E L C I R C L E SITE PLAN 44’ - ROOF HEIGHT 1831 Powell Street www.tannerhecht.com San Francisco, CA 94133 T 415.979.1500 F 415.979.1530 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FEASIBILTY STUDY 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, California APPENDIX C: Concept Construction Cost Estimates MROSD ADMINISTRATION OFFICE FEASIBILITY STUDY – OPTIONS A & B Los Altos, CA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Conceptual Cost Estimate Prepared for : Tannerhecht Architecture October 14, 2015 Prepared by: HATTIN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Project and Construction Management Services 1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1002 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)832-5800 Fax: (510)832-5900 www.hattincm.com MROSD ADMINISTRATION OFFICE FEASIBILITY STUDY – OPTIONS A & B Los Altos, CA ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction: This Conceptual Cost Estimate represents the probable construction cost of the MROSD Administration Office Feasibility Study located in Los Altos, CA. Considering that the drawings are preliminary, certain components, which may be required as part of this project may not be shown or mentioned in this estimate. Allowances have been made when detail description of equipment, work definition, or quantities are not available. Material pricing and labor costs are obtained from historical data and similar projects. Mechanical and electrical costs are based similar projects. The unit costs include material, labor, and subcontractor's markup, and are based on the design level of documents received. Project Description: MROSD Admin Office Feasibility Study, Los Altos, CA. The scope includes two Options: Option A – Three stories of steel framed office building (Type II, sprinkled) construction over three stories of subgrade concrete garage. Option B – Four stories of steel framed office building (Type II, sprinkled) construction over four stories of subgrade concrete garage. Documents Received as a Basis of Cost Estimate: The following documentation was used in preparation of this estimate: ♦ Preliminary Site Plan – G-1 ♦ Preliminary Floor Plans & Elevations Option A – Sheet A-1 thru A-4 ♦ Preliminary Floor Plans & Elevations Option B – Sheet B-1 thru B-4 ♦ E-mail/Input/Comments from Design Consultants. . Exclusions: The following items are excluded: ♦ Alternative Energy – Solar Panels ♦ Gray Water Systems ♦ Construction Contingency ♦ Public Arts ♦ Cost of money ♦ Offsite Utilities & Connection Fees ♦ Professional Consultants’ and Construction Management fees ♦ Administrative costs ♦ Land costs ♦ Fees for testing construction materials ♦ Plan checks and inspection ♦ Permit ♦ Legal and financing costs ♦ Relocation costs, if required ♦ Hazardous Material Abatement & Disposal ♦ Contractor off-hours and compressed time work schedule, if required ♦ Escalation beyond that stated. ♦ LEED Possible Additional Cost Items: Items that may change the Estimate of Probable Construction Cost include, but are not limited to, the following: ♦ Modifications to the scope of work, drawings, specifications included in this estimate ♦ Unforeseen conditions ♦ Construction phasing requirements ♦ Excessive contract and general conditions, and restrictive technical specifications ♦ Equipment, material, systems or product that cannot be obtained from at least three different sources ♦ Delays beyond the projected schedule ♦ Any other non-competitive bid situations ♦ Any addenda, changes not included in the basis of estimates. Escalation: Escalation of 5% is included in the estimate until the midpoint of construction, assumed at 12 months from October 15, 2015, at the rate of 5% per year. ESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS AND COMMENTS General: a. Material prices are at 4th Quarter 2015 level; include taxes and contractor’s markups. b. Labor cost is based on prevailing wages. c. Work to be done during normal business hours. d. This estimate can vary due to change in scope. e. Quantities were obtained based on the drawings provided. f. Installation cost, supervision, and coordination for material and equipment are included in the estimate. g. General conditions include insurance, office personnel costs, dust control, and other items not mentioned in General requirements. h. Design Contingency/Estimating Contingency of 20% is included in the cost estimate due to the level of information used in the estimate. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST The estimated Probable Construction Costs reflects the anticipated cost of the MROSD Administration Office Feasibility Study in Los Altos, CA. This estimate is based on a competitive open bid process with a recommended five or more bids from reputable general contractors, and a minimum of three bids for all subcontracted items. Cost of materials, labor, equipment or services furnished by others, and the contractors' or vendors' methods of determining prices are determined by market and/or economic conditions. Hence, the Estimator cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project costs will not vary from this Estimate of Probable Construction Cost. This Estimate of Probable Construction Cost is exclusive of all costs associated with changes, modifications or addenda to the drawings and/or specifications subsequent to the preparation of this estimate. Bldg. Gross Area (SF) HCM Job Number:2015-017 Lead Estimator:EEV Date:10/14/2015 HATTIN CM Revised:2/26/2016 NO.DESCRIPTION OFFICE PARKING STRUCTURE SITE WORKS TOTAL COST % AREA (SF)46,200 52,386 20,500 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS……………………………………………………….Included Under General Conditions 2 FOUNDATION………………………………………………………………………………………192,500$ 436,550$ -$ 629,050$ 2.76% 3 SUPERSTRUCTURE……………………………………………………………………………………….2,502,800$ 929,445$ -$ 3,432,245$ 15.06% 4 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE…………………………………………………………………………3,234,000$ 840,000$ -$ 4,074,000$ 17.87% 5 ROOFING………………………………………………………………………………………………….261,800$ -$ -$ 261,800$ 1.15% 6 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………………………………..1,293,600$ 52,386$ -$ 1,345,986$ 5.91% 7 INTERIOR FINISHES/TENANT IMPROVEMENT………………………………………4,620,000$ 32,057$ -$ 4,652,057$ 20.41% 8 CONVEYING SYSTEM…………………………………………………………………………………….200,000$ 200,000$ -$ 400,000$ 1.75% 9 PLUMBING SYSTEM……………………………………………………………………………646,800$ 78,579$ -$ 725,379$ 3.18% 10 HVAC SYSTEMS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,310,000$ 104,772$ -$ 2,414,772$ 10.59% 11 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM……………………………………………………………..300,300$ 26,193$ -$ 326,493$ 1.43% 12 ELECTRICAL……………………………………………………………………………1,732,500$ 419,088$ -$ 2,151,588$ 9.44% 13 COMMUNICATION & SECURITY…………………………………………………………………….623,700$ 130,965$ -$ 754,665$ 3.31% 14 SITE WORK/SITE IMPROVEMENTS………………………………………………………………….-$ 1,062,500$ 562,800$ 1,625,300$ 7.13% TOTAL DIRECT COST 17,918,000$ 4,312,535$ 562,800$ 22,793,335$ 100.00% GENERAL CONDITIONS 10%1,791,800$ 431,253$ 56,280$ 2,279,333$ SUBTOTAL 19,709,800$ 4,743,788$ 619,080$ 25,072,668$ GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD & PROFIT 8%1,576,784$ 379,503$ 49,526$ 2,005,813$ SUBTOTAL 21,286,584$ 5,123,291$ 668,606$ 27,078,481$ BOND 2%425,732$ 102,465.82$ 13,372$ 541,569.63$ SUBTOTAL 21,712,316$ 5,225,757$ 681,979$ 27,620,051$ 5%1,085,616$ 261,288$ 34,099$ 1,381,003$ SUBTOTAL 22,797,931$ 5,487,045$ 716,077$ 29,001,054$ Market/Bidding Conditions Contingency (+/-)0%-$ -$ -$ -$ DESIGN/ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY 20%4,559,586$ 1,097,409$ 143,215$ 5,800,211$ TOTAL PROBABLE BID DAY CONSTRUCTION COST 27,357,518$ 6,584,454$ 859,293$ 34,801,264$ Public Arts 0%-$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL PROBABLE BID DAY CONSTRUCTION COST 27,357,518$ 6,584,454$ 859,293$ 34,801,264$ COST/SF 592$ 126$ 42$ COST/ STALL @ 158 Stalls 41,674$ SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESCALATION up to Mid-point of Construction @ 5% per year, 12 mos from 10/15/2015 MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A Los Altos, CA Hattin Construction Management, Inc. Project and Construction Management Services 1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1002 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)832-5800 - Fax: (510)832-5900 MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/Summary Printed: 2/26/2016 HATTIN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Page 1 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 15,400 Revised: 2ND & 3RD FLOOR SF 30,800 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 46,200 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building 1000 General Requirements Included in the General Conditions TOTAL - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -$ 2000 FOUNDATION Standard Foundations - Concrete Grade Beams 46,200 SF 0.00 -$ Standard Foundations - Connection to Structure Below 15,400 SF 2.50$ 38,500$ CIP Slab 15,400 SF 10.00$ 154,000$ TOTAL - FOUNDATION 46,200 SF 4.17$ 192,500$ 3000 SUPERSTRUCTURE 350 TON 5,400.00$ 1,890,000$ Composite Metal Deck @ Floors Incl. Concrete Fill 30,800 SF 11.00$ 338,800$ Composite Metal Deck @ Roof 15,400 SF 10.00$ 154,000$ Stair Construction 6 LOC 20,000.00$ 120,000$ TOTAL - SUPERSTRUCTURE 46,200 SF 54.17$ 2,502,800$ 4000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE Exterior Walls - Storefront/Metal Panels/Exterior Windows & Doors 46,200 SF Floor 70.00$ 3,234,000$ TOTAL - EXTERIR ENCLOSURE 46,200 SF 70.00$ 3,234,000$ 5000 ROOFINGS Built-up Roofings/Parapets 15,400 SF 15.00$ 231,000$ 15,400 SF 2.00$ 30,800$ TOTAL - METALS 46,200 SF 5.67$ 261,800$ 6000 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Partitions 46,200 SF 20.00$ 924,000$ Plumbing Chases 46,200 SF 1.00$ 46,200$ Interior Doors 46,200 SF 2.00$ 92,400$ Finishes @ Common Area 46,200 SF 5.00$ 231,000$ TOTAL - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 46,200 SF 28.00$ 1,293,600$ 7000 INTERIOR FINISHES Tenant Improvements 46,200 SF 85.00$ 3,927,000$ Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment 46,200 SF 15.00$ 693,000$ TOTAL - INTERIOR FINISHES 46,200 SF 100.00$ 4,620,000$ 8000 CONVEYING SYSTEM Passenger Elevators, 3 Stops, Hyd 2500#2 EA 100,000.00$ 200,000$ Freight Elevator, 3 Stops 1 EA -$ Miscellaneous Roof Accessories Structural Framing/ Columns/ Floors/Roof @ 15lbs/sf incl. Fireproofing MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 2 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 15,400 Revised: 2ND & 3RD FLOOR SF 30,800 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 46,200 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building TOTAL - CONVEYING SYSTEM 46,200 SF 4.33$ 200,000$ 9000 PLUMBING SYSTEM 46,200 SF 3.00$ 138,600$ Domestic Water Distribution 46,200 SF 4.00$ 184,800$ Sanitary Waste 46,200 SF 3.00$ 138,600$ Rain Water Drainage 46,200 SF 2.50$ 115,500$ Other Plumbing System 46,200 SF 1.50$ 69,300$ TOTAL - PLUMBING SYSTEM 46,200 SF 14.00$ 646,800$ 10000 HVAC SYSTEM 46,200 SF 22.00$ 1,016,400$ Distribution System 46,200 SF 20.00$ 924,000$ Control & Instrumentation 46,200 SF 6.50$ 300,300$ Testing & Balancing 46,200 SF 1.50$ 69,300$ TOTAL - HVAC SYSTEM 46,200 SF 50.00$ 2,310,000$ 11000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Wet Pipe Protection System 46,200 SF 6.50$ 300,300$ TOTAL - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 46,200 SF 6.50$ 300,300$ 12000 ELECTRICAL Service & Disribution 46,200 SF 18.00$ 831,600$ Lighting & Control 46,200 SF 12.00$ 554,400$ Fire Alarm System 46,200 SF 6.50$ 300,300$ Permit, Tests & Fees 46,200 SF 1.00$ 46,200$ TOTAL - ELECTRICAL 46,200 SF 37.50$ 1,732,500$ 13000 COMMUNICATION & DATA SYSTEM Telephone/Data/Clock System 46,200 SF 8.00$ 369,600$ Security System 46,200 SF 2.50$ 115,500$ Paging System 46,200 SF 2.00$ 92,400$ Permit, Tests & Fees 46,200 SF 1.00$ 46,200$ TOTAL - COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 46,200 13.50$ 623,700$ 14000 SITE WORK See Separate Estimate -$ Heat & Cooling Generating System Plumbing Fixtures MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 3 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 15,400 Revised: 2ND & 3RD FLOOR SF 30,800 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 46,200 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 46,200 SF -$ TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS $17,918,000 Remarks: In our opinion, this estimate represents the probable construction cost for the MROSD Office & Parking Garage based on the information & project description received. Due to the fact the documents are still preliminary, certain systems, components and costs that may be required to complete the project may not be shown or mentioned in this estimate. All components and systems shown in the estimate but not shown in the drawings are conceptualized. MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 4 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD PARKING STRUCTURE Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 17,462 Revised: 2ND & 3RD FLOOR SF 34,924 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 52,386 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Parking Structure 2000 FOUNDATION Foundation Excavation & Backfill 17,462 SF 2.50$ 43,655$ Standard Foundations - Concrete Grade Beams/Footings 17,462 SF 10.00$ 174,620$ Slab On Grade 17,462 SF 12.50$ 218,275$ TOTAL - FOUNDATION 52,386 SF 8.33$ 436,550$ 3000 SUPERSTRUCTURE Concrete Columns 52,386 SF 2.50$ 130,965$ CIP Elevated Slab Incl. Ramps/Curbs 34,924 SF 20.00$ 698,480$ Stair Construction 5 LOC 20,000.00$ 100,000$ TOTAL - SUPERSTRUCTURE 52,386 SF 17.74$ 929,445$ 4000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE Exterior Walls - Cast In Place Concrete 21,000 SF 35.00$ 735,000$ Waterproofing 21,000 SF 5.00$ 105,000$ TOTAL - EXTERIR ENCLOSURE 52,386 SF 16.03$ 840,000$ 5000 ROOFINGS None - SF -$ -$ TOTAL - METALS 52,386 SF -$ -$ 6000 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Partitions, CMU Walls & Railing 52,386 SF 1.00$ 52,386$ TOTAL - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 52,386 SF 1.00$ 52,386$ 7000 INTERIOR FINISHES Striping 158 EA 20.00$ 3,160$ Parking Barriers 158 EA 100.00$ 15,800$ Directional Signage 52,386 SF 0.25$ 13,097$ TOTAL - INTERIOR FINISHES 52,386 SF 0.61$ 32,057$ 8000 CONVEYING SYSTEM Passenger Elevators, 4 Stops, Hyd 2500#2 EA 100,000.00$ 200,000$ Freight Elevator, 4 Stops - EA -$ -$ TOTAL - CONVEYING SYSTEM 52,386 SF 3.82$ 200,000$ MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/PG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 5 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD PARKING STRUCTURE Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 17,462 Revised: 2ND & 3RD FLOOR SF 34,924 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 52,386 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Parking Structure 9000 PLUMBING SYSTEM Rain Water Drainage 52,386 SF 1.00$ 52,386$ Other Plumbing System 52,386 SF 0.50$ 26,193$ TOTAL - PLUMBING SYSTEM 52,386 SF 1.50$ 78,579$ 10000 HVAC SYSTEM 52,386 SF 2.00$ 104,772$ TOTAL - HVAC SYSTEM 52,386 SF 2.00$ 104,772$ 11000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Fire Protection System - Stand pipe 52,386 SF 0.50$ 26,193$ TOTAL - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 52,386 SF 0.50$ 26,193$ 12000 ELECTRICAL Service & Disribution 52,386 SF 5.00$ 261,930$ Lighting & Control 52,386 SF 2.50$ 130,965$ Fire Alarm System 52,386 SF -$ -$ Permit, Tests & Fees 52,386 SF 0.50$ 26,193$ TOTAL - ELECTRICAL 52,386 SF 8.00$ 419,088$ 13000 COMMUNICATION & DATA SYSTEM Telephone/Data/Clock System 52,386 SF -$ -$ Security System 52,386 SF 1.00$ 52,386$ Paging System 52,386 SF 1.00$ 52,386$ Permit, Tests & Fees 52,386 SF 0.50$ 26,193$ TOTAL - COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 52,386 2.50$ 130,965$ 13000 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Excavation 25,000 CY 7.50$ 187,500$ Disposal of Excess Excavation & Dump Fee 22,500 CY 25.00$ 562,500$ Backfill 2,500 CY 15.00$ 37,500$ Excavation Protection 22,000 SF 12.50$ 275,000$ TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 52,386 SF 1,062,500$ TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS 52,386 SF 82.32$ $4,312,535 Ventilation System MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/PG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 6 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD SITE IMPROVEMENTS Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/15/2015 Revised:2/26/2016 HattinCM TOTAL SITE AREA :20,500 SF Estimator:EEV No.Description Unit Cost Extension Total 14 SITE WORKS SITE DEMOLITION Demolish existing one story nuiding incl. foundation & disposal 12,000 SF 10.00$ 120,000$ Grading work 12,000 SF 1.00$ 12,000$ Demolish existing AC parking lot 14,000 SF 1.25$ 17,500$ Dispose demolished AC paving & dump fee 220 CY 40.00$ 8,800$ EARTHWORK Site Preparation 20,500 SF 2.50$ 51,250$ EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS Paving & Surfacing 20,500 SF 5.00$ 102,500$ Irrigation & Landscaping 20,500 SF 6.50$ 133,250$ UTILITIES STORM DRAINAGE 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ SANITARY SEWER 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ DOMESTIC WATER 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ FIRE WATER 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ GAS 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ SITE ELECTRICAL 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ SITE COMMUNICATION & SECURITY 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 20,500 SF 27.45 562,800$ MROSD AOB OPTION A R1/SITE Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 7 of 7 Bldg. Gross Area (SF) HCM Job Number:2015-017 Lead Estimator:EEV Date:10/16/2015 HATTIN CM Revised:2/26/2016 NO.DESCRIPTION OFFICE PARKING STRUCTURE SITE WORKS TOTAL COST % AREA (SF)30,800 34,352 20,500 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS……………………………………………………….Included Under General Conditions 2 FOUNDATION………………………………………………………………………………………192,500$ 420,812$ -$ 613,312$ 3.97% 3 SUPERSTRUCTURE……………………………………………………………………………………….1,645,400$ 509,400$ -$ 2,154,800$ 13.95% 4 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE…………………………………………………………………………2,156,000$ 460,000$ -$ 2,616,000$ 16.94% 5 ROOFING………………………………………………………………………………………………….261,800$ -$ -$ 261,800$ 1.70% 6 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………………………………..862,400$ 34,352$ -$ 896,752$ 5.81% 7 INTERIOR FINISHES/TENANT IMPROVEMENT………………………………………3,080,000$ 20,948$ -$ 3,100,948$ 20.08% 8 CONVEYING SYSTEM…………………………………………………………………………………….150,000$ 200,000$ -$ 350,000$ 2.27% 9 PLUMBING SYSTEM……………………………………………………………………………431,200$ 51,528$ -$ 482,728$ 3.13% 10 HVAC SYSTEMS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,540,000$ 68,704$ -$ 1,608,704$ 10.42% 11 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM……………………………………………………………..200,200$ 17,176$ -$ 217,376$ 1.41% 12 ELECTRICAL……………………………………………………………………………1,155,000$ 274,816$ -$ 1,429,816$ 9.26% 13 COMMUNICATION & SECURITY…………………………………………………………………….415,800$ 85,880$ -$ 501,680$ 3.25% 14 SITE WORK/SITE IMPROVEMENTS………………………………………………………………….-$ 648,250$ 562,800$ 1,211,050$ 7.84% TOTAL DIRECT COST 12,090,300$ 2,791,866$ 562,800$ 15,444,966$ 100.00% GENERAL CONDITIONS 10%1,209,030$ 279,187$ 56,280$ 1,544,497$ SUBTOTAL 13,299,330$ 3,071,053$ 619,080$ 16,989,463$ GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD & PROFIT 8%1,063,946$ 245,684$ 49,526$ 1,359,157$ SUBTOTAL 14,363,276$ 3,316,737$ 668,606$ 18,348,620$ BOND 2%287,266$ 66,334.74$ 13,372$ 366,972.39$ SUBTOTAL 14,650,542$ 3,383,072$ 681,979$ 18,715,592$ 5%732,527$ 169,154$ 34,099$ 935,780$ SUBTOTAL 15,383,069$ 3,552,225$ 716,077$ 19,651,372$ Market/Bidding Conditions Contingency (+/-)0%-$ -$ -$ -$ DESIGN/ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY 20%3,076,614$ 710,445$ 143,215$ 3,930,274$ TOTAL PROBABLE BID DAY CONSTRUCTION COST 18,459,683$ 4,262,670$ 859,293$ 23,581,646$ Public Arts 0%-$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL PROBABLE BID DAY CONSTRUCTION COST 18,459,683$ 4,262,670$ 859,293$ 23,581,646$ COST/SF 599$ 124$ 42$ COST/ STALL @ 103 Stalls 41,385$ SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESCALATION up to Mid-point of Construction @ 5% per year, 12 mos from 10/15/2015 MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 Los Altos, CA Hattin Construction Management, Inc. Project and Construction Management Services 1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1002 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)832-5800 - Fax: (510)832-5900 MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/Summary Printed: 2/26/2016 HATTIN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Page 1 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/16/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 15,400 Revised: 2ND FLOOR SF 15,400 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 30,800 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building - 2 Story 1000 General Requirements Included in the General Conditions TOTAL - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -$ 2000 FOUNDATION Standard Foundations - Concrete Grade Beams 30,800 SF 0.00 -$ Standard Foundations - Connection to Structure Below 15,400 SF 2.50$ 38,500$ CIP Slab 15,400 SF 10.00$ 154,000$ TOTAL - FOUNDATION 30,800 SF 6.25$ 192,500$ 3000 SUPERSTRUCTURE 230 TON 5,400.00$ 1,242,000$ Composite Metal Deck @ Floors Incl. Concrete Fill 15,400 SF 11.00$ 169,400$ Composite Metal Deck @ Roof 15,400 SF 10.00$ 154,000$ Stair Construction 4 LOC 20,000.00$ 80,000$ TOTAL - SUPERSTRUCTURE 30,800 SF 53.42$ 1,645,400$ 4000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE Exterior Walls - Storefront/Metal Panels/Exterior Windows & Doors 30,800 SF Floor 70.00$ 2,156,000$ TOTAL - EXTERIR ENCLOSURE 30,800 SF 70.00$ 2,156,000$ 5000 ROOFINGS Built-up Roofings/Parapets 15,400 SF 15.00$ 231,000$ 15,400 SF 2.00$ 30,800$ TOTAL - METALS 30,800 SF 8.50$ 261,800$ 6000 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Partitions 30,800 SF 20.00$ 616,000$ Plumbing Chases 30,800 SF 1.00$ 30,800$ Interior Doors 30,800 SF 2.00$ 61,600$ Finishes @ Common Area 30,800 SF 5.00$ 154,000$ TOTAL - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 30,800 SF 28.00$ 862,400$ 7000 INTERIOR FINISHES Tenant Improvements 30,800 SF 85.00$ 2,618,000$ Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment 30,800 SF 15.00$ 462,000$ TOTAL - INTERIOR FINISHES 30,800 SF 100.00$ 3,080,000$ 8000 CONVEYING SYSTEM Passenger Elevators, 2 Stops, Hyd 2500#2 EA 75,000.00$ 150,000$ Freight Elevator, 3 Stops 1 EA -$ Miscellaneous Roof Accessories Structural Framing/ Columns/ Floors/Roof @ 15lbs/sf incl. Fireproofing MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 2 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/16/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 15,400 Revised: 2ND FLOOR SF 15,400 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 30,800 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building - 2 Story TOTAL - CONVEYING SYSTEM 30,800 SF 4.87$ 150,000$ 9000 PLUMBING SYSTEM 30,800 SF 3.00$ 92,400$ Domestic Water Distribution 30,800 SF 4.00$ 123,200$ Sanitary Waste 30,800 SF 3.00$ 92,400$ Rain Water Drainage 30,800 SF 2.50$ 77,000$ Other Plumbing System 30,800 SF 1.50$ 46,200$ TOTAL - PLUMBING SYSTEM 30,800 SF 14.00$ 431,200$ 10000 HVAC SYSTEM 30,800 SF 22.00$ 677,600$ Distribution System 30,800 SF 20.00$ 616,000$ Control & Instrumentation 30,800 SF 6.50$ 200,200$ Testing & Balancing 30,800 SF 1.50$ 46,200$ TOTAL - HVAC SYSTEM 30,800 SF 50.00$ 1,540,000$ 11000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Wet Pipe Protection System 30,800 SF 6.50$ 200,200$ TOTAL - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 30,800 SF 6.50$ 200,200$ 12000 ELECTRICAL Service & Disribution 30,800 SF 18.00$ 554,400$ Lighting & Control 30,800 SF 12.00$ 369,600$ Fire Alarm System 30,800 SF 6.50$ 200,200$ Permit, Tests & Fees 30,800 SF 1.00$ 30,800$ TOTAL - ELECTRICAL 30,800 SF 37.50$ 1,155,000$ 13000 COMMUNICATION & DATA SYSTEM Telephone/Data/Clock System 30,800 SF 8.00$ 246,400$ Security System 30,800 SF 2.50$ 77,000$ Paging System 30,800 SF 2.00$ 61,600$ Permit, Tests & Fees 30,800 SF 1.00$ 30,800$ TOTAL - COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 30,800 13.50$ 415,800$ 14000 SITE WORK See Separate Estimate -$ Heat & Cooling Generating System Plumbing Fixtures MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 3 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/16/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 15,400 Revised: 2ND FLOOR SF 15,400 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 30,800 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building - 2 Story TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 30,800 SF -$ TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS $12,090,300 Remarks: In our opinion, this estimate represents the probable construction cost for the MROSD Office & Parking Garage based on the information & project description received. Due to the fact the documents are still preliminary, certain systems, components and costs that may be required to complete the project may not be shown or mentioned in this estimate. All components and systems shown in the estimate but not shown in the drawings are conceptualized. MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 4 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD PARKING STRUCTURE Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/16/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 17,176 Revised: 2ND FLOOR SF 17,176 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 34,352 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Parking Structure - 2 Story Underground 2000 FOUNDATION Foundation Excavation & Backfill 17,176 SF 2.00$ 34,352$ Standard Foundations - Concrete Grade Beams/Footings 17,176 SF 10.00$ 171,760$ Slab On Grade 17,176 SF 12.50$ 214,700$ TOTAL - FOUNDATION 34,352 SF 12.25$ 420,812$ 3000 SUPERSTRUCTURE Concrete Columns 34,352 SF 2.50$ 85,880$ CIP Elevated Slab Incl. Ramps/Curbs 17,176 SF 20.00$ 343,520$ Stair Construction 4 LOC 20,000.00$ 80,000$ TOTAL - SUPERSTRUCTURE 34,352 SF 14.83$ 509,400$ 4000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE Exterior Walls - Cast In Place Concrete 11,500 SF 35.00$ 402,500$ Waterproofing 11,500 SF 5.00$ 57,500$ TOTAL - EXTERIR ENCLOSURE 34,352 SF 13.39$ 460,000$ 5000 ROOFINGS None - SF -$ -$ TOTAL - METALS 34,352 SF -$ -$ 6000 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Partitions, CMU Walls & Railing 34,352 SF 1.00$ 34,352$ TOTAL - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 34,352 SF 1.00$ 34,352$ 7000 INTERIOR FINISHES Striping 103 EA 20.00$ 2,060$ Parking Barriers 103 EA 100.00$ 10,300$ Directional Signage 34,352 SF 0.25$ 8,588$ TOTAL - INTERIOR FINISHES 34,352 SF 0.61$ 20,948$ 8000 CONVEYING SYSTEM Passenger Elevators, 3 Stops, Hyd 2500#2 EA 100,000.00$ 200,000$ Freight Elevator, 4 Stops - EA -$ -$ TOTAL - CONVEYING SYSTEM 34,352 SF 5.82$ 200,000$ MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/PG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 5 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD PARKING STRUCTURE Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/16/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 17,176 Revised: 2ND FLOOR SF 17,176 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 34,352 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Parking Structure - 2 Story Underground 9000 PLUMBING SYSTEM Rain Water Drainage 34,352 SF 1.00$ 34,352$ Other Plumbing System 34,352 SF 0.50$ 17,176$ TOTAL - PLUMBING SYSTEM 34,352 SF 1.50$ 51,528$ 10000 HVAC SYSTEM 34,352 SF 2.00$ 68,704$ TOTAL - HVAC SYSTEM 34,352 SF 2.00$ 68,704$ 11000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Fire Protection System - Stand pipe 34,352 SF 0.50$ 17,176$ TOTAL - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 34,352 SF 0.50$ 17,176$ 12000 ELECTRICAL Service & Disribution 34,352 SF 5.00$ 171,760$ Lighting & Control 34,352 SF 2.50$ 85,880$ Fire Alarm System 34,352 SF -$ -$ Permit, Tests & Fees 34,352 SF 0.50$ 17,176$ TOTAL - ELECTRICAL 34,352 SF 8.00$ 274,816$ 13000 COMMUNICATION & DATA SYSTEM Telephone/Data/Clock System 34,352 SF -$ -$ Security System 34,352 SF 1.00$ 34,352$ Paging System 34,352 SF 1.00$ 34,352$ Permit, Tests & Fees 34,352 SF 0.50$ 17,176$ TOTAL - COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 34,352 2.50$ 85,880$ 13000 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Excavation 15,700 CY 7.50$ 117,750$ Disposal of Excess Excavation & Dump Fee 14,500 CY 25.00$ 362,500$ Backfill 1,200 CY 15.00$ 18,000$ Excavation Protection 12,000 SF 12.50$ 150,000$ TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 34,352 SF 648,250$ TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS 34,352 SF 81.27$ $2,791,866 Ventilation System MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/PG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 6 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD SITE IMPROVEMENTS Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION A.1 HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/16/2015 Revised:2/26/2016 HattinCM TOTAL SITE AREA :20,500 SF Estimator:EEV No.Description Unit Cost Extension Total 14 SITE WORKS SITE DEMOLITION Demolish existing one story nuiding incl. foundation & disposal 12,000 SF 10.00$ 120,000$ Grading work 12,000 SF 1.00$ 12,000$ Demolish existing AC parking lot 14,000 SF 1.25$ 17,500$ Dispose demolished AC paving & dump fee 220 CY 40.00$ 8,800$ EARTHWORK Site Preparation 20,500 SF 2.50$ 51,250$ EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS Paving & Surfacing 20,500 SF 5.00$ 102,500$ Irrigation & Landscaping 20,500 SF 6.50$ 133,250$ UTILITIES STORM DRAINAGE 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ SANITARY SEWER 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ DOMESTIC WATER 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ FIRE WATER 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ GAS 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ SITE ELECTRICAL 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ SITE COMMUNICATION & SECURITY 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 20,500 SF 27.45 562,800$ MROSD AOB OPTION A.1 Rev3/SITE Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 7 of 7 Bldg. Gross Area (SF) HCM Job Number:2015-017 Lead Estimator:EEV Date:10/15/2015 HATTIN CM Revised:2/26/2016 NO.DESCRIPTION OFFICE PARKING STRUCTURE SITE WORKS TOTAL COST % AREA (SF)66,024 78,586 19,320 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS……………………………………………………….Included Under General Conditions 2 FOUNDATION………………………………………………………………………………………206,325$ 638,511$ -$ 844,836$ 2.68% 3 SUPERSTRUCTURE……………………………………………………………………………………….3,542,758$ 1,475,255$ -$ 5,018,013$ 15.89% 4 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE…………………………………………………………………………4,621,680$ 880,000$ -$ 5,501,680$ 17.42% 5 ROOFING………………………………………………………………………………………………….280,602$ -$ -$ 280,602$ 0.89% 6 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………………………………..1,848,672$ 78,586$ -$ 1,927,258$ 6.10% 7 INTERIOR FINISHES/TENANT IMPROVEMENT………………………………………6,602,400$ 47,847$ -$ 6,650,247$ 21.06% 8 CONVEYING SYSTEM…………………………………………………………………………………….200,000$ 250,000$ -$ 450,000$ 1.42% 9 PLUMBING SYSTEM……………………………………………………………………………924,336$ 117,879$ -$ 1,042,215$ 3.30% 10 HVAC SYSTEMS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,301,200$ 157,172$ -$ 3,458,372$ 10.95% 11 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM……………………………………………………………..429,156$ 39,293$ -$ 468,449$ 1.48% 12 ELECTRICAL……………………………………………………………………………2,475,900$ 628,688$ -$ 3,104,588$ 9.83% 13 COMMUNICATION & SECURITY…………………………………………………………………….891,324$ 196,465$ -$ 1,087,789$ 3.44% 14 SITE WORK/SITE IMPROVEMENTS………………………………………………………………….-$ 1,200,000$ 546,280$ 1,746,280$ 5.53% TOTAL DIRECT COST 25,324,353$ 5,709,696$ 546,280$ 31,580,329$ 100.00% GENERAL CONDITIONS 10%2,532,435$ 570,970$ 54,628$ 3,158,033$ SUBTOTAL 27,856,788$ 6,280,665$ 600,908$ 34,738,362$ GENERAL CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD & PROFIT 8%2,228,543$ 502,453$ 48,073$ 2,779,069$ SUBTOTAL 30,085,331$ 6,783,119$ 648,981$ 37,517,431$ BOND 2%601,707$ 135,662.37$ 12,980$ 750,348.61$ SUBTOTAL 30,687,038$ 6,918,781$ 661,960$ 38,267,779$ 5%1,534,352$ 345,939$ 33,098$ 1,913,389$ SUBTOTAL 32,221,390$ 7,264,720$ 695,058$ 40,181,168$ Market/Bidding Conditions Contingency (+/-)0%-$ -$ -$ -$ DESIGN/ESTIMATING CONTINGENCY 20%6,444,278$ 1,452,944$ 139,012$ 8,036,234$ TOTAL PROBABLE BID DAY CONSTRUCTION COST 38,665,668$ 8,717,664$ 834,070$ 48,217,402$ Public Arts 0%-$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL PROBABLE BID DAY CONSTRUCTION COST 38,665,668$ 8,717,664$ 834,070$ 48,217,402$ COST/SF 586$ 166$ 41$ COST/ STALL @ 235 Stalls 37,096.44$ SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ESCALATION up to Mid-point of Construction @ 5% per year, 12 mos from 10/15/2015 MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B Los Altos, CA Hattin Construction Management, Inc. Project and Construction Management Services 1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 1002 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510)832-5800 - Fax: (510)832-5900 MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/Summary Printed: 2/26/2016 HATTIN CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. Page 1 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/15/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 16,506 Revised: 2nd thru 4th FLOORS SF 49,518 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 66,024 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building 1000 General Requirements Included in the General Conditions TOTAL - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -$ 2000 FOUNDATION Standard Foundations - Concrete Grade Beams 16,506 SF 0.00 -$ Standard Foundations - Connection to Structure Below 16,506 SF 2.50$ 41,265$ CIP Slab 16,506 SF 10.00$ 165,060$ TOTAL - FOUNDATION 66,024 SF 3.13$ 206,325$ 3000 SUPERSTRUCTURE 495 TON 5,400.00$ 2,673,000$ Composite Metal Deck @ Floors Incl. Concrete Fill 49,518 SF 11.00$ 544,698$ Composite Metal Deck @ Roof 16,506 SF 10.00$ 165,060$ Stair Construction 8 LOC 20,000.00$ 160,000$ TOTAL - SUPERSTRUCTURE 66,024 SF 53.66$ 3,542,758$ 4000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE Exterior Walls - Storefront/Metal Panels/Exterior Windows & Doors 66,024 SF Floor 70.00$ 4,621,680$ TOTAL - EXTERIR ENCLOSURE 66,024 SF 70.00$ 4,621,680$ 5000 ROOFINGS Built-up Roofings/Parapets 16,506 SF 15.00$ 247,590$ 16,506 SF 2.00$ 33,012$ TOTAL - METALS 66,024 SF 4.25$ 280,602$ 6000 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Partitions 66,024 SF 20.00$ 1,320,480$ Plumbing Chases 66,024 SF 1.00$ 66,024$ Interior Doors 66,024 SF 2.00$ 132,048$ Finishes @ Common Area 66,024 SF 5.00$ 330,120$ TOTAL - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 66,024 SF 28.00$ 1,848,672$ 7000 INTERIOR FINISHES Tenant Improvements 66,024 SF 85.00$ 5,612,040$ Furniture, Furnishings & Equipment 66,024 SF 15.00$ 990,360$ TOTAL - INTERIOR FINISHES 66,024 SF 100.00$ 6,602,400$ 8000 CONVEYING SYSTEM Passenger Elevators, 4 Stops, Hyd 2500#2 EA 100,000.00$ 200,000$ Freight Elevator, 4 Stops 1 EA -$ -$ Miscellaneous Roof Accessories Structural Framing/ Columns/ Floors/Roof @ 15lbs/sf incl. Fireproofing MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 2 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/15/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 16,506 Revised: 2nd thru 4th FLOORS SF 49,518 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 66,024 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building TOTAL - CONVEYING SYSTEM 66,024 SF 3.03$ 200,000$ 9000 PLUMBING SYSTEM 66,024 SF 3.00$ 198,072$ Domestic Water Distribution 66,024 SF 4.00$ 264,096$ Sanitary Waste 66,024 SF 3.00$ 198,072$ Rain Water Drainage 66,024 SF 2.50$ 165,060$ Other Plumbing System 66,024 SF 1.50$ 99,036$ TOTAL - PLUMBING SYSTEM 66,024 SF 14.00$ 924,336$ 10000 HVAC SYSTEM 66,024 SF 22.00$ 1,452,528$ Distribution System 66,024 SF 20.00$ 1,320,480$ Control & Instrumentation 66,024 SF 6.50$ 429,156$ Testing & Balancing 66,024 SF 1.50$ 99,036$ TOTAL - HVAC SYSTEM 66,024 SF 50.00$ 3,301,200$ 11000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Wet Pipe Protection System 66,024 SF 6.50$ 429,156$ TOTAL - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 66,024 SF 6.50$ 429,156$ 12000 ELECTRICAL Service & Disribution 66,024 SF 18.00$ 1,188,432$ Lighting & Control 66,024 SF 12.00$ 792,288$ Fire Alarm System 66,024 SF 6.50$ 429,156$ Permit, Tests & Fees 66,024 SF 1.00$ 66,024$ TOTAL - ELECTRICAL 66,024 SF 37.50$ 2,475,900$ 13000 COMMUNICATION & DATA SYSTEM Telephone/Data/Clock System 66,024 SF 8.00$ 528,192$ Security System 66,024 SF 2.50$ 165,060$ Paging System 66,024 SF 2.00$ 132,048$ Permit, Tests & Fees 66,024 SF 1.00$ 66,024$ TOTAL - COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 66,024 13.50$ 891,324$ 14000 SITE WORK See Separate Estimate -$ Heat & Cooling Generating System Plumbing Fixtures MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 3 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD ADMIN OFFICE BUILDING Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/15/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 16,506 Revised: 2nd thru 4th FLOORS SF 49,518 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 66,024 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Office Building TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 66,024 SF -$ TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS $25,324,353 Remarks: In our opinion, this estimate represents the probable construction cost for the MROSD Office & Parking Garage based on the information & project description received. Due to the fact the documents are still preliminary, certain systems, components and costs that may be required to complete the project may not be shown or mentioned in this estimate. All components and systems shown in the estimate but not shown in the drawings are conceptualized. MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/BLDG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 4 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD PARKING STRUCTURE Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 19,646.5 Revised: 2nd thru 4th Floor SF 58,939.5 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 78,586 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Parking Structure 2000 FOUNDATION Foundation Excavation & Backfill 19,647 SF 5.00$ 98,233$ Standard Foundations - Concrete Grade Beams/Footings 19,647 SF 15.00$ 294,698$ Slab On Grade 19,647 SF 12.50$ 245,581$ TOTAL - FOUNDATION 78,586 SF 8.13$ 638,511$ 3000 SUPERSTRUCTURE Concrete Columns 78,586 SF 2.50$ 196,465$ CIP Elevated Slab Incl. Ramps/Curbs 58,940 SF 20.00$ 1,178,790$ Stair Construction 5 LOC 20,000.00$ 100,000$ TOTAL - SUPERSTRUCTURE 78,586 SF 18.77$ 1,475,255$ 4000 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE Exterior Walls - Cast In Place Concrete 22,000 SF 35.00$ 770,000$ Waterproofing 22,000 SF 5.00$ 110,000$ TOTAL - EXTERIR ENCLOSURE 78,586 SF 11.20$ 880,000$ 5000 ROOFINGS None - SF -$ -$ TOTAL - METALS 78,586 SF -$ -$ 6000 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION Partitions, CMU Walls & Railing 78,586 SF 1.00$ 78,586$ TOTAL - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 78,586 SF 1.00$ 78,586$ 7000 INTERIOR FINISHES Striping 235 EA 20.00$ 4,700$ Parking Barriers 235 EA 100.00$ 23,500$ Directional Signage 78,586 SF 0.25$ 19,647$ TOTAL - INTERIOR FINISHES 78,586 SF 0.61$ 47,847$ 8000 CONVEYING SYSTEM Passenger Elevators, 5 Stops, Hyd 2500#2 EA 125,000.00$ 250,000$ Freight Elevator, 5 Stops - EA -$ -$ TOTAL - CONVEYING SYSTEM 78,586 SF 3.18$ 250,000$ MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/PG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 5 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD PARKING STRUCTURE Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/14/2015 BUILDING FOOTPRINT:SF 19,646.5 Revised: 2nd thru 4th Floor SF 58,939.5 Hattin CM TOTAL BLDG AREA :SF 78,586 Estimator:EEV Div.Description Qty Unit Cost Extension Total Description: New Parking Structure 9000 PLUMBING SYSTEM Rain Water Drainage 78,586 SF 1.00$ 78,586$ Other Plumbing System 78,586 SF 0.50$ 39,293$ TOTAL - PLUMBING SYSTEM 78,586 SF 1.50$ 117,879$ 10000 HVAC SYSTEM 78,586 SF 2.00$ 157,172$ TOTAL - HVAC SYSTEM 78,586 SF 2.00$ 157,172$ 11000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Fire Protection System - Stand pipe 78,586 SF 0.50$ 39,293$ TOTAL - FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM 78,586 SF 0.50$ 39,293$ 12000 ELECTRICAL Service & Disribution 78,586 SF 5.00$ 392,930$ Lighting & Control 78,586 SF 2.50$ 196,465$ Fire Alarm System 78,586 SF -$ -$ Permit, Tests & Fees 78,586 SF 0.50$ 39,293$ TOTAL - ELECTRICAL 78,586 SF 8.00$ 628,688$ 13000 COMMUNICATION & DATA SYSTEM Telephone/Data/Clock System 78,586 SF -$ -$ Security System 78,586 SF 1.00$ 78,586$ Paging System 78,586 SF 1.00$ 78,586$ Permit, Tests & Fees 78,586 SF 0.50$ 39,293$ TOTAL - COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 78,586 2.50$ 196,465$ 13000 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Excavation 28,500 CY 7.50$ 213,750$ Disposal of Excess Excavation & Dump Fee 24,500 CY 25.00$ 612,500$ Backfill 4,000 CY 15.00$ 60,000$ Excavation Protection 25,100 SF 12.50$ 313,750$ TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 78,586 SF 1,200,000$ TOTAL - DIRECT COSTS 78,586 SF 72.66$ $5,709,696 Ventilation System MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/PG Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 6 of 7 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost MROSD SITE IMPROVEMENTS Estimate:Concept FEASIBILITY STUDY - OPTION B HCM Job Number:2015-017 Los Altos, CA Date:10/15/2015 Revised:2/26/2016 HattinCM TOTAL SITE AREA :19,320 SF Estimator:EEV No.Description Unit Cost Extension Total 14 SITE WORKS SITE DEMOLITION Demolish existing one story nuiding incl. foundation & disposal 12,000 SF 10.00$ 120,000$ Grading work 12,000 SF 1.00$ 12,000$ Demolish existing AC parking lot 14,000 SF 1.25$ 17,500$ Dispose demolished AC paving & dump fee 220 CY 40.00$ 8,800$ EARTHWORK Site Preparation 19,320 SF 2.50$ 48,300$ EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS Paving & Surfacing 19,320 SF 5.00$ 96,600$ Irrigation & Landscaping 19,320 SF 6.50$ 125,580$ UTILITIES STORM DRAINAGE 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ SANITARY SEWER 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ DOMESTIC WATER 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ FIRE WATER 1 LS 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ GAS 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ SITE ELECTRICAL 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000$ SITE COMMUNICATION & SECURITY 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000$ TOTAL - SITE IMPROVEMENTS 19,320 SF 28.28 546,280$ MROSD AOB OPTION B R1/SITE Printed: 2/26/2016 Page 7 of 7 AVAILABLE REPORT SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 TYPE SFPROPERTY COMMENTSRATES Rental Rate: Expenses: Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D Lease and Sale Do not disturb tenants, call to show. Negotiating a PSA. Do not disturb tenants, call to show. Negotiating a PSA. Working through environmental issues. $2.65 NNN TBD $4,700,000 $355.52 Avail:13,220110100 Bubb Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1016185269 Rental Rate: Expenses: Rent + Exp.: Office Lease $4.25 NNN $1.26 $5.51 PSF Avail: Min: 24,704 8,6452Cupertino City Center 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 400/450 Cupertino, CA 95014 1016194278 Rental Rate: Expenses: Rent + Exp.: Office Sublease Call to tour.$4.25 NNN $1.27 $5.52 PSF Avail: Min: Max: 11,509 7,580 19,089 3 Cupertino City Center 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 750 Cupertino, CA 95014 1016197637 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Available now. Can be combined with 220, 250/270, and 300 for a total of 46,950 SF. $3.95 NNN TBD Avail: Max: 7,382 46,9504Cupertino City Center 20450 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 150 Cupertino, CA 95014 1016195793 Rental Rate: Expenses: Rent + Exp.: Office Sublease Available now. Can be combined with 150, 250/270, and 300 for a total of 46,950 SF. $3.95 NNN $1.36 $5.31 PSF Avail: Max: 3,457 46,9505Cupertino City Center 20450 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 220 Cupertino, CA 95014 1016195794 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Available now. Can be combined with 150, 220, and 300 for a total of 46,950 SF. $3.95 NNN TBD Avail: Max: 11,184 46,9506Cupertino City Center 20450 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 250/270 Cupertino, CA 95014 1016195795 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Available now. Can be combined with 150, 220, and 250/270 for a total of 46,950 SF. $3.95 NNN TBD Avail: Max: 24,927 46,9507Cupertino City Center 20450 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 300 Cupertino, CA 95014 1016195796 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Lease Prestigious location near downtown. LM zoning. Two story office area. Drive-in basement/parking garage. Custom built automotive facility. $2.25 NNN TBD Avail:13,2448644 University Ave Los Gatos, CA 95032 1016197658 Colliers International is pleased to provide the above information and in doing so believes its validity. However, we cannot guarantee its accuracy or take responsibility for its use.Page 1 of 2CL_Avail_Matrix AVAILABLE REPORT SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 TYPE SFPROPERTY COMMENTSRATES Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Can be combined with suites D1, D2, and D3 for 11,279 SF. 4 rooms for potential private offices and conference rooms. New product storage room, audio room, work room, and kitchen. Contact agents for additional TBD TBD Avail: Max: 3,050 11,2799Saratoga Office Center 12930 Saratoga Ave, Suite B6/B9 Saratoga, CA 95070 1016202509 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Can be combined with suites D2, D3, and B6/b9 for 11,279 SF. Contact agents for additional information. TBD TBD Avail: Max: 2,988 11,27910Saratoga Office Center 12930 Saratoga Ave, Suite D1 Saratoga, CA 95070 1016202507 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Can be combined with suites D1, D3, and B6/B9 for 11,279 SF. Open office and kitchen. Contact agents for additional information. TBD TBD Avail: Max: 3,850 11,27911Saratoga Office Center 12930 Saratoga Ave, Suite D2 Saratoga, CA 95070 1016202508 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Can be combined with Suites D1, D2, B6/B9 for 11,270 SF. Contact agents for additional information. TBD TBD Avail: Max: 1,391 11,27912Saratoga Office Center 12930 Saratoga Ave, Suite D3 Saratoga, CA 95070 1016202505 Rental Rate: Expenses: Office Sublease Server room and multiple spaces for potential private offices and conference rooms. Contact agents for additional information. TBD TBD Avail:15,15713Saratoga Office Center 12950 Saratoga Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 1016202510 Rental Rate:Office Sublease 2 kitchens, reception area, break room, 2 showers, conference rooms, cubicles, QA and WiFi labs, server room, utility closet, electrical room, and IT build. Contact agents for additional information. $3.50 FSAvail:22,63114Saratoga Office Center 12980 Saratoga Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 1016184285 Total Avails: Total Avail SF: 14 158,694 Colliers International is pleased to provide the above information and in doing so believes its validity. However, we cannot guarantee its accuracy or take responsibility for its use.Page 2 of 2CL_Avail_Matrix SEPTEMBER 01, 2016LOCATION SUMMARY AVAILABLE REPORT SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 TYPE SFPROPERTY COMMENTSRATES Rental Rate: Expenses: Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D Lease and Sale Do not disturb tenants, call to show. Negotiating a PSA. Do not disturb tenants, call to show. Negotiating a PSA. Working through environmental issues. $2.65 NNN TBD $4,700,000 $355.52 Avail:13,220110100 Bubb Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1016185269 Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D/Flex Sale $4,480,000 $155.36 Avail:10,36123705 Haven Ave Menlo Park, CA 94025 1016201785 Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D/Office Sale Suite 150-152 of 5,000 SF is also available for lease or owner/user. 30,056 SF lot. New roof, large windows, and high ceilings. 3 separately metered suites with private entrances. Call for pricing and touring instructions. $8,000,000 $800.00 Avail:10,0003150 E Dana St Mountain View, CA 94041 1016202558 Sale Price: Price PSF: Office Sale 100% leased through 2023.Call Call Avail:32,82042500 Faber Pl Palo Alto, CA 94303 1016195520 Sale Price: Price PSF: Office Sale Do not disturb occupant.Call Call Avail:22,0005380 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 1016192230 Sale Price: Price PSF: Office/R&D Sale Target price in the high $5 million range.Call Call Avail:11,0006400 Industrial Rd San Carlos, CA 94070 1016200706 Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D Sale Under contractCall Call Avail:21,87271145 E Arques Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94085 1016199026 Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D Sale $7,800,000 $339.34 Avail:22,9868740 Kifer Rd Sunnyvale, CA 94086 1016202458 Colliers International is pleased to provide the above information and in doing so believes its validity. However, we cannot guarantee its accuracy or take responsibility for its use.Page 1 of 2CL_Avail_Matrix AVAILABLE REPORT SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 TYPE SFPROPERTY COMMENTSRATES Sale Price:Office Sale ±15,400 SF office building constructed in 1979. ±48,352 SF parcel. 51 parking spaces (3.3/1,000 RSF). 1000 AMP Meter and 56 tons HVAC. Leased to two tenants through January 31, 2017 at below market rents. CallAvail:15,40091296 Lawrence Station Rd Sunnyvale, CA 94089 1016199109 Rental Rate: Expenses: Rent + Exp.: Sale Price: R&D Lease and Sale Server room with dedicated air, large break room, copy room. 3 phase electrical service. Available for immediate occupancy. Call to tour. $2.05 NNN $0.49 $2.54 PSF Call Avail:15,23710480 Oakmead Pkwy Sunnyvale, CA 94085 1016200318 Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D Sale In contract 4/23/16.$3,908,160 $360.00 Avail:10,85611Peery Park 639 Pastoria Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94085 1016168236 Rental Rate: Expenses: Sale Price: Price PSF: R&D Lease and Sale Please do not disturb occupant. Call to tour. Please do not disturb occupant. $3.50 NNN TBD $17,000,000 $455.36 Avail: OfficeBldOut SF: R&D SF: 37,333 13,000 24,333 12 Peery Park 305 Soquel Way Sunnyvale, CA 94085 1016197057 Total Avails: Total Avail SF: 12 223,085 Colliers International is pleased to provide the above information and in doing so believes its validity. However, we cannot guarantee its accuracy or take responsibility for its use.Page 2 of 2CL_Avail_Matrix SEPTEMBER 01, 2016LOCATION SUMMARY DATE: September 14, 2016 MEMO TO: Board of Directors MEMO THROUGH: Steve Abbors, General Manager FROM: Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager-Visitor & Field Services Brian Malone, Land & Facilities Services Manager SUBJECT: Letter to San Mateo County Farm Bureau re: Grazing Tenant Indemnification Requirements _____________________________________________________________________________ The San Mateo County Farm Bureau requested, through staff, to meet with the District’s Board of Directors to discuss the indemnification clause in District grazing leases. The Farm Bureau continues to express its apprehension about public access on District grazing properties, especially since the opening of Mindego Hill and plans to open La Honda Creek Preserve. In response to concerns raised about public access and grazing, District staff have taken the following actions. • The District has committed to consulting with the Farm Bureau over management plans in the Coastside Protection Area as part of the MOU between the District and the Bureau. • Staff have done extensive outreach with the Bureau about the introduction of public use onto grazed areas, including holding field meetings with their executive board before opening Mindego, and most recently regarding the plans to open La Honda in 2017. • Staff attend monthly Farm Bureau meetings to present on new projects and answer questions. • Staff also set up a tour to show the Farm Bureau several grazing properties in the East Bay on public lands that have high visitation and successful grazing operations, showing that public use and grazing can be compatible. • The District’s formal communication with the Farm Bureau on March 2, 2016 is attached. • Staff has offered to meet and discuss this issue with the Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau’s request is to change the terms of District grazing leases to indemnify the tenant rather than the tenant indemnifying the District. Staff has carefully considered the issue of public safety and liability concerns on District grazing properties. District grazing leases take into account these concerns and represent an allocation of risk that is consistent with other District contracts, and the District’s overall approach to risk allocation. In general, the manner in which any tenant’s activities are managed, including grazing operations, affects the level of risk. Our grazing tenants are in the best position to control their operations and therefore control their exposure to risk. Therefore, the terms of District grazing leases require the grazing tenant to indemnify the District. • The indemnification clause is standard for other public agencies for contractual agreements where the private party is gaining a benefit from the agency. • All Bay Area agencies surveyed have similar terms in their grazing leases. • District General Counsel has reviewed the grazing leases and concurs that a clause indemnifying the District is reasonable and affords the District the best liability protection. • Indemnification clauses protecting the District are a best management practice according to the California Joint Powers Authority (our insurance pool). After a review of the Farm Bureau’s request, the General Manager and General Counsel recommend to continue to use the District’s existing lease language. The response to the Farm Bureau is attached, and includes an offer for the Farm Bureau to meet with Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone and Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse. September 9, 2016 Mr. BJ Burns, President San Mateo County Farm Bureau 765 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 RE: Farm Bureau Request to Meet with the District Board of Directors in Regards to Having the District Indemnify Grazing Tenants Dear Mr. Burns, This letter is in response to your request to have the Farm Bureau’s executive board members meet with the District’s Board of Directors. Our understanding is that this request was made in order to discuss the Farm Bureau’s request to have the District indemnify the District’s grazing tenants. The District’s General Manager and General Counsel have reviewed your request. The District’s position remains the same as communicated to you in detail in the March 2, 2016 letter to you from District Real Property Manager Mike Williams (letter attached). The District will continue to require grazing tenants to indemnify the District, which is a widely accepted best practice for public agencies managing lands on behalf of the public. The basic reason that applies to all contracts is that risk, in the form of liability, is best placed on the party that has the most control of the actions that affect risk. In the case of a grazing lease, the party with the most control of the grazing operation is the grazing tenant. The District’s Board of Directors will be copied on this response and provided background information about the indemnification issue. The District looks forward to continuing to consult with the Farm Bureau and our grazing tenants to ensure the successful combination of grazing and public use on certain District grazing properties. We had previously offered to have managerial level staff meet with the executive members of the Farm Bureau Board, and that offer still stands. Please let me, or Land and Facilities Services Manager Brian Malone, know if you are interested in meeting with us. The District looks forward to our continued relationship with the Farm Bureau to work together to fulfill our coastal mission: To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Sincerely, Kevin S. Woodhouse Assistant General Manager, Visitor & Field Services cc: District Board of Directors Steve Abbors, General Manager Brian Malone, Land & Facilities Services Manager Mike Williams, Real Property Manager Jess Brown, Executive Director San Mateo Farm Bureau Regional Open Space I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District March 2, 2016 BJ Burns, President San Mateo Farm Bureau 765 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 RE: Public Trail Use and Grazing Concerns GENERAL MANAGER Stephen E Abbors BOARD OF DIRECTORS Pete Siemens Yoriko Kishimoto Jed Cyr Curt Riffle Nonette Hanko Larry Hassett Cecily Harris At the meeting on February 1, 2016, District staff met with the Farm Bureau to discuss public trail signage for grazed lands at the Mindego Ranch area of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. We appreciate the Farm Bureau members and the District grazing tenants input on the signage plan. The signs that were presented at the meeting were generally well received, and no input was received after the meeting, so the signs were ordered as presented. Several members present at the meeting suggested adding a sign identifying the grazing tenant. District staff discussed this possibility with the current Mindego Ranch grazing tenant, who was not interested in having their name posted and preferred that the District handle any public inquires. In the future, we will discuss with other grazing tenants whether they would like to explore the possibility of such signage if a grazed property is opened for public access. Other questions, concerns and requests expressed during the meeting are addressed below. 1. Mindego Hill Trail closures during high fire danger One of the questions raised at the meeting concerned closing the Mindego Hill Trail during high fire danger. The closure of access to the section of the Mindego Hill trail within the Coastside Protection Area will be accomplished by installing a closure gate on the Mindego Hill Trail. This gate will be posted closed when there is a Cal Fire Red Flag Warning for that response area. The Mindego-Alpine Road Parking lot will remain open to provide access to other areas of the preserve outside the Coastside Protection Area. 2. Grazing lease indemnity and liability questions. Another concern expressed by grazing tenants and the Farm Bureau is related to safety issues and potential liability resulting from opening Mindego Hill and other grazed properties for public access. We certainly understand these concerns and are aware that public access on grazed properties is new on the San Mateo coast. In putting together the District's grazing leases, the District has reviewed and considered insurance requirements and indemnity language from seven other public open space, park and water company grazing programs, including Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation, Santa Clara Valley Open 33o Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 I P 650.691.1200 I F 650.691.0485 I www.openspace.org I Space Authority, East Bay Regional Park District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Marin County Open Space District, Contra Costa County Water District and East Bay Municipal Utility District. All of these agreements include indemnity and insurance provisions similar to those in the District's grazing lease. The tenant/licensee is required to provide either $1 million or $2 million general liability coverage naming the public agency as an additional insured. The current requirement in District grazing leases is $1 million per occurrence. The District has carefully considered the issue of public safety and liability concerns that are shared by the District and its grazing tenants. Our grazing leases take into account these concerns and represent an allocation of risk that is consistent with other District contracts, and our overall approach to risk allocation. In general, the manner in which any tenant's activities are managed, including grazing operations, affects the level of risk. Our grazing tenants are in the best position to control their operations. Therefore the terms of the grazing lease require tenants to share in the risk. There was also concern that a grazing tenant could have to pay an insurance claim which could jeopardize their ability to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost. We would have to resolve this on a case by case basis. Depending on the particular circumstances of an incident, it is possible that the District might be able to recommend that the District work with the tenant to fund the additional costs of any required replacement coverages. The District has reviewed the email provided by the Farm Bureau from Carl Borden, the Associate Counsel from the California Farm Bureau Federation, suggesting that the District incorporate different indemnity provisions in our grazing leases. The District carefully re -considered this issue as requested, but the analysis and conclusion remain the same. The District feels that the existing allocation of risk remains appropriate. Finally, although the District does not provide legal advice to persons outside our agency, perhaps counsel for the Farm Bureau could advise grazing tenants regarding the Recreational Use Statute (California Civil Code section 846) as a possible defense in lawsuits related to recreational uses of leased properties (Statute attached). 3. Field trip to view private grazing operations with public trail use. As requested at the meeting, Clayton Koopmann will work with Jess Brown to set up a field trip for San Mateo County Farm Bureau members, District grazing tenants, and District staff to visit grazed public land with a recreational component to better understand how the operations function successfully and mitigating measures to overcome potential challenges. The field trip will be held sometime in May 2016 and will look at both cow/calf and stocker operations on public land in the east bay including meeting with the current grazers. Janet Burback from Santa Clara County Farm Bureau has agreed to help with the field trip. 4. District's Conservation Grazing Program: Tenant and District relationship The District's conservation grazing program is managed with a lease which includes a prescribed Grazing Plan with the goals of grassland management, fuel load reduction and protection of watersheds. The Grazing Plan is adjusted each year based on the available grassland forage to account for wetter years and drier years. Unlike some grazing leases on private lands which allow the rancher to make decisions on stocking rates and grazing season, the District Rangeland Ecologist meets with grazing tenants to establish annual stocking rates, the grazing season and to prioritize maintenance and infrastructure improvements. The District's grazing lease reserves the right for the District to open properties for public trail improvements and use. Before opening grazed lands to public trail use, District staff will work with grazing tenants to review trail plans, identify necessary fencing, gates and address other concerns. Ongoing communication between District staff and grazing tenants will be important to the successful transition to public trail use on the District's grazed lands. In addition, the District continues to fulfill the MOU with the Farm Bureau with consultation and information sharing of new public trail plans prior to opening open space lands for public use. I hope this information and the field trip in May will improve the understanding of how public trail use and grazing can be compatible. Sincerely, Michael Williams Real Property Manager cc: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager Jess Brown, Executive Director http://leginfo.legislature. ca. gov/faces/printCodeS ectionWindow. xhtml... CIVIL CODE - CIV DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 - 1422] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. ) PART 2. REAL OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY [[755.] - 945.5] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. TITLE 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF OWNERS [818 - 855] ( Title 3 enacted 1872. ) CHAPTER 2. Obligations of Owners [840 - 848] ( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. ) 846. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section. A "recreational purpose," as used in this section, includes activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, hang gliding, private noncommercial aviation activities, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby (a) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for that purpose, or (b) constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (c) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in this section. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner. Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property. (Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 52, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2015.) 1 of 1 3/2/2016 8:49 AM From:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:Board Questions Re 9/14/16 Agenda Date:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:42:10 PM Good afternoon all, Please find responses below in blue to Director Kishimoto's questions. Thank you. Jen Item 3: vegetation management What herbicides will be applied? Two herbicide are called for within the contract: Roundup Promax and Roundup Custom. Both of these products have glyphosate as the active ingredient. The IPM Plan for the Preserve specifies that only 2 methods of application will be used, in order to minimize herbicide use. The treatment methods are: 1) Cut-Stump - used on woody vegetation, where the herbicide is applied to the freshly cut stem (the cambium layer), and 2) Mow-Treat-Mow - this treatment method mows larger portions of invasive species. The plants are allowed to regrow to 6 inches in height and then a foliar spray is applied. This lessens the amount of herbicide applied by factors up to 10. And could we get an IPM (integrated pest management) update sometime soon? The Annual IPM report is coming to the full Board on October 26th. At this meeting, the Board will be presented with the following information: summary of pest problems, summary of District pest control treatments, an analysis of the effectiveness of the District’s pest control program, pesticide usage, public notifications and inquiries and compliance with the Guidance Manual. What has our IPM manager been working on? The IPM Coordinator is a valuable technical resource for staff from several of the District's Departments engaged in pest management activities. Additionally, he's reviewed new Pest Control Projects (i.e. treatment methods for a Page Mill Road shaded fuel break), contracted with pest and vegetation management contractors (i.e. Vegetation Management for Road and Trails at Bear Creek Redwoods), worked with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to control slender false brome (SFB) on private lands, created a new partnership with Santa Clara University to assist with research on SFB, worked with PG&E for vegetation management on their easements, and has written the Annual IPM Report for 2015. How much herbicides are we applying per year (this year/trends)? This information will be presented to the Board during the October 26 presentation of the Annual IPM Report. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager jwoodworth@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 E-mail correspondence with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act. From:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:RE: Board Questions Re 9/14/16 Agenda Date:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:23:44 AM Good morning all, Please find responses to Director Riffle’s questions below. Thank you. Jen I have two claims questions: 73088: What is the Bay Area Monitor? A publication of the League of Women Voters. We are listed as a sponsor in their periodical. 73180: Why do we have a flight recorder? This is a diagnostic troubleshooting tool that was installed on one of the patrol vehicles. It does not belong to the District. The Ford Dealer installed it on the advice of their national service hotline. They are hoping it will help them solve an erratic behavior with the vehicle’s stability control system. From: Jennifer Woodworth Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:42 PM Subject: Board Questions Re 9/14/16 Agenda Good afternoon all, Please find responses below in blue to Director Kishimoto's questions. Thank you. Jen Item 3: vegetation management What herbicides will be applied? Two herbicide are called for within the contract: Roundup Promax and Roundup Custom. Both of these products have glyphosate as the active ingredient. The IPM Plan for the Preserve specifies that only 2 methods of application will be used, in order to minimize herbicide use. The treatment methods are: 1) Cut-Stump - used on woody vegetation, where the herbicide is applied to the freshly cut stem (the cambium layer), and 2) Mow-Treat-Mow - this treatment method mows larger portions of invasive species. The plants are allowed to regrow to 6 inches in height and then a foliar spray is applied. This lessens the amount of herbicide applied by factors up to 10. And could we get an IPM (integrated pest management) update sometime soon? The Annual IPM report is coming to the full Board on October 26th. At this meeting, the Board will be presented with the following information: summary of pest problems, summary of District pest control treatments, an analysis of the effectiveness of the District’s pest control program, pesticide usage, public notifications and inquiries and compliance with the Guidance Manual. What has our IPM manager been working on? The IPM Coordinator is a valuable technical resource for staff from several of the District's Departments engaged in pest management activities. Additionally, he's reviewed new Pest Control Projects (i.e. treatment methods for a Page Mill Road shaded fuel break), contracted with pest and vegetation management contractors (i.e. Vegetation Management for Road and Trails at Bear Creek Redwoods), worked with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to control slender false brome (SFB) on private lands, created a new partnership with Santa Clara University to assist with research on SFB, worked with PG&E for vegetation management on their easements, and has written the Annual IPM Report for 2015. How much herbicides are we applying per year (this year/trends)? This information will be presented to the Board during the October 26 presentation of the Annual IPM Report. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager jwoodworth@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 E-mail correspondence with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.