GAVILAN JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

CLOSED SESSION – 6:00 p.m.

OPEN SESSION – 7:00 p.m.

MINUTES

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Mark Dover at 6:02 p.m.

1. Roll Call

Trustees: Mark Dover, Deb Smith, Elvira Robinson, Leonard Washington, Kent Child, Laura Perry, Tom Breen

2. Recess to closed session

The Board recessed to closed session at 6:02 p.m.

II. OPEN SESSION 7:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Mark Dover at 7:00 p.m.

2. Roll Call

Mark Dover, Deb Smith, Elvira Robinson, Leonard Washington, Kent Child, Tom Breen, Laura Perry, Andrew Williams

Dr. Steven M. Kinsella, Superintendent/President

Joe Keeler, Vice President of Administrative Services

Dr. Victor S. Krimsley, Interim Vice President of Instruction

Rosie Armstrong, Professional Support Staff

Suzanne Bulle, Recording Secretary

Others in Attendance: Robin Egbert, Kirk Wheeler, Tracy Cline, Steve Rottenborn, Tim Holliday, Lance Frihofer, Jennifer Ralston, Vilma Estacio, Angus Teter, C. J. Gleanes, Pat Cornely, Rick Malupo, Peter Woolhouse, Julie Phillips, Hannah Kempis, Gary Patton, Ali Esmaili, Elizabeth Rilt, Stephen Navarra, Brian Schmidt, Ryan McBride, Anne Ratto, Fran Lopez, Rachel Perez, Fran Lozano, Ron Hannon, Susan E. Alonzo, Jan Chargin, Craige Edgerton, Julie Ceballos, Kristin Jensen Sullivan, Sami Phillips, Christine Choi, Roger Baldwin, Mark Anthony Medeiros, Lori Parsons, Leila Forouhi, Tanya Diamond, Gary Patton

3. Pledge of Allegiance

Trustee Smith led the pledge of allegiance.

4. Report of any action taken in closed session

No action taken in closed session

5. Consent Agenda

MSC (Smith/Washington) unanimously carried to approve consent agenda.

6. Approval of Agenda

MSC (Perry/Williams) unanimously carried to approve agenda.

7. Comments from the Public - This is a time for the public to address the Board

Tim Holliday, former student trustee, Digital Media major, thanked Fran Lopez for making arrangements to accommodate disabled students and the MIS department for setting up computers for use by disabled students.

Robin Egbert, Digital Media and TV Production student, announced that students of the Gavilan College TV Production class and Jan Bernstein Chargin, host of News and Views, won a statewide community college competition. The episode included Robin’s segment, “Staff Stealing Student Parking”.

8. Officers' Reports

(a) Vice Presidents

Vic reported that enrollment is up about 14% (headcount) from last fall and staff has moved into newly renovated buildings. Over the last 2 weeks the college has welcomed new faculty and returning faculty and conducted successful staff development days. We are continuing work on SLOs and programs that need approval from the Chancellor’s Office.

(b) College President

No report

(c) Academic Senate

No representative

(d) Professional Support Staff

Rosie Armstrong reported that staff has scheduled the first meeting for Sept. 17.

(e) Student Representative

Student Trustee Williams announced ASB officers. The ASB hosted welcome back week and provided food, snacks and music for students; the ASB is working on Club Day, El Grito, and Constitution Day (Sept. 16-17) and is encouraging students to register to vote.

(f) Board Member Comments

Trustee Robinson reported the Latino Advisory Committee met on Sept. 8. Eddie Cervantes, Director for MESA, provided an update on MESA program. Trustee Robinson reported that there are 4 new noncredit ESL classes in Gilroy and 9 in Hollister. Work is continuing on getting noncredit ESL classes in Morgan Hill. Trustee Perry attended a Gavilan College Educational Foundation event at Guglielmo Winery. Trustee Perry thanked Ken Berry and members of foundation for their work. Trustee Perry reported that Trustee Washington would be not be seeking reelection as a trustee. Mike Davenport, Manager at CISCO, a member of the Morgan Hill Rotary Club, filed papers to run for the open seat on the Gavilan College Board of Trustees and because he ran unopposed was elected as trustee. He will be sworn in at the board meeting in December.

(g) Board President

No report

(h) Board Committee Reports

No report

10. Information/Staff Reports

(a) Recognition of the Employee of the Month

Provided for information, Trustee Smith suggested adding to the list of follow up items, #9., Send a letter to the Editor of local newspaper(s).

(f) Contract and Community Education Annual Report

Provided for information

(g) Community Education Classes Fall 2008

Provided for information; Trustee Smith complimented Terry Newman for a nice array of classes and acknowledged the staff in the Community Education department for a job well done.

III. ACTION ITEMS

1. New Business

(a) Public Hearing to Receive Comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Coyote Valley Project Site

MSC (Perry/Williams) to open public hearing 7:13 p.m.

Steve Kinsella highlighted the history of site selection for the proposed Coyote Valley Campus.

Judy Shanley, David J. Powers and Associates, reviewed environmental impact report planning and CEQA process, summary of EIR issues, responses to comments, and benefits of project.

Jeffrey Kuhn, Lozano Smith, reviewed benefits of project and issues requiring statement of overriding considerations, and recommended board actions. Mr. Kuhn referred to the memorandums from Steve Kinsella and Judy Shanley, both of which relate to the financial and feasibility of the district widening of US 101 and being able to choose one of the alternative locations on Bailey Avenue for this project as opposed to the 55-acre site identified.

Public Comments: The following members of the public stated their opposition to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Coyote Valley:

Gary Patton, general counsel, Planning & Conservation League, instructor De Anza College, asked the Board not to certify the final EIR and not approve the project.

C. J. Leitz, biology student, De Anza College

Julie Phillips, Chair of Environmental Studies Department at De Anza College, thanked Steve Kinsella for coming to De Anza to meet with students and asked the Board to reconsider the plan, would like to see an environmental studies program at Gavilan and alternate studies in organic farming, and conservation.

Tanya Diamond, field instructor, De Anza College, stated concerns about mitigation for badgers, tiger salamanders, asked the Board not to certify the final EIR

Ryan McBride, Gavilan student, stated concerns about public transportation, local housing, and bike paths, would like to build in Gilroy

Peter Woolhouse, De Anza Wildlife Corridor, presented picture of animal tracks

Jennifer Ralston, De Anza student, San Jose resident, read a letter from a friend.

Vilma Estasio, De Anza Stewardship Team, San Jose resident

Lance Frihofer, De Anza College Wildlife Corridor Stewardship Team

Angus Teter, Wildlife Corridor Stewardship Team (De Anza) asked the Board to consider carefully the EIR before making a decision.

Pat Conley, Executive director, Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies, De Anza College

Kristen Jensen Sullivan, Instructor, Environmental Studies and Science at
De Anza College, referred to pages 167-181, and 169 (emissions), in her comments

Rick Ilalupo, San Jose resident, De Anza Wildlife Stewardship Team

Sami Phillips, De Anza College, read letter from Ryan Phillips and urged the Board to seek an alternative site.

Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties

Lela Forouhi, student

Laurie Parsons, distributed and read two letters, one addressed to Mark Dover and the Board of Trustees from De Anza College students, and one from Doug Cheeseman, Emeritus Professor of Biology, De Anza College

Mark Madeiros, student, San Jose State University

Roger Baldwin, student, West Valley and De Anza colleges

Christine Choi, referred to pages 2, 181, sections 4.14, 4.11, 4.13 in her comments

Steven Navarra, Morgan Hill resident, lives in Coyote Valley, student, De Anza College

Tim Holliday, student, Gavilan College, asked if the study addressed the issue about radiation impact.

Craig, Edgerton, stated ACP is prime importance of corridor area

Ali Esmaili, Vice President, Student Services, Gavilan College, biology major, not entirely for or against the project, noted overcrowding at Gavilan campus

Public hearing closed at 8:56 p.m.

(b) Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Approve the Project, Resolution No. 900

MSC (Perry/Williams) unanimously carried on a roll call vote.

Jeff Kuhn, suggested that the Board allow consultants to respond to comments from the public.

Judy Shanely’s responses to public comments:

The project site is and has been planned for a long time as a future location of urban development within the City of San José. It is in the San José General Plan as campus industrial and has been identified as such for several years. It is not designated as either a agricultural or open space preserve/wildlife corridor by the General Plan. As a part of the Notice of Preparation there were notices sent to Native American Heritage Commission and no responses were received. As a part of the overall investigations there were both literature searches and a series of mechanical testing done across the site that found no signs of archeological resources. The project does include mitigation measures to stop in the event if anything is found and address it accordingly. The project does acknowledge and evaluate the project’s contribution to global climate change. The litigation that has occurred with the Attorney General’s office is where environmental impact reports and lead agencies consider projects that do not acknowledge or try to evaluate or come to any conclusions about projects and emissions that will be generated by a proposed development. It is not a litigation based upon the proposed development causing any emissions; a good faith effort is not being made to quantify and come to some conclusions about the impacts. It was a significant impact even though there were formerly no stated or official thresholds of significance at this time related to global climate change.

Steve Rotenborn, Principal with the ecological consultant firm of H T Harvey and Associates, response to public comments related to biological resources and wildlife movement:

The company has been working on the Sobrato site since 1997, primarily related to wetlands, wetland delineation, and monitoring. The company has conducted a number of surveys on the site over the years, not just starting with this project. There have been a number of ecologists working the site.

Steve thanked the De Anza College Wildlife Corridor Stewardship Team for the work done to bring the importance of the Coyote Valley to wildlife and wildlife movement to the public. There is no question that Coyote Valley as a whole is important to wildlife and it is an important wildlife corridor. This project will have an affect on wildlife on the site and will have an affect on wildlife movement. The DEIR has stated that and the Final EIR indicated that in greater detail. The question in preparing the biological section of the EIR was whether this impact is significant under CEQA, whether the standard will substantially interfere with wildlife movement. Wildlife movement through the project will be affected; the movement of wildlife.

Response from Steve Rotenborn to lack of data collection of wildlife movement in area:

All the factors concerning the conditions on the site and the context of this site, regionally on the scale of Coyote Valley, led to the conclusion that there was no reason to believe that the development of this site, which represents about 1% of the undeveloped land area that was considered in the Coyote Valley Specific Plan, was used disproportionately by wildlife moving through this broad corridor. This site is part of that very important part of this corridor, but it is not a movement corridor in and of itself. This site has been heavily cultivated for decades since it was a golf course and is not conducive to use by large numbers of individuals moving preferentially across Coyote Valley through this particular area. There is a pond on the site and water attracts wildlife, but there are no returning corridors with heavily vegetated areas. The site is heavily disturbed and does not support large concentrations of prey populations. There are no mammal burrows out in the site; they are concentrated at the edges that are not disked and it has been that way since the 1990’s. From the start there was no reason to believe that a large scale intensive data collection effort on wildlife movement through the site was necessary. The data collected through the Wildlife Corridor Stewardship Team documenting movement of large numbers of wildlife along Bailey Ave. and Laguna Ave. and coming in and out of the fields on both areas suggested what we suspect is occurring. Wildlife is moving on a broad front through this corridor, which has been hemmed in by development. There still is an area of approximately 6 miles long, north to south, where wildlife could move through the valley from one side to the other. This site represents about ¼ mile, about 4% of the 6 mile distance. Based on the comments received from DEIR much more detail was prepared in response to the comments and in more detail in the Final EIR. The conclusion is the same; it is not expected that the project will have a significant affect on wildlife movement through the Coyote Valley. In response to the comment of the necessity for 2 kilometers for a viable corridor; the basic rule of thumb in corridor design is broader is better, animals can move through it and can live in it and move across the valley over a period of generations. One of the fundamental assumptions of all of this analysis an the importance of Coyote Valley as a movement corridor is that wildlife are able to navigate enough of the obstacles in Coyote Valley to make it across the valley between the Diablo range and Santa Cruz mountains or vice versa. Highway 101 and Monterey Road are undoubtedly the two greatest constraints to wildlife movement. The Wildlife Stewardship Team and others have documented that wildlife do cross these features. Some of the larger species, might be able to cross primarily over highway 101 in some areas, some are able to cross over Monterey Road and the tall median barrier in some areas, but most likely the vast majority of wildlife movement across the features occurs on Monterey Road at the few areas where there are gaps in the median barrier or on highway 101 using underpasses or narrow culverts. Based on this documentation it is acknowledged that wildlife movement across the valley is biologically important. The narrow culverts are not by design the corridor of choice, but wildlife is moving through these. The analysis was looking at the affects of the development of this project, not only the site but the regional context, and what would be left after this project is developed in concert with Coyote Valley Research Park, which is approved development. The map referred to with the yellow lines is not where you would expect wildlife to move today. The Corridor Stewardship Team has documented that wildlife is moving on a broad front across the valley, but there is still substantial areas where wildlife can move across the valley in the vicinity of the site, across the west side, after this project is constructed. There will be an area approximately 1.2 miles, north/south distance wide, south of this site where there are conditions very similar to what is on the project site. It is agriculture or very low density residential areas where wildlife can move through. There is an area, south of the site where some wildlife movement is possible, but not a high quality movement corridor because of higher density development, but it would not be a barrier to wildlife movement. On the east side of the site, there is an area approximately .04 of a mile-wide between this site and Fisher Creek that would provide access to wildlife moving between areas to the south of the site in the Santa Cruz mountains and the hills east of IBM, from there up the Santa Teresa hills to Tulare hill. To the west of the site is a broad undeveloped area, about .04 of a mile to the base of the foothills and a broad undeveloped area to the west that allows north/south movement from south of the site to the Santa Teresa hills and Tulare hill. Once wildlife gets to these sites they still need to navigate through impediments like Monterey Road and highway 101. It is the opinion of HT Harvey and Associates that wildlife will be able to move around the site, there will be some impact on wildlife movement, but wildlife will have much broader areas to move around this site than the impediments on Monterey Road and highway 101. The mountain lion linkages map was to illustrate a broad, very course scale approach that was taken by someone who was looking at this corridor issue. We concur with the speakers that the corridor is much narrower. The mountain lion is an umbrella species that if often used for species that require large home ranges, sensitive to human activity disturbance. Movement by mountain lions might be an indicator of how broad corridors might need to be. According to a study done by Byer, a corridor ecologist, only one study found in the literature based on data collected in the field, really honed in on what the minimum corridor needed to be for one of the species that might occur in the Coyote Valley. His conclusion was that corridors needed to be at least 400 meters wide for mountain lions. This provides a benchmark for how broad the corridors need to be. For a species that are sensitive to disturbance and need a broad home range and if they can move through corridors a ¼ mile wide, then the areas .04 of a mile wide to the east and 1.2 miles to the south would still enable them to move past the site. The issue is not whether there is an impact, but whether it meets the standard for significance under CEQA.

The entire site is considered California Tiger Salamander habitat. Surveys have been conducted over 24 days and nights under several different protocols by the wildlife agencies for tiger salamanders on the site and found two salamanders on the site. The existing pond is full of predatory fish and crayfish and is not a good tiger salamander breeding pond. This is not a healthy, viable population of tiger salamanders, in part because of the aquatic conditions and because the site is so heavily and repeatedly disked. This project did not make that distinction that this was not tiger salamander habitat. It assumed that there is a significant impact to tiger salamanders because it is possible the tiger salamanders that are in areas to the north could cross the field and get into the site. It does need to be mitigated. In regards to the habitat conservation plan, the area is designated as an area to be preserved by the habitat conservation plan. It is possible there was confusion because the arrow through the site showing the Coyote Valley as an important movement corridor may have led to that conclusion, but after the Coyote Valley Specific Plan was dropped, Steve Rotenborn spoke with the consultants that were preparing the HGP to ask if the plans were going to change because they might affect the project. The consultants indicated no. There is still the assumption that the Coyote Valley Specific Plan will still be developed and it will have to determine and mitigate the impacts, which would include wildlife corridor.

Jeff Kuhn referred to a memo from Judy Shanley and noted a slight revision to the proposed findings and the mitigation measures regarding the suggestion to widen highway 101. In the findings that were included with the resolution it was suggested that if the Board finds it is not financially feasible for the district to undertake widening highway 101, it would consider adopting a mitigation measure. Additional analysis in the memo from Judy Shanley suggested that the district consider adopting as a mitigation measure, by which the district could pay a fair share of the cost of the project, about 1.4%. It could be placed into a fund that will accumulate funds over time. Jeff clarified the unavoidable impact on the aesthetics and view from the site is both a cumulative and a direct project impact that can not be mitigated.

Judy Shanley referred to a letter, received late from the County of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department, in response to Final EIR and noted that it did not raise any new issues or new information that resulted in a determination of a new significant impact. The letter mentioned that they wanted the EIR to identify and include description of various county wide trail routes, which was included on revisions to the text of the EIR on pp. 128-130. There were some issues and discussion of the responses to comments about the California Tiger Salamander and the importance of the pond on the project to wildlife, which was already addressed by Steve Rotenborn. There were some questions about the impact on wildlife movement from traffic. The response does not talk about the impacts of the project at 3:00 a.m., but rather it does acknowledge that there would be increased traffic in the evening times when wildlife might be moving. The project has been revised to include the mitigation measures that were previously mentioned.

Jeff asked if the motion would include those clarifications and the revised mitigation measure on the freeway widening. Trustee Breen asked if there was a mechanism that provides funds for the 101 widening. Jeff indicated no. Trustee Breen stated that he did not want to describe a mechanism that does not exist and agree to contribute to something by setting a percentage and that the Board should not do it. Trustee Breen also stated that as a Board he would want to do that if the opportunity presented itself. Jeff clarified that the wording suggested if and when there is a mechanism with which to do that, the District is willing to contribute its fair share toward the cost of that improvement. Trustee Breen stated that the district is always willing to contribute its fair share. Jeff noted that they had not gotten to that level of analysis and that is why the suggestion for a revised mitigation measure. Trustee Breen stated that he did not want to develop language that was not enforceable. Jeff referred to page 3 of Judy Shanley’s memo with suggested language. Trustee Breen stated it was ok.

Brian Schmidt, Community for Green Foothills, referred to land use designation of campus industrial, CEQA requires the consideration of existing physical conditions as a baseline and it does not matter what the land use designation for the purpose of determining whether there is significant impact; referred to wildlife and noted that there is no discussion how wildlife could be impacted by the traffic of 10,000 people a day down those corridors; referred to the habitat conservation plan; noted that he was a member of the stakeholder advisory group (3 years) and stated that the corridor is designated in the habitat plan and it does not matter that the Coyote Valley Specific Plan is separate from the habitat plan; it is still a priority conservation area; referred to 101 mitigation; the district should be responsible for the mitigations that it undertakes. The issue before the Board was originally discussed as something to serve the greater Morgan Hill area, but the site location is in San Jose. The Coyote Valley Specific Plan, a 60,000 – 80,000 person city is not going to be constructed, which is noted in the final EIR, raises a question whether or not this is an appropriate site for something that is suppose to serve the greater Morgan Hilll, whatever that is, and the Gavilan Community College District as a whole. Brian stated that if a radius of 5 miles was drawn around the site,
95-99% of the population in the radius would not be in the Gavilan Community College District, but in San Jose. Brian stated that there will never be a majority of potential students within the community college district and asked if this was an appropriate place to put this location. It would be much better placed in a more centrally located area and the issue needs to be reinvestigated.

Steve Kinsella stated that the site was identified by an analysis of the population that the college serves and various radii that are used by the state Chancellor’s Office. A college needs to be at least 10 miles from any other existing community college. This site is 18 miles to the north of Gavilan College and it is the ideal location when you do geographical analysis. It falls right on Bailey Avenue and it is the proper location. The terminology, the Greater Morgan Hill, is identified in the bond measure to note that it is generally north of Morgan Hill without calling it Coyote Valley or San Jose or something else. It was part of the site selection criteria when the Board was looking for a particular location. The site is far enough away from San Jose City and Evergreen Valley colleges to qualify as a site under California community college guidelines and those guidelines were used to identify the specific location.

Trustee Dover thanked the De Anza students for coming to speak to the Board.

Trustee Child stated that 40 years ago he had come to work at Gavilan College where there were no houses in the immediate vicinity and no highway 101 freeway. The college is located in a relatively natural environment. Trustee Child remembered nights at the college when he would go outside to the parking lot and observe deer grazing on the campus fields, called lawns during the day. The only animal that he had seen killed by a resident mountain lion on the campus was a deer was outside his office. Trustee Child acknowledged the research presented and passion expressed by the public and noted that he spent 40 years of his life surrounded by natural wildlife on a California community college campus. If this is done right it does not have to be the black or white that is too often left in those gaps between words and sentiments. My vote tonight will be reflecting those 40 years of experience in this beautiful environment.

Student Trustee Williams stated that as a resident of Hollister for 11 years can attest to deer killed on Union Road and birds of prey killed on highway 25, Paragon falcons, hawks, and owls. Our present campus has grown (14%) as well as in Hollister, even with house foreclosures. There are 3,000 students at San Benito High School. There is a need for this campus.

(c) Community Spirit Awards

MSC (Breen/Smith) unanimously carried to approve nominees.

Jan Chargin announced the nominees of the community spirit awards.

(d) Budget Adjustments

MSC (Perry/Robinson) unanimously carried to approve budget adjustments.

(e) Public Hearing and Approval of the Final Budget FY 2008-09

MSC (Perry/Breen) to open public hearing.

Joe reported that this is a balanced budget, with a deficit of $200,000 based on the best revenue and expenditure estimates.

MSC (Perry/Williams) to close public hearing.

MSC (Washington/Smith) unanimously carried to approve the final budget for fiscal year 2008-09.

(f) National Incident Management System (NIMS), Resolution No. 899

MSC (Robinson/Child) unanimously carried to approve the National Incident Management System, Resolution No. 899 on a roll call vote.

Joe noted that the cost of the consultant has not been determined and he will keep the Board updated on associated costs through the budget committees.

(g) Disposition of Surplus Personal Property

MSC (Breen/Robinson) unanimously carried to approve disposition of surplus personal property.

(h) Notice of Completion for Science Buildings Modernization Project

MSC (Breen/Child) unanimously carried to approve Notice of Completion for the Science Buildings Modernization Project. Total cost was approximately $6 million. Student Trustee Williams stated that there are too many left handed chairs in LS 101 and asked if more right handed chairs could be added. Joe asked Student Trustee to submit the request in writing and he will work with Fran Lopez to make the classroom optimal for instruction. Student Trustee Williams also stated that the projector is not working in this and other classrooms. Joe and Vic have toured the classrooms and asked staff to inform them of things that need to be addressed and they are being taken care as they come up. Trustee Smith asked about projected costs and actual budget. Joe stated the budget had about $5.5 million and $400,000 was taken from the contingency program. This came in about $200,000 over budget. The asbestos clean up contributed to the overage.

(i) Notice of Completion for Phase 2 Site Improvement Project

MSC (Smith/Perry) unanimously carried to approve Notice of Completion for the Phase 2 Site Improvement Project.

(j) Various Capital Project Change Orders

MSC (Perry/Washington) unanimously carried to approve various capital project change orders.

IV. CLOSING ITEMS

1. The next regularly scheduled Board meeting is October 14, 2008, Morgan Hill Community & Cultural Center, Morgan Hill.

2. The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.

*Roll Call Vote

MSC (Motion/Second/Carried)