HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200527 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-11SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM*
Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and the March 16, 2020 Order of the
Health Officer of Santa Clara County directing all individuals living in the County to shelter at their place of
residence, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to
make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking
to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended
all contrary provisions of the Brown Act.
THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/85756209036 or listen to the meeting
by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 85756209036).
2.Members of the public may provide written comments by submitting a public comment form
at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment
•Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls
for public comments.
•Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is
closed.
•All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the
board of directors meeting.
•Electronic comments on agenda may only be submitted via the public comment form. Comments via text
or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.
Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting.
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: Lehigh Southwest Cement Company (Santa Clara County APNs: 351-09-003,
351-12-067, 351-09-023, 351-09-025, 351-10-037, 351-10-017, 351-10-019, 351-10-039,
351-10-044, 351-10-011, 351-10-030, 351-10-029, 351-10-023, 351-10-012, 351-10-038,
351-11-001, 351-11-005, 351-11-007, 351-11-012)
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent and Brian Malone, Assistant
General Manager
Meeting 20-11
Rev. 1/3/20
Negotiating Party: Erika Guerra
Under Negotiation: Price and terms
2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: General Manager
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ROLL CALL
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda;
however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items
not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment during this section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve May 13, 2020 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Award of Contract for Vegetation Mapping Services in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties
(R-20-50)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a four-year cooperative agreement with San Mateo
County Resource Conservation District for regional vegetation mapping services, for an
amount not-to-exceed $200,000.
2. Authorize a 12% contingency of $24,000 to request additional mapping services, if deemed
beneficial and appropriate, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $224,000.
4. Subcontractor Substitution for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project (R-20-52)
Staff Contact: Scott Reeves, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction
Department
General Manager’s Recommendations: Consent to a subcontractor substitution for the
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project.
5. Award of Contract for Web Design and Development Services (R-20-51)
Staff Contact: Cydney Bieber, Public Affairs Specialist II, Public Affairs Department
Rev. 1/3/20
General Manager’s Recommendations: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a four-year
contract with Rootid for an amount not to exceed $138,218 for website design and development,
content migration, and four years of ongoing maintenance and strategic support.
6. Written Response to Sue Dremann
Staff Contact: Cydney Bieber, Website Administrator
General Manager’s Recommendations: Approve the written response to comments submitted by
Sue Dremann.
7. Written Response to Craig Dremann
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resources Manager Specialist, and Korrine Skinner,
Public Affairs Manager
General Manager’s Recommendations: Approve the written response to comments submitted by
Craig Dremann.
BOARD BUSINESS
Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written
public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District’s website
at www.openspace.org. All written comments submitted in accordance with the guidance posted on the
District’s website will be read into the record.
8. Award of Contract to AECOM for the Project Approval and Environmental Document
Phase of the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections
Project (R-20-53)
Staff Contact: Meredith Manning, Senior Planner
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with AECOM for a base not-to-exceed
amount of $1,180,385 for environmental and engineering consulting services for the Highway
17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections Project.
2. Authorize an approximate 10% contingency of $118,330 to be reserved
for unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $1,580,000.
3. Authorize $281,285 in allowances, as described in the report, for additional environmental and
engineering consulting services beyond the base contract scope of work to be used only if
deemed necessary.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Calendar Year 2019 Ranger Activity Report
• Calendar Year 2019 Annual Report on Estimated Visitor Counts
• April 8 and April 22, 2020 Multiple Structures Stabilization Reports Clarification on the Fiscal Impact
Tables Information
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 information; request staff to report 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
Rev. 1/3/20
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 meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on May 21, 2020, 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
May 13, 2020
Board Meeting 20-10
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor
Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via
teleconference.
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian
Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources
Manager Kirk Lenington, Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty
Sifuentes-Winter
President Holman announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s
Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best
to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide
comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to
listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the
meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the
District website. President Holman described the process and protocols for the meeting.
1. California Environmental Quality Act Scoping Session for the Proposed Wildland
Fire Resiliency Program (R-20-42)
Meeting 20-10 Page 2
General Manager Ana Ruiz provided a high-level overview of the proposed Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program describing its two main goals to enhance ecosystem resiliency and increase
wildland fire management.
Director Siemens joined the meeting at 6:07 p.m.
Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter outlined the development of the
proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, including public meetings, public and agency
feedback, consultant research, etc. Mr. Sifuentes-Winter described the California Environmental
Quality Act process, including the public comment period.
Jason Moghaddas described the vegetation management plan, prescribed fire plan, monitoring
plan, and pre-fire and advisor maps for planning, which are all included in the proposed
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. Mr. Moghaddas outlined the location criteria and
prioritization matrix for determining areas for treatment.
Tania Treis with Panorama Environmental outlined the proposed resource management policy
amendments designed to strengthen and augment existing Board-adopted Resources
Management Policies (RMPs) to support the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program goals. Ms. Treis
described the purpose of the CEQA review process and scoping, and listed the environmental
resources to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the alternatives
analysis.
Director Kishimoto inquired whether the District was unique in creating a fire resiliency
program.
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported some aspects of the program are standard such as vegetation
management, but some areas are unique, such as ecologically sensitive vegetation management
and invasive species treatment. Other agencies in the Bay Area are doing similar work, such as
the Marin Municipal Water District, National Park Service, and East Bay Regional Park District.
Director Kishimoto inquired how the refuse removed through fuel management is handled.
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported the removed vegetation or slash is handled in various ways: the
slash stays in place after ensuring that it is flat to the ground, a wood chipper disperses the
vegetation, or for removal, staff removes slash out of the sites using vehicles. Staff is also
looking into composting options. Finally, pile burns are sometimes used after confirming no
wildlife is living in the vegetation pile.
President Holman requested additional information regarding the environmental impact of
vegetation removal on air quality.
Ms. Treis explained the process for measuring emissions and other impacts related to vegetation
removal or burning, which is measured by quantifying the air quality impact by the equipment
used and the tonnage of material burned.
President Holman inquired how the impact on cultural resources can be determined if staff does
know what resources are present, including currently undiscovered cultural resources.
Meeting 20-10 Page 3
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported that as a mitigation measure, staff will conduct surveys of areas
prior to beginning work to determine if any cultural/historic resources exist in an area.
Depending on the survey results, staff will adopt best management practices to address the
resources or avoid the area entirely.
President Holman inquired how the alternatives will be developed because numerous alternatives
may exist to account for the different types of areas for treatment, such as type of material,
terrain, etc.
Ms. Treis reported the alternatives are tailored to the various aspects of the program and weighs
the impacts and priorities of the various implementation areas and determine appropriate
alternatives.
Director Hassett requested clarification regarding the upper limit of acreage for vegetation
management.
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported this acreage is to limit the impacts on wildlife and their habitat, to
limit other environmental impacts such as on air quality, and to account for staff capacity to
complete the work.
Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested studying air quality impacts in relation to the current health
pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 on those already sensitive to poor air quality.
Ms. Treis reported that the environmental review will look at a range of data for air quality,
including data gathered prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public comments opened at 6:06 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted written comments into the record.
Karen Maki stated that the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program should be expanded to include
hardening of District buildings against fire and encouraging neighbors to make their own homes
safer. Additionally, cameras for early detection should be installed and proactive steps should be
taken to ensure PG&E equipment on District property is safe.
Craig Dremann shared comments in opposition to plowing fuel breaks, use of fire or prescribed
burns, or cattle grazing and instead urged use of mowing to protect native seeds.
Shani Kleinhaus requested the EIR address how fire management can increase landslides,
especially in the rainy Santa Cruz mountains or similar areas. Also, Ms. Kleinhaus inquired how
the landslide risk will be mitigated.
Sue Dremann commented that the online comment form for the EIR has not been functioning
and asked that the District extend the comment period.
Public comments closed at 6:14 p.m.
The members of the Board thanked staff for their work on developing the program.
Meeting 20-10 Page 4
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired how the pre-fire and advisor maps will be distributed to
partners and be updated.
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported the maps are updated on a regular basis and finalized maps have
already been shared with fire agencies. Additionally, advisors that are onsite during fire incidents
will advise the fire agencies regarding the information contained in the maps.
Director Riffle inquired how the document continues to be current and updated with best
practices and techniques available.
Mr. Sifuentes-Winter reported the program document can be updated as needed with the
appropriate environmental review and Board approval. Minor changes may be made within the
current scope similar to the Integrated Pest Management program. District staff will also provide
regular updates to the Board on the status and progress of the program, including any
recommended changes to the program.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to accept the
project description of the proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program for purposes of
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 6:42 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 6:57 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager Brian
Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson provided the following report:
In closed session on April 22, 2020, the Board gave approval to legal counsel to defend the
District in litigation. The case is Zellerbach v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District et al
filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the substance of the litigation is a quiet title
Meeting 20-10 Page 5
complaint seeking an access easement across District property located in the Sierra Azul Open
Space Preserve.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Siemens pulled Agenda Item 5 from the Consent Calendar.
Public comment opened at 7:04 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted written comment into the record.
Andrew Verbrugge expressed concern related to the recommended Mt. Umunhum Road
improvement project stating that the District’s Field Employees Association is concerned
regarding the lack of enforcement along the Road. Mr. Verbrugge stated District staff is
prohibited from doing traffic enforcement along Mt. Umunhum Road, and traffic enforcement by
California Highway Patrol and Santa Clara County Sheriffs is limited. Mr. Verbrugge asked that
District rangers be allowed to perform traffic enforcement along Mt. Umunhum Road.
Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar, except Item 5.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
1. Approve April 22, 2020 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Quarter 3 Proposed Budget Amendments to the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2020
(R-20-43)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Quarter 3
budget amendments (expenses) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020.
Director Kishimoto inquired if the District can do anything to move the Cooley Landing project
forward.
Meeting 20-10 Page 6
General Manager Ana Ruiz reported she will reach out to the new East Palo Alto City Manager
to see if it can move forward, and noted that the city had been in a time of transition.
4. Recognition of Significant Partners at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (R-20-44)
General Manager’s Recommendations: Approve the following recommended list of partners to
be recognized for their significant contributions towards the construction of the Bay Trail at
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, as unanimously supported by the Legislative, Funding, and
Public Affairs Committee:
• California Natural Resource Agency, Urban Greening Grant Program
• California State Coastal Conservancy
• Caltrans
• County of San Mateo – Measure K
• County of Santa Clara
• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
• Association of Bay Area Governments
• San Francisco Bay Trail
• City of East Palo Alto
• City of Menlo Park
• Facebook
5. Award of Contract to R&M Paving Contractors, Inc., for the Mount Umunhum
Road Improvement Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-20-45)
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with R&M Paving Contractors, Inc.,
of San Jose, California, for a base amount of $183,000.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $27,450 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the
total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $210,450.
Item 5 was heard after the Consent Calendar.
Director Riffle expressed concern regarding the ability to patrol Mt. Umunhum Road.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported that District rangers do not perform traffic
enforcement on any public roads, and the California Highway Patrol and Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s Office have jurisdiction to patrol the road. District staff do not have the sufficient
training to perform vehicle stops along public roads. The proposed contract will enhance safety
along Mount Umunhum Road and inform the public on how to utilize the road safely.
Director Siemens inquired regarding a previous District study related to defining the rules of
engagement for District employees, especially as they relate to vehicle stops.
Mr. Malone reported the Rangers Operations Manual allows for vehicle stops in District
preserves but not on public roadways, so a memo was issued to provide clarification to staff
since Mt. Umunhum Road runs through District preserves.
Director Kishimoto commented that vehicle stops are dangerous and should be completed by
public safety officers, not District rangers.
Meeting 20-10 Page 7
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the
General Manager’s recommendations.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
6. Award of Contract to LB Foster Company for Prefabricated Vault Restrooms to be
Installed at Russian Ridge, Monte Bello, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves (R-20-46)
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with LB Foster Company, under the
SourceWell Government Purchasing Cooperative Contract, for the purchase of three
prefabricated vault restrooms for an amount not-to-exceed $139,146.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $13,915 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the
total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $153,061.
BOARD BUSINESS
7. Oral Update on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District COVID-19 Response
Ms. Ruiz provided several updates including the reopening of District preserves in San Mateo
County, consistent with guidance from the San Mateo County Public Health Officer. The
General Manager also reported on the reopening of designated trails to bicycles and horses at all
Preserves given the avoidance of a surge in demand for public health services across the region
and the District’s procurement of additional personal protective equipment (PPE) for District
staff. Given the higher rates of accidents, particularly related to bicycle use, the District had
taken a conservative measure to reduce the number of medical calls generated and protect the
once low supply of PPE to protect District employees. Ms. Ruiz also provided updates on
District staff returning to field operations to complete essential work and various office retrofits
to reduce exposure to high-touch surfaces. Due to continuing social distancing regulations, the
District has deferred the hiring of seasonal employees to assist with field work. Administrative
staff continues to telework, and many District projects are moving forward. Staff is evaluating
what activities and programs can restart and options for holding onsite public meetings with
greater social distancing in the future, but these depend on the lifting of regional and statewide
restrictions. Fiscal impacts on the proposed FY2020-21 budget will be presented to the Action
Plan & Budget Committee and to the Board as part of the budget process.
The members of the Board praised staff for their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Director Hassett inquired regarding training for staff related to PPE and working with the public
and others.
Ms. Ruiz reported staff did have training for proper use of PPE and additional training for
returning to work sites. Additional sessions will be held as Administrative Office staff returns to
the offices.
Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services provided an update on PPE acquired
for District staff.
Meeting 20-10 Page 8
Director Hassett requested clarification regarding the resumption of public meetings at a physical
location.
Ms. Ruiz reported staff is looking at options for public meetings to reduce the risk of COVID-19
exposure.
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson reported that the ability to have remote public meetings are
currently the subject of an executive order from Governor Newsom. Procedures for public
meetings may be altered by additional executive orders. Additionally, the Brown Act does allow
for elected officials to participate through teleconference, which is expected to continue to be an
option into the future.
Director Riffle commented on incorporating the adaptations learned during the pandemic into
District practices once the shelter-in-place has been lifted, such as expanded telecommuting and
one-way trails at District preserves. Additionally, Director Riffle praised the District’s
coordination with other open space and parks agencies to create a unified message related to the
pandemic and expressed hope that the coordination would continue.
Public comment opened at 7:49 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item.
Public comment closed at 7:49 p.m.
No Board action required.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No Committee reports.
B. Staff Reports
Ms. Woodworth provided an update related to the upcoming nomination period for the
November 3, 2020 election.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Cyr reported on several webinars he has attended related to enjoying open space and
keeping park staff safe.
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:11 p.m.
Meeting 20-10 Page 9
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 8:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Counsel Hilary Stevenson
Public comments opened at 8:11 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item.
Public comments closed at 8:11 p.m.
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code
Section 54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: General Counsel
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 9:25 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-11
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.55%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
2029 EFT 05/15/2020 11542 - Deere & Company Purchase of T56 - John Deere 6155R Tractor 161,158.78
2032 EFT 05/15/2020 12020 - Panorama Environmental, Inc.CEQA: Prescribed Fire Program Development - January 2020 40,385.06
2036 EFT 05/15/2020 11432 - San Mateo County Resource Conserv. Dist.Control of Slender False Brome - 1/1/20 - 3/31/20 21,087.88
2033 EFT 05/15/2020 11241 - Questa Engineering Corp.Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project - 1/15/20 - 3/15/20 14,335.98
2023 EFT 05/15/2020 11148 - Balance Hydrologics, Inc ECDM Sediment Control Monitoring thru 4/18/20 11,067.91
2034 EFT 05/15/2020 12100 - Questica Ltd.Budget Management Software - Implementation 4 of 5 7,200.00
2025 EFT 05/15/2020 12109 - Christine Sculati Grants Program Support - March 2020 7,093.75
2031 EFT 05/15/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.CEQA and Permitting Services for Alpine Trail Project 4,817.00
2035 EFT 05/15/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service Vehicle Service - M76,M201,M213,M226,M29,M233,M221,M222,M218,M215 4,408.79
2024 EFT 05/15/2020 10723 - Callander Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design & Construction Mgmt 3,789.46
81152 Check 05/15/2020 11129 - Peterson Trucks, Inc.BIT Inspections (FFO)2,901.00
81151 Check 05/15/2020 10774 - Langley Hill Quarry Dempsey Septic - 2100 Lobitas Creek Rd 2,320.00
2022 EFT 05/15/2020 *10128 - American Tower Corporation Repeater Lease - May 2020 1,990.25
2037 EFT 05/15/2020 10146 - Tires On The Go P109, M205 - Tire Replacement 1,494.41
2030 EFT 05/15/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers April Structure Stabilization Postcard (703) + postage/Quarterly Newsletter 1,286.86
2028 EFT 05/15/2020 11445 - Cross Land Surveying, Inc.Irish Ridge (Tabachnik) Lot Split 1,253.00
81156 Check 05/15/2020 *10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service (RSACP-EQ) 3 Accounts 1,064.89
81157 Check 05/15/2020 11841 - TJKM Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections 927.00
2027 EFT 05/15/2020 11042 - County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff Live Scan - March 2020 811.00
81155 Check 05/15/2020 11526 - Republic Services Waste and Recycling Pickup Service - March - April 2020 611.12
81150 Check 05/15/2020 11498 - Joanne Bond Coaching Executive Coaching 500.00
81153 Check 05/15/2020 12108 - Preston Kauk Replace Gas Range at Stevens Canyon Ranch 500.00
2026 EFT 05/15/2020 10544 - Corelogic Information Solution Property Reports - March 2020 463.50
81154 Check 05/15/2020 11518 - Ranching By Nature Boundary Gate Replacement Toto Ranch and Gordon Ridge 236.54
81149 Check 05/15/2020 11971 - James Ober Reimburse Invoice for Gas Leak Test at Folger Residence 212.46
81148 Check 05/15/2020 10421 - ID Plus, Inc.Name tags - S. Gibbons 19.50
291,936.14
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HR = Human Resources P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail
AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS =
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods ISM = Invasive Species Management
PIC= Picchetti Ranch
SFO = Skyline
Field Office
CAO = Coastal Area Office LH = La Honda Creek
PR = Pulgas Ridge
SG =
Saratoga
Gap
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and
mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
Abbreviations
page 1 of 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-11
MEETING DATE: May 27, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:55.55%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and
mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge
RR = Russian Ridge
SJH = Saint
Joseph's Hill
DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LT = Los Trancos RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge
ECdM = El Corte de Madera M### = Maintenance Vehicle
RSA = Rancho San Antonio
T### =
Tractor or
Trailer
ES = El Sereno MB = Monte Bello RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek
FFO = Foothills Field Office MR = Miramontes Ridge SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill
FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.OSP = Open Space Preserve SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood
GP = General Preserve
SAU = Mount Umunhum
WH = Windy
Hill
page 2 of 2
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-50
Meeting 20-11
May 27, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for Vegetation Mapping Services in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a four-year cooperative agreement with San
Mateo County Resource Conservation District for regional vegetation mapping services, for
an amount not-to-exceed $200,000.
2. Authorize a 12% contingency of $24,000 to request additional mapping services, if deemed
beneficial and appropriate, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $224,000.
SUMMARY
To inform land management needs, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) seeks
to collaborate with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) and other
regional partners to produce fine-scale vegetation mapping and landscape data products for Santa
Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, including District lands. The RCD acts as the fiscal sponsor for
the Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network (SCMSN). The RCD and SCMSN have the staff,
experience, and partnerships to lead this project. This map and data will support future project
planning and resource protection efforts by providing staff with higher resolution data of existing
natural resource conditions, forming a baseline by which to compare future survey data. To date,
a similar effort has been accomplished for San Mateo County. This work will provide the
missing information to cover the District’s entire jurisdiction and will facilitate regional
partnership projects that extend across property and jurisdictional boundaries within the Santa
Cruz Mountain Region. The General Manager recommends awarding a cooperative agreement
with the RCD to take the lead in retaining vegetation mapping services in Santa Clara and Santa
Cruz Counties for a base amount not-to-exceed $200,000 and authorizing a 12% contingency
amount of $24,000. There are sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year 2019-20 (FY20) budget to
cover the recommended action and anticipated scope of services through end of June. Funding
for future year budgets would be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
BACKGROUND
Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties’ land managing agencies and stewards have the
responsibility of caring for a diverse mix of ecosystems, including estuarine, marine, oak
woodland, redwood forest, coastal scrub, and oak savannah. Home to more than 300,000 acres 1 of
protected lands, open spaces provide residents, neighbors, and visitors with water, varied
1 Source: California Protected Areas Database (CPAD), 2017, Green Info Network
R-20-50 Page 2
recreation opportunities, scenic vistas, wildlife habitat, and vital refuges for many threatened,
endangered, and special status species. The natural resources provide numerous ecological,
economic, and social benefits that are vitally interlinked to each county’s communities. However,
the health of the natural resources is threatened by global climate change, altered fire regimes,
invasive non-native plants and animals, habitat fragmentation, plant diseases and pathogens,
noise, light, and air pollution, and other human and natural impacts.
To care effectively for the counties’ ecosystems and infrastructure, resource and land
managers must know the location and distribution of those ecosystems across the county and
have the ability to monitor change overtime. Unfortunately, there are serious gaps in knowledge
about the vegetation and landscapes of the Santa Cruz Mountain Region. In 2006, the District
acquired fine-scale vegetation maps for preserves and filled in county gaps with low-resolution
statewide vegetation mapping data. In 2019, the District entered into contract with the Golden
Gate National Parks Conservancy of San Francisco to complete a comprehensive, countywide,
fine-scale vegetation map for San Mateo County (R-19-10). This Award of Contract will
complement the San Mateo County effort and update Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties’
portions of the 2006 map.
Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network
The RCD acts as the fiscal sponsor for the SCMSN and holds funding provided by network
members. The SCMSN is a region-wide and cross-sector collaboration of independent
individuals and organizations who are committed to practicing effective stewardship on their
own lands and coordinating their efforts with other land stewards to enhance stewardship
throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains. The collaborative effort to bring together partners to fund
this project began with the SCMSN and they are well suited to work with the RCD to carry out
the vegetation mapping project.
This interagency collaborative project will result in improved scientific understanding of
vegetation conditions within the Santa Cruz Mountain Region. This information will allow the
District to make better decisions, inform multiagency efforts to manage the wildland-urban
interface for fire and fuel projects though a countywide vegetation and ladder fuels maps, and
provide baseline information to assess changes following landscape level events, such as
wildfire. This project will also allow the District to address more effectively a California
Environmental Quality Act mitigation requirement from the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Integrated Pest Management Program (R-14-148) calling for the development of a
landscape-level monitoring program. In addition, the vegetation and ladder fuels map will aid
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program to prioritize vegetation management areas (R-20-42).
DISCUSSION
Having accurate and consistent spatial vegetation data will be an invaluable tool in managing and
monitoring fire and flood hazards, critical habitats, and the resiliency of habitats to climate
change impacts. To address these needs, the SCMSN and other open space partners in the Santa
Cruz Mountains are working together to achieve the common goal of developing a fine-scale
countywide vegetation map and landscape database.
The SCMSN network members and other partners in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara
Counties will contribute expertise to the project’s ecological design and goals, and provide
R-20-50 Page 3
resources to support and implement the work. For this project, the SCMSN will
provide centralized data management, project management support, contracting, and fundraising.
Support for this project is broad and substantial as illustrated by Table 1, which lists the partners
who have pledged funding for this project. Table 2 includes the anticipated budget to complete
the project. Table 3 includes additional scope and services that are partially funded. The General
Manger recommends a 12% contingency ($24,000) as part of the authorization in the event the
District can leverage additional funds from partner agencies to acquire this additional publicly-
beneficial mapping products (e.g. location of riparian areas, evergreen to conifer ratios). If the
additional funds are not secured, the additional scope will be reduced or not completed. Other
organizations have voiced support for the project and are providing expert advice, as appropriate,
including California State Parks, the California Native Plant Society, California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Santa Cruz Resource Conservation District, and Peninsula Open Space Trust.
Table 1 – Funding Partners and Amount Pledged
Partner/Organization Santa Clara
County Santa Cruz County Total
Big Creek Lumber - $2,000 $2,000
California Department of Fish and Wildlife $75,000 $75,000 $150,000
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
$365,724 $199,431 $565,155
California State Coastal Conservancy $50,000 $50,000 $100,000
California State Parks $100,000 $200,000 $300,000
County of Santa Clara and partnering
cities/agencies2
$700,000 - $700,000
County of Santa Cruz and partnering
cities/agencies3
- $130,000 $130,000
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District $150,000 $50,000 $200,000
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
$25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Peninsula Open Space Trust $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Resource Legacy Fund $17,500 $17,500 $35,000
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission $100,000 $100,000
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency $25,000 - $25,000
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority $50,000 - $50,000
Santa Clara Valley Water District $25,000 - $25,000
Save the Redwoods League - $15,000 $15,000
United States Geological Survey - $23,883 $23,883
University of California, Santa Cruz - $1,000 $1,000
Total Funding for both Counties 4 $1,733,224 $838,814 $2,575,038
2 Estimated in-kind contribution from Santa Clara County and partnering agencies for LiDAR acquisition. The
District is one of the partnering agencies.
3 Estimated in-kind contribution from Santa Cruz County and partnering agencies for aerial imagery acquisition
4 Final cost allocation for some funding sources TBD
R-20-50 Page 4
Table 2 – Fully Funded Scope of Services
Item Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
Total
Project management and administration $95,000 $95,000 $190,000
LiDAR acquisition and post-processing (QL1
for Santa Clara; QL1 for Santa Cruz) $700,000 $124,000 $824,000
6-inch orthoimagery acquisition and post
processing5 $15,350 $130,000 $145,350
Enhanced Lifeform Vegetation Map6 $207,742 $71,479 $279,221
Countywide 5m Fuels Map and Ladder Fuels
Map6 $50,300 $50,300 $100,600
Multi-class Impervious/Pervious Surfaces
Map6 $52,492 $22,462 $74,954
Alliance level mapping of Tidal Wetlands $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Total cost $1,145,884 $518,241 $1,664,125
Table 3 – Partially Funded Additional Scope of Services
Item Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
Total
Countywide vegetation classification
production: field data acquisition and
analysis
$200,000 $200,000 $400,000
Fine-scale vegetation map production and
accuracy assessment $793,730 $394,697 $1,188,427
Total cost $993,730 $594,697 $1,588,427
Funding Needed to Complete Additional
Scope $406,390 $274,124 $680,514
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the amended FY20 operating budget to cover the recommendation
through the end of June 2020. Funds for future year budgets will be recommended as part of the
annual Budget and Action Plan process. A summary of the anticipated contract expenditures for
the next four years is shown in the table below.
Santa Clara & Santa Cruz
Vegetation Map Services FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total
Award of Proposed Contract $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000
Contingency (12%) $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $24,000
Total Not To Exceed: $50,000 $50,000 $62,000 $62,000 $224,000
5 Santa Clara cost shown is to purchase commercial use high-resolution (30cm) version of existing National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery collected in August of 2018 which will supplement the county’s
planned winter 2020 leaf-off collection.
6 Costs included in Fire Prevention Grant Award from Cal Fire
R-20-50 Page 5
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
A Board Committee did not previously review this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Funding the agreement to create a vegetation map is not a project subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. However, this project will address more effectively the California
Environmental Quality Act requirement from the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Integrated Pest Management Program (R-14-148) to develop a landscape-level monitoring
program. The deliverables will also be used to help refine work needing to be completed for the
proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (R-20-42).
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with the San Mateo
County Resource Conservation District for a four-year period beginning in FY2019-20. District
staff will facilitate and participate in field verification with other professional botanists from the
region on District managed lands.
Responsible Department Heads:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Casey Hiatt, Information Systems and Technology
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Jamie Hawk, GIS Program Administrator, Information Systems and Technology
Staff Contact:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
R-20-52
Meeting 2011
May 27, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Subcontractor Substitution for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Consent to a subcontractor substitution for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project.
SUMMARY
The Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project (Project) will construct or improve 1.3 miles of
bayfront trail, which will close a critical 0.6-mile gap in the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Board
of Directors (Board) awarded a construction contract to Granite Rock Company (Graniterock) in
July 2019 (R-19-107) and construction began in September 2019. Graniterock listed
subcontractors in their bid, including Compass Engineering Contractors (Compass). Compass no
longer offers one of the services (installing a specific type of slurry seal) for which they are
contracted to perform. Graniterock requests to complete this scope of work through a different
subcontractor, and Compass agrees to this substitution. State contracting laws require Board
approval of this no-cost, no-time subcontractor substitution.
DISCUSSION
The construction contract was bid publicly between May 15 and June 26, 2019, with three bids
received. California Public Contract Code (PCC) §4104 requires that bidding prime contractors
list in their bid all subcontractors performing work in excess of $10,000 or more than 0.5% of the
total bid price, whichever is greater. Graniterock, as the prime contractor, listed four
subcontractors in their bid, including Compass, who would complete the asphalt slurry seal and
striping work.
The contract was awarded to Graniterock on July 24, 2019 (R-19-107) and work began on
September 03, 2019. Graniterock has made significant progress, completing nearly 85% of the
work to date. The remaining tasks include asphalt paving, asphalt slurry seal, trail striping,
signage, and security fencing. Graniterock recently notified staff that Compass no longer offers
the type of slurry seal specified in the contract documents and therefore, formally requests to use
Graham Contractors for the work in question (see Attachment 1). Compass would remain on the
project to complete the trail striping work.
PCC §4107 stipulates that the prime contractor may not substitute a subcontractor listed in their
original bid without the consent of the awarding authority. The law allows subcontractor
substitution under certain circumstances in which the awarding authority may approve the
substitution. Graniterock has cited as the reason for the subcontractor substitution PCC
§4107(a)(3): the listed subcontractor fails or refuses to perform his or her subcontract.
R-20-52 Page 2
This state law is intended to protect the listed subcontractor from bid shopping by the prime
contractor. It affords them the opportunity to present their case to the awarding authority should
they not agree with the substitution. Here, Compass voluntarily initiated this substitution request
and has waived its due process right to formally object to the substitution by addressing the
Board (see Attachment 2).
Schedule Consideration
The original construction completion date was May 28, 2020. The COVID-19 Regional Shelter-
In-Place Order update on March 31, 2020 halted the Project construction until May 04, 2020.
Construction has re-commenced, and the new target completion date is the end of June 2020.
The substitution request has no bearing on the schedule – the delay has been due instead to the
shelter-in-place orders.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation, which is a no-cost, no-time
extension consideration.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No Committee review has occurred for the recommended contract amendment.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Project was evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (IS/MND),
adopted by the Board on November 16, 2016 (R-16-146) with an addendum adopted by the
Board on November 13, 2019 (R-19-144).
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will provide written consent of the subcontractor substitution,
allowing Graniterock to release Compass from that portion of their contract. Graniterock will
subsequently enter into contract with Graham Contractors to complete the work.
Attachment
1. Graniterock Substitution Request Letter dated May 11, 2020
2. Compass Request Letter dated April 21, 2020
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, PE, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Scott Reeves, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department
5225 Hellyer Ave., San Jose, CA 95138 (408) 574-1400
05.11.2020
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Attn: Scott Reeves at sreeves@openspace.org
Sean Smith at ssmith@openspace.org
RE: Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project
Subj: Substitution Request for Slurry Seal
Mr. Reeves and Smith,
Graniterock is requesting to substitute our subcontractor Compass Engineering Contractors with
Graham Contractors for bid items 2.11 Slurry Seal and 3.10 Slurry Seal. This is a no-cost and
no-time extension request. Graham Contractors qualifications are stated below:
Attachment 1
5225 Hellyer Ave., San Jose, CA 95138 (408) 574-1400
Feel free to call us with any questions you may have and thank you for your cooperation.
Email: kmclean@graniterock.com
Cell: (408) 858-1370
Thank you,
Kyle McLean
Graniterock Structures Div. Project Manager
Attachment 1
COMPASS
ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC.
25056 Viking Street, Hayward, CA 94545 • Phone (510) 264-0225 • Fax (510) 264-0235 • www.compassec.com
April 21, 2020
Mr. Kyle McLean
Graniterock Construction
5225 Hellyer Ave. Suite #220
San Jose, Ca 95138
Re: Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection- East Palo Alto
Midpeninsula Open Space District
Dear Mr. McLean:
On June 26th of 2019, we submitted quote 2019-0622r1 for the Ravenswood Bay Trail
Connection project. Due to no fault of Graniterock, the proposed price for Bid Item #2.11
and #3.10 was presented for OverKote seal coat. We are informed that OverKote seal
coat, upon further clarification, will not meet project specifications.
Because of this material discrepancy and due to the fact that Compass Engineering does
not provide the required application, we have no objection to Graniterock substituting us
for another subcontractor contingent on no cost impact other than the deletion of the bid
item.
Compass Engineering will complete the striping work as quoted.
Thanks,
Michael Willing
Compass Engineering Inc.
25056 Viking Street, Hayward, Ca 94545
(510)264-0225 office
(510) 264-0235 fax
(510) 300-4667 direct
Attachment 2
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-51
Meeting 20-11
May 27, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for Web Design and Development Services
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into a four-year contract with Rootid for an amount not
to exceed $138,218 for website design and development, content migration, and four years of
ongoing maintenance and strategic support.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) website software must be upgraded
due to the upcoming end-of-life of the existing version. Significant development is required on
the back-end structure and site code of the existing website to prepare for the upgraded software.
Based on the results of a Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFPQ) issued on March 2,
2020, the General Manager recommends entering into a four-year contract with Rootid for an
amount not to exceed $138,218, which includes web design and development ($78,525), a 10%
contingency ($7,853) and four years of site maintenance and strategic support ($51,840). Funds
will be requested in future fiscal year budgets as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan
process to cover the cost of the recommended action. The current design, functionality, and user-
friendly platform (look and feel) of the website, which many have complimented and appreciate,
will largely remain with a refreshed and improved user interface using existing brand guidelines
as part of this software upgrade – this upgrade will improve upon ongoing functionality and web
support.
DISCUSSION
The District’s website is built on Drupal open source content management software. The website
is currently running on Drupal 7, which will not be supported after end-of-life in November
2021. The updated version, Drupal 8, incorporates major changes and new technology that
provides improved features for both site visitors and back-end users.
The existing District website requires changes to back-end structure and site code before it can
run on Drupal 8. Before implementing these changes, District staff will evaluate the current
website navigation, layout, functionality, and design and develop an improved framework to
refresh and improve the “look and feel” of the current website while taking advantage of new
features and reflecting state-of-the-art best practices. These site updates will allow staff to:
• Easily create and edit a library of content blocks that can be displayed on multiple pages
of the website and display directly in Google search results;
R-20-51 Page 2
• Filter and present preserve, program/activity and project information based on user
interests;
• Build flexible page layouts that enhance integration of content and utilize storytelling
techniques to highlight the multiple pillars of the mission;
• Leverage responsive design that displays webpages based on a user’s device;
• Integrate with digital marketing technology and other business applications; and
• Develop and maintain content that adheres to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
The District launched the current website version in June 2014. No major updates or upgrades to
the design or functionality of the site have been implemented since then. Visits to openspace.org
have increased 29% since 2014 from 392,000 to 553,000 per year. Over 50% of visitors now
view the website on a mobile device, an increase of 40% since 2014.
Consultant Selection
A Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFPQ) was issued on March 2, 2020 and posted on
the District website and BidSync to solicit interest from qualified web development and design
firms. An optional pre-proposal meeting held on March 13, 2020 was attended by 10 firms. The
deadline for submission was March 25, 2020. A total of 11 proposals were received, as shown
below:
Firms Location Proposed Fee
Ameex Schaumburg, IL $130,875
Etech San Francisco, CA $57,075
Infojini Columbia, MD $63,400
Jesse James Creative New York, NY $72,500
Lodging Wise San Francisco, CA $65,130
Neumeric Technologies Westerville, OH $74,692
Planeteria Santa Rosa, CA $63,700
Promet Source Columbia, MD $74,762
Research Design $85,000
Rootid El Cerrito, CA $78,525
TatoiCreative Washington, DC $74,047
Urban Insight Los Angeles, CA $75,749
Following a review of the proposals and consultant qualifications, District staff interviewed six
of the firms and ranked Rootid as the most qualified and best suited for the project at a fair and
reasonable price. Rootid is an award-winning communications and web development firm
focusing on nonprofits and social impact businesses. Their proposal and presentation outlined a
participatory design-thinking process to build inclusive solutions that reflect communities and a
mobile-first design with a component-based approach for storytelling and flexible editing. Rootid
developed the current District website and have been providing ongoing support since 2014.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds are included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget to cover the cost of the
recommended action, which the Board will consider approving in June 2020. Additional funds
will be included in future budget cycles for annual maintenance and support. A summary of the
estimated contract expenses for the next four years are shown in the table below.
R-20-51 Page 3
Rootid Contract:
Web Development
FY2020-21
Projected
Costs
FY2021-22
Projected
Costs
FY2022-23
Projected
Costs
FY2023-24
Projected
Costs
Total
Web Design and
Development $78,525 $0 $0 $0 $78,525
10% Contingency 7,853 0 0 0 7,853
Annual Maintenance and
Support 12,960 12,960 12,960 12,960 51,840
TOTAL $99,338 $12,960 $12,960 $12,960 $138,218
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
A Board Committee did not previously review this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval the General Manager will direct staff to enter into a contract with Rootid.
The Board of Directors will be invited to participate in beta testing the website in mid-2021
before it goes live.
Responsible Department Head:
Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Department
Prepared by:
Cydney Bieber, Public Affairs Specialist II, Public Affairs Department
From:
To: C er c Genera In ormation
Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 7:07:37 PM
EXTERNAL
Name
Select a Choice *
Email
Sue Dremann
All Board Members
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Palo Alto
Ward)
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to
be contacted by phone)
Comments:
Dear MROSD Board,
Thank you for taking my question at the May 13 scoping session for the wildland resiliency program.
I asked whether the fact that the public could not add comments online regarding the scoping
documents would potentially result in a consideration of an extension of the comment period.
Staff responded that only one link was broken and it was fixed. Staff did not tell you that the broken
link meant the comment form did not exist on the website, and therefore no comments could be
made or received. While the link has been fixed as of today, it still isn't clear how many comments
have not been received for this document since the beginning of the comment period opened.
People are often discouraged when they are not able to access forms or information and might not
then provide comment that you should receive and that they are under law entitled to make. Since
the comment period has already been open for three weeks, would you investigate how long the
form has not been available to the public?
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
Dear Ms. Dremann,
Thank you for raising the suggestion to extend the public comment period for the Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program in light of a temporary broken link to the public comment form on our website. We
share your concern that a previously broken link on the website may have discouraged public comment.
While the broken link was not the only way the public could provide comment on the Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program, we are extending the public comment period through June 18, 2020 and resending
public notifications to encourage robust public participation in this important project.
Fortunately, the link that was broken was a secondary link to the public comment form. Given that our
main link remained in working order and given also our multiple pathways for members of the public to
submit comments, we received numerous comments since the Notice of Preparation was first issued on
April 27, 2020. Nonetheless, we will extend the comment period through June 18, 2020, giving a
substantial extension of time for people to submit additional comments on the Program and the scoping
process.
Thank you again for submitting your comments and for continuing to follow the Program development.
We welcome any additional comments that you may have on this Program.
Sincerely,
Board President Karen Holman
CC:
Board of Directors
General Manager Ana Ruiz
Senior Resource Management Specialist and Project Manager Coty Sifuentes-Winter
From:
To: C er c Genera•In ormation
Subject: All Board Members - Board Contact Form
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2020 7:40:23 AM
EXTERNAL
Name
Select a Choice *
Email
Craig Dremann
All Board Members
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District East Palo Alto
Ward)
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to
be contacted by phone)
Comments:
THREE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES, your Board needs to address:
1.) NON-FUNCTIONAL ombudsman? Why do you even have an Ombudsman, if they never response
to questions from the public? I sent a question to your District Ombudsman five months ago, on the
web -form on December 1 5, 2019 --And never any reply, not even an acknowledgement of receipt?
Topic was "Your District is still not monitoring the effectiveness of any of the grassland management
tools you have been testing for the last 40 years?"
I would like a response from your Ombudsman sometime this year, please? And the Board should
take a look at that issue too?
2.) NON-FUNCTIONAL EIR Comment Submission Form on website for the "Wildland Fire Resiliency
Program" this week, that never exist on the server? When I discovered the missing form on Sunday
May 10 at 10AM, the first reply I received from Elizabeth Storey, was that the form really did exist.
Then, when 1 emailed the evening of Tuesday May 12, "Website Still Not Functional" and added in
that email, missing links on the District's domain did not stop at this single website?
The problem about missing webpages and missing links is a widespread problem at your District,
with one out of every ten of the District's websites are MIA --and in that Tuesday email, I copied a
partial report of the 45 broken links I found when I ran a scan of your domain at
httos-//www.brokenlinkcheck.com/
Then, at your meeting the other night, when my wife Sue asked, will the Board going to extend the
time that the public can submit their EIR comments, because the website form was not available until
now.
The form only appeared on your website on Wednesday afternoon of May 13, when I got an email
saying that "Our webmaster found the problem and the link you mentioned should be working now.
" That means that link never existed until 3:03PM on May 13, so the Board should do their duty
under CEQA and legally extend the EIR scoping comment period until 3PM on June 13, so the public
gets the full 30 day comment period?
I heard at the webcast of your meeting this week, an unidentified woman assumedly working for the
District, told the Board that the EIR comment link had only been down since last Friday, but that is
not true at all-- that link was never up, ever since that website was first put on your server, to start
the legal 30-day EIR comment period.
The public EIR comment submission form was only put up after I had to insist twice that it was not
there in the first place? Just like the dozens of other missing links that your IT person still does not
even know, were not functional as of Wednesday? Your District’s website was falling down around
your ears, and then to have the woman lie about the failure, does not give the public any confidence
that the Board is keeping a close enough eye on the functioning or lack of functioning of the
management?
To add insult to injury, when I ran a new scan Saturday May 16, the website --
<https://www.openspace.org/public-comment%E2%80%AF> has a missing link for the
“openspace.org/public-comment ” that originates from the https://www.openspace.org/about-
us/meetings/20-09 website--so that is why you may not have received any public comments for
that meeting, because the form was missing from that website also?
And the https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wildland-fire-management page has a
missing link for “Defensible Space Program details”. Plus you still have at least 28 other missing link,
but that was only after scanning 1,300 or your webpages containing over 1,700 links, so the odds
ARE getting better.
And that is especially important when you are trying to follow CEQA, and the form that people are
supposed to use to send you CEQA comments, does not even exist, and then someone lies to the
Board that it was only down for a few days, when it never existed during the length of the ongoing
legal comment period?
3.) Part of your EIR process for the "Wildland Fire Resiliency Program" must take a break right now,
until all of the alternatives have been analyzed and included, so that the Board and the public can
choose CEQA-required least environmental-damaging alternatives, to meet the District's objectives
when they conduct project to implement the grassland weed management portion of the fire
program?
And, what I call “Craig Dremann’s Meadow-Whisperer Method” is the least environmentally damaging
method, to manage grassland weed, and convert those areas into the most fire-safe wildflower and
perennial native grass meadows. And your District has known about my method for at least 18
years, and Cindy went and visited the 70 acres at 300 Byers Lane in La Selva Beach that is currently
the best restored grassland-oak woodland habitat in the State at 95% native cover when we started
with only 1% in 1992.
However, your District has resisted on never trialing my method, even on a small scale, so that its
effectiveness could be compared to the other alternatives that potentially can cause a huge amount
of environmental damages, and are much slower to achieve your purposes or goals, of fire safety
and natural resource management?
Over a decade ago, two of your Board members went out with me to Russian Ridge, so I could show
them what my method could achieve. The second Board member was Yoriko Kishimoto—about
noon, we had lunch at Alice’s Restaurant, then drove and walked up Russian Ridge, and then on the
drive back to Skylonda, she suggest that I do my method as a volunteer on that 100 acres of
grasslands for free? —While the last consultant working on the same preserve a few years earlier and
achieving nothing using the old methods of burning and grazing, was paid $300,000 for those
damages to the grassland resources?
And right now, when this EIR is being put together, unless the Board steps in right now, my method
will probably not appear in the EIR as an alternative.
Plus, when my method does not appear as an alternative in your EIR, then the Board and the public
will never know, that there exists a method that can achieve the project’s goals, with close to zero
environmental damages? Especially important to know, when all of the other alternatives can
potentially destroy the very resources the District is supposed to be protecting--as my comments to
the Board for their meeting this week, outlined the details of the potential damages?
So, until your District has done a trial of my method at least on a small scale, I do not see how your
EIR would be able to compare my alternative with your other alternatives, and so your document
would end up being inadequate under CEQA and the law?
Perhaps, one of the District’s grassland preserve, like Monte Bello Ridge or one of the others where
you already have grazing occurring on it, could be used as a test area for the various grassland
management methods?
If the District could set aside that portion of the EIR, that covers any grazing or burning of the
grasslands, and then establish test plots and try burning and grazing and my method, and any other
potential alternatives that any other professionals might have available?
Then, when your managers write your EIR for the grassland management portion of your fire
management program, you will have compared them all at the same time at the same place? And
then, you and the public can make the best-informed decision as to which method or methods work
the best to achieve your projects goals, and cause the least amount of environmental damages?
Sincerely, Craig Dremann
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
Dear Mr. Dremann,
Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Board of Directors. Please find our responses to the issues you raised below:
District Ombudsperson
Regarding your ombudsperson inquiry, the ombudsperson(s) is an appointee of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors (Board) whose role is to
follow-up on resident and neighbor inquiries or complaints and work with all parties to resolve
any misunderstandings or conflicts that have not been satisfactorily addressed by District staff.
The ombudsperson works independently and objectively to assist in maintaining positive
relations with residents and neighbors.
Per our procedures, the current ombudsperson appointees were notified of your inquiry as
staff attempted to resolve the issue. Staff have dedicated significant time to help resolve your
concerns and communicate directly with you regarding your questions and suggestions on the
proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Fire Program) and the management of invasive,
non-native plant species on District lands. Senior Resource Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter
responded to your proposal regarding grassland management on April 23 and recently replied
to your follow-up questions. The ombudsperson will contact you independently to discuss the
matter directly with you. The ombudsperson will then report back to the Board with the details
of the conversation and any possible resolution or suggested next steps.
Fire Program Comment Submission Web Link
Regarding your statement that the Fire Program comment submission form was missing from
the website, staff has investigated the matter and determined that the form was available on
the Fire Program web page beginning on April 27. Unfortunately, a secondary link to the same
form was broken on a separate Wildland Fire Overview page. That link was repaired on May 13.
Given this finding, the District is extending the public comment period by the number of days
the link was broken and adding an additional five days of comment. The comment period will
now end on June 18, 2020. Thank you for raising this issue to us.
Defensible Space Program Web Link
Regarding your concern about the link to access details on the Defensible Space Program, the
District has redirected the URL to the Wildland Fire Overview page for greater visibility and
accessibility, particularly by members of the public who are seeking information related to the
Fire Program.
EIR Alternatives Review
In your comment letter, you request that the EIR process for the Wildland Fire Resiliency
Program be suspended until all of the alternatives have been analyzed and included. Please
note that the project is currently in the scoping process. Part of the EIR scoping process is to
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
obtain public input so that an appropriate range of alternatives can be formulated and analyzed
in the EIR. Input collected can include suggestions on the range of alternatives that should be
considered. The EIR will evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives that feasibly attain the
project objectives and avoid or lessen any of the proposed project's significant effects.
In your letter, you describe the “Craig Dremann’s Meadow-Whisperer Method” as the “least
environmentally damaging method to manage grassland weed and convert those areas into the
most fire-safe wildflower and perennial native grass meadows.” The letter also mentions the 70
acres that you restored at 300 Byers Lane in La Selva Beach using this method. The District
appreciates your efforts in restoring grasslands at other sites. We have indicated our interest in
issuing you a research permit to conduct a pilot project using your methods on District lands to
evaluate their effectiveness and suitability for expanding the methodology on vast acreages of
grasslands that the District manages. Such a pilot project is critical given that there is
insufficient published scientific literature to confirm our ability to reach desired outcomes and
to replicate the methodology across thousands of acres with current staffing capacity and
funding resources. For the District to invest public tax dollar funds on such a method, we need
to ensure due diligence that the investment is sound, can be replicated across vast acreage, and
can be accomplished with current staffing capacity and funding constraints.
Another option that has been discussed with you previously is our Grant Program. You are
welcome to apply for grant funds to conduct the research work and publish the findings in
peer-reviewed scientific literature, which would help further disseminate the information to a
broader audience including multiple land management agencies.
The methods proposed for the Fire Program are based on the District’s Integrated Pest
Management Program (IPM), the best available science, and industry standards. The mitigation
methods and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are protective of the environment. The
District is happy to report that these methods and BMPs were recently recognized by the State
of California when it awarded the District with the 2018 IPM Achievement Award for Leadership
in IPM.
According to CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed
project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially
lessen any of the proposed project's significant effects. Based on preliminary information, your
methodology would require multiple annual mowing of all grasslands, equating to 216 hours
per acre. With 9,000 acres of grasslands, this methodology would require 1,944,000 hours of
mowing per year, equating to more than $87 million in annual costs. Neither the time
requirement nor the costs appear feasible or reasonable.
Pilot Research Project
Again, we highly encourage that you consider pursuing a pilot research project on District lands
to test your methodology and evaluate the effectiveness in meeting the performance goals, per
acre cost, and ability to feasibly replicate the approach at a larger scale across hundreds or
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
thousands of acres. This can be done at a smaller scale on District land and the findings could
be of great benefit to not only the District, but also to many other land management agencies
across the nine-county Bay Area. The findings may also be substantial enough to merit
publishing them in a scientific journal for broader outreach and awareness. As discussed before,
we are open to working with you on issuing a research permit, and you can also apply for
funding for such an endeavor through our Grant Program. Thank you for your interest in the
District’s grassland management practices and the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program.
Sincerely,
Board President Karen Holman
CC:
Board of Directors
General Manager Ana Ruiz
Senior Resource Management Specialist and Project Manager Coty Sifuentes-Winter
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-53
Meeting 20-11
May 27, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to AECOM for the Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase of
the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with AECOM for a base not-to-
exceed amount of $1,180,385 for environmental and engineering consulting services for the
Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections Project.
2. Authorize an approximate 10% contingency of $118,330 to be reserved for unforeseen
conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $1,580,000.
3. Authorize $281,285 in allowances, as described in the report, for additional environmental
and engineering consulting services beyond the base contract scope of work to be used only
if deemed necessary.
SUMMARY
In October 2019, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) approved moving forward with the environmental analysis of four crossing alternatives
for the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections Project
(Highway 17 Project or Project) (R-19-136). The Highway 17 Project is now proceeding into the
second phase to complete preliminary engineering designs and environmental review, known as
the Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. Staff conducted a
competitive qualification and proposal process to solicit the services of consulting firms for this
PA&ED phase, which includes preparation of the following: 1) Caltrans Project Report; 2)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document; and 3) National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) document.
The District received a total of three proposals. Following proposal evaluations and interviews,
the District selected AECOM as the most qualified firm based on their ability to perform key
scope of work in-house and extensive experience working with Caltrans on state highway
projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. AECOM’s total cost proposal includes both
environmental analysis and engineering services. The environmental analysis portion of the
scope, at 2.0 - 3.3% of the total project cost, is similar to other District projects. Once underway,
the environmental review process will take 24 to 36 months to complete. Sufficient funds will be
requested in future fiscal years to cover engineering services and the environmental review
process as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
R-20-53 Page 2
DISCUSSION
The Highway 17 Project is a top priority action identified by District constituents as part of the
2014 Open Space Vision Plan and voter-approved Measure AA (MAA) funding. The Project
supports the District’s goal of providing safe, regional wildlife and trail access across Highway
17 near the Lexington Reservoir just south of the towns of Monte Sereno and Los Gatos. District
staff began working on this project in 2014, and recently completed the Caltrans Project
Initiation Document phase, including finalization of the Project Study Report- Project
Development Support (PSR-PDS) process.
Prior Board approval
At the time the Board progressed the Highway 17 Project into the PA&ED phase, they also
authorized the General Manager to sign the cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the PA&ED
phase and established the District as the CEQA lead agency and Caltrans as the NEPA lead
agency. Caltrans has the authority delegated by Federal Highway Administration to act as a lead
agency for NEPA, allowing the Highway 17 Project to be eligible for federal funding.
The District is the lead agency under CEQA to address the separate environmental studies and
documents required for the extensive trail network portion of the Project extending outside of the
Caltrans right-of-way. The District is also the sponsor agency for the draft and final Project
Report, a Caltrans engineering report that includes technical studies and preliminary design of all
improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way. Comparable to the environmental document, the
Project Report is prepared in a two-phase process, with sequential reviews and approvals at both
the draft and final phases.
Request for Proposals and Qualifications Process
The District issued a Request for Proposals and Qualifications for a firm to provide
environmental and engineering services on November 22, 2019. District staff solicited proposals
through the District website, BidSync, and additional outreach to a comprehensive list of 26
environmental consulting firms well-known by the District and partner agencies. District staff
held a field tour in December 2019 that was well-attended by 13 people from 11 firms.
Ultimately, three firms submitted proposals by the January 29, 2020 closing date, providing a
description of their proposed approach, team qualifications, prior project experience, and cost
proposal. A consultant selection panel composed of staff from the Planning and Natural
Resources departments, and a Regional Project Manager from Caltrans, reviewed and rated the
proposals using criteria to evaluate proposal quality, implementation approach, and expertise.
On February 25, 2020, the consultant selection panel interviewed the firms and requested
additional information from the top two firms. Following evaluation of the additional
information, the selection panel determined AECOM as the most qualified firm to assist the
District with the PA&ED phase based on their inhouse expertise to cover both environmental
review and engineering requirements. AECOM also possesses extensive experience working on
high-profile projects with Caltrans District 4 that covers the Project Area. AECOM’s knowledge
of Caltrans processes is beneficial for guiding the Highway 17 Project through the PA&ED
phase, especially with the development of highly technical designs and complex engineering
studies and documents. AECOM also has experience working with Mitigation Credit
Agreements, which afford a new funding opportunity (refer below to the Mitigation Credit
Agreement section for details).
R-20-53 Page 3
Upon selecting AECOM to initiate scope refinements and budget discussions, District staff held
three conference calls with AECOM to address necessary changes to the contract scope and fee
schedule. The District has always had an elevated interest in being more hands-on and engaged
in decision-making and working side-by-side with consultants. Given the regional significance
of the Highway 17 project and collaborative work with Caltrans and other stakeholders, District
staff expects to work with the Consultant team and Caltrans at a higher level of engagement to
ensure timely and effective project planning and delivery. Staff requested an increased level of
document reviews and additional coordination meetings with the project team, Caltrans, and
other partner agencies throughout the process to ensure quality assurances and project
completeness as part of the base contract scope of work. This includes additional public
outreach hours to accommodate committee and Board approval processes and the production of
visual, realistic renderings of the proposed trail crossing structure design for future presentation
and approval by the Board.
Recommended Allowance for Potential Additional Scope
To address detailed analyses and other Caltrans requirements that may occur during the PA&ED
phase, an allowance totaling $281,285 is recommended to cover the following optional tasks, if
deemed necessary to move the Project forward:
1. A higher level of NEPA review;
2. More advanced archaeological studies and associated analysis;
3. More advanced geotechnical studies, lab testing and analysis;
4. Aerial topographic mapping;
5. Second fish passage survey;
6. Restoration plans and support (e.g. native plantings, etc.); and
7. Additional staff and partner agency meetings.
AECOM has indicated that these tasks will likely be required by Caltrans based on their
extensive experience working on similar projects. The allowance would only be used for the
tasks identified above. By authorizing the allowance with the base contract, the team can ensure
continued project progress in the event that any of these tasks are deemed necessary.
Cost Analysis
The consultant costs for preparation of the CEQA and NEPA documents associated with the
PA&ED phase comprise between 2.0% and 3.3% of the total estimated Project cost of $31.5 to
$43.6 million, which is comparable to the environmental review cost of other similarly large
projects, including Mount Umunhum, Ravenswood Bay Trail, and the Wildland Fire Resiliency
Program. Additionally, the cost proposal is less than the Caltrans cost estimate for the PA&ED
phase of $1.69 - $4.9M, identified in the Project Study Report.
Mitigation Credit Agreement
An additional component of the Highway 17 Project is the possibility of qualifying for a
mitigation credit agreement (MCA). MCAs create credits that may be used as compensatory
mitigation for impacts under CEQA, the California Endangered Species Act and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. A mitigation
credit agreement is developed under a CDFW-approved Regional Conservation Investment
Strategy (RCIS). The RCIS Program encourages a voluntary, non-regulatory regional planning
process to result in higher-quality conservation outcomes and includes an advance mitigation
tool. An MCA is developed in collaboration with CDFW to create mitigation credits by
implementing conservation or habitat enhancement actions identified in an RCIS.
R-20-53 Page 4
The Santa Clara County RCIS was developed to help ensure that conservation and habitat
enhancement actions are occurring in an informed and strategic manner to achieve the highest
degree of conservation benefit at a regional scale. CDFW approved the Santa Clara County RCIS
in November 2019. It was the first approved RCIS in the state and provides a pathway for habitat
enhancement opportunities within the county--including wildlife crossings--to aid in species
recovery, adaptation to climate change, and resiliency in the face of development pressures.
As part of the PA&ED phase for the Highway 17 Project, the District has requested AECOM’s
assistance to investigate, and if supported by CDFW, to develop a mitigation credit agreement
(MCA) under the Santa Clara County RCIS. AECOM has already reached out to the appropriate
staff at CDFW to discuss this effort and has received encouraging feedback. AECOM is
currently supporting other RCISes and are very familiar with the MCA and RCIS processes.
Developing an MCA could allow for long-term investment in the Project, including potential
funding for components that may otherwise be costly and/or difficult to fund and implement.
One potential benefit would be funding for long-term operation and maintenance of the wildlife
crossing and/or associated features such as the directional fencing. The current contract scope
only includes time for MCA coordination at a minimal cost because an estimated cost for MCA
development would be too speculative to include at this time. If CDFW and Caltrans are
supportive of developing an MCA for this project, District staff will return to the Board for a
contract amendment at a later time. The future cost of MCA development could result in
increased external funding of the Project and appears to be a wise investment with a highly
qualified team like AECOM, who have experience with MCAs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Highway 17 Project encompasses two projects within Portfolio 20 South Bay Foothills:
Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements – Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing
(MAA20-001) and Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing (MAA20-002). For shared
environmental review contracts (including AECOM), 35% of costs will be allocated to MAA20-
001 with the remaining 65% allocated to MAA20-002.
Sufficient funds are projected to cover the recommended action and expenditures through FY23.
The following two tables summarize MAA20-001 and MAA20-001 project budgets.
Wildlife Corridor:
Highway 17 Crossing
MAA20-001
Prior Year
Actuals
FY20
Adopted
FY21
Projected
FY22
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Budget $325,781 $63,593 $114,196 $65,000 $15,050,000 $15,618,570
Spent-to-Date
(as of 5/5/2020): ($325,781) ($81,418) $0 $0 $0 ($407,199)
Encumbrances: $0 ($19,975) $0 $0 $0 ($19,975)
AECOM Contract: $0 $0 ($100,000) ($65,000) ($248,135) ($413,135)
Allowances: $0 $0 $0 $0 ($98,450) ($98,450)
10% Contingency: $0 $0 $0 $0 ($41,415) ($41,415)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 ($37,800) $14,196 $0 $14,662,000 $14,638,396
R-20-53 Page 5
Bay Area Ridge
Trail: Highway 17
Crossing
MAA20-002
Prior Year
Actuals
FY20
Amended
FY21
Projected
FY22
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Budget $64,422 $97,500 $275,452 $175,000 $29,160,000 $29,772,374
Spent-to-Date
(as of 5/5/2020): ($64,422) ($75,771) $0 $0 $0 ($140,193)
Encumbrances: $0 ($22,392) $0 $0 $0 ($22,392)
AECOM Contract: $0 $0 ($200,000) ($135,000) ($432,250) ($767,250)
Allowances: $0 $0 $0 $0 ($182,835) ($182,835)
10% Contingency: $0 $0 $0 $0 ($76,915) ($76,915)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 ($663) $75,452 $40,000 $28,468,000 $28,582,789
Staff acknowledges that the MAA Portfolio 20 allocation is insufficient to cover complete
project expenses for Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing (MAA20-001) and Bay Area Ridge
Trail: Highway 17 Crossing (MAA20-002). Funding gaps have been identified and are
addressed in the tables below.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 20 South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage
and Ridge Trail Improvements allocation, costs-to-date, projected future project expenditures
and projected ending balance at the portfolio level for the Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17
Crossing (MAA20-001) and the Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing (MAA20-002)
projects.
MAA20 South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail
Improvements
Portfolio Allocation:
$13,966,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 5/5/2020): ($547,392)
Encumbrances: ($42,367)
AECOM contract including allowances and 10% contingency: ($1,580,000)
Remaining FY20 project budgets: ($38,463)
Future MAA20 project costs (projected through FY23+): (43,182,722)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($45,390,944)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($31,424,944)
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 20 allocation, costs-to-date, projected
life-to-date project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining.
MAA20 South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail
Improvements
Projects: $13,966,000
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing ($15,618,570)
20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing ($29,772,374)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($45,390,944)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): ($31,424,944)
R-20-53 Page 6
The funds allocated in MAA Portfolios 20 are anticipated to bring the Project through
environmental review, design and permitting. It is anticipated that remaining portfolio funds at
the completion of the design phase would be applied toward construction or other appropriate
Project needs. The rough order of magnitude costs currently associated with Project
implementation is summarized in the table below. Project components include:
1) Implementing two separate crossings (one each for wildlife and regional trail use);
2) Installing wildlife directional fencing to the crossing structures;
3) Constructing connecting trails; and
4) Improving Alma Bridge Road (owned by the County of Santa Clara) to accommodate
trail connections from the proposed crossings to the regional trail network, if supported
by project partners and cost-share funding is available.
Costs will continue to be refined and updated as new information arises. Refer to the table below
for the most up-to-date cost estimates developed by consulting engineers and planners and
approved by Caltrans during the PSR-PDS phase of the project.
Total Project in 2024 Dollars
(includes areas within and beyond Caltrans Right of Way)
Project Component Low Cost Estimate
(millions)
High Cost Estimate
(millions)
Wildlife and Trail Crossings
(includes planning, permitting,
design, and construction) $15.2 $18.7
Wildlife Directional Fencing $1.6 $5.6
Trail Connections $14.7 $19.3
Property Rights/Right of Way * *
Total $31.5 $43.6
*Additional funds may be necessary for property rights.
Funding Gaps
Additional funding will be required to complete the construction of the crossings and connecting
trails. Potential funding sources have already been identified and include Caltrans, Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority, Wildlife Conservation Board, Proposition 68, private donors,
and/or a combination of the above.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
R-20-53 Page 7
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Retention of professional consultants will not result in a direct physical change to the
environment and does not constitute Board approval of the proposed project or related proposed
project elements. The contract scope includes completion of the necessary environmental review
under CEQA and NEPA for the implementation of the Highway 17 Project. The Board will have
the opportunity to review the findings related to CEQA at a future board meeting.
NEXT STEPS
Pending Board approval, the General Manager will execute the contract for environmental and
engineering consulting services with AECOM. The General Manager has signed the Project
Study Report and the cooperative agreement for the PA&ED phase, allowing work to begin
immediately on the environmental review for the Highway 17 Project, starting with initial
meetings with Caltrans to schedule the necessary technical studies. Staff will present the CEQA
project description for the Highway 17 Project to the Board for review and acceptance in order to
initiate CEQA and NEPA review, anticipated to occur in Spring 2021. The PA&ED phase is
anticipated to take 24 to 36 months to complete; however, the unknown impacts of COVID-19
create uncertainties in accurately predicting a schedule.
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager
Prepared by:
Aaron Peth, Planner III
Meredith Manning, Senior Planner
Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist
Contact person:
Meredith Manning, Senior Planner
1
DATE: May 27, 2020
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger
SUBJECT: Calendar Year 2019 Annual Report on Estimated Visitor Counts
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
This report provides a summary of the data collected from various trail and vehicle counters
installed throughout the District as part of Phase I of the Visitor Use Estimation Project. It also
contains information on the purpose and status of Phase II of the project.
BACKGROUN
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2015–16, a project was included in the Operations Department’s Action Plan
to “Create a pilot project to measure the number of vehicles entering Rancho San Antonio (RSA)
and other use patterns in the preserve.” As part of this plan, a vehicle counter was installed, and
data collection began at RSA in August 2015.
In September 2016, an intern was hired for Phase I of the project to:
• Record observations of vehicle occupancy levels driving into RSA through the main
entrance.
• Install and configure additional counters at various locations.
In October 2019, a second intern was hired for Phase II of the project to:
• Install counters at all significant entry points in RSA to collect total visitor count
estimates for the park and the preserve.
• Install counters at representative preserves to estimate visitor use for the entire District.
DISCUSSION
The following information summarizes the findings of the Visitor Use Estimation Project.
Rancho San Antonio
Vehicle Counts
Figure 1 shows vehicle entry counts from 2016 to 2019.
2
(Note: The counter
malfunctioned in
November and December
2018. It also malfunctioned
at the end of May 2019; it
was repaired and
reinstalled, but the down
time resulted in loss of
data from May 25 through
July 11, 2019. Also note
the counter malfunctioned
for 15 non-consecutive
days in August 2019. The
counter was then replaced
with a new one. In the
chart, average monthly
values have been used for
months with significant
data losses.)
Visitor and Vehicle Counts
The vehicle occupancy averages collected by the intern in 2016 and 2017 have been applied to
the number of vehicle entries in Table 1 to determine total visitor counts (i.e., the number of
people entering the preserve in cars). The number of vehicles entries and visitors between 2016
and 2019 are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1 – Visitor and Vehicle Counts from 2016 to 2019
2016 2017 2018 2019
Cars Visitors Cars Visitors Cars Visitors Cars Visitors
January 29,031 44,981 32,136 51,837 33,774 54,209 34,150 54,051
February 35,099 52,391 30,476 47,995 27,844 44,523 25,679 40,154
March 31,564 44,133 46,370 70,839 21,471 33,751 31,761 50,638
April 40,349 57,916 45,238 70,266 34,011 52,182 40,505 61,818
May 43,952 64,413 41,768 64,365 43,651 66,523 25,370 37,960
June 41,618 58,670 41,978 63,276 40,278 61,040
July 45,401 66,923 44,517 69,105 41,916 63,979 28,478 43,200
August 42,875 60,411 43,106 64,209 42,640 63,672 11,247 16,553
September 37,096 54,583 36,571 56,353 36,888 57,793 30,406 47,476
October 35,272 50,615 35,408 54,328 27,950 42,232 31,548 48,233
November 35,802 54,744 35,190 55,471 15,758 24,328 33,453 54,773
December 36,920 53,508 37,351 58,232 21,232 34,046 26,627 40,415
Total 454,979 663,289 470,109 726,276 387,413 598,278 319,224 495,270
Conclusions
Because of the data loss due to counter malfunctions, it is difficult to know if the visitation at
Rancho San Antonio is declining or leveling off. If the visitation numbers for the months of May,
June, July, and August are averaged between 2016 and 2018, with the data inputted for those
Figure 1
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Vehicle Entries at RSA County Park
2016 to 2019
2016 2017 2018 2019
3
same months in 2019 to compensate for the lost data, 2019 visitation levels show a slight
increase from 2018, but are still lower than 2016 and 2017.
As part of Phase II of this project, several more counters (including trail counters and bike
counters) are planned for deployment by late 2020 at all of the main entrances/exits at Rancho
San Antonio. This will provide a more comprehensive count of all visitors to the park and
preserve.
Mt. Umunhum
A vehicle counter was placed on a post adjacent to Mt. Umunhum Road in the area of Gate SA39
in May 2017. A trail counter was placed on the Mt. Umunhum Trail in August of 2017.
Vehicle Counts
Table 2 and Figure 2 reflect the number of vehicles for each month and year. Occupancy levels
for vehicles have not been measured, so the number of visitors in those vehicles is not known.
Table 2 Figure 2
(Note: The vehicle counter malfunctioned from late December 2017 through February 2018,
and the last half of April 2018, resulting in inaccurately low counts. In mid-August 2019, a
vehicle damaged the post where the counter was installed. The counter was removed, repaired
and reinstalled, but it resulted in a loss of data from August 18 through October 3, 2019. In the
chart, average monthly values have been used for months with significant data losses.)
Visitor Counts
Table 3 and Figure 3 below reflect the number of visitors who were detected on the Mt.
Umunhum trail.
Sum of
Vehicles
Entering
2017 2018 2019
January 1213 3513
February 1481 2820
March 4584 3527
April 2217 3412
May 4217 3517
June 4300 3960
July 4360 3621
August 3521 1920
September 4948 3569
October 6371 3052 2396
November 5407 2448 2684
December 2781 3796 2669
Total 19,507 38,758 34,039
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Vehicle Entries at Mt. Umunhum
2017 to 2019
2017 2018 2019
4
Table 3 Figure 3
GFfF
Sum of Trail
Visitors
2017 2018 2019
January 259 1091
February 899
March 1036 2995
April 173 2356
May 1448 1246
June 1270 1395
July 1181 1124
August 25 906 936
September 1480 1133 902
October 2184 958 818
November 2114 660 1111
December 787 1312 686
Total 6590 11235 14660
(Note: The trail counter malfunctioned for the first half of December 2017 through mid-
February 2018, resulting in a loss of data during that time. It also malfunctioned during the
months of April 2018 and February 2019. Average monthly values have been used for months
with significant data losses.)
Conclusions
After the Grand Opening in September 2017, visitation was very high but dropped off with the
winter weather. Visitation steadied in 2018 and seems to have remained steady in 2019. The data
collected so far is insufficient to draw conclusions about long-term visitation. Trends will need to
be observed over several years to get a true picture of the visitation patterns.
Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve
In June of 2019, a vehicle counter was installed at the Bear Creek Redwoods parking lot, and a
trail counter was installed on the Alma Trail.
Parking Area Vehicle Counts
Table 4 and Figure 4 show vehicle entries to Bear Creek Redwoods preserve parking lot off Bear
Creek Road from early June 2019 through December 2019. Occupancy levels for vehicles have
not been measured, so the number of visitors in those vehicles is not known.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Visitor Counts on Mt. Umunhum Trail
2017 to 2019
2017 2018 2019
5
Table 4 Figure 4
Sum of Vehicles
Entering
2019
January
February
March
April
May
June 3053
July 3231
August 2513
September 2089
October 2202
November 1779
December 1360
Total 16227
Figure 7
(Note: There were no malfunctions of the counter during this time.)
Alma Trail Visitor Counts
Table 5 and Figure 5 show trail visitors on the Alma Trail from late June 2019 through
December 2019.
Table 5 Figure 5
Sum of Trail
Visitors
2019
January
February
March
April
May
June 1903
July 4336
August 2747
September 2023
October 1810
November 1741
December 1182
Total 15742
Figure 9
(Note: There were no malfunctions of the counter during this time.)
Conclusions
The data represent high levels of visitation right after opening and a drop off after that. The data
collected so far is insufficient to draw conclusions about long-term visitation at the preserve.
Trends will need to be observed over several years to get a true picture of the visitation patterns.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Vehicle Entries at Bear Creek Redwoods
June 2019 to December 2019
2019
Figure 8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Visitor Counts on Alma Trail
June 2019 to December 2019
2019
Figure 10
6
Next Steps
Collection Frequency
Effective 2020, the counter data is collected twice a month, instead of only once a month. The
increase in collection frequency will help identify malfunctions much more quickly and reduce
the amount of lost data and inaccurate counts.
Phase II
Phase II of the project consists of two primary goals.
Goal 1: Install counters at all significant entry points in Rancho San Antonio to assist with
other District projects and to obtain total visitor counts for the park and the preserve.
Goal 2: Classify and group preserves according to agreed-upon categories and criteria to
identify groups of preserves with similar characteristics. Select representative
preserves in each classification and then deploy infrared counters at (all or most of)
those preserve entrances. Determine multipliers from representative preserves to
apply to the other preserves in the same class to achieve approximate visitation for all
preserves.
These goals are mostly completed as of the writing of this report with the exception of a series of
visitor surveys to collect information on use patterns and visitor activities. Full phase
completion was originally expected by June of 2020 and is now postposed to May of 2021 due
social distancing restrictions related to COVID-19. The ability to ground truth preserve
multipliers is compromised until restrictions are lifted sufficiently to allow for in-person survey
work.
An overview of what has already been implemented is provided below.
Goal 1 (COMPLETED):
• All Rancho San Antonio entrances deemed to have significant visitation are outfitted
with infrared sensors. Two entrances are also outfitted with bicycle counters. Nine
total counters have been installed, not including the vehicle counter at the main
entrance, which was installed in 2016.
Goal 2 (IN PROGRESS):
Four preserve classifications were determined based on the factors below:
• Controlled ingress/egress both for parking lots and trail entrances
• Concrete/predictable use patterns (loop vs. in/out)
• Characteristics such as urban interface, interconnection with other trails/parks/roads,
remoteness, trail use types, preserve features, parking availability, trail characteristics,
elevation/seasonal conditions, visitation levels, etc.
o As a result, the four representative preserves were identified:
St. Joseph’s Hill
Monte Bello
El Sereno
Purisima Creek Redwoods
• Infrared counters have been installed at all significant entrances at the representative
preserves. Thirteen total counters have been installed across these preserves.
• Three infrared counters were preexisting at the representative preserves.
• Ten counters—a mix of vehicle, bicycle, and infrared—were preexisting at other
preserves (excluding Rancho San Antonio) and are being used to modify established
7
multipliers. Some of these counters have been relocated to other preserves based on
where they are needed.
The primary work needed to complete Goal 2 is the continued monitoring and potential
relocation of the ten counters installed outside of the representative preserves (excluding Rancho
San Antonio). This will improve the accuracy of our estimates for nonrepresentative preserves.
Once Phase II is fully completed, staff can start acquiring more comprehensive visitor counts,
which, over time, will allow more accurate estimates of visitation across the entire District.
###
1
DATE: May 27, 2020
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger
SUBJECT: Calendar Year 2019 Ranger Activity Report
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
This report provides a summary of the enforcement and emergency response activities Rangers
initiated or responded to on and off Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) lands
in calendar year 2019. Historical information about the preceding four years is included for
perspective.
The number of recorded violations has been declining since 2015, which is likely due to a
number of factors including, 1) formation of the new Visitor Services Department in April of
2016, 2) staff and leadership turnover, 3) clarification of the roles and expectations of the
generalist ranger model related to patrol, interpretation, natural resources, fire, and working with
volunteers. These factors likely caused a pause in enforcement practices as new staff and
supervisors grew into their new positions, and gained clarification of the enforcement and ranger
priorities from the change in leadership at the various levels of the organization (General
Manager, Assistant General Manager, and Department Manager levels). Veteran Rangers have
also shared that they attribute fewer violations to more responsible land use especially amongst
mountain bicyclists.
Emergency response and fire incidents in 2019 are down 21% compared to the 5-year average.
DISCUSSION
Information for this year’s report was generated from the Incidents Database, which was placed
in service for data collection on January 1, 2010. Visitor Services Department staff continues to
refine the database to collect the desired information and improve the presentation of data and
analysis from the system. Appendix A containing detailed information is provided for Board
review. The Incidents Database and these summaries only include contacts that resulted in some
form of written record, such as an incident report, written warning, citation, or mutual aid
assistance. General assistance to preserve visitors, informational contacts, and verbal warnings
are not captured.
2
District and Non-District Ordinance Violation Summary
2019 saw a 20% decrease in the total number violations recorded (District ordinances, including
parking violations, and non-District Ordinances) in comparison with the 5-year average.
Violations of District ordinances represent the majority of issues that staff deal with. The most
common District violations continue to be parking violations, after-hours use, entry to closed
areas, and dog violations. The frequency of each violation is illustrated in Appendix A, Tables 1
and 2.
TOTAL VIOLATIONS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-
Year
Average
District Ordinances 2394 2237 2313 1861 1633 2088 -22%
Non-District Ordinances 181 175 129 165 170 164 4%
TOTAL 2575 2412 2442 2026 1803 2252 -20%
Parking Violations
Below is a chart that displays the total number of parking citations by year, from 2015 through
2019. There were 531 parking citations issued in 2019, which represent a 17% decrease from the
5-year average. See Appendix A, Table 1 for more information.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
District and Non-District Ordinance Violations
2015 through 2019
District Ordinances Non-District Ordinances
3
The most frequent parking violation in 2019 continues to be after-hours parking, with most of
them (59%) occurring at Rancho San Antonio County Park, as is typical; though this is a lower
percentage than most previous years. See Appendix A, Chart 1 for details on trends of the
percentage of after-hours parking violations issued at Rancho San Antonio County Park.
After Hours (Non-parking)
Below is a chart that shows the total after hours (non-parking) violations from 2015 through
2019. There were 252 after hours citations issued, which is a 36% decrease from the 5-year
average. See Appendix A, Table 1 for more information.
Closed Areas
The chart below shows total closed area violations by year from 2015 through 2019. There were
220 closed area violations issued in 2019, which was down 8% from the 5-year average. See
Appendix A, Table 3 for more info.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total Parking Violations 2015 through 2019
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
After Hours Violations (Non-parking)
2015 through 2019
After Hours (Non-parking)
4
The chart below shows the closed area violations according to frequency at the preserves with
the highest average violations. The fluctuation of violations at Mt. Umunhum and Bear Creek
Redwoods was likely due to the opening of those preserves in 2017 and 2019, respectively.
Dog Violations
The total dog violations for 2019 was 336. The majority of the dog violations in 2019 were for
dog off-leash (186), a 9% decrease from the 5-year average. Second most common was dogs in a
prohibited area (150), a 5% decrease from the 5-year average. See Appendix A, Table 4 for more
information.
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Closed Area Violations
2015 through 2019
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Closed Area Violations by Location
2015 through 2019
Bear Creek Redwoods Other - Sierra Azul Other Preserves
Sierra Azul - Mt. Umunhum Sierra Azul - Loma Prieta Ridge
5
The chart below shows the total dog violations according to frequency at the preserves with the
ten highest average violations. The preserves with asterisks next to the names do not allow dogs.
See Appendix A, Table 5 for details.
Bicycle Violations
Total bicycle violations for 2019 (93) decreased by 53% from the 5-year average, with the most
frequent violation being bicycling without a helmet (44). See Appendix A, Table 6 for more
information.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Total Dog Violations
2015 through 2019
Total Dog Violations
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dog Violations by Location
2015 through 2019
Windy Hill Pulgas Ridge Purisima Creek Redwoods*
Fremont Older Rancho San Antonio*Sierra Azul
Russian Ridge*Thornewood Long Ridge
St. Joseph's Hill
6
Auto Burglaries
Auto burglaries increased 84% in 2019 from the 5-year average. See Appendix A, Table 7 for a
list of burglaries by location.
The majority of auto burglaries during 2018 and 2019 have occurred at Rancho San Antonio
County Park (52% and 55% respectively). See Appendix A, Chart 2 for details on trends of the
percentage of burglaries occurring at Rancho San Antonio County Park since 2015.
Emergency Response
The total number of responses to non-fire emergencies (98) and fire incidents (12) was 110 in
2019 (see Appendix A, Table 8 for details). Non-fire emergencies were down 22% from the 5-
year average of 126. Fire incidents were down 5% from the 5-year average of 13.
43 of 98 non-fire emergencies and 5 of 12 fire incidents were off District land.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Bicycle Violations
2015 through 2019
Bike - closed area Bike - speed Bike - helmet Bike - night riding Bike - unsafe operation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Auto Burglaries
2015 through 2019
7
Of the fire incidents on District lands, 3 were live fires, 3 were evidence of fires, and 1 was
unexplained smoke in a District residence (cause unknown). See Appendix A, Table 9 for more
information.
District rangers responded to 6 confirmed fatalities during 2019. Of these, 3 were cardiac
arrests, 1 was a motorcycle accident, 1 was a homicide, and 1 is unknown. Total number of off
District land fatality responses was 3. See Appendix A, Table 10 for more information.
NEXT STEPS
Given the anticipation of more retirements on the horizon, staffing in the Visitor Services
Department is expected to remain in flux for the next several years. With this in mind, the
Department Manager will continue to work with Human Resources to develop a strategic
recruitment plan to fill the projected vacancies. In addition, the District will continue to allocate
time and effort in training new leaders and in completing an update to the Ranger Operations
Manual.
Attachment
Appendix A – Ranger Activity Data
APPENDIX A - Ranger Activity Data
TABLE 1. VIOLATIONS OF
DISTRICT ORDINANCES, IN
ORDER OF FREQUENCY IN
2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Parking after hours 482 419 415 331 305 390 -22%
After hours 515 531 414 251 252 393 -36%
Parking 208 181 384 264 226 253 -11%
Closed area 238 250 236 247 220 238 -8%
Dogs - off leash 228 180 225 203 186 204 -9%
Other violations 143 209 212 189 155 182 -15%
Dogs - prohibited 175 166 141 159 150 158 -5%
Bike - helmet 90 72 104 72 44 76 -42%
Bike - closed area 77 80 57 61 27 60 -55%
Bike - speed 63 46 55 25 19 42 -54%
Off road vehicle 23 24 20 19 13 20 -34%
Vandalism 67 34 12 12 8 27 -70%
Fishing 8 1 6 7 6 27%
Bike - night riding 40 14 16 7 6 17 -64%
Campfires 11 7 7 5 6 7 -17%
Camping 23 21 13 5 6 14 -56%
Bike - unsafe operation 1 3 1 4 3 2 25%
Dump/litter 2 1 2 -100%
TOTAL 2394 2237 2313 1861 1633 2088 -22%
TABLE 2. VIOLATIONS OF
NON-DISTRICT
ORDINANCES, IN ORDER OF
FREQUENCY IN 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Non-District Parking 55 61 70 74 60 64 -6%
Other Crimes 63 54 34 38 56 49 14%
Auto burglaries 8 10 5 27 29 16 84%
Resisting peace officer 12 6 4 10 11 9 28%
False information 6 8 5 7 7 8%
Assault 1 3 7 2 4 3 18%
Alcohol - possession by minor 8 3 1 2 2 3 -38%
Marijuana - possession/cultivation 28 30 8 7 1 15 -93%
Poaching 0%
TOTAL 181 175 129 165 170 164 4%
Page 1
TABLE 3. CLOSED AREA
VIOLATIONS BY LOCATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Bear Creek Redwoods 52 65 82 107 67 75 -10%
Sierra Azul 55 95 66 34 51 60 -15%
Sierra Azul - Mt. Umunhum 107 62 29 34 34 53 -36%
Sierra Azul - Loma Prieta Ridge 6 10 19 26 21 16 28%
Monte Bello 10 10 11 10 6%
El Corte de Madera Creek 0 7 2 14 4 5 -26%
Sierra Azul - Rancho de Guadalupe 9 4 9 3 1 5 -81%
Long Ridge 2 8 5 60%
Rancho San Antonio 2 1 4 7 8 4 82%
Sierra Azul - Twin Creeks 4 4 -100%
Purisima Creek Redwoods 1 2 7 3 110%
Tunitas Creek 3 3 -100%
Russian Ridge 4 2 3 -100%
La Honda Creek 3 3 1 4 3 45%
Windy Hill 1 3 2 2 0%
St. Joseph's Hill 2 2 -100%
Skyline Ridge 2 1 2 -33%
Miramontes Ridge 1 1 -100%
No Preserve 1 1 -100%
Pulgas Ridge 1 1 -100%
Teague Hill 1 1 -100%
Ravenswood 1 1 0%
Fremont Older 1 1 -100%
Saratoga Gap 1 1 -100%
Sierra Azul - Cathedral Oaks 1 1 -100%
TOTAL 238 250 236 247 220 238 -8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
CHART 1. Percentage of After Hour Parking Tickets
Ocurring at Rancho San Antonio
2015 through 2019
Page 2
TABLE 4. TOTAL DOG
VIOLATIONS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Dogs - prohibited 175 166 141 159 150 158 -5%
Dogs - off leash 228 180 225 203 186 204 -9%
Other violations 3 3 0 4 0 2 -100%
TOTAL 406 349 366 366 336 365 -8%
TABLE 5. DOG VIOLATIONS
BY LOCATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Windy Hill 72 72 86 70 54 71 -24%
Pulgas Ridge 53 29 47 41 43 43 1%
Purisima Creek Redwoods 45 34 29 46 41 39 5%
Fremont Older 29 26 33 21 24 27 -10%
Rancho San Antonio 32 27 18 22 26 25 4%
Sierra Azul 36 22 19 13 26 23 12%
Russian Ridge 25 16 17 19 17 19 -10%
Thornewood 11 12 15 14 29 16 79%
Long Ridge 18 18 13 19 4 14 -72%
St. Joseph's Hill 20 14 12 16 10 14 -31%
Sierra Azul - Mt. Umunhum 11 18 7 14 10 12 -17%
El Corte de Madera Creek 9 7 14 9 3 8 -64%
Monte Bello 4 8 14 5 5 7 -31%
Skyline Ridge 7 4 6 8 7 6 9%
El Sereno 7 10 6 6 2 6 -68%
Bear Creek Redwoods 3 7 6 1 8 5 60%
Picchetti Ranch 4 4 2 5 9 5 88%
Ravenswood 1 1 14 3 5 -37%
Coal Creek 3 3 6 7 3 4 -32%
Los Trancos 2 2 9 6 3 4 -32%
Teague Hill 7 5 1 4 -100%
La Honda Creek 3 4 5 1 6 4 58%
No Preserve 2 3 3 1 2 -56%
Foothills 2 2 -100%
Tunitas Creek 2 2 -100%
Saratoga Gap 2 1 2 -100%
Stevens Creek 2 1 2 -33%
Sierra Azul - Kennedy-Limekiln 1 1 -100%
Sierra Azul - Loma Prieta Ridge 1 1 1 0%
Sierra Azul - Rancho de Guadalupe 1 1 -100%
TOTAL 406 349 366 366 336 365 -8%
Page 3
TABLE 6. TOTAL BICYCLE
VIOLATIONS 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Bike - closed area 77 80 57 61 27 60 -55%
Bike - speed 63 46 55 25 19 42 -54%
Bike - helmet 90 72 104 72 44 76 -42%
Bike - night riding 40 14 16 7 6 17 -64%
Bike - unsafe operation 1 3 1 4 3 2 25%
TOTAL 271 215 233 169 93 196 -53%
TABLE 7. AUTO
BURGLARIES BY LOCATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Rancho San Antonio 5 3 1 14 16 8 105%
Sierra Azul 3 2 8 6 5 26%
Picchetti Ranch 3 3 -100%
Long Ridge 2 2 0%
Purisima Creek Redwoods 2 1 2 3 2 50%
Bear Creek Redwoods 1 1 -100%
El Corte De Madera Creek 1 1 1 0%
No Preserve 1 1 1 -100%
Skyline Ridge 1 1 1 -100%
Windy Hill 1 1 0%
TOTAL 8 10 5 27 29 16 84%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
CHART 2. Percentage of Auto Burglaries
at Rancho San Antonio
2015 through 2019
Rancho San Antonio
Page 4
TABLE 8. EMERGENCY
RESPONSE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-year
Average
2019
%Difference
From 5-year
Average
Number of
Off-District
Occurences
2019
Animal Incident 2 2 1 0 2 1 43%1
Bicycle Accident 26 35 28 31 22 28 -23%5
Equestrian Accident 1 1 0 1 1 1 25%0
Hazmat 1 3 0 0 1 -100%0
Hiking/Running Accident 21 14 37 23 15 22 -32%2
Lost Person/Search and Rescue 1 1 0 4 2 2 25%2
Motorcycle Accident 16 3 2 5 4 6 -33%3
Other First Aid 28 32 25 27 22 27 -18%8
Vehicle Accident 45 36 40 39 30 38 -21%22
TOTAL (non-fire)141 124 136 130 98 126 -22%43
Fire Incident 13 13 14 11 12 13 -5%5
TOTAL 154 137 150 141 110 138 -21%48
TABLE 9. FIRE INCIDENTS
IN 2019
On
District
Land
Off
District
Land Total
Live Fire 3 5 8
Fire Evidence 3 0 3
Other 1 0 1
TOTAL 7 5 12
TABLE 10. FATALITIES IN
2019
On
District
Land
Off
District
Land Total
Fatality - Accident 0 1 1
Fatality - Homicide 1 0 1
Cardiac Arrest 2 1 3
Unknown 0 1 1
TOTAL 3 3 6
Page 5
DATE: May 27, 2020
MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: April 8 and April 22, 2020 Multiple Structures Stabilization Reports
Clarification on the Fiscal Impact Tables Information
On April 8, 2020 an item was brought to the Board to Select a design alternative for the La
Honda Creek Redwood Cabin, La Honda Creek White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty House. This
item was continued on April 22, 2020 for La Honda Creek White Barn and Sierra Azul Beatty
House. All projects were deemed eligible for Measure AA funding as follows:
1. Portfolio #5 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and
Conservation Grazing
a. La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment (MAA05-009)
b. La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation (MAA05-008)
2. Portfolio #22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects
a. Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections (MAA22-004)
In the April 8, 2020 report, the following two, very high-level portfolio tables were included,
showing life-to-date expenditures and encumbrances, minus the potential impact of the three
structure stabilization projects since design alternatives were not yet confirmed by the Board.
MAA05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration
and Conservation Grazing: $11,733,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 2/19/2020): ($2,545,299)
Encumbrances: ($32,287)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $9,155,414
MAA22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and
Conservation Projects: $6,717,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 2/19/2020): ($1,191,045)
Encumbrances: ($223,892)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,302,063
In the April 22, 2020 report, portfolio tables were expanded to provide additional detail for
MAA Portfolios #5 and #22, and to provide a comprehensive impact of all projects within each
specific portfolio. This will be a standard component of the Fiscal Impact section going forward
for board reports involving Measure AA projects. Specifically, in addition to life-to-date
expenditures and encumbrances, staff provided the following information:
• Grant income (awarded with existing agreements)
• Remaining FY20 project budgets
• Future planned project costs to date within the portfolio
o Future project costs are based on current fiscal year and FY21 proposed project
budgets, and the amounts included in future years (FY22 and beyond) for projects
currently on the pipeline. This list does not yet include projects that have yet to
be scoped with estimated costs to complete all elements of the portfolio.
This additional information was presented in two formats:
1. The portfolio table as a summary level; and
2. The portfolio table with projects identified separately, showing the anticipated
expenditures for the life of the project.
MAA05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and
Conservation Grazing: $11,733,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $0
Total Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 04/09/2020): ($2,552,422)
FY20 Encumbrances: ($32,287)
Remaining FY20 project budgets: ($243,247)
Future MAA05 project costs (projected through FY23): ($3,638,704)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,466,660)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,266,340
MAA05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and
Conservation Grazing: $11,733,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $0
Total Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
MAA05-001 La Honda Creek Land Conservation Opportunities (1,756,093)
MAA05-002 Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure (365,515)
MAA05-004 La Honda Creek Sears Ranch Interim Parking (5,074)
MAA05-005 La Honda Creek Red Barn Parking Area and Easy Access Trail (327,513)
MAA05-006 La Honda Creek Sears Ranch Road Repair (98,560)
MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation (1,085,883)
MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Stabilization and Assessment (1,065,590)
MAA05-XXX Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation (87,075)
MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project (1,675,357)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: (6,466,660)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): 5,266,341
MAA22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation
Projects: $6,714,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $256,016
Total Portfolio Allocation: $6,970,016
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 04/09/2020): ($1,221,543)
FY20 Encumbrances: ($146,435)
Remaining FY20 project budgets: ($130,251)
Future MAA22 project costs (projected through FY23): ($4,021,559)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($5,519,788)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $1,450,228
MAA22 Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation
Projects: $6,714,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $256,016
Total Portfolio Allocation: $6,970,016
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
22-001 Hendrys Creek Property Land Restoration ($523,773)
22-002 Sierra Azul Cathedral Oaks Land Conservation --
22-003 Freudenburg Land Purchase ($540,587)
22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections* ($3,955,427)
22-XXX Reserved for Land Acquisition ($500,000)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($5,519,787)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $1,450,229
This information is intended to share a comprehensive understanding of projects that have been
encumbered under each MAA portfolio and the remaining funds to date. This additional
information provides the Board with a more complete overview of all projects underway in a
portfolio and to determine possible funding pressures. Regarding the recent Multiple Structures
item for which the Board took action on April 8 and April 22, based on the information presented
in the board reports and shown again above, the information contained in the earlier tables
indicate more available funding than in the latter tables since these earlier tables only deducted
life-to-date costs and current fiscal year encumbrances – these did not also deduct future
encumbrances for known projects to date that will continue in the outer years. The latter tables
from April 22, also deduct these outer anticipated and earmarked costs, reducing the total
available funding that remains in each portfolio.
Note, however, that the list of projects shown on the updated tables are only those that have been
programmed to date. Numerous portfolios still have other projects that will need to be
programmed in the future to satisfactorily fulfill all the commitments identified under each
portfolio. As the Board may remember, every four years staff returns to the Board to update the
5-year Measure AA project list. It is at this time when near-term projects are identified,
preliminary scopes developed, and a sense of the potential cost estimated to be able to then
incorporate these future projects and costs into the running list of future earmarked projects and
associated costs for these more comprehensive tables. It is also worth noting that the District is
actively pursuing certain Measure AA projects that will definitively need additional funding.
Although staff is aggressively seeking outside grants for these projects, any savings in other
portfolios can be potentially reallocated to portfolios/projects in need of funding. One notable
project in need of funding, for example, is the Highway 17 wildlife and trail crossing.