HomeMy Public PortalAbout20201118 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-27
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM*
Special Meeting starts at 6:00 PM*
Special Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, 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/85720760767 or listen to the meeting
by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 857 2076 0767).
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 – STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. Website Structural Upgrade and Design Refresh Project Update (R-20-132)
Staff Contact: Cydney Bieber, Public Affairs Specialist II, Public Affairs Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation on updates and improvements to the
openspace.org website and software system that runs the website. No Board action required.
Meeting 20-27
Rev. 1/3/20
ADJOURNMENT
6:00 * SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section
54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: General Counsel
General Manager
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency designated representatives: Board Appointee Evaluation Committee (Directors Holman,
Riffle, and Siemens)
Unrepresented Employees: General Counsel
General Manager
2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section
54957(b)(1)
Title of Employee: General Manager
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 * SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ROLL CALL
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
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
• Introduction of Staff
o Cindy Chu, Risk Management Analyst
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 October 21, 2020 and November 4, 2020 Minutes
2. Approve Claims List
3. Quarter 1 Proposed Budget Amendments to the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 (R-20-140)
Staff Contact: Mike Bower, Budget & Analysis Manager
Rev. 1/3/20
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Quarter 1
budget amendments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.
4. Award of Contract to EDX Exhibits for the Administrative Office Interpretive Elements
Project (R-20-133)
Staff Contact: Leigh Ann Gessner, Public Affairs Specialist II, Public Affairs Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with
EDX Exhibits for $78,000 for interpretive planning and design of new public interpretive elements f
the future Administrative Office at 5050 El Camino Real in Los Altos.
5. Award of Contract for District-Wide Habitat Enhancement through Invasive Species
Treatment (R-20-135)
Staff Contact: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Hanford ARC of Petaluma,
California in the amount of $275,000 for one year of invasive species management services.
2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract for three additional consecutive years, if
the program achieves specific success criteria, at an annual cost of up to $275,000 for a total
not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,100,000 over the four-year term.
6. Award of Contract with Applied Technology & Science for Planning Services, Feasibility
Assessment, and Preparation of Habitat Restoration Plans within the Irish Ridge Area of
Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-134)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to contract with Applied Technology & Science (ATS), to
provide Phase I environmental planning and biological consulting services to determine the
feasibility and maximum net natural resource benefits of restoring a section of Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a base contract amount of $42,037.
2. If the completion of the Phase I items in the base contract demonstrates high long-term net
natural resources benefits at a reasonable price for the planned restoration work, authorize the
General Manager to amend the contract to complete Phase II habitat restoration plans, for an
additional not-to-exceed amount of $57,230.
3. Authorize a 10% contingency for each Phase of work for a total amount of $9,927 ($4,204 for
Phase I and $5,723 for Phase II) to cover unforeseen complexities or additional biological
survey needs, for a grand total contract amount not-to-exceed $109,194.
7. Application for Grant Funding from the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s
Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Program (R-20-136)
Staff Contact: Jordan McDaniel, Senior Grants and Procurement Technician, Administrative
Services
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to
submit an application for Proposition 68 Per Capita Program grant funding from the California
Department of Parks and Recreation and to negotiate a grant funding agreement(s) for $1,214,590
in Per Capita funding.
Rev. 1/3/20
8. Award of Contract to TKO General Engineering & Construction for Demolition of Two
Unoccupied, Fire Damaged Accessory Structures and Repair of a Retaining Wall at 895 La
Honda Road, Woodside, CA 94026 in Thornewood Open Space Preserve (R-20-137)
Staff Contact: Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve the demolition of two fire damaged accessory structures and the replacement of a
retaining wall that sustained extensive fire damage at Thornewood Open Space Preserve and
determine that these actions are categorically exempt under CEQA.
2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with TKO General Engineering &
Construction, of Woodside, California to complete the structures demolition and retaining wall
repair for a base amount of $49,680.
3. Authorize a 15% contingency of $7,452 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, for a total not-
to-exceed contract amount of $57,132.
9. Award of Contract to Evaluate and Prepare Structural and Engineering Repairs Options to
Repurpose an Existing Structure as Ranger Housing at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve
(R-20-126)
Staff Contact: Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California for a base contract amount of $67,500.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $6,750 to cover unforeseen conditions for a total contract
amount not-to-exceed $74,250.
BOARD BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARING
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.
10. Award of Contract with SWCA Environmental Consultants to provide Environmental
Planning, Design, and Technical Analysis for the Feasibility Studies and Conceptual Designs
of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Project (R-20-129)
Staff Contact: Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner, Planning Department
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with SWCA Environmental
Consultants of Half Moon Bay, CA to complete the Feasibility Studies and Conceptual
Designs of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Project for a base amount of
$261,000.
2. Authorize an approximate 10% contingency of $26,000 to cover unforeseen tasks beyond the
current scope for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $287,000.
11.
Radio System Assessment Report and Recommendations (R-20-110)
Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Visitor Services Department
Rev. 1/3/20
General Manager’s Recommendations: Direct the General Manager to implement the Radio
System upgrade and improvement recommendations, as presented in the staff report, to improve
coverage, reliability, functionality, and compatibility with local emergency response agencies, as
well as address end-of-life concerns that affect the ongoing maintenance and use of the current
system at a total implementation cost over the next two fiscal years estimated at $2.51M. These
upgrades include improvements and/or replacements of repeaters/equipment on communications
towers repeater sites, new repeater sites, new digital handheld devices, mobile vehicle radios, and
base stations. Estimated equipment costs include savings through cooperative purchasing
agreements and staff will continue to explore options to further reduce costs.
12. First Reading of the Board Compensation Ordinance (R-20-139)
Staff Contact: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Waive reading and introduce an ordinance increasing Board compensation from $100.00 to
$105.00 per meeting pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5536.
2. Hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
3. Direct the General Manager and General Counsel to prepare the ordinance for second reading
at the December 9, 2020 Board meeting.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Administrative Office Project – Contractor Pre-Qualification Process
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
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 November 13, 2020, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California,
Rev. 1/3/20
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
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-132
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Website Structural Upgrade and Design Refresh Project Update
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on updates and improvements to the openspace.org website and software
system that runs the website. No Board action required.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) website content management system
software must be upgraded due to the upcoming end-of-life of the existing software version.
Significant development is required on the structure and code of the existing website to prepare
for the upgrade. Because many parts of the site must be rebuilt for the upgrade, there is an
opportunity to review and update the current structure and design, which has remained virtually
unchanged since 2006. These updates are particularly timely given the recent significant growth
of users visiting the District’s website and modern improvements to websites and user interface
platforms that reflect new best management practices and current user preferences.
DISCUSSION
The District’s website is built on the Drupal open source content management system (CMS).
The District migrated to Drupal (version) 7 in 2015. Drupal 7 kept largely the same user
interface features as those first introduced in 2006 when the website was last significantly
revamped. Drupal 7 is now scheduled for end-of-life in November 28, 2022 (delayed one year
due to COVID-19). Following end-of-life, bug fixes, security patches and routine code
maintenance will be discontinued, making it difficult, time-consuming and potentially expensive
to keep the District website up-to-date and functioning properly.
Staff reviewed several CMS platforms and determined that Drupal’s strengths align best with the
District’s online communication needs: access to multiple page templates and content types, and
the ability to display large volumes of complex content in flexible ways. Drupal remains a
preferred choice for government agencies due to its enterprise-level security, open source
(nonproprietary) code base and sophisticated library of modules that can be customized to
display content in an integrated manner.
Because website technology has advanced significantly since 2011, upgrading to Drupal 8
requires changes to both the structure and code of the District website. Those changes will
improve the site for both users who are retrieving information and learning about the District,
and staff who update content to keep the website current. Website technology continues to
R-20-132 Page 2
advance, and Drupal 9 was recently released in June 2020. However, Drupal 9 is similar enough
that once the site has been converted to run on the Drupal 8 platform, staff will be able to
seamlessly upgrade to Drupal 9 before November 2021, the planned end-of-life date for Drupal
8. There is no migration pathway available to move from Drupal 7 to Drupal 9, without first
moving to Drupal 8.
Background
With the prior 2015 Drupal 7 upgrade, the basic layout of most content pages remained the same:
a single content block with limited options for formatting or displaying images and other content.
Minor changes were made to the design and layout of the home page, preserve pages and site
header and footers. A new event registration system was implemented, and an integrated
calendar was developed to show and filter events, meetings and activities.
Since that update, visits to openspace.org have increased by 22%, from 32,700 visits per month
in 2015 to 46,000 visits per month in 2019. In 2020, following COVID-19 shelter-in-place
orders, traffic doubled to an average of just under 105,000 visits per month compared to the same
five month period in 2019 with 52,000 visits per month. Today, about 46,000 visitors per month
view the website on a mobile device, an increase of 310% compared to the 11,400 mobile
visitors per month in 2015. This shift reflects a worldwide trend toward mobile-first experiences
and highlights the critical need for website information to be optimized for mobile devices.
Today, the site contains more than 230 content pages, plus pages for each board meeting and
event (docent-led activities, volunteer projects, community and District events). While the
current site design has served the District well, website technology and best practices have
evolved beyond the capabilities of the current site structure and design. For example, the current
page layout limits options for creating compelling content, so that most pages end up as long
blocks of type separated by the occasional photo, video or green background highlight box.
Drupal 8 is built with components, which are blocks of content that can be arranged in ways that
best fit different types of content and which are also much more well received and sustain the
viewing interest of website users.
In preparation for the upgrade to Drupal 8, District staff worked with web development
consultant, Rootid, to evaluate the current website navigation, layout and functionality to
develop an improved structure with new features using best practices. We are currently
developing the graphic design layer for this new structure that will update the site’s look and feel
to increase the visual appeal, including an expanded color palette and additional photography and
graphics, to align with current brand guidelines.
Together, the new platform, structure and design will create a user-centric online experience by
allowing staff to:
• Build flexible page layouts and design elements that deepen user engagement through
more effective content pathways to communicate the District’s braided mission;
• Leverage responsive design, which displays webpages based on a user’s device: desktop,
smartphone or tablet;
• Filter and present District preserve, program/activity and project information based on
user interests;
• Efficiently create and edit a library of components that can be displayed on multiple
pages of the website and directly in Google and other search engine results;
• Integrate with digital marketing technology and other business applications; and
R-20-132 Page 3
• Develop and maintain content that adheres to accessibility guidelines for web content.
Liberatory Design Process
The Liberatory Design process is a collaboration between Stanford University’s d.school design
thinking process and the National Equity Project. Centered around equity, this human-centered
design process creates opportunities to notice and reflect on the identities, experiences and biases
inherent in the design process (see Attachment 1 Liberatory Design Cards).
Using this process, District staff and our consultants interviewed various stakeholders
representing diverse web audiences and users. Those stakeholder interviews offered
recommendations for improvements to the site structure, page layout and design, and informed
the creation of core personas based on what users were primarily seeking from their website
experience. While actual users would likely fit into more than one category, these core personas
are helpful for ensuring user-centric site planning. The personas that emerged from this research
include:
• Outdoor Ambassadors - those who introduce others to outdoor experiences and play a
key role in creating an entry point for others to engage in District activities. Ambassadors
may be influential in their communities as someone who understands nature with a
passion for connecting people to the larger benefits of nature through direct experience.
They likely use the website for “why” information to understand more deeply the
significance of the District’s role in land management within the greater ecosystem of
conservation agencies. These people may include docents or volunteers or community
leaders.
• Nature Recreator – those who are part of a user group. Nature Recreators use the
website primarily for their own personal information gathering about where to go and
what to do. These are the avid hiker/bicyclist/equestrians who likely have “their” favorite
place to go. Their primary goal is likely transactional, such as seeking direct information
about whether a preserve or trail is open/closed, directions, etc. They prioritize their
individual health and well-being and seek information that supports their personal goals.
• Environmental Insider - those who view themselves first and foremost as
environmentalists or conservationists, who are passionate about ensuring net benefits and
catalyzing change. They may be “insiders” who are part of partner organizations or other
highly involved individuals who seek connections with like-minded organizations where
they can learn more. They seek deeper, sophisticated information about the District’s
work and how it relates to a larger regional environmental protection vision.
• Land Connector/Reconnector – are those who have newly connected or reconnected to
nature and local open spaces. This group includes those who may be new to outdoor
experiences or may be looking to rekindle their connection to nature. They are primarily
in discovery mode, seeking basic information and an understanding of the natural
environment as a whole, as well as introductory information on how to access outdoor
experiences. This group may not see themselves reflected well in the current website,
which is focused on traditional users, and may not experience as strong a welcoming or
inclusive feeling from the current website as some other groups.
• Neighborhood Guardian – those with interest in public process, outcomes and impacts.
This group includes people who carefully track government activities and public
processes. This group also includes members of conservation groups and land
R-20-132 Page 4
management agencies who are interested in tangible facts, project deliberations and
decisions, and detailed project information and outcomes. They seek information about
how District actions may affect their lives and interests.
Updated Site Organization, Layout and Other Improvements
Our web development team is using these personas to ensure that different general categories of
website users can effectively find the information they are seeking. The team is adjusting the site
outline and structure to create a website that better meets the needs of community members, with
clear navigation and appropriate tools for all users. This user-centric approach to content strategy
is new, as the current site is organized to align more with the District’s internal organization
(circa 2006) upon which staff has sometimes struggled to add new pages, photos and other
content. This new approach will help users find the content they desire, while inviting them
along a pathway to learn more about the full District story.
The expanded functionality and component capabilities of Drupal 8 (and 9) make it easier to
create content blocks that can be integrated into site pages in various visual ways. This added
functionality encourages users to explore more deeply into site content, including expandable
text sections, photos, videos, notices, and calls-to-action that increase engagement with District
activities, projects and programs. Interactive components will enable expanded categorization of
content, allowing users to filter and search for information about preserves, programs and
projects based on their interests. The structural changes and these component layouts will change
the look of our site pages from long, gray lines of text to a cleaner, more graphic and visually-
appealing design that is optimized for display on both desktop and mobile devices.
These changes in structure and layout will be accompanied by a refreshed look that includes an
expanded color palette for better visual contrast and increased use of photography and graphics,
while aligning to current brand guidelines (see Attachment 2 Moodboard, which illustrates the
expanded color palette and new component-based structure that will be used to inform the site
design).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. The contract for website design and
development, content migration, and four years of ongoing maintenance and strategic support
($138,218) was previously approved by the Board in May 2020.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
On October 20, 2020, the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) received
a presentation on the website upgrade and design process (Attachment 3). Committee members
requested and received clarifying information about the website update and design process,
including:
• The integration of input from District staff, volunteers and user groups;
• Confirmation that Public Affairs will continue to manage website content updates; and
• An explanation that Board members will be invited to review site design and participate
in user testing prior to site launch.
R-20-132 Page 5
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
The Board will be invited to review the site design in December 2020 and to provide user
feedback during the testing phase prior to site launch, anticipated for June 2021.
Attachments:
1. Liberatory Design Toolkit
2. Moodboard
3. October 20, 2020 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee Draft Minutes
Responsible Department Head:
Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Department
Prepared by:
Cydney Bieber, Public Affairs Specialist II, Public Affairs Department
your toolkit to design for equity
LIBERATORY DESIGN
version 1.0
Attachment 1_Liberatory_Design_Toolkit
What is this card deck?
This deck is your handy toolkit to practice
Liberatory Design. It includes 3 sections:
2. Liberatory Design Mindsets
We’ve adapted the design thinking process to
include steps that we believe are essential to
practice design for liberation.
To practice Liberatory Design authentically, it
is important to carry certain mindsets in all the
work you do.
1. Liberatory Design Process
These hacks are small actions you can take now
to start practicing Liberatory Design.
3. Liberatory Design “Do Now”s
*This card deck is the result of a collaboration between the Stanford
d.school’s K12Lab and The National Equity Project.
Tania Anaissie, Victor Cary, David Clifford, Tom Malarkey, Susie Wise
1.
LIBERATORY DESIGN PROCESS
Liberatory Design Process
The Liberatory Design Process is adapted from
the Stanford d.school’s design thinking process.
We’ve adapted the original framework to create
the opportunity for designers to NOTICE +
REFLECT on what they are bringing to a design
thinking challenge.
Noticing and reflecting through the process
allows designers to redesign themselves as
equity-centered. These new designers emerge
self-aware of their identity, beliefs, biases
and values. They are able to make authentic
connections between who they are and who
they’re designing with. They co-create and co-
construct a new paradigm of design, one that is
diverse, inclusive and equitable.
Tania Anaissie, Victor Cary, David Clifford, Tom
Malarkey, Susie Wise
NOTICE
The NOTICE phase helps designers develop
social-emotional awareness before entering
any context. This phase is about practicing
self-awareness of one’s own identity, values,
emotions, biases, assumptions and situatedness.
Noticing what one brings to any context allows
for authentic user-centered design, not “you”-
centered design.
NOTICE
What?
Key Questions to Ask
Identity: Who am I/we? Who are our users?
Power: How are we respectively situated (relative
to opportunity, institutional power)?
Context: What is our situation, our equity
challenge?
Partnership: Given the above, how can we create
a partnership that is liberating for all in the
process?
EMPATHIZE
The EMPATHIZE phase of the process is focused
on understanding the experiences, emotions and
motivations of others. Designers use specific
empathy methods to learn more about the needs
of the users for whom they are designing.
EMPATHIZE
What?
Key Questions to Ask
How does my identity and role in this project
affect how and what people share with me?
How do I maintain awareness of my biases and
challenge them in order to see this community
more authentically?
What do people in this community identify as their
needs?
How do systemic oppression and/or privilege
affect this community, and how does that relate to
this project?
DEFINE
The DEFINE phase of the process is focused on
developing a point of view about the needs of the
community. It is especially important in this phase
to work alongside community members. In this
phase, you search for patterns or insights from
your interviews that reveal deeper needs of the
community. Using what you’ve distilled from the
conversations, you narrow the project focus.
It is important to notice and reflect on what
comprises the team of “We” when creating “How
might we…” problem statements.
DEFINE
What?
Key Questions to Ask
How can we insure we are reaching a point of
view that is authentic and not distorted by biases?
What is the larger ecosystem in which our project
focus lives? What influences it?
IDEATE
The IDEATE phase of the process is focused
on generating as many inclusive solutions to a
problem as possible. Once many solutions have
been generated, the team selects the top ideas
and moves them forward to prototyping.
IDEATE
What?
Key Questions to Ask
How can we ensure we have designed for
optimal collaboration and have invited multiple
perspectives?
How can we create an environment that
encourages people to share ideas without fear
of judgment and also maintains an awareness of
biases?
PROTOTYPE
The PROTOTYPE phase involves iterative
development of tangible artifacts or experiences
intended to elicit feedback and answer specific
questions about a concept.
In this phase, we Build to Think. Building out an
idea raises new questions and pushes the team to
refine ideas.
PROTOTYPE
What?
Key Questions to Ask
What assumptions are we making that we want
tested in this prototype?
How can we quickly build a representation of our
idea that does not require a lot of explanation?
TEST
The TEST phase of the process is focused on
getting specific feedback on our prototype,
checking our assumptions, and learning how to
improve our design. It is important to remember
during this phase that prototypes are imperfect
and feedback is a gift.
TEST
What?
Key Questions to Ask
How are we creating the right environment so
that it is truly safe to fail?
Have we included all the voices and identities
necessary into the room to receive feedback?
REFLECT
The REFLECT phase of the process is ongoing
and transparent throughout the design thinking
process. It allows you and your team the time
reflect on your actions, emotions, insights and
impact as designers and humans. It is called
an “Equity Pause” by EquityXDesign. It is a time
to share our learning and see what we can do
better* next time.
*To make it more inclusive, equitable and
aesthetic.
REFLECT
What?
Key Questions to Ask
What evidence do I have that I am becoming more
self aware and self correcting as an equity leader
using Liberatory Design?
How is my emotional state affecting how I show
up with my team? How can I share or release
those emotions with my team?
2.
LIBERATORY DESIGN MINDSETS
The Liberatory Design Mindsets are evolutions
of the design mindsets commonly used at the
Stanford d.school.
They have been enhanced with the explicit
intention of building Liberatory Design leaders
through a collaboration between the National
Equity Project and the Stanford d.school’s K12
Lab.
The goal is to develop the Liberatory Design
muscles held within us all. As we build our own
muscles, it allows others who work with us to
develop the equity-centered creative agency
to solve their own problems in community with
others.
Tania Anaissie, Victor Cary, David Clifford, Tom
Malarkey, Susie Wise
Liberatory Design Mindsets
Practice Self-Awareness
We design from who we are. So we need a clear
“mirror” to better see how who we are shapes
what we see, how we relate, and how we design.
Liberatory Design requires we minimize the
harmful effects of our blind spots and maximize
the potential for non-oppressive partnerships.
Liberatory Design has the potential to change us
to the extent we work with humility, curiosity and
courage.
Practice Self-Awareness
Why?
How
• Ask yourself, “How am I positioned (relative
to privilege and/or oppression) in all aspects
of my identities (e.g. race, class, gender,
language)?”
• Ask yourself, “How might these identities
impact people and our process?”
• Surface what you don’t know. Ask yourself,
“What is unfamiliar to me here?”
• Challenge your assumptions.
• Expand your equity consciousness by seeking
out new information about privilege and
oppression.
Focus on Human Values
Seek as many ways as possible to get to know
your end users including immersion, observation,
and co-design.
In order to create change that empowers
communities from the inside-out, we must place
users at the center of all our work. They are
the experts on the challenges that face their
community.
To do this as designers, we must invest in getting
to know the community and honor the stories
they share with us.
In addition, we must honor human values on our
own design teams and make time for emotions.
Focus on Human Values
Why?
How
• Listen from a place of love. Be humble and
acknowledge that you are not the expert.
• Honor the stories, experiences, and emotions
people share with you.
• Stay connected to the community in all phases
of the project.
• Engage in collective sense-making.
Recognize Oppression
Our designs depend on how we frame a
challenge. So we need a clear “window” to see
how oppression may be at play in our context.
The people we are designing with and the
challenges they face do not sit in a vacuum. If
we are able to see root causes and systemic
inequities more clearly, our design work has the
potential to address deeper needs. Our design
process should build our capacity to recognize
oppression at play at individual, institutional, and
structural levels.
Recognize Oppression
Why?
How
• Ask, “What identity-related patterns and
inequities are we seeing in this context?”
• Ask, “What barriers are in the way of
achieving equitable outcomes?”
• Ask, “What might be some unintended
consequences of our designs?”
• Ask, “What is this community’s experience
with ‘design’ and how does that affect how we
do this work?”
• Ask, “How are relationships and power
differentials affecting the truth that is told
here?”
Embrace Complexity
When the going gets messy, stay open to
possibility. Powerful design emerges from the
mess, not from avoiding it.
Equity challenges, by their nature, are complex,
and moments of ambiguity are common when
using the design process.
While it can be uncomfortable not knowing what’s
next or not having a clear answer, jumping to
a solution out of discomfort risks defaulting to
comfortable or reproductive practices.
Wading through the complexity and ambiguity of
this kind of work with patience will allow you to
develop more innovative and equitable outcomes.
Embrace Complexity
Why?
How
• Acknowledge the confusion and discomfort of
the uncertainty present in your work.
• Find ways to care for the team and yourself
as you wade through the uncertainty.
• Welcome diversity of discourse even when it
can feel complicating.
Seek Liberatory Collaboration
Recognize differences in power and identity.
Design “with” instead of “for.”
Design work is fraught with power and identity
dynamics (e.g. designer as expert, who’s
generally situated with advantage). To fully realize
the liberatory potential of a design process, both
for the people we are designing with and for the
designer, it’s critical to reframe the relationship
as one of partnership.
Seek Liberatory Collaboration
Why?
How
• Actively seek diverse identities and skill sets
as you build your team.
• Acknowledge and build from the strengths,
stories, and skills of each other.
• Set conditions for collective learning, risk-
taking, and action.
• When framing the question, “How Might
We...?” ensure the “We” is diverse and
inclusive.
Build Relational Trust
Intentionally invest in relationships, especially
across difference. Honor stories and listen for
emotions.
Relational trust is the glue in equity-centered
design work. When working across difference
on difficult challenges, teams must invest
in developing emotional trust in order to
authentically collaborate.
If we are comfortable identifying and processing
emotions with our team, we create opportunities
for healing and prevent distortion of our work.
Build Relational Trust
Why?
How
• Enable personal connections through pair-
shares (people share what matters to them).
• Make time and space for people to bring
forward their fuller selves and identities.
• Emphasize the importance of non-judgmental
listening.
• Hold space for community to reflect, express
and process thoughts and emotions.
• Create culture that invites dialogue.
Bias Towards Experimentation
The complexity of oppression requires
courageous action. Build to think and learn.
Oppression thrives on risk-averse behavior. It’s
important to fail fast. Small changes can have
large effects - AND hacking oppression requires
longshots. Liberatory Design is an ever-evolving
craft that is never “done.”
Bias Towards Experimentation
Why?
How
• Co-design safe-to-fail experiments to learn
more.
• Build trust through experiments increasing in
scale or risk over time.
• Build agency and capacity in the community
through co-designed and implemented
experiments.
• Balance quick action with thoughtful
reflection.
• Choose a direction, not a single or final
solution.
Share, Don’t Sell
Practice transparency of process and non-
attachment to ideas.
When sharing your work, find ways to invite
people in instead of trying to convince them
of value. When you share your work humbly,
it invites feedback and questions that could
advance your work. In addition, it widens your
circle of collaborators and invites those people to
co-design with you.
Conversely, if we focus on selling or convincing,
we are losing opportunities to refine our work
and incorporate new perspectives.
Share, Don’t Sell
Why?
How
• Be transparent about the team’s process,
mindsets, shared goals, expectations and co-
constructed narratives.
• Share as an opportunity to learn and grow.
• Earn trust through actions and not just
words.
Credits + an Invitation
This card deck is a work in progress. This is our
first prototype of it, and we’d love to hear your
feedback! What do you like about it? What do you
wish was different about it? Any new ideas? Do
you use it at work? Why or why not?
Email us at liberatorydesign@gmail.com
We Want to Hear From You
Thank you to the wonderful people who put love,
brain power, and intention into the making of this
card deck (alphabetically):
Tania Anaissie (Content + Visual Design)
Victor Cary (Content)
David Clifford (Content + Illustrations)
Tom Malarkey (Content)
Susie Wise (Content)
Thank you, team!
NATIONAL
EQUITY
PROJECT
d. K12 J.AB
F E R N S & OT H E R
A N C I E N T P L A N T S
AHEADLINE
ACTIVITIES
W O N D E R S O F
C H E R RY S P R I N G S
Sierra Azul Preserve
Saturday, May 3
10:00 AM - 2:30 PM
Approcimate Total Miles: 3
E A R T H Q UA K E
H I K E
PRESERVING & PROTECTING
OUR OPEN SPACES WORK
SANS LOREM
A B UT TO N
Discover all you need
to know to help you
get the most of your
experience when
visiting your..
Are you a
new visitor?Maecenas vitae sodales sapien.
Vestibulum congue scelerisque
egestas. Nulla efficitur ac libero et
semper. Suspendisse potenti.
Suspendisse ullamcorper tortor eget
erat dignissim faucibus. Aliquam erat
We are an independent special district in the San Francisco
Bay Area that has preserved a regional greenbelt system of
nearly 65,000 acres of public land and manages 26 open
space preserves.
WELCOME TO
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
WORK SANS B OLD
Wor k Sans B old Su bh eading
Discover all you need to
know to help you get the
most of your experience
when visiting your..
Work Sans Regular body text independent special
district in the San Francisco Bay Area that has
preserved a regional greenbelt system of nearly
65,000 acres of public land and manages 26 open
space preserves.
Attachment 2_Moodboard
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
The Committee conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s
Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference.
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Director Kersteen-Tucker called the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs
Committee to order at 2:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, and Zoe Kersteen-Tucker
Members absent: None
Staff present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak,
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth,
Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner, Public Affairs Specialist II Cydney
Bieber.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced this meeting is being held in accordance with
Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Committee 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. Ms. Woodworth described the process and
protocols for the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted.
Attachment 3
LFPAC Page 2
October 20, 2020
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Approve the September 29, 2020 Legislative, Funding, & Public Affairs Committee
Meeting Minutes.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the
September 29, 2020 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee meeting minutes.
Public comment opened at 2:03 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted.
Public comment closed at 2:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
2. Website Structural Upgrade and Design Refresh Project Update (R-20-116)
General Manager Ana Ruiz commented on the website upgrades possible using a new platform
that will allow for more functionality and graphics.
Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner provided additional information on the ability of the new
website to improve functionality for mobile users and to follow best management practices.
Public Affairs Specialist II Cydney Bieber provided the staff presentation describing the
technological needs for the updated website to continue to allow for security updates. The
website was last updated in 2015, and the upgrades will allow for new interactive features and
graphics. Due to the high number of mobile users, the new website structure will be better
viewed on mobile devices. Ms. Bieber described the design process to represent potential site
users and interviewed website stakeholders. The website layout will be designed to meet the
needs of community members, create pathways to encourage exploration, and have an increased
ability to incorporate photos, graphics, and video. Ms. Bieber displayed various pages from the
current District website and explained how these will be updated in the upgraded website.
The Committee members requested and received clarifying information about the upgraded
website and design process.
Director Hassett inquired regarding input from District staff and volunteers.
Ms. Bieber reported staff and volunteers were interviewed to receive content suggestions. They
will be interviewed again later in the process.
Attachment 3
LFPAC Page 3
October 20, 2020
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired if individual departments will add information to the website,
or if these will still be handled by Public Affairs staff.
Ms. Skinner reported Public Affairs staff will likely still handle updates because it will be part of
the strategic communications plan, which helps provide a cohesive message throughout the
District.
Public comment opened at 3:00 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments had been submitted.
Public comment closed at 3:00 p.m.
The Committee members provided input on the potential website upgrades
ADJOURNMENT
Director Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs
Committee at 3:00 p.m.
____________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
Attachment 3
October 21, 2020
Board Meeting 20-24
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, October 21, 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, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle,
and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Zoe Kersteen-Tucker
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna
Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Planning Manager Jane
Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Planner I Melissa Borgesi, 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.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kersteen-Tucker absent)
Meeting 20-24 Page 2
BOARD BUSINESS
1. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Parking, Trailhead, and Public Access
Recommendations to Forward into the Feasibility Study Phase (R-20-115)
General Manager Ana Ruiz provided opening comments thanking the La Honda Public Access
Working Group (PAWG) and staff for their efforts on this multi-year project. Ms. Ruiz stated
this is an important step in the project, and following Board consideration and action, the District
will study the sites to determine the feasibility and address the safety of the options that have
been identified by the PAWG for meeting the Board-approved project goals and objectives.
Senior Planner Tina Hugg provided the staff presentation describing the La Honda Open Space
Preserve (OSP) and the creation and implementation to date of the La Honda Creek Master Plan
adopted by the Board of Directors in 2012, including securing Measure AA funding, opening of
the Sears Ranch Road parking lot, and formation of the PAWG. Ms. Hugg described the
responsibilities and charge of the PAWG and the PAWG’s process for studying, visiting, and
deliberating on the various potential sites and suites of options. Ms. Hugg provided information
regarding future trail work, distances between points of interest and access, and traffic collision
data, as requested by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee.
Director Kersteen-Tucker joined the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
Director Riffle inquired regarding traffic collisions along Highway 35 and whether any involved
District preserves.
Ms. Hugg reported staff was not provided with the location information for all of the collision
data.
Planner I Melissa Borgesi described the eleven site options considered by the PAWG, including
the site locations, potential site uses, and site opportunities and challenges. Additionally, staff
described various aspects of the sites that will require further study during the feasibility
assessment.
Ms. Hugg presented a summary of the PAWG deliberations and recommendations. Additionally,
Ms. Hugg described feedback received from the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. In
order to expand public access while long-term solutions are studied, near-term solutions were
suggested by the PAWG, such as docent-led hikes into the closed areas of the preserve,
prioritization of new trail connections to existing parking lots, and interpretive signage for the
Red Barn at the existing pullout on Highway 84. Finally, Ms. Hugg described the potential
timeline for project development and implementation.
Director Riffle inquired if the District continues to explore potential acquisitions along Highway
84 for public access.
Ms. Hugg reported real property staff continually looks at potential acquisitions as they arise, but
the topography of the area is challenging making it unlikely to find other areas of flat land for
public access.
Director Siemens requested additional clarification for the size of the potential parking lots.
Meeting 20-24 Page 3
Ms. Hugg reported additional study will be needed to determine how many parking spots will be
feasible in an area due to the landscape.
Director Hassett inquired regarding the uses for the Driscoll Event Center and suggested hiking
access could be provided from the area and to seek a county permit for this use.
Planning Manager Jane Mark reported there is no current use permit for the site, which would be
required through a county use permitting process.
Director Kersteen-Tucker supported expanding use of the Driscoll Event Center.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding potential effects of a parking area on trees at the “E”
locations.
Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter provided information regarding
the process for studying the potential impact on trees in the area, which would occur based on the
selected project options.
Public comment opened at 6:35 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record.
Linda Rutherford stated additional paved trails are needed for older adults to be able to easily
access and use the trails.
Barbara Hooper, the PAWG Chair, thanked the Board for responding to concerns raised by the
La Honda Community related to public access to the La Honda Creek OSP. Ms. Hooper
recommended implementation of the near-term options and preservation of the rural character of
the Red Barn area.
Maryann Chwalek supported the near-term options and thanked the District for their attention to
safety and traffic impacts when developing a public access plan.
Alex Sabo, on behalf of the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council supported public access through the
La Honda Creek OSP and the potential connections to the Bay Area Ridge Trail.
Public comment closed at 6:38 p.m.
Director Kishimoto commended the PAWG and staff for their work on the project and thanked
staff for responding to the requests for information by the Planning and Natural Resources
Committee. Director Kishimoto also spoke about the need to balance protection of natural
resources with public access. Additionally, Director Kishimoto commented on the redwoods at
La Honda Creek OSP.
Director Riffle shared his thanks to the PAWG and District staff for the careful study of the
project options and for the new and innovative options. Director Riffle expressed his
appreciation for having PAWG members represent areas from throughout the District, which
helped to create common interests between the coastside and bayside regions of the District.
Meeting 20-24 Page 4
Director Hassett thanked Ms. Hugg and Ms. Borgesi for their tremendous efforts in supporting
the PAWG and thanked his fellow PAWG members for their thoughtful work and efforts on the
project.
Director Kersteen-Tucker thanked the PAWG and the La Honda community for working well
together on the project and thanked staff for their work to support the PAWG and this project.
Director Cyr thanked his representative to the PAWG for her service and to the entire PAWG
and project team for their time and effort spent on the project.
Director Siemens thanked those who worked on the project and suggested increasing the number
of parking spaces where possible due to the costs associated with highway improvements that
will be required.
President Holman thanked all who worked on this project to help move it forward. President
Holman suggested the feasibility study seek that there be no net impact to the resources as a
result of this project.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to:
1. Direct the General Manager to proceed with feasibility studies of the parking, trailhead, and
public access recommendations as presented by the La Honda Public Access Working
Group, with any modifications requested by the Board of Directors.
2. Determine that the La Honda Public Access Working Group has fulfilled its charge and
direct the General Manager to dissolve the group and issue a special recognition for their
dedication and contributions, and keep members on the project notification list to solicit their
individual input as part of future Committee and Board meetings on the project.
3. Approve the draft March 5, 2020 La Honda Public Access Working Group meeting summary
since the Working Group will no longer meet as a body to approve their last meeting
summary.
Amendment to the Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker offered an amendment to the motion to
include hiking access at the Driscoll Event Center as part of the project feasibility study.
Ms. Hugg stated the Driscoll Event Center is a large site that may require its own planning
process, which was one of the reasons it was not previously included in the PAWG study of
public access to area.
Director Hassett stated the study of the Driscoll Event Center may need to be separated and
focused on hiking access.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: 7-0-0
Substitute Motion: Director Kishimoto moved to direct staff to work with CHP to discuss
Highway 84 corridor safety, which would include the Driscoll Event Center area.
Substitute motion dies for lack of a second.
Substitute Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to direct
staff to explore allowing public parking for hiking access at the Driscoll Event Center.
Meeting 20-24 Page 5
Director Riffle stated the PAWG and its recommendations focused on providing access to the
central portion of the preserve, and the Driscoll Event Center could provide additional hiking
access for the southern area for the preserve.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: 7-0-0
Director Kersteen-Tucker’s amendment to the motion fails due to passage of Director Siemens’s
substitute motion.
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:50 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
November 4, 2020
Board Meeting 20-26
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, November 4, 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 5:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Larry Hassett
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna
Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Natural Resources
Manager Kirk Lenington, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Engineering &
Construction Manager Jay Lin, Management Analyst I Sophie Christel
Director Cyr 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. Director Cyr described the process and protocols for the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted public comments into the record.
Meeting 20-26 Page 2
Steve Rose opposed the prohibition of e-bikes on District lands because e-bikes allow older
riders to still be able to access and use District lands and trails. Mr. Rose stated additional studies
should be completed prior to barring e-bikes from District lands.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
• Introduction of Staff
o Brandon Stewart, Land & Facilities Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Siemens pulled Item 2 from the Consent Calendar.
Public comment opened at 5:10 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for the Consent
Calendar.
Public comment closed at 5:10 p.m.
1. Approve October 21, 2020 and 28, 2020 Minutes
Director Riffle requested his comments on October 21, 2020 be amended to read:
- Page 2: Director Riffle inquired regarding traffic collisions in the area along
Skyline Boulevard and whether any occurred on District preserves.
- Page 5: Director Riffle stated the event center serves the southern portion of the
preserve, and the recommendations from the PAWG were focused on providing access to
the central portion of the preserve.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported she would listen to the recording of the October 21,
2020 to confirm the statements, if the Board would like to continue approval of these minutes to
the following Board meeting.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the October
28, 2020 minutes.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
2. Award of Contract with Ascent Environmental to provide Environmental
Consulting Services for the White Barn Rehabilitation and Redwood Cabin Demolition
Projects at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-127)
Item 2 was heard after the Consent Calendar.
Meeting 20-26 Page 3
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ascent Environmental to
provide environmental consulting services for the Redwood Cabin Removal Project and White
Barn Structural Rehabilitation Project for a combined base amount of $216,531.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency, to be expended only if necessary, to cover unforeseen
conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $238,184.
Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested installing cameras in the roosting boxes.
Natural Resources Specialist II Matt Sharp Chaney stated cameras could be pursued if the
cameras were determined not produce high frequency noise that would disturb the bats.
Additionally, bats could likely be observed at dawn and dusk.
Director Siemens inquired why staff pivoted away from the Board’s direction to exclude all
wildlife from the White Barn.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported that when analyzing required alternate bat
habitats, staff determined it was feasible to allow the bats to remain in the barn without
damaging the building, making it possible to preserve the structure and existing bat habitat.
Director Hassett joined the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
Director Siemens expressed concern at the reduction of the number of plexiglass windows
available for public viewing.
Director Riffle inquired if staff can confirm the integrity of the structure will be maintained
while allowing the bat habitat to remain inside the structure.
Mr. Chaney reported the District’s consultants found that negative impacts of bats on the
structure would be minimal based on the number of bats in the structure and the impacts could be
further mitigated with staff maintenance.
President Holman commented on the CEQA language in the Board report referencing the
removal of the Redwood Cabin, indicating there is no mitigation for the demolition of a historic
structure. Additionally, the project is a deconstruction and not a demolition of the structure and
should be referenced that way for the ongoing project.
Planning Manager Jane Mark reported an environmental impact report would be completed for
the Redwood Cabin to analyze all potential alternatives, and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration would be drafted for Board consideration if it is determined that removal is a
significant and unavoidable impact.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth quoted from the April 8, 2020 Board meeting minutes and
associated Board report, where the Board approved the removal of the Redwood Cabin structure
and restoration of the underlying natural resource values. The removal would be in accordance
with the District’s Waste Diversion Policy to recycle and salvage materials to the greatest extent
possible. Photo-documentation would also apply to record the interior and exterior of the
building prior to removal.
Meeting 20-26 Page 4
Director Riffle suggested going forward the project should be described as removal of the
structure in accordance with the District’s Waste Diversion Policy.
Motion: Director Holman moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to approve the
General Manager’s recommendations.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0
3. First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note between Jacob Guenther and
Tamara J. Shimizu (a.k.a. Tamara J. Guenther) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District for a Fee Determinable Estate at 5705 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028,
adjoining Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 080-282-080) (R-20-128)
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a First Amendment to
the Secured Promissory Note held by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District against Jacob
Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu as described in the staff report.
Directors Kishimoto and Holman stated they would be voting against this item.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the General
Manager’s recommendation.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent)
BOARD BUSINESS
1. Science Advisory Panel Final Report on Multiple Grazing Topics (R-20-129)
General Manager Ana Ruiz stated the information being presented at the meeting is in response
to the Board’s direction to gather and review peer-reviewed scientific information regarding the
effects of grazing on District lands and land management goals.
Management Analyst I Sophie Christel provided the staff presentation describing the purpose
and process of the Science Advisory Panel (SAP) and providing an overview of the District’s
conservation grazing program. The SAP evaluates the scientific validity of ecosystem
management decisions and serves as an important resource to inform regional management
topics.
Lydia Vaughn with the San Francisco Estuary Institute provided information regarding the
history of grassland ecosystems of the California central coast, including livestock grazing, fire
suppression, introduction on non-native grasses, etc. The SAP studied the effects of cattle
grazing on District management goals, including conserving biodiversity, greenhouse gas
emissions, and managing wildfire risk. The SAP reviewed more than 125 peer-reviewed
scientific articles with a focus on the San Mateo Coast. Ms. Vaughn stated conservation grazing
may support some but not all of the District’s management goals.
Meeting 20-26 Page 5
Ms. Vaughn described the overall positive impact of cattle grazing on biodiversity, including on
grassland vegetation, woody vegetation, and native wildlife habitat for sensitive wildlife species.
In general, maintaining a mosaic across the landscapes of grazed sites, ungrazed sites, and
different grazing regimes can benefit the various wildlife and grass species on District lands.
Ms. Vaughn stated the impact of cattle grazing on climate protection is a result of methane
production by cattle, which is a potent greenhouse gas. However, the relative amount of methane
produced by the District’s grazing-related greenhouse gas emissions are low in comparison to
greenhouse gases from other livestock emissions and from fossil fuel use. The District has
opportunities to reduce or offset livestock greenhouse gas emissions by managing livestock for
soil carbon sequestration, managing carbon in agricultural systems, and seeking other approaches
for rangeland carbon management.
Ms. Vaughn described the use of cattle grazing for wildlife risk management, but limited
research and studies exist on this topic.
Ms. Vaughn provided an overview of management alternatives to cattle grazing, which could be
used to complement the District’s conservation grazing program, including mechanical
approaches to maintain open grasslands and control invasive species; herbicides to control
invasive species; prescribed fire to manage fuel loads and control invasive species; and browsing
by other herbivore species to combat shrub encroachment, manage fire risk, and manage
vegetation species.
Ms. Vaughn stated the District’s conservation grazing program can be a beneficial management
tool to protect open grassland, increase the diversity and cover of native grassland plants, and
provide habitat for native wildlife. Methane emissions entail a tradeoff between climate
protection and other land stewardship goals, which may be offset by land-based carbon
management.
Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington described possible next steps for the conservation
grazing program based on the recommendations by the SAP, including limitations and
opportunities of the alternatives to conservation grazing.
Director Riffle inquired if staff takes a more specific or generalized approach to managing
District lands as they are acquired and when determining which lands will be managed through
conservation grazing.
Mr. Lenington stated staff looks at the various infrastructure on the ranch properties and levels of
biodiversity and the types of wildlife and habitats on the property when determining the best
management technique for protecting and managing those habitats.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the historic presence of the oak canopy and tule elk on the
San Mateo Coast.
Erica Spotswood Applied Ecologist and Letitia Grenier Program Director for the Resilient
Landscapes Program with the San Francisco Estuary Institute commented a historical ecology
study would need to be completed to confirm but felt the oak savannah may not have spread to
the coast. However, it would have existed on some of the District’s lands and tule elk would
have lived there.
Meeting 20-26 Page 6
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding the potential spread of various diseases from
grazing cattle to native wildlife.
Rangeland Management Analyst Lewis Reed commented on the potential spread of disease in
cattle and stated that it can be further studied by staff.
Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding the analysis of only peer-reviewed scientific studies
by the Science Advisory Panel.
Ms. Spotswood provided an explanation of the peer-review process, which helps ensure
scientific data meets rigorous scientific requirements for testing and evaluating methods of study
by at least three other experts in a scientific field.
Public comment opened at 7:46 p.m.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record.
Craig Dremann stated the District should monitor its grassland management on an annual basis
and compare this data against benchmark data.
Richard Lanman reported tule elk are native to San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara Counties
and should be used instead of cattle to reduce fire fuel loads. Any cattle allowed should be tested
for various diseases that infect and have a negative impact on native elk.
Alex Johnson thanked the District for completing this research and is encouraged by the results.
Deniz Bolbol opposed continued grazing of District lands stating grazing introduces and
increases invasive species and has a negative impact on native wildlife.
Bob Woods supported returning native grazers, such as elk and bison, to the landscape and stated
grazing is important to manage lands for fires.
Mohan Gurunathan suggested that it would be beneficial to study what species would benefit
from cattle exclusion and what natural species may return if cattle were removed. Mr.
Gurunathan suggested that woody growth could be allowed to grow and would eventually
become hardwood and conifer forests, further increasing carbon sequestration.
The Board recessed at 7:55 and reconvened at 8:05 p.m. with all Directors present.
Peter Rauch commented that other questions need to be raised and addressed regarding the
District’s conservation grazing program.
Public comment closed at 8:07 p.m.
Director Siemens expressed concern regarding potential transfer of diseases from cattle to elk
and suggested additional study is needed for follow-up on this topic.
Meeting 20-26 Page 7
Sheila Barry, Santa Clara County Director and Area Livestock and Natural Resources Advisor,
UC Cooperative Extension, commented that brucellosis was eliminated from California in the
mid-1990s, and cattle are required to be vaccinated against it. Johne’s Disease requires reporting,
so information and tracking on spread of this disease can be easily addressed.
Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on the importance of working with landowners, partners,
and scientists to address the impacts of conservation grazing and to make land management
decisions and develop policies. The science should also be shared with these same groups to help
all make good land management decisions.
Director Riffle commented on the importance of balancing the District’s land management
throughout all its lands, and in that context, consider conservation grazing with the overall net
benefits of District land management decisions on climate protection.
No Board action required.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• La Honda Creek White Barn Bat Habitat
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Kersteen-Tucker reported the Board Self-Evaluation ad hoc committee met last week to
confirm the retreat objectives, select potential facilitators to interview, and draft interview
questions.
By consensus the Board directed the committee to interview and select a facilitator for the self-
evaluation process.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan provided an update regarding staff’s review of the
Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan and reported staff plans to
provide written comments on the plan. County staff will be making a presentation on this plan on
December 9, 2020.
Director Kishimoto requested staff send the information to her so that she may offer comments,
as needed.
C. Director Reports
Director Riffle reported the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority ballot measure passed at
more than 80%. Additionally, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ballot measure passed as
well.
The Board members congratulated Director Cyr on his reelection.
Meeting 20-26 Page 8
ADJOURNMENT
President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:51 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-27
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2020 Fiscal Year 19-20 EFT:57.32%
Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
2523 EFT 10/30/2020 *12052 - 4984 EL Camino LLC A02/A03/A04 Rent - November 2020 36,678.00
2524 EFT 10/30/2020 12111 - Agbayani Construction Corporation South Area Field Office Renovation Project - September 2020 195,087.25
2525 EFT 10/30/2020 10813 - ALMADEN PAWG 10/21 Board Meeting Postcard - (qty 580)806.20
2526 EFT 10/30/2020 12139 - Apex Asphalt Paving Rancho San Antonio County Park Service Road Asphalt Repair 21,890.00
2527 EFT 10/30/2020 *10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Services & Cleaning Supplies for AO Offices, FFO, SFO, SAO, CAO 3,079.00
2528 EFT 10/30/2020 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc.Plant Installation & Maintenance of Multiple Mitigation Sites - September 2020 16,489.65
2529 EFT 10/30/2020 11545 - Erin Ashford Photography LLC SRE 2020 Video 5,624.00
2530 EFT 10/30/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Chainsaw Bar Oil /Ethanol Free Fuel 1,518.79
2531 EFT 10/30/2020 11612 - GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP, INC.Continuing Disclosure/Annual Report for MSRB 2,520.00
2532 EFT 10/30/2020 10005 - Grassroots Ecology Hendrys Creek Restoration - 7/1/20 - 9/30/20 14,752.00
2533 EFT 10/30/2020 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Permitting thru August 31, 2020 3,178.19
2534 EFT 10/30/2020 12091 - Intentional Communication Consultants Management Coaching - 9/15/20 250.00
2535 EFT 10/30/2020 11906 - Law Offices of Gary M. Baum Legal Counsel Services - September 2020 4,808.50
2536 EFT 10/30/2020 10190 - MetroMobile Communications Equipment Install for New Vehicles - M236, M237, M238 1,626.07
2537 EFT 10/30/2020 10031 - Mills Design Signs; picnic tables, face coverings, COVID-19 safety 860.00
2538 EFT 10/30/2020 12020 - Panorama Environmental, Inc.CEQA: Prescribed Fire Program Development - 8/7 - 9/30 10,635.00
2539 EFT 10/30/2020 10925 - Papé Machinery T34 Parts 873.09
2540 EFT 10/30/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service 7 Vehicle 5K Service Inspections / P112 Repair Brakes 1,464.26
2541 EFT 10/30/2020 12082 - Sicular Environmental Consulting La Honda Forest Management Plan - September 2020 3,710.00
2542 EFT 10/30/2020 *10952 - Sonic.net Internet Services - November 2020 1,170.00
2543 EFT 10/30/2020 12085 - County of Santa Clara - Controller Deposit Deposit to County Bank Account (transfer from LAIF/State pool to County pool)4,000,000.00
2544 EFT 11/06/2020 10001 - Aaron's Septic Tank Service Septic Pumping - (4) Properties 2,945.00
2545 EFT 11/06/2020 *10128 - American Tower Corporation Repeater Lease - October 2020 2,049.96
2546 EFT 11/06/2020 *11799 - Aztec Leasing, Inc.Printer/copier leases - 6 machines - October 2020 2,326.07
2547 EFT 11/06/2020 10273 - Bruce Barton Pump Service Inc FOOSP -troubleshoot well pump at Ranger Residence 110.00
2548 EFT 11/06/2020 11445 - Cross Land Surveying, Inc.Tabachnik Lot Split 6,356.25
2549 EFT 11/06/2020 *10214 - Delta Dental Dental Benefits - November 2020 9,205.12
2550 EFT 11/06/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers SA Public Meeting Postcard & Postage / COVID-19 Safety Sign 3,592.49
2551 EFT 11/06/2020 11593 - H.T. Harvey & Associates Alma College Bat Relocation & Habitat Replacement 2,289.75
2552 EFT 11/06/2020 12105 - IBI Group Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Study - August 2020 2,578.04
2553 EFT 11/06/2020 *10419 - Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.AD&D/Life/LTD - November 2020 7,713.42
2554 EFT 11/06/2020 10791 - LSA Associates, Inc.CEQA Services for Alpine Road 4,955.75
2555 EFT 11/06/2020 11617 - MIG, Inc.Purisima Uplands Demo & Site Cleanup - 8/1/20 - 9/30/20 1,488.75
2556 EFT 11/06/2020 11270 - Municipal Maintenance Equipment Inc.T27 - Replace hydraulic hose on brushing tractor 317.19
2557 EFT 11/06/2020 **11523 - PGA Design, Inc.Hawthorns Public Access Plan/Alma Cultural Landscape Rehab Plan thru 9/30/20 13,468.75
2558 EFT 11/06/2020 10140 - Pine Cone Lumber Co Inc Lumber for Project (RSA) /Posts for SFO stock 2,462.80
2559 EFT 11/06/2020 12031 - Ray & Jan's Mobile Truck Service Maintenance & Repairs - (16 Vehicles)4,232.36
2560 EFT 11/06/2020 *10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service (RSACP-EQ) 406.04
2561 EFT 11/06/2020 10447 - Simms Plumbing & Water Equip., Inc.Clear Main Line to Septic Tank - 20000 Skyline 724.49
2562 EFT 11/06/2020 *11730 - Standard Insurance Company RV Basic Life / Supplemental Life - November 2020 2,746.65
2563 EFT 11/06/2020 10302 - Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc.BCR - base rock for Phase II Trails / SFO Stock / BCR pull-outs / Drain rock for Alma Trail pull-outs 4,338.09
2564 EFT 11/06/2020 *10213 - Vision Service Plan-CA Vision Premium - November 2020 1,485.84
2565 EFT 11/06/2020 11914 - W-TRANS Bear Creek Redwoods Multi-Use Trail Crossings Traffic Studies 1,576.86
2566 EFT 11/06/2020 11856 - West Coast Arborists, Inc.Arborist On-Call, Construction Monitoring - 9/9 - 9/14 1,072.00
2567 EFT 11/06/2020 *11118 - Wex Bank Fuel for District Vehicles 9,524.98
81468 Check 10/30/2020 *11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Mt. Um Safety Phone - 9/7/20 - 10/06/20 47.47
81469 Check 10/30/2020 *12041 - A T & T Mobility (FirstNet)EOC Emergency Phones - September 2020 355.47
81470 Check 10/30/2020 10826 - Bartel Associates LLC Actuarial Consulting Services - OPEB Valuation August 2020 5,073.00
81471 Check 10/30/2020 10141 - Big Creek Lumber Co Inc Construction screws for SFO Projects - 50 pcs. (8)246.52
81472 Check 10/30/2020 11255 - Engineering Remediation Resources Group Inc Madonna Creek Ranch Remediation Project 43,288.78
81473 Check 10/30/2020 11728 - Kidder Matthews of California Inc 273-acre Pratt Property Purchase - Appraisal Report 15,000.00
81474 Check 10/30/2020 10461 - Northgate Environmental Management Inc South Area Outpost Soil Testing - 8/29/20 - 10/2/20 326.81
81475 Check 10/30/2020 10578 - Old Republic Title Co.South Cowell Land Purchase 10,000.00
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment
security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
page 1 of 8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 20-27
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2020 Fiscal Year 19-20 EFT:57.32%
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
81476 Check 10/30/2020 11408 - Thrive Alliance Grantmaking Program: Thrive Action Group Reimburse - 9/3/19 - 9/3/20 9,487.90
81477 Check 10/30/2020 *10309 - Verizon Wireless Wireless - 9/13/20 - 10/12/20 2,581.99
81478 Check 11/06/2020 10141 - Big Creek Lumber Co Inc Lumber for Preserve Signs 1,638.34
81479 Check 11/06/2020 10470 - Condor Country Consulting Madonna Creek Ranch Debris Cleanup/Monitoring - September 2020 20,499.88
81480 Check 11/06/2020 11054 - County of San Mateo Human Resources Dept.Online trainings - 4 employees 400.00
81481 Check 11/06/2020 11058 - Diamond Crane Company Inc Repair Shaft on Windmill Pump at October Farm 1,353.00
81482 Check 11/06/2020 12014 - ECAST Engineering Inc.Spring Improvement at Big Dipper 1,520.00
81483 Check 11/06/2020 10287 - Grainger, Inc.Respirator Masks - N95 (5)308.82
81484 Check 11/06/2020 10344 - Greg's Trucking Service, Inc.Truck Delivery Costs - San Rafael to La Honda 3,600.00
81485 Check 11/06/2020 10058 - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Human Resources Legal Consulting - 8/1/20 - 9/30/20 1,145.00
81486 Check 11/06/2020 12072 - NetFile, Inc.FPPC Form 700 E-Filing & Admin System - 6/28/20 - 6/28/21 3,750.00
81487 Check 11/06/2020 10194 - Reed & Graham Inc SA / BCR Stables - Erosion control straw wattles for restoration 242.54
81488 Check 11/06/2020 10935 - Rice Trucking - Soil Farm Water Delivery at Toto - 10/9 371.01
81489 Check 11/06/2020 12063 - Surf to Snow Environmental Resource Mgmt Mindego Ranch IPM Biological Monitoring - September 2020 11,267.34
81490 Check 11/06/2020 10487 - TKO General Engineering & Construction Removal of debris and wood at barn - Gordon Ridge Property 2,999.00
4,550,489.52
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HC = Hendry's Creek P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail
AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space HR = Human Resources PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office
CAO = Coastal Area Office ISM = Invasive Species Management PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap
CC = Coal Creek LH = La Honda Creek RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill
DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LR = Long Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge
ECdM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer
ES = El Sereno M### = Maintenance Vehicle RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek
FFO = Foothills Field Office MB = Monte Bello SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill
FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.MR = Miramontes Ridge SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood
GP = General Preserve MSRB = Municipal Securities Rulemakin SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill
Abbreviations
page 2 of 8
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT Wells Fargo Credit Card - September 2020
MEETING # 20-27
MEETING DATE 11-18-20
GL Date Amount Description
10/8/2020 15,869.70 Ranger Academy tuition, Room & Board - Schenck
10/8/2020 15,000.00 District membership - Together Bay Area Membership
10/8/2020 11,490.20 Ranger Academy tuition, Room & Board - Cowan (Reduced tuition)
10/8/2020 8,850.33 AO Internet and ENS service - Sept 2020
10/8/2020 8,850.33 AO Internet and ENS service - Oct 2020
10/8/2020 7,500.00 Green climber mower rental for fire clearance work - 1 month
10/8/2020 5,616.00 Building permit fees - ADA Barrier Removal
10/8/2020 3,846.25 Madonna Creek Ranch Cleanup Permit Fees
10/8/2020 3,637.50 Database support services - Normal Data
10/8/2020 3,500.00 Sponsorship BA Comm. Health advisory Council event
10/8/2020 3,360.00 BCR - Hazard Tree Removal
10/8/2020 3,113.48 TPX Communications - District wide phone service & SAO T1
10/8/2020 2,943.46 Postage - RSA Multimodal Access Study Mtg postcards
10/8/2020 2,526.38 Fuel Tank Inspect & Vapor Test / Fuel Pump Repair
10/8/2020 2,321.70 Staff Recognition Event photo framing
10/8/2020 1,825.00 Diversity Equity & Inclusion PIHRA- to be refunded
10/8/2020 1,735.84 Brake Maintenance and Repair
10/8/2020 1,526.16 Fuel Pump Replacement - P88
10/8/2020 1,458.00 Santa Clara Fire Dept permit fees - SAO ust removal
10/8/2020 1,380.00 Monthly Inspection for Under Ground Fuel Tank - SAO
10/8/2020 1,287.75 Bike counters (electronic devices to count # of bicycles in OSP)
10/8/2020 1,287.40 Portable restroom rentals at Windy Hill
10/8/2020 1,146.23 LH Bench for LaHonda Loop
10/8/2020 1,091.01 SCCO Permit Fees - Alma Demo/Abatement
10/8/2020 1,000.00 Annual membership for IST to MISAC - 9/20 - 9/21
10/8/2020 987.75 LT Electronic sign for eucalyptus project
10/8/2020 850.00 RGS Manager / Supervisor Training - Headley
10/8/2020 790.81 Adobe acrobat pro x 10 Adobe all apps x 1
10/8/2020 732.94 Refrigerator - Folger Residence
10/8/2020 700.00 CPM job advertising - CMAA Career Center/ American Society of Land
10/8/2020 694.86 PPE - Facemasks
10/8/2020 685.00 Lead Supervisor training course registration - J. Mackessy
10/8/2020 648.52 Foam for Fire Pumpers
10/8/2020 610.78 Leather work gloves - M, L, XL
10/8/2020 577.28 FOOSP - Sanitation Service
10/8/2020 564.80 FFO - Materials and Supplies for Copy Room
10/8/2020 557.82 United Site Service - Sanitation Service - SA
10/8/2020 529.74 PPE Wildland fire fighting boots
10/8/2020 508.00 Water heater -Bluebrush House
10/8/2020 495.00 CPM job advertising - ASCE Career Center
10/8/2020 477.41 Property research services - August 2020
10/8/2020 462.00 Request for Bid legal ad in the Palo Alto Weekly
10/8/2020 459.90 Zoom subscription for public meetings
10/8/2020 450.00 Website hosting - September 2020
10/8/2020 425.00 California Procurement Conference Registration - Jaskulak
10/8/2020 425.00 SA - Mt Um - Rental of Pedestrian Canopy
10/8/2020 425.00 Arborist Report - Hawthorn Property
10/8/2020 414.49 Permit Fees for Mt Umunhum Shelter Repair
10/8/2020 400.00 Reg fee AEOE Ca Environmental Ed Cert Prog - Vuoso
10/8/2020 382.97 BAAQMD Permit Fees for Alma Demo/Abatement
10/8/2020 379.88 Water Service for Rentals
10/8/2020 376.00 Server room flood sensor
10/8/2020 375.00 Rear Door Glass Replacement
10/8/2020 372.73 FFO - Work Top for Copy Room
10/8/2020 371.01 Water delivery at October Farm
10/8/2020 369.00 CPM job advertising - Your Member-Careers
10/8/2020 363.17 Greenwaste Recovery - SFO Recycle & Garbage
10/8/2020 361.00 Monthly rental for storage unit
10/8/2020 352.47 Sharp copies - Printer costs 7-29-20 - 8-29-20
10/8/2020 312.41 Gloves and window washing fluid
10/8/2020 305.00 SMC Assessor Parcel Data Subscription 9/2020 - 9/2021
10/8/2020 293.15 Air Sensor for SFO
10/8/2020 291.67 New fire jacket - Smutnak
10/8/2020 280.54 AO Water Service - CalWater
10/8/2020 280.00 GFOA - Bond issuance workshop - Lupe
10/8/2020 276.98 SA-Mt Um - Fencing Rental
10/8/2020 273.14 Cable for Tire Removal
10/8/2020 265.00 FFO - Pest Control Service
10/8/2020 251.73 Lumber for equipment shed
10/8/2020 248.93 Fence Posts, Panels, Post Pounder - BCR Stables
10/8/2020 240.00 Annual subscription for field office modem mgmt
10/8/2020 231.33 Duct tape, paper towels and marking paint
10/8/2020 228.65 Email Marketing - September 2020
10/8/2020 227.42 Plumbing parts - 12049 La Honda Rd
10/8/2020 218.00 California Rural Water Association membership - Dolan
10/8/2020 218.00 LexisNexis - Online Subscription August 2020
10/8/2020 204.31 Vinyl Camera Decals (50) & setup
10/8/2020 200.00 Monthly subscription - remote admin tool
10/8/2020 200.00 CPM job advertising
10/8/2020 200.00 Nat'l Assoc for Interp workshop reg- Fitzsimons
10/8/2020 199.19 SCCO Permit Fees - Alma Demo/Abatement
10/8/2020 196.65 Water hose truck adapter
10/8/2020 179.94 Adobe Sign license x 1
10/8/2020 177.01 New battery - P106
10/8/2020 175.97 Hand sanitizer dispenser and foam hand soap
10/8/2020 173.21 Battery for A68
10/8/2020 170.00 Membership dues CPRS - D. Mackessy
10/8/2020 159.11 FFO - Electrical Supplies for Shop and Office
10/8/2020 158.89 Bluebrush Canyon house - water heater install/parts
10/8/2020 157.08 Field Training Officer Course - Johnson
10/8/2020 154.67 Metal Rake, Litter Stick and Vinegar
10/8/2020 152.94 Bergman main house heating system parts
10/8/2020 150.00 CSMFO Budget Award Submission Fee
10/8/2020 142.03 Lunch for skills test
10/8/2020 141.79 FFO - Shop Supplies, Plumbing and Fuel
10/8/2020 138.46 Office Supplies - legal & ledger laminating pouches
10/8/2020 134.96 DHF - Buck Barn Materials
10/8/2020 131.07 K. Husin uniform items
10/8/2020 126.84 Hand sanitizer dispensers for restrooms
10/8/2020 125.00 CAL IPC Symposium Registration - Vizena
10/8/2020 125.00 Management Leadership Training - Headley
10/8/2020 124.26 Propane - SFO
10/8/2020 121.99 Appliance Disposal from District Residences
10/8/2020 121.08 1 yr sub - Interactive polling website
10/8/2020 120.39 FFO - Materials for Wall Counter-Top Support
10/8/2020 120.00 Yearly subscription - Harvard Business Review
10/8/2020 117.28 Water tank connectors for SFO
10/8/2020 116.90 Cable for Tire Removal
10/8/2020 116.72 Radar gun shipments to RHF
10/8/2020 115.15 Right Mirror Replacement - P88
10/8/2020 113.46 FFO Shop Supplies: Hammer, Tamper and Gloves
10/8/2020 111.95 Metal clipboards
10/8/2020 111.54 Bankers boxes for records management
10/8/2020 106.52 Condensate pump - server room
10/8/2020 106.08 Together Bay Area Fall Forum registration - Ruiz
10/8/2020 104.91 Water Service for Rentals
10/8/2020 101.47 Storage Box and Rope
10/8/2020 101.46 A-Frame steps - 21150 Skyline
10/8/2020 101.40 BCS debris removal - over weight fee
10/8/2020 101.18 Tools/supplies - concrete headwall at BCR Stables
10/8/2020 100.50 Replacement emergency light - AO1
10/8/2020 100.00 GFOA Mini Muni webinars
10/8/2020 99.00 Harvard Business Review digital subscription
10/8/2020 96.90 Supplies - Sun Screen
10/8/2020 96.45 Water Service for Rentals
10/8/2020 96.12 Welding Tip
10/8/2020 92.36 FFO - Hardware Supplies
10/8/2020 89.63 Diesel DEF and Washer Fluids
10/8/2020 88.01 Label maker
10/8/2020 85.55 A frame hand rail for back steps
10/8/2020 85.23 Electrical Supplies for Ground Rods on Fuel Tanks
10/8/2020 82.64 RSACP - Signs for Restroom
10/8/2020 81.00 Request for Bid legal ad in the Half Moon Bay Review
10/8/2020 79.74 Roll Measure Tool
10/8/2020 78.64 Door closer for M208
10/8/2020 78.44 Food for Midpen gopher snake
10/8/2020 77.26 Water Service for Rentals
10/8/2020 76.00 False Alarm Reduction Program Fee - A03
10/8/2020 75.00 MB Campsite payphone
10/8/2020 74.27 Wiper Blades - M205
10/8/2020 74.03 Bergman Old House toilet
10/8/2020 69.33 Water Service for Rentals
10/8/2020 67.38 Sign board map printing
10/8/2020 65.53 FFO Shop - Utility Sink and Parts
10/8/2020 65.41 Monthly Shredding Services - August 2020
10/8/2020 65.38 Wiper Blades
10/8/2020 65.09 Commercial Driver Checkout Booklets
10/8/2020 63.65 Monthly Shredding Services - July 2020
10/8/2020 62.80 Board Metallic Push Pins
10/8/2020 60.00 Registration - 2020 Society for Ecology Restoration Conf - Reed
10/8/2020 59.99 Hard drive duplication software
10/8/2020 58.84 DHF - Gate Latches
10/8/2020 56.70 PPE - Facemasks
10/8/2020 56.70 Diesel DEF Fluid
10/8/2020 56.00 CEQA NOE for E-Bike Usage Project 8/25/20
10/8/2020 55.00 Facebook social media boosting posts
10/8/2020 54.17 Contractor locks for gates - South Cowell
10/8/2020 54.01 Calwater - WH Lower parking lot
10/8/2020 54.01 CalWater - WH Lower Windy Hill parking lot
10/8/2020 53.35 Monthly Shredding Services
10/8/2020 52.13 FOOSP - Plants
10/8/2020 50.10 Pin locks for Fire Danger signs
10/8/2020 50.00 International Institute of Municipal Clerks Workshop Reg - Soria
10/8/2020 50.00 Facebook advertising - safety messaging
10/8/2020 50.00 FFO backup internet service
10/8/2020 50.00 Public Notification Mgmt - Sales Hub Starter - 9/26/20 - 10/26/20
10/8/2020 50.00 IPMA-HR webinar - Vargas
10/8/2020 50.00 CEQA NOE for Red Barn Repainting & Repair 8/18/20
10/8/2020 50.00 CEQA NOE for E-Bike Usage Project 8/25/20
10/8/2020 50.00 CEQA Notice of Exemption for Human Mtn Lion Study
10/8/2020 50.00 CEQA NOE - Madonna Creek Cleanup
10/8/2020 49.50 Web Forms - September 2020
10/8/2020 49.00 Social Media Software - September 2020
10/8/2020 48.73 Parts for 12049 La Honda Rd
10/8/2020 46.88 Cleaning agent
10/8/2020 46.87 Hardware/supplies -culvert, headwall BCR Stables
10/8/2020 44.98 Breakfast for skills test
10/8/2020 44.55 K. Husin uniform items
10/8/2020 44.24 Step ladder for SAO
10/8/2020 43.76 Office Supplies
10/8/2020 42.61 ATV-UTV Goggles
10/8/2020 40.00 PAPA-Cont Ed Units - Qualified Applicator Cert - Bankosh
10/8/2020 39.00 Web PDF viewer - September 2020
10/8/2020 39.00 Hardware/Tools
10/8/2020 38.04 SRE photo printing
10/8/2020 37.45 Sink parts - Bluebrush Canyon House
10/8/2020 37.01 FFO - Materials for Copy Room Work Area
10/8/2020 36.85 Plumbing parts - Monte Bello cabin water system
10/8/2020 35.00 City Clerk Assc Wrkshop -After the Election Reg - Soria
10/8/2020 35.00 City Clerk Assc Wrkshop -After the Election Reg - Woodworth
10/8/2020 35.00 FFO Shop - Ice-Maker Parts and Supplies
10/8/2020 34.87 Electrical outlets - Orchard house at 16891 Stevens Canyon Road
10/8/2020 32.67 Filing Boxes
10/8/2020 32.50 Over weight fee for dumpster charge - BCS
10/8/2020 31.68 Extra equipment keys
10/8/2020 31.07 Webstore Shipping - September 2020
10/8/2020 30.81 FFO Shop - Sink Parts
10/8/2020 30.24 FOOSP - Water Service
10/8/2020 30.00 Subscription looking to get refunded, no receipt available
10/8/2020 30.00 Registration for SERCAL virtual conference session - Christel
10/8/2020 30.00 Registration - 2020 Society for Ecology Restoration Conf - Hebert
10/8/2020 29.29 Website Analytics September 2020
10/8/2020 29.19 Construction supplies for culvert/headwall at BCR Stables
10/8/2020 29.00 Midpen Webstore - September 2020
10/8/2020 28.48 Refreshments for Skills Assessments
10/8/2020 28.28 Hardware for Tire Removal
10/8/2020 28.06 Wiper Fluid
10/8/2020 27.30 Folding saw
10/8/2020 27.20 SRE photo printing
10/8/2020 26.74 FFO - Copy Room Fixture Supplies
10/8/2020 26.16 Spare mower / extra equipment keys
10/8/2020 25.20 Water
10/8/2020 25.12 Flashlight batteries
10/8/2020 25.00 Monthly subscription - live streaming software
10/8/2020 25.00 Ewaste recycling fee
10/8/2020 24.99 Email list management - September 2020
10/8/2020 23.17 Water line - 1195 Skyline Blvd
10/8/2020 22.88 FFO - Step Stool
10/8/2020 21.83 Push broom
10/8/2020 21.79 File Folder Organizer
10/8/2020 21.30 Waste tray for postage meter
10/8/2020 21.30 Volunteer Equipment
10/8/2020 20.48 Geology Reference Book - Herbert
10/8/2020 20.00 Facebook ad to promote badger virtual event
10/8/2020 19.84 Adaptor for Welding Tank
10/8/2020 19.64 Extra equipment keys
10/8/2020 18.55 A frame toilet repair - 21150 Skyline
10/8/2020 18.19 Toilet replacement at Bergman Old House
10/8/2020 17.53 Electrolyte Drink Powder
10/8/2020 17.46 M204 Transmission fluid
10/8/2020 17.20 Spray paint and bunjee
10/8/2020 16.65 Paint Supplies
10/8/2020 16.55 Electrolyte Drink Mix
10/8/2020 16.34 Windshield repair kit
10/8/2020 16.32 Gordon Ridge smoke detectors
10/8/2020 15.96 Monthly subscription - Los Altos Times
10/8/2020 15.28 WH Restroom Project materials
10/8/2020 14.81 Desiccants for visitor counters
10/8/2020 12.38 Keys for Gordon Ridge
10/8/2020 11.99 BOD Dropbox account for meeting files
10/8/2020 11.47 Extra equipment keys
10/8/2020 10.95 Postage for the Ravenswood Postcard
10/8/2020 10.87 SRE photo printing
10/8/2020 10.87 SRE photo printing
10/8/2020 10.25 WH Restroom Project materials
10/8/2020 9.82 Dishwasher parts - Bergman main house
10/8/2020 9.33 Permit Fees for Mt Umunhum Shelter Repair
10/8/2020 8.74 EMS wheel litter tube repair
10/8/2020 8.73 Rear light bulb - M222
10/8/2020 8.25 Postage
10/8/2020 8.24 Volunteer Equipment
10/8/2020 8.20 Water for visitor use
10/8/2020 7.00 GIS request desk subscription - Formsplus
10/8/2020 6.98 Lysol Wipes
10/8/2020 4.33 Water line parts- 1195 Skyline Blvd
10/8/2020 2.12 Copying
10/8/2020 (18.00) Credit - battery core for A68
10/8/2020 145,998.11 Wells Fargo Bank September 2020
R-20-140
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Quarter 1 Proposed Budget Amendments to the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Quarter 1 budget amendments for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2021.
SUMMARY
This report presents the Quarter 1 (Q1) proposed budget amendments by fund for both revenue
and expense. Proposed revenue budget adjustments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021
(FY21) decrease revenue by $1,200,000 to make the Fund 50 property tax revenue budget
consistent with estimates provided by Goodwin Consulting Group as presented at the Board of
Director’s (Board) July 8, 2020 meeting. This decrease in the Fund 50 property tax revenue
budget is offset by the Fund 50 fund balance. Proposed Q1 FY21 expenditure budget
adjustments for services, supplies and capital improvements result in a $152,000 net increase
from the amended budget. This increase is primarily due to project deferrals or delays in FY20
due to COVID-19 that shifted work into FY21, namely the Purisima Creek Fence Construction,
Purisima Creek Redwoods (MAA03-003) and Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure
(MAA05-002) projects. The budget adjustments also include net zero budget shifts between
funds, projects and expenditure categories in the proposed budget adjustments.
The quarterly budget amendment process includes an evaluation of the year-to-date financial
performance to highlight any potential material changes on future financial performance
expectations for Board consideration. The Q1 review of financial performance and economic
conditions indicates that the expected financial performance remains in line with longer-term
financial projections (see Attachments 5 and 6 for supporting commentary and schedules).
Uncertainty about the longer-term economic effects from COVID-19, including the duration and
extent of activity restrictions, remains an unknown. That said, the local and state budget and
funding priorities have shifted due to COVID-19 and the recent fires, such that grants and other
local/county and state funding opportunities will be significantly reduced in the coming years.
At this time no additional Board actions related to COVID-19 are recommended.
DISCUSSION
The Board adopted the FY21 Budget and Action Plan at the June 24, 2020 regular meeting (R-
20-68) with a total budget of $81.2 million. Prior Board-approved adjustments have brought the
FY21 amended budget to $83.4 million. The proposed Q1 adjustments slightly increase this
R-20-140 Page 2
number by $0.2 million to $83.6 million (see Table 2). The original FY21 revenues were
projected at $65.2 million. Based on revised projections, revenues are now estimated at $64.2
million (see Table 1).
Proposed FY21 Budget Quarter 1 Amendments – Revenues
The adopted FY21 revenue budget was $65.2 million. As of September 30, 2020, the Board had
authorized an increase in the grant revenue budget by $232,358. Q1 revenue adjustments include
a shift of $143,500 in grant revenue from General Fund Operating (Fund 10) to Measure AA
(MAA) Capital (Fund 30) to reflect a change in fund source and status for the Purisima-to-the-
Sea Trail and Parking Area Project (changing from an operating project to a Measure AA capital
project).
Q1 adjustments also include a property tax revenue reduction of $1.2 million from Fund 50
(Measure AA debt service) to align with the tax revenue projections provided by the District’s
Tax Administration Consultant (Goodwin Consulting Group) at the Board’s July 8, 2020
meeting. This reduction is offset by a corresponding reduction to the Fund 50 fund balance.
Measure AA tax levy revenues for the Measure AA debt service is collected almost a year in
advance due to timing difference of payments and receipts (payments are due in September, but
receipts do not start until November). Moreover, the calculations for the debt service levy have a
rounding factor due to system limitations. The Fund 50 fund balance is comprised of this
cumulative balance between tax receipts and debt service payments. Theses shifts leave the
amended FY21 revenue budget at $64.2 million, or $1.0 million below the adopted revenue
budget.
Table 1 lists the projected revenue by Fund, including amendments to date.
Table 1: Summary of Projected FY21 Revenue
DISTRICT REVENUE
BY FUND & CATEGORY
FY21 Adopted
Budget
YTD Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
9/30/2020)
Quarter 1
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY21
Proposed
Amended
Budget
General Fund Operating
(Fund 10) $56,891,245 $232,358 $57,123,603 ($143,500) $56,980,103
Property Tax 53,487,274 53,487,274 53,487,274
Grants 293,500 232,358 525,858 (143,500) 382,358
Interest Income 894,260 894,260 894,260
Rental Income 1,729,450 1,729,450 1,729,450
Rancho San Antonio Agreement 386,761 386,761 386,761
Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 100,000
Hawthorns (Fund 20) $13,500 $0 $13,500 $0 $13,500
Interest Income 13,500 13,500 13,500
Measure AA Land/Capital
(Fund 30) $2,032,984 $0 $2,032,984 $143,500 $2,176,484
Grants 1,621,509 1,621,509 143,500 1,765,009
Interest Income 411,475 411,475 411,475
General Fund Land/Capital
(Fund 40) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants 0 0 -
Debt Service Fund (Fund 50) $6,241,040 $0 $6,241,040 ($1,200,000)
5,041,040
Property Tax 6,200,000 6,200,000
(1,200,000)
5,000,000
Interest Income 41,040 41,040 41,040
TOTAL DISTRICT REVENUE $65,178,769 $232,358 $65,411,127 ($1,200,000) $64,211,127
R-20-140 Page 3
Proposed Quarter 1 Amendments to the FY21 Budget – Expenses
The proposed Q1 budget amendments result in a net increase of $152,000, bringing the total new
amended FY21 Budget to $83,584,804. Table 2 summarizes the FY21 adopted budget and
proposed Q1 budget amendments by Fund. A summary of changes by fund follows Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of FY21 Budget by Fund
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE FY21
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
9/30/2020)
Quarter 1
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY21 Proposed
Amended
Budget
Fund 10 - General Fund
Operating $36,773,825 $511,358 $37,285,183 ($125,500) $37,159,683
Fund 20 - Hawthorn Fund $110,200 $0 $110,200 ($42,000) $68,200
Fund 30 - MAA
Land/Capital $11,868,588 $1,075,000 $12,943,588 $469,500 $13,413,088
Fund 40 - General Fund
Land/Capital $15,856,328 $596,580 $16,452,908 ($150,000) $16,302,908
Fund 50 - Debt Service $16,640,925 $0 $16,640,925 $0 $16,640,925
Total $81,249,866 $2,182,938 $83,432,804 $152,000 $83,584,804
As part of the increases and decreases in the total District budget, the General Fund Operating
(Fund 10) budget is proposed to decrease by a net of $125,500 primarily due to the following:
• An $18,000 shift from the Fund 40 New South Area Field Office Facility (31601) capital
project to the Fund 10 Information Systems and Technology (IST) computer hardware
operating budget since the planned computer equipment purchases do not meet the
$25,000 capital threshold to keep the expenses within Fund 40.
• A project budget shift of $143,500 for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area
Project out of Fund 10 and into Fund 30 (MAA Capital) since project expenses are now
deemed MAA eligible.
The Hawthorns Fund (Fund 20) budget is proposed to decrease by $42,000 due to the following:
• Cancelation of work to review partner plans for rehabilitation and reuse of the Hawthorns
historic buildings due to private partner opting to relocate their project to a different site.
The Measure AA Capital (Fund 30) budget is increasing by a net of $469,500 primarily due to:
• A $132,000 shift out of Fund 40 and into Fund 30 for the following land acquisition
projects since all are deemed MAA eligible:
o $5,000 from VP19-001 El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land
Conservation to MAA19-004 San Jose Water Co Land Purchase
o $50,000 from VP03-002 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation to MAA03-006
South Cowell Land Uplands Land Purchase
o $77,000 from VP01-001 Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation to MAA01-005
Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition
• The addition of $97,000 each to complete two projects delayed in late FY20 due to
shelter-in-place orders that will be completed this fiscal year: Purisima Creek Fence
R-20-140 Page 4
Construction, Purisima Creek Redwoods (MAA03-003) and the Upper La Honda Creek
Grazing Infrastructure (MAA05-002).
• A $143,500 shift out of Fund 10 and into Fund 30 (MAA Capital) for the Purisima-to-
the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Project since project expenses are now deemed MAA
eligible.
The General Fund Capital (Fund 40) budget is proposed to decrease by $150,000 primarily due to:
• A $132,000 shift out of Fund 40 and into Fund 30 for the following land acquisition
projects since all are deemed MAA eligible:
o $5,000 from VP19-001 El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land
Conservation to MAA19-004 San Jose Water Co Land Purchase
o $50,000 from VP03-002 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation to MAA03-006
South Cowell Land Uplands Land Purchase
o $77,000 from VP01-001 Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation to MAA01-005
Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition
• An $18,000 shift out of Fund 40 - New South Area Field Office Facility (31601) project
and into Fund 10 - Information Systems and Technology (IST) computer hardware
operating budget since the planned computer equipment purchases for the new facility
does not meet the $25,000 capital threshold to keep the expenses within Fund 40.
The proposed budget amendments listed above (see Attachment 2 for full list) require Board
approval per Board policy 3.04 Budget and Expenditure Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT
The original projection for FY21 revenue was $65,178,769. The total amended revenues are now
estimated at $64,211,127. The District retains $20,196,342 in other funding sources, resulting in
a total of $84,407,469 in available funding. The FY21 proposed Q1 budget amendments result in
a net increase of $152,000 and a new amended budget of $83,584,804.
Table 4 below summarizes the FY21 estimated change in fund balance as a positive change, with
a resulting total fund balance of $822,665.
Table 4: FY21 Estimated Change in Fund Balance
FY20 Estimated Change in
Fund Balance
Fund 10 Fund 20 Fund 30 Fund 40 Fund 50
Total General
Fund Hawthorn Measure AA
Capital
General
Fund Capital
Debt
Service
Total Amended Revenues $56,980,103 $13,500 $2,176,484 $0 $5,041,040 $64,211,127
Total Amended Other
Funding Sources
(19,688,420) 54,700 11,648,079 16,302,908 11,879,075 20,196,342
Grand Total: Revenues &
Other Funding Sources*
$37,291,683 $68,200 $13,824,563 $16,302,908 $16,920,115 $84,407,469
Total Amended Expenses $37,159,683 $68,200 $13,413,088 $16,302,908 $16,640,925 $83,584,804
Adopted Change in Fund
Balance*
143,500 0 411,475 0 279,190 834,165
Net Change in Fund Balance (11,500) 0 0 0 0 (11,500)
Amended Change in Fund
Balance*
$132,000 $0 $411,475 $0 $279,190 $822,665
* Includes the use of Bond proceeds to fund capital expenditures.
R-20-140 Page 5
The COVID-19 pandemic and the statewide fires have impacted local and state budgets
significantly, reducing their revenues and increasing their expenses. This is already evident in the
reduction of grant availability and the inability to secure an $8 million member request in the
2020/21 State budget for the acquisition of Cloverdale. Other grant pools have either reduced the
available funding or have paused their programs, such as Measure K from San Mateo County
and fire safe grants from the State. While there is no direct impact to the District’s budget, since
grant revenue is only accounted for when it is awarded, this change does limit the ability to
leverage District funds in the immediate future. At this time, it behooves the District to move
projects forward toward “shovel ready” to be strategically poised in securing grant funds when
such funding is replenished and available.
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, staff will make the necessary Budget amendments.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Amending the FY21 Budget by Fund
2. FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by Fund and Project
3. FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category
4. FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments Detail by GL Account
5. Q1 FY21 Financial Performance Comments
6. Q1 FY21 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report"
Responsible Department Head:
Mike Bower, Budget & Analysis Manager
Staff contact:
Mike Bower, Budget & Analysis Manager
Prepared by:
Mike Bower, Budget & Analysis Manager
Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst II
Lupe Hernandez, Management Analyst I
Resolutions/2020/20-__FY21 Q1 Budget Adjustments 1
RESOLUTION NO. 20-___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2020 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District adopted the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 (FY21) Budget and Action
Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2020 and August 26, 2020 the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District amended the FY21 Budget; and
WHEREAS, the General Manager recommends amending the FY21 Budget to reflect
requests for budget shifts in services and supplies and capital improvements, resulting in a net
increase;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE. Approve the proposed revenue amendments to the FY21 Budget for
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District resulting in a net decrease as follows:
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE
FY21
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
9/30/2020)
Quarter 1
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY21
Proposed
Amended
Budget
Fund 10 - General Fund Operating $56,891,245 $232,358 $57,123,603 ($143,500) $56,980,103
Fund 20 - Hawthorn Fund $13,500 $0 $13,500 $0 $13,500
Fund 30 - MAA Land/Capital $2,032,984 $0 $2,032,984 $143,500 $2,176,484
Fund 40 - General Fund
Land/Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fund 50 - Debt Service $6,241,040 $0 $6,241,040 ($1,200,000) $5,041,040
Total $65,178,769 $232,358 $65,411,127 ($1,200,000) $64,211,127
SECTION TWO. Approve the recommended budget amendments to the FY21 Budget
for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District resulting in a net increase as follows:
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE
FY21
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
9/30/2020)
Quarter 1
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY21
Proposed
Amended
Budget
Fund 10 - General Fund Operating $36,773,825 $511,358 $37,285,183 ($125,500) $37,159,683
Fund 20 - Hawthorn Fund $110,200 $0 $110,200 ($42,000) $68,200
Fund 30 - MAA Land/Capital $11,868,588 $1,075,000 $12,943,588 $469,500 $13,413,088
Fund 40 - General Fund Land/Capital $15,856,328 $596,580 $16,452,908 ($150,000) $16,302,908
Fund 50 - Debt Service $16,640,925 $0 $16,640,925 $0 $16,640,925
Total $81,249,866 $2,182,938 $83,432,804 $152,000 $83,584,804
ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION THREE. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget by
fund.
SECTION FOUR. Except as herein modified, the FY21 Budget and Action Plan,
Resolution No. 20-18 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on __________, 2020, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Attachment 2
Operating (Fund 10) Project Adjustments Q1
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
40013 50th Anniversary Planning 15,000 Assigning funds to a project number.
61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation (75,000)Funds not needed ‐ reallocating to base GL.
80069 Mountain Lion Collaring Effort ‐ RSA 100,000 Assigning funds to CIAP project (previously Coordination Purposes Only project).
VP03‐003 Purisima‐to‐the‐Sea Parking Area and Feasibility (143,500)Moving budget to MAA because project expenses are now deemed MAA eligible.
TOTAL FUND 10 (103,500)
Fund 10 ‐ net operating expense adjustments (22,000)Reallocating budget to and from projects.
GRAND TOTAL FUND 10 ($125,500)
Hawthorn (Fund 20) Project Adjustments Q1
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
VP06‐001 Hawthorns Historic Complex – Short‐term Bldg
Assessment and Eval
(42,000)Review of plans for building reuse canceled due to lack of interested party.
TOTAL FUND 20 ($42,000)
Measure AA Capital (Fund 30) Project Adjustments Q1
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
MAA01‐005 Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition 77,000 Shifting funds from VP fund 40 budget to MAA fund 30 budget as land acquisition scheduled to close FY22.
MAA02‐002 Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation ‐ Reallocating funds to different GL account for construction mitigation.
MAA03‐003 Purisima Creek Fence Construction, Purisima
Creek Redwoods
97,000 Delay in project start due to COVID‐19, funds not used last fiscal year but will be needed this fiscal year to complete work.
MAA03‐005 Purisima‐to‐the‐Sea Trail and Parking Area
Feasibility and Plan
143,500 Moving budget to MAA because project expenses are now deemed MAA eligible.
MAA03‐006 South Cowell Uplands Land Purchase 50,000 Shifting funds from VP fund 40 budget to MAA fund 30 budget as land acquisition scheduled to close FY21.
MAA05‐002 Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure 97,000 Delay in project start due to COVID‐19, funds not used last fiscal year but will be needed this fiscal year to complete work.
MAA19‐004 San Jose Water Co Land Purchase 5,000 Shifting funds from VP fund 40 budget to MAA fund 30 budget as land acquisition was approved at the 7/22/2020 Board
meeting.
MAA22‐005 Beatty House removal and Site Restoration ‐ Reallocating funds to different GL account for CEQA services contract.
TOTAL FUND 30 $469,500
General Fund Capital (Fund 40) Project Adjustments Q1
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
31601 New South Area Field Office Facility (18,000)Computer equipment too small of an amount to be condsidered capitalizable, moving budget to fund 10 operating.
None Land Fund (23,000)Assigning funds to new CIAP project from Land Fund.
VP01‐001 Miramontes Ridge Land Conservation (77,000)Shifting funds from VP fund 40 budget to MAA fund 30 budget as land acquisition scheduled to close FY22.
VP03‐002 South Cowell Uplands Land Purchase (50,000)Shifting funds from VP fund 40 budget to MAA fund 30 budget as land acquisition scheduled to close FY21.
VP08‐002 Pratt Trust Property Purchase 23,000 Assigning funds to new CIAP project from Land Fund.
VP19‐001 El Sereno Trails, Wildlife Corridors and Land
Conservation
(5,000)Shifting funds from VP fund 40 budget to MAA fund 30 budget as land acquisition was approved at the 7/22/2020 Board
meeting.
TOTAL FUND 40 ($150,000)
FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by Project including description (Attachment 2)
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 2
FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by Project including description (Attachment 2)
GRAND TOTAL $152,000
Project will continue next fiscal year (or later)$0
Increase to project cost $0
Reallocation of funds, no net increase $152,000
< $Savings this fiscal year $0
TOTAL $152,000
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 3
FY21 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 9/30/2020)
Quarter 1 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY21 Proposed Amended
Budget
Administrative Services
Salaries and Benefits $5,357,276 $5,357,276 $5,357,276
Services and Supplies $1,776,690 $1,776,690 $18,000 $1,794,690
Total Operating Expenditures $7,133,966 $0 $7,133,966 $18,000 $7,151,966
General Fund Capital $80,000 $75,000 $155,000 ($18,000) $137,000
Total Capital Expenditures $80,000 $75,000 $155,000 ($18,000) $137,000
$7,213,966 $75,000 $7,288,966 $0 $7,288,966
Engineering & Construction
Salaries and Benefits $1,145,128 $1,145,128 $1,145,128
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($353,054)($353,054)($353,054)
Net Salaries and Benefits $792,074 $0 $792,074 $0 $792,074
Services and Supplies $186,768 $186,768 $186,768
Total Operating Expenditures $978,842 $978,842 $0 $978,842
Measure AA Capital $7,300,554 $7,300,554 $7,300,554
General Fund Capital $13,941,983 $417,800 $14,359,783 $14,359,783
Total Capital Expenditures $21,242,537 $417,800 $21,660,337 $0 $21,660,337
$22,221,379 $417,800 $22,639,179 $0 $22,639,179
General Counsel
Salaries and Benefits $701,221 $701,221 $701,221
Services and Supplies $99,185 $99,185 $99,185
Total Operating Expenditures $800,406 $800,406 $0 $800,406
$800,406 $800,406 $0 $800,406
General Manager
Salaries and Benefits $1,741,796 $1,741,796 $1,741,796
Services and Supplies $476,825 $476,825 $476,825
Total Operating Expenditures $2,218,621 $2,218,621 $0 $2,218,621
$2,218,621 $2,218,621 $0 $2,218,621
Land & Facilities
Salaries and Benefits $6,599,123 $6,599,123 $6,599,123
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($216,175)($216,175)($216,175)
Net Salaries and Benefits $6,382,948 $0 $6,382,948 $0 $6,382,948
Services and Supplies $3,544,930 $511,358 $4,056,288 $4,056,288
Total Operating Expenditures $9,927,878 $511,358 $10,439,236 $0 $10,439,236
Hawthorn Services and Supplies $62,200 $62,200 $62,200
Total Hawthorn Expenditures $62,200 $0 $62,200 $0 $62,200
Measure AA Capital $696,500 $696,500 $194,000 $890,500
General Fund Capital $1,247,845 $103,780 $1,351,625 $1,351,625
Total Capital Expenditures $1,944,345 $103,780 $2,048,125 $194,000 $2,242,125
$11,934,423 $615,138 $12,549,561 $194,000 $12,743,561
Natural Resources
Salaries and Benefits $1,702,139 $1,702,139 $1,702,139
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($55,257)($55,257)($55,257)
Net Salaries and Benefits $1,646,882 $1,646,882 $1,646,882
Services and Supplies $2,851,933 $2,851,933 $2,851,933
Total Operating Expenditures $4,498,815 $0 $4,498,815 $0 $4,498,815
Measure AA Capital $1,086,757 $1,086,757 $1,086,757
General Fund Capital $95,000 $95,000 $95,000
Total Capital Expenditures $1,181,757 $0 $1,181,757 $0 $1,181,757
$5,680,572 $0 $5,680,572 $0 $5,680,572Total Natural Resources Expenditures
Total General Counsel Expenditures
Total Engineering & Construction Expenditures
Total Land & Facilities Expenditures
FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 3)
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Total Administrative Services Expenditures
Total General Manager Expenditures
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 3
FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 3)
FY21 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 9/30/2020)
Quarter 1 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY21 Proposed Amended
Budget
Planning
Salaries and Benefits $1,611,040 $1,611,040 $1,611,040
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($44,749)($44,749)($44,749)
Net Salaries and Benefits $1,566,291 $1,566,291 $1,566,291
Services and Supplies $455,611 $455,611 ($143,500)$312,111
Total Operating Expenditures $2,021,902 $2,021,902 ($143,500) $1,878,402
Hawthorn Capital $48,000 $48,000 ($42,000) $6,000
Total Hawthorn Expenditures $48,000 $48,000 ($42,000) $6,000
Measure AA Capital $1,207,777 $1,207,777 $143,500 $1,351,277
General Fund Capital $51,500 $51,500 $51,500
Total Capital Expenditures $1,259,277 $0 $1,259,277 $143,500 $1,402,777
$3,329,179 $0 $3,329,179 ($42,000) $3,287,179
Public Affairs
Salaries and Benefits $967,506 $967,506 $967,506
Services and Supplies $889,381 $889,381 $889,381
Total Operating Expenditures $1,856,887 $1,856,887 $0 $1,856,887
$1,856,887 $1,856,887 $0 $1,856,887
Real Property
Salaries and Benefits $786,376 $786,376 $786,376
Services and Supplies $138,884 $138,884 $138,884
Total Operating Expenditures $925,260 $925,260 $0 $925,260
Measure AA Land and Associated Costs $1,577,000 $1,075,000 $2,652,000 $132,000 $2,784,000
General Fund Land and Associated Costs $440,000 $440,000 ($132,000) $308,000
Total Land and Associated Costs $2,017,000 $1,075,000 $3,092,000 $0 $3,092,000
$2,942,260 $1,075,000 $4,017,260 $0 $4,017,260
Visitor Services
Salaries and Benefits $5,690,801 $5,690,801 $5,690,801
Services and Supplies $720,447 $720,447 $720,447
Total Operating Expenditures $6,411,248 $6,411,248 $0 $6,411,248
General Fund Land and Associated Costs $0 $0 $0
Total Land and Associated Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$6,411,248 $0 $6,411,248 $0 $6,411,248
Debt Service
Debt Service $16,640,925 $16,640,925 $16,640,925
Total Debt Service Expenditures $16,640,925 $16,640,925 $16,640,925
$16,640,925 $16,640,925 $16,640,925
$81,249,866 $2,182,938 $83,432,804 $152,000 $83,584,804
Total Debt Service Expenditures
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Total District Budget
Total Real Property Expenditures
Total Visitor Services Expenditures
Total Planning Expenditures
Total Public Affairs Expenditures
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 4
Budget Categories / Accounts Budget as of Sept
30
Quarter 1 Proposed
Budget Amendment
Quarter 1 Proposed
Amended Budget
10‐30‐320‐5299 ‐ Other Professional Services $218,500 ($143,500) $75,000
10‐50‐550‐6803 ‐ Computer Hardware $73,500 $18,000 $91,500
General Fund (10) Services & Supplies ($125,500)
20‐30‐320‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $42,000 ($42,000) $0
Hawthorn Fund (20) Capital/Fixed Assets ($42,000)
30‐20‐230‐8101 ‐ REAL ESTATE SERVICES $2,652,000 $132,000 $2,784,000
30‐30‐320‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $113,000 $143,500 $256,500
30‐35‐325‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $1,255,250 ($30,000)$1,225,250
30‐35‐325‐8202 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $150,000 $30,000 $180,000
30‐61‐621‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION $161,575 $194,000 $355,575
30‐80‐820‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION $140,000 $8,534 $148,534
30‐80‐830‐8202 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $162,000 ($8,534) $153,466
MAA (30) Capital/Fixed Assets $469,500
40‐20‐230‐8101 ‐ REAL ESTATE SERVICES $390,000 ($132,000) $258,000
40‐50‐550‐8303 ‐ Computer Equipment $80,000 ($18,000) $62,000
General Fund (40) Capital/Fixed Assets ($150,000)
Total Budget Amendments ‐ Increase / (Decrease) $152,000
FY21 Quarter 1 Budget Amendments by GL Account (Attachment 4)
Page 1 of 1
Q1 FY21 Financial Performance Comments
Attachment 5
Overall District Financial Health:
With Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) expenditures tracking to budget or less and revenues tracking to budget or
better, District financial health is currently expected to be consistent with, or better than, the FY21
adopted budget. While substantial uncertainty about the longer-term negative economic impacts from
COVID-19 remain, there have not been any developments during Q1 that indicate an increased
likelihood or severity of future negative impacts. The December 2020 tax collections, as compared
compare to past years and planned amounts, will be an important indicator of the reasonableness of
District revenue projections.
Revenues:
The vast majority of budgeted annual revenue is derived from Property Taxes (93%) which are received
in Q2 (December) and Q4 (April). Accordingly, Q1 revenues of $2.9 million represent only 5% of the
annual amended budget of $64.2 million. The $2.9 million FY21 Q1 revenues are $1.8 million more than
the $1.1 million received Q1 last year. Additional commentary on Q1 revenue budget variances can be
found in the Q1 Budget Amendment Board report.
FY21 adopted budget revenues were $1.5 million less than the initially proposed budget to hedge
against unfavorable tax receipts risk associated with COVID-19 and the possibility that the counties may
suspend the Teeter Plan. Consistent with comments in the Controller’s Monthly Investment Report to
the Board (October 9), at this time there is no indication that counties plan to suspend the Teeter Plan
or that tax receipts will be less than planned. As a result of these partially offsetting variances, tax
revenues are currently expected to be at or slightly favorable to the budget at fiscal year-end. The
December 2020 tax collections, as compared compare to past years and planned amounts, will be an
important indicator of the reasonableness of District revenue projections and Teeter Plan suspension
risk.
Expenditures:
Expenditures for Q1 were $23.4 million or about 28% of the annual amended budget. Excluding Land
(which is traditionally not budgeted) and Debt Service, expenditures were 10.2 million or 19% of plan.
The Q1 percentage spend of the annual budget is tracking similarly to past years. If the proposed Q1
budget amendments are adopted (see Board report for more detail), expenditures are expected to end
the year at or below the amended FY21 budget.
Other Financial Considerations:
Some important economic factors have improved since the initial economic impacts of the pandemic:
• National unemployment rose from 3.5% in February 2020 to a high of 14.7% in April and then
has had a declining trend since then to 7.9% in September (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian
Unemployment Rate). For comparison, the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan
Statistical Area unemployment rate is 7.1% in September.
• An overall recovery in the stock market since late March with many major indices up 50% or
more from late March lows and recently achieving pre-pandemic index levels.
Major fiscal stimulus actions and a drop in interest rates have contributed to the unemployment rate
and stock market recovery. Whether these recoveries will be sustainable into the future is a major
unknown, considering the cost of financing stimulus packages and reduced Federal Reserve options at
Q1 FY21 Financial Performance Comments
Attachment 5
such low interest rate levels. Current‑dollar GDP increased 38.0 percent, or $1.64 trillion, in the third
quarter to a level of $21.16 trillion after a second quarter GDP decrease of 32.8 percent, or $2.04 trillion.
For comparison, Q4 2019 GDP was $21.75 trillion, so it has dropped $0.59 trillion to Q3 2020. While the
partial Q3 recovery is encouraging, uncertainty remains around the sustainability and magnitude for
continued economic growth recovery.
The low interest environment poses a potential opportunity for refinancing District bonds. The yield on
a 10-Year U.S. Treasury Bond has dropped from 1.88% at the beginning of 2020 to 0.69% at the end of
September. A drop of 1.19 percentage points. For reference, a 1.19 percentage point lower interest
rate equates to approximately $12,000 in reduced annual interest expense for every $1 million in bond
value. Unfortunately, interest have been increasing of late (up to 0.78% at October 19). Given the 3+
month lead time to organize and implement a bond refinancing and the upfront costs associated with
refinancing, the risk of deciding to refinance would have to be weighed against the likelihood of higher
interest rates at the time of refinancing settlement.
FY21 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" Revenue by Fund and Category
(through Sept 30)
Fund 10 ‐ General Fund 56,891,245 88,858 56,980,103 2,373,978 54,606,125 4%
General Property Taxes 53,487,274 ‐ 53,487,274 1,038,137 52,449,137 2%
Grants Revenue 293,500 88,858 382,358 ‐ 382,358 0%
Interest Income 894,260 ‐ 894,260 184,668 709,592 21%
Rental Income 1,729,450 ‐ 1,729,450 576,633 1,152,817 33%
Other Revenues 486,761 ‐ 486,761 574,540 (87,779) 118%
Fund 20 ‐ Hawthorn Fund 13,500 ‐ 13,500 ‐ 13,500 0%
Interest Income 13,500 ‐ 13,500 ‐ 13,500 0%
Fund 30 ‐ MAA Fund 2,032,984 143,500 2,176,484 418,617 1,757,867 19%
Grants 1,621,509 143,500 1,765,009 418,617 1,346,392 24%
Interest Income 411,475 411,475
Fund 40 ‐ General Fund Capital ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%
Fund 50 ‐ Debt Service 6,241,040 (1,200,000) 5,041,040 118,144 4,922,896 2%
General Property Taxes 6,200,000 (1,200,000) 5,000,000 99,456 4,900,544 2%
Interest Income 41,040 ‐ 41,040 18,688 22,352 46%
DISTRICT REVENUES (All Funds)65,178,769 (967,642) 64,211,127 2,910,739 61,300,388 5%
Budget Remaining Budget Used (%)
DISTRICT REVENUES BY FUND &
CATEGORY
FY21
Adopted
Budget
FY21
Budget
Adjustments
FY21
Amended
Budget
FY21 Actual
(through 9/30)
Revenue Quarterly
Performance Report Actuals to Date
First Quarter Status Update
Revised: 10/27/2020
Page 1 of 4
Attachment 6
FY21 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" by Fund
(through Sept 30)
FY21 FY21 FY20 FY20
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Fund 10 ‐ General Fund 36,773,825 385,858 37,159,683 3,195,352 9,177,069 27,982,614 24,787,263 25%33% 21%29%
Fund 20 ‐ Hawthorn Fund 110,200 (42,000) 68,200 ‐ 12,501 55,699 55,699 18%18%8%10%
Fund 30 ‐ MAA Fund 11,868,588 1,544,500 13,413,088 2,740,782 712,841 12,700,247 9,959,465 5%26%6%71%
Fund 40 ‐ General Fund Capital 3,894,845 143,550 4,038,395 788,321 308,178 3,730,217 2,941,895 8%27%3%31%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)52,647,458 2,031,908 54,679,366 6,724,455 10,210,589 44,468,777 37,744,323 19%31% 16%37%
Fund 40 ‐ One Time Expenses 11,961,483 303,030 12,264,513 1,520,395 568,790 11,695,723 10,175,328 5%17%0%0%
Fund 50 ‐ Debt Service 16,640,925 ‐ 16,640,925 ‐12,594,844 4,046,081 4,046,081 76%76% 76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds) 81,249,866 2,334,938 83,584,804 8,244,850 23,374,222 60,210,582 51,965,732 28%38% 30%44%
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY FUND FY21 Adopted
Budget
FY21 Budget
Adjustments
FY21
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances
($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
FY21 Actual
(through 9/30)
Actual Spend to Date
Encumbrances
Expenses Quarterly
Performance Report
First Quarter Status Update
Revised: 10/27/2020
Page 2 of 4
Attachment 6
FY21 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" by Category
(through Sept 30)
FY21 FY21 FY20 FY20
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended (%)
Budget Spent of Amended
with Encumbrances (%)
Fund 10 ‐ General Fund 36,773,825 385,858 37,159,683 3,195,352 9,177,069 27,982,614 24,787,263 25% 33%21%29%
Personnel Services 25,633,171 ‐ 25,633,171 ‐ 7,363,692 18,269,479 18,269,479 29% 29%24%24%
Services and Supplies 11,140,654 385,858 11,526,512 3,195,352 1,813,376 9,713,136 6,517,784 16% 43%14%40%
Fund 20 ‐ Hawthorn Fund 110,200 (42,000) 68,200 ‐ 12,501 55,699 55,699 18% 18%8%10%
Services and Supplies 62,200 ‐ 62,200 ‐ 12,501 49,699 49,699 20% 20%12%14%
Capital/Fixed Assets 48,000 (42,000) 6,000 ‐ ‐ 6,000 6,000 0%0%0%0%
Fund 30 ‐ MAA Fund 11,868,588 1,544,500 13,413,088 2,740,782 712,841 12,700,247 9,959,465 5% 26%6%71%
Personnel Services 669,235 ‐ 669,235 ‐ 116,159 553,076 553,076 17% 17%30%30%
Capital/Fixed Assets 11,199,353 1,544,500 12,743,853 2,740,782 596,682 12,147,171 9,406,390 5% 26%4%73%
Fund 40 ‐ General Fund Capital 3,894,845 143,550 4,038,395 788,321 308,178 3,730,217 2,941,895 8% 27%3%31%
Capital/Fixed Assets 3,894,845 143,550 4,038,395 788,321 308,178 3,730,217 2,941,895 8% 27%3%31%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)52,647,458 2,031,908 54,679,366 6,724,455 10,210,589 44,468,777 37,744,323 19% 31%16%37%
Fund 40 ‐ One Time Expenses 11,961,483 303,030 12,264,513 1,520,395 568,790 11,695,723 10,175,328 5% 17%0%0%
Fund 50 ‐ Debt Service 16,640,925 ‐ 16,640,925 12,594,844 4,046,081 4,046,081 76% 76%76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds)81,249,866 2,334,938 83,584,804 8,244,850 23,374,222 60,210,582 51,965,732 28% 38%30%44%
FY21 FY21 FY20 FY20
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances
(%)
Personnel Services 26,302,406 ‐ 26,302,406 ‐ 7,479,852 18,822,554 18,822,554 28% 28%24%24%
Services and Supplies 11,202,854 385,858 11,588,712 3,195,352 1,825,877 9,762,835 6,567,483 16% 43%14%40%
Capital/Fixed Assets 15,142,198 1,646,050 16,788,248 3,529,103 904,860 15,883,388 12,354,285 5% 26%4%56%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)52,647,458 2,031,908 54,679,366 6,724,455 10,210,589 44,468,777 37,744,323 19% 31%16%37%
One Time Expenses 11,961,483 303,030 12,264,513 1,520,395 568,790 11,695,723 10,175,328 5% 17%0%0%
Debt Service 16,640,925 ‐ 16,640,925 ‐ 12,594,844 4,046,081 4,046,081 76% 76%76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds)81,249,866 2,334,938 83,584,804 8,244,850 23,374,222 60,210,582 51,965,732 28% 38%30%44%
FY21 Actual
(through 9/30)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
FY21 Actual
(through 9/30)
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY FUND &
CATEGORY FY21 Adopted Budget FY21 Budget
Adjustments
FY21
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY FUND &
CATEGORY FY21 Adopted Budget FY21 Budget
Adjustments
FY21
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances
($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances
($)
First Quarter Status Update
Revised: 10/27/2020
Page 3 of 4
Attachment 6
FY21 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" by Department
(through Sept 30)
FY21 FY21 FY20 FY20
Budget Spent of
Amended (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of Amended
with Encumbrances (%)
Administrative Services 7,133,966 93,000 7,226,966 218,078 2,298,516 4,928,450 4,710,371 32%35% 25%29%
Engineering & Construction 10,339,896 96,770 10,436,666 1,978,479 781,249 9,655,417 7,676,937 7%26%5%60%
General Counsel 800,406 ‐ 800,406 51,280 172,204 628,202 576,923 22%28% 17%23%
General Manager 2,218,621 ‐ 2,218,621 17,209 476,062 1,742,559 1,725,350 21%22% 19%21%
Land & Facilities 11,934,423 809,138 12,743,561 829,174 3,009,386 9,734,175 8,905,001 24%30% 18%29%
Natural Resources 5,680,572 ‐ 5,680,572 1,636,944 727,692 4,952,880 3,315,937 13%42% 14%47%
Planning 3,329,179 (42,000) 3,287,179 781,358 400,474 2,886,705 2,105,347 12%36% 14%36%
Public Affairs 1,856,887 ‐ 1,856,887 935,532 335,511 1,521,376 585,844 18%68% 19%40%
Real Property 2,942,260 1,075,000 4,017,260 93,645 256,488 3,760,772 3,667,126 6%9% 10%12%
Visitor Services 6,411,248 ‐ 6,411,248 182,756 1,753,006 4,658,242 4,475,486 27%30% 23%28%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)52,647,458 2,031,908 54,679,366 6,724,455 10,210,589 44,468,777 37,744,323 19%31% 16%37%
One Time Expenses: Fund 40 11,961,483 303,030 12,264,513 1,520,395 568,790 11,695,723 10,175,328 5%17%0%0%
Debt Service 16,640,925 ‐ 16,640,925 ‐ 12,594,844 4,046,081 4,046,081 76%76% 76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds)81,249,866 2,334,938 83,584,804 8,244,850 23,374,222 60,210,582 51,965,732 28%38% 30%44%
FY21 Actual
(through 9/30)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances ($)
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENTS
(All Funds)
FY21 Adopted
Budget
FY21 Budget
Adjustments
FY21
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
First Quarter Status Update
Revised 10/27/2020
Page 4 of 4
Attachment 6
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-133
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to EDX Exhibits for the Administrative Office Interpretive Elements Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with EDX Exhibits for $78,000 for
interpretive planning and design of new public interpretive elements for the future
Administrative Office at 5050 El Camino Real in Los Altos.
SUMMARY
On September 14, 2020, staff issued a request for proposals and qualifications to solicit
interpretive planning and design services of new public interpretive elements for the future
Administrative Office located at 5050 El Camino Real in Los Altos. Seven firms submitted
proposals and after a competitive interview process, EDX Exhibits was deemed the most
qualified firm based on their design quality and relevance, expertise and competency,
commitment to accessibility and diversity, and overall cost. The General Manager recommends
awarding a contract for a base amount of $78,000 to EDX Exhibits. There are sufficient funds in
the Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) project budget to cover the cost of the recommendation.
DISCUSSION
5050 El Camino Real
Since purchasing the current 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos office building in 1990, the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) success in growing the regional
greenbelt, restoring natural lands, and expanding public access has created the need for
additional office space. As a forward-thinking and fiscally prudent public agency, the
District planned for its long-term office space needs by setting aside general reserve funds. After
exploring alternatives, purchasing and repurposing an existing, larger office building and selling
the current building to offset costs emerged as the most cost-efficient, environmentally sound
long-term solution.
At the July 2017 public meeting, the Board of Directors (Board) adopted a resolution to enter
into a purchase and sale agreement for the building located at 5050 El Camino Real in Los Altos
(R-17-90). Escrow closed on February 1, 2019. Construction to repurpose the building to meet
District needs in fulfilling its mission and serving the public is scheduled to occur in 2021 and be
completed in March 2022. This new office space presents multiple opportunities to enhance
public awareness of the District and foster a deeper connection to the local natural resources and
iconic Bay Area landscapes through informative and inspirational interpretive elements.
R-20-133 Page 2
Opportunity to Connect Constituency to Open Space Values Close to Home
The new Administrative Office building at 5050 El Camino is scheduled to open in March 2022.
In the course of carrying out its mission as a public agency, the District invites the public to
attend regular Board and committee meetings at its office. People also frequently visit the office
seeking information on the preserves and public programs. In addition, staff hold meetings with
outside partners and consultants at the office. These public interactions present an opportunity to
incorporate interpretive elements as part of the building experience that invite the public to
further explore and engage with the District’s mission and work, gain added knowledge and
appreciation about the local biodiversity, and expand personal connections to the greater Bay
Area region and natural landscapes.
Interpretation
Interpretation is a philosophy and practice of communication and education formalized many
years ago by Freeman Tilden through his extensive work with the National Park Service. It is
used by parks, museums, zoos and in many other applications, and is defined by the National
Association of Interpretation as:
A mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual
connections between the interests of the audience and meanings inherent in the resource.
Interpretation is guided by a set of principles and professionally established methods. The chief
aim of interpretation is not to instruct, yet rather to evoke curiosity and engagement.
Interpretation can enhance a visitor’s experience, leading them to develop appreciation for and
meaningful personal connections to the subject being interpreted.
Examples of interpretive engagement that many people are familiar with include outdoor signage
or wayside panels, visitor center exhibits and displays, guided interpretive hikes or tours, as well
as publications and digital media. All of these engagement methods consider message, audience,
resources and a desired outcome, communicated in compelling and relevant ways.
Staff and docent volunteers are provided foundational training to develop interpretive skills and
use interpretative techniques on docent naturalist-led hikes, school field trips, at the Daniels
Nature Center, and as part of ranger engagement with preserve visitors. Additionally, interpretive
signs are posted in preserves. Interpretive displays and exhibits can also be found at the Daniels
Nature Center.
Request for Proposals and Qualifications Process
Staff issued a request for proposals and qualifications to solicit interpretive planning and design
services for the administrative office through:
• Distribution to the National Association for Interpretation’s (NAI) list of approximately
80 commercial vendors who specialize in interpretive planning, design and fabrication
• Posting on NAI’s local regional Facebook page
• Posting on BidSync
• Additional outreach to interpretive planning and design firms located primarily in
California.
The RFQP identified the following areas as spaces and features where incorporation of
interpretive elements and design features are desired.
R-20-133 Page 3
Entry Lobby/Foyer
Visitors will enter the building through a ground-level set of doors into a foyer with approximate
dimensions of 38 feet by 16 feet enclosed by windows with a high ceiling. There are two wall
spaces available with approximate dimensions of 9 feet by 9 feet and additional floor and three-
dimensional space.
Main Lobby/Atrium
The main building lobby has approximate floor-space dimensions of 38 feet by 23 feet. The
lobby and atrium contain a 24-foot by 9-foot wall space identified for interpretive elements. The
lobby will include a reception desk area and a visitor seating area and additional space for
interpretive element or design feature placement. Considerations include:
• Large-scale wrap photo for the elevator shaft
• Backlit wall-size photo for hall divider
• Four framed photos or other art for upstairs hallway
• Large-scale photo near stairwell to second floor
Outdoor Areas
• Two to three interpretive panels along the walkway between the sidewalk at El Camino
Real and the building’s front door.
• Retaining wall adjacent to underground garage southern access with dimensions of 50
feet by 6 feet; possible location for a mural.
• Four large-scale banners on exterior of building with dimensions of approximately 20
feet by 5 feet.
Seven firms submitted proposals by the October 9, 2020 closing date, each providing a
description of their proposed approach, team qualifications, prior project experience, hourly rates
and a cost estimate.
FIRM LOCATION COST
Haley Sharpe Design* Toronto, Canada $90-$145 per hour / $44k total
IQ Magic Santa Monica, CA $75-$180 per hour / $51k total
The Sibbet Group San Anselmo, CA $135-$185 per hour / $60k total
David Price Design Salinas, CA $60 per hour / $65K total
EDX Exhibits* Seattle, WA $70-$135 per hour / $78k total
Mele-Watershed* St. Louis, MO $95-$155 per hour / $132k total
Digital Globe Systems* Coursegold, CA $150 per hour/$60k / $136k total
* Interviewed
A consultant-selection panel composed of staff from the Visitor Services, Public Affairs and
Engineering and Construction departments reviewed and rated the proposals using criteria to
evaluate each proposed project team on their expertise, approach, qualifications, relevant
experience and quality of relevant work samples.
On October 19 and 21, 2020, the consultant selection panel interviewed four firms. The selection
panel unanimously determined EDX Exhibits to be the most qualified firm based on their:
R-20-133 Page 4
• Design Quality and Relevance
The designs and images of relevant projects that EDX Exhibits shared with staff were
outstanding and curated extremely well to demonstrate their understanding of the
District’s project needs. Their high-quality renderings were particularly noted by staff as
an effective way to clearly communicate with and garner consensus from multiple
decision-makers throughout the project.
• Expertise and Competency
EDX Designs’ well-established expertise and experience with integrating interpretive
elements, architecture and natural resource knowledge gave staff confidence in their
ability to deliver a high-quality project on schedule. Their staff of eight includes
professional architects, certified interpretive planners, graphic and exhibit designers.
They articulated a strong understanding of design and fabrication process alignment and
how project milestones need to intersect.
• Commitment to Accessibility and Diversity
EDX Exhibits was the only responding firm to explicitly address diversity, equity and
inclusion in their proposal and interview, and expressed the importance and showed
examples of designing interpretive elements that are accessible and relatable to the largest
range of people of diverse backgrounds and abilities. This is firmly in line with the
District’s Board-approved strategic goals and objectives and the Board’s Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion Policy.
• Overall Cost
EDX Exhibits’ hourly cost range was very competitive with the other proposals, and their
estimated total cost was below the average total cost ($80,000) of all proposals. Because
some of the lower cost proposals would have required significantly more staff time for
coordination, content creation and oversight, EDX Exhibits’ proposal presented a set of
services at a fair and reasonable price that accounts for staff capacity and expertise in this
area.
FISCAL IMPACT
At each major milestone, the District presents a revised cost estimate to ensure that the overall
administrative office project remains within the May 2019 Board-approved project budget of
$27.4 million (R-19-64). The latest 100% project cost estimate is approximately $26.8 million,
below the Board approved project budget.
Funding sources for the project include using Committed for Infrastructure reserve funds, any
future additions to the reserve, rent income, parity bond proceeds, and interest earned from the
parity bonds. Partial reimbursement will also come from the future sale of the current 330 Distel
Circle office (R-20-117).
The administrative office interpretive elements project is divided into two phases:
• Phase 1: Planning and design, which is the scope of recommended contract
• Phase 2: Fabrication and installation of the approved interpretive elements (future phase)
R-20-133 Page 5
The FY21 adopted budget includes $8,488,000 for the New Administrative Office (AO) Facility
project #31202. Staff has identified $200,000 within the Board-approved project budget to cover
both phases of this project. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the
recommended action and expenditures through the end of the fiscal year for the Phase I scope of
work. Funding for future year budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action
Plan process.
New Administration Office
(AO) Facility #31202
Prior Year
Actuals
FY21
Adopted
FY22
Projected
FY23
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Acquisition: $31,742,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,742,406
**Planning/Design/Construction: $1,744,869 $8,402,000 $17,305,058 $0 $0 *$27,451,927
***Move-in and Closeout: $0 $86,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,086,000
Total Budget: $33,487,275 $8,488,000 $18,305,058 $0 $0 $60,280,333
Acquisition and associated costs
Spent-to-Date (as of 10/28/2020): ($31,742,406) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($31,742,406)
Spent-to-Date (as of 10/28/2020): ($1,744,869) ($18,214) $0 $0 $0 ($1,763,083)
Encumbrances: $0 ($498,120) $0 $0 $0 ($498,120)
EDX Exhibits Contract: $0 ($78,000) $0 $0 $0 ($78,000)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $7,893,666 $18,305,058 $0 $0 $26,198,724
*Amount includes Board approved project budget of $27.4M
**FY22 Projected budget overstated by $519,942, already stated in prior year actuals due to acceleration of the project
***This is a placeholder value. Final costs will be reviewed and approved by the Board
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not reviewed by a Board committee. Given full Board interest, future study
sessions will be held in 2021 to review interpretive goals and programming, proposed content
and design styles, and design options.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act and additionally to the administrative
office interested parties list.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Award of contract is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will execute the contract for interpretive planning and design
consulting services with EDX Exhibits.
Responsible Department Head:
Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager
Staff contact:
Leigh Ann Gessner, Public Affairs Specialist II
R-20-133 Page 6
Prepared by:
Leigh Ann Gessner, Public Affairs Specialist II
Renée Fitzsimons, Interpretation & Education Program Manager
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-135
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for District-Wide Habitat Enhancement through Invasive Species Treatment
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Hanford ARC of Petaluma,
California in the amount of $275,000 for one year of invasive species management services.
2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract for three additional consecutive years,
if the program achieves specific success criteria, at an annual cost of up to $275,000 for a
total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,100,000 over the four-year term.
SUMMARY
The recommended contract would implement priority projects listed in Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District’s (District) annual Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan to treat priority
plant species and improve the quality and diversity of native habitats. The scope of work
employs ecologically sensitive vegetation management techniques that include manual,
mechanical, biological, cultural, and/or limited chemical (herbicide application) treatment of
high priority invasive plant species. The recommended contract with Hanford ARC spans
multiple fiscal years and would draw from multiple funding sources. Costs would not exceed
$275,000 per year. If the contracted work annually achieves specific success criteria and is
therefore extended for the full four-year period, the total cost would not exceed $1,100,000. The
Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget includes sufficient funds to cover the costs through the end
of the fiscal year. Funding for future years would be requested as part of the annual Budget and
Action Plan process.
BACKGOUND
The goal of the District’s IPM Program is to control pests through the consistent implementation
of IPM principles to protect and restore the natural environment and provide for human safety
and enjoyment while visiting and working on District lands. IPM is a long-term, science-based,
decision-making system that uses specific methodologies to manage damage from pests. The
District defines pests in its Resource Management Policies as “animals or plants that proliferate
beyond natural control and interfere with natural processes, which would otherwise occur on
open space lands”. Moreover, the District defines target pests as “plant or animal species that
have a negative impact on other organisms or the surrounding environment and are targeted for
treatment”. Meeting IPM objectives requires monitoring site conditions before, during, and after
treatment as well as revising methods as necessary per adaptive management principles.
R-20-135 Page 2
Of the more than 3,200 species known to occur within the Santa Cruz Mountains, the District
targets for treatment about 70 priority plant species for natural resource protection and long-term
management. These species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native species,
and reduce biodiversity. The State of California considers 20 of these species as noxious weeds.
The District uses contractors most frequently for large infestations and for invasive species that
have very specific treatment timing. Currently, there are 23 major sites where the District uses
contractors to manage priority species (see Attachment 1: IPM Program Treatment Sites).
District staff oversee the work of contractors, including the work of District-approved biologists
who monitor worksites when contractors are working near sensitive resource areas such as ponds
with rare aquatic species. In total, contractors provide 45% to 55% of the labor force to treat
invasive species on District lands (the remainder is covered by volunteers and in-house staff).
DISCUSSION
The District issued a Request for Bids (RFB) on September 1, 2020. Invasive species treatment
in natural areas and rangelands (including areas open to the general public) requires distinct
knowledge, skills, and abilities. In addition to the legally required licenses, the District requires
firms to have the following experience:
• Worked under an independent biological monitor in sensitive or special status species
habitat;
• Performed vegetation management in a natural environment;
• Worked on an active rangeland;
• Interacted with the public during IPM activities to keep people safe and informed;
• Proficiency in identifying native, non-native, and invasive plant species of the Santa Cruz
Mountains; and
• Applied and supervised the safe use of pesticides.
Contractors that provide vegetation management in natural areas must remain flexible with
treatment methods and timing based on field verified environmental conditions. For all bid items,
the contractor is compensated for the actual number of hours worked on the preserves treating
weeds. Estimates are provided to assist the contractor in projecting typical work. Actual acres,
hours, target weeds, cover, and specific locations may vary at time of treatment to respond to
actual field conditions. All contractors who bid on this project were informed that the District
could modify the number of hours to add or deduct work from the scope of work at the District’s
discretion in order to remain within the project budget of up to $275,000 per year.
The RFB was advertised in local newspapers, on the District website, and on BidSync. Staff
notified twelve firms known to have experience managing vegetation in natural environments.
Four firms attended the mandatory pre-bid tour on September 14, 2020. On September 18, 2020,
the District issued an addendum informing all firms that the District was re-advertising the RFB
and was adding an additional pre-bid conference. On October 1, 2020, two additional firms
participated in the pre-bid conference. An additional addendum was issued on October 13 to
clarify requirements and answer questions raised during the bidding process.
The District publicly opened the bids October 16, 2020 at the main administrative office, and it
was broadcast live via Microsoft Teams. Two bids were received. One additional bid was
received after the bid opening, which was returned to the bidder unopened. Hanford ARC was
R-20-135 Page 3
announced as the apparent low bidder. The detailed breakdown of the two bids received is as
follows:
Bidder Location Total Base
Bid
Percent +/-
from District’s
Estimate
($275,000)
Hanford ARC Petaluma, CA $335,604.80 22%
Professional Tree Care Berkeley, CA $390,059 42%
District staff deemed Hanford ARC as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the
project. Per the RFB, Hanford ARC’s bid of $335,604.80 has been decreased to meet the project
budget by reducing the scope of work. The duration of the recommended contract would be for a
one-year term at the base bid of $275,000 with an option for both parties to extend the contract
annually up to a total of four years, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,100,000. Success
criteria that will be used to determine whether to annually extend the contract include:
maintaining less than five percent cover of the target species within the treatment area; adherence
to the District’s Best Management Practices for protecting and restoring the natural environment;
ability to treat target species within the time allotted by District staff for species with highly
specific treatment time windows; adherence to safe, judicious, and limited use requirements for
chemical treatment; and timely communication of project milestones and/or issues.
FISCAL IMPACT
The award of contract to Hanford ARC spans multiple fiscal years as well as multiple funding
sources. There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY21 budget to cover the project costs through
the end of the fiscal year. Funding for future years budgets will be requested as part of the annual
Budget and Action Plan process.
A funding breakdown for the first year of work is provided below (Nov 2020 – Dec 2021). Note
that the 12 months of work spans portions of two fiscal years:
Fund Project # FY21 Contract
Amount
FY22 Contract
Amount
Total
10 – General
Operating Fund
80007-10-100280 $155,250 $49,750 $205,000
30 – Measure
AA Capital
MAA21-007 $55,650 $14,350 $70,000
TOTAL $210,900 $ 64,100 $275,000
A portion of the contracted work is funded by Measure AA.
The FY21 adopted budget includes $133,500 for the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan:
Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration project MAA21-007. There are sufficient funds in the
project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. Funding for future years
budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
R-20-135 Page 4
Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve
Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment
and Restoration
MAA21-007
Prior Year
Actuals
FY21
Adopted
FY22
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
District Funded (Fund 30): $560,600 $83,500 $14,350 $0 $658,450
Grant Amount: $396,924 $50,000 $0 $0 $446,924
Total Budget: $957,524 $133,500 $0 $0 $1,105,374
Spent-to-Date
(as of 10/20/2020): ($957,524) ($14,301) $0 $0 ($971,825)
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hanford ARC Contract: $0 ($55,650) ($14,350) $0 ($70,000)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $63,549 $0 $0 $63,549
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public
Recreation and Interpretative Projects allocation, costs-to-date, projected future project
expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining.
MAA21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive
Projects Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $3,691,424
Committed General Fund Capital (Fund 40) funds: $500,000
Allocation of available MAA interest earnings: $1,223,530
Total Portfolio Allocation: $22,892,954
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 10/20/2020): ($10,114,138)
Encumbrances: ($1,213,635)
Remaining FY21 Project Budgets: ($1,464,685)
Future MAA21 project costs (projected through FY23): ($8,850,320)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($21,642,778)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $1,250,176
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public
Recreation and Interpretative Projects allocation, projected life of project expenditures and
projected portfolio balance remaining.
MAA21 Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Interpretive
Projects Portfolio Allocation: $17,478,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $3,691,424
Committed General Fund Capital (Fund 40) funds: $500,000
Allocation of available MAA interest earnings: $1,223,530
Total Portfolio Allocation: $22,892,954
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
21-001 Moody Gulch Fence & Gate Improvements ($874)
21-002 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan $14,369
21-004 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation ($5,272,587)
21-005 Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access ($5,542,970)
21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Cleanup and Stabilization ($5,790,674)
21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan Invasive Weed Treatment* ($1,105,374)*
21-008 Bear Creek Redwoods Ponds Restoration and Water Rights ($681,560)
21-009 Bear Creek Redwoods Webb Creek Bridge ($487,492)
21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation ($396,593)
21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP ($2,288,108)
21-012 Bear Creek Redwood Tree Restoration ($90,915)
R-20-135 Page 5
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($21,642,778)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $1,250,176
*A portion of the recommended contract is funded by Measure AA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
A Board Committee has not previously reviewed this item. Per the IPM Program, an annual
report is presented to the full Board of Directors every year that summarizes the past year’s
work. On August 12, 2020, District staff presented the 2019 Annual IPM Report (R-20-90).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to interested
parties by postal or electronic mail.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the District’s IPM Program, which the
Board approved on December 10, 2014 (R-14-148), analyzed the vegetation management
activities in the recommended contract. On February 27, 2019, the Board approved an addendum
to the Final EIR for the IPM Program (R-19-11). District staff have incorporated the associated
mitigation measures and BMPs from the environmental review documents into the project and
the contract documents.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board, the General Manager will enter into a one-year contract with
Hanford ARC of Petaluma, CA. If the program is successful in the first year, the District may
extend the contract annually for a contract duration of up to four years.
Attachment
1. Locations of IPM Program Treatment Sites
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Contact person:
Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources
Graphics prepared by:
Rachel Bu, Data Analyst I
!#!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
!#!#
!#
!#!#
!#
!#!#
!#
!#
!#
!#
Half
Moon
Bay MIRAMONTES
RIDGE
PURISIMA
CREEK
REDWOODS
EL CORTE
DE MADERA
CREEK
TUNITAS
CREEK
TEAGUE
HILL
PULGAS
RIDGE
LA HONDA
CREEK
WINDY
HILL
RUSSIAN
RIDGE
SKYLINE
RIDGE
LONG
RIDGE
MONTE
BELLO
RANCHO
SAN ANTONIO
SARATOGA
GAP
FREMONT
OLDER
PICCHETTI
RANCH
EL
SERENO
BEAR
CREEK
REDWOODS
SIERRA
AZUL
ST,
JOSEPH'S
HILL
FOOTHILLS
LOS
TRANCOS
THORNEWOOD
COAL
CREEK
RAVENSWOOD
PESCADERO CREEK
COUNTY PARK
PORTOLA REDWOODS
STATE PARK
BUTANO
STATE PARK
CLOVERDALE
COASTAL
RANCH
BIG BASIN REDWOODS
STATE PARK
ALMADEN
QUICK-
SILVER
COUNTY
PARK
SANBORN
COUNTY PARK
CASTLE ROCK
STATE PARK
PESCADERO
STATE BEACH
SAN GREGORIO
STATE BEACH
HUDDART
COUNTY
PARK
JASPER
RIDGE
RESERVE
S
an
M ate oCo
.
S
antaClar a C o .
San Mateo Co.
Santa Cruz Co.
Sant a Cl a r a C o .A la m e d a C o .
Sph
e
r
e
o
f
I
n
f
l
u
ence
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ87
ÄÆ237
ÄÆ92
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ680
ÄÆ880
ÄÆ82
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ101
ÄÆ101
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ82
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ84
Redwood City
Palo
Alto
San Carlos
Mountain
View
San Jose
Menlo
Park
San
Gregorio
Half
Moon
Bay
Saratoga
East Palo
Alto
Cupertino
Milpitas
SunnyvaleLos Altos
Los Gatos
Santa
Clara
La Honda
Pescadero
Portola Valley
Woodside
I036
Miles
!#Treatment Sites
Midpen preserve
District boundary
Sphere of influence
Other protected land
County boundary
ATTACHMENT 1
R-20-134
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract with Applied Technology & Science for Planning Services, Feasibility
Assessment, and Preparation of Habitat Restoration Plans within the Irish Ridge Area of
Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to contract with Applied Technology & Science (ATS), to
provide Phase I environmental planning and biological consulting services to determine the
feasibility and maximum net natural resource benefits of restoring a section of Purisima
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a base contract amount of $42,037.
2. If the completion of the Phase I items in the base contract demonstrates high long-term net
natural resources benefits at a reasonable price for the planned restoration work, authorize the
General Manager to amend the contract to complete Phase II habitat restoration plans, for an
additional not-to-exceed amount of $57,230.
3. Authorize a 10% contingency for each Phase of work for a total amount of $9,927 ($4,204
for Phase I and $5,723 for Phase II) to cover unforeseen complexities or additional biological
survey needs, for a grand total contract amount not-to-exceed $109,194.
SUMMARY
Legacy logging activities and replanting with non-native timber species, coupled with current
fire suppression policies threatens the biodiversity of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Approximately
17 acres of a non-native, invasive blackwood acacia trees are located within the Irish Ridge area
of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Purisima Creek Redwoods Open
Space Preserve. These non-native trees were planted prior to District ownership, provide very
limited habitat value, and pose a significant wildland fire risk. Habitat restoration to return the
native natural resource values requires extensive planning to ensure habitat goals are successfully
met in a cost-efficient manner. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to
Applied Technology & Science (ATS) of San Francisco, CA, for a base amount of $42,037 to
assess the feasibility and maximize the long-term net natural resource benefits of the planned
restoration work (Phase I). If Phase I demonstrates that high resource benefits can be attained at
a fair price, the General Manager recommends amending the contract by an additional $57,230 to
allow for Phase II: development of habitat restoration plans. A 10% contingency is also
requested to address unforeseen complexities, for a grand total not-to-exceed $109,194. The
Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget includes sufficient funds to complete Phase I. Funds for
Phase II would be proposed as part of the FY22 budget.
R-20-134 Page 2
BACKGROUND
The District manages public lands under its jurisdiction in a natural state with minimal
development. Open Space Preserves provide protection in the form of permanent sanctuaries for
native wildlife and vegetation. Development pressures continue to reduce the quantity and
quality of natural habitats, making the District’s mission to protect and restore the natural
environment even more important.
The District purchased the first Purisima Creek Redwoods property in 1982 and has since
incorporated additional properties, growing the Preserve to its current size of 4,711 acres. The
trees at Purisima Creek Redwoods are predominantly second-growth redwoods of uneven age,
with trees varying between 50 and 100 years old. The original redwood forest was logged in the
late 1800s and early 1900s. The largest redwoods were approximately 1,000 years old when they
were cut, with diameters between 10 and 20 feet. Large stumps along Purisima Creek Trail are
evidence of these trees.
Blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) is presumed to have been actively planted in the Irish
Ridge area of the Preserve long before District ownership (Attachment 1: Project Location Map).
The trees were likely planted as a potential lumber crop; however, as is the case with many
planted acacia trees in the San Mateo coastal area, the trees proved to produce poor quality wood
for lumber production due to twisted, uneven growth. The planted trees at Irish Ridge have since
grown into a dense overstory and now exclude many native species (including the rare Kings
Mountain manzanita), provide poor quality habitat for rare species (e.g. federally and state listed
marbled murrelet), increased the fire risk, and continue to invade surrounding areas, further
displacing native species and habitats.
DISCUSSION
Project Design Objectives and Requirements
The three objectives and requirements of the restoration work are (1) to protect and restore the
natural resources, (2) increase climate change resiliency by increasing carbon sequestration
through native forest restoration, and (3) reduce wildfire risk and improve the Irish Ridge Trail
as a viable evacuation route per discussions with CalFire (the site is listed as a priority in the
District’s draft Wildland Fire Resiliency Program).
The project would be completed in three phases; the proposed contract covers the first two:
• Phase I – Biological Surveys and Sampling as well as a Restoration Options and
Feasibility Report (including options and cost estimates for reuse of the acacia trees);
• Phase II – Habitat Restoration Plans and Permitting; and
• Phase III – Implementation.
Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) Process
On September 9, 2020, staff issued a RFQP by posting on the District’s website and BidSync, as
well emailing eleven firms with pertinent experience. A virtual pre-proposal conference was held
on September 8, 2020 and attended by ten firms. The District received three proposals by the
October 9, 2020 deadline.
R-20-134 Page 3
Lead Firm Location
Phase I
Proposed
Fees
Phase II
Proposed
Fees
Total
Proposed
Fees
Applied Technology & Science (ATS) San Francisco, CA $34,785* $57,230 $92,015*
Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 1 Berkeley, CA $34,840 $111,960 $146,800
GPA Consulting1 El Segundo, CA $54,980 $82,830 $146,921 2
*Original Phase I proposed amount. Received revised Phase I proposed amount from ATS on 10/21/2020 for $42,037 to modify
scope per staff direction as explained below.
Evaluation criteria were determined prior to the release of the RFQP that included the quality of
the proposal, relevant project experience, and implementation approach. After careful review of
all proposals, staff, with assistance from CAL FIRE, deemed ATS as the most qualified and best
suited for the project at a fair and reasonable price. The District included Cal Fire on the review
panel since they will be an important partner during implementation. ATS demonstrated a clear
understanding of the project to meet the multiple project objectives.
Revised Proposal to Address Current and Future Needs
After recently completing two large fuel reduction and invasive tree removal projects (Page Mill
Eucalyptus fuel removal project and invasive tree removal at Woods Trail in Sierra Azul), the
District has come to recognize the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits
and tradeoffs of different biomass management approaches. Understanding the benefits and
tradeoffs will become even more important as the District increases the size and scale of its
vegetation management work under the proposed Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. Staff
therefore requested that ATS revise their proposal and fee to not only include reuse options for
the blackwood acacia biomass at this site, but also comprehensively evaluate reuse options for
biomass that is removed at other District locations. As part of this work, ATS would evaluate the
benefits and tradeoffs for the following areas of interest:
• Allelopathy 3;
• Biodiversity;
• Carbon sequestration;
• Fuel loads;
• Greenhouse gas emissions;
• Pathogen spread;
• Visual impacts; and
• Wildlife habitat.
The findings of this comprehensive evaluation will guide the creation of a toolkit that the District
will use to identify best approaches for managing the vegetation that is removed from Preserves
as part of large fuel reduction and invasive plant removal projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY21 Budget to cover Phase I. Should the contract get
extended for Phase II, funding would be proposed as part of the FY22 Budget and Action Plan
process.
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
1 Both Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting and GPA Consulting firms submitted proposals as collaborative teams
with two other firms.
2 GPA Consulting included two separate line items in their proposal that were not integrated into the phased
approach.
3 Allelopathy is the chemical inhibition of one plant (or other organism) by another, due to the release into the
environment of substances acting as germination or growth inhibitors.
R-20-134 Page 4
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. Adjoining neighbors near the project
site have been notified.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Retention of professional consultants will not result in a direct physical change in the
environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)] and does not constitute Board approval of
the proposed project or related proposed project elements.
A requirement of the RFQP is that the selected consultant shall produce a habitat restoration plan
comprised of actions covered by existing and/or draft District CEQA documents (e.g. Integrated
Pest Management Program, San Mateo Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report,
draft Wildland Fire Resiliency Program).
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with ATS. At the
conclusion of the Feasibility Study (Phase I), staff will inform the Board of the findings. If
Phase I demonstrates that the District can meet the project design objectives at a fair and
reasonable price, the General Manager will amend the contract to include Phase II.
Attachment
1. Project Location
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Graphics prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist
Fir
Tr
a
i
l
H
i
gginsCanyonRd
TunitasCreekRd
StarHi
l
l
R o ad S wettRo a d
Tunitas C r e e k Rd
P urisi m a C r e e k R d
Purisim a C r e e k T r a i l
North R i d g e T r a i l
Rich a r d s R oad
Tafoni TrailEl
Cort e de MaderaCre e k Tr a i l
Spring
B
o
ar
dTr ail
Irish
RidgeT
r
ail
SkylineTr
a
il
L
o
b
i
t
o
s
Cr
e
ekTrail
B
orden
H
atch
M
ill
Trail
S
k
ylineTrail
F ir T rail
N
o
r
t
h
Leaf
Tr
a
il
T i m b e r vie w Trail
Sout h Le
a
f
Trail
G
rabto
w
n
G
u
lc
h
T
r
a
il
R
e
s
olution Trail
Tafo ni T r a il
Manz
a
nita
T
r
a
i
l
Gor d onMillTrail
Lonel y T r a il
B ald K nob T r a il
Ray m u n d o Trail
W
h
itte m ore G u l c h T r a il
Burleigh H.M u r r a y R a n c h T r a i l
V
e
r
d
e
R
d
S
t
a
r
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Nativ e S o n s Rd.
LobitosCreekRd
LobitosCreekCut-off
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ35
E L C O R T E D E
M A D E R A C R E E K O P E N
S P A C E P R E S E R V E
M I R A M O N T E S R I D G E
O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E
T U N I TA S C R E E K
O P E N S P A C E
P R E S E R V E
P U R I S I M A C R E E K
R E D W O O D S O P E N
S P A C E P R E S E R V E
Mid p en in s ula R e g io n al
Ope n S p a ce D ist ric t(Mid pe n)
10/2 1/2 02 0
A t t a ch men t 1: Iri sh Ri dg e H ab it at R e st or at io n S it e
Path: G:\Projects\a_Districtwide\A_TemplateMaps\_MainTemplate_Letter_Portrait.mxd
Created By: csifuentes
0 10.5
MilesI
MROS D P re se rv es
Wh ile t he District strives t o u se t he best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area ofDetail
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35ÄÆ9
ÄÆ236
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ101
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ92
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ85
Half
Moon
Bay
Redwood City
San Carlos
Belmont
East
Palo Alto
Los Altos
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Cupertino
Saratoga
Los
Gatos
Santa
Clara
Sit e L oca ti on
^_
^_
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-136
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Application for Grant Funding from the California Department of Parks and Recreation’s
Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Program
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to submit an application for Proposition 68
Per Capita Program grant funding from the California Department of Parks and Recreation and
to negotiate a grant funding agreement(s) for $1,214,590 in Per Capita funding.
SUMMARY
The General Manager recommends that Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District)
adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager as signatory for submission of an application
to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR). This report provides a description
of the state bond funds allocated to the District through the Per Capita Program and the approval
process for use of the funds.
DISCUSSION
Proposition 68 was passed by California voters in June 2018, authorizing the availability of
$185,000,000 in grant funding to eligible park and open space organizations through a Per Capita
Program. CDPR announced allocations for the Per Capita Program in July 2020 and the District
qualifies for a non-competitive allocation of $1,214,590 from the Per Capita Program based on
the District’s population.
Funds must support capital outlays for recreation and may include land acquisitions or
improvements for recreation on existing District land. Expenses for approved projects can be
reimbursed retroactively back to a start date of July 1, 2018. Projects must complete grant-
funded work by December 31, 2023, and final reimbursement requests must be received no later
than March 31, 2024. A 20% match of the total project cost is required if the project is not
located within a severely disadvantaged community (median household income less than 60% of
the statewide average). Public access to the project must be made available within three years of
the final grant payment.
The proposed use of the Per Capita state bond funding is to support the Alma Cultural Landscape
Rehabilitation Project, including the removal of hazardous conditions and improvement of
pathways and landscape features for the public to access and enjoy the cultural, natural and
historic elements of the Alma College site.
R-20-136 Page 2
CDPR requires a resolution from the District’s Board of Directors as an initial step in the Per
Capita Program application process. The resolution (Attachment 1) authorizes the General
Manager or her designee to sign the application for Per Capita funds and to execute a grant
agreement or agreements for the funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon review and approval by CDPR, this funding opportunity would have a positive impact of
up to $1,214,590.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This report was not previously reviewed by a committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Submitting grant applications to secure funding is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The Per Capita Grant Program requires that grantees comply with CEQA
and certify that the CEQA analysis for any project encompasses all aspects of the work to be
completed with grant funds.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, District staff would complete a Per Capita grant application for an
eligible project or projects and the General Manager would submit the application to CDPR for
consideration by late 2020. Upon review and approval by CDPR, District staff would work with
CDPR staff to develop a grant agreement for grant funding and the General Manager would
execute the agreement.
Attachment(s)
1. Resolution authorizing the General Manager to submit an application for Proposition
68 Per Capita Program grant funding from the California Department of Parks and
Recreation and to negotiate a grant funding agreement(s) for $1,214,590 in Per Capita
funding.
2. Per Capita Allocations Table
3. Per Capita Grant Program Guidelines
Responsible Department Head:
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer, Administrative Services
Prepared by:
Deborah Hirst, Grants Program Manager, Administrative Services
Contact person:
Jordan McDaniel, Senior Grants and Procurement Technician, Administrative Services
Resolutions/2020/20-XX_68PerCapitaProgramGrantFunding 1
RESOLUTION 20-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL
MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR PROPOSITION 68 PER
CAPITA PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION AND TO NEGOTIATE A
GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR PER CAPITA FUNDING
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the
responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of the Per
Capita Grant Program, setting up necessary procedures governing application(s); and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the grantee’s Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of project
application(s) before submission of said applications to the State; and
WHEREAS, the grantee will enter into a contract(s) with the State of California to
complete project(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District hereby:
1. Approves the filing of project application(s) for Per Capita program grant project(s); and
2. Certifies that said grantee has or will have available, prior to commencement of project
work utilizing Per Capita funding, sufficient funds to complete the project(s); and
3. Certifies that the grantee has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
project(s); and
4. Certifies that all projects proposed will be consistent with the park and recreation element
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s general or recreation plan (PRC
§80063(a)); and
5. Certifies that these funds will be used to supplement, not supplant, local revenues in
existence as of June 5, 2018 (PRC §80062(d)); and
6. Certifies that it will comply with the provisions of §1771.5 of the State Labor Code; and
7. (PRC §80001(b)(8)(A-G)) To the extent practicable, as identified in the “Presidential
Memorandum--Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks, National
Forests, and Other Public Lands and Waters,” dated January 12, 2017, the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District will consider a range of actions that include, but are not
limited to, the following:
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolutions/2020/20-XX_68PerCapitaProgramGrantFunding 2
(A) Conducting active outreach to diverse populations, particularly minority, low-
income, and disabled populations and tribal communities, to increase awareness
within those communities and the public generally about specific programs and
opportunities.
(B) Mentoring new environmental, outdoor recreation, and conservation leaders to
increase diverse representation across these areas.
(C) Creating new partnerships with state, local, tribal, private, and nonprofit
organizations to expand access for diverse populations.
(D) Identifying and implementing improvements to existing programs to increase
visitation and access by diverse populations, particularly minority, low-income, and
disabled populations and tribal communities.
(E) Expanding the use of multilingual and culturally appropriate materials in public
communications and educational strategies, including through social media
strategies, as appropriate, that target diverse populations.
(F) Developing or expanding coordinated efforts to promote youth engagement and
empowerment, including fostering new partnerships with diversity-serving and
youth-serving organizations, urban areas, and programs.
(G) Identifying possible staff liaisons to diverse populations.
8. Agrees that to the extent practicable, the project(s) will provide workforce education and
training, contractor and job opportunities for disadvantaged communities (PRC
§80001(b)(5)); and
9. Certifies that the grantee shall not reduce the amount of funding otherwise available to be
spent on parks or other projects eligible for funds under this division in its jurisdiction. A
one-time allocation of other funding that has been expended for parks or other projects,
but which is not available on an ongoing basis, shall not be considered when calculating a
recipient’s annual expenditures. (PRC §80062(d)); and
10. Certifies that the grantee has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions
contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and
11. Delegates the authority to the General Manager or designee to conduct all negotiations,
sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements,
amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the
grant scope(s); and
12. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations and guidelines.
Resolutions/2020/20-XX_68PerCapitaProgramGrantFunding 3
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on November ___, 2020, at a special meeting thereof, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Jed Cyr, Secretary
Board of Directors
Karen Holman, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Page 1 of 28 July 1, 2020
Allocations for California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate,
Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018
Per Capita Grant Program
All Allocations Rounded to the Thousands
County and Regional Park District Allocations
(40 Percent of $185,000,000)
Rate of Allocations: $1.64 Per Capita
(Minimum of $400,000 for populations below 247,577)
Jurisdiction Allocation
County of Alameda $ -
County of Alpine $ 400,000
County of Amador $ 400,000
County of Butte $ 400,000
County of Calaveras $ 400,000
County of Colusa $ 400,000
County of Contra Costa $ 400,000
County of Del Norte $ 400,000
County of El Dorado $ 400,000
County of Fresno $ 1,656,780
County of Glenn $ 400,000
County of Humboldt $ 400,000
County of Imperial $ 400,000
County of Inyo $ 400,000
County of Kern $ 1,473,040
County of Kings $ 400,000
County of Lake $ 400,000
County of Lassen $ 400,000
County of Los Angeles $ 16,739,730
County of Madera $ 400,000
County of Marin $ 427,730
County of Mariposa $ 400,000
County of Mendocino $ 400,000
County of Merced $ 455,590
County of Modoc $ 400,000
County of Mono $ 400,000
County of Monterey $ 631,430
County of Napa $ -
County of Nevada $ 400,000
County of Orange $ 5,044,010
County of Placer $ 633,810
County of Plumas $ 400,000
County of Riverside $ 3,945,380
County of Sacramento $ 2,515,780
Jurisdiction Allocation
County of San Benito $ 400,000
County of San Bernardino $ 3,510,320
County of San Diego $ 5,487,140
County of San Francisco $ 1,444,120
County of San Joaquin $ 1,224,650
County of San Luis Obispo $ 456,230
County of San Mateo $ 828,430
County of Santa Barbara $ 739,670
County of Santa Clara $ 1,194,060
County of Santa Cruz $ 447,240
County of Shasta $ 400,000
County of Sierra $ 400,000
County of Siskiyou $ 400,000
County of Solano $ 715,590
County of Sonoma $ 814,650
County of Stanislaus $ 909,500
County of Sutter $ 400,000
County of Tehama $ 400,000
County of Trinity $ 400,000
County of Tulare $ 779,560
County of Tuolumne $ 400,000
County of Ventura $ 1,398,240
County of Yolo $ 400,000
County of Yuba $ 400,000
East Bay RPD $ 4,592,710
Midpeninsula ROSD $ 1,214,590
Monterey Peninsula RPD $ 400,000
Napa County RPOSD $ 400,000
Santa Clara Valley OSD $ 1,120,020
Note: A county with no allocation is due to an
overlap with regional park district that
operates and manages park and recreational
areas and facilities for that population.
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 2 of 28 July 1, 2020
City and District Allocations
Per Capita Program
(60 Percent of $185,000,000 plus $2,000,000)
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Alameda City of Alameda $ 177,952
Alameda City of Albany $ 177,952
Alameda City of Berkeley $ 177,952
Alameda City of Dublin $ 177,952
Alameda City of Emeryville $ 177,952
Alameda City of Fremont $ 177,952
Alameda City of Livermore $ 177,952
Alameda City of Newark $ 177,952
Alameda City of Oakland $ 177,952
Alameda City of Piedmont $ 177,952
Alameda City of Pleasanton $ 177,952
Alameda City of San Leandro $ 177,952
Alameda City of Union City $ 177,952
Alameda Hayward Area RPD $ 177,952
Alameda Livermore Area RPD $ 177,952
Alpine Kirkwood Meadows PUD $ 177,952
Amador City of Amador $ 177,952
Amador City of Ione $ 177,952
Amador City of Jackson $ 177,952
Amador City of Plymouth $ 177,952
Amador City of Sutter Creek $ 177,952
Amador Jackson Valley Irrigation District $ 177,952
Amador Pine Grove CSD $ 177,952
Amador Volcano CSD $ 177,952
Butte Chico Area RPD $ 177,952
Butte City of Biggs $ 177,952
Butte City of Chico $ 177,952
Butte City of Gridley $ 177,952
Butte City of Oroville $ 177,952
Butte Durham RPD $ 177,952
Butte Feather River RPD $ 177,952
Butte Paradise RPD $ 177,952
Butte Town of Paradise $ 177,952
Calaveras City of Angels $ 177,952
Calaveras Mokelumne Hill Veterans Memorial District $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 3 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Calaveras San Andreas RPD $ 177,952
Colusa Arbuckle PRD $ 177,952
Colusa City of Colusa $ 177,952
Colusa City of Williams $ 177,952
Colusa Maxwell PRD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Ambrose RPD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Bethel Island MID $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Antioch $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Brentwood $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Clayton $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Concord $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of El Cerrito $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Hercules $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Lafayette $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Martinez $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Oakley $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Orinda $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Pinole $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Pittsburg $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Pleasant Hill $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Richmond $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of San Pablo $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of San Ramon $ 177,952
Contra Costa City of Walnut Creek $ 177,952
Contra Costa Crockett CSD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Kensington Police Protection and CSD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill RPD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Town of Danville $ 177,952
Contra Costa Town of Discovery Bay CSD $ 177,952
Contra Costa Town of Moraga $ 177,952
Del Norte City of Crescent City $ 177,952
El Dorado Cameron Park CSD $ 177,952
El Dorado City of Placerville $ 177,952
El Dorado City of South Lake Tahoe $ 177,952
El Dorado El Dorado Hills CSD $ 177,952
El Dorado Fallen Leaf Lake CSD $ 177,952
El Dorado Georgetown Divide RD $ 177,952
El Dorado Tahoe Paradise RPD $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 4 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Fresno Calwa PRD $ 177,952
Fresno City of Clovis $ 177,952
Fresno City of Coalinga $ 177,952
Fresno City of Firebaugh $ 177,952
Fresno City of Fowler $ 177,952
Fresno City of Fresno $ 177,952
Fresno City of Huron $ 177,952
Fresno City of Kerman $ 177,952
Fresno City of Kingsburg $ 177,952
Fresno City of Mendota $ 177,952
Fresno City of Orange Cove $ 177,952
Fresno City of Parlier $ 177,952
Fresno City of Reedley $ 177,952
Fresno City of San Joaquin $ 177,952
Fresno City of Sanger $ 177,952
Fresno City of Selma $ 177,952
Fresno Coalinga-Huron RPD $ 177,952
Fresno Del Rey CSD $ 177,952
Fresno Lanare CSD $ 177,952
Fresno Malaga County Water District $ 177,952
Glenn City of Orland $ 177,952
Glenn City of Willows $ 177,952
Glenn Elk Creek CSD $ 177,952
Glenn Hamilton City CSD $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Arcata $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Blue Lake $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Eureka $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Ferndale $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Fortuna $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Rio Dell $ 177,952
Humboldt City of Trinidad $ 177,952
Humboldt Manila CSD $ 177,952
Humboldt McKinleyville CSD $ 177,952
Humboldt North Humboldt RPD $ 177,952
Humboldt Resort Improvement District No.1 $ 177,952
Humboldt Rohner Community PRD $ 177,952
Humboldt Willow Creek CSD $ 177,952
Imperial Bombay Beach CSD $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 5 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Imperial City of Brawley $ 177,952
Imperial City of Calexico $ 177,952
Imperial City of Calipatria $ 177,952
Imperial City of El Centro $ 177,952
Imperial City of Holtville $ 177,952
Imperial City of Imperial $ 177,952
Imperial City of Westmorland $ 177,952
Imperial Heber PUD $ 177,952
Imperial Salton CSD $ 177,952
Imperial Seeley County Water District $ 177,952
Inyo City of Bishop $ 177,952
Kern Bear Mountain RPD $ 177,952
Kern Bear Valley CSD $ 177,952
Kern Buttonwillow PRD $ 177,952
Kern City of Arvin $ 177,952
Kern City of Bakersfield $ 177,952
Kern City of California City $ 177,952
Kern City of Delano $ 177,952
Kern City of Maricopa $ 177,952
Kern City of Ridgecrest $ 177,952
Kern City of Shafter $ 177,952
Kern City of Taft $ 177,952
Kern City of Tehachapi $ 177,952
Kern City of Wasco $ 177,952
Kern McFarland RPD $ 177,952
Kern North of the River RPD $ 177,952
Kern Shafter RPD $ 177,952
Kern Stallion Springs CSD $ 177,952
Kern Tehachapi Valley RPD $ 177,952
Kern Wasco RPD $ 177,952
Kern West Side RPD $ 177,952
Kings City of Avenal $ 177,952
Kings City of Corcoran $ 177,952
Kings City of Hanford $ 177,952
Kings City of Lemoore $ 177,952
Lake City of Clearlake $ 177,952
Lake City of Lakeport $ 177,952
Lassen City of Susanville $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 6 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Lassen Leavitt Lake CSD $ 177,952
Lassen Westwood CSD $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Alhambra $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Arcadia $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Artesia $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Avalon $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Azusa $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Baldwin Park $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bell $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bell Gardens $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bellflower $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Beverly Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Bradbury $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Burbank $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Calabasas $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Carson $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Cerritos $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Claremont $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Commerce $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Compton $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Covina $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Cudahy $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Culver City $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Diamond Bar $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Downey $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Duarte $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of El Monte $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of El Segundo $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Gardena $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Glendale $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Glendora $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hawaiian Gardens $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hawthorne $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hermosa Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Hidden Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Huntington Park $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Inglewood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Irwindale $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 7 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of La Cañada Flintridge $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Habra Heights $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Mirada $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Puente $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of La Verne $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lakewood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lancaster $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lawndale $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lomita $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Long Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Los Angeles $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Lynwood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Malibu $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Manhattan Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Maywood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Monrovia $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Montebello $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Monterey Park $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Norwalk $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Palmdale $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Palos Verdes Estates $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Paramount $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Pasadena $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Pico Rivera $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Pomona $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Redondo Beach $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills Estates $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Rosemead $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Dimas $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Fernando $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Gabriel $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of San Marino $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Santa Clarita $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Santa Fe Springs $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Santa Monica $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Sierra Madre $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 8 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of Signal Hill $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of South El Monte $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of South Gate $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of South Pasadena $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Temple City $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Torrance $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Vernon $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Walnut $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of West Covina $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of West Hollywood $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Westlake Village $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Whittier $ 177,952
Los Angeles City of Agoura Hills $ 177,952
Los Angeles Miraleste RPD $ 177,952
Los Angeles Westfield Park Rec and Parkway District No. 12 $ 177,952
Madera City of Chowchilla $ 177,952
Madera City of Madera $ 177,952
Marin Bel Marin Keys CSD $ 177,952
Marin Bolinas Community PUD $ 177,952
Marin City of Belvedere $ 177,952
Marin City of Larkspur $ 177,952
Marin City of Mill Valley $ 177,952
Marin City of Novato $ 177,952
Marin City of San Rafael $ 177,952
Marin City of Sausalito $ 177,952
Marin Firehouse Community Park Agency $ 177,952
Marin Marin City CSD $ 177,952
Marin Marinwood CSD $ 177,952
Marin Muir Beach CSD $ 177,952
Marin Strawberry RD $ 177,952
Marin Tamalpais CSD $ 177,952
Marin Tomales Village CSD $ 177,952
Marin Town of Corte Madera $ 177,952
Marin Town of Fairfax $ 177,952
Marin Town of Ross $ 177,952
Marin Town of San Anselmo $ 177,952
Marin Town of Tiburon $ 177,952
Mendocino Anderson Valley CSD $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 9 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Mendocino Brooktrails CSD $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Fort Bragg $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Point Arena $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Ukiah $ 177,952
Mendocino City of Willits $ 177,952
Mendocino Comptche CSD $ 177,952
Mendocino Mendocino Coast RPD $ 177,952
Merced City of Atwater $ 177,952
Merced City of Dos Palos $ 177,952
Merced City of Gustine $ 177,952
Merced City of Livingston $ 177,952
Merced City of Los Banos $ 177,952
Merced City of Merced $ 177,952
Modoc City of Alturas $ 177,952
Mono Town of Mammoth Lakes $ 177,952
Monterey Carmel Valley RPD $ 177,952
Monterey City of Carmel-by-the-Sea $ 177,952
Monterey City of Del Rey Oaks $ 177,952
Monterey City of Gonzales $ 177,952
Monterey City of Greenfield $ 177,952
Monterey City of King City $ 177,952
Monterey City of Marina $ 177,952
Monterey City of Monterey $ 177,952
Monterey City of Pacific Grove $ 177,952
Monterey City of Salinas $ 177,952
Monterey City of Sand City $ 177,952
Monterey City of Seaside $ 177,952
Monterey City of Soledad $ 177,952
Monterey Greenfield Public RD $ 177,952
Monterey North County RD $ 177,952
Monterey Pajaro CSD $ 177,952
Monterey Soledad-Mission RD $ 177,952
Monterey Spreckels Memorial District $ 177,952
Napa City of American Canyon $ 177,952
Napa City of Calistoga $ 177,952
Napa City of Napa $ 177,952
Napa City of St Helena $ 177,952
Napa Town of Yountville $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 10 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Nevada Bear River RPD $ 177,952
Nevada City of Grass Valley $ 177,952
Nevada City of Nevada City $ 177,952
Nevada Oak Tree PRD $ 177,952
Nevada Town of Truckee $ 177,952
Nevada Western Gateway RPD $ 177,952
Orange City of Aliso Viejo $ 177,952
Orange City of Anaheim $ 177,952
Orange City of Brea $ 177,952
Orange City of Buena Park $ 177,952
Orange City of Costa Mesa $ 177,952
Orange City of Cypress $ 177,952
Orange City of Dana Point $ 177,952
Orange City of Fountain Valley $ 177,952
Orange City of Fullerton $ 177,952
Orange City of Garden Grove $ 177,952
Orange City of Huntington Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Irvine $ 177,952
Orange City of La Habra $ 177,952
Orange City of La Palma $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Hills $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Niguel $ 177,952
Orange City of Laguna Woods $ 177,952
Orange City of Lake Forest $ 177,952
Orange City of Los Alamitos $ 177,952
Orange City of Mission Viejo $ 177,952
Orange City of Newport Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Orange $ 177,952
Orange City of Placentia $ 177,952
Orange City of Rancho Santa Margarita $ 177,952
Orange City of San Clemente $ 177,952
Orange City of San Juan Capistrano $ 177,952
Orange City of Santa Ana $ 177,952
Orange City of Seal Beach $ 177,952
Orange City of Stanton $ 177,952
Orange City of Tustin $ 177,952
Orange City of Villa Park $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 11 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Orange City of Westminster $ 177,952
Orange City of Yorba Linda $ 177,952
Orange Cypress RPD $ 177,952
Orange Rossmoor CSD $ 177,952
Orange Silverado-Modjeska RPD $ 177,952
Placer Auburn Area RPD $ 177,952
Placer City of Auburn $ 177,952
Placer City of Colfax $ 177,952
Placer City of Lincoln $ 177,952
Placer City of Rocklin $ 177,952
Placer City of Roseville $ 177,952
Placer North Tahoe PUD $ 177,952
Placer Northstar CSD $ 177,952
Placer Tahoe City PUD $ 177,952
Placer Town of Loomis $ 177,952
Placer Truckee-Donner RPD $ 177,952
Plumas Almanor RPD $ 177,952
Plumas Central Plumas RPD $ 177,952
Plumas City of Portola $ 177,952
Plumas Indian Valley RPD $ 177,952
Riverside Beaumont-Cherry Valley RPD $ 177,952
Riverside City of Banning $ 177,952
Riverside City of Beaumont $ 177,952
Riverside City of Blythe $ 177,952
Riverside City of Calimesa $ 177,952
Riverside City of Canyon Lake $ 177,952
Riverside City of Cathedral City $ 177,952
Riverside City of Coachella $ 177,952
Riverside City of Corona $ 177,952
Riverside City of Desert Hot Springs $ 177,952
Riverside City of Hemet $ 177,952
Riverside City of Indian Wells $ 177,952
Riverside City of Indio $ 177,952
Riverside City of La Quinta $ 177,952
Riverside City of Lake Elsinore $ 177,952
Riverside City of Menifee $ 177,952
Riverside City of Moreno Valley $ 177,952
Riverside City of Murrieta $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 12 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Riverside City of Norco $ 177,952
Riverside City of Palm Desert $ 177,952
Riverside City of Palm Springs $ 177,952
Riverside City of Perris $ 177,952
Riverside City of Rancho Mirage $ 177,952
Riverside City of Riverside $ 177,952
Riverside City of San Jacinto $ 177,952
Riverside City of Temecula $ 177,952
Riverside City of Wildomar $ 177,952
Riverside Desert RD $ 177,952
Riverside Jurupa Area RPD $ 177,952
Riverside Jurupa CSD $ 177,952
Riverside Lake Hemet Municipal Water District $ 177,952
Riverside Valley-Wide RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Arcade Creek RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Arden Manor RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Arden Park RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Carmichael RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Citrus Heights $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Folsom $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Galt $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Isleton $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Rancho Cordova $ 177,952
Sacramento City of Sacramento $ 177,952
Sacramento Cordova RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Cosumnes CSD $ 177,952
Sacramento Fair Oaks RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Fulton-El Camino RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Mission Oaks RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento North Highlands RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Orangevale RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Rio Linda/Elverta RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Southgate RPD $ 177,952
Sacramento Sunrise RPD $ 177,952
San Benito City of Hollister $ 177,952
San Benito City of San Juan Bautista $ 177,952
San Bernardino Baker CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Barstow Heights CSD $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 13 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Bernardino Big River CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Adelanto $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Barstow $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Chino $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Chino Hills $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Colton $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Fontana $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Grand Terrace $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Hesperia $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Highland $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Loma Linda $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Montclair $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Needles $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Ontario $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Rancho Cucamonga $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Redlands $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Rialto $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of San Bernardino $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Twentynine Palms $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Upland $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Victorville $ 177,952
San Bernardino City of Yucaipa $ 177,952
San Bernardino Daggett CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Helendale CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Hesperia RPD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Morongo Valley CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Newberry CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Phelan Piñon Hill CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Rim of the World RPD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Town of Apple Valley $ 177,952
San Bernardino Town of Yucca Valley $ 177,952
San Bernardino Wrightwood CSD $ 177,952
San Bernardino Yermo CSD $ 177,952
San Diego City of Chula Vista $ 177,952
San Diego City of Coronado $ 177,952
San Diego City of Del Mar $ 177,952
San Diego City of El Cajon $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 14 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Diego City of Encinitas $ 177,952
San Diego City of Escondido $ 177,952
San Diego City of Imperial Beach $ 177,952
San Diego City of La Mesa $ 177,952
San Diego City of Lemon Grove $ 177,952
San Diego City of National City $ 177,952
San Diego City of Oceanside $ 177,952
San Diego City of Poway $ 177,952
San Diego City of San Diego $ 177,952
San Diego City of San Marcos $ 177,952
San Diego City of Santee $ 177,952
San Diego City of Solana Beach $ 177,952
San Diego City of Vista $ 177,952
San Diego Jacumba CSD $ 177,952
San Diego Lake Cuyamaca RPD $ 177,952
San Diego Ramona MWD $ 177,952
San Diego Valley Center PRD $ 177,952
San Francisco City of San Francisco $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Escalon $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Lathrop $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Lodi $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Manteca $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Ripon $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Stockton $ 177,952
San Joaquin City of Tracy $ 177,952
San Joaquin Mountain House CSD $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo Cambria CSD $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Arroyo Grande $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Atascadero $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Grover Beach $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Morro Bay $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Paso Robles $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of Pismo Beach $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo $ 177,952
San Luis Obispo Templeton CSD $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Belmont $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Brisbane $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Burlingame $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 15 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Mateo City of Daly City $ 177,952
San Mateo City of East Palo Alto $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Foster City $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Half Moon Bay $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Menlo Park $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Millbrae $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Pacifica $ 177,952
San Mateo City of Redwood City $ 177,952
San Mateo City of San Bruno $ 177,952
San Mateo City of San Carlos $ 177,952
San Mateo City of San Mateo $ 177,952
San Mateo City of South San Francisco $ 177,952
San Mateo Highlands RD $ 177,952
San Mateo Ladera RD $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Atherton $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Colma $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Hillsborough $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Portola Valley $ 177,952
San Mateo Town of Woodside $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Buellton $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Carpinteria $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Goleta $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Guadalupe $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Lompoc $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Santa Barbara $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Santa Maria $ 177,952
Santa Barbara City of Solvang $ 177,952
Santa Barbara Cuyama Valley RD $ 177,952
Santa Barbara Isla Vista RPD $ 177,952
Santa Barbara Mission Hills CSD $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Campbell $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Cupertino $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Gilroy $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Los Altos $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Milpitas $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Monte Sereno $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Morgan Hill $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Mountain View $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 16 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Santa Clara City of Palo Alto $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of San Jose $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Santa Clara $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Saratoga $ 177,952
Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale $ 177,952
Santa Clara Rancho Rinconada RPD $ 177,952
Santa Clara Town of Los Altos Hills $ 177,952
Santa Clara Town of Los Gatos $ 177,952
Santa Cruz Alba RPD $ 177,952
Santa Cruz Boulder Creek RPD $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Capitola $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Santa Cruz $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Scotts Valley $ 177,952
Santa Cruz City of Watsonville $ 177,952
Santa Cruz La Selva Beach RD $ 177,952
Shasta Burney Water District $ 177,952
Shasta City of Anderson $ 177,952
Shasta City of Redding $ 177,952
Shasta City of Shasta Lake $ 177,952
Shasta Fall River Valley CSD $ 177,952
Sierra City of Loyalton $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Dorris $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Dunsmuir $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Etna $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Montague $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Mount Shasta $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Tulelake $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Weed $ 177,952
Siskiyou City of Yreka $ 177,952
Siskiyou Dunsmuir RPD $ 177,952
Siskiyou McCloud CSD $ 177,952
Siskiyou Mount Shasta RPD $ 177,952
Siskiyou Town of Fort Jones $ 177,952
Siskiyou Weed RPD $ 177,952
Solano City of Benicia $ 177,952
Solano City of Dixon $ 177,952
Solano City of Fairfield $ 177,952
Solano City of Rio Vista $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 17 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Solano City of Suisun City $ 177,952
Solano City of Vacaville $ 177,952
Solano City of Vallejo $ 177,952
Solano Greater Vallejo RPD $ 177,952
Sonoma Camp Meeker PRD $ 177,952
Sonoma Cazadero CSD $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Cloverdale $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Cotati $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Healdsburg $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Petaluma $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Rohnert Park $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Santa Rosa $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Sebastopol $ 177,952
Sonoma City of Sonoma $ 177,952
Sonoma Monte Rio RPD $ 177,952
Sonoma Russian River RPD $ 177,952
Sonoma Town of Windsor $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Ceres $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Hughson $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Modesto $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Newman $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Oakdale $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Patterson $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Riverbank $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Turlock $ 177,952
Stanislaus City of Waterford $ 177,952
Sutter City of Live Oak $ 177,952
Sutter City of Yuba City $ 177,952
Tehama City of Corning $ 177,952
Tehama City of Red Bluff $ 177,952
Tehama City of Tehama $ 177,952
Trinity Greater Hayfork PRD $ 177,952
Trinity Lewiston CSD $ 177,952
Trinity Weaverville/Douglas City RPD $ 177,952
Tulare City of Dinuba $ 177,952
Tulare City of Exeter $ 177,952
Tulare City of Farmersville $ 177,952
Tulare City of Lindsay $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 18 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Tulare City of Porterville $ 177,952
Tulare City of Tulare $ 177,952
Tulare City of Visalia $ 177,952
Tulare City of Woodlake $ 177,952
Tulare Poplar CSD $ 177,952
Tulare Richgrove CSD $ 177,952
Tuolumne City of Sonora $ 177,952
Tuolumne Groveland CSD $ 177,952
Tuolumne Tuolumne PRD $ 177,952
Tuolumne Twain Harte CSD $ 177,952
Ventura City of Camarillo $ 177,952
Ventura City of Fillmore $ 177,952
Ventura City of Moorpark $ 177,952
Ventura City of Ojai $ 177,952
Ventura City of Oxnard $ 177,952
Ventura City of Port Hueneme $ 177,952
Ventura City of Santa Paula $ 177,952
Ventura City of Ventura $ 177,952
Ventura Bell Canyon CSD $ 177,952
Ventura Conejo RPD $ 177,952
Ventura Pleasant Valley RPD $ 177,952
Ventura Rancho Simi RPD $ 177,952
Yolo City of Davis $ 177,952
Yolo City of West Sacramento $ 177,952
Yolo City of Winters $ 177,952
Yolo City of Woodland $ 177,952
Yolo Knights Landing CSD $ 177,952
Yolo Madison CSD $ 177,952
Yuba City of Marysville $ 177,952
Yuba City of Wheatland $ 177,952
Yuba Olivehurst PUD $ 177,952
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 19 of 28 July 1, 2020
Entities with Populations Less Than 200,000 in Heavily Urbanized Counties
Per Capita Grant Program
($10,375,000)
Per Capita Urbanized City Rate (Dollars): $.61 Per Capita
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Alameda City of Alameda $ 48,392
Alameda City of Albany $ 11,853
Alameda City of Berkeley $ 75,376
Alameda City of Dublin $ 39,468
Alameda City of Emeryville $ 7,334
Alameda City of Livermore $ 7,731
Alameda City of Newark $ 29,772
Alameda City of Piedmont $ 6,980
Alameda City of Pleasanton $ 49,195
Alameda City of San Leandro $ 55,006
Alameda City of Union City $ 44,868
Alameda Livermore Area RPD $ 51,940
Contra Costa Ambrose RPD $ 13,048
Contra Costa Bethel Island MID $ 1,306
Contra Costa City of Antioch $ 69,614
Contra Costa City of Brentwood $ 38,909
Contra Costa City of Clayton $ 7,122
Contra Costa City of Concord $ 79,321
Contra Costa City of El Cerrito $ 14,924
Contra Costa City of Hercules $ 16,028
Contra Costa City of Lafayette $ 16,160
Contra Costa City of Martinez $ 23,524
Contra Costa City of Oakley $ 25,522
Contra Costa City of Orinda $ 11,851
Contra Costa City of Pinole $ 11,807
Contra Costa City of Pittsburg $ 44,336
Contra Costa City of Pleasant Hill $ 24,447
Contra Costa City of Richmond $ 67,319
Contra Costa City of San Pablo $ 18,947
Contra Costa City of San Ramon $ 51,313
Contra Costa City of Walnut Creek $ 42,857
Contra Costa Crockett CSD $ 2,029
Contra Costa Kensington Police Protection and CSD $ 3,103
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 20 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Contra Costa Pleasant Hill RPD $ 24,447
Contra Costa Town of Danville $ 27,668
Contra Costa Town of Discovery Bay CSD $ 9,489
Contra Costa Town of Moraga $ 10,775
Fresno Calwa PRD $ 1,254
Fresno City of Clovis $ 71,510
Fresno City of Coalinga $ 10,757
Fresno City of Firebaugh $ 5,134
Fresno City of Fowler $ 3,814
Fresno City of Huron $ 4,468
Fresno City of Kerman $ 9,470
Fresno City of Kingsburg $ 7,574
Fresno City of Mendota $ 6,970
Fresno City of Orange Cove $ 6,097
Fresno City of Parlier $ 9,871
Fresno City of Reedley $ 16,129
Fresno City of San Joaquin $ 2,857
Fresno City of Sanger $ 16,559
Fresno City of Selma $ 15,375
Fresno Coalinga-Huron RPD $ 10,247
Fresno Del Rey CSD $ 1,650
Fresno Lanare CSD $ 367
Fresno Malaga County Water District $ 559
Kern Bear Mountain RPD $ 12,016
Kern Bear Valley CSD $ 3,161
Kern Buttonwillow PRD $ 1,280
Kern City of Arvin $ 12,431
Kern City of California City $ 730
Kern City of Delano $ 33,615
Kern City of Maricopa $ 705
Kern City of Ridgecrest $ 17,558
Kern City of Shafter $ 12,765
Kern City of Taft $ 5,763
Kern City of Tehachapi $ 8,354
Kern City of Wasco $ 1,378
Kern McFarland RPD $ 5,776
Kern North of the River RPD $ 85,817
Kern Shafter RPD $ 12,765
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 21 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Kern Stallion Springs CSD $ 2,445
Kern Tehachapi Valley RPD $ 12,224
Kern Wasco RPD $ 15,547
Kern West Side RPD $ 6,571
Los Angeles City of Alhambra $ 52,193
Los Angeles City of Arcadia $ 35,544
Los Angeles City of Artesia $ 10,341
Los Angeles City of Avalon $ 2,322
Los Angeles City of Azusa $ 30,533
Los Angeles City of Baldwin Park $ 46,336
Los Angeles City of Bell $ 21,967
Los Angeles City of Bell Gardens $ 26,126
Los Angeles City of Bellflower $ 47,860
Los Angeles City of Beverly Hills $ 20,957
Los Angeles City of Bradbury $ 703
Los Angeles City of Burbank $ 65,488
Los Angeles City of Calabasas $ 14,792
Los Angeles City of Carson $ 57,209
Los Angeles City of Cerritos $ 26,525
Los Angeles City of Claremont $ 22,275
Los Angeles City of Commerce $ 7,828
Los Angeles City of Compton $ 61,118
Los Angeles City of Covina $ 29,872
Los Angeles City of Cudahy $ 14,728
Los Angeles City of Culver City $ 24,553
Los Angeles City of Diamond Bar $ 35,119
Los Angeles City of Downey $ 68,617
Los Angeles City of Duarte $ 13,357
Los Angeles City of El Monte $ 70,964
Los Angeles City of El Segundo $ 10,135
Los Angeles City of Gardena $ 37,151
Los Angeles City of Glendora $ 31,254
Los Angeles City of Hawaiian Gardens $ 8,841
Los Angeles City of Hawthorne $ 53,804
Los Angeles City of Hermosa Beach $ 11,897
Los Angeles City of Hidden Hills $ 1,100
Los Angeles City of Huntington Park $ 36,274
Los Angeles City of Inglewood $ 68,788
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 22 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of Irwindale $ 894
Los Angeles City of La Cañada Flintridge $ 12,641
Los Angeles City of La Habra Heights $ 3,255
Los Angeles City of La Mirada $ 30,559
Los Angeles City of La Puente $ 24,391
Los Angeles City of La Verne $ 20,292
Los Angeles City of Lakewood $ 48,924
Los Angeles City of Lancaster $ 98,769
Los Angeles City of Lawndale $ 20,435
Los Angeles City of Lomita $ 12,690
Los Angeles City of Lynwood $ 43,604
Los Angeles City of Malibu $ 7,870
Los Angeles City of Manhattan Beach $ 22,003
Los Angeles City of Maywood $ 16,684
Los Angeles City of Monrovia $ 23,706
Los Angeles City of Montebello $ 39,316
Los Angeles City of Monterey Park $ 38,040
Los Angeles City of Norwalk $ 64,785
Los Angeles City of Palmdale $ 96,273
Los Angeles City of Palos Verdes Estates $ 8,278
Los Angeles City of Paramount $ 34,226
Los Angeles City of Pasadena $ 89,423
Los Angeles City of Pico Rivera $ 39,136
Los Angeles City of Pomona $ 94,312
Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes $ 26,012
Los Angeles City of Redondo Beach $ 41,625
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills $ 1,156
Los Angeles City of Rolling Hills Estates $ 5,040
Los Angeles City of Rosemead $ 33,615
Los Angeles City of San Dimas $ 21,439
Los Angeles City of San Fernando $ 14,953
Los Angeles City of San Gabriel $ 25,362
Los Angeles City of San Marino $ 8,145
Los Angeles City of Santa Fe Springs $ 11,001
Los Angeles City of Santa Monica $ 56,483
Los Angeles City of Sierra Madre $ 6,714
Los Angeles City of Signal Hill $ 7,103
Los Angeles City of South El Monte $ 13,385
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 23 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Los Angeles City of South Gate $ 59,977
Los Angeles City of South Pasadena $ 16,040
Los Angeles City of Temple City $ 21,732
Los Angeles City of Torrance $ 90,488
Los Angeles City of Vernon $ 128
Los Angeles City of Walnut $ 18,672
Los Angeles City of West Covina $ 66,157
Los Angeles City of West Hollywood $ 22,406
Los Angeles City of Westlake Village $ 5,120
Los Angeles City of Whittier $ 53,074
Los Angeles City of Agoura Hills $ 12,738
Los Angeles Miraleste RPD $ 593
Los Angeles Westfield Park Rec and Parkway District No. 12 $ 513
Orange City of Aliso Viejo $ 31,751
Orange City of Brea $ 27,874
Orange City of Buena Park $ 50,728
Orange City of Costa Mesa $ 69,568
Orange City of Cypress $ 29,987
Orange City of Dana Point $ 20,824
Orange City of Fountain Valley $ 33,806
Orange City of Fullerton $ 88,141
Orange City of Garden Grove $ 106,870
Orange City of La Habra $ 38,836
Orange City of La Palma $ 9,669
Orange City of Laguna Beach $ 14,276
Orange City of Laguna Hills $ 19,447
Orange City of Laguna Niguel $ 40,795
Orange City of Laguna Woods $ 10,096
Orange City of Lake Forest $ 52,773
Orange City of Los Alamitos $ 6,997
Orange City of Mission Viejo $ 58,939
Orange City of Newport Beach $ 53,284
Orange City of Orange $ 84,734
Orange City of Placentia $ 30,885
Orange City of Rancho Santa Margarita $ 29,826
Orange City of San Clemente $ 39,974
Orange City of San Juan Capistrano $ 22,466
Orange City of Seal Beach $ 14,771
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 24 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Orange City of Stanton $ 24,024
Orange City of Tustin $ 50,327
Orange City of Villa Park $ 3,603
Orange City of Westminster $ 57,742
Orange City of Yorba Linda $ 41,992
Orange Cypress RPD $ 29,987
Orange Rossmoor CSD $ 6,261
Orange Silverado-Modjeska RPD $ 724
Riverside Beaumont-Cherry Valley RPD $ 29,582
Riverside City of Banning $ 18,974
Riverside City of Beaumont $ 14,791
Riverside City of Blythe $ 11,874
Riverside City of Calimesa $ 5,598
Riverside City of Canyon Lake $ 6,859
Riverside City of Cathedral City $ 33,487
Riverside City of Coachella $ 28,329
Riverside City of Corona $ 103,029
Riverside City of Desert Hot Springs $ 17,654
Riverside City of Hemet $ 51,800
Riverside City of Indian Wells $ 3,328
Riverside City of Indio $ 19,297
Riverside City of La Quinta $ 25,730
Riverside City of Lake Elsinore $ 38,473
Riverside City of Menifee $ 57,123
Riverside City of Murrieta $ 69,675
Riverside City of Norco $ 16,356
Riverside City of Palm Desert $ 32,775
Riverside City of Palm Springs $ 29,785
Riverside City of Perris $ 47,672
Riverside City of Rancho Mirage $ 11,452
Riverside City of San Jacinto $ 19,032
Riverside City of Temecula $ 69,174
Riverside City of Wildomar $ 22,043
Riverside Jurupa Area RPD $ 76,398
Riverside Jurupa CSD $ 36,092
Riverside Lake Hemet Municipal Water District $ 32,339
Sacramento Arcade Creek RPD $ 14,487
Sacramento Arden Manor RPD $ 4,860
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 25 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Sacramento Arden Park RPD $ 2,567
Sacramento Carmichael RPD $ 26,596
Sacramento City of Citrus Heights $ 52,939
Sacramento City of Folsom $ 47,964
Sacramento City of Galt $ 16,196
Sacramento City of Isleton $ 491
Sacramento City of Rancho Cordova $ 45,515
Sacramento Cordova RPD $ 72,861
Sacramento Cosumnes CSD $ 105,194
Sacramento Fair Oaks RPD $ 21,490
Sacramento Fulton-El Camino RPD $ 19,080
Sacramento Mission Oaks RPD $ 37,361
Sacramento North Highlands RPD $ 27,006
Sacramento Orangevale RPD $ 20,756
Sacramento Rio Linda/Elverta RPD $ 15,891
Sacramento Southgate RPD $ 76,590
Sacramento Sunrise RPD $ 99,920
San Bernardino Baker CSD $ 428
San Bernardino Barstow Heights CSD $ 1,083
San Bernardino Big River CSD $ 1,100
San Bernardino City of Adelanto $ 20,878
San Bernardino City of Barstow $ 14,617
San Bernardino City of Big Bear Lake $ 3,338
San Bernardino City of Chino $ 54,902
San Bernardino City of Chino Hills $ 51,562
San Bernardino City of Colton $ 32,835
San Bernardino City of Grand Terrace $ 7,654
San Bernardino City of Hesperia $ 14,723
San Bernardino City of Highland $ 34,091
San Bernardino City of Loma Linda $ 14,668
San Bernardino City of Montclair $ 23,600
San Bernardino City of Needles $ 3,164
San Bernardino City of Ontario $ 108,954
San Bernardino City of Rancho Cucamonga $ 108,790
San Bernardino City of Redlands $ 43,733
San Bernardino City of Rialto $ 65,422
San Bernardino City of Twentynine Palms $ 16,502
San Bernardino City of Upland $ 47,118
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 26 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Bernardino City of Victorville $ 77,341
San Bernardino City of Yucaipa $ 32,809
San Bernardino Daggett CSD $ 306
San Bernardino Helendale CSD $ 4,337
San Bernardino Hesperia RPD $ 44,171
San Bernardino Morongo Valley CSD $ 2,171
San Bernardino Newberry CSD $ 1,689
San Bernardino Phelan Piñon Hill CSD $ 1,345
San Bernardino Rim of the World RPD $ 17,666
San Bernardino Town of Apple Valley $ 45,839
San Bernardino Town of Yucca Valley $ 13,345
San Bernardino Wrightwood CSD $ 3,522
San Bernardino Yermo CSD $ 1,258
San Diego City of Coronado $ 14,981
San Diego City of Del Mar $ 2,720
San Diego City of El Cajon, Recreation Dept $ 64,384
San Diego City of Encinitas $ 38,743
San Diego City of Escondido $ 93,351
San Diego City of Imperial Beach $ 16,502
San Diego City of La Mesa, Community Services $ 37,442
San Diego City of Lemon Grove $ 16,264
San Diego City of National City $ 38,081
San Diego City of Oceanside $ 107,568
San Diego City of Poway $ 30,755
San Diego City of San Marcos $ 58,532
San Diego City of Santee $ 35,698
San Diego City of Solana Beach $ 8,519
San Diego City of Vista $ 62,333
San Diego Jacumba CSD $ 367
San Diego Lake Cuyamaca RPD $ 367
San Diego Ramona MWD $ 21,775
San Diego Valley Center Parks & Recreation $ 11,773
San Joaquin City of Escalon $ 4,619
San Joaquin City of Lathrop $ 14,668
San Joaquin City of Lodi $ 41,727
San Joaquin City of Manteca $ 51,205
San Joaquin City of Ripon $ 10,154
San Joaquin City of Tracy $ 56,114
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 27 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
San Joaquin Mountain House CSD $ 12,574
San Mateo City of Belmont $ 16,808
San Mateo City of Brisbane $ 2,885
San Mateo City of Burlingame $ 18,581
San Mateo City of Daly City $ 66,693
San Mateo City of East Palo Alto $ 18,641
San Mateo City of Foster City $ 20,593
San Mateo City of Half Moon Bay $ 7,720
San Mateo City of Menlo Park $ 20,998
San Mateo City of Millbrae $ 14,151
San Mateo City of Pacifica $ 23,480
San Mateo City of Redwood City $ 52,980
San Mateo City of San Bruno $ 27,683
San Mateo City of San Carlos $ 18,335
San Mateo City of San Mateo $ 63,869
San Mateo City of South San Francisco $ 40,997
San Mateo Highlands RD $ 1,340
San Mateo Ladera RD $ 795
San Mateo Town of Atherton $ 4,424
San Mateo Town of Colma $ 922
San Mateo Town of Hillsborough $ 6,678
San Mateo Town of Portola Valley $ 2,811
San Mateo Town of Woodside $ 3,401
Santa Clara City of Campbell $ 25,670
Santa Clara City of Cupertino $ 36,597
Santa Clara City of Gilroy $ 34,182
Santa Clara City of Los Altos $ 18,790
Santa Clara City of Milpitas $ 46,591
Santa Clara City of Monte Sereno $ 2,219
Santa Clara City of Morgan Hill $ 27,957
Santa Clara City of Mountain View $ 50,959
Santa Clara City of Palo Alto $ 41,027
Santa Clara City of Santa Clara $ 78,670
Santa Clara City of Saratoga $ 18,889
Santa Clara City of Sunnyvale $ 94,835
Santa Clara Rancho Rinconada RPD $ 2,689
Santa Clara Town of Los Altos Hills $ 5,331
Santa Clara Town of Los Gatos $ 18,778
ATTACHMENT 2
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor
Access for All Act of 2018 - Per Capita Grant Program
Page 28 of 28 July 1, 2020
County Jurisdiction Allocation
Sonoma Camp Meeker PRD $ 446
Sonoma Cazadero CSD $ 733
Sonoma City of Cloverdale $ 5,658
Sonoma City of Cotati $ 4,840
Sonoma City of Healdsburg $ 7,398
Sonoma City of Petaluma $ 38,044
Sonoma City of Rohnert Park $ 26,646
Sonoma City of Santa Rosa $ 107,339
Sonoma City of Sebastopol $ 4,819
Sonoma City of Sonoma $ 7,063
Sonoma Monte Rio RPD $ 704
Sonoma Russian River RPD $ 3,673
Sonoma Town of Windsor $ 17,458
Stanislaus City of Ceres $ 30,260
Stanislaus City of Hughson $ 4,584
Stanislaus City of Newman $ 7,174
Stanislaus City of Oakdale $ 14,255
Stanislaus City of Patterson $ 13,522
Stanislaus City of Riverbank $ 15,614
Stanislaus City of Turlock $ 46,790
Stanislaus City of Waterford $ 5,562
Ventura City of Camarillo $ 1,650
Ventura City of Fillmore $ 42,709
Ventura City of Moorpark $ 9,687
Ventura City of Ojai, Recreation Dept $ 22,626
Ventura City of Port Hueneme $ 4,889
Ventura City of Santa Paula $ 14,057
Ventura City of Ventura, Parks, Rec & Community
Partnership $ 18,546
Ventura Bell Canyon CSD $ 6,887
Ventura Conejo RPD $ 85,566
Ventura Pleasant Valley RPD $ 44,926
Ventura Rancho Simi RPD $ 86,177
ATTACHMENT 2
1
2018-2019 California State Budget, Chapter 29
Budget Item 3790-101-6088 (b) - $185,000,000 shall be available for the Local
Park Rehabilitation, Creation in Urban Areas Program, consistent with subdivision
(a) of Section 80061 of the Public Resources Code.
Procedural Guide
for the
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal
Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018
PER CAPITA PROGRAM
June 2020
State of California
The Natural Resources Agency
Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)
“Creating Community through People, Parks, and Programs”
Send correspondence to:
Street Address for Overnight Mail: Mailing Address:
Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Office of Grants and Local Services
1416 Ninth Street, Room 918
Sacramento, CA 95814
Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Office of Grants and Local Services
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Phone: (916) 653-7423
Website: http://www.parks.ca.gov/grants
ATTACHMENT 3
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Department Mission
The mission of the California Department of Parks and Recreation is to provide for the
health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the
state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural
resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.
Community Engagement Division Mission
The mission of the Community Engagement Division is to encourage healthy
communities by connecting people to parks, supporting innovative recreational
opportunities, embracing diversity, fostering inclusivity, and delivering superior customer
service, with integrity for the enrichment of all.
The Office of Grants and Local Services Mission
The mission of the Office of Grants and Local Services is to address California’s diverse
recreational, cultural and historical resource needs by developing grant programs,
administering funds, offering technical assistance, building partnerships and providing
leadership through quality customer service.
OGALS VISION GOALS
To Be:
•A leader among park and recreation professionals.
•Proactive in anticipating public park and recreation needs and how new
legislation and grant programs could best meet these needs.
•Honest, knowledgeable and experienced grant administration facilitators.
•Sensitive to local concerns while mindful of prevailing laws, rules and regulations.
•Perceptive to opportunities for partnerships, growth and renewal where few
existed before.
•Committed to providing quality customer service in every interaction and
transaction.
•Responsive to the needs of applicants, grantees, nonprofit organizations, local
governments, legislative members, and department employees.
ATTACHMENT 3
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PER CAPITA PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 4
Eligible Recipients (PRC §80062) ...................................................................................... 4
Eligible Projects.................................................................................................................. 5
GRANT PROCESS OVERVIEW........................................................................................ 6
Authorizing Resolution ....................................................................................................... 7
APPLICATION PACKET ................................................................................................. 10
Application Packet Checklist ............................................................................................ 11
Per Capita Project Application Form ................................................................................ 12
Per Capita Match ............................................................................................................. 13
Acquisition Projects .......................................................................................................... 14
Development Projects ...................................................................................................... 16
Development Project Scope/Cost Estimate Form ............................................................ 19
Funding Sources Form ..................................................................................................... 20
CEQA Compliance Certification ......................................... ............................................. 21
Land Tenure ..................................................................................................................... 22
Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 24
Sub-leases or Agreements ............................................................................................... 24
Photos .............................................................................................................................. 24
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction and Carbon Sequestration ................................. 24
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 26
Status Report ................................................................................................................... 26
Bond Act Sign .................................................................... ............................................. 28
Deed Restriction............................................................................................................... 29
GRANT PAYMENTS ....................................................................................................... 33
Payment Request Form ................................................................................................... 35
Grant Expenditure Form ................................................................................................... 35
Project Completion Packet ............................................................................................... 37
PER CAPITA CONTRACT .............................................................................................. 42
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITS .......................................................................................... 48
Accounting Requirements ................................................................................................ 49
Audit Checklist ................................................................................................................. 50
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 50
Public Resources Code relating to the Proposition 68 Per Capita program ..................... 51
Allocation Tables .............................................................................................................. 54
ALLOCATION TRANSFER ............................................................................................. 54
DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 55
Words and terms shown in SMALL CAPS are in the definitions section.
ATTACHMENT 3
4
Per Capita Program Summary
Background
This program originates from Proposition 68, placed on the ballot via Senate Bill 5
(DeLeon, Chapter 852, statutes of 2017), and approved by voters on June 5, 2018.
Funds for the program were appropriated via State Budget item 3790-101-6088(b).
Legislative program information is found in the Public Resources Code (PRC) beginning
at §80000 (see page 51). OGALS retains the right to waive requirements not mandated
by statute. Funds are provided for two programs, as described below:
General Per Capita Program: $185,000,000
Funds are available for local park rehabilitation, creation, and improvement grants to
local governments on a per capita basis. Grant recipients are encouraged to utilize
awards to rehabilitate existing infrastructure and to address deficiencies in
neighborhoods lacking access to the outdoors (PRC §80061(a)).
Urban County Per Capita: $13,875,000
Additional funds are available for Per Capita grants to cities and districts in urbanized
counties (a county with a population of 500,000 or more) providing park and recreation
services within jurisdictions of 200,000 or less in population. An entity eligible to receive
funds under this subdivision shall also be eligible to receive funds available under the
General Per Capita Program (PRC §80061(b)).
Eligible Recipients (PRC §80062)
Sixty percent (60%) of the General Per Capita funds are allocated to the following
entities based on population. The minimum allocation is $200,000.
• Cities
• Eligible Districts, other than a regional park district, regional park and open-space
districts, and regional open-space districts1
Forty percent (40%) of the General Per Capita funds are allocated to the following
entities based on population. The minimum allocation is $400,000.
• Counties
• Regional park districts, regional park and open space districts, and regional open
space districts
Allocations
Visit OGALS’ Per Capita webpage at www.parks.ca.gov/percapita for allocations.
1 For purposes of this chapter, “district” means any regional park district, regional park
and open-space district, or regional open-space district formed pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with §5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5, any recreation and park district
formed pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with §5780) of Division 5, or any authority
formed pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with §35100). With respect to any
community or unincorporated region that is not included within a district, and in which no
city or county provides parks or recreational areas or facilities, “district” also means any
other entity, including, but not limited to, a district operating multiple-use parklands
pursuant to Division 20 (commencing with §71000) of the Water Code.
ATTACHMENT 3
5
Eligible Projects
•PROJECTS must be capital outlay for recreational purposes, either acquisition or
DEVELOPMENT. Do not submit combined acquisition and DEVELOPMENT projects, rather
submit separate APPLICATION PACKETS for each PROJECT type.
•Multiple PROJECTS may be completed under one contract; each PROJECT requires a
separate APPLICATION PACKET.
•A PROJECT can only have one location. One PROJECT serving several parks is not
permitted.
•GRANTEES are encouraged to partner with other GRANTEES on PROJECTS
(PRC §80063(b)). See page 54 for information on allocation transfers.
Match
PROJECTS not serving a “severely disadvantaged community” (median household income
less than 60% of the statewide average) require a 20% match (see page 13) (PRC
§80061(c)).
No Supplanting
GRANTEES must use Per Capita grant funds to supplement existing expenditures, rather
than replace them (PRC §80062(d)). For example, a GRANTEE has a budget for
recreational capital expenditures of $500,000 per year, and is receiving a $200,000
allocation under the Per Capita program. The budget cannot be reduced to $300,000,
with the Per Capita funds making up the difference.
Similarly, if a PROJECT has been approved by the governing body, and a funding source
has been identified, Per Capita funds cannot be swapped in as a new funding source
unless the prior funding source is applied to other identified recreational capital projects.
GRANTEES should keep all documents indicating intent to use Per Capita grant funds for
PROJECTS.
ATTACHMENT 3
6
Grant Process Overview
The GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is shown on the contract. Visit OGALS’ Per Capita
webpage at www.parks.ca.gov/percapita for deadlines and current information on each
step in the process listed below.
1.OGALS Mandatory Grant Administration Workshops will be held statewide. All
recipients are required to attend.
2.Resolution: GRANTEE passes one resolution approving the filing of all applications
associated with the contract, and provides a copy to OGALS.
3.APPLICATION PACKET(s): The GRANTEE defines the PROJECT SCOPE(s) and amount of
GRANT funds needed for each PROJECT. As PROJECTS are identified, the GRANTEE
submits individual APPLICATION PACKET(s) to OGALS. OGALS reviews each APPLICATION
PACKET and sends a letter of approval to the GRANTEE or requests additional
information.
4.Contract: OGALS sends a contract to the GRANTEE once the OGALS has received and
approved APPLICATION PACKET(S) equaling the total contract amount.
a.The contract section, beginning on page 42, includes a sample contract.
b. The GRANTEE must return the contract signed by the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
to OGALS.
c.OGALS returns a copy of the fully executed contract to the GRANTEE.
5.Payments and end of GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD: GRANTEE requests payments for
eligible costs. The grant payments section, beginning on page 33, provides payment
request instructions and forms.
a. The GRANTEE may request payments after each PROJECT is approved by OGALS.
b. The GRANTEE completes PROJECT SCOPE(s).
c.The GR ANTEE sends PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET(s) to OGALS.
d.OGALS processes the final payment request after each PROJECT is complete as
documented by the GRANTEE in the PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET, and as verified
by OGALS by conducting a site inspection.
6.Accounting and Audit: DPR’s Audits Office may conduct an audit. The GRANTEE is
required to retain all PROJECT records, including source documentation with original
signatures, for five years following issuance of the final GRANT payment or PROJECT
termination, whichever is later. The Accounting and Audit Section, beginning on
page 48, provides directions and an Audit Checklist for DPR audit and accounting
requirements.
ATTACHMENT 3
7
Authorizing Resolution
GRANTEE passes one resolution approving the filing of all APPLICATION PACKETS
associated with the contract, and forwards a copy to OGALS.
The Authorizing Resolution on the following page may be reformatted; however, the
language provided in the resolution must remain unchanged.
The Authorizing Resolution serves two purposes:
1. It is the means by which the GRANTEE ’S Governing Body agrees to the terms of the
contract; it provides confirmation that the GRANTEE has the funding to complete,
operate and maintain PROJECTS associated with the contract.
2. Designates a position title to represent the Governing Body on all matters regarding
PROJECTS associated with the contract. The incumbent in this position is referred to
as the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
Resolution items 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are required by Proposition 68.
Complete the highlighted areas of the Authorizing Resolution (beginning on following
page). The AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE can delegate signatory authority to other
individuals (by position title) either in entirety or for particular documents. This may be
included in item 11 of the resolution, or the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE may submit a
letter (on letterhead) or email to OGALS delegating authority.
ATTACHMENT 3
8
Resolution Form
Resolution Number: (insert number here)
RESOLUTION OF THE (Title of Governing Body/City Council, Board of Supervisors)
OF (City, County, or District) APPROVING APPLICATION(S) FOR PER CAPITA
GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the
responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of the
Per Capita Grant Program, setting up necessary procedures governing application(s);
and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the grantee’s Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of
project application(s) before submission of said applications to the State; and
WHEREAS, the grantee will enter into a contract(s) with the State of California to
complete project(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the (grantee’s governing body) hereby:
1.Approves the filing of project application(s) for Per Capita program grant
project(s); and
2.Certifies that said grantee has or will have available, prior to commencement of
project work utilizing Per Capita funding, sufficient funds to complete the
project(s); and
3.Certifies that the grantee has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain
the project(s), and
4.Certifies that all projects proposed will be consistent with the park and recreation
element of the [city/county/district’s] general or recreation plan (PRC §80063(a)),
and
5.Certifies that these funds will be used to supplement, not supplant, local
revenues in existence as of June 5, 2018 (PRC §80062(d)), and
6.Certifies that it will comply with the provisions of §1771.5 of the State Labor
Code, and
7.(PRC §80001(b)(8)(A-G)) To the extent practicable, as identified in the
“Presidential Memorandum--Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National
Parks, National Forests, and Other Public Lands and Waters,” dated January 12,
2017, the [city/county/district] will consider a range of actions that include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(A)Conducting active outreach to diverse populations, particularly minority, low-
income, and disabled populations and tribal communities, to increase awareness
within those communities and the public generally about specific programs and
opportunities.
(B)Mentoring new environmental, outdoor recreation, and conservation leaders
to increase diverse representation across these areas.
(C)Creating new partnerships with state, local, tribal, private, and nonprofit
organizations to expand access for diverse populations.
ATTACHMENT 3
9
(D)Identifying and implementing improvements to existing programs to increase
visitation and access by diverse populations, particularly minority, low-income,
and disabled populations and tribal communities.
(E)Expanding the use of multilingual and culturally appropriate materials in
public communications and educational strategies, including through social
media strategies, as appropriate, that target diverse populations.
(F)Developing or expanding coordinated efforts to promote youth engagement
and empowerment, including fostering new partnerships with diversity-serving
and youth-serving organizations, urban areas, and programs.
(G)Identifying possible staff liaisons to diverse populations.
8.Agrees that to the extent practicable, the project(s) will provide workforce
education and training, contractor and job opportunities for disadvantaged
communities (PRC §80001(b)(5)).
9.Certifies that the grantee shall not reduce the amount of funding otherwise
available to be spent on parks or other projects eligible for funds under this
division in its jurisdiction. A one-time allocation of other funding that has been
expended for parks or other projects, but which is not available on an ongoing
basis, shall not be considered when calculating a recipient’s annual
expenditures. (PRC §80062(d)).
10.Certifies that the grantee has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General
Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and
11.Delegates the authority to the (designated position, not name of person
occupying position), or designee to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all
documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments,
and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the grant
scope(s); and
12.Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances,
rules, regulations and guidelines.
Approved and adopted the day of , 20 .
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution Number was duly
adopted by the (grantee’s governing body) following a roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
(Clerk)
ATTACHMENT 3
10
Application Packet
•GRANTEE may submit multiple APPLICATION PACKETS.
•Separate APPLICATION PACKETS are required for each PROJECT site and/or PROJECT
type.
•Provide all APPLICATION PACKET items in the order shown in the following checklist.
•Submitted documents need not contain original signatures; but the GRANTEE must
keep all original signed documents.
•GRANTEES are encouraged to submit documents digitally, as .pdf files. Do not send
the APPLICATION PACKET as one file. E-mail each checklist item to the PROJECT
OFFICER as a separate digital file, labeled using the digital file names indicated on
the application checklist.
•If submitting hard copies, number all pages of the APPLICATION PACKET.
Any costs incurred prior to finalizing the contract are at the GRANTEE’S own risk.
ATTACHMENT 3
11
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Application Packet Checklist
GRANTEES must complete the checklist below and submit it with the APPLICATION PACKET.
An APPLICATION PACKET is not complete unless all items on the checklist are submitted.
Each PROJECT requires its own APPLICATION PACKET.
Ch
e
c
k
i
f
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
Ch
e
c
k
i
f
n
o
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Application Item Procedural
Guide
Page #
Check when
signed by
AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE
Application
Packet
Page #
Application Packet Checklist
Digital file name: checklist.pdf Pg. 11 Pg.
Application
Digital file name: application.pdf Pg. 12 Pg.
Development Project Scope/Cost
Estimate, or
Digital file name: devscope.pdf
Pg. 19 Pg.
Acquisition Requirements
Digital file names: acqscope.pdf & acqdocs.pdf Pg. 14 Pg.
Funding Sources Form
Digital file name: fundingsources.pdf Pg. 20 Pg.
Per Capita Match Calculator
Digital file name: match.pdf Pg. 13 Pg.
CEQA Compliance Certification
Digital file name: ceqa.pdf Pg. 21 Pg.
Land Tenure documentation
Digital file names: ownership.pdf or
nonownership.pdf
Pg. 21 Pg.
Sub-Leases or Agreements
Digital file name: otheragreements.pdf Pg. 24 Pg.
Site Plan
Digital file name: siteplan.pdf Pg. 24 Pg.
GHG Emissions Reduction
Worksheet (at completion)
Digital file name: emissions.pdf
Pg. 24 Pg.
Photos
Digital file name: photos.pdf Pg. 24 Pg.
ATTACHMENT 3
12
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Per Capita Project Application Form
PROJECT NAME REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT
$
PROJECT SITE NAME and PHYSICAL ADDRESS
where PROJECT is located including zip code
(substitute latitude and longitude where no street
address is available)
MATCH AMOUNT (if project is not serving
a severely disadvantaged community)
$
LAND TENURE ( all that apply)
Owned in fee simple by GRANTEE
Available (or will be available) under
a ( ) year lease or easement
NEAREST CROSS STREET
Project Type (Check one) Acquisition☐Development☐
COUNTY OF PROJECT LOCATION
GRANTEE NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS SHOWN IN RESOLUTION
Name (typed or printed) and Title Email address Phone
GRANT CONTACT-For administration of grant (if different from AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)
Name (typed or printed) and Title Email address Phone
GRANT SCOPE: I represent and warrant that this APPLICATION PACKET describes the intended
use of the requested GRANT to complete the items listed in the attached Development
PROJECT Scope/Cost Estimate Form or acquisition documentation. I declare under penalty of
perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the information contained in this
APPLICATION PACKET, including required attachments, is accurate.
Signature of AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE as shown in Resolution Date
Print Name:
Title:
ATTACHMENT 3
13
Per Capita Match
PROJECTS that do not serve severely disadvantaged communities (median household
income less than 60% of the statewide average) must include 20% match from the
GRANTEE (PRC §80061(c)).
Costs incurred to provide match must be eligible costs. Calculate match using the Per
Capita match calculator at https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/percapita; submit the
report with the APPLICATION PACKET.
Costs incurred to provide match must be eligible costs. State funds are not allowed for
match. Eligible match sources are:
•Federal funds
•Local funds
•Private funds
•IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES
•Volunteer labor – must maintain time and attendance records showing actual
hours worked (see https://independentsector.org for volunteer hourly wage
value)
Match and Eligible Costs
The match is 20% but grantee must show 25% in additional costs if match is required.
For example:
Determining the match amount:
PROJECT amount: $125,000
20% match: ($25,000)
GRANT amount: $100,000
Submitting costs for reimbursement
GRANT amount: $100,000
25% in additional costs: $25,000
PROJECT amount: $125,000
In summary, the 20% match calculation is based on the PROJECT amount, not on the
GRANT amount.
ATTACHMENT 3
14
Acquisition Rules
Acquisition Projects
1.Purchase price cannot exceed the appraised value, even if the GRANTEE is willing to
pay the difference.
2.Land cannot be acquired through eminent domain.
3.Associated acquisition costs, such as appraisals, escrow fees, title insurance, etc.,
combined must be less than 25% of the PROJECT costs.
4.A deed restriction must be recorded on the property after the acquisition is complete
(see page 29).
5.Land must be open to the public for recreational purposes within three years from
the date the final payment is issued by the State Controller’s Office (SCO).2
6.GRANTEE must provide Title Insurance.
7.PROJECTS must be consistent with the park and recreation element of the
[city/county/district’s] general or recreation plan (PRC §80063(b)).
8.Per Capita funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, local revenues in
existence as of June 5, 2018 (PRC §80062(d)).
Acquisition Grant Scope/Cost Estimate
Provide the following information on a document signed by the AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE:
•A brief description, for example, “Acquisition of approximately (enter total acreage
to be acquired) for the development of park by (enter date no later than three
years from the date final payment is issued by the SCO).”
•Estimated total costs for land and relocation
•Estimated total costs other than the purchase price and relocation costs, such as
appraisals, escrow fees, title insurance fees, deed restriction recordation costs
Acquisition Documentation
For each parcel to be acquired, submit these documents:
1.An appraisal conducted within the last twelve months
2.A separate letter from an independent third party, AG rated appraiser certified by
the California Office of Real Estate Appraisers stating the appraisal was reviewed,
and was completed using acceptable methods
3.County Assessor’s parcel map, showing parcel number and parcel to be acquired
4.Estimated value of each parcel to be acquired with a description of how that value
was determined (such as the listed price on MLS, in-house estimation, website
evaluation, assessed value)
5.Acreage of each parcel to be acquired
6.A description of any encumbrances that will remain on the property, such as
grazing, timber, mineral rights or easements
2 Grantees will see this date on their project complete letter – “A final payment was
issued by the SCO on xx/xx/20xx”
ATTACHMENT 3
15
7.A brief description of the intended recreational use of the land with the estimated
date by which the site will be open to the public for recreational purposes
For easement acquisitions, in addition to the requirements above, provide:
8.A copy of the proposed easement guaranteeing the authority to use the property for
the purposes specified in the application.
For relocation costs, in addition to the requirements above, provide:
9.A letter signed by the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, listing the relocation costs for
each displaced tenant, certifying that the relocation amount does not exceed the
maximum allowed pursuant to Government Code §7260-7277.
Eligible Acquisition Costs
•IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES – see accounting rules (page 48)
•GRANT/PROJECT administration and accounting
•Public meetings/focus groups/design workshop
•Appraisals, escrow fees, surveying, other costs associated with acquisition
•Cost of land
Ineligible Acquisition Costs – Cannot be charged to the grant
•Costs to fulfill any mitigation requirements imposed by law (PRC §80020)
•Acquisitions where purchase price is greater than appraised value
•Costs for land acquired through eminent domain or condemnation
•Costs incurred outside the GRANT performance period
•Development costs
ATTACHMENT 3
16
Development Project Rules
Development Projects
1.PROJECTS must be consistent with the park and recreation element of the GRANTEE’S
general or recreation plan (PRC §80063(b)).
2.Per Capita funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, local revenues in
existence as of June 5, 2018 (PRC §80062(d)).
3.Contracted work must comply with the provisions of §1771.5 of the State Labor Code.
4.GRANTEE must have adequate liability insurance, performance bond, or other security
necessary to protect the State and GRANTEE’S interest against poor workmanship,
fraud, or other potential loss associated with the completion of the PROJECT.
5.PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS may not exceed 25% of the PROJECT amount.
6.The primary purpose of any building constructed or improved must be public
recreation. For example, renovating a gymnasium that includes office space for staff
is eligible; renovating GRANTEE’S office building is not.
7.PROJECTS must be accessible, including an accessible path of travel to the PROJECT.
Eligible Development Costs
All costs must be incurred within the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD. Costs listed below are
examples of eligible costs, and not inclusive. Contact OGALS if you have any questions
regarding a PROJECT cost.
Eligible Pre-construction Costs – up to 25% of PROJECT costs; incurred prior to
groundbreaking as determined by the GRANTEE
•Public meetings, focus groups, design workshops
•Plans, specifications, construction documents, and cost estimates
•Permits
•CEQA
•Bid preparation and packages
•IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES prior to groundbreaking
•GRANT/PROJECT administration and accounting prior to groundbreaking
Eligible Construction Costs – up to 100% of the PROJECT costs; incurred after
groundbreaking.
•Construction – necessary labor and construction activities to complete the PROJECT,
including site preparation (demolition, clearing and grubbing, excavation, grading),
onsite implementation and construction supervision
•Equipment – Equipment use charges (rental and in-house) must be made in
accordance with GRANTEE’S normal accounting practices.
•Bond and other signs
•Premiums on hazard and liability insurance to cover personnel or property
•Site preparation
•Purchase and installation of equipment: security cameras, lighting, signs, display
boards, sound systems, video equipment, etc.
•Construction management: including site inspections and PROJECT administration
ATTACHMENT 3
17
Distinguishing capital outlay (eligible) from maintenance and repair (not
eligible):
•Capital outlay – building something new, or for existing structures, activities
intended to boost the condition beyond its original or current state.
•Repairs – activities performed to a section of a structure that are intended to
allow the continued use.
•Maintenance – activities intended to be performed on a regular basis to maintain
the expected useful life of a structure.
Examples:
Roof – replacing broken shingles is maintenance; fixing a hole is repair; replacing
the roof is capital outlay.
Playground – adding additional fall material is maintenance; fixing the chains on a
swing set is repair; replacing the play structures is capital outlay.
Windows – repairing the glazing is maintenance; replacing broken panes is repair;
replacing the windows is capital outlay.
•Miscellaneous: other costs incurred during the construction phase, such as
transporting materials, equipment, or personnel, and communications
•IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES after groundbreaking
•GRANT/PROJECT administration and accounting after groundbreaking
Ineligible Development Costs – Cannot be charged to the grant
•PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS that exceed 25% of the PROJECT costs
•Development to fulfill any mitigation requirements imposed by law (PRC §80020)
•All non-capital costs, including interpretive and recreational programming, software
and software development
•Construction or improvements to facilities that are not primarily designated for
recreational purposes, such as park district offices
•Construction outside the boundaries of the recreation facility
•Furniture or equipment not site specific and not necessary for the core function of a
new facility (non-capital outlay)
•Costs incurred before or after the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD
•Indirect costs – overhead business expenses of the GRANTEE’S fixed or ordinary
operating costs (rent, mortgage payments, property taxes, utilities, etc.)
•Food and beverages
•Out-of-state travel
•Fundraising and grant writing
•Repairs – activities performed to a section of a structure that are intended to allow
the continued use.
•Maintenance – activities intended to be performed on a regular basis to maintain the
expected useful life of a structure.
ATTACHMENT 3
18
Accounting Rules for In-House Employee Services
GRANTEES must follow these accounting practices for services performed by its
employees to be eligible for reimbursement:
•Maintain time and attendance records as charges are incurred, identifying the
employee through a name or other tracking system, and that employee’s actual
time spent on the PROJECT.
•Time estimates, including percentages, for work performed on the PROJECT are
not acceptable.
•Time sheets that do not identify the specific employee’s time spent on the
PROJECT are not acceptable.
•Costs of the salaries and wages must be calculated according to the GRANTEE’S
wage and salary scales, and may include benefit costs such as vacation, health
insurance, pension contributions and workers’ compensation.
•Overtime costs may be allowed under the GRANTEE’S established policy,
provided that the regular work time was devoted to the same PROJECT.
•May not include overhead or cost allocation. These are the costs generally
associated with supporting an employee, such as rent, personnel support, IT,
utilities, etc.
•If planning to claim IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES costs, provide a sample
timesheet for OGALS review to confirm these accounting practices are being
followed.
ATTACHMENT 3
19
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Development Project Scope/Cost Estimate Form
GRANTEE: PROJECT Name
Install
new
Renovate
existing
Replace
existing Recreation Element
Pool, aquatic center, splash pad
Trails or walking paths
Landscaping or irrigation
Group picnic, outdoor classrooms, other gathering spaces
Play equipment, outdoor fitness equipment
Sports fields, sports courts, court lighting
Community center, gym, other indoor facilities
Restroom, concession stand
Other:
Other:
Minor elements which support one or more of the recreation
elements checked above: benches, lighting, parking, signage, etc.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION (costs incurred prior to ground-breaking, such as design,
permits, bid packages, CEQA); up to 25% of total PROJECT cost. $
Construction $
Total PROJECT cost $
Subtract GRANTEE match if not in severely disadvantaged community
(20% of total PROJECT cost, see page 13)
Less match
-$
Total GRANT amount requested $
The GRANTEE understands that all elements listed on this form must be complete and
open to the public before the final grant payment will be made.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
Development project scope (Describe the project in 30 words or less):
Project Scope Items - all that apply:
ATTACHMENT 3
20
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Funding Sources Form
GRANTEE: PROJECT Name
PROJECTS funded by the program are not complete until the PROJECT SCOPE is complete,
and the PROJECT is open to the public. PROJECTS will:
•Be entirely funded by the GRANT, or
•Require funds in excess of the GRANT.
If the PROJECT requires funds in excess of the GRANT, the SCOPE of the PROJECT may be
either the SCOPE of the larger project, or a subset of the larger project.
For example, if the PROJECT is $100,000 towards construction of a $500,000 park, the
SCOPE can be the $500,000 park, or a $100,000 element of the park, such as a
playground, that can be complete and open to the public.
☐The PROJECT will be entirely funded by the GRANT, or
☐The PROJECT requires funds in excess of the GRANT:
☐The SCOPE is the same as the scope of the larger project, or
☐The SCOPE is a subset of a larger project, the scope of that larger project is:
Larger project cost: $ Anticipated completion date:
List all funds that will be used. Submit revised Funding Sources form should funding
sources be added or modified.
Funding Source Date Committed Amount
Per Capita/State of California July 1, 2018 $
$
$
I represent and warrant that I have full authority to execute this Funding Sources Form
on behalf of the GRANTEE. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State
of California, that this status report, and any accompanying documents, for the above-
mentioned GRANT is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
ATTACHMENT 3
21
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CEQA Compliance Certification
GRANTEE:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Is CEQA complete? Yes No Is completing CEQA a PROJECT SCOPE item? Yes No
What document was filed, or is expected to be filed for this project’s CEQA analysis:
Date complete/expected to be completed
Notice of Exemption (attach recorded copy if filed)
Notice of Determination (attach recorded copy if filed)
Other:
If CEQA is complete, and a Notice of Exemption or Notice of Determination was not filed, attach
a letter from the Lead Agency explaining why, certifying the project has complied with CEQA
and noting the date that the project was approved by the Lead Agency.
Lead Agency Contact Information
Agency Name:
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Phone: ( ) Email:
Certification:
I hereby certify that the above referenced Lead Agency has complied or will comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the project is described in
adequate and sufficient detail to allow the project’s construction or acquisition.
I further certify that the CEQA analysis for this project encompasses all aspects of the
work to be completed with grant funds.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
FOR OGALS USE ONLY CEQA Document Date Received PO Initials
NOE NOD
ATTACHMENT 3
22
Land Tenure
The purpose of the land tenure requirement is to verify that the GRANTEE has sufficient
legal rights to the property to fulfill the terms of the contract.
•PROJECT amounts up to $100,000 require at least 20 years of land tenure at the
site to be acquired or developed.
•PROJECT amounts greater than $100,000 require at least 30 years of land tenure
at the site to be acquired or developed.
•The 20- or 30-year land tenure requirement begins on July 1, 2018.
•The GRANTEE remains responsible for fulfillment of the terms of the contract, even
if the GRANTEE’S land tenure agreement changes within the contract
PERFORMANCE PERIOD.
Land Tenure Ownership Documentation
If the GRANTEE owns the PROJECT site in fee simple, provide one of the following:
•Deed or deed recordation number, or
•Title report, or
•Tract map or assessor’s map with owner’s name
Land Tenure Non-Ownership Documentation
If the GRANTEE does not own the PROJECT site in fee simple, provide:
•Land Tenure Agreement Checklist (page 22)
•Signed land tenure agreement
If the grantee does not own the project site in fee simple, and the existing land tenure
agreement does not meet the requirements in the Land Tenure Checklist, provide
•Land Tenure Agreement Checklist (page 22)
•Signed land tenure agreement
•An explanation as to how the existing land tenure agreement adequately protects
the State’s interest. OGALS will review and determine if the land tenure is
sufficient.
Land Tenure Agreement Checklist
If the GRANTEE does not own the land in fee simple, complete this checklist. Attach a
copy of the signed land tenure agreement. Identify the page numbers where the
required items can be found in the land tenure agreement and highlight the provisions in
the agreement where the information is located. All items are required.
ATTACHMENT 3
23
Land Tenure Checklist
GRANTEE: PROJECT Name
Page Required Item
□ Type of agreement: For example: lease, joint powers agreement,
easement, memorandum of understanding, etc.
□
Parties to the agreement (land owner must be public agency or utility)
and date signed:
Party Date Signed
□ Term of the agreement: years
□
Agreement end date:
•Grant amounts up to $100,000 require at least 20 years of land tenure.
•Grant amounts above $100,000 require at least 30 years of land tenure.
•The land tenure requirement begins on July 1, 2018.
□ Renewal option: Must include an option, which can be non-binding, for the
GRANTEE to renew the agreement beyond the original 20 or 30 year term.
□
Termination clause: Any of the following is acceptable:
•No termination clause – the agreement is non-revocable.
•Termination clause specifies the agreement is revocable only for cause.
•The termination clause cannot allow the land owner to revoke the
agreement without cause, i.e., at will.
□
Site Control, Roles and Responsibilities should the GRANT be awarded,
the agreement:
•Authorizes the GRANTEE to proceed with the construction PROJECT. The
GRANTEE may delegate construction to other entities.
•Establishes when the general public can use the PROJECT and gives
GRANTEE permission to operate the PROJECT site (such as scheduling
recreational programs). The GRANTEE may delegate operational roles to
other entities but is bound through the contract provisions to ensure full
public access for the duration of the land tenure period.
•Identifies which entity will maintain the PROJECT site. The GRANTEE may
delegate maintenance to other entities but is bound through the contract
provisions to ensure maintenance of the PROJECT site for the duration of
the land tenure period.
ATTACHMENT 3
24
Site Plan
Provide a drawing showing where all the items listed in the project scope/Cost Estimate
Form will be located. To ensure that any building use meets the requirements of the
program, include the function and approximate square footage of each room within
buildings that are part of the scope, and the approximate total square footage of the
buildings. It does not need to be a detailed engineering rendering.
Sub-leases or Agreements
Provide a list of all other leases, agreements, memoranda of understanding, etc.,
affecting PROJECT property or its operation and maintenance.
Photos
Provide photos that will establish a “before” comparison for the site to be improved.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction and Carbon Sequestration.3
If your PROJECT involves tree planting, follow the instructions below and submit with the
PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET.
Before getting started, gather the following PROJECT information:
•Tree species
•Size of trees at planting
•Information on the distance and direction to the nearest building (if applicable)
•Information on the age and climate control of any nearby buildings (if applicable)
•Information about the tree’s growing conditions
Getting started:
1.Navigate to the i-Tree site at https://planting.itreetools.org and select the tab for a
new project.
2.On the Location map, select your state, county and city, and then click Next.
3.Configure the project parameters4:
•“Electricity emissions factor” enter 285 and select kilograms
•“Fuel emissions factor” enter 53.1 and select kilograms
•“Years for the project” is the age of the trees 40 years from when they are
planted. So, if the trees will be four years old at the time of planting, enter 44.
•“Tree mortality” enter 0
4.Tree Planting Configurations
•Enter the tree groups for the project; create a new group for each new
species or for each new location.
•Species – select the species; add multiple species by creating new groups.
3 PRC §80001(b)(7)
4 Project parameters are from the California Air Resources Board’s “Quantification
Methodology for the California Natural Resources Agency Urban Greening Grant
Program.”
ATTACHMENT 3
25
•DBH – tree diameter four feet above the ground at time of planting.
•Distance to nearest tree – select from drop down menu
•Tree is (north, south, east or west) of Building – select the direction the tree is
located to the nearest climate-controlled building.
•Climate controls – select the type of climate controls the nearby building has
installed. If a tree is more than 60 feet away from a climate-controlled
building, select “none.”
•Condition – select the overall health of the trees at the time of planting.
•Exposure to sunlight – select the amount of sun that reaches the tree, based
on its surroundings.
•Number of trees – enter the number of trees that are the same species and
the same characteristics (e.g. distance to building, location in respect to
building, exposure to sunlight, etc.) If some of these characteristics change,
multiple lines of the same species should be input into the tool.
Once all the groups are entered, click next
5.Print the report in landscape mode, and submit it to OGALS.
ATTACHMENT 3
26
Special Requirements
•Status Reports (page 26)
•Bond Act Sign (page 28)
•Deed Restriction (page 29)
Status Report
OGALS will send a Status Report every six months until receipt of a PROJECT COMPLETION
PACKET. Payment requests will not be processed if Status Reports are overdue. See
sample on following page.
ATTACHMENT 3
27
Sample Status Report – Due xx/xx/20xx (30 days from mail date)
Grantee:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Scope:
Project Phase: □ Pre-Construction/Pre-Acquisition □ Acquisition and/or Construction
When will you submit your next payment request? For how much?
Estimated date of project completion:
Potential obstacles affecting completion:
Is the project: On Time? yes/no Within Budget? yes/no Within Scope? yes/no If no,
explain:
Describe grant-funded work completed since last status report submitted on (DATE):
Are CCC or certified local corps working on this project? Yes/No
Provide photos showing work completed since (DATE)
Describe grant-funded work expected to be completed by (MailDate + 6 mos)
If there have been any changes to the proposed funding for this project, attach a revised
Funding Sources Form.
Provide information on payments to be submitted over the next three years:
Between
7/1/20
and
6/30/21
Between
7/1/21
and
12/31/21
Between
1/1/22
and
6/30/22
Between
7/1/22
and
12/30/22
Between
1/1/23
and
6/30/23
Between
7/1/23
and
12/30/23
After
1/1/24
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
The purpose of this data is to help the State estimate borrowing needs; you will not be
held to these estimates.
I represent and warrant that I have full authority to execute this Grant Progress Status
Report on behalf of the Grantee. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of
the State of California, that this status report, and any accompanying documents, for the
above-mentioned Grant is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
(*Certification to above information requires a signature by a person authorized in the
resolution)
ATTACHMENT 3
28
Bond Act Sign
A sign acknowledging the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection,
and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 as the funding source for the project must be
installed during construction and at completion (PRC §80001(b)(3)). If appropriate, the
same sign can be used during construction and completion.
Sign requirements
The sign must be available during construction, at the final inspection of the PROJECT,
and remain in place for a minimum of four (4) years from date of PROJECT completion.
There is no minimum or maximum size other than the minimum size for the logo, as
long as the sign contains the required wording.
Sign Language
All signs must contain the following language:
GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources
Lisa Ann L. Mangat, Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation
Use the names of the current officials. The name of the director of the local agency or
other governing body may be added. The sign may also include names (and/or logos) of
other partners, organizations, individuals and elected representatives.
Logo
All signs must display the Parks and Water Bond Act logo (shown on the cover of this
guide). Display the logo to maximize visibility and durability. Download the logo at
http://resources.ca.gov/grants/logo-art/. Each edge of the logo must be a minimum of
24″ x 24″. Exceptions may be approved, when appropriate, at OGALS’ discretion.
Sign Construction
All materials used shall be durable and resistant to the elements and graffiti.
Sign Cost
The cost of the sign(s) is an eligible PROJECT cost. Permanent signage is encouraged.
Appropriateness of Signs
For projects where the required sign may be out of place or affected by local sign
ordinances, OGALS may authorize a sign that is more appropriate to the project.
State Approval
GRANTEE shall submit the proposed number, locations, size, and language of signs for
preliminary review. Final payments will not be processed until post completion signage
has been approved and installed.
ATTACHMENT 3
29
Deed Restriction
The Deed Restriction restricts the title to the property, safeguarding the property for
purposes consistent with the GRANT for the duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
PERIOD.
If the GRANTEE owns the PROJECT land, a Deed Restriction must be recorded on the title
to the property before OGALS will approve any grant payments. If the GRANTEE is
acquiring land, a deed restriction is required before the PROJECT is complete.
A Deed Restriction is not required if the GRANTEE does not own the PROJECT land, such
as where the GRANTEE is improving property it has access to under a lease agreement.
Deed Restriction Instructions
1.The GRANTEE must own the PROJECT land and have an encumbered contract for the
GRANT amount.
2.The PROJECT OFFICER will send the Deed Restriction to the GRANTEE. Do not alter the
Deed Restriction. The GRANTEE takes the following steps:
1.Add ownership information to Paragraph I of the Deed Restriction: [formal
name of GRANTEE] Insert ownership information as it appears on the deed.
2.Create 3 copies (GRANTEE copy, OGALS copy and recorder’s copy) of the Deed
restriction and the required attachments:
(1)Exhibit A: Label this attachment “Exhibit A (Legal Description of Property).”
Include a formal legal description of every parcel of property to which grant
funds will be used for the development and/or acquisition thereof. This
information can be obtained from the grant deed or title policy. (The
assessor’s parcel number or a street address is NOT a valid legal
description.) and,
(2)Exhibit B: Label this attachment “Exhibit B (Grant Contract)” and include a
complete copy of the Grant Contract and provisions signed by the AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE and the State of California.
3.Notarize it: Take the following documents to a notary. OGALS recommends
submitting these documents to the OGALS PROJECT OFFICER for review prior to
notarizing.
•Unsigned and undated Deed Restriction
•Exhibit A (Legal Description of Property)
•Exhibit B (Grant Contract)
The AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE dates and signs the Deed Restriction signature
page in the presence of a notary. The notary will complete a Notary
Acknowledgement (Civil Code §1189).
4.Record it: Take the notarized documents bulleted above to the County
Recorder’s Office of the county in which the property is located. Ask the County
Clerk to record the Deed Restriction with Notary Acknowledgement, Exhibit A,
and Exhibit B, on the title to the property.
5.Send it: Send a copy of the notarized and recorded documents bulleted above to
the OGALS PROJECT OFFICER.
ATTACHMENT 3
30
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Grants and Local Services
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Office of Grants and Local Services
PO Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Attn: [Project Officer]
DEED RESTRICTION
I.WHEREAS, insert ownership information as it appears on the deed
(hereinafter referred to as “Owner(s)” is/are recorded owner(s) of the real property
described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter
referred to as the “Property”); and
II.WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(hereinafter referred to as “DPR”) is a public agency created and existing under the
authority of section 5001 of the California Public Resources Code (hereinafter referred
to as the “PRC”). And
III.WHEREAS, Owner(s) (or Grantee) received an allocation of grant funds
pursuant to the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and
Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 Per Capita Program for improvements on the
Property; and
IV.WHEREAS, on (enter date), DPR’s Office of Grants and Local Services
conditionally approved Grant [project number], (hereinafter referred to as “Grant”) for
improvements on the Property, subject to, among other conditions, recordation of this
Deed Restriction on the Property; and
V.WHEREAS, but for the imposition of the Deed Restriction condition of the
Grant, the Grant would not be consistent with the public purposes of the Per Capita
Program and the funds that are the subject of the Grant could therefore not have been
allocated; and
ATTACHMENT 3
31
VI.WHEREAS, Owner(s) has/have elected to comply with the Deed
Restriction requirement of the Grant, so as to enable Owner(s), to receive the Grant
funds and perform the work described in the Grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the issuance of the Grant funds by
DPR, the undersigned Owner(s) for himself/herself/themselves and for his/her/their
heirs, assigns, and successors-in-interest, hereby irrevocably covenant(s) with DPR that
the condition of the grant (set forth at paragraph(s) 1 through 5 and in Exhibit B hereto)
shall at all times on and after the date on which this Deed Restriction is recorded
constitute for all purposes covenants, conditions and restrictions on the use and
enjoyment of the Property that are hereby attached to the deed to the Property as fully
effective components thereof.
1.DURATION. This Deed Restriction shall remain in full force and effect and
shall bind Owner(s) and all his/her/their assigns or successors-in-interest for the period
running from July 1, 20xx to June 30, 20xx (20 years) or June 30, 20xx (30 years).
2.TAXES AND ASSESMENTS. It is intended that this Deed Restriction is
irrevocable and shall constitute an enforceable restriction within the meaning of a)
Article XIII, section 8, of the California Constitution; and b) section 402.1 of the
California Revenue and Taxation Code or successor statue. Furthermore, this Deed
Restriction shall be deemed to constitute a servitude upon and burden to the Property
within the meaning of section 3712(d) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, or
successor statue, which survives a sale of tax-deeded property.
3.RIGHT OF ENTRY. DPR or its agent or employees may enter onto the
Property at times reasonably acceptable to Owner(s) to ascertain whether the use
restrictions set forth above are being observed.
4.REMEDIES. Any act, conveyance, contract, or authorization by Owner(s)
whether written or oral which uses or would cause to be used or would permit use of the
Property contrary to the terms of this Deed Restriction will be deemed a violation and a
breach hereof. DPR may pursue any and all available legal and/or equitable remedies
to enforce the terms and conditions of this Deed Restriction up to and including a lien
sale of the property. In the event of a breach, any forbearance on the part of DPR to
ATTACHMENT 3
32
enforce the terms and provisions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of enforcement
rights regarding such breach, or any subsequent breach.
SEVERABILITY. If any provision of these restrictions is held to be invalid, or for any
reason becomes unenforceable, no other provision shall be affected or impaired.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
Business Name (if property is owned by a business):
Additional signature, if required Date
Print Name and Title
ATTACHMENT 3
33
Grant Payments
Payments may be requested after a PROJECT is approved and the contract is
encumbered. Payment requests are processed through the State Controller’s Office and
mailed to the GRANTEE approximately six to eight weeks from the date OGALS approves
the request.
Payment Rules
1.A Grant Expenditure Form (see page 35) is required with all reimbursement and final
payment requests.
2.Payment requests prior to groundbreaking are limited to 25% of the PROJECT amount.
3.Payments before the final payment may not exceed 80% of the PROJECT amount.
20% of the PROJECT amount is retained for the final reimbursement.
4.A deed restriction is required prior to processing any reimbursement payments
except an acquisition ADVANCE.
5.Group costs together to avoid frequent payment requests. Reimbursement requests
greater than $10,000 are encouraged.
6. For PROJECTS where match is required, GRANTEES must show eligible costs equal to
125% of the requested reimbursement amount (see page 13).
7. Complete CEQA prior to requesting any construction reimbursement.
8.Provide a sample timesheet to the PROJECT OFFICER prior to incurring any IN-HOUSE
EMPLOYEE SERVICES costs, and if claiming IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES costs, provide
a sample timesheet with each reimbursement payment request.
9.Provide a summary list of bidders, recommendation by reviewer of bidders, awarding
by governing body and contract agreement to the PROJECT OFFICER prior to requesting
reimbursement for costs on contracts requiring a bid process.
10. Provide construction progress photos, including a photo with the construction sign
visible on the PROJECT site (see page 28), with all construction payment requests.
11. OGALS may withhold payment if the GRANTEE has outstanding issues, such as:
•breach of any other contract with OGALS
•an unresolved audit exception
•an outstanding conversion
•park sites closed or inadequately maintained
•overdue Project Status Reports
•other unmet grant requirements
ATTACHMENT 3
34
Payment Request Form Instructions
•All payment request types (reimbursement, final, ADVANCE) require this form.
•Payment requests may be submitted by e-mail to the PROJECT OFFICER.
•Round all amounts to the nearest whole dollar.
•A Grant Expenditure Form (see page 35) is required with all reimbursement and final
payment requests.
•Complete the Payment Request Form as follows:
1.PROJECT Number - Number assigned by OGALS when this PROJECT was approved.
2.Contract Number - As shown in Certification of Funding section of the contract
3.APPLICANT - GRANTEE name as shown on the contract
4.PROJECT Title - Name of the PROJECT as shown in the Application
5.Type of Payment – check appropriate box on form
6.Payment Information – always round to the nearest dollar.
7.Send Warrant To - AGENCY name, address and contact person
8.Signature of AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE according to the Resolution
ATTACHMENT 3
35
Payment Request Form
ATTACHMENT 3
36
Grant Expenditure Form
All payment requests require a summary of costs incurred. An electronic version of the grant
expenditure form is available at www.parks.ca.gov/grants. GRANTEES may use their own
spreadsheet if it contains the required information shown below. Keep copies of invoices or
warrants with the PROJECT records, available to OGALS on request. Only provide the following
information to OGALS:
PROJECT Number:
Warrant/
Check #(1) Date(2) Recipient(3) Purpose(4) Pre-Construction
Amount(5)
Construction
Amount(6)
PRE-CONSTRUCTION Subtotal (5) $
Construction Subtotal (6) $
Grand Total (5) + (6) $
List only ELIGIBLE COSTS charged to the GRANT.
Column (1) Electronic payment numbers/electronic funds transfer numbers in the “Warrant/Check
Number” column are acceptable. Include an “EP” next to the electronic payment numbers/electronic
funds transfer numbers.
If IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES or GRANTEE’S own equipment was used, a work order or other tracking
number can be used instead of a check/warrant number.
Column (2) Date payment was made to recipient. If IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES were used, provide
the date range with a summary of actual hours worked, and a sample timesheet.
Column (3) Name of Contractor, IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, or other entity providing services
and/or materials.
Column (4) SCOPE item related to the expenditure and a brief description, such as “playground
design,” “community center permits,” “walkway materials,” “sports field construction.”
Column (5) PRE-CONSTRUCTION costs eligible for up to 25% of the GRANT.
Column (6) DEVELOPMENT costs eligible for up to 100% of GRANT.
ATTACHMENT 3
37
Project Completion Packet
PROJECT COMPLETION PACKETS must be submitted by March 31st of the year the contract
expires.
GRANTEES are encouraged to submit documents digitally, as .pdf files. E-mail the documents
to the PROJECT OFFICER as separate digital files, labeled as the document item. GRANTEES
should follow up with PROJECT OFFICER to confirm documents were received.
The final payment (not less than 20% of the PROJECT amount) will be processed after
PROJECT COMPLETION and the following occurs:
1.Approval of the PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET (page 37).
2.Site inspection by the PROJECT OFFICER to verify PROJECT COMPLETION.
To request the final payment and complete the PROJECT, the GRANTEE must submit the
following documents:
1.Payment Request Form (page 35)
2.Grant Expenditure Form (page 35)
3.Final Funding Sources Form (page 20)
4.GHG Emissions Reduction Worksheet (page 24)
5.PROJECT COMPLETION Certification Form (page 38)
6.Photo of the bond act sign and location (page 28)
7.Recorded Deed Restriction, if not already provided (page 29)
8.Completed CEQA, if not already provided (page 21)
9.Notice of Completion (optional)5
10.Audit checklist with items checked that GRANTEE will retain for five years following
receipt of final payment (page 50)
For acquisition PROJECTS, the GRANTEE must submit these additional documents:
1.A copy of the recorded deed to the property
2.A map sufficient to verify the description of the property including parcel numbers and
acreage
3.Copy of title insurance policy
4.Copy of title report
5 OGALS recommends that the GRANTEE file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder
pursuant to State of California Civil Code §3093. Filing the Notice of Completion is not a
PROJECT COMPLETION requirement.
ATTACHMENT 3
38
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Project Completion Certification Form
Grantee: Project Number:
Grantee contact for audit purposes
Name:
Address:
Phone: ( ) Email:
Project completion – list the grant scope items:
Provide revised Funding Sources Form
Interest earned on advanced funds: $
Interest spent on eligible costs: $
Was a Notice of Completion filed with the County Recorder or other appropriate entity?
Yes / No
Certification:
I hereby certify that all Grant funds were expended on the above-named Project and that the
Project is complete and we have made final payment for all work done.
I have read California Penal Code §118 and understand that every person who testifies,
declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any
material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury, which is a felony
punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years.
Furthermore, I have read California Penal Code §72 and understand that every person who,
with the intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or
officer, or to any county, city, or District board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same
if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is guilty of a
felony-misdemeanor punishable either by imprisonment in county jail for a period of not
more than one year, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, or by
imprisonment in state prison, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or both.
I represent and warrant that I have full authority to execute this Project Completion
Certification on behalf of the Grantee. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
certification of Project Completion for the above-mentioned Grant is true and correct.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
ATTACHMENT 3
39
Advance Payments
•OGALS reserves the right to disapprove ADVANCE payment requests.
•Past performance, GRANTEE capacity, and the GRANTEE’S financial resources will all be
considered before issuing an ADVANCE.
•GRANTEES that are unable to finance a considerable portion of their PROJECTS are encouraged
to seek an allocation transfer (page 54).
•ADVANCE payments may be requested for costs the GRANTEE will incur within the next six
months.
•ADVANCE funds must be placed in an interest-bearing account. Any interest earned on those
funds must be spent within six months of receipt.
•The sum of DEVELOPMENT ADVANCES cannot exceed 50% of the PROJECT amount.
Pre-Construction Advance
Payment
Type
Maximum Request When to
Request
Documents to
Send to PROJECT OFFICER
Costs to
be
incurred
in next six
months
Preconstruction
estimate shown on
Development
Project SCOPE/Cost
Estimate Form
After the
contract has
been
encumbered
•Payment Request Form
•ADVANCE justification (see below)
•Sample timesheet if funds will be
spent on IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE
SERVICES
Construction Advance
Payment
Type
Maximum
Request
When to
Request
Documents to
Send to PROJECT OFFICER
Costs to
be
incurred
in next six
months
No more than 50%
of the grant
amount.
After the
contract has
been
encumbered,
and
construction
will
commence
during the
next six
months
•Payment Request Form
•ADVANCE justification (see below)
•Bid documents (see page 33,
number 9)
•Copy of signed contract and a
notice to proceed or IN-HOUSE
EMPLOYEE SERVICES schedule
•Filed NOD or NOE (page Error!
Bookmark not defined.)
•Sample timesheet if funds will be
spent on IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE
SERVICES
Advance Justification
Provide the following information:
•Explanation as to why an ADVANCE is needed instead of a reimbursement. Describe any
hardships the GRANTEE will experience if a reimbursement were issued instead of an
ADVANCE.
•A payment schedule, with a month-by-month estimate, for up to six months, showing the
anticipated amount needed, and to whom the funds will be paid (IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE
SERVICES or name of contractor). The six-month period should begin six to eight weeks after
payment request is submitted.
ATTACHMENT 3
40
•A funding plan, indicating how the GRANTEE intends to provide cash flow to the percentage of
the PROJECT exceeding the 50% ADVANCE limit.
•A statement indicating the GRANTEE will put the advanced funds into a separate, interest
bearing account, and spend any interest earned on the PROJECT.
•An acknowledgement that all invoices and contracts pursuant to which payments are made
shall be made available to OGALS on demand.
Clearing the Advance
ADVANCES must be cleared with six months of receipt, or earlier. ADVANCES should be cleared
incrementally, that is, as costs are incurred.
An ADVANCE is cleared as follows:
•Submit a grant expenditure form (see page 35) documenting expenditures of eligible costs
equal to the ADVANCE amount plus any earned interest (or 125% of the ADVANCE amount if
match is required).
•Submit photos of construction completed and the construction sign (see page 28)
with the ADVANCE funds (for construction ADVANCES).
•Return the balance of unspent GRANT funds to OGALS no later than thirty days after the end of
the six-month ADVANCE period.
•OGALS will then return the GRANT funds to the contract balance. OGALS cannot return interest
to the contract balance.
Subsequent Payments
ADVANCE payments must be cleared before any payments will be approved.
This requirement may be waived in cases where a PROJECT requires timely payments to
contractors, and the remaining balance of unspent ADVANCED funds cannot cover the next
PROJECT payment. The following are required to request a waiver:
1.A letter to the PROJECT OFFICER, signed by the AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, explaining why
the waiver is needed.
2.A statement in the letter that the majority of ADVANCED funds has been cleared.
3.A payment schedule with month by month estimates detailing the anticipated amount needed
including the unspent balance of previously ADVANCED funds, along with the additional
requested reimbursement or ADVANCE.
Acquisition Advance into Escrow
Payment Type When to Request Documents to Send
ADVANCES up to 100% of
the GRANT and MATCH
amounts
After the contract is
encumbered and escrow
is open
See following instructions
1.Escrow letter
2.Title report cover page
3.Payment request form
The following items are required to request an ADVANCE payment into escrow:
1.A letter on the GRANTEE’s letterhead, addressing all of the following elements, and signed by
the GRANTEE’s AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
ATTACHMENT 3
41
a)Name, address and telephone number of the title company or escrow holder, and the
escrow account number to which the GRANT funds will be disbursed.
b)Copy of the property appraisal and written concurrence (page 14).
c)GRANT contract number and amount of GRANT funds requested.
d)A statement by the GRANTEE that “the preliminary title report shows that there are no
liens, easements, or any other restrictions that would prevent completion of the
PROJECT SCOPE and fulfillment of the contract provisions.”
e)A statement by the GRANTEE that “all funds (exclusive of the GRANT funds to be provided
under this agreement) needed for the completion of the acquisition of the property or
properties have been secured and have been or will be deposited to escrow on or
about the same date as the requested GRANT funds.” In making this statement, the
GRANTEE is entitled to reasonably rely on the representations of the seller.
2.Cover page of the preliminary title report.
3.Payment Request Form. The “Send Warrant To” item 7 on the Payment Request Form must
be completed using the title company’s or escrow holder’s name, mailing address, and
contact person (see page 35).
After approval by OGALS , the payment will be mailed by the State Controller’s Office to the
designated escrow company within approximately 30 working days.
Returning Unexpended Advanced Funds for Acquisition
If all or a portion of GRANT funds ADVANCED to the title or escrow company are not expended, the
unused portion of the ADVANCED funds must be returned to OGALS within 60 days after completion of the
acquisitions), within 60 days of the acquisition withdrawal, or within 60 days after the end of the GRANT
PERFORMANCE PERIOD, whichever is earliest.
ATTACHMENT 3
42
Per Capita Contract
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Sample Grant Contract
Per Capita Grant Program
GRANTEE: Grantee Name
GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2024
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2048
The GRANTEE agrees to the terms and conditions of this contract (CONTRACT), and the State of
California, acting through its Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, pursuant to the
State of California, agrees to fund the total State grant amount indicated below.
The GRANTEE agrees to complete the PROJECT SCOPE(s) as defined in the Development
PROJECT SCOPE/Cost Estimate Form or acquisition documentation for the application(s) filed with
the State of California.
The General and Special Provisions attached are made a part of and incorporated into the Contract.
Total State grant amount not to exceed $ [GRANT amount]
GRANTEE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING (FOR STATE USE ONLY)
AMOUNT OF ESTIMATE $ CONTRACT NUMBER FUND
ADJ. INCREASING ENCUMBRANCE $ APPROPRIATION
ADJ. DECREASING ENCUMBRANCE $ ITEM VENDOR NUMBER
UNENCUMBERED BALANCE $ LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR
T.B.A. NO. B.R. NO. INDEX Funding Source OBJ. EXPEND
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance.
SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE
ATTACHMENT 3
43
I.RECITALS
This CONTRACT is entered into between the California Department of Parks and Recreation
(hereinafter referred to as “GRANTOR,” “DEPARTMENT” or “STATE”) and [grantee name]
(hereinafter referred to as “GRANTEE”).
The DEPARTMENT hereby grants to GRANTEE a sum (also referred to as “GRANT MONIES”) not
to exceed $grant amount, subject to the terms and conditions of this CONTRACT and the 20xx/xx
California State Budget, Chapter xx, statutes of 20xx, Item number – 3790-xxx-xxxx (appropriation
chapter and budget item number hereinafter referred to as “PER CAPITA GRANT”). These funds
shall be used for completion of the GRANT SCOPE(S).
The Grant Performance Period is from July 1, 20xx to June 30, 20xx.
II.GENERAL PROVISIONS
A.Definitions
As used in this CONTRACT, the following words shall have the following meanings:
1.The term “ACT” means the California Drought, Water, Parks Climate, Coastal Protection, and
Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018, as referred to in section I of this CONTRACT.
2.The term “APPLICATION” means the individual project APPLICATION packet for a project
pursuant to the enabling legislation and/or grant program process guide requirements.
3.The term “DEPARTMENT” or “STATE” means the California Department of Parks and
Recreation.
4.The term “DEVELOPMENT” means capital improvements to real property by means of, but not
limited to, construction, expansion, and/or renovation, of permanent or fixed features of the
property.
5. The term “GRANTEE” means the party described as the GRANTEE in Section I of this
CONTRACT.
6.The term “GRANT SCOPE” means the items listed in the GRANT SCOPE/Cost Estimate Form
or acquisition documentation found in each of the APPLICATIONS submitted pursuant to this
grant.
7.The term “PROCEDURAL GUIDE” means the document identified as the “Procedural Guide for
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All
Act of 2018 Per Capita Program.” The PROCEDURAL GUIDE provides the procedures and
policies controlling the administration of the grant.
B.Project Execution
1. Subject to the availability of GRANT MONIES in the act, the STATE hereby grants to the
GRANTEE a sum of money not to exceed the amount stated in Section I of this CONTRACT, in
consideration of, and on condition that, the sum be expended in carrying out the purposes as set
forth in the enabling legislation and referenced in the APPLICATION, Section I of this
CONTRACT, and under the terms and conditions set forth in this CONTRACT.
The GRANTEE shall assume any obligation to furnish any additional funds that may be
necessary to complete the GRANT SCOPE(S).
The GRANTEE agrees to submit any change or alteration from the original GRANT SCOPE(S)
in writing to the STATE for prior approval. This applies to any and all changes that occur after
ATTACHMENT 3
44
STATE has approved the APPLICATION. Changes in the GRANT SCOPE(S) must be
approved in writing by the STATE.
2. The GRANTEE shall complete the GRANT SCOPE(S) in accordance with the time of the Grant
Performance Period set forth in Section I of this CONTRACT, and under the terms and
conditions of this CONTRACT.
3. The GRANTEE shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code, §21000, et seq., Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §15000 et seq.).
4. The GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable current laws and regulations affecting
DEVELOPMENT projects, including, but not limited to, legal requirements for construction
contracts, building codes, health and safety codes, and laws and codes pertaining to individuals
with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. §12101 et seq.) and the California Unruh Act (California Civil Code §51 et seq.).
C.Procedural Guide
1.GRANTEE agrees to abide by the PROCEDURAL GUIDE.
2.GRANTEE acknowledges that STATE may make reasonable changes to its procedures as set
forth in the PROCEDURAL GUIDE. If STATE makes any changes to its procedures and
guidelines, STATE agrees to notify GRANTEE within a reasonable time.
D.Project Administration
1.If GRANT MONIES are advanced for DEVELOPMENT projects, the advanced funds shall be
placed in an interest bearing account until expended. Interest earned on the advanced funds
shall be used on the project as approved by the STATE. If grant monies are advanced and not
expended, the unused portion of the grant and any interest earned shall be returned to the
STATE within 60 days after project completion or end of the Grant Performance Period,
whichever is earlier.
2. The GRANTEE shall submit written project status reports within 30 calendar days after the
STATE has made such a request. In any event, the GRANTEE shall provide the STATE a
report showing total final project expenditures within 60 days of project completion or the end of
the grant performance period, whichever is earlier. The Grant Performance Period is identified in
Section I of this CONTRACT.
3. The GRANTEE shall make property or facilities acquired and/or developed pursuant to this
contract available for inspection upon request by the STATE.
ATTACHMENT 3
45
E.Project Termination
1.Project Termination refers to the non-completion of a GRANT SCOPE. Any grant funds that
have not been expended by the GRANTEE shall revert to the STATE.
2.The GRANTEE may unilaterally rescind this CONTRACT at any time prior to the
commencement of the project. The commencement of the project means the date of the letter
notifying GRANTEE of the award or when the funds are appropriated, whichever is later. After
project commencement, this CONTRACT may be rescinded, modified or amended only by
mutual agreement in writing between the GRANTEE and the STATE, unless the provisions of
this CONTRACT provide that mutual agreement is not required.
3.Failure by the GRANTEE to comply with the terms of the (a) PROCEDURAL GUIDE, (b) any
legislation applicable to the ACT, (c) this CONTRACT as well as any other grant contracts,
specified or general, that GRANTEE has entered into with STATE, may be cause for suspension
of all obligations of the STATE unless the STATE determines that such failure was due to no
fault of the GRANTEE. In such case, STATE may reimburse GRANTEE for eligible costs
properly incurred in performance of this CONTRACT despite non-performance of the
GRANTEE. To qualify for such reimbursement, GRANTEE agrees to mitigate its losses to the
best of its ability.
4.Any breach of any term, provision, obligation or requirement of this CONTRACT by the
GRANTEE shall be a default of this CONTRACT. In the case of any default by GRANTEE,
STATE shall be entitled to all remedies available under law and equity, including but not limited
to: a) Specific Performance; b) Return of all GRANT MONIES; c) Payment to the STATE of the
fair market value of the project property or the actual sales price, whichever is higher; and d)
Payment to the STATE of the costs of enforcement of this CONTRACT, including but not limited
to court and arbitration costs, fees, expenses of litigation, and reasonable attorney fees.
5.The GRANTEE and the STATE agree that if the GRANT SCOPE includes DEVELOPMENT,
final payment may not be made until the work described in the GRANT SCOPE is complete and
the GRANT PROJECT is open to the public.
F.Budget Contingency Clause
If funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the budget act for purposes of this program,
the STATE shall have the option to either cancel this contract with no liability occurring to the
STATE, or offer a CONTRACT amendment to GRANTEE to reflect the reduced grant amount. This
Paragraph shall not require the mutual agreement as addressed in Paragraph E, provision 2, of this
CONTRACT.
G.Hold Harmless
1.The GRANTEE shall waive all claims and recourse against the STATE including the right to
contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of or in any way
connected with or incident to this CONTRACT except claims arising from the concurrent or sole
negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, and employees.
2.The GRANTEE shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents and
employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability costs
arising out of the ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT, construction, operation or maintenance of
the property described as the project which claims, demands or causes of action arise under
California Government Code Section 895.2 or otherwise except for liability arising out of the
concurrent or sole negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, or employees.
ATTACHMENT 3
46
3.The GRANTEE agrees that in the event the STATE is named as codefendant under the
provisions of California Government Code Section 895 et seq., the GRANTEE shall notify the
STATE of such fact and shall represent the STATE in the legal action unless the STATE
undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action in which event the GRANTEE
agrees to pay the STATE’s litigation costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees.
4. The GRANTEE and the STATE agree that in the event of judgment entered against the STATE
and the GRANTEE because of the concurrent negligence of the STATE and the GRANTEE,
their officers, agents, or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be
made by a court of competent jurisdiction. Neither party shall request a jury apportionment.
5.The GRANTEE shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents and
employees against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses or liability costs arising out of
legal actions pursuant to items to which the GRANTEE has certified. The GRANTEE
acknowledges that it is solely responsible for compliance with items to which it has certified.
H.Financial Records
1.The GRANTEE shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents, including loan
documents, and all other records for the project and to make them available to the STATE for
auditing at reasonable times. The GRANTEE also agrees to retain such financial accounts,
documents and records for five years following project termination or issuance of final payment,
whichever is later.
The GRANTEE shall keep such records as the STATE shall prescribe, including records which
fully d isclose (a) the disposition of the proceeds of STATE funding assistance, (b) the total cost
of the project in connection with such assistance that is given or used, (c) the amount and nature
of that portion of the project cost supplied by other sources, and (d) any other such records that
will facilitate an effective audit.
3.The GRANTEE agrees that the STATE shall have the right to inspect and make copies of any
books, records or reports pertaining to this contract or matters related thereto during regular
office hours. The GRANTEE shall maintain and make available for inspection by the STATE
accurate records of all of its costs, disbursements and receipts with respect to its activities under
this contract. Such accounts, documents, and records shall be retained by the GRANTEE for at
least five years following project termination or issuance of final payment, whichever is later.
4.The GRANTEE shall use a generally accepted accounting system.
I.Use of Facilities
1.The GRANTEE agrees that the GRANTEE shall operate and maintain the property acquired or
developed with the GRANT MONIES, for the duration of the Contract Performance Period.
2.The GRANTEE agrees that, during the Contract Performance Period, the GRANTEE shall
use the property acquired or developed with GRANT MONIES under this contract only for the
purposes of this grant and no other use, sale, or other disposition or change of the use of the
property to one not consistent with its purpose shall be permitted except as authorized by the
STATE and the property shall be replaced with property of equivalent value and usefulness
as determined by the STATE.
3.The property acquired or developed may be transferred to another entity if the successor
entity assumes the obligations imposed under this CONTRACT and with the approval of
STATE.
ATTACHMENT 3
47
4.Any real Property (including any portion of it or any interest in it) may not be used as security
for any debt or mitigation, without the written approval of the STATE provided that such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld as long as the purposes for which the Grant was
awarded are maintained. Any such permission that is granted does not make the STATE a
guarantor or a surety for any debt or mitigation, nor does it waive the STATE’S rights to
enforce performance under the Grant CONTRACT.
5.All real property, or rights thereto, acquired with GRANT MONIES shall be subject to an
appropriate form of restrictive title, rights, or covenants approved by the STATE. If the project
property is taken by use of eminent domain, GRANTEE shall reimburse STATE an amount at
least equal to the amount of GRANT MONIES received from STATE or the pro-rated full market
value of the real property, including improvements, at the time of sale, whichever is higher.
6.If eminent domain proceedings are initiated against GRANTEE, GRANTEE shall notify
STATE within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
J.Nondiscrimination
1.The GRANTEE shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, race, color,
national origin, age, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, or disability in the use of any
property or facility developed pursuant to this contract.
2.The GRANTEE shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence except to
the extent that reasonable differences in admission or other fees may be maintained on the
basis of residence and pursuant to law.
3.All facilities shall be open to members of the public generally, except as noted under the
special provisions of this project contract or under provisions of the enabling legislation and/or
grant program.
K.Severability
If any provision of this CONTRACT or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall
not affect other provisions or applications of the CONTRACT which can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this CONTRACT are severable.
L.Liability
1.STATE assumes no responsibility for assuring the safety or standards of construction, site
improvements or programs related to the GRANT SCOPE. The STATE’S rights under this
CONTRACT to review, inspect and approve the GRANT SCOPE and any final plans of
implementation shall not give rise to any warranty or representation that the GRANT SCOPE
and any plans or improvements are free from hazards or defects.
2.GRANTEE will secure adequate liability insurance, performance bond, and/or other security
necessary to protect the GRANTEE’s and STATE’S interest against poor workmanship, fraud,
or other potential loss associated with completion of the grant project.
M.Assignability
Without the written consent of the STATE, the GRANTEE’S interest in and responsibilities under
this CONTRACT shall not be assignable by the GRANTEE either in whole or in part.
ATTACHMENT 3
48
N. Use of Grant Monies
GRANTEE shall not use any grant funds (including any portion thereof) for the purpose of
making any leverage loan, pledge, promissory note or similar financial device or transaction,
without: 1) the prior written approval of the STATE; and 2) any financial or legal interests created
by any such leverage loan, pledge, promissory note or similar financial device or transaction in
the project property shall be completely subordinated to this CONTRACT through a
Subordination Agreement provided and approved by the STATE, signed by all parties involved
in the transaction, and recorded in the County Records against the fee title of the project
property.
N. Section Headings
The headings and captions of the various sections of this CONTRACT have been inserted only
for the purpose of convenience and are not a part of this CONTRACT and shall not be deemed
in any manner to modify, explain, or restrict any of the provisions of this CONTRACT.
O. Waiver
Any failure by a party to enforce its rights under this CONTRACT, in the event of a breach, shall
not be construed as a waiver of said rights; and the waiver of any breach under this CONTRACT
shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.
GRANTEE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Signature Date
Print Name and Title
ATTACHMENT 3
49
Accounting and Audits
Accounting Requirements
GRANTEES must use accounting practices that:
•Provide accounting data that clearly records costs incurred on the PROJECT and accurately
reflects fiscal transactions, with the necessary controls and safeguards.
•Provide good audit trails, especially the source documents (purchase orders, receipts,
progress payments, invoices, timecards, cancelled warrants, warrant numbers, etc.) specific
to the PROJECT.
Accounting Rules for Employee Services (IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES)
GRANTEES must follow these accounting practices for employee services:
•Maintain time and attendance records as charges are incurred, identifying the employee
through a name or other tracking system, and that employee’s actual time spent on the
PROJECT.
•Time estimates, including percentages, for work performed on the PROJECT are not
acceptable.
•Time sheets that do not identify the specific employee’s time spent on the PROJECT are not
acceptable.
•Costs of the salaries and wages must be calculated according to the GRANTEE’S wage and
salary scales, and may include benefit costs such as vacation, health insurance, pension
contributions and workers’ compensation.
•Overtime costs may be allowed under the GRANTEE’S established policy, provided that the
regular work time was devoted to the same PROJECT.
•May not include overhead or cost allocation. These are costs generally associated with
supporting an employee, such as rent, personnel support, IT, utilities, etc.
State Audit
Grants are subject to audit by DPR. All PROJECT records must be retained for five years after
final payment was issued, or PROJECT terminated, whichever is later.
The GRANTEE must provide the following when an audit date and time has been confirmed by
DPR:
•All PROJECT records, including the source documents and cancelled warrants, books, papers,
accounts, time sheets, or other records listed in the Audit Checklist or requested by DPR.
•An employee having knowledge of the PROJECT and its records to assist the DPR auditor.
Record Keeping Recommendation
GRANTEES are encouraged to keep records of all eligible costs, including those not submitted to
OGALS for payment. This provides a potential source of additional eligible costs, should any
submitted expenses be deemed ineligible.
Contact the DPR Audits Office at (916) 657-0370 for questions about these requirements.
ATTACHMENT 3
50
Audit Checklist
An audit of the PROJECT may be performed before or following PROJECT completion. The GRANTEE
must retain and make available all PROJECT related records for five years following PROJECT
termination or final payment of GRANT funds. Listed below are some of the items the auditor will
examine during the review of your records as applicable. It is the responsibility of the GRANTEE to
have these records available in a central location ready for review once an audit date and time has
been confirmed. If you have any questions regarding these documents, contact the State
Department of Parks and Recreation Audits Office at (916) 657-0370.
CONTRACTS
□Summary list of bidders (including individual
bid packages)
□Recommendation by reviewer of bids
□Award by governing body (minutes of the
meeting/resolution)
□Construction contract agreement
□Contract bonds (bid, performance, payment)
□Contract change orders
□Contractor's progress billings
□Payments to contractor (cancelled checks/
warrants, bank statements, EFT receipts**)
□Stop Notices (filed by sub-contractors and
release if applicable)
□Liquidated damages (claimed against the
contractor)
□Notice of completion (recorded)
IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES*
□Authorization/work order identifying project
□Daily time sheets signed by employee and
supervisor
□Hourly rate (salary schedules/payroll
register)
□Fringe benefits (provide breakdown)
IN-HOUSE EQUIPMENT*
□Authorization/work order
□Daily time records identifying the project site
□Hourly rate related backup documents
MINOR CONTRACTS/ MATERIALS/
SERVICES/EQUIPMENT RENTALS
□Purchase orders/Contracts/Service
Agreements
□Invoices
□Payments (cancelled checks/ warrants,
bank statements and EFT receipts **)
ACQUISITION
□Appraisal Report
□Did the owner accompany the appraiser?
□10 year history
□Statement of just compensation (signed by
seller)
□Statement of difference (if purchased above
appraisal)
□Waiver of just compensation (if purchased
below appraisal: signed by seller)
□Final Escrow Closing Statement
□Cancelled checks/warrants, bank
statements and EFT receipts, [payment(s) to
seller(s)]
□GRANT deed (vested to the participant) or
final order of condemnation
□Title insurance policy (issued to participant)
□Relocation documents
□Income (rental, grazing, sale of
improvements, etc.)
INTEREST
□Schedule of interest earned on State funds
advanced (Interest on grant advances is
accountable, even if commingled in a pooled
fund account and/or interest was never
allocated back to the grant fund.)
AGREEMENT/CONTRACTS
□Leases, agreements, etc., pertaining to
developed/acquired property
□Proof of insurance pertaining to
developed/acquired property
*Estimated time expended on the projects is
not acceptable. Actual time records and all
supporting documentation must be maintained
as charges are incurred and made available for
verification at the time of audit.
** Front and back if copied.
ATTACHMENT 3
51
References
Public Resources Code relating to the Proposition 68 Per Capita program
80000.
This division shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Drought, Water, Parks,
Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018.
80001.
(b) It is the intent of the people of California that all of the following shall occur in the
implementation of this division:
(3) To the extent practicable, a project that receives moneys pursuant to this division
will include signage informing the public that the project received funds from the
California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access
For All Act of 2018.
(5) To the extent practicable, a project that receives moneys pursuant to this division
will provide workforce education and training, contractor, and job opportunities for
disadvantaged communities.
(7) To the extent practicable, administering entities should measure or require
measurement of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and carbon sequestrations
associated with projects that receive moneys pursuant to this division.
(8) To the extent practicable, as identified in the “Presidential Memorandum--
Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our National Parks, National Forests, and
Other Public Lands and Waters,” dated January 12, 2017, the public agencies that
receive funds pursuant to this division will consider a range of actions that include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(A) Conducting active outreach to diverse populations, particularly minority, low-
income, and disabled populations and tribal communities, to increase
awareness within those communities and the public generally about specific
programs and opportunities.
(B) Mentoring new environmental, outdoor recreation, and conservation leaders to
increase diverse representation across these areas.
(C) Creating new partnerships with state, local, tribal, private, and nonprofit
organizations to expand access for diverse populations.
(D) Identifying and implementing improvements to existing programs to increase
visitation and access by diverse populations, particularly minority, low-income,
and disabled populations and tribal communities.
(E) Expanding the use of multilingual and culturally appropriate materials in public
communications and educational strategies, including through social media
strategies, as appropriate, that target diverse populations.
(F) Developing or expanding coordinated efforts to promote youth engagement and
empowerment, including fostering new partnerships with diversity-serving and
youth-serving organizations, urban areas, and programs.
(G) Identifying possible staff liaisons to diverse populations.
80002.
(d) “Department” means the Department of Parks and Recreation.
(n) “Severely disadvantaged community” means a community with a median household
income less than 60 percent of the statewide average.
ATTACHMENT 3
52
80020.
Moneys allocated pursuant to this division shall not be used to fulfill any mitigation
requirements imposed by law.
CHAPTER 3.
80060.
For purposes of this chapter, “district” means any regional park district, regional park and
open-space district, or regional open-space district formed pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with §5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5, any recreation and park district
formed pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with §5780) of Division 5, or any authority
formed pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with §35100). With respect to any
community or unincorporated region that is not included within a district, and in which no
city or county provides parks or recreational areas or facilities, “district” also means any
other entity, including, but not limited to, a district operating multiple-use parklands
pursuant to Division 20 (commencing with §71000) of the Water Code.
80061.
(a) The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) shall be available to the
department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for local park rehabilitation,
creation, and improvement grants to local governments on a per capita basis. Grant
recipients shall be encouraged to utilize awards to rehabilitate existing infrastructure
and to address deficiencies in neighborhoods lacking access to the outdoors.
(b) The sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) shall be available to the department,
upon appropriation by the Legislature, for grants to cities and districts in urbanized
counties providing park and recreation services within jurisdictions of 200,000 or less
in population. For purposes of this subdivision, “urbanized county” means a county
with a population of 500,000 or more. An entity eligible to receive funds under this
subdivision shall also be eligible to receive funds available under subdivision (a).
(c) Unless the project has been identified as serving a severely disadvantaged
community, an entity that receives an award pursuant to this section shall be required
to provide a match of 20 percent as a local share.
80062.
(a)(1) The department shall allocate 60 percent of the funds available pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 80061 to cities and districts, other than a regional park
district, regional park and open-space district, open-space authority, or regional
open-space district. Each city’s and district’s allocation shall be in the same ratio as
the city’s or district’s population is to the combined total of the state’s population
that is included in incorporated and unincorporated areas within the county, except
that each city or district shall be entitled to a minimum allocation of two hundred
thousand dollars ($200,000). If the boundary of a city overlaps the boundary of a
district, the population in the overlapping area shall be attributed to each jurisdiction
in proportion to the extent to which each operates and manages parks and
recreational areas and facilities for that population. If the boundary of a city overlaps
the boundary of a district, and in the area of overlap the city does not operate and
manage parks and recreational areas and facilities, all grant funds for that area shall
be allocated to the district.
ATTACHMENT 3
53
(2)On or before April 1, 2020, a city and a district that are subject to paragraph (1), and
whose boundaries overlap, shall collaboratively develop and submit to the
department a specific plan for allocating the grant funds in accordance with the
formula specified in paragraph (1). If, by that date, the plan has not been developed
and submitted to the department, the director shall determine the allocation of the
grant funds between the affected jurisdictions.
(b)(1) The department shall allocate 40 percent of the funds available pursuant to
subdivision (a) of §80061 to counties and regional park districts, regional park and
open-space districts, open-space authorities formed pursuant to Division 26
(commencing with §35100), and regional open-space districts formed pursuant to
Article 3 (commencing with §5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5.
(2)Each county’s allocation under paragraph (1) shall be in the same ratio that the
county’s population is to the total state population, except that each county shall be
entitled to a minimum allocation of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000).
(3)In any county that embraces all or part of the territory of a regional park district,
regional park and open-space district, open-space authority, or regional open-
space district, and whose board of directors is not the county board of supervisors,
the amount allocated to the county shall be apportioned between that district and
the county in proportion to the population of the county that is included within the
territory of the district and the population of the county that is outside the territory of
the district.
(c)For the purpose of making the calculations required by this section, population shall
be determined by the department, in cooperation with the Department of Finance, on
the basis of the most recent verifiable census data and other verifiable population data
that the department may require to be furnished by the applicant city, county, or
district.
(d)The Legislature intends all recipients of funds pursuant to subdivision (a) of §80061
to use those funds to supplement local revenues in existence on the effective date of
the act adding this division. To receive an allocation pursuant to subdivision (a) of
§80061, the recipient shall not reduce the amount of funding otherwise available to be
spent on parks or other projects eligible for funds under this division in its jurisdiction.
A one-time allocation of other funding that has been expended for parks or other
projects, but which is not available on an ongoing basis, shall not be considered when
calculating a recipient’s annual expenditures. For purposes of this subdivision, the
Controller may request fiscal data from recipients for the preceding three fiscal years.
Each recipient shall furnish the data to the Controller no later than 120 days after
receiving the request from the Controller.
80063.
(a)The director of the department shall prepare and adopt criteria and procedures for
evaluating applications for grants allocated pursuant to subdivision (a) of §80061. The
application shall be accompanied by certification that the project is consistent with the
park and recreation element of the applicable city or county general plan or the district
park recreation plan, as the case may be.
(b)To utilize available grant funds as effectively as possible, overlapping and adjoining
jurisdictions and applicants with similar objectives are encouraged to combine projects
and submit a joint application. A recipient may allocate all or a portion of its per capita
share for a regional or state project.
ATTACHMENT 3
54
Allocation Tables
Visit OGALS’ Per Capita webpage at www.parks.ca.gov/percapita for allocations.
Allocation Transfer
Entities that receive an allocation under the Per Capita program may transfer all or part
of that allocation to another eligible entity, provided that the following requirements are
met:
1. All required documentation must be submitted no later than six months from the end
of the encumbrance period.
2. The transferring agency must submit a resolution authorizing the transfer of the
allocation. The resolution must name the recipient entity and the transferred
amount.6
3. The recipient must be eligible to receive Per Capita funds.
4. The recipient must have submitted the authorizing resolution shown on page 7.
5. The recipient must submit a resolution authorizing the receipt of funds; the resolution
must state the donor and the transferred amount.
6 Please contact OGALS for sample transfer and recipient resolutions.
ATTACHMENT 3
55
Definitions
Capitalized words and terms used in this guide are defined below.
ADVANCE – payment made to the GRANTEE for work that will occur in the future or work
that has already occurred during the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD and has not been paid
for by the GRANTEE.
APPLICATION PACKET – the Application form and its required attachments described in
the Application Checklist and Directions beginning on page 10.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE – the GRANTEE’S designated position authorized in the
Resolution to sign all required GRANT documents.
CEQA – the California Environmental Quality Act established policies and procedures
requiring GRANTEES to identify, disclose to decision makers and the public, and attempt
to lessen, significant impacts to environmental and historical resources that may occur
as a result of the GRANTEE’S proposed PROJECT. (Public Resources Code §21000 et
seq.; Title 14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS – costs incurred starting with the date when ground-breaking
construction activities such as site preparation, grading, or gutting begins, and
continuing to the end of the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD – the amount of time stated on the contract agreement,
specifying the performance of the contractual grant obligations between the GRANTEE
and DPR.
DEVELOPMENT – construction, expansion, or renovation.
DPR – the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
GRANT – funds made available to a GRANTEE for completion of the PROJECT SCOPE(s)
during the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD.
GRANTEE – an entity having a fully executed contract with DPR.
GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD – period of time that eligible costs may be incurred by the
GRANTEE and paid for by DPR, as specified in the fully executed contract.
IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE SERVICES – use of the GRANTEE’S employees working on the
PROJECT SCOPE.
OGALS – DPR’s Office of Grants and Local Services.
PRE-CONSTRUCTION COSTS – costs incurred within the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD for the
planning, design, and permit phase of the PROJECT before construction can begin.
PROJECT – the SCOPE as described in the APPLICATION PACKET to be completed with
GRANT funds.
PROJECT COMPLETION – when the PROJECT is complete and the facilities are open and
useable by the public.
PROJECT COMPLETION PACKET – The documents listed on page 37 that are required in
order to request final payment following PROJECT COMPLETION.
ATTACHMENT 3
56
PROJECT OFFICER – an OGALS employee, who acts as a liaison with GRANTEES and
administers GRANT funds, facilitates compliance with the Procedural Guide, and the
GRANT contract.
SCOPE – the acquisition, recreation features, and major support amenities described in
the APPLICATION PACKET that must be completed prior to final GRANT payment.
TOTAL PROJECT COST – the combined dollar amount of all funding sources used to
complete the acquisition, or recreation features and major support amenities described
in the APPLICATION PACKET.
ATTACHMENT 3
R-20-137
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to TKO General Engineering & Construction for Demolition of Two
Unoccupied, Fire Damaged Accessory Structures and Repair of a Retaining Wall at 895 La
Honda Road, Woodside, CA 94026 in Thornewood Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the demolition of two fire damaged accessory structures and the replacement of a
retaining wall that sustained extensive fire damage at Thornewood Open Space Preserve and
determine that these actions are categorically exempt under CEQA.
2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with TKO General Engineering &
Construction, of Woodside, California to complete the structures demolition and retaining
wall repair for a base amount of $49,680.
3. Authorize a 15% contingency of $7,452 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, for a total
not-to-exceed contract amount of $57,132.
SUMMARY
Two unoccupied accessory structures (a guest cottage and small studio) at a residential site
within Thornewood Open Space Preserve suffered extensive fire damage on May 5, 2020
(Attachment 2), rendering them a significant safety concern. The damage is so severe that
repairs are not viable. A nearby retaining wall was also damaged and needs replacement. The
primary residence known as the Thornewood House was fortunately minimally affected by the
fire. The General Manager recommends demolishing the two accessory structures and replacing
the retaining wall as soon as practicable. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract
to TKO General Engineering & Construction (TKO) for a base amount of $49,680 and
authorizing a 15% contingency of $7,452, for a total contract amount of $57,132 to complete this
work. The FY21 budget includes sufficient funds for the recommended action.
DISCUSSION
The Thornewood site was developed by San Franciscan Julian Thorne who bought the Woodside
property in 1908. In the 1920s, architect Gardner Dailey designed and built the main
Thornewood house as the summer home of Julian and his wife Edna. The adjacent 1,300 square
foot guest cottage and a second 300 square foot small studio were both destroyed by a fire on
May 5, 2020. Since the donation of the property to the District in 1978, the two accessory
structures had not been maintained and remained uninhabitable. The District had a caretaker
R-20-137 Page 2
agreement with the prior tenants who maintained the main Thornewood House, but not the
accessory structures. The caretakers vacated the house in July. Given the extent of fire damage,
the structures are unsafe to enter and are not salvageable. A four-foot-high wooden retaining wall
along the back section of the two structures also burned and needs to be replaced as part of the
site cleanup, per the recommendation of a geotechnical consultant. Demolition permits to
remove these precarious structures have been obtained from the Town of Woodside.
Typically, staff would bring options for structures to the Board prior to bringing an award of
contract to conduct the work. In this case, the guest cottage burned to the ground (with only
burnt framing remaining) and the studio has only two unstable walls left in place. The burned
remains need to be removed before the main house is ready for occupancy. Therefore, the
General Manager is bringing the approval of the demolition and the demolition contract to the
Board at the same time.
Salvageable Materials
If any unburned materials are viable for salvage, they will be stored on-site for use in future
projects per the Board-approved Waste Diversion Policy.
Bids Received
A Bid Package was published on October 1, 2020. The package was published on the District’s
website and on the electronic BidSync program. Bids were due on November 4, 2020. A
mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on October 22 at the project location. Five potential bidders
attended the meeting. Two bids were received as summarized in the following table:
Contractor Bid Amount
TKO General Engineering & Construction $49,680
Demolition Services & Grading Inc. $74,391
The General Manager recommends awarding the contract to TKO as the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the FY21 Operating Budget to cover the cost of the
recommendation. Shortly after the fire in Spring 2020, staff worked with the District’s property
insurance adjuster to develop a preliminary estimate of $41,391 for removal of the burned
structures. The District’s property damage deductible is $10,000, so the District received the
difference ($31,391) which will be used to offset the costs associated with the demolition. The
insurance payment for the fire was based on demolition costs rather than the value of the
buildings because they had remained unoccupied for so long and were in a dilapidated state,
rendering them of little value.
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No Committee review has occurred for the above project.
R-20-137 Page 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The District concludes the demolition and removal of the two extensively damaged accessory
structures is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
Article 19, Sections 15301, 15302, and 15304 of CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301(l)(4) exempts
demolition and removal of small residential and accessory structures. Section 15302 exempts the
replacement of the existing structures, and is applicable here because the retaining wall
replacement will be located on the same site as the structure being replaced and will have
substantially the same purpose. The landform restoration and minor trenching work following
demolition activities are categorically exempt under Section 15304(a) and (f), which exempts
minor grading, trenching, and backfilling where the surface is restored.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, demolition work will begin in December and is estimated to take two weeks to
complete, assuming good weather.
Related to the main Thornewood house, staff will evaluate necessary short-term repairs to
prepare the main house for occupancy this winter. Staff will also begin working on addressing
longer term maintenance needs and site improvements. For this work, staff will complete a
historic and structural evaluation of house and evaluate the need for major structural repairs,
electrical system replacement, plumbing and drain system replacement, driveway repairs, and
replacement of the current spring fed water system with a municipal water supply. Once these
evaluations are completed, options and costs will be presented to the Board for direction on next
steps.
Attachments:
1. Site Map
2. Site Photographs
Responsible Department Head:
Brandon Stewart, Land and Facilities Services Department
Prepared by:
Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services Department
Gordon Baillie, Interim Management Analyst, Land and Facilities Department
Staff contact:
Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services Department
Graphics Prepared by:
Francisco Lopez Tapia
ÄÆ84
T H O R N E W O O D
O P E N S PA C E
P R E S E R V E
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ84
Por
t
o
l
a
R
d
O ld L a H o n da Rd
O l d L a H o n d a Rd
Es
pin
o
s
a
R
d
Grandview Dr
Bridle Tr ail
Alambique Trail
Schilling Lake Tra i l
Bridle Tra i l
TW01
TW01A
TW02
Thornewood
Life Estate
Water
Cistern
Thornewood
Historical House
Thornewood
Historic Complex AÄÆ84
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
11/6/2020
Thornewood Fire Demolition
0 1,000500
FeetI
MROSD Preserves
Private Property
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Other Protected Lands
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
T
h
o
r
n
e
w
o
o
d
\
T
h
o
r
n
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
\
T
W
_
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
_
D
e
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
_
2
0
2
0
1
0
2
9
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
f
l
o
p
e
z
Building to be
demolished
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 2
Damage to Studio Thornewood Open Space Preserve
Damage to Guest House Thornewood Open Space Preserve
R-20-126
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 9
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to Evaluate and Prepare Structural and Engineering Repairs Options to
Repurpose an Existing Structure as Ranger Housing at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California for a base contract amount of $67,500.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $6,750 to cover unforeseen conditions for a total contract
amount not-to-exceed $74,250.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has a unique opportunity to make
repairs to and repurpose an existing structure at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve into ranger
housing for improved onsite presence and vigilance, including emergency after-hour call-outs
within the largest preserve at over 18,000 acres. The existing structure, located at 18171
Pheasant Road in Los Gatos, CA will soon be vacant once the South Area Outpost (Outpost) is
replaced with a full-service ranger and maintenance facility in Campbell. To repurpose the
structure into a residence, architectural, structural and civil engineering assessments are
necessary given its condition. Through a competitive selection process, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., (WJE) was identified as the most qualified firm to perform this work. Contract
deliverables consist of structural, safety, and hazardous materials assessments, identification of
repair options, and a Basis of Design (BOD) report. The General Manager recommends
awarding a contract to WJE for a base amount of $67,500 and authorizing a 10% contingency of
$6,750. The contingency is requested to address unanticipated and hidden problems such as dry
rot issues and water damage. The Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) adopted budget includes sufficient
funds for the contract. Following future Board approval of the BOD repairs, staff anticipates
pursuing a Design-Build contract to finalize plans and construct the repairs. Funding for future
work will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
BACKGROUND
The property at 18171 Pheasant Road, which was purchased by the District in October 13, 2010
(R-10-114), includes a structure that can soon be repurposed for ranger housing (a second onsite
R-20-126 Page 2
structure is used as maintenance housing). This structure has been used by the District as an
interim ranger outpost/office and will be vacated by end of December 2020. The structure was
built in 1932 with additions added in the 1950s without permits. The structure is approximately
1,983 square feet and contains four rooms, one and a half bathrooms, a kitchen, and a mudroom.
There is a 144 square foot unfinished basement that is accessible through an exterior cellar door.
The floor is supported on a raised concrete masonry unit foundation. The structure was
constructed on a moderately sloping embankment that drops away severely to the north and east;
the floors are now uneven. Onsite utilities include a water well and septic system and a dedicated
PG&E electric service. There is no gas service.
DISCUSSION
The scope of work under the recommended contract includes an assessment and design
alternatives to remodel, repurpose, and rehabilitate the structure for residential use. The
assessment will analyze the extent and location of the floor displacement, and fully evaluate the
structural foundation. More specifically, the scope of work includes:
• Structural Engineering and Framing Assessment (interior floor, ceiling, roof framing, and
foundation);
• Architectural Assessment (roof, walls, windows, doors, and waterproofing);
• Geotechnical Assessment (basement, slope stability);
• Electrical Assessment (existing electrical system);
• Basis of Design (BOD) report that details the results of the assessment and provides
recommendations on repairs that adhere to applicable building codes.
The final BOD will include a project description, existing conditions assessment, repair
recommendations, and cost estimates. Once the BOD is complete, staff will present the findings
to the Board for approval of the repair elements. Staff proposes to pursue a Design-Build project
delivery approach to finalize the construction plans and construct the repairs. If there is a lack of
interest by qualified Design Build teams, staff would then pursue a traditional Design-Bid-Build
project delivery approach to complete the project.
A Historic Resource Evaluation was completed in May 2014 for structures on this property. The
findings concluded that the structures, while over 50 years old, are neither associated with a
historic person or event nor do they embody any distinctive characteristics of a type or period of
construction. The structures exhibit multiple periods of construction and lack structural integrity.
The exact initial dates of construction are mostly unknown. As a result, the structures do not
meet the level of significance necessary for inclusion on the California Register of Historic
Places or any local historic resource inventory and therefore are not a historic resource under
CEQA.
Consultant Selection
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on June 8, 2020 through BidSync, and directly
emailed to five professional engineering firms. A pre-proposal meeting and site tour was held on
June 6, 2020 with four firms attending. Staff received three proposals on June 30, 2020:
R-20-126 Page 3
Consultant Location Proposal Price
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc Emeryville, CA $67,500 *
MME Civil & Structural Engineer Santa Cruz, CA $74,236
ZFA Structural Engineers San Carlos, CA $104,840
* WJE price reflects negotiated reduced scope and cost.
Based on a thorough evaluation, the District deemed WJE as the most qualified to deliver this
Project. WJE’s team has a diverse field of knowledge, strong experience with similar structure
assessment projects, and a deep knowledge of the project’s background. They have clear
deliverables and goals and submitted a high-quality proposal to perform the scope of work at a
fair and reasonable price. For these reasons, the General Manager recommends entering into an
agreement with WJE to complete the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY21 adopted budget includes $285,000 for the Sierra Azul Ranger Residence project
#35004. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and
expenditures through the end of the year. Funding for future years budgets will be requested as
part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
Sierra Azul Ranger
Residence
35004
Prior Year
Actuals
FY21
Adopted
FY22
Projected
FY23
Projected TOTAL
Total Budget: $49,918 $285,000 $290,000 $0 $624,918
Spent-to-Date
(as of 11/03/2020): ($49,918) $0 $0 $0 ($49,918)
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc. Contract: $0 ($53,000) ($14,500) $0 ($67,500)
10% Contingency: $0 $0 ($6,750) $0 ($6,750)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $232,000 $268,750 $0 $500,750
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This Project has not been reviewed by the Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Retention of professional consultants to complete assessments and produce reports and estimates
does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it will
R-20-126 Page 4
not result in a direct physical change in the environment [CEQA Guidelines Section
15060(c)(2)].
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Site Location Map
2. Structure Photos
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with WJE. WJE’s
assessment work will continue through 2021.
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering and Construction Department
Site Location Map for Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Exterior Photos of the Structure
PIPES AT FOUNDATION DAMAGE ON EXTERIOR
COPY ROOM
FACING BATHROOM
LARGE ROOM
Interior Photos of the Structure
KITCHEN
SMALL ROOM/OFFICE
OPEN WORKSPACE AREA
Rev. 1/3/18
R-20-138
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 10
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract with SWCA Environmental Consultants to provide Environmental Planning,
Design, and Technical Analysis for the Feasibility Studies and Conceptual Designs of the
Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with SWCA Environmental
Consultants of Half Moon Bay, CA to complete the Feasibility Studies and Conceptual
Designs of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Project for a base amount of
$261,000.
2. Authorize an approximate 10% contingency of $26,000 to cover unforeseen tasks beyond the
current scope for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $287,000.
SUMMARY
The Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail (Trail) will be an approximately 15-mile regional trail connecting
Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) to the San Mateo County coast,
creating a critical east-west link in the regional trail network from the Bay Area Ridge Trail to
the California Coastal Trail. Completion of the trail is a Measure AA priority under Portfolio 03:
Purisima Creek Redwoods, Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation
Grazing. A Request for Proposals (RFP) to complete feasibility studies and conceptual designs
of the trail and a new parking area was issued on September 14, 2020, with ten firms submitting
proposals on October 9, 2020. Based on the results of the RFP, the General Manager
recommends awarding a contract to SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) for a base
amount of $261,000, authorizing an approximate 10% contingency of $26,000, for a total not-to-
exceed contract amount of $287,000. The District received $301,000 in funding from the State
Coastal Conservancy to complete this work. The Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget includes
sufficient funds for the recommended contract. Quarter 2 budget adjustments will include a net
zero change to the budget to account for this contracted work that is offset by a recently secured
$301,000 in State Coastal Conservancy grant revenue. The contract work is anticipated to be
completed in (FY23). Funding for future years budgets will be requested as part of the annual
Budget and Action Plan process.
DISCUSSION
The Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, a regional trail envisioned to link the Bay Area Ridge Trail with
the California Coastal Trail, is a priority project for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (District) as identified in the Board-approved 2014 Vision Plan and 2020-21 Capital
R-20-138 Page 2
Improvement and Action Plan. The new trail will also support the vision of another regional trail
led by Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) known as the Bay to Sea Trail, which will
encompass 40-miles of continuous east-west regional trails connecting the San Francisco Bay to
the San Mateo County coast.
A feasibility study for the project will analyze several necessary elements, including new trail
alignments, a new trailhead location and parking area off Verde Road or Highway 1, and trail
crossings at Verde Road and Highway 1 to ultimately facilitate a link between the Preserve and
the existing Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail. The findings of the feasibility study will be used to
prepare conceptual design options for the new trail, trailhead, parking area, and roadway
crossings.
Implementation of the proposed project (pending environmental review, Board approval, final
design plans, permitting, and funding) is likely to occur in phases. While the District would
construct the trailhead, trails, and parking area, trail crossings across Verde Road and Highway 1
will require significant coordination with partners, funders, and regulatory agencies, including
POST, California Coastal Conservancy and Caltrans to implement. Coordination with POST,
who holds conservation and trail easements over Purisima Farms to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal
Trail, has been ongoing as part of the South Cowell Upland property acquisition.
Scope of Work
SWCA’s proposed scope of work includes planning and technical studies, field investigations,
and design services to analyze opportunities for the multi-use trail alignment, connector trails,
parking area, trailhead, and pedestrian roadway crossings (refer to Attachment 1: Purisima-to-
the-Sea Feasibility Study Area).
Key tasks include:
1. Traffic studies
2. Boundary/topographic surveys
3. Biological assessment
4. Cultural resource assessment
5. Geotechnical studies
6. Opportunities and constraints analysis
7. Conceptual design options for the parking area, trailhead, connector trails, and roadway
crossings
8. Support of the District’s public outreach and input process
As this planning area is located within the California Coastal Zone, Highway 1 Scenic Corridor,
and the District’s Coastside Protection Area, the planning process and conceptual design options
will take into account guidelines and considerations in accordance with San Mateo County’s
Local Coastal Program, as well as the District’s Coastside Protection Area Service Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Resource Management Policies.
As part of stakeholder engagement and public outreach, the District will consult with local
property owners throughout planning processes. Planning will also include consultation with
appropriate agencies and organizations, and hold public meetings to gather public input on
opportunities and constraints of the site and future conceptual plans.
R-20-138 Page 3
Multimodal Access Study
Concurrently, the District is initiating a multimodal access study for the entire Preserve (R-20-
123). This multimodal study will be informed by the findings of the Rancho San Antonio
Multimodal Access Study (R-20-102) and include a visitor survey on visitor behaviors and
preferences in accessing the Preserve, and consider transportation demand management
strategies that are appropriate for both the upper and lower parking areas (North Ridge, Redwood
Trail, and Lower Purisima Creek parking areas). The multimodal access study findings will help
inform the opportunities and constraints for the new Verde Road/Highway 1 parking area.
State Coastal Conservancy Grant
On January 22, 2020, the Board authorized a resolution to accept $301,000 in funding from the
State Coastal Conservancy to complete this work (R-20-12). The grant supports the District in
developing a preferred regional trail alignment, preparing conceptual designs plans for a new
Verde Road/Highway 1 parking area, and evaluating options for pedestrian roadway crossings
and connections to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail. Grant deliverables include boundary and
topographical surveys, biological and cultural resource assessments, geotechnical and traffic
studies, and permitting strategies. February 2022 is the deadline for the grant-funded work. Staff
are working with the Coastal Conservancy to extend the grant term to December 2022.
Consultant Selection
On September 14, 2020, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) via BidSync, posted the RFP
on the District’s website, and sent direct emails to a list of qualified firms. A mandatory pre-
proposal site tour was held on September 21, 2020 and attended by representatives from 17
firms. The following 10 firms submitted proposals by the October 9, 2020 deadline.
Firm Location Proposed Fee
Restoration Design Group $304,464
WRA $282,873
RHAA $275,695
WRT $274,898
Callander Associates $274,791
Sofia Zander Design $272,585
PlaceWorks $272,010
SWCA $261,000*
Design Workshop $238,286
VERTiCA $158,879
*Cost reflects a negotiated 10% increase to include additional tasks associated with traffic study data
collection, geotechnical investigation, and public outreach support.
Evaluation criteria were determined prior to the release of the RFP that included prior experience
with similar site planning for open space recreation projects, site planning and permitting within
the San Mateo County coastal region, projects involving stakeholders from coastal/agricultural
communities, and professional meeting facilitation for complex projects that involve multiple
stakeholders. After a thorough review of all proposals, a consultant selection team comprised of
staff from Planning, Land & Facilities, and Engineering & Construction deemed SWCA as most
qualified and best suited for the project at a fair and reasonable price.
SWCA, located in the City of Half Moon Bay, is a multidisciplinary firm with in-house
landscape architects, biologists, archaeologists, and permitting specialists. Team members have
R-20-138 Page 4
extensive knowledge of San Mateo County’s Local Coastal Program and experience working on
lands within the project vicinity. SWCA’s proposal demonstrated a clear understanding of the
project scope and schedule requirements. During contract negotiations, staff and SWCA
negotiated an expanded scope to include additional geotechnical and traffic studies, and public
outreach tasks.
To cover potential unforeseen costs, the General Manager recommends a 10% contingency of
$26,000, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $287,000 to be expended only if necessary.
Contingency funds may be necessary for additional technical studies, survey work, or more
robust public outreach support to complete the scope of work.
FISCAL IMPACT
Under a separate Agenda Item for this same November 18 Board meeting, the General Manager
is proposing to shift funds from General Fund 10 Operating (VP03-003 Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail
and Parking Area Feasibility and Plan) to Measure AA (MAA) Capital Fund 30 (R-20-140) since
these expenditures are eligible for MAA reimbursement. Pending Board approval, the FY21
amended budget will include $143,500 for the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area
Project MAA03-005. There are sufficient funds in the FY21 project budget to cover the
recommended action and expenditures. Funding for future year budgets will be requested as part
of the annual Budget and Action Plan process.
On January 22, 2020, the Board authorized a resolution accepting $301,000 in funding from the
State Coastal Conservancy to complete this work (R-20-12). The State Coastal Conservancy
grant authorizes $215,000 for consultant fees and $86,000 to reimburse District staff time. The
grant also requires the District to contribute a $72,000 cash match towards consultant fees and an
in-kind match of $82,238 for District staff time.
Net-zero Quarter 2 Budget adjustments will be made to (1) increase Grant Revenues by
$301,000, (2) account for the District funding and staff time match, and (3) revise the projected
spend schedule.
Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and
Parking Area Feasibility and
Plan
MAA03-005
Prior
Year
Actuals
FY21
Amended
FY22
Projected
*FY23
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
District Funded (Fund 30): $156,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,130
Grant Amount: $0 $143,500 $143,500 $0 $0 $287,000
Total Budget: $156,130 $143,500 $143,500 $0 $0 $443,130
Spent-to-Date
(as of 11/03/2020): ($156,130) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($156,130)
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SWCA Environmental Contract: $0 ($126,500) ($126,500) ($8,000) $0 ($261,000)
10% Contingency: $0 $0 $0 ($26,000) $0 ($26,000)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $17,000 $17,000 ($34,000) $0 $0
*The District will be requesting authorization from the Coastal Conservancy to expend grant funds through
December 2022, past the original grant schedule.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-
to-the-Sea Trail, Watershed Protection and Conservation Grazing allocation, costs-to-date,
projected future project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining.
R-20-138 Page 5
MAA03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed
Protection and Conservation Grazing
Portfolio Allocation:
$7,608,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $287,000
Total Portfolio Allocation: $7,895,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 11/03/2020): ($1,407,688)
*Encumbrances: ($146,485)
Remaining FY21 Project Budgets: ($326,950)
**South Cowell Upland Land Purchase and Other Misc. Project Costs
(R-20-122): ($4,800,000)
Future MAA03 project costs
(projected through FY23): ($284,244)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,965,367)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $929,633
*Includes FY21 encumbrances for the Bonkowski & Associates, Inc (R-20-118) and Ascent Environmental (R-
20-119) contracts approved at the 10/28/2020 regular meeting.
**Acquisition approved at the 10/28/2020 regular meeting.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 03 allocation, projected life of project
expenditures and project portfolio balance remaining.
MAA03 Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail, Watershed
Protection and Conservation Grazing
Portfolio Allocation:
$7,608,000
Grant Income (through FY23): $287,000
Total Portfolio Allocation: $7,895,000
Projected Project Expenditures (life of project):
MAA03-001 Purisima Uplands Lot Line Adjustment and Property Transfer ($425,114)
MAA03-002 Purisima Uplands Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation
Assessment ($611,017)
MAA03-003 Purisima Creek Fence Construction ($169,190)
MAA03-004 Harkins Bridge Replacement ($516,916)
MAA03-005 Purisima Uplands Parking Area and Trail Connections ($443,130)
MAA03-006 South Cowell Upland Land Conservation ($4,800,000)
Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,965,367)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $929,633
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. The Planning and Natural
Resources Committee will begin meeting in early 2021 on this Project to guide the planning and
conceptual design process.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Notification of this award of contract,
and the initiation of the planning work was provided to neighbors of the study area and the lower
Purisima parking area as well as the property’s grazing tenant and Preserve and Coastal
interested parties.
R-20-138 Page 6
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The feasibility study and conceptual designs will identify and evaluate possible future actions,
which the District has not yet approved, within the meaning of CEQA Section 15262. The
feasibility study and conceptual designs will inform future actions that will be subject to CEQA,
and subsequent environmental review will be conducted at that time. Retention of professional
consultants will not result in a direct physical change to the environment [CEQA Guidelines
Section 15060(c)(2)] and does not constitute Board approval of the proposed project or related
proposed project elements.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with SWCA.
Key Milestones Tentative Schedule
Initiate feasibility study FY 2021, Quarter 2
Initiate multimodal access study for Preserve (separate study) FY 2021, Quarter 4
Complete the technical study and field investigations (year 1) FY 2021, Quarter 4
Prepare draft parking area, connector trail, and crossing layouts
and conceptual plans for design alternatives
FY 2022, Quarter 2
Complete multimodal access study for the Preserve FY 2022, Quarter 4
Complete additional field investigations (year 2) FY 2023, Quarter 1
Prepare revised parking area, connector trail and crossing
conceptual plans for design alternatives
FY 2023, Quarter 2
Attachments
1. Regional Map
2. Project Area Map
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, Planning Manager, Planning Department
Prepared by:
Gretchen Laustsen, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Graphics prepared by:
Nathan Greig, Data Analyst II, Information Systems and Technology Department
H i g gins
Can
y
o
n
Rd
T u nita s C re e kRd
Tunitas C r e e k R d
Purisim a C r e e k R d
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ92
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ101
COAL
CREEK OSP
EL CORTE
DE MADERA
CREEK OSP
FOOTHILLS OSP
LA HONDA
CREEK OSP
LOS
TRANCOS
OSP
MIRAMONTES RIDGE OSP
MONTE
BELLO OSP
PULGAS
RIDGE OSP RAVENSWOOD
OSP
TEAGUE
HILL OSP
THORNEWOOD
OSP
TUNITAS
CREEK OSP
WINDY
HILL OSP
RANCHO SAN
ANTONIO OSP
SKYLINE
RIDGE OSP
PURISIMA CREEK
REDWOODS OSP
RUSSIAN
RIDGE OSP
Half Moon Bay
Redwood City
East Palo
Alto
Palo
Alto
Menlo Park
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
11/9/2020
Purisima-to-the-Sea Regional Map
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
P
u
r
i
s
i
m
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
_
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
\
P
u
r
i
s
i
m
a
_
t
o
_
t
h
e
_
S
e
a
\
P
u
r
i
s
i
m
a
T
o
T
h
e
S
e
a
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
_
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
4
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 31.5
MilesI
Midpen preserves
Private property
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Other protected lands
Purisima-to-the-Sea Conceptual Trail
Cowell-Purisima Trail & Coastal Trail
Existing Bay Area Ridge Trail
Existing Purisima-to-Sea Trail Proposed Bay Area Ridge Trail
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
R-20-110
Meeting 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 11
AGENDA ITEM
Radio System Assessment Report and Recommendations
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Direct the General Manager to implement the Radio System upgrade and improvement
recommendations, as presented in the staff report, to improve coverage, reliability, functionality,
and compatibility with local emergency response agencies, as well as address end-of-life
concerns that affect the ongoing maintenance and use of the current system at a total
implementation cost over the next two fiscal years estimated at $2.51M. These upgrades include
improvements and/or replacements of repeaters/equipment on communications towers repeater
sites, new repeater sites, new digital handheld devices, mobile vehicle radios, and base stations.
Estimated equipment costs include savings through cooperative purchasing agreements and staff
will continue to explore options to further reduce costs.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) radio system requires upgrades as
some of the equipment is reaching end-of-life (EOL) and manufacturers are no longer fabricating
replacement parts or providing support. In July 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) awarded a
contract to Forrest Telecom Engineering (FTE) to prepare a radio system assessment report and
master plan (R-19-92). As part of this work, the consultant evaluated radio coverage issues on
District lands and within potential new acquisition areas. The General Manager recommends
implementing the recommended radio system upgrades in this report over two fiscal years
beginning in Fiscal Year 2021–22 (FY22). The total cost over the two-year implementation
period is estimated at $2.51M. Estimated equipment costs include savings through cooperative
purchasing agreements and staff will continue to explore options to further reduce costs.
DISCUSSION
Current Radio System
In June of 2011, the Board approved a contract with Santa Clara County Communications for the
design and installation of the current radio system (R-11-57). The radio system came online in
2012 at a total cost of approximately $1,500,000.
The current radio system actually includes two systems: 1) a very high frequency (VHF) analog
simulcast system (hereafter referred to as the Patrol Simulcast System), and 2) an analog multi-
channel system (hereafter referred to as the Maintenance/Administrative System), both of which
cover most core areas of the District.
R-20-110 Page 2
The Patrol Simulcast System uses microwave infrastructure to link repeater towers, allowing a
radio transmission made at one end of the District to simultaneously be transmitted over the
entire system. This enables a person at any location within the District to communicate with
others anywhere else in the District. This simulcast channel is the primary channel used by
District Rangers for emergency and non-emergency communications.
The Maintenance/Administrative System utilizes the same repeater towers as the Patrol
Simulcast System, but users must choose the channel based on their location. This system is used
by District maintenance and administrative staff, as well as for logistical (non-urgent)
communications by emergency response staff.
The District utilizes seven radio towers for both systems (see Attachment 1 for tower locations).
2019 Radio System Assessment and Recommendations
Although the current radio system has served the District well, given its age, the equipment is
beginning to reach end-of-life (EOL) and manufacturers are no longer fabricating replacement
parts or providing support to ensure that the system remains functional and reliable into the
future. Given these issues, the Board awarded a contract to FTE in July 2019 to assess radio
system needs and deficiencies/gaps and develop recommendations for system improvements.
Radio System Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Report (Attachment 2)
As part of the radio system assessment, FTE completed the following deliverables:
• Conducted a complete assessment of the radio systems;
• Evaluated equipment based on EOL, parts, and support availability;
• Identified and addressed areas of poor radio coverage;
• Evaluated new and emerging technologies in the radio communications industry;
• Considered technology upgrades of other local agencies to ensure compatibility;
• Evaluated the ability to reuse existing District radio equipment; and
• Considered projected future land acquisitions to comprehensively assess, model, and
incorporate new land holdings into the planned coverage areas.
Key findings include:
• Patrol Simulcast System repeaters and central simulcast are obsolete in terms of support;
• Maintenance/Administrative System repeaters are also obsolete in terms of support;
• Microwave infrastructure currently connecting towers can be retained and reused;
• Back-up batteries for the repeater and microwave links are old and need to be replaced;
• Microwave segment between Pise tower and Santa Clara County Communications hub
needs to be replaced;
• Sierra Morena/Skeggs Point tower site has no back-up generator;
• Terrain blockage is responsible for most coverage issues;
• Coverage issues can be resolved by using vehicle repeaters, acquiring new towers, and/or
replacing towers with ones located in better areas; and
• Minor site deficiencies can be mitigated while other work is happening at the towers.
Recommendations:
The Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans report (Attachment 2) was reviewed by the
District’s Chief Ranger, both Area Superintendents, the Land and Facilities Department
Manager, the Skyline Area Manager, and the Management Analysts in both Visitor Services and
Land and Facilities Departments. All concur that the recommendations in this report meet the
R-20-110 Page 3
District’s field emergency and maintenance operations needs now and into the future. The
recommendations fall into two categories:
1) Required Items to maintain operational analog VHF radio systems.
2) Recommended Items to improve performance, reliability, and coverage.
Required Items – Total Cost Estimate: $993,000^
The following items are required to ensure the radio systems remain operational:
1) Replace the existing Patrol Simulcast System with new equipment (Attachment 2, Item 1 *).
2) Replace the existing Maintenance/Administrative System with new equipment (Attachment
2, Item 2).
3) Install common site equipment in each tower and install a microwave backhaul link between
the Pise tower and Santa Clara County Communications hub (Attachment 2, Item 3*)
In addition, it is in the District’s best interest to:
4) Replace the Skeggs Point tower with a repeater on the Allen Peak tower (Attachment 2,
Item 9). This shift will avoid the need to purchase a back-up generator for the Skeggs
Point tower (which costs the same as installing a repeater at the Allen Peak tower). This has
the added benefit of improving coverage in the following Preserves and new acquisitions:
• La Honda Creek
• El Corte de Madera
• Russian Ridge
• Tunitas Creek
• South Cowell Property (Purisima Creek Redwoods)
• Irish Ridge Property (Purisima Creek Redwoods)
See Attachment 3(a) for a map of coverage improvements. Implementation is contingent
upon space availability at the Allen Peak tower at the time of project activation.
Recommended Items – Total Cost Estimate: $1.408M^
The following items are recommended to improve performance, reliability, and coverage.
Performance and Reliability Improvements – Cumulative Cost: $901,000
1) Upgrade to P25 Digital (Attachment 2, Item 4) - Cost: $866,000
The District is currently using analog-type VHF radio systems. Recommendations call for
upgrading the Patrol Simulcast System from analog to digital for the following reasons:
• Better Long-Term Support: Manufacturer support of analog radios and the availability of
radio technicians familiar with analog is slowly diminishing and will become more of a
problem as the equipment approaches EOL as more systems go digital.
^All estimates in this report are in 2022 dollars (time of anticipated implementation); an approximate inflation rate of 3% has
been added to FTE estimates to compensate for one year of deferral. Equipment costs have been estimated based on reduced
pricing through cooperative government purchasing agreements.
*The assessment report identifies two items as at risk for short-term failure: 1) the central hub of the simulcast system (Baseline
Item 1 in Attachment 2), and 2) the back-up batteries at all towers (Baseline Item 3 in Attachment 2). The costs for these items
($38,000) are included in the FY21 Budget and therefore not included in the FY22 estimates shown in this report.
R-20-110 Page 4
• Coverage Improvements: Digital maintains, if not improves, radio coverage in most
areas, particularly in light of technical improvements that have been made in the late
2000s that offset previous connectivity issues in mountainous areas.
• Major Voice Clarity Improvement: Digital significantly improves signal clarity as the
effects of noise and fading are no longer present.† Field users and dispatchers prefer
digital over analog from a clarity standpoint.
• Caller-ID:‡ Each voice call can be clearly identified on all receiving radios and dispatch
consoles with the radio identification number, caller name, or particular function.
• Radio Emergency Button: Digital radios are equipped with an orange button that sends an
alarm to the dispatcher and/or others on the radio channel when a user needs help but
cannot verbally communicate.
• Other Features: Digital allows radios to transmit their location when either the
emergency button is pressed or on a regular basis for enhanced safety.§ Voice encryption
is also possible, providing strong message privacy.
Costs includes $166,000 to purchase digital-capable equipment (beyond the costs listed under
Required Items) and $700,000 to replace handheld and vehicle radios.
2) Upgrade Maintenance/Administrative System to Simulcast (Attachment 2, Item 5) - Cost: $35,000
For a relatively low cost, this upgrade would add a simulcast function to the Maintenance/
Administrative System, allowing staff in any part of the District to communicate with anyone in
another part of the District using a single channel, similar to the Patrol Simulcast System. This
upgrade would simplify the user-interface by reducing the number of channels from five to one,
reducing the amount of training required to use multiple channels and subsequent user
confusion—something that is particularly helpful for administrative office staff who do not
utilize the radio system on a regular basis. This upgrade would also avoid congesting the Patrol
Simulcast channel with non-emergency traffic.
Coverage Improvements – Cumulative Cost: $507,000
The following recommendations would improve coverage across the District:
1) Upgrade the Redwood tower to allow for transmit of radio signals;
2) Replace the Tomita tower with a repeater at the McQueen Ridge tower; and
3) Install a new repeater at the Pigeon Point tower.
NOTE: These recommendations are contingent upon space availability at each of the towers at
the time of project activation.
1) Upgrade Redwood Tower to Allow for Transmit (Attachment 2, Item 7) - Cost: $215,000
The District currently has equipment to receive radio signals in the Redwood tower. The
recommendation is to add equipment that allows users to transmit via the tower. The area
covered by this tower is in a high-fire severity zone. Its addition will therefore greatly improve
† Voice quality (as opposed to clarity) can vary significantly among radio models and manufacturers; optimization of specific
internal radio settings in the beginning is critical.
‡ This feature along with the emergency button, encryption, and GPS were available on some analog radios in the past but were
often proprietary and compromised radio performance.
§ Requires GPS-equipped radios and map display system at dispatch center.
R-20-110 Page 5
response and communication during wildland fires in this area. Additionally, this will greatly
improve coverage in some of the busiest Preserves, as well as two new planned trails:
• Bear Creek Redwoods
• St. Joseph’s Hill
• Priest Rock
• Limekiln
• Beatty Trail (MAA22-004)
• Ridge Trail Connection (MAA20-02)
See Attachment 3(b) for a map of coverage improvements associated with adding this tower.
2) Install Repeater at McQueen Ridge; Replace Tomita Tower (Attachment 2, Item 9) - Cost: $80,000
The area covered by this tower has seen multiple moderate-sized wildland fires over the last 15
years. Replacing the Tomita tower with the McQueen Ridge tower will therefore greatly
improve response and communication during wildland fires in this area. Additionally, replacing
the Tomita tower with the McQueen Ridge tower will provide improved coverage in the
following areas of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve:
• Twin Creeks
• Loma Prieta Ranch
• Loma Prieta/Loma Chiquita
• South side of Mt. Umunhum
See Attachment 3(c) for a map of coverage improvements associated with adding this tower.
3) Install New Repeater at Pigeon Point (Attachment 2, Item 13) - Cost: $212,000
Installing a new repeater at Pigeon Point tower will significantly improve coverage in potential
and existing growth areas:
• Cloverdale/Pescadero area
• The greater San Mateo County coast
See Attachment 3(d) for a map of coverage improvements associated with adding this tower.
FISCAL IMPACT
Original total project costs were projected at $1,219,000 over three fiscal years before more
accurate cost projections were developed as part of the Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans
report (Attachment 2). Refined cost estimates to implement the proposed recommendations now
total approximately $2,512,000 and are shown in detail below. Estimated equipment costs
include savings through cooperative purchasing agreements and staff will continue to explore
options to further reduce costs.
R-20-110 Page 6
Item Cost
Existing Contract: Consultant Engineering Services $111,000
Replace Existing Patrol Simulcast System $385,000
Replace Existing Maintenance/Administrative System $182,000
Common Site Equipment $346,000
Install Repeater at Allen Peak; Replace Skeggs Tower $80,000
SUBTOTAL for Required Items and Existing Contract $1,104,000
Upgrade Patrol Simulcast System to Digital
Upgrade to P25 Digital
Replace All District Radios
$166,000
$700,000
Upgrade Administrative System to Simulcast $35,000
SUBTOTAL for Performance and Reliability Improvements $901,000
Upgrade Redwood Tower to Transmit $215,000
Install Repeater at McQueen Ridge; Replace Tomita Tower $80,000
Install New Repeater at Pigeon Point $212,000
SUBTOTAL for Coverage Improvements $507,000
SUBTOTAL for all Recommended Items $1,408,000
TOTAL $2,512,000
The following table outlines the costs-to-date and projected future expenditures if all the
recommended items are approved by the Board. Funds would be programmed into future fiscal
year budgets as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. By the end of FY21, $5.5
million are projected in the committed for capital maintenance fund balance, which can be used
to cover future expenditures for this project if there are insufficient revenues in the general fund.
Radio System Assessment and Upgrade
(#65407)
FY20
Actuals
FY22
Projected
FY23
Projected TOTAL
Consultant Engineering Services Contract: $54,788 $20,000 $36,212 $111,000
Communications/Network Infrastructure &
Equipment: $0 $706,000 $908,000 $1,614,000
Installation Design & Engineering
Consultant: $0 $335,000 $452,000 $787,000
Estimated Total $54,788 $1,061,000 $1,396,212 $2,512,000
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
There was no prior Committee review for this agenda item. The full Board approved the
contract for the radio system assessment.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Pending Board approval of the recommendation, a Request for Proposals would be released in
FY22 for implementation of the recommendations and new equipment.
R-20-110 Page 7
Attachments
1. Map of District Radio Tower Locations
2. Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans
3. Coverage Improvement Maps
Responsible Department Head:
Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department
Prepared by/Contact Person:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Visitor Services Department
BELLO
AZUL
Black Moutain
Channel 2
Copernicus
(Mt. Hamilton)
Coyote Peak
Channel 5
Redwood
Mt. Umunhum
Channel 3
Sierra Morena
Channel 4
Pise
Channel 6
BEAR
CREEK
REDWOODS
EL CORTE DE
MADERA
CREEK
FREMONT
OLDER
LA HONDA
CREEK
LONG
RIDGE
MIRAMONTES
RIDGE
MONTE
PULGAS
RIDGE RAVENSWOOD
RUSSIAN
RIDGE
SARATOGA
GAP
SIERRA
TUNITAS
CREEK WINDY
HILL
RANCHO SAN
ANTONIO
SKYLINE
RIDGE
PURISIMA
CREEK
REDWOODS
EL SERENO
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ87
ÄÆ237
ÄÆ82
ÄÆ92
ÄÆ680
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ880
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ82
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ101
ÄÆ101
ÄÆ101
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
9/8/2020
Map of District Radio Tower Locations
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
a
_
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
d
e
\
R
a
d
i
o
R
e
p
e
a
t
e
r
s
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
T
o
w
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
\
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
T
o
w
e
r
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
_
2
0
2
0
0
9
0
8
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
f
l
o
p
e
z
0 105
MilesI
MROSD Preserves
Private Property
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Other Protected Lands
MROSD Boundary
Sphere of Influence
#District Radio Repeater
Ch 2 - Black Mountain
Ch 3 - Mt Umunhum
Ch 4 - Sierra Morena (Skeggs Pt)
Ch 5 - Coyote Peak
Ch 6 - Pise (formerly Purisima)
Maintenance Channels
Ch 1 - Simulcast
Patrol Channel
ATTACHMENT 1
`
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DRAFT
May 21, 2020
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATIVE PLANS
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page i
Author
Greg Forrest, P.E., Principal
Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc. (FTE)
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Tel: 925-251-1212
Email: gforrest@fortele.com
Version History
Draft Final
Description Version Draft Date Author Approval
Date Approver
Initial Draft 0.0 4/20/2020 Greg Forrest
First Revision (includes cost rev.) 1.0 5/21/2020 Greg Forrest
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page ii
Table of Contents
1 General ............................................................................................................ 2
2 Scope of Project ................................................................................................ 5
3 Existing System Assessment ................................................................................ 6
3.1 Key Interview Findings .............................................................................................. 6
3.2 Radio System Operations ........................................................................................... 7
3.3 Radio System Design ................................................................................................ 7
3.4 Backhaul Networks .................................................................................................. 10
3.5 Radio Coverage ....................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Shelter and Tower Facilities....................................................................................... 16
3.7 FCC Licenses ........................................................................................................... 19
3.8 System and Subscriber Maintenance .......................................................................... 20
3.9 Summary of Existing System Deficiencies ................................................................... 21
4 System Replacement Considerations ................................................................... 25
4.1 Other Modern Radio Features .................................................................................... 25
4.2 Future Radio System Attributes ................................................................................. 26
5 Radio System Recommendations ........................................................................ 28
5.1 Coverage and Repeater Site Selection ........................................................................ 29
5.2 Areas Targeted for Improvement ............................................................................... 29
5.3 Backhaul Recommendations ...................................................................................... 33
5.4 Impacts of Other District Projects .............................................................................. 33
6 Budgetary Costs of Solutions ............................................................................. 34
6.1 Cost Details ............................................................................................................ 34
7 Next Steps ...................................................................................................... 42
Appendix A - Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................ 44
Appendix B – Existing Admin Channel Coverage ......................................................... 46
Appendix C – Existing Patrol Channel Coverage .......................................................... 51
Appendix D – Proposed Coverage Solutions ............................................................... 56
Appendix E - District FCC Radio Licenses & Locations .................................................. 64
Appendix F – Coverage Solutions for Acquisitions ....................................................... 66
Radio Coverage of Potential Acquisitions ............................................................................... 67
Coverage and Repeater Site Selection .................................................................................. 67
Recommended Sites .......................................................................................................... 67
Cost Details ...................................................................................................................... 74
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page iii
List of Tables
Table 1 – Radio Channels and Tower Sites ................................................................................. 8
Table 2 – Fixed Two-Way Radio Equipment Inventory ................................................................ 10
Table 3 – Microwave Equipment Inventory ................................................................................ 12
Table 4 – Backhaul Interfaces and Capabilities .......................................................................... 13
Table 5 – Subscriber Equipment Inventory ............................................................................... 14
Table 6 – Frequency Sharing Agreements for Outside Agencies .................................................... 15
Table 7 – Frequency Sharing Agreements for District Use ........................................................... 15
Table 8 – Characteristics of Various Radio Bands ....................................................................... 27
Table 9 – Radio Voice Quality ................................................................................................. 28
Table 10 – Radio Coverage Deficiencies and Solutions ................................................................ 30
Table 11 – Radio Coverage Deficiencies and Solutions ................................................................ 67
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Existing Microwave Backhaul Network ....................................................................... 11
Figure 2 – FCC-Authorized Geographic Area .............................................................................. 20
Figure 3 – Appendix D: Admin Handheld Downlink ..................................................................... 47
Figure 4 – Appendix D: Admin Handheld Uplink ......................................................................... 48
Figure 5 – Appendix D: Admin Vehicle Downlink ........................................................................ 49
Figure 6 – Appendix D: Admin Vehicle Uplink ............................................................................ 50
Figure 7 – Appendix C: Patrol Handheld Downlink ...................................................................... 52
Figure 8 – Appendix C: Patrol Handheld Uplink .......................................................................... 53
Figure 9 – Appendix C: Patrol Vehicle Downlink ......................................................................... 54
Figure 10 – Appendix C: Patrol Vehicle Uplink ........................................................................... 55
Figure 11 – Appendix D: H-DL McQueen Ridge & Redwood .......................................................... 57
Figure 12 – Appendix D: H-UL McQueen Ridge .......................................................................... 58
Figure 13 – Appendix D: V-DL McQueen Ridge & Redwood .......................................................... 59
Figure 14 – Appendix D: V-UL McQueen Ridge .......................................................................... 60
Figure 15 – Appendix D: H-DL Allen Peak & Cal Water ................................................................ 61
Figure 16 – Appendix D: H-UL Allen Peak & Cal Water ................................................................ 62
Figure 17 – Appendix D: V-UL Allen Peak & Cal Water ................................................................ 63
Figure 18 – Appendix D: H-DL Half moon Bay PD, Allen Peak & Stage Road ................................... 70
Figure 19 – Appendix D: V-UL Half moon Bay PD & Allen Peak ..................................................... 71
Figure 20 – Appendix D: H-UL Pigeon Point .............................................................................. 72
Figure 21 – Appendix D: V-UL Pigeon Point ............................................................................... 73
File: MROSD Radio Assessment Report R2 5-21-20.docx
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 2
1 General
The District operates two voice radio systems that support over 200 handheld, vehicular and base
station radios used by rangers, maintenance personal and administrative staff. Both systems have
reached End of Life (EoL) from a manufacturer support perspective, and some critical parts may no
longer be available. The District has contracted with Forrest Telecom Engineering Inc. (FTE) to
develop a Master Plan for replacement and possible improvement.
This first report includes a comprehensive needs assessment, evaluates the current system’s strengths
and deficiencies, and develops several conceptual design options based upon cost, construction
feasibility, licensing, and other criteria.
Appendix A provides a glossary of various technical terms used in this report.
Background
District radio systems include a wide-area system for rangers (referred to as the Patrol Channel), and
a second more localized one to support maintenance and administration (Admin Channel). While
some cellular phones are in use as well, service coverage in many of the preserves is poor to non-
existent, and most are unable to support group voice messaging (“one-to-many” or party-line type
calls) which is important for staff safety.
The Patrol channel consists of five high-elevation repeater sites configured for simulcast operation, as
well as three auxiliary receive sites.1 Each connects to centralized control equipment installed at
Santa Clara County’s primary communications facility in San Jose.2 A combination of District- and
County-owned microwave radio links and leased digital circuits provide these connections. The District
contract’s with the Mountain View Police Department for 24-hour dispatch services for the Patrol
channel. The City’s dispatch workstations (consoles) connect to the central control equipment through
County-owned microwave radio.
Admin Channel repeaters are co-located with Patrol repeaters at the same five tower sites. These are
configured in a multisite or stand-alone arrangement, where messages are only retransmitted through
one repeater at a time. Thus, they can improve coverage within the area immediately surrounding
each repeater, but not between widely separated areas or preserves. Field users must manually
select the best repeater given their location and that of the message recipient(s).
Key Interview Findings
FTE interviewed rangers, maintenance and administration staff and found overall satisfaction with the
systems as well as their maintenance and administration. The most widely-reported system deficiency
was poor handheld radio coverage in specific areas. The Foothills Field Office (indoors), DHF and
Wildcat Canyon first to be mentioned. Later, large-scale maps were provided in various offices for
users to mark additional areas. Each problem area was categorized as handheld, vehicle, or both.
Approximately twenty additional locations were identified, with all but one being handheld radio
limitations. See Section 5.2 for a complete list. It was also noted that the highest use of radio occurs
in the Rancho San Antonio and Sierra Azul areas.
FTE also discussed a few common radio system enhancement or applications that are becoming more
common. It was believed that the Chief Ranger has expressed some interest in GPS-based location
1 Simulcast-type systems simultaneously broadcast every radio message through each repeater to allow reception
anywhere within the covered area.
2 Located on Carol Drive in San Jose.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 3
reporting from handheld radios the past. It was decided that more internal discussions would be
necessary on this topic.
FTE Findings
Our analysis also established the following:
The Patrol repeaters and associated central simulcast control system have become obsolete
from a support perspective. The Admin repeaters are also obsolete and overdue for
replacement.
This District’s microwave backhaul equipment is only half way through its useful life and can
be retained and reused with any future radio system project.
Backup batteries supporting the repeater and microwave links are aging and will need
replacement.
A segment of the backhaul link between the Pise Tower site and Carol Drive (leased from San
Mateo County) is incompatible with newer simulcast technologies that will be required for the
Patrol channel. This microwave segment will need replacement.3
The Sierra Morena site (leased) is not equipped with a backup generator and has limited
battery backup. FTE recommends that a generator be installed here if possible.
FTE verified most all user reports of poor handheld coverage, and we established the degree of
vehicle coverage in these same areas. Terrain blockage is causing the vast majority of
coverage problems. Such coverage challenges can only be solved by relocating or adding
repeater sites at specific locations.
There are various other minor site deficiencies that can be corrected when other work is
planned for the tower sites (see Section 3.9).
Recommendations and Budgetary Costs
We have categorized our recommendations as baseline (or “like-kind” replacements), enhancements
or as coverage mitigation items.
Baseline Item 1: Replace Existing Patrol Radio System ($378,000)
Baseline Item 2: Replace Existing Admin Multicast System ($177,000)
Baseline Item 3: Common Site Equipment for Patrol & Admin Channels4 ($370,000)
Enhancement Item 4: Add - Upgrade Patrol Channel to P25 Digital ($161,000)
Enhancement Item 5: Add - Upgrade Admin Channel to Simulcast ($34,000)
Enhancement Item 6: Backup Generator at Sierra Morena/Skeggs Tower Site ($78,000)
Mitigation items below all relate to improving handheld or vehicular coverage by relocating or adding
repeaters at existing government or privately-owned tower sites. Cost ranges shown in Items 9 and
10 represent relocation of an existing repeater site (lower cost) or installation of an additional repeater
(higher cost) at the tower site specified.
3 The County cannot provide a compatible IP-based segment here until 2022 or later when its microwave system is
scheduled for replacement.
4 Must be implemented if either Items 1 or 2 are implemented.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 4
•Mitigation Item 7: Upgrade Redwood Site for Patrol Repeater Operation ($334,000)
•Mitigation Item 8: Install New Patrol Repeater at Cal Water Site ($374,000)
•Mitigation Item 9: Install New Patrol Repeater at Allen Peak ($78,000 - $416,000)
•Mitigation Item 10: Install New Patrol Repeater at McQueen Ridge ($78,000 - $366,000)
All costs include supply and installation by Santa Clara County, spare equipment, sales tax, freight,
testing and integration costs. Costs do not include handheld, vehicular or base radios. Engineering
costs are included if shown.
Possible Project Risks
FTE sees limited risk with any of the recommendations or cost items. However, it will be important for
Rangers to review changes in radio coverage if the Sierra Morena or Tomita tower sites are relocated.
While relocating a repeater to a new tower site can improve coverage in some area, it can also create
coverage holes where they may not have existed before.
Next Steps
FTE recommends the following next steps:
1.Select and prioritize any desired coverage improvement package(s) from Items 7, 8, 9 and/or
10.
2.If existing repeaters at Sierra Morena or Tomita will be relocated to Allen Peak and/or
McQueen Ridge (Items 9 or 10), have FTE meet with Patrol and Admin channel field users to
review the coverage changes in detail.
3.Have FTE work with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to establish if a new microwave path
can be installed at Pise to replace the existing legacy link from San Mateo Co.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 5
2 Scope of Project
This project encompasses all areas within the District boundaries, including future coastal lands
proposed for acquisition. The following communications systems and equipment are also under
consideration:
An eight-site, VHF conventional simulcast radio system (Patrol Channel)
A five-site VHF, conventional multisite radio system (Admin Channel)
Single dispatch console/workstations at Mountain View Police
Four 6 and 11 GHz microwave radio backhaul paths
Associated supporting facilities, such as shelters, tower and immediate backup power
FTE’s scope of work consists of the following major tasks:
Task 1 – Needs Assessment
Task 2 – Develop Architecture Alternatives & Plan
Task 3 – Technical Specifications
Task 4 – Proposal Review
Task 5 – Oversee Implementation
Deliverables include the following:
Deliverable #1: Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans (DRAFT & FINAL)
Deliverable #2: Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Presentation
Deliverable #3: FCC Applications, Showings, Engineering, etc.
Deliverable #4: Technical Specifications (DRAFT & FINAL)
Deliverable #5: Evaluation Comments
Deliverable #6: Design Review Comments
Deliverable #7: Punchlist, Survey Notes, Photos
Deliverable #8: Punchlist, Letter Indicating Successful Tests and Acceptance
This is Deliverable #1 and consolidates the findings from Task 1 & 2.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 6
3 Existing System Assessment
This Section describes the existing systems and provides our assessment of the condition, age and
potential reuse of some key assets.
3.1 Key Interview Findings
FTE interviewed several Rangers and Maintenance staff that use the voice radios on a regular basis.
The most critical findings are summarized below.
1. When asked about their one most critical issue surrounding the radio system’s reliability,
operation, maintenance or performance, none cited any critical flaws or major dissatisfaction.
2. They recall one recent Patrol channel problem where the channel became “noisy” during a
short period of time. FTE contacted the Santa Clara County, who provides maintenance
service. They recall the problem and believe it was due to a cable failure between two critical
simulcast devices at Carol Drive. This was repaired and the channel is working again.
3. The most widely reported system deficiency was poor radio coverage in specific areas. The
following locations were noted during this meeting, but a more comprehensive study was
conducted later (see Section 5.2).
Foothills Field Office – Indoors and outdoors, handheld radios, both channels
DHF - Indoors and outdoors, handheld radios, both channels
Wildcat Canyon - Outdoors, handheld radios, both channels
4. FTE asked where indoor handheld radio coverage would be helpful now or in the immediate
future. Users note that most locations are already equipped with a base station that provides
adequate capability. Due to the size of the Distel offices, indoor handheld coverage here was
desired as it would be impractical to install a large number of base stations.
5. The Distel office may be moving to 505 El Camino in the next few years; indoor coverage here
would be helpful.
6. As anticipated, the greatest amount of radio messages occur in the busiest areas of the
District, which includes Rancho San Antonio and Sierra Azul. (FTE notes that this should have
some influence on where coverage improvements are considered).
7. FTE discussed a few common radio system enhancements or applications that are becoming
available. It was believed that the Chief Ranger has expressed some interest in GPS-equipped
handheld radios to help locate Rangers when their locations are not known. None of the
existing vehicular or handheld radios are equipped with GPS today. It was decided that more
internal discussions would be necessary on this topic.5.
5 Application requires a control and display system. A digital-type radio system would likely be required to
properly support this application. Location reporting should be limited to each voice transmission, or only on
emergency button activations, instead of full-time to avoid interrupting voice messages on the same channel.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 7
8. None of the existing handheld or vehicle radios are equipped with a “lone worker” alarm
feature.6 Such features are sometimes used by public safety and utilities, particularly if the
office or dispatch is not 24/7, or when operating alone.
3.2 Radio System Operations
The following Section describes how key radios channels are being used today. This information was
obtained during interviews.
Patrol Channel
The Patrol channel is used exclusively by the Rangers for most all communications. This includes
communications and coordination between field units, field offices and the Mountain View Police Dept.
dispatch center. All maintenance radios also have access to this channel for access for additional
assistance when needed.
District staff noted that one CALFIRE member can operate here occasionally, and they were aware
that San Mateo County Fire and San Jose Fire may also have access (refer to 3.4.6 for a complete list
of Sharing Agreements).
Patrol Talkaround Channel
The Patrol Talkaround channel is meant for communications directly between radio users, unassisted
by the repeater system. Its range it limited to several miles. It provides a method to communicate
using one half of the primary channel should the repeater system fail, or for messages that need not
be conveyed over the entire service area. Mountain View dispatch has no capability to listen to
messages on this channel using their consoles.
Administrative Channel
The Admin channel is used for maintenance and administrative communications, and for some
seasonal staff. Mountain View dispatch does not have access to this channel, and it is not routinely
monitored at most of the District offices.
MROSD Tactical
As noted above, this channel is specifically for car-to-car or direct mode operation by rangers or
maintenance. Its range is the same as the Patrol Talkaround Channel. It will be retained.
3.3 Radio System Design
Four conventional radio channels are in use today on a routine basis. Two of the channels are
equipped with repeaters, receivers and antennas at various tower sites. Two other Direct Mode, or
“car-to-car” channels also exist for localized communications.
The District also hold licenses on five other channels used for interoperability, or communications with
other outside agencies. These channel are only used during fire, rescue or medical events when
working with outside agencies such as Santa Clara Co. of San Mateo County Fire and/or Calfire.
6 This is typically activated by the field user when they enter a potentially high-risk environment. It requires the
user to affirmatively press a radio button, or physically move the radio, to reset a “watchdog” alarm timer every 5
to 60 minutes; failure to silence the alarm will cause radio to automatically report its ID (and location if GPS-
equipped) to dispatch.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 8
The distribution of District repeater and receiver is shown below. “TX/RX” devices are repeaters (a
repeater consists of a transmitter and receiver), and “RX” refers to a stand-alone receiver.
Table 1 – Radio Channels and Tower Sites
The two repeater channels support a number of field office base stations, handheld, and vehicular
radios, as well as dispatch console positions/workstations. These are described later in this Section.
3.3.1 Patrol Channel
This channel is equipped with five repeater sites (“TX/RX”) and three receiver (“RX”) sites as shown in
Table 1 above. The repeater stations transmit with equal or greater power than the vehicular radios,
so they generally provide reliable two-way (or symmetrical) uplink and downlink coverage for
vehicles.7 Since handheld radios transmit much less power than the vehicle radios, signals from these
radios are often much weaker, limiting their coverage. However, the District’s three receive-only sites
(Black Mtn. FAA, Copernicus & Redwood) partially offset this limitation by improving uplink coverage
in surrounding areas.
The five repeater transmitters are configured for simulcast operation. This means that all messages to
and from the field users are broadcast from all five site simultaneously, and on the same radio
frequency. Special equipment at each repeater and the system’s core site (County Communications,
Carol Drive, San Jose) ensure that message transmissions are synchronized closely with one another
to minimize distortion in the field.
Simulcast enhances coverage reliability and safety overall by providing multiple signal paths for each
message. It also simplifies field operations by eliminating the need for users to switch channels when
operating in different areas.
All eight receivers (five associated with the repeaters, and three stand-alones) connect to a
voter/comparator located at Carol Drive. The voter/comparator selects the best incoming signal for
retransmission by the five transmitter sites.
7 In a two-war radio system, uplink refers to signals transmitted from the field user to the repeater; downlink is the
opposite signal direction. See Appendix A - Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions.
Site Name:Black
Mtn.
Coyote
Peak Pise
Sierra
Morena
(Skeggs Pt.)
Tomita
(Umunhum)
Black Mtn.
(FAA)
Copernicus
(Mt.
Hamilton)
Redwood Mobile
Only
Elev. (ft.)2805 1125 1994 2342 3325 2806 3325 1500
Channel Base TX Base RX
Function (MHz) (MHz)
PATROL 152.0900 158.5500 TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX RX RX RX
ADMIN 151.2350 159.2550 TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX
TACTICAL 150.7750 150.7750 M
MOBILE RPTR 173.2500 173.2500 M
EBRPD 45.0000 45.0000 M
FIRE V 153.8450 153.8450 M
VFIRE22 154.2650 154.2650 M
VFIRE21 154.2800 154.2800 M
VFIRE23 154.2950 154.2950 M
TX/RX - Repeater RX - Receiver M - Direct Mode/Car-to-Car
Station Type and Location
Interoperability Channels
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 9
As shown in Table 1 above, two receivers exist at Black Mountain. The primary receiver, located on
the top of Black Mountain, provides broad coverage. The second receiver is located due east of the
primary one, in a position having slightly better visibility into Wildcat Canyon and Deer Hollow Farm
(DHF).
Seven of the eight tower sites connect to Carol Drive through a combination of District, County and
shared microwave radio links, and a leased T1 line. See Section 3.4 below for details.
3.3.2 Admin Channel
Like the Patrol channel, this channel is equipped with five repeater sites, but has no additional receiver
sites. Thus, it provides slightly less coverage for handheld radios in certain areas. However, the most
significant difference is its operation.
This channel is configured for multicast, not simulcast. This means that messages are only
transmitted through one site at a time as each site is stand-alone. Users must be familiar with what
tower site to use in different areas, and then use their channel selector switch to choose it. Thus, five
channel positions exist on radios that have access to this system, each associated with one of the
repeater sites.
Users will often select Black Mountain first as it has the widest and most central coverage (unless they
know of a better site). However, if two users needing to communicate are separated by a great
distance, which requires them to use different tower sites, it is possible that they may not hear each
other since they are on different repeaters. There must be some degree of overlapping coverage to
allow such users to communicate.
Since messages are only transmitted through one site at a time, overall coverage reliability will be
much less than the Patrol channel.8
FTE also found that each repeater was equipped with a Community Tone Panel. This device permits a
limited level of shared use by assigning different departments or outside agencies (but not at the
same time) different access codes. This only prevents different agencies from hearing each other; it
does not provide any additional capacity, and message collisions would be common if there was
significant shared use. It was believed that the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) may be
one of the other users. A detailed review of sharing agreements might uncover what these are
present.
The District could reuse or replace these panels (about $2500 each X 5 sites) and just continue to
provide the capability if not operational changes are planned for the Admin channel. They would not
compatible with some types of system enhancements.
3.3.3 Repeater System Equipment
The following table shows two-way radio station equipment and related hardware (except microwave
radio equipment) located at the remote radio and control sites. The table lists District-owned
equipment only. The District shares antennas and backup power systems with other County users at
some sites.
8 Patrol previously used this multicast channel, but transitioned to a new simulcast-type system in the mid-2000s
to simplify operation and improve overall coverage reliability.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 10
Table 2 – Fixed Two-Way Radio Equipment Inventory
As shown, the Patrol repeaters and central simulcast control system are 8-9 years old. These typically
have a useful life of 10-15 years from a reliability standpoint. However, these and the central control
system were purchased late in their production life and have become obsolete from a support
perspective.
3.4 Backhaul Networks
The District owns and operates microwave radios for four backhaul paths, and uses bandwidth on
other microwave systems and leased T1 lines to connect to its central radio core at the Santa Clara
County’s Carol Drive communications site. Figure 1 below shows the various paths and their
termination points.
The other microwave systems are owned and operated by San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, as
well as an E-COMM path from Coyote to Carol Drive.9
The T1 connections are leased from AT&T by Santa Clara County. Each supports radio circuits from
other agencies as well. Due to leased distance charges, each connects to County microwave radio
that eventually routes to Carol Drive.
9 The E-COMM system is a region-wide digital microwave network that links all 14 of the 9-1-1 Call Centers in
Santa Clara County.
Qty. Station Equipment
Est. Age
(Years)
Useful Life*
(Years)Comment(s)
5 VHF Quantar Repeater 9 10-15 Patrol Channel
5 VHF MTR2000 Repeater 9-20 10-15 Admin. Channel
3 VHF AstrocTAC (Quantar) Receiver 9 10-15 Patrol Channel
12 Telewave ANT150 Antenna 9-20 10-15 Two & four-bay models
10 Duplexer filters 9-20 10-15
4 Community Tone Panel (Zetron 38) 20 10-15 Admin. channel
1 Community Tone Panel (CSI TP3200) 20 10-15 Admin. Channel, Sierra Morena
6 GPS Frequency Standard 9 10-15 Each rptr. site & Carol Drive
* Based on equipment relaibility; obsolesence or support may be less.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 11
Figure 1 – Existing Microwave Backhaul Network
3.4.1 District Microwave Equipment
All of the District-owned paths use licensed, indoor radios manufactured by Aviat (IRU-600 series).
Such models are also in use by other agencies in Santa Clara and other surrounding counties. Each
path is equipped with redundant, or “hot-standby” transceivers that will maintain the link should a
failure be detected.
We also note that the District has purchased spare equipment for both the 6 GHz and 11 GHz paths.
3.4.2 Backhaul Equipment
The following table lists all District-owned microwave radio equipment at the remote radio and control
sites. The table lists District-owned equipment only. Dish antennas are not shown. Related backup
power systems are shown in Table 2 above.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 12
Table 3 – Microwave Equipment Inventory
The District’s microwave equipment is only 50% through its useful life from a reliability standpoint and
can likely be reused with any new replacement radio technology through its IP interface. This model
radio will likely be supported for another five to seven years. However, some critical modules my
need replacement after this.
The equipment warranty expired in 2015/16. The manufacturer estimates that a new annual
warranty for advanced replacement and factory repair would be approximately $5k/year (total) for all
four paths.10
The microwave radio equipment is equipped with forced-air cooling fans. These fans are the most
common failure of this equipment. FTE has recommended that these be replaced as a preventative
measure as part of this project.11
The District had also purchased Aviat’s ProVision® software package for monitoring the paths
remotely (presumably the County has installed this package and monitors the District’s paths). This
warranty has also expired but is relatively expensive to maintain (~$7K annually). However, the
current software is expected to operate throughout the lifetime of the equipment without this.
All of the backup batteries are aging and will need replacement.
3.4.3 Existing Backhaul Interfaces & Capabilities
The District-owned microwave links are capable of both Time Division Multiplex (TDM) and IP
technology.12 Only the TDM interfaces are being used as the current baseband equipment (e.g.,
multiplexers, etc.) used with the current two-way radio systems are TDM technology. This includes
the leased T1 lines. In particular, the current simulcast transmitter synchronization equipment is
specifically designed to operate over TDM technologies.
Most new two-way radio equipment and simulcast hardware will be designed for IP-based backhaul.
Table 4 below describes the current equipment capabilities.
10 This still requires support from Santa Clara Co. to remove and replace any failed equipment on site.
11 The County can order these as replacement parts and install them in the field. Fans in the spare equipment
should be replaced if the spares were ever placed in operation.
12 References to “T1” lines herein refer to TDM-type connections.
Qty. Common Site Equipment
Est. Age
(Years)
Useful Life*
(Years)Comment(s)
2 Aviat IRU600 V2 HSB terminal, 6 GHz 9 15-20 Black Mtn. to Carol Drive
6 Aviat IRU600 V2 HSB terminal, 11 GHz 9 15-20 Sierra Morena, Rolph & Tomita
4 Aviat IRU600 V2 spares (6 & 11 GHz) 9 15-20 One each, low & high 6 & 11 GHz band
1 Aviat ProVision® monitoring package 9 15-20
7 Multiplexer, Motorola TENSR 9 15-20 No longer supported/no parts available.
7 DC Backup Power System 9 15-20 Batteries 10 yrs.; charger 20 yrs.
* Based on equipment relaibility; obsolesence or support may be less.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 13
Table 4 – Backhaul Interfaces and Capabilities
As noted, District and Santa Clara County microwave radio can support IP, but San Mateo County
cannot. Thus, the Pise connection to Rolph is currently limited to TDM operation.
San Mateo County has begun to replace their microwave with IP-capable models, it is not scheduled
for completion until 2022 or later. FTE has included costs to install new IP-capable microwave at Pise
to a yet-to-be-determined Santa Clara Co. tower site.13
As the leased T1 TDM lines currently only support VHF receivers (not transmitters), it is possible that
these can remain TDM in the near term, in some cases. See next Section.
3.4.4 TDM/T1 versus AT&T Switched Ethernet Services
AT&T indicates that it may drop support for T1 lines this year (2020). AT&T’s goal is to move all TDM
technologies, such as T1 service, to fiber-based IP by 2020, using their AT&T Switched Ethernet (ASE)
IP product. However, it is widely believed that T1 services could be available for another three to six
years before a forced transition would occur.
If AT&T fiber does not already exist at a radio site (most sites), AT&T must install fiber at the
Customer’s expense. Costs could be in the tens of thousands, and sometimes over $100k, per site, if
fiber was not already nearby.
The following sites below are affected by AT&T’s support policy. Some options are noted here as a
well.
Black Mountain FAA: This is a receiver site for the District, primarily for the DHF area. If the new
Cal Water site is built, a receiver here may no longer be needed. If it is needed, one option is to
install a low-capacity microwave link ($15K) between this site and Black, which is close by.
Redwood site: This is an important receiver site for the District, and FTE has also proposed an
option to upgrade this site to a full repeater as an option. However, site access is based on an
informal agreement between AT&T and Santa Clara Co., and further enhancements may not be
possible. If it remains a receiver, TDM access may suffice. Repeater capability may require AT&T
fiber, or a new microwave path. However, given its location, finding a line-of-sight microwave path
through trees and surrounding terrain will require further analysis.
13 This may require two microwave paths; in this case, the Black Mtn. to Rolph path equipment could be used as it
would no longer be needed at Rolph.
Site Technology
Current
Connection Type
(to Carol Drive)
Current
Capability
(to Carol Drive)
Owner/Lessee/Carrier
Black Mountain Microwave T1 T1 and IP MROSD
Coyote Peak Microwave T1 T1 and IP SC Co. E-COMM
Pise Microwave T1 T1* San Mateo Co. & MROSD
Sierra Morena (Skeggs Pt.) Microwave T1 T1 and IP MROSD
Tomita(Umunhum) Microwave T1 T1 and IP MROSD
Black Mountain(FAA) Leased T1 T1 T1 Santa Clara Co. / AT&T
Copernicus (Mt. Hamilton) Microwave T1 T1 and IP Santa Clara Co.
Redwood Leased T1 T1 T1 Santa Clara Co. / AT&T
* IP capability in 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 14
3.4.5 Subscriber Equipment
The District’s end-user inventory includes approximately 212 subscriber radios (e.g., handheld,
vehicular and base stations) and four desktop “slave” desktop remotes. The remotes permit access to
a single shared TK5720K control station radio at the same office. The following table lists this
equipment.
Table 5 – Subscriber Equipment Inventory
All radio equipment is manufactured by Kenwood. Handheld radios have a useful life of eight years,
while the vehicular radios and remotes can last 10 years. Base radios can last 10 to 15 years.
All of the subscriber radio equipment is locally supported by Metromobile Communication in Belmont.
The District indicates significant satisfaction with Metromobile’s response and support.
This inventory does not include Dispatch console equipment located at Mountain View Police
Department. This is owned by the City.
3.4.6 Agreements with Outside Agencies
The District maintains agreements with certain outside agencies permit them to operate on District
frequencies, and separately for the District to operate on other’s frequencies. In general, Sharing
Agreements are for occasional use and not for routine use by the invited agency. They are most often
used for joint operations, emergencies, or to provide an outside agency with coverage and/or Dispatch
access they may not have on their own radio system.
Table 6 below lists agreements that allows an outside agency to use specific District frequencies under
certain conditions. Presumably this means the use of the District’s repeater system.
Radio Type Kenwood
Models
Manuf.
Support?
Age
(yrs.)*Total Administration Maintenance Patrol
NX5200 YES 1-2 10 5 5
TK2402 YES 3-5 29 19 8 2
TK2402V YES 3-5 2 2
TK290NO12+83213032
Total 124 45 43 36
TK5710 w/KCH16 YES 4-8 3 1 2
TK5710 YES 4-8 46 9 17 20
TK5720 YES 4-8 1 1
TK7180 YES 4-6 1 1
TK790 NO 12+ 32 2 17 13
Total 83133733
TK5720K YES 4-8 5 4 1
TK5720K-REM YES 4-8 4 4
Total 216 62 80 74
*F TE estimate; no age or date of purchase available.
Control
Station
Remotes
Handheld
Vehicular
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 15
Table 6 – Frequency Sharing Agreements for Outside Agencies
Most of the agreements above were consummated when Patrol was using 151.235/159.225 MHz as
their main channel. This channel became the Admin Channel after a new channel was implemented
for Patrol (152.090/158.550 MHz). Some agreements may need updating if the outside agency needs
to communicate directly with the Rangers on their channel or require Dispatch support (the Admin
channel is not supported by the Mtn. View Police Dispatch center).
Table 7 above lists agreements that allow the District to use the frequencies of other agencies under
certain conditions.
Table 7 – Frequency Sharing Agreements for District Use
3.4.7 Dispatch Operations
The District contracts with Mountain View Police Department for 24-hour dispatch services. This
contract provides for Ranger support on the Patrol channel using the City’s new Motorola MCC7500
dispatch workstations. These are connected to the District’s equipment at Carol drive through County-
owned microwave radio. All communications are recorded for archival purposes.
Agency License/Description Frequency (MHz) Issue Date Expiration Date
California Dept. Parks & Rec Emergency Use Only 151.235/159.225 9/15/1992 open
California Dept. Water Resources Shared use of Black Mt.
repeater and frequencies*151.235/159.225 5/6/1991 open
East Bay Regional Parks Frequency Sharing 159.255, 45.0 10/16/1990 open
City of Palo Alto Fire Dept. Emergency Use Only 151.235/159.225 3/11/1995 open
City of Palo Alto Parks Dept. Emergency Use Only 151.235/159.225 6/28/1998 open
Town of Los Gatos Emergency Use Only 151.235/159.225 3/11/1995 open
Santa Clara Valley Water District Emergency Use Only
152.090/158.550
151.235/159.255 3/18/2015 open
* The State of California also holds their own license for 151.235 MHz at Black Mtn. (WPAC797) with no mobiles.
Agency License/Description Frequency (MHz) Issue Date Expiration Date
CALCORD (KB82490) 156.075 7/16/1993 open
CLEMARS (KA4993)159.920
154.935 9/26/1994 open
CalFire (CDF) Emergency Use Only
State & local Fire
Frequencies 5/1/1995 open
San Mateo County Dept. of
Parks & Rec Frequency Sharing 151.475 9/22/1977 open
Santa Clara County Dept. of
Parks & Rec Frequency Sharing
151.145
159.120
151.490
3/19/1996 open
San Jose Fire Frequency Sharing
155.025
155.925
153.980
154.115
154.430
154.310
151.040
9/14/2017 open
California Office of Emergency
Services (OES)
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 16
3.5 Radio Coverage
Radio coverage prediction maps for the current radio systems are shown in Appendix B – Existing
Admin Channel Coverage, and in Appendix C – Existing Patrol Channel Coverage. As the Admin and
Patrol channels use a different number of towers, separate maps are provided.
The tower site locations are shown with yellow labels, with a cross indicating the tower position.
Handheld and vehicular coverage will be different and has been shown separately. Locations with
reliable handheld radio coverage are always shown in green, while reliable vehicle coverage is shown
in blue.
Finally, “two-way” radio coverage consist of a “downlink” and an “uplink” signal path. The area
covered in each direction will vary by radio channel design and by the type of field equipment in use.
We have provided separate maps for each direction.
In general, radio coverage is only as good as the weakest direction. Uplink coverage maps will show
the worse-case for the Admin channel. However, this is not true of the Patrol channel in all areas due
to the use of receive-only sites. Consult both uplink and downlink maps to obtain a complete picture
of Patrol Channel coverage.
3.6 Shelter and Tower Facilities
Brief descriptions of the communications shelters and are shown below. Shelter and tower owner
names are based on information provided by Santa Clara Co., FTE’s site survey and others. FTE was
unable to confirm if the site generators were supporting the specific circuits in use by the District.
However, this is usually the case.
Black Mtn.
Elevation: 2,805 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.318727 / -122.147247
Shelter Owner: Communications & Control
Tower Owner: Communications & Control
Generator: Yes
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 17
Black Mtn FAA
Elevation: 2,799 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.318883 / -122.146369
Shelter Owner: Santa Clara CO.
Tower Owner: Santa Clara CO.
Generator: No
Copernicus
Elevation: 4,284 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.346561 / -121.630797
Shelter Owner: Santa Clara CO.
Tower Owner: Santa Clara CO.
Generator: Yes
Coyote Peak
Elevation: 1,125 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.208933 / -121.77529
Shelter Owner: American Tower
Tower Owner: American Tower
Generator: Yes
(American may not be servicing this generator)
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 18
Pise
Elevation: 1,994 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.455859 / -122.34097
Shelter Owner: San Mateo Co.
Tower Owner: San Mateo Co.
Generator: Yes
Redwood
Elevation: 1,487 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.157579 / -121.983945
Shelter Owner: AT&T
Tower Owner: AT&T
Generator: Yes
(FTE was unable to access shelter and tower)
Rolph
Elevation: 2.377 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.33065979 / -122.2139966
Shelter Owner: San Mateo Co.
Tower Owner: San Mateo Co.
Generator: Yes
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 19
Sierra Morena
Elevation: 2,342 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.410657 / -122.306894
Shelter Owner: Crown Castle
Tower Owner: Crown Castle
Generator: No
Tomita Hill
Elevation: 3,325 ft. AMSL
Coordinates: 37.160016 / -121.908065
Shelter Owner: Communications & Control
Tower Owner: Communications & Control
Generator: Unknown
3.7 FCC Licenses
A list of all District FCC licenses and their associated radio frequencies is in Appendix E - District FCC
Radio Licenses & Locations.
3.7.1 Patrol Channel - WQML377
The Patrol channel consists of a pair of geographically-licensed frequencies that were obtained through
an FCC waiver process and purchased from a private entity. Rules governing this channel are
contained in 47CFR22, Public Mobile Services. This geographic area is shown in Figure 2 below.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 20
Geographically-licensed frequencies can be deployed anywhere within the area described on the FCC
license, without having to notify the FCC. However, licensees must not interfere with others operating
on the same channel in surrounding areas. This 10-year license expires on 6/21/2022 and must be
renewed before this date.
Figure 2 – FCC-Authorized Geographic Area
3.7.2 Admin Channel - WNVC239
The Admin channel consists of a pair of site-licensed frequencies that fall under 47CFR90, Private Land
Mobile Radio Services. Site-licensed frequencies must only be used at the specific site coordinates or
locations described on the license. Relocation or changes to the technical operation must be first
approved by a registered frequency coordinator and the FCC. This 10-year license expires on
1/15/2023 and must be renewed before this date.
3.8 System and Subscriber Maintenance
The District contracts with Santa Clara County for maintenance of the fixed-end equipment, such as
repeaters, microwave and antenna systems. Handheld, vehicle and base radios are maintained on a
break-fix approach through Metromobile Communications Inc. of Belmont. The District has been
satisfied with services from both.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 21
3.9 Summary of Existing System Deficiencies
No. Description
1 Poor Handheld Radio Coverage in Numerous Areas
Existing outdoor handheld radio coverage was reported and verified in approximately twenty areas.
These are detailed in Section 5.2.
Recommendation: Many of these areas were in canyons, which is common. Handheld coverage
problems in such terrain cannot always be resolved without excessive expenditures. The District is
already using vehicular repeaters, which is one of the most cost-effective methods.14 See Section
5.2.1 for suggested improvements.
2 Limited Vehicular Radio Coverage in Some Areas
Limited vehicular radio coverage was reported in one area, and we discovered additional locations in
areas having poor portable coverage. These are detailed in Section 5.2.
Recommendation: Same as above. Radio coverage in the District is almost entirely terrain-limited,
requiring existing sites to be relocated or new sites implemented. If vehicular coverage can be
improved, Rangers will be able to use their vehicular repeater in many cases. See Section 5.2.1 for
suggestions for improvement.
3 Technical Deficiencies Common to Most Tower Sites
The following deficiencies were identified at most sites:
Backup batteries approaching end of life (MAJOR)
Admin channel antennas and lines should be replaced (MAJOR)
Insufficient equipment grounding (MINOR)
Backup batteries for repeater and microwave radios were dated 2012; these have a useful life of eight
to ten years, depending on use.
The Admin channel antennas and lines appear may be original (beyond 12 years of age). If so, these
should be replaced.
Devices mounted in the District’s equipment racks, including repeaters, multiplexers, microwave
radios, power supplies were not consistently bonded to a common rack or site ground system. This
helps reduce possible equipment damage during lightning strikes and voltage surges by ensuring that
all devices at the same voltage potential (voltage differences among devices can result in excessive
current flow, arcing, heat and damage).
In general, the District’s leased commercial sites had poorly maintained site grounding systems.
However, having the site equipment bonded together by the installer can still reduce problems.
Recommendation: Replace all batteries and Admin Channels antennas when other equipment is
replaced at the sites. Lightning storms are infrequent in California (compared with other states);
improve grounding when other work is completed at the sites.
14 These can improve coverage within a range of ½ to 1 mile around a vehicle, but there are some operational
limitations.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 22
4 Technical Deficiencies Common to Microwave Terminals (MAJOR)
Forced-air cooling fans in the microwave radio power amplifiers have a limited equipment life and are
critical to proper operation. While fan failures should send an alarm to Santa Clara County, its best to
replace these before they fail to reduce potential amplifier damage. These fans are shown in the top-
left photo in Item 8 below.
Recommendation: Replace all power amplifier fans during performance of other planned site work.
This can be accomplished by Santa Clara Co. without special tools. However, the microwave
equipment may have to be deactivated for a short period of time (less than one hour), disabling the
site.
5 Technical Deficiencies at the Black Mountain Tower Site
The following deficiencies were identified at this site:
Antenna element is misaligned on the tower (MINOR)
No lighting/surge protection on one of two antenna lines (MINOR)
Lighting protection device is not grounded (MINOR)
Wind has likely caused one of four antenna elements to become misaligned; this will have a very slight
impact on radio coverage. Of the two District antennas (Patrol & Admin channel), the Admin Channel
antenna line is not equipped with a Transient Voltage Surge Suppression (TVSS) device. The Patrol
channel line is equipped with a TVSS, but it has not been connected to the site ground system.
Recommendation: County reports difficulties keeping this antenna model from becoming
misadjusted. Replace this model antenna with a different one when it is finally replaced. No other
action needed at this time. Resolve lightning protection when other major work is completed at site.
6 Technical Deficiencies at the Pise Tower Site
The following deficiencies were identified at this site:
Lighting protection devices (2) are not bonded to ground (MINOR)
While both antenna lines are equipped with Transient Voltage Surge Suppression (TVSS) devices,
neither device has been directly bonded to the building ground system on the copper bus below them.
Recommendation: Bond these devices to the site ground when other major work is completed at
site.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 23
7 Technical Deficiencies at Sierra Morena (Skeggs Site)
The following deficiencies were identified at this site:
Equipment is not equipped with a backup generator (MAJOR)
This site is not equipped with a generator for long-term operation during utility power outages. It
appears that one may have existed as a concrete foundation exists for one. While the District’s
microwave and radio equipment is equipped with backup batteries, these will only support this site for
a limited time. County reports that they must respond with a portable generator for extended outages
(such as the PG&E PSPS events) with a run time of about eight hours. Thus, the generator must be
refueled daily; FTE estimates this to be a two-hour round-trip. While they consider this in their scope,
a permanent generator on this important site would be a better alternative.
As this is a simulcast site for the Patrol channel, and outage here can have wide coverage impacts,
beyond the coverage footprint of this site.
Recommendation: Site is owned by Crown Castle; attempt to work with them to accommodate
some type of long-term backup (possibly three to five days). Reuse of existing concrete pad and
conduit may reduce installation complexity and cost. A solar deployment would be challenging due to
tree cover and space requirements at this leased site.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 24
8 Technical Deficiencies at the Tomita Site
The following deficiencies were identified at this site:
Admin channel antenna line is not equipped with a TVSS device (MINOR)
Site is extremely dusty (MINOR)
Seismic bracing improvement needed (at wall) (MINOR)
No lightning suppression device has been installed in the Admin Channel antenna line. Site is not
equipped with air conditioning but is equipped with fans. However, air filtering is insufficient and dust
will eventually clog equipment fans and restrict cooling (see dirty fan intakes on microwave radios
below). Site temperature may also be high during warm days.
Small J-hooks are used to secure the ladder rack to the wall (see below). These may pull out during a
severe earthquake. Racks are secured to foundation but it’s not clear how strong these bolts are.
Recommendation: Purchase and install a TVSS device if other equipment is replaced at site. Site
grounding system here is poor, so a ground rod (or connection to an existing one) and other work may
also be necessary.
Site is leased so little can be done about the dusty conditions. However, equipment could be placed in
sealed cabinets as long as they are equipped with fine particulate filters that are serviced often, and
forced-air cooling. This can be considered for the new equipment.
Better secure the horizontal brace connection at wall when other work is completed at site.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 25
9 Technical Deficiency at the Coyote Site
The following deficiencies were identified at this site:
Admin channel repeater not connected to site batteries (MINOR)
No lighting/surge protection on Admin antenna line (MINOR)
The Admin channel repeater is connected to the site’s utility power directly, but not to short-term
battery backup like the Patrol repeater. Space is limited and this may be due to limited battery
capacity here. However, American Tower (site owner or manager) has a poor reputation for
maintaining generators.
No lightning suppression device has been installed in the antenna line to the Admin channel antenna.
Recommendation: Place this station on battery backup when battery systems are replaced.
Purchase and install a TVSS device if other equipment is replaced at site. Site grounding system here
is poor, so a ground rod (or connection to an existing one) and other work may also be necessary.
4 System Replacement Considerations
Based on interview results and our findings, FTE recommends that any replacement systems focus on
the following areas, in order of importance (highest first):
Coverage Improvement
Reliability
Ease of Use
Poor handheld radio coverage was reported at approximately twenty locations within the District. In
general, vehicular coverage was not reported to be as problematic. However, we did find significant
vehicular coverage issues. Due to the District’s terrain, solving all handheld coverage problems is not
economically feasible in all cases. The District is already using vehicular-based repeater systems that
act as a relay between handheld radios and the repeater system for Patrol. This will likely remain the
most practical method to maintain handheld coverage, as long as vehicular coverage is provided.
As the main goal of the radio system is to provide communications for safety and for emergency
events, system reliability is of critical importance, as well as District control over its restoration should
it become disabled. While reliable utility and backup power is likely the single most important factor,
network simplicity/reduced complexity can also contribute to more reliable operation and reduce
restoration time following a failure. We note that most of the solutions presented here are not
expected will increase complexity.
Ease of use of the equipment and network will also facilitate greater usage and provide greater value
during emergencies. Users did not express the need for a vast array of radio system features; they
simply needed it to reliably perform its main purpose.
4.1 Other Modern Radio Features
The following describes additional features available that may be helpful to the District. Some would
be available at additional cost unless noted, while others are simply programming changes (these
costs are not included in our cost estimates later in this report).
Radio Channel Integration on Smartphones – A smartphone application and backroom equipment
that allows users to listen or communicate over a particular District radio channel when they don’t
have a radio or are out of range of the District’s system. These operate over the cellular data network
and Wi-Fi.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 26
Outdoor Location (GPS) – Some handheld and vehicular radio models have GPS capability to report
their location either (a) automatically, (b) button-press by the radio user, (c) only when transmitting a
voice message, or (d) only when the Emergency / Panic button is pressed.15
“Lone Worker” Alarm – A safety alarm timer, enabled by a handheld radio user, when working
alone in a hazardous or risk-prone environment. It requires the user to press a button, or physically
move the radio to prevent it from automatically transmitting an alarm (and possibly its GPS location)
back to a dispatch center or office when the alarm timer expires. Works best when used with a
digital-type radio system (Project 25, etc.).
Person-down Alarm – Similar to the Lone Worker Alarm feature, radio will transmit an alarm (and
possibly its GPS location) to a dispatch center or office if the handheld radio is positioned horizontally
too long (person unconscious), and/or the person has not moved within a predefined period of time.
Works best when used with a digital-type radio system (Project 25, etc.).
4.2 Future Radio System Attributes
The following key attributes should be considered and established during this current planning phase:
Air Interface (analog or digital)
Radio Frequency Band
Broadcast Design (simulcast, multicast, multisite, etc.)
Technology (Trunking, Conventional)
Coverage & Repeater sites
These attributes are discussed below.
Air Interface: This describes how field radios interface with the repeater sites, over-the-air. Both
analog and digital interfaces are available. The District uses analog today, and it could continue using
analog for the foreseeable future. However, one disadvantage will be diminishing manufacturer and
maintenance vendor support over the long term for analog equipment. Digital would have greater
support going forward.
FTE has found that most users prefer digital over analog, due to lack of noise and improved clarity.
However, voice quality can vary among different digital products, and among users and
environments.16 Some trial-and-error adjustments are often needed.
Frequency Band: The District operates in the 150-174 MHz VHF radio band today. Table 8 below
summarizes key attributes of various radio bands.
15 Regular automatic reporting may require an additional radio channel and network.
16 The use of digital radios in noisy environments requires special attention (high quality, noise-cancelling
microphones may be required along with advance digital processing). Some Fire agencies have had challenges
with digital radios and use analog channels in noisy environments.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 27
Table 8 – Characteristics of Various Radio Bands
In general, lower bands provide greater outdoor coverage, but require relatively larger antennas. The
lower bands are currently suffering from an increase in man-made interference in metropolitan areas,
but the District’s repeaters and radios are less affected given their rural usage.
Broadcast Design: The broadcast design establishes whether each adjacent repeater site uses the
same or different set of radio frequencies to broadcast messages, and how users interact with the
network. The Patrol channel uses simulcast, while the Admin channel is a multisite design. Simulcast
is considered vastly superior from a coverage, usability and compatibility standpoint.
Technology: The District uses conventional technology today. Conventional systems are a relatively
simple technology where each department is assigned to a given channel and set of repeaters (e.g.,
Rangers and Admin/Maintenance). Trunking technology exists to allow a large number of
departments to share a limited number of channels and repeaters. A centralized computer server
temporarily assigns each department or group of users to a channel only when required by a call.
Today, the District has enough channels to give each major user group its own, so trunking does not
provide much added value.
Participating in a shared, regional trunked system can be practical. While the District has a close
relationship with Santa Clara County, the majority of its service area is in San Mateo County. They
operate a Countywide 700 MHz trunked system for Sheriff and EMS, but it may have coverage
limitations similar to the District’s own system, and it would have to be expanded further south to
support area in Santa Clara County. Expansion and purchase of all new trunked subscriber radio may
exceed the cost of replacing the District’s own system. Actual costs have not been established.
Coverage & Repeater Site Selection: Two main factors establish radio coverage: voice quality and
signal reliability. Voice quality has to do with how well the messages can be understood in the
presence of signal fading, radio noise and some types of interference. The wireless industry uses the
term Delivered Audio Quality (DAQ) to define seven levels of voice quality performance:
Radio Frequency
Band (MHz)
Channel
Availability
Outdoor
Coverage
Indoor
Coverage
Interference
Protection
District Interoperability
w/Outside Agencies
Digital
Available
Analog
Available
30-50 Poor Excellent Poor Poor CHP, EBRPD No Yes
150-174 Poor Good Average Poor CalFire/SMCo. Fire/Most Fire Yes Yes
450-470 Poor Average Better Poor None Yes Yes
470-512 N/A Average Better Good None Yes Yes
700 Limited Line-of-Sight Best Excellent SMCo. S.O./SCCo. Fire, Parks Yes No
800 Limited Line-of-Sight Best Excellent SMCo. S.O./SCCo. Fire, Parks Yes Yes
900 Limited Line-of-Sight Best Excellent None Yes Yes
SMCo. - San Mateo County SCCo. - Santa Clara County S.O. - Sheriff's Office
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 28
Table 9 – Radio Voice Quality
Choosing a high DAQ level will provide higher voice quality over a greater number of locations than a
lower DAQ. Digital air interfaces will provide more consistent voice quality than analog. While analog
radio systems typically have the best audio quality under strong signal conditions, digital can perform
better than analog when radio signals become weaker or experience interference.
Signal Reliability is primarily a function of signal strength. It is statistical in nature; it is defined as the
likelihood of achieving an acceptable signal with a specified DAQ. We achieve high signal reliability by
introducing a signal margin into our calculations and design. Public safety systems are designed with
a margin that provides 95% reliability or better, where commercial and utility systems are designed to
a 90% reliability.
Coverage prediction maps provided in this reports show 90% or 95% likelihood of achieving the
specified DAQ value for the Admin and Patrol Channel, respectively.
5 Radio System Recommendations
Based on our consideration of the District’s current and future requirements, we recommend the
following approach when the systems are replaced:
Consider an analog or digital P25 Phase I Air Interface
Maintain 150 MHz VHF operation
Maintain simulcast operation on the Patrol Channel; consider simulcast for the Admin channel
Maintain conventional operation
Either Air Interface will meet the District’s internal needs. For the Patrol channel, compatibility with
outside agencies that communicate or monitor the Patrol channel should be a consideration. The
same may apply to the Admin channel as most of the District’s outside agreements are based on this
channel (whether intentional or not).
If digital is selected, Project 25 Phase I is recommended as Santa Clara County is most familiar with it,
it better promotes long-term regional interoperability and compatibility, and can be deployed in a
simulcast arrangement. Note that all District subscriber equipment that has access to a digital
channel must be equipped for P25, updated, or replaced to have this capability.
DAQ
Delivered
Audio Quality Subjective Performance Description
1 Unusable, Speech present but unreadable
2 Understandable with considerable effort. Frequent repetition
due to Noise/Distortion
3 Speech understandable with slight effort. Occasional
repetition re quired due to Noise/Distortion
3.4 Speech understandable with repetition only rarely required.
Some Noise/Distortion
4 Speech easily understood. Occasional Noise/Distortion
4.5 Speech easily understood. Infrequent Noise/Distortion
5 Speech easily understood.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 29
We also note that a “dual-mode” (analog & digital) network design option also exists, which allows for
either operation. Use this feature to provide schedule flexibility when transitioning from an analog to
a digital network only. Only operate on one mode or the other going forward.17
150 MHz VHF is likely the most appropriate radio band for outdoor coverage and regional
interoperability. FTE feels that simulcast operation on the Patrol Channel has led to improved user
satisfaction and provides improved coverage performance over other methods. Admin and
maintenance users did not report any issues using their multicast system. However, the relatively
small incremental cost of expanding simulcast to the Admin channel suggests this might be a good
investment, given the improvement in coverage and ease of use.18
5.1 Coverage and Repeater Site Selection
All of the coverage deficiencies were related to the Patrol channel. We have listed these areas in
Section 5.2 below, and address how each might be improved in later Sections and Appendices.
5.2 Areas Targeted for Improvement
Rangers reported poor coverage in areas and locations shown in Table 10 below. Locations near each
other were grouped together as a single area. Appendix D – Proposed Coverage Solutions shows
these locations geographically.
Maintenance did not report and coverage deficiencies on their radio channel.
The user reports represented poor to no coverage for handheld radios, with the exception of A12
(Sears Ranch Parking Lot). Here, users reported poor coverage for both handheld and vehicular
radios.
While trees and canopy coverage can attenuate VHF signals to a small degree, the primary cause of
poor coverage in the District’s jurisdiction is terrain blockage. As a result, changes in antenna
patterns, higher gain, or increases in transmit power and/or receiver sensitivity did not make any
significant improvement.
The use of handheld radios, while critical for Rangers, also negatively impact coverage due to
inherently poor antenna performance and reduced transmitter power as described in Section 3.3.1.
In all cases an additional repeater site, or conversion of a receive-only site to full repeater operation
would be required to resolve the coverage issue. In other cases users must rely on their existing
vehicular repeaters for handheld coverage.
17 Additional costs could be in the low tens of thousands for each dual-mode channel, on top of the cost of a digital
conversion.
18 The low incremental cost is because the Patrol Channel simulcast hardware can expanded to support the Admin
Channel.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 30
Table 10 – Radio Coverage Deficiencies and Solutions
The Poor Coverage column indicates where FTE was able to verify the particular user report, as well as
discover vehicle coverage problems if they existed.
The Possible Solutions columns indicate what equipment might be deployed to solve the particular
coverage problem.
5.2.1 Approach to Solutions
Using the current FCC license database, we identified the location of over 300 repeaters or microwave
radio links licensed by the State of California, or by San Mateo, Santa Clara or Santa Cruz counties.
This equipment is usually housed in state or county-owned tower site facilities, which are ideal for any
new District repeaters.
We also assembled a databases of over 2,000 privately-owned and operated “commercial” tower sites
that contained utility, business, government and some cellular telephone radio systems. These
included the following companies:
American Tower
Crown Castle
Comsites West
Communications & Control
Pacific Gas & Electric
SBA
We first considered existing government or utility-owned sites, followed by commercial ones when
looking for new tower sites. In general, government and utility sites will have lower lease costs, be
better maintained and provide more reliable utility or backup power and security.
When a coverage problem was noted by a Ranger or found by us, we first tried to identify the most
optimal tower site to support handheld radios. If none could provide this, we then modeled coverage
AREA
NO. DESCRIPTION Handheld Vehicle Handheld Vehicle
A1 Alamitos Road/SA35/SA36 Yes Yes (Note 2)McQueen Ridge Repeater
A2 Loma Prieta Road & Ranch/SA32/SA31 Yes Yes (Note 2)
A3 Cathermole Road, Lake Elsman Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Redwood Transmitter
A4 Hicks Road/Guadalupe Res./SA02/Rincon/Twin Cr. Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater McQueen Ridge Repeater
A5 Hendry's Creek/SA43 Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Redwood Transmitter
A6 Bear Creek Redwoods Yes No Redwood Transmitter
A7 No. Lexington Res./Jones Tr./Bridge Rd./SA22/SA40 Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Redwood Transmitter
A8 (not Assigned)
A9 Peters Creek Yes Yes (Note 2)
A10 FFO, Upper High Meadow/Wildcat Cyn./DHF Yes No Cal Water Repeater
A11 Coastal Area Outpost (CAO)Yes Yes (Note 2)Allen Pk. Repeater (Note 1)
A12 Sears Ranch parking lot Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Allen Pk. Repeater (Note 1)
A13 Mindego, east of RR03 lot Yes Yes (Note 2)Allen Pk. Repeater
A14 Old La Honda, Thornwood, Dennis Martin Creek Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Allen Pk. Repeater
A15 Purisima Creek Trail; PC05 to Craig Britton Trail Yes Yes (Note 2)
A16 Lower Woodrat / Polly Geraci Trail Yes No Vehicular Repeater
A17 Harrington Creek Bridge Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Allen Pk. Repeater (Note 1)
A18 Pond, upper Rogue Valley Yes No Cal Water Repeater
A19 Pichetti Ranch (south)Yes No (Note 2)
A20 Foothills/Los Trancos Yes No (Note 2)
Yes: FTE's coverage modeling verified or identified a significant coverage deficiency for this type of user equipment.
No: FTE did not find a coverage problem; coverage appeared to be 90% of the area/location or better.
Note 1: San Mateo's County's Rolph Pk. site is a distant secondary solution here if Allen Pk. is not feasible.
Note 2: No existing tower site was identified that could provide a significant improvement. A new greenfield tower and shelter may be required.
POOR COVERAGE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 31
to vehicular radios from the same site(s). If the site(s) provided at least 90% vehicle coverage, use
of the existing vehicular repeaters will be the most practical and cost-effective solution.
If no site could support vehicle radios, we noted that a completely new “greenfield” tower site would
have to be constructed to improve coverage.
5.2.2 Recommended Sites
The following sites were found to provide varying degree of coverage improvement to one or more
areas. Pictures may also show nearby tower sites already in use by the District. Each Patrol channel
site must be equipped with a backhaul link to Carol Drive.
Appendix D – Proposed Coverage Solutions shows how each new site improves coverage for areas in
Table 10 above.
Cost estimates are provided in Section 6.
Allen Peak (Lookout)
Elevation: 2,315 ft.
Coordinates: 37.386833 / -122.294722
Apparent Owner: State of California / CalFire
Site Notes: Communications tower is located near a
Fire Lookout here. Availability needs to be
confirmed.
Site might replace Sierra Morena.19
Backhaul Connectivity: Possible connectivity to Black
Mtn. (preferred), Coyote or Copernicus. Must be
confirmed.
Cal Water
Elevation: 612 ft.
Coordinates: 37.336229 / -122.099189
Apparent Owner: California Water Service
Site Notes: An existing shelter and tower exists that
appears to be a cellular carrier (e.g., AT&T, Verizon,
T-Mobile, etc.). Site also enhances DHF and the Field
Office (only if antenna height is maximized), and
would eliminate the need for the fixed mobile
repeater that provides limited coverage of the farm.
Site availability needs to be officially established.
Backhaul Connectivity: Possible path to Mtn. View
Police Department (preferred), Tomita Coyote or
Copernicus.
19 Moving or eliminating a site must be done carefully as coverage will change, impacting field operations.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 32
McQueen Ridge
Elevation: 3.431 ft.
Coordinates: 37.154569/ -121.897814
Apparent Owner: Communications & Control
Site Notes: This site may have the same owner as
the District’s existing Tomita Hill site. Site availability
needs to be officially established.
Site might replace Tomita Hill.20
Backhaul Connectivity: Various sites.
Redwood (existing District Site)
Elevation: 1,487 ft.
Coordinates: 37.157579 / -121.983945
Apparent Owner: AT&T
Site Notes: Santa Clara County originally arranged for
a Patrol Channel receiver here a number of years
ago. Sharing here is under an extremely limited
relationship with AT&T. No transmitter exists (e.g.,
this is not a full repeater). County reports that there
is limited space and may not be enough to support a
District repeater or other equipment. Further review
is necessary. No other existing site was found to fully
replace Redwood’s coverage performance.
Backhaul Connectivity: Currently leased T1 line that
is unreliable. Microwave path unknown, but Tomita is
close by.
5.2.3 Indoor Coverage Areas
Users noted that having reliable indoor coverage at the Distel offices would be helpful as it would be
impractical to install enough base stations there. Preliminary coverage modeling shows that indoor
coverage here is likely poor to non-existent. This can be solved through use a Distributed Antenna
System (DAS). A DAS receives an outdoor (downlink) signal, amplifies it, and sends it to ceiling-
mounted indoor antennas (and visa-versa for the uplink path). Ceiling antennas would be installed in
rooms or corridors needing Patrol and/or Admin channel coverage. Costs could be $20k to $100k per
building. One DAS could support both the Patrol and Admin channels.
Such systems can be installed at any time but may require more building modifications than if done
during new construction or early in a remodel.21
20 Moving or eliminating a site must be done carefully as coverage will change, impacting field operations.
21 They can be installed at any time but requires more building modifications.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 33
5.3 Backhaul Recommendations
As the District’s existing microwave hardware is only halfway through its useful life, FTE recommends
that these links be maintained and reused.
Each proposed repeater site will require Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity back to Carol Drive.
With the exception of San Mateo County’s paths, all existing microwave is already IP-capable. For
sites equipped with a leased T1 line, a leased commercial broadband service on copper or fiber,
microwave radio, or a combination of these would also work.22
In rural areas, the reliability of commercial broadband service can be poor, and fiber availability is
unlikely.23 FTE recommends that any new site use microwave when possible. When properly
engineered, microwave radio can be more reliable than leased broadband or fiber by several orders of
magnitude.
If county, state of local government microwave already exists at the site, it may be possible to share
part of this bandwidth for a connection to another existing site, to eventually route to Carol Drive.
Otherwise microwave path engineering would be needed for a new path. Microwave requires slightly
greater than line-of-sight between microwave antennas to establish a reliable connection. This is
sometimes challenging in such terrain or in heavily wooded areas.
Licensed microwave backhaul is always preferred and has been assumed for this application.
Unlicensed, or “shared-channel” microwave can also be used, particularly when both ends of a path
are not in or near a population center, as long as high-gain, high-quality antennas are used, and the
paths are properly engineered (line-of-sight, no reflection points, correct antenna alignment and
proper margins). However, interference can occur without notice, and in most cases the District must
accept it or reprogram its equipment to a different channel to avoid it. When an outage occurs, a
tower site or sites may become disconnected from the rest and become islands, reducing wide-area
coverage.
5.4 Impacts of Other District Projects
The District is constantly acquiring new property and areas within its sphere of influence. Each area
must be separately assessed to verify whether handheld or vehicular coverage is provided by existing
tower sites, or whether a new site might be required.
Coverage issues associated with any new acquisition are presented in Appendix F – Coverage
Solutions for Acquisitions.
22 The use of cellular data (4G LTE, etc.) has not been found to be reliable for simulcast applications.
23 Santa Clara County reports that the Redwood site has very unreliable service; both Santa Clara and San Mateo
counties rely on microwave radio for backhaul in the vast majority of cases.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 34
6 Budgetary Costs of Solutions
This Section presents costs for three categories of solutions. These include baseline or replacement
with “like-kind” items, enhancements and coverage mitigation items. “Add” items are incremental
costs that are added to an earlier item. Baseline items include:
Item 1: Replace Existing Patrol Radio System
Item 2: Replace Existing Admin Multicast System
Item 3: Common Site Equipment for Patrol & Admin Channels
Item 3 must be implemented if either Items 1 or 2 are implemented.
System enhancements include the following:
Item 4: Add - Upgrade Patrol Channel to P25 Digital
Item 5: Add - Upgrade Admin Channel to Simulcast
Item 6: Backup Generator at Sierra Morena/Skeggs Tower Site
The remaining items attempt to improve coverage deficiencies reported by users of the Patrol
Channel:
Item 7: Upgrade Redwood Site for Patrol Repeater Operation
Item 8: Install New Patrol Repeater at Cal Water Site
Item 9: Install New Patrol Repeater at Allen Peak
Item 10: Install New Patrol Repeater at McQueen Ridge
All costs include supply and installation by Santa Clara County, spare equipment, sales tax, freight,
testing and integration costs, and usually include a one-year manufacturer warranty. Additional
engineering costs (when known) are shown separately.
Costs do not include replacement of existing microwave links, handheld, vehicular or base radios, land
purchases, or significant dispatch console modifications (none are anticipated). Maintenance costs are
included when we anticipate a significant increase.
6.1 Cost Details
Item 1: Replace Existing Patrol Radio System ‐ Analog Cost
Estimate
$378,000
Total: $378,000
Radio System ‐ Replace with Like‐Kind (Analog)
Replaces existing analog repeaters at five sites, receivers at three sites, and associated antenna
systems. Modernizes simulcast system with IP‐capable backhaul interface and associated
comparator control equipment No coverage improvements.
Requires Item 3 to be implemented at the same time.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 35
Item 2: Replace Existing Admin Multicast System Cost
Estimate
$177,000
Total: $177,000
Radio System ‐ Replace with Like‐Kind
Replaces existing analog repeaters at five sites, associated antenna systems and the shared
Community Tone Panels. System will remain a multicast design (not simulcast).
Requires Item 3 to be implemented at the same time.
Item 3: Common Site Equipment for Patrol & Admin Channels Cost
Estimate
Site Backhaul
$196,000
$13,000
Site Support Equipment
$153,000
$8,000
Total: $370,000
Common/shared eqmt. for 5 repeater & 3 receiver sites; incl. backup battery systems, racks,
microwave line dehydrator and networking equipment.
Site Improvements
All Microwave Sites: Replace forced‐air cooling fans in microwave equipment (8 HSB
microwave terminals)
Professional Engineering Services: Work w/Santa Clara Co. to identify possible microwave sites;
microwave path engineering; MW licensing and planning.
New IP‐Capable Pise Link : New simulcast equipment (Patrol Channel) requires IP backhaul
from all transmit sites; Pise is not currently IP. This installs a District ‐owned microwave path
to replace that provide by San Mateo Co. Includes microwave eqmt. for new protected
(redundant) IP path between Pise and a to‐be‐determined Santa Clara or San Mateo County
tower having IP connectivity with Carol Drive; also relocates Black Mtn. <> Rolph microwave
path eqmt. to support path as needed. Tower structural and microwave engineering costs
cannot be determined and are not included.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 36
Item 4: ADD ‐ Upgrade Patrol channel to P25 Digital Cost
Estimate
$156,000
$5,000
Prerequisites
Total: $161,000
*** Outside agencies accessing system must capable of P25 digital ***
*** May impact model of vehicular repeaters in future***
Radio System
Incremental cost to construct a Project 25 Phase I digital Patrol simulcast repeater system versus
an analog type (add this cost to Item 1). Assumes Patrol channel is installed as digital initially
(e.g., costs not representative of later conversion from analog to digital).
Converts analog repeaters to digital capability (adds P25 software license), adds Linear Simulcast
Modulation (LSM) to reduce impact of multipath signal interference, includes a digital
voter/comparator, backhaul and dispatch console interface. No coverage improvements
included
Professional Engineering Services: Digital simulcast feasibility study to verify adequate coverage
and voice quality over the District's service area.
*** All vehicle, handheld and base radios must be P25 digital capable ***
Does not include costs to upgrade or replace analog‐only vehicle, handheld or base stations
radios with digital capable models.
Item 5: ADD ‐ Upgrade Admin Channel to Simulcast Cost
Estimate
$34,000
Total: $34,000
*** Item is not compatible with Community Tone Panels if needed for outside agencies ***
Radio System
Includes repeater upgrade options, backhaul components, etc. Shares much of the common
simulcast components associated with the Patrol Channel.
Improves Admin channel radio coverage overall, simplifies use (e.g., eliminates need for users to
manually select the best radio site for use; removes four of five Admin channel selections on
vehicle, handheld and base radios). Does not add tower site to expand coverage.
Incremental cost to upgrade the Admin Channel radio system from multisite to simulcast
operation (add this cost to Item 2).
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 37
Item 6: Provide Backup Generator at Sierra Morena/Skeggs Tower Site Cost
Estimate
$40,000
$35,000
$3,000
Total: $78,000
Professional Engineering Services: Assist District with sizing and technical issues.
Generator Maintenance & Fuel: Sierra Morena generator maintenance contract and fuel
estimate (annual contract, 10 years).
Site Improvements
Sierra Morena/Skeggs: Install backup power generator on existing concrete pad; fuel
storage, electrical work, transfer panel. Propane (preferred).
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% annual escalation, 10‐year term)
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 38
Item 7: Upgrade Redwood Site for Patrol Repeater Operation Cost
Estimate
$20,000
Site Backhaul
$138,000
$35,000
$125,000
$16,000
Total: $334,000
New IP‐Capable Microwave Link : Microwave eqmt. for new protected (redundant) IP path
between Redwood and a to‐be‐determined District or Santa Clara tower having IP
connectivity with Carol Drive. Path may not be possible; may require leased fiber services
to be installed instead (further analysis needed).
Site Improvements
Outdoor Equipment Cabinet: Provides air‐conditioned cabinet on concrete pedestal for
repeater and backup batteries; electrical service; and tower structural engineering to add
Patrol and microwave antenna on existing tower. Does not include land purchase costs.
Radio System
Replaces patrol channel receiver with a full simulcast repeater (transmit and receive) to improve
downlink coverage in key areas.
Improves Downlink Coverage in Problem Areas A3, A5‐A7: Cathermole Road, Lake Elsman, Hicks
Road/Guadalupe Res./SA02/Rincon/Twin Cr., Hendry's Creek/SA43, Bear Creek Redwoods, & No.
Lexington Res./Jones Tr./Bridge Rd./SA22/SA40.
Note: Equipment space in exi sting shelter, lease issues and limited line‐of‐sight microwave paths
to/from this site may be difficult and prevent realization of this item.
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Site Lease Costs: For outdoor cabinet/pedestal on private land (annual contract)
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 39
Item 8: Install New Patrol Repeater at Cal Water Site Cost
Estimate
$59,000
Site Backhaul
$138,000
$163,000
$14,000
Total: $374,000
Radio System
Provides a new simulcast repeater, antenna and backup battery power using the existing cellular
shelter and tower at the Cal Water tank property above DHF. Eliminates need for the mobile
repeater that was installed at the farm in 2019.
Improves Coverage Problem Area A10 & A18: DHF/Wildcat/Upper High Meadow & Pond, upper
Rogue Valley. Note that Wildcat handheld coverage will remain significantly incomplete
(complete vehicular coverage, however). Antenna height must be maximized to provide indoor
coverage at the field office here.
Note: Equipment space, lease issues and limited line‐of‐sight microwave paths to/from this site
need confirmation.
New IP‐Capable Microwave Link : Microwave eqmt. for new protected (redundant) IP path
between this site and a to‐be‐determined District or Santa Clara tower having IP connectivity
with Carol Drive (may be Mtn. View PD tower). Further analysis needed.
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Site Lease Costs: For indoor equipment rack in existing shelter; utility power.
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 40
Item 9: Install New Patrol Repeater at Allen Peak Cost
Estimate
$65,000
Site Backhaul
$138,000
$200,000
$13,000
Total: $416,000
$78,000
Radio System
Provides a new simulcast repeater, antenna and backup battery power using the existing shelter
and tower at this site.
Improves Coverage Problem Areas A11‐A14, A17: Areas west and northwest of Skyline/Black
Mtn
New IP‐Capable Microwave Link : Microwave eqmt. for new protected (redundant) IP path
between this site and a to‐be‐determined District, San Mateo or Santa Clara tower having IP
connectivity with Carol Drive. Further analysis needed.
Note: Equipment space, lease issues and limited line‐of‐sight microwave paths to/from this site
need confirmation.
Alternative: Allen Peak Replaces Sierra Morena
Costs above could be reduced to that shown here if Allen Peak could cover most all of the area
now supported by Sierra Morena, and improve coverage in the target problem areas. Cost
includes installation of new, and relocation of reused equipment for both Patrol and Admin
channels from Sierra Morena to Allen Peak, engineering, FCC license modifications.
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Site Lease Costs: For indoor equipment rack in existing shelter; utility power.
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 41
Item 10: Install New Patrol Repeater at McQueen Ridge Cost
Estimate
$65,000
Site Backhaul
$138,000
$150,000
$13,000
Total: $366,000
$78,000
Radio System
Provides a new simulcast repeater, antenna and backup battery power using the existing shelter
and tower at this site.
Improves Coverage Problem Area A1 & A4: Alamitos Road/SA35/SA36 & Hicks Road/Guadalupe
Res./SA02/Rincon/Twin Cr.
Note: Equipment space, lease issues and limited line‐of‐sight microwave paths to/from this site
need confirmation.
New IP‐Capable Microwave Link : Microwave eqmt. for new protected (redundant) IP path
between this site and a to‐be‐determined District, San Mateo or Santa Clara tower having IP
connectivity with Carol Drive. Further analysis needed.
Alternative: McQueen Ridge Replaces Tomita Hill
Costs above could be reduced to that shown here if McQueen could cover most all of the area
now supported by Tomita, and improve coverage in the target problem areas. Cost includes
installation of new, and relocation of reused equipment for both Patrol and Admin channels from
Tomita to McQueen, engineering, FCC license modifications.
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Site Lease Costs: For indoor equipment rack in existing shelter; utility power.
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 42
7 Next Steps
FTE recommends the following. Long lead time issues are listed first:
1.Select and prioritize any desired coverage improvement package from Items 7, 8, 9 and/or
10. Have FTE investigate backhaul and space requirements; District should investigate lease
contact costs.
2.If Sierra Morena and/or Tomita are to be relocated (See Alternative costs in Items 9 or 10),
have FTE meet with Patrol and Admin channel field users to review the coverage changes
using larger, more detailed maps than those in this report.
3.If Item 1 (Patrol System Replacement) will be implemented, a new microwave path will be
needed from Pise as described in Item 3. Have FTE work with San Mateo and Santa Clara
counties to establish how a new microwave antenna can be added to Pise, and where it might
connect with.
END OF DOCUMENT
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1 Page 43
Appendices
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1
Appendix A - Acronyms, Abbreviations and Definitions
Air-Interface Describes the wireless or “over-the-air” technique used to link field
radios together, and to a radio network. This includes traditional analog
Frequency Modulation (FM) and newer digital C4FM and Frequency Shift
Keying (FSK) digital techniques used in Project 25, Digital Mobile Radio
(DMR) and others.
Backhaul A two-way communication path back to a central point or other
communications site for the purposes of integrating or networking a
communications system. Typically accomplished through point-to-point
microwave radio links, fiber, leased digital communications lines.
Conventional Radio
System
A type of radio system where each group of users operates on a pre-
assigned radio channel and repeater(s). Multiple groups or departments
often share a particular channel in a party-line arrangement.
Coverage The ability of a radio system to provide adequate radio signal strength
and quality to allow users to communicate.
FCC Federal Communications Commission
LMR Land Mobile Radio
MHz Megahertz
Mobile Repeaters A vehicle-mounted device that enables a nearby handheld radio user
(+/- 1/2 mile away) to access the fixed radio network or repeaters
through the high-powered vehicular radio. Extends the range of a
handheld radio equal to that of the vehicular radio. Requires users to
switch to an off-network or special channel.
Multicast A radio system configuration in which repeaters or base stations at
different repeater sites are configured to simultaneously broadcast the
same message on different radio frequencies, in the downlink direction.
However, a common uplink channel is often used with a comparator
device. Requires manual user intervention (channel switching), or
subscriber radios capable of automatic roaming, to switch the subscriber
radios to the appropriate repeater site. Normally deployed using analog
conventional systems.
Multisite A radio system configuration in which repeaters or base stations operate
on different frequencies at each repeater site. Each site may or may not
broadcast the same message. Used in wide-area trunked systems or
Advanced Conventional Systems. Requires manual user intervention
(channel switching), or subscriber radios capable of automatic roaming
to switch the subscriber radios to an appropriate repeater site.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1
Project 25 (P25) A suite of standards for digital radio for use by federal and
state/province and local public safety agencies in North America.
Includes the TIA 102 standards documents. Available types include
Phase I (FDMA) in conventional and trunked, and Phase II (TDMA)
trunked only. Also known as “APCO 25”.
Repeater A radio station that simultaneously rebroadcasts messages received on
one radio frequency, onto another radio frequency. Normally located at
high elevation, repeaters are able to rebroadcast (or relay) signals
between widely separated field units or to and from a dispatch center
and a field unit.
RF Radio Frequency; refers to a portion of spectrum real estate, or to the
electromagnetic range of frequencies used for communications.
Simulcast A radio system design in which repeaters or base stations at different
sites are configured to simultaneously broadcast the same message on
the same radio frequency. Requires no user intervention or site “hand-
offs” when roaming to different areas as it provides seamless wide-area
coverage. It is primarily used to evenly distribute capacity over a given
area. Can be used with analog and some digital radio systems, and with
conventional or trunked technology.
Talk-in The wireless path between a field subscriber unit, typically a mobile or
handheld radio, and a base station or repeater. May also be referred to
as Uplink or Talk-back.
Talk-out The wireless path between a field subscriber unit, typically a mobile or
handheld radio, and a base station or repeater. May also be referred to
as Downlink.
Trunking
(Trunked Radio System) A type of radio system where a central computer automatically assigns
groups of users (talkgroups) to an available (clear) channel dynamically.
Allows a large group of users to share a limited number of radio
frequencies and repeaters.
UHF Ultra High Frequency (typically considered 380-512 MHz in public safety
radio applications)
VHF Very High Frequency (typically considered 150-174 MHz in public safety
radio applications)
Wide-area
Communications
The ability of a radio network to allow two or more field users in
different geographic areas to communicate, when they are not in range
of the same communications repeater site. Wide area communications
can be provided by multi-site or simulcast type radio systems.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Needs Assessment and Alternative Plans Rev. 1
Appendix B – Existing Admin Channel Coverage
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 3 – Appendix D: Admin Handheld Downlink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 4 – Appendix D: Admin Handheld Uplink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 5 – Appendix D: Admin Vehicle Downlink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 6 – Appendix D: Admin Vehicle Uplink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Appendix C – Existing Patrol Channel Coverage
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 7 – Appendix C: Patrol Handheld Downlink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 8 – Appendix C: Patrol Handheld Uplink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 9 – Appendix C: Patrol Vehicle Downlink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Figure 10 – Appendix C: Patrol Vehicle Uplink
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Appendix D – Proposed Coverage Solutions
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld
Downlink
Proposed New
Sites:
McQueen Ridge
Transmitter at
Redwood
Figure 11 – Appendix D: H-DL McQueen Ridge & Redwood
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld
Downlink
Proposed New
Sites:
Transmitter at
Redwood
Figure 12 – Appendix D: H-DL Redwood
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld
Downlink
Proposed New
Sites:
McQueen Ridge
(Tomita
Replacement)
Replacmsdal;dl;msda;lmsCFs
Figure 13 – Appendix D: H-DL Tomita vs. McQueen Ridge
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
McQueen Ridge
Figure 14 – Appendix D: H-UL McQueen Ridge
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
McQueen Ridge
(Tomita Replacement)
Figure 15 – Appendix D: H-UL Tomita vs. McQueen Ridge
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Downlink
Proposed New Sites:
McQueen Ridge
Redwood Transmitter
Figure 16 – Appendix D: V-DL McQueen Ridge & Redwood
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Downlink
Proposed New Sites:
McQueen Ridge
(Tomita Replacement)
Figure 17 – Appendix D: V-DL Tomita vs. McQueen Ridge
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
McQueen Ridge
Figure 18 – Appendix D: V-UL McQueen Ridge
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
McQueen Ridge
(Tomita Replacement)
Figure 19 – Appendix D: V-UL Tomita vs. McQueen Ridge
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Downlink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Cal Water
Figure 20 – Appendix D: H-DL Allen Peak & Cal Water
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Downlink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Figure 21 – Appendix D: H-DL Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Downlink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Cal Water
Figure 22 – Appendix D: H-DL Sierra Morena vs. Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Downlink
Proposed New Sites:
Cal Water
Figure 23 – Appendix D: H-DL Cal Water
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Cal Water
Figure 24 – Appendix D: H-UL Allen Peak & Cal Water
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Figure 25 – Appendix D: H-UL Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
(Sierra Morena
Replacement)
Figure 26 – Appendix D: H-UL Sierra Morena vs. Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION
EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Cal Water
Figure 27 – Appendix D: H-UL Cal Water
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Cal Water
Figure 28 – Appendix D: V-UL Allen Peak & Cal Water
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
Figure 29 – Appendix D: V-UL Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Cal Water
Figure 30 – Appendix D: V-UL Cal Water
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Allen Peak
(Sierra Morena
Replacement)
Figure 31 – Appendix D: V-UL Sierra Morena vs. Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Appendix E - District FCC Radio Licenses & Locations
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
FCC FRN: 0005751540
Site Name:Black
Mountain
Coyote
Peak Pise
Sierra
Morena
(Skeggs Pt.)
Tomita
(Umunhum)
Black
Mountain
(FAA)
Copernicus
(Mt. Hamilton)Redwood Mobile
Latitude:37.318727 37.208933 37.455859 37.410657 37.160016 37.318883 37.346561 37.157579
Longitude:-122.147247 -121.77529 -122.34097 -122.306894 -121.908065 -122.146369 -121.630797 -121.983945
Elev. AMSL (ft.)2805 1125 1994 2342 3325 2806 3325 1486
Primary Patrol Channels
Ant. Ht. AGL (ft.):70 105 30 78 41 40 40 80
Channel Channel Base TX Base RX FCC DL/UL
Function Desig. (MHz) (MHz) Callsign Code
PATROL 1SCAST 152.090 158.550 WQML377 146.2 / 146.2 TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX RX RX RX M
Primary Maintenance Channels
Ant. Ht. AGL (ft.):42 105* 45 96 47
Channel Channel Base TX Base RX FCC DL/UL
Function Desig. (MHz) (MHz) Callsign Code
ADMIN 2BM 151.235 159.255 WNVC239 123.0 / 123.0 TX/RX
3MU 123.0 / 110.9 TX/RX
4SM 123.0 / 131.8 TX/RX
5COY 123.0 / 179.9 TX/RX
6PIS 123.0 / 218.1 TX/RX
N/A Note 1 TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX TX/RX
Tactical & Special Use Channels
TACTICAL 7MITAC 150.775 150.775 WPKE752 203.5 / 203.5 M
MOBILE RPTR VRPT 173.250 173.250 WQLR438 203.5 / 225.7 M
Interoperability / Mutual Aid Channels
EBRPD N/A 45.000 45.000 WNUP247 Unknown M
VFIRE22 34VFR22 154.265 154.265 WPDG644 Unknown M
VFIRE21 33VFR21 154.280 154.280 WPDG644 Unknown M
VFIRE23 35VFR23 154.295 154.295 WPDG644 Unknown M
SCCFD CMD30 20SCC20 153.845 158.835 WPGN309 CSQ M
Microwave Path Channels - Transmit Sites
MICROWAVE N/A 4940 4940 WQYW917 SKYLINE FIELD OFFICE
MICROWAVE N/A 4940 4940 WQYW917 BLACK MOUNTAIN
MICROWAVE N/A 6655 6655 WQNP835 1720 MONTE BELLO RD
MICROWAVE N/A 6815 6815 WQNP837 2700 CAROL DRIVE
MICROWAVE N/A 10715 10715 WQNP835 1720 MONTE BELLO RD
MICROWAVE N/A 11215 11215 WQNP843 15010 SKYLINE RD/SKEGGS
MICROWAVE N/A 10715 10715 WQNP845 MT UMUNHUM/TOMITA
MICROWAVE N/A 11215 11215 WQNP837 2700 CAROL DRIVE
MICROWAVE N/A 10915 10915 WQNP835 1720 MONTE BELLO RD
MICROWAVE N/A 11405 11405 WQNP841 ROLPH HILL
TX/RX - Repeater RX - Receiver M - Mobile (Vehicle or Handheld) CSQ - Carrier Squelch (no code)
Table shows actual equipment locations. Coordinates have been corrected to reflect actual antenna support location if different from FCC records.
Note 1: Community tone panels are interfaced with repeaters at each site. The enabled codes in these devices are not known.
Repeaters / Receivers / Comparators
Repeaters / Receivers / Comparators
District FCC Radio Licenses & Locations
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Appendix F – Coverage Solutions for Acquisitions
(CONFIDENTIAL)
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Radio Coverage of Potential Acquisitions
The District is considering acquisition of four properties west of Skyline and just east of Highway 1,
between Half Moon Bay and Pigeon Point. This Appendix shows existing Patrol Channel coverage in
these areas and suggests some new sites for improved coverage.
Coverage and Repeater Site Selection
There are few existing commercial tower sites serving these areas. However, as numerous San Mateo
County agencies provide services here, a number of County-owned tower sites already exist. While
each is equipped with microwave backhaul (which indirectly connects with existing District microwave
at Rolph Peak), it will not be IP-capable until 2020 or later. As noted in Section 3.4.3, this limits the
ability to simulcast these sites with the rest of the Patrol Channel network should it be replaced.
However, other options exist that could improve coverage temporarily without simulcast. FTE can
review these when appropriate.
FTE assessed existing coverage and has identified some potential sites below. Due to coastal terrain
challenges in all areas, these sites primarily improve vehicular coverage.24
Table 11 – Radio Coverage Deficiencies and Solutions
Recommended Sites
The following sites were found to provide varying degrees of coverage improvement to one or more
areas. Pictures may also show nearby tower sites used by the District.
24 New Greenfield tower sites must be developed to provide reliable handheld coverage.
Area DESCRIPTION Handheld Vehicle Handheld Vehicle
ACQ1 JOHNSTON RANCH Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Half Moon Bay PD Repeater
ACQ2 SOUTH COWELL Yes Yes (Note 1)Allen Peak Repeater (Note 2)
ACQ3 TABACHNIK Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Allen Peak Repeater
ACQ4 CAREY Yes Yes (Note 1)Stage Road
ACQ5 CLOVERDALE Yes Yes Vehicular Repeater Pigeon Point Repeater
Note 1: No existing tower site could provide a significant improvement. A new greenfield tower and shelter may be required.
Note 2: Improvement here was marginal; a new greenfield tower and shelter will be required
POOR COVERAGE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Half Moon Bay PD
Elevation: 58 ft.
Coordinates: 37.465750/ -122.431889
Apparent Owner: Half Moon Bay or San Mateo Co.
Site Notes: Space and availability needs to be
confirmed.
Backhaul Connectivity: San Mateo Co. microwave.
Allen Peak (Lookout)
Elevation: 2,315 ft.
Coordinates: 37.386833 / -122.294722
Apparent Owner: State of California / CalFire
Site Notes: Communications tower is located near a
Fire Lookout here. Availability needs to be
confirmed.
Site might replace Sierra Morena.25
Backhaul Connectivity: Possible connectivity to Black
Mtn. (preferred), Coyote or Copernicus. Must be
confirmed.
25 Moving or eliminating a site must be done carefully as coverage will change, impacting field operations.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Stage Road (Planned Future Co. Site)
Elevation: 787 ft.
Coordinates: 37.309556/ -122.379278
Apparent Owner: San Mateo Co.
Site Notes: County considered developing this site in
the past. There may be an opportunity for joint
development here.
Backhaul Connectivity: To be determined.
Pigeon Point
Elevation: 498 ft.
Coordinates: 37.193056/ -122.368333
Apparent Owner: San Mateo Co.
Site Notes: A County shelter and a short tower exists
here. County indicates that little to no space exists in
the shelter, but they might be interested in working
with the District to install a larger one.
Backhaul Connectivity: Existing County microwave.
Proposed Coverage Solutions
Radio coverage prediction maps for current and proposed Patrol Channel coverage follow.
Locations with reliable handheld radio coverage is always shown as green, while reliable vehicle
coverage is shown in blue. Two-way radio coverage consists of a “downlink” and an “uplink” signal
path. These maps represent the uplink signal path as this was found to be the worse-case direction.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Half Moon Bay PD
Allen Peak
Stage Road
Note:
Johnstone Ranch is served
by HMB PD site
Tabachnik is served by Allen
Peak site
Carey site is served by
Stage Road site
Figure 18 – Appendix D: H-DL Half Moon Bay PD, Allen Peak & Stage Road
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Half Moon Bay PD
Allen Peak
Note:
Johnstone Ranch is served
by Pise and HMB PD site
South Cowell is served by
Pise and Allen Peak
Tabachnik is served by Pise,
Black and Allen Peak site
Carey site is served by
Black, Sierra Morena and the
Allen Peak site
Stage Road site would cover
the entire Carey property if
present.
Figure 19 – Appendix D: V-UL Half Moon Bay PD & Allen Peak
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Handheld Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Pigeon Point
Figure 20 – Appendix D: H-UL Pigeon Point
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
DESCRIPTION EXISTING COVERAGE PROPOSED COVERAGE
Map Type:
Vehicle Uplink
Proposed New Sites:
Pigeon Point
Note:
Existing coverage in the
Cloverdale area is provided
by Sierra Morena and Pise.
Figure 21 – Appendix D: V-UL Pigeon Point
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Cost Details
Costs applied to each acquisition are associated as shown below:
Cost Item 11: Johnston Ranch (ACQ1)
Cost Item 9 (restated here): South Cowell & Tabachnik (ACQ2 & ACQ3)
Cost Item 12: Carey (ACQ4)
Cost Item 13: Cloverdale (ACQ5)
Item 11: Install New Patrol Repeater at Half Moon Bay PD (Johnston Ranch)Cost
Estimate
$59,000
Site Backhaul
$17,000
$200,000
$13,000
Total: $289,000
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Site Lease Costs: For indoor equipment rack in existing shelter; utility power.
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
Radio System
Provides a new simulcast repeater, antenna and backup battery power using the existing shelter
and tower at this site.
Improves coverage in the Johnston Ranch area.
Note: Equipment space and lease issues need confirmation.
San Mateo County Microwave : Includes costs to interface with existing San Mateo Co.
microwave equipment. Note that it will not be IP‐capable until 2022 or after (this is a
requirement for new simulcast repeaters). Some temporary options exists however.
Item 9: Install New Patrol Repeater at Allen Peak (South Cowell & Tabachnik)Cost
Estimate
Total: $416,000
(This cost item was previously shown earlier in report; it is restated here for
completeness).
Improves Coverage in the South Cowell and Tabachnik areas.
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
Item 12: Install New Patrol Repeater on Stage Road (Carey)Cost
Estimate
$59,000
Site Backhaul
$138,000
$360,000
$499,000
$30,000
Total: $1,086,000
Equipment Shelter, Tower & Generator: Provides for a new air‐conditioned aggregate
shelter on concrete foundation; new 30 ft. tower; generator and electrical service. Size &
location to be determined. Space & location to be determined. County might consider
sharing development costs (not considered here). Does not include land purchase costs.
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Land Lease Costs: For new shelter, tower and easement for access road (estimate)
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
Radio System
Provides a new simulcast repeater, antenna and backup battery power in a new shelter.
Improves coverage in the Carey area.
New IP‐Capable Microwave Link : Microwave eqmt. for new protected (redundant) IP path
between this site and an existing San Mateo Co. microwave site. Path may not be possible;
may require leased fiber services to be installed instead (further analysis needed). Note that
the county's microwave system will not be IP‐capable until 2022 or after (this is a
requirement for new simulcast repeaters). Some temporary options exists however.
Site Improvements
ATTACHMENT 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Voice Radio Communication Systems Assessment
END
Item 13: Install New Patrol Repeater at Pigeon Point (Cloverdale)Cost
Estimate
$59,000
Site Backhaul
$17,000
$110,000
$200,000
$20,000
Total: $406,000
New (Larger) Equipment Shelter: The existing San Mateo Co. equipment shelter has no
space for new equipment; Co. interested in a new shelter as well. Provides for a new air‐
conditioned aggregate shelter on concrete foundation to house county's relocated
equipment and new District repeater and backup batteries; electrical service; includes use
of existing County tower; demolition/removal of existing shelter. Size & location to be
dd
Changes in Recurring Costs (Present Worth, 4% money, 3% escalation, 10‐year term)
Site Lease Costs: For indoor equipment rack in existing shelter; utility power.
Professional Engineering Services: Site planning, radio and microwave engineering, oversee and
test final system w/County.
Radio System
Provides a new simulcast repeater, antenna and backup battery power using the existing shelter
and tower at this site.
Improves coverage in the Cloverdale area.
Note: Equipment space and lease issues need confirmation.
San Mateo County Microwave : Includes costs to interface existing San Mateo Co.
microwave equipment. Note that it will not be IP‐capable until 2022 or after (this is a
requirement for new simulcast repeaters). Some temporary options exists however.
Site Improvements
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Attachment 3(a): Allen Peak Tower Coverage Improvement Map
Areas of improvement are shown in red. Blue is the current District coverage.
Mitigation Item 9: Install Repeater at
Allen Peak; Replace Skeggs Tower
2
Attachment 3(b): Redwood Tower Coverage Improvement Map
Areas of improvement are shown in red. Blue is the current District coverage.
Mitigation Item 7: Upgrade Redwood
Tower to Transmit
3
Attachment 3(c): McQueen Ridge Tower Coverage Improvement Map
Areas of improvement are shown in red. Blue is the current District coverage.
Mitigation Item 10: Install Repeater at
McQueen Ridge; Replace Tomita Tower
4
Attachment 3(d): Pigeon Point Tower Coverage Improvement Map
Areas of improvement are shown in red. Blue is the current District coverage.
New Coverage Item 13: Install New
Repeater at Pigeon Point
R-20-139
Meeting No. 20-27
November 18, 2020
AGENDA ITEM 12
AGENDA ITEM
First Reading of the Board Compensation Ordinance
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
1. Waive reading and introduce an ordinance increasing Board compensation from $100.00 to
$105.00 per meeting pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5536.
2. Hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
3. Direct the General Manager and General Counsel to prepare the ordinance for second reading
at the December 9, 2020 Board meeting.
SUMMARY
A recemt change to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) enabling
legislation allows the Board of Directors (Board) to increase the per meeting compensation for
Board members by an amount not to exceed 5% annually, by ordinance. This item consists of
the first reading of an ordinance, which would increase the per meeting compensation from
$100.00 to $105.00. The proposed increases are expected to fall within the Board-approved
Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget.
DISCUSSION
Prior to January 1, 2019, California Public Resources Code section 5536 set the compensation
for Board members at $100 per meeting with a maximum of $500 or five meetings per month.
This level of Board compensation had not changed since 1984. Based on US inflation
calculators, the cumulative rate of inflation during this timeframe has been approximately 150%.
Although compensation has not changed in 34 years, the scope of Board member responsibilities
and the complexity of policy oversight has substantially grown:
• Since 1984, the District’s budget has grown from $13.9 million to $81 million.
• The District secured a substantial second funding source for capital projects in the form
of a $300 million general obligation bond passed by voters in 2014.
• Acres of land preserved by the District have grown from 18,300 acres to over 64,500 acres.
• The District now operates in three counties, including the San Mateo County coast, while
it previously had operated in only two counties and was limited in San Mateo County to
the southern bayside area.
• The District’s constituent population grew from 570,000 to 770,000.
R-20-139 Page 2
In June 2018, the District supported AB 2329 (Obernolte), the purpose of which was to provide
Board members with enhanced latitude in increasing the number of compensable meetings and
per meeting compensation amount. Assemblymember Obernolte expressed the intent of the
legislation as follows:
"This bill puts special districts on the same playing field. Many special districts are operated
with small boards of directors that work diligently to make their special district as useful to
the community as possible. This important work takes board members' time. Allowing
special districts to be allowed the same amount of meetings a month will help level the
playing field for those districts that currently have lower limits. Additionally, allowing
districts the authority to slightly adjust their compensation annually will help districts assess
for themselves what is fair and what their district can handle, rather than raising the
compensation statewide."
The new law, which took effect January 1, 2019, enables Board members to increase the number
of compensable meetings from five to six per month, and to increase the per meeting
compensation amount not to exceed 5% annually.
Increase in number of compensable meetings per month
In November 2017, the Board amended Board Policy 6.06 to expand the definition of
compensable meetings to include Board field trips to District project locations, trainings required
by State law, and celebratory ribbon cuttings for projects on District lands. The Board also
determined that briefings with staff on District projects, and Board member attendance at
meetings of outside agencies where the Board member is an appointed representative, would be
considered compensable. Due to the increase in projects requiring Board committee
consideration, the number of meetings requiring Board member attendance increased
approximately 40% from 2017 to 2018. During 2019, Board members typically attended
between five and nine compensable meetings per month with numerous months at six or more
meetings for individual Board members.
Due to the change in the law effective January 1, 2019, the Board adopted amendments to Board
Policy 6.06 Meeting Compensation, Reimbursement of Authorized Necessary Expenses for
Performance of Official Duties, and Adoption of Ethics Training Requirements Pursuant to
Government Code Section 53232 et seq. (AB1234) to allow Board members to be compensated
for up to six meetings per month, supported by written findings that more than five meetings per
month are necessary for the effective operation of the District. These findings are required to be
made annually. The findings were made again in January 2020 to allow Board members to be
compensated for up to six meetings per month.
Ordinance increasing the per meeting compensation from $100 to $105
In addition to increasing the number of compensable meetings, the amendments to Public
Resources Code section 5536 allow the District to adopt an ordinance increasing the per meeting
compensation by up to 5% annually. The ordinance must be adopted pursuant to the procedure
used by water districts (Water Code section 20200 et seq) that includes multiple opportunities for
the public to provide input through a public hearing and a petition process. The procedure for
adopting a compensation increase is:
• Publish a notice of the public hearing in the local newspaper once per week for two
consecutive weeks.
R-20-139 Page 3
• Hold a public hearing (first reading), and adopt the ordinance at a subsequent meeting
(second reading)
• Within 60 days after adoption, the public may petition for reconsideration of the
ordinance. In this case, the Board must reconsider the ordinance before enacting it.
In January 2019, the Board deferred its decision on the issue of the 5% increase to determine
whether other special districts were updating compensation in response to the recent legislation.
In July 2019, East Bay Regional Park District (another agency organized under PRC section
5500) adopted an ordinance increasing its per meeting Board compensation amount by 5%.
In January 2020, the Board directed the General Manager and General Counsel to prepare this
ordinance to increase the per meeting compensation from $100.00 to $105.00 in accordance with
state law. The new law specifies that the Board may increase its compensation not more than 5%
for each calendar year following the operative date of the last adjustment. General Counsel
recommends that the Board enact an increase as a “baseline” in response to the 2019 changes to
the law. The Board may consider enacting subsequent compensation increases provided that the
increase does not exceed 5% per calendar year.
On April 19, 2020, the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee considered other
changes to the Board policy to further define compensable meetings. These proposed
amendments to Board Policy 6.06 will be brought to the full Board for consideration in January
2021.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY21 budget provides up to $42,000 for Board meeting compensation, and as of September
30, 2020 has $33,000 remaining for the current fiscal year. This amount should be sufficient to
compensate Board members for the remainder of the fiscal year and is contingent upon the
number of compensable meetings held per month. If it is later determined that additional funds
are required, a budget adjustment may be requested.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Board of Directors directed the General Manager and General Counsel to prepare this
compensation ordinance in January 2020. Additionally, at its April 19, 2020 meeting, the
Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) discussed the topic of Board
compensation, including refining the definition of compensable meetings in Board Policy 6.06.
LFPAC approved forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Directors to refine language in
the Policy, which the Board will consider in January 2021.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of the Ordinance was published in the newspaper once a week for two weeks
leading up to this first reading in accordance with Public Resources Code section 5536 and
Water Code section 20203.
Public notice was also provided pursuant to the Brown Act.
R-20-139 Page 4
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, the Ordinance will undergo a second reading at the December 9, 2020
meeting. If enacted upon second reading, the Ordinance will be published thereafter in the
newspaper and will go into effect 60 days after adoption.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2. Board Policy 6.06
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
1
ORDINANCE NO. 20-__
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT INCREASING
THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FOR BOARD MEMBER MEETING
ATTENDANCE TO $105 PER MEETING
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”) is a special
district duly organized and existing under and pursuant to California Public Resources Code
section 5500 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code section 5536 sets forth the authority for
establishing compensation for members of the District’s Board of Directors (Board); and
WHEREAS, the current Board member compensation is one hundred dollars ($100) per
day for attendance at a meeting of the Board, up to a maximum of six (6) days per calendar
month; and
WHEREAS, the one hundred dollars ($100) per day amount has not been increased since
1984; and
WHEREAS, the size and complexity of the District has increased significantly since
1984, which in turn means that the responsibilities and time commitment for Board service is
greater than ever; and
WHEREAS, section 5536 was amended in 2018 to allow the Board of Directors, by
ordinance pursuant to the procedures set forth in California Water Code section 20200 et seq., to
increase the amount of compensation received for attending meetings of the Board; and
WHEREAS, California Water Code section 20202 provides that an increase in
compensation may not exceed an amount equal to five percent (5%) for each calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish the amount of compensation by way of this
Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of state law; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Water Code section 20203 and California
Government Code section 6066, a public hearing was held on November 18, 2020, at 7:00 pm,
and a notice of said hearing was duly published in the newspaper once a week for two weeks
prior to the public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
A. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District desires to compensate members of the
Board of Directors for attendance at its meetings, in accordance with California law and
Board policy.
Attachment 1
2
B. The amount of compensation to be received by the Board of Directors for each day’s
attendance at a meeting of the Board shall be increased five percent (5%) from one
hundred dollars ($100) to one hundred and five dollars ($105) per day.
SECTION 2. Upon adoption of this Ordinance, Board Policy 6.06 (Meeting Compensation,
Reimbursement of Authorized Necessary Expenses for Performance of Official Duties, and
Adoption of Ethics Training Requirements Pursuant to Government Code Section 53232 et seq.
(AB 1234)) shall be amended to reflect this increase.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be published once within thirty (30) days after adoption in a
newspaper of general circulation printed, published, and circulated in the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Water Code section 20204, this Ordinance shall become effective 60
days from the date of its adoption.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Adopted by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors on
_____, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Meeting Compensation,
Reimbursement of Authorized
Necessary Expenses for Performance
of Official Duties, and Adoption of
Ethics Training Requirements
Pursuant to Government Code Section
53232 et seq. (AB 1234)
Policy 6.06
Chapter 6 – General
Effective Date: 1/30/08 Revised Date: 1/9/19
Prior Versions: 11/13/13, 8/9/17
Board Policy 6.06 Page 1 of 5
A.COMPENSATION OF BOARD MEMBERS
1.Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5536 and 5536.5, members of the
Board shall receive one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each attendance at a
Board meeting. This amount shall be the maximum compensation allowable to a
board member on any given day. A Board meeting includes a closed session of
the board, regular and special meetings of the board, field trips to district project
locations, district public hearings, meetings of standing and ad hoc committees,
trainings required by State law, and ribbon cuttings for projects on district lands.
Regarding compensation for committee meetings, only Board members who are
members of the committee, or other authorized substitutes appointed by the
presiding officer, may be compensated for attendance at the meeting.
2.Board members may be compensated for up to six meetings in a calendar
month.
3.Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5536, the Board may adopt an
ordinance to increase the amount of compensation received for attendance at a
Board meeting. The increase may not exceed an amount equal to five percent for
each calendar year following the operative date of the last adjustment of the
compensation which is received when the ordinance is adopted. Adoption of such
an ordinance must comply with the procedure set forth in California Water Code
section 20200 et seq.
B.TRAVEL AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE PERFORMING AUTHORIZED
DISTRICT BUSINESS
1.Types of Occurrences and Meetings that Qualify for Expense Reimbursement. Board
Members are eligible for reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred
in the performance of their authorized official duties as provided in Public Resources
Code Sections 5536 and 5536.5 and AB 1234 as follows:
a.Attendance at conferences in accordance with the Board’s “Budget
Guidelines for Conference Attendance”, or if the Board, on a case-by-case
Attachment 2
Board Policy 6.06 Page 2 of 5
basis, approves other conference attendance in advance, due to specific
business needs of the District.
b. Board authorized or General Manager requested, attendance at meetings
with nonprofit organizations, joint powers agencies, other government
agencies such as grant-funding agencies, District legislators or their staff,
local, state or federal representatives, and similar meetings, when such
attendance is necessary in order to effectively represent the District’s
position on a matter of District concern.
2. Government and Group Rates. Airlines, hotels, rental car companies, and other
businesses often make special rates available to government agencies or groups.
These rates are presumed to be the most economical and reasonable rates for
the purposes of this Policy and shall be obtained whenever available.
3. Transportation. Generally, travel to Board-authorized conferences or other
authorized travel between points within 150 miles of the District’s
Administrative Office by the Board Member’s private vehicle shall be at the
current rate established by the Internal Revenue Service. Travel exceeding 150
miles shall be at rates not exceeding the most economical rates of a public
carrier. Specific types of transportation expenses shall be reimbursed as follows:
a. Air Travel. Board Members may be reimbursed for the cost of a
roundtrip economy-class ticket, provided the amount of
reimbursement does not exceed the least expensive airfare that is
consistent with the Board Member’s reasonable scheduling constraints.
b. Personal Vehicle Travel. Board Members may be reimbursed for
expenses incurred in traveling by personal vehicle at the current
Internal Revenue Service mileage rate.
c. Car Rental Reimbursement. Where necessary when attending a
conference or other authorized travel, Board Members may be
reimbursed for the expense of a rental car, provided the amount of
reimbursement does not exceed the most economical and reasonable
rates available. When more than one Board Member attends the event,
Board Members shall share the rental car where feasible.
Conference and Travel Meals. Board Members may be reimbursed for meal expenses on a per
diem basis for meals consumed in conjunction with conference attendance or authorized travel.
The per diem rate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner shall be the daily per diem rate established
by the Federal Government General Services Administration (GSA) (www.gsa.gov/perdiem) for
the region where the conference/training is located. Where the conference/training site or
hotel includes meals in the cost of the registration, such meals shall not be included in the per
diem allowance unless dietary restrictions require obtaining meals from other sources. A
breakdown of allowable rates for breakfast, lunch, and dinner may be found on the GSA web
page (www.gsa.gov/mie).
Attachment 2
Board Policy 6.06 Page 3 of 5
The above limitations do not apply to meals at conferences or authorized travel at which a fixed
price meal is served as part of or during the event. In such a case, the actual cost of the meal
will be reimbursed.
If a meal is provided by a conference or included in the payment of the registration fee, Board
Members may not be reimbursed for meals purchased in lieu of or in addition to the provided
meal, unless it is infeasible for the Board Member to attend the meal due to the need to
conduct other District business.
1. Conference and Travel Lodging. The District will reimburse lodging expenses
when conference or other authorized travel reasonably requires an overnight
stay, provided the amount of the reimbursement does not exceed economical
and reasonable rates for lodging that meets the Board Member’s reasonable
scheduling and official business needs. For lodging in connection with a
conference, such lodging costs shall not exceed the maximum group rate
available through the conference or event sponsor, provided that the lodging at
the group rate is available to the Board Member at the time of booking. If the
conference rate is not available, the Board Member shall use comparable lodging
and may be reimbursed at a nightly rate not to exceed the maximum group rate
available through the conference.
2. Incidental Expense Reimbursement. Board Members may be reimbursed for
actual and necessary incidental expenses incurred in connection with authorized
conferences or travel. Such expenses may include reasonable and customary
gratuities, parking fees, taxi fares, public transportation costs, tolls, telephone
calls, internet, postage, facsimile charges, and similar incidental expense.
3. Conference Registration Fee Reimbursement. Board Members may be
reimbursed for the expense of an authorized conference registration fee as set
out in the Board’s “Budget Guidelines for Board Conference Attendance” or as
authorized by the Board on a case by case basis.
4. Other Expenses. All other actual and necessary expenses incurred in the
performance of official duties that are not listed in this Policy shall not be
reimbursed unless reimbursement is approved by the Board in advance of
incurring the expense.
5. Prohibited Expense Reimbursements. Board Members shall not be reimbursed
for expenses such as alcoholic beverages; spouse, domestic partner, or family
member expenses; entertainment expenses such as movie, theatre, or sporting
event fees; nor for fines for vehicle citations or damage to personal vehicles used
in the course of District business. Exceptions can be approved by the Board
when necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other
applicable law, such as the payment for a necessary caregiver or companion to
accompany a Board Member due to a qualifying disability.
Attachment 2
Board Policy 6.06 Page 4 of 5
C. CELL PHONE REIMBURSEMENT
The District shall reimburse Board Members for the use of their personal cellular phone to
conduct Board business, receive or make calls with constituents and communicate with District
management. The reimbursement shall be $32.50 per month. To be eligible for this
reimbursement, the Board Member shall need to submit a completed Cell Phone
Reimbursement Form to the District Clerk for processing.
Whether or not an employee’s cell phone charges are reimbursed by the District, any records of
District business conducted on a personal cell phone or other device (including photos,
voicemail, text, and electronic mail) must be made available to the District upon request,
including but not limited to when needed to comply with a Public Records Act request.
D. DOCUMENTATION FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT
1. Documentation Requirements. The District shall provide Board Members with
expense report forms to be filed by the Member for reimbursement of actual and necessary
expenses which are authorized to be reimbursed under this Policy. The form shall be used to
document the expenses for which reimbursement is sought is proper under this Policy. The
District shall also provide a separate form to document compensable meetings.
a. Time for Filing Forms. Board Members must file expense report forms by the
end of the calendar month following the calendar month when the expense
was incurred in order to receive reimbursement. The expense report forms
shall be accompanied by itemized receipts for items documenting each
expense. Compensation forms shall also be filed by the end of the following
calendar month of the meeting for which compensation is sought. In the
event a Board Member is unable to file such forms by the end of the
following calendar month due to extenuating circumstances, such as his or
her absence from home or illness, the Board Member shall file such forms as
soon as feasible. In no event shall such forms be filed later than ninety (90)
days from the compensable meeting or incurring of the expense. If a Board
Members fails to file a timely reimbursement or compensation form, the
Board Members shall be ineligible to receive the requested payment.
b. Offset of Amounts Due the District. If a Board Member has reimbursable
expenses or compensation due from the District, and that Member owes any
amounts to the District, such amounts due shall be deducted from the
reimbursement or compensation otherwise due to the Board Member.
c. Public Records. All documents related to reimbursable expenses are
considered public records subject to disclosure under the California Public
Records Act.
2. Report to Board Regarding Compensable Activities. Board Members shall
provide brief reports on meetings attended for which compensation is provided by this Policy at
the next regular Board meeting attended by the Board Member. The report may be made
Attachment 2
Board Policy 6.06 Page 5 of 5
orally during Board Informational Reports, or in writing. If provided in writing, the Board
Member shall state at the meeting that he or she is submitting to the District Clerk a written
report of compensable meetings attended.
E. ETHICS TRAINING PURSUANT TO AB 1234
Each Board Member shall receive at least two hours of training in general ethics principles and
laws relevant to his or her public service every two years. The District shall annually provide
information on training alternatives available to Board Members to meet the requirements of
AB 1234. The District shall maintain documentation of the dates that Board Members received
this training and the entity that provided the training.
Attachment 2
1
DATE: November 18, 2020
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Jay Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager
SUBJECT: Administrative Office Project – Contractor Pre-Qualification Process
Background
The Midpeninsula Open Space District (District) has been evaluating options to address the lack
of sufficient administrative office (AO) space to meet ongoing and long-term business needs
since 2015, as the organization began to undergo significant internal restructuring to accelerate
project delivery, expand public service delivery, and ensure sufficient resources to manage
public land and access facilities. At the July 2017 public meeting, the Board adopted a
resolution to enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the building located at 5050 El Camino
Real, Los Altos, CA (R-17-90). Escrow closed on the purchase on February 1, 2019.
Through numerous surveys, ad hoc committee meetings, public meetings, and other forms of
public and Board engagement, the AO Project (Project) to repurpose and reconfigure the 5050 El
Camino Real building for long-term District use has reached the 95% design development level.
Project plans are currently in final review with the City of Los Altos building department.
As the Project moves from design to construction, the prequalification of bidders has helped
keep to the construction schedule. Construction is expected to begin in March 2021. In
prequalifying prospective bidders, the District has carefully reviewed contractor qualifications to
determine which contractors possess the skills, licenses, and expertise to perform the work.
Pre-Qualification Process
At the February 12, 2020 Board meeting, the Board expressed a desire for staff to pre-qualify all
General Contractors interested in bidding on this Project. The California Public Contract Code,
section 20101, establishes procedures for local agencies wishing to prequalify bidders on public
works projects. The District has followed the process set forth under state law for this
solicitation.
2
On August 20, 2020, staff released a contractor pre-qualification solicitation on BidSync.com to
solicit interested contractors. Staff also reached out to six (6) firms via email and phone calls.
Seventeen (17) general building contractors submitted qualification packets on September 10,
2020. The pre-qualification solicitation was also published in the newspaper per the District’s
public bidding process, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5594.
Staff has completed the review of the qualifications. The pre-qualification process considered
the contractor ability to perform, history of successfully completing similar projects, and
capability.
Pre-Qualified Contractors
After a thorough review of each firm’s pre-qualification statement and references, the following
contractors have been pre-qualified to bid on this project:
• BCCI Builders (San Francisco, CA)
• BHM Construction, Inc (Napa, CA)
• Build Group, Inc. (San Francisco, CA)
• Gonsalves & Stronck (San Carlos, CA)
• Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. (Benicia, CA)
• Rodan Builders, Inc. (Hayward, CA)
• Sausal Corporation (Concord, CA)
• Stronghold Engineering, Inc. (Perris, CA)
• Thompson Builders Corporation (Novato, CA)
• Dome Construction Corporation (South San Francisco, CA)
• Wickman Development and Construction (San Francisco, CA)
Timeline:
The table below shows the major milestones remaining for this Project:
DATE PROCESS
November 4, 2020 Release Bid Documents
Early December 2020 Bid Opening
December 2020 or
January 2021 Board Award of Construction Contract
March 2021 Start of Construction Improvements
March 2022 Move-in
###