HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190710 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 19-18
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will
ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow
action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please
complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance
during this section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Proclamation Honoring Gordon Baillie on his Retirement
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 June 26, 2019 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Award of Contract with Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc., to provide Radio
Communications System Assessment and Master Plan Services for the Radio System
Assessment and Upgrade Project (R-19-92)
Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II
General Manager’s Recommendation:
Meeting 19-18
Rev. 1/3/19
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc.,
to provide services in support of the Radio System Assessment and Upgrade project for a not-
to-exceed base amount of $106,500.
2. Authorize a 4% contingency of $4,500 to be awarded if necessary to cover unforeseen
conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $111,000.
4. Award of Demolition and Site Cleanup Contract for Removal of Dilapidated and Defunct
Structures at the former Lysons Property and Stevens Canyon Ranch (R-19-93)
Staff Contact: Tanisha Werner, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Determine that each of the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report.
2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental
Technologies, Inc., of Watsonville, California for a not-to-exceed base amount of $327,320.
3. Authorize a 15% contingency of $49,098 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing
the total contract amount not-to-exceed $376,418.
5. Contract Amendment for Environmental Services to Support the Ravenswood Bay Trail
Project (R-19-94)
Staff Contact: Karine Tokatlian, Resource Management Specialist II, Natural Resources
Department and Gretchen Lausten, Planner III, Planning Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with H.T. Harvey and Associates for
additional environmental consulting services to support the Ravenswood Bay Trail Project in an amount
of $385,827 for a period of five years, for a new base contract amount of $604,027.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $57,874 to cover unforeseen conditions and annual rate increases in the
event of Project delay, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $661,901.
6. Fiscal Year 2019-20 Annual Claims List (R-19-96)
Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Annual Claims List,
including debt service payments.
7. Establish the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Tax Levy for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District’s General Obligation Bonds - Series 2015A, Series 2015B and Series 2018 (R-19-95)
Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for each of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz
Counties to establish an ad valorem property tax levy of $1.60 per $100,000 (or $0.0016 per $100)
in assessed value for the General Obligation Bonds – Series 2015A, Series 2015B and Series 2018
(Measure AA).
BOARD BUSINESS
The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the
Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may
comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates.
Rev. 1/3/19
8. Annual 2018 Calendar Year Report and Proposed Updates to the Integrated Pest
Management Program (R-19-90)
Staff Contact: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve the proposed changes to the Integrated Pest Management Program.
2. Approve the proposed changes to the Slender False Brome Program and associated partnership
with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District.
9. Authorization to Purchase Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2019–20 (R-19-91)
Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California Department
of General Services and associated contract dealers for one patrol vehicle, four maintenance
vehicles, and one administrative office pool vehicle for a total cost not-to-exceed $391,500.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California Department
of General Services and associated contract dealers for one mowing tractor for a total cost not-
to-exceed $188,000.
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.
Committee Reports
Staff Reports
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 regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on July 3, 2019, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022.
The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Rev. 1/3/19
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
Proclamation of the
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Given to Honor the Retirement of
Gordon Baillie
WHEREAS, Gordon Baillie has been an employee of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District for over 22 years and is retiring; and
WHEREAS, Gordon came to the District with many years of experience working as a
Ranger for the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and City of Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, Gordon has shown tremendous honesty and professional integrity as well
as demonstrated a deep caring for open space and the people with whom he works; and
WHEREAS, Gordon possesses deep knowledge of District methods, procedures, staff
and evolution, and has the ability to clearly articulate the District’s mission, core values and
policies to staff, members of the public, stakeholders, agencies, and others in the community;
and
WHEREAS, Gordon has personally trained many of the District rangers, including his
supervisors, and was instrumental in developing the District’s Radio Training program as well
as serving as a CPR and First Responder Instructor; and
WHEREAS, Gordon served as the District’s Field Public Information Officer, dealing
with the media at events such as fires, fatality accidents, a mountain lion attack, and a unique
situation at Lupine Lodge; and
WHEREAS, Gordon is not afraid to take on challenges and to step up when requested
to cover Budget, Action Plan, Measure AA Costing, Notary work, and other District-wide
needs; and
Whereas, Gordon used and enhanced his computer skills to solve problems through
the development of sophisticated spreadsheets, databases, and well written documents, and
WHEREAS, Gordon continued to maintain his field skills and contacts by working a
second job as a Ranger with the City of Palo Alto, and maintained his certification as an
Emergency Medical Technician, and put those skills and knowledge to good use at the District;
and
WHEREAS, Gordon will be greatly missed by his colleagues and friends at the District;
NOW Therefore, I, Pete Siemens, President of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, along with my colleagues on the Board of
Directors, unanimously and enthusiastically congratulate Gordon on a well-deserved
retirement, look back on his accomplishments with gratitude and awe, and wish him all the
very best for the future.
______________________________________________
PETE SIEMENS, BOARD PRESIDENT
June 26, 2019
Board Meeting 19-17
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
President Siemens called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General Counsel
Mazarin Vakharia, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, District Clerk/Assistant to the General
Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager Kirk
Lenington, Climate Resiliency Fellow Hayley Edmonston
1. 2018 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report (R-19-81)
Climate Resiliency Fellow Hayley Edmonston presented the staff report reviewing the 2018
Greenhouse Gas Inventory findings, including that the District is ahead of schedule to reach the
first Climate Action Plan goal with a decrease in administrative emissions by 14%, and described
changes already implemented in 2019.
Director Holman spoke in favor of including the amount of staff hours in the cost of
administering the Climate Action Plan to understand the full cost of the program.
The Board members commented on the need to increase District efforts to further reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the coming years because many of the already implemented
changes were not caused by changes to District processes but by purchasing flight offsets,
reduced employee commuting, and using renewable electricity and renewable diesel.
Meeting 19-17 Page 2
Director Kishimoto commented on the need to increase the percentage of waste diversion.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone described the systems currently in place for waste
diversion at the field offices, and explained the systems will likely need improvement in the
future. Additionally, waste is further sorted by waste companies.
Directors Hassett and Holman spoke in favor of selecting local contractors to reduce GHG
emissions.
Director Riffle spoke in favor of the District moving towards more energy efficient equipment to
create true reductions in District energy usage.
Public comments opened at 7:00 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:00 p.m.
No Board action required.
President Siemens adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:01 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Siemens called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko
Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General Counsel
Mazarin Vakharia, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant
General Manager Susanna Chan, Controller Mike Foster, District
Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Budget &
Analysis Manager Carmen Narayanan, Finance Manager Andrew Taylor,
Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Visitor Services Manager
Matt Anderson, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Land & Facilities Manager
Michael Jurich, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Human
Resources Manager Candice Basnight, Information Systems &
Technology Manager Casey Hiatt, Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner,
Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Budget Analyst I Lupe
Hernandez, and Budget Analyst I Elissa Martinez
Meeting 19-17 Page 3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rhoda Fry spoke in opposition to the expansion of Lehigh Quarry and Lehigh’s ongoing
pollution of air and water.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
President Siemens suggested moving item 10 before item 9.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda, as
amended.
VOTE: 7-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:12 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:12 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar, as amended.
VOTE: 7-0-0
1. Approve June 12, 2019 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Approval of an Agreement with Chavan & Associates to provide Financial Auditing
Services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 through FY2020-21, for a Not-To-Exceed Total
Amount of $70,500 (R-19-87)
Controller’s Recommendation: Appoint Chavan & Associates as the District’s financial auditor
for FY2018-19 through FY2020-21 and authorize the General Manager to execute a three year
contract and engagement letter agreement for a not-to-exceed amount of $70,500.
4. Contract Amendment with Phytosphere to Continue Sudden Oak Death Research
(R-19-83)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with
Phytosphere Research, in the amount of $10,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of
$86,500, to continue monitoring treatment methods to suppress the spread of Sudden Oak Death
in Open Space Preserves through the end of Fiscal Year 2019-20.
Meeting 19-17 Page 4
5. Written Response to Frank Bakonyi
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the written response to Mr. Bakonyi
6. Authorization to contribute a $2 Million payments of FY2018-19 budget savings to
the District’s Section 115 Trust administered by Public Agency Retirement Services
(PARS) (R-19-88)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorization to deposit $2 Million into the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District’s (District) PARS account established under a Section 115 Trust
as further funding of the District’s strategy to pre-fund its pension obligations.
7. New Board Policy 3.02 – General Accounting, Internal Control and Capital Assets
Policy and Annual Review of Finance Policies for 2019 (R-19-89)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Recommend Board approval of the proposed new Board
Policy 3.02 - General Accounting Policy, approve changes to 3.07 - Fund Balance Policy and
3.08 - Statement of Investment, and reaffirm 3.09 - Debt Management Policy.
President Siemens suggested amending policy 3.08 Guideline 1 to read as follows:
The General Manager or CFO are is responsible for approving the Controller’s designation of the
amount of funds available for investment for longer than one year.
BOARD BUSINESS
8. Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-19-82)
Budget & Analysis Manager Carmen Narayanan provided the staff report describing the
proposed Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget by fund and the proposed staffing changes.
Public comments opened at 7:17 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:17 p.m.
The members of the Board spoke in favor of the proposed budget and commented on the
thorough process used to develop the proposed budget.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Budget and Capital
Improvement and Action Plan.
2. Approve two and a half new full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in the Visitor and Field
Services business line.
3. Approve one new FTE in the Finance and Administrative Services business line.
4. Approve one new classification in the Visitor and Field Services business line.
5. Adopt a Resolution approving the Classification and Compensation Plan.
VOTE: 7-0-0
Meeting 19-17 Page 5
9. La Honda Public Access Working Group Appointments (R-19-85)
Item 9 was heard after Item 10.
Director Kishimoto suggested appointing an alternate for the community stakeholders to serve on
the working group in the event that one of those stakeholders were unable to attend a meeting.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to appoint the next
highest ranked applicant as an alternate for the community stakeholders to the working group.
Director Cyr spoke against the motion stating that an alternate may disrupt the balance of the
membership of the working group.
Director Cyr withdrew his second.
Public comments opened at 8:49 p.m.
Barbara Hooper commented on the impact of preserves on the neighboring communities.
Public comments closed at 8:52 p.m.
Director Riffle left the dais at 8:51 p.m.
Director Kishimoto withdrew her motion.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to:
1. Appoint members to serve on the La Honda Public Access Working Group as listed in the
staff report.
2. Approve a preferred method to fill a vacancy for the La Honda Public Access Working
Group in case one arises:
a. If a vacancy is a La Honda Area Representative, appoint a new member to the Working
Group from the interviewee list established by the Board on June 19, 2019; and
b. If a vacancy is a ward representative, the Director for that ward would select a new
representative to serve on the Working Group.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
The Board recessed at 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at 8:56 p.m. with Directors Cyr, Hassett,
Holman, Kersteen-Tucker, Kishimoto, and Siemens present.
10. Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Study (R-19-86)
Item 10 was heard after Item 8.
Planner II Leialani Hufana provided the staff report describing the public use of Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve and County Park and the management agreement the District has
with Santa Clara County where the District agrees to manage, patrol, and maintain the park. Ms.
Hufana reviewed ongoing parking challenges at the park and previous actions taken to address
parking challenges for the site. Ms. Hufana outlined the proposed scope of work for the
Meeting 19-17 Page 6
multimodal study, which includes a parking and transportation demand analysis, and the
proposed short-term measures to address parking challenges. Medium- and long-term measures
are not currently being proposed for Board approval. Following completion of the parking and
transportation demand analysis study, staff will return with a revised list of medium- and long-
term measures to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee and Board for further
discussion and consideration.
Director Holman suggested including information on the District’s website regarding peak traffic
times.
Director Holman suggested moving partnering with other cities to establish new bike-friendly
routes to the Preserve to a short-term solution.
Planning Manager Jane Mark reported that this measure was considered medium-term by staff
due to the time it may take to coordinate and collaborate with representative of nearby cities.
Director Kersteen-Tucker requested clarification regarding potential metered parking.
Director Holman commented that the Planning and Natural Resources Committee was opposed
to metered parking due to the visual disturbance meters could create, but additional information
on this and other medium- and long-term measures would be further studied in the parking and
transportation demand analysis study.
Director Kishimoto suggested including a timeframe to initiate partnership conversations with
neighboring cities regarding new bike-friendly routes to access the preserve.
Public comments opened at 7:50 p.m.
Rhoda Fry spoke in opposition to parking meters. Additionally, Ms. Fry spoke against Lehigh
Quarry’s operations that occur near Ranch San Antonio. Finally, Ms. Fry spoke regarding
potential access from the Oak Valley neighborhood.
Betty Ka yton spoke regarding an entrance to Rancho San Antonio near Rhus Ridge and spoke in
favor of District helping to pay for repaving the road there. Additionally, Ms. Kayton spoke
against including parking near the Rhus Ridge entrance on District brochures.
Leigh Stevens, neighbor to the preserve, spoke regarding the impact of preserve visitors
impacting her street. Ms. Stevens spoke in opposition to metered parking. Finally, Ms. Stevens
spoke in favor of partnering with the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition to open a connection to the
bike path near the Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail following completion of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District project.
Jerry Wittenauer, a member of the equestrian community, spoke in favor of the horse trailer
parking at the park and continued equestrian use of the site. Mr. Wittenauer spoke against use of
a large shuttle bus and in favor of a potentially smaller shuttle van.
Evelyn Horng spoke regarding the negative impact of parking and foot track on her street in a
neighboring community and requested the impacts on nearby communities also be considered
during the impact study.
Meeting 19-17 Page 7
Bud Cristal spoke regarding the increased number of visitors to the preserve in recent years. Mr.
Cristal spoke in favor of considering a parking garage on the site.
Hal Feeney spoke in favor of collecting data related to the impacts on neighboring communities
outside the preserve and not only number of visitors to the preserve. Mr. Feeney spoke in favor
of looking closely at alternate access points.
Mary Jo Feeney spoke regarding the use of Mora Drive as a walk-in entrance only.
Rich Redelfs spoke in favor of making the preserve and its trails more bicycle friendly, including
potential construction of additional bicycle trails. Mr. Redelfs spoke in favor of using technology
to notify visitors of parking availability.
Ry Smith spoke against installation of parking meters.
Charles Bodine spoke against installation of parking meters or use of shuttles in order to
maintain the character of the neighborhood and the preserve.
Teresa Baker commented on the increased population in the Bay Area and spoke in favor of
increased parking for the preserve, including building a parking garage, to allow more people to
visit to the preserve.
Public comments closed at 8:20 p.m.
Director Riffle requested additional information regarding the scope of the parking and
transportation demand analysis study and suggested including scope tasks that list specific areas
for counting visitors that access the preserve in various ways.
Director Hassett spoke in opposition to a metering system and in favor of additional parking in
the parking boundaries.
Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on the impact of increased visitors at many of the
District’s preserves and suggested convening a working group for Rancho San Antonio similar to
the one being convened for La Honda.
Director Holman suggested including neighbors in the current stakeholder group.
Director Kishimoto spoke regarding potential visitors that may not visit the preserve due to a
lack of parking.
Director Holman suggested including as a short-term solution to use technology to monitor
parking.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to:
1. Approve the proposed scope of work related to the Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access
Study: Phase 1 Parking and Transportation Demand Analysis.
2. Approve the recommended short-term measures that can be initiated within Fiscal Years
2019-20 and 2020-21.
Meeting 19-17 Page 8
3. Authorize the Board President to appoint two Board Members to assist staff in pursuing
coordination and partnership opportunities (described in Attachment 2) with other
jurisdictions.
VOTE: 7-0-0
11. Award of Contract for Forest Inventory and Management Planning, La Honda
Creek Open Space Preserve (R-19-84)
Senior Resource Management Specialist Matt Baldzikowski presented the staff report reviewing
the La Honda Creek Master Plan and resource management policies that address forest
management in the District. Mr. Baldzikowski described the geographic area included in the La
Honda Forest and Management Plan pilot project. Finally, Mr. Baldzikowski described how
forest management can be utilized for natural resource protection and preservation and provided
several examples.
Director Hassett inquired regarding the purpose of studying historic logging roads within the
preserve’s conservation management unit areas.
Mr. Baldzikowski reported the study would be to determine if the roads should be removed for
restoration purposes.
Director Holman requested clarification regarding forest inventory because tree count
information may be helpful in calculating carbon sequestration.
Mr. Baldzikowski provided a definition of forest inventory and reported that the information may
potentially be used to support carbon sequestration data.
Public comments opened at 9:36 p.m.
Dennis Danielson spoke in favor of the General Manager’s recommendation and in favor of
using this project as a successful template for future similar projects.
Public comments closed at 9:40 p.m.
Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Sicular Environmental Consulting
and Natural Lands Management of Berkeley, California for $79,993.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $12,000 to be expended only if necessary to cover
unanticipated conditions or needs, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $91,993.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Riffle absent)
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Legislative Actions Update to Board
Meeting 19-17 Page 9
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Kishimoto reported the Action Plan and Budget Committee met on June 18, 2019.
Director Siemens reported the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee met on June 18, 2019 to
set the schedule for the annual evaluation process.
B. Staff Reports
Real Property Manager Mike Williams provided updates on the following projects: purchase of
an addition to the El Sereno Open Space Preserve, exchange agreement with Caltrans for a
portion of the Ravenswood Bay Trail, and closing escrows on the Giusti and Woodruff
Redwoods properties.
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reminded the Board of the open house being held at the
administrative office on June 27, 2019 regarding Bear Creek Stables.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided an update on the covered walkway at the
Mount Umunhum radar tower allowing the trail to be reopened. Mr. Malone reported that he
provided an update on the radar tower to the Santa Clara County Historic Heritage Commission
who recommended interim roof repairs and applying for historic designation of the radar tower.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Kersteen-Tucker reported on a recent event honoring Lennie Roberts for her work on
the Devil’s Slide tunnels.
Director Kishimoto reported on recent conversations with Portola Valley regarding the
Hawthorns property.
Director Holman suggested examining artifacts gathered by Ken Fisher to determine if any may
be displayed in the District’s new office building.
President Siemens attended a meeting with legislative representatives and their staffs to discuss
the Highway 17 crossing project.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 10:03 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 19-18
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2019 Fiscal Year to date EFT:29.70%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment
Amount
924 EFT 06/27/2019 *11958 - PARS/Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2018-19 CALPERS 115 Trust Contribution 2,000,000.00
925 EFT 06/27/2019 *11960 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALPERS-CERBT 2018-19 Funding Contribution of Net ADC (Actuarially Determined Contribution)518,000.00
927 EFT 06/28/2019 11539 - BELZ CONSTRUCTION Demolition, Repairs, and Improvements at 20000 Skyline Blvd 86,830.00
929 EFT 06/28/2019 11739 - CDW LLC Microsoft Enterprise License Renewal (Digital) 4/1/19 - 3/31/20 60,735.34
931 EFT 06/28/2019 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Invasive Species Management -Project #5 - BCR May 2019 42,872.00
80278 Check 06/28/2019 11996 - SPATIAL INFORMATICS GROUP, LLC Fire Ecology Services: Prescribed Fire Program 36,315.00
80274 Check 06/28/2019 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Alma College Site Rehab Prof. Srvs & Design Docs 3/1 - 4/30 34,695.54
926 EFT 06/28/2019 *12052 - 4984 EL Camino LLC A02/A03/A04 Rent - July 2019 34,352.00
941 EFT 06/28/2019 11854 - RECON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.Plant Maintenance & Revegetation Sites - Monitoring 5/1 - 6/30 32,980.28
936 EFT 06/28/2019 11352 - HAMMER FENCES Fence Design Layout and Setting of Braces & Leg Supports - (LH)24,353.00
80285 Check 06/28/2019 11853 - USDA Forest Service Nursery Certification - Restoration Nurseries Accredited Program 20,202.00
946 EFT 06/28/2019 11665 - Waterways Consulting Bear Creek Construction Observation & Project Design for Alpine Rd 19,446.73
944 EFT 06/28/2019 11780 - TERRY J MARTIN ASSOCIATES SAO (Cristich) Design Dev/Engineer Consulting Services 4/15 - 5/12 18,701.00
80281 Check 06/28/2019 11961 - Telepath Corporation Install Code 3 Equipment for P121, P122, P123, P124 & Strip Out P98 18,311.33
80283 Check 06/28/2019 11618 - TRAIL PEOPLE Hwy 17 Wildlife & Reg Trail Crossings - Eng Srvs, Analysis & Research 13,658.82
80284 Check 06/28/2019 10775 - TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC Programming update of project codes in New World 12,800.00
80271 Check 06/28/2019 11855 - OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY MROSD Assessment of Phytophythora - 4/1/19 - 6/30/19 8,689.75
937 EFT 06/28/2019 *10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Life/LTD/ AD&D July 2019 7,719.95
938 EFT 06/28/2019 10031 - MILLS DESIGN Updates to 4 brochure maps - SSR, LT, PCR, and PR, Summer Newsletter 7,073.00
80277 Check 06/28/2019 11734 - S&S WELDING, INC.Flatbar straps 6,770.00
80260 Check 06/28/2019 11772 - AHERN RENTALS, INC.John Deere Dozer rental 5,119.41
932 EFT 06/28/2019 12016 - EVAN BROOKS ASSOCIATES Historic Grant Program - BCR & Alma College - Grant Writing Service 4,800.00
80282 Check 06/28/2019 11841 - TJKM Professional Traffic Engineering Services 03/2019 & 05/2019 4,632.00
930 EFT 06/28/2019 12078 - Coastside Farmers' Markets Annual Sponsorship of Coastside Farmers' Markets 3,885.00
945 EFT 06/28/2019 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights Reporting for San Gregorio / BCR / District-wide 3,547.25
80266 Check 06/28/2019 11520 - COMMUNITY INITIATIVES Outdoor programming and community outreach 3,500.00
80311 Check 06/28/2019 11572 - MESITI-MILLER ENGINEERING INC.Webb Creek Bridge - Project Admin & Quality Control Review 4/25 3,383.14
80287 Check 06/28/2019 11856 - West Coast Arborists, Inc.Task Order 3 - Tree pruning at Toto Ranch 3,000.00
935 EFT 06/28/2019 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Stihl Equipment Parts/Brush Cutters/Saw Chain 2,833.59
80286 Check 06/28/2019 *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Monthly Wireless Services - 49 devices 2,094.09
80273 Check 06/28/2019 12020 - Panorama Environmental, Inc.CEQA: Prescribed Fire Program Development - May 2019 2,010.75
80269 Check 06/28/2019 11962 - LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.Sierra Azul Beatty Trail Rare Plant Surveys - May 2019 1,687.50
80280 Check 06/28/2019 11496 - STRUCTURE GROUPS Concrete sampling for Stevens Creek Nature Trail bridges 1,194.00
943 EFT 06/28/2019 10952 - SONIC.NET, INC.Internet Service 7/01-7/31/19 1,170.00
80264 Check 06/28/2019 10168 - CINTAS Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)1,162.90
80276 Check 06/28/2019 10935 - RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM Gravel to fill pot holes on Toto driveway 1,110.51
80268 Check 06/28/2019 11489 - HARO KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES INC.Consulting Mindego Pond 1,077.50
928 EFT 06/28/2019 11430 - BioMaAS, Inc.Bio Surveys for Oljon Trail 1,041.20
80262 Check 06/28/2019 10141 - BIG CREEK LUMBER CO INC PC Bridge Lumber 672.31
947 EFT 06/28/2019 11834 - WRECO Professional Services - Lysons Demolition Project May 2019 536.70
80265 Check 06/28/2019 11792 - CMAG ENGINEERING, INC.Webb Creek Bridge Final Observation & Testing Letter 515.00
80267 Check 06/28/2019 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Bear Creek Redwoods Plant Installation and Maintenance 450.00
80261 Check 06/28/2019 11814 - AMERICAN PORTABLES Porta Potty BCR Opening Ceremony & Weekends 421.52
939 EFT 06/28/2019 12059 - Mountain View Radiator Vehicle Diagnostic - A95 202.50
942 EFT 06/28/2019 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Water Meter Repair at Lobitos Property 168.23
940 EFT 06/28/2019 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Lumber & Hardware (BCR)156.93
933 EFT 06/28/2019 10567 - EXAMINETICS INC Electronic Conversion 155.00
80279 Check 06/28/2019 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Rock (BCR)109.05
80272 Check 06/28/2019 10481 - PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE MB Payphone 78.00
80263 Check 06/28/2019 *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 WH Water 53.51
Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce
check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
page 2 of 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 19-18
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2019 Fiscal Year to date EFT:29.70%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment
Date
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment
Amount
Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce
check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
80259 Check 06/28/2019 11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Mt Um Safety Phone Monthly Service 45.35
80275 Check 06/28/2019 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC M16 Flat Repair 26.29
934 EFT 06/28/2019 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Lock (BCR)21.69
Grand Total 3,055,366.66$
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
A### = Administrative Office Vehicle GP = General Preserve PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail
AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space HR = Human Resources PIC= Picchetti Ranch SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SFO = Skyline Field Office
CAO = Coastal Area Office LR = Long Ridge RR = Russian Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap
CC = Coal Creek LT = Los Trancos RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill
DHF = Dear Hollow Farm M### = Maintenance Vehicle RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge
ECdM = El Corte de Madera MB = Monte Bello RV = Ravenswood T### = Tractor or Trailer
ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge SA = Sierra Azul TC = Tunitas Creek
FFO = Foothills Field Office OSP = Open Space Preserve SAO = South Area Outpost TH = Teague Hill
FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.P### = Patrol Vehicle SAU = Mount Umunhum TW = Thornewood
Abbreviations
R-19-92
Meeting 19-18
July 10, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract with Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc., to provide Radio Communications
System Assessment and Master Plan Services for the Radio System Assessment and Upgrade
Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract with Forrest Telecom Engineering,
Inc., to provide services in support of the Radio System Assessment and Upgrade project for
a not-to-exceed base amount of $106,500.
2. Authorize a 4% contingency of $4,500 to be awarded if necessary to cover unforeseen
conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $111,000.
SUMMARY
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) requires a qualified consultant to provide
radio system engineering expertise for guiding the Radio System Assessment and Upgrade
Project (Radio Project). A Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFPQ) was issued on April
16, 2019. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Forrest Telecom
Engineering, Inc., for a base amount not to exceed $106,500, and authorizing a 4% contingency
of $4,500. The contract work is anticipated to cover multiple fiscal years. There are sufficient
funds in the adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2019–20 budget to cover the anticipated scope of services
for this fiscal year. Additional funds will be included in the FY2020–21 and FY2021–22
budgets to fund the second and third years of work, respectively.
BACKGROUND
Current Radio System
In June of 2011, the Board of Directors (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. A primary goal of the project was to separate emergency radio
traffic from maintenance and administrative radio traffic. The project added the
simulcast/microwave system for patrol, implemented vehicle repeaters for patrol, narrow banded
frequencies per Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements, and obtained a new
FCC frequency license. The project was completed for a total cost of approximately $1,500,000.
The District operates a very high frequency (VHF) conventional simulcast system and a multi-
site tone select system that covers most core areas as indicated by the map in Attachment 1.
There are some areas within District boundaries that the radio system does not adequately cover.
R-19-92 Page 2
These are typically deep canyons and other types of extreme topography. As the District acquires
additional land, new properties may have limited or no radio coverage depending on where they
are located and the topography.
The conventional simulcast system uses microwave infrastructure to link repeater towers (see
Attachment 1 for tower locations) allowing radio transmission made at one end of the District to
simultaneously be transmitted over all repeater towers in the system. This system allows a person
at any location within the District to communicate with others in the District. This simulcast
channel is the primary channel used by District Rangers.
An essential function of the simulcast system is the efficient communication and coordination of
District Ranger emergency response with our contract emergency dispatch center, Mountain
View Dispatch, and other public safety agencies such as Cal Fire, California Highway Patrol,
Santa Clara County Fire and Sheriff, San Mateo County Fire and Sheriff, and air ambulances.
Separate from the simulcast system, the District operates a multi-site tone select system. This
system utilizes the same repeater towers as the simulcast system, but users must choose the
channel based on location. This system is used by District maintenance and administrative staff,
as well as for logistical communications by emergency response staff.
Need for System Assessment and Upgrade
The current system is facing three issues: 1) equipment is now reaching end-of-life (EOL), 2)
manufacturers are no longer fabricating replacement parts for the equipment, and 3)
manufacturers are no longer providing support. However, some parts may be available on the
surplus or second-hand (used) equipment market. Therefore, the District is not at any immediate
or short-term risk for system failure due to the lack of repair/maintenance parts or support.
Life expectancies for standard radio equipment are listed below. Life expectancy is separate from
support life (which is about 7 years after the equipment is no longer produced).
• Repeaters: 10–15 years
• Simulcast Equipment: 10–15 years
• Multiplex: 10–20 years
• Backup batteries: 10 years
• Microwave radios: 20 years
• Microwave antennas: 20 years
The existing repeaters, simulcast, multiplex, and microwave equipment were purchased and
installed in 2011 towards the end of their production life (but before newer models came on the
market). Therefore, their support life and availability of replacement parts are limited. It is not
clear what equipment can be reused until the assessment and master plan are developed; it is
likely that the microwave radios and antennas will last another 10+ years and may not need to be
upgraded or replaced as part of the Radio System Assessment and Upgrade project.
This Radio Project is separate from the radio replacement for ranger staff. The radio
replacement, which is also budgeted for this fiscal year, will provide new hand held and mobile
radios for patrol staff to ensure continued capability to communicate with other emergency
responders. Other agencies are switching to digital radio systems and our current radios do not
have the capability to communicate with the new digital systems. The assessment included in
R-19-92 Page 3
the Radio Project will ensure that future equipment will be compatible with the new radios
purchased for the patrol staff.
DISCUSSION
The Radio Project will conduct a complete assessment of the current radio system, evaluate the
equipment based on EOL, parts, and support availability, address current areas of poor radio
coverage, evaluate new and emerging technologies in the radio communications industry, and
consider the technology upgrades of other local agencies to ensure compatibility. It will also
include plans to reuse existing equipment, if possible, or if it possible defer part of the
installation for a period of time to phase-in the implementation and associated costs. The Radio
Project will be completed over several years: design (Phase I FY19–20), installation (Phase II
FY20–21), and testing (Phase III FY21–22 and beyond).
The District is looking into possible land acquisitions over the next several years, so the Radio
Project will also assess, model, and incorporate these potential properties as new coverage areas.
The assessment may recommend the addition of repeater towers in strategic locations, which
may incur increased lease and operational costs.
In support of the Radio Project, staff issued a RFPQ for a Radio Communications System
Assessment and Master Plan on April 16, 2019 with the following scope of work requirements:
• Comprehensive needs assessment of the District’s two-way radio system, including
thorough analysis of user requirements and communications with other agencies.
• Communications coverage assessment within District boundaries, including District-
owned property and future coastal lands proposed for acquisition.
• Evaluation of current system, identifying strengths and deficiencies.
• Evaluation of new technologies being adopted by surrounding agencies and how the
District’s system will include interoperability with those agencies.
• Development of several conceptual design approaches and working with District staff to
identify options based upon cost, construction feasibility, licensing, and other criteria.
• Development of a master plan based upon the selected approach, with cost estimates for
improvements.
• Preparation of bid specifications, a cost estimate, and a request for proposals for
implementation that includes plans, details, and technical specifications for the chosen
plan.
• Application for FCC licenses and frequency coordination, if needed.
• Assistance in evaluating engineering and installation vendor(s).
• Oversight for the design, planning, installation, and testing of the system.
R-19-92 Page 4
Staff circulated the RFPQ through email and posting on the BidSync website. Staff issued an
addendum on May 1 to answer questions and clarify the RFPQ. The following five firms
submitted proposals by the May 15, 2019 deadline.
Firm Location Proposed Fees
(over 3 years)
Pallans Associates North Las Vegas, NV $101,828
Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc. Pleasanton, CA $106,500
ACD Telecom Lake Mary, FL $174,500
Federal Engineering Fairfax, VA $214,320
DELTAWRX Woodland Hills, CA $1,073,292
Evaluation criteria were determined prior to the release of the RFPQ that included the quality of
the proposal, project approach, and firm expertise. After careful review of all proposals and
contacting references of the top three scoring proposals, Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc., was
deemed most qualified and best suited for the project at a fair and reasonable price. Selection of
the consultant was based on their response to the RFPQ, proposed project approach,
qualifications, and fee. Forrest Telecom Engineering, Inc., demonstrated expertise in assessing
and designing radio systems, as well as oversight of system installation and testing. Additionally,
this consultant was involved with the design of the District’s current radio system, thereby
reducing cost and schedule for the project by avoiding ramp up efforts and background research
to gain familiarity of the District’s system, operation, stakeholders, and end-users.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2019–20 budget includes $56,000 for the Radio Project (#65407). There are sufficient
funds in budget to cover the recommended actions and expenditures this fiscal year. Future fiscal
year budgets will be adopted annually as a part of the Budget and Action Plan process.
Radio System Assessment and Upgrade
project (#65407)
Prior
Year
Actuals
FY2019-20
Adopted
FY2020-21
Projected
FY2021-22
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
65407 Budget: $0 $56,000 $640,000 $523,000 $0 $1,219,000
Spent-to-Date (as of 06/05/19): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Consultant Engineering Services Contract: $0 ($53,700) ($28,800) ($24,000) $0 ($106,500)
4% Contract Contingency: $0 ($2,300) ($1,200) ($1,000) $0 ($4,500)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $0 $610,000 $498,000 $0 $1,108,000
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
There was no prior Committee review for this agenda item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
R-19-92 Page 5
CEQA COMPLIANCE
No environmental review is required as the recommended action is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a multi-year contract with Forrest
Telecom Engineering, Inc.
Attachment
1. Map of District Boundaries and Repeater Tower Locations
Responsible Department Heads:
Michael Jurich, Land and Facilities Manager
Matt Anderson, Visitor Services Manager/Chief Ranger (project transitioning to Visitor Services
FY2019–20)
Prepared by:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II
Attachment 1. Map of District Boundaries and Repeater Tower Locations
Rev. 1/3/18
R-19-93
Meeting 19-18
July 10, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Demolition and Site Cleanup Contract for Removal of Dilapidated and Defunct
Structures at the former Lysons Property and Stevens Canyon Ranch
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Determine that each of the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report.
2. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental
Technologies, Inc., of Watsonville, California for a not-to-exceed base amount of $327,320.
3. Authorize a 15% contingency of $49,098 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus
allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $376,418.
SUMMARY
The Demolition Project (Project) will remove two houses that are in poor condition with lead and
asbestos hazardous materials, ten miscellaneous debris piles, one dilapidated open shed, and two
empty redwood water tanks at the former Lysons property in Monte Bello Open Space Preserve,
and one defunct restroom structure with lead and asbestos hazardous materials at the Stevens
Canyon Ranch property in Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. The structures are in a state of
visual disrepair, located in remote areas, and would be highly costly to rehabilitate for reuse
(unlikely to recoup costs). These structures hold no historic significance. The Board approved
the Lysons demolition as part of the Lysons Property Preliminary Use and Management Plan.
The scope of work includes installation of erosion and sediment control measures, asbestos and
lead abatement, demolition of existing structures and foundations, removal of debris, waste
diversion and material salvage, and site restoration grading. A Request for Bids was issued on
April 30, 2019 and three bid proposals were received on May 28, 2019. The General Manager
recommends awarding a contract to Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc., as the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder for a base amount of $327,320, and authorizing a 15%
contingency of $49,098. Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Budget.
Work is scheduled to begin in September 2019 and conclude in November 2019.
DISCUSSION
Lysons Property – Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
In 2015, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) acquired the 60-acre Lysons
property as an addition to the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Monte Bello) (R-14-116). The
Property is located in the Cupertino foothills at 17251 Stevens Canyon Road, in unincorporated
R-19-93 Page 2
Santa Clara County. This was the last property the District and County of Santa Clara (County)
needed to complete a regional trail corridor connecting Stevens Creek County Park, Monte Bello
Open Space Preserve, and Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserve. As such, the District and
County entered into a funding agreement to purchase the Property. The County paid for half of
the purchase price, and in exchange for the funding, the County received a conservation
easement over the Property. The conservation easement states that the Property will be
maintained in a natural condition and be dedicated as public open space.
The purchase also advanced Measure AA Portfolio #17 (Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail).
Portfolio #17 includes the completion of a multi-use regional trail connection between the Bay
Trail and Bay Area Ridge Trail above the Stevens Creek reservoir through Picchetti Ranch Open
Space Preserve and Lower/Upper Stevens Creek County Parks. The removal of dilapidated
structures on the former Lysons property and restoration of the site to a natural condition support
the goals of this portfolio by preparing the site for a future multi-use regional trail extension that
will bring public use through the property.
The Lysons property contains two houses that are in poor condition with lead and asbestos
hazardous materials, one dilapidated open shed, two empty redwood water tanks, surface piping,
and ten miscellaneous debris piles. Electric utility power has been disconnected by PG&E. The
water tank for the lower house is inaccessible due to a landslide that washed away the path. The
two houses were built in the 1930s and 1940s and are currently in a state of visual disrepair. Due
to their age, the District hired Garavaglia Architecture, Inc., to perform a Historic Resource
Evaluation (HRE) in 2015 (Attachment 6). The HRE concluded that although the structures are
over 50 years old, they do not display a level of historical significance or integrity to qualify
them for listing as a historic resource on the California Register of Historical Places, National
Register of Historic Places, or local historic resource inventory. The structures are neither
associated with a historic person or event nor do they embody any distinctive characteristics of a
type or period of construction. Since 2015, the structures have remained unoccupied.
A Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) for the Lysons property was approved by the
Board of Directors (Board) as part of the action to purchase the property in February 2015 (R-14-
116). The PUMP took effect at the close of escrow. Per the PUMP, the District has secured the
site, posted signage, and tested for asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint. A District
biological consultant, H.T. Harvey & Associates, surveyed the property for roosting bats and
woodrats as part of the PUMP’s animal management activities.
Staff evaluated whether the structures were salvageable for District use at the time of purchase;
there were many elements that precluded this. Both houses are poorly sited for long term
maintenance and access. The main drainage of the property runs through an undersized culvert
underneath the only access road to both structures. The lower structure has no foundation.
Many of the support beams rest on compacted soil. The upper house is accessed by the same
unpaved road, approximately a quarter mile away from Stevens Canyon Road. The building pad
was graded out of steep side slopes and the access road in front of the house is narrow. The
upper house is in poor condition and a major addition was constructed without permits. Both
structures were once served by a remote spring with unknown reliability. Given their poor
condition and the marginal access road, the Board approved the demolition and removal of the
structures and miscellaneous debris piles, and restoration of the property to a natural condition as
part of the PUMP.
R-19-93 Page 3
Stevens Canyon Ranch Property – Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve
In 2006, the District acquired the 238.15-acre Stevens Canyon Ranch Property as an addition to
the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve (R-06-147). The property is located in the Cupertino
foothills at 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, in unincorporated Santa Clara County; it is
approximately 0.75 miles south of the former Lys ons property. The purchase of the property
advanced the District’s goal to connect Stevens Creek County Park to the Saratoga Gap Open
Space Preserve and the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley
Water) and the District entered into a funding agreement to purchase the property and protect the
Stevens Creek watershed. In exchange for the funding, Valley Water received a riparian
conservation easement over the property. The purpose of this easement is to preserve and protect
the creeks and riparian corridor on the property. It also restricts use on the property to open space
activities, low intensity recreation, habitat preservation, and environmental protection.
The property contains a small defunct restroom structure that was built to service a picnic area
located near a creek that runs through the property. It is located in the riparian corridor near the
creek bank. The structure is boarded up and is in poor condition. It is of simple, unfinished,
plywood construction and its dilapidated condition warrants removal; it is included as part of this
contract. The Steven’s Canyon Ranch area remains closed to the public at this time. If this area
were opened to the public, this structure could not be reused because it poses a public health
concern. It located within 50-feet of a creek. The Department of Public Health requires sanitary
sewer facilities be located no closer than 50-feet from a water source, such as a creek.
A PUMP for the Stevens Canyon Ranch property was approved by the Board as part of the
action to purchase the property in December 2006 (R-06-147). The PUMP took effect at the
close of escrow. Per the PUMP, the property remains closed to public access until a more
detailed site plan is developed. Per Board Policy 4.02 Improvements on District Lands, the
restroom structure is a candidate for potential demolition given that this auxiliary structure is not
historically significant, is not a habitable structure, and is under 1,500 square feet.
Project Scope of Work
Due to the similar nature of the work and close proximity of the sites, the demolition scope of
work for the Lysons and Stevens Canyon Ranch properties was combined into one Project to
capitalize on economies of scale. The purpose of this Project is to improve public safety by
removing hazardous, uninhabitable structures and debris from District land, and improve the
natural resource values of the property. These efforts will facilitate the future opening of the
regional Stevens Creek Trail corridor to public access by removing a potential safety hazard and
nuisance concern.
Board Policy 4.02 Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion has a goal of diverting non-
hazardous waste, generated from demolition projects, away from landfills. Diversion strategies
include salvage, re-use, and/or recycling. Prior to the start of work, Coastwide will develop a
waste-stream diversion plan describing how all non-hazardous demolished materials will be
handled. Staff will work with Coastwide to identify materials in each of the buildings that are
suitable for salvage. The contractor’s waste diversion plan will list any materials that cannot be
diverted or salvaged, and the reasons why for District review. Staff will closely monitor the two
redwood water tanks as they are demolished and as feasible, divert the redwood tank material for
reuse on other District projects.
R-19-93 Page 4
The scope of work for this Project includes the following:
• Remediation and abatement of hazardous materials;
• Demolition and removal of the listed Lysons Property structures, including accessory
improvements and septic systems;
• Demolition and removal of the Stevens Canyon Ranch restroom structure, including
accessory improvements and septic system;
• Waste diversion of all non-hazardous demolition materials;
• Clean up and removal of debris piles; and
• Minor restoration grading for drainage, erosion control, and reducing potential impacts
to the stream system.
A Request for Bids was issued on April 30, 2019 and released on BidSync. A legal notice was
posted in the San Jose Mercury News and San Mateo County News, and a link to the solicitation
was posted on the District website. A mandatory pre-bid walk was held on Tuesday, May 14,
2019; five contractors attended. Three bids were received on May 28, 2019 as listed below:
Bidder Location Total Base Bid
Percent +/- from
Engineer’s
Estimate ($251,000)
Resource Environmental, Inc. Long Beach, CA Non-responsive* N/A
CVE Demolition, Inc. Fresno, CA $442,000** +76%
Coastwide Environmental
Tech, Inc. Watsonville, CA $327,320 +30%
*Resource Environmental, Inc.’s bid was deemed non-responsive because a bid form was not submitted.
**Adjusted bid price due to math error in original bid.
The engineer’s estimate used the current market rate for demolition activities; each item was
compared to prior District projects of similar scope. Staff attributes the 30% cost increase to a
higher cost of business and competitive bidding market (other agencies concurrently advertised
for similar project scopes in more accessible areas). Staff spoke with the pre-bid walk
participants that did not submit bids, and received the feedback that the remote location of the
sites and amount of material hauling were reasons they did not submit a bid.
Staff spoke with three references provided by Coastwide for similar completed projects. The
references provided satisfactory feedback in regards to Coastwide’s performance. The General
Manager recommends awarding the contract to Coastwide Environmental, Inc., as the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2019-20 budget includes $426,487 for the Lysons Dispositions Project #MAA17-002.
There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action, including the
inclusion of the restroom structure removal at Stevens Canyon Ranch, which is not MAA
reimbursable and will be paid for by the District's General Fund (Fund 10).
R-19-93 Page 5
Lysons Dispositions at
Monte Bello MAA17-002
Prior Year
Actuals
FY2019-20
Adopted
FY2020-21
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
MAA17-002 Budget: $173,037 $426,487 $0 $0 $599,524
Spent-to-Date (as of 07/02/2019): ($173,037) $0 $0 $0 ($173,037)
*Encumbrances: $0 ($35,660) $0 $0 ($35,660)
**Coastwide Environmental
Technologies, Inc. Contract: $0 ($320,320) $0 $0 ($320,320)
**15% Contingency: $0 ($48,048) $0 $0 ($48,048)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $22,459 $0 $0 $22,459
*Includes previously approved H.T. Harvey contract including 10% contingency ($20,854) and anticipated costs for
hazardous materials abatement monitoring work ($14,806).
**Excludes Stevens Canyon Ranch Property restroom removal ($7,000 with 15% contingency of $1,050), which is
not funded by Measure AA.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #17 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the Lysons Dispositions project #MAA17-002. This project supports Portfolio
#17 Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail: complete multi-use connection between the Bay Trail
and Bay Area Ridge Trail above the Stevens Canyon reservoir through Picchetti Ranch Open
Space Preserve and Lower/Upper Stevens Creek County Parks.
MAA #17 Portfolio Allocation: $7,760,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 07/02/2019): ($2,090,723)
Encumbrances: ($35,660)
*Coastwide Environmental Technologies, Inc.
Contract including contingency: ($368,368)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,265,249
*Excludes Stevens Canyon Ranch Property restroom and gas tank removal ($7,000 with 15% contingency of
$1,050), which is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The purchase of the Lysons property was approved by the Board at the October 8, 2014 meeting
(R-14-116) and a funding agreement with Santa Clara County Parks to support the purchase was
approved by the Board at the February 25, 2015 meeting (R-15-35). The purchase of the Stevens
Canyon Ranch property was approved by the Board on December 13, 2006 (R-06-147).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of this item was provided as required by the Brown Act. Notification of the
proposed work will be mailed to adjacent residents on or around August 1, 2019. Residents will
receive additional notice 14 days in advance of the start of work in their immediate area.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed demolition and restoration
activities at the former Lysons property were reviewed during the property purchase and CEQA
R-19-93 Page 6
compliance determination, adopted by the Board in October 2014. The District concluded at the
time that the purchase would not have any significant effect on the environment.
Demolition and removal of the Lysons Property structures and the Stevens Canyon Ranch
restroom structure are categorically exempt under section 15301, Existing Facilities, which
exempts the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures,
facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that
existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination, including the demolition of individual
small structures. The Project proposes performing minor erosion control work along existing
roads, and performing minor restoration activities to return the site to a natural condition.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Coastwide Environmental
Technologies, Inc. Final contract signature is subject to the contractor meeting all District
requirements, including required insurance and bonding. The Project is anticipated to begin in
September 2019 and conclude in November 2019.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Project Work Areas Map
3. Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) Findings Excerpt prepared by Garavaglia Architecture,
Inc.
4. Photos of Buildings to be Demolished
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Tanisha Werner, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction
Contact person:
Tanisha Werner, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
Lysons
Property
Stevens Canyon
Ranch Property
Ste
v
e
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
S t ev e n s C re ek
Stevens
C
anyon Rd.
Ste v e n s C a n y o n R d .
C
h
a
rc o alRoad
C
harcoalRoad
C
a
n
y
onTrail
2
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
22
0
0
1
4
0
0
12
0
0
18
0
0
16
0
0
14
0
0
20
0
0
10
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
12
0
0
10
0
0
80
0
1800
120
0
1
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
2000
180
0
80
0
1200
SG06
MB10
MB11
MB12
SG07
SG01
MONTE BELLO
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
PICCHETTI RANCH
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
SARATOGA GAP
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
April 2019
Lysons and Stevens Canyon Ranch Properties
Pa
t
h
:
E
:
\
3
0
0
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
y
s
o
n
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
D
e
m
o
\
5
0
-
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
5
2
-
G
I
S
\
M
B
_
L
y
s
o
n
s
_
B
i
d
M
a
p
_
2
0
1
9
0
4
1
0
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
t
w
e
r
n
e
r
0 0.250.125
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.
Lysons Property
Area of
Detail
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ101
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ236
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ35
Campbell
Los
Altos
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Cupertino
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Other Protected Lands Stevens Canyon Ranch Property
Attachment 1
+R
+R
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
@
@
@
@
!P
1
2
34
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 17
12
13
1415
15A
16
18
Stevens
Creek
Stevens
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d.
MB12
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
October 2017
Lysons Demolition - Existing Structures and Debris to be Removed
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
M
o
n
t
e
_
B
e
l
l
o
\
L
y
s
o
n
s
\
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
\
L
y
s
o
n
s
_
D
e
m
o
K
e
y
P
l
a
n
_
2
0
1
7
1
0
3
0
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 10050
FeetI
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.
!R
Ø
Structure
Debris
Water Tank
Water Line
Power Pole
1. Lower House
2. Debris (Wood)
3. Debris (Various)
4. Water Tank
5. Water Line
6. Dump Site
7. Debris (Wood)
8. Dump Site
9. Garage/Shed
10. Agave plants
11. Water Tank
12. Upper House
13. Debris (Wood)
14. Debris (Various)
15. Debris and Fencing
15A. Debris (Various)
16. Debris and Fencing
17. Electrical conduit
18. Cement Mixer
ATTACHMENT 2 - PROJECT WORK AREAS MAP
!P
!P
+R
+R
+R
nv
20
19
STEVENS CANYON RANCH,
SARATOGA GAP
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
S t e v e n s Creek
Stevens Canyon Rd.
Red
w
ood
Gulch
Rd
16
0
0
140
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
16
0
0
14
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
800
1800
16
0
0
1400
SG07
SG06
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
6/25/2019
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
_
G
a
p
\
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
_
C
a
n
y
o
n
\
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
\
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
_
D
e
m
o
K
e
y
P
l
a
n
_
2
0
1
9
0
6
2
5
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 1,000500
FeetI
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.
Stevens Canyon Ranch Demolition - Existing Structures to be Removed
!R
Active Water Tank to Remainnv
Active Water Line to Remain
Abandoned Water Tank to Remain
!R19.Approximate Location of Propane Tank
and Meter to be Removed
Approximate Location of Restroom
Structure to be Removed20.
ATTACHMENT 2 - PROJECT WORK AREAS MAP
17251 STEVENS CANYON ROAD, LYSONS PROPERTY
Historic Resource Evaluation March 31, 2015
FINDINGS
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES/CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
This section uses the historic information discussed above to evaluate the property at 17251
Stevens Canyon Road for historic significance. The NRHP/CRHR uses generally the same
guidelines as the National Register of Historic Places (developed by the National Park Service);
as such, selected language from those guidelines will be quoted below to help clarify the
evaluation discussion.
To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the NRHP/CRHR, a structure must usually be
more than 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity.
The subject building at 17521 Steven Canyon Road was constructed in the late 1930s and early
1940s and therefore does meet the age requirement. In terms of historic significance, the
NRHP/CRHR evaluates a resource based on the following four criteria:
Criterion A/1 (event)
As stated by the National Park Service (NPS), this criterion “recognizes properties associated
with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated
activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and
commerce.”1 When considering a property for significance under this criterion, the associated
event or trends “must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case
of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city…Moreover, the
property must have an important association with the event or historic trends”2
The rural subject property and its two extant buildings do not appear to be associated with a
significant event or significant developmental pattern in local, state, or national history.
As such, the property is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP under Criterion A/1.
Criterion B/2 (person)
This criterion applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to
history can be identified and documented. The NPS defines significant persons as “individuals
whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context.
The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than
commemorate) a person's important achievements. The persons associated with the property
must be individually significant within a historic context.” The NPS also specifies that these
properties “are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time
period when he or she achieved significance.”3
As the Lysons property is not associated with significant individuals who have contributed a to
local, state, or national historic context, the buildings at the Lysons property are ineligible for
listing under Criterion B of the National Register and Criteria 2 of the California register.
1 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, online at http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_6.htm
2 Ibid.
3 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Attachment 3
17251 STEVENS CANYON ROAD, LYSONS PROPERTY
Historic Resource Evaluation March 31, 2015
Criterion C/3 (design/construction)
Under this criterion, properties may be eligible if they “embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction, …represent the work of a master, …possess high
artistic values, or…represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction.”4
According to the NPS, “ ‘Type, period, or method of construction’ refers to the way certain
properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction
or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a
specimen of its type or period of construction if it is an important example (within its context) of
building practices of a particular time in history.”5
As the buildings at the Lysons property are not the work of a master, and do not possess high
artistic values nor do they embody any type of distinctive construction characteristic, the
property does not appear eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP under Criterion C/3.
Criterion D/4 (information potential)
Archival research and physical investigation of the site focused on the above ground resource
only. Therefore, no informed determination could be made regarding the property’s eligibility
for the CRHR under Criterion D/4.
INTEGRITY EVALUATION
Evaluation of potential historic resources is a two-part process. A property must meet one or
more of the criteria for significance, and possesses historic integrity. Since the property was not
found to exhibit the level of significance necessary for listing on the CRHR, evaluation of the
building’s integrity is unwarranted.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the subject property at 17251 Stevens Canyon Road does not display a level of
historical significance or integrity that would qualify it for listing as a historic resource on the
California Register of Historical Places or National Register of Historic Places under any
criterion or as a local landmark.
Based on information found to date, the buildings on the Lysons Property, 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 buildings have largely been modified
since their initial construction, the construction dates remain unclear, and the buildings lack
structural integrity. As a result, the Lysons Property does not meet the level of significance
necessary for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Places or any local historic
resource inventory. Therefore, they would not be considered a historic resource under CEQA.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Photos of Buildings to be Demolished
Lysons – Open Shed
Lysons – Upper House Side View
Attachment 4
Lysons– Upper House Back Patio Area
Lysons – Upper House Kitchen Interior
Attachment 4
Lysons – Lower House Side View
Stevens Canyon Ranch – Restroom Structure
Rev. 1/3/18
R-19-94
Meeting 19-18
July 10, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment for Environmental Services to Support the Ravenswood Bay Trail Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with H.T. Harvey and
Associates for additional environmental consulting services to support the Ravenswood Bay
Trail Project in an amount of $385,827 for a period of five years, for a new base contract
amount of $604,027.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $57,874 to cover unforeseen conditions and annual rate
increases in the event of Project delay, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $661,901.
SUMMARY
The Ravenswood Bay Trail Project (Project) (MAA 02-002) will close a 0.6 mile gap in the San
Francisco Bay Trail, linking Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (Preserve) with University
Avenue in East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Environmental consultants are assisting with the
preparation of permit applications, as well as consultation and negotiations with regulatory
agencies. In September 2017, the Board of Directors (Board) approved a contract to complete
this work with H.T. Harvey and Associates for a total not-to-exceed amount of $66,700
(R-17-111). In November 2018, the Board approved a contract amendment for additional
services, including the preparation of a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) required by the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, for a total not-to-exceed
amount of $218,200 (R-18-138).
The Project is located adjacent to and within the baylands, a sensitive habitat area that is highly
regulated. Twelve (12) local, regional, state and federal permits are required for the Project.
Obtaining these permits has been a complex process requiring multi-agency coordination. Once
all regulatory permits are finalized, satisfying the permit requirements will require biological
monitoring during Project construction and periodically for five years after the Project is
completed. This includes implementation of a regulatory agency required multi-year Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan (MMP). H.T. Harvey and Associates is the consultant most qualified to
perform services in the Project’s highly regulated habitat. Project construction is expected to
begin September 2019 but may be delayed until September 2020, if permits are not obtained in
time. This contract amendment would fund permit-required biological services necessary to
complete Project construction and subsequent monitoring for a period of five years. A 15%
contingency is recommended to cover unforeseen conditions and to offset annual rate increases
that may exceed the base price in the event the Project is delayed one year.
R-19-94 Page 2
DISCUSSION
In November 2016, the Board approved the conceptual trail alignment and certified the Project’s
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (R-16-146). In July 2017, staff issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for environmental services to assist with the preparation of permit applications
as well as consultation and negotiations with regulatory agencies. H.T. Harvey and Associates
was selected as the most qualified consultant at a fair and reasonable price. The firm has
extensive bayfront experience working on the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and Palo
Alto Baylands boardwalks. In November 2018, the Board approved a contract amendment to
complete the Project permitting process, including the preparation of the MMP and construction
bid documents (R-18-138).
Additional biological monitoring services are necessary to satisfy California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and regulatory permit requirements for mitigation measures during Project
work and after Project completion. H.T. Harvey regularly provides biological services in San
Francisco Bay wetland habitats, including designing protections for two endangered species that
occur within the Project area. They have substantial experience designing and permitting
revegetation projects, and successfully assisting with the construction of sixty marsh habitat
islands in the San Francisco Bay. Throughout the Project, they have maintained strong working
relationships with the regulatory agencies. H.T. Harvey is familiar with the project due to their
involvement during initial development. They also hold regulatory permits to work with the
sensitive species found within the Project area and their hourly staff rates are within the range of
other local biological firms who are less experienced in sensitive baylands habitat.
Given H.T. Harvey’s extensive experience providing biological services in San Francisco Bay
wetland habitats and their involvement in Project planning and permit preparation, the General
Manager recommends amending their contract to include biological monitoring and mitigation
services for five years for a total not-to-exceed amount of $661,901. Amending and extending
the agreement with H.T. Harvey complies with the Board purchasing policy for sole source
contracting, which recognizes that occasionally special circumstances exist in which “supplies,
materials, equipment, or services are of a unique type, …, or are for purposes of maintaining
consistency and operational efficiency, so as to be available from only one source.”
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff will issue a separate Request for Bids
(RFB) in July 2019 for contractor services to construct mitigation elements for the Project,
including the following non-monitoring elements of the MMP: construction of marsh habitat
islands, enhancement of upland habitat along portions of the levee trail, and planting and
seeding. The recommended contract amendment includes the biological oversight of these
contractor services required by Project permits.
A scope and fee estimate for additional biological services was provided by H.T. Harvey who
assumed work will occur during all days within the Project’s allowable work window
(September 1 through January 31). H.T. Harvey and District staff will reduce or combine staff
costs whenever possible, potentially reducing costs below the contracted amount. The
recommended contract amendment includes a 15% contingency to cover unforeseen conditions
and a potential annual increase in consultant rates in the event that permits are not secured in
time to begin work by September 1, 2019.
R-19-94 Page 3
A detailed breakdown of H.T. Harvey services and costs is as follows:
Recommended Contract Amendment 2 – Additional Tasks Year Amount
Biological Mitigation Support and Reporting 1-5 $39,352
Biological Construction Monitoring, Rare Plants 1 $6,998
Biological Construction Monitoring, Wildlife 1 $184,168
Contractor Bid Support 1 $6,854
Mitigation and Monitoring Support 1 $40,634
Year 1 Total $238,654
Mitigation and Monitoring Support
Year 2 Total 2 $32,772
Year 3 Total 3 $24,406
Year 4 Total 4 $24,288
Year 5 Total 5 $26,355
Project Subtotal $385,827
15% Contingency $57,874
TOTAL SERVICES $443,701
Note: If Project begins September 1, 2019, Year 1 is FY2019-20.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 budget includes $1,976,760 for the Ravenswood Bay
Trail Project MAA02-002. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the
recommended action and expenditures. Year 1 work includes construction support, which is
eligible for MAA funding. Years 2-5 include mitigation and monitoring, which is not funded by
MAA.
Ravenswood Bay
Trail MAA02-002
Prior Year
Actuals
FY2019-20
Adopted
Budget
FY2020-21
Projected
Budget
FY2021-22
Projected
Budget
FY2022-23
Projected
Budget
Estimated
Future
Years
Total
District Funded*: $313,208 $551,849 $828,207 $43,851 $43,733 $45,800 $1,826,648
Grants and Donations: $512,374 $1,424,911 $818,043 $0 $0 $0 $2,755,328
Project #MAA02-002
Budget: $825,582 $1,976,760 $1,646,250 $43,851 $43,733 $45,800 $4,581,976
Spent-to-Date
(as of 07/02/2019): ($825,582) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($825,582)
Encumbrances
(as of 07/02/2019):: $0 ($54,961) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($54,961)
H.T. Harvey and
Associates Contract
Amendment*:
$0 ($246,524) ($40,642) ($32,276) ($32,158) ($34,225) ($385,827)
10% Contingency*: $0 ($11,575) ($11,575) ($11,575) ($11,575) ($11,575) ($57,874)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $1,663,700 $1,594,033 $0 $0 $0 $3,257,732
*Year 1 of contract work (FY2019-20) is MAA reimbursable, years 2-5 are not funded by MAA.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #02 allocation, costs-to-date, and the
fiscal impact related to the Ravenswood Bay Trail project (MAA02-002).
R-19-94 Page 4
MAA02 Portfolio Allocation: $5,052,000
Grants and Donations Awarded (through FY2019-20): $1,937,285
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 07/02/2019): ($1,695,151)
Encumbrances (as of 07/02/2019): ($543,522)
Contract Amendment including Contingency* (FY2019-20): ($258,099)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $4,492,513
*Year 1 of contract work (FY2019-20) is MAA reimbursable, years 2-5 are not funded by MAA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
On November 16, 2016, the Board of Directors approved the conceptual trail alignment and
certified the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (R-16-146).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Approval of the recommended contract amendment does not constitute a project under the
CEQA. The Board certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the
Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project on November 16, 2016 (R-16-146). As part of East
Palo Alto’s permitting process, the City Council made a finding that the project is consistent with
the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted for the Trail project by the District in
2016 and that the associated sidewalk project is consistent with the City’s previously adopted
Ravenswood/Four Corners Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan EIR.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will direct staff to amend the contract with H.T.
Harvey and Associates. The Board will consider awarding the construction contract for the
Project to construct the boardwalk, bridge, and trail in July 2019. An RFB to solicit bids for
construction of the mitigation elements will also be released in July 2019. Once all Project
contractors and consultants, including H.T. Harvey, are hired, staff will coordinate to begin
construction and biological monitoring in September 2019 contingent on final permitting
approvals. Project construction is scheduled to be completed within the regulatory allowable 182
working days. Implementation of the MMP is anticipated to begin in October 2019 and will
continue for up to five consecutive years.
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Karine Tokatlian, Resource Management Specialist II, Natural Resources Department
Contact person:
Karine Tokatlian, Resource Management Specialist II, Natural Resources Department
Gretchen Lausten, Planner III, Planning Department
R-19-96
Meeting 19-18
July 1 0, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Annual Claims List
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Annual Claims List, including debt service payments.
SUMMARY
Pursuant to Board Policy 1.03, the Annual Claims list for Fiscal Year 2019-20 (FY2019-20) is
hereby submitted to the Board of Directors (Board) for review and approval so that salaries and
benefits, debt service, and recurring expenses may be paid in a timely and efficient manner.
DISCUSSION
The Annual Claims list provided as part of this report includes claims that exceed $50,000.
Approval of the proposed Annual Claims would authorize the Finance Department to pay
salaries and benefits, debt service, and recurring services in a timely and efficient manner. This
item also minimizes late fees, finance charges, and urgent payment requests.
On December 16, 2015, the Board authorized the General Manager or designee to approve the
payment of claims up to the General Manager’s expenditure authority, subject to Board
ratification at the next Regular Board meeting (R-15-163).
On March 22, 2017, the Board provided policy direction for the release of claim payments over
$50,000, without holding for Board approval, provided that the General Manager would continue
to provide the claims report to the Board for its review after payment.
To further streamline the process, Board Resolution No. 18-30 dated July 25, 2018 authorized
the Controller or designee(s) to approve all claims against the District for any purpose for which
an expenditure has been previously authorized in the District’s adopted budget. The General
Manager continues to include these claims on the Claims Report for ratification by the Board at
its next regular meeting.
Recusal Statement
On September 1, 2016, Director Riffle disclosed to the Board a remote interest under
Government Code 1091(a) as a salaried employee of the non-profit organization Peninsula Open
Space Trust (POST). After consultation with the Fair Political Practices Commission and the
District’s General Counsel, it was determined that the employment relationship with POST is
categorized as a “remote interest” under Government Code section 1091, and that such remote
R-19-96
Page 2
interest would not trigger the contracting ban under Government Code section 1090. To remain
consistent with that law, however, Director Riffle needs to continue recusing himself from all
Board agenda items that affect financial matters relating to POST and the District.
Debt Service Claims
The debt service claims listed below for FY2019-20 reflect payments required of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District to meet the outstanding debt obligations for Fiscal Year 2019-20:
DEBT SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
NOTEHOLDER-LAND
Hunt 0.00 75,000.00
Subtotal-Notes 0.00 75,000.00
BONDS PAYABLE
2011 Bonds 215,000.00 25,700.00
2012 Refunding Notes 410,000.00 52,050.00
2015 Refunding Notes 875,000.00 1,009,725.00
2015 Measure AA GO Bonds 905,000.00 1,684,087.50
2016 Green Refunding Bonds 3,025,000.00 2,250,200.00
2017 Green Refunding/Parity Bonds 940,000.00 1,519,700.00
2018 Measure AA GO Bonds 2,745,000.00 1,938,100.00
Subtotal-Bonds 9,115,000.00 8,479,562.50
TOTALS - NOTEHOLDERS & BONDS 9,115,000.00 8,554,562.50
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 17,669,562.50
Annual Claims
The annual claims listed below for FY2019-20 reflect payments in excess of the General
Manager’s authority:
ANNUAL CLAIMS
ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Staff Salaries $19,019,050
Debt Service (includes note paying agent fees) $17,682,563
Group Insurance Premiums $2,906,821
Retirement Plans $3,389,346
State Mandated Insurance-Unemployment & Workers Comp. $464,318
Wellington Park Investors (AO Office Leases) $437,589
Utilities - Electricity/Gas/Propane/Telephone/Cellular Telephone $279,170
(PG&E/Cal Water/Amerigas/Verizon/AT&T)
R-19-96
Page 3
Fuel – WEX/Valley Oil Company $235,000
Dispatch Services (City of Mountain View) $229,800
Property/Liability/Vehicle Insurance (CALJPIA) $198,482
TOTAL: $44,842,139
Annual and Project-Specific Recusals: Director Riffle is recusing himself, as required by law,
from voting on all payments to POST that are authorized by the Board via this annual and all
future recurring claims reports, and will also do so on an individual basis for project-specific
Board actions involving financial transactions with POST.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee; however, the Action Plan and
Budget Committee reviewed the FY2019-20 District Budget in April and May.
FISCAL IMPACT
The listed Annual Claims are included in the FY2019-20 District Budget, which was approved by
the Board of Directors at the Regular Meeting of June 26, 2019 (R-19-77).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Approval of the Annual Claims is not considered a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required.
NEXT STEPS
With Board approval, staff will proceed with preparing open purchase orders for the listed vendors
and pay invoices upon receipt.
Attachments:
1. Detailed List of Debt Service Obligations FY2019-20
Responsible Manager:
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager
Close of Remaining Principal Final FY 2019/2020 - Debt Service Payments
Payable to Escrow Original Note Rate %Term At June 30, 2019 Payment Due Total Principal Interest
Hunt 04/15/2003 1,500,000.00 5.50%10 years 1,500,000.00 04/01/2023 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00
1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00
2011 Bonds 05/05/2011 1,080,000.00 3% to 4%30 years 750,000.00 09/01/2021 240,700.00 215,000.00 25,700.00
2012 Refunding Notes 02/02/2012 8,705,600.70 3% to 5.44%30 years 8,310,600.70 09/01/2033 462,050.00 410,000.00 52,050.00
2015 Refunding Notes 01/22/2015 23,630,000.00 2% to 5%19 years 21,010,000.00 09/01/2034 1,884,725.00 875,000.00 1,009,725.00
2015 Measure AA GOs 07/29/2015 45,000,000.00 1.5% to 5%30 years 42,460,000.00 09/01/2045 2,589,087.50 905,000.00 1,684,087.50
2016 Refunding Green Bond 09/22/2016 57,410,000.00 3% to 5%22 years 50,435,000.00 09/01/2038 5,275,200.00 3,025,000.00 2,250,200.00
2017 Refunding Green Bond 12/28/2017 25,025,000.00 3% to 5%20 years 25,025,000.00 06/30/2038 1,022,200.00 0.00 1,022,200.00
2017 Parity Green Bonds 12/28/2017 11,220,000.00 5%10 years 10,420,000.00 06/30/2028 1,437,500.00 940,000.00 497,500.00
2018 Measure AA GOs 02/14/2018 50,000,000.00 2% to 5%30 years 50,000,000.00 09/01/2048 4,683,100.00 2,745,000.00 1,938,100.00
222,070,600.70 208,410,600.70 17,594,562.50 9,115,000.00 8,479,562.50
223,570,600.70 209,910,600.70 17,669,562.50 9,115,000.00 8,554,562.50
ATTACHMENT 1
DEBT SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020
R-19-95
Meeting 19-18
July 1 0, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Establish the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Tax Levy for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District’s General Obligation Bonds - Series 2015A, Series 2015B and Series 2018
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
for each of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties to establish an ad valorem property
tax levy of $1.60 per $100,000 (or $0.0016 per $100) in assessed value for the General
Obligation Bonds – Series 2015A, Series 2015B and Series 2018 (Measure AA).
SUMMARY
On June 3, 2014, voters of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) approved
the passage of Measure AA authorizing the District to issue up to $300 million of general
obligation bonds (Bonds) over thirty years to finance Measure AA capital projects. In 2015, the
District issued $40,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds (Series A) and $5,000,000 of taxable bonds
(Series B). The District subsequently issued $50,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds in February 2018.
The proposed Fiscal Year 2019-20 tax levy of $0.0016 per $100, or $1.60 per $100,000 in
assessed value, will provide the District with sufficient revenues to pay the related debt service
payments through September 2020.
DISCUSSION
Debt service payments on the Bonds are paid through a tax levy on all taxable property within
the District. Each year, the levy is calculated based on the assessed value and the debt service
amount the District needs to collect. The evolution of the tax levy is as follows:
2015-16 $.0008 per $100 of assessed valuation
2016-17 $.0006 per $100 of assessed valuation
2017-18 $.0009 per $100 of assessed valuation
2018-19 $.0018 per $100 of assessed valuation
2019-20 $.0016 per $100 of assessed valuation
Based on the debt service schedule for the Bonds, and tax revenue projections provided by the
District’s Tax Administration Consultant (Goodwin Consulting Group), the Board is asked to
approve resolutions for each of the three Counties authorizing the placement of an ad valorem
property tax levy of $0.0016 per $100, or $1.60 per $100,000 in assessed value.
R-19-95
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
The establishment of the ad valorem property tax levy will provide the District with sufficient
revenues to pay the scheduled debt service payments on related debt service September 1, 2019,
March 1, 2020 and September 1, 2020.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is necessary.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
No compliance is required as this action is not a project under CEQA.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, the General Manager will direct staff to forward the resolutions to the
relevant departments and Board of Supervisors of each County for inclusion in the 2019-2020
property tax bills.
Attachments:
1. Resolution of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Setting the Tax Rate on
Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds – County of San Mateo
2. Resolution of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Setting the Tax Rate on
Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds – County of Santa Clara
3. Resolution of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Setting the Tax Rate on
Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds – County of Santa Cruz
Responsible Department Head:
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Prepared by:
Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager
Resolutions/2019/19-___SMC Measure AA Levy 1
RESOLUTION NO. 19-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT SETTING THE 2019-20 TAX RATE FOR SAN MATEO
COUNTY ON VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a regional
open space district that includes territory in each of the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa
Clara and the County of Santa Cruz (each, a “County”; collectively, the “Counties”); and
WHEREAS, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds that are
authorized by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the District pursuant to Article 3 (commencing
with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 4.5,
commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
Code of the State of California (collectively, the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, a special bond election was duly and regularly held in the District on June 3,
2014, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified electors of the District (the
"2014 Authorization"), and more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the election approved the
issuance of up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance certain projects specified in
the 2014 Authorization; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the projects authorized by the 2014
Authorization (the “Projects”), by its Resolution No. 15-19, the District issued General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2015, Series A and Series B for the aggregate amount of $45,000,000 pursuant to
the Act. By Resolution No. 17-31, the District further issued General Obligation Bonds, Series
2018 for the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 5569 of the Public Resources Code provides that, for the purpose of
paying all sums coming due for principal and interest on all bonds of the District, there shall be
levied and collected each year a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds and, also,
that part of the principal which will become due before the time for setting the next general tax
levy; and
WHEREAS, Section 5571 of the Public Resources Code provides that the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, at the time of making the general tax levy in each year,
levy a tax upon all the real and personal property within the District and within its respective
County at a rate sufficient to meet the proportion of taxes necessary to be raised in the County for
the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds and other indebtedness of the District;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows:
SECTION 1. Levy of Tax. The Board of Directors of the District hereby determines
that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable
on September 1, 2019, March 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020 is $0.0016 per $100 of assessed
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolutions/2019/19-___SMC Measure AA Levy 2
valuation, and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable
requirements of law.
SECTION 2. Collection of Tax. The Controller is hereby directed to forward a copy of
this Resolution to the Controller of the San Mateo County, and to the Board of Supervisors of the
County, and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be required to cause the tax
rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2019-2020 property tax bill and collected by the
County.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date
of its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on ______, 2019, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
Resolutions/2019/19-___SCC Measure AA Levy 1
RESOLUTION NO. 19-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPENSPACE
DISTRICT SETTING THE 2019-20 TAX RATE FOR SANTA CLARA
COUNTY ON VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a regional
open space district that includes territory in each of the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa
Clara and the County of Santa Cruz (each, a “County”; collectively, the “Counties”); and
WHEREAS, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds that are
authorized by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the District pursuant to Article 3 (commencing
with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 4.5,
commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
Code of the State of California (collectively, the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, a special bond election was duly and regularly held in the District on June 3,
2014, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified electors of the District (the
"2014 Authorization"), and more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the election approved the
issuance of up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance certain projects specified in
the 2014 Authorization; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the projects authorized by the 2014
Authorization (the “Projects”), by its Resolution No. 15-19, the District issued General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2015, Series A and Series B for the aggregate amount of $45,000,000 pursuant to
the Act. By Resolution No. 17-31, the District further issued General Obligation Bonds, Series
2018 for the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 5569 of the Public Resources Code provides that, for the purpose of
paying all sums coming due for principal and interest on all bonds of the District, there shall be
levied and collected each year a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds and, also,
that part of the principal which will become due before the time for setting the next general tax
levy; and
WHEREAS, Section 5571 of the Public Resources Code provides that the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, at the time of making the general tax levy in each year,
levy a tax upon all the real and personal property within the District and within its respective
County at a rate sufficient to meet the proportion of taxes necessary to be raised in the County for
the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds and other indebtedness of the District;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows:
SECTION 1. Levy of Tax. The Board of Directors of the District hereby determines
that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable
on September 1, 2019, March 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020 is $0.0016 per $100 of assessed
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolutions/2019/19-___SCC Measure AA Levy 2
valuation, and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable
requirements of law.
SECTION 2. Collection of Tax. The Controller is hereby directed to forward a copy of
this Resolution to the Controller-Treasurer of the County of Santa Clara, and to the Board of
Supervisors of the County, and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be
required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2019-2020 property tax
bill and collected by each of the County.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date
of its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on ______, 2019, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
Resolutions/2019/19-___SCrC Measure AA Levy 1
RESOLUTION NO. 19-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT SETTING THE 2019-20 TAX RATE FOR SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY ON VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a regional
open space district that includes territory in each of the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa
Clara and the County of Santa Cruz (each, a “County”; collectively, the “Counties”); and
WHEREAS, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds that are
authorized by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the District pursuant to Article 3 (commencing
with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 4.5,
commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
Code of the State of California (collectively, the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, a special bond election was duly and regularly held in the District on June 3,
2014, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified electors of the District (the
"2014 Authorization"), and more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the election approved the
issuance of up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance certain projects specified in
the 2014 Authorization; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the projects authorized by the 2014
Authorization (the “Projects”), by its Resolution No. 15-19, the District issued General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2015, Series A and Series B for the aggregate amount of $45,000,000 pursuant to
the Act. By Resolution No. 17-31, the District further issued General Obligation Bonds, Series
2018 for the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 5569 of the Public Resources Code provides that, for the purpose of
paying all sums coming due for principal and interest on all bonds of the District, there shall be
levied and collected each year a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds and, also,
that part of the principal which will become due before the time for setting the next general tax
levy; and
WHEREAS, Section 5571 of the Public Resources Code provides that the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz, at the time of making the general tax levy in each year,
levy a tax upon all the real and personal property within the District and within its respective
County at a rate sufficient to meet the proportion of taxes necessary to be raised in the County for
the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds and other indebtedness of the District;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows:
SECTION 1. Levy of Tax. The Board of Directors of the District hereby determines
that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable
on September 1, 2019, March 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020 is $0.0016 per $100 of assessed
ATTACHMENT 3
Resolutions/2019/19-___SCrC Measure AA Levy 2
valuation, and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable
requirements of law.
SECTION 2. Collection of Tax. The Controller is hereby directed to forward a copy of
this Resolution to the Auditor-Controller of the County of Santa Cruz, and to the Board of
Supervisors of the County, and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be
required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2019-2020 property tax
bill and collected by the County.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date
of its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on ______, 2019, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
Rev. 1/3/18
R-19-90
Meeting 19-18
July 10, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Annual 2018 Calendar Year Report and Proposed Updates to the Integrated Pest Management
Program
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the proposed changes to the Integrated Pest Management Program.
2. Approve the proposed changes to the Slender False Brome Program and associated
partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District.
SUMMARY
On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the Board of Directors (Board) of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District (District) adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program (Program) and approved the IPM Guidance Manual
and Policy. The Program requires a comprehensive annual report of past pest control activities,
both chemical and non-chemical, on District lands. This report presents the results of the fourth
year of pest management activities prescribed under the Program. The District treated 61 species,
including 20 state-listed noxious weeds (plants defined as a pest by state law or regulation) using
a variety of treatment methods. In total, the number of hours for IPM/resource management work
increased from 2017 due to an increase in contractor and volunteer hours.
In 2018, the District performed a health assessment of three (3) active ingredients in insect
repellents and the General Manager recommends adding them to the List of Approved Pesticides.
This will allow the District to provide insect repellants to staff and volunteers to protect against
insect vector-borne diseases. In addition, the District is revising the Slender False Brome
(Brachypodium sylvaticum, SFB) Program with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation
District (RCD) to shift the objective from eradication (no longer feasible) to control, outreach, and
education, and expand the partnership to include additional invasive plant species of regional
concern. The District will continue to manage populations of slender false brome on District lands.
DISCUSSION
Background
IPM is a long-term, science-based, decision-making system that uses a specific methodology 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
R-19-90 Page 2
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 in
accordance with adaptive management principles.
As a component of the IPM Program, staff is required to present the Annual Report to the full
Board. The Annual Report includes the following information for IPM-related work completed
during the prior calendar year:
• Summary of pest problems encountered, and a comparison to past years;
• Summary of pest control treatments used;
• Qualitative assessment on the effectiveness of the pest control program, and suggestions
for increasing future effectiveness;
• Summary of pesticide use;
• Summary of public notifications and public inquiries about IPM on District lands; and
• Assessment of compliance with the Guidance Manual.
The attached 2018 Annual Report (Attachment 1) is the fourth annual report prepared for the
Program and describes the quantitative IPM activities undertaken in 2018, as well as a qualitative
assessment of the Program. IPM Annual Reports from 2015 (R-16-120), 2016 (R-17-50), and 2017
(R-18-81) are available for review. Listed below are the fourth year highlights of the Program.
Summary of Pest Problems and Comparison to Past Years
Of the 874 non-native species found within District boundaries, the District targeted 61 invasive
plant species for the purpose of natural resource protection and long-term management. These
species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native species, and reduce
biodiversity. In addition, the State of California considers 20 of these species as noxious weeds.
The District’s IPM Coordination Team identified seven (7) new pest control projects as a high
priority for treatment on District lands. All seven new projects began in 2018.
The total number of hours for IPM-related work (Table 1) has increased by 20% from 2015
levels. District field staff almost tripled the amount of work compared to last year. Field staff
hours have fluctuated since 2015 depending on other annual competing priorities, including the
number of scheduled Measure AA capital improvement projects under construction. Volunteer
and contractor hours have increased since 2015. The hiring of a second Volunteer Program Lead
in 2018 increased the capacity of volunteers for IPM projects. Increased contractor hours are
primarily due to large scale, Measure AA project-related restoration and/or mitigation work. In
addition, a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) grant agreement with Santa Clara
Valley Water District (SCVWD) (R-17-79) provided substantial funding for IPM related work at
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
Table 1: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year
Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total
2015 5,431 2,132 1,736 9,299
2016 Unknown 1 1,659 2,883 4,542
2017 623 2,907 2,559 6,089
2018 1,767 5,197 3,520 10,484
1 Staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database
to another.
R-19-90 Page 3
Summary of District Pest Control Treatments
Table 2 presents a summary of hours for each treatment method expended by staff, contractors,
and volunteers in 2018.
Table 2: Treatment Methods by Crew Type 2 for 2018
Treatment
Method
Hours Total % of Total Staff Contractor Volunteer
Brush Cut /
Mow 287 409 - 696 7 %
Cut 374 65 388 826.5 8 %
Dig 51 240 222 512.5 5 %
Herbicide 81 175 - 256 2 %
Pull 974 4308 2910 8192 78 %
TOTAL 1,767 5,197 3,520 10,484
% of Total 17 % 50 % 33 %
Manual weed pulling remains the most common treatment method at 78% of all hours; herbicide
use accounted for only 2% of all hours. Herbicide hours were low in 2018 because of the
implementation of the SCVWD MOU, which focused on manual treatment methods. In
addition, some past herbicide projects have effectively reduced the cover of the target invasive
species enough that follow up manual control is feasible. In a typical year, herbicide use
accounts for approximately 10% of labor hours.
During the creation of the IPM Annual Plan, treatment methods are evaluated using the best
available science in weed management. The IPM Annual Plan, which is finalized in January of
each year, lays out the work plan for the new calendar year. Treatment methods have shifted
across the four years of the Program, with the largest change in the reduction of hours spent
applying herbicide (reduced from 60.8% to 2 %, with a relative reduction of 58.8%) and the
largest increase in the percentage of hours spent hand pulling (increased from 35.5% to 78%,
with a relative increase of 42.5%).
Pest Control Program Effectiveness
Structural pest control in 2018 (e.g. Administrative Office, preserve restrooms) was limited to
one of six approved pesticides for buildings, all of which are “Caution” labeled (as opposed to
“Warning” or “Danger” labels), and therefore pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of
treated buildings.
Non-Structural Pest Control of high priority invasive plants in natural areas using both herbicidal
and non-herbicidal methods is conducted to protect and restore native vegetation at preserves by
eliminating or controlling the spread of competing invasive vegetation. The District has set a
goal to reduce the per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, and acknowledges
that in some instances, use will initially increase followed by a reduction in herbicide use once
the pest is eliminated or reduced to a level that can be effectively managed with non-herbicidal
methods.
2 Treatment hours are for Natural and Rangeland areas only, as brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or
emergency landing zones changes minimally from year to year.
R-19-90 Page 4
Pesticide Use
Staff, contractors, and tenants report pesticide use on District lands to the IPM Coordinator.
Table 3 summarizes the known use of pesticides on District lands, excluding PG&E and the
Spartina Project, who are excluded from the District’s IPM Program and have separate CEQA
documentation. County Agricultural Departments require PG&E and the Spartina Project to
report pesticide use directly to the County. District staff reviews all proposed PG&E work and
the use of herbicide is limited to the approved pesticide list under the Program. PG&E adheres
to the District’s herbicide Best Management Practices (BMP) and mitigation measures.
Table 3: Pesticide Use on District Lands
Pesticide Active
Ingredient
Amount Used
(ounces) Acres Treated Ounces/Acre
Fungicide
Potassium salts
of phosphorus
acid
0 3 - -
Herbicide
Aminopyralid 21.42 25.27 0.85
Clethodim - - -
Clopyralid - - -
Glyphosate 785.0 8.69 90.33
Imazapyr - - -
Insecticide Prallethrin 72 - -
Rodenticide Cholecalciferol - - -
Recommended application rates, as specified on the product label, vary by Active Ingredient
(AI) and formulation of any particular pesticide product. For example, the specified application
rate for Roundup® (glyphosate as the AI) ranges from 32 to 160 ounces (oz) per acre. The
specified application rate for Milestone (aminopyralid as the AI) ranges from three to seven
ounces per acre. Note that a Department of Pesticide Regulation’s licensed Pest Control Advisor
(PCA) provides the actual application rates per the District’s BMPs and is available for
consultation as an Invasive Species and Restoration Biologist.
Figure 1 (below) presents an analysis of herbicide use to control pest plant species. The main AI
used is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up®. Herbicide use has decreased from 2017
levels when the District was conducting intensive invasive species work to prepare and open
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (OSP) to public use. This initial knock down period
within the Phase I area has largely transitioned to manual and mechanical treatment methods due
to a drastic decrease in percent cover in previously treated areas. Intensive invasive species work
focusing on the initial knockdown of large populations is shifting to the Phase II and III areas of
the Preserve beginning in 2019 to prepare these new areas for future public use.
3 District Researchers delayed the December 2018 fungicide treatments due to weather conditions until January
2019.
R-19-90 Page 5
Figure 1: Herbicide Use 2016-2018
Glyphosate Assessment and IPM EIR Addendum
In 2018, public concerns prompted the District to undergo an in-depth assessment of glyphosate
and its use. This assessment was presented to the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR)
Committee on October 9, 2018 (R-18-112), with the conclusion that given careful District use of
the herbicide, use of personal protective equipment, diligent adherence to the District’s IPM
BMPs and Mitigation Measures, and ongoing monitoring by the District’s IPM Coordinator,
District’s use of glyphosate poses a very low risk to staff, visitors, and the environment.
Moreover, over the last year, Natural Resources staff identified six (6) additional new
recommendations aimed at further reducing glyphosate use and increasing worker and visitor
safety, which the full Board approved on February 22, 2019 (R-19-11) as a part of the IPM EIR
Addendum. These recommendations are being incorporated into the IPM program beginning in
the 2019 field season, and are summarized below:
1. Increase Field Crew Training.
2. Re-examine ongoing IPM projects to shift from glyphosate.
3. Add Garlon 4 Ultra and Capstone to the list of approved pesticides as additional options.
4. Assess the availability of an alternative pesticide to replace glyphosate. This herbicide
would be the safest available, broad-spectrum, post-emergent herbicide with minimal
residual soil activity.
5. Expand the BMPs that reduce staff and visitor exposure to pesticides.
6. Implement an annual pesticide literature review of all newly published toxicological
research and court proceedings related to pesticides on the “Approved Pesticides List” to
inform updates to the IPM Program.
Public Notification and Inquiries
The District posts signs near treatment areas to alert people of pesticides use prior to, during, and
after the application of a pesticide on District managed lands. All contractors notify the District
before application on any property, and comply with requirements for notification and posting of
Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr
2016 7.71 0 3.08 1475.5 170.75
2017 17.79 0 12.49 2179.32 0
2018 21.42 0 0 785 0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
h
e
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
Herbicide Use 2016-2018 (oz)
2016 2017 2018
R-19-90 Page 6
signs. In 2018, the District recorded six public inquiries relating to the Program. Inquiries
ranged from sharing of District information with other agencies (i.e. RCD), the use and safety of
herbicides, chemical weed control options, and general IPM practices. See Section 7.2 in
Attachment 1 for more details.
Recommended Minor Modifications to the IPM Program
Compliance with the Guidance Manual
As the science of pest control advances and more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are
developed, the District has updated the District’s List of Approved Pesticides. As manufacturers
update, discontinue, or substitute products, and as target pests change over time, recommended
additions or deletions of approved products are made by the IPM Coordinator in consultation
with the IPM Coordination Team.
Addition of Insect Repellents to the List of Approved Pesticides
Ticks and mosquitos are vectors for a number of diseases, including Lyme disease and West Nile
Virus. Insect repellents are EPA-registered pesticides. Adding these products to the District’s
List of Approved Pesticides allows the District to provide repellants to protect staff health and
safety when working on District lands by reducing the potential exposure to vector-borne
diseases. The District conducted a toxicological assessment for human and environmental health
(Attachment 2) on popular insect repellents that District staff have used in the past. Natural
Resource staff assessed three (3) active ingredients: DEET, Picaridin, and Permethrin (Table 4).
Through the assessment, DEET and Picaridin presented a reduced risk to human and
environmental health as long as the user follows all guidelines and label requirements. District
staff assessed and rejected the use of Permethrin due to both human and environmental health
and safety concerns. To prevent any negative impacts to water quality from the use of insect
repellents, District staff propose an additional BMP for the Program (Table 5). The IPM
Coordination Team and the District’s PCA reviewed the toxicological assessment and concur
with its findings. Further environmental review was not warranted.
Table 4: Insect Repellents assessed for addition to the List of Approved Pesticides
Pesticide
Category
Active
Ingredient
Product
Formulations
Mode of Action Purpose
Insect
Repellents
DEET
Various
(Signal Word:
CAUTION)
Disrupts L-lactic acid and
carbon dioxide detection
Tick and mosquito
repellent
Picaridin
Various
(Signal Word:
CAUTION)
Disrupts detection of host
cues
Tick and mosquito
repellent
Permethrin Various Disrupts sodium channels
Insecticide, Tick
and mosquito
repellent
R-19-90 Page 7
Table 5: Proposed Best Management Practice (BMP) to protect water quality
Redistributed Treatment Actions and Estimates within IPM Management Categories
Over the last few months, multiple fire agencies have requested the District to increase the
number and scale of its fuels management projects as soon as possible. The current IPM FEIR
allows for 140 acres of fuel treatment, which is inadequate to address the increasing requests
from fire agencies. As discussed at the May 22, 2019 Board Meeting, the District is developing
a Wildfire Resiliency Program that will address fuel management concerns and is expected to be
implemented in the Fall of 2020 (R-19-69). During that meeting, staff recommended analyzing
an administrative change to temporarily redistribute the acreage assigned to underutilized
management actions from other IPM management categories that were analyzed under the IPM
Program FEIR. This change allows the District to perform additional fuels management
activities for the upcoming fire season without requiring additional CEQA analysis, bridging the
gap until certification of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR. Temporar y redistribution of
treatment acreage is as follows:
• The FEIR analyzed the environmental impact of treating 580 acres within Recreational
Facilities using tractors and brushcutters (mechanical control). Last year, the District
treated approximately 282 acres. Staff recommend redistributing the remaining 125 acres
to the Fuels Management Category.
• The FEIR analyzed the environmental impact of treating 725 acres within the Rangeland
Category using tractors, brushcutters, and chainsaws (mechanical control). Last year the
District treated approximately 270 acres. Staff recommend redistributing 100 acres to the
Fuels Management Category.
Recommended Changes to the Slender False Program and Associated Partnership with the
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District
In 2005, the District initiated the SFB Program for managing the noxious weed in San Mateo
County to protect native redwood forests on its preserves and adjacent private lands (R-05-122).
The goal of this program has been to eradicate or minimally contain SFB in San Mateo County
based on limited populations found on District and surrounding lands. Since May of 2014, a
significant component of this program has been a cooperative partnership with the RCD to manage
SFB on neighboring private parcels with the potential for infesting District lands (R-14-48).
The regional infestation of SFB is now widely distributed, severely hampering the ability for the
District to accomplish the original intent of the SFB Program. Despite intensive treatment
efforts for over 10 years, SFB continues to expand its range throughout the Santa Cruz
Mountains region, including the recent discovery of two large infestation near Highway 17. The
initial objectives of the District’s SFB Program of eradication and containment within San Mateo
County are no longer realistic.
After conferring with the RCD, District staff proposes changing the emphasis of the regional
SFB Program from eradication and containment to ongoing control, outreach, education, and
mapping. Treatment would continue on District lands with the goal of protecting sensitive
resources. The goal of treatment on critical private properties is to prevent further infestation on
37
Insect Repellents and Water Quality – To protect water quality and aquatic organisms, District Staff shall not come into contact with a water body when skin, boots or clothing is contaminated with insect repellents.
R-19-90 Page 8
District lands. Increasing outreach and partnerships with neighboring agencies and community
groups is essential to keep the State-listed noxious weed under control. The District proposes to
expand the partnership with the RCD to combat additional invasive species on private lands that
threaten biodiversity on District Preserves. Additional projects may include Carex pendula
(hanging sedge) removal in the vicinity of Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve, which the
District’s contractor Ecological Concerns, Inc., has been removing under contract (R-17-103). A
continued partnership with an agency that can treat invasive species on nearby private lands will
be a crucial component of the District’s upcoming Early Detection/Rapid Response Program. For
more information, see the SFB Technical Report (Attachment 3).
FISCAL IMPACT
Receipt of the 2018 Annual IPM Report will not result in a direct fiscal impact. Implementation
of the IPM Program occurs across several different departments, including Land and Facilities,
Visitor Services, and Natural Resources. Each department separately budgets for pest
management activities under the General Fund – Operating Budget.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The IPM Policy directs the General Manager to present annual IPM Program reports to the
Board. This report presents the annual review for calendar year 2018.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was also sent to 167
interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The Board approved the FEIR for the District’s IPM Program on December 10, 2014 (R-14-
148). The FEIR analyzed the vegetation management activities undertaken in 2018. On
February 27, 2019, the Board unanimously voted to adopt a resolution to approve an Addendum
to the Final EIR for the IPM Program (R-19-11). Staff have incorporated the associated
mitigation measures and BMPs from both environmental review documents into the project.
The Program as described in this Annual Report remains consistent with the Final EIR and the
2019 Addendum. The proposed program modifications (inclusion of insect repellant and
redistribution of treatment action to the Fuels Management Category) would not change the
overall treatment actions and estimates. Upon review of the prior project impact analyses,
mitigation measures, and BMPs in the FEIR and the Addendum, the District has determined that
the existing environmental review documents still adequately address the potential
environmental impacts of the Program.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a), no new significant environmental
effects, and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects,
would result from the changes to the Program described in this report.
R-19-90 Page 9
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue implementation of the 2019 Annual IPM Plan (Year 5 of the Program),
consistent with the FEIR and subsequent 2019 Addendum of the IPM Program. In October
2019, staff will begin preparing the 2020 Annual IPM Plan to guide IPM work for calendar year
2020. District staff will evaluate and reprioritize natural and rangeland treatment areas to
account for available staff time. Staff will continue to monitor and report to the Board both the
science and associated policies in regards to the use of pesticides.
Attachments:
1. 2018 Annual IPM Report
2. Health Screening Assessment and Guidelines for Use of Insect Repellents at
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3. Slender False Brome Program Report
4. Public comments received
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Contact person:
Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources
| Page
2018 Annual IPM Report
Integrated Pest Management Program Goal:
“Control pests by consistent implementation
of IPM principles to protect and restore the
natural environment and provide for human
safety and enjoyment while visiting and
working on District lands.”
Attachment 1
i | Page
Attachment 1
i | Page
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ iii
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. - 1 -
2 Implementation of IPM Program.............................................................................................................. - 2 -
3 Summary of Pest Management ................................................................................................................ - 4 -
4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments ...................................................................................................... - 9 -
5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program ................................................................................................... - 13 -
6 Summary of Pesticide Use ...................................................................................................................... - 25 -
7 Public Interactions .................................................................................................................................. - 28 -
8 Consultants and Contractors .................................................................................................................. - 31 -
9 Compliance with Guidance Manual........................................................................................................ - 32 -
10 List of Preparers and Contributors ......................................................................................................... - 34 -
Appendix A – Invasive Plant Treatment List ..................................................................................................... - 1 -
Attachment 1
ii | Page
List of Figures
Figure 1: Treatment Method Breakout ............................................................................................................. - 9 -
Figure 2: Resource Management by Crew Type .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3: Annual IPM Labor Hours ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4: Treatment Cost per Acre. ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 9. Herbicide use from 2016-2018 ........................................................................................................ - 26 -
Figure 10: Pesticide Notification Sign ............................................................................................................. - 28 -
Attachment 1
iii | Page
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Pre-Treatment Surveys ..................................................................................................... - 4 -
Table 2: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects .................................................................. - 5 -
Table 3: Invasive fauna species present in District Preserves........................................................................... - 5 -
Table 4: Summary of Fuel Reduction projects District-wide ............................................................................ - 7 -
Table 5: New Pests Control Projects ................................................................................................................. - 8 -
Table 6: New Fuel Management Projects ......................................................................................................... - 8 -
Table 7: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas and Rangelands in 2018 ........................................ - 9 -
Table 8: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year ................................................................................... - 10 -
Table 9: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures ............................................ - 13 -
Table 10: Summary of Regression Analysis..................................................................................................... - 14 -
Table 11: Summary of Mann-Kendal Analysis ................................................................................................ - 14 -
Table 12: Linear Regression Analysis at Bear Creek Redwoods, Phase I ........................................................ - 15 -
Table 13: Linear Regression Analysis at Big Dipper Ranch .............................................................................. - 15 -
Table 14: Linear Regression Analysis at Driscoll Ranch .................................................................................. - 16 -
Table 15: Linear Regression Analysis at Los Trancos ...................................................................................... - 16 -
Table 16: Linear Regression Analysis at Mindego Hill ..................................................................................... - 17 -
Table 17: Linear Regression Analysis of the Slender False Brome Program ................................................... - 17 -
Table 18: Mann-Kendall Analysis of the Slender False Brome Program ......................................................... - 18 -
Table 19: Linear Regression Analysis of Stinkwort Treatment ....................................................................... - 18 -
Table 13: Total herbicide used by species ...................................................................................................... - 26 -
Table 14: Total herbicide used by Preserve .................................................................................................... - 26 -
Attachment 1
- 1 - | Page
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of the fourth year of pest management activities prescribed under the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. The
Program was established in 2014 upon adoption by the Board of Directors of the IPM Guidance Manual. Five
policies set the foundation of the Program:
• Develop specific pest management strategies and priorities that address each of the five work
categories;
• Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new pest species to District preserves,
especially new invasive plants in natural areas, rangeland, and agriculture properties;
• Manage pests using the procedures outlined in the implementation measures;
• Monitor pest occurrences and results of control actions, and use adaptive management to improve
results;
• Develop and implement an IPM Guidance Manual to standardize pest management, and IPM
procedures across all District Lands.
Attachment 1
- 2 - | Page
2 Implementation of IPM Program
Full implementation of the IPM Program was originally scheduled to be completed by 2019. Due to resource
commitments to Measure AA capital projects and multiple key vacancies of positions that support the IPM
Program (e.g. retirement of the Senior Resource Management Specialist, resignation of the Rangeland
Ecologist and Volunteer Program Lead) some aspects of the IPM Program were delayed in 2018. Major
aspects of the IPM Program that are under development in 2019 include a landscape-level monitoring
protocol and an Early Detection/Rapid Response Protocol. Once the protocols are developed, their effective
annual implementation is dependent on staff capacity in future years.
Landscape-Level Monitoring Protocol
To better assess both natural (e.g. succession, disturbances such as wildlife fire) and man-made effects (e.g.
management activities, climate change) in natural areas, a landscape-level monitoring protocol is needed.
This protocol will allow staff to see changes in vegetation and habitat over time. The District is currently a
part of a regional effort to develop a fine-scale vegetation map for all of San Mateo County. This map will be
extremely helpful for tracking.
Early Detection / Rapid Response Protocol
Early Detection / Rapid Response (EDRR) places emphasis on preventing the establishment of new pest
populations on District lands through increased surveys for pests. If new pest populations get established,
EDRR would implement rapid response measures to control pests before they spread. EDRR programs
increase the likelihood that pest invasions are addressed successfully before the population size and extent
are beyond that which can be practically and economically contained and eradicated. The IPM Guidance
Manual currently includes EDRR strategies to respond to pests, however, current staffing levels and
commitments limit the District’s ability to fully implement a comprehensive EDRR program. As a part of
developing this protocol, the District will evaluate the long-term resource needs (i.e., staffing, volunteers,
contractors, etc.) and the long-term financial sustainability for successfully implementing the program. EDRR
strategies would include:
• Identifying potential threats early to allow control or mitigation measures to be taken;
• Detecting new invasive species in time for allowing efficient and safe eradication or control decisions
to be made;
• Taking additional preventive actions such as providing facilities to clean vehicles and tools to stop the
spread of seeds of invasive plants;
• Responding to invasions effectively to prevent the spread and permanent establishment of invasive
species;
• Providing adequate and timely information to decision-makers, the public, and to partner agencies
concerned about the status of invasive species within an area; and
• Adaptively implementing detection and early response strategies over time.
Attachment 1
- 3 - | Page
The purpose of more frequent pest surveys is to determine if and when a new pest population is being
established. Increased pest surveys may allow District personnel and/or contractors to more rapidly identify
and prevent pest infestations prior to establishment, thereby decreasing the amount of pest management
treatments necessary on District lands over time.
Attachment 1
- 4 - | Page
3 Summary of Pest Management
This section is a summary of pest problems that the District has encountered during the year.
Pre-Treatment Surveys
The District’s Best Management Practices from the FEIR Integrated Pest Management Program outlines the
use of pretreatment surveys. Specifically, it states:
“A District biologist shall survey all selected treatment sites prior to work to determine site conditions
and develop any necessary site-specific measures. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall
be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years.
Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Site
inspections shall evaluate existing conditions at a given treatment site including the presence, population
size, growth stage, and percent cover of target weeds and pests relative to native plant cover and the
presence of special-status species and their habitat, or sensitive natural communities.”
Surveys are entered into CalFlora, an online database. In 2018, District biologists completed the following
surveys:
Table 1: Number of Pre-Treatment Surveys
Category El Sereno Fremont Older Picchetti
Ranch Pulgas Ridge Miramontes
Ridge
Fuel Management 3 4 4 1 1
Natural Lands 7 10 11 19 6
Rangeland - - - - -
Recreational
Facilities 3 10 3 4 -
Total 13 24 18 24 7
Surveys identified both biotic and abiotic environmental factors including:
• Special status plants and animals in the area (i.e. California red-legged frog)
• Cultural resources (i.e. known archeological sites)
• Aquatic systems (i.e. ephemeral streams)
• Jurisdictional areas
• Erosive conditions (i.e. steep hill side with treatment to remove large areas of vegetation)
• Presence of disease (i.e. Sudden Oak Death)
Information recorded during pre-treatment surveys is provided to staff and contractors on the Annual Project
Spreadsheet.
Attachment 1
- 5 - | Page
Ongoing and General Maintenance
3.2.1 Vegetative Pest Species
Sixty-one (61) plant pest species found on District lands are treated on an on-going basis (Appendix A) to
control for asset-based protection and long-term management, an increase of seventeen (17) species from
2018. These species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native plant and wildlife species, and
reduce biodiversity. Of the listed species, twenty (20) are considered noxious weeds by the State of
California (Table 2). Some species that are considered a low priority for treatment in wildlands are treated in
restoration sites to ensure that recently installed plants have a higher chance of survival. Increase in number
of species treated are partially due to increased quality for field data collection.
Table 2: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects
Year Species Treated Cal-IPC Rating CDFA Rated Alert
Limited Moderate High
2018 61 14 22 13 20 2
2017 44 5 17 9 16 4
2016 33 3 14 10 17 3
2015 31 4 12 8 12 4
3.2.2 Fauna Pest Species
Eight (8) species of fauna were monitored and/or treated in 2018.
Table 3: Invasive fauna species present in District Preserves
Scientific Name Common Name Preserve Location Activity
Felis catus Cat, feral Rancho San Antonio Monitoring
Mus musculus House mouse Multiple – see below Deer Hollow
Farm;
Residential
Monitoring,
Trapping
Otospermophilus
beecheyi
California
Ground squirrel
Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow
Farm
Exclusion
Pseudemys
nelsoni
Florida red-
bellied cooter
Skyline Ridge Alpine Pond Attempted
trapping
Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Multiple – see below Deer Hollow
Farm;
Residential
Monitoring,
Trapping
Rattus rattus Black rat Multiple – see below Deer Hollow
Farm;
Residential
Monitoring,
Trapping
Sus scrofa Pig, feral Russian Ridge, Sierra
Azul
Mindego
Ranch
Monitoring
Trachemys scripta
elegans
Red-eared
slider
Bear Creek
Redwoods
Mud Lake Monitoring,
Trapping
Attachment 1
- 6 - | Page
3.2.3 Pest Control in Buildings
Between January and December of 2018, the District hired Complete Pest Control to do rodent control at
thirteen residential locations, with seventeen residences, throughout the District [1] as listed below:
• El Corte de Madera OSP (1) – 4 residences
• Fremont Older (1)
• La Honda OSP (2)
• Monte Bello OSP (1)
• Rancho San Antonio (1) – duplex with 2 residences
• Russian Ridge OSP (2)
• Skyline OSP (2)
• Thornewood (1)
• Tunitas Creek OSP (1) – two structures, one location
• Windy Hill OSP (1)
3.2.4 Fuel Management
The District works with local communities and fire districts to minimize the potential for fires to spread to
and from Preserve lands. The District provides necessary fire and fuel management practices to protect
forest resources, public health, and safety by:
• Maintain essential roads for emergency fire access, and forest management activities undertaken to
reduce fire hazard.
• Maintain adequate fire clearance around District structures and facilities.
• Encourage neighboring property owners to maintain adequate fire clearance around existing
development. Consult with regulatory agencies to encourage that construction of new development
maintains fire agency recommended setbacks for fire clearance between new development and
District forest and woodland.
• Evaluate the potential to reduce forest fuel loading through the removal of smaller trees to reduce
forest floor fuel buildup and ladder fuels.
• Coordinate with fire agencies and local communities to define locations where fire protection
infrastructure is desirable and practical.
• Reintroduce fire as a resource management tool to reduce forest floor fuels and reestablish fire for
ecosystem health where stand conditions, access, and public safety permit. Coordinate with other
agencies for planning and implementation.
• Seek grant opportunities and partnerships for fuel management projects and monitoring.
Fuel Reduction Permits
Preserve neighbors wishing to modify vegetation on District preserves to create defensible space around
their homes and occupied structures may apply for a Fuel Reduction Permit. District staff perform pre-
[1] The number in parenthesis is the number of building that pest control activities occurred.
Attachment 1
- 7 - | Page
surveys prior to issuing a permit to ensure adequate protection and mitigation measures are implemented
during the work.
In 2018, three (3) Defensible Space Permits were issued to preserve neighbors. One (1) at La Honda Creek
OSP, and two (2) at Fremont Older OSP.
Fuel Reduction Projects Implemented by the District
The District currently maintains various types of fuel breaks at many preserves. This work is accomplished
primarily through mechanical means, using handheld power tools or heavy equipment. In addition to the
acreage listed below, the District maintains approximately 30 miles of disc lines, mostly along Preserve
boundaries.
The IPM program currently covers maintenance for existing fuel breaks, and does not allow for construction
of major new fuel breaks. The District is currently seeking additional CEQA compliance that will greatly
expand the fuel reduction program on District lands and allow for the creation of new fuel breaks.
Table 4: Summary of Fuel Reduction projects District-wide
Purpose Acres Total Area
Foothills Skyline
Defensible Space 21.9 33.23 55.13
Landing Zones 6.5 5.25 11.76
Shaded Fuel Break 36.8 22.7 59.5
Other Fuel Break - 14.4 12.2
TOTAL 65.2 75.58 140.78
New Pest Control Projects
Potential pest control projects were submitted to the IPM Coordinator using the District’s New Pest Control
Project form. Potential projects were evaluated using the Project Ranking System developed by the IPM
Coordination Team. The Project Ranking System evaluates projects using five categories:
• Safety
o Human health
o Environmental health
• Prevents and controls the most destructive pests
• Protects biodiversity
• Provides for public engagement
• Feasibility and effectiveness
Seven (7) new pest control projects were determined to have high priority for treatment on District lands
(Table 4). Additionally, ongoing projects at Sierra Azul that had not previously been captured in the IPM plan
were added for the first time, and two minor fuel management treatments were initiated in 2018.
Attachment 1
- 8 - | Page
Table 5: New Pests Control Projects
Scientific
Name
Species Cal-IPC
rating
CDFA
rating
Alert Gross Acres Infested
Acres
Genista
monspessulana French Broom High Noxious - 0.25 0.12
Dipsacus
sativus Teasel Moderate - - 0.25 0.06
Carduus
pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Noxious - 10 3
Silybum
marianum Milk thistle Limited 10 3
Centaurea
calcitrapa
Purple
starthistle Moderate Noxious 9.2 0.93
Carthamus
lanatus Distaff thistle Moderate Noxious 1.0 0.21
- Various thistles - - - 50 6.25
Table 6: New Fuel Management Projects
Preserve Location Purpose Treatment
Type
Treatment
Method
Gross
Acres
Person-
Hours
WH Kabcenell
Driveway
Defensible
Space
Manual &
Mechanical
Mowing &
Cutting 2.0 100
MR Madonna
Creek Ranch
Defensible
Space
Manual &
Mechanical
Mowing &
Cutting 1.4 40
Attachment 1
- 9 - | Page
4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments
Type of Control with Cost per Acre
The following data reflects natural areas and does not take into account brushing/mowing of roads, trails,
defensible space, or emergency landing zones. Data for brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space,
or emergency landing zones are not presented because these activities do not change from year to year.
Table 7: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas and Rangelands in 2018
Treatment
Method
Hours Total % of Total Staff Contractor Volunteer
Brush Cut /
Mow
287 409 - 696 7 %
Cut 374 65 388 826.5 8 %
Dig 51 240 222 512.5 5 %
Herbicide 81 175 - 256 2 %
Pull 974 4308 2910 8192 78 %
TOTAL 1,767 5,197 3,520 10,484
% of Total 17 % 50 % 33 %
Figure 1: Treatment Method Breakout
Manual removal of weeds via pulling remains the most prevalent treatment method at 82% of all hours;
herbicide accounts for 2% of all hours (Figure 5). Herbicide hours were low in 2018 because of the
implementation of the SCVWD MOU, which focused on manual treatment methods. In addition, some past
herbicide projects have reduced the cover of the target invasive species to levels low enough that manual
Brush Cut / Mow
7%
Cut
8%
Dig
3%
Herbicide
2%
Pull
80%
Hours per Treatment Method
Attachment 1
- 10 - | Page
follow-up is possible. In a typical year, herbicide use will account for approximately 10% of labor hours.
Contractors make up the largest contributor to IPM - Resource Management activities for Natural Areas.
Figure 2: Resource Management by Crew Type
Table 8: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year
Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total
2015 5,431 2,132 1,736 9,299
2016 Unknown 1 1,659 2,883 4,542
2017 623 2,907 2,559 6,089
2018 1,767 5,197 3,520 10,484
1 Staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one
database to another.
Staff
17%
Contractor
51%
Volunteer
32%
Total Labor Hours
Attachment 1
- 11 - | Page
Figure 3: Annual IPM Labor Hours.
2016 was a transitional year for staff data management, so the total labor hours for staff is unknown.
The total number of hours for IPM-related work (Table 8) has increased by 20% from 2015 levels. District field
staff almost tripled the amount of work compared to last year. Field staff hours have fluctuated since 2015
based on other competing priorities, including the number of Measure AA capital improvement projects
scheduled to be under construction each year. Both volunteer and contractor hours have increased since 2015.
The hiring of a second Volunteer Program Lead in 2018 increased the capacity of volunteers to support IPM
projects. Increased contractor hours are primarily due to large scale, Measure AA project-related restoration
and/or mitigation work. In addition, a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) grant agreement with
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) (R-17-79) provided substantial funding for IPM related work at Bear
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Figure 7 (below) shows the comparative cost for different treatment
methods for 2018. Mowing and brush cutting are shown as cost per gross acre. All other treatment methods
are shown as cost per infested acre. The District uses the following hourly costs estimates for comparative cost
analysis purposes only:
• Contractor - $50.00 per hour
• Staff – $43.45 per hour
• Volunteers - $25.43 per hour 2
2 Signifies the estimated value of volunteer work and not true cost, as this is pro bono, volunteer work. This value is
used for analysis purposes only. Refer to: https://independentsector.org/news-post/new-value-volunteer-time-
2019/
54
3
1
N/
A
62
3
17
6
7
21
3
2
16
5
9
29
0
7
51
9
7
17
3
6
28
8
3
25
5
9
35
2
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2015 2016 2017 2018
Annual IPM Labor Hours
Staff Contractor Volunteer
Attachment 1
- 12 - | Page
Figure 4: Treatment Cost per Acre.
$-
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$4,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$7,000.00
$8,000.00
$9,000.00
Mow Flame Brush-cut Dig Herbicide Pull Cut
Co
s
t
p
e
r
A
c
r
e
Treatment Method
Comparative Costs
Attachment 1
- 13 - | Page
5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program
The IPM Program identifies the following criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the Program every year:
• Work health/exposure in buildings;
• Reduction of pesticide use in buildings;
• Per-acre herbicide use;
• Preservation of biodiversity and natural resource values;
• Public participation in pest control; and
• Staff training, public outreach, and educational activities.
Worker Health/Exposure in Buildings
The District is committed to the use of lower pesticide worker health/exposure classifications in buildings.
These pesticides were consistent with the six pesticides approved for use on buildings (Table 9) as described
in the 2014 IPM Program Environmental Impact Report, all of which are “Caution” labeled and therefore pose
a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. A specific type of rodenticide bait is approved
under very strict conditions; however, it was not utilized. Only prevention and traps were approved for
rodent control in 2018.
Table 9: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures
Pesticide Category Active Ingredient Product
Formulation
Purpose Signal Word
Rodenticide Cholecalciferol Cholecalciferol
baits
Rodent control Caution
Insecticide3
Indoxacarb Advion Gel baits Structural pest
control
Caution
Hydroprene Gentrol Point
Source
Pest Control Caution
Fipronil Maxforce Bait
Station
Ant Control Caution
Sodium
tetraborate
Terro Ant Killer II Ant Control Caution
Diatomaceous
earth
Diatomaceous
earth
Structural pest
control
Caution
Reduction of Pesticide Use in Buildings
The District seeks to comprehensively oversee all pesticide use in and around District buildings, including use
by tenants, which is expected to result in an overall reduction of pesticide use in buildings, and in particular,
eliminate use of pesticides not appropriate for use around human occupants or visitors, or which can
inadvertently escape into the surrounding wildland environment.
3 Employees, contractors and tenants may install approved ant and roach bait stations inside buildings in
tamperproof containers without review by a Qualified Applicator License/Certificate holder.
Attachment 1
- 14 - | Page
Per-acre Herbicide Use
The District seeks a reduction in per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, and acknowledges
that in some instances, use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use once the pest is
eliminated or reduced. Most projects utilize an integrated treatment approach where initial treatment can
consist of increased chemical or mechanical methods, and then a shift towards low-intensity manual
methods as the infestation becomes under control and the seedbank is eliminated.
District staff selected twelve (12) distinct herbicide projects to perform trend analysis:
• Bear Creek Redwoods, Phase I (two herbicides);
• Big Dipper Ranch (two herbicides);
• Driscoll Ranch (two herbicides);
• Los Trancos (two herbicides);
• Mindego Hill;
• Slender False Brome (SFB) Program; and
• Stinkwort (two herbicides).
Natural Resource staff perform two types of analyses to understand trending data over time, linear
regression and the Mann-Kendal Analysis. Although linear regression is simple to use and can be visualized,
the Mann-Kendal Analysis shows increasing, decreasing, and no trends at 80% and 90% confidence levels and
in addition, can show if a no-trend is stable or non-stable. Linear regression requires a minimum of three (3)
years of data, while the Mann-Kendal Analysis requires four (4) years). At this time, conclusions drawn from
either method should viewed with caution due to the limited amount of data.
Table 10: Summary of Regression Analysis
Increasing Decreasing Trend Not Available
0 10 2
Table 11: Summary of Mann-Kendal Analysis
Increasing No Trend
(Non-Stable)
No Trend
(Stable) Decreasing Trend Not
Available
0 1 0 0 11
Attachment 1
- 15 - | Page
Table 12: Linear Regression Analysis at Bear Creek Redwoods, Phase I
Table 13: Linear Regression Analysis at Big Dipper Ranch
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2016 2017 2018
Roundup 23.25 104.25 0.00
Polaris 166.75 0 0
Bear Creek Redwoods, Phase I
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2016 2017 2018
Roundup 0.50 30.00
Transline 3.08 12.49 0.00
Big Dipper Ranch
Attachment 1
- 16 - | Page
Table 14: Linear Regression Analysis at Driscoll Ranch
Table 15: Linear Regression Analysis at Los Trancos
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2016 2017 2018
Milestone 0.87 0.05 0.00
Roundup 18
Driscoll Ranch
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2016 2017 2018
Glyphosate 30.65 36.98 0.00
Milestone 3.73 0 0
Los Trancos
Attachment 1
- 17 - | Page
Table 16: Linear Regression Analysis at Mindego Hill
Table 17: Linear Regression Analysis of the Slender False Brome Program
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2016 2017 2018
Milestone 1.61 13.73 0.00
Mindego Hill
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
2015 2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2015 2016 2017 2018
Glyphosate 195.60 3.00 6.00 0
Slender False Brome
Attachment 1
- 18 - | Page
Table 18: Mann-Kendall Analysis of the Slender False Brome Program
S = 0
n = 4
Mean 56.35
Standard Deviation 93.03
Coefficient of Variation 1.65
Table 19: Linear Regression Analysis of Stinkwort Treatment
Preservation of Biodiversity and Natural Resource Values
As part of this section, District staff provides an annual qualitative assessment of natural resources
conditions of IPM projects in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties in the Annual IPM
Report.
5.4.1 Natural Areas
In natural areas, herbicide and non-herbicide methods were used to control high priority invasive plants to
protect and restore native vegetation at preserves.
5.4.2 Rangeland
The District uses conservation grazing to manage fuel (flammable vegetation) for fire protection; enhance the
diversity of native plants and animals; help sustain the local agricultural economy; and foster the region's
rural heritage. The District uses conservation grazing on approximately 10,800 acres as a tool to manage
grassland habitat on portions of these five preserves:
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
2016 2017 2018
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
I
n
g
r
e
d
i
e
n
t
Year
2016 2017 2018
Glyphosate 213.60 233.70 0.00
Milestone 1.49 0 0
Stinkwort
Trend ≥ 80% Confidence Level No Trend
Trend ≥ 90% Confidence Level No Trend
Stability Test Non-Stable
Attachment 1
- 19 - | Page
• Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
• Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve
• Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
• Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve
• La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
In the absence of natural disturbance (i.e. fire), the District periodically does brush removal on grasslands to
slow the encroachment.
5.4.3 Agricultural Properties
Assessment of agricultural properties did not occur in 2018 as planned due to staffing shortages within the
Vegetation Program. Review and assessment of agricultural properties, which represent a small percentage
of District land, will begin in FY 2019-20 now that the Rangeland Ecologist has been hired.
Summary of Public Participation in Pest Control
The public is an integral part of the success of the IPM program. Volunteers who assist with invasive plant
control and detection are a valuable asset to the IPM program. In 2018, the District’s Preserve Partner
volunteers contributed 1,996 hours to resource management through seventy-two (72) outdoor service
projects in eighteen (18) different Open Space Preserves. The District hosted eighteen (18) Special Group
projects, a subset of Preserve Partners, which include school groups, technology companies, scout troops,
running clubs and other community groups.
Preserve Partner projects focused primarily on addressing seventeen (17) invasive plant species: French
broom, Spanish broom, purple star thistle, yellow star thistle, Italian thistle, milk thistle, bull thistle, acacia,
fennel, summer mustard, rose clover, teasel, stinkwort, vinca, barbed goat grass, medusa head, and tocalote.
French broom removal dominated Preserve Partner projects with twenty-eight (28) French broom projects
taking place in thirteen (13) open space preserves.
“Pop Up” projects were implemented in 2018 as a new model for volunteer participation at Rancho San
Antonio Open Space Preserve. A Pop Up project is strategically located in a place with high trail use by visitors
and an adequate population of easily identifiable invasive plants in order to engage and utilize the visitors
already hiking in the preserve. Pop Up projects are not advertised in advance and registration is not required.
A total of ninety-five (95) visitors helped to remove Italian thistle during the two Pop Up projects held on the
Rogue Valley trail in 2018.
There were seventeen active Advanced Resource Management Stewards (ARMS) in 2018. The ARMS
volunteers work independently on resource management projects in designated preserve areas and on their
own time. In total, the ARMS volunteers contributed 820 hours to resource management with project sites
located in eighteen (18) open space preserves.
Stewardship partnerships formalized in previous years continued in 2018. Grassroots Ecology contributed
over 900 hours of resource management at two sites. French broom removal and yellow starthistle mowing
Attachment 1
- 20 - | Page
coordination continued at the Hawthorns in the Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. Nearly 700 additional native
plants were added to the demonstration garden in the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve parking lot as part
of the restoration project originally installed in 2016. Additionally, Village Harvest contributed 152 hours of
resource management in the orchard at the Steven’s Canyon Ranch in the Saratoga Gap Open Space
Preserve.
In 2018, the Volunteer Program Partnership continued with the Student Conservation Association (SCA). This
program exposes local, underserved youth to careers in the open space management field while providing
Geographic Information System (GIS) and resource management services to the District. The SCA contributed
approximately 2,000 hours mapping invasive, parking infrastructure and non-native vegetation over 25
project days at various open space preserves.
Summary of Staff Training, Public Outreach, and Educational
Activities
5.6.1 Staff Training
The mandatory annual Pesticide Safety and Training was held at both field offices in June of 2018. All California
Department of Pesticide Regulation required training information was presented by the District’s Pest Control
Advisor (PCA), Mark Heath of On Point Land Management. Rangers who only handle Wasp Freeze received an
abbreviated training in July and September 2018.
In summer 2018, field staff attended a training for CalFlora mapping.
In November 2018, the IPM coordinator, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Volunteer Program Leads,
Maintenance Supervisor, and an OST participated in the annual California Invasive Species Council
symposium in Monterey, CA.
5.6.2 Regional Cooperation
Invasive species are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries, so it is of utmost importance to work with
neighboring land management agencies to target invasive species at a regional scale. The District is a part of
numerous regional cooperatives, including two Weed Management Areas (WMAs) and the Santa Cruz
Mountains Stewardship Network (SCMSN). The District is an active member of both the San Mateo and Santa
Clara Weed Management Areas (WMA). These cooperatives are coordinated from the County Agricultural
Commissioner’s offices, and help foster communication and cooperation on high-priority species among
agencies in the given region. Through WMAs, the District can apply for grants to receive funding for treating
invasive species across multiple jurisdictions.
The District is also a part of the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network (SCMSN), which aims to
coordinate actions across all three counties (San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz) in the Santa Cruz
Mountains. The District is helping to develop an “Atlas” in partnership with Cal-IPC and CalFlora to help
facilitate sharing GIS data related to invasive species and other natural resources. As the upcoming EDRR
protocol is developed, tools such as this which will facilitate regional inter-agency data sharing will be a
critical to address emerging threats quickly.
Attachment 1
- 21 - | Page
5.6.3 Public Outreach
Facebook Posts
Attachment 1
- 22 - | Page
Attachment 1
- 23 - | Page
Attachment 1
- 24 - | Page
Twitter
Attachment 1
- 25 - | Page
6 Summary of Pesticide Use
The following tables summarizes the use of pesticides on District lands by staff and contractors. This data
excludes PG&E, which is not covered under the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program. PG&E is
required to report pesticide use to each County Agricultural Department separately.
Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used
(oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre
Max Legal
Rate (oz.
per 36”
tree)3
Fungicide
(preventative
treatment for
Sudden Oak
Death)
Potassium salts of
phosphorus acid 0 4 - - 256 Oz.
Pesticide Active Ingredient
Product Used
(oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre5
Max Legal
Rate 6
(Oz/Acre)
Herbicide
Aminopyralid 21.42 147.29 0.12 7.0
Clethodim - - - 26
Clopyralid - - - 10.7
Glyphosate 785.0 8.69 90.33 224
Imazapyr - - - 48
Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre
Insecticide Prallethrin 171.5 - -
Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre
Rodenticide Cholecalciferol - - -
4 Fungicide treatments originally scheduled for December 2018 were delayed because treatment conditions were not ideal until January 2019.
5 Ounces per acre can only be compared when product formulations have the same Active Ingredient. For example, the rate for Roundup ProMax
with glyphosate as the Active Ingredient is 32 to 160 oz per acre. The rate for Milestone with Aminopyralid as the Active Ingredient is 3 to 7 oz
per acre.
6 Maximum legal rate is the maximum amount of product that can legally be used per the label of the product.
Attachment 1
- 26 - | Page
Figure 5. Herbicide use from 2016-2018
Table 20: Total herbicide used by species
Table 21: Total herbicide used by Preserve
Preserve Herbicide Total Ounces Used
Bear Creek Redwoods Roundup Pro Max 38
Coal Creek Roundup Pro Max 268
La Honda Creek Roundup Pro Max 156
La Honda Creek Milestone 1.55
Pulgas Ridge Roundup Pro Max 10
Purisima Creek Redwoods Roundup Pro Max 180
Rancho San Antonio Roundup Pro Max 0.1
Russian Ridge Milestone 19.868
Skyline Ridge Roundup Pro Max 30
Thornewood Roundup Pro Max 21
Windy Hill Roundup Pro Max 120
Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr
2016 7.71 0 3.08 1475.5 170.75
2017 17.79 0 12.49 2179.32 0
2018 21.42 0 0 785 0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Ou
n
c
e
s
o
f
h
e
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
Herbicide Use 2016-2018 (oz)
2016 2017 2018
Target Species Pesticide Trade Name Total Ounces Used
Brachypodium sylvaticum Roundup Pro Max 21
Carthamus creticus Milestone 19.5
Centaurea calcitrapa Milestone 1.9
Centaurea solstitialis Roundup Pro Max 30
Eucalyptus globulus Roundup Pro Max 28
Genista monspessulana Roundup Pro Max 706
Attachment 1
- 27 - | Page
Attachment 1
- 28 - | Page
7 Public Interactions
Notifications
7.1.1 Pesticide Applications
Prior, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of
pesticides) on District preserves, employees or contractors post signs at the treatment area notifying the
public, employees and contractors of the District’s use of pesticide. Posting periods designated below are the
District’s minimum requirements; signs may be posted earlier and left in place for longer periods of time if it
serves a public purpose or if it provides staff flexibility in accessing remote locations.
• For pesticide application in
outdoor areas of all District-owned
preserves and in buildings which
are not occupied or are rarely
visited (e.g. pump houses), signs
are posted at the treatment areas
24 hours before the start of
treatment until 72 hours after the
end of treatment. Signs stating ]
“Pesticide Use Notification” are
placed at each end of the outdoor
treatment area and any
intersecting trails.
• For urgent application of pesticides
to control stinging insects, signs
are posted at the treatment area 72 hours after the end of treatment, but no pre-treatment posting
is required.
• For pesticide application in occupied buildings such as visitor centers, offices and residences,
notification is provided to building occupants (employees, visitors, residents) 24 hours before the
start of treatment by email, letters or telephone calls. Additionally, for buildings which might be
visited by more than just a single family, signs stating “Pesticide Use Notification” will be placed at
the entrances to the building 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of
treatment. The use of approved insecticidal baits in tamper-proof containers require notification 24
hours before the start of treatment by email, letters or telephone calls.
• The information contained in the pesticide application signs include: product name, EPA registration
number, target pest, preserve name and/or building, date and time of application, and contact
person with telephone number. The contact person is the IPM Coordinator.
• On lands that the District manages but does not own (e.g., Rancho San Antonio County Park), the
District will provide notification of pesticide use in the same manner and applying the same actions
as it does with its properties, unless the contracting agencies have adopted more restrictive
Figure 6: Pesticide Notification Sign
Attachment 1
- 29 - | Page
management standards. In those cases, the more restrictive management standards would be
implemented by the District.
• In the event of an immediate public safety concern, notification occurs at the time of treatment but
pre-posting may not be possible.
All contractors notify the District before application on any property, and comply with requirements for
notification and posting of signs described above.
At the discretion of the District staff and depending on the site conditions, neighboring landowners are
notified if the District is conducting pest management near a property line.
Inquiries
The District received a number of inquiries in 2018 concerning the IPM Program. This list does not include
public comments received at IPM-related Board meetings.
Date Staff Inquirer
Contact
Method Request/Comment Response
7/10/2018 Tom Reyes Naftali
Moed, San
Mateo RCD
E-Mail Request for BMPs and
Mitigation Measures
related to CRLF and SFGS
BMPs and Mitigation
Measures sent
7/23/2018 Tom Reyes Danny
Kerfield,
Western
ECI/PG&E
Email Request to use Garlon for
tree removal along power
lines on District lands
Request denied.
Shared approved
pesticide list and
suggested use of
glyphosate or
imazapyr.
8/1/2018 Tom Reyes Vanessa
Buchanan,
SFO Ranger
Email Concerned about effects
of pesticide use
(including wasp freeze)
on pollinators-
specifically butterflies
Shared Mitigation
Measures and BMPs
related to
invertebrate
protection, and
information on rare
butterflies and host
plants within the
District. Encouraged
reporting these
species in iNaturalist
and CalFlora
8/13/2018 Tom Reyes Unknown
visitor
Phone Inform the District about
recent high-profile
glyphosate court case
District is aware, stays
on top of current
scientific findings, and
is looking into ways to
reduce glyphosate use
8/28/2018 General
Info
Richard
Youatt
Email Concern regarding
glyphosate usage at RSA
Response sent, Mr.
Youatt was added to
the Invasive Plant
notification list.
Attachment 1
- 30 - | Page
No changes to District protocol were made due to public comments in 2018, however, public concerns did
prompt the District to undergo an in-depth assessment of glyphosate and its use within the Districts IPM
Program. This assessment was presented to the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) committee on October
9, 2018 (R-18-112), with the conclusion that given careful District use of the herbicide, use of personal
protective equipment, diligent adherence to the District’s IPM BMPs and Mitigation Measures, and ongoing
monitoring by the District’s IPM Coordinator, District use of glyphosate poses a very low risk to staff, visitors,
and the environment. Moreover, over the last year, Natural Resources staff identified six (6) additional new
recommendations aimed at further reducing glyphosate use and increasing worker and visitor safety, which
the full Board approved on February 22, 2019 (R-19-11) as a part of the IPM EIR Addendum. These
recommendations are being incorporated into the IPM program beginning in the 2019 field season, and are
summarized below:
1. Increase Field Crew Training
a. Ensure all District field crew who perform herbicide treatments have specialized experience
and training in pesticide safety, IPM principles, and special status species.
b. Evaluate the suitability of securing Qualified Applicator Certificate (QAC) certifications for
additional field staff, and implement as appropriate.
2. Re-examine ongoing IPM projects
a. Identify suitable sites to shift treatment methods away from glyphosate.
b. Ensure that all projects are performed at the time of year and phenological window for
maximum effectiveness, thereby increasing efficiency of current pesticide treatments.
3. Add Garlon 4 Ultra and Capstone to the list of approved pesticides
a. Garlon is more effective at controlling woody vegetation than glyphosate
b. Capstone is more effective at controlling some broadleaf weed species than glyphosate
4. Assess the availability of an alternative pesticide to replace glyphosate. This herbicide would be the
safest available, broad-spectrum, post-emergent herbicide with minimal residual soil activity
5. Expand the BMPs that reduce staff and visitor exposure to pesticides.
a. Establish no-spray trail buffers where no herbicides can be sprayed within 5-feet of trails,
trailheads, or parking lots UNLESS a 24-hour trail closure is put into place.
b. Define “Spare-the-Air” days as a no-spray day due to the likely possibility of an inversion
layer being present.
6. Implement an annual pesticide literature review of all newly published toxicological research and
court proceedings related to pesticides on the “Approved Pesticides List” to inform updates to the
IPM Program.
Attachment 1
- 31 - | Page
8 Consultants and Contractors
Blankinship & Associates - $52,011
Preparation of toxicological services for the inclusion of three new pesticides in the IPM Program, a review of
glyphosate, and CEQA services
CalFlora - $2,900
Annual subscription to the CalFlora Database
Ecological Concerns, Inc. - $360,414
Treatment of invasive species District wide.
Phytosphere Research - $11,677
Treatment of Sudden Oak Death in three (3) District Preserves.
San Mateo County RCD - $61,793
Treatment of slender false brome on private properties that have the potential to infest District lands.
Santa Clara University - $679
Research into non-chemical treatment options for slender false brome.
Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. - $3,750
Preparation of Pest Control Recommendations and the annual pesticide safety-training requirement
Attachment 1
- 32 - | Page
9 Compliance with Guidance Manual
Updates to the IPM Program
Experimental Pest Control Projects
9.2.1 Slender False Brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum)
In spring of 2016, the District begun consultation with Santa Clara University to set up an experiment looking
at non-herbicide and herbicide options on slender false brome. Test plots on a private property has been set
up. Results are expected in winter 2019-20.
Changes to Guidance Manual
9.3.1 Updating the List of Approved Pesticides
The List of Approved Pesticides is intended to change over time as the science of pest control advances and
more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are developed; as manufacturers update, discontinue, or
substitute products; and as the District’s target pests change over time.
Product Additions
In instances where new products with new active ingredients are found to be safer, more effective, and/or
less costly than products on the on the List of Approved Pesticides, the District may elect to add new
pesticides. This type of change typically requires additional toxicological review, and depending on the
results, may also require additional environmental review.
A toxicological review has been completed on four new pesticides. District staff completed a CEQA analysis
for three pesticides, which was presented to and subsequently approved by the Board in February 2019.
Pesticide
Category
Product Formulation Active Ingredient Purpose
Herbicide
Garlon 4 Ultra
(Dow AgroSciences)
Triclopyr BEE Selective post-emergent woody plant,
broadleaf weed, and tree control
Capstone
(Dow AgroSciences)
Triclopyr TEA Selective pre- and post-emergent
broadleaf weed, woody plant, and
tree control
Insecticide
PT Wasp-Freeze II
(BASF) Prallethrin Stinging insects
Python Dust (Y-Tex)
Zeta-
Cypermethrin Stinging insects Piperonyl
Butoxide
Attachment 1
- 33 - | Page
• Insecticide
o Python Dust Bag (removed for consideration due to toxicity concerns)
o Wasp Freeze II
• Herbicide
o Garlon 4 Ultra
o Capstone
Attachment 1
- 34 - | Page
10 List of Preparers and Contributors
MROSD
Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I
Jean Chung, Property Management Specialist I
Ellen Gartside, Volunteer Program Lead
Aleksandra Evert, Volunteer Program Lead
Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist
Susan Weidemann, Property Management Specialist II
Attachment 1
- 1 - | Page
Appendix A – Invasive Plant Treatment List
Ongoing and general maintenance plant pest species that were treated in 2018 sorted by total treatment
hours:
Common Name Scientific Name
French broom Genista monspessulana
English ivy Hedera helix
Vinca Vinca major
Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis
Purple star thistle Centaurea calcitrapa
Stinkwort Dittrichia graveolens
Cape ivy Delairea odorata
Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus
Smooth distaff thistle Carthamus creticus
Wild teasel Dipsacus fullonum
Slender false brome Brachypodium sylvaticum
Spanish broom Spartium junceum
Goatgrass Aegilops triuncialis
Hanging sedge Carex pendula
Coyote brush7 Baccharis pilularis
Poison hemlock Conium maculatum
Rose clover Trifolium hirtum
Bullthistle Cirsium vulgare
California burclover Medicago polymorpha
Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon
Slender flowered thistle Carduus tenuiflorus
Medusa head Elymus caput-medusae
Upright veldt grass Ehrharta erecta
Milk thistle Silybum marianum
Indian teasel Dipsacus sativus
Fennel Foeniculum vulgare
Poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum
Slim oat Avena barbata
Tocalote Centaurea melitensis
Monterey pine Pinus radiata
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon
Andean pampas grass Cortaderia jubata
7 Coyote brush is a native species, but it is sometimes managed to maintain Recreational Facilities and Rangeland
resources.
8 This rating and all District treatment is of the non-native cultivar of Monterey Pine
Attachment 1
- 2 - | Page
Coastal heron's bill Erodium cicutarium
Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica
Mustard Hirschfeldia incana
Big heron bill Erodium botrys
Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus
Italian rye grass Festuca perennis
Common groundsel Senecio vulgaris
Smilo grass Stipa miliacea var. miliacea
Red seeded dandelion Taraxacum officinale
Peruvian lily Alstroemeria sp.
Algerian sea lavender Limonium ramosissimum
Smooth cats ear Hypochaeris glabra
Silver wattle Acacia dealbata
Juniper Juniperus sp.
Soft chess Bromus hordeaceus
Camphor tree Cinnamomum camphora
Hairy cats ear Hypochaeris radicata
Field hedge parsley Torilis arvensis
Tall oatgrass Arrhenatherum elatius
Vineyard onion Allium vineale
Bird's foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus
Canary island date palm Phoenix canariensis
Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus
Red-seeded dandelion Taraxacum erythrospermum
Bur chevril Anthriscus caucalis
Common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus
Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius
Woolly distaff thistle Carthamus lanatus
Harding grass Phalaris aquatica
White horehound Marrubium vulgare
Gorse Ulex europaeus
Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia
Gopher plant Euphorbia lathyris
9 Some species that would be considered low priority in wildland situations are treated in restoration sites and in
particularly sensitive areas.
Attachment 1
Health Screening Assessment and
Guidelines for Use of Insect Repellents at
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
March 2019
Purpose of this Assessment
Insect repellents are EPA-registered pesticides, and are subject to all relevant policies, laws and
regulations. The District did not research or analyze the human and environmental health and safety of
any pesticides for tick and mosquito prevention during the development of the IPM Program. This
document will serve as a cursory assessment of these pesticides to better understand the risks of each
pesticide and select the least toxic insect repellents for use within the District.
The insect repellents that are assessed in this document are products that have been used historically by
staff in the District. Active ingredients assessed in this document are:
• DEET
• Picaridin
• Permethrin
Additional low-toxicity insect repellents, will be assessed in the future as needed.
General Guidelines for Using Insect Repellents
Insect repellents are intended for sparing and infrequent use, but are unique as pesticides because they
are often meant to be applied directly to the skin. Some general guidelines for safe application of insect
repellents (U.S. EPA, n.d.):
• Read and follow the label directions to ensure proper use; be sure you understand how much
to apply.
• Apply repellents only to exposed skin and/or clothing. Do not use under clothing.
• Do not apply near eyes and mouth, and apply sparingly around ears.
• When using sprays, do not spray directly into face; spray on hands first and then apply to face.
• Never use repellents over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
• Do not spray in enclosed areas.
• Avoid breathing a spray product.
• Do not use it near food.
• As with all pesticides, “the label is the law”, meaning that users must read the entire product
label prior to use, and safe use must comply with label requirements.
Monitor application sites for rashes or other signs of dermatitis. Different people have varying levels of
sensitivity and may react differently to different products.
Attachment 2
Recommendations
Picaridin and DEET are low-risk insect repellents that are relatively safe to use when all label instructions
are followed. There is a wide array of consumer product formulations available of each of these
chemicals. Different product formulations can have different rates of the active ingredient as well as
inactive ingredients which may contribute to the human or environmental toxicity of a product.
In lieu of assessing each consumer product separately, the District will instead rely on the signal word
that the U.S. EPA has assigned each product. The District recommends that only repellents with the
active ingredients Picaridin and DEET and the signal word CAUTION should be used in the District.
Insect repellents that have already been purchased by the District with the signal word WARNING, may
be used until empty, but no new repellents with the signal word WARNING or DANGER may be
purchased without approval from the IPM Coordination Team.
Due to the potential for carcinogenicity, acute impacts to the human nervous system, and toxicity to
non-target organisms, permethrin is not recommended for use as an insect repellent on District lands.
District funds should only be used to purchase approved insect repellents. If employees wish to
purchase other repellents using personal funds for personal use they may do so.
Table 1. Insect Repellents selected to add to the District's Approved Pesticide List
Pesticide
Category Active Ingredient Product Formulations Mode of Action Purpose
Insect
Repellents
DEET
Various
(Signal Word:
CAUTION)
Disrupts L-lactic acid
and carbon dioxide
detection
Tick and
mosquito
repellent
Picaridin
Various
(Signal Word:
CAUTION)
Disrupts detection of
host cues
Tick and
mosquito
repellent
Table 2. Additional BMP proposed for use of insect repellents
Table 3. Products currently in use at District Field Offices
37
Insect Repellents and Water Quality – To protect water quality and aquatic organisms, District Staff shall
not come into contact with a water body when skin, boots or clothing is contaminated with insect
repellents.
Product Name Active
Ingredient Concentration Signal Word Recommendation
Repel Tick Defense Picaridin 15% CAUTION Approve
Cutter Advanced Sport
Insect Repellent Picaridin 15% CAUTION Approve
Sawyer Maxi Deet DEET 98% WARNING Use until empty
Johnson Off! Deep Woods DEET 35% CAUTION Approve
Permethrin products Permethrin - - Reject
Attachment 2
Health Assessment of Insect Repellent Active Ingredients
1. DEET
Basic Use Information
Typical target pests: Mosquitos, ticks, gnats.
Every DEET formulation is different, and signal words vary from CAUTION to DANGER. The signal word is
reflective of the entire formulation of inactive or other ingredients. Formulations with 20-30% DEET are
proven to be effective against ticks, mosquitos and other insects, without posing significant risk to the
user.
Exposure Considerations
When DEET and alcohol are applied to the skin, more DEET is taken into the skin compared with DEET
alone. Drinking alcohol may also cause more DEET to be absorbed through the skin. Sunscreen products
that contain DEET may cause more DEET to be taken into the body through the skin. Product labels
should be read carefully before applying DEET with sunscreen. DO NOT apply DEET underneath clothing.
DEET is meant to use periodically as needed. Daily use can lead to increased impacts to human and
environmental health.
Human Toxicity
Acute toxicity
Mild skin irritation, contact dermatitis, exacerbation of preexisting skin disease as well as generalized
urticarial may result from the use of DEET. DEET is very irritating to the eyes but generally does not
cause long-term damage. Excessive use on the skin can lead to rashes and blisters.
DEET is readily absorbed into the skin and is readily found in blood streams after application.
Simultaneous use of sunscreen and sunscreen products formulated with DEET are absorbed at a higher
rate than DEET alone. Products containing alcohol, or an applicator who has recently consumed alcohol
dermally absorb DEET at a higher rate. DEET has been found in human blood streams up to 12 hours
following initial application, but is expected to be mostly excreted within 24 hours.
Chronic toxicity
At this time, no major chronic effects have been attributed to DEET, however, use of DEET on children
has been attributed to rare cases of seizures.
Researchers have not found any evidence that DEET causes cancer in animals or humans. DEET has been
classified by the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as "not classifiable as a
Human Toxicity: Low toxicity when used sparingly according to label instructions. Eye and skin
irritation can occur.
Ecological Toxicity: Slightly toxic to birds, fish, bees and aquatic organisms
Water Pollution Potential: Does not readily break down in water, and can be found in
waterways and wastewater treatment plants.
Other Considerations: DEET can be damaging to some types of fabric.
Attachment 2
human carcinogen", which means that there is not enough evidence to say that it does or does not
cause cancer.
Ecological Toxicity
DEET has been found to degrade some soil bacterium, but has also been found to be metabolized by
some species of soil fungi. DEET is slightly toxic to all birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates.
Physical Properties/ Environmental Fate and Transport
DEET is moderately mobile in soil. In water, DEET does not readily break down and is often found in
waterways after being washed off skin and clothing. DEET can exist as a vapor in ambient air, with a half-
life of 15 hours.
Water Pollution Potential
DEET is practically insoluble in water, and it is often found in the aquatic environment. When DEET is
washed off of a person’s skin or clothing, it can make its way into gray water and waste water treatment
plants. Humans excrete absorbed DEET, and it can be found in sewage.
2. Picaridin
Exposure Considerations
Picaridin is absorbed into the skin at different rates based on dosage, and percent active ingredient in
the product. DO NOT apply under clothing, follow all label instructions.
Human Toxicity
Acute Toxicity
Has been shown to be slightly toxic if ingested orally. Picaridin is considered a mild skin irritant, but
rarely causes dermatitis. Some people can be more sensitive to Picaridin or other ingredients in a
formulation and develop an allergic reaction or dermatitis.
Chronic Toxicity
Some minor effects have been observed after subchronic exposure, including increase in kidney and
liver size, skin irritation, and scabbing. These data come from animal studies, as no human data are
available for chronic effects of picaridin. Animal studies have not shown any evidence of carcinogenicity,
and the EPA has classified picaridin as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans". Animal studies using
gestating rats showed a minor increase in liver size, but no other major effects to the rat or fetus.
Human Toxicity: Low toxicity when used sparingly according to label instructions. Eye and skin
irritation can occur. Slightly toxic if ingested orally but practically non-toxic through inhalation.
Picaridin is not likely to be a carcinogen.
Ecological Toxicity: Picaridin is considered non-toxic to birds. Picaridin is moderately toxic to
fish and may have the ability to bioaccumulate in some species. No information is currently
available on effects to terrestrial invertebrates.
Water Pollution Potential: Picaridin is rapidly degraded by bacteria in water, but readily
adsorbs to suspended sediment within the water.
Other Considerations: Picaridin is a lower risk pesticide than DEET.
Attachment 2
Ecological Toxicity
No information on the effect of picaridin on plants was found. Picaridin is considered to be non-toxic to
birds. Picaridin is moderately toxic to fish and may have the ability to bioaccumulate in some species.
No information is currently available on effects to terrestrial invertebrates.
Physical Properties/ Environmental Fate and Transport
Picaridin is expected to be moderately mobile in soil. It is not expected to volatilize from soil surfaces,
but otherwise has a high potential for volatilization, Picaridin can exist as a vapor in the atmosphere
with a half-life of around 2.3 hours.
Water Pollution Potential
Picaridin has a low potential to volatilize from water. There is no information on its ability to
contaminate groundwater. Picaridin is stable in hydrolysis, meaning it does not readily break down in
water. It is rapidly degraded by bacteria in water, but it is has been discovered in small concentrations at
wastewater treatment plants.
3. Permethrin
Exposure Considerations
Clothing can be purchased with permethrin embedded into the fabric. Generally this is considered safe,
but leads to increased exposure
Human Toxicity
Acute Toxicity
Permethrin is generally thought to have low-moderate toxicity when exposed orally and low to very low
when in other exposure pathways. In animal tests, eye and skin irritation was cleared 3-7 days after
exposure. Dermal exposure in humans can cause tingling and pruritus with blotchy erythema on
exposed skin. In humans, acute effects observed subsequent to ingestion of permethrin included
nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, dizziness, anorexia, and hypersalivation.
Chronic Toxicity
No human carcinogenicity data exists, but based in studies in rats, U.S. EPA has classified permethrin as
"likely to be carcinogenic to humans" by ingestion. In animal tests, effects of pesticide poisoning were
observed in the highest doses, including increased liver weights and negative neurological effects
Human Toxicity: Permethrin is a neurotoxin and can cause effects such nausea, vomiting,
abdominal pain, headache, dizziness, anorexia, and hypersalivation. Permethrin is considered
"likely to be carcinogenic to humans", and will be assessed as an endocrine disruptor
Ecological Toxicity: Permethrin is highly toxic to insects, fish and other aquatic organisms. It is
has low acute toxicity to birds and mammals.
Water Pollution Potential: Permethrin is not likely to pollute groundwater because it readily
forms tight binds with the soil. Most permethrin will bind to sediment in water, which can
persist in the water column for more than a year.
Other Considerations: Permethrin is a neurotoxic insecticide that is also used as an insect
repellent. When used on broad areas, it is considered a restricted use pesticide. Permethrin is
not recommended for use as an insect repellent within the District.
Attachment 2
including tremors. In reproductive animal studies, permethrin has been shown to reduce fetal weights
and contribute to birth defects.
Permethrin is on the list of chemicals to be screened under the U.S. EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program.
Ecological Toxicity
Permethrin is highly toxic to all insects and other invertebrates, and is used as a contact insecticide in
addition to a repellent. Mammals are affected by permethrin, but generally has minimal impact due to
larger body size and faster metabolism. Permethrin has a low toxicity to birds. Some other ingredients in
some formulations can be more toxic to birds.
Fish/Aquatic Life: Highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Permethrin that settles in aquatic sediments
can impact invertebrates that come into contact with the sediment.
Physical Properties/ Environmental Fate and Transport
Permethrin degrades slowly in the soil, with an average half-life of 39.5 days. It can bind tightly to soils,
and is eventually broken down by microbes and the sun. Permethrin has a low potential to volatilize,
but has the potential to drift during applications.
Water Pollution Potential
Permethrin is not likely to pollute groundwater because it readily forms tight binds with the soil. Most
permethrin will bind to sediment in water, which can persist in the water column for more than a year.
Attachment 2
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2003). Toxicological Profile for Pyrethrins and
Pyrethroids. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved
from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp155.pdf
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. (2000). N,N-DIETHYL-META-TOLUAMIDE . Sacramento:
California Environmental Protection Agency.
Figueroa, Z., & Vogel, D. (2006). Re-Evaluation of Exposure Assumptions for KBR 3023 (Picaridin). U.S.
EPA. Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-
070705_30-Nov-06_a.pdf
National Institute of Health. (n.d.). Icaridin. Retrieved from PubChem - Open Chemistry Database:
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/125098#section=Chemical-Vendors
Oregon State University. (n.d.). DEET - Technical Fact Sheet. Retrieved from National Pesticide
Information Center: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/DEETtech.html
Oregon State University. (n.d.). Permethrin - Technical Fact Sheet. Retrieved from National Pesticide
Information Center: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/Permtech.html
Oregon State University. (n.d.). Picaridin - Techinical Fact Sheet. Retrieved from National Pesticide
Information Center: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/Picaridintech.html
U.S. EPA. (1998). Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) DEET. Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. (2005). New Pesticide Fact Sheet - Picaridin. U.S. EPA. Retrieved from
https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-070705_01-
May-05.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2006). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Fact Sheet. Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. (n.d.). Using Insect Repellents Safely and Effectively. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/insect-repellents/using-insect-repellents-safely-and-effectively
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). DEET. Retrieved from TOXNET - Toxicology Data Network:
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+134-62-3
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Picaridin. Retrieved from TOXNET - Toxicology Data Network:
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+7374
Attachment 2
Slender False Brome
Program Report
2019
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM
TOM REYES & COTY SIFUENTES-WINTER
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT | Natural Resources Department
Attachment 3
- 1 -
Summary
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) initiated a program for managing Brachypodium
sylvaticum (slender false brome) in San Mateo County to protect native redwood forests on its preserves and
adjacent private lands. The goal of this program was to eradicate or contain B. sylvaticum in San Mateo
County based on limited populations found on District and surrounding lands. Since May of 2014, a
significant component of this program has been a cooperative partnership with the San Mateo County
Resource Conservation District (RCD) to manage B. sylvaticum on neighboring private parcels that had the
potential for infesting District lands.
Despite intensive treatment efforts for over 10 years, B. sylvaticum continues to expand its range throughout
the Santa Cruz Mountains region, including the recent discovery of two large infestation near Highway 17.
The initial objectives of the District’s program of eradication and containment within San Mateo County are
no longer realistic. The Natural Resource staff proposes changing the emphasis of the regional Slender False
Brome Program (Program) from eradication and containment to control, outreach, education, and mapping.
Treatment would continue on District lands with the goal of protecting sensitive resources. The goal of
treatment on only critical private properties would be to prevent further infestation to District lands. The
regional infestation is now widely distributed, severely hampering the ability for the District to accomplish
the original intent to eradicate B. sylvaticum. Increasing outreach and partnership with neighboring agencies
and community groups is essential to keep the noxious weed under control.
Attachment 3
- 2 -
Program History
The District has a long history of B. sylvaticum management. On December 14, 2005, the District’s Board of
Directors (Board) approved a ten-year plan to control SFB in Thornewood Open Space Preserve and the
surrounding Woodside neighborhoods (R-05-122). During this time, a part-time contingent employee with
the assistance of a part-time intern managed the District’s Program. The District expanded the Program on
March 26, 2014, when the Board approved a three year Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) with the RCD to
coordinate with neighbors and manage SFB on private properties in the Woodside area (R-14-48).
On March 9, 2016, staff presented to the Board a Ten-year Status Report and recommended the
“Continuation of a Slender False Brome Integrated Pest Management Program” (R-16-21). The Board voted
7-0 to continue the Program on District preserves and nearby private parcels for an approximate program
cost of $1,250,000 over the next ten years ($1,000,000 on private parcels and $250,000 on District lands).
With this authorization, in 2017 the District extended the Agreement with the RCD to manage the program
for up to three more years(R-17-78). Tasks assigned to the RCD include communicating with the private
property owners, surveying their properties, treating B. sylvaticum therein, conducting post-treatment
surveys, and submitting progress reports to the District. The District has funded treatment of B. sylvaticum
on District Preserves and on nearby private properties.
Research
In addition to, and as part of the Agreement, the RCD has been a partner in a joint research study with Santa
Clara University and the District. One of the focus of the Principal Investigator’s lab (Dr. Virginia Matzek) at
Santa Clara University is research examining the ecology of invasive species and how pest species
management relates to ecosystem service provision. The aim of the joint research is to quantify the efficacy
of non-chemical treatment methods of B. sylvaticum and determine the seed bank longevity. Preliminary
results are showing a greater than 90% reduction in germination of B. sylvaticum using wood chips as a
mulch.
Natural Resource staff expect a final report of the research in December of 2019 and will share the results
with the Board as part of the 2019 Annual IPM Report. As part of the agreement, Matzek will present the
findings of the research to a professional society, such as the California Invasive Species Counsel symposium.
In addition, a joint paper written by Matzek and the District’s Senior Resource Management Specialist (Coty
Sifuentes-Winter) will be submitted to a scientific journal of publication.
Treatment History
Since 2015, crews (made up of District staff, contractors, volunteers, and private homeowners) have treated
B. sylvaticum on at least 105 private properties and across a total of 106 acres. Treatments have consisted of
hand removal, covering with black plastic, and/or targeted application of glyphosate (for mature plants) or
Envoy Plus (for seedlings). Surveys and treatment on private lands occurred within a 7,000 foot buffer
around District preserves known to have B. sylvaticum infestations. These preserves include Thornewood, El
Corte de Madera, and La Honda Creek Open Space Preserves (OSP). The RCD has surveyed an additional 34
properties in critical areas of the infestation, consisting of 1,243 acres, and found them free of B. sylvaticum.
Attachment 3
- 3 -
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF RCD COORDINATED B. SYLVATICUM TREATMENTS ON PRIVATE LANDS
Year Acres Surveyed Acres Treated Parcels Treated
2014 106 86 52
2015 84.2 57 89
2016 72 62 88
2017 87 79 71
2018 4.8 1 66.5 70
Some properties have been a part of the Program for many years and have shown significant decreases in B.
sylvaticum cover. Monitoring of B. sylvaticum since the initiation of treatment shows a 57% average
reduction in B. sylvaticum for participants who have been in the program for up to 5 years, while those who
have been participating in the program for longer have seen an average reduction of 74%. Due to treatment
challenges, only a small percentage of private properties have seen these reductions in percent cover.
Treatment Challenges
Coordination of surveys, treatments, and monitoring across more than 100 private properties is a difficult
task, exacerbated by turnover in property ownership and absentee or unresponsive homeowners. For long-
term management to be successful, consistent annual follow-up must occur until the crews have exhausted
the seedbank, estimated at 6 years. Additionally, without 100% participation in the Program in any given
community, eradication is not possible. Untreated properties can serve as a seed source to re-infest treated
properties, and undermine previous successes. Reductions in percent cover of B. sylvaticum have been
achieved in individual parcels that have undergone consistent treatment. However, because this infestation
crosses many jurisdictional boundaries, it is important to assess overall success at a wider scale. While some
gains may be lost by scaling back treatments on private lands, shifting resources towards surveys will provide
crucial information to develop a more successful regional strategy in the future.
In 2006, the District worked with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to help list SFB as
a state-listed noxious weed, which gives County Agricultural Commissioners the discretion to mandate weed
abatement on private properties. Mandatory abatement is unlikely at this stage of the infestation. However,
had it been pursued at a much earlier stage of the infestation, the likelihood of eradication would have
increased drastically.
Slender False Brome Expansion in the Region
In 2009, staff estimated the total net area of land infested with B. sylvaticum to be 100 acres (40 acres of
District land and 60 acres of adjacent private lands) with varying percent cover from 1% to 38%. This
assessment underestimated the extent of the B. sylvaticum infestation, as surveys were not conducted
1 A change in the 2018 Scope of Services reduced survey frequency on private properties from every year to every
three years to align with the Best Management Practices associated with the District’s IPM Program. In previous
years, all sites were surveyed prior to treatment in a given year rather than on a 3-year cycle.
Attachment 3
- 4 -
outside of the Woodside area prior to 2015. Staff now estimate the San Mateo County B. sylvaticum
infestation to be at least 196 acres (40 acres of District land and 156 acres of adjacent private lands) due to
an increase in the search area of adjacent private lands. Although the estimated 40 acres on District land has
not decreased, the percent cover and work hours treating B. sylvaticum has decreased over time. For
example, at El Corte de Madera OSP, treatment hours have reduced from a high of 66 hours to 24 hours to
cover the same area.
In 2017 and 2018, a high regarded botanist affiliated with the University of California, Santa Cruz identified
two large populations of B. sylvaticum near Hwy 17 on private land during a review of a timber harvest plan.
The estimated area infested is approximately 12 acres with a plant population size of 5,000 individuals. The
discovery of a healthy and robust population well outside of the area of focus for the Program suggests that
there are currently unmapped seed sources and vectors (most likely trucks and equipment) that are
contributing to the expansion of the B. sylvaticum population in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
In addition to B. sylvaticum being present on District preserves and nearby private properties, it is important
to note that B. sylvaticum is known to infest other public lands, including Wunderlich County Park, California
Water Service lands in Woodside, and near Big Basin State Park. These infestations have not been addressed
as a part of the Program, and in some cases have continued to expand unchecked. With the alteration in B.
sylvaticum strategy, the District and RCD aim to work more closely with other land management agencies to
coordinate cross-boundary surveys and treatments. With the continued expansion of B. sylvaticum on
private parcels well outside of the original boundaries, neither eradication nor containment is possible.
Attachment 3
- 5 -
Conclusions
It has become apparent that eradication, as well as containment, is not possible due to a number of factors
discussed in this report. Staff recommends modifying the objective of the project to place additional focus on
outreach, education, and mapping. Some small-scale treatments on private lands would continue in strategic
locations determined by the District and RCD, and focus on locations with the greatest resource value and
high chances of long-term success.
The District and the RCD have regular meetings every two to three months to give project updates and
discuss priorities and strategies. To date, the RCD has focused outreach and treatment efforts on a 7,000 foot
buffer around infested District preserves. Due to the spread of S B. sylvaticum well beyond the 7,000 foot
buffer, the District and RCD are continuing to work together to develop a strategy to gain a better
understanding of the full regional extent of B. sylvaticum. Under the recommended change in program
objectives, the RCD would focus on unsurveyed parcels regardless of ownership in key watersheds that are
likely to harbor B. sylvaticum infestations. These watersheds include El Corte de Madera Creek, Tunitas
Creek, and Bull Run Creek (see Attachment 2). Conducting surveys at the watershed level are critical due to
the capacity for B. sylvaticum to use riparian systems to disperse their seed.
The RCD would also prioritize outreach to the larger Santa Cruz Mountains community to increase awareness
of B. sylvaticum and advocate for more mapping and treatment throughout the region. Outreach would
include regional coordination with the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, Weed Management
Areas, neighboring RCDs, and land management agencies within San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz
counties. Due to the growing expansion of B. sylvaticum in the region, increased regional collaboration is
imperative to prevent a widespread infestation.
Some increases in regional outreach are already underway. The District and RCD presented on the Program at
the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network’s Invasives Workshop on April 11, 2019. Through this
workshop, the District hopes to raise awareness of the spread of B. sylvaticum, and discuss opportunities for
the various agencies and land managers to work on B. sylvaticum control collaboratively. Additionally, the
RCD has worked with San Mateo County Parks to submit a grant application that would include survey and
treatment into Wunderlich County Park, which would add a much needed component to the Program.
Attachment 3
- 6 -
Acknowledgements
Name Organization Title
ARMS Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
Volunteers
Dickey, Kathleen San Mateo County Resource
Conservation District
Conservation Program
Coordinator (Former)
Gartside, Ellen Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
Volunteer Program Lead
Matzek, Virginia, PhD Santa Clara University Associate Professor
Mills, Amanda Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
Resource Management Specialist
II
Preserve Partners Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
Volunteers
Reyes, Tom Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
IPM Coordinator
Sifuentes-Winter, Coty Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District
Senior Resource Management
Specialist
Tuday, Cleopatra San Mateo County Resource
Conservation District
Conservation Program
Coordinator
Attachment 3
TO: Coty Sifuentes-Winter DATE: June 9, 2019
MROSD Senior Resource Management Specialist
Tom Reyes
MROSD Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
FROM: Louise Addis, Kathi Olsen & others (see below), Grandview/Espinosa Neighborhood
CC: Selena Brown
SUBJECT: Slender False Brome (SFB), another fire hazard
1. BACKGROUND:
We are part of the Grandview/Espinosa neighborhood of 37 properties located on the up hill border of
MROSD’s Thornewood Open Space in Woodside.
One of us, Kathi Olsen has been the de facto neighborhood organizer of some small volunteer efforts to help
hand pull the noxious invasive Slender False Brome grass along our two roads. But, though several of us
have gotten down and dirty pulling by hand, the major control has come via the MROSD/SMCCD
contractor and reimbursement program.
Almost everyone in our neighborhood has worked directly with the SFB coordinators: first, Ellen Gartside
from MROSD who got us going, and now Cleo Tuday from San Mateo County who has provided
wonderful ongoing coordination and help.
And, almost everyone now understands the negative impact of uncontrolled SFB as it displaces native plants,
ruins pasture (nothing grazes it), suppresses forest regeneration, degrades wildlife habitat, and increases fire
risk by building up heavy layers of thatch.
As you know from the Coordinator reports, the project to eliminate infestations of SFB from local
properties has been quite successful but will require ongoing efforts in the future. And, unfortunately, there
are still a few properties with major infestations.
2. HOPES FOR CONTINUATION OF THE SFB ERADICATION PROGRAM:
We have been most grateful to MROSD for their role in funding & ongoing sponsorship of this
important eradication program & are hoping that it will continue beyond the original 10-year
timeline.
It is clear to us that property owners alone trying to keep up the work started by contractors would be
inadequate, especially where the growth has been dense or treatment not yet authorized. And for the several
key property owners who require non-herbicide control, it is particularly important that the program
continue to include a hand pulling option. Also as properties are sold, new owners need education and help.
After all the hard work, we don’t want lose the significant progress we’ve made against this subtly
aggressive grass. And we realize that any lack of control in our neighborhood will directly impact
Thornewood below us as seed drifts downstream thru the watershed, an effect already seen this spring.
Attachment 4
3. FIRE RISK
We are especially concerned now that we realize what a fire hazard the established clumps of SFB perennial
grass and dry thatch can become in just a few seasons of neglect.
4. SUMMARY
Please keep up the good work and continue to support the Contractor and Reimbursement
Program to control, and even eradicate, SFB in the Grandview/Espinosa area and its surrounds!
5. SUPPORT - The following Grandview/Espinosa neighbors have asked that their names be
included in support of this letter to MROSD:
Louise Addis
Grandview
Ryan and Lindsay Amos
Espinosa
Joe Androlowicz
Grandview
Oliver Bock
Espinosa
Roger Choplin & Carol Mone
Grandview
Rob & Lisa Cochran
Grandview
Michael & Hagar Dickman
Grandview
Joan Donath
Espinosa
David & Susie Dubbs
Espinosa
William Fender & Kathi Olsen
Grandview
Ned & Katy Fluet
La Honda Rd.
Don Gustavson & Margie Lee
Grandview
Tim & Clair Johnson
Attachment 4
Espinosa
Matt & Kristin Davis
Grandview
Don & Sherry Langrock
Grandview
Terilynn Langsev
Grandview
Scott Larson
Grandview
Heath & Carrie Lukatch
Grandview
Linda Schweizer
Grandview
Pam Stratton & Greg Cardoza
Espinosa
Ella van Gool & Charlie Watt
Espinosa
Dmetriy & Nataliya Voloshin
Espinosa
Attachment 4
R-19-91
Meeting 19-18
July 10, 2019
AGENDA ITEM 9
AGENDA ITEM
Authorization to Purchase Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2019–20
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California
Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for one patrol vehicle, four
maintenance vehicles, and one administrative office pool vehicle for a total cost not-to-
exceed $391,500.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California
Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for one mowing tractor for a
total cost not-to-exceed $188,000.
SUMMARY
Annually, the District purchases vehicles and machinery to provide transportation and required
equipment for administrative, maintenance, patrol, and capital projects staff. These vehicles and
machinery are purchased through an existing contract with the California Department of General
Services (DGS), which provides significant cost savings. All of the vehicles proposed for
purchase for Fiscal Year 2019–20 (FY2019–20) are either replacement vehicles or additional
vehicles needed to serve increased staffing and project demands. The total cost of vehicles and
equipment for FY2019–20 is not-to-exceed $579,500.
DISCUSSION
Annually, the District purchases vehicles and machinery to provide transportation and required
equipment for administrative, maintenance, and patrol staff. These vehicles and machinery are
purchased through an existing contract (cooperative purchasing or “piggybacking”) with DGS.
As set forth in Board Policy 3.03, Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant
Selection, and Purchasing Policy, cooperative purchasing on pricing obtained by another public
agency through the competitive bidding process provides the opportunity to realize significant
cost savings. All of the vehicles proposed for purchase for FY2019–20 either replace current
vehicles that have reached replacement guidelines or are additional vehicles needed to serve
increased staffing and project demands. The District’s Fleet Replacement Guidelines were
updated in March 2019 to increase the mileage threshold for retirement (see Attachment 1).
Different mileage and age standards are used for field and administrative vehicles because use on
R-19-91 Page 2
preserve fire roads puts significantly more wear and tear on field vehicles, and emergency
response vehicles have a higher standard for reliability. The vehicles proposed for replacement
in FY2019–20 have been evaluated based upon these updated guidelines, as well as vehicle
condition and repair history.
As additional and replacement vehicles are purchased, they are evaluated to reduce fuel
consumption. Examples of vehicles purchased in that effort are:
1. Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles for the administrative office (AO).
2. Smaller Ford F150 trucks for seasonal ranger aides.
3. Smaller Ford F150s (without fire pumpers) to replace some large F350s (with fire
pumpers) in the ranger pool.
4. Diesel trucks for field offices when available and appropriate (in 2018, the District
replaced conventional diesel with renewable diesel in the field office fuel tank stations).
The additional vehicles and equipment proposed for FY2019–20 are necessary to support
increased staffing for FY2019–20 and provide improved energy efficiency and reduce costs over
the long term through the ownership versus ongoing rental of high-demand vehicles and
equipment. In meeting MAA commitments and expanding the acreage of protected land and the
number of new public access facilities, the District has expanded its maintenance and
construction crews. The District has been conservative in adding specialized vehicles and
equipment to ensure there is a need for the equipment over the long term. Over the past few
years, there have been multiple demands placed on existing District equipment during the same
time periods by various crews, leading to project delays and/or an increase reliance in renting
specialized vehicles. Even though there are fewer MAA capital projects ready for crew
construction in FY2019-20, District crews are still challenged to keep up with work demands on
deferred road and trail maintenance, fuel reduction projects, and resource management work.
When there is a continual need for specialized maintenance vehicles and heavy equipment,
purchasing, as opposed to renting, allows crews (special projects and general maintenance) to
expedite the scheduling and transportation of equipment for projects. In particular, as illustrated
by the proposed vehicle purchases, there has been a high demand for trucks in the midsize range
to haul trailers, material, and equipment into remote locations that are only accessible by narrow
dirt roads. Relying on a rental company’s stock of vehicles and equipment can compromise
efficiency and quality, and risk project delays while waiting for vehicle/equipment availability. It
is impossible to preplan and reserve rental equipment far enough in advance to ensure efficient
operations given all the variables faced both by District crews and rental companies, including
weather, breakdowns, and unknown site conditions. Additionally, rental costs for short-term
rentals are very high, as is the transportation cost per hour of use. Given the ongoing need for
the proposed equipment and vehicles for capital, resource management, and general
maintenance/fuel management projects, it is often more cost-effective to purchase these vehicles
and equipment. Renting equipment or vehicles is more efficient for occasional short-term needs
for readily available equipment or vehicles.
If the vehicles and equipment are not available through the DGS contracts, staff will attempt to
purchase using contracts from other approved cooperative purchasing agreements. If no
contracts are available that meet District needs, staff will return to the Board for authorization to
solicit bids directly from the dealer(s).
R-19-91 Page 3
Further details on the current fleet and proposed additions are in Attachment 2.
Vehicles
The following vehicles are proposed for purchase:
• Replacement: One patrol vehicle and one maintenance vehicle have reached the end of
their useful life.
o The maintenance vehicle is currently 12 years old with a mileage of 120,980 as of
March 2019.
o The patrol vehicle is currently 10 years old with a mileage of 86,587 as of March
2019, with a projected mileage (8700 miles/year average) of over 95,000 at
replacement time (late Spring 2020). This vehicle is also in need of at least $3,000
of body work that the District declined to repair in anticipation of retiring it.
These end-of-life vehicles will be sold at public auction and replaced with new vehicles.
• Repurpose/Additional: A Ford Escape hybrid SUV from the AO pool vehicle will be
repurposed and relocated to the Skyline Field Office (SFO) to be used by the SFO Ranger
Aide on the weekends (Ranger Aides concentrate on high use areas and do not require
highly capable off-road vehicles). This vehicle will also serve as a fuel-efficient carpool
vehicle for SFO staff to take to the AO and other off-site meetings and trainings that are
accessed via paved roads during the workweek. Providing a high-capacity, hybrid vehicle
for this purpose is in direct support of the District’s Climate Action Plan Strategy V6:
o Purchase one hybrid or long-range electric vehicle for each field office for
highway/town travel and on-road maintenance projects.
A fully electric passenger vehicle will be purchased for the AO to replace the hybrid
SUV that is moved to SFO. Acquisition of this electric vehicle directly supports the
District’s Climate Action Plan Strategy V5:
o As administrative vehicles are up for replacement, replace with electric or hybrid
vehicles wherever possible.
• Additional: A dump truck, is proposed for the Special Projects Crew at FFO. The District
has been renting a Ford F550 dump truck for the past 18 months (at a cost of about
$30,000) in support of assigned projects such as Bear Creek Redwoods road and trail
work and Hendry’s Creek land restoration work. By purchasing the vehicle, the District
will be able to specify the safety equipment, drive terrain, engine size, dump lift capacity,
toolbox configuration, length of the wheelbase, tire size and tread, and body that is most
suitable for off-road District needs as well as install the District’s communications radio
system. A dump truck designed for District use will continue to be valuable for future
projects, including planned trail projects at Bear Creek Redwoods as part of Phase II
work and trail work at the former Beatty property.
• Additional: One medium-sized flatbed dump service maintenance vehicle is proposed for
the FFO. This vehicle will enhance employee safety when towing heavy equipment. It
can also be used for hauling material on narrow road-width trails that larger trucks cannot
access. Additionally, this vehicle can be used to transport the District’s 700-gallon skid
R-19-91 Page 4
mount water tank to provide water for road and trail projects (dust control, fire safety)
where the road is inaccessible to the larger water trucks.
• Additional: One maintenance vehicle is proposed to be assigned to the new Lead
Resource Management Technician. As part of the FY2019-20 budget, this new position
has been approved to support the District’s increased demands for resource management
projects and mitigation work. This position will require a dedicated vehicle that can be
outfitted to the specific needs of the position, such as off-road capability and the ability to
carry tools and equipment necessary for resource management projects. Staff is
evaluating a Ford F150-size diesel vehicle that can be refueled with renewable diesel at
the field office pumping stations.
Equipment (See Attachment 3 for image)
The following equipment is proposed for purchase:
• Additional: Mowing tractor assigned to SFO – This mowing tractor will be used for deck
mowing to maintain vegetation on District fire-roads, masticating, discing fuel breaks,
and for fuel reduction mowing as part of the District’s fire management program. It will
also be used to mow thistle and other non-natives in our grassland areas. This tractor will
accommodate multiple mowing attachments for different tasks. The District already owns
one tractor with these capabilities. Mowing, masticating, and discing all occur over the
course of a few months when vegetation starts to dry out and before the intense fire
season. With this tractor, crew can operate both tractors at the same time to more
aggressively clear vegetation for fire safety. Ownership, rather than renting, means it will
be configured for safer operation in the rugged terrain where crew works, configured to
work with the attachments the District owns, and the operators will be more familiar with
the controls, which is essential while operating in difficult terrain. The requirement to
clear more vegetation prior to fire season is increasing. Two tractors operating together
can utilize the same traffic control and fire safety staffing and double the production
when working together.
The table below contains the breakdown of estimated costs by vehicle and equipment. Costs
include tools and equipment needed to outfit the vehicles installed by the manufacturers, which
can vary depending upon the function of each vehicle.
Vehicle Description Additional or Replacement Cost Quantity Total
Vehicles
Patrol Vehicle:
Ford F350 pickup or
similar
Replacement $56,000 1 $56,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F350 with Tommy
Lift
Replacement $66,000 1 $66,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F550 Dump Truck
(Special Projects)
Additional $99,000 1 $99,000
R-19-91 Page 5
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F550 Flatbed
Dump Truck
Additional $88,000 1 $88,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F150 Diesel
(Resource Management)
Additional $44,000 1 $44,000
Administrative Vehicle:
Chevrolet Bolt or
similar electric
Additional/Replacement for
Repurposed Hybrid
$38,500 1 $38,500
Vehicle Total $391,500
Equipment Description Additional or Replacement Cost Quantity Total
Equipment
Maintenance
Equipment:
Mowing Tractor
Additional $188,000 1 $188,000
Equipment Total $188,000
Grand Total $579,500
The cost savings between the proposed purchase contract and the amount originally budgeted
reflect a revaluation of several of the vehicles proposed during budget development.
• Two trucks were within the replacement guidelines but have good service histories.
Replacement of these trucks has been deferred to the following fiscal year.
• The purchase of new electric motorcycles (noncapital equipment budget) and sharing of
the Ford Escape avoid the need to purchase two new vehicles to support Rangers patrols
and site visits by the Ranger Aides.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2019–20 District budget includes $539,500 for District Vehicles and $188,000 for Field
Equipment. There is sufficient funding in the General Fund Capital budget to cover the
recommended purchase contracts. A budget adjustment will be requested in Quarter 1 (Q1) to
reduce the vehicle budget by $148,000 and will be included in the Q1 Board Report.
FY2019–20
District Vehicle Budget $539,500
Spent to date (as of 07/10/2019): $0
Encumbrances: $0
DGS Purchase Contract (Vehicles): $391,500
Budget Remaining (Adopted): $148,000
FY2019–20
District Machinery (Equipment) Budget $188,000
Spent to date (as of 07/10/2019): $0
Encumbrances: $0
DGS Purchase Contract (Machinery): $188,000
Budget Remaining (Adopted): $0
R-19-91 Page 6
Three-year Capital Budget
Budget Vehicles Machinery Total
FY2018–19
Amended
$512,604
$319,390
$831,994
FY2019–20
Adopted
$539,500
$188,000
$727,500
Proposed $391,500 $188,000 $579,500
Savings $148,000 $0 $148,000
FY2020–21
Projected
$549,000
$320,000
$869,000
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
There was no Committee review for this agenda item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
No environmental review is required as the recommended action is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, staff will prepare purchase orders for the vehicles and equipment
utilizing the State of California Department of General Services contracts or other approved
cooperative procurement contract.
Attachments
1. Fleet Replacement Guidelines
2. District Vehicle Fleet Report
3. Equipment Image
Responsible Department Head:
Michael Jurich, Land & Facilities Services
Prepared by:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II
M
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Fleet Replacement Guidelines
March 11, 2019
The following serve as general guidelines for replacing vehicles and equipment based on
usage, operating costs, and down time. Adjustments in time or miles will be made to
replacement criteria for individual units as conditions warrant.
PATROL (CODE 3) VEHICLES
7–10 years and/or 90–100,000 miles
MAINTENANCE TRUCKS
10–15 years and/or 95–110,000 miles
ADMIN VEHICLES
20 years and/or 110–130,000 miles
EQUIPMENT TRANSPORT TRAILERS
15–20 years
TRACTORS/EXCAVATORS
15 years and 5,000 hours
FIRE APPARATUS
Slip-On Pumper Units
15 years
As new and replacement vehicles are purchased they are evaluated to reduce fuel
consumption. Examples of vehicles purchased in that effort are 1) plug-in hybrids for the
administrative office, 2) smaller Ford F150 trucks for seasonal ranger aides, 3) smaller Ford
F150s (without fire pumpers) to replace some large F350s (with fire pumpers) in the ranger
pool, and 4) diesel trucks for field offices when available and appropriate (in 2018, the District
replaced conventional diesel with renewable diesel in the field office fuel tank stations).
Several additional measures may be evaluated in the future. An evaluation of the Fire
Program may recommend removing pumpers from most patrol trucks and purchasing more
effective patrol rigs for fire suppression. Electric vehicles, from standard sedans to electric
motorcycles and ATVs, have been evaluated and as their technology improves, we will likely
recommend electric vehicle purchases in the future. The need for four-wheel drive and
specialty vehicles limits the ability to green the fleet until technology catches up to those types
of vehicles, but we will continue to include fuel economy in evaluating purchases.
In addition to reducing fuel consumption, the fleet is also evaluated for reducing expenditures
and utilizing the life of vehicles up to the point where the maintenance cost, safety issues, fuel
consumption, and reliability issues make the sale of old vehicles and the purchase of new
vehicles cost effective. Currently we rely on the approved replacement guidelines, but we
evaluate individual vehicles for use beyond the mileage and age guidelines. In particular,
retired Visitor Services SUVs are evaluated for use at the administrative office when four-
wheel drive vehicles are needed. Currently one retired patrol vehicle, a Ford Expedition, is
being used in this capacity. As the longevity of vehicles improves, particularly in the
administrative vehicle fleet, mileage and age guidelines can be adjusted if vehicles are lasting
longer.
Attachment 1
1
District Vehicle Fleet Report
July 10, 2019
The District maintains an inventory of 91 vehicles of various models and types based on the needs of
different departments and job functions. Our fleet replacement guidelines, last updated March 11, 2019,
establish that we replace emergency vehicles between 7–10 years and/or 90–100,000 miles, replace
maintenance vehicles between 10–15 years and/or 95–110,000 miles, and replace administrative
vehicles at 20 years and/or between 110–130,000 miles. Adjustments to the criteria for individual unit
replacement are made depending on condition, operating costs, and down time.
The type of field vehicle purchased and the assignment are made based on department and position
needs. The typical field vehicle is a four-wheel drive truck or sports utility vehicle. Field vehicles are
assigned to supervisors/managers; all other trucks are shared vehicles. The exception is resident patrol
staff and some resident maintenance staff, who are assigned vehicles to take home for call-out
availability.
The type of administrative office (AO) vehicles purchased is usually a compact SUV or similar sedan,
including hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles. Some AO vehicles must be four-wheel drive to
enable staff to drive off-road in preserves. Additionally, some of the SUVs need to have higher seating
capacity for carpooling large groups. All AO vehicles are shared, with the exception of one vehicle that is
assigned to the Visitor Services Manager, two department vehicles for Engineering & Construction, and
one department vehicle each for Real Property, Natural Resources, and Land and Facilities Services.
These vehicles are assigned to staff and departments due to their routine trips into the field to review
projects and to meet with contractors, consultants, and other staff.
Breakdown of fleet vehicles:
PATROL EMERGENCY VEHICLES
Emergency vehicles replaced between 7–10 years and/or 90–100,000 miles
FY18–19
• (33) vehicles total, ~36 staff including Ranger Aides and Seasonal Rangers
o (9) SUVs or Light Truck (Ford Expedition or Ford F150 typical)
Assigned to Visitor Services Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle), Area Superintendents
(2 staff, 2 vehicles), Patrol Supervisors (5 staff, 5 vehicles), Ranger Aides (2
staff, 1 vehicles – one SUV hybrid vehicle that was intended for retirement FY18–
19, was repurposed for the Ranger Aide position)
o (18) One ton trucks outfitted with 125 gallon slip on fire pumpers (Ford F350 typical)
Resident rangers are assigned their own vehicle for after hours call-out
availability (8 staff, 8 vehicles).
Trucks assigned to field office pools (10 vehicles).
o (6) Light truck (Ford F150 typical)
Attachment 2
2
Trucks assigned to field office pools and Seasonal Rangers.
FY19–20
• (33) vehicles total (no additional vehicles), ~36 staff including Ranger Aides and Seasonal
Rangers
o (9) SUVs or Light Truck (Ford Expedition or Ford F150 typical)
Assigned to Visitor Services Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle), Area Superintendents
(2 staff, 2 vehicles), Patrol Supervisors (5 staff, 5 vehicles), Ranger Aides (2
staff, 1 vehicle; SFO Ranger Aide will use repurposed AO hybrid on weekends)
o (18) One ton trucks outfitted with 125 gallon slip on fire pumpers (Ford F350 typical)
Resident rangers are assigned their own vehicle for after hours call-out
availability (8 staff, 8 vehicles).
Trucks assigned to field office pools (10 vehicles)
o (6) Light truck (Ford F150 typical)
Trucks assigned to field office pools and Seasonal Rangers.
MAINTENANCE VEHICLES
Maintenance vehicles replaced between 10–15 years and/or 95–110,000 miles
FY18–19
• (44) vehicles total, ~57 staff
o (10) Trucks w/four-wheel drive (Ford F150 or Toyota Tacoma typical)
Assigned to Area Managers (2 staff, 2 vehicles), Maintenance Supervisors (6
staff, 6 vehicles), Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and Facilities Maintenance
Specialist (2 staff, 1 vehicle), Capital Projects Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle).
o (6) Commercial trucks (not assigned to staff) (Peterbuilt or International typical)
Vehicles are two (2) water trucks and four (4) large dump trucks for various
projects and transporting large equipment.
o (28) Service Trucks (28 vehicles, 29 permanent staff and 17 seasonal staff)
(12) Specialty four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F550 typical). Five (5) trucks are flat
bed with dump capabilities, two (2) are one-yard dump bed trucks, and five (5)
are service body vehicles set up for Equipment Mechanic/Operator use.
(16) Standard four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F350 typical). Trucks are configured
for different needs; most have utility bodies for project work and transporting
staff. Some are configured for specialty use, such as spray rigs.
FY19–20
• (48) vehicles total (4 additional vehicles, including one repurposed from AO), ~58 staff
o (11) Trucks w/four-wheel drive (Ford F150 or Toyota Tacoma typical)
Assigned to Area Managers (2 staff, 2 vehicles), Maintenance Supervisors (6
staff, 6 vehicles), Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and Facilities Maintenance
Specialist (2 staff, 1 vehicle), Capital Projects Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle),
Resource Lead Open Space Technician and Resource Open Space Technician
(2 staff, 1 vehicle).
o (6) Commercial trucks (not assigned to staff) (Peterbuilt or International typical)
Vehicles are two (2) water trucks and four (4) large dump trucks for various
projects and transporting large equipment.
o (30) Service Trucks (30 vehicles, 30 permanent staff and 17 seasonal staff)
(14) Specialty four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F550 typical). Five (5) trucks are flat
bed with dump capabilities, two (2) are one-yard dump bed trucks, and five (5)
are service body vehicles set up for Equipment Mechanic/Operator use.
(16) Standard four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F350 typical). Trucks are configured
for different needs; most have utility bodies for project work and transporting
staff. Some are configured for specialty use, such as spray rigs.
Attachment 2
3
o (1) Hybrid Carpool SUV (not assigned to staff)
(1) Hybrid SUV repurposed from the AO fleet to provide a fuel-efficient alternative
for Skyline Field Office staff to attend meetings and trainings.
ADMINISTRATION VEHICLES
Administration vehicles replaced at 20 years and/or between 110–130,000 miles
FY18–19
• (14) vehicles total, ~99 staff
o (7) Vehicles shared by all administration staff, available for reservation via internal
Outlook calendar
Two (2) hybrid cars (Toyota Prius typical), two (2) hybrid SUVs (Ford Escape),
three (3) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Ford Explorer/Toyota 4Runner typical.)
o (5) Trucks with four-wheel drive (Ford F150 typical)
Two (2) vehicles assigned to Engineering & Construction Department, one (1)
assigned to Natural Resources Department, two (2) assigned to Volunteer
Program Leads.
o (2) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Jeep Wranglers)
One (1) assigned to Land & Facilities Department and one (1) to Real Property
Department.
FY19–20
• (14) vehicles total (no additional vehicles), ~103 staff
o (7) Vehicles shared by all administration staff, available for reservation via internal
Outlook calendar
One (1) electric car (Chevrolet Bolt typical), two (2) hybrid cars (Toyota Prius
typical), one (1) hybrid SUV (Ford Escape), three (3) SUVs with four-wheel drive
(Ford Explorer/Toyota 4Runner typical).
o (5) Trucks with four-wheel drive (Ford F150 typical)
Two (2) vehicles assigned to Engineering & Construction Department, one (1)
assigned to Natural Resources Department, two (2) assigned to Volunteer
Program Leads.
o (2) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Jeep Wranglers)
One (1) assigned to Land & Facilities Department and one (1) to Real Property
Department.
Employee-to-Vehicle Ratio Table
FY
2018–19
FY
2018–19
Proposed
for FY
2019–20
Proposed
for FY
2019–20
FY
2018–19
Proposed
for FY
2019–20
Proposed for FY2019–20
Employee
Category
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
t
y
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
t
y
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
*
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
*
Ranger 36 33 36 33 0 0 1 0
Maintenance 57 26 58 28 18 20 1 4**
Administrative 100 14 104 14 0 0 1** 0
Total 193 73 198 75 18 20 3 4
Attachment 2
4
Fleet Program Evaluation
The current guidelines are working effectively to provide the vehicles necessary for the administrative and
field need for vehicles. As the District grows, we are making efforts to reduce the ratio of staff to vehicles.
The need for vehicles for administrative staff is relatively light. However, field staff need to move from the
field offices into preserves every day. Patrol staff perform solo patrols, so generally all on-duty Visitor
Services field staff need a vehicle. The Visitor Services Department is continuing the transition from
trucks assigned to each ranger to a shared fleet of trucks. The Land and Facilities Services Department
field staff perform work in crews ranging from one individual to an entire crew. This necessitates a shared
fleet. There are also specialty vehicles, such as the commercial trucks, that require a commercial driver’s
license to operate, so they generally do not contribute to transportation of staff into the field.
As new and replacement vehicles are purchased they are evaluated to reduce fuel consumption.
Examples of vehicles purchased in that effort are 1) plug-in hybrids for the administrative office, 2) smaller
Ford F150 trucks for seasonal ranger aides, 3) smaller Ford F150s (without fire pumpers) to replace some
large F350s (with fire pumpers) in the ranger pool, and 4) diesel trucks for field offices when available and
appropriate (in 2018, the District replaced conventional diesel with renewable diesel in the field office fuel
tank stations).
Several additional measures may be evaluated in the future. An evaluation of the Fire Program may
recommend removing pumpers from most patrol trucks and purchasing more effective patrol rigs for fire
suppression. Electric vehicles, from standard sedans to electric motorcycles and ATVs, have been
evaluated and as their technology improves, we will likely recommend electric vehicle purchases in the
future. The need for four-wheel drive and specialty vehicles limits the ability to green the fleet until
technology catches up to those types of vehicles, but we will continue to include fuel economy in
evaluating purchases.
In addition to reducing fuel consumption, the fleet is also evaluated for reducing expenditures and utilizing
the life of vehicles up to the point where the maintenance cost, safety issues, fuel consumption, and
reliability issues make the sale of old vehicles and the purchase of new vehicles cost effective. Currently
we rely on the approved replacement guidelines, but we evaluate individual vehicles for use beyond the
mileage and age guidelines. In particular, retired Visitor Services SUVs are evaluated for use at the
administrative office when four-wheel drive vehicles are needed. Currently one retired patrol vehicle, a
Ford Expedition, is being used in this capacity. As the longevity of vehicles improves, particularly in the
administrative vehicle fleet, mileage and age guidelines can be adjusted if vehicles are lasting longer.
Attachment 2
Attachment 3 - Equipment Image
Mowing Tractor