HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180509 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 18-17
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Red Morton Community Center
1120 Roosevelt Ave.
Redwood City, CA 94061
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Special Meeting starts at 6:00 PM*
Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
6:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. Preserve Use Survey Project – Focus Group Update (R-18-44)
Staff Contact: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist
General Manager’s Recommendation: Informational item only. No Board action required.
ADJOURNMENT
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
• Introduction of staff
O Leigh Ann Gessner, Public Affairs Specialist II
Meeting 18-17
Rev. 1/3/18
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 April 25, 2018 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Quarter 3 Budget Amendments (R-18-45)
Staff Contact: Carmen Narayanan, Budget & Analysis Manager
Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2017-
18 Quarter 3 Budget amendments and the transfer of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to
four Committed and Restricted Reserves as follows: (1) $600,000 to an existing Committed
Reserve for Equipment Replacement; (2) $1,000,000 to a new Committed Reserve for Capital
Maintenance; (3) $300,000 to a new Committed Reserve for the Promissory Note; and (4)
$250,000 to an existing Restricted Reserve to reimburse Measure AA costs of issuance.
4. Contract Amendment with Ecological Concerns, Inc., for Invasive Species Management
Work (R-18-48)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the Acting General Manager to amend a
contract with Ecological Concerns, Inc., in the amount of $406,741.50, for a total not-to-exceed
contract amount of $980,224.50, to conduct invasive species management work under the
Integrated Pest Management Program at multiple Preserves through the end of Fiscal Year 2018-
19.
5. Roll call vote to authorize the District to enter into a Grant Agreement with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for the Webb Creek Bridge Replacement (R-18-38)
Staff Contact: Melanie Askay, Grants Specialist
Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution by roll call vote confirming an
application for the Safe, Clean Water Priority D3 Grant Program, affirming that sufficient funds are
available to complete this work, and authorizing the General Manager to execute the grant
agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to receive $149,500 for replacement of the
Webb Creek Bridge.
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.
6. Informational Presentation on the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan - Conceptual Design
Alternative 3 (R-18-47)
Staff Contact: Leslie Chan, Planner III, Planning Department Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive an informational presentation to preview
Conceptual Design Alternative 3 for the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan in preparation for a
Community Meeting and Board Meeting to be held on June 12, 2018 in the Town of La Honda.
No Board action required.
Rev. 1/3/18
7. Acceptance of the Final Report for the Docent & Volunteer Program Structure Study (R-18-
46)
Staff Contact: Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst II, Visitor Services Department
Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Accept the Final Report for the Docent and
Volunteer Program Structure Study.
8. Motion for Reconsideration of the Board of Directors’ April 25, 2018 action regarding the
Project Goals, Project Delivery Process, and Timeline for the Mount Umunhum Radar
Tower Long-Term Repair Project (R-18-49)
Staff Contact: Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Discuss Director Cyr’s request for reconsideration of the
Board of Directors’ April 25, 2018 vote to take no action regarding the project goals, project
delivery process, and timeline for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Long Term Repair Project.
If the Board votes to reconsider the item, it would be placed on an agenda at the next regular
meeting.
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 special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and
available for review on May 4, 2018, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos
California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
R-18-44
Meeting 18-17
May 9, 2018
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Preserve Use Survey Project – Focus Group Update
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Informational item only. No Board action required.
SUMMARY
San Francisco State University (SFSU) researcher, Professor Patrick Tierney, will provide an
update and analysis of the focus group survey data collected from November 2017 to April 2018
as part of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen) Preserve Use Survey
project (Project). Previously on March 14, 2018, Professor Tierney provided an update to the
Board on Phase 1 of the Project - the results and findings from the fall 2017 intercept survey,
which concluded that Preserve users overwhelming express approval of Midpen preserves
(98%). Of the issues raised by Preserve users, the most common included lack of parking, dog
waste on trails, and the availability and upkeep of restroom facilities.
As part of Phase 2, Focus Groups provided input from demographics that either historically do
not use Midpen preserves or are of growing significance in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.
These groups encounter barriers, some quite fundamental like transportation, which preclude
them from accessing Midpen preserves. In some cases, however, a lack of awareness or
knowledge of Midpen also prevented them from considering an outing. These results, along with
recommended actions by Professor Tierney, are outlined in detail in Attachments 2 and 3.
DISCUSSION
The Fiscal Year 2017-18 Action Plan includes the Preserve Use Survey Project to learn more
about the people who currently use Midpen preserves, their preferences, and areas for potential
improvement. With a total budget allocation of $172,000 (research contract and temporary hires
for survey work), Midpen contracted with San Francisco State University (SFSU). SFSU has
conducted several similar surveys across the Bay Area, including for San Mateo County Parks,
Marin County Parks, and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
Early in the Project, staff consulted with the Board’s Diversity Ad Hoc Committee to refine the
approach, goals, and objectives. The Project is divided into two phases: Phase 1) Trailhead
intercept surveys of visitors exiting the preserves, and Phase 2) Focus group discussions with
residents who represent important demographics of underserved communities and growing
populations within Midpen. The data presented in this study session represent the Phase 2
findings.
R-18-44 Page 2
Project Details
Project Goals: Conduct a scientifically valid representative survey and collect baseline data on
visitors and non-visitors to understand who and why people visit Preserves, their preferences,
areas of potential improvement, and also understand the barriers and challenges that keep others
from visiting or being aware of their local public open space lands.
Project Objectives:
• Gather and analyze information on Midpen preserve visitor characteristics, trip purpose,
and planning;
• Understand Midpen preserve visitor experience;
• Determine visitor desires and preferences regarding preserve themes, experiences,
facilities, and resources;
• Count and estimate total number of visitors to Midpen preserves;
• Gather and analyze data on resident nonusers and underserved communities;
• Identify key barriers to visitation and strategies for increasing use of Midpen preserves by
nonusers and underserved residents; and
• Understand visitor and non-visitor attitudes towards stewardship of preserves.
Project Timeline:
Date Activity
July 2017 Survey goal and timeline definition
August 2017 Survey setup and temporary staff recruitment
September – November 2017 Intercept survey data collection and final report
November 2017 – April 2018 Conduct focus groups:
• Seniors (San Mateo & Santa Clara County)
• Youth
• South Asian (Indian)
• East Asian (Chinese)
• Latino (East Palo Alto and Pescadero)
March 2018 Board presentation of Phase 1, intercept survey results
Early May 2018 Board presentation of Phase 2, focus group results
May – June 2018 Applicable departments review findings and identify
opportunities to improve Midpen outreach, projects, programs,
and facilities, along with identifying open questions
July – August 2018 Departments research and answer open questions and
formulate recommendations on specific findings
September – October 2018 Board Study Session to review opportunities for addressing
visitation, outreach, and engagement gaps, receive responses to
prior Board questions, and provide any additional direction
November 2018 and beyond Departments work on immediate actions and integrate long-
term actions into future budget cycles.
R-18-44 Page 3
Focus Groups:
Between October 2017 and April 2018, seven focus groups were conducted by SFSU in both San
Mateo and Santa Clara County. With each focus group, SFSU partnered with a local
organization or individuals identified by Midpen staff to assist with participant recruitment:
Date Demographic Location Partner
October 2017 South Asian (Indian) Cupertino Travel Backyard
January 2018 Latino East Palo Alto Nuestra Casa
January 2018 Youth San Carlos Youth Leadership
Institute (YLI)
March 2018 Seniors Redwood City San Mateo County
Senior Commission
March 2018 East Asian (Chinese) Cupertino Cupertino Sustainability
Commission
April 2018 Latino Pescadero Puente de la Costa Sur
April 2018 Seniors Palo Alto Avenidas
Results:
Barriers to Preserve Use and Concerns:
From these seven focus group sessions of primarily preserve non-users, the most frequently
discussed set of concerns and barriers to use are listed below. Barriers identified by Focus
Group are included in Attachment 2:
1. Do not know about Midpen, lack info
2. Some, especially women, are concerned about personal safety; bad people, mountain
lions, snakes, bikes, dogs, drinking parties
3. Lack of restrooms, or clean ones
4. Lack of transportation to preserves
5. Lack of programs and trails for kids and families
6. Lack of information about short, easy trails
7. Lack of a trail difficulty rating system
8. Concerns about getting hurt and no help
9. Inadequate parking
10. Trail surfaces that are unsafe or slippery
Consultant Recommendations:
Based on the issues raised by survey respondents and focus group participants, the consultant
from SFSU presents the following recommendations. Recommendations broken out by Focus
Group are included in Attachment 3:
1. Expand outreach to their community through community groups in their language
2. Provide more restrooms
3. Address significant personal safety concerns of non or less frequent visitors through:
• Docent-led tours (get them to visit the first time) - must be better publicized
• Organize group visits within their community (seniors, Hispanics, Asians)
R-18-44 Page 4
• Provide hiking partners (seniors, women) through docent-led and/or group tours
4. Create a trail rating system and post trail difficulty on the website
5. Identify and post easier, shorter, loop trails
6. Work to expand transportation options (public and private) to preserves
7. Use more social media and communications technology
8. Expand programs and activities for families, kids, and women
9. Provide more and better directional signage
10. Provide more natural and historical resources information before and during visits
FISCAL IMPACT
Receipt of the information does not result in a fiscal impact. Implementation of future actions to
enhance outreach and address visitor concerns may result in a fiscal impact, which the Board
would consider as part of future Board actions, including approval of the annual fiscal year
Capital Improvement and Action Plan, and Budget.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Public Affairs staff will review the SFSU Focus Group Report to identify short, medium, and
long-term actions to reach and engage non-users and underserved communities. In addition,
staff will collaborate with departments to determine how best to address preserve visitor issues,
barriers to utilization, and other gaps highlighted in the Intercept Survey and Focus Group
reports. The Acting General Manager expects to present the implementation recommendations
to the Board in October 2018 at a Study Session, and then integrate the feedback into future
fiscal year budgets.
Ultimately, Midpen will integrate these responses into departmental work plans to improve
visitor experiences and better connect underserved populations to Midpen lands. Approximately
every 5 to 10 years, Midpen will look to repeat the survey to keep the data fresh, recognize
patterns of change, and determine whether Midpen is adequately addressing identified gaps and
barriers, and achieving its goals.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Focus Group Survey Protocol
2. Barriers broken out by Focus Group
3. Recommendations broken out by Focus Group
R-18-44 Page 5
4. SFSU Focus Group Report – East Palo Alto Latino
5. SFSU Focus Group Report – Pescadero Latino
6. SFSU Focus Group Report – San Mateo County Seniors
7. SFSU Focus Group Report – Santa Clara County Seniors
8. SFSU Focus Group Report – Youth
9. SFSU Focus Group Report – South Asian
10. SFSU Focus Group Report – East Asian
Responsible Department Head:
Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager
Prepared by:
Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist
MROSD FOCUS GROUP PROPOSED PROTOCOL
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a faculty of the Recreation, Parks and Tourism
Department at SFSU. This is [_______] [a research assistant at SFSU] and [_______, a
student at SFU]. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today and agreeing to be part of
this focus group. We’ll do group introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes.
This conversation will last about an hour and a half and will be recorded. We would like to
record this conversation so we can use the recording to transcribe notes. The recording will
be kept in a secure location and will not be used for any other purpose other than this project.
[Does anyone has any issues/problems with being audio-taped?].
Thanks also go to many of you for completing the pre-focus group survey. That information
is helpful for us to understand more about who is participating. This survey information will
only be presented in summary form. No names will be associated with any of that
information. No Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) staff are present
here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about MROSD open space
preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make during this
interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name; you’ll use that,
which I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today and [____ _____] will be taking notes. I am going
to go over a few details before we start. If you have any questions, please ask as they come
up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the MROSD to better understand preserve users’
attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences and to identify reasons why people don’t
visit more often. The information you share will help MROSD determine how well they are
supporting their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the
information you provide can help improve existing preserve resources and services to meet
community needs. Your participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [user
group]. We welcome your input and your voice matters to the Open Space District so we
need you to be honest with us and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
Guidelines
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people
being in a focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that
can help ensure a safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to
ensure we capture what everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name
will not be attached to your comments, only a number.
Attachment 1
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to
each other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a
while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about preserves
and parks, in general, and within MROSD in particular. If you’re not familiar with any
open space preserves in MROSD, respond based on your knowledge of whatever open
space areas or parks come to mind for you. You don’t need to agree with others, but
please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do agree with what someone
says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing in some other way. This
helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says something that
reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their comments
with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached.
While we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your
name in any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your nametag), then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your
number, I might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the
recorder after this. Please state your first name and your favorite MROSD preserve in and
why.
[Student assistant turns on digital recorder and begins taking typed notes on laptop].
[SENIOR] RESPONDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Generic Discussion Questions, Tier 1 - (As we move forward, it would be best to reply as it
relates to MROSD, if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any park experience
are fair game.
A. Do you enjoy going to areas which are mostly natural, have trees, wildflowers and often
wildlife, that are free of most buildings and roads and are located outside of cities? Why?
Why not?
Attachment 1
B. In the last 6 months, have each of you visited any MROSD preserve? Any one not?
C. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in MROSD preserves.
[use/experience—hike/run/walk, group activities, bike, etc.]
D. Where do you like to go most often within MROSD s? Why do you prefer these MROSD
locations?
E. How have your most recent MROSD experiences made you feel? Explain
F. What do you like the most about MROSD?
G. If you have not gone to MROSD in the last 6 months, please explain why. Have you
stopped using MROSD locations altogether? Why? Would you like to visit a MROSD
preserve? Why?
H. What do you like least about MROSD open space preserves?
I. Do you have any suggestions for MROSD management to improve your experience in
MROSD open space preserves? Please explain.
J. How might these suggestions be implemented?
K. Are there any other concerns or needs you would like to share with MROSD [volunteer or
employment opportunities]
Tier 2 - If Time, Address the Following Questions
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something
else you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Research assistant turns off digital recorder, note-taking ends].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you
provided is significant and meaningful and can really help improve use throughout the
Attachment 1
MROSD. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a summary
report can be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your name and email address,
or postal address, to our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, [____ & ____] will be distributing [a $25 gift card incentive].
In order to receive this gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university
accounting purposes only.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
BARRIERS TO VISITATION AND CONCERNS FROM FOCUS GROUPS, BY COMMUNITY GROUP
Youth
City of SMC Senior Leadership Puente de
Partner Nuestra Casa Travel Backyard Cupertino Commission Avenidas Institute la Costa
Rank Barrier/Concern Demogr.Latino S. Asian E. Asian SMC Seniors SSC Seniors Youth Latino
1 Do not know about Midpen, lack info.X X X X X X X
2 Some, especially women, are concerned about X X X X X X X
safety; bad people, mtn. lions, snakes, bikes,
dogs, drinking parties
3 Lack transportation to preserves X X X X X
4 Lack of restrooms, or clean ones X X X X X X
5 Lack of programs/trails for kids/families X X X X X
6 Lack of information about short easy trails X X X X
7 Lack of a trail difficulty rating system X X X X
8 Concerns about getting hurt and no help X X X X
9 Inadequate parking X X X
10 Some trail surfaces are unsafe, slippery X X X
11 Lack wheel chair accessible trails X X X
12 Fear of getting lost on the trail X X X X
13 Too hot, lack of shade X X
14 Lack of collaboration between schools & MP X X X
15 Information not in their language X X
16 Cost is a concern X X X
17 Lack of internships and comm. service hours for X
18 high school students
19 Do not feel welcome (1 Hispanic man)X
20 No one to go with X
21 Limited free time X X
22 Traffic to preserve is dangerous, takes too long X
23 Trash and pet waste X
TOTAL WEIGHTED BARRIER LEVEL 35 29 43 45 31 13 38
Attachment 3
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FOCUS GROUPS BY COMMUNITY GROUP
Youth
City of SMC Senior Leadership Puente de
Partner Nuestra Casa Travel Backyard Cupertino Commission Avenidas Institute la Costa
Recommendation Demogr.Latino S. Asian E. Asian SMC Seniors SSC Seniors Youth Latino TOTAL #
More, cleaner restrooms X X X X X X 6
More outreach to their community X X X X X X 6
Personal safety concerns X X X X X 5
Public transportation to preserves X X X X X 5
More nature/history info X X X X X 5
Trail rating system, difficulty on website X X X X 4
More social media, Facebook X X X X 4
Easier shorter, loop trails X X X X 4
More better signage X X X X 4
Family, women and kids programs X X X X 4
Docent led hikes X X X X 4
Improve parking at Rancho San Antonio X X X 3
Use advanced communications tech/apps X X X 3
Web cams of animals X X X 3
Multi-lingual signs brochures X X X 3
More trails for wheelchairs X X X 3
Partner with schools X X X 3
Allow dog walking X X 2
More camping opportunities X X 2
Allow dog walking X X 2
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Professor
Email: ptierney@sfsu.edu
Midpen Visitors
Study
NUESTRA CASA FOCUS
GROUP REPORT
January 22, 2018
Attachment 4
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..11
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......…………12
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...13
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..……………………………………………..…….. 6
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 4
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), in partnership with San Francisco State
University (SFSU), is conducting a Midpen Visitor Study. The overall purpose of the study is to
assess visitor satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and future demands, for potential
decision making. The study also aimed to offer recommendations for preserve programs, facilities,
policies, and innovative ways to enhance community engagement and access. The study consists of
two parts: Part I are intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II consists of focus groups with
specific community groups. This report represents the procedures and results of one focus group
interview with fourteen Latino residents of the East Palo Alto area who were recruited by the
Nuestra Casa community organization. It was held January 8, 2018 at the Nuestra Casa meeting
room, 2396 University Blvd., East Palo Alto. In this report a reference to “Midpen trails” means
trails in Midpen Open Space Preserves.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for Midpen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (415) 338-2030 or rpt@sfsu.edu.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been possible nor successful without the help and support of Julio
Garcia, director of the Nuestra Casa organization.. He helped us find and recruit participants in this
focus group, and translate the proceedings. We wish to express our thanks to him.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of Midpen district
residents of the East Palo Alto Latino community who may or may not have used Midpen preserves.
The choice of this user group and the initial contact for Nuestro Casa community were provided by
Joshua Hugg with Midpen. He and Midpen staff believed the opinions and motivations from this
group, and from upcoming focus groups could benefit future planning of the district preserves and
services.
Preparation
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
SFSU created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitate the focus group, such as
focus group recruitment flyers, focus group protocol, and interview questions. The Nuestra Casa
community leader was asked to recruit potential participants for the focus group. SFSU sent him an
invitation and a recruitment flyer, he forwarded it to persons on in the Nuestra Casa organization,
and he confirmed persons attending the focus group. SFSU showed maps of Midpen preserves at the
focus groups.
Attachment 4
3 | Page
SFSU also developed a participant sign-in sheet, log for signatures acknowledging receipt of gift
cards, and sign-up sheet for Midpen (e.g., anyone requesting a copy of the final report or wish to be
added to mailing list). Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags, map of
Midpen preserves, and Safeway gift cards (purchased). SFSU also provided a lite dinner and
refreshments at the start of the focus group. Many participants did not speak English fluently, and
the SFSU facilitator was not fluent in Spanish, so Nuestra Casa staff translated question from SFSU
into Spanish and responses from participants into English.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small group of four to fifteen people, ideally, led
through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. The group needs
to be large enough to generate rich discussion, but not so large that
some participants are left out or a few people dominate the
conversation. Additionally, the groups should be homogenous as
homogeneity levels the playing field and reduces inhibitions among
people who come together for the purpose of a group interview.
Focus groups can reveal a wealth of detailed information and deep insights. When well executed, a
focus group creates a welcoming environment that allows participants to feel at ease and encourages
thoughtful, honest answers providing added meaning to question responses. As a valid
methodology, focus groups were chosen as one approach to elicit the thoughts, feelings,
experiences, and recommendations residents of the Latino community in East Palo Alto. In addition,
focus groups have the ability to generate rich qualitative data that comes from individual
participants engaging in deep conversation, potentially capturing themes that would be missed from
other, more quantitative, methods. Furthermore, focus groups foster a safe place for participants to
be open and honest.
The SFSU principal investigator was the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial
questions and nurtured disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to generate a
maximum number of different opinions, experiences, attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the
group in the time allotted. As reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups were structured
around a set of carefully predetermined questions but the discussion was free-flowing. That is,
participant comments stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method that enlisted a leader from the East Palo Alto
Latino community to recruit focus group participants. This community leader recruited 14
participants who were occasional to non-users of Midpen preserves. The SFSU team developed
recruitment flyer shown in Appendix A. Focus group participants were rewarded with a $25 gift
card to Safeway as an incentive to participate. Additionally, participants were informed a dinner-
type meal would be provided and thirty minutes was allotted for general socializing (e.g., “meet and
greet”) prior to the official start time of the interview process.
Attachment 4
4 | Page
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by the SFSU investigator, based on past
experience, and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group
questions, and logistical information. Focus group questions were developed by SFSU based on
models from prior studies and questions that were desired from the Midpen staff. A set of two-tiered
questions were developed in which Tier 1 questions were the priority and focused on visitors’ use,
experiences, and recommendations. If additional time remained, Tier 2 questions were asked. Tier 1
questions asked participants about their most recent preserve experience, types of activities they
undertake on Midpen open space preserves, how these activities make them feel, where they like to
go most often in Midpen, what they like most about their recent experiences in Midpen preserves,
what they like least, and any suggestions for Midpen management to improve their experience. The
final focus group protocol and questions used during the Nuestra Casa focus group is available in
Appendix B.
Data Collection
The Nuestra Casa focus group had four participants. As participants arrived at the location, the
SFSU faciltator asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic
information. They then enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was
established by the investigator. After a half hour the investigator introduced himself and Michala
Roan, the student assistant, and described how the proceedings would be translated from English to
Spanish and vice versa. Nuestra Casa staff were the translators. Then he then facilitated the
interview process, beginning with a general ice breaker to get the group thinking about preserves
and park use or non-use, and using the protocol and questions (Appendix B). All prepared questions
were asked within the 90-minute time allotted and the facilitator was responsible for getting all
participants to talk and fully explain their answers using helpful probes (e.g., “Can you say more
about that?”; “Help us understand what you mean?” and “Can you give an example?”). The
investigator demonstrated active listening and occasionally paraphrased long or ambiguous
comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes and/or summarized responses for the whole
group.
The facilitator recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone and the SFSU student assistant took
supporting notes in case the recorder failed or any parts of the digital file were inaudible. Body
language or other subtle relevant clues were recorded via typed notes. Audio files were uploaded to
a secure computer for storage and backed up.
At the end of the focus group, participants were thanked and each person received the incentive (gift
card) that required a signature on the receipt log for SFSU accounting purposes. If any participants
wanted to receive the final report, or expressed interest in being put on a Midpen mailing list, they
were asked to indicate that on the sign-in sheet.
Attachment 4
5 | Page
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these participants were gathered at the focus group location.
Results are summarized in Table 1.
The focus group discussions were captured via audio recordings. The facilitator moderated, while
the discussions were recorded. The interview was then transcribed verbatim by an outside
contractor, Rev.com and verified by the SFSU student assistant.
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, they were analyzed using a
systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content analyses
process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with groupings entered
into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored common themes. The
major findings from participants’ comments are summarized in the results section that follows and
includes a series of direct quotes highlighting relevant responses.
The investigator completed the final examination of the transcriptions. Results were reviewed and
synthesized to ensure accuracy of themes and supporting quotes. The themes and conclusions
presented in this report were reviewed twice by the investigator before the report was finalized.
Attachment 4
6 | Page
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many valuable findings were revealed by this focus
group interview process. Important to note that the
majority of participants in this focus group were not
familiar with Midpen preserves, and they may have
been thinking about, and referring to, trails located
outside of Midpen preserves. Although maps of the
Midpen were provided at the focus group and the
facilitator discussed some unique characteristics and
uses in preserves, there were uncertainties about the
preserve locations. There is a chance that some parks
outside Midpen’s were considered. Generalizing preserve/park experiences is not uncommon to
occur within focus group interviews. The parks literature explains the difficulty for people in
differentiating between lands/trails of adjacent park agencies. This further accentuates the need for
park agencies to work together; and, this reveals the increasing importance to share such park
use/non-use interview results with other park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age, sex,
ethnicity and occupation. This was the source for the following demographic data about the four
focus group participants. This was a group of mostly experienced Midpen visitors and one new user
of district preserves, who were very familiar with information technology.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Average Age 44 years
Age Range 17-65 years
Sex
Male 8%
Female 92%
Ethnicity
Latino 100%
Occupation
Mother 80%
Professional 20%
Attachment 4
7 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: NUESTRA CASA LATINO MEMBERS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant
comments.
Theme: The Latino Community in East Palo Alto is not familiar with Midpen preserves
“I'm just confused about it[Midpen], because is something like the Yosemite park you can go and play and
stay there. That's the confusion. I think everybody is a little confused about Midpen, what is the difference
between a nature preserve, or a park, or a camping ground, or whatever?”
“She was looking for places to pass her time and with her family, but schools and families in general don't
know about these areas. In our families, Latino families exclusively ... A lot of these families don't know that
these places [preserves] exist”
“She doesn't know about these preserves. She knows about different parks and zoos and different activities
they can go and do”
“I have went to one [Midpen preserve] in Half Moon Bay, I forgot what it's called, but it's nearby Bay Shore. I
went to outdoor rec. You go camping for five days, you have lots of other activities.”
“There is a little preserve in the back of Palo Alto called Cooley Landing.”
“You are the first to discuss about these areas and open spaces, we didn't know about them.”
Theme: There is strong interest in going to Midpen preserves
-Every single focus group participant indicated they want to visit a Midpen preserve in the future.
“They're interested and they're talking and they're wanting to engage, so we can go [to Midpen preserves]”
“She's saying that thanks to this meeting [focus group] and thanks to that paper and this new map [Midpen
brochure] that she has, she didn't even know what that [a preserve] was. Or what natural preserves are or
anything. And she still needs some clarification, but she needs to visit, and she's going to make big effort to
go with her daughters and her family to go visit these places.
Theme: The most important reason to visit a Midpen preserve is to benefit their family
“It [nature preserve] is a great way to bring their kids to this natural places. You
can teach them about nature, you can teach them about the birds that are out
there. You can teach them about what is going on with climate change. “
“They [their family] did it once…. And it's a really interesting activity for families
to go hiking together.
“It's a good way to teach your kids to preserve nature”
“We visit parks mostly with our family, old and young”
“It [visit to preserves] would be good for these kids”
“We just want [Midpen] to talk about the different options you have for family activities.”
Theme: A low cost or free preserve entry fee is very important and can influence visitation
“Yeah, I mean it's [entry fee] important for low income families, because obviously most families have
multiple children and sometimes they charge by person, per person. So, it adds up. Let's say it's five dollars
per person and there's five different kids in a group, there's 25 to 30 dollars. That's just extra income, an
extra bill for an activity they could just not go out and not spend that money.”
“A while back they used to do that [visit]. I don't know at what park, but they used to collectively go
together to do explorative groups, but now they [park] charge. They made it a business type model and now
that free aspect isn't there. So, that would be nice to have free group together.”
Attachment 4
8 | Page
Theme: Nature (Midpen) preserves provide many benefits
Subtheme A: Physical health
“She'd like to share that it's really important, the idea of more hiking. It's not only a
nice place to see, but it's also good for your body, and family to exercise together.”
“He's saying is what he likes is all the green that we have right here, because this helps
us with the oxygen. Helps us filter all the stuff that the factories are around here”
“Every year they go clean parks, adults and youth in her church.”
“Just different health aspects, it's not just for your mental health. It's for your physical health.”
Subtheme B: Good for kids
“You can teach your kids about the responsibilities that they have for the nature or preserve our nature,
spaces and everything cleaning.”
“You just go to enjoy yourself and your family.”
“It [visit to preserves] would be good for these kids, right. So, we need to take care of kids and the time now
is very crazy. A lot of kids are with their telephone always. We want to start to give kids alternatives.”
Subtheme C: Good for mental wellbeing
“I mean it's a good feeling to be around these nature areas”
“These places specifically bring a lot of memories for Latino people, because a lot of our families are from
these locations of rural places. And so you visit these spaces [natural areas] and it transports you back to
childhood, when there was natural birds, and animals, and plants, and things like that back in their home
countries.”
“You're at peace. There's not a lot of cars, people, all what we see in the city.”
“It makes you feel free”
“You are disconnected and you enjoy the view and the scenery. Just being in a natural place”
“It's a place where she goes to distress, relax, and hangout, because she's not stressed out by like, oh
someone's going to run over my daughter. It's just a place where it's relaxing”
“I really like the volunteer aspect of it [going to preserves]”
“She's saying this life, fast-paced life we live and everything, and stress, she knows a lot of people that suffer
from chronic anxiety. And, so, she's saying that from now on she's going to try to tell people about this
place, because that's a great way to disconnect and clear your mind.”
Subtheme D: They are good for the environment
“He's saying is what he likes is all the green that we have right here, because this helps us with the oxygen.
Helps us filter all the stuff that the factories are around here”
Theme: There are significant barriers to visiting Midpen preserves
Subtheme A: Lack of information about preserves and in their language
“Never has she known about these preserves and things that they should do, what options and things to do,
like that”
“They need more information”
“It's hard, especially for people who doesn't speak English to look for this information [about preserves]
“First of all, they need to know about them and also a means to get there, because these preserves are
normally usually pretty far from where the city is.”
“Guided walks with school kids in preserves”
Attachment 4
9 | Page
Subtheme B: Personal safety
“The least that I don't like about preserves, is the safety, because I really love it. I really love to go to those
places, but when you start to walking in those places, when you are a little bit far, it makes you feel, well in
my experience, it makes you feel insecure.”
“There is good and bad animals and what that means in bad is that they're dangerous”
“He went with his family and there were a couple of rattlesnakes and those are really dangerous for
children”
“What happens if there is like an animal that is savage, what am I going to do?”
“I would like to enjoy the nature and all this preserves, but I'm afraid.”
“Because you don't know exactly what kinds of persons go there. There are a lot of good people, but at the
same time there are people that are no good. You don't know completely what's going to happen. Some
people go alone and sometimes you want to go alone. You want to connect with the nature, but it's hard to
do that.”
Subtheme C: Lack transportation
“‘Transportation [to preserve] would be something that she advocates for,
because there's some families that want to go, but transportation is a barrier.
So, transportation must be at a really low cost or free, for more families to have
the opportunity to see or look at these places”
“Set up car pools at school”
“Set up car pools through a Facebook page”
Subtheme D: Cost of entry
“It's [entry fees] are a problem for low income families because obviously most families have multiple
children and sometimes they charge by person, per person. So, it adds up. Let's say it's five dollars per
person and there's five different kids in a group, there's 25 to 30 dollars. That's just extra income, an extra
bill for an activity they could just not go out and not spend that money.”
Subtheme E: Don’t feel welcome in parks
“He felt racially profiled and hassled by police in the park so he doesn’t go any more.”
“As soon as you enter the park from there on they would ask for an ID. Or like go, "If you don't have an ID
you can't come into the park”.”
Subtheme F: Other barriers
“Are there bathrooms at the preserves? There needs to be.”
“It has a lot of waste animal, animal waste in there, especially in Half Moon Bay in the years past. I think
she's talking about the geeses go there and it's not real clean sometimes.”
Theme: Midpen can do things to encorage the Latino community to visit preserves
Subtheme A: Create information about preserves in Spanish
“I know they love the material [Midpen brochure] and everything, but if you don't have
anything in Spanish, what is the use to try and engage the Latino population.”
“I don't know if they have brochures in Spanish. I've never seen them in Spanish. And the
website, that is not in Spanish.”
“We need to have a website in Spanish and have the map in Spanish.”
Subtheme B: Outreach to the Latino community
“You have to go into the [Latino] community and explain, because people, if you just pass out brochures,
half of the time if you don't explain something, they're not going to pick it up or they're not going to use it.
Attachment 4
10 | Page
But if you give some small explanation, they're going to spark an interest and say, hey, they know who to
come with, who to speak to, and then they will participate for that reason.”
“Leaving information [Midpen brochures in Spanish] with churches, is a really good idea, it's been proven
that if you just ask the priest, depending you have to gauge with the priest or
whatever, but giving them announcements and finding someone who can translate
that information into the Latino community.”
“That it would be nice for there to be follow up after these [focus group]
suggestions, because a lot of the time institutions or agencies or people who come
and speak for our advice or our suggestions, it's just a conversation and at that level
it stays.”
“It's a good thing for you to share this information with the [Nuestra Casa] group.”
“She's just saying give that some follow up [to this focus group], because that's the only way we will begin to
continue to engage and then want to continue participating in these community.” conversations.”
“We just want [Midpen] to talk about the different options you have for family activities and that's it.”
“It would be a good idea for all of us to take a walk and a hike and for them [Midpen] to be able to tell and
show us.”
“She's asking that you guys have a plan to have more meetings [presentations] about it [preserves]. More
focus groups about this thing? She would like to pass this information to her people.”
“I did feel that it was a lot of misunderstandings of it[preserves], if it was a camping place or different type
of thing. If there's a PowerPoint or something. This is what exactly what is this [preserves] and this is what a
city park is or ... Too see a difference between everything.”
Subtheme C: Ways to reach the Latino community – Work with schools
“If you want to that this information get to the [Latino] community, especially
the Latino, is good idea to go to the schools.”
“They take the kids from the school to these spaces”
“Get the word [about preserves] with school. It is a great way to reach us.”
“She knows some of the kids at school go in the morning to these events [at
parks]. It would be nice to involve more of the parents.”
Subtheme D: Ways to reach the Latino community – Collaborate with churches
“Working with the church or something like that with the church. He thinks that it's good idea.”
“Every year his church goes to camp in La Honda and they say it's about 300 people.”
“Every year youth in her church they go clean parks.”
“We're going to a catholic church and they have a teenager group. Like every month they go to parks.”
“Offer camping for groups”
Subtheme E: Ways to reach the Latino community – Other ways for outreach
“For me, it's going to the library, because it's a lot of people you meet there at the library, kids also. It's
more free, it's not mixed up with religion.”
“I think that in that [local gas] station will be a good place, because a lot of people from this area gets gas at
it.”
“Place information in Spanish in local health care clinics”
“Have presentations at the Fair Oaks Community Center.”
Subtheme F: Improve facilities
“To put restrooms where there are none. I'm thinking of families. Usually families it's more harder.”
Attachment 4
11 | Page
Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct result of the data analysis of focus group responses.
The recommendations presented below are from the perspective of the Latino Nuestra Casa
community members, and they may or may not be different from the general public or other types of
preserve users.
1. Increase outreach to the Latino community. Many do not even know Midpen preserves exist,
what they offer, or they cannot distinguish them city or national parks.
2. Provide brochures, webpages, signs and pubic presentations in Spanish
3. Capitalize on the strong interest in visiting Midpen preserves among the Latino community
4. Offer programs in Spanish in preserve that cater to families, especially children
5. Maintain free entry into preserves to encourage visitation
6. Encourage walking in preserves for physical health
7. Offer programs for kids with their parents, which teaches about the environment
8. Communicate opportunities for women to hike in small groups in order to get away
9. Develop ways to help Latino women and men overcome fears about their personal safety in
preserves
10. Provide free or low cost transportation from the central city to preserves.
11. Help some in the Latino community to feel more welcome to visit preserve
12. Add a few more restrooms.
13. Expand outreach to the Latino community through schools, churches, clinics and libraries.
14. Recognize the Latino community is very appreciative of efforts to communicate with them.
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
Attachment 4
12 | Page
SFSU has the following conclusions and thoughts about the Nuestra Casa focus group. It is
important to note the participants in this focus group were Latinos, preferred the dialog to be in
Spanish, of a wide age range, and mostly women. It appeared that very few or none of the
participants had ever visited a Midpen preserve.
Very few in the East Palo Alto Latino community know about or have visited Midpen preserves.
The District needs to conduct extensive outreach to inform them about the opportunities and to
distinguish preserves from other recreation and park sites. Explain in a simple concise way how
Midpen preserves differ from city and other parks.
There are significant constraints which must be overcome or minimized in order to foster
preserve visitation by the inner city Latino community. Barriers include: Lack of information
about the preserves, misunderstandings about what can be done in preserves and their entry fees;
fear about personal safety in preserves (especially among Latinas); lack of transportation to get
to preserves which are perceived as “remote;” lack of discretionary income; and not feeling
welcome or even racially profiled.
But there was enthusiastic interest by the Latino community to visit a Midpen preserve in the
future. Participants especially thought preserves would offer opportunities for families to
recreate together and promoted their health. The district should conduct more outreach to the
Latino community and develop more programs in Spanish that encourage first time visitation to
the preserves. Continue collaborations with Latino Outdoors to offer guided hikes, and combine
this with transportation to preserves. The District could also make a special effort to recruit
bilingual volunteers and docents for outreach and in-preserve programming.
Work with organizations in the inner city Latino community, such as public schools, churches,
libraries and community groups (like Nuestra Casa) with a high Hispanic membership/use to get
the word out about the preserves. These are trusted sources that can effectively reach the Latino
community.
Develop pages on the district website that are in Spanish, in addition to the current district
brochure in Spanish. This is a very important requirement to be able to work effectively with
the Latino community in the Bay Area. Make presentations to the community in Spanish. Have
some signs at the preserves in Spanish.
There are tremendous opportunities for the District to increase visitation by members of the
Latino community to their preserves. The district is already working on some of these but more
staff time and funding will be needed to optimize this opportunity to diversify preserve users.
APPENDICIES
Attachment 4
13 | Page
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 4
14 | Page
Attachment 4
15 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
MROSD PRESERVE VISITOR USE STUDY:
Nuestra Casa Focus Group Protocol for January 8, 2018
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor in the Recreation, Parks and Tourism Department
at San Francisco State University. This is [____ ____ a student in the RPT Department]. Thank you
for taking the time to talk to us today and agreeing to be part of this focus group on Midpeninsula
Open Space preserves. Tonight when I say “Midpen”, I mean Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
Preserves. We’ll do group introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes. This
conversation will last about an hour and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record this
conversation so we can use the recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a secure
location and will not be used for any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has any
issues/problems with being audio-taped?].
Thank you for completing the pre-focus group survey just now. That information is helpful for us to
understand more about who is participating. This survey information will only be presented in
summary form. No names will be associated with any of that information. No Midpen staff are
present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about Midpen open space
preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make during this interview.
When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll use that when you want to
make a comment, which I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today and [student] will be taking notes. I am going to go over a
few details before we start. If you have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to better
understand their open space preserve users’ attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences and
to identify reasons why people don’t visit more often. The information you share will help Midpen
learn how to reduce barriers to visiting the preserves and determine how well they are supporting
their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the information you
provide can help improve existing park resources and services to meet community needs. Your
participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [young people user group]. We welcome
your input and your voice matters to Midpen so we need you to be honest with us and share your
thoughts and opinions openly.
I am passing around a map showing the locations of the Midpen preserves. We are currently helping
them gather information on 21 preserves that are open to the public. Note that the preserves are
located outside of cities but in the surrounding areas. We are not talking about city parks. The
Midpen preserves protect wildlife, native plants, vistas and provide outdoor recreation opportunities.
Do you have any questions about what are Midpen preserves or where they are located?
Attachment 4
16 | Page
Guidelines
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being in a
focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help ensure a
safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we capture what
everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be attached to your
comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each other
as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and opinions are
important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in general, and within MCP
in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in MCP, respond based on your
knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t need to agree with others, but please
listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do agree with what someone says, please speak
up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing in some other way. This helps us capture agreement
in the notes. Also, if someone else says something that reminds you of something or sparks a
thought, please feel free to follow their comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is anonymous. That
means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While we might use quotes or
ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s thoughts
and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first (which is on your
name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say, “Number five: I think that parks
need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder after
this. Please state your first name and your favorite outdoor recreation activity, if do it in a park or
open space preserve, and why it is interesting to you.
[When done, student assistant turns on digital recorder and begins typing notes on laptop].
[Nuestra Casa] RESPONDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
As we move forward, it would be best to reply to the question as it relates to Midpen preserves, if
you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any park experience are appreciated.
1. How many of you know what a Midpen open space preserve is? It’s is ok if you don’t.
2. In the last 6 months, how many of you visited any Midpen open space preserve? Any one not?
3. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in Midpen open space preserves (MCP).
Attachment 4
17 | Page
4. Which Midpen preserves do you like to go most often? Why do you prefer these Midpen
locations?
5. How have your most recent Midpen experiences made you feel? Explain
6. What do you like the most about Midpen?
7. If you have not gone to Midpen preserve in the last 6 months or ever, please explain why. Did you
go at one time and have you stopped using Midpen locations altogether? Why?
8. What do you like least about Midpen parks and open space preserves?
9. Do you have any suggestions for Midpen management to improve your experiences in Midpen
open space preserves
10. Are there things that Midpen could do which increase the likelihood of you visiting a Midpen
open space preserve? Please explain.
11. How might these suggestions be implemented?
12. Are there any other concerns or needs you would like to share with Midpen [ideas, volunteer or
employment opportunities]
Tier 2 - If Time, Address the Following Questions
a) Any ideas for other locations where Midpen can reach the Latino community? – what might you
suggest and why?
b) What transportation options do you have to get to a Midpen preserve?
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Research assistant turns off digital recorder, note-taking ends].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you provided is
significant and meaningful and can really help improve [________} use throughout the Midpen
preserve. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a summary report can
be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your name and email address, or postal address, to
our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, [Michala] will be distributing [a $25 gift card] as a thank you. In order
to receive this gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting
purposes only.
Attachment 4
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Professor
Email: ptierney@sfsu.edu
Midpen Visitors
Study
PESCADERO FOCUS
GROUP REPORT
April 24, 2018
Attachment 5
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..10
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......…………10
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...11
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..……………………………………………..…….. 7
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 5
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), in partnership with Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor at San Francisco State University (SFSU), is conducting a Midpen Visitor Study. The
overall purpose of the study is to assess visitor satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and
future demands, for potential decision making. The study also aimed to offer recommendations for
preserve programs, facilities, policies, and innovative ways to enhance community engagement and
access. The study consists of two parts: Part I are intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II
consists of focus groups with specific community groups. This report represents the procedures and
results of one focus group interview with eight Latina residents of the Pescadero area. Assistance in
organizing the focus group was provided by the Puente de la Costa community organization. It was
held April 23, 2018 at the Pescadero Elementary School Library in the Town of Pescadero .
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for Midpen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (415) 338-2030 or rpt@sfsu.edu.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been possible nor successful without the help and support of Lina Mira,
program director of Puente de la Costa. She helped us find and recruit participants in this focus
group, and translated the discussions. We wish to express our thanks to her.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of Midpen district
residents of the Pescadero Latino community who may or may not have used Midpen preserves. The
choice of this user group and the initial contact for Puente community were provided by Joshua
Hugg with Midpen. He and Midpen staff believed the opinions and motivations from this group,
and from upcoming focus groups could benefit future planning of the district preserves and services.
Preparation
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
Dr. Tierney created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitated the focus group, such
as focus group recruitment flyer (in Spanish), focus group protocol, and interview questions. He
also set up a table and recruited participants at the April 19 Science Night at Pescadero Elementary
School. The Puente community leader supported the Science Night event and followed-up with
interested persons to remind them before the event.
Dr. Tierney also developed a participant sign-in sheet, log for signatures acknowledging receipt of
gift cards, and sign-up sheet for Midpen (e.g., anyone requesting a copy of the final report or wish to
Attachment 5
3 | Page
be added to mailing list). Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags, map of
Midpen preserves, and Safeway gift cards (purchased). Participants were also provided a lite dinner
and refreshments at the start of the focus group. Many participants did not speak English fluently,
and the facilitator was not fluent in Spanish, so Puente staff translated questions from Dr. Tierney
into Spanish and responses from participants into English.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small group of four to fifteen people, ideally, led
through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. The group needs
to be large enough to generate rich discussion, but not so large that
some participants are left out or a few people dominate the
conversation. Additionally, the groups should be homogenous as
homogeneity levels the playing field and reduces inhibitions among
people who come together for the purpose of a group interview.
Focus groups can reveal a wealth of detailed information and deep insights. When well executed, a
focus group creates a welcoming environment that allows participants to feel at ease and encourages
thoughtful, honest answers providing added meaning to question responses. As a valid
methodology, focus groups were chosen as one approach to elicit the thoughts, feelings,
experiences, and recommendations residents of the Latino community in Pescadero. In addition,
focus groups have the ability to generate rich qualitative data that comes from individual
participants engaging in deep conversation, potentially capturing themes that would be missed from
other, more quantitative, methods. Furthermore, focus groups foster a safe place for participants to
be open and honest.
Dr. Tierney was the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial questions and nurtured
disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to generate a maximum number of different
opinions, experiences, attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the group in the time allotted. As
reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups were structured around a set of carefully
predetermined questions but the discussion was free-flowing. That is, participant comments
stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method of adults attending the Pescadero Science Night
event to recruit focus group participants. At this event 10 persons indicated they were interested in
participating, who were occasional to non-users of Midpen preserves. The recruitment flyer in
Spanish is shown in Appendix A. Focus group participants were rewarded with a $25 gift card to
Safeway as an incentive to participate. Additionally, participants were informed a e litdinner-type
meal would be provided and thirty minutes was allotted for general socializing (e.g., “meet and
greet”) prior to the official start time of the interview process.
Attachment 5
4 | Page
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by the Dr. Tierney, based on past
experience, and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group
questions, and logistical information. Focus group questions were developed by him based on
models from prior studies and questions that were desired from the Midpen staff. A set of two-tiered
questions were developed in which Tier 1 questions were the priority and focused on visitors’ use,
experiences, and recommendations. If additional time remained, Tier 2 questions were asked. Tier 1
questions asked participants about their most recent preserve experience, types of activities they
undertake on Midpen open space preserves, how these activities make them feel, where they like to
go most often in Midpen, what they like most about their recent experiences in Midpen preserves,
what they like least, and any suggestions for Midpen management to improve their experience. The
final focus group protocol and questions used during the Pescadero focus group is available in
Appendix B.
Data Collection
The Pescadero focus group had eight participants. As participants arrived at the location, the
facilitator asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic information.
They then enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was established by the
investigator. After a half hour the investigator introduced himself and described how the questions
would be translated from English to Spanish and vice versa. Lina Mira of Puente was the translator.
Then he facilitated the interview process, beginning with a general ice breaker to get the group
thinking about preserves and park use or non-use, and using the protocol and questions (Appendix
B). All prepared questions were asked within the 90-minute time allotted and the facilitator was
responsible for getting all participants to talk and fully explain their answers using helpful probes
(e.g., “Can you say more about that?”; “H elp us understand what you mean?” and “Can you give an
example?”). The investigator demonstrated active listening and occasionally paraphrased long or
ambiguous comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes and/or summarized responses for
the whole group.
The facilitator recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone. Body language or other subtle
relevant clues were recorded via typed notes. Audio files were uploaded to a secure computer for
storage and backed up. The audio recording was then transcribed into a Word document by
Rev.com.
At the end of the focus group, participants were thanked and each person received the incentive (gift
card) that required a signature on the receipt log for accounting purposes.
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these participants were gathered at the focus group location.
Results are summarized in Table 1.
Attachment 5
5 | Page
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, the transcript was analyzed
using a systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content
analyses process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with
groupings entered into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored
common themes. The major findings from participants’ comments are summarized in the results
section that follows and includes a series of direct quotes highlighting relevant responses.
The investigator completed the final examination of the transcriptions. Results were reviewed and
synthesized to ensure accuracy of themes and supporting quotes. The themes and conclusions
presented in this report were reviewed twice by the investigator before the report was finalized.
Dr. Tierney recruiting at Science Night in Pescadero
Attachment 5
6 | Page
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many valuable findings were revealed by this focus
group interview process. It is important to note that
88% of participants in this focus group were not
familiar with Midpen preserves, and they may have
been thinking about, and referring to, trails located
outside of Midpen preserves. Although maps of
Midpen were provided at the focus group and the
facilitator discussed some unique characteristics and
uses in preserves versus other types of parks, there
were uncertainties about the preserve locations.
There is a chance that some parks outside Midpen’s were considered. Generalizing preserve/park
experiences is not uncommon to occur within focus group interviews. The parks literature explains
the difficulty for people in differentiating between lands/trails of adjacent park agencies. This
further accentuates the need for park agencies to work together; and, this reveals the increasing
importance to share such park use/non-use interview results with other park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age, sex,
ethnicity and occupation. This was the source for the following demographic data about the four
focus group participants. This was a group of persons who had not visited Midpen preserves.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Average Age 42 years
Age Range 19-64 years
Sex
Male 12%
Female 88%
Ethnicity
Latino/a 100%
Occupation
Mother 88%
Professional 12%
Attachment 5
7 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: PESCADERO LATINO MEMBERS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant comments.
Theme: The Latino Community in Pescadero is not familiar with Midpen preserves
-None of the participants had ever visited a Midpen preserve. Only one person had even heard about
Midpen preserves.
-When the facilitator asked if they’d heard about La Honda preserve, located about 8 miles from the town
and which had publicity for its recent grand opening, none of the respondents had heard of it”
“I don't go because I don't know where they are or the entrances or what it takes for me to go”
“We would not go because we didn't know it [preserve][existed]”
“Are there any specific hours to visit these places [preserves]?
Theme: There is strong interest in going to Midpen preserves
-Every single focus group participant indicated they want to visit a Midpen preserve in the future.
“Everybody's interested in going “
Theme: Observing and protecting nature are strong reasons for visiting preserves
“Observe nature, like what has been there before, like the trees and the rivers that have maintained itself
throughout the years”
“Taking care of it [nature and preserves]”
“There's a misconception about what Latino people do or don't do and that we might
not care and have the knowledge to talk about climate change, but we do. We do care
about the environment.”
“Exploring nature interests me”
“Visiting with my family, my children and helping them learn”
“Just enjoy nature because we don't have that here [in town]”
“Well, for me, I would imagine the difference between being around nature here [in town] and calling
nature [at nearby] Memorial [County] Park. That's a big difference. More trees, more plants in preserves.”
“I’d go to look at the plants, observe the plants, the wild flowers”
“If it [preserve] was in any way touched or destroyed, they [participants] would not like that”
“With no bathrooms [in many preserves], am I gonna contaminate nature?”
Theme: An important reason to visit a Midpen preserve is to benefit their
children
“”I would go with my kids, my family”
“The kids here are like inside and just don’t get out into nature”
“My children would be interested about the animals or the wildlife that's there
so that if they spot it they can say, "Oh, I saw that."
“Kids would be running, playing [in preserves]. They like that”
“They’d learn about nature”
Theme: A low cost or free preserve entry fee is very important and can influence visitation
“These places [preserves] are free and that is great.”
“You don’t have to spend a lot of money to go”
Theme: Nature (Midpen) preserves provide many benefits
Attachment 5
8 | Page
Subtheme A: Physical health
“I like walking”
“The air is different than in the city.... It's fresher over there at Memorial Park”
“My son rides his bike”
“I’d probably go hiking”
“We have a lot [of nature] all around us but we don't [get out to] enjoy it. People
come from over the hill but we don’t go nearby. Yeah, it's true”
Subtheme B: Good for mental wellbeing
“In a preserve I’d feel happy and free”
“My son would have a big smile on his face”
“I’d be calm, relaxed”
“You can hear the birds”
Theme: Local Hispanic people don’t feel unwelcome to visit preserves
-The facilitator asked if people in the community felt welcome to visit preserves.
-Respondents said most people don’t know about Midpen, but they also had not heard anything bad about
Midpen
“I think that the people from this community would feel welcome there because we have contact with
nature already”
“We haven't heard of anybody saying, "Oh, they don't like me there or they don't want me there“
Theme: There are significant barriers to visiting Midpen preserves
Subtheme A: Lack of information about preserves
“We would not go because we didn't know it [preserve][existed]”
“More information is needed. It would be good if you had more information [about preserves in area].
“I don't go because I don't know where they are or the entrances or what it takes for me to go”
“Can you take food on your hikes? Or is there places where you can sit and eat?”
“More information in Spanish”
Subtheme B: Personal safety
“This brochure shows they [preserves] don’t have bathrooms. Where do you go?”
“What would we do if there was an accident? What would happen if I got hurt by an animal or I got ... I
broke a wrist or something?”
“{Visit] By myself, no. Unless someone comes out with me I wouldn't go”
“There are pumas and snakes”
“Do they have plants that are poisonous? Maybe my child touching it and not knowing. I don't have the
understanding. People getting into plants that might have poison”
“There're snakes, rattlesnakes in some parts. They are a problem because if you're walking and you don't
see them”
“There's pumas or mountain lions out there that you don't feel safe or have a lot of trust in going out there”
“I could get lost”
Subtheme C: Lack transportation
-The facilitator asked the group if transportation to preserves was an issue. All
participants agreed that lack of transportation was a large issue.
“Maybe some don't know how to drive, they won't have a ride up there”
Attachment 5
9 | Page
Subtheme D: Too busy with family and job
“I can’t visit because I work and I have an infant”
“I have too busy of a schedule, I have kids”
Subtheme E: Other barriers
“I see trash on the trails. People leaving mattresses, chairs or tires”
“I might not know how to read the maps”
“I don’t have a phone or internet”
Theme: Midpen can do things to encourage the Latino community to visit preserves
Subtheme A: Create information about preserves in Spanish
-All respondents agreed they’d like materials in Spanish
“I prefer the information in Spanish”
Subtheme B: Organize docent-led tours with transportation and knowledgeable Spanish speakers
“Give kids information about the animals or the wildlife that's there so that if they spot it they can say, "Oh, I
saw that."
“We in Puente want to partner up [to offer hikes] because we want to offer these resources to people”
“Puente would be interested in working again with Latino Outdoors [to offer docent-led hike]. The last time
they only gave us two days advanced notice. They do it with the whole family. And we have a van”
Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct result of the data analysis of focus group responses.
The recommendations presented below are from the perspective of the Latino Pescadero community
members, who have never visited a Midpen preserve. Their ideas may or may not be different from
the general public or other types of preserve users.
1. Increase outreach to the Latino community. Only one of the participants even knew Midpen
preserves exist, what they offer, or how to get to them.
2. In-person presentations by Midpen in their community would be the most effective way to
get information to them and encourage Latino residents to visit. Over half of the group
members did not have internet access.
3. Provide brochures signs and pubic presentations in Spanish
4. Capitalize on the strong interest in visiting Midpen preserves among the Latino community
5. Offer programs for children and families
6. Develop ways to help Latino women and men overcome fears about their personal safety in
preserves
7. Offer docent-led tours for families in the preserves, with transportation included
8. Add restrooms. Or at least better inform people if and where they are available
Attachment 5
10 | Page
9. Work with community non-profit organizations, such as Puente, and schools
10. Recognize the Latino community is very interested in visiting preserves and protecting them.
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
The following conclusions and thoughts about the Pescadero focus group build upon the
participant responses. It is important to note the participants in this focus group were Latinos,
preferred the dialog to be in Spanish, of a wide age range, and mostly women. None of the
participants had ever visited a Midpen preserve. So the facilitator instructed them to consider
what Midpen preserves, with a mission of protecting nature and offering ecologically
responsible recreation, would be like, what they could do there and what would be a barrier to
them visiting.
The most important over-riding factor influencing visitation is the Pescadero Hispanic
community does not know about Midpen preserves. The District needs to conduct extensive
outreach to inform them about the opportunities and to distinguish preserves from other
recreation and park sites. There is strong interest in visiting preserves, once they know about
them.
There are significant constraints which must be overcome or minimized in order to foster
preserve visitation by the Pescadero Latino community. Barriers include: Lack of information
about the preserves, misunderstandings about what can be done in preserves (can they bring
food; are their restrooms, etc.); fear about personal safety in preserves (especia lly among
Latinas); lack of transportation to get to preserves even though some are less than 10 miles away;
and concerns about dangerous animals and poisonous plants in preserves.
But there was enthusiastic interest by the Latino community in Pescadero to visit a Midpen
preserve in the future. Participants especially thought preserves should offer opportunities be in
and learn about nature. The district should conduct in-person presentations in the Pescadero
community about the preserves and what there is to do . Internet-based communication seems to
not be very effective with this community. Develop more programs/tours in Spanish that
encourage first time visitation to the preserves. Encourage collaborations with Latino Outdoors
and Puente de la Costa to offer guided hikes, and combine this with transportation to preserves.
Recruit local Spanish speaking volunteers to lead hikes after providing training.
Work with organizations in the community, such as public schools, churches and community
groups (like Puente) with high Hispanic membership/use to get the word out about the preserves.
These are trusted sources that can effectively reach the Latino community.
Develop pages on the district website that are in Spanish to reach younger Hispanic residents, in
addition to the current district brochure (which is in Spanish). Each preserve should have a
Spanish version of itse website. This is a very important requirement to be able to work
Attachment 5
11 | Page
effectively with the Latino community in the Bay Area. Make presentations to the community in
Spanish. Have some signs at the preserves in Spanish.
There is strong interest in visiting and tremendous opportunities for the District to increase
visitation by members of the Latino community to their nearby preserves.
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 5
12 | Page
USTED ESTÁ INVITADO:
¡QUEREMOS ESCUCHAR
SU OPINIÓN!
OBTENGA $ 25
ÚNASE A NOSOTROS EN UN GRUPO DE
ENFOQUE
El Distrito Regional de Espacios Abiertos de la Península
Central (MidPen) está trabajando con el Dr. Patrick Tierney
en la Universidad Estatal de San Francisco para conocer sus
intereses y experiencias en las reservas naturales MidPen y
otros parques en esta área, lo que le gusta y lo que más le
disgusta, lo que le impide visitar y lo que cree que podría
mejorar sus experiencias en las reservas de espacios abiertos
de MidPen.
¡Queremos conocer SU opinion! Conozca más acerca de
MidPen a la vez que se les ayuda a ayudar mejor a su
comunidad ~
Correo electrónico:
adrift650@comcast.net to register
SON BIENVENIDOS LOS NO VISITANTES DE MIDPEN RESERVES
EL ESPACIO ES LIMITADO, ASÍ QUE REGÍSTRESE AHORA
¡Díganos lo que
piensa sobre
MidPen Open
Space Preserves!
Ubicación: Escuela Primaria
Pescadero, 620 North Street,
Pescadero
23 de Abril, del 2018
Registro y refrigerio a las
6:15 pm.
El grupo focal comienza
puntualmente a las 6:45pm
y termina a las 8:00pm
Attachment 5
13 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
MIDPENINSULA OPEN SPACE VISITOR USE STUDY:
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor in the Recreation, Parks and Tourism
Department at San Francisco State University. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today
and agreeing to be part of this focus group on Midpeninsula Open Space preserves. Tonight
when I say “MidPen”, I mean Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserves. We’ll do group
introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes. This conversation will last about an hour
and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record this conversation so we can use the
recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a secure location and will not be used
for any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has any issues/problems with being
audio-taped?].
Thank you for completing the pre-focus group survey just now. That information is helpful for
us to understand more about who is participating. This survey information will only be
presented in summary form. No names will be associated with any of that information. No
MidPen staff are present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about
MidPen open space preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make
during this interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll
use that when you want to make a comment , which I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today. I am going to go over a few details before we start. If
you have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to better
understand their open space preserve users’ attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences
and to identify reasons why people don’t visit more often. The information you share will help
MidPen learn how to reduce barriers to visiting the preserves and determine how well they are
supporting their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the
information you provide can help improve existing park resources and services to meet
community needs. Your participation is key as this group represents the ideas of the local
Hispanic community. We welcome your input and your voice matters to MidPen so we need you
to be honest with us and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
I am passing around a map showing the locations of the MidPen preserves. We are currently
helping them gather information on 21 preserves that are open to the public. Note that the
preserves are located outside of cities but in the surrounding areas. We are not talking about city
parks. The Midpen preserves protect wildlife, native plants, vistas and provide outdoor
recreation opportunities. Do you have any questions about what are MidPen preserves or where
they are located?
Guidelines
Attachment 5
14 | Page
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being
in a focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help
ensure a safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we
capture what everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be
attached to your comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each
other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in
general, and within MCP in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in
MCP, respond based on your knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t
need to agree with others, but please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do
agree with what someone says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing
in some other way. This helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says
something that reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their
comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While
we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in
any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I
might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder
after this. Please state your first name and your favorite outdoor recreation activity, if do it in a
park or open space preserve, and why it is interesting to you.
[When done, student assistant turns on digital recorder and begins typing notes on laptop].
[YLI] RESPONDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
As we move forward, it would be best to reply to the question as it relates to MidPen preserves,
if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any park experience are appreciated.
1. How many of you ha ve heard about a MidPen open space preserve prior to this focus group
invitation? It’s is ok if you have not.
2. In the last 6 months, how many of you visited any MidPen open space preserve? Any one not?
3. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in MidPen open space preserves, or if not
visited Midpen, in other nature areas.
Attachment 5
15 | Page
4. Which MidPen preserves do you like to go most often? Why do you prefer these MidPen
locations?
5. How have your most recent MidPen (or nature area0 experiences made you feel? Explain
6. What do you like the most about MidPen?
7. If you have not gone to MidPen preserve in the last 6 months or ever, please explain why. Did
you go at one time and have you stopped using MidPen locations altogether? Why?
8. What do you like least about MidPen parks and open space preserves?
9. Do you have any suggestions for MidPen management to improve your experiences in
MidPen open space preserves
10. Are there things that MidPen could do which increase the likelihood of you visiting a
MidPen open space preserve? Please explain.
11. How might these suggestions be implemented?
12. Do you feel welcome to visit a Midpen preserve?
12. Are there any other concerns or needs you would like to share with MidPen [ideas, volunteer
or employment opportunities]
Tier 2 - If Time, Address the Following Questions
a) What is the reputation of Midpen in the local community?
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Research assistant turns off digital recorder, note-taking ends].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you
provided is significant and meaningful and can really help improve [________} use throughout
the MidPen preserve. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a
summary report can be sent out to you upon request. If so, please write your name and email
address, or postal address, on this sheet .
In appreciation of your time, I will be distributing [a $25 gift card] as a thank you. In order to
receive this gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting
purposes only.
(PT) I want to thank Lina Mira for helping organize this event and translating tonight.
Here is a small donation to Puente for their assistance.
Attachment 5
16 | Page
Equipment & Supplies Checklist
1) Sign in sheet
2) Participant incentive log / accounting sheet
3) Name tags
4) Protocol copies
5) Question copies
6) Audio recording devices (2 Iphones), chargers
7) Gift cards
8) Visual charts, graphs, maps & brochures
9) Writing utensils: pens, pencils, sharpies
10) Money for caterer
11) Mailing list sheet
12) Laptops, chargers
13) Thank you card
14) Bring donation (money) for host/room rental (have receipt for it), if room not paid in
advance.
15) Large map of the district
16) District brochure showing preserves
Attachment 5
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Email: adrift650@comcast.net
A Component of the Midpen Visitors Study
SAN MATEO SENIORS
FOCUS GROUP REPORT
March 13, 2018
Attachment 6
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..10
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......…………11
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...12
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..……………………………………………..…….. 5
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 6
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), in partnership with Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor of recreation, parks and tourism at San Francisco State University, is conducting a study
of Midpen preserve users and non-users. The overall purpose of the study is to assess visitor
satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and future demands, for potential decision making. It
also aims to provide recommendations for preserve programs, facilities, policies, and innovative
ways to enhance stewardship, community engagement and access. The study consists of two parts:
Part I were intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II consists of focus groups with specific
community groups. This report presents the procedures and results of one focus group interview
with seven senior residents of San Mateo County, who were recruited by the Michelle Makino of the
San Mateo County Health Systems Aging and Adult Services. This focus group was held March 7,
2018 at 801 Gateway Center in South San Francisco. In this report a reference to “Midpen trails”
means trails in Midpen Open Space Preserves.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for Midpen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (650) 255-2536 or adrift650@comcast.net.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been possible nor successful without the help and support of Michelle
Makino, Program Services Manager, San Mateo County Health Systems Aging and Adult Services.
She helped us find and recruit participants in this focus group and secured the location. We wish to
express our thanks to her.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of Midpen district
senior residents in San Mateo County. Several participants were members of the County
Commission on Aging. Participants could have been persons who may or may not have visited
Midpen preserves. The choice of this user group and the initial contact for this older adult
community were provided by Joshua Hugg with Midpen. He and Midpen staff believed the
opinions and motivations from this group, and from upcoming focus groups could benefit future
planning of the district preserves and services.
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
Dr. Tierney created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitate the focus group, such as
focus group recruitment flyers, focus group protocol, and interview questions. The San Mateo senior
community leader was asked to recruit potential participants for the focus group. Dr. Tierney created
Attachment 6
3 | Page
an invitation and recruitment flyer. Michelle forwarded it to persons, and she confirmed persons
attending the focus group. At the focus group Dr. Tierney showed maps of Midpen preserves and
facilitated the focus group. Active participants were provided with a $25 Safeway Stores gift card at
the end of the event.
Dr. Tierney used a participant sign-in sheet, log for signatures acknowledging receipt of gift cards,
and sign-up sheet for Midpen (e.g., anyone requesting a copy of the final report or wished to be
added to mailing list). Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags and map
brochures of all Midpen preserves. Dr. Tierney also provided a lite meal and refreshments at the
start of the focus group to encourage attendance and thank the participants.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small group of four to fifteen people, ideally, led
through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. Dr. Tierney was
the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial questions and
nurtured disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to
generate a maximum number of different opinions, experiences,
attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the group in the time
allotted. As reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups
were structured around a set of carefully predetermined questions but the discussion was free-
flowing. That is, participant comments stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method employed a community leader to enlist members of
the San Mateo Commission on Aging and other seniors as focus group participants. This
community leader recruited 7 participants, some of whom were occasional users of Midpen
preserves, while a most were not familiar with Midpen. Dr. Tierney developed the recruitment flyer
shown in Appendix A. Focus group participants were rewarded with a $25 gift card to Safeway as
an incentive to participate. Additionally, participants were informed a lite meal would be provided
and thirty minutes was allotted for general socializing (e.g., “meet and greet”) prior to the official
start time of the interview process.
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by the Dr. Tierney, based on past
experience, and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group
questions, and logistical information. Since some participants were not familiar with Midpen
preserves, Dr. Tierney handed-out a Midpen brochure showing the locations of all preserves to all
participants, and referred to a large map showing district boundaries and preserve locations. At the
start of the focus group he also presented a brief general introduction to what Midpen offers and how
their preserves are different from city, county and national parks. Focus group questions were
developed based on models from prior studies and questions that were desired from the Midpen
staff. A set of questions were developed which focused on visitors’ use, experiences, and
recommendations. If persons had not visited a Midpen preserve, they were asked to consider a visit
Attachment 6
4 | Page
to another nature preserve, such as a national park or wildlife refuge. Questions asked participants
about their most recent preserve experience, types of activities they undertook, how these activities
make them feel, where they like to go most often in Midpen or nature preserves, what they like most
about their recent experiences in the preserve, what they like least, and any suggestions for Midpen
management to improve their experience. The final focus group protocol and questions used during
the San Mateo Seniors focus group are available in Appendix B.
Data Collection
The San Mateo Seniors focus group had seven participants. As participants arrived at the location,
the facilitator asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic
information. They then enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was
established by the investigator. After a half hour the investigator introduced and described how the
proceedings would go. He started the interview process, beginning with a general ice breaker to get
the group thinking about preserves and park use or non-use, and used then the protocol and
questions (Appendix B). All prepared questions were asked within a 120 minute time period and the
facilitator was responsible for getting all participants to talk and fully explain their answers using
helpful probes (e.g., “Can you say more about that?”; “Help us understand what you mean?” and
“Can you give an example?”). The investigator demonstrated active listening and occasionally
paraphrased long or ambiguous comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes and/or
summarized responses for the whole group.
The facilitator recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone. Body language or other subtle
relevant clues were recorded via typed notes. At the end of the focus group, participants were
thanked and each person received the incentive (gift card) that required a signature on the receipt log
for accounting purposes. If any participants wanted to receive the final report, or expressed interest
in being put on a Midpen mailing list, they were asked to indicate that on the sign-in sheet. Audio
files were uploaded to a secure computer for storage and backed up.
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these seven participants were gathered at the sign-in for the focus
group. Results are summarized in Table 1. The focus group discussions were captured via audio
recordings. The facilitator moderated, while the discussions were recorded. The interview was then
transcribed verbatim by an outside contractor, Rev.com, and verified by Dr. Tierney.
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, they were analyzed using a
systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content analysis
process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with groupings entered
into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored common themes.
Supporting quotes for each theme were placed under the appropriate section to illustrate what
participants stated. The principle investigator then used themes and quotes to develop
recommendations.
Attachment 6
5 | Page
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many valuable findings were revealed by this
focus group interview process. It is important to
note that the majority of participants in this focus
group were familiar with Midpen preserves, but
had not visited in the last six months. Although
maps of the Midpen were provided at the focus
group and the facilitator discussed some unique
characteristics and uses in preserves, there were
uncertainties about the preserve resources and
locations. There is a chance that some parks outside Midpen’s were considered. Generalizing
preserve/park experiences is not uncommon to occur within focus group interviews. The parks
literature explains the difficulty for people in differentiating between lands/trails of adjacent park
agencies. This further accentuates the need for park agencies to work together; and, the increasing
importance to share such park use/non-use interview results with other park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age, sex,
ethnicity and occupation and if they had visited a Midpen preserve. This was the source for the
following demographic data about the seven focus group participants. Table 1 suggests this was a
group of active older adults who visited parks but had not been to a Midpen preserve in the last six
months to a year. Four of the seven participants has visited a Midpen preserve at some point.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Total Number of Participants 7
Average Age 69 years
Age Range 55-77 years
Sex
Male 14%
Female 86%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 71%
Asian 29%
Occupation
Retired 43%
Professional 57%
Attachment 6
6 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: SAN MATEO SENIORS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant
quotes.
Theme: The Senior Community in San Mateo County is generally not familiar with Midpen preserves
- Two of the seven focus group participants could name a Midpen preserve they had visited in the last six
months or ever before.
“People don't know about them for the most part. I mean the district has been around for 45 years now but
people aren't aware of that”
“It's (Midpen preserves) the best kept secret around”
“There is a very large component of healthy seniors that probably if they knew more about where these
wonderful places (preserves) are located would probably take advantage of this”
““The preserves are not widely promoted enough and known enough”
Theme: Hiking, looking at scenery and wildlife observation are by far the most common activities by
seniors in preserves
“It's walking for exercise
“Just walking. It's just a great pleasure and also identifying some plants.”
“I go not just to walk but to see if I can find animals or flowers or something
beautiful so I can take a picture”
“I like to observe birds. If I see them and then really try to identify the species”
“I enjoy walking and the fresh air”
“There are great views”
“I spent a lot of time at Purissima Redwoods”
“Newts are one of my favorites and banana slugs out there”
“There are a number of places where you can see, on a clear day, you can see San Francisco and San Jose”
“But it's also we have a lot of trails around the ocean so if you are lucky you can see a whale or dolphins”
Theme: Senior populations will increase dramatically in the future
“One of the things that just blows my mind is within 15 years, one third of your adult population is going to
be over 65”
“94% of your (population) growth in the next 15 years is going to be in the over 65 category as people are
aging into that and the young people kind of can’t afford to move in here”
“I think once again as a whole growing cohort of people, we (seniors) need to be listened to more”
Theme: Midpen preserves provide many benefits
Subtheme A: Good for mental wellbeing
“It's an antidote to the stress of living in the crowded suburban areas”
“Being in the redwoods is the feeling of being away in a very deep sense that I don't get anywhere else.”
“Open Space increases your happiness by tenfold”
“Open Space is not just the exercise but the spiritual connectiveness with nature”
“For me it's a mind, spirit and body experience and I never want to go home”
“It just gives you an opportunity to clear your mind of everything except how beautiful the world really is”
“I like the feeling of the sky and the visual freedom and I feel that it enhances my feeling that I'm free”
Subtheme B: Physical health
“I go for walking, for exercise”
Attachment 6
7 | Page
“I know walking and exercise works for me”
Subtheme C: Other benefits
“I love history and evolution of this whole area”
”Bringing your dogs, that's one of the things that draws me”
“What I really like about the Open Space is fewer people, fewer dogs”
Theme: Midpen preserves offer a different kind of experience and visitors need to be prepared for it
“It (Midpen preserve) is just a different experience because it is warm nature without the frills”
“If you want to go you need to realize there are not bathrooms every whatever and signs and you
need to be more prepared.”
Theme: There are significant barriers to visiting Midpen preserves
Subtheme A: Transportation
“I see transportation right up there with marketing as your challenges”
“I think that transportation (to preserves) needs to be improved especially for seniors”
“Many seniors don’t have cars, some should not be driving and more seniors are disabled”
“Midpen preserves are remote and hard to get to”
“I think that there is a great concern about seniors continuing to drive and to get to these spots (preserves)”
“Accessibility and transportation is a problem
“It is more logistics in terms of traffic and planning and requires a whole day to go to Midpen”
Subtheme B: Personal Safety
“It's always in the back of my mind, am I going to be safe (in the preserves)?
“You hear about people being bothered in these areas because they are isolated and I'm thinking, "It's not
going to be me." That's why I haven't gone”
“I'm always thinking about safety a little bit and not having, once again engaged in all this great
opportunities, I'm thinking is it going to really be safe”
“We are older and we know that we're not as agile as we used to be and I think maybe not having the
knowledge and the information about the safety factors, when we hear so much about (safety) problems”
“I'm a senior, but I'm a woman first. These parks are a little more remote in terms of a local park, state park
or just a trail that the city has or Golden Gate National Park has created, so it's a different kind of
atmosphere, and you don't always have a buddy to go with you.”
“I don't want to be attacked, because you are very vulnerable (in preserves), especially if you happen to try
cross somewhere where there is not very good people”
“I don't like snakes. And then they always have those signs often at the beginning that say Bobcats, what are
those other things (mountain lions)?”
“I wouldn't not do any of these (preserves) because I'm a senior, without a buddy”
“If somebody falls and you need to call somebody how do you reach help and tell them where you are?”
“I avoid being in the wilderness by myself”
Subtheme C: No one to go to preserve with
“You don't always have a buddy to go with you”
“I'm always thinking about safety a little bit and not having, once again engaged in all this great
opportunities”
“Several of my friends said they would never go because they had no one to go with”
“One of my friends suggested she'd love to go to all of these places but could there be a walking group, that
type of thing, so that their aloneness isn't a factor”
Attachment 6
8 | Page
Subtheme D: Lack of easy and disabled-accessible trails and information about them
“There needs to be more attention to what trails are conducive for seniors or access for disability people”
“Our park is right in the middle of senior living center but both accesses are steep up hill and there’s just no
way for seniors to access it, no matter how much we've been working with them to try to get the entrance
to be more level ... so seniors just can't really utilize it.”
“How do we make this (preserve) accessible to everyone not just the young and healthier?
“My husband and I were just hiking a couple of weeks ago up in Oregon; not only do they have the
designated common trail difficulty levels but also they put the number of miles to benchmarks”
Subtheme E: Traffic on roadways
“Traffic is a big deterrent (to visiting preserves), therefore I go to closer ones (parks)”
“Traffic is a huge issue and my window for when I'm willing to go out has shrunk, it's now down to about
9:30 to 3 and it used to be 9 to 4 and it's soon going to be 10 to 2:30 ”
Subtheme F: Other barriers to visitation
“I also think about bathroom facilities and is there a place on the trails”
“That (lack of restrooms) can be an issue or a barrier to someone going on because of basic needs”
“Signage is so important because you can so easily get lost. I would say good signage so you can't get lost”
“I don’t like dogs and they are allowed”
“If somebody plays really loud music, I probably would rather not go to this place.”
“I like to have somewhere to stop and sit (on a bench)”
Theme: Management issues
“We have issues with the dogs being off leash and their waste not being picked up”
“They need good signage so you can't get lost”
“What really bothers me especially if I'm on a hiking trail with s (horse droppings)”
Theme: Conflict between developing and improving preserves
“I wouldn't want open space to change its mission and the mission is to maintain open
space. I think (some changes can be made) within limitations maybe some of them
where terrain, easier terrain, could be morphed into more trails for seniors or
disabled or adults with children.”
“I don't want any of them (Midpen preserves) to go away and alter them in a way
because we will have developed parks”
“Are we trying to turn this (preserve) into a city park?”
“But if you want to bring more in and access folks and more facilities then you are kind of at odds with
(Midpen preservation) goals”
Theme: Improve transportation options for seniors
“Most cities have senior centers who are looking for options for their older adults and have vans”
“Connect with the Paratransit coordinating council”
“SAMTRANS options are very limited so need to seek other transportation options for seniors”
“Engage in churches so they sponsor a bus that would take a group of people to some of the open space”
“Choose senior centers in different cities that are maybe close by (to preserves)”
“Encourage transportation partnerships by having a church day or a community service day where they are
going to take a bus to Midpen”
Theme: Midpen can do things to encourage the older adult community to visit preserves
Attachment 6
9 | Page
Subtheme A: Improve facilities
“Select some terrain (trail) changes or something like better signs, some benches or something that would
be more user friendly, but not to go beyond that”
“Should we be asking for them to have more cell towers in the preserves, to get reception even in remote
areas?”
“I suggest having a designated place to have lunch, with tables and benches”
“Improve signage in preserves”
Subtheme B: More better pre-visit information and signage in preserves
“A lack of signage, in my opinion, is reducing the guest experience and also in terms of safety concerns”
“More interpretative signage”
“Trail heads could use some more information. The back of the map could be more
specific on what wildlife you could possibly see”
“Use the app Visit where you download maps to your smartphone before you go to
the preserve and use its maps to determine where you are on a trail”
Subtheme C: Improved services to the senior community
“Docent led tours for seniors”
“Identifying both easy trails, as well as access point centers for people with mobility issues”
“I think that it will really be useful to have a universal (trail difficulty) rating system”
“Have the common trail difficulty levels and put the number of miles to junction or attraction”
“Test if signs are easy to understand by having some lay people who are not planners, come up and give you
some feedback”
“Train seniors to lead a hike to whatever extent the liability was comfortable”
“Help people preview what their experiences are going to be like with video cams (in preserves)”
Subtheme D: Ways to reach the older adult community
“I don't think there is one way to reach seniors. You got to do it in many ways all in bits and pieces”
“Maybe major employer HR departments should give employees something digital ... here is a map of
Midpeninsula open space preserves to get out to use them”
“The preserves are not widely promoted enough and known enough”
“Midpeninsula could work with other organizations within the county to help them with information”
Examples:
”Every community has a senior center, and you could make presentations there”
“Senior villages (housing communities) to make presentations and handout info”
“Community rec centers”
“Open Space committee in Pacifica”
“San Mateo County Commission on Aging”
“YMCA”
“Senior lunch programs”
“Distribute their brochures at REI”
“Churches”
“Music and art festivals and fairs”
“Midpeninsula should be out there with their maps (and brochures) and having the representatives go and
spread the word because obviously we don't feel educated about it”
“In whatever advertisement vehicles you have use pictures of seniors hiking would be really important”
“I would rather they use that money to buy open space than want them to print brochures”
Attachment 6
10 | Page
Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct result of the data analysis of focus group responses.
The recommendations presented below are from the perspective of the San Mateo senior community
members, and they may or may not be different from the general public or other types of preserve
users.
1. Increase outreach to the senior community. Many do not even know Midpen preserves exists,
what they offer, or they have inaccurate mental images of them.
2. Prepare for the number of healthy seniors will increase dramatically in San Mateo County in
the next 10-20 years.
3. Develop more communications with the senior community as there are now a large number
of healthy seniors that would visit if they knew more about them
4. Offer docent-led hikes to overcome substantial personal safety concerns of first time visitors
about use of preserves
5. Increase transportation options to preserves for seniors by partnering with community
organizations. Many seniors lack transportation to preserves.
6. Encourage walking and wildlife observation in preserves for mental wellness and physical
health
7. There is a need to communicate to seniors that Midpen preserves offer a different kind of
experience from a city park and seniors need to be more prepared to visit them
8. Develop an easy to identify trail steepness and difficulty rating system to help seniors find
suitable trails. Many are looking for easier trails.
9. Help many older adults overcome their substantial barriers to visiting preserves. Some have
safety concerns about visiting them, are afraid of getting lost.
10. Develop senior group programs. Some senior are afraid to visit preserves alone and lack
persons to go with.
11. Make only moderate improvements to preserves, such as better signage, more benches and
smooth the surface of a few shorter trails to accommodate seniors and others with limited
mobility
12. Add a few more restrooms.
13. Partner with senior-focused community organizations to communicate with their members
about Midpen preserves and provide transportation to them.
Attachment 6
11 | Page
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
Dr. Tierney has the following conclusions and thoughts about the San Mateo focus group. It is
important to note the participants in this focus group were active seniors with an average age of 69,
they were generally unaware of Midpen preserves but had a strong interest in visiting, if important
barriers could be mitigated.
Populations of older adults in San Mateo is projected to increase dramatically in the next 10-20
years. The district should increase services and make a few important facility modifications to
provide equal access for many of these seniors and increase visitation among under-served older
adults.
The most important action the District should take is to conduct outreach to inform older adults
about the opportunities, preserve locations, and to distinguish preserves from other recreation and
park sites. This includes providing better communications about trail difficulty ratings, and offering
easy trails with flatter terrain and smoother surfaces (including the existing district easy trail
webpage). But not all seniors are the same, some are fully able to enjoy challenging trails on their
own but others are certainly not.
The second greatest barrier to visiting is a lack of public and private transportation to Midpen
preserves which are considered “remote.” Rather than seeking large increases in public
transportation (SAMTRANS) to the more remote preserves, partner with senior-focused community
organizations to communicate with their members about Midpen programs and provide
transportation to them (weekdays and off-peak times). Community senior centers, private and
public senior villages (housing centers) and senior lunch programs appear to be the most logical and
effective partners to offer transportation to preserves for under-served seniors.
There are considerable fears, especially among older women, about their personal safety in
preserves. This includes concerns about weird or dangerous visitors, wild animals, about falling and
being injured with no means of communications, and getting lost in preserves. A substantial number
lack partners to visit with and are unwilling to go without another person. Therefore, the third most
important action the district could take for under-served seniors are developing and promoting
docent-led group hikes in preserves with other seniors. These appear to offer one of the most
effective ways to over-come personal safety concerns of first-time or infrequent senior visitors.
Many senior support organizations are also interested in providing new healthy activities for their
clients. These would be natural partners to co-develop and communicate such programs.
Many seniors want only moderate facility improvements, while others expect ”city park” type
facilities. The modifications desired that appear to be most aligned with Midpen’s mission of
preservation and restoration are: Changes to select trails which are naturally flatter while going through
visually interesting and shaded terrain. This would include smoothing the surface with placement of gravel;
installation of comprehensive way-finding signage, and installation of benches, event picnic tables and
restrooms at a shaded appropriate site along the trail. A higher percentage of seniors have disabilities so
such trails could also expand accessible opportunities. These trails would have to be well identified and
communicated, both before, at the start and during their visit, to allow what most seniors want; to be able
to identify, access, select and enjoy appropriate trails on their own if they so choose.
Attachment 6
12 | Page
Most seniors were not looking for high tech solutions to their concerns, many wanted more personal touch
programs and sources of information. But a considerable number of seniors indicated they regularly use
social media, the internet and specialized apps. They wanted a better district website for their needs. Both
a high touch and a few high tech alternatives would be appreciate by older adults.
Seniors consider themselves a great volunteer resource that the District could tap into. Many are willing to
help in less physical ways, such as spreading the word to other seniors, communicating information to
preserve visitors, being another pair of eyes in the preserves, and providing input into planning processes.
Seniors are another resource the District could employ, even more than they currently do.
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 6
13 | Page
YOU ARE INVITED:
WE WANT TO HEAR
YOUR VOICE!
JOIN US FOR A FOCUS GROUP
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MidPen)
is working with Dr. Patrick Tierney to learn about your
experiences in their reserves and other parks in the San
Mateo area, what you like most and least, and what you
think could improve experiences by older adults in MidPen
open space preserves.
We want to hear from YOU! Learn more about MidPen while
helping them to better assist your senior community ~
Email a confirmation you will participate to:
Tell us what you
think about
MidPen Open
Space Preserves!
Location: 801 Gateway
Blvd., go to 2nd Floor,
South San Francisco, CA
March 7, 2018
Sign-in and lite snack at
9:15am.
Focus group starts
promptly at 10:00 &
ends by 11:45
This session is open by invitation only.
Food will be provided! Receive a
$25 gift card
for your time and active input!
Dr. Patrick Tierney: adrift650@comcast.net
Attachment 6
14 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
MIDPEN PRESERVE VISITOR USE STUDY:
San Mateo Seniors Focus Group Protocol for March 7, 2018
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor of recreation, parks and tourism at SFSU. Thank
you for taking the time to talk to us today and agreeing to be part of this focus group. We’ll do
group introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes. This conversation will last about an
hour and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record this conversation so we can use the
recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a secure location and will not be used for
any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has any issues/problems with being audio-
taped?].
No MROSD staff are present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about
MROSD preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make during this
interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll use that, which
I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today. I am going to go over a few details before we start. If you
have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the MROSD to better understand open space preserve users’
attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences and to identify reasons why people don’t visit
more often. The information you share will help the district determine how well they are supporting
their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the information you
provide can help improve existing preserve resources and services to meet community needs. Your
participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [members of the South Bay Asian
Community]. We welcome your input and your voice matters to the District so we need you to be
honest with us and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
Guidelines
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being in a
focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help ensure a
safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we capture what
everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be attached to your
comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each
other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in
general, and within MCP in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in
MCP, respond based on your knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t
need to agree with others, but please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do
agree with what someone says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing
Attachment 6
15 | Page
in some other way. This helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says
something that reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their
comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While
we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in
any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I
might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder after
this. Please state your first name and your favorite MROSD preserve.
[Turn on digital recorder].
SAN MATEO SENIOR FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Generic Discussion Questions, Tier 1 - (As we move forward, it would be best to reply as it relates
to Midpen Open Space preserves, if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any preserve
and park experiences are fair game.
1. Have you heard of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserves before learning about this focus
group? If so, can you give me an example of a preserve?
2. In the last 6 months, have each of you visited any Midpen preserve for any purpose? Any one not?
If not, have you visited a nature area, such as a state, national or county park or wildlife refuge?
3. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in Midpen preserves. If not visited Midpen, what
activities do you like to do in nature areas?
4. Which Midpen preserves do you most like to visit? Why do you prefer to do these activities at
these locations?
5. How have your most recent MidPen preserve experiences made you feel? Or if never
visited Midpen, how do visits to other nature areas make you feel. Explain
6. What do you like the most about the MidPen preserves? If not visited Midpen, what do you like
most about other nature areas you have visited? Explain.
7. If you have not visited a Midpen preserve in the last 6 months, please explain why. Have you
stopped using MidPen altogether? Why?
Attachment 6
16 | Page
8. What do you like least about visiting MidPen preserves? Or if you never visited Midpen, what do
you like least about nature areas? Why?
9. Would you like to visit a Midpen preserve in the future? Why or why not?
10. Do you have any suggestions for MidPen management to improve your past preserve
experiences, or encourage you to try visiting a MidPen open space preserve for the first time? Please
explain.
11. How might these suggestions be implemented?
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Turn off digital recorder].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you provided is
significant and meaningful and can really help improve visitor experiences throughout the MidPen
preserves. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a summary report can
be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your name and email address, or postal address, to
our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, I will be distributing [a $25 gift card incentive]. In order to receive this
gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting purposes only.
(PT) I want to thank Michelle Makino for helping organize and translating this event. (Give
thank you card to participant organizers).
Attachment 6
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Professor
Email: adrift650@comcast.net
Midpen Visitors
Study
PALO ALTO SENIORS
FOCUS GROUP REPORT
April 17, 2018
Attachment 7
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..9
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......………..…9
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...10
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..………………………………………….…..…….. 5
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 7
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), in partnership with Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor of recreation, parks and tourism, is conducting a Visitor Study of Midpen users. The
overall purpose of the study is to assess visitor satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and
future demands, for potential decision making. The study also aimed to offer recommendations for
preserve programs, facilities, policies, and innovative ways to enhance community engagement and
access. The study consists of two parts: Part I are intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II
consists of focus groups with specific community groups. This Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,
Seniors Report presents the procedures and results of one focus group interview with ten senior
members of Avenidas, a support and enrichment program for older adults in Palo Alto , who were
recruited by the Tracy McCloud, Director of Avenidas. This focus group was held April 11, 2018 at
the Cullerley Community Center, 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for Midpen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (650) 255-2536 or adrift650@comcast.net.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been possible nor successful without the help and support of Tracy
McCloud, Director of Avenidas. She helped us find and recruit participants in this focus group and
secured the location. We wish to express our thanks to her.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of Midpen district
senior residents of Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto. All participants were members the
Avenidas and/or Palo Alto community. Participants could have been persons who may or may not
have used Midpen preserves. The choice of this user group and the initial contact for this older adult
community were provided by Joshua Hugg with Midpen. He and Midpen staff believed the
opinions and motivations from this group, and from upcoming focus groups could benefit future
planning of the district preserves and services.
Preparation
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
Dr. Tierney created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitate the focus group, such as
focus group recruitment flyers (see Appendix A), focus group protocol, and interview questions. A
Palo Alto senior community leader was asked to recruit potential participants for the focus group.
Dr. Tierney sent an invitation and recruitment flyer, she forwarded it to interested persons, and she
confirmed people attending the focus group. Active participants were promised a $25 Safeway
Stores gift card at the end of the event. Additionally, participants were informed a lite meal would
Attachment 7
3 | Page
be provided and thirty minutes was allotted for general socializing (e.g., “meet and greet”) prior to
the official start time of the interview process.
At the event Dr. Tierney provided each participant with a Midpen brochure showing all preserves,
used a participant sign-in sheet, and a log for signatures (acknowledging receipt of gift cards).
Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags and a display map of Midpen
preserves. Dr. Tierney also provided a lite meal and refreshments before the start of the focus
group.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small gathering of four to fifteen people, ideally,
led through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. Dr. Tierney
was the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial questions
and nurtured disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to
generate a maximum number of different opinions, experiences,
attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the group in the time
allotted. As reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups
were structured around a set of carefully predetermined questions but the discussion was free-
flowing. That is, participant comments stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method that enlisted the director of Avenidas center for
seniors in Palo Alto to recruit focus group participants. This community leader recruited 10
participants, all of whom were at least somewhat familiar with Midpen preserves, while a few were
frequent visitors.
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by the Dr. Tierney, based on past
experience, and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group
questions, and logistical information. Since some participants were not familiar with Midpen
preserves, Dr. Tierney handed-out a Midpen brochure showing the locations of all preserves to all
participants, and referred to a large map showing district boundaries and preserve locations. At the
start of the focus group he also presented a brief general introduction to what Midpen offers and how
their preserves are different from city, county and national parks. Focus group questions were
developed based on models from prior studies and questions that were desired from the Midpen
staff. A set of questions were developed which focused on visitors’ use, experiences, and
recommendations. If persons had not visited a Midpen preserve, they were asked to consider a visit
to another nature preserve, such as a national park or wildlife refuge. Questions asked participants
about their most recent preserve experience, types of activities they undertake, how these activities
make them feel, where they like to go most often in Midpen or nature preserves, what they like most
about their recent experiences in the preserve, what they like least, and any suggestions for Midpen
Attachment 7
4 | Page
management to improve their experience. The final focus group protocol and questions used during
the Palo Alto Seniors focus group is available in Appendix B.
Data Collection
The Palo Alto Seniors focus group had ten participants. As participants arrived at the location, the
facilitator asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic information.
They then enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was established by the
investigator. After a half hour the investigator introduced and described how the proceedings would
go. He started the interview process, beginning with a general ice breaker to get the group thinking
about preserves and park use or non-use, and using the protocol and questions (Appendix B). All
prepared questions were asked within a 120 minute time period and the facilitator was responsible
for getting all participants to talk and fully explain their answers using helpful probes (e.g., “Can
you say more about that ?”; “Help us understand what you mean?” and “Can you give an
example?”). The investigator demonstrated active listening and occasionally paraphrased long or
ambiguous comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes and/or summarized responses for
the whole group.
The facilitator recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone. Body language or other subtle
relevant clues were recorded via typed notes. Audio files were uploaded to a secure computer for
storage and backed up.
At the end of the focus group, participants were thanked and each person received the incentive (gift
card) that required a signature on the receipt log for accounting purposes. If any participants wanted
to receive the final report, or expressed interest in being put on a Midpen mailing list, they were
asked to indicate that on the sign-in sheet.
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these ten participants were gathered at the focus group location.
Results are summarized in Table 1.
The focus group discussions were captured via audio recordings. Unfortunately, the recorder
stopped part way through the session and the facilitator later recalled and wrote out highlights of the
conservations not recorded. The facilitator moderated, while the discussions were recorded. The
portion of the interview that was recorded, was later transcribed verbatim by an outside contractor,
Rev.com and verified by Dr. Tierney.
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, they were analyzed using a
systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content analysis
process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with groupings entered
into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored common themes.
Supporting quotes for each theme were placed under the appropriate section to illustrate what
Attachment 7
5 | Page
participants stated. Themes and conclusions presented in this report were reviewed twice by the
investigator before the report was finalized.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many valuable findings were revealed by this focus group interview process. It is important to note
almost all participants in this focus group were familiar with Midpen preserves, and had visited in
the last year. Although maps of the Midpen were provided at the focus group and the facilitator
discussed some unique characteristics and uses in preserves, there were uncertainties by participants
about the preserve locations. There is a chance that some parks outside Midpen’s were considered.
Generalizing preserve/park experiences is not uncommon to occur within focus group interviews.
The parks literature explains the difficulty for people in differentiating between lands/trails of
adjacent park agencies. This further accentuates the need for park agencies to work together; and,
this reveals the increasing importance to share such park use/non-use interview results with other
park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age, sex,
ethnicity and occupation and if they had visited a Midpen preserve. This was the source for the
following demographic data about the four focus group participants. Results show this was a group
of active older adults. Nine of the ten participants has visited a Midpen preserve in the last year.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Total Number of Participants 10
Average Age 72 years
Age Range 59-92 years
Sex
Male 30%
Female 70%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 90%
Asian 10%
Occupation
Retired 100%
Attachment 7
6 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: PALO ALTO SENIORS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant
comments.
Theme: This group of participants in Palo Alto had visited a few Midpen preserves but were
unfamiliar with the extent of preserves
-All participants indicated they were familiar with the Midpen name.
-50% indicated they had visited a Midpen preserve in the last six months
-3 of the ten had visited the new Mt. Umunhum preserve
“When I came here, I liked to see this map showing all of these [preserves] because I'd like to try them. That
is really very, very helpful, there's one I'd like to see, but I know that it was out there, it's just I didn't realize
how much it encompassed that space. ”
Theme: Hiking, learning about the area’s nature and history, looking at scenery, photography and
attending special events are the most common participant activities in preserves
“It's walking, for exercise”
“Number Nine goes hiking every Tuesday and Thursday. So I go to different county
parks for the two counties, and regional parks over in East Bay, city parks, so I end
up going fairly often”
“I like doing hikes... easier hikes, not with all the elevation gain”
‘I only like the long ones [hikes] and I don't go on the short ones
“I also went to Umunhum and it's fantastic. It's really very, very different. And it
also gave a great history about the whole region, and so I thought that was extremely interesting”
“I've visited 14 of them [Midpen preserves], but I’m 92”
“The reason we went to the Mount Umunhum is because I found out about the
grand opening and I love looking at the beauty of nature, but we don't generally go
to visit unless there's something happening”
“Picnicking and hiking and being with my friends”
‘We had [participated in"] a number of events at Los Trancos. One was an awards presentation for nature
supporters, and one was earthquake walk”
“Photography or major events”
“I like to find some little creature and watch him. Whether it's a little teeny bug or a big animal, worm, or
something to see what he does, where he goes.”
“I don't know if it's in these parks, but where they've had [captured] animals or birds, and I love looking at
animals and petting them, and birds ... I love learning about things, so, and I also love doing crafts.
“I remember going to something [at a preserve] about the Ohlone Indians
“Just getting out and being in the wilderness when you're so close to such a highly congested area is just a
great benefit“
Theme: The most common preserves visited
“Rancho San Antonio”
“Preserves closest to my home”
“I think [I visited] the opening of Monte Bello”
“Los Trancos”
Attachment 7
7 | Page
Theme: Midpen preserves provide many benefits
Subtheme A: Good for mental wellbeing
“To get away from the noise and whatnot”
“I really enjoy the tranquility and the ability to get away from this chaotic Silicon Valley
“Relaxed”
“Alive and free”
“Rejuvenated”
“Getting out in nature once in a while”
Subtheme B: Physical health
“Its walking and exercise”
“I know walking and exercise works for me”
“What I like are hiking trails, especially the kind of active ones that lead to other trails”
Subtheme C: Other benefits
““I really like the variety of being able to go up to the mountains, and also down to the shore, and see the
various different changes in wildlife there”
” Being with my friends”
“Some of them [trails] I can actually take the dog if I want to. I don't do that a lot, but it's nice to have the
choice. And the dog is on the leash, so I like the fact that if we meet other dogs they'll be on a leash ”
Theme: Things like least about preserve visit: lack of restrooms, lack of parking, fear for personal safety
and lack of information about preserves
“I don’t know if there are bathrooms available along the trail”
“I am concerned about my safety if I am not familiar with a preserve. There can be bad
people there. I prefer to go with others”
“I don’t know much about them
“Some reserves are remote and take time to reach
“There is no cell phone service in them, and I’d like that in case of an emergency”
“I will only visit when there is an event going on. I don’t know what events are available”
“Some hikes are too long and strenuous ”
“I don’t know how difficult the trails are”
“There is no parking at Rancho San Antonio, the lots are always full”
Theme: There is strong interested in visiting preserves in the future by participants
-Everyone raised their hands when asked if they want to visit a preserve in the future”
Theme: There are significant barriers to visiting Midpen preserves
Subtheme A: Transportation
- Participants were asked if they had a private car to reach a preserve. All said car was not a problem
“There is no parking at Rancho San Antonio, the lots are always full”
“Some reserves are remote and take time to reach”
” Some seniors need transportation to preserves”
“Parking at Rancho San Antonio is atrocious. It needs to be expanded”
Theme: Midpen can do things to encourage the older adult community to visit preserves
Subtheme A: Improve facilities
“One place [preserve] has a Visitors Center and I enjoyed that”
Attachment 7
8 | Page
“Could there be campgrounds”
“I like doing the hikes... easier hikes”
“Increase cell phone coverage in preserves, or at least say on the preserve website if coverage is available”
Subtheme B: More and better pre-visit information, displays and signage in preserves
“ I don’t know how difficult the trails are”
“Have a Facebook page which talks about what is new at preserves, what wildlife has recently been seen”
“I don’t know much about them”
“I also went to Uminum and it's fantastic. It gave a great history about the whole region,
and so I thought that was extremely interesting”
“I don’t know if there are bathrooms available”
“You know, photography or major events, and if they were well publicized. I think I
would definitely go to an event-type of a thing. I'd like to learn more.”
“Some people who are really knowledgeable about medicinal plans and Indians”
“I'll second the enjoyment of the earthquake walk [at a preserve]. I thought that was fabulous”
“I like doing the hikes... easier hikes”
“One of the reasons I don't go on a lot of the advertised walks is because they are too long for me”
“There should be a trail difficult rating system for each preserve”
“More information about events and docent led walks”
“More info about easy hikes”
“Have an Op-In email list so I can receive email announcements about future events”
“Have live webcam feeds at preserves, such as at bird nest sites, on the district website”
“Since many mountain lions are collared have a live feed showing their locations”
Subtheme C: Improved services to the senior community
“It would be fabulous to have someone, like a photographer, take a
group maybe a docent type walk, showing you various different things”
“We don't generally go to visit unless there's something happening [at
the preserve]”
”Semi-tame animals or birds to see, I love looking at animals and petting
them”
“I’d like to know more about how difficult trails are before I go”
“I wanted to tell Midpen that they are doing a good job, the preserves are great”
Attachment 7
9 | Page
Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct result of the data analysis of focus group responses.
The recommendations presented below are from the perspective of the Palo Alto senior community
members, and they may or may not be different from the general public or other types of preserve
users.
1. Increase the number of special events
2. Provide more restrooms
3. More and better pre-visit information, displays and signage in preserves
4. Offer docent-led hikes to provide information about preserves
5. Increase transportation options to preserves for seniors
6. Keep up the good work
7. Encourage hiking in preserves to promote mental wellness
8. Provide more information about easy trails and trail difficulty
9. Provide live web cams of wildlife in preserves
10. Continue to allow dog walking at some preserves
11. Provide more historical and natural history
information at preserves
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
Dr. Tierney has the following conclusions and thoughts about the Palo Alto seniors focus group. It is
important to note the participants in this focus group were all active seniors who are visiting Midpen
preserves already, despite an average age of 72. Several persons hiked two days a week in preserves
or nearby parks, others had not visited often. They appear to have fewer serious barriers to visiting,
partly because this is wealthy are, they all were retired and had free time, car and finances to enjoy
preserves. They were generally looking for improvements in their experience through special
events, more trip planning information about trail difficulty, docent-led tours and more signage
about natural and cultural history of the preserves.
Commonly expressed facility needs were more restrooms and parking. This is similar to what we’ve
heard at all focus groups. But this group was less emphatic about new facilities that others. Several
Attachment 7
10 | Page
persons mentioned the need for cell phone reception in the preserves for emergency
communications.
The most important action the District should take
is to better communicate with older adults about
the opportunities, their locations, trail difficulty
and special events being offered at preserves, such
as docent-led tours. An interesting suggestion
was for motivated persons to sign-up for an “opt-
in” list to receive regular email blasts about events
and wildlife sightings at preserves. A district site
on Facebook was mentioned as another source for
information distribution. Some of these the
district already conducts, while some suggestions by participants could be doable and effective.
The next most important action by the District for these active prior visitors to Midpen preserves
was to give them new reasons to visit preserves. The most commonly mentioned idea was to offer
and promote docent-led tours or other special events. The participants were hungry for more
information about preserve natural history and past Indian cultures. The District could also keep
past visitors more engaged by offering live web cams of nesting or other wildlife in preserves. Then
yo u could send out emails via an “opt-in ” service with links to the web cams.
There were some safety concern expressed, primarily going to new areas without a group. But these
concerns were not as vocal, probably because participants were common visitors already. Better
pre-trip planning information and docent-led tours would alleviate most of these fears.
This group was appreciative of what Midpen was doing and felt the preserves were a tremendous
resource for their mental and physical health. Overall, their comments supported the preservation
mission of the District. In fact, several participants complimented the District on a job well done.
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 7
11 | Page
YOU ARE INVITED:
WE WANT TO HEAR
YOUR VOICE!
JOIN US FOR A FOCUS GROUP
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MidPen)
is working with Dr. Patrick Tierney at SF State University to
learn about your interest and experiences in their reserves
and other parks in the Santa Clara County area, what you
like most and least, what keeps you from visiting and what
you think could improve visitor experiences in MidPen open
space preserves.
We want to hear from YOU! Learn more about MidPen while
helping them to better assist your senior community ~
Call Avenidas to make a reservation: 650-289-5400
NON-VISITORS TO MIDPEN RESERVES ARE WELCOME
SPACE IS LIMITED, SO REGISTER NOW
Tell us what you
think about
MidPen Open
Space Preserves!
Location: Avenidas,
Cubberley Com. Center,
Bldg. I, 4000 Middlefield
Road, Palo Alto
April 11, 2018
Sign-in and lite snack at
10:15 am.
Focus group starts
promptly at 10:30am &
ends by 12:00pm
This session is open by invitation only.
Food will be provided! Receive a
$25 gift card
for your time and active input!
Attachment 7
12 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
MROSD PRESERVE VISITOR USE STUDY:
Palo Alto Seniors Focus Group Protocol for April 11, 2018
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor of recreation, parks and tourism at SFSU. Thank
you for taking the time to talk to us today and agreeing to be part of this focus group. We’ll do
group introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes. This conversation will last about an
hour and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record this conversation so we can use the
recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a secure location and will not be used for
any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has any issues/problems with being audio-
taped?].
No MROSD staff are present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about
MROSD preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make during this
interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll use that , which
I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today. I am going to go over a few details before we start. If you
have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the MROSD to better understand open space preserve users’
attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences and to identify reasons why people don’t visit
more often. The information you share will help the district determine how well they are supporting
their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the information you
provide can help improve existing preserve resources and services to meet community needs. Your
participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [members of the Palo Alto Senior
Community]. We welcome your input and your voice matters to the District so we need you to be
honest with us and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
Guidelines
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being in a
focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help ensure a
safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we capture what
everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be attached to your
comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each
other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in
general, and within MCP in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in
MCP, respond based on your knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t
need to agree with others, but please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do
agree with what someone says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing
in some other way. This helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says
Attachment 7
13 | Page
something that reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their
comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While
we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in
any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I
might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder after
this. Please state your first name and your favorite MROSD preserve.
[Turn on digital recorder].
EAST ASIAN RESPONDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Generic Discussion Questions, Tier 1 - (As we move forward, it would be best to reply as it relates
to Midpen Open Space preserves, if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any park
experience are fair game.
1. Have you heard of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserves before learning about this focus
group? If so, can you give me an example of a preserve?
2. In the last 6 months, have each of you visited any Midpen preserve for any purpose? Any one not?
If not, have you visited a nature area, such as a state, national or county park or wildlife refuge?
3. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in Midpen preserves. If not visited Midpen, what
activities do you like to do in nature areas?
4. Which Midpen preserves do you most like to visit? Why do you prefer to do these activities at
these locations?
5. How have your most recent MidPen preserve experiences made you feel? Or if never
visited Midpen, how do visits to other nature areas make you feel. Explain
6. What do you like the most about the MidPen preserves? If not visited Midpen, what do you like
most about other nature areas you have visited? Explain.
7. If you have not visited a Midpen preserve in the last 6 months, please explain why. Have you
stopped using MidPen altogether? Why?
8. What do you like least about visiting MidPen preserves? Or if you never visited Midpen, what do
you like least about nature areas? Why?
Attachment 7
14 | Page
9. Would you like to visit a Midpen preserve in the future? Why or why not?
10. Do you have any suggestions for MidPen management to improve your past preserve
experiences, or encourage you to try visiting a MidPen open space preserve for the first time? Please
explain.
11. How might these suggestions be implemented?
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Turn off digital recorder].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you provided is
significant and meaningful and can really help improve visitor experiences throughout the MidPen
preserves. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a summary report can
be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your name and email address, or postal address, to
our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, I will be distributing [a $25 gift card incentive]. In order to receive this
gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting purposes only.
(PT) I want to thank Tracey McCloud for helping organize and translating this event. (Give
thank you card to participant organizers).
Attachment 7
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Email: adrift650@comcast.net
A Component of the Midpen Visitors Study
YOUNG LEADERS FOCUS
GROUP REPORT
January 29, 2018
Attachment 8
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..10
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......…………10
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...11
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..………………………………………….…..…….. 5
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 8
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), in partnership with Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor of recreation, parks and tourism at San Francisco State University, is conducting a study
of Midpen preserve users and non-users. The overall purpose of the study is to assess visitor
satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and future demands, for potential decision making. It
also aims to provide recommendations for preserve programs, facilities, policies, and innovative
ways to enhance stewardship, community engagement and access. The study consists of two parts:
Part I were intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II consists of focus groups with specific
community groups. This report presents the procedures and results of one focus group interview
with six young adults that are appointed members of the San Mateo County Youth Leadership
Institute. They were recruited by Adam Wilson coordinator of the Institute. This youth leader focus
group was held January 18 in the Diamond Room, 225 37th Street, San Mateo.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for Midpen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (650) 255-2536 or adrift650@comcast.net.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been successful without the help and support of Adam Wilson,
coordinator of San Mateo County Youth Leadership Institute. He helped us find and recruit
participants in this focus group and secured the location. We wish to express our thanks to him.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of Midpen district
young residents in San Mateo County. All participants were members of the County Youth
Leadership Institute. These persons may or may not have previously visited Midpen preserves. The
choice of this user group and the initial contact for this older adult community were provided by
Joshua Hugg with Midpen. He and Midpen staff believed the opinions and motivations from this
group, and from upcoming focus groups could benefit future planning of the district preserves and
services.
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
Dr. Tierney created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitate the focus group, such as
focus group recruitment flyers, focus group protocol, and interview questions. Adam Wilson was
asked to recruit potential participants for the focus group. Dr. Tierney created an invitation and
recruitment flyer. Adam forwarded it to persons, and she confirmed persons attending the focus
Attachment 8
3 | Page
group. At the focus group Dr. Tierney showed maps of Midpen preserves and handed-out Midpen
brochures, and facilitated the focus group. Active participants were provided with a $25 Safeway
Stores gift card at the end of the event.
Dr. Tierney used a participant sign-in sheet, log for signatures acknowledging receipt of gift cards,
and sign-up sheet for Midpen (e.g., anyone requesting a copy of the final report or wished to be
added to mailing list). Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags and map
brochures of all Midpen preserves. Dr. Tierney also provided a lite meal and refreshments at the
start of the focus group to encourage attendance and thank the participants.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small group of four to fifteen people, ideally, led
through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. Dr. Tierney was
the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial questions and
nurtured disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to
generate a maximum number of different opinions, experiences,
attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the group in the time
allotted. As reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups
were structured around a set of carefully predetermined questions but the discussion was free-
flowing. That is, participant comments stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method that employed a community leader to enlist
members of the San Mateo County Youth Leadership Institute as focus group participants. This
community leader recruited 6 participants, some of whom were occasional users of Midpen
preserves, while most were not familiar with Midpen.
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by Dr. Tierney, based on past experience,
and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group questions, and
logistical information. Since some participants were not familiar with Midpen preserves, Dr.
Tierney handed-out a Midpen brochure showing the locations of all preserves to all participants, and
referred to a large map showing district boundaries and preserve locations. At the start of the focus
group he also presented a brief general introduction to what Midpen offers and how their preserves
are different from city, county and national parks. Focus group questions were developed based on
models from prior studies and questions that were desired from the Midpen staff. A set of questions
were developed which focused on visitors’ use, experiences, and recommendations. If persons had
not visited a Midpen preserve, they were asked to consider a visit to another nature preserve, such as
a national park or wildlife refuge. Questions asked participants about their most recent preserve
experience, types of activities they undertook, how these activities made them feel, where they liked
to go most often in Midpen or nature preserves, what they liked most about their recent experiences
in the preserve, what they liked least, and any suggestions for Midpen management to improve their
Attachment 8
4 | Page
experience. The final focus group protocol and questions used during the San Mateo Youth Leaders
focus group are available in Appendix B.
Data Collection
The San Mateo Youth Leaders focus group had six participants. As participants arrived at the
location, the facilitator asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic
information. They then enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was
established by the investigator. After a half hour the investigator introduced and described how the
proceedings would go. He started the interview process, beginning with a general ice breaker to get
the group thinking about preserves and park use or non-use, and used then the protocol and
questions (Appendix B). All prepared questions were asked within a 120 minute time period and the
facilitator was responsible for getting all participants to talk and fully explain their answers using
helpful probes (e.g., “Can you say more about that?”; “Help us understand what you mean ?” and
“Can you give an example?”). The investigator demonstrated active listening and occasionally
paraphrased long or ambiguous comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes and/or
summarized responses for the whole group.
The facilitator later recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone. Body language or other
subtle relevant clues were recorded via typed notes. At the end of the fo cus group, participants were
thanked and each person received the incentive (gift card) that required a signature on the receipt log
for accounting purposes. If any participants wanted to receive the final report, or expressed interest
in being put on a Midpen mailing list, they were asked to indicate that on the sign-in sheet. Audio
files were uploaded to a secure computer for storage and backed up.
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these six participants were gathered at the sign-in for the focus
group. Results are summarized in Table 1. The focus group discussions were captured via audio
recordings. The facilitator moderated, while the discussions were recorded. The interview was then
transcribed verbatim by an outside contractor, Rev.com, and verified by Dr. Tierney.
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, they were analyzed using a
systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content analysis
process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with groupings entered
into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored common themes.
Supporting quotes for each theme were placed under the appropriate section to illustrate what
participants stated. The principle investigator then used themes and quotes to develop
recommendations.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Attachment 8
5 | Page
Many valuable findings were revealed by this
focus group interview process. It is important to
note that the majority of participants in this focus
group were not familiar with Midpen preserves,
and had not visited in the last six months.
Although maps of the Midpen were provided at
the focus group and the facilitator discussed
some unique characteristics and uses in
preserves, there were uncertainties about the
preserve resources and locations. There is a chance that some parks outside Midpen’s were
considered. Generalizing preserve/park experiences is not uncommon to occur within focus group
interviews. The parks literature explains the difficulty for people in differentiating between
lands/trails of adjacent park agencies. This further accentuates the need for park agencies to work
together; and, the increasing importance to share such park use/non-use interview results with other
park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age,
gender, ethnicity and occupation and if they had visited a Midpen preserve. This was the source for
the following demographic data about the six focus group participants. Table 1 suggests this was a
group of active young persons, ages 15-30 years, who visited parks but mostly had not been to a
Midpen preserve in the last six months to a year. Two of the six participants had visited a Midpen
preserve at some point.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Total Number of Participants 6
Average Age 19 years
Age Range 15-30 years
Gender
Male 66%
Female 33%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 50%
Hispanic 50%
Occupation
High School Student 66%
Working full time 33%
Attachment 8
6 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: SAN MATEO SENIORS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant
quotes.
Theme: The Youth in San Mateo County are generally not familiar with Midpen preserves
- Two of the six focus group participants could name a Midpen preserve they had visited in the last six
months or ever before. The preserves mentioned were in walking distance of their house.
“My friends don’t know anything about these preserves”
“I think that a lot of people just don't even know where they can go to hike, parks like this are just local
parks, or what kind of terrain is there, how long the walks are”
“I am not familiar with any Midpen preserves except for Pulgas Ridge near my house
“I would say city parks are probably what I visit most often just because they are much closer, and you don't
have to deal with traffic. Like, you can just walk to them whenever”
“People just don’t know where they (preserves) are, what they are, or what you can do there”
Theme: An escape, hikinging, jogging, dog walking, discovery, exercise and views are the most common
reasons for visiting a preserve
“They are a space that I go, like, a quiet space”
“I go to Pulgas a lot to walk my dogs”
“I'll go running sometimes with him [my dad] and they [my dogs] will stay on the leash next to us”
“It was nice to be able to just spend some time with them and get away from everything else. It was like,
good quality time. Again, not with phones”
“Normally it's go hiking with my family so, it's a nice chance for me to connect with them”
“Just discovering new things. I have a background in conservation biology, but I'm from a different part of
the country, so coming out here, and going to parks and preserves out here is much different than going to
them back home and seeing the wildlife, and flowers, and everything up here”
“I like to go on a bike”
“Once you're up to the top, you kind of get to see the whole picture. So, I really enjoy nice views”
“I like being able to get exercise and get outdoors”
“I went hiking this morning, and it was a great way to start the day”
“We go on really long walks. Because it's very relaxing and calming, again. It's away from a lot of people ”
Theme: Midpen preserves provide many benefits
Subtheme A: Good for mental wellbeing
“I think it [preserves] makes you kind of free, it's like I'm away from everything”
“I find myself going to those places usually when I like, need some grounding, or reflection time”
“[in a nature preserve] there's a disconnect from the rest of the world”
“It [visiting nature preserves] just kind of relaxes you, it's kind of like dang, life isn't that hard. Your
life is great”
“I can actually go out instead of being tied to my job. It's kind of like, I forget I have a job, I forget I
have responsibilities in that moment. It feels good, I feel really reenergized”
“It's relieving to go somewhere else and not have to worry about what you're gonna do when you
get home, what you're gonna do tomorrow, the next day, the next week. You just go and you do,
you take it one minute at a time and you enjoy the moment where you are”
Attachment 8
7 | Page
“It's still a place that you're surrounded by nature, but it's really different from say like, a park.
Because, at those preserves there's a lot less man-made things. And I feel like the experience is a
lot different”
“You lose noise from highway one and I don't have to talk to anybody”
“I want to intake, nature, like, being away from people”
“I felt calm. I think, I felt more like, I guess, isolated. Not in bad way, just more isolated from other
people than I do at the other places I go to walk my dog”
“We go for our really long walks. Because it's very relaxing and calming, again. It's away from a lot
of people
Subtheme B: Connecting with family and friends is an important benefit of visiting
“The last time I was out, I was with my partner. So, it was nice to be able to just spend some time
with them and get away from everything else. It was like, good quality time. Again, not with
phones”
“Normally it's go hiking with my family so, it's a nice chance for me to connect with them”
“Its very nice to sort of focus on my family, and focus on nature and not be distracted by a phone,
or by news, or anything like that.”
Subtheme C: Escaping from technology and social media is another reason for visiting nature
preserves
“Its very nice to sort of focus on my family, and focus on nature and not be distracted by a phone, or
by news, or anything like that.”
“I feel like, most of the time I get lost in my phone and I forget there's all this other stuff out there”
“I'll try putting my phone away (in a preserve) but I am always using Snapchat”
Theme: There are significant barriers to visiting Midpen preserves
Subtheme A: Transportation
“I have no transportation. They're like, pretty far, and I feel like to go there, but I want to go on my
own”
“San Mateo County has a shuttle service that will take you from certain areas of the county to
some of the parks. I think if there's something along those lines that could take you to some of the
more popular [Midpen] areas that'd be really beneficial to me”
“It'd be really helpful to have a free shuttle to the preserves”
“I think parking is an issue. I went to John Muir Woods up north a couple months ago, and we had
to park like, a mile away from the actual park”
Subtheme B: Lack of free time
“I think that students just don't, like everyone was saying, have a enough time [to visit]”
“A lot of 20, 30 year olds they're kind of starting their careers off so, a lot of them are working
longer hours and have less time.”
“I think a lot of youth don't have a lot of time like, free time to go and spend several hours
somewhere”
Subtheme C: Other barriers to visitation
“I'd say parking is always an issue.
“Going there (to a preserve) by myself is a little scary. You do not know what to expect”
“I've noticed that people still let their dogs off a leash and that's the biggest thing for me, I don't
like dogs”
Attachment 8
8 | Page
“And when a dog comes up and starts jumping on me and licking me, even if it's just meaning it in
a friendly way it kind of takes me out of the zen of the moment, because then I have this animal
trying to like, I don't even know what. That can be something that disrupts the experience”
“There's not a lot of handicapped accessible trails. There's a lot of families that have handicapped
parents and you can't really take your kid there”
Theme: Midpen can do things to encourage youth in the community to visit preserves
Subtheme A: Collaborate with local schools
o Offer community service hours at preserves
“I’m gonna be so honest, the only reason I joined this whole little group was two years ago, I
really needed so many community service hours for high school. Preserves could offer these
hours”
“Volunteering can, like, be used for the community service requirements at school ”
“Sequoia Ivy students need 150 hours of community service, so they’re constantly looking for
good opportunities. So, schools with Ivy diploma, require a large amount of community service
hours. There’s got to be students that are starving for something good they can participate in”
“Tell students: “This is a great way to get outdoors, get exercise and get community service
hours”
“I went to Catholic school for nine years, even there we had to do community service. There’s
actually a requirement to get your papers signed by wherever you went. I go to a Christian
school right now and we have to do, everyone has to do 100 hours as graduation requirement”
o Work with teachers to offer extra credit and field trips at preserves
“I was kind of thinking too, extra credit. For my school, they’ll offer extra credit to go to San
Francisco and go take pictures with statues, and monuments, and go to museums, and go to all
these populated areas, but nobody gives you extra credit to go to a forest, or a preserve, or
anything, and I’d prefer that”
“You can learn a lot more there [in a preserve] than you can in a museum, or at least I feel like
you can. They don’t really offer that at schools. I think that’d be really great”
“If my environmental science class let me get extra credit for going to these parks, I would be
there like, every week”
“I know there are environmental science classes in the area, because I take one. It’s not like that
[visiting preserves] couldn’t be incorporated.”
“If you had youth that are going to one of these places on a field trip, that can be really
beneficial because they’re forced to go to it, right. So they go to it”
“Have some sort of organized volunteer program for teens in the summer”
Subtheme B: Offer internships for college applications, to explore outdoor careers and
increase job skills
“I'll say there definitely are youth that are interested in maybe like, looking for a career in the
park service, or some sort of like, conservation work. Maybe offer a junior ranger program.”
”At Sequoia [High School] at least, we get a weekly email, and a lot of the time it'll show
opportunities for volunteer work, or for jobs”
“So if somehow an internship opportunity for just even one park was in that {Sequoia high
school] email and it was from an official organization, an accredited place, that would definitely
get people to do it”
“A lot of youth volunteer to help their college applications”
“Like having youths volunteer in groups [at preserves], maybe you won't get money, or
anything, or paid for it, but like an internship”
Attachment 8
9 | Page
“A potential partnership for the Midpeninsula Open Space district could with the County Office
of Education because they're trying to implement an environmental literacy program that would
then be going out to all of the public schools”
Subtheme C: Improve outreach to youth and their families in the community
“Especially my family, we like doing a lot of outdoors stuff. So, I think if I went home after
today and I told my mom, and I showed her this map, and showed her these places, she'd
probably look them up and she'd find a place and we'd go. And then we'd go back and she'd
tell one of her friends, and then they go. And it'll get out to other people”
“I've never even seen these maps [Midpen brochure/map] before. So, if I had it, I would
definitely use it.
”At Sequoia [High School] at least, we get a weekly email, and a lot of the time it'll
opportunities for volunteer work, or for jobs”
Subtheme D. Other suggested changes
“Signage isn't clear”
“It’s easier to go with someone else for the first time. Are there tours?”
“Get these [Midpen] brochures to a store where you would buy sporting equipment”
“It's still a place that you're surrounded by nature, but it's really different from say like, a park.
Keep them that way”
“I’m interested in shorter loop trails”
Theme: More technology before and during visit to a preserve
“I think that youth are super connected with technology. So, most youths who are going to visit one of these
park independently are going to look for it first on the internet, right? So, I think that it's [technology] really,
really important that if you type in Pulgas Ridge, it pops with information, and it has current information,
and it's very clear what the park is like”
“I'm a really big fan of virtual tours. You play the little two minute video, it shows you some highlight clips
from around the park”
“Use technology to entice them in, show inspiring slow motion shots of birds flying in the air, or something
along those lines. Because teens are very digital people”
“Have an [augmented reality] app for you to be able to look at a place in the preserve, and see what
happened there.
“I was thinking of maybe having Pokemon Go or similar game”
“I think especially you could put trail maps on there (Midpen website) with descriptions of each trail”
“I think online information is just super important, because nowadays, if the website doesn't have enough
information most people I think are quite frankly, just too lazy. They're not gonna call someone to find out
more information, or stop by and visit them themselves.”
“I use Snapchat and Instagram. They have notifications and little “filters” [geo-locators] where you can see
somebody that’s in somewhere. it's makes me want to look into the place, I will. I will look it up, whereas, if
it doesn't have one they're just at like, a park and I don't know where they are”
“Social media is a way to show what's there”
“I definitely think Instagram is a great idea, because parks are very aesthetically pleasing, right? You can take
some nice photos of them, of wildlife, of just nature. I know a lot of various places offer like, a photo
competition so you could be like, "Hey teens, go out and take a photo in one of the preserve s”
Attachment 8
10 | Page
Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct result of the data analysis of focus group responses.
The recommendations presented below are from the perspective of the San Mateo young leaders,
and they may or may not be different from the general public and other types of preserve users.
1. Increase outreach to youth and their families. Many do not even know Midpen preserves
exist and what they offer
a. Work with schools to provide announcements about service and internships
opportunities at preserves
b. Better use social media
c. Offer virtual tours, virtual reality apps, social games to generate interest and views
2. Do not provide cell service in preserves, so youth can still escape from their phones and
related social media, to focus on getting away with family and friends
3. Offer or coordinate public transportation to preserves because many youth lack cars and want
to be independent of their parents at times
4. Collaborate with local high schools to offer community service hours at preserves
5. Work with teachers to offer extra credit and field trips at preserves
6. Offer internships to build college applications, allow youth to explore outdoor career
opportunities and increase their job skills
7. Employ more technology for use before and during a visit
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
Dr. Tierney has the following conclusions and thoughts about the San Mateo youth leader focus
group. Findings from the recent District visitors survey showed that young adults are greatly under-
represented in visits to Midpen preserves, compared to their population in the County. In fact, young
adults had the lower percentage of visitation versus all other age cohorts. These facts add
importance to efforts the District should make to convert local youth into life-long visitors,
supporters and stewards of preserves.
It is important to note the participants in this focus group were leaders in the youth community,
appointed to the San Mateo Youth Commission. They were generally unaware of Midpen preserves
but had a strong interest in visiting, especially if incentives through school could be provided.
These young adults, compared to other focus groups, were less interested in new facilities, such as
bathrooms and signs, or their personal safety in preserves. But like other groups they were mostly
unaware of Midpen preserves, except for a few near their homes. The district should expand
Attachment 8
11 | Page
collaboration with local teachers and schools, increase their social media efforts and presence and
employ more communications technology to influence young adults to visit .
The most important action the District needs to take to increase awareness and visitation to
preserves are partnerships and collaboration with local schools and teachers. The most effective
efforts would be offering volunteer work projects that would satisfy high school community service
requirements. Older district volunteer could lead such activities. Another fruitful approach would be
offering internships and summer jobs for students. Working with local teachers by offering field
trips and extra credit opportunities in their classes is another option to increas e visitation by young
adults.
A combination of other barriers limits visitation by youth, including busy work and school
schedules, lack of their own transportation and a lack of presence on the internet by the District.
Except for a greater online presence, these other barriers are difficult to mitigate. Youth are very
video and internet focused. So more efforts to increase video and live cams on the District website,
along with greater use of social media frequented by youth would be cost effective. Youth were the
first group to suggest use of virtual reality and game apps, such as something like Pokeman Go. We
have seen how these strongly appeal to their generation.
Many youth according to these young adults, are willing to volunteer in preserves if external
incentives are provided. Incentives include meeting community service and internship requirements
at their schools. The potential number of youthful volunteers is quite large, but these efforts would
need to be focused and well organized to meet both youth, school and district needs.
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 8
12 | Page
YOU ARE INVITED:
WE WANT TO HEAR
YOUR VOICE!
JOIN US FOR A FOCUS GROUP
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MidPen)
is working with San Francisco State University to learn
about your interest in parks, and any experiences you’ve had
in their reserves and other parks in the Bay Area; what you
like most and least; what could be done to encourage you to
visit more; and what could improve your experiences in
MidPen open space preserves.
We want to hear from YOU! Learn more about MidPen while
helping them to better assist your community ~
Confirm you will participate to: awilson@sli.org
to:aaawilson@yli.org
Tell us what you
think about
MidPen Open
Space Preserves!
Location: Diamond Room,
San Mateo Health Systems,
225 37th Ave.,
San Mateo
Cup
C
January 18, 2018
Sign-in and lite dinner
at 4:30pm.
Focus group starts
promptly at 5:00 &
ends by 6:30pm
This session is open by invitation only.
Food will be provided! Receive a
$25 gift card
for your time and active input!
Attachment 8
13 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
YOUTH LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
MIDPENINSULAR OPEN SPACE VISITOR USE STUDY:
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor in the Recreation, Parks and Tourism
Department at San Francisco State University. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today
and agreeing to be part of this focus group on Midpeninsula Open Space preserves. Tonight
when I say “MidPen”, I mean Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserves. We’ll do group
introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes. This conversation will last about an hour
and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record this conversation so we can use the
recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a secure location and will not be used
for any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has any issues/problems with being
audio-taped?].
Thank you for completing the pre-focus group survey just now. That information is helpful for
us to understand more about who is participating. This survey information will only be
presented in summary form. No names will be associated with any of that information. No
MidPen staff are present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about
MidPen open space preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make
during this interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll
use that when you want to make a comment, which I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today. I am going to go over a few details before we start. If
you have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to better
understand their open space preserve users’ attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences
and to identify reasons why people don’t visit more often. The information you s hare will help
MidPen learn how to reduce barriers to visiting the preserves and determine how well they are
supporting their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the
information you provide can help improve existing park resources and services to meet
community needs. Your participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [young people
user group]. We welcome your input and your voice matters to MidPen so we need you to be
honest with us and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
I am passing around a map showing the locations of the MidPen preserves. We are currently
helping them gather information on 21 preserves that are open to the public. Note that the
preserves are located outside of cities but in the surrounding areas. We are not talking about city
parks. The Midpen preserves protect wildlife, native plants, vistas and provide outdoor
recreation opportunities. Do you have any questions about what are MidPen preserves or where
they are located?
Guidelines
Attachment 8
14 | Page
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being
in a focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help
ensure a safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we
capture what everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be
attached to your comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each
other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in
general, and within MCP in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in
MCP, respond based on your knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t
need to agree with others, but please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do
agree with what someone says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing
in some other way. This helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says
something that reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their
comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While
we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in
any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I
might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder
after this. Please state your first name and your favorite outdoor recreation activity, if do it in a
park or open space preserve, and why it is interesting to you.
[When done, student assistant turns on digital recorder and begins typing notes on laptop].
[YLI] RESPONDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
As we move forward, it would be best to reply to the question as it relates to MidPen preserves,
if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any park experience are appreciated.
1. How many of you know what a MidPen open space preserve is? It’s is ok if you don’t.
2. In the last 6 months, how many of you visited any MidPen open space preserve? Any one not?
3. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in MidPen open space preserves (MCP).
[use/experience-hike/run/walk, group activities, skateboarding, etc.]
Attachment 8
15 | Page
4. Which MidPen preserves do you like to go most often? Why do you prefer these MidPen
locations?
5. How have your most recent MidPen experiences made you feel? Explain
6. What do you like the most about MidPen?
7. If you have not gone to MidPen preserve in the last 6 months or ever, please explain why. Did
you go at one time and have you stopped using MidPen locations altogether? Why?
8. What do you like least about MidPen parks and open space preserves?
9. Do you have any suggestions for MidPen management to improve your experiences in
MidPen open space preserves
10. Are there things that MidPen could do which increase the likelihood of you visiting a
MidPen open space preserve? Please explain.
11. How might these suggestions be implemented?
12. Are there any other concerns or needs you would like to share with MidPen [ideas, volunteer
or employment opportunities]
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Turn off digital recorder].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you
provided is significant and meaningful and can really help improve use by young adults
throughout the MidPen preserve. If you are interested in the results and findings of this
conversation, a summary report can be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your
name and email address, or postal address, to our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, I will be distributing a $25 gift card as a thank you. In order to
receive this gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting
purposes only.
(PT) I want to thank Adam Wilson for helping organize this event. (Give thank you card to
participant organizer).
Attachment 8
Prepared For: MidPeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Professor
Email: ptierney@sfsu.edu
MidPen Visitors
Study
SOUTH ASIAN FOCUS
GROUP REPORT
October 25, 2017
Final
Attachment 9
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..11
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......…………12
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...13
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..……………………………………………..…….. 6
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 9
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MidPen), in partnership with San Francisco State
University (SFSU), is conducting a MidPen Visitor Study. The overall purpose of the study is to
assess visitor satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and future demands, for potential
decision making. The study also aimed to offer recommendations for preserve programs, facilities,
policies, and innovative ways to enhance community engagement and access. The study consists of
two parts: Part I are intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II consists of focus groups with
specific community groups. This report represents the procedures and results of one focus group
interview with four South Bay residents of the South Asian community. It was held October 5, 2017
at the Cupertino Senior Center in Cupertino. In this report a reference to “MidPen trails” means
trails in MidPen Open Space Preserves.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for MidPen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (415) 338-2030 or rpt@sfsu.edu.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been possible nor successful without the help and support of Atul
Chaudhari with TravelBackyard.com and a leader in the South Bay South Asian Community. He
helped us find and recruit participants in this focus group. We wish to express our thanks to him.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of MidPen district
residents of the South Asian community who have used MidPen preserves. The choice of this user
group and the initial contact for the South Asian community were provided by Joshua Hugg with
MidPen. He and MidPen staff believed the opinions and motivations from this group, and from
upcoming focus groups could benefit future planning of the district preserves and services.
Preparation
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
SFSU created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitate the focus group, such as
focus group recruitment flyers, focus group protocol, and interview questions. The South Asian
community leader was asked to provide a list of potential participants for the focus group. SFSU
sent an invitation and a recruitment flyer to persons on this list, and confirmed persons attending the
focus group. SFSU showed maps of MidPen preserves at the focus groups.
Attachment 9
3 | Page
SFSU also developed a participant sign-in sheet, log for signatures acknowledging receipt of gift
cards, and sign-up sheet for MidPen (e.g., anyone requesting a copy of the final report or wish to be
added to mailing list). Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags, map of
MidPen preserves, and Trader Joe’s gift cards (purchased). SFSU also provided a lite dinner and
refreshments at the start of the focus group. Finally, SFSU contracted with the City of Cupertino
Senior Center who provided a room in the center to hold the focus group.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small group of four to twelve people, ideally, led
through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. The group needs
to be large enough to generate rich discussion, but not so large that
some participants are left out or a few people dominate the
conversation. Additionally, the groups should be homogenous as
homogeneity levels the playing field and reduces inhibitions among
people who come together for the purpose of a group interview.
Focus groups can reveal a wealth of detailed information and deep insights. When well executed, a
focus group creates a welcoming environment that allows participants to feel at ease and encourages
thoughtful, honest answers providing added meaning to question responses. As a valid
methodology, focus groups were chosen as one approach to elicit the thoughts, feelings,
experiences, and recommendations residents of the South Bay. In addition, focus groups have the
ability to generate rich qualitative data that comes from individual participants engaging in deep
conversation, potentially capturing themes that would be missed from other, more quantitative,
methods. Furthermore, focus groups foster a safe place for participants to be open and honest.
The SFSU principal investigator was the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial
questions and nurtured disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to generate a
maximum number of different opinions, experiences, attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the
group in the time allotted. As reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups were structured
around a set of carefully predetermined questions but the discussion was free-flowing. That is,
participant comments stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method that enlisted a leader from the South Asian
community in the South San Francisco Bay area to recruit focus group participants. This
community leader provided a list of the names and emails of 15 potential participants who were long
time to new users of MidPen preserves. The SFSU team followed up with an invitation and a
recruitment flyer in a more detailed email about the purpose and details of the focus group (See
Appendix A for recruitment flyer designed by the SFSU team). Once there were 4 individuals who
agreed to participate, then SFSU emailed these persons a confirmation message. The South Asian
focus group was held 10/5/17 at the Cupertino Senior Center classroom.
Focus group participants were rewarded with a $25 gift card to Trader Joe’s as an incentive to
participate. Additionally, participants were informed a dinner-type meal would be provided and
Attachment 9
4 | Page
thirty minutes was allotted for general socializing (e.g., “meet and greet”) prior to the official start
time of the interview process.
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by the SFSU investigator, based on past
experience, and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group
questions, and logistical information. Focus group questions were developed by SFSU based on
models from prior studies and questions that were desired from the MidPen staff. A set of two-tiered
questions were developed in which Tier 1 questions were the priority and focused on visitors’ use,
experiences, and recommendations. If additional time remained, Tier 2 questions were asked. Tier 1
questions asked participants about their most recent preserve experience, types of activities they
undertake on MidPen open space preserves, how these activities make them feel, where they like to
go most often in MidPen, what they like most about their recent experiences in MidPen preserves,
what they like least, and any suggestions for MidPen management to improve their experience. The
final focus group protocol and questions used during the South Asian focus group is available in
Appendix B.
Data Collection
The South Asian focus group had four participants. As participants arrived at the location, the SFSU
faciltator asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic information.
They then enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was established by the
investigator. After a half hour the investigator then facilitated the interview process, beginning with
a general ice breaker to get the group thinking about preserves and park use or non-use, and using
the protocol and questions (Appendix B). All prepared questions were asked within the 90-minute
time allotted and the facilitator was responsible for getting all participants to talk and fully explain
their answers using helpful probes (e.g., “Can you say more about that?”; “Help us understand what
you mean?” and “Can you give an example?”). The investigator demonstrated active listening and
occasionally paraphrased long or ambiguous comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes
and/or summarized responses for the whole group.
The facilitator recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone and took supporting notes in case
the recorder failed or any parts of the digital file were inaudible. Body language or other subtle
relevant clues were recorded via typed notes. Audio files were uploaded to a secure computer for
storage and backed up.
At the end of the focus group, participants were thanked and each person received the incentive (gift
card) that required a signature on the receipt log for SFSU accounting purposes. If any participants
wanted to receive the final report, or expressed interest in being put on a MidPen mailing list, they
were asked to indicate that on the sign-in sheet.
Attachment 9
5 | Page
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these participants were gathered at the focus group location.
Results are summarized in Table 1.
The focus group discussions were captured via audio recordings. The facilitator moderated, while
the discussions were recorded. The interview was then transcribed verbatim by an outside
contractor, Rev.com.
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, they were analyzed using a
systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content analyses
process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with groupings entered
into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored common themes. The
major findings from participants’ comments are summarized in the results section that follows and
includes a series of direct quotes highlighting relevant responses.
The investigator completed the final examination of the transcriptions. Results were reviewed and
synthesized to ensure accuracy of themes and supporting quotes. The themes and conclusions
presented in this report were reviewed twice by the investigator before the report was finalized.
Attachment 9
6 | Page
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many valuable findings were revealed by this focus
group interview process. Important to note, however
is that at times, participants may have been thinking
about, and referring to, trails located outside of
MidPen preserves. Although maps of the MidPen
were provided at the focus group and the facilitator
referred participants to this map if there were any
uncertainties about the preserve location, there is a
chance that some parks outside MidPen’s were
considered. Generalizing preserve/park experiences
is not uncommon to occur within focus group interviews. The parks literature explains the difficulty
for people in differentiating between lands/trails of adjacent park agencies. This further accentuates
the need for park agencies to work together; and, this reveals the increasing importance to share such
park use/non-use interview results with other park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age, sex,
ethnicity, occupation and city of residence. This was the source for the following demographic data
about the four focus group participants. This was a group of mostly experienced MidPen visitors and
one new user of district preserves, who were very familiar with information technology.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Average Age 33.5 years
Age Range 31-35 years
Sex
Male 75%
Female 25%
Ethnicity
Indian/Asian 100%
Occupation
IT Engineer 75%
Scientist 25%
Attachment 9
7 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: SOUTH ASIAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant
comments.
Theme 1: For the focus group participants, hiking was the primary activity undertaken in MidPen
preserves.
“I'll generally go there for hiking. 90 percent of the time that I go to any of these preserves it's for
hiking.”
“I have done a lot of hikes in the preserves”
Theme 2. Favorite preserves for hiking are Rancho San Antonio, Skyline, Monte
Bello, Windy Hill, La Honda and Russian Ridge.
“Most of the times I go to Windy Hill, Russian Ridge and Skyline, so those are the
three preserves that I usually hike.”
”Rancho San Antonio and La Honda Preserve are more common (to hike) because
they are very reachable, like I can take my car”
Theme 3: Primary reasons for visiting these favorite areas are proximity to their home, variety of
hiking (easy to hard and medium to long hiking trails), the variety of other activities you can do,
good views, share time with friends/family and they have somewhat cooler temperatures than the
city. In spring they offer wildflower viewing. One person flies a drone.
“I live in San Jose so other places in the mountains (Sierras), they're a little far. These two places
(preserves) offer mid-sized hikes and good hikes so you can just ... You don't have to plan anything,
you can just get up in the morning and go and do it, back by lunch.”
“I've also done wildflower photography over there across different seasons.”
“I like La Honda Creek a lot, maybe because it's so wooded and shaded especially during summer
months it doesn't feel so summery and sunny”
“Recently I went with my roommate to La Honda Creek and she's pretty new to hiking so it kind of
offers both flavor. For someone who is really new trying to get into it and for someone who's looking
at it as a workout. It was a good blend for both of us.”
“We organized a group for hiking. There were some elderly people, there were some kids, some of
them were first-time hikers so we had about four or five hike leaders, we were taking them up.”
“It could be just hiking or just sitting and hanging out with your friends”
“There are so many other activities that you can do like biking, running”
“We also do dance in the park sometimes so there's a lot of open space, covered spaces as well.”
“Visited just to have a short picnic”
“So one thing I'd be interested in doing is flying a drone. So I have a drone and one of the thing I've
seen is that in California there's not a lot of open spaces where you can fly your drone”
“He has an inflatable boat that we took out paddling on the Bay (from Ravenswood).”
“You can see (from the preserve) flights landing on SFO, SJC and the other airports around Bay,
the Palo Alto Airport and the Reed Airport in San Jose.”
“The boating on the Bay was an adventure.”
Theme 4: They go to preserves for their health and exercise. They are also used for training for
longer hikes elsewhere. It can be an adventure.
Attachment 9
8 | Page
“Black Mountain is a good work out for training.”
“ I prefer working out in the hills than the gym.”
“So we were training (for a Grand Canyon hike), basically I viewed Black Mountain as a training
hike”
Theme 5: Communing with nature and relaxing are also important reasons for visiting.
“The moonrise and the sunset (at Ravenswood) is amazing and I had been there just for
photography but it's a different experience than hiking”
“Other times I've been to Alviso area and just lie in the park, sit there, watch the Bay, and then
that's it.”
“It was fun just kind of relaxing and the weather was really nice”
“We like to explore the wildlife ... wildflowers and wildlife”
“During summer months after sunset you can see the Milky Way, so it's a very rare to see the Milky
Way from the city”
“For the Black Mountain I can say it had a lot of variety. So you start in redwoods, the middle part
is deep in the oaks and the last part is steep and hot so you get all into kinds of zones.”
“If they can have a list of birds and animals in the district property, both endangered and which are
not on tracking list ... have that information somewhere, and how we can spot them, when we can,
where we can so, that would be helpful.”
“From the top we have a really good view of the Bay and when the sky is clear you get to see the
sea.”
Theme 6: Lack of parking is a big problem at Rancho San Antonio, but less so at other preserves.
“The only thing that I don't like actually is the parking problem (at Rancho San Antonio).
You spend half an hour sitting, waiting for parking. And that's in spite of having four parking lots
”There is always a (parking) problem there (Rancho San Antonio)”
“If you go to Skyline (on weekends) there is also a parking problem”
“Actually that (Rancho San Antonio) is the only one which is having parking problem. Other
preserves, pretty fine, not much.”
Theme 7: Restrooms are a concern of visitors
“Restrooms is a problem, like some of the places are really dirty, they are not
clean.”
“I know friends who surely don't come, many times, for hiking, if the restrooms
are not good.”
“I think a couple of preserves don't have enough restrooms as well. Skyline, I
think it doesn't have anything besides the one near parking lot and that too again, only one parking
lot ... Other ones they don't so sometimes when you're hiking around over there if you want to use it,
it's always a challenge.”
Theme 8: Trail conditions were cited by some respondents as a safety problem.
“Before winter if it's (the trail) not clean, the trails becomes a little challenging because of the mud
and sometimes the leaves are also slippery.”
Attachment 9
9 | Page
“Many times we were worried that if someone falls they will go down the valley, all the way. Yeah, it
was really scary. That's one thing (slippery trails) which I did not like.”
Theme 9. There was strong unanimous agreement that MidPen should use more communications
technology to help visitors plan and enjoy their visits to preserves.
“I do not find (at MidPen preserves) where you can just download an offline pdf map, the same map
that's printed there on the park entrance. I’d like the same map you can just download as a free map,
a guide.”
”They (MidPen) have some apps for maps, it’s just that they have not published it right. Even if it is,
people are not aware (of an app for online maps)”
“So when you go there it is nice if you have the link right on the main board (at the trailhead) and
download the map to use it on the hike. So you're getting to the parking lot, you changed your mind
and you decided to go to another place (trail). Having the link right there that you type in and
download it there.”
“When I went to Mindego and I found out they have a link and we just
downloaded a map and that was really helpful because I don't have to carry
paper map. Mount Diablo has it also.”
“I think if you put it (map link)at the entrance then people know that there's a
map out there”
“You want to download the park map before you go there, ideally, and you can
use it as you're walking in the area.”
“An offline map is important even sometimes what happens is when we download, plan the map we
mark only the route we will not take. But when you're hiking and since you didn't mark everything
and you missed a turn signal you really don't know how much I'm going to add. If you have complete
offline map then you can actually say, "Okay, now I just know how much, what are the different
options that I can take."
“If (MidPen) cannot provide an app then put up more details on Google Maps (of the preserves)”
“We do not use the paper maps.”
“There's no cellphone coverage over there (in preserves). In case there is an emergency it becomes
challenging. I know it's not supposed to be in the wilderness, you should be disconnected, but when
emergencies are there at least a little, some option, of reaching out to 911, that should be
available.”
“Not many trails have call box at the park entrance or trail head or anywhere in between. So it
would be good if they have call boxes somewhere on the trails or someway that there is network
coverage so that we can reach out to 911, emergency numbers.”
“I've seen MidPen is not that active on Facebook and, social media with things that they are trying
to do. In general, I’d like (on Facebook) info on trail closures, trail updates, any new trail that is
added, wildflowers and wildlife sighted.”
“Have bird-nest cameras to get people interested in wildlife and visiting preserves.”
“At the trailhead it would be nice to have maps for the hike, foot elevation gain profile and like how
the wildlife is changing and what are the highest point. So people can know how tough the hike is
going to be.”
“If they can have a list of birds and animals in the district property somewhere, both endangered
and which are not on tracking list ... have that information somewhere, and how we can spot them,
when we can, where we can so, that would be helpful.”
Theme 10: Some respondents would like more campsites or at least a better way to find campsite
availability online.
Attachment 9
10 | Page
“The ease of finding campsites is a problem. There are so many contorted ways when I go to the
(MidPen) website to actually look for a campsite. I'm used to recreation.gov, it's just what all of us
use and it's just so convenient. But when I go try finding campsites here it's like I have to go into
each parks website and then each park has it's own sort of way to ... There's not a specific way that
each park site is organized.”
“There is only one preserve that offers camping and there is demand for more.”
Theme 11: There is illegal and inappropriate activity going on in parking lots and trails.
“On the Skyline parking lot it's everything, I don't know what they smoke but it's everything;
drinking, smoking, breaking bottles. It's insane stuff happening over there.”
“MidPen should make it compensatory that smoking is not allowed on the trial. They need to enforce
it. It’s a fire hazard and it is second hand smoke bothers others.”
“It (others smoking pot) is really annoying to be walking beside and I don't feel safe anymore.”
Theme 12: There should be more pet-friendly trails and enforcement of pet mess cleanup.
“There are very few pet-friendly trails. I wish they would add some.”
“People are always pinging me asking which is a good dog friendlier, pet-friendly trail. I don't have
much to sayto that.”
“Don Edwards has active pet friendly trails and I've seen people with their dogs. But then that has
to come along with the enforcement that people pick up after their pets.”
Theme 13: Better public transportation to preserves.
“Public transport is not good in the Bay Area and to preserves.”
“All those long trails if you want to not back track, there is no
public transport that you can use to go back to your car.”
“There should be transport from one preserve to another along Highway 35”
“I was thinking transport mostly for hiking but I think bikers also.”
NOTE: The participants were not concerned about public transit from cities to preserves
Theme 14: There should be some new programs offered by the district.
“At most of the places a night hike is not allowed. You're not allowed after sunset and that's kind of
very restrictive. They should offer full moon hikes to see the Milky Way.”
“More ranger-led hikes on full moon, like at Chabot”
“Wildlife tours”
Theme 15: These participants were appreciative of the efforts of MidPen and would like to
volunteer to help.
“Volunteers can just keep adding photos and videos on Google Maps and Facebook of the preserves
and that helps a lot.”
“Volunteers can add sightings of birds on Google Maps”
“Volunteering even where one cleans the trails.”
“MidPen does not have many times to volunteer. We are willing to volunteer but we don't know how
or when we can volunteer.”
Attachment 9
11 | Page
“I volunteer for bird counts, then I take people out on the trails to show wildflowers. Then find out
about endangered species, catalog that and notify California Native Plant Society plus also work
with Audubon Society and some other biologists to update the iNaturalist app.
“I like things that they (MidPen) are doing over there, all the conservation projects. I attended a
couple ... one board meeting, seeing what they were doing plus I've been reading through their
meeting notes a lot, which they share quite often on their website. I like what they are doing, what
efforts they have put forth.”
Recommendations
The following recommendations are a direct result of the data analysis of focus group responses.
The recommendations presented below are from the perspective of South Asian preserve visitors,
and they may or may not be different from the general public or other types of preserve users.
1. Continue to provide outstanding hiking experiences as this is the most frequent visitor
activity at the preserves.
2. Provide and/or better communicate a list on the district website of birds and animals in the
district, both endangered and common and best places to observe them.
3. Increase the amount of parking at Rancho San Antonio, Skyline and other crowded sites.
4. Clean restrooms more frequently. Add a few more restrooms at select preserves.
5. Improve surface condition of select trails to enhance visitor safety during the winter months.
6. Provide offline maps and link addresses at trailheads so visitors can download them when
they arrive.
7. Provide apps for offline maps so visitors can plan their routes and ascertain their exact
position during the hike or bike activity.
8. The district should work with volunteers to add more information and photos of preserves on
Google Maps.
9. Identify the most feasible technology to use which would allow visitors to contact emergency
services, be it call boxes at trailheads or enhanced cell service.
10. Install cameras at select bird nest sites to increase interest in the preserves by persons who
cannot visit.
11. MidPen should be more actively engaged on Facebook and other social media providing
information such as, trail closures, trail updates, any new trail that is added, wildflowers and
wildlife sighted and upcoming programs.
Attachment 9
12 | Page
12. Provide more detailed information about preserve trails at the trailhead, such as elevation
gain/loss, mileages of common trails, loop trails, and wildlife observation areas.
13. Consider offering more backcountry and front county campsites and provide online
reservations.
14. Provide and/or better communicate on the MidPen website a comprehensive list of wildlife
and best places to observe them.
15. Provide more ranger patrols at Skyline and other preserve parking lots where there is illegal
or inappropriate activity taking place.
16. More strongly communicate when and where smoking is prohibited in preserves.
17. Consider opening more dog-friendly trails. Enforce dog waste clean-up policies.
18. Consider offering bus shuttles between reserves along Highway 35 on weekends.
19. Offer reservation-only, ranger-led, full moon night hikes.
20. Make it easier to be trained to be a volunteer for the district, and better communicate these
volunteer opportunities via various online and offline channels.
21. Encourage more citizen science at preserves.
22. Keep up the good work.
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
SFSU has the following conclusions and thoughts about the South Asian focus group. It is
important to note the participants in this focus group we all young South Asian adults who were
software engineers/scientists and were avid users of communications technology. All but one of
respondents were frequent users of MidPen preserves.
There was strong unanimous support for MidPen using more communications technology to
help visitors plan and enjoy their visit, and communicate quickly about any emergencies that
might arise. If not already available, MidPen could provide apps and links to offline preserve
maps at some trailheads, and enhance downloadable pdf maps of all preserves from the district
website (or communicate more effectively that are already available). Better use of social media
and Google maps is encouraged. Informal volunteers could be enlisted in this effort by the
district organizing photo and Google Maps contests and updates. Engage users and non-users
through more Facebook and social media efforts.
These users wanted the district to compile and present more detailed information about key trails
(e.g. elevation profiles, wildlife resources, loop trails) on the district website and most
Attachment 9
13 | Page
importantly, at popular trailheads. Consider offering limited backcountry camping opportunities,
as is done in East Bay Regional Parks. Strategically improve degraded trail conditions to
enhance safety, using district trail crews and volunteers. Develop or revise a district dog
management plan with consideration for limited new dog-friendly trails, possibly like East Bay
Regional Parks has done. Develop or revise a transportation plan for busy preserves. Identify
new opportunities for limited full moon, permitted, docent or ranger-led night hikes and
communicates these widely.
Not all of these suggestions may be appropriate and the district may already be working on
some. Neither could all of them be implemented in the short term. But they provide a menu of
ideas for the district to consider, as generated by these young South Asian focus group
participants.
APPENDICIES
Attachment 9
14 | Page
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 9
15 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
MROSD PRESERVE VISITOR USE STUDY:
South Asian Focus Group Protocol for October 5, 2017
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor of recreation, parks and tourism at SFSU. This is
[Michala Roan], a student at SFSU]. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today and agreeing
to be part of this focus group. We’ll do group introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes.
This conversation will last about an hour and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record
this conversation so we can use the recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a
secure location and will not be used for any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has
any issues/problems with being audio-taped?].
No MROSD staff are present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about
MROSD preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make during this
interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll use that, which
I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today and [Michala] will be taking notes. I am going to go over a
few details before we start. If you have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
We are working in partnership with the MROSD to better understand open space preserve users’
attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences and to identify reasons why people don’t visit
more often. The information you share will help the district determine how well they are supporting
their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the information you
provide can help improve existing preserve resources and services to meet community needs. Your
participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [members of the South Bay Asian
Community]. We welcome your input and your voice matters to the District so we need you to be
honest with us and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
Guidelines
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being in a
focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help ensure a
safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we capture what
everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be attached to your
comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each
other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in
general, and within MCP in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in
Attachment 9
16 | Page
MCP, respond based on your knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t
need to agree with others, but please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do
agree with what someone says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing
in some other way. This helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says
something that reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their
comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While
we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in
any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I
might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder after
this. Please state your first name and your favorite MROSD preserve.
[Student assistant turns on digital recorder and begins taking typed notes on laptop].
SOUTH ASIAN RESPONDENT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Generic Discussion Questions, Tier 1 - (As we move forward, it would be best to reply as it relates
to MCP, if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any park experience are fair game.
When I say “Marin County Parks”, I mean both Marin County Parks and Open Space Preserves).
1. In the last 6 months, have each of you visited any Midpeninsular Regional open space District
preserve for any purpose? Any one not?
2. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in MROSDPs. [use/experience]
3. Where do you like to go most often within MROSDPs? Why do you prefer to do these activities at
these locations? Which preserves do you like to visit?
4. How have your most recent MidPen preserve experiences made you feel? Explain
5. What do you like the most about the MidPen preserves?
6. If you have not visited a MROSD preserve in the last 6 months, please explain why. Have you
stopped using MidPen altogether? Why?
7. What do you like least about riding on MidPen preserves? Why?
8. Do you have any suggestions for MidPen management to improve your experience at MidPen
open space preserves? Please explain.
Attachment 9
17 | Page
9. How might these suggestions be implemented?
Tier 2 - If Time, Address the Following Questions
1. Are you familiar with the MidPen district sources of funding?
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Student assistant turns off digital recorder, note-taking ends].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you provided is
significant and meaningful and can really help improve visitor experiences throughout the MidPen
preserves. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a summary report can
be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your name and email address, or postal address, to
our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, [Michala] will be distributing [a $25 gift card incentive]. In order to
receive this gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting
purposes only.
(PT) I want to thank Atul for helping organize this event. (Give thank you card to participant
organizers).
Equipment & Supplies
1) Sign in sheet
2) Participant incentive log / accounting sheet
3) Name tags
4) Protocol copies
5) Question copies
6) Audio recording device
7) Gift cards
8) Visual charts, graphs, maps & brochures
9) Writing utensils: pens, pencils, sharpies
10) Money for caterer
11) Mailing list sheet
12) Press release on Phase I results
13) Bring older laptop and charge cord for Bernice to use
14) Thank you card
15) Bring donation (money) for host/room rental (have receipt for it), if room not paid in
advance.
Attachment 9
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Patrick Tierney, PhD
Email: adrift650@comcast.net
A Component of the Midpen Visitors Study
EAST ASIAN FOCUS
GROUP REPORT
March 18, 2018
Attachment 10
1 | Page
Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………...……. 2
Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...……... 2
Results & Findings………………………………………………………………………………. 5
Participant Recommendations……………………………………….…………………………... 9
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts……………………………………………….......…………10
Appendices…….………………………………………………………………………...……...11
Tables
Table 1. Participant Characteristics ………..……………………………………………..…….. 5
Appendices
Appendix A. Recruitment flyer
Appendix B. Focus group protocol and questions
Attachment 10
2 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), in partnership with Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor of recreation, parks and tourism at San Francisco State University, is conducting a study
of Midpen preserve users and non-users. The overall purpose of the study is to assess visitor
satisfaction, motivation, stewardship interests and future demands, for potential decision making. It
also aims to provide recommendations for preserve programs, facilities, policies, and innovative
ways to enhance stewardship, community engagement and access. The study consists of two parts:
Part I were intercept and follow-up surveys; while Part II consists of focus groups with specific
community groups. This report presents the procedures and results of one focus group interview
with 14 east Asian residents of Santa Clara County, who were recruited by the Angela Chen of the
City of Cupertino. This focus group was held March 8, 2018 at Cupertino City Hall. In this report a
reference to “Midpen trails” means trails in Midpen Open Space Preserves.
For more information about the purpose and scope of the research contact Joshua Hugg,
Government Affairs Specialist for Midpen, at (650) 691-1200 or jhugg@openspace.org. Questions
about the focus group process, data analysis or findings can be directed to Dr. Patrick Tierney,
professor and principal investigator, at (650) 255-2536 or adrift650@comcast.net.
Special thanks to a community partner
This project could not have been possible nor successful without the help and support of Angela
Chen of the City of Cupertino. She helped us find and recruit participants in this focus group and
secured the location. We wish to express our thanks to her.
METHODOLOGY
Phase II Overview
The focus group interview part of this study aimed to capture the experiences of Midpen district East
Asian residents in Santa Clara County. Participants could have been persons who may or may not
have visited Midpen preserves. The choice of this user group and the initial contact for this east
Asian community were provided by Joshua Hugg with Midpen. He and Midpen staff believed the
opinions and motivations from this group, and from upcoming focus groups could benefit future
planning of the district preserves and services.
Development of Collateral Materials & Procedures
Dr. Tierney created the materials needed to successfully set up and facilitate the focus group, such as
focus group recruitment flyers, focus group protocol, and interview questions. The east Asian
community leader was asked to recruit potential participants for the focus group. Dr. Tierney created
an invitation and recruitment flyer. The flyer was translated into Simplified Chinese by Rev.com, as
shown in Appendix A. Angela forwarded it to persons, and she confirmed persons attending the
focus group. At the focus group Dr. Tierney showed maps of Midpen preserves and facilitated the
Attachment 10
3 | Page
focus group. Active participants were provided with a $25 Safeway Stores gift card at the end of the
event.
Dr. Tierney used a participant sign-in sheet, log for signatures acknowledging receipt of gift cards,
and sign-up sheet for Midpen (e.g., anyone requesting a copy of the final report or wished to be
added to mailing list). Other materials used during the focus groups were name tags and map
brochures of all Midpen preserves. Dr. Tierney also provided a lite meal and refreshments at the
start of the focus group to encourage attendance and thank the participants.
Focus Groups
What occurred, why, and how?
A focus group is a small group of four to fifteen people, ideally, led
through an open discussion by a skilled moderator. Dr. Tierney was
the focus group moderator/facilitator who asked initial questions and
nurtured disclosure in an open and honest format. The goal was to
generate a maximum number of different opinions, experiences,
attitudes, and ideas from as many people in the group in the time
allotted. As reflected in the protocol that follows, the focus groups
were structured around a set of carefully predetermined questions but the discussion was free-
flowing. That is, participant comments stimulated and influenced the thinking and sharing of others.
Recruitment: Where did participants come from?
This study used a convenience sampling method employed a community leader to enlist members of
the east Asian community in Santa Clara County as focus group participants. This community
leader recruited 14 participants, three who indicated they had not previous visited a Midpen
preserve, and 11 who marked they had visited. So in general these participants were familiar with
Midpen, but as we shall see, fewer actually visited a preserve or could name a Midpen preserve
Focus Group Protocol
The focus group protocol used for this study was created by the Dr. Tierney, based on past
experience, and included a description of the overall study, participant guidelines, focus group
questions, and logistical information. Since some participants were not familiar with Midpen
preserves, Dr. Tierney handed-out a Midpen brochure showing the locations of all preserves to all
participants, and referred to a large map showing district boundaries and preserve locations. At the
start of the focus group he also presented a brief general introduction to what Midpen offers and how
their preserves are different from city, county and national parks. If persons had not visited a
Midpen preserve, they were asked to consider a visit to another nature preserve, such as a national
park or wildlife refuge. Questions asked participants about their most recent preserve experience,
types of activities they undertook, how these activities make them feel, where they like to go most
often in Midpen or nature preserves, what they like most about their recent experiences in the
preserve, what they like least, and any suggestions for Midpen management to improve their
experience. At the start of the focus group the facilitator asked the group if it was ok to audio record
the session and present in English (versus Chinese). Everyone agree to the recording and us of
Attachment 10
4 | Page
English. The final focus group protocol and questions used during the East Asian focus group are
available in Appendix B.
Data Collection
The East Asian focus group had 14 participants. As participants arrived at the location, the facilitator
asked them to sign a participant sign-in sheet requesting their demographic information. They then
enjoyed the lite meal provided, during which comfort and rapport was established by the
investigator. After a half hour the investigator then asked the group if it was ok to conduct the focus
group in English (versus Chinese). He then introduced and described how the proceedings would go.
He asked if it would be ok to audio record the session. Everyone agreed to use of English. He
started the interview process, beginning with a general ice breaker to get the group thinking about
preserves and park use or non-use, and used then the protocol and questions (Appendix B). All
prepared questions were asked within a 120 minute time period and the facilitator was responsible
for getting all participants to talk and fully explain their answers using helpful probes (e.g., “Can
you say more about that?”; “Help us understand what you mean?” and “Can you give an
example?”). The investigator demonstrated active listening and occasionally paraphrased long or
ambiguous comments, or sought clarification for analysis purposes and/or summarized responses for
the whole group.
The facilitator recorded the focus group using his Apple iPhone. Body language or other subtle
relevant clues were recorded via written notes. At the end of the focus group, participants were
thanked and each person received the incentive ($25 gift card) that required a signature on the
receipt log for accounting purposes. If any participants wanted to receive the final report, or
expressed interest in being put on a Midpen mailing list, they were asked to indicate that on the sign-
in sheet. Audio files were uploaded to a secure computer for storage and backed up.
Data Analysis & Transcription
The demographic characteristics of these 14 participants were gathered at the sign-in for the focus
group. Results are summarized in Table 1. The focus group discussions were captured via audio
recordings. The facilitator moderated, while the discussions were recorded. The interview was then
transcribed verbatim by an outside contractor, Rev.com, and verified by Dr. Tierney.
In order for all participant comments to be understandable and useful, they were analyzed using a
systematic and verifiable process. Hence, the investigator completed a manual content analysis
process by first identifying question content categories and emerging themes with groupings entered
into a Word document. Subsequently, the investigator extracted and explored common themes.
Supporting quotes for each theme were placed under the appropriate section to illustrate what
participants stated. The principle investigator then used themes and quotes to develop
recommendations.
Attachment 10
5 | Page
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Many valuable findings were revealed by this
focus group interview process. It is important to
note that the majority of participants in this focus
group were familiar with Midpen preserves, but
had not visited in the last six months. Although
maps of the Midpen were provided at the focus
group and the facilitator discussed some unique
characteristics and uses in preserves, there were
uncertainties about the preserve resources and
locations. There is a chance that some parks outside Midpen’s were considered. Generalizing
preserve/park experiences is not uncommon to occur within focus group interviews. The parks
literature explains the difficulty for people in differentiating between lands/trails of adjacent park
agencies. This further accentuates the need for park agencies to work together; and, the increasing
importance to share such park use/non-use interview results with other park managers as well.
Participant Characteristics
As participants were seated for the focus group they were asked to provide data on their age, sex,
ethnicity and occupation and if they had visited a Midpen preserve. This was the source for the
following demographic data about the seven focus group participants. Table 1 suggests this was a
group of active older adults who visited parks but had not been to a Midpen preserve in the last six
months to a year. Four of the seven participants has visited a Midpen preserve at some point.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Total Number of Participants 14
Average Age 58 years
Age Range 22-67 years
Sex
Male 29%
Female 71%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 0%
Asian 100%
Occupation
Professional 55%
Retired 36%
Student 9%
Attachment 10
6 | Page
EMERGING THEMES: SANTA CLARA COUNTY EAST ASIAN RESPONDENTS
An analysis of focus group responses produced the following themes and illustrative participant
quotes.
Theme: The East Asian community in Santa Clara County is generally not familiar with Midpen
preserves
“I really don't think Midpen have done a good job in terms of advertising yourself. Because every weekend
our families first we go to hike. Then we always go to those same old place. And now you show us they have
so many wonderful places. I just look at your website. You have a lot of docent led tours, right, so does any
of us know about these?”
Theme: Hiking, looking at scenery and wildlife observation are by far the most common activities by
seniors in preserves
“I think hiking is probably the most common thing”
“It's usually two to three hour type of hike, generally we're looking for elevation.”
“I wish I know (the names of), this tree and that tree and that plant and that
wildflowers”
“I enjoy the nature scene”
“You exercise yourself and walk the dog”
“The view is wonderful”
“I've now started seeing eagles”
“I just love the nature. They (preserves) are all pretty and different”
“I enjoy the flowers in the springtime, enjoy the animals. We saw deers all the time and like Rancho you also
have turkeys”
“My last visit was to Rancho is the program for a third grade field trip, the Ohlone Village”
Theme: There is substantial confusion over what is a Midpen preserve and other parks
“What's different between this one (Midpen) and Sierra Club? And also, is this a private land”
“They have a festival”
“I used to go to a place in the Midpeninsula where there's a log cabin and we can camp”
“I'm really confused by the objective of Midpen. And their intention also to try to preserve the nature. So
they don't want to provide facilities. But then very few people will be able to enjoy that kind of benefit.”
“I just reviewed this Midpen district website. It look like San Jose is not represented by this district. Why
not?”
Theme: Midpen preserves provide many benefits
Subtheme A: Mental wellbeing
“It's (preserves) are like anti-depressant. Better than anti-depressant. It makes you happy in a natural
healing kind of atmosphere”
“I'm not going to any natures to see some man made stuff. Mostly try to enjoy the nature itself.
“I join a group that is every Tuesday they are hiking and then they are hiking all day long so
sometimes I feel that it is quite stressful”
“This is Silicon Valley and people are very stressful and then you go to nature or some open
space and you really feel relaxed and calms you down”
“The more I go, I will live longer. The more I see, the more I watch all that Gods created, all the pretty areas
for human beings, It keeps me smiling, keeps me positive thinking
Attachment 10
7 | Page
“You know, every time there (at preserve) I feel like I'm rich man”
Subtheme B: Family and friend bonding
“Hike with my family and then you can talk about a lot of things”
“I am a student at UCSD and when I come home, I felt more productive there (Midpen preserve) being able
to spend time with my friends and ….. no reception so we weren't really distracted by our phones and we
were able to focus on the conversation”
“I spend a lot of time talking to my daughters on hikes and we can talk about work, we can talk about our
lives and stuff like this where you can't do it at home”
“Our family walks together, kids can run behind or just play”
Subtheme C: Physical health
“It's usually two to three hour type of hike, generally we're looking for elevation.”
“Fresh air, you get exercise”
“You are physically challenged (by hikes) but you mentally are relaxed”
“Get exercise, get body in shape”
““This is huge, 100% of oxygen. I can breathe”
Subtheme D: It is an inexpensive outing
“You doesn't spend money, besides your time”
Theme: There are significant barriers to visiting Midpen preserves
Subtheme A: Parking
“Whether it's the big place like Rancho that has large sets of parking lots but they're always
full, or many of the places they just don't have parking spots, you just find any place along the
road”
“The parking is not enough. We stop going, part of the reason was parking was difficult, even
seven, six o'clock in morning it's full.”
“There is no parking”
“Parking is most the headache. You cannot find parking and it's depressing and then forget it”
Subtheme B: Personal Safety
“He actually gets quite anxious about mountain lions and the coyotes. For some reason he's very terrified of
the mountain lions and the coyotes. Although, we're told that you're more likely to be attacked by a turkey.
” In the summer time you have to watch out because you worry about the rattlesnakes”
“So I also sometimes, even me or maybe other friend, just two ladies, I'm scared”
“I am a little afraid, for example, some people ride bikes. (People) Ride bikes with tattoos, you know, you just
feel not safety”
“The people I go with are relatives and they're some concern that if the road is not well maintained it had a
lot of small stone, it becomes slippery and they are afraid that they may fall down. And also it's too steep”
Subtheme C: Lack of restrooms
“I sometimes feel very stressful because you always afraid there is no restroom
Theme: Management issues
Subtheme A: Mountain biking
“Sometimes there's a problem with aggressive bikers and they don’t use bells”
“We’ve been hit by a bike (while hiking in a preserve)”
Attachment 10
8 | Page
“I'm a biker and actually when we bike sometime we are ringing but some people not react and we shout
but people when they're hiking, they have tendency to line up and block the whole street. Then we talk, we
shout and they don't really listen to us”
“So there are lots of bikes. Sometimes I'm a little bit afraid, you know, about the guy coming down”
Subtheme B: Other management issues
“The poison oak is starting to grow pretty fast right now and I've already gotten it once this year so get out
there and deal with the poison oak.”
”My family decided to set up a memorial bench in his memory (person who died in Rancho San Antonio). So
we email Midpen and then they said, "Oh, no, no, no. We cannot accept the average people. We need
people special contribution, special ... some kind of monetary, whatever. And plus. Each bench is about
$5,000. We need to see how (preserves) can to be usable for people, how to be part of the humanity and
community. That part I want you to bring back to the Midpen”
Theme: Midpen can do things to encourage the community to visit preserves
Subtheme A: Improve facilities
“You know, Open Space, although their mission is preserve nature, however, you need to compromise a
little bit for creation of purpose. You know, there should be bathroom, parking, good trail or some kind of
resting bench or even just small, those kind of shed area (shade structures)”
“I also find that not so many emergency phones”
“The trail most times was open with no shade. And for this time of year it's
wonderful, but then during summer days sometimes it's tough”
“If we can develop some trails that are more in the middle of nature and have
shade”
“I think I like the idea that we have a lot of open space. But you get a feeling that you cannot access it. So at
least small areas with some sort of higher level of maintenance and basic facilities”
“There’s not enough restrooms”
“The road (hiking trail) is not maintained because they want to keep nature, right? So very few people can
enjoy that kind of benefit”
Subtheme B: Better pre-trip information, maps and signage
“You also feel little lost because the directions sometimes is not good. And some directions could be very
artistic and point to the sky. Which way do you go? And they have really strange signs so you get confused”
“But it isn't very simple a lot of times (to find the right trail). You're given the map, you
got the trails on it, but then you have to decide, well, which trail am I gonna go to”
“One of the things we always do is on Google you can download offline maps and that's
very important. Otherwise you're just in this big green spot, you know, there's a little
blue dot in a big green thing and it's like, well, I don't know where to go.”
“I don't think that the organization's done a good enough job in categorizing the types
of hikes and recommendations”
“It will be better to have sometimes a master list and say, “These are easy hikes”
“And your website can make a little bit improvement also. I think for the first page, your main page, the
map, just where you can zoom in, zoom out because it's so crowded page. I mean, so many preserves all in
there. I have difficulty to find out which one is the closer to where I live”
“The organization needs to do more reach out to the community. Just Saturday I hiked with another mom
and she was so happy because that's her first time to be at the Fremont Older. She's in our neighborhood so
it means she's been living here for I don't know for how many years, but she never been there at Fremont
Older”
Attachment 10
9 | Page
Subtheme C: Better transportation and parking
“Build more parking”
“A shuttle bus, those kind of ideas may work much better and they're not tear down trees and then build
more parking lots”
“For a shuttle bus system (to Rancho San Antonio), particular on the weekends, you can use the elementary
school parking lot, right? You know, of course it takes money to run something like that but then there's a
demand”
“Place on their website for you to reserve parking for two or three hours so at least you have expectation
you go there for three hours, I have a space”
“A shuttle bus type of service to take people to different places (preserves), I think that is a good idea”
Subtheme D: Other suggestions
“If possible, there should be more volunteer lead hikes, that would be nice, regularly. I looked at the website
and they do have them but it's kind of like those are very long, I am very busy”
“People with spinal cord injury and they are all wheelchair bound. Those open space there's
minimal wheelchair accessible trail for wheelchair bound population access”
“I think in general Midpen is doing a good job as is. Their places, they're well used. I see that
places, the facilities are well maintained. I see changes, so they keep coming (to maintain). So
yeah, they're doing a good job. If they can save more money, purchase more land, preserve
more land, then that would be great”
“The state, it's under huge pressure to solve the housing crisis and everywhere they try to build up high rises
and all those kind of things. In the meantime I'm thinking there's so many open space. It seems like no one
dare touch those space for housing”
Participant Recommendations
Focus group participant responses were used to develop the following recommendations. The
recommendations presented below are from the perspective of the East Asian community in Santa
Clara County, and they may or may not be different from the general public or other types of
preserve users. It is important to note the closest popular preserve near many participants was
Rancho San Antonio, a preserve that receives by far the largest amount of visitation of any.
1. Conduct more outreach to the East Asian community in Santa Clara County. Many do not
even know Midpen preserves exist and what programs, such as docent-led tours, they offer.
2. Develop more parking and/or shuttles, as this is the number one identified need by both
Midpen visitors and non-visitors.
3. Educate residents about how Midpen preserves are different from other parks because there is
confusion about what they are.
4. Optimize opportunities for hiking, especially easy loop trails. These are well situated for
multi-generation family hikes.
5. Establish a list of easy hikes. On each preserve maps identify easy trails.
Attachment 10
10 | Page
6. Encourage wildlife observation in preserves. But also educate about likelihood of
encountering mountain lions and rattlesnakes.
7. Develop small areas along trails with some facilities, such as restrooms, benches and shade
structures.
8. Improve the district website, maps and signs to help people find the right trail for them.
9. Provide more trails suitable for persons in wheelchairs.
Conclusions and Closing Thoughts
Dr. Tierney has the following conclusions and thoughts about the East Asian focus group. It is
important to note that the closest most popular Midpen preserve to many of the focus group
participants is also the busiest one, Rancho San Antonio. Few seem to visit the more remote
preserves, such as those along Skyline Drive. Those in the focus group who had not visited or were
infrequent visitors, cited many barriers to visiting, from mountain lions to other visitors making it
unsafe to hike in preserves.
Some participants wanted city park or national park type facilities where there were more man-made
features and services, such as smooth trails, more restrooms, lots of signs, garbage cans, shade
structures, etc. Or at least one area along the trail away from the trailhead with these. Some or all of
these may be inappropriate in nature preserves other than at trailheads and parking areas.
Develop or identify more easy trails, including ones accessible to persons in wheelchairs. Or at a
minimum provide more information about easy loop trails on the district website. The Activities
Key webpage d id not seem to be easily found by focus group participants or the symbols (for easy
trails) d id not seem to be easily understood or identified. An easy-to-read and highly visible list of
easy hiking trails at all preserves seems warranted or made more visible.
More parking was a very important issue to preserve visitors and non-visitors. This is the most
frequently mentioned facility need. Several participants did not want more parking lots but were
supportive of shuttles from other areas to the reserves.
Personal safety was a frequently mentioned issue and barrier to visiting. This includes concerns
about dangerous visitors, wild animals, mountain bikers and getting lost in preserves. Therefore, an
important action the district could take is developing and promoting docent-led group hikes in
preserves, especially with other East Asian community leaders or docents. Easy docent-led tours
appear to be one of the most effective ways to over-come personal safety concerns and being
unfamiliar with preserves, for first-time visitors. Another option would be organizing groups of East
Asian families through schools, churches or non-profits serving their community.
An important need for the East Asian in Santa Clara County, as well as other communities, is to
conduct outreach to them. This includes providing information about the opportunities, preserve
locations, and differences between them and other types of parks is warranted, based on focus group
Attachment 10
11 | Page
participants. As with other communities, many persons do not even know Midpen preserves exist or
about docent-led tours that are available. There seems to be strong interest in visiting Midpen
preserves among focus group participants who had not visited previously.
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: RECRUITMENT FLYER
Attachment 10
12 | Page
您受到邀請:
我們要聽到您的聲音!
加入我們的 FOCUS GROUP
Midpeninsula 開放區保留空地(Midpen) 和舊金山州立大學的
Patrick Tierney博士
合作以便了解您對公園的興趣以及保留地和其他BayArea公園保留方面的經
驗; 您最喜歡和最不喜歡的東西是什麼; 如何才能使您更多的參觀公園;
怎樣才能提高您在MidPen保留空地的經歷.
我們想聽取您的意見!
在有助於他們更好的幫助您的社區的同時，了解到更多關於
Midpen 的情況 ~
告訴我們關於您对
MidPen
保留空地的想法!
地點: Cupertino City Hall,
EOC conference room, 10300
Torre 大街, Cupertino, 加利
福尼亞州 95014
Cup
C
2018年3月8號
登記并参加6:15pm晚餐.
Focus group 在 6:45
馬上開始& 在8:45結束
發電郵以便確認您的參加:
Angela Chen: Achenlee8@gmail.com
Attachment 10
13 | Page
APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
East Asian Focus Group Protocol for March 8, 2018
Welcome & Introductions
Hi, my name is [Patrick Tierney] I am a professor of recreation, parks and tourism at SFSU. Is
everyone ok with having this event being presented in English? If not I have a Chinese translator .
Thank you for taking the time to talk to us today and agreeing to be part of this focus group. We’ll
do group introductions regarding who you are in a few minutes. This conversation will last about an
hour and a half and will be recorded. We would like to record this conversation so we can use the
recording to transcribe notes. The recording will be kept in a secure location and will not be used for
any other purpose other than this project. [Does anyone has any issues/problems with being audio-
taped?].
No MROSD staff are present here tonight so you should feel free to voice your opinions about
MROSD preserves. No names will be associated with any of the comments you make during this
interview. When you signed in today, there was a number next to your name, you’ll use that, which
I’ll explain in a moment.
I will be leading the conversation today. I am going to go over a few details before we start. If you
have any questions, please ask as they come up.
Purpose of the Focus Group
I am working in partnership with the MROSD to better understand open space preserve users’
attitudes, experiences, use patterns, and preferences and to identify reasons why people don’t visit
more often. The information you share will help the district determine how well they are supporting
their strategic plan and contributing to their long-term goals. In addition, the information you
provide can help improve existing preserve resources and services to meet community needs. Your
participation is key as this group represents the ideas of [members of the East Asian Community].
We welcome your input and your voice matters to the District so we need you to be honest with us
and share your thoughts and opinions openly.
Guidelines
Has anyone ever participated in a focus group? [Ask for show of hands]. For some people being in a
focus group can be a new experience. We’ll first discuss general ground rules that can help ensure a
safe environment where everyone’s ideas are shared and valued, and to ensure we capture what
everyone says on the recorder and in our notes. Again, your name will not be attached to your
comments, only a number.
1. WE WANT YOU TO DO THE TALKING. We need everyone to participate and talk to each
other as you are comfortable. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while.
2. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. Every person’s experiences and
opinions are important. We want to hear what each of you think and feel about parks, in
general, and within MCP in particular. If you’re not familiar with parks and preserves in
MCP, respond based on your knowledge of whatever parks come to mind for you. You don’t
Attachment 10
14 | Page
need to agree with others, but please listen respectfully to different points of view. If you do
agree with what someone says, please speak up, rather than nodding your head or gesturing
in some other way. This helps us capture agreement in the notes. Also, if someone else says
something that reminds you of something or sparks a thought, please feel free to follow their
comments with your own.
3. WHAT IS SAID IN THIS ROOM STAYS HERE. Everything you tell us today is
anonymous. That means we will not share anything you say with your name attached. While
we might use quotes or ideas that you share, as mentioned, we will never use your name in
any way.
4. ONE MIC/1 NUMBER: Please speak one at a time – this will help us capture everyone’s
thoughts and opinions. Before you make your comment, simply state your number first
(which is on your name tag) then go for it. For example, I may raise my hand and say,
“Number five: I think that parks need to have more…” If you forget to state your number, I
might ask you for it.
5. STEP UP STEP BACK. If you have shared a lot, step back to allow others to share.
Are there any questions before we begin?
Icebreaker: Let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves then we’ll turn on the recorder after
this. Please state your first name and your favorite MROSD preserve.
[Turn on digital recorder].
SAN MATEO SENIOR FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
Generic Discussion Questions, Tier 1 - (As we move forward, it would be best to reply as it relates
to Midpen Open Space preserves, if you’re not able to that’s fine. Comments about any preserve
and park experiences are fair game.
1. Have you heard of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserves before learning about this focus
group? If so, can you give me an example of a preserve?
2. In the last 6 months, have each of you visited any Midpen preserve for any purpose? Any one not?
If not, have you visited a nature area, such as a state, national or county park or wildlife refuge?
3. Please share a sample of activities you like to do in Midpen preserves. If not visited Midpen, what
activities do you like to do in nature areas?
4. Which Midpen preserves do you most like to visit? Why do you prefer to do these activities at
these locations?
5. How have your most recent MidPen preserve experiences made you feel? Or if never
visited Midpen, how do visits to other nature areas make you feel. Explain
6. What do you like the most about the MidPen preserves? If not visited Midpen, what do you like
most about other nature areas you have visited? Explain.
7. If you have not visited a Midpen preserve in the last 6 months, please explain why. Have you
stopped using MidPen altogether? Why?
Attachment 10
15 | Page
8. What do you like least about visiting MidPen preserves? Or if you never visited Midpen, what do
you like least about nature areas? Why?
9. Would you like to visit a Midpen preserve in the future? Why or why not?
10. Do you have any suggestions for MidPen management to improve your past preserve
experiences, or encourage you to try visiting a MidPen open space preserve for the first time? Please
explain.
11. How might these suggestions be implemented?
Does anyone have anything else to add based on what we’ve talked about or something else
you’d like to share?
Closing & Wrap Up
[Turn off digital recorder].
Thank you all again for participating in this important conversation. The information you provided is
significant and meaningful and can really help improve visitor experiences throughout the MidPen
preserves. If you are interested in the results and findings of this conversation, a summary report can
be sent out to you upon request. If so, please give your name and email address, or postal address, to
our student assistant.
In appreciation of your time, I will be distributing [a $25 gift card incentive]. In order to receive this
gift card we need you to please sign our receipt log for the university accounting purposes only.
(PT) I want to thank Angela Chen for helping organize and translating this event. (Give thank
you card to participant organizers).
Attachment 10
April 25, 2018
Board Meeting 18-15
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko and Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Acting Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, Real
Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior Real Property Specialist Allen
Ishibashi
Public comments opened at 5:00 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 5:00 p.m.
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: Santa Clara County APN(s): 562-23-007
Agency Negotiator: Allen Ishibashi, Sr. Real Property Agent
Negotiating Party: Ismael Benhamida, Broker, Marcus & Millichap
Under Negotiation: Purchase Terms
Meeting 18-15 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
President Cyr adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 5:38 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING
President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
order at 6:00 p.m.
President Cyr reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko and Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Acting Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield,
Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial
Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, Engineering
& Construction Manager Jay Lin, Capital Projects Manager III Zachary
Alexander
1. Project goals and delivery process for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Long-
Term Repair Project at Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (R-18-42)
Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz described previous Board decisions and Midpen actions
related to the repair and maintenance of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower (Tower) and
discussed the need to continue to maintain the Tower to provide a safe environment for visitors
to the Mount Umunhum Summit.
Acting Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield described the purpose of the Tower
long-term repair project: to ensure safe visitor experience near and around the structure,
minimize long-term maintenance, provide safe conditions for interior and exterior maintenance,
and adhere to the Board’s decision to retain and seal the structure.
Capital Project Manager III Zachary Alexander presented the staff report describing the project’s
purpose and goals, chronology of past efforts, and ongoing structural degradation and
maintenance issues of the Tower; including interior standing water, interior and exterior peeling
paint, roof issues, wildlife entry points and exclusion measures, and interior hazmat
requirements, etc.
Director Siemens requested clarification related to the need for the proposed Tower repairs to
repair interior damage.
Ms. Ruiz explained the proposed repairs would help ensure staff safety when they have to enter
the Tower.
Meeting 18-15 Page 3
Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone described safety measures currently used by
staff to ensure safety when entering the Tower.
Director Siemens suggested Midpen staff complete the necessary Tower assessments and
inspections rather than an outside consultant.
Engineering and Construction Manager Jay Lin explained Midpen staff is currently committed to
other Midpen projects, and many of the Tower project tasks may require expert experience to
evaluate.
Mr. Alexander described the reasoning for pursuing a design-bid-build process for the project
due to its complex nature. Finally, Mr. Alexander outlined the next steps of the project.
Director Riffle suggested inclusion of a goal for the project to meet all regulatory requirements.
Acting General Counsel Hilary Stevenson explained a commitment to meet all regulatory
requirements is implied with all Midpen projects.
Director Hassett requested clarification related to removal of interior and exterior lead paint
previously completed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Alexander explained the project completed by the Army Corps of Engineers only removed
loose paint, but due to environmental factors, more paint is now flaking and requires removal.
Staff recommends removal of all paint to prevent future paint flaking.
Public comments opened at 6:54 p.m.
Sam Drake, President of the Umunhum Conservancy, spoke in favor of the continuing process to
repair the Tower and spoke in favor of the proposed project goals. Mr. Drake suggested adding a
goal that the work should not reduce the historic integrity of the building, and the proposed
repairs should meet aesthetic criteria.
Lester Earnest, former Stanford computer scientist researcher, spoke regarding the
ineffectiveness of the radar tower system used at Mount Umunhum. Mr. Earnest suggested the
installation of a plaque on the site describing the ineffectiveness of the system.
Melany Moore spoke in favor of sealing out wildlife from the Tower to protect them. Ms. Moore
spoke in support of the Umunhum Conservancy and Tower.
Kevin Mankin spoke regarding the sealing of similar radar towers throughout the United States,
and Midpen may want to use their programs as examples.
Public comments closed at 7:03 p.m.
Director Hassett discussed the encapsulation of the Tower and the availability of materials, and
suggested installation of a foam roof on the Tower.
Director Riffle expressed support of the Acting General Manager’s recommendations.
Meeting 18-15 Page 4
Director Harris expressed concern regarding spending additional taxpayer funds on the Tower.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the project
goals, project delivery process, and timeline for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Long-Term
Repair Project.
VOTE: 3-1-1 (Director Harris opposed; Director Siemens abstained; Directors Hanko and
Kishimoto absent)
Motion fails.
ADJOURNMENT
President Cyr adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:09 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Cyr called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
order at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko and Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services
Stefan Jaskulak, Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Acting
Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, District Clerk/Assistant
to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Acting Public Affairs
Manager Cydney Bieber, Grants Specialist Melanie Askay, Information
Systems & Technology Manager Garrett Dunwoody
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rhoda Fry spoke regarding the Lehigh Cement Quarry and the lack of regulatory enforcement of
the Quarry by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ms. Fry spoke regarding dust emitted
during blasting and the exemption of Lehigh Quarry from particulate matter regulations. Finally,
Ms. Fry expressed concern related to a newly proposed mining site and encouraged Midpen to
review the new regulations.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Harris moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent)
Meeting 18-15 Page 5
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Introduction of staff
O Filipe Nistal, Senior Capital Projects Manager
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:19 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:19 p.m.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent)
1. Approve April 11, 2018 Minutes
Director Riffle clarified his comments regarding potential legislation related to the threshold for
passage of tax measures. Director Riffle explained his intent was to request that the Board
discuss the topic at a future meeting to determine if it is an issue the Board is interested in asking
staff to research.
Motion: Director Harris moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the April
11, 2018 with the suggested corrections.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent)
2. Claims Report
3. Grant Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the Webb Creek
Bridge Replacement (R-18-38)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution confirming an application for the Safe,
Clean Water Priority D3 Grant Program, affirming that sufficient funds are available to complete
this work, and authorizing the General Manager to execute the grant agreement with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District to receive $149,500 for replacement of Webb Creek Bridge.
BOARD BUSINESS
4. Award of Contract to Graniterock Company for Construction of the Bear Creek
Redwoods Public Access Project (R-18-39)
Senior Capital Project Manager Matt Brunnings provided the staff presentation describing the
project scope of work, including at-grade pedestrian crossing and parking lot on Bear Creek
Road, removal and replacement of Webb Creek Bridge, and a new trailhead vault toilet.
Meeting 18-15 Page 6
Director Harris inquired if the increased project costs can be absorbed by the applicable Measure
AA portfolio.
Ms. Butterfield explained staff has met to discuss the project costs in relation to other projects
included in the portfolio to determine portfolio savings to offset cost increases.
Director Siemens suggested a Phase II loop trail between the parking lot and gates BC08 and
BC09.
Ms. Ruiz explained the pedestrian crossing on Bear Creek Road in this area is unsafe.
Director Siemens suggested reopening the eastern side of the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve to
permit holders after construction is complete.
Mr. Malone reported staff is concerned that reopening the eastern side at that time could create
confusion for visitors who may not have a permit to access the eastern side; however, permit
access would continue for those at Bear Creek Stables.
Public comments opened at 7:34 p.m.
Nancy Cole representing Friends of Bear Creek Stables spoke regarding the time being taken
related to planning the stables site.
Melany Moore, representing the Friends of Bear Creek Stables, reported the organization has
received two grants to pay for the fittings for two water tanks. The Friends of Bear Creek Stables
will continue to make improvements on the site. Finally, Ms. Moore invited the Board to attend
the Friends of Bear Creek Stables open house in May 5, 2018 form 10:00 am to 1:00 pm.
Public comments closed at 7:38 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to:
1. Award a contract to Graniterock Company of Watsonville, California for a not-to-exceed
base contract amount of $3,369,858.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $505,478 to be reserved for
unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $3,875,336.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent)
5. Contract Amendment for Design Services with Mills Design (R-18-41)
Acting Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield provided the staff presentation
describing the history of the contract and use of on-call contracts. Due to unexpected projects in
2017, the contract with Mills Design has exceeded its contract limit. Staff will issue a request for
proposals and qualifications in May 2018 for new design contracts.
Public comments opened at 7:43 p.m.
No speakers present.
Meeting 18-15 Page 7
Public comments closed at 7:43 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to authorize the
Acting General Manager to amend an on-call design services contract with Mills Design for an
additional $50,001 for a not-to-exceed total of $100,000.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent)
6. Award of Contracts for Fiber Optic Line installation and Ethernet Virtual Private
Network Services with Comcast Business Inc. (R-18-40)
Information Systems & Technology Manager Garrett Dunwoody presented the staff report
describing past communications infrastructure upgrades to improve staff communications and
connectivity and the proposed fiber optic line installation, which will connect all District offices
through a network.
Director Cyr inquired if moving to a new administrative office location will affect the
connectivity.
Mr. Dunwoody explained only a small cost would be incurred when moving office locations in
urban areas because fiber lines are already in the area.
Director Hassett suggested a mixed vendor solution may be less expensive and suggested
speaking with Coastside Net to determine if there could be cost savings for the field offices.
Mr. Dunwoody explained additional network interfaces would be needed if utilizing a mixed
vendor solution to allow for different types of vendor software.
Public comments opened at 8:16 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 8:16 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract with Comcast Business Inc., for the
installation of fiber optic line to four office facilities for a base contract amount of $456,309
based upon the State of California CALNET 3 pricing.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a three-year service contract with Comcast
Business Inc., for an Ethernet virtual private line (EVPL) for an annual not-to-exceed amount
of $115,000, for a total contract amount of $345,000, based upon the State of California
CALNET 3 pricing.
VOTE: 5-0-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Meeting 18-15 Page 8
Director Riffle reported the Action Plan and Budget Committee met on April 24, 2018 to review
the proposed FY2018-19 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan.
B. Staff Reports
Ms. Butterfield reminded the Board of the Bear Creek Redwoods groundbreaking ceremony on
May 1, 2018.
Ms. Ruiz reported her attendance at a recent meeting of Santa Clara County parks directors
during which they toured Marshall Cottle Park. Ms. Ruiz reported on a recent update to the all
staff meeting to allow for more interactions with field offices.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Harris reported her attendance at the Redwood City Chamber of Commerce Progress
Seminar. Director Harris suggested the District might want to consider a relationship with the
Mountain View REI store similar to relationships other open space districts have with REI
stores. Finally, Director Harris reported on recent meetings with California legislators that she,
President Cyr, and staff attended.
Director Hassett reported he will be out of the country for the next few meetings.
President Cyr reported his attendance at the recent wildflower hike and 10th annual wildflower
survey. President Cyr reported he will be attending the San Jose Conservation Corps luncheon.
ADJOURNMENT
President Cyr adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:32 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 3
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-17
DATE 05-09-18
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Payment
Type
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
77877 Check 11755 - ELK GROVE FORD Purchase - 2018 Ford F150 - P119 05/02/2018 44,285.44
77853 Check *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS Rent - May 2018 (A02, A03, A04)04/25/2018 30,366.00
77875 Check 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Riparian Invasive Removal - Bear Creek Redwoods 05/02/2018 29,716.00
77823 Check 11906 - LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. BAUM Legal Services March 2018 04/25/2018 20,936.56
77909 Check 11895 - TIMMONS GROUP, INC.Work Order System Professional Services 05/02/2018 19,970.00
77797 Check 11898 - BAY AREA TREE SPECIALISTS Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Removal 04/25/2018 19,436.51
77832 Check 10083 - PECKHAM & MCKENNEY General Manager Search Professional Fee 04/25/2018 18,666.66
77900 Check 11854 - RECON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.Plant Maintenance and Revegetation Sites 05/02/2018 17,521.34
77873 Check *10214 - DELTA DENTAL Dental Premium for May 2018 05/02/2018 17,254.28
77883 Check 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING Drawings for Feasibility Study at Bergman Property 05/02/2018 17,050.00
77917 Check 11665 - WATERWAYS CONSULTING Final Design & Construction Support (4 Sites) + Construction Document Preparation & Technical Input (BCR)05/02/2018 14,660.00
77860 Check 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC Archaelogical Services - BCR 05/02/2018 13,340.37
77897 Check 10086 - PHYTOSPHERE RESEARCH Sudden Oak Death Research + Reimbursement for Phosphite Used for Treatments 05/02/2018 10,370.00
77896 Check *10180 - PG & E Electricity & Gas (21 Sites)05/02/2018 10,328.24
77795 Check 11148 - BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, INC.
Upper & Lower Lake Improvement + Monitoring at Bear Creek + Webb Creek Culvert Peer Review + Water Quality Training for
Staff 04/25/2018 10,215.73
77811 Check 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY
SFO Shop Supplies - Drill Bits, Extractor Set Tool, Drill Kit, Saw Battery Kit, Cordless Band Saw, Cordless Driver Kit, Hammer Drill
Kit, Grinder, Chains & Power Station Set 04/25/2018 9,854.19
77808 Check 11831 - EAGLE NETWORK SOLUTIONS LLC Firewall Network & Active Directory Services Configuration 04/25/2018 8,250.00
77878 Check 11803 - ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP Water Law Counsel through 3/31/18 05/02/2018 7,780.50
77801 Check 10723 - CALLANDER ASSOCIATES Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design 04/25/2018 7,215.72
77889 Check *10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Employee Benefit - Life/LTD/AD&D 05/02/2018 7,205.02
77863 Check 11680 - BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES INC Structural Engineering Services for Harrington Bridge 05/02/2018 5,680.88
77907 Check 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Base Rock & Materials for PG & E Trail, RSA & SFO 05/02/2018 5,614.03
77887 Check 10626 - KOFF & ASSOCIATES INC Initial Document Review + Meetings with Study Project Team, Data Collection & Analysis on Capital Project Manager 05/02/2018 5,070.00
77872 Check 10463 - DELL BUSINESS CREDIT New Rugged Laptops for Rangers (2)05/02/2018 5,014.61
77820 Check 10222 - HERC RENTALS, INC.Equipment Rental (BCR)04/25/2018 5,005.66
77894 Check 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.EBP Sensor Replaced (WT01)05/02/2018 4,939.60
77864 Check 11766 - BLANKINSHIP & ASSOCIATES, INC.Pesticide Toxicological Services + CEQA Review of Pesticides 05/02/2018 4,797.50
77815 Check 11783 - GHD Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower Corrosion Study 04/25/2018 4,531.00
77827 Check 11689 - MAKE A BUCK Water Tanks for Event Center (2)04/25/2018 4,473.82
77918 Check 10069 - WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Leadership Academy February 2018 05/02/2018 4,425.00
77816 Check 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Purchase Native Plants for Russian Ridge 04/25/2018 4,200.00
77846 Check 11780 - TERRY J MARTIN ASSOCIATES Design 240 Christich Lane 04/25/2018 4,178.00
77865 Check 11836 - BONKOWSKI AND ASSOCIATES, INC Meyer Property Well Hydrogeologic Reconnaissance 2/28/18 - 4/10/18 05/02/2018 4,146.50
77869 Check 11583 - CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY DBA BOBCAT COMPANY Bobcat Sweeper Attachment (T28)05/02/2018 3,834.00
77902 Check 10324 - RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC Rock Delivery - SFO 05/02/2018 3,323.50
77835 Check *10211 - PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES 2018 Monthly Fee - Legislative Advocacy Services for APRIL 04/25/2018 2,916.66
77910 Check *10583 - TPX COMMUNICATIONS District Telephone Services at all Offices 4/16/18-5/15/18 05/02/2018 2,707.33
77879 Check 10567 - EXAMINETICS INC Hearing Conservation Test-FFO 05/02/2018 2,690.00
77851 Check 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights - Monitoring & Reporting 04/25/2018 2,627.90
77825 Check 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE Harassment Prevention Training March 2018 04/25/2018 2,500.00
77803 Check 10022 - CONCERN EAP Quarterly Rate 1/1/18-3/31/18 04/25/2018 2,467.50
77807 Check 10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Spring Cleaning of Daniels Nature Center + Janitorial Services (AO) + Janitorial Supplies (AO)04/25/2018 2,448.50
77913 Check *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Data for Board iPads, Ranger Laptops & Phones 3/13-4/12 05/02/2018 2,401.01
77845 Check 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Coarse Rock (RSA)04/25/2018 2,182.37
77828 Check 11746 - MARKEN MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC.SFO HVAC Service Call 04/25/2018 2,075.56
77850 Check 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services-HR 04/25/2018 2,065.00
77905 Check *11730 - STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY RV Employee Benefit - Life Insurance 05/02/2018 2,054.16
77914 Check 11810 - VINEYARD CREEK LP Accommodations for Rangers at Academy 05/02/2018 2,035.88
77898 Check *10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower Rental - May 2018 05/02/2018 1,852.43
77893 Check 10079 - PAGE & TURNBULL Deer Hollow Farm White Barn Historic Structure Report 05/02/2018 1,805.00
77796 Check 10706 - BAY AREA NEWS GROUP (MERCURY NEWS)Public Access Project Legal Ads (BCR)04/25/2018 1,715.94
77856 Check 10069 - WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Leadership Academy Training March 2018 04/25/2018 1,612.50
77847 Check 10435 - THE FERGUSON GROUP LLC Real Property Consulting 04/25/2018 1,572.50
77819 Check 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING Drawings & Specifications for Alpine Rd - (LH)04/25/2018 1,562.50
77844 Check *10952 - SONIC.NET, INC.AO Monthly Internet 04/25/2018 1,456.56
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 3
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-17
DATE 05-09-18
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Payment
Type
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date 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
77880 Check 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Shop Supplies (SFO), (FFO) - Hex Lag Bolts, Plumbing Supplies, Pen Vibrator Kit 05/02/2018 1,428.28
77915 Check *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Employee Health Benefit - Monthly Vision Premium 05/02/2018 1,397.20
77799 Check 11430 - BIOMAAS Oljon Trail Consulting - ECdM 04/25/2018 1,336.30
77838 Check 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC Tires for District Vehicle (P95)04/25/2018 1,296.67
77792 Check 10812 - A TOOLSHED EQUIPMENT RENTAL, I Scaffold Rental (BCR)04/25/2018 1,172.00
77849 Check 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Services (FOOSP), (SA) & Temporary Restroom for LH Parking Lot 04/25/2018 1,154.30
77861 Check 11349 - BAY NATURE INSTITUTE Magazine Ad - April 2018 Issue 05/02/2018 1,150.00
77912 Check 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services-HR 05/02/2018 1,035.00
77810 Check 11748 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING Consulting and Lobbying for Wildlife Corridor Work Group 3/1-3/31 04/25/2018 1,000.00
77859 Check 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Sanitation Service (RSACP)05/02/2018 975.00
77901 Check 10194 - REED & GRAHAM INC Oljon Bridge Erosion Control Material 05/02/2018 924.26
77855 Check 11586 - WH DEMPSEY ENGINEERING Clear Leach Field Line at Dyer 04/25/2018 906.25
77817 Check *11551 - GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSA), SAO)04/25/2018 794.84
77904 Check 11042 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Live Scan Services - March 2018 05/02/2018 759.00
77874 Check 10679 - DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Cal/OSHA Penalty 05/02/2018 750.00
77881 Check 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Lock Replacement Service (FFO)05/02/2018 700.10
77906 Check 11671 - STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Application Fee 05/02/2018 694.00
77822 Check 10394 - INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO Rebar Spike for Parking Lot + Signs (SA - Mt. Um)04/25/2018 621.63
77848 Check 10164 - THOMSON REUTERS WEST Subscription - Law of Easements & Licenses Release 20 04/25/2018 568.98
77871 Check 11530 - COASTSIDE.NET Skyline Internet 4/1/18-4/30/18 05/02/2018 550.00
77899 Check 11743 - PRO-WEST & ASSOCIATES Cityworks Implementation Support 05/02/2018 549.04
77800 Check *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)04/25/2018 533.29
77911 Check 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Temporary Power to Mt. Um Trailer 4/11/18 - 5/8/18 05/02/2018 489.41
77854 Check 11852 - WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO.Exterminator Service (RSA-Annex)04/25/2018 475.00
77839 Check 11479 - ROOTID Website Maintenance - 5 retainer hours 04/25/2018 472.50
77882 Check 10173 - GREEN WASTE SFO Debris Box 05/02/2018 460.00
77862 Check 10122 - BECK'S SHOES Uniforms - District Provided Boots 05/02/2018 455.00
77805 Check 10544 - CORELOGIC INFORMATION SOLUTION Property Research Services 04/25/2018 450.00
77826 Check 10189 - LIFE ASSIST SFO First Aid Supplies 04/25/2018 442.92
77888 Check 10492 - LAUSTSEN, GRETCHEN Reimbursement - California Trails & Greenways Conference Expenses 05/02/2018 421.84
77852 Check 10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Debris Disposal 04/25/2018 421.43
77813 Check 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Locks For Sign Boards & Keys 04/25/2018 417.54
77868 Check 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Service Entry & Exit (SA)05/02/2018 400.00
77830 Check 10073 - NORMAL DATA Incidents Database Upgrades 04/25/2018 360.00
77903 Check 10151 - SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC Parts Cleaning Service 05/02/2018 348.90
77870 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC M201 Service & Maintenance 05/02/2018 344.66
77798 Check 11873 - BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Professional Services Through March 31, 2018 04/25/2018 341.00
77895 Check 10209 - PETTY CASH-MROSD SFO Petty Cash Reimbursement April 2018 05/02/2018 325.82
77837 Check 11943 - REDWOOD CITY SAN MATEO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Membership Dues 4/1/18 - 3/31/19 04/25/2018 325.00
77916 Check 11914 - W-TRANS Traffic Controls Plans - BRC 05/02/2018 315.00
77802 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC P94 Service / Repair 04/25/2018 308.90
77866 Check *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water Service for Rental Properties & Windy Hill 05/02/2018 293.35
77840 Check *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service - BCR 04/25/2018 290.85
77843 Check 10349 - SHELTON ROOFING COMPANY INC Roof Repair 04/25/2018 290.00
77884 Check 10222 - HERC RENTALS, INC.Equipment Attachment (BCR)05/02/2018 278.59
77818 Check *10173 - GREEN WASTE Garbage/Recycle Service - April 2018 (SFO)04/25/2018 238.64
77809 Check 11803 - ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP Water Law Counsel 04/25/2018 216.65
77908 Check 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies (FFO)05/02/2018 215.80
77890 Check 11924 - NOMAD ECOLOGY, LLC Stevens Creek Nature Trail Bridge Construction Project 05/02/2018 210.00
77804 Check 10184 - CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR Subscription - Neighbor Disputes:Law 04/25/2018 207.90
55 EFT 11449 - MARK, JANE Reimbursement - American Planning Association Membership 04/25/2018 200.00
77824 Check 11326 - LEXISNEXIS Online Subscription Service March 2018 04/25/2018 198.00
77867 Check *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (AO)05/02/2018 195.89
77812 Check 10186 - FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping Charges (AO)04/25/2018 170.97
77831 Check 10925 - PAPE` MACHINERY T23 Replacement Parts 04/25/2018 161.54
77794 Check 11772 - AHERN RENTALS, INC.Equipment Pick Up Charge 04/25/2018 150.00
77876 Check 11642 - ELIAS KHOURY Parking Citations - Level II Hearings 05/02/2018 150.00
page 3 of 3
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-17
DATE 05-09-18
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Payment
Type
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date 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
77919 Check 11165 - WOODHAMS ELECTRICAL Electrical Repair at Skyline Ranch House 05/02/2018 150.00
77891 Check 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS M209 New Battery 05/02/2018 132.76
77829 Check *10664 - MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS Garbage Service (AO)04/25/2018 130.91
77814 Check 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Filters for Stihl Chainsaws + Equipment Supplies 04/25/2018 130.83
77885 Check 10421 - ID PLUS INC Seasonal OST Name Tags 05/02/2018 113.50
77857 Check 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Winch Accessories for ATV's 04/25/2018 110.31
77806 Check 11210 - DATA SAFE Destruction Services (AO)04/25/2018 95.00
77886 Check 10394 - INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRO Signs for Electrical Room (FFO)05/02/2018 63.37
77842 Check 11224 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY - COMMUNICATIONS DEPT Radio System Repair 04/25/2018 61.50
77892 Check 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN FFO Supplies - Pens, Post-It Notes 05/02/2018 60.55
77858 Check 11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Mt. Um Emergency Phone 05/02/2018 39.20
77821 Check 10421 - ID PLUS INC Employee Name Tag 04/25/2018 36.50
77793 Check 10240 - ACE FIRE EQUIPMENT & SERVICE INC Oxygen Tank Hydrostatic Testing 04/25/2018 35.00
77841 Check 11059 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPT Tick Testing 04/25/2018 20.00
77833 Check *10180 - PG & E Electric Service (SA-MT UM)04/25/2018 16.79
77836 Check 10589 - RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Garbage Service 04/25/2018 5.00
77834 Check 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Service Charge 04/25/2018 4.05
Grand Total 478,950.47$
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
CCIWS = Central California Invasive Weed Symposium MISAC = Municipal Information Systems Association of California
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek
CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA(U) = Sierra Azul (Mt Um) WH = Windy Hill
ECM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO2, 3, 4 = Administrative Office lease space
ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge RV = Ravenswood SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature FFO = Foothills Field Office
FH = Foothills MB = Monte Bello RR = Russian Ridge TH = Teague Hill SFO = Skyline Field Office
FO = Fremont Older PIC= Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost
RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill PR = Pulgas Ridge DHF = Dear Hollow Farm OSP = Open Space Preserve P## or M## = Patrol or Maintenance Vehicle
R-18-45
Meeting 18-17
May 9, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Quarter 3 Budget Amendments
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the proposed FY2017-18 Quarter 3 Budget amendments and the
transfer of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to four Committed and Restricted Reserves
as follows: (1) $600,000 to an existing Committed Reserve for Equipment Replacement; (2)
$1,000,000 to a new Committed Reserve for Capital Maintenance; (3) $300,000 to a new
Committed Reserve for the Promissory Note; and (4) $250,000 to an existing Restricted Reserve
to reimburse Measure AA costs of issuance.
SUMMARY
This report presents the proposed Quarter 3 budget adjustments by fund. Budget adjustments
have resulted in a net decrease of $4,978,128 to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 (FY2017-18) Budget.
These adjustments reflect current fiscal year decreases in project budgets due to shifts in
expenditures that are now scheduled and budgeted for Fiscal Year 2018-19 (FY2018-19). The
Acting General Manager and Controller recommend transferring $2,150,000 from the General
Fund Unassigned Fund balance to four different Reserve Funds to bolster the agency’s long-term
fiscal management. The four Reserve Funds encompass the Committed Reserves for Equipment
Replacement, Capital Maintenance, Promissory Note Payment, and a Restricted Reserve to
reimburse Measure AA costs of issuance. Finally, recent data indicates a projected increase in
the FY2017-18 revenue by $775,901.
DISCUSSION
The Board of Directors (Board) adopted the FY2017-18 Budget and Action Plan for the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) at the June 14, 2017 regular meeting
(Report R-17-89). The FY2017-18 adopted budget was $61.4 million.
Board-authorized budget adjustments as of March 31, 2018 have increased the adopted budget
by a net of $2,406,931. These increases have covered unanticipated expenses for personnel
services, services and supplies, capital improvement projects, and new land purchases (including
the new South Area Office acquisition in Campbell).
The proposed Quarter 3 budget adjustments result in a net decrease of $4,978,128 to the
FY2017-18 budget due to projects being extended or deferred into the next fiscal year. These
unspent project budgets are rolled over into the proposed FY2018-19 budget. Implementing
R-18-45 Page 2
reductions for the Quarter 3 reforecast ensures that these project expenses are not double
budgeted. The FY2017-18 amended budget with the Quarter 3 adjustments is $58,832,238.
Fund Balance Transfers
The Acting General Manager and the Controller recommend transfers from the General Fund
Unassigned Fund balance of $600,000 to the Committed for Equipment Replacement reserve
fund; $1,000,000 to the new Committed for Capital Maintenance reserve fund; $300,000 to the
new Committed for Promissory Note reserve fund; and $250,000 to reimburse Measure AA
Capital Projects Fund for costs of issuance.
Of the proposed transfers, two Reserve Funds are new. The proposed Committed for Capital
Maintenance reserve fund would allocate funds for ongoing maintenance related to Midpen
assets. The Committed for Promissory Note reserve fund would allocate funds over the next five
years to pay off the Hunt note, which has a balloon payment due in FY2022-23.
Most recently, the Board approved a transfer of $5,000,000 from the General Fund Unassigned
Fund Balance to the Committed for Infrastructure Reserve Fund on January 10, 2018. Table 1
below shows the recent General Fund transfer, as well as the new proposed fund transfers.
Table 1: Summary of Fund Balance
Amended Revenue by Fund
Revenue projections show an increase to Midpen’s FY2017-18 overall revenue of 1.5% or
$775,901, which is comprised of a $335,901 increase in General Fund property tax revenues and
an increase of $440,000 in MAA tax revenues.
The updated total revenue is $51.8 million. Table 2 below presents the projected revenue with
amendments.
Summary of Fund Balance
(All Governmental Funds)
General Fund General Fund
Transfers
Measure AA
Capital
Projects Fund
Debt Service
Fund Total
Nonspendable for prepaid expenditure $55,093 $55,093
Restricted for debt service 2,193,934 $2,193,934
Restricted for Measure AA Projects 250,000 7,344,797 $7,594,797
Committed for infrastructure* 30,000,000 5,000,000 $35,000,000
Committed for equipment replacement 2,400,000 600,000 $3,000,000
Committed for natural disasters 3,000,000 $3,000,000
Committed for capital maintenance 1,000,000 $1,000,000
Committed for Promissory Note 300,000 $300,000
Unassigned 23,872,450 ‐7,150,000 $16,722,450
Total Fund Balance $59,327,543 $0 $7,344,797 $2,193,934 $68,866,274
Minimum Unassigned Fund Balance** $13,509,000
*The change to committed for infrastructure general fund transfers was applied to the fund balance on January 10, 2018.
**Calculated as 30 percent of total annual fund 10 property tax revenues.
R-18-45 Page 3
Table 2: Summary of Projected Revenue
Net-Zero FY2017-18 Budget Amendments Approved by the General Manager
Under Board Policy 3.04, Budget and Expenditure Authority, the General Manager is authorized by
the Board of Directors to administratively process net-zero transfers/budget amendments. Below
are the administratively approved net-zero amendments for Quarter 3.
Table 3: Quarter 3 Administratively Approved Budget Amendments
Budget Amendment Description
Board
Approved
Budget
Budget
Amendment
Amended
Budget
10‐50‐530‐5299 ‐ Other Professional Services $246,000 ($28,000) $218,000
10‐50‐560‐5299 ‐ Other Professional Services $139,600 $28,000 $167,600
10‐50‐550‐6601 ‐ Training & Conferences $53,000 ($30,000) $23,000
10‐50‐510‐5299 ‐ Other Professional Services $50,000 ($20,000) $30,000
10‐50‐560‐6601 ‐ Training & Conferences $37,550 $40,000 $77,550
10‐50‐560‐6605 ‐ Safety Program $11,250 $10,000 $21,250
30‐325‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION (MAA23‐002) $5,467,650 ($425,000) $5,042,650
30‐325‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION (MAA17‐002) $5,042,650 ($10,000) $5,032,650
30‐325‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION (MAA23‐006) $5,032,650 $435,000 $5,467,650
30‐325‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION (MAA21‐006) $5,467,650 ($250,000) $5,217,650
30‐320‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (MAA21‐006) $1,468,889 $250,000 $1,718,889
10‐40‐410‐4104 ‐ Temporary $705,282 ($60,000) $645,282
10‐70‐710‐4101 ‐ Full Time $292,192 $60,000 $352,192
Administrative Amendment Subtotal $0
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) transferred $28,000 from their professional
services budget to the Human Resources (HR) professional services budget to assist with
the unanticipated increase in executive recruitment costs due to recent retirements. GIS
has savings this fiscal year from the Work Order and Asset Management project due to a
shift in project schedule that extended the project into next fiscal year.
FY2017‐18
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget (as of
3/31/2018)
Quarter 3
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY2017‐18
Proposed
Amended
Budget
$47,312,593 $407,787 $47,720,380 $335,901 $48,056,281
Hawthorns (Fund 20)$15,000 $5,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000
$581,060 $0 $581,060 $0 $581,060
$236,000 $0 $236,000 $0 $236,000
Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$2,432,000 ($7,000) $2,425,000 $440,000 $2,865,000
TOTAL DISTRICT REVENUE $50,576,653 $405,787 $50,982,440 $775,901 $51,758,341
DISTRICT REVENUE
BY FUND
General Fund Operating (Fund 10)
Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30)
General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40)
R-18-45 Page 4
Information Systems and Technology (IST) transferred $30,000 from trainings &
conferences to the HR training & conferences budget to assist with an unanticipated
increased need for agency-wide staff trainings. Administrative Services also transferred
$20,000 from professional services due to project savings from the Grants Strategy Study
to the HR trainings and safety program budget to fund HR training materials.
Engineering & Construction transferred $435,000 of construction budget from MAA23-
002 (Mt. Umunhum Trails project) and MAA17-002 (Lysons Demo project) into
MAA23-006 (Mt. Umunhum Road Repair) for final payments owed to the contractor.
Engineering & Construction transferred $250,000 from their construction budget to
Planning’s architect/engineering services budget within project MAA21-006 (Bear Creek
Redwoods – Alma College) to allow for more design to be done before construction is
started.
Public Affairs transferred $60,000 in savings (from the Preserve Use Survey project) to
Legal to cover budget increases in salaries and benefits due to the recent retirement of the
General Counsel. To share the workload burden, the Assistant General Counsel (AGC)
increased from an 80% schedule to full time, and began as Acting General Counsel; this
is accompanied by an acting pay increase. Midpen also hired a legal consultant to
support the AGC, resulting in a $128,000 shift from legal salaries to legal professional
services to cover these costs.
Proposed Quarter 3 Amendments to the FY2017-18 Budget
Operating Budget
The Quarter 3 adjustments to the General Fund (Fund 10) Operating budget for FY2017-18
propose a net decrease of $564,217 (due to a small increase in personnel costs and a larger
decrease in services and supplies).
Salary & Benefits Budget
The General Fund (Fund 10) Salaries and Benefits budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to
increase by $66,110 due to the following:
An increase of $36,110 due to staff retirement cash outs in Visitor Services.
An increase of $30,000 for additional overtime due to ranger staff shortages.
Services & Supplies Budget
The General Fund (Fund 10) Services and Supplies budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to
decrease by $630,327.
Appendix A provides a full description of each adjustment. Table 4 below summarizes the
Quarter 3 adjustments to the General Fund Operating budget.
R-18-45 Page 5
Table 4: General Fund Operating Budget Quarter 3 Adjustments
Hawthorn Budget
The Hawthorn (Fund 20) total budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to decrease by $71,000.
Hawthorns Fund Operating Budget
The Hawthorn (Fund 20) Operating budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to decrease by
$30,000 in the Land & Facilities budget since the Planning department covered the fiscal
year maintenance costs.
Hawthorns Fund Capital Budget
The Hawthorn (Fund 20) Capital budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to decrease by $41,000
due to delays in negotiating and executing a one-year license agreement for a potential
partner to assess the rehabilitation and reuse of the main residence and carriage house
(garage). Stabilization work for these structures is on hold as Midpen works with the
potential partner and prepares to present long-term partnership terms to the Board.
Capital Budget
Measure AA Capital Budget
The Measure AA (Fund 30) Capital budget is proposed to decrease overall by $1,913,661.
Project budget reductions are mostly due to reductions in scope or change in timing. Costs for
multiple projects are rolling-over into next fiscal year and thus included in the proposed FY2018-
19 budget and CIAP. See Appendix A for a full description of each adjustment.
General Fund Operating Budget Adjsutments Amount
Visitor Services Cash Outs $36,110
Visitor Services Overtime 30,000
Salary & Benefits Subtotal 66,110
Cooley Landing Business Plan (130,000)
Alpine Road MAA Reimbursement (28,800)
Land & Facilities Uniform Allowance (20,000)
Harrington Bridge Lead Remediation (5,000)
Docent and Volunteer Recognition Event (15,000)
Visitor Services Office Furniture (10,000)
Rancho San Antonio Non‐Motorized Mobility, Transit Connections and Parking Alternatives (50,000)
ADA Self‐Assessment and Transition Plan (35,000)
Natural Resources Projects (336,527)
Services & Supplies Subtotal (630,327)
TOTAL ‐$564,217
R-18-45 Page 6
Table 5: Measure AA Capital Project Quarter 3 Adjustments
Measure AA Capital Project Reductions Amount
MAA02‐002 Bayfront Habitat Protection & Public Access Partnerships,
Ravenswood Bay Trail $50,000
MAA05‐007 La Honda Creek Upper Recreation Area ‐ Red Barn Trail Connections (171,000)
MAA06‐XXX Hawthorns Public Access Site Plan and CEQA (48,000)
MAA07‐XXX La Honda Creek Loop Trails 58,000
MAA07‐004 La Honda Creek Endangered Wildlife Protection: Fisheries
Enhancement (30,300)
MAA09‐001 Russian Ridge Grazing Infrastructure (125,000)
MAA09‐003 Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement (102,600)
MAA10‐001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek (171,200)
MAA17‐002 Lysons Disposition at Monte Bello (281,750)
MAA18‐002 Saratoga‐to‐Sea Regional Trail Connection (260,000)
MAA20‐001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing (177,800)
MAA21‐004 Bear Creek Redwoods – Stables Site Plan Implementation (200,000)
MAA21‐005 Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access (55,000)
MAA21‐008 Bear Creek Redwoods Ponds Restoration and Water Rights (123,510)
MAA22‐001 Sierra Azul – Hendry’s Creek Property Land Restoration (83,800)
MAA23‐004 Mount Umunhum Summit Restoration, Parking and Landing Zone (121,408)
MAA23‐005 Mount Umunhum Guadalupe Overlook Bridge (56,493)
MAA23‐006 Mount Umunhum Road Rehabilitation (13,800)
TOTAL ‐$1,913,661
General Fund Capital Budget
The General Fund (Fund 40) Capital budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to decrease by
$2,429,250; project reductions for Quarter 3 are shown below. See Appendix A for a full
description of each adjustment.
R-18-45 Page 7
Table 6: General Fund Capital Project Quarter 3 Adjustments
Budget Adjustments by Department
Table 7 summarizes the FY2017-18 adopted budget and Quarter 3 budget amendments by
Department.
Table 7: Summary of FY2017-18 Budget by Department
FISCAL IMPACT
Board approval of the FY2017-18 proposed budget amendments will result in a $4,978,128
decrease to Midpen’s FY2017-18 Budget of $63,810,366 due to projects extending or deferring
into the next fiscal year. These expenses are also included in the proposed FY2018-19 budget
and implementing the reductions for the Quarter 3 reforecast will ensure the expenses are not
double budgeted. The proposed amended budget totals $58,832,238.
Table 8 summarizes the FY2017-18 adopted budget and Quarter 3 budget amendments by Fund.
General Fund Capital Project Reductions Amount
Administrative Office (AO) Facility* ($68,000)
Agricultural Workfore Housing (formerly Farm Labor Housing) (165,000)
District Wide Fiber Optics (formerly Field Office Connectivity Project) (500,000)
La Honda Creek ‐ Point of Diversion 17 Water Line Replacement (143,750)
Los Trancos ‐ Page Mill Eucalyptus Removal (225,000)
Purisima Creek Restroom Replacement 25,000
Monte Bello Site Driveway Improvements (172,500)
Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower 2nd Assessment (457,000)
Russian Ridge ‐ Quam Residence Driveway Improvement (230,000)
South Area Field Office (123,000)
Tunitas Creek ‐ Toto Ranch Driveway Improvements (172,500)
Vehicles ‐ Maintenance/Patrol (47,500)
District‐wide purchase options and low‐value Land Fund (150,000)
TOTAL ‐$2,429,250
FY2018 Adopted
Budget
YTD Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 3/31/2018)
Quarter 3 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY2018 Proposed
Amended Budget
Administrative Services $17,671,554 $50,000 $17,721,554 ($500,000) $17,221,554
Engineering & Construction $9,474,157 $9,474,157 ($1,070,750) $8,403,407
General Counsel $587,889 $50,000 $637,889 $60,000 $697,889
General Manager's Office $2,305,456 $2,305,456 ($130,000) $2,175,456
Land & Facilities $12,028,266 $198,200 $12,226,466 ($1,346,250) $10,880,216
Natural Resources $4,455,608 $4,455,608 ($1,050,438) $3,405,170
Planning $5,319,640 ($1,024,000) $4,295,640 ($771,800) $3,523,840
Public Affairs $2,189,993 $2,189,993 ($60,000) $2,129,993
Real Property $1,903,609 $3,132,731 $5,036,340 ($150,000) $4,886,340
Visitor Services $5,467,263 $5,467,263 $41,110 $5,508,373
Total $61,403,435 $2,406,931 $63,810,366 ($4,978,128) $58,832,238
R-18-45 Page 8
Table 8: Summary of FY2017-18 Budget by Fund
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, the Acting General Manager will direct staff to make the proposed budget
amendments.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Amending the FY2017-18 Budget by Fund
2. FY2017-18 Quarter 3 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category
3. Quarter 3 Budget Amendments Detail
Responsible Department Head:
Carmen Narayanan, Budget & Analysis Manager
Prepared by:
Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst I
Marion Shaw, Management Analyst II
FY2017‐18
Adopted
Budget
YTD Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget (as of
3/31/2018)
Quarter 3
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY2017‐18
Proposed
Amended Budget
$30,344,413 $267,000 $30,611,413 ($564,217) $30,047,196
Hawthorns (Fund 20)$166,500 $0 $166,500 ($71,000) $95,500
$12,637,845 ($317,800) $12,320,045 ($1,913,661) $10,406,384
$6,533,040 $2,457,731 $8,990,771 ($2,429,250) $6,561,521
Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,721,637 $0 $11,721,637 $0 $11,721,637
TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $61,403,435 $2,406,931 $63,810,366 ($4,978,128) $58,832,238
General Fund Operating (Fund 10)
General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40)
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE
Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30)
Appendix A
Quarter 3 Budget Adjustment Details
Fund 10 – General Fund Operating Budget
The General Fund (Fund 10) Operating budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to decrease by
$564,217 in total.
Services & Supplies Budget
The services and supplies budget decrease is due to the following:
The Cooley Landing Business Plan project budget is proposed to decrease by $130,000
given the additional time needed to work with the City of East Palo Alto to select the
consultant and proceed with the search for an Education Center operator. The project and
its remaining elements will continue into next fiscal year.
Given that San Mateo County is no longer pursuing repair work for the MAA 10-001
Alpine Road Regional Trail, the original project scope was no longer valid and needed to
be revised. On November 11, 2017, the Board approved a budget transfer from Fund 30
to Fund 10 to fund engineering assessments that evaluated three possible repair options
for the road-width trail. On March 14, 2018, the Board approved the option to repair the
regional corridor to trail-width. Although work continues, there will be funds left
unspent in the current project budget for this fiscal year. Land and Facilities is therefore
proposing to transfer $28,800 from Fund 10 back to Fund 30 because Board approval of
the scope makes the work eligible for MAA Bond reimbursement.
The Land and Facilities employee uniform allowance budget is proposed to decrease by
$20,000 to correct a double counting error.
Land and Facilities proposes to reduce the facilities maintenance structures budget by
$30,000 to offset an addition of $25,000 to the Harrington Creek bridge budget to cover
unanticipated lead remediation expenses.
Visitors Services proposes to reduce their budget by $25,000 due to savings in their
Docent and Volunteer Recognition Event and office furniture budgets.
The Rancho San Antonio Non-Motorized Mobility, Transit Connections and Parking
Alternatives (project number TBD) project budget is proposed to decrease by $50,000.
The project was put on hold after initial meetings with stakeholders due to staffing
changes, and will resume FY2018-19. The project is included in the FY2018-19 Capital
Improvement and Action Plan.
The ADA Self-Assessment and Transition Plan (#31401) project budget is proposed to
decrease by $35,000. An additional Board workshop was added to the scope, extending
the project timeline. The project is included in the FY2018-19 Capital Improvement and
Action Plan.
Natural Resources proposes several operating project budget decreases, including a total
of $236,320 due to project delays in Endangered Species Act Programmatic Permitting,
contract implementation for plant maintenance, Marbled Murrelet Recovery Planning,
Predator/Livestock Protection Policy development, the Wildlife Photo Index project, and
the coastal riparian study. An additional $100,207 decrease in the operating budget is
proposed due to reduced scopes for work related to Sudden Oak Death, on-call biological
monitoring, ECDM sediment study, water rights legal services, and the San Gregorio
watershed adjudication compliance project.
Appendix A
Fund 30 – Measure AA Fund Capital Budget
The Measure AA (Fund 30) capital budget is proposed to decrease overall by $1,913,661 due to
the following:
Revisions to the project scope for MAA10-001, Alpine Road Regional Trail, have
resulted in extensions to the project schedule and a subsequent proposed $200,000
reduction to the current budget. Work will continue into FY2018-19, as reflected in the
proposed FY2018-19 budget.
MAA09-001, Russian Ridge Grazing Infrastructure, is proposed to decrease by $125,000
due to a shift in the project schedule pending amendments to the Preserve Use and
Management Plan and Rangeland Management Plan. The project is included in the
proposed FY2018-19 budget.
MAA02-002, Ravenswood Bay Trail, is proposed to increase by $50,000. Additional
technical studies are needed to complete the design documents, as well as permitting
support to secure regulatory permits.
MAA05-007, La Honda Creek Upper Recreation Area - Red Barn Trail Connections, is
proposed to decrease by $171,000. Work on the Red Barn Trail Connections is on hold
pending final design of the proposed Red Barn parking area and trailhead. Work is
expected to continue early next fiscal year.
MAA06-XXX, Hawthorns Public Access, is proposed to decrease by $48,000. The
Hawthorns Public Access Project is underway with a Parking Lot Feasibility Study and
neighborhood/stakeholder meetings scheduled for the summer. To provide adequate time
for Board review of project goals and objectives, initiation of the CEQA process will be
shifted to FY2018-19.
MAA07-XXX, La Honda Creek Loop Trail, is part of the La Honda Master Plan Phase II
trail connections and was approved as a new Action Plan project with a recommended
budget of $58,000 on April 11, 2018. Due to a delay in the Red Barn Trail Connections
Project (see above), the La Honda Creek Loop Trail, which will be located off the Sears
Ranch Road parking area in lower La Honda Creek, has been prioritized. Engineering
and design will commence this spring and continue through FY2018-2019.
MAA18-XXX, Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail. The City of Saratoga is leading this project
and managing the schedule. The City is including this project in its FY2018-19 Capital
Improvement Plan. Midpen and City staff are currently working on a partnership/funding
agreement. The project is included in the FY2018-19 Capital Improvement and Action
Plan in Fund 40.
MAA21-004, Bear Creek Redwoods – Stables Site Plan, is proposed to decrease by
$200,000. Additional site investigations have identified the need for more extensive site
grading, multiple retaining walls to address landslide areas, and rearrangement of project
elements to fit within the highly constrained site, resulting in higher implementation cost
estimates. Given these additional projected construction costs, the project schedule for
design work has extended to explore potential external funding partnership opportunities
to leverage Midpen funding.
MAA22-001, Sierra Azul – Hendry’s Creek Restoration, is proposed to decrease by
$83,800. The project requires more than a year for permitting with US Army Corps,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Control Board, all of
Appendix A
whom are experiencing limited staffing and a backlog of permit applications to review
due to last year’s storm damage.
Budgets for MAA23-004, MAA23-005, and MAA23-006 are proposed to decrease by a
total of $191,701 because plant maintenance originally budgeted in these projects was
deemed ineligible for Measure AA reimbursement. Project budgets for MAA20-1,
Highway 17 Wildlife Corridor, and MAA09-003, Mindego Pond, are proposed to
decrease by $280,400 due to project delays. Budgets for MAA21-008, Bear Creek
Redwoods Ponds, and MAA21-005, Western Pond Turtle Mitigation, are proposed to
decrease by $178,510 due to a decrease in scope.
The budget for MAA07-004, La Honda Creek Fisheries, is proposed to decrease by
$30,300 because the project was completed under budget.
The budget for MAA17-002, Lobner/Lysons Disposition, is reduced by $281,750 due to
biological constraints within the construction season that led to delay in disposition.
Fund 40 – General Fund Capital Budget
General Fund Capital Budget
The General Fund (Fund 40) Capital budget for FY2017-18 is proposed to decrease by
$2,429,250 due to the following:
The New Administrative Office (AO) project budget is proposed to decrease by $68,000.
The Board approved the preferred project delivery process for the new AO in mid-March,
which was a necessary step to inform the development of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
proceed with the selection of an architect/design team. The project is included in the
FY2018-19 Capital Improvement and Action Plan.
The budget for Project 35001, Agricultural Workforce Housing, is proposed to be
decreased by $165,000 because the bulk of the design and construction is now scheduled
to occur in FY2018-19. Work will continue in FY2018-19 and the project is included in
the FY2018-19 Capital Improvement and Action Plan in Fund 40.
The District Wide Fiber Optics (formerly known as Field Office Connectivity) project
budget is proposed to decrease by $500,000 due to a shift in project scope. After reaching
out to different potential vendors, Midpen staff identified a new, less costly fiber optics
solution. New project costs are included as a part of the proposed FY2018-19 budget.
The Point of Diversion 17 Water Line Replacement project budget is proposed to
decrease by $143,750 due to schedule delays. Construction will start in FY2018-19.
The Page Mill Eucalyptus Removal project budget will decrease by $225,000 due to a
delay in the project schedule (work will continue into FY2018-19). Of this reduction,
$25,000 is proposed to be shifted to the Purisima Creek Restroom Replacement project
budget, which was partially reduced in Quarter 1 to cover the cost of critical maintenance
to two Midpen residences.
Project budgets for driveway improvements at Monte Bello, Russian Ridge - Quam
Residence, and Tunitas Creek - Toto Ranch are proposed to decrease by $172,500,
$230,000, and $172,500, respectively, due to schedule delays. Construction will start in at
the start of FY2018-19.
The budget for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower project #31307 is proposed to
decrease by $457,000 due to a project delay to address unanticipated remediation issues
Appendix A
in FY2017-18. Of this budget decrease, $212,000 will roll over to the FY2018-19 Capital
Improvement and Action Plan in Fund 40.
The Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail project budget is proposed to decrease by $260,000. The
City of Saratoga, which leads the MAA18-XXX Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail project and
controls the schedule, has shifted this project to its FY2018-19 Capital Improvement
Plan.
The South Area Field Office (SAFO) project budget is proposed to decrease by $123,000.
This project did not require the robust planning and environmental services originally
budgeted, as a CEQA exemption was prepared for the project. Permitting for site
improvements is expected in FY2018-19. The project is included in the FY2018-19
Capital Improvement and Action Plan.
The Vehicles budget is proposed to decrease by $47,500 due to a manufacturer backlog
that resulted in the delivery delay of a vehicle. The vehicle will be received in July and is
included in the proposed FY2018-19 budget.
The budget for agency-wide purchase options and low-value land is proposed to be
reduced by $150,000 based on projected pre-acquisition activities through the end of the
Fiscal Year.
###
Resolutions/2018/18-__FY17-18 Q3 Budget Adjustments 1
RESOLUTION NO. 18-___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2017 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District (“Board”) adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 Budget and Action Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2017 and February 14, 2018, the Board amended the FY
2017-18 Budget; and
WHEREAS, the General Manager recommends further amendments to the FY 2017-18
Budget to reflect budget adjustments, resulting in a net decrease of $4,978,128;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE. Approve the proposed revenue amendments to increase the FY 2017-
18 Budget for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by $775,901 as follows:
SECTION TWO. Approve the recommended budget amendments to the FY 2017-18
Budget for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by $4,978,128 as follows:
FY2017‐18
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget (as of
3/31/2018)
Quarter 3
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY2017‐18
Proposed
Amended
Budget
$47,312,593 $407,787 $47,720,380 $335,901 $48,056,281
Hawthorns (Fund 20)$15,000 $5,000 $20,000 $0 $20,000
$581,060 $0 $581,060 $0 $581,060
$236,000 $0 $236,000 $0 $236,000
Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$2,432,000 ($7,000) $2,425,000 $440,000 $2,865,000
TOTAL DISTRICT REVENUE $50,576,653 $405,787 $50,982,440 $775,901 $51,758,341
DISTRICT REVENUE
BY FUND
General Fund Operating (Fund 10)
Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30)
General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40)
FY2017‐18
Adopted
Budget
YTD Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget (as of
3/31/2018)
Quarter 3
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY2017‐18
Proposed
Amended Budget
$30,344,413 $267,000 $30,611,413 ($564,217) $30,047,196
Hawthorns (Fund 20)$166,500 $0 $166,500 ($71,000) $95,500
$12,637,845 ($317,800) $12,320,045 ($1,913,661) $10,406,384
$6,533,040 $2,457,731 $8,990,771 ($2,429,250) $6,561,521
Debt Service Fund (Fund 50)$11,721,637 $0 $11,721,637 $0 $11,721,637
TOTAL DISTRICT BUDGET $61,403,435 $2,406,931 $63,810,366 ($4,978,128) $58,832,238
General Fund Operating (Fund 10)
General Fund Land/Capital (Fund 40)
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE
Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund 30)
Attachment 1
SECTION THREE. Approve the proposed fund balance transfers, inclusive of creating
two new reserve funds: committed for capital maintenance and committed for promissory note,
for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as follows:
SECTION FOUR. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget by
fund.
SECTION FIVE. Except as herein modified, the FY 2017-18 Budget and Action Plan,
Resolution No. 17-89 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2018, 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
Summary of Fund Balance
(All Governmental Funds)
General Fund General Fund
Transfers
Measure AA
Capital Projects
Fund
Debt
Service
Fund
Total
Nonspendable for prepaid expenditure $55,093 $55,093
Restricted for debt service 2,193,934 $2,193,934
Restricted for Measure AA Projects 250,000 7,344,797 $7,594,797
Committed for infrastructure* 30,000,000 5,000,000 $35,000,000
Committed for equipment replacement 2,400,000 600,000 $3,000,000
Committed for natural disasters 3,000,000 $3,000,000
Committed for capital maintenance 1,000,000 $1,000,000
Committed for Promissory Note 300,000 $300,000
Unassigned 23,872,450 ‐7,150,000 $16,722,450
Total Fund Balance $59,327,543 $0 $7,344,797 $2,193,934 $68,866,274
*The change to committed for infrastructure general fund transfers was applied to the fund balance on January 10, 2018.
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
FY2018 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 3/31/2018)
Quarter 3 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY2018 Proposed
Amended Budget
Administrative Services
Salaries and Benefits $3,820,578 $3,820,578 $3,820,578
Services and Supplies $1,629,339 $50,000 $1,679,339 $1,679,339
Total Operating Expenditures $5,449,917 $50,000 $5,499,917 $5,499,917
General Fund Capital $500,000 $500,000 ($500,000)$0
Debt Service $11,721,637 $11,721,637 $11,721,637
$17,671,554 $50,000 $17,721,554 ($500,000)$17,221,554
Engineering & Construction
Salaries and Benefits $1,009,602 $1,009,602 $1,009,602
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($93,000)($93,000)($93,000)
Net Salaries and Benefits $916,602 $916,602 $916,602
Services and Supplies $75,255 $75,255 $75,255
Total Operating Expenditures $991,857 $991,857 $991,857
General Fund Capital $1,401,350 $1,401,350 ($539,000)$862,350
Measure AA Capital $7,080,950 $7,080,950 ($531,750)$6,549,200
Total Capital Expenditures $8,482,300 $8,482,300 ($1,070,750)$7,411,550
$9,474,157 $9,474,157 ($1,070,750)$8,403,407
General Counsel
Salaries and Benefits $526,584 $526,584 $60,000 $586,584
Services and Supplies $61,305 $50,000 $111,305 $111,305
Total Operating Expenditures $587,889 $50,000 $637,889 $60,000 $697,889
$587,889 $50,000 $637,889 $60,000 $697,889
General Manager
Salaries and Benefits $1,699,231 $1,699,231 $1,699,231
Services and Supplies $606,225 $606,225 ($130,000)$476,225
Total Operating Expenditures $2,305,456 $2,305,456 ($130,000)$2,175,456
$2,305,456 $2,305,456 ($130,000)$2,175,456
Land & Facilities
Salaries and Benefits $5,225,613 $5,225,613 $5,225,613
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($976,033)($976,033)($976,033)
Net Salaries and Benefits $4,249,580 $4,249,580 $4,249,580
Services and Supplies $3,479,213 $167,000 $3,646,213 ($53,800)$3,592,413
Total Operating Expenditures $7,728,793 $167,000 $7,895,793 ($53,800)$7,841,993
Services and Supplies $82,500 $82,500 ($30,000)$52,500
Total Hawthorn Expenditures $82,500 $0 $82,500 ($30,000)$52,500
General Fund Capital $2,697,190 ($50,000)$2,647,190 ($966,250)$2,350,990
Measure AA Capital $1,519,783 $81,200 $1,600,983 ($296,200)$1,304,783
Total Capital Expenditures $4,216,973 $31,200 $4,248,173 ($1,262,450)$2,985,723
$11,945,766 $198,200 $12,143,966 ($1,346,250)$10,797,716
Natural Resources
Salaries and Benefits $1,605,070 $1,605,070 $1,605,070
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($200,923)($200,923)($200,923)
Net Salaries and Benefits $1,404,147 $1,404,147 $1,404,147
Services and Supplies $1,532,038 $1,532,038 ($336,527)$1,195,511
Total Operating Expenditures $2,936,185 $2,936,185 ($336,527)$2,599,658
General Fund Capital $48,000 $48,000 ($33,000)$15,000
Measure AA Capital $1,471,423 $1,471,423 ($680,911)$790,512
Total Capital Expenditures $1,519,423 $1,519,423 ($713,911)$805,512
$4,455,608 $4,455,608 ($1,050,438)$3,405,170Total Natural Resources Expenditures
Total General Counsel Expenditures
Total Engineering & Construction Expenditures
Total Land & Facilities Expenditures
FY 2018 Quarter 3 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 2)
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Total Administrative Services Expenditures
Total General Manager Expenditures
5/3/20183:30 PM
FY 2018 Quarter 3 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 2)
FY2018 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 3/31/2018)
Quarter 3 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY2018 Proposed
Amended Budget
Planning
Salaries and Benefits $1,434,535 $1,434,535 $1,434,535
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($19,300)($19,300)($19,300)
Net Salaries and Benefits $1,415,235 $1,415,235 $1,415,235
Services and Supplies $356,716 $356,716 ($85,000)$271,716
Total Operating Expenditures $1,771,951 $1,771,951 ($85,000)$1,686,951
Hawthorn Capital $84,000 $84,000 ($41,000)$43,000
Total Capital Expenditures $84,000 $84,000 ($41,000)$43,000
General Fund Capital $1,022,000 ($644,000)$378,000 ($241,000)$137,000
Measure AA Capital $2,441,489 ($380,000)$2,061,489 ($404,800)$1,656,689
Total Capital Expenditures $3,463,489 ($1,024,000)$2,439,489 ($645,800)$1,793,689
$5,319,640 ($1,024,000)$4,295,640 ($771,800)$3,523,840
Public Affairs
Salaries and Benefits $1,058,197 $1,058,197 ($60,000)$998,197
Services and Supplies $1,131,796 $1,131,796 $1,131,796
Total Operating Expenditures $2,189,993 $2,189,993 ($60,000)$2,129,993
$2,189,993 $2,189,993 ($60,000)$2,129,993
Real Property
Salaries and Benefits $759,564 $759,564 $759,564
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs $0 $0 $0
Net Salaries and Benefits $759,564 $759,564 $759,564
Services and Supplies $155,545 $155,545 $155,545
Total Operating Expenditures $915,109 $915,109 $915,109
General Fund Land and Associated Costs $864,500 $3,151,731 $4,016,231 ($150,000)$3,866,231
Measure AA Land and Associated Costs $124,000 ($19,000)$105,000 $105,000
Total Land and Associated Costs $988,500 $3,132,731 $4,121,231 ($150,000)$3,971,231
$1,903,609 $3,132,731 $5,036,340 ($150,000)$4,886,340
Visitor Services
Salaries and Benefits $4,877,314 $4,877,314 $66,110 $4,943,424
Services and Supplies $589,949 $589,949 ($25,000)$564,949
Total Operating Expenditures $5,467,263 $5,467,263 $41,110 $5,508,373
$5,467,263 $5,467,263 $41,110 $5,508,373
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Total Real Property Expenditures
Total Visitor Services Expenditures
Total Planning Expenditures
Total Public Affairs Expenditures
5/3/20183:30 PM
Quarter 2 Budget Amendments Detail (Attachment 3)
Budget Categories / Accounts
Adopted Budget
as of Mar 31
Quarter 3
Proposed
Budget
Amendment
Quarter 3
Proposed
Amended Budget
10-70-710-4101 - Full Time $292,192 $60,000 $352,192
10-40-410-4104 - Temporary $705,282 ($60,000)$645,282
10-65-615-4111 - Overtime $28,000 $30,000 $58,000
10-65-615-4132 - Holiday Payout $15,000 $8,000 $23,000
10-65-615-4142 - Sick Leave Cash Outs $18,000 $22,110 $40,110
10-65-615-4143 - Personal Leave Cash Outs $0 $6,000 $6,000
General Fund (10) Salaries & Benefits $66,110
10-30-320-5299 - Other Professional Services $208,000 ($73,000)$135,000
10-30-320-5901 - Postage $10,000 ($10,000)$0
10-30-320-6501 - Public Meeting Expense $9,000 ($2,000)$7,000
10-50-530-5299 - Other Professional Services $246,000 ($28,000)$218,000
10-50-560-5299 - Other Professional Services $139,600 $28,000 $167,600
10-50-550-6601 - Training & Conferences $53,000 ($30,000)$23,000
10-50-510-5299 - Other Professional Services $50,000 ($20,000)$30,000
10-50-560-6601 - Training & Conferences $37,550 $40,000 $77,550
10-50-560-6605 - Safety Program $11,250 $10,000 $21,250
10-10-110-5299 - Other Professional Services $312,000 ($130,000)$182,000
10-61-641-5299 - Other Professional Services $0 ($28,800)($28,800)
10-61-611-7003 - Employee Uniform Allowance $47,245 ($20,000)$27,245
10-61-691-7101 - Facility Maint - Structures - Exterior/Interior $50,000 ($30,000)$20,000
10-61-641-7114 - Facility Maint - Hazardous Waste $3,000 $25,000 $28,000
10-65-645-7607 - Events ($15,000)($15,000)
10-65-615-6903 - Office Furniture ($10,000)($10,000)
10-80-820-5299 - Other Professional Services $141,000 ($13,339)$127,661
10-80-820-7112 - Facility Maint - Resource Mgmt/Lanscaping $567,000 ($76,042)$490,958
10-80-830-5211 - Resource/Environmental $153,250 ($55,362)$97,888
10-80-830-5299 - Other Professional Services $105,000 ($69,515)$35,485
10-80-850-5211 - Resource/Environmental $75,000 ($40,000)$35,000
10-80-850-5219 - Legal Services $50,000 ($10,826)$39,174
10-80-850-5299 - Other Professional Services $272,000 ($71,443)$200,557
General Fund (10) Services & Supplies ($630,327)
20-61-641-7101 - Facilities Maintenance Structures $40,000 ($30,000)$10,000
Hawthorn Fund (20) Operating ($30,000)
20-30-320-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $24,000 ($15,000)$9,000
20-30-320-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $42,000 ($42,000)$0
20-30-320-8203 - CONSTRUCTION & SPECIAL INSPECTION/MONITOR $6,000 ($5,000)$1,000
20-30-320-8204 - PERMITTING FEES $12,000 ($12,000)$0
20-30-320-8205 - CONSTRUCTION $0 $33,000 $33,000
Hawthorn Fund (20) Capital ($41,000)
30-30-320-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING $1,468,889 ($275,000)$1,193,889
30-30-320-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING $343,580 ($29,000)$314,580
30-30-320-8204 - PERMITTING FEES $94,320 ($39,000)$55,320
30-30-320-8205 - CONSTRUCTION $73,800 ($61,800)$12,000
30-35-325-8205 - CONSTRUCTION $5,467,650 ($531,750)$4,935,900
30-61-641-8201 - Real Estate Services $0 $28,800 $28,800
Quarter 2 Budget Amendments Detail (Attachment 3)
Budget Categories / Accounts
Adopted Budget
as of Mar 31
Quarter 3
Proposed
Budget
Amendment
Quarter 3
Proposed
Amended Budget
30-61-641-8205 - Construction $69,000 ($200,000)($131,000)
30-61-621-8205 - Construction $172,500 ($125,000)$47,500
30-80-820-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $30,000 ($30,000)$0
30-80-820-8205 - CONSTRUCTION $554,200 ($161,701)$392,499
30-80-830-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $453,600 ($280,010)$173,590
30-80-830-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $225,600 ($154,300)$71,300
30-80-830-8204 - PERMITTING FEES $24,600 ($24,600)$0
30-80-850-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $14,300 ($14,300)$0
30-80-850-8205 - CONSTRUCTION $46,000 ($16,000)$30,000
MAA - Capital (30) Non-Land ($1,913,661)
$0
MAA - Capital (30) Land $0
40-30-320-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING $277,000 ($142,000)$135,000
40-30-320-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING $90,000 ($90,000)$0
40-30-320-8204 - PERMITTING FEES $9,000 ($9,000)$0
40-35-325-5801 - Postage $1,450 ($1,050)$400
40-35-325-5901 - Printing Services $3,750 ($2,500)$1,250
40-35-325-6301 - Vehicle Expense $5,500 ($1,500)$4,000
40-35-325-6501 - Public Meeting Expense $5,500 ($5,500)$0
40-35-325-7002 - Field Supplies - Consumables $92,700 ($11,000)$81,700
40-35-325-8201 - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING $478,200 ($233,000)$245,200
40-35-325-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $201,000 ($145,200)$55,800
40-35-325-8204 - PERMITTING FEES $126,000 ($78,000)$48,000
40-35-325-8205 - CONSTRUCTION $431,250 ($61,250)$370,000
40-50-550-5299 - Other Professional Services $500,000 ($500,000)$0
40-61-641-8205 - Construction $368,000 ($200,000)$168,000
40-61-621-8205 - Construction $951,050 ($718,750)$232,300
40-61-671-8501 - Vehicles $740,000 ($47,500)$692,500
40-80-830-8202 - ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $48,000 ($33,000)$15,000
General Fund - Capital (40) Non-Land ($2,279,250)
40-20-230-8101 - REAL ESTATE SERVICES $864,500 ($150,000)$714,500
General Fund - Capital (40) Land ($150,000)
Total Budget Amendments - Increase / (Decrease)($4,978,128)
Rev. 1/3/18
R-18-48
Meeting 18-17
May 9, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Contract Amendment with Ecological Concerns, Inc., for Invasive Species Management Work
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Acting General Manager to amend a contract with Ecological Concerns, Inc., in
the amount of $406,741.50, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $980,224.50, to conduct
invasive species management work under the Integrated Pest Management Program at multiple
Preserves through the end of Fiscal Year 2018-19.
SUMMARY
The invasive species management work under the recommended contract amendment consists of
manual, mechanical, and the safe application of several herbicides consistent with the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen) Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Program. The work under the contract amendment will assist Midpen with controlling non-
native plants and weeds at multiple Open Space Preserves through the end of Fiscal Year (FY)
2018-19. The cost for these additional services is $406,741.50, for a total not-to-exceed
amended contract amount of $980,224.50. Midpen has received a grant through the Santa Clara
Valley Water District in which up to $400,000 of the recommended new total contract amount is
reimbursable to safely treat invasive species within the riparian areas of Bear Creek Redwoods
Open Space Preserve (OSP). The current Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 and proposed FY2018-19
budgets include sufficient funds for this contract amendment.
DISCUSSION
Midpen manages invasive plants to protect and restore the natural environment and support the
conservation grazing program. Field staff, contractors, the California Conservation Corps, and
volunteers all assist in vegetation management at OSPs. Contractors are frequently used for
large invasive infestations and when invasive species control depends on very specific treatment
timing. Midpen staff oversee the work of contractors and conduct biological monitoring when
working near sensitive areas such as ponds with rare aquatic species. In 2017, 42% of the hours
devoted to resource management were completed by contractors, as compared to 47% by
volunteers and 11% by staff. Midpen uses IPM practices when managing invasive plants and
weeds, and the contractor is required to follow 31 best management practices to protect the
environment and human health.
In April of 2016, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into contract with
Ecological Concerns for a two-year term with the possibility of extending that term an additional
two years for Project Sites #1-4 as detailed in Table 1 below (see R-16-36). Projects in Table 1
R-18-48 Page 2
are grouped by common themes (i.e. control of slender false brome) or activities (i.e. chemical
treatment of thistles) and may include work at multiple OSPs. In June of 2017, the Board
authorized the General Manager to amend the contract with Ecological Concerns, adding
$200,000 after receiving a grant from the Santa Clara Valley Water District for invasive
vegetation management at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, identified as Project #5 in Table 1 (see R-
17-15). Ecological Concerns assists Midpen in land management activities on approximately
215 acres of Midpen lands as listed below in Table 1. This contract amendment will continue the
treatment of the approximately 215 acre, plus approximately an additional 50 acres for Project #5
Riparian Invasive Control.
Table 1: Projects under contract with Ecological Concerns
Project
Site # Fund Project
Name
Acres per
year, Ave. Preserve Target Specie(s)
1 10 Slender False
Brome 5.2
El Corte de Madera
Slender false brome La Honda Creek
Thornewood
2 30 Bear Creek
Redwoods 44.1 Bear Creek Redwoods
French broom
Periwinkle
Stinkwort
3 10 La Honda
Creek 11.6 La Honda Creek French broom
Purple star thistle
4 10 Thistle and
Grass Control 109.0
Long Ridge Goat Grass
Los Trancos Yellow star thistle
Russian Ridge Purple star thistle
Distaff thistle
Skyline Ridge
Goat grass
Purple star thistle
Yellow star thistle
5 30
Riparian
Invasive
Control
45.6 1 Bear Creek Redwoods
French broom
Periwinkle
English Ivy
Himalayan
blackberry
Project #5: Riparian Invasive Control is reimbursable by the Santa Clara Valley Water District in
the amount of up to $200,000 per year. The grant covers invasive species work that is located
within 260 feet of a body of water that lies within Santa Clara Valley Water District watersheds.
Leading up to the end of the term of the recommended contract, staff will issue a new Request
for Bids in late Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 to continue treatment at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP
until the project converts into landscape maintenance and can be transitioned to Midpen staff,
which is anticipated to occur in May of 2021.
1 Riparian Invasive Control is a new project and has only been going since November 1, 2017. This number
represents total acreage since inception of project.
R-18-48 Page 3
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds are included in the current FY2017-18 and proposed new FY2018-19 budgets to
cover the recommended contract amendment. More specifically, funding sources include:
Fund 10 (Facility Maintenance – Resource Management and Landscaping)
• FY2017-18 Budget includes $567,000, and approximately $138,000 is available for
vegetation management under Projects #1, #3, and #4.
• FY2018-19 Proposed Budget includes $428,500, of which approximately $328,000 is
available for vegetation management under Projects #1, #3, and #4.
The following table outlines the Facility Maintenance – Resource Management and Landscaping
projects costs and fiscal impact of the contract amendment.
Facility Maintenance – Resource Management and Landscaping FY2017-18
Projects #1, #3, and #4 Total Budgets $138,000
less Spent-to-Date (as of 5/2/2018): ($94,930)
less Recommended Contract Amendment (proposed spending): ($43,070)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0
Fund 30 (MAA21-007 BCR Invasive Species Removal)
• FY2017-18 Budget includes $169,604 MAA project budget and up to $200,000 SCVWD
grant funding for a total budget of $369,604.
• FY2018-19 Proposed Budget includes $118,676 MAA project budget and $200,000
SCVWD grant funding, for a total budget of $318,676.
The following table outlines the MAA 21-007 BCR Invasive Weed Treatment Project budget,
costs-to-date, and fiscal impact of the proposed contract amendment that applies to BCR.
Fund 30: MAA21-007 FY2017-18 FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 Total
BCR Invasive Weed Treatment –
MAA21-007 Budget $169,604 $118,676 $63,050 $0 $351,330
plus SCVWD Grant
(potential reimbursement)*: $144,805 $200,000 $200,000 $50,000 $594,805
less Spent-to-Date
(as of 5/2/2018): ($110,850) ($110,850)
less Encumbrances: ($28,955) ($28,955)
less Amendment of Contract
(proposed spending): ($5,000) ($258,212) ($263,212)
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $169,604 $60,464 $263,250 $50,000 $543,118
* The SCVWD Grant reimburses qualifying expenses for Riparian Invasive Control (Project #5) in full,
up to the annual limit of $200,000. MAA funding covers additional expenses incurred each Fiscal year.
The table shows expected expenses, where known.
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 21 budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the contract amendment that applies to BCR.
R-18-48 Page 4
MAA 21 Portfolio Allocation – Bear Creek Redwoods Public Recreation and
Interpretive Projects Allocation: $17,478,000
SCVWD Grant (anticipated eligible portion of $200,000 annually for 5 years): $594,805
Webb Creek Bridge grant: $149,500
less Life-to-Date Spent (as of 5/2/2018): ($2,286,572)
less Encumbrances: (1,127,319)
less Amendment of Contract (proposed): ($263,212)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $14,545,202
Recently Approved contracts in MAA 21 Portfolio
less Bear Creek Redwoods Public Access Project (includes 15% contingency): ($3,472,836)
less Webb Creek Bridge Project (includes 15% contingency): ($402,500)
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed as of 5/2/2018): $10,669,866
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
A Board Committee did not previously review this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The vegetation management activities covered by the recommended contract amendment were
previously reviewed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for Midpen’s IPM
Program, which the Board approved on December 10, 2014. The associated mitigation measures
in this environmental review document have been incorporated into the project.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the Acting General Manager will amend the contract
with Ecological Concerns, Inc., of Santa Cruz for invasive species management.
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Rev. 1/3/18
THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON APRIL 25, 2018.
ALL CHANGES TO THE REPORT ARE BELOW IN BOLD.
THIS ITEM IS RETURNING FOR A REQUIRED ROLL CALL VOTE
R-18-38
Meeting 18-15
April 25, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Roll call vote to authorize the District to enter into a Grant Agreement with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District for the Webb Creek Bridge Replacement
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution by roll call vote confirming an application for the Safe, Clean Water Priority
D3 Grant Program, affirming that sufficient funds are available to complete this work, and
authorizing the General Manager to execute the grant agreement with the Santa Clara Valley
Water District to receive $149,500 for replacement of the Webb Creek Bridge.
SUMMARY
The grant agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the Webb Creek
Bridge was approved at the April 25, 2018 Board of Directors meeting. However, the Santa
Clara Valley Water District requires a roll call vote. The item is returning to the Board on
May 9, 2018 for Board consideration and vote by roll call. The Safe, Clean Water and Natural
Flood Protection Program is a competitive 15-year grant program to ensure uninterrupted water
resource services in Santa Clara County. Five priority funding areas are available and
competitive grants are awarded through staggered application cycles. Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District (Midpen) staff applied for the Priority D3 New Access to Trails grant for
replacement of the Webb Creek Bridge. On March 13, 2018, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD) Board of Directors approved this grant application in the amount of $149,500
to fund the bridge replacement. Adoption of a resolution by the Board of Directors (Board) is
required to meet the grant requirements and execute the grant agreement.
DISCUSSION
Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure B, the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood
Protection Program, was approved by voters in 2012. This 15-year program was established to
provide a long-term safe and reliable water supply within Santa Clara County. Under this
program, the D3 New Access to Trails grant was formed to provide new access to creekside
trails and open space within Santa Clara County. Projects eligible for funding must be located
within Santa Clara County, create new public access where it did not previously exist, and
R-18-38 Page 2
establish either a new creekside trail or an important trail link to a creekside trail network. In this
grant round a total of $571,000 in grants was available, with a maximum award of $200,000.
Midpen staff submitted a grant application for the Webb Creek Bridge replacement in the most
recent D3 Grant funding round, requesting $149,500 for construction costs. Webb Creek bisects
the westside “Redwood Loop Trail” within Bear Creek Redwoods (BCR) Open Space Preserve.
Replacing the existing bridge is necessary to safely open this trail to the public, as well as
maintain safe access for patrol, maintenance and emergency vehicles given that the current
bridge does not allow for vehicular access. The new bridge will be wider, longer, have drilled
reinforced concrete pier foundations and abutments, as well as a concrete deck and timber rails.
Additionally, in Phase II of the BCR Preserve Plan, the Webb Creek Bridge will be part of a
regional trail linkage, allowing access through BCR from the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the
Skyline area.
On March 13, 2018, the SCVWD Board of Directors approved funding for this project.
Currently, Midpen has two other funding agreements with SCVWD. The first grant was awarded
in 2016 for restoration of Hendry’s Creek, also through the D3 Grant Program, for a total of
$484,650. Last June, SCVWD and Midpen entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) for invasive species removal at BCR. This MOU will provide $200,000 a year for five
years to fund invasive species removal at BCR and other Midpen preserves.
Grant Requirements
Midpen must adhere to the grant agreement set forth by SCVWD, including completing the
project within three years. Midpen is required to submit regular projects updates to SCVWD as
part of grant reimbursement requests and will maintain proper financial accounting. In addition,
Midpen will post signs acknowledging the source of the funds, publically acknowledge the funds
in at least one newsletter or other news source, and invite SCVWD to participate in public
ceremonies associated with the project.
The attached resolution (Attachment 1) authorizes the Acting General Manager to sign the
resolution certifying that sufficient funds are available to execute this project (as required by
SCVWD) and to execute the grant agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Safe, Clean Water Priority D3 grant will represent a positive fiscal impact for Midpen, for a
total of $149,500, beginning in FY2018-19. Total project costs from FY2017-18 forward are
estimated to be $610,600, of which SCVWD will contribute 25%. Midpen will contribute the
remaining balance through its Measure AA funds.
The following table outlines the MAA21-009 Webb Creek Bridge Replacement budget and
costs-to-date.
FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2018-19 Total
MAA21-009 Budget $194,600 $424,000 $610,600
Prior-Year Spend: $66,014 $66,014
FY2017-18 Spent–to-Date (as of 4/11/18): $43,794 $0 $43,794
Encumbrances: $82,793 $0 $82,793
R-18-38 Page 3
Budget Remaining: $68,013 $424,000 $492,013
Grant income from this agreement: $0 $149,500 $149,500
Amount Funded through MAA: $66,014 $194,500 $274,500 $342,513
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Submitting grant applications to secure funding is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act. Replacement of the Webb Creek Bridge will be consistent with the Bear Creek
Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR, which the Board certified on January 25, 2017 (R-17-15).
NEXT STEPS
With Board approval, Midpen will adopt the proposed resolution and execute the grant
agreement. Near-term next steps for the project include:
• Award a construction contract (April 25, 2018, separate Agenda Item)
• Begin bridge replacement (June 2018)
• Complete bridge replacement (November 2018)
• Open the western side of BCR to public access (Spring 2019)
Attachments:
1. Resolution verifying Midpen’s grant application for the Safe, Clean Water Priority D3
Grant Program
Responsible Department Head:
Stefan Jaskulak, CFO/Director of Administrative Services
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Melanie Askay, Grants Specialist
Gretchen Laustsen, Planner III
Contact person:
Melanie Askay, Grants Specialist
Attachment 1
Resolutions/2018/R-18-___SCVWDGrant_WebbCreekBridge_ROLLCALL 1
RESOLUTION NO. 18-___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING
THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE SAFE, CLEAN
WATER AND NATURAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM OF 2012
AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
GRANT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has enacted the 2018 Safe Clean Water
Priority D3 Grant Program, which provides funds for cleanup, education, outreach and watershed
stewardship activities;
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Civic Engagement Unit has been delegated
the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures;
and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the Santa Clara Valley Water District require
Grantee’s Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of Grantee to apply for and
accept grant program funds; and
WHEREAS, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“MROSD”) will enter into a Grant
Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District hereby:
1. Approves the submission of an Application for grant funds from Priority B7 of the
Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program
2. Approves the acceptance of grant funds from Priority D3 of the Safe, Clean Water
and Natural Flood Protection Program, upon approval of grant funding for the Project
by appropriate authorities;
3. Certifies that MROSD has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
Project(s);
4. Certifies that MROSD will review and agree to the Special Provisions, General
Provisions, Financial Provisions and Insurance Requirements contained in the
Agreement; and
5. Authorizes the General Manager or designee as agent to conduct all negotiations,
execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications,
agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion
of the Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on _____, 2018, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following roll call vote:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Attachment 1
Resolutions/2018/R-18-___SCVWDGrant_WebbCreekBridge_ROLLCALL 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
District Clerk
R-18-47
Meeting 18-17
May 9, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Informational Presentation on the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan - Conceptual Design
Alternative 3
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Receive an informational presentation to preview Conceptual Design Alternative 3 for the Red
Barn Public Access Site Plan in preparation for a Community Meeting and Board Meeting to be
held on June 12, 2018 in the Town of La Honda. No Board action required.
SUMMARY
The Planning and Natural Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed Alternative 3 on March
20, 2018, considered both written and oral public input, and unanimously recommended
forwarding Alternative 3 to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board of
Directors (Board). The Committee previously reviewed Conceptual Design Alternatives 1 and 2
on May 9, 2017. Alternative 3 represents the latest design iteration that responds to site
constraints, Committee feedback received at the May 9 meeting, and public concerns raised at a
public workshop held in the Town of La Honda on May 16, 2017. These concerns centered on
insufficient parking, impacts to the Red Barn viewshed, and traffic conflicts from vehicles
entering and exiting the driveway.
On May 9, 2018, the Board will receive an informational presentation on the Project, including
the project goals, project history and timeline, public participation process, and the various
iterations to the site plan with Alternative 3 as the most recent. The Board will take no action at
this meeting. This informational presentation will prepare the Board for an upcoming
Community Meeting and Board Meeting in the Town of La Honda scheduled for June 12, 2018.
At this upcoming June 12 meeting, the Board will receive public comment to inform their
selection of a preferred site plan option as the project description to begin environmental review.
If the Board selects Alternative 3 as the preferred site plan option, this alternative would be the
project description to begin environmental review.
Sufficient funding remains in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 budget and additional funds are
included in the proposed FY2018-19 Capital Improvement and Action Plan to proceed with the
Project. In late May, the Board will consider a contract amendment with MIG, Inc., for
environmental review services. Expenses are eligible for Measure AA reimbursement.
R-18-47 Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Red Barn Public Access Area Site Plan Project (Project) facilitates opening the central
portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) to the public. This Project
implements a Phase I priority in the Board-approved 2012 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Master Plan (Master Plan, R-12-83). The public access improvements for the Red Barn would be
part of the La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation
Grazing Projects, which ranked as one of the top 25 priority actions in the Board-approved 2014
Open Space Vision Plan. The Red Barn project facilitates the opening of the upper half of La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, which received support from the voters with the passage of
Measure AA. As such, this project is eligible for Measure AA funding.
The Master Plan identified the following program elements for the site, with all elements
designed to reflect the rural character of the adjacent Red Barn:
• New driveway from Highway 84 (a San Mateo County-designated scenic corridor)
• Parking for passenger vehicles and equestrian trailers
• Picnic area(s)
• Accessible pathways
• Double-vault toilet restrooms
• Interpretive signage
• Fencing
• Gates
• Trailhead
Project Chronology
Since project initiation in fall 2016, staff and consultants completed site opportunities and
constraints analyses and developed conceptual design alternatives. Site analyses to date have
evaluated topography, existing tree species and health, biological resources, jurisdictional waters
and wetlands, historic significance of the Red Barn and surrounding infrastructure, traffic study
findings, and Phase I & II environmental site assessments given past ranching and agricultural
uses of the site.
On May 9, 2017, staff presented the site opportunities and constraints findings, and the initial
conceptual design alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) to the Committee (R-17-56, also refer to
Attachment 2). Alternatives 1 and 2 include various design options based on a program of
planned uses for public access, circulation, grazing uses and interpretation. On May 16, 2017,
staff and consultants presented Alternatives 1 and 2 at a local Public Workshop in the Town of
La Honda, which was attended by approximately 21 members of the public and several Board
members. Midpen received additional public input via an internet-based survey.
A summary of the public input received at the May 9, 2017 Committee meeting, May 16, 2017
Public Workshop, and via an online survey is included in Attachment 3. During Committee and
public review of the project, the following three main themes emerged as major considerations
moving forward:
1. Protection of scenic qualities, especially views of the Red Barn.
2. Sufficient parking capacity to accommodate the anticipated volume of visitor use and
avoid potential overflow parking and traffic impacts on Highway 84.
R-18-47 Page 3
3. Minimizing potential traffic conflicts along Highway 84 due to visitor ingress and egress
to the new parking lot (i.e. slow approach and wide turns of equestrian trailers).
With this new input, staff conducted additional studies and surveys to identify possible design
modifications that address the concerns listed above.
Proposed Modifications
• Parking relocation: Midpen explored the possibility of purchasing a nearby property as
an alternate parking location. However, the landowner declined the invitation to discuss a
purchase opportunity, removing this option from further consideration.
• Relocation of equestrian trailer parking: Alternatives 1 and 2 include three equestrian
trailer parking spaces. Public feedback indicates that this number of equestrian spaces
may be inadequate in part because equestrians often ride in pairs (requiring an even
number of spaces), and trailering horses a relatively long distance only to find no parking
is undesirable and can discourage use. Additional analysis also has determined that costly
improvements are required to accommodate a dedicated equestrian parking area,
including the large turning radii for equestrian trailers at this site. The Event Center,
which is located 6.5 miles southwest of the Red Barn site along Highway 84, is much
better suited for equestrian trailer use. Relocating equestrian trailers to the Event Center
would also separate horse trailers from passenger vehicles to improve overall safety given
the constrained site, as well as minimize horse disturbance (i.e. startling horses,
approaching horses unsafely).
For these reasons, staff explored the relocation of equestrian parking at the Event Center.
The Event Center offers adequate traffic line-of-sight for the driveway turnoff, trailer
parking space, turning radii, and a safe, direct connection to the Preserve. The Event
Center currently provides permitted equestrian parking for four (4) trucks with maximum
20-foot trailers. Equestrian trailer parking by permit would remain in the interim while
staff evaluates an expansion of trailer parking at this site and other equestrian access
improvements. Additional County use permits would be needed to formalize this space
for general equestrian trailer parking and remove the parking-by-permit system.
• Relocation of corrals: Cattle corrals in Alternatives 1 and 2 are proposed to wrap
around and extend in front of the Red Barn. This configuration raised concerns regarding
potential conflicts between public use and the active grazing operation by the grazing
tenant. Staff and the grazing tenant discussed relocating the facility behind the barn while
ensuring its usefulness and adequacy for ongoing operations.
• Proposed future Phase 2 for expansion of parking: Given broad concerns about
sufficient parking to avoid overflow onto Highway 84, staff evaluated a phased option for
future expanded parking to allow for additional parking in the future if desired.
DISCUSSION
On March 20, 2018, staff presented to the Committee at a public meeting a new recommended
draft alternative (Alternative 3) and a phased option for future expansion of passenger vehicle
parking (Phased Alternative 3) that incorporates the proposed new modifications. The
Alternatives expand the available parking; redirect intensive uses (parking, restrooms, trailhead,
R-18-47 Page 4
and corrals) away from the Red Barn viewshed; continue to offer equestrian trailer parking for
the Preserve via the Event Center, and avoid potential driveway ingress/egress conflicts that
relate to horse trailer parking. These Alternatives are described further below:
Conceptual Alternative 3
• Relocates equestrian parking to another area of the Preserve.
• Provides equestrian access to the Red Barn area via trail.
• Relocates the cattle corral to an area behind the Red Barn to retain open, unobstructed
views of the barn (grading would drain surface flow away from the creek and into a
settling and filtration system to protect downstream water quality; staff would consult
with Cuesta Guild La Honda to ensure site and design protects water quality).
• Increases passenger vehicle parking capacity to 50 spaces, where expanded parking is
located at the furthest corner from the Red Barn, and which due to topography and slope
is partially hidden from the highway.
• Adds 10 spaces of motorcycle parking.
Alternative 3 – Phase 2
• If needed, this future phasing may further increase passenger vehicle parking capacity by
an additional 25 spaces for a total of 75 spaces.
Unanimous Committee action to forward Alternative 3 to the Board
Based on a review of all the design alternatives (refer also to Attachment 6 for Alternatives
Comparison Table) and public feedback received at that Committee meeting (See Attachment 4),
the Committee unanimously voted to forward Alternative 3 to the full Board. This Alternative
was determined to best balance the Master Plan goals for resource protection and expanding
public access to the Red Barn area. This design enhances the prominence of the Red Barn as a
cultural and landscape feature and establishes a “visitor space” adjacent to the barn and outside
of the bat habitat buffer that enhances the visitor experience by highlighting the ranching history
of the site.
Alternative 3 also protects the scenic view to the maximum extent while increasing total vehicle
and motorcycle parking capacity, which will likely be needed based on the popularity of this
local icon, anticipated visitation to this Preserve, and Midpen’s recent experiences related to
parking demands at other newly opened preserve locations. To better respond to public concerns
regarding the aesthetics of the Red Barn from Highway 84, additional visual simulations of the
Alternative 3 parking lot will be presented to the community on June 12 and used in the CEQA
analysis for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Additional Site Investigations following the Committee Meeting of March 20, 2018
At the March 20, 2018 Committee meeting, the Committee questioned whether there may be an
alternate parking area that could be located within the interior of the preserve, a question that
was echoed by some of the neighbors in attendance. As part of the due diligence for the Project,
staff followed up with additional site reconnaissance to confirm whether alternative parking
locations exist for the Red Barn area. On April 20, 2018, project team members and consultants
conducted a site visit and staff also met with the immediate neighbors who had raised similar
concerns. Their concerns focused on protecting the viewshed and potential overflow parking on
the highway that may impact their driveway and property located just north of the Red Barn area.
R-18-47 Page 5
Based on the April 20 site reconnaissance, staff and consultants discussed the potential site
opportunities and benefits associated with an alternate parking area setback approximately 500 to
600 feet from Highway 84 in a relatively flat area that is fenced in and currently used for the
grazing operation. While potential benefits with a parking area setback farther from Highway 84
may partially reduce aesthetic impacts and avoid a relocation of the existing corrals, the site
constraints associated with this alternate parking area outweigh the potential benefits. Key
constraints that raise design and constructability issues for this alternate parking site include:
• Additional grading and site disturbance required for a much longer driveway, which
would include substantial and costly retaining walls.
• Additional grading, site disturbance, and potentially another set of retaining walls to
accommodate multiple trail switchbacks for the easy-access trail that would connect the
alternate parking area to the Red Barn;
• Potential presence of wetlands that require biological assessment and delineation, and
which would significantly impact and limit the available area for parking;
• Evidence of geologic instability given the presence of landslides within the area that
would require geotechnical assessments to confirm constructability, and potentially
additional engineering work and costs; and
• Potential use conflicts between the grazing operation and public use as the public access
driveway would need to intersect with the access road connecting the corrals, Red Barn,
and adjacent pasture.
Based on all of the information presented in this report, in the upcoming presentations, and
public input received, the Board will deliberate on June 12 on whether to move forward with
Alternative 3, or direct the General Manager to return to the Board with additional information.
Construction Timeline Update
Summer 2017 surveys have confirmed that the Red Barn continues to serve as the only
documented maternity roost along the peninsula for the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a species
of special concern. This species’ maternity season of approximately March 1- September 15
requires special protections during the normal construction season. Moreover, the standard San
Mateo County grading moratorium of October 1-April 15 further constrains the potential
construction window, as only two weeks of the year fall outside of these two seasonal
constraints. Project elements adjacent to the barn that fall within a bat protective buffer area
include the new access driveway, retaining wall, road, fencing, gate, and cattle corral. Midpen
will pursue an exemption for the County’s grading moratorium, but it is unknown whether the
County will grant one. Research is ongoing to identify effective avoidance measures such as
temporary sound barriers and biological monitoring of the roost. The protection of this unique
resource will extend the construction timeline and likely add cost to the project. In light of this
new information and assuming other project elements remain on schedule, staff projects the
opening of the Red Barn area to public access in 2022 to account for a longer permitting period
and the potential need to spread construction activities over two seasons. The targeted 2022
opening date remains consistent with the Board-approved Master Plan Phase II implementation
timeline.
R-18-47 Page 6
FISCAL IMPACT
This project facilitates the implementation of Measure AA Portfolio #5, which states: “Open
upper half of the preserve to public; provide biking/hiking/equestrian trails, dog access, and
staging areas. Provide loop & connector trails. Restore habitat for rare species. Improve
fencing, corrals, and water systems to reintroduce conservation grazing.”
The FY2017-18 Board-approved Amended Budget for the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan
Project (MAA05-005) is $120,000. This amount is sufficient for the site investigations, technical
reports, visual simulations, pre-permitting consultation, and conceptual design development.
Funds for subsequent project phases, including design development, environmental review,
permitting, and construction documentation are included as part of the three-year Capital
Improvement and Action Plan.
The recommended action to receive an informational presentation has no direct fiscal impact.
Future implementation activities will have fiscal impacts, and the multi-year project budget is
provided below. Project implementation costs are eligible for Measure AA reimbursement. The
preliminary conceptual-level cost estimate for project construction ranges between $4 and $5
million.
MAA 05-005 Prior
Years
Actuals
FY
2017-18
FY
2018-19
FY
2019-20
FY
2020-21
Future
Years
Total
LHC - Red Barn
Parking Area
$216,955 $120,000 $358,738 $363,600 $230,000 $5,000,000 $1,289,293
Spent-to-Date (as of
4/20/2018):
$44,037 $44,037
Encumbrances: $25,963 $25,963
Budget Remaining
(Proposed):
$216,955 $50,000 $358,738 $363,600 $230,000 $5,000,000 $4,930,000
The remaining portfolio fund balance contains over $9 million in available funds. The following
table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio #05 allocation, expenses to date, and remaining
portfolio fund balance.
MAA 05 Allocation - La Honda Creek - Upper Recreation Area: 11,733,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 4/20/2018): $2,134,706
Encumbrances: $26,264
Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $9,572,030
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The La Honda Creek Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee met on ten (10) occasions between 2004
and 2009 to guide the planning process and development of final trail use recommendations.
The Board approved the Master Plan and adopted the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which includes the proposed Red Barn public access area as part of Phase I & II
implementation, at the August 22, 2012 meeting (R-12-83). On April 20, 2016, the Planning and
Natural Resources Committee received a brief update on the status and design schedule of the
Sears Ranch Road Parking Area and Phase I trails in Lower La Honda Creek Open Space
Preserve (R-16-48). On May 9, 2017, the Committee received a presentation of the two
R-18-47 Page 7
conceptual design alternatives (R-17-56). On March 20, 2018, the Committee received a
presentation of the new Conceptual Design Alternative 3 and recommended Alternative 3 to the
full Board (R-18-25). Following the March 20 Committee meeting, the Midpen received
additional public comments (see Attachment 5).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notice was provided to the
grazing tenant, neighbors living adjacent to the Preserve, and parties interested in Coastal
projects, the La Honda Creek Preserve, the Red Barn, and Master Plan. Additional notice will be
provided of the upcoming June 12, 2018 Public Community Meeting to be held in Town of La
Honda.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As
stated in the 2012 Master Plan and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, additional
environmental review will be conducted for this project as needed. Environmental review would
begin once the Board accepts a Preferred Alternative for the CEQA project description, which is
scheduled as part of the June 12, 2018 meeting. As part of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) process, residents and members of the community will have additional
opportunities to comment on the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts for the
District to evaluate as part of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
NEXT STEPS
To continue moving the project forward, staff will initiate Caltrans pre-permitting consultation
and solicit input on driveway design features and traffic safety measures to ensure safe public
ingress and egress to the Red Barn area. These discussions can proceed irrespective of which
Alternative the Board selects in the future, given that all the site plans rely on a specific driveway
configuration due to constrained line of sight issues. In addition, the Board will consider a
contract amendment with MIG on May 23, 2018 to fund additional visual simulations, traffic
analyses, planning support, and environmental review services.
Board and public input on Alternative 3 will be solicited at a joint Public Community Meeting
and Board Public Meeting on June 12, 2018 in the Town of La Honda. The purpose of this joint
meeting is to present Alternative 3 to the community and provide an opportunity for the Board of
Directors to receive public comment to inform their selection of a preferred site plan option. If
the Board selects Alternative 3 as the preferred site plan option, this alternative would be the
project description to begin environmental review.
A subsequent Board meeting will be scheduled for a Scoping Session to receive public input on
environmental concerns that should be addressed as part of the environmental review process.
Milestones Tentative Schedule
Pre-permit Consultation with Caltrans regarding proposed
driveway, signage and site improvements May/June 2018
R-18-47 Page 8
Contract Amendment with MIG, Inc, for CEQA review and
additional services May 23, 2018
Joint Community Meeting/Board Meeting in La Honda June 12, 2018
CEQA Scoping Session July/August 2018
Board review and adoption of CEQA document and project
approval Summer/Fall 2019
Construction documentation 2019 to 2021
Permitting 2019 to 2021
Construction bidding process 2021
Construction (narrow work window to avoid bat disturbance) Fall 2021 to Fall 2022
Open to the public Fall 2022
Attachments:
1. Site location map
2. Conceptual Design Alternatives
3. Public Feedback Summary from May 2017 to December 2017
4. Public input summary through March 20, 2018 Planning and Natural Resources
Committee meeting
5. Public comments received March 21, 2018 as of 1:00 p.m. May 4, 2018
6. Conceptual Design Alternatives Comparison Table
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Contact person:
Leslie Chan, Planner III, Planning Department
!P
Red Barn
Wee
k
s
C
r
e
e
k
O l d L a Honda Rd
C
A
S
t
a
t
e
R
o
u
t
e
8
4
ÄÆ84
LH06
L A H O N D A C R E E K
O P E N S PA C E P R E S E R V E
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
October 2017
Red Barn Public Access Area Site Map
Pa
t
h
:
P
:
\
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
a
H
o
n
d
a
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
e
d
B
a
r
n
S
t
a
g
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
\
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
M
a
p
s
\
L
H
C
R
e
d
B
a
r
n
_
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
_
L
e
t
t
e
r
_
P
o
r
t
r
a
i
t
_
2
0
1
7
1
0
0
3
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
l
c
h
a
n
0 200100
FeetI
MROSD Preserve
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.
La Honda
Portola Valley
Area of
Detail
EL CORTE DE
MADERA CREEK
OSP
LA HONDA CREEK
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
RUSSIAN
RIDGE
OSP
THORNEWOOD
OSP
WINDY HILL
OSP
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ84
Private Property
Project Site P Gate
Attachment 1
RED BARN PUBLIC ACCESS AREA:
LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
3 DEC. 2017
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1
ONE WAY
ACCESSIBLE PATH CONNECTING
TRAILHEAD AND BARN
RESTROOMS
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
RANGER HOUSE
MAINTENANCE
VEHICLE PARKING
VEGETATIVE
SCREENING
ONE WAY
(3) EQUESTRIAN
PARKING SPACES
T
W
O
W
A
Y
ONE WA Y
A
B
TWO WA Y
INTERPRETIVE AREA
(1) DROP OFF LOADING SPACE
TRAIL HEAD /
STAGING AREA
BUS PARKING
(22) PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
RESTRICTED
ACCESS
SIGNAGE
RESTRICTED
ACCESS
SIGNAGE
RESTRICTED
ACCESS
SIGNAGE
ENTRY
SIGNAGE
(3) ADA PARKING SPACES
(N) TREES
(E) TREES
(E) TREES
BIOSWALE
BIOSWALEBICYCLE PARKING
DISTRIBUTED PICNIC AREAS
(E) DRAINAGE
(E) CULVERT
WATER TROUGH
DRIVEWAY
VEGETATED RETAINING WALL
EQUESTRIAN
STAGING AREA
SECONDARY
ACCESS ROAD
DAYLIGHTED CULVERT /
BIORETENTION AREA
BARN PICNIC AREA
VEGETATED RETAINING WALL
SPEED TABLES
ON
E
W
A
Y
RED BARN
AGRICULTURAL ACCESS ROAD
RELOCATED CATTLE CORRAL
18’ FENCED CATTLE PATH TO PASTURE
Attachment 2
RED BARN PUBLIC ACCESS AREA:
LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
3 DEC. 2017
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 2
ONE WAY
ACCESSIBLE PATH CONNECTING
TRAILHEAD AND BARN
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
RANGER HOUSE
VEGETATIVE
SCREENING
O
N
E
W
A
Y
TW
O
W
A
Y
A
B
ONE WA Y
INTERPRETIVE AREA
(1) DROP OFF / LOADING SPACE
BICYCLE PARKING
RESTROOMS
EQUESTRIAN
STAGING AREA
TRAIL HEAD /
STAGING AREA
BUS PARKING
(26) PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
RESTRICTED
ACCESS
SIGNAGE
RESTRICTED
ACCESS
SIGNAGE
RESTRICTED
ACCESS
SIGNAGE
ENTRY
SIGNAGE
(4) ADA PARKING SPACES
(N) TREES
(E) TREES
(E) TREES
BIOSWALE
BIOSWALE
(3) EQUESTRIAN
PARKING SPACES
CENTRAL PICNIC AREA
(E) DRAINAGE
(E) CULVERT
WATER TROUGH
DRIVEWAY
VEGETATED RETAINING WALL
SECONDARY
ACCESS ROAD
DAYLIGHTED CULVERT /
BIORETENTION AREA
VEGETATED RETAINING WALL
SPEED TABLES
RED BARN
AGRICULTURAL ACCESS ROAD
RELOCATED CATTLE CORRAL
18’ FENCED CATTLE PATH TO PASTURE
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
RED BARN PUBLIC ACCESS AREA:
LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
3 DEC. 2017
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 3 - PHASE 2 MODIFICATIONS
(5) ADDITIONAL PASSENGER
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
(6) ADDITIONAL PASSENGER
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
REMOVE (3) PASSENGER
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES
EXTENSION ACCESS ROAD
O
N
E
W
A
Y
RELOCATED INTERPRETIVE AREA
(17) PASSENGER VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Red Barn Public Access Area Conceptual Design Alternatives
Public Feedback Summary
5/1/17 Stakeholder meeting: 9 attendees representing neighbors and equestrians
5/9/17 PNR Committee meeting: 2 attendees from the public, La Honda residents
5/16/17 Community Meeting: 21 attendees – 5 comments submitted
5/16/17- 5/22/17 Online survey: 36 submissions
Feedback/Concern Site Constraint Design
View of Red Barn from Highway 84 will
be changed by the new driveway/site
improvements
• Red Barn site is the only location where
access to central portion of the preserve can
be provided
• Limited area available with adequate line of
sight
• County-designated scenic corridor
• Sloping topography requires retaining wall
for driveway.
• Line of sight requires driveway to be located
as proposed
• Screen retaining wall and driveway/access road to
minimize impact to viewshed
• Relocate low-impact visitor uses (i.e. picnicking
and interpretation) to foreground of the barn
• Relocate cattle corral behind the barn
• Visual simulations developed for the driveway
New driveway- potential conflict with
highway traffic patterns- illegal
speeding and passing.
Ingress/egress by equestrian trailers
are of particular concern
• Limited area available with adequate line of
sight
• Area of Highway 84 with adequate line of
sight is due to this being a straight section
between curves
• Traffic studies conducted in 2007, 2016, and 2017
confirm driveway location meets Caltrans
standards for line of sight
• District will incorporate highway guardrail,
pending Caltrans approval
• Relocate equestrian trailer parking to a different
LHC site
Parking capacity (25-30 spaces) not
adequate to accommodate expected
volume due to popularity
Potential for unauthorized overflow
parking along Highway 84
• Balance of public access site improvements
with viewshed protection, grazing
infrastructure, biological resources, and
sloping topography
• Increase capacity to 50 standard spaces
• Add dedicated motorcycle parking
• Remove equestrian trailer parking
• Explore “No Parking” zones along Highway 84
• Increased enforcement
From:Leslie Chan
To:Erika Carrillo
Subject:RE: La Honda Creek Open Space
Date:Monday, May 2, 2016 9:14:41 AM
Attachments:MROSD FEIR03.pdf
Coastside Draft EIR.pdf
Hi Erika,
The draft EIR for the Coastal Annexation is attached as well as the final EIR/Response to comments.
The final EIR file is a large size, please confirm that you receive both attachments. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Leslie Chan
From: Erika Carrillo
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:54 PM
To: Leslie Chan
Subject: Re: La Honda Creek Open Space
Where can I find the San Mateo Coastal Annexation EIR?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Leslie Chan wrote:
These are contained in the board report for the adoption item and attachments. (see link)
Comments received about the Master Plan start on page 11 of the .pdf and responses to comments
received on the MND start on page 15.
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/CGI-
BIN/agendas_minutes/2012.08.22.LaHondaCreek_ISMND_R-12-83.pdf
Hope this helps!
From: Erika Carrillo
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:40 PM
To: Leslie Chan
Subject: Re: La Honda Creek Open Space
Where are the comments and responses to comments?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Leslie Chan wrote:
Hi Erika,
Sorry for the confusion, the version posted is the final that was adopted by the Board in August
2012. Here is the link to the board meeting agenda, reports, and minutes from the meeting where
they adopted the IS/MND and approved the Master Plan:
https://www.openspace.org/about-us/meetings/regular-meeting-13
I’ll work with the webmaster to clarify the label of the document.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks,
Leslie
From: Erika Carrillo
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Leslie Chan
Subject: Re: La Honda Creek Open Space
I see a Draft IS/MND. Is there a final?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Leslie Chan wrote:
Hi Erika,
The page has been updated: http://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/la-honda-creek-master-
plan
Thanks,
Leslie
From: Erika Carrillo
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Leslie Chan
Subject: La Honda Creek Open Space
Hi Leslie -
I met you at the public meeting for the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in La Honda. I
am the planner at Insignia Environmental. I was not able to find the MND on the website. Can
you send it to me?
Thanks!
Erika
From:Barbara Hooper
To:Leslie Chan
Subject:Re: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Date:Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:50:56 AM
Leslie-
It was nice seeing you again last night. Thanks for the traffic study docs.
Best,
Barb
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Leslie Chan wrote:
Hello Barbara,
Thanks for attending the board meeting last night and for letting me know these studies didn’t
make it through yesterday. Attached are the three traffic studies. Please let me know if you have
any additional questions.
Thank you again for your time and interest in this project.
Sincerely,
Leslie Chan
Leslie Chan
Planner II
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From: General Information
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 7:55 AM
To: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Re: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hi Barbara,
Thank you for your inquiry. Please allow me to reach out to our planners for the most up to date information on
this. You will be hearing from someone shortly!
If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.
Thank you,
Jordan McDaniel
Public Affairs Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485
www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd
From: Barbara Hooper <
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 10:57 PM
To: General Information
Cc: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hello-
My husband, Terence Mahoney, and I are residents of La Honda and we're wondering if there are any updates or
changes that have been made to the Red Barn Public Access Area in the La Honda Creek Master Plan in response
to the public meeting that was held in La Honda on May 16 and feedback that you got from the online survey.
I looked on the MPOSD website in the La Honda Creek Master Plan pages but did not see any new information. I
know that there are some La Creek Preserve items on the Board of Directors agenda for the June 28 meeting but
there is no mention of the Red Barn Access.
I am particularly concerned about the driveway access point on Highway 84. Terence and I voiced our concerns in
the meeting at the District Office on May 9 and in the online survey. We believe that the proposed parking and
access will exacerbate existing traffic issues along Highway 84 which consists of traffic congestion on weekends
due to the ever increasing rise of accidents and fatalities incurred by motorcyclists, bicyclists, and out of town
motorists unfamiliar with the roads and hazards. Access by equestrian trailers would be an extreme traffic hazard.
Have traffic studies been taken into consideration in the planning of the Red Barn Access? If so, are they available
to the public? If not, I think it's imperative that traffic studies be done at various times of the week and year
(weekdays, weekends, holidays, etc.) to ensure that access is feasible and safe.
Terence and I are avid hikers and are thrilled to have access to all of the trails and areas that MidPen has provided
over the years. Thank you for any feedback you can give me on my questions and concerns. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Barbara Hooper
From:Barbara Hooper
To:Leslie Chan
Cc:Jennifer Woodworth; General Information
Subject:Re: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Date:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 5:43:45 PM
Hi Leslie-
Thanks for your time discussing the La Honda Open Space Red Barn access today. I was
happy to hear that significant traffic studies have been completed but I did not receive the
traffic documents with your e-mail. Perhaps, you can resend them to me.
I'll see you this evening at the meeting in La Honda.
Regards,
Barbara
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Leslie Chan wrote:
Hello Barbara,
Thank you for your time this afternoon. I am glad we had a chance to discuss your concerns about
the Red Barn project. I’m attaching the three traffic studies that have been conducted for this site.
As I mentioned on the phone, these 2007, 2016, and 2017 traffic studies were conducted to assess
the feasibility of providing access at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (2007) and the Red
Barn site specifically (2016, 2017) Please let me know if you have any questions about these. I
look forward to seeing you at the board meeting tonight.
Thank you again for your time and interest in this project.
Sincerely,
Leslie Chan
Leslie Chan
Planner II
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From: General Information
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 7:55 AM
To: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Re: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hi Barbara,
Thank you for your inquiry. Please allow me to reach out to our planners for the most up to date information on
this. You will be hearing from someone shortly!
If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.
Thank you,
Jordan McDaniel
Public Affairs Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485
www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd
From: Barbara Hooper
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 10:57 PM
To: General Information
Cc: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hello-
My husband, Terence Mahoney, and I are residents of La Honda and we're wondering if there are any updates or
changes that have been made to the Red Barn Public Access Area in the La Honda Creek Master Plan in response
to the public meeting that was held in La Honda on May 16 and feedback that you got from the online survey.
I looked on the MPOSD website in the La Honda Creek Master Plan pages but did not see any new information. I
know that there are some La Creek Preserve items on the Board of Directors agenda for the June 28 meeting but
there is no mention of the Red Barn Access.
I am particularly concerned about the driveway access point on Highway 84. Terence and I voiced our concerns in
the meeting at the District Office on May 9 and in the online survey. We believe that the proposed parking and
access will exacerbate existing traffic issues along Highway 84 which consists of traffic congestion on weekends
due to the ever increasing rise of accidents and fatalities incurred by motorcyclists, bicyclists, and out of town
motorists unfamiliar with the roads and hazards. Access by equestrian trailers would be an extreme traffic hazard.
Have traffic studies been taken into consideration in the planning of the Red Barn Access? If so, are they available
to the public? If not, I think it's imperative that traffic studies be done at various times of the week and year
(weekdays, weekends, holidays, etc.) to ensure that access is feasible and safe.
Terence and I are avid hikers and are thrilled to have access to all of the trails and areas that MidPen has provided
over the years. Thank you for any feedback you can give me on my questions and concerns. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Barbara Hooper
From:Pearson, Chris C.
To:Leslie Chan
Subject:LHCOS planning
Date:Monday, December 11, 2017 6:49:38 PM
Leslie, What is the status of the planning for access across the street from me? I keep thinking
about this, and still think that the plans that you showed me are a mistake, will cause problems, and
are not consistent with MROSD mission. I am tempted to write up my thoughts and
recommendations, but don’t want to waste my time if the district is on a ballistic trajectory. I
enjoyed talking with you, but was saddened to hear of the proposed changes to the character of this
iconic landmark that you showed me.
Also, -does Del Woods still work there? If so, could you send me his email address? Thanks, Chris
Chris Pearson
Pearson Land and Cattle Co.
La Honda, CA
From:Leslie Chan
To:"Pearson, Chris C."
Subject:RE: LHCOS planning
Date:Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:08:00 AM
Hello Chris,
Since our rounds of public meetings in May, we have been working to revise the concept design
options to respond to the comments we received. We have slowed down our original schedule by
several months in order consider and incorporate the feedback into the conceptual design.
We plan to have a new set of design concepts ready for review by our Planning and Natural
Resources Committee in the new year. This will most likely occur at the end of January or early
February. At that time, I will also be presenting a summary of the public feedback that I have
received about the initial concepts. I would certainly appreciate if you took the time to write up your
thoughts and recommendations for the project as we continue to consider the best way to
implement our mission at La Honda Creek OSP.
Del Woods no longer works at the District.
Please let me know if you have any other questions. I truly appreciate your perspective on this
project!
Sincerely,
Leslie Chan
Leslie Chan
Planner II
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From: Pearson, Chris C.
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 6:49 PM
To: Leslie Chan
Subject: LHCOS planning
Leslie, What is the status of the planning for access across the street from me? I keep thinking
about this, and still think that the plans that you showed me are a mistake, will cause problems, and
are not consistent with MROSD mission. I am tempted to write up my thoughts and
recommendations, but don’t want to waste my time if the district is on a ballistic trajectory. I
enjoyed talking with you, but was saddened to hear of the proposed changes to the character of this
iconic landmark that you showed me.
Also, -does Del Woods still work there? If so, could you send me his email address? Thanks, Chris
Chris Pearson
Pearson Land and Cattle Co.
La Honda, CA
Which
OVERALL
conceptual
design plan
do you
prefer?
Which
passenger
vehicle parking
lot design do
you prefer?
Which
equestrian
parking design
do you prefer?
Which vehicular
circulation pattern do
you prefer (clockwise
or counter-clockwise)?
Which restroom
location do you
prefer?
Which picnic
facility design do
you prefer?Please provide any additional comments on Alternative 1 Please provide any additional comments on Alternative 2 Zip Code
Would
you like
to be
added to
our La
Honda
Creek
email
list?
Would
you like
to be
added to
our La
Honda
Creek
email
list?Date Created
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 No preference Counter-clockwise (1)No preference Distributed (1)94065 No 2017-05-17 12:10:01
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Counter-clockwise (1)North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)
Overflow parking-- hopefully not on Highway 84. Wunderlich on weekends is a nightmare. Good location
for the restroom as prevailing winds (from the south and west will tend to keep porto-potty odors away
from picnic and parking areas. This is a problem in the newer parking lot on the south end of the El Corte
de Madera preserve. LifeFlight occasionally uses this site as a landing zone. Can anything be
accommodated?94062 No 2017-05-17 12:32:02
Alternative 1 No preference No preference No preference South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)
Will equestrians accessing the preserve on horseback (rather than in a trailer) by crossing 84 from Old La
Honda Road be able to access the trail head using the existing drive opposite Old La Honda road or will
they need to ride down 84 and into the parking lot? From a safety perspective minimizing the amount of
time for horse riders on La Honda Road/84 would be preferable 94062 Yes 2017-05-17 16:21:39
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Counter-clockwise (1)North of Parking (1)Centralized (2)94403 Yes 2017-05-17 16:22:50
No preference No preference No preference No preference North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)
The concept of providing parking and trail access is a good one. However, the location of this developed
area is disturbing. The scenic Hwy 84 corridor will be foevever ruined. Suggest that this entire area would
be best hidden behind the existing hillside, and could be accommodated by the current Ranger's
residence area. Better parking would be dispersed, with a more natural gravel driveway and parking
areas. Also, the existing road access route would still be used, with left turns prohibited from the south.
This traffic could continue to the old La Honda Rd. Turnout. Which would be much safer. No need for
special lanes to exit the highway, no visual changes would need to be made to the scenic corridor.. it
could remain one of the most iconic views in San Mateo Coumty!
Too developed for our rural area! A local adjacent homeowner for 35
years...94062 Yes 2017-05-17 19:10:58
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 No preference No preference Distributed (1)I like the idea of the distributed picnic areas.
I like the idea of more parking. Some places (ahem- Rancho!) have
limited parking and that makes it tough to enjoy the Open Space. 94020 No 2017-05-18 09:20:02
Alternative 1 No preference Alternative 1 No preference No preference Distributed (1)The equestrian pull in is easier than in Alt 2. With a long trailer I prefer that type of parking. 94037 No 2017-05-18 10:29:28
No preference Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No preference No preference No preference 94020 Yes 2017-05-18 10:37:44
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference
Neither Alternative is appealing because I don't think the new entrance driveway is acceptable. Unless
there are turn lanes, left & right, on the 84, there will be accidents. Also, I would relocate the parking
more northwesterly, using the existing roads that lead to the ranger house & existing structure. Move the
whole thing more northwest, away from the barn. Preserve the roadside pull over for tourist photos. The
white fence could be moved. Don't mean to be critical - you guys are awesome!
Consider the Red Barn site in the context of the whole La Honda
Creek Open Space. In particular, put the former Driscoll Ranch event
center, its size, and its equestrian history into the mix. Put all the
equestrian activities - and horse parking - there only. That'd give you
much more parking at the Red Barn site, which should be thought of
as the tourist spot. The event center is the horse spot, and the Sears
Ranch Road spot should include mountain bike access! Also, the
event center has lots of overflow parking space, but then only
hardcore hikers are likely to make it all the way to the Red Barn. Best
wishes! 94020 Yes 2017-05-18 10:45:13
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 No preference Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)94020 No 2017-05-18 11:44:34
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 No preference No preference No preference Distributed (1)94070 No 2017-05-18 11:54:26
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 No preference No preference No preference Centralized (2)94019 Yes 2017-05-18 13:12:56
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)95070 No 2017-05-18 14:12:13
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 No preference No preference Distributed (1)94020 Yes 2017-05-18 14:19:06
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference These maps are too small to see.These maps are too small to see.94062 Yes 2017-05-18 14:19:53
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 No preference Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)94020 No 2017-05-18 14:20:18
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference I have no preference in either direction. The whole thing is a terrible idea!I have no preference in either direction. The whole thing is a terrible 94020 No 2017-05-18 15:19:14
No preference Alternative 2 No preference Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)95014 Yes 2017-05-18 15:22:08
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)More parking is better.94020 No 2017-05-18 16:02:10
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Centralized (2)I would prefer the vehicular circulation pattern on "Alternative 1, 94020 Yes 2017-05-18 17:26:29
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Counter-clockwise (1)North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)94020 No 2017-05-18 20:00:29
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Counter-clockwise (1)North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)94020 Yes 2017-05-18 20:25:46
Alternative 1 No preference Alternative 1 No preference No preference Distributed (1)
Pull through parking for horse trailers is the only way to go for equestrians. It is a safety issue to be able
to unload/load horses with clear access to the rear of the trailer.
Very difficult for equestrians who are "backing challenged." Pull
through is so much easier and safer.94020 Yes 2017-05-18 23:04:24
No preference Alternative 2 No preference No preference No preference Distributed (1)No 2017-05-19 06:08:01
Alternative 1 No preference No preference Counter-clockwise (1)No preference Distributed (1)94061 Yes 2017-05-19 08:42:32
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference
These two alternatives have the same underlying problem. The proposed entrance from Highway 84 is in
between two 'blind' curves. Cars entering and exiting this proposed development will create a hazard to
highway users. Additionally, the development will negatively alter the serene looking area north of the
barn, where the parking and restroom locations are proposed. A safer entrance location and a more
remote parking/picnic area would be a much preferred alternative.
These two alternatives have the same underlying problem. The
proposed entrance from Highway 84 is in between two 'blind' curves.
Cars entering and exiting this proposed development will create a
hazard to highway users. Additionally, the development will
negatively alter the serene looking area north of the barn, where the
parking and restroom locations are proposed. A safer entrance
location and a more remote parking/picnic area would be a much
preferred alternative.94020 No 2017-05-19 14:04:47
No preference No preference Alternative 1 No preference South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)
Old La Honda Rd. is heavily used by cyclists, walkers, and equestrians. Is it possible to provide a safe
connecting trail for these users from the intersection of Old La Honda Rd & HWY 84 to the Red Barn
Public Access area. This is a short distance but travel along HWY 84 without shoulders is not safe.
Old La Honda Rd. is heavily used by cyclists, walkers, and equestrians.
Is it possible to provide a safe connecting trail for these users from
the intersection of Old La Honda Rd & HWY 84 to the Red Barn Public
Access area. This is a short distance but travel along HWY 84 without
shoulders is not safe. 94062 Yes 2017-05-19 15:06:02
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference
My "no preference" selection means I am against BOTH of the other selections. It does not mean I am ok
with either of them. Both plans are absolutely terrible. You say you will "Protect scenic views of and from
the site." ...and then propose a parking lot in full view? Are you serious? This "over-the-hill"
development needs to stay right there where you lot live... "over-the-hill". And having a major traffic
exit on that stretch of road is just plain dangerous and should be banned completely. Why not build your
"facilities" away from the road and have them hidden in the valley? What flatlander is making up these
poorly thought out proposals? You need to start practicing being a good neighbor. Ask for input BEFORE
laying out your final two options. Duh. 94062 No 2017-05-19 23:02:42
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference
my concern for either plan is how will you handle over flow parking? I think that in good weather this will
be a very popular park. I live west of the park and am concerned that weekend traffic will degrade. It is
already very dangerous as it is. 94040 No 2017-05-20 06:10:08
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Counter-clockwise (1)North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)94061 No 2017-05-20 10:03:31
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 No preference North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)
I'm sure you're already hearing lots of fussing from La Honda residents, or you will yet. I suppose you are
not surprised. My own take is that anxiety over the visual impact is overblown, that you'll do find with
that. The fear about coordinating with high-speed traffic through the area is genuine. I understand you've
had engineers look at this, and I don't know what else you can do about it, but I share some concerns
about crazy weekend race car and motorcycle behavior on the straight stretches of 84 that may turn out
to be a real problem with people entering the lanes and slowing to exit them. I also am concerned about
overflow parking on 84. But I sympathize with your having to meet demands for access and then facing
resistance to access. Thank you for your work.94020 Yes 2017-05-20 15:56:18
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 No preference No preference No preference Centralized (2)94061 No 2017-05-20 16:32:58
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No preference Counter-clockwise (1)South of Parking (2)Distributed (1)94020 Yes 2017-05-20 21:31:54
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 No preference No preference Distributed (1)94039 Yes 2017-05-21 09:24:14
No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference No preference
We are VERY concerned about both alternatives you have suggested. As La Honda residents, we believe
that both of these designs will exacerbate existing traffic issues along Highway 84 which consist of traffic
congestion on weekends, due to the ever increasing rise of accidents and fatalities incurred by
motorcycles, bicycles, and out of town motorists unfamiliar with the roads and hazards. Access by
equestrian trailers is an extreme traffic hazard even with the new suggested entrance location to the Red
Barn. In addition to these traffic considerations, we are concerned about the increased public access to
the Red Barn area. We believe that the parking lots and site improvements will take away the scenic rural
picturesque vista unique to this area. We are also concerned about the increased public use of the site
and how it may effect the bat rookery located in the Red Barn. The reason we did indicated " no
preference" to all of the questions in your survey is that we do not think either alternative is suitable for
the La Honda Open Space. We highly appreciate the restoration work that MidPen has done to renovate
the Red Barn and corral however we believe the soon to open La Honda Sears Ranch Road parking facility
and access is much better suited for equestrian and vehicular access. Access to the Red Barn area should
be limited to trail access from the Sears Ranch Road parking which would maintain the rural ambiance
and scenic value of the area. Thank you for requesting local feedback on the LH Open Space. We hope
you will reconsider and make changes based on community input. We look forward to hearing your
response. Regards, Barbara Hooper and Terry Mahoney 94020 Yes 2017-05-21 12:13:23
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 No preference North of Parking (1)Distributed (1)Much prefer he design with less asphalt yet more parking. Remove 94020 No 2017-05-21 21:48:26
Attachment 4: Consolidated Public Comments for the March 20, 2018 Planning & Natural Resources
Committee Meeting on the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan
Public Comments Received on March 20, 2018
Date Commenter General Comments
3/19/18 @
7:33 PM
Joseph Kral (email) Protecting the aesthetics of Red Barn; owl
habitat in barn; concerns regarding parking
lot location
3/19/18 @8:00
PM
Marcy Steiner (email) Concerns regarding parking and traffic
safety; protecting the views to Red Barn
3/19/18 @4:48
PM
Susan Shankle (email) Concerns regarding impacts to the view of
Red Barn; driveway location; public input
opportunities
3/19/18 @8:12
PM
Carole Corcoran Williams (email) Concerns regarding lack of public
notification; location of parking lot; bat
protection, accidents and speeding on
Highway 84
3/20/18
@12:37 AM
Lynnette Vega (email) Response to District’s earlier response;
inquiry about fatalities on highway;
protecting the landmark
Public Comments Received as of 6 PM on March 19, 2018
Date Commenter General Comments
3/14/18 Roy Truitt, Half Moon Bay Chamber
of Commerce (phone conversation –
see Memo to file)
Interest in barn sites for weddings and
corporate events; agree that original design
alternatives for parking lot (20-30 spaces)
would not be enough for event uses. Most
coastal parking lots are packed, where peak
season is June through October.
3/17/18 Lynnette Vega (email) Concerns regarding parking and traffic
safety; potential for more highway
accidents; protecting the aesthetics of Red
Barn
3/16/18 Barbara Hooper (email/voice mail) Turn lanes on to Highway 84; opportunity
for public comment at March 20, 2018 PNR
Committee meeting
3/19/18 Maryann Chwalek (email) Traffic and potential accidents on Highway
84 and impact to local community; loss of
views; Midpen’s contributions to La Honda
Fire Brigade
3/19/18 Kathryn Ryan (voice mail) Concerns and opposition to the Red Barn
public access design. Concerned about the
70 space parking lot because it will cause a
dangerous road condition and take away
from the rural character of the site.
Melissa Borgesi
Planning, Engineering & Construction
Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From:Melissa Borgesi
To:Jane Mark; Meredith Manning; Tina Hugg
Subject:FW: Proposed parking at the Red Barn
Date:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:59:10 AM
From: Joseph Kral
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:33 PM
To: Melissa Borgesi
Subject: Proposed parking at the Red Barn
Joseph Kral
La Honda, CA. 94020
Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Board of Directors
c/o Melissa Borgesi
Re: Red Barn Parking Plan
I feel that locating a parking lot at this location would be a tragic mistake.
I live in Cuesta La Honda and have lived here for the past 24 years. I was born in Redwood City and
have lived on the peninsula and in Santa Clara Valley all of my life. I have always been a huge
supporter of the Open Space District. But in this regard, I must take a stand.
The “Red Barn” is a San Mateo County iconic structure. It has been photographed and painted
countless times due to the extreme beauty of the location. I drive past the Barn almost daily and at
least a dozen times a year, there is a painter or photographer there working to create a work of art.
I’m sure there are many more that I don’t see. It would be absolutely tragic to locate a parking lot
right in front of it. Who wants a picture of a beautiful barn with a parking lot full of cars in the
foreground?
I understand that a review was done to determine an alternate location for a parking lot and no
other location was deemed suitable. I think the real reason is that other areas were determined to
be more expensive. That is not a good reason for locating the parking lot at this location.
This barn is also habitat for owls and locating a parking lot here would reduce/remove area where
Melissa Borgesi
Planning, Engineering & Construction
Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From:Melissa Borgesi
To:Jane Mark; Tina Hugg; Meredith Manning
Subject:FW: Parking Area Red Barn 84
Date:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:59:25 AM
From: Marcy Steiner
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:00 PM
To: Melissa Borgesi
Subject: Parking Area Red Barn 84
Dear Ms. Borgesi,
I am truly astounded that MROSD would consider a parking lot in the vicinity of the Red
Barn on Highway 84. (Please note that anyone that lives in this area will advise as to the
incredibly dangerous spot that has been designated.) Astounded also that any kind of
appropriate environmental planning or research has been involved in the development of this
plan. Was there an informational release sent out to the area to advise of this and seek any
input from those that live here? This particular spot is one of the most beautiful places that
one sees on a drive down 84. This should not change. This is an area that should be protected
for everyone.
MROSD's plan for a "parking lot" is not protecting our "open space" for future generations.
And this if funded how? What this is is entirely wrong, and I believe that the community
needs to be allowed a strong voice in this.
Thank you,
Marcy Steiner
La Honda, CA 94020
Melissa Borgesi
Planning, Engineering & Construction
Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From:Melissa Borgesi
To:Jane Mark; Tina Hugg; Meredith Manning
Subject:FW: Red Barn!
Date:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:58:20 AM
From: Susan Shankle
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 4:48 PM
To: Melissa Borgesi
Subject: Red Barn!
Hello Melissa,
I’m very concerned to hear that the new Hwy. 84 access plan will negatively affect the view of the Red
Barn because of the planned road alteration by MROSD.
More importantly, the location of the Red Barn entry/exit may increase the number of vehicle accidents
and collisions in the area.
This sounds like yet another Bay Area Public Access “improvement” that will improve nothing but cause
more problems. And one that seems to have been decided on before sufficient public input.
Please, at least postpone this final decision until more voices have been heard.
Thank you,
Susan Shankle
Citizen, Taxpayer, Business Owner and Voter
25-year resident of San Mateo
Lifetime Bay Area resident
From:Melissa Borgesi
To:Jane Mark; Tina Hugg; Meredith Manning
Subject:FW: Red Barn
Date:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:59:53 AM
Melissa Borgesi
Planning, Engineering & Construction
Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
-----Original Message-----
From: Carole Corcoran Williams
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:12 PM
To: Melissa Borgesi
Subject: Red Barn
Ms. Borgesi,
It has just been brought to my attention that a parking lot development is planned for the area locals lovingly refer to
as the red barn.
I am appalled that
1. No La Honda or Woodside residents have been notified.
2. The location of the parking structures will cause a huge roadside distraction causing MORE accidents on our road
3.There is no mention of the plan to protect the bats that use the barn as their home 4. The impact it will have on
the lives of the locals who use the roads daily for carpooling children, getting seniors to doctor appointments and
driving to work to name a few I am out of state and am unable to attend the meeting scheduled but please note this
email as an objection to your parking lot development siting the safety of the residents as the number 1 reason to
halt this plan.
I’ve lived In La Honda for 34 years. I have witnessed many accidents on highway 84. The worst accident I
witnessed was at the turn before the red barn where a man went flying over the road into the field below. He was
airlifted out.
The turn before the red barn is dangerous because people drive too fast and then hit the turn at an excess of speed
and lose control of their car. A parking lot with cars slowing down and/or stopping will only make this problem
much worse. Highway 84 is dangerous enough without the addition of this proposed parking lot. Please take into
consideration the residents of unincorporated La Honda and Woodside before you proceed with this plan.
Carole Corcoran Williams
La Honda
Sent from my iPhone
From:Lynnette Vega
To:Jane Mark
Subject:Re: Midpen Response, RE: Red Barn Public Access Project.
Date:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:37:07 AM
Dear Ms. Mark**
Thank you very much for your response to my letter.
I'm happy to see that there will be other opportunities for community input and that this is not a "done
deal". From several neighbors who have attended your past community meeting and who have provided
written input, I have heard the the MROSD alternative #3, which appears to be what you favor, is much
larger than anything that was presented previously. Indeed, when I heard about the scope of the project
(totaling 87 parking spaces), I was moved to write to MROSD.
I would be curious to know if MROSD has researched the fatalities and near fatalities in that particular
area and if the potential for more fatalities has been taken into consideration in the planning process.
Frankly, I think about heavy weekend traffic and people exiting your proposed parking lot and turning left
to head toward Skyline coupled with those coming from La Honda and entering the "straight-away". The
picture that I get is rather frightening.
I think that many of us here are appreciative of the beautiful open space area that MROSD created on
Sears Ranch Road. It's off the beaten path but accessible and is completely untouched by traffic
experienced on Hwy 84. It is my hope that in future discussions, MROSD might show the same
sensitivity toward toward those of us who live and drive here as well as to one of our most cherished
landmarks.
Lynnette Vega
-----Original Message-----
From: Jane Mark
Sent: Mar 19, 2018 10:08 PM
To: Lynnette Vega , Melissa Borgesi
Cc: Barbara Hooper , "jerryhillforsenate " , "Dentler, Joan" , Lennie Roberts
Subject: Midpen Response, RE: Red Barn Public Access Project.
March 19, 2018
Dear Ms. Vega:
Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments, which will be shared with Midpen’s
Board of Directors (Board). Please note that there will be other near future opportunities to
provide input, including additional Board workshops and a local neighborhood meeting this
summer.
In 2014, the voters passed Measure AA, and opening La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
(Preserve) to the public was one of the top public access priorities. Since then, Midpen has
been actively working on several projects in this Preserve. This past fall, the Sears Ranch
parking area opened in the northern area, and the Red Barn parking area is anticipated to
open the central section of this large Preserve to the public. Because of the Preserve and
location’s rural character and visual, scenic and cultural resources, Midpen is carefully
considering measures to protect these resources as much as possible for all conceptual
design alternatives.
Reviewing the alternatives is an iterative process that solicits and considers input from
residents, neighbors, visitors and the overall community. Also considered is feedback from
the Board Committee (Planning & Natural Resources Committee) and the full
Board. Regarding your concern about Midpen outreach to and soliciting input from the
community, please note that in 2017 the following meetings were held to solicit public input.
Several more public meetings are planned, which are additional opportunities for the public
to provide comment.
Prior Public Meetings
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· May 9, 2017 Planning and Natural Resources Committee in
Los Altos (Midpen Administrative Office)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· May 16, 2017 Community Open House at La Honda
Elementary School
Upcoming Public Meetings
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· March 20, 2018 Planning and Natural Resources Committee
in Los Altos (Midpen Administrative Office)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· June 2018 (Date TBD) – Board of Directors Meeting/
Community Open House at La Honda Elementary School
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· Summer 2018 (Date TBD) – Board of Directors Meeting
Midpen must provide adequate and safe public access to the Red Barn area. The proposed
driveway location is a result of the findings from three independent traffic studies (2007,
2016, and 2017), identifying this location as meeting Caltrans’ required lines of sight. The
design of the driveway including any signage would be coordinated with Caltrans during
future phases of the project.
If you would like to continue this discussion, please contact me at (650) 691-1200, or via
email at . Thank you for sending in your comments and questions.
Sincerely,
Jane Mark, AICP
Planning Manager
From: Lynnette Vega
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:09 AM
To: Melissa Borgesi ; Jane Mark
Cc: Barbara Hooper ; jerryhillforsenate ; Dentler,
Melissa Borgesi
Planning, Engineering & Construction
Administrative Assistant
Joan ; Lennie Roberts
Subject: Re. Red Barn Public Access Project.
Dear Ms. Borgesi**
I'm appalled that MROSD (Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District) is seriously
considering putting a parking area along Highway 84 -- and not just any parking area,
but one that could potentially accommodate up to 70 cars, vans and motorcycles,
without first actively soliciting input from the very people who live here and travel
these roads every day. The beauty of the Red Barn is that it hasn't become a "site" and
something like this and the wild extent of this plan, will definitely ruin the peaceful
ambiance of the place. For those of us who live here, another important concern is the
potential for more highway accidents. Having the entrance/exit for the parking lot
right after a major turn is a prescription for accidents -- which already happen with
alarming regularity around here.
I have lived in La Honda since 1969 and have passed that "red barn" thousands of
times. When I've been away, it's been a welcome marker that tells me I'm almost
home. And, when I'm coming home from work and get to that spot in the road, I know
that I'm just minutes away from La Honda's downtown. Somethings in this world do
not need to be improved upon and this is one. Please consider having the continuation
of the La Honda Preserve trail find its completion somewhere else and leave this one
cherished iconic site alone.
Lynnette Vega
La Honda, CA 94020
From:General Information
To:Jane Mark; Leslie Chan; Matthew Chaney
Subject:Fw: La Honda Creek OSP, Red Barn access meeting feedback
Date:Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:13:51 AM
Attachments:LHOSP Red Barn Access Feedback KL1.pdf
Good morning Jane, Leslie, Matt:
Please see feedback below from Karl Lusebrink regarding the PNR meeting on 3/20/18.
Thank you,
Jordan McDaniel
Public Affairs Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485
www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd
From: Karl Lusebrink
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:36 PM
To: General Information
Subject: La Honda Creek OSP, Red Barn access meeting feedback
Thank you for inviting the public to the Board meeting yesterday about the latest plans for access to LHCOSP at the
Red Barn. I thought the Planning manager Jane Marsh and the MIG engineer Mark Brandy did a particularly good job
of laying out the particulars. The questions from the three Board Directors present and the public were also
insightful.
After the meeting, I spoke to Mark Brandy and a member of MROSD Resource Management team who had
presented info about the pallid bats in the barn. The feedback I'm sending today is relevant to the work they do, so I
hope you will forward it to them and to the Planning Manager, Jane.
I'm including a PDF made from an image of the map of Alternative 3, Phase 1 plans copied from a handout at the
meeting. The image is marked up with text explaining my suggested minor modifications to the plan. In addition to
preserving bucolic scenic views, protecting the wildlife that inhabit the site is especially important to me. Sediment-
laden run-off into Weeks Creek could harm the fish spawning in La Honda Creek. The pallid bats roosting in the barn
should not be frightened away by the sounds of construction and visitors. These are some of the issues addressed
by my suggestions on the attached PDF.
Again, thanks for the opportunity for input to this important project, and I look forward to the next meeting.
Karl Lusebrink
La Honda
From:Ben Long
To:Melissa Borgesi
Subject:Red Barn
Date:Thursday, March 22, 2018 6:47:10 AM
Hello Ms Borgesi,
I believe you are extremely mistaken if you think it's appropriate to build a parking area
around the Red Barn. Not only would you destroy the beauty of the photogenic structure but
you would also bring danger to the area. Open Space already encourages more traffic on 84,
bringing more traffic will just mean more tourists will inevitably die on 84. They just can't
drive, I bet you're one of them.
Also, maybe you should reconsonsider your whole career. Open Space is a manipulative group
that doesn't understand land maintenance. Your properties are over grown and a fire hazard.
The land is purchased by Open Space and then our schools lose out on the taxes that were paid
on these huge properties.
So please don't ruin the beauty of the Red Barn and go find a real career. FUCK OPEN
SPACE.
Thanks
-Ben Long
Leslie Chan
Leslie Chan
Planner II
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
From: General Information
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 7:55 AM
To: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Re: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hi Barbara,
Thank you for your inquiry. Please allow me to reach out to our planners for the most up to date information on
this. You will be hearing from someone shortly!
If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.
Thank you,
Jordan McDaniel
Public Affairs Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485
www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd
From: Barbara Hooper
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 10:57 PM
To: General Information
Cc: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hello-
My husband, Terence Mahoney, and I are residents of La Honda and we're wondering if there are any updates or
changes that have been made to the Red Barn Public Access Area in the La Honda Creek Master Plan in response to
the public meeting that was held in La Honda on May 16 and feedback that you got from the online survey.
I looked on the MPOSD website in the La Honda Creek Master Plan pages but did not see any new information. I
know that there are some La Creek Preserve items on the Board of Directors agenda for the June 28 meeting but
there is no mention of the Red Barn Access.
I am particularly concerned about the driveway access point on Highway 84. Terence and I voiced our concerns in
the meeting at the District Office on May 9 and in the online survey. We believe that the proposed parking and
access will exacerbate existing traffic issues along Highway 84 which consists of traffic congestion on weekends due
to the ever increasing rise of accidents and fatalities incurred by motorcyclists, bicyclists, and out of town motorists
unfamiliar with the roads and hazards. Access by equestrian trailers would be an extreme traffic hazard.
Have traffic studies been taken into consideration in the planning of the Red Barn Access? If so, are they available to
the public? If not, I think it's imperative that traffic studies be done at various times of the week and year
(weekdays, weekends, holidays, etc.) to ensure that access is feasible and safe.
Terence and I are avid hikers and are thrilled to have access to all of the trails and areas that MidPen has provided
over the years. Thank you for any feedback you can give me on my questions and concerns. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Barbara Hooper
From:Jane Mark
To:Barbara Hooper
Subject:FW: Follow-up on Tuesday meeting - Red Barn Access proposal
Date:Wednesday, April 4, 2018 4:55:00 PM
Attachments:La Honda Open Space Access Traffic Analysis (4-26-07) Hexagon.pdf
2016.08.10Hexagon Red Barn Memo.pdf
Red Barn Transportation Memo 2-3-2017.pdf
Dear Barbara:
Thank you for attending the March 20th Planning and Natural Resources Committee meeting for an
update on the Red Barn Site Plan Design Alternatives. Appreciate you taking time and driving to Los
Altos for the Committee meeting at the Midpen administrative office. I apologize for the delay in
responding, as I was out for a few days for a conference and our Project Manager Leslie Chan is
currently out on temporary leave.
Regarding the attached traffic analysis reports completed by Hexagon (4/26/07, 8/10/16) and W-
Trans (2/3/17), these technical reports are public records and can be shared with others. As
discussed at the March 20th Committee meeting, Midpen will be evaluating traffic as one of the
environmental factors during the environmental review process to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The La Honda residents and community will continue to have
opportunity to provide input on the traffic evaluation and findings for the proposed Red Barn Site
Plan project. The project timeline and process that we presented to the Committee and public
identified multiple opportunities for public engagement and input. However, there may be
additional meetings scheduled with the Board as new information is developed.
Please be sure to check our project webpage for the latest information on upcoming meetings and
presentations, in case dates change.
https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/la-honda-creek-master-plan#redbarn
If you have additional questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jane
From: Barbara Hooper
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:59 AM
To: Jane Mark
Cc: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Follow-up on Tuesday meeting - Red Barn Access proposal
Jane-
It was nice to meet you on Tuesday at the MROSD Planning and Natural Resources
Committee Meeting. I appreciated having the opportunity to share my thoughts about the
proposal at the meeting with Board members and those in attendance. And, it was nice to chat
Thank you for your inquiry. Please allow me to reach out to our planners for the most up to date information on
this. You will be hearing from someone shortly!
If you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.
Thank you,
Jordan McDaniel
Public Affairs Administrative Assistant
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485
www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd
From: Barbara Hooper
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 10:57 PM
To: General Information
Cc: Barbara Hooper
Subject: Questions... La Honda Creek Master Plan - Red Barn Public Access Area
Hello-
My husband, Terence Mahoney, and I are residents of La Honda and we're wondering if there are any updates or
changes that have been made to the Red Barn Public Access Area in the La Honda Creek Master Plan in response to
the public meeting that was held in La Honda on May 16 and feedback that you got from the online survey.
I looked on the MPOSD website in the La Honda Creek Master Plan pages but did not see any new information. I
know that there are some La Creek Preserve items on the Board of Directors agenda for the June 28 meeting but
there is no mention of the Red Barn Access.
I am particularly concerned about the driveway access point on Highway 84. Terence and I voiced our concerns in
the meeting at the District Office on May 9 and in the online survey. We believe that the proposed parking and
access will exacerbate existing traffic issues along Highway 84 which consists of traffic congestion on weekends due
to the ever increasing rise of accidents and fatalities incurred by motorcyclists, bicyclists, and out of town motorists
unfamiliar with the roads and hazards. Access by equestrian trailers would be an extreme traffic hazard.
Have traffic studies been taken into consideration in the planning of the Red Barn Access? If so, are they available to
the public? If not, I think it's imperative that traffic studies be done at various times of the week and year
(weekdays, weekends, holidays, etc.) to ensure that access is feasible and safe.
Terence and I are avid hikers and are thrilled to have access to all of the trails and areas that MidPen has provided
over the years. Thank you for any feedback you can give me on my questions and concerns. I look forward to
hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Barbara Hooper
From:Barbara Hooper
To:Jane Mark; General Information
Cc:Barbara Hooper; Leslie Chan
Subject:Follow-up comments - MROSD–Planning and Natural Resources Committee-Red Barn Access Meeting-March 20,
2018
Date:Saturday, April 7, 2018 6:12:59 PM
Dear Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Representatives-
Thank you for the invitation to attend the MROSD – Planning and Natural Resources Committee - Red Barn
Access Meeting on March 20, 2018. I appreciated having the opportunity to share my comments on the Alternative
3 - Red Barn Access proposal. The following includes my concerns about increased traffic that I shared in the 3
minutes I was given to speak at the meeting, as well as, other comments and suggestions that I didn't have time to
include.
I have been aware of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (LHCOSP) project in recent years, voted for Bond
Measure AA, and have attended meetings for this project, sent e-mail comments, and responded to the May
2017 survey. I understand that the Red Barn Access is the intended “gateway” for LHCOSP. However, I always
envisioned that MROSD would preserve the historic Red Barn with a more subtle entry for access and parking
which did not increase the potential for more fatalities on SR84 or obstruct the current scenic view.
1) Thank you to MROSD for the...
a) Increased access you have given the public in the Bay Area to hiking trails and beautiful scenery. I have
already been enjoying La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve area from Sears Ranch Road access.
b) Preservation of the Red Barn building. Without the MROSD, the barn may not have been maintained in
recent years.
c) Invitation to the March 20th meeting and other MROSD meetings, and for encouraging public input on the
MROSD projects.
2) Red Barn Access – Alternative 3 – positive aspects
a) MROSD effort to purchase nearby property, which was declined.
b) Removal of horse trailer parking from RB and relocation to Driscoll event area.
c) Addition of motorcycle parking.
d) Research of the bat populations' needs in the RB.
3) Red Barn Access – Alternative 3 - questions and concerns
a) notes from the W-Trans traffic study – February 3, 2017
-The collision rate and injury rates on the SR 84 segment along the project frontage are higher than the
statewide average for similar facilities.
-Primary collision factors include: 1. Improper turning. 2. Driving under the influence. 3. Unsafe speeds. 4.
Improper passing; although passing is prohibited on this section of SR 84.
-The proposed project driveway, 55 feet west of the existing driveway, satisfies the minimum stopping sight
distance required based on the design speed in both directions.
As I drive east on SR84 daily, it is very surprising to me that the "minimum stopping sight distance
required" (noted above) is accurate for traffic coming from the west and turning left into the proposed
Red Barn driveway.
b) notes from the Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. traffic study –August 10, 2016
-Project Trip Generation – page 7 - When added to the existing traffic on La Honda Road, the total daily
volume would be about 2,866 vehicles on weekdays and 5,730 vehicles on weekends. These totals are
substantially below the roadway capacity of 12,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, there would be no
measurable traffic impact to La Honda Road due to the parking lot.
As a frequent driver on SR84, it is hard to believe that 12,000 vehicles per day on the roadway in front
of the Red Barn would be safe.
c) Photo images in W-Trans–Attachment B and Hexagon–page 6 illuminate my
concerns about the SR84 road conditions with increased traffic and the driveway and parking
locations in the RB exit/entrance proposal.
d) What types of vehicles are counted in the traffic studies? ie: cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc.
e) SR84 is a San Mateo County “designated Scenic Corridor”
-How scenic would the RB area be with a paved parking lot (for 50 to 70 cars, etc.)?
f) Red Barn bat population could be affected if people were closer to breeding location.
g) Possible increase in Red Barn vandalism if the public has easier access.
4) Suggestions and Alternatives
a) Other locations for increased parking:
i) Driscoll event location
ii) Additional parking added to Sears Ranch Road access
b) Alternative “gateway” entrance to LHCOSP
i) Utilize Driscoll location
ii) Purchase another access “gateway” property
(1) Two houses are for sale now that back-up to LHCOSP
(a) 10707 La Honda Road
(b) 10691 La Honda Road
c) Limit access close to the Red Barn
i) MROSD docent-led tours
ii) Specific “hours” of operation
iii) Shuttles to area
iv) Reservation only policy for a small, 'hidden' parking area near the Red Barn (ie: near the ranger's
house) as is required at LHOCP Allen Road access point
Thank you for listening to my concerns about the proposed Red Barn Access - Alternative 3. I would encourage
MROSD Board Members and Planners to come visit me in the La Honda area on a weekend to experience the
sights and sounds of living “over the hill” which, unfortunately, often include sirens, emergency vehicles, and
helicopters that are sent to rescue people injured in car, motorcycle, and bicycle accidents. Or, I’d be happy to
meet MROSD members at the Red Barn pull-off on a sunny weekend day to observe the beautiful vistas and
typical weekend traffic patterns. Spending time in our area may give MROSD a better perspective about how the
LHCOSP access affects the local community.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hooper
La Honda resident
Lifelong San Mateo County citizen
From:patty mayall
To:Melissa Borgesi
Subject:Red Barn Public Access Area Draft Alternative #3
Date:Friday, April 27, 2018 6:00:18 PM
To the MROSD Board of Directors and Ms. Borgesi,
As residents on Old La Honda Road since 1989, my husband and I are grateful neighbors of the beautiful La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. I am writing today as a neighbor, on behalf of my husband, and in opposition
to the Draft Conceptual Design Alternative #3 for many reasons. I was active in the campaign for the MROSD
expanding to the coast when I was the SkyLonda Area Assoc. president, and my picture and quote of
endorsement was in the campaign literature. I also spoke at the hearings and endured the hostility of some of the
locals at that time, so I consider myself a pretty good and loyal neighbor of the MROSD ! We deeply appreciate
the work and presence of the District rangers and the stewardship of these most valuable natural areas
surrounding our communities.
Regarding the proposed plan for the Red Barn area, I hope that you will consider our valid and significant
concerns with ALL the impacts on local residents' lives, our watershed, wildlife, and already dangerous traffic
conditions on weekends when most people will be going to this site. Years ago, when access was first
contemplated at the driveway across from Old La Honda Rd., we were most grateful that the plan did not go
forward. With my comments to the Board then, I provided Calif. Highway Patrol records of the significant number
of accidents on 84 there, most due to excessive car speeds. Unfortunately, the accidents have increased in
frequency and severity all along Hwy. 84 since then, as you might know. "Racers" now frequent this area,
at night and during the day, and our community is desperately trying to address this life-threatening
issue.
My concerns go back many years ago when MROSD first proposed changes to this amazing natural area which
had been designated as a MROSD PRESERVE. Reintroducing cattle impacts La Honda Creek and surrounding
creeks which can potentially risk the health of residents' water sources, native plants, soils, wildlife, and sensitive
ecosystems. Opening the area to many cars, many more people, horses, and invasive plants will pollute
this "Preserve" beyond any mitigation measures. As we know, MROSD works on reducing invasive plants,
often using toxic herbicides. The best "defense" is prevention first. Yet, this plan invites that problem, along with
the toxic pollution of runoff from cars which cannot be fully controlled, despite mitigating measures.
No matter how the driveway is designed from Hwy. 84, it will NOT control the excessive SPEED of people
intentionally racing on this road. That section of 84 is winding and sloping despite the "line of site" measures.
A speeding car, traveling west on 84 is going downhill and would not be able to stop for a car slowly pulling out
from the site's driveway. Fatal and serious accidents are happening every week, especially on weekends. A local
sheriff once told me that the majority of accidents happen from 4pm to 7 pm in our area, which coincides with
when most visitors might be leaving the site. Additionally, bicyclists and motorcyclists are at risk, as this area is
the destination for MANY of them on the weekends.
Hwy. 84 is considered one of the MOST dangerous highways in our state, as determined by the California
Highway Patrol many years ago, BEFORE the racing craze that we have been living with for the past few years
and which seems to be uncontrollable by the CHP, despite the sharp increase of horrible accidents and deaths.
As people who live here, we know of these traffic nightmares, yet many visiting the area do NOT. Those of us
living here do not have a choice with using this road which is our main connection to our homes. Yet, you have a
choice in this matter.
Please place the information center and parking at the much safer existing access site in La Honda on
Sears Ranch Rd., and leave the Red Barn area as is.
I urge the MROSD Board of Directors to obtain and consider the CHP records of accidents over the past 2
years on Hwy. 84, west of Hwy. 35 to La Honda BEFORE moving forward on this proposed plan. For your
own sake, and for ours-- residents who must use these roads-- please prioritize the serious and uncontrollable
traffic impacts of this plan.
Will you obtain those records and address this issue at a future hearing on this matter ?
Please choose the much safer existing public access in La Honda.
With that choice, you will be protecting people's lives instead of endangering them on 84. You will be protecting
the scenic value of the Red Barn area and the most valued watershed and ecosystem of the La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve.
With gratitude for your attention and for addressing our concerns,
Patty Mayall
Resident, Old La Honda Rd., La Honda, Ca.
From:David Schorr
To:Melissa Borgesi
Subject:Red Barn Access Area
Date:Tuesday, May 1, 2018 5:13:34 PM
Can’t make it to the meeting. Please enter the following as public comment:
70 parking spaces is WAY too big. Allow access, don’t encourage it to that extent. A large patch of
pavement is completely inappropriate for this rural location. Maybe 20-25 spaces, max. And, hide it
down the hill, etc. – must not be visible from the road.
And use better pain on the red barn next time - it no longer looks red.
Dave Schorr
La Honda
From:
To:Melissa Borgesi
Subject:Red Barn access
Date:Friday, May 4, 2018 12:32:42 PM
Dear Ms. Borgesi**
For a number of reasons, I would strongly suggest that MROSD consider another parking area other than
the Red Barn and Alternative 3.2. That part of La Honda road is extremely dangerous and there have
been a number of serious accidents near that location in the past years. Having people entering or exiting
the proposed parking area, especially on weekends during summer is, for many of us locals, a
prescription for disaster. Our hope is that you might consider either enlarging the Sears Ranch Road
parking area or Driscoll Ranch as an alternative to current plans -- both are MROSD sites and less
dangerous in terms of traffic.
Lynnette Vega.
Attachment 6: Conceptual Design Alternatives Comparison
Conceptual
Design
Alternative
Driveway
visible from
Hwy 84
Proposed use
of foreground
area by barn
Number of
equestrian
trailer
spaces
Potential traffic
impact from
equestrian
trailers
Number of
passenger
vehicle
spaces
Alt 1 Yes Equestrian
trailer parking
3* Yes 25
Alt 2 Yes Equestrian
trailer parking
3* Yes 30
Alt 3 Yes Picnic and
informal
visitor use
0** No 50
Alt 3 with
Phase 2
Yes Picnic and
informal
visitor use
0**
No 75
*Currently the Event Center location accommodates (by permit only) approximately four (4) trucks and
trailers depending on the configuration and length of the trailer. The revised number of four (4) equestrian
parking spaces is a correction to the five (5) spaces previously included in the March 20, 2018 Planning &
Natural Resources Committee report, to be consistent with San Mateo County permit.
**In future site planning, which would take into account other potential uses of the Event Center
property, the maximum number of truck and trailers would be analyzed with the goal of providing at least
five (5+) or more equestrian spaces and include necessary approvals to remove permit system.
R-18-46
Meeting 18-17
May 9, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Acceptance of the Final Report for the Docent & Volunteer Program Structure Study
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept the Final Report for the Docent and Volunteer Program Structure Study.
SUMMARY
The Board of Directors (Board) reviewed a draft of the Docent and Volunteer Program Structure
Study R eport at a study session on October 11, 2017 (R-17-113). Following this meeting, staff
worked closely with the consultant, Conservation by Design, to revise the Report and
recommendations based on input received from the Board, volunteers, and docents. The
resulting Final Report is now before the Board for acceptance. The Final Report presents a
variety of recommendations to consider in further supporting and enhancing the Volunteer and
Docent Programs. The Acting General Manager working closely with staff will evaluate each
recommendation carefully to identify those that are most appropriate for the agency based on fit,
organizational culture, priorities, funding, staffing capacity, and Board goals. The Board will
consider implementation of selected recommendations as part of future Capital Improvement and
Action Plans, and Budgets. One of the first proposed implementation actions is the addition of a
new position in the Docent Program that will focus on interpretation/education. Funding for this
position is included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget, which the full Board will first
review in May and consider approval for in June.
DISCUSSION
Project Background
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17, a key project was included in the Action Plan for the Visitor
Services Department to Ensure that the Docent and Volunteer programs are structured to
provide the highest quality services to internal and external customers and enhance public
outreach.
On October 2016, staff published a Request for Proposals to solicit services from expert firms in
the field to assist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) with this work. Three
proposals were received, and the General Manager entered into a contract with Conservation by
Design on January 2017 for an amount not-to-exceed $32,200.
As part of the research phase, Conservation by Design gathered information about Midpen and
our volunteers, docents, and staff, as well as other agencies and organizations, and conducted a
two-week site visit. Other specific actions included:
R-18-46 Page 2
1. Extensive review of documentation provided by the Docent and Volunteer Program
Managers about each program.
2. Survey of former and current docents and volunteers.
3. Thirteen (13) interviews with management, staff, docents and volunteers, and a non-profit
partner agency.
4. Two (2) focus group meetings with docents and volunteers (to facilitate open conversations
with the consultants, staff were not present at these meetings).
5. Tours of Midpen preserves and attendance at a docent-led walk.
6. Review of response cards provided by program participants.
7. Meeting with the Board’s Diversity Ad Hoc Committee on March 8, 2017 to gather input
from the committee on diversity goals and priorities.
In addition to gathering internal information, the consultants also interviewed 13 natural
resource-based agencies and organizations known to have well run and well respected volunteer
programs. The consultants collected information on trends and best practices, which are
included in the Report.
In March 2017, the consultants presented staff with their draft initial findings. Staff provided
early input to help guide the consultants as they developed useful information and identified
specific program enhancements.
In May 2017, the consultants provided a draft initial report that was extensively reviewed with
the involvement of former Assistant General Manager Woodhouse. In July 2017, the consultants
submitted a revised draft with responses to the feedback received from staff.
In October 2017, the Board reviewed the draft report at a well-attended study session that
included staff, docents, and volunteers (see report R-17-113). At the meeting, concerns were
raised about a perceived loss of creativity and flexibility for docents to design and lead programs.
The Board also received comments expressing strong support for the staff who manage the
docent and volunteer programs, and an acknowledgement that staff resources are stretched thin.
Following the Board study session, Assistant General Manager (now Acting General Manager)
Ana Ruiz and other staff hosted a meeting with docents and volunteers on November 17, 2017 to
gather more feedback. Everyone who spoke at the Board study session was personally invited by
telephone, and email invitations for this meeting were sent out to all docents and volunteers.
Between December and February, a team of staff, which included the Docent and Volunteer
Program Managers, completed an extensive review of the draft report to evaluate carefully the
concerns and areas of agreement raised by docents, volunteers, and the Board. Staff provided the
consultant with this feedback along with substantial edits to the Report in February 2018 to
arrive at the Final Report.
Notable edits to the Final Report include:
• Clarifying the value and intent of promoting creativity and flexibility for docent-led
programs (Pages 10, 25).
• Demonstrating how programs can embed specific centralized themes or key messages
that are important to relay to the public while retaining docent creativity and spontaneity
in program development and delivery (Page 5 and Recommendation 7).
R-18-46 Page 3
• Providing new docents with pre-developed program outlines and activities as models to
reference successful examples, and providing experienced docents the opportunity to
develop their own creative programs (Recommendation 8).
• Monitoring the success of the programs and receiving feedback to help expand upon what
is working well and make adjustments to what may need attention via a multi-prong
approach: participant feedback, self-evaluation, and periodic staff observations, and to
consider the benefits of a peer mentorship program (Recommendations 8, 12, 20, 30, 43).
Staff also identified specific edits to the Report regarding tone and language to clarify and
accurately reflect the context and intent of the recommendations, and address issues raised
regarding information about diversity, outreach, training, and performance feedback. In
addition, the Report more clearly states that the recommendations are offered as best professional
practices, approaches, and enhancements to further agency goals around outreach, engagement,
and education. Moreover, the Final Report clearly explains that Midpen will evaluate the
suitability of each recommendation to determine which to pursue based on agency values,
organizational culture, funding, and priorities.
Report Findings and Recommendations
Overall, the Study and Report finds that Midpen’s Docent and Volunteer Programs are some of
the best run programs in the field and highly valued by both docents, volunteers, and the public
who engage in the activities. Consistent with the Board-approved Strategic Goals, Vision Plan,
and Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM), the Report identifies a variety of
recommendations to help expand upon the beneficial impact that these programs provide. These
recommendations keep in mind Midpen goals in reaching out to diverse communities, enhancing
the visitor experience, and improving overall operational efficiencies.
In total, the Report provides 43 recommendations (refer to Appendix B, page 43 for a summary).
The consultants believe that a key consideration for enhancing Midpen communications is the
development of a unified communications plan to increase coordination between departments
that engage in external communications. One component would be the development of a
comprehensive, long-range, Interpretive Master Plan.
The Report also recommends developing centralized themes that can be woven into docent-led
activities to help convey important key messages for the agency while still retaining program
creativity and flexibility, two characteristics that are important to the success of the Docent
Program. For example, during a drought when the agency may want to raise awareness around
water conservation and water protection, a docent-led activity that is focused on amphibians
could include information about the role of water in the life cycle of amphibians, and the role of
Midpen in protecting water resources that are critical to amphibian survival.
The Report further recommends enhancing how Midpen tracks and measures the effectiveness
and success of each program. Currently, staff measure aspects such as the number of volunteer
hours and the number of participants in docent hikes. Additional measurements may be added to
track how effective the programs are in reaching their goals, such as measuring how well the
messages are understood and retained by docent activity participants.
R-18-46 Page 4
Additional staffing is also a recommendation in the Report to further support the Docent and
Volunteer programs, as well as provide increased capacity for program growth and development,
and expand administrative and training support. The additional staffing would allow Midpen to
scale up to meet the growing public interest and demand in docent and volunteer programs, and
continue its success in providing these programs to the community.
Furthermore, the Report recommends clarifying roles between the docent and volunteer
programs, as well as between the Visitor Services and Public Affairs departments. Examples
include enhanced coordination of administrative functions between the programs, and improved
coordination when developing overall interpretive themes and messages.
FISCAL IMPACT
Sufficient funds for this project were included in both the FY2016-17 and FY2017-18 Budgets.
No additional funding is required for the current fiscal year. The Board will consider approving
the implementation of recommendations with fiscal implications as part of future fiscal year
budgets. The upcoming proposed FY2018-19 Budget includes approximately $50,196 (based on
a mid fiscal year date of hire) for a new position focused on interpretation/education, which the
Board will review in May and consider approval in June.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The consultants met with the Board’s Diversity Ad Hoc Committee on March 8, 2017 to receive
input on the Board’s diversity goals. The full Board of Directors received a review of the draft
Report at a study session on October 11, 2017, at which time individual Board members
provided their input.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Docents and Volunteers received
notifications of both the availability of the Final Report for review and of this Agenda Item via
email on April 30, 2018.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Pending Board acceptance of the Report, the Acting General Manager will work closely with
staff to carefully evaluate the recommendations and identify those that are most appropriate for
the agency based on fit, organizational culture, priorities, funding, staffing capacity, and Board
goals. Staff will program the selected recommendations into a phased implementation plan for
inclusion into future proposed Capital Improvement and Action Plans, and Budgets, for Board
review and approval.
Attachment:
1. Docent & Volunteer Programs Structure Study – Final Report
R-18-46 Page 5
Responsible Department Head:
Matt Anderson, Visitor Services Department
Prepared by:
Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst II, Visitor Services Department
Docent & Volunteer
Programs Structure Study
Final Report
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
May 2018
Attachment 1
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______________________________________________________________ 4
Drivers Behind This Study, 4
Preparing for the Future, 4
Two Recommended Systems Improvements, 5
Summary of Key Recommendations, 5
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT ____________________________________________________ 9
Visitor Ser vices Department, 10
OUR PROCESS _____________________________________________________________________ 11
Phase One, 11
Phase Two, 11
Phase Three, 12
KEY FINDINGS AFFECTING THE LONG-TERM GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE VOLUNTEER AND
DOCENT PROGRAMS _______________________________________________________________ 13
A VISION FOR THE INTERPRETATION & EDUCATION AND VOLUNTEER STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS ___ 14
Interpretive Communications are Organized and Coordinated, 14
Volunteerism Keeps Pace with Demand, 14
Program, Operational Standards Are High, 15
Communities Care for the Land, 15
Visitors and Volunteers Understand and Connect to the Mission, 15
Feedback and Coordination Ensure Ongoing Excellence, 16
The District Reflects Its Citizenry, 16
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION ______________________________________________ 17
Updating Program Identities, 17
Interpretation as a Management Tool, 18
What is Interpretation, and Why Use It?, 19
Does Interpretation Work?, 19
Case Studies, 21
Defining Success, 22
Consistent Branding, Communication, Collaboration, 22
Interpretation & Education Program, 24
Leveraging Docent Power, 24
Docent Training, 25
Educational Programming, 27
Volunteer Stewardship Program, 28
How to Decide Which Specialist Position to Fill First, 28
Trail Work, 228
Preserve Partner Activities, 29
Attachment 1
3
Table of Contents
Volunteer Recruitment and Job-Matching, 29
VolS and I&E Training, Support, and Quality Control, 30
Project Management and Succession Planning, 31
Community Outreach, 31
The Visitor Experience, 31
Interpretive Signs, 32
Visitor Contact, 32
Visitor Feedback, 32
Diversity Outreach, 33
Partnerships for Diversity, 35
Rangers as Role Models and Interpreters, 35
Social Media and Smartphone Apps, 36
IMPLEMENTATION _________________________________________________________________ 37
Phase I, 38
Phase II, 40
Phase III, 41
APPENDICES ______________________________________________________________________ 42
Appendix A: Acknowledgements, 42
Appendix B: List of Recommendations, 43
Appendix C: Organizations Inter viewed, 50
Appendix D: The Growing Need for Visitor Services, 53
Appendix E: Bibliography, 56
Appendix F: Resources and Recommended Reading for Interpreters and Volunteer Managers, 57
Appendix G: Glossary of Interpretive Terms, 60
Appendix H: Regional Trends in Volunteer Management, 63
Appendix I: Recommendations by Category, 65
Appendix J: Existing Docent and Volunteer Programs, 67
Attachment 1
4
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study is to assist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District management
with evaluating the current and potential future roles, structure, and operations of the Docent
and Volunteer programs. This study acknowledges the strengths of the two programs, identifies
opportunities for further program enhancement and development, and makes recommendations
to help the Visitor Services Department (“Visitor Services”) prepare for the future.
Some recommendations are specific to the Visitor Services department, and others affect the
District as a whole. In particular, we will show how and why an agency-wide cultural shift in
the District’s approach to public communications can help the District build on its existing strong
public support to communicate the importance of stewardship among visitors, neighbors, and
constituents, increase active participation in land and resource stewardship activities, and
expand public interest in the protection and preservation of our local natural resources.
The District will need to determine which suite of recommendations are most appropriate for
the agency, based on its goals for the growth and development of each program, and on
agency values and culture.
Drivers Behind This Study
As set out in the District’s 2014 Vision Plan, and further elaborated on in the 2015 Financial
and Operational Sustainability Model report, Bay Area populations are increasing in both
numbers and diversity. The District values the importance of connecting people to nature and
provides opportunities for the public to enjoy the natural beauty of the open space preserves
while conserving and protecting the sensitive and rare natural resources.
Since the creation of the Volunteer and Docent Programs, the District has continued to
experience increased visitation, reflecting in part the continued increase in our regional
population as well as the increase in public awareness of the services and programs that the
District provides. Diversity in the local population has also increased and is being reflected in
the people visiting the open space preserves. With this in mind, it is important for the District
to attract visitors, employees, volunteers and supporters who reflect the full diversity of the Bay
Area population.
To meet these challenges, the District needs to make the most of every opportunity to remain
relevant and connected with the public. District Volunteers and Docents are key to fulfilling the
District’s public outreach goals—and serve as District ambassadors to not only preserve visitors,
but also to local residents, community leaders, and constituents in general.
Preparing for the Future
We identified five specific challenges facing the Visitor Services department and/or larger
District that impact the agency’s effectiveness in meeting its Strategic and Vision Plan goals.
1. The District is missing an agency-wide communication plan to guide external messaging
across all departments. Public communication responsibilities are distributed among various
departments (Public Affairs, Visitor Services, and Planning) with only partial coordination.
This can lead to mismatched (even contradictory) messages and missed opportunities
to strengthen the District’s messaging and build synergistic, multi-channel, impactful
communication strategies.
Attachment 1
5
2. The District has not fully realized the power of interpretive communications to solve and
prevent a number of natural resource management problems, increase visitor satisfaction,
connect people to its mission—both intellectually and emotionally—and strengthen
relationships with communities. The District has an opportunity to more effectively leverage
the power of its interpretive and educational programs (as represented by outdoor activities
for the general public, and by its curriculum-based school programming). Docents are
among the most visible faces of the District, and, in the eyes of the public, represent the
values of the agency. By integrating the docent program as an integral component of
a District-wide communications system, docents can serve as its most accessible—and
effective— ambassadors to educate, engage, and excite people about the District’s
mission.
3. While the District has set general numeric goals regarding the total number of volunteer
projects, docent-led hikes, and volunteers and docents, outcome-based metrics and success
targets that are linked to agency-wide goals have not been clearly identified for the Docent
and Volunteer Programs. The District would be well served in working with the docents and
volunteers to integrate specific key annual messages into each docent and volunteer-led
activity. Docents and volunteers would determine how best to integrate these messages into
their activities so that the messages add value to each activity and result in the sharing of
critical and consistent takeaway messages that reinforce the District’s mission and purpose.
4. In light of the successful growth of both programs and the number of active volunteers and
docents, existing staff and support systems are no longer sufficient to effectively guide,
support, and oversee the docent and volunteer programs.
5. Unclear or overlapping roles and responsibilities, both within the Docent and Volunteer
Programs and between the Visitor Services and Public Affairs departments, may contribute
to operational inefficiencies.
Two Recommended Systems Improvements
To address these challenges, the District would be well served by considering two systems
improvements:
1. Implementation of an agency-wide, integrated communications system.
2. Sufficient staffing and training to support an integrated communications system.
Summary of Key Recommendations
Below is a summary list of all the recommendations found in this report. For detailed
discussions of each, please refer to the chapter on Recommendations and Discussions:1
a. Redefine the Volunteer and Docent programs in terms of what they do, and rename them
Volunteer Stewardship (VolS) and Interpretation & Education (I&E).
b. Develop a comprehensive, long-range Interpretive Master Plan that establishes outcome-
based goals tied to mission, defines target audiences, identifies an overarching theme and
subthemes (a matrix of key messages to be conveyed), and outlines the best mix of media
(signs, exhibits, live programs, publications, web resources, apps, news stories, etc.) to
deliver them. The overarching message hierarchy should be able to support all forms of public
communications over the next 10 to 20 years, while maintaining flexibility, adaptability, and
responsiveness to topical issues.
1 A complete list of recommendations can also be found in Appendix B—List of Recommendations
Attachment 1
6
c. Develop individual interpretive plans for preserves, each tied to the Interpretive Master Plan.
d. Develop succession planning that includes clearer structures and processes within the
I&E and Volunteer Stewardship programs to institutionalize program knowledge, planning,
decision-making, workflow, record-keeping, and accountability.
e. Review the types of communication volunteers and staff experience with visitors and
constituents, and consider cross-training in interpretation skills, cultural sensitivity, and
interpersonal skills as appropriate.
f. Formalize coordination between Public Affairs and Visitor Services concerning public
messaging. Wherever appropriate, frame public communication within a District-wide theme
structure.
g. Formalize message coordination and collaboration between Visitor Services, Land and
Facilities Services, Natural Resources, and Public Affairs regarding preserve projects, events,
outreach, social media, visitor and resource management challenges or campaigns (e.g.,
a “dogs on leashes” blitz); routinely update web site FAQs and talking points for informal
interactions between visitors and District representatives in the field.
h. Acknowledge and support the roles of Trail Patrol Volunteers and Community Outreach
Volunteers as preserve ambassadors by reviewing current training programs and considering
enhanced interpretive training.
i. Consider multiple methods of program observation for all docents and stewardship
volunteers, to confirm whether additional interpretive and/or interpersonal skills feedback,
coaching, and/or training is needed. Supplement ongoing training and enrichment with online
resources and provide volunteers with an online communication platform.
j. Expand docent training in thematic interpretation. Ensure that regardless of topic, every
docent activity is organized around appropriate District subthemes, and sets clear goals and
measurable objectives around visitor knowledge, education, and appreciation.Provide pre-
developed program outlines and activities to help new docents, provide more advanced
docents the flexibility to create new programs.
k. Use mentorship programs to leverage the experience of seasoned docents and stewardship
volunteers who demonstrate leadership and consistently deliver excellent programs or projects.
l. Support industry-recognized professional certification and training for I&E staff. Make the
most of the rich professional-level training, networking, and support resources of the National
Association for Interpretation (NAI). Continue to support staff attendance at conferences and
trainings, and consider supporting key volunteers and docents in attending trainings and
workshops to further their development.
m. When recruiting new stewardship, interpretive, and education volunteers, set clear
expectations for the positions. Review current volunteer and docent role descriptions to ensure
they include appropriate duties, requirements, skills, and performance expectations.
n. Consider adding an additional Volunteer Project Lead Trails Specialist position—responsible
for a new, highly-trained Advanced Trails volunteer team—to the Volunteer Stewardship
program, to balance field stewardship opportunities.
Attachment 1
7
o. Consider increasing capacity of the Trail Patrol Volunteer program by adding a part- or
full-time Program Coordinator/Office Specialist, taking on intake, orientation, and evaluation
duties for Trail Patrol Volunteers, and providing administrative support (scheduling, data entry,
coordination, etc.)
p. Review and re-evaluate the Volunteer Crew Leader Program to ensure good coordination
with Volunteer Program Leads, work results, and volunteer experiences.
q. Consider increasing capacity of the Outdoor Activity Docent and Nature Center Host
programs by adding a professionally-trained Interpretive Specialist to assist the Program
Manager in training, coaching, supporting, and monitoring both docent programs.
r. Consider increasing capacity of the Outdoor Education Leader program by adding a
professionally-trained Environmental Education Specialist to assist the Program Manager with
K-12 classroom and field-based education activities.
s. Continue to work with area education leaders to periodically update the District’s school
field trip curriculum to ensure alignment with evolving science education standards, and to
keep the program relevant to teachers.
t. Expand the District’s presence at simultaneous community events by training seasoned
Community Outreach Volunteers to take responsibility for booths.
u. Move leadership responsibility for interpretive signage planning and development to the
Interpretation & Education program manager; train all interpretive panel team members in
interpretive principles and techniques. Consider training leads in interpretive planning through
NAI training.
v. Bring preserve entry signage into alignment with the Interpretive Master Plan; keep design
standards that convey a consistent look and feel across properties, while highlighting each
preserve’s unique identity.
w. Increase visitor experience feedback through the use of technology and incentives that make
it both easy and rewarding to share impressions; use the data to inform and improve future
experiences and programming.
x. Consider partnering with schools by creating natural history education volunteer teams to
strengthen natural science education and awareness in classrooms.
y. To better understand, reach, connect with, and attract new visitors, volunteers, and
employee prospects from among diverse and underrepresented communities, make more
strategic use of school programs, career modeling opportunities, outreach events, bilingual
programming, friends groups, and partnerships with key civic organizations. Focus on
reaching new audiences close to newly-opened preserves. Consider staffing the Nature Center
on holidays, when working parents are looking for family-friendly activities.
z. Cross-train all rangers in basic interpretive skills; consider developing a cadre of “interpretive
specialist” rangers to meet demand for school and civic appearances.
aa. Expand audience reach by making social media content more strategic, interpretive,
engaging, and attractive, especially for younger and urban audiences.
Implementation of these recommendations will allow the District to better serve and further
connect with all members of the public. For a summary description of the fully-realized plan
Attachment 1
8
as recommended, see A Vision for the Interpretation & Education and Volunteer Stewardship
Programs, page 14.
This report acknowledges the many strengths of the District’s Volunteer and Docent Programs,
and identifies areas for improvements and enhancements to ensure that the District remains
successful, relevant, and a leader in open space conservation and management. Although the
recommended changes will take time to fully implement, the path forward is clear.
Conservation By Design appreciates the many District staff, volunteers, and partners who lent
us their time and experience in the preparation of this study. It has been an honor to work
with a recognized leader in open space conservation, and with its talented and passionate
volunteer and docent groups. We have every faith in the District and its dedicated, capable
staff to continue leading the way, working to achieve the highest standards in the region and
country. We wish them every success.
Attachment 1
9
Introduction to the Project
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) protects a regional greenbelt of open
space on California’s San Francisco Peninsula, preserving land (currently totaling over 63,000
acres), protecting and restoring the natural environment, and providing opportunities for public
recreation and environmental education.
As its service population grows and diversifies, the District’s ability to maintain and expand
its relevance and value to both visitors and constituents becomes increasingly important to its
continued success. In its 2014 Vision Plan, the District established several goals that focus on
District connections with the public, which relate directly to the Docent and Volunteer Programs.
• Expand Opportunity—Increase the diversity of visitors; and accommodate a wide variety
of visitors of all abilities, ages, ethnicities, and interests
• Diversity—Creatively reach more people, including those with decreased mobility, and
increase the diversity of our visitors; and expand youth programming and outreach through
partnerships
• Improved Visitor Experience—Provide facilities/areas where families can engage safely
with nature; emphasize a variety of natural learning environments; and increase use of
technology to introduce and connect people to nature
• Volunteer Stewardship—Increase support for stewardship and open space conservation;
increase technology use to promote open space stewardship; and encourage hands-on
stewardship and citizen science activities on District lands
• Knowledge, Understanding, and Appreciation—Remember and honor community heritage
and past ways of life through activities, programming, and projects; interpret how natural
and cultural resources relate to people’s current lives; and increase preserve-specific
interpretation projects and programs that emphasize the protection of natural and cultural
resources
The 2015 Financial and Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) Final Report found that
the District will “need to add capacity (people, expertise, services) … to meet…increased
demands,” and “public expectations will only continue to grow, especially as more preserves
are developed for public access.” In light of these goals and findings, the FOSM study
anticipates that the Visitor Services department will grow significantly after 2020 as visitation
and demand for and interest in environmental science and nature-based programming and
activities, access, volunteerism, and conservation increase.
For a more in-depth look at District requirements to meet future demands, as defined by the
agency, see Appendix D, The Growing Need for Visitor Services.
In support of its mission, the District successfully engages more than 600 volunteers each
year in its work to preserve open space and its resources and connect with visitors. While
management of these volunteer stewardship, education, and interpretation efforts was
previously part of the Public Affairs Department, a reorganization in 2016 shifted those
responsibilities to the new Visitor Services Department.
Attachment 1
10
Conservation By Design was commissioned by the District to engage in a study of the
Volunteer and Docent programs to assist the agency with positioning those programs for
continued success as the District grows and the diversity of its population expands. The report
contains a series of enhancements for the District to consider. They are only recommendations.
As the agency moves forward, it must weigh each set of recommendations in the context of the
agency’s values and culture, to determine which are most appropriate in meeting District goals
for the growth and development of each program.
The Visitor Services Department
The Visitor Services Department is staffed with dedicated, hardworking, productive people
who care about the District’s mission and understand how their individual roles contribute to the
agency’s success.
Along with the ranger program, this department manages the District’s environmental education
and interpretive programs, as well as volunteer stewardship programs. District volunteers
contributed over 19,000 hours in FY2017. Docents and volunteers love their work, feel a
great sense of satisfaction contributing their talents and time on behalf of the District, and are
greatly appreciated by staff and the Board, who recognize and value their efforts, skills, and
dedication.
The District is fortunate among many Bay Area land management agencies in that its Docent
and Volunteer Programs attract and retain highly motivated and competent volunteers who lead
their activities with creativity and passion.
Both the Docent and Volunteer Programs show potential for even greater success over the long
term. Both present remarkably rich opportunities to help visitors better understand, appreciate,
and support the District’s conservation mission, and to assist the District with responding to
and successfully addressing emerging and current resource management issues through public
outreach and education.
Attachment 1
11
Our Process
Phase One: Information Gathering
The study began in January 2017 with Conservation By Design reviewing District-supplied
background documents and holding discussions with management. Shortly afterward, with
the help of staff, we surveyed current and former Volunteers and Docents regarding their
motivations for serving and their experiences of the District.
During an extended site visit in January and February 2017, our team toured several preserves
to become familiar with the open space system and their locations relative to population
centers, and understand visitor use, management, and resource issues. We conducted 13
interviews with management, staff, volunteers, and a District partner,1 and led two focus group
sessions with groups of active Volunteers and Docents.
We spoke with staff in the field, observed invasive plant stewardship volunteers at work,
and met three Trail Patrol Volunteers on the trails. We toured the Daniels Nature Center and
its surrounding use areas. While we were able to attend only one Docent-led walk during
our two-week visit,2 we reviewed the available feedback gathered from previous program
participants, and spoke with area residents who have attended programs and interacted with
Trail Patrol Volunteers. We visited at a time of year when school field trips were not offered.
From these data sources, we noted trends, frequent positive remarks, and occasional critiques.
We submitted a report of our observations and impressions, and received feedback and
guidance from management.
Phase Two: Applied Knowledge
Using the collected background information, we drew on our national network of professional
colleagues to develop a list of 13 natural resource-based agencies and organizations known
to have well-run, successful volunteer programs. We conducted telephone interviews with
representatives from each. With dual goals of discovering commonalities or trends in the
structure and function of their programs and capturing best practices, we “crowd-sourced”
important information from volunteer management leaders. While every agency’s volunteer
program is uniquely tailored to serve the organization’s goals, needs, philosophies, and
capacities, our discoveries may assist with the District’s decision-making process about how to
best manage its volunteer, staff and programs.
Participating organizations and agencies included Environmental Volunteers, Palos Verdes
Peninsula Land Conservancy, Jefferson County Open Space, Don Edwards San Francisco
Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Santa Clara County Parks, Santa Clara Valley Open Space
Authority, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Año Nuevo State Park, City of Boulder Open Space
and Mountain Parks, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas, Friends of Edgewood, BeachWatch
Program–Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, and Pacifica Beach Coalition.
Descriptions of each organization’s or agency’s size, mission, and volunteer operations are
found in Appendix C. A summary of commonalities or trends uncovered during this research
phase are provided in Appendix H, Regional Trends in Volunteer Management.
1 Grassroots Ecology
2 Unfortunately, activity cancellations due to poor weather precluded attendance at other opportunities.
Attachment 1
12
Phase Three: Analysis and Recommendations
This report captures both broad and program-specific trends and best practices related to the
management of volunteers and docents doing interpretation, education and environmental
stewardship work. It identifies the key strengths of these programs, offers suggestions and
options to further enhance and expand the District’s desired outcomes regarding connecting
with the public, and discusses the structure, workflow, and management of the Docent and
Volunteer programs. Recommendations follow each discussion area.
Finally, the report presents a suggested phased implementation chart with action items and
supporting rationale for the District to consider in determining how best to further develop its
volunteer and docent programs. The District may choose to implement all or only a portion
of the recommendations shown in the chart, based on prioritization, funding, organizational
values and culture, and agency-wide goals.
Attachment 1
13
Key Findings
Affecting the Long-Term Growth
and Development of the Volunteer
and Docent Programs
During the investigation phase, we noted the following communication issues that may
reduce the District’s potential in meeting its Strategic and Vision Plan goals related to public
engagement, communication, and support:
• Public messaging responsibilities are distributed among various departments and would
greatly benefit from a coordinated plan to guide efforts.
• The District has an opportunity to further leverage its public outreach communications –
within and beyond the Visitor Services Department – to increase its success in achieving
the Vision Plan goals.
• Defining outcome-based goals or success targets for the Docent and Volunteer programs
will provide added focus and direction to guide their future growth and development.
• As each program continues to grow, so does the need for quality standards and
expectations for docents and volunteers, along with updated systems and tools for
coaching, mentoring, evaluation, and feedback.
• Unclear roles and responsibilities, both within the Docent and Volunteer Programs as
well as between the Visitor Services and Public Affairs departments, may contribute to
operational inefficiencies.
Attachment 1
14
A Vision
for the Interpretation & Education
and Volunteer Stewardship Programs
In order to adequately evaluate existing conditions and chart a roadmap toward continual
improvement, it is important to acknowledge what is working well and where improvements
can be made. Such acknowledgements are meant to optimize the structure and function of the
Docent and Volunteer programs along with other supportive functions, organizational culture,
and structure of the larger District.
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is a regional leader in volunteerism, with
productive programs that offer rewarding opportunities for docents and stewardship volunteers
in a District culture that supports and values their efforts. We envision a future in which
increasingly high-functioning and adequately staffed Interpretation and Education (I&E) and
Volunteer Stewardship (VolS) programs are integrated into an agency-wide communications
system to ensure that key messages are conveyed during activities. This vision encompasses the
following attributes:
Interpretive Communications are Organized and Coordinated
An ongoing, coordinated effort by the District and partners provides a well-developed,
satisfying visitor experience at all District preserves. A district-wide Interpretive Master Plan
provides communications guidance for all departments; it identifies interpretive themes (key
messages imparted to visitors and constituents across the District’s multiple communication
channels); ensures clarity of goals; identifies important target audiences for interpretation; and
includes overarching recommendations for interpretive products and programs. The interpretive
planning process solicits broad input—from District staff, Board members, stewardship
volunteers, docents, resource specialists, partners, and visitor representatives—to provide
broad perspectives on the significant stories encompassed by District lands.
Furthermore, each preserve has its own more detailed interpretive plan, which identifies
preserve-specific visitor interests, resource protection challenges, learning and behavioral
objectives, and location-based interpretive storylines that expand on and illustrate the broader
District-wide themes. The plan recommends a mix of interpretive products and programs to best
reach the site’s target audience(s); for example, some preserves may rely primarily on signage,
while others may emphasize personal programming, web-based media, and/or special
events.
Volunteerism Keeps Pace with Demand
As new preserves open and new recreation facilities and programs are added, visitation
increases— which offers an opportunity to also increase volunteerism from among diverse
populations. The District remains committed to engaging the public on natural resource
stewardship projects, interpretive and educational programming, and community outreach.
Multiple partnerships are focused on community participation, outreach, and education.
Preserves are well cared for, and both the community and the land benefit from interpretation
and education programming.
Attachment 1
15
Program, Operational Standards Are High
Volunteer stewardship and docent training, program evaluation, and logistics management
run smoothly, and are core emphasis areas for the District. All staff, volunteers, and Board
members who engage with visitors or constituents receive some level of training in interpretive,
outreach, and/or communication principles and techniques, and are generally familiar with
District interpretive themes. A user- and device-friendly software application allows for seamless
visitor activity scheduling, sign-up, and feedback.
Fully staffed, the I&E and VolS programs provide the necessary guidance, training, support,
and oversight to ensure that the programs are well run and achieving program goals, and
to allow for continued growth as more and more members of the public express an interest
in volunteering for the District. The I&E and VolS staff serve as bridges between the District
and the communities it serves. The I&E program leads both District-wide and preserve-specific
interpretive planning, content development, interpretive and environmental education training,
and product and program delivery. Education curriculum materials meet or exceed state
learning standards; field trip and classroom-based open space experience opportunities
increase and reach diverse communities.
Interpretive programs and products, guided by the Interpretive Master Plan and preserve-
specific interpretive plans, are developed by staff and interested, well-trained, engaged
docents. The program leverages the passion and skillsets of I&E staff and docents to deliver
products and programs that consistently yield excellent feedback.
Communities Care for the Land
The Volunteer Stewardship program is a vital link between the natural and cultural resources
of the open space preserves and the human communities that benefit from their protection.
The VolS program provides highly skilled trail maintenance, patrol, and habitat restoration
volunteers, that complement staff work in the Visitor Services, Natural Resources, and Land
& Facilities Services departments. The VolS program is known regionally for providing highly
satisfying, hands-on volunteer experiences. It is an impactful extension of the District’s resource
stewardship work, with District staff relying on the program’s contributions as they plan and
realize annual accomplishments. A cadre of committed and highly trained crew leaders and
advanced resource management volunteers extends the District’s capacity for hosting multiple
stewardship projects simultaneously.
Visitors and Volunteers Understand and Connect to the Mission
The visitor experience at preserves is enhanced by activities and programs that emphasize
the natural and cultural heritage of the land, underscore the role of the District, and forge an
increasingly stronger public stewardship ethic over time. Visitors participate in coordinated
programming that brings themed interpretive and volunteer stewardship opportunities together
with enjoyment of open space resources and landscapes.
Guided by a strong intake and orientation program, incoming docents and volunteers have
a clear sense of what the District is, what it represents, why its work is important, and why
they want to support its efforts with their contributions of time, skills, and energy. All volunteers
understand the opportunities available to them, and the expectations and requirements.
Volunteers and staff share a mutual understanding and appreciation of each other’s roles,
and feel strongly that volunteer contributions are benefitting open space resources and the
organization itself.
Attachment 1
16
Feedback and Coordination Ensure Ongoing Excellence
Both I&E and VolS program operations are informed through evaluations and ongoing
feedback, with an eye toward developing and scheduling new programs (and retiring
unsuccessful ones) as needed, improving stewardship outcomes, and ensuring satisfying,
meaningful visitor and volunteer experiences. In association with the I&E and VolS program
managers, and with input from other department heads, the Visitor Services Manager sets
annual targets for outputs and outcomes for each program that align with larger District goals
and diversity objectives. Both programs maintain excellent coordination and communication
with other District operations that depend on their outputs and outcomes (e.g., Land & Facilities
Services, Natural Resources, Planning, and Public Affairs).
The District Reflects Its Citizenry
Each year, District visitors (in-person and virtual), volunteers, docents, and staff more accurately
reflect the demographics of the surrounding communities. This trend is a product of active
outreach into diverse communities via presentations, education programs, internship and
conservation corps recruitment, and engagement—through staffing, partnerships, interpretation,
information, and/or transportation assistance to bring people from underserved communities
to the open space preserves. Communities served by the District value open space and the
opportunities for nature-based recreation, learning, and service, and see the preserves as
places where people of diverse backgrounds and lifestyles feel welcome and valued.
Attachment 1
17
Recommendations
and Discussion
Informed by the Vision section immediately preceding, this section includes a variety of
recommendations for the District to consider as it determines the future growth and development
of the Docent and Volunteer Programs. The District may choose to implement some or all of the
recommendations over time, depending on prioritization, funding, program goals, and overall
organizational culture and values.
Each discussion area below provides context for, and is followed by, its corresponding
recommendation(s). We begin with recommendations affecting entire departments, gradually
working down to more program-specific recommendations.
Updating Program Identities
The titles “Volunteer” and “Docent” have been used since the inception of each program and
are common terms in this field of work. However, their use assumes that the general public
understands the scope and significance of each function, and the differences between them
(all docents are volunteers, but under the current system, not all volunteers are docents).
This may seem a minor point, but in light of the staffing and operational recommendations
to follow, we suggest updating these program names to reflect their primary purposes and
better represent the role of each program to all members of the public. The Bay Area is a
remarkably diverse region, with a high percentage of immigrants and other populations that
use English as a second language. More descriptive titles will allow for greater recognition
and understanding throughout all populations.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Because the primary focus of the current Volunteer Program is resource stewardship,
consider renaming it to the Volunteer Stewardship Program (VolS) Similarly, consider
renaming the Docent Program to the Interpretation & Education Program (I&E).
• In this scenario, “Volunteer” becomes a universal term encompassing all volunteers.
Depending on program, individuals will be known as Stewardship Volunteers,
Administrative Volunteers, or Docents (Docent Naturalists, Outdoor Education Docents,
Nature Center Docents).
• Although administrative volunteers do not ser ve directly in field-based stewardship
roles, it makes administrative sense to have the Volunteer Stewardship program continue to
manage them.
NOTE: For clarity, we will use these new program titles in this report; from this point
forward, “volunteers” used as a noun refers to all members of the public who are
contributing their time, energy, and talent on a voluntary, non-paid basis toward fulfilling
the District’s mission.
Attachment 1
18
Interpretation
is a strategic
communication process
designed to forge
connections between
the participant, the
resource, and your
mission.
Five Qualities of Interpretation
Interpretation has five core qualities: purposeful, thematic, organized, relevant, and enjoyable.
Purposeful: Interpretation is not random; it works as a system guided by clearly-articulated desired
outcomes tied to a mission, and holds itself accountable with measurable objectives. Interpretation can—
and does—prevent and solve visitor and natural resource management problems.
Thematic: Interpretation conveys a compelling story structured around one central theme or “take-home
message,” illustrated by three or four subthemes. Research shows that material developed around a theme
is not only better absorbed, it’s remembered long after the visitor experience—while material presented
without a theme is quickly forgotten.
Relevant: Interpretation lives at the intersection of three realms: the
inherent attributes of the site or resource (the stories of the place; what
makes it worth interpreting?), management interests (who do you want
to reach, and what do you want them to do with the information?),
and the visitor’s interests (what knowledge do they seek? what beliefs,
experiences, viewpoints do they bring with them? What are the barriers
to engagement?). By linking to what the visitor already cares about,
interpretation becomes both personal and meaningful. Interpretation
should also respect the visitor’s own values, beliefs, and viewpoints.
Enjoyable: Interpretation isn’t just information. It’s a series of experiences
that build on visitors’ natural curiosity, engage the emotions as well as the intellect, and satisfy their
desires for a recreational learning experience. Grounded in the social sciences, including attention theory,
interpretation employs several techniques to provoke interest, bring the visitor into the story, and create
resonant experiences.
Organized: Interpretation is a process-oriented system, guided by a master plan that identifies overarching
themes, goals, and target audiences, and creates a framework for preserve-specific plans. Regardless of
topic, every interpretive storyline should be an illustration of one or more District subthemes. All interpretive
experiences–docent walks, Nature Center exhibits, trailside panels, brochures, web pages, social media,
smartphone apps, outreach events, news releases, and even unplanned, informal encounters with visitors–
are opportunities for the public to form very personal connections with the District’s lands and mission.
Interpretation as a Management Tool
Interpretation, when aligned with a consistent,
mission-based thematic structure, is a proven and
powerful management tool. Agencies that integrate
an interpretive approach across all forms of external
communication find that visitors, neighbors, and
volunteers adopt a stewardship philosophy and
practice stewardship actions. Constituent support for
conservation missions is strengthened, and people
take extra care in their interactions with the natural
environment to reduce human impacts to the natural
resources and, where possible, improve the quality of
native habitats.
Figure 1—Three Realms of
Interpretation
Visitor agenda
Management
interests Resource
attributes
Attachment 1
19
The District acknowledges the role of interpretation and education programs in reaching
constituents and building community. The Vision Plan specifically emphasizes the importance of
public contact, which is also reflected in the 2012 District-commissioned Interpretive Planning
Guide. The 2012 guide provides broad interpretive strategies to help reinforce the values and
opportunities of the District’s interpretation products and programs.
The District as a whole is facing an opportunity to fully explore and leverage the benefits
gained from an integrated interpretive approach. Developing an Interpretive Master Plan—a
critical guiding document that outlines a District-wide strategy for interpretive communications—
is a recommended next step in the District’s growth and development of its programs.
What Is Interpretation, and Why Use It?
Interpretation is often misunderstood; it’s far more nuanced than a simple sharing of
information. Instead, interpretation is a strategic communication process designed to forge
connections between the participant, the resource, and the mission.
Well-developed interpretation provokes curiosity, involves the listener, and tells a compelling
story that reveals the meaning(s) behind the facts. By using various techniques to involve the
participant in the story, interpretation fosters meaningful personal connections that are shown to
reach deeper and last longer.
Note that many functions of the Public Affairs department share several goals and
methodologies as those common in the field of interpretation. In many agencies, the two
functions are housed in the same department.
Does Interpretation Work?
Thematic interpretation has become established as a so-called “best practice” at a worldwide
level. This has happened in large part because interpreters and the organizations they
represent have had success with the approach; further, their achievements are underpinned by
the robust body of academic research that has informed the thematic approach.1,2
1 Sam Ham, personal communication, March 2018
2 The single best resource for understanding interpretation and what underpins it may be Interpretation: Making a
Difference on Purpose by Sam Ham, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho. Dr. Ham’s book has been pub-
lished in seven languages. For other recommendations, see Appendix F, Resources and Recommended Reading.
Attachment 1
20
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
T
h
e
m
e
Th
e
e
v
e
r
-ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
D
u
n
e
s
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
s
a
n
en
d
u
r
i
n
g
h
a
v
e
n
f
o
r
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
an
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
Of
f
-si
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
r
e
s
h
a
p
e
d
by
t
h
e
f
o
r
c
e
s
o
f
w
i
n
d
an
d
w
a
t
e
r
,
t
h
e
D
u
n
e
s
su
p
p
o
r
t
a
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
n
d
fr
a
g
i
l
e
m
o
s
a
i
c
o
f
ec
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
Mi
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
sp
e
c
i
e
s
Co
n
t
i
g
u
o
u
s
ar
e
a
Na
t
u
r
a
l
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
th
a
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
an
d
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
du
n
e
s
On
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
du
n
e
s
e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
Va
r
i
e
d
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
,
h
u
m
a
n
re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
w
i
t
h
th
e
D
u
n
e
s
h
a
v
e
sh
i
f
t
e
d
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
re
f
u
g
e
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
aw
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
of
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
ec
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
Pr
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
&
mo
d
e
r
n
na
t
i
v
e
pe
o
p
l
e
s
En
e
r
g
y
ex
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
OH
V
u
s
e
Pl
a
c
e
o
f
le
a
r
n
i
n
g
Ra
n
c
h
i
n
g
To
u
r
i
s
t
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
s
s
i
v
e
an
d
a
c
t
i
v
e
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Va
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
sp
e
c
i
e
s
Th
e
D
u
n
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
la
k
e
s
s
e
r
v
e
a
s
a
v
i
t
a
l
sa
n
c
t
u
a
r
y
f
o
r
C
A
n
a
t
i
v
e
pl
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
Ab
u
n
d
a
n
t
w
i
l
d
f
l
o
w
e
r
s
,
wa
t
c
h
a
b
l
e
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
Re
s
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
mi
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
ef
f
o
r
t
s
Ke
y
b
i
r
d
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
by
fo
o
t
,
bi
k
e
,
an
d
ca
r
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
us
e
s
En
j
o
y
i
n
g
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
an
d
n
a
t
u
r
e
Th
e
D
u
n
e
s
a
r
e
a
v
a
l
u
e
d
de
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
s
e
e
k
i
n
g
re
w
a
r
d
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
a
na
t
u
r
a
l
s
e
t
t
i
n
g
Be
n
e
f
i
t
s
t
o
th
e
lo
c
a
l
ec
o
n
o
m
y
Va
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
u
ni
q
u
e
an
d
b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
se
t
t
i
n
g
s
Re
s
t
o
r
i
n
g
th
e
s
p
i
r
i
t
Fa
m
i
l
y
ou
t
i
n
g
s
Fi
s
h
i
n
g
,
pi
c
n
i
c
s
,
ca
m
p
i
n
g
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Sa
f
e
,
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
,
s
i
t
e
-
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
u
s
e
s
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
ef
f
o
r
t
s
Ma
n
a
g
i
n
g
vi
s
i
t
o
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
Tr
e
a
d
i
n
g
li
g
h
t
l
y
Ma
n
a
g
i
n
g
of
f
-
s
i
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
Co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
fa
r
m
e
r
s
a
n
d
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
ma
n
a
g
e
r
s
Pe
o
p
l
e
w
h
o
v
a
l
u
e
t
h
e
Du
n
e
s
–bo
t
h
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
an
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
–ar
e
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
to
g
e
t
h
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
a
n
d
ma
n
a
g
e
t
h
e
m
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
: Th
e
m
e
,
S
u
b
t
h
e
m
e
s
,
an
d
T
o
p
i
c
s
a
t
t
h
e
G
u
a
d
a
l
u
p
e
D
u
n
e
s
the
m
e
su
b
t
h
e
m
e
s
to
p
i
c
s
/st
o
r
i
e
s
Attachment 1
21
Case Studies
To illustrate the power of purposeful, planned, thematic interpretation, we present the following
case studies.
Bear ProBlems: Yosemite
Yosemite National Park has been challenged by increasing incidents of property
damage and injuries from bear-human interactions. In 1998, the park began an
integrated campaign of interpretive solutions: a system of “Be Bear Aware” messages
delivered across multiple communication platforms with the goal of raising awareness
and encouraging safe practices, including use of bear-proof food storage equipment.
Measurable results began immediately. By 2013, injuries and damage from bear incidents
had fallen more than 92 percent; the number of bears killed for safety reasons had
dropped by more than 80 percent.1
Western snoWY Plovers: Point reYes
When Point Reyes National Seashore realized that park visitors were, however
unintentionally, affecting the nesting and foraging patterns of western snowy plovers
and their fledglings, resource managers and interpreters developed a multipronged
communications approach to address the problem. Displays, interpretive docents deployed
at the beach on key days, free dog leashes printed with stewardship messages, and other
solutions were deployed. Customized messaging was crafted for individual user groups,
including anglers, surfers, and walkers. Management affirms that this integrated approach
has contributed significantly to maintaining critical plover population levels, and that far
fewer chicks are now lost on docent days.2,3
interPretation around the World
The interpretive approach is universal in its effectiveness. Just as in the Bay Area, agencies
in the Galapagos Islands are challenged to balance stewardship of natural resources
with ongoing access for visitors. In support of these efforts, Lindblad Expeditions began
incorporating strategically important themes into their tour activities, and their visitors’
support for a local conservation fund tripled.4
Throughout Australia, protected areas have experienced resounding success using thematic
interpretation to influence managerially desired behaviors (dogs on leashes, not feeding
wildlife, staying on trail, and at one national park, to pick up and carry out litter left by
other hiker].5
Over the past twenty years, applications of the thematic approach have been extended
far outside the conventional parks and protected areas field. For example, municipalities
in Europe and Australia are using the thematic approach to target sustainability behaviors
ranging from domestic and commercial consumption of water and energy to getting dog
owners to clean up after their pets.6
1 http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/09/13/conflicts-with-yosemite-bears-fall-dramatically-as-people-bears-
learn-new-lessons/
2 https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1905/upload/InterpSolutions.pdf
3 https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/nature/birds_snowyplover.htm
4 Powell, R. and Ham, S. (2008)
5 Ham, S. & Weiler, B. (2004)
6 Ham, S. (pers.com, March 2018)
Attachment 1
22
Defining Success: A Longer View
Currently, both the VolS and I&E programs track their output (e.g., number of docent programs
offered; number of trail issues reported, etc.). Such basic quantitative data are good measures
of total counts to understand whether numbers and reach are increasing over time.
Looking beyond numeric outputs to consider measurable outcomes and beneficial impacts
linked to larger District goals (e.g., “Participants can describe how their water quality is
linked to natural lands,” or “Trail violations decrease by 40% within x weeks of program
implementation”), would allow management to work closely with program developers to
identify opportunities for advancing strategic objectives and Vision Plan goals.
Consistent Branding, Communications, and Cross-Departmental Collaboration
Because interpretation works as an integrated system, multiple departments benefit
from working together for desired interpretive outcomes. Its planning requires a shared
understanding, both vertically and horizontally across departments, and its implementation
requires ongoing collaboration.
External messaging, whether written or spoken, should support consistent themes and reflect
the District’s brand – which in turn reflects the mission, values, characteristics, and culture that
is unique and special to the agency. Similarly, internal communications should be clear and
consistent; one cannot be achieved without the other.
For example, as currently configured, multiple departments are charged with external
communications; e.g., the development of interpretive trailside signs is handled by a team
of three departments (Planning, Visitor Services, and in some instances Public Affairs), yet
coordination between these departments is not always consistent. The District’s existing
interpretive signs are good quality; however, they have been developed on a case-by-case
basis, often in response to an immediate resource management concern.
A well-developed, strategic interpretive master plan, coordinated with preserve-specific
interpretive plans, would take into consideration all such resource management concerns,
allowing the District to anticipate and proactively address issues before they became actual
problems. Such plans would outline each site’s interpretive potential target audiences; develop
site-specific interpretive goals and objectives tied to resource management goals; present
a tiered system for interpretive messaging (an overarching theme, several subthemes, and
broad-brush storylines that capture the significance of District lands and natural resources);
and recommend the overall mix of interpretive media and programs best suited for the specific
property. Each sign developed without the guidance of such plans represents a potential
missed opportunity for coordinated, synergistic messaging.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Develop a new Interpretive District-wide Master Plan.
• This Master Plan would outline an overarching message hierarchy to support all forms
of public communications over the next 10 to 20 years, while maintaining flexibility,
adaptability, and responsiveness to topical issues.
• Master Plan goals should align with those of the Vision Plan, and be paired with
achievable, outcome-based, measurable objectives.
Attachment 1
23
• Interpretive master planning should
incorporate input from ever y
relevant department (Natural
Resources, Visitor Services, Public
Affairs, Planning, etc.) as well
as community and user group
representatives.
• The Master Plan should be
developed under the guidance of,
or in partnership with, a professional interpretive planner trained and certified by the
National Association for Interpretation (NAI).1 Master plans developed in association
with an experienced outside planner are more objective, more thorough, easier to
complete, and benefit from the collective knowledge of a broadly experienced team.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Using the Interpretive Master Plan as a guide, develop more detailed and individual
interpretive plans for each preserve.
• Preser ve interpretive plans would outline target audiences, the topics from which site-
appropriate storylines can be developed, and the best mix of non-personal media
(signs, apps, etc.) and personal programming (docent walks, Trail Patrol volunteers,
trailhead popup booths, etc.) to deliver them.
• Preser ve interpretive plans would in turn inform site, facility, media, and program
planning and development.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Wherever appropriate, frame all public communications, regardless of topic or source,
within the District’s overarching theme/subtheme hierarchy.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Formalize coordination between departments regarding public messaging, particularly that
between Public Affairs and Visitor Services.
RECOMMENDATION 6
As needed, Visitor Services, Public Affairs, Natural Resources, Land & Facilities Services,
and Planning should work together to develop communication strategies to address topical
issues, visitor- or neighbor-related resource protection issues, and other needs.
1 The National Association for Interpretation is the interpretive profession’s standards and support association in
the US, Canada, Mexico, and more than 30 other nations. NAI offers professional-level certification for master inter-
preters, interpretive managers, and interpretive planners, as well as excellent training and certification courses for
interpretive guides (docents) and hosts.
External messaging,
whether written or
spoken, should support
consistent themes and
reflect the District’s brand.
Attachment 1
24
Interpretation and Education Program
Currently known as the Docent Program, the Interpretation
and Education (I&E) Program manages the training and
contributions of more than 140 interpretive and education
docents. Popular, productive, and enjoying a reputation
for quality among both peers and participants, this
program is, for many, the public face of the District.
However, the program is under strain and working at
maximum capacity. Developing, training, and managing
a high-quality interpretation and environmental education
program requires additional staffing. By comparison, Jefferson County Open Space in
Colorado, with 54,000 acres and 29 park units, employs 10 full-time and another dozen
part-time education and interpretation staff.
With its 63,000 acres and 24 currently-open preserves, the District’s two Interpretation &
Education staff will become even more stretched as the District opens more preserves and
gains new neighbors and visitors. The current limited staffing also constrains opportunities for
the program manager to develop and implement new collaborative partnerships with outside
organizations and agencies.
As mentioned in a previous section, the Docent Program name is not readily recognizable and
understood by the larger public, which can limit the District’s ability to effectively communicate
the program’s role, function, and benefits to its constituents. Updating it to “Interpretation and
Education” aligns the program with those of other high-functioning peer agencies (East Bay
Regional Parks District, Jefferson County Open Space, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas,
Monterey Bay Aquarium, etc.) whose department titles clearly reflect what their programs do
(Guest Services, Interpretation and Education, etc.) rather than identify who conducts them
(Docent Program).
Leveraging Docent Power
Our investigations showed that as a whole, District
docents are engaged, knowledgeable, and effective
communicators. Participants find docent-led activities
informative, rewarding, educational, and enjoyable.
Outdoor Activity Docents (OADs) are able to choose their
own program topics and develop their own content; the
freedom to do so is a significant factor in OAD interest in
and commitment to the I&E program.
“Live” or personal interpretation has long been recognized
as the single most effective form of interpretation, when
certain practices are followed. At the District, docent-led activities represent significant
opportunities for visitors to form highly personal connections with the importance of open-space
protection. Given the use of certain tools, the power of docents to facilitate these connections
cannot be overstated. The District can provide these tools to help OADs apply their
considerable talents in ways that help deepen understanding, connect facts to their deeper
meanings, and strengthen bonds. Chief among these tools is the establishment of a series of
overarching messages or themes that allow docents to aid the District in fulfilling its mission and
goals.
Developing, training,
and managing a high-
quality interpretation
and education program
requires more staff than
are currently at hand.
Given the use of certain
tools, the power of
docents to facilitate
highly personal
connections between
visitors and the land
cannot be overstated.
Attachment 1
25
It is important to recognize that such themes can be seamlessly integrated into the development
of individual programs without constraining docent autonomy. Quite the reverse, in
fact: creativity, flexibility, and personal passion for one’s subject are critical to successful
interpretation.
RECOMMENDATION 7
Actively include docents in the implementation of the District’s overarching theme-subtheme
framework. The District should introduce these themes as part of initial docent training,
ensure trainees understand the power and importance of theme-based interpretation, and
support and encourage docent creativity in the preparation of their own theme-based
content for proposed activities. These measures can ensure that all interpretive offerings are
organized around specific District themes, storylines, goals, and measurable objectives, as
outlined in a new interpretive master plan and corresponding preserve interpretive plans.
By weaving appropriate District messages and themes into interpretive experiences,
docents can help the District communicate important information, address current or
emerging land management issues, raise greater awareness and understanding of
particular topics, and, over time, build support for its mission.
Here is a hypothetical example.
A docent is interested in leading a hike and talking about amphibians. That year,
given drought conditions, the District is focused on creating additional awareness
around water conservation. In this case, the docent can weave in important messages
related to amphibians’ dependence on water at various life stages—for example, how
weather, drought, and availability of clean water greatly impact the viability of new
populations of amphibians, which in turn impacts biodiversity health and sustainability.
At the end of the program, having raised awareness, provoked interest, and deepened
understanding of the water-amphibian connection, the docent caps off the activity
with a few suggestions for participants interested in supporting these creatures (e.g.,
reducing household water use,
rainwater harvesting, drought-
resistant landscaping, etc.).
It is important to note that themes
are best used as an almost-invisible
scaffolding around which facts are
organized to create a compelling
story. The water-related messages
above will be much more effective if
they are not delivered as a lecture, but
instead conveyed interpretively—that is,
thoughtfully woven into an enjoyable,
interactive experience related to the visitor’s inherent interests.
Docent Training
All District docents currently receive interpretive techniques training, which emphasizes
best practices including visitor-centered, multi-sensory, interactive storytelling and hands-on
opportunities. We recommend that these approaches be actively encouraged and revisited
in training sessions throughout the docent experience. It is to be expected that some people
will take to such techniques more easily than others. Nevertheless, be assured that interpretive
The mediocre teacher
tells. The good teacher
explains. The superior
teacher demonstrates.
The great teacher
inspires.
—William Arthur Ward,
20th c. author and educator
Attachment 1
26
techniques can be mastered—with consistent training, practice, and support. Regardless of an
individual’s talent or skill level, every docent can benefit from ongoing or refresher training in
both interpretive principles and techniques.
A handful of District docents have, at their own expense, taken NAI’s outstanding Certified
Interpretive Guide (CIG) training course (offered at various venues across the US). The current
program manager has also undergone CIG training as well. Participants told us they enjoyed,
learned from, and benefitted from this training.
Peer support from fellow docents can also be a powerful and valued part of ongoing skill
development. As reported to us by an organizer at San Mateo County’s Edgewood Park
and Preserve, Edgewood docents are encouraged to learn from each other’s experiments
with theme-based interpretation. The more docents share their successes, the more their peers
became interested in adopting the thematic approach. Over time, Edgewood docents have
moved away from one-way, lecture-style communication, are receiving remarkably improved
feedback from participants, and are enjoying their work more than ever.
RECOMMENDATION 8
Integrate more in-depth training in thematic interpretation, develop and monitor docent
program standards and best practices, and create opportunities for docent growth into
advanced interpreter levels.
• Develop minimum performance standards for the I&E program; ensure sufficient
practice and coaching time during initial and ongoing training.
• Develop a robust, thematically-oriented activity planning form as a tool for docents,
and train them in its use.
• New docents may benefit from using pre-developed program outlines and activities as
models when beginning to lead activities.
• Experienced docents who demonstrate consistent understanding of the principles and
use of thematic interpretation would be encouraged to develop their own creative
programs.
• Monitor the docent program performance via a multi-prong approach: participant
feedback, self- evaluation processes, and periodic staff observation; adjust or
supplement training and provide feedback as needed. Consider the benefits of
providing ongoing support and coaching through a peer mentorship program.
• Consider making the Certified Interpretive Guide course available to all docents, by
working directly with NAI to sponsor a CIG training at the District. At approximately
$220 per person (plus an optional certification fee, which some docents may want to
pay), this 32-hour training, the gold standard worldwide, is both highly impactful and
affordable.
• California State Parks has developed an excellent interpretive training handbook for its
volunteer and staff interpreters, called the Basic Interpretive Learning System. It can be
found at https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/735/files/BILS_FINAL_2012.pdf.
Currently, I&E staff are not positioned to be able to adequately and/or consistently evaluate
and provide additional support to the docents to enhance the quality of program delivery, or to
mentor individuals who would benefit with additional training support.
Attachment 1
27
RECOMMENDATION 9
Consider adding one or more Interpretive Specialists to increase the capacity of the
Outdoor Activity Docent and Nature Center Host programs to assist the Program Manager
in training, coaching, supporting, and monitoring both docent programs. Specialists should
be professionally trained and NAI-certified.
RECOMMENDATION 10
Maintain the District’s institutional membership in NAI; provide for ongoing staff
development through NAI certification; continue to send I&E staff to NAI’s regional and
national conferences, where they receive ongoing training, exchange ideas for new
programs and techniques, and receive support and inspiration from peers and leaders in
the field. This resource is also recommended for docents.
• Support the ability of the Program Manager to fulfill the expanded capacity of I&E
programming by adding to the job description certifications in interpretive planning,
training, and management. Provide a sufficient grace period for the incumbent to meet
these certification qualifications.
• Continue to encourage docents to participate in NAI events.
• Keep docents informed about NAI scholarships to national workshops.
• Consider, as part of a docent recognition award, underwriting one participant’s
registration at NAI’s annual regional or national workshop.
• As appropriate, explore partnering with a “Friends of Midpen” group to raise funds for
CIG training and conference attendance fees.
Educational Programming
Reaching school age children is key to the long-term mission of the District and is a key
component of meeting the District’s diversity targets (for more information, see page 25). The
agency’s education program is active and valued by educators.
As is common in environmental education programs, recruiting and retaining volunteers as
Outdoor Education Leaders (OELs) can be challenging. OELs must be available on weekdays;
enjoy working with children; be willing to administer curriculum-based activities; and be able
to commit to 6-hour shifts.
OELs are trained in inquiry-based learning and questioning techniques that encourage
interactive learning. There is a continuum of ability and comfort within the OEL ranks in using
such student-centered approaches.
Research has shown that when working with young people, lecture-style communication, once
the norm in schools, is not particularly effective. Today, modern pedagogy relies on group
work and interdisciplinary, hands-on approaches that engage students and deepen learning. If
well-trained and mentored in such approaches, OELs can help students get the most from their
field trip experiences. We encourage the District to continue to support OEL development in
this area.
Educators strongly prefer field trips that help students fulfill their science requirements. Visitor
Services periodically reviews the state’s changing science requirements; it is currently updating
Spaces & Species, its third-to-fifth grade field trip curriculum, aligning it with California’s Next
Attachment 1
28
Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The District requires any curriculum contributed by
partner organizations or agencies to align with current best practices and standards as well.
RECOMMENDATION 11
Staff the Outdoor Environmental Education program with one or more professionally
trained and certified Environmental Education Specialists, and consider expanding the
program’s capacity through the use of seasonal interns. Consider recruiting interns and staff
with degrees from established environmental education programs.
RECOMMENDATION 12
Institute OEL performance standards and in-field performance monitoring via a multi-
pronged approach including teacher feedback and suggestions, self-evaluation, staff
observation, and peer mentoring for trainees.
RECOMMENDATION 13
To help attract, support, and retain docents as OELs, expand and deepen OEL training
programs; continually offer refresher trainings; and inform docents about and sponsor
docent attendance at regional NAAEE or other environmental learning forums.
RECOMMENDATION 14
Because science standards are constantly evolving, update the program curriculum every
3-5 years, ensuring its alignment with state content standards and benchmarks.
How to Decide Which Specialist Position to Fill First
The Interpretive Specialist would be responsible for coordinating and implementing the
District’s day-to-day interpretive activity programming, including oversight and monitoring of
the Outdoor Activity Docents. Filling this position first would reflect a District priority to support
and work closely with docents in program development, at a level that current staffing and
priorities do not currently allow. Hiring this position would provide for increased use of proven
interpretive approaches, including thematic messaging; it could also assist with alignment of
all public programming with an interpretive theme structure as set forth in a recommended
Interpretive Master Plan. This option is likely to yield measurable results relatively quickly.
The Education Specialist will apply the new 2018 environmental education curriculum
(currently undergoing revision to align with Next Generation Science Standards), recruit
and monitor the performance of the Outdoor Education Leaders, and market the programs
to schools and teachers. Filling the Education Specialist position first would reflect a District
priority to begin using education programs to cultivate stronger relationships with the next
generation of users, and connect with more diverse populations—a longer-term process that
may not show measurable results for many years.
Volunteer Stewardship Program
The Volunteer Stewardship program at the District runs smoothly; the work accomplished
is significant to the District and satisfying to most volunteers. Although well-functioning and
accomplishing much, the program has the potential to accomplish even more while furthering
the District’s engagement and diversity goals.
Trail Work
Trail development and maintenance currently falls under the purview of Land & Facilities
Services. As new preserves come online, demand for trail work increases. In addition, there
Attachment 1
29
are increasing numbers of volunteer requests to complete trail restoration projects. These
factors, combined with the more-technical aspects involved in performing trail work, are
justification for substantially increasing trails support to the Volunteer Stewardship program.
Ensuring quality work should, of course, be a priority.
RECOMMENDATION 15
Consider adding a Volunteer Project Lead-Trails Specialist position, responsible for a new,
highly trained Advanced Trails volunteer team, to the Volunteer Stewardship program.
Preserve Partner Activities
Preserve Partner activities are typically one-off experiences that attract both veteran volunteers
and new volunteers. They are excellent for raising the District’s profile, and act as a pipeline
for onboarding reliable long-term volunteers. These activities are time-intensive to plan and
organize, and require a combination of VS, NRM and L&F staff for coordination, training, and
work supervision. Qualifying volunteer tasks are limited by the skill level of the participants;
however, as they continue to participate, skills improve and project ownership increases.
The District also attracts special groups such as school, faith-based, and corporate partners.
These groups require an extra measure of staff focus toward coordination and supervision.
However, the benefits are substantial, as these activities attract individuals who for various
reasons have yet to connect with the District. It should be noted that large groups working on
trails or other more complicated projects require even more supervision to ensure a quality
finished project.
RECOMMENDATION 16
Review, reassess, and recommit to training and coordinating specially-trained volunteers
and crew leaders to increase supervisor-to-volunteer ratios and enhance training. Monitor
and continue applying participation limits for corporate partner activities to ensure
manageable group sizes and satisfying volunteer experiences.
Volunteer Recruitment and Job-Matching
Interpersonal skills are important for all volunteers and docents. Although Stewardship
volunteers are primarily tasked with resource protection and restoration, they are often highly
visible and accessible to visitors. This is particularly true of Trail Patrol Volunteers, whose jobs
are to interact with the public, and who are recognized as District ambassadors.
Program managers conduct screening interviews with prospective volunteers and docents,
where they informally assess each candidate’s strengths, interests, and fit to various programs.
RECOMMENDATION 17
Continue to set clear expectations for volunteers from the beginning, starting with program
advertising and recruitment.
• Periodically review volunteer position descriptions to ensure they reflect current duties,
requirements, and performance standards; consider including the personality traits and
attributes best suited for each position.
• When filling any volunteer position that involves interactions with the public, consider
the candidate’s interpersonal skills.
• Add interpersonal skills to the list of requirements for Trail Patrol Volunteers.
Attachment 1
30
The Trail Patrol job is in demand among volunteers—as of early 2018, more than 70
individuals are on a waiting list to fulfill this much-needed role. Increased administrative
capacity is needed to process and provide orientation to these new volunteers, as well as
provide ongoing training and evaluation of more than 200 individuals on the existing Trail
Patrol roster.
RECOMMENDATION 18
Consider adding a part- or full-time Program Coordinator/Office Specialist position to the
Stewardship Program. This position would perform intake, orientation and evaluation duties
for the Trail Patrol volunteers, and provide much-needed administrative support for the
Stewardship Program (scheduling, data entry and report generation; communications with
volunteers).
VolS and I&E Training, Support, and Quality Control
VolS volunteers and I&E docents alike feel that some training sessions, especially those focused
on communication skills (visitor interaction skills, interpretive skills), require more practice
time. Even seasoned volunteers have stated they would appreciate ways to revisit initial and
refresher training sessions; by the same token, new volunteers have expressed an interest in
more peer support in the field.
For both logistical and social reasons, volunteers would like to be more connected to one
another and the District, and to stay up to date on time-sensitive issues (mountain lion sightings,
etc.), hear “insider” news from the District, learn from one another’s experiences, and enjoy
more camaraderie.
RECOMMENDATION 19
Expand interpersonal skills training and practice time for Stewardship volunteers who come
in contact with the public. Cross-train Trail Patrol Volunteers in interpretive techniques to
support their dual duties of resource protection and visitor communications.
RECOMMENDATION 20
Continue to support volunteer candidates and provide useful feedback to help each
become more and more successful by using current performance monitoring (during
training as well as in the field). Provide as much ongoing feedback as time allows, and
continue to provide necessary support to assist with improvements—additional training,
counseling, or reassignment— as necessary. Allocate sufficient staff time for continued
prompt follow-up on issues.
RECOMMENDATION 21
Formalize a mentor program for Trail Patrol Volunteers, pairing select experienced TPVs
with trainees.
RECOMMENDATION 22
Provide systematic lines of communication with and between volunteers.
• Consider a District-hosted blog or list-ser ve that keeps subscribers updated with
preserve news, to which other departments can easily contribute content.
• Develop an online communications platform for I&E and Stewardship volunteers;
recruit a team of trusted volunteers to administer it.
RECOMMENDATION 23
Provide online learning resources for all volunteers. Consider:
Attachment 1
31
• Distance learning (including NAI sponsored webinars)
• Videotaped in-house training sessions
• An FAQ section
• A crowdsourced bibliography of recommended books, web resources, etc.
• Working with libraries to set up a reserved book system
• If feasible, an online event calendar function
Project Management and Succession Planning
Over the course of years, both the VolS and I&E program managers have grown large,
productive programs. In the process they have accumulated a great deal of knowledge,
experience, and community connections.
If workload, workflow, needed resources, project planning and prioritization are not well
documented, programs and projects can be placed at risk, especially in the case of the
absence or departure of a leader. The District would benefit from steps to ensure continuity
when and if managers leave their positions.
RECOMMENDATION 24
Develop clear structures and procedures that document and institutionalize staff knowledge,
planning, decision-making, work flow, record-keeping, and accountability, to ensure
organizational memory and program continuity. Increase knowledge of intra-program roles
and responsibilities.
Community Outreach
As the District’s event ambassadors and volunteer recruiters, the Public Affairs’ Community
Outreach program staff play an important interpretive role—connecting the public with the
District mission. To do the job well, Outreach staff must stay up to date on volunteer activities,
requirements, and day-to-day realities within the programs. Further, because Visitor Services
supplies volunteers for Community Outreach events, links between the two departments must
be maintained, especially after the recent organizational changes. Currently, the number of
outreach event opportunities in target communities outstrips the capacity of a single Public
Affairs Specialist to manage.
RECOMMENDATION 25
Increase community outreach effectiveness by training seasoned volunteers as outreach
event leaders, trusted to supervise other Community Outreach Volunteers at events. This will
allow the Public Affairs Specialist to shift focus to supporting multiple events simultaneously.
RECOMMENDATION 26
Formalize intra-departmental coordination and collaboration regarding preserve events,
outreach, social media, stewardship outreach (e.g., a “dogs on leashes” blitz), and
updated talking points for informal encounters between visitors and District representatives
in the field.
The Visitor Experience
Preserve Entrances and Signboards
Attachment 1
32
Preserve entries set the tone for the rest of the visitor experience. Currently, entries lack both a
strong identity and clear messaging. Although entry kiosks are prominent, contents appear to
be randomly designed and casually posted. There is often not much information to connect
visitors with the District’s stewardship mission, how preserves differ from parks (which affects
visitor awareness and, ultimately, behavior), or the benefits of open space to communities.
RECOMMENDATION 27
Develop preserve entries and signage in accordance with the new interpretive master
plan. Develop signage design standards that convey a consistent look and feel across
properties, while still highlighting each preserve’s unique identity.
Interpretive Signs
Interpretive panels on preserves should align with District themes as outlined in an Interpretive
Master Plan. Decisions regarding use and placement of interpretive signage should follow,
not precede, interpretive planning for specific preserves, and their development should be
managed by professional interpreters.
RECOMMENDATION 28
Move leadership for interpretive signage planning and development to the I&E program;
train all interpretive panel team members in interpretive principles and techniques.
Visitor Contact
Visitors make contact with a number of different District representatives, whether staff or
volunteers. Each encounter represents an opportunity to build an understanding of, and
connections with, District lands and its mission.
RECOMMENDATION 29
For all District representatives who have contact with visitors and constituents, provide
appropriate levels of cross- training in basic interpretive principles and techniques, with
emphasis on interpersonal communication and facilitated dialogue.1
Visitor Feedback
Understanding the public’s perception is a good investment when natural resource protection
requires a stewardship ethic shared by visitors, neighbors, and taxpayers.
Accurate and consistent data collection helps management stay in touch with visitor
experiences and public perceptions, and aids in program quality control. The current
mechanism for post-outdoor activity visitor feedback is a non-personalized District business
card featuring a District email address, to be distributed by docents. However, the majority of
attendees do not follow up to provide feedback.
RECOMMENDATION 30
Make it easy and rewarding for visitors to provide feedback.
• Create a new, user-friendly online feedback form that is automatically sent to registered
participants via email or text after an activity has ended.
• For non-registration events, increase feedback participation by replacing the generic
business card with an improved design that uses a scan code linked to the feedback
1 See Appendix E, Glossary of Interpretive Terms
Attachment 1
33
form. Include the corresponding URL for those who don’t use smartphones.
• Collect the contact information into a database and add visitors to an e-newsletter or
similar list. As with all electronic communications, the feedback form should include an
“opt-out” feature for those who do not care to be receive future announcements.
• The online feedback form should also include a clickable link inviting users to follow
the District on social media.
• Post a feedback invitation at preser ve entries, with scan code (and an easy-to-
remember web address for later use, since many preserves are out of cellular range).
• To increase participation, consider adding incentives for providing feedback.
Diversity Outreach
The District is conducting a study for FY 2017-2018 regarding preserve-user demographics.
Staff feedback indicates that, especially in light of the diverse demographics of the Bay Area,
people of color may be underrepresented among visitors, as well as among District staff and
volunteers. Similarly, docents (and their program attendees) tend to be older adults. This pattern
is not unique; indeed, this is true for natural resource agencies across the country. Possible
reasons for this, as offered by staff, volunteers, and the Board’s Diversity Ad Hoc Committee
members, reflect national patterns as well:
• Underrepresented populations may lack awareness of preser ves, and/or feel
uncomfortable visiting them.
• Language is one of many barriers.
• Some people are less familiar with or apprehensive about visiting remote, wildland areas.
• Urban dwellers, regardless of socioeconomic background, may assume there’s “nothing
to do” at a preserve, and/or associate natural lands with risks (insects, cougars, snakes,
assaults).
• Sites without group picnic or camping amenities can lack appeal for large-families and
groups that combine outdoor activities and cultural traditions with large social events that
include extended family members and friends.
• Socioeconomically-challenged groups may work long hours, and have little or no time
or energy to invest in volunteering; limited spare time may be used to support family
members; likewise, parents cannot spare time to chaperone school trips.
• Many underser ved populations face transportation barriers; they may live far from most
preserves and/or lack cars. There is little to no public transportation serving preserves.
Many interviewees felt this is the key barrier, especially at Skyline preserves.
RECOMMENDATION 31
• Work with educational and civic organizations to help with outreach to diverse
populations to solicit interest in District volunteer opportunities, programs, and activities.
• Consider listing bilingual skills as highly desirable in job descriptions and job
announcements.
People of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities regularly use open space preserves for after-
Attachment 1
34
work exercise, hiking, biking, or self-organized group outings. Large group activities can
draw visitors who otherwise may not use open space preserves regularly, helping to spread
awareness and growing the number and diversity of regular visitors over time. Permits are
required for groups of 20 or more, and rangers make contact with large groups to check for
permits.
RECOMMENDATION 32
Be aware of the various social media outlets that encourage outdoor group activities, and
work with the outlets to direct group organizers to locations that can accommodate their
group size. When feasible, offer accommodations to new groups, to encourage use and
visitation by large groups with diverse participants.
When encountering unpermitted groups, Rangers have excellent opportunities to
educate new users regarding the permit system, and to explain how it helps the District
accommodate large groups by reducing conflicts due to parking or incompatible uses
(e.g., a running event using the same space as a birdwatching group).
The Nature Center, an excellent introduction to Preserves, is closed on holidays—which tends
to be a big outing day for working families with children.
RECOMMENDATION 33
Consider staffing the Nature Center on holidays, and scheduling special activities that
appeal to families. Strive for multilingual volunteers to host the Nature Center.
The City of East Palo Alto’s Cooley Landing Educational Center is an attractive resource.
Located close to urban and underserved populations, it may be especially well-placed for
connecting with new audiences.
RECOMMENDATION 34
Consider a cooperative agreement with the City of East Palo Alto to offer interpretive
opportunities for Cooley Landing visitors. These could include docent training, live
programs, roving interpreters, and/or temporary or permanent exhibits.
RECOMMENDATION 35
Develop certain programs as bilingual or Spanish-only activities.
RECOMMENDATION 36
Consider making cultural awareness and sensitivity training standard for interpretive,
education, outreach, and Trail Patrol volunteers.
RECOMMENDATION 37
Consider creating a natural history education volunteer team to work within targeted
school classrooms to support and strengthen natural science education and awareness.
Environmental Volunteers, a non-profit organization focused on science education, may be
a natural partner for this.
RECOMMENDATION 38
Consider supporting the development of a Friends Group focused on fundraising for
diversity support (e.g., family outing transportation to preserves; scholarships for natural
sciences education; internships, etc.).
Attachment 1
35
RECOMMENDATION 39
Many new and soon-to-open preserves are close to populations rich in diversity. Consider
focusing new outreach efforts in these areas.
Partnerships for Diversity
The District has developed several community partnerships. We see opportunities for further
collaboration to engage more diverse communities.
Grassroots Ecology, for example, is rich in resource knowledge, organizational and
interpretive skills, and connections with underserved communities. This partnership can be
extended to include more work sites and engagement of underserved individuals and groups.
Latino Outdoors has been a good connection for the District, which could be further
developed. We also understand that Latino Outdoors is slim in staff and resources. This may
represent an opportunity for the District to strengthen this partnership.
RECOMMENDATION 40
Consider more strategic use of partnerships and contracts to better address diversity goals
(e.g., a multi-year funding contract to support Latino Outdoors staff in carrying out specific
District-related activities).
Rangers as Role Models and Interpreters
Role modeling is critical to the development of a diverse workforce over time—a high priority
in the District’s Vision Plan. At the same time, socioeconomically disadvantaged youth, who
may rarely if ever visit a preserve, lack exposure to career paths outside their sphere of
experience.
As uniformed authorities who are considered both friendly and approachable, rangers
enjoy a remarkable cachet, especially with youth. Although District rangers book occasional
appearances at schools and civic organization programs, current ranger resources are
stretched thin, and such duties are a challenge to pursue on top of higher priority needs.
Several District staff and management spoke of the benefits of rangers adding outreach and
interpretive programs to their job descriptions, and we agree.
RECOMMENDATION 41
Develop a cadre of “interpretive specialist” rangers whose regular duties include school
and civic organization visits. Consider requiring interpretive guide certification for this
position.
RECOMMENDATION 42
Cross-train all rangers in basic interpretive communication skills, with an emphasis on
facilitated dialogue.
Attachment 1
36
Social Media and Smartphone Apps
To help cultivate younger and more diverse audiences, the District is working with app
developer Tralia to make their outdoor recreation app more user and agency friendly. The
District can also make more of its social media accounts (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram,
YouTube) by providing content that is more interpretive and relevant to target audiences.
RECOMMENDATION 43
Expand audience reach by making social media content more interpretive, engaging, and
attractive, especially for younger and urban audiences.
• Create systems of communication that allow Visitor Ser vices and Public Affairs to
more easily tap the knowledge of other departments, to refresh website and social
media content with minimal demands on staff.
• In addition to the District’s annual photo contest, consider offering monthly
opportunities to submit a photo, poetry, or mini-essay to be featured on social
media and the District’s home page.
• Continue to work with Tralia to add app functions that:
• Help people locate and navigate to preser ves
• Offer place-based interpretive content on demand
• Generate an automatic quer y on visit satisfaction and feedback
• Include photo frames, stickers, and custom meme functions
• Link to District social media
• Add stewardship messaging to Geocaches located on preser ves.
Attachment 1
37
Implementation
Moving toward the vision for larger, higher-functioning Interpretation & Education and Volunteer
Stewardship programs will take time. A phased approach is recommended, as illustrated by
the charts on the following pages. It provides a suggested approach regarding the order,
sequence, and timing for pursuing the various recommendations identified in this report.
Implementation timing and costs will be evaluated on a step-by-step basis by District staff,
and recommendations will be made to the Board of Directors in the context of annual Action
Plan and Budget development processes, to ensure short- and long-term financial sustainability
and balancing of District-wide project and program priorities. The District should examine
each recommendation in light of funding, priority, staffing capacity, goals, and organizational
culture considerations.
It is understood that not every recommendation may be seen as suitable for the organization,
depending on long-term goals and organizational values. Rather, these recommendations are
offered as best professional practices, approaches, and enhancements that can serve to further
fulfill the agency’s goals for public outreach, engagement, and education aligned with the
agency mission, resource management needs, and core values.
Attachment 1
38
Ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
I
t
e
m
s
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
Ke
y
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
e
f
o
r
e
M
o
v
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
e
x
t
Ph
a
s
e
PHASE I
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
In
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
f
o
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Ex
t
e
r
n
a
l
m
e
s
s
a
g
i
n
g
,
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
o
r
s
p
o
k
e
n
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
br
a
n
d
.
A
n
I
M
P
i
s
t
h
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
t
h
i
s
.
Ha
s
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
-
W
i
d
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
be
e
n
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
B
o
a
r
d
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
l
l
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
?
Ap
p
l
y
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
&
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
j
o
b
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
l
e
a
d
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
I
&
E
a
n
d
V
o
l
S
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
g
r
o
w
t
o
m
e
e
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
m
a
n
d
.
Do
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
p
o
s
s
e
s
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
?
(
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
g
r
a
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
a
n
in
c
u
m
b
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
,
o
r
a
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
ne
w
h
i
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
u
s
t
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
tw
o
y
e
a
r
s
.
A
c
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
t
h
e
I
&
E
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
ma
n
a
g
e
r
i
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
m
a
s
t
e
r
pl
a
n
c
a
n
h
e
l
p
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
.
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
r
o
l
e
;
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
.
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
d
a
y
-
t
o
-
d
a
y
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
o
v
e
r
s
e
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
t
a
f
f
o
v
e
r
s
e
e
d
a
y
-
t
o
-
d
a
y
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
V
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
e
m
o
r
y
i
s
i
n
t
a
c
t
,
a
n
d
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
s
s
t
a
f
f
ch
a
n
g
e
s
w
e
l
l
.
N/
A
An
n
u
a
l
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
u
t
p
u
t
a
n
d
ou
t
c
o
m
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
.
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
a
f
f
h
a
v
e
a
c
l
e
a
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
w
h
a
t
i
s
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
e
a
c
h
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
N/
A
Pr
o
t
o
c
o
l
f
o
r
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
o
n
-
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
i
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
N
e
w
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ne
w
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
l
e
a
r
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
,
w
h
a
t
i
t
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
o
f
vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
a
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
N/
A
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
f
f
a
i
r
s
(
P
A
)
/
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
V
S
)
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
A
s
m
o
o
t
h
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
w
o
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
a
r
e
a
s
of
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
a
n
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
an
d
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
N/
A
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
f
o
r
sc
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
-
u
p
,
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
o
f
I
&
E
a
n
d
Vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
h
a
s
be
e
n
v
e
t
t
e
d
b
y
s
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
e
n
d
u
s
e
r
s
.
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
s
e
a
m
l
e
s
s
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
ma
n
a
g
e
r
s
a
n
d
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
.
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
n
d
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
.
Is
t
h
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
e
l
l
f
o
r
a
l
l
us
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
d
o
e
s
i
t
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
/
o
r
u
p
d
a
t
i
n
g
?
Attachment 1
39
Ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
I
t
e
m
s
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
Ke
y
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
e
f
o
r
e
M
o
v
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
e
x
t
Ph
a
s
e
PHASE I
IN
T
E
R
P
R
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
&
E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
•
Hir
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
•
Hir
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
A
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
o
n
K
-
1
2
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
a
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
-
ba
s
e
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
h
e
ne
x
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
e
e
t
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
s
t
a
f
f
l
e
v
e
l
s
w
i
l
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
c
o
a
c
h
i
n
g
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
D
o
c
e
n
t
an
d
N
a
t
u
r
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
H
o
s
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
a
f
f
b
u
i
l
d
s
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
n
e
w
pr
o
g
r
a
m
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.
Ha
s
O
E
L
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
b
e
e
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
cu
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
?
VO
L
U
N
T
E
E
R
S
T
E
W
A
R
D
S
H
I
P
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
Bu
i
l
d
C
r
e
w
L
e
a
d
e
r
r
a
n
k
s
An
e
n
l
a
r
g
e
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
e
w
L
e
a
d
e
r
pr
o
g
r
a
m
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
s
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s
st
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Attachment 1
40
Ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
I
t
e
m
s
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
Ke
y
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
e
f
o
r
e
M
o
v
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
e
x
t
Ph
a
s
e
PHASE II
Ad
d
n
e
w
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
(
V
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
L
e
a
d
-
T
r
a
i
l
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
,
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
)
.
•
Pro
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
(
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
t
a
f
f
)
m
a
n
a
g
e
vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
,
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
.
•
In
te
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
t
e
l
y
w
i
t
h
v
i
s
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
gr
o
w
t
h
.
•
Are
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
s
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
c
r
e
w
le
a
d
e
r
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
t
o
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
?
•
Are
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
i
l
r
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
?
•
Do
e
s
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
d
e
t
r
a
c
t
fr
o
m
I
&
E
a
n
d
V
o
l
S
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
de
l
i
v
e
r
y
?
Re
f
i
n
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
e
x
p
a
n
d
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
o
n
-
bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
R
e
t
r
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
/
l
o
n
g
-
te
r
m
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
n
e
w
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Al
l
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
l
e
a
r
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
,
wh
a
t
i
t
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
w
h
a
t
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
o
f
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
.
Ar
e
a
l
l
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
,
n
e
w
a
n
d
p
r
e
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
o
n
b
o
a
r
d
wi
t
h
t
h
e
n
e
w
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
/
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
?
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
f
o
r
a
l
l
w
h
o
co
m
e
i
n
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s
(
P
u
b
l
i
c
Af
f
a
i
r
s
s
t
a
f
f
,
f
i
e
l
d
s
t
a
f
f
,
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
,
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
)
.
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
,
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
a
l
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Ha
s
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
jo
b
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
?
IN
T
E
R
P
R
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
&
E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
•
Co
m
pl
e
t
e
a
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
in
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
e
v
e
r
y
h
i
g
h
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
.
•
Gr
ow
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
an
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
/
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
.
•
Im
pl
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
d
o
c
e
n
t
ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
.
•
De
ve
l
o
p
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
-
d
r
i
v
e
n
in
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
;
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
v
i
a
s
t
a
f
f
or
d
o
c
e
n
t
s
.
•
In
te
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
t
o
p
e
n
sp
a
c
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
a
r
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
w
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
to
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
’
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
y
l
e
s
.
•
Ann
u
a
l
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
g
o
a
l
s
a
r
e
m
e
t
o
r
e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d
.
•
Cap
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
i
s
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
hi
g
h
l
y
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
d
o
c
e
n
t
s
.
•
In
te
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
i
s
d
i
v
e
r
s
e
a
n
d
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
ta
r
g
e
t
a
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
.
Is
t
h
e
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
d
o
c
e
n
t
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
?
VO
L
U
N
T
E
E
R
S
T
E
W
A
R
D
S
H
I
P
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
En
h
a
n
c
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
r
p
s
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
m
e
e
t
o
r
e
x
c
e
e
d
a
n
n
u
a
l
ta
r
g
e
t
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
go
a
l
s
)
.
N/
A
Attachment 1
41
Ti
m
e
l
i
n
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
I
t
e
m
s
Ra
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
PHASE III
Hi
r
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
t
a
f
f
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
a
l
s
/
i
n
t
e
r
n
s
(
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
an
d
A
i
d
e
s
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
A
i
d
e
s
,
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
A
i
d
e
s
)
.
•
In
te
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
k
e
e
p
p
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
d
e
m
a
n
d
.
•
Act
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
e
v
e
n
t
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
m
e
n
t
as
o
p
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
d
d
i
n
g
a
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
re
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
i
n
t
a
k
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
i
g
n
-
u
p
“
o
p
e
n
se
a
s
o
n
.
”
Vo
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
v
a
l
u
e
d
a
n
d
re
c
e
i
v
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
.
IN
T
E
R
P
R
E
T
A
T
I
O
N
&
E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
•
Co
m
pl
e
t
e
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
s
fo
r
a
l
l
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
.
•
Co
n
ti
n
u
e
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
S
p
a
c
e
s
&
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
;
a
d
d
n
e
w
pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
a
d
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
•
Edu
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
in
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
s
.
•
In
te
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
t
o
p
e
n
sp
a
c
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
a
r
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
i
n
w
a
y
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
to
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
’
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
a
n
d
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
y
l
e
s
.
•
Dis
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
w
e
l
l
-
r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d
b
y
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
;
s
o
u
g
h
t
a
f
t
e
r
a
s
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
of
m
u
t
u
a
l
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
(
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
,
fi
e
l
d
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
ta
r
g
e
t
s
m
e
t
o
r
e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d
)
.
Attachment 1
42
Appendix A
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many District staff and volunteers who made this study possible. They shared their
thoughts and ideas in interviews and focus groups; provided us with needed background information; and
made themselves available for questions and general support. If we have inadvertently left any individuals
out, we apologize.
District Staff
Steve Abbors
Gordon Baillie
Chris Barresi
Cydney Beiber
Marianne Chance
Renée Fitzsimons
Ellen Gartside
Carmen Lau
Bruce Bailey
Paul Billig
Kim Borick
Cathy Brown
Stephen Buckhout
Steve Haas
Doug Hembry
Dave Hood
Lynn Jackson
Farhana Kazi
Dave Kocsis
Louise Levy
Tom Lausten
Brian Malone
Paul McKowan
Michael Newburn
Ana Ruiz
Jennifer Williams
Kevin Woodhouse
Chris McIntosh
Lina Mesa
Barb Muir
Claudia Newbold
Ann Parsons
Bob Rosenberg
Sarah Schoen
John Seyfarth
Simone Smith
Gerri Tiernan
Ben Velichko
Liz Velichko
Volunteers and Docents
We extend special thanks to the following organizations for their willingness to share their successes and
challenges with us:
Environmental Volunteers, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy, Jefferson County Open Space,
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Santa Clara County Parks, Santa Clara
Valley Open Space Authority, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Año Nuevo State Park, City of Boulder
Open Space and Mountain Parks, Fort Collins Natural Areas, Friends of Edgewood, Grassroots
Ecology, BeachWatch Program—Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, and Pacifica
Beach Coalition.
Attachment 1
43
Appendix B
List of Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION 1
Because the primary focus of the current Volunteer Program is resource stewardship, consider
renaming it to the Volunteer Stewardship Program (VolS) Similarly, consider renaming the
Docent Program to the Interpretation & Education Program (I&E).
• In this scenario, “Volunteer” becomes a universal term encompassing all volunteers.
Depending on program, individuals will be known as Stewardship Volunteers,
Administrative Volunteers, or Docents (Docent Naturalists, Outdoor Education Docents,
Nature Center Docents).
• Although administrative volunteers do not ser ve directly in field-based stewardship
roles, it makes administrative sense to have the Volunteer Stewardship program
continue to manage them.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Develop a new, District-wide Interpretive Master Plan.
• This Master Plan would outline an overarching message hierarchy to support all forms
of public communications over the next 10 to 20 years, while maintaining flexibility,
adaptability and responsiveness to topical issues.
• Interpretive Master Plan goals should align with those of the Vision Plan, and be paired
with achievable, outcome-based, measurable objectives.
• Interpretive master planning should incorporate input from ever y relevant department
(Natural Resources, Visitor Services, Public Affairs, Planning, etc.) as well as community
and user group representatives.
• The Interpretive Master Plan should be developed under the guidance of, or in
partnership with, a professional interpretive planner trained and certified by the
National Association for Interpretation (NAI).1 Master plans developed in association
with an experienced outside planner are more objective, more thorough, easier to
complete, and benefit from the collective knowledge of a broadly experienced team.
RECOMMENDATION 3
Using the Interpretive Master Plan as a guide, develop more detailed individual interpretive
plans for each preserve.
• Preser ve interpretive plans would outline target audiences, the topics from which site-
appropriate storylines can be developed, and the best mix of non-personal media
(signs, apps, etc.) and personal programming (docent walks, Trail Patrol volunteers,
trailhead popup booths, etc.) to deliver them.
• Preser ve plans would in turn inform site, facility, media, and program planning and
development.
1 The National Association for Interpretation is the interpretive profession’s standards and support association in the
US, Canada, and more than 30 other nations. NAI offers professional-level certification for front-line interpreters,
interpretive managers, interpretive planners, and interpretive trainers, as well as excellent training and certification
courses for interpretive guides (docents) and hosts.
Attachment 1
44
RECOMMENDATION 4
Wherever appropriate, frame all public communications, regardless of topic or source, within
the District’s overarching theme/subtheme hierarchy.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Formalize coordination between departments regarding public messaging, particularly that
between Public Affairs and Visitor Services.
RECOMMENDATION 6
As needed, Visitor Services, Public Affairs, Natural Resources, Land & Facilities Services, and
Planning should work together to develop communication campaigns to address topical issues,
visitor- or neighbor-related resource protection issues, and other needs.
RECOMMENDATION 7
Actively include docents in the implementation of the District’s overarching theme-subtheme
framework. The District should introduce these themes as part of initial docent training, ensure
trainees understand the power and importance of theme-based interpretation, and support and
encourage docent creativity in the preparation of their own theme-based content for proposed
activities. These measures can ensure that all interpretive offerings are organized around
specific District themes, storylines, goals, and measurable objectives, as outlined in a new
interpretive master plan and corresponding preserve interpretive plans.
RECOMMENDATION 8
Integrate more in-depth training in thematic interpretation, develop and monitor docent
program standards and best practices, and create opportunities for docent growth into
advanced interpreter levels.
• Develop minimum performance standards for the I&E program; ensure sufficient
practice and coaching time during initial and ongoing training.
• Develop a robust, thematically-oriented activity planning form as a tool for for docents,
and train them in its use.
• New docents may benefit from using pre-developed program outlines and activities as
models when beginning to lead activities.
• Experienced docents who demonstrate consistent understanding of the principles and
use of thematic interpretation would be encouraged to develop their own creative
programs.
• Monitor the docent program performance via a multi-prong approach: participant
feedback, self- evaluation processes, and periodic staff observation; adjust or
supplement training and provide feedback as needed. Consider the benefits of
providing ongoing support and coaching through a peer mentorship program.
• Consider making the Certified Interpretive Guide course available to all docents, by
working directly with NAI to sponsor a CIG training at the District. At approximately
$220 per person (plus an optional certification fee, which some docents may want to
pay), this 32-hour training, the gold standard worldwide, is both highly impactful and
affordable.
• California State Parks has developed an excellent interpretive training handbook for its
volunteer and staff interpreters, called the Basic Interpretive Learning System. It can be
found at https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/735/files/BILS_FINAL_2012.pdf.
Attachment 1
45
RECOMMENDATION 9
Consider adding one or more Interpretive Specialists to increase the capacity of the Outdoor
Activity Docent and Nature Center Host programs to assist the Program Manager in
training, coaching, supporting, and monitoring both docent programs. Specialists should be
professionally trained and NAI-certified.
RECOMMENDATION 10
Maintain the District’s institutional membership in NAI; provide for ongoing staff development
through NAI certification; provide for ongoing staff development through NAI certification;
continue to send I&E staff to NAI’s regional and national conferences, where they receive
ongoing training, exchange ideas for new programs and techniques, and receive support and
inspiration from peers and leaders in the field. This resource is also recommended for docents.
• Support the ability of the Program Manager to fulfill the expanded capacity of I&E
programming by adding to the job description certifications in interpretive planning,
training, and management. Provide a sufficient grace period for the incumbent to meet
these certification qualifications.
• Continue to encourage docents to participate in NAI events.
• Keep docents informed about NAI scholarships to national workshops.
• Consider, as part of a docent recognition award, underwriting one participant’s
registration at NAI’s annual regional or national workshop.
• As appropriate, explore partnering with a “Friends of Midpen” group to raise funds for
CIG training and conference attendance fees.
RECOMMENDATION 11
Staff the Outdoor Environmental Education program with one or more professionally trained
and certified Environmental Education Specialists, and consider expanding the program’s
capacity through the use of seasonal interns. Consider recruiting interns and staff with degrees
from established environmental education programs.
RECOMMENDATION 12
Institute OEL performance standards and in-field performance monitoring via a multi-pronged
approach including teacher feedback and suggestions, self-evaluation, staff observation, and
peer mentoring for trainees.
RECOMMENDATION 13
To help attract, support, and retain docents as OELs, expand and deepen OEL training
programs; continually offer refresher trainings; and inform docents about and sponsor docent
attendance at regional NAAEE or other environmental learning forums.
RECOMMENDATION 14
Because science standards are constantly evolving, update the program curriculum every 3-5
years, ensuring its alignment with state content standards and benchmarks.
RECOMMENDATION 15
Consider adding a Volunteer Project Lead-Trails Specialist position, responsible for a new,
highly trained Advanced Trails volunteer team, to the Volunteer Stewardship program.
Attachment 1
46
RECOMMENDATION 16
Review, reassess, and recommit to training and coordinating specially-trained volunteers and
crew leaders to increase supervisor-to-volunteer ratios and enhance training. Monitor and
continue applying participation limits for corporate partner activities to ensure manageable
group sizes and satisfying volunteer experiences.
RECOMMENDATION 17
Continue to set clear expectations for volunteers from the beginning, starting with program
advertising and recruitment.
• Periodically review volunteer role descriptions to ensure they reflect current duties,
requirements, and expectations; consider including the personality traits and attributes
best suited for each position.
• When filling any volunteer role that involves interactions with the public, consider the
candidate’s interpersonal skills.
• Add interpersonal skills to the list of requirements for Trail Patrol Volunteers.
RECOMMENDATION 18
Consider adding a part- or full-time Program Coordinator/Office Specialist position to the
Stewardship Program. This position would perform intake, orientation and evaluation duties for
the Trail Patrol volunteers, and provide much-needed administrative support for the Stewardship
Program (scheduling, data entry and report generation; communications with volunteers).
RECOMMENDATION 19
Expand interpersonal skills training and practice time for Stewardship volunteers who come in
contact with the public. Cross-train Trail Patrol Volunteers in interpretive techniques to support
their dual duties of resource protection and visitor communications.
RECOMMENDATION 20
Continue to support volunteer candidates and provide useful feedback to help each become
more and more successful by using current performance monitoring (during training as
well as in the field). Provide as much ongoing feedback as time allows, and continue to
provide necessary support to assist with improvements—additional training, counseling, or
reassignment—as necessary. Allocate sufficient staff time for continued prompt follow-up on
issues.
RECOMMENDATION 21
Formalize a mentor program for Trail Patrol Volunteers, pairing select experienced TPVs with
trainees.
RECOMMENDATION 22
Provide systematic lines of communication with and between volunteers.
• Consider a District-hosted blog or list-ser ve that keeps subscribers updated with
preserve news, to which other departments can easily contribute content.
• Develop an online communications platform to meet the needs of I&E and VolS
volunteers; consider recruiting a team of volunteers to administer it.
Attachment 1
47
RECOMMENDATION 23
Provide online learning resources for all volunteers. Consider:
• Distance learning (including NAI-sponsored webinars)
• Videotaped in-house training sessions
• An FAQ section
• A crowdsourced bibliography of recommended books, web resources, etc.
• Working with libraries to set up a reserved book system
• If feasible, an online event calendar function
RECOMMENDATION 24
Develop clear structures and procedures that document and institutionalize staff knowledge,
planning, decision-making, work flow, record-keeping, and accountability, to ensure
organizational memory and program continuity. Increase knowledge of intra-program roles and
responsibilities.
RECOMMENDATION 25
Increase community outreach effectiveness by training seasoned volunteers as outreach event
leaders, trusted to supervise other Community Outreach Volunteers at events. This will allow the
Public Affairs Specialist to shift focus to supporting multiple events simultaneously.
RECOMMENDATION 26
Formalize intra-departmental coordination and collaboration regarding preserve events,
outreach, social media, stewardship outreach (e.g., a “dogs on leashes” blitz), and updated
talking points for informal encounters between visitors and District representatives in the field.
RECOMMENDATION 27
Develop preserve entries and signage in accordance with the new interpretive master plan.
Develop signage design standards that convey a consistent look and feel across properties,
while still highlighting each preserve’s unique identity.
RECOMMENDATION 28
Move leadership for interpretive signage planning and development to the I&E program; train
all interpretive panel team members in interpretive principles and techniques.
RECOMMENDATION 29
For all District representatives who have contact with visitors and constituents, provide
appropriate levels of cross- training in basic interpretive principles and techniques, with
emphasis on interpersonal communication and facilitated dialogue.1
RECOMMENDATION 30
Make it easy and rewarding for visitors to provide feedback.
• Create a new, user-friendly online feedback form that is automatically sent to registered
participants via email or text after an activity has ended.
1 See Appendix G, Glossary of Interpretive Terms
Attachment 1
48
• For non-registration events, increase feedback participation by replacing the generic
business card with an improved design that uses a scan code linked to the feedback
form. Include the corresponding URL for those who don’t use smartphones.
• Collect the contact information into a database and add visitors to an e-newsletter or
similar list. As with all electronic communications, the feedback form should include an
“opt-out” feature for those who do not care to be receive future announcements.
• The online feedback form should also include a clickable link inviting users to follow
the District on social media.
• Post a feedback invitation at preser ve entries, with scan code (and an easy-to-
remember web address for later use, since many preserves are out of cellular range).
• To increase participation, consider adding incentives for providing feedback.
RECOMMENDATION 31
• Work with educational and civic organizations to help with outreach to diverse
populations to solicit interest in District volunteer opportunities, programs, and activities.
• Consider listing bilingual skills as highly desirable in job descriptions and job
announcements.
RECOMMENDATION 32
Be aware of the various social media outlets that encourage outdoor group activities, and
work with the outlets to direct group organizers to locations that can accommodate their group
size. When feasible, offer accommodations to new groups, to encourage use and visitation
by large groups with diverse participants.
When encountering unpermitted groups, Rangers have excellent opportunities to educate new
users regarding the permit system, and to explain how it helps the District accommodate large
groups by reducing conflicts due to parking or incompatible uses (e.g., a running event using
the same space as a birdwatching group).
RECOMMENDATION 33
• Consider staffing the Nature Center on holidays, and scheduling special activities that
appeal to families. Strive for multilingual volunteers to host the Nature Center.
• The City of East Palo Alto’s Cooley Landing Educational Center is an attractive resource.
Located close to urban and underserved populations, it may be especially well-placed for
connecting with new audiences.
RECOMMENDATION 34
Consider a cooperative agreement with the City of East Palo Alto to offer interpretive
opportunities for Cooley Landing visitors. These could include docent training, live programs,
roving interpreters, and/or temporary or permanent exhibits.
RECOMMENDATION 35
Develop certain programs as bilingual or Spanish-only activities.
RECOMMENDATION 36
Consider making cultural awareness and sensitivity training standard for interpretive,
education, outreach, and Trail Patrol volunteers.
Attachment 1
49
RECOMMENDATION 37
Consider creating a natural history education volunteer team to work within targeted school
classrooms to support and strengthen natural science education and awareness. Environmental
Volunteers, a non-profit organization focused on science education, may be a natural partner
for this.
RECOMMENDATION 38
Consider supporting the development of a Friends Group focused on fundraising for diversity
support (e.g., family outing transportation to preserves; scholarships for natural sciences
education; internships, etc.).
RECOMMENDATION 39
Many new and soon-to-open preserves are close to populations rich in diversity. Consider
focusing new outreach efforts in these areas.
RECOMMENDATION 40
Consider more strategic use of partnerships and contracts to better address diversity goals
(e.g., a multi-year funding contract to support Latino Outdoors staff in carrying out specific
District-related activities).
RECOMMENDATION 41
Develop a cadre of “interpretive specialist” rangers whose regular duties include school and
civic organization visits. Consider requiring interpretive guide certification for this position.
RECOMMENDATION 42
Cross-train all rangers in basic interpretive communication skills, with an emphasis on facilitated
dialogue.
RECOMMENDATION 43
Expand audience reach by making social media content more interpretive, engaging, and
attractive, especially for younger and urban audiences.
• Create systems of communication that allow Visitor Services and Public Affairs to more
easily tap the knowledge of other departments, to refresh website and social media
content with minimal demands on staff.
• In addition to the District’s annual photo contest, consider offering monthly opportunities
to submit a photo, poetry, or mini-essay to be featured on social media and the District’s
home page.
• Continue to work with Tralia to add app functions that:
• Help people locate and navigate to preser ves
• Offer place-based interpretive content on demand
• Generate an automatic quer y on visit satisfaction and feedback
• Include photo frames, stickers, and custom meme functions
• Link to District social media
• Add stewardship messaging to Geocaches located on preser ves
Attachment 1
50
Appendix C
Organizations Interviewed
The following organizations and agencies were interviewed over a period of four weeks in
April and May 2017. We appreciate their time and willingness to share information. While
the contents of their interviews have been kept confidential, each organization is described
below.
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Trust
Although this organization manages only 1,600 acres of land in a densely populated region,
it has a highly active stewardship and education program involving a team of 1,700+
volunteers, along with professional staff. Resources include a core group of several hundred
long-term volunteers, and over a thousand one-time volunteers. Together, they contributed
approximately 30,000 volunteer hours in 2016. This organization sets high expectations
for training and commitment, and feels the addition of a dedicated volunteer manager has
benefited the organization.
Santa Clara County Parks
This organization manages 52,000 acres of land. It manages approximately 300 active
volunteers who contribute education and/or stewardship work at a specific assigned unit on
a weekly or monthly basis. A year-round training program is in the works, as are “scripts” for
docent programs.
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
This organization manages 18,000 acres of land and has an active education program
of 80+ docents. Docents are given freedom to put together their own program, with the
guidance and feedback of the education manager, and are required to go through a month-
long training. Each docent-led program must feature information about the organization, its
mission, and the overall purpose behind the land protection.
Jefferson County Open Space
This organization manages more than 54,000 acres of land. In 2016, more than 3,000
volunteers contributed nearly 40,000 hours of education, interpretation and stewardship work,
and more than 75,000 people attended public programs. A rigorous placement process
helps focus training efforts on volunteers who truly are committed. This organization challenges
volunteers to complete extensive training and be available when the organization needs them,
not when it is convenient for volunteers. This results in a cadre of highly skilled volunteers that
are very much appreciated by staff. Advanced education volunteers (docents) are allowed to
create their own programs; less experienced volunteers deliver activities developed by staff.
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
This organization manages approximately 30,000 acres in an urban area. In 2016, more
than 1,700 volunteers contributed 17,000 hours of education, interpretation, and stewardship
work. On average, 150-200 of those volunteers remain active year-round. The training
process is informal. Citizen science volunteers must have previous training in order to be
accepted.
Attachment 1
51
Pacifica Beach Coalition
This organization does not manage land, yet has more than 15,000 volunteers who
participate in environmental stewardship projects at more than 65 different project sites.
Inexperienced volunteers are paired with experienced mentors. This organization embraces
social media and word-of-mouth promotion to generate interest and participation. Personal
connections with volunteers, and celebration of every accomplishment, is valued by this
organization.
Environmental Volunteers
This organization does not manage land, yet has more than 100 volunteers who provide
education to groups of all ages. A strict placement process and extensive training requirement
(half a day a week for eight weeks) yields little turnover. Volunteers are expected to be “on
point and delivering our message.”
Friends of Edgewood Park & Preserve
This organization does not manage land, yet has about 75 active volunteers who provide
education, interpretation, and stewardship for a specific project site. Volunteers are managed
by the specific program they work with, and while the docent training program is extensive,
other volunteer roles require less training. Docent activity outlines and reports are submitted and
seen by the whole cadre, which has improved program quality overall.
City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
This organization manages 45,000 acres in an urban environment. In 2016, more than
1,700 volunteers contributed nearly 20,000 hours of education, interpretation, and
stewardship work. While every volunteer has a minimum of 2 hours of required training (roles
and responsibilities, purpose of the organization), some volunteer jobs require up to 60 hours
(naturalists), plus shadowing.
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas
This organization manages more than 36,000 acres, consisting of 41 individual sites.
In 2016, more than 1,800 volunteers contributed nearly 16,000 hours of education,
interpretation, and stewardship work. Seventy hours of training are required for the volunteer
naturalist role. Interviews are not conducted; the training process is used as the primary filter.
While docents are allowed to propose their own activities, the staff vets each proposal. The
time taken to develop personal connections with these volunteers is thought to make a real
difference.
Beach Watch (a program of the Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary)
This organization does not manage land, yet has more than 150 volunteers who conduct
citizen science work at sites spanning more than 210 miles. More than 13,000 hours were
contributed in 2014. Eighty hours of training are required at sign-up, along with a monthly
day-long commitment. Turnover is very minimal. Once volunteers make it past the rigorous
application process, they are paired with mentors for 3 months.
Attachment 1
52
Monterey Bay Aquarium
This organization manages more than 550 active education and maintenance volunteers at its
site. Training is extensive, offered in 3-week bursts, with a month off in between. A dedicated
volunteer HR Department handles recruitment, orientation, replacement, recognition, and hour
tracking. This frees up program staff to focus on training, supervision, and quality control.
Messaging campaigns are integral to the facility’s operations.
Año Nuevo State Park
This organization manages 170 docents at its site. A 10-week training program is combined
with a mentorship program and shadowing requirements. Docents are given interpretive goals
for their programs, but the specific approach is left to the docent. Supervisors conduct random
program observations with docents and provide feedback.
Attachment 1
53
Appendix D
The Growing Need for Visitor Services
As the District scales up the organization to meet the growth set in motion by passage of the
Measure AA bond in 2014, it places distinct emphasis on enhancing its visitor services and
customer engagement through a variety of planning efforts.
In its 2014 Vision Plan, the District established several broad goals regarding its connections
with the public, including both the Docent and Volunteer programs:
Expand Opportunity—Increase the diversity of visitors; and accommodate a wide variety
of visitors of all abilities, ages, ethnicities, and interests
Diversity—Creatively reach more people, including those with decreased mobility, and
increase the diversity of our visitors; and expand youth programming and outreach through
partnerships
Improved Visitor Experience—Provide facilities/areas where families can engage safely
with nature; emphasize a variety of natural learning environments; and increase use of
technology to introduce and connect people to nature
Volunteer Stewardship—Increase support for stewardship and open space conservation;
increase technology use to promote open space stewardship; and encourage hands-on
stewardship and citizen science activities on Midpen lands
Knowledge, Understanding, and Appreciation—Remember and honor community heritage
and past ways of life through activities, programming, and projects; Interpret how natural
and cultural resources relate to people’s current lives; and increase preserve-specific
interpretation projects and programs that emphasize the protection of natural and cultural
resources
In addition, the Board of Directors’ Ad Hoc Diversity Committee established a set of goals
for Fiscal Year 2016-17. Goals and objectives relevant to the Volunteer Stewardship and
Interpretation & Education programs are:
Goal 1. Promote the District and its interpretive programs through collaborative
partnerships with diverse community organizations.
• Explore potential partnership scenarios to support the long-term management and/
or programming of the Cooley Landing Education Center; focus on scenarios that
provide “next generation” Bayfront community services and benefits.
• Seek best mechanism(s) for introducing high school, college, and graduate
students to District work, thereby infusing youth and new perspectives into District
work. Some possibilities include: participating in summer internship programs or
partnering with local, teen-based resource centers and/or conservation corps.
Attachment 1
54
Goal 2. Engage with communities through public meetings and other means to increase
awareness about the District and its projects.
• Identify options for Board members to engage one-on-one and in group settings
with constituents and other elected officials. Some possibilities include inviting
elected officials to participate in docent-led hikes and volunteer projects.
• Seek training opportunities to provide Board members with additional tools and
strategies for becoming more effective public outreach ambassadors for the District.
Goal 3. Reflect the diversity of the surrounding community in District activities and functions.
• Explore opportunities for closing the gaps of concern; determine if we are offering
what diverse communities would like to experience as visitors, and provide as
volunteers and docents.
Goal 4. Expand existing partnerships and enter into new, non-traditional partnerships to
complete projects and improve programs that serve a diverse community.
• Define the District’s role in completing Cooley Landing Park and in ensuring the
success of the Cooley Landing Education Center.
• Provide input during the upcoming study of the Visitor Ser vices Department’s
Volunteer and Docent programs to emphasize a volunteer and docent program
delivery model that can best develop non-traditional partnerships and serve a
diverse community, including the potential to create a local conservation corps.
The Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2017-18 identified several goals
regarding engaging partners and the public:
Goal 1. Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental protection vision with
partners.
• Build and strengthen diverse partnerships to implement a collaborative approach to
environmental protection on the Peninsula, South Bay and San Mateo Coast.
• Implement and communicate progress on the District’s Vision Plan.
Goal 2. Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision.
• Communicate the purpose of the regional environmental protection vision to help
guide future decisions and to clarify and strengthen the District’s regional role with
the public and partners.
• Refine and implement a comprehensive public outreach strategy, including the
engagement of diverse communities and enhanced public education programs.
• Develop and implement strategies to accommodate an expanding public use of
District preser ves consistent with environmental protection vision.
Goal 3. Strengthen organizational capacity to fulfill the mission.
• Provide the necessar y resources, tools, and infrastructure, including technology
upgrades and capacity building to meet project commitments.
• Reflect the changing community we ser ve in the District’s visitors, staff, volunteers,
and partners.
Attachment 1
55
Goal 4. Position the District for long-term financial sustainability to fulfill the District’s mission
on behalf of the public.
• Continue to engage constituents for bond sales via the work of the Bond Oversight
Committee.
Attachment 1
56
Appendix E
Bibliography
In addition to a wide range of training materials, policy manuals, survey and feedback reports,
and other materials drawn from the current Volunteer and Docent programs, the following
publications were used in the preparation of this report.
All document web links are current as of July 2017.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District documents:
Vision Plan
https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/vision-plan
Conservation Atlas
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Conservation_Atlas.pdf
Financial and Operational Sustainability Model
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/FOSM_Report.pdf
Strategic Plan and Updates
https://www.openspace.org/about-us/strategic-plan
Measure AA Five-Year Project List
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/MeasureAA_5YR_Projects.pdf
Interpretive Planning Guide (2011)
Diversity Outreach Ad Hoc Committee Memorandum (Nov. 2016)
Board Policy Manual: Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (March 2016)
Bay Area Increases in Diversity: Reference Assoc. of Bay Area Government’s 2015 Report
http://reports.abag.ca.gov/sotr/2015/section3-changing-population.php
National Park Service (2011). Interpretive Solutions: Harnessing the Power of Interpretation to
Help Resolve Critical Resource Issues.
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1905/upload/InterpSolutions.pdf
National Park Service (undated). Snowy Plovers at Point Reyes, retrieved from
https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/nature/birds_snowyplover.htm
Rogers, Paul. (2014, September 13). Conflicts with Yosemite bears fall dramatically as
people, bears learn new lessons. San Jose Mercury News, retrieved from
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/09/13/conflicts-with-yosemite-bears-fall-
dramatically-as-people-bears-learn-new-lessons/
Ham, S. & Weiler, B. (2004). Diffusion and adoption of thematic interpretation at an
interpretive historic site. Annals of Leisure Research 7(1):1-17
Powell, R. and Ham, S. (2008). Can Ecotourism Interpretation Really Lead to Pro-Conservation
Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior? Evidence form the Galapagos Islands. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 16(4):467-489
Attachment 1
57
Appendix F
Resources and Recommended Reading for
Interpreters and Volunteer Managers
National Association for Interpretation
The National Association for Interpretation (http://www.interpnet.com/) is the interpretive
profession’s standards and support association for the US, Canada, and more than 30
other nations. Members include parks, museums, nature centers, zoos, botanical gardens,
aquariums, historical and cultural sites, and the interpreters, educators, and supervisors who
work at them.
In addition to annual regional, national, and international conferences and workshops, all
of which offer professional development, peer networking and support benefits, NAI offers
professional-level certification for master interpreters, interpretive managers, interpretive
planners, and interpretive trainers. NAI also offers excellent training and certification for two
non-professional categories: interpretive guides (docents) and hosts. A summary of each of
these six categories follows. For more information, a copy of NAI’s Certification Handbook
and Study Guide can be downloaded at:
http://www.interpnet.com/nai/docs/Certification_Handbook.pdf.
Non-Professional Certifications
Certified Interpretive Guide (CIG) certification is an introductory-level category tailored
specifically for docents, entry-level interpretive staff, educators, and others who give live
programs. The Certified Interpretive Host category is designed for campground hosts and
others who don’t give programs, but who can benefit from training in basic interpretive
principles and customer service.
CIG and CIH trainings are offered throughout the US; agencies can arrange to host trainings
at their place of business.
Requirements for both non-professional categories include a basic knowledge of the history
of the interpretive profession; the principles of interpretation; and available resources in the
interpretive field. Additional requirements for each category include:
Certified Interpretive Guide (CIG)
• Outlining a thematic interpretive presentation with the following elements:
• audience
• goal(s) and measurable objective(s)
• theme, introduction, subthemes, and conclusion
• Delivery of a live thematic interpretive presentation
Certified Interpretive Host (CIH)
• Use of informal interpretation in communications
• Excellence in customer ser vice
• Writing measurable objectives
Attachment 1
58
Professional Certifications
Certification requirements for the four professional certification categories include a four-
year degree in interpretation or a similar field; plus demonstrated knowledge of the history
of the interpretive profession, the principles of interpretation, and the current literature in
the interpretive field. Each category carries additional skills, abilities, and knowledge
requirements:
Certified Heritage Interpreter (CIH)
• Techniques for delivery of personal programs
• Techniques for development of non-personal media
• Group dynamics
• Development and deliver y of thematic interpretive presentations
• Effective interpersonal communication
• Writing measurable objectives
• Development and conceptual design of publications, signs, exhibits, and other non-
personal media
• Interpretive writing
Certified Interpretive Manager (CIM)
• Knowledge of sound business practices
• Leadership
• Super vision of subordinate staff
• Meeting management
• Budget development and administration
• Business planning
• Writing measurable objectives
• Use of interpretation to accomplish management objectives
Certified Interpretive Planner (CIP)
• Marketing, management, and maintenance of interpretive programs and facilities
• Meeting facilitation
• Cost estimating
• Business and strategic planning
• Assessment of natural, cultural, and operational resources
• Development of thematic guidelines
• Writing measurable objectives
• Formative and summative evaluation
• Development of media guidelines and descriptions
• Market analysis
Certified Interpretive Trainer (CIT)
• Facilitation of training sessions
• Evaluation and coaching
• Writing measurable objectives
• Planning and administration of training sessions
• Training opportunities available in the interpretive field
Attachment 1
59
California State Parks Training Handbook
This agency has developed a Basic Interpretive Learning System, a comprehensive, 13-module
training in thematic interpretation for use in training all volunteer and staff naturalists. Volunteers
are expected to develop all programs around appropriate park themes, and deliver them using
a variety of interpretive techniques tailored to their audiences. The complete handbook with all
modules can be found at https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/735/files/BILS_FINAL_2012.
pdf.
Eppley Institute
Eppley hosts the National Park Service’s Interpretive Development Program website, which
offers training resources for interpreters ranging from entry-level to full mastery, supervisors, and
those who develop outdoor education curriculum. http://idp.eppley.org/home/
Energize, Inc.
A training and support firm for volunteer managers, with an excellent, free collection of online
resources. https://www.energizeinc.com/
501 Commons
Designed for non-profits, this organization nevertheless offers many resources helpful to
agencies that use volunteer programs. https://www.501commons.org/resources/tools-and-
best-practices/volunteer-management
Books and Articles
Brochu, L. and Merriman, T. (2002). Personal Interpretation: Connecting your Audience to
Heritage Resources.
Brochu, L. (second edition, 2014). Interpretive Planning: The 5 M Method for Successful
Planning Projects
Buchholz, J., Lackey, B., Gross, M., and Zimmerman, R. (fourth edition, 2015) The
Interpreter’s Guidebook: Techniques and Tips for Programs and Presentations
Beck, L. and Cable, T. (third edition, 2013). The Gifts of Interpretation: Fifteen Guiding
Principles for Interpreting Nature and Culture (Third Edition)
Cornell, J. (1998) Sharing Nature with Children
Ditkoff, D. (2016, Feb. 6). The 27 Best Practices of High Performing Volunteer
Organizations. The Huffington Post, retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-ditkoff/best-practices-volunteer-
organizations_b_2624967.html
Ham, S. (2013). Interpretation: Making a Difference on Purpose
Knudson, D., Cable, T. and Beck, L. (second Edition, 2003) Interpretation of Cultural and
Natural Resources
Lewis, W. (1991) Interpreting for Park Visitors
Merriman, T. and Brochu, L. (2005) Management of Interpretive Sites: Developing
Sustainable Operations Through Effective Leadership
Tilden, F. (Third edition, 1977) Interpreting Our Heritage
Attachment 1
60
Appendix G
Glossary of Interpretive Terms
Tangibles
The objects, features, or events we interpret; e.g., black bears, projectile points, endangered
species, forest fires, plant communities, ceremonial dances.
Intangibles
The larger ideas that lie behind tangibles and give them meaning; e.g., adaptation,
craftsmanship, struggle for sur vival, renewal, interdependence, cultural heritage.
Universal Concepts
Extra-powerful intangibles that reach across boundaries of culture, gender, etc.; e.g., healing,
family, support, security, hope, courage, fear, love. Reference at least one universal concept in
every interpretive experience.
Topic
The subject matter of a presentation. Penguins, penguin nesting habits, adaptations to cold
environments, birds of Antarctica, and sea lion-penguin relationships are all topics.
Theme
The principle message or story about your topic. A theme is the “big idea” that connects a
presentation’s facts and concepts into a meaningful whole. Even if you never state the theme
verbatim, think of it as the one “take-home message” you want your visitors to grasp and
remember forever.
Effective themes link a tangible with an intangible; they are specific, and they are interesting.
Because a theme must express a complete thought, it should be written as a complete sentence
during the planning stage.
Good theme examples:
• The Mexican gray wolf is a keystone of the Southwest ecosystem.
• Healthy forests sicken without periodic fires.
• Volcanoes set the stage for the “good life” for early Jemez people.
Poor theme examples:
The Mexican gray wolf; Southwestern ecosystems; Forest fires; Prehistoric life in the
Jemez Mountains.
These are topics, not themes. What about wolves? Why does fire matter? What was
significant about prehistoric life in the Jemez? Notice that these examples are not complete
sentences, and lack intangibles/universal concepts.
Attachment 1
61
Subthemes
Subordinate messages that support and illustrate your theme. Like themes, subthemes are
complete sentences. Collectively, subthemes form the storyline or body of your interpretive
offering; the ideas they convey should “add up” to the theme. Ideally, programs or exhibits
cover three subthemes, although they can go up to five if absolutely necessary.
Sample subthemes for the theme Volcanoes set the stage for the “good life” for early Jemez
people might be:
1. Rich volcanic soils yielded abundant crops.
2. Naturally-occurring volcanic caves offered safe, convenient shelter.
3. As a valuable trading commodity, high-quality obsidian conferred wealth and
influence.
Theme/subtheme hierarchies work at all levels—from a master theme/subtheme structure for
an entire organization, to a single guided walk or wayside interpretive panel.
T.R.O.P.E.
A useful acronym for the five essential qualities of interpretation:
Thematic: has a central “take-home” message
Relevant: meaningful and personal
Organized: well-planned and easy to follow
Purposeful: serves the visitor and your mission
Enjoyable: entertaining, stimulating, interactive, multi-sensory
Relevance
Information is relevant when it’s both meaningful and personal. Meaningful information is
linked to something your visitor already understands. Information is personal when it’s linked
to something your visitor already cares about. One acts on the intellect; the other, values and
emotions.
Interpretive Goal(s)
The “big-picture,” ultimate desired results of an interpretive offering. Set goals that advance
your agency’s mission. They can be broad and general, or quite specific—just be sure they’re
actually achievable.
Because people must both learn something and feel something before they become interested
in making behavioral changes, interpretive goals should consider what you want your visitors
to learn, feel, and, most importantly, do as a result of their experience. Set at least one goal
per program or exhibit.
Example: If your theme is Gophers are beneficial animals, a reasonable goal might be:
• Visitors will understand the importance of gophers, appreciate them, and become
active supporters of protecting gopher habitat on our preserves.
Examples of unreasonable program goals
• Visitors will understand the complete life histor y of the gopher. (Why would they want
to know this? And how would it serve your mission?)
• Visitors who have strong convictions that rodents are vermin will experience a complete
reversal of attitude. (a. That’s not how people work; b. Good interpreters always
respect divergent viewpoints–speaking their truth, but acknowledging that there are
multiple points of view. Let visitors make their own decisions.)
Attachment 1
62
Interpretive Objectives
A specific and measurable way to know if your program is effectively meeting your goal(s).
Set at least one objective for every goal you create. Make objectives worthy yet realistic,
and something you can actually observe. If you’re a front-line interpreter, try to track your
effectiveness (in an informal and unobtrusive way). If you’re an interpretive manager, plan to
evaluate programs periodically to ensure they’re achieving objectives.
Realistic objectives for the above gopher program might be:
• 70% of visitors will be able to recall at least two benefits of gophers, if asked.
• More than one visitor per program will express their surprise at the importance of
gophers, or make a similar appreciative remark.
• 50% of visitors will take home the brochure on non-toxic and humane pest control
methods.
Unrealistic objectives:
• 100% of visitors will be able to name all the benefits of gophers mentioned on tour.
(Rarely will you achieve 100% on any objective; if you do, perhaps your sights are set
too low.)
• 90% of visitors will volunteer for the gopher habitat recover y team. (We can’t change
everyone’s lives with just one program. Our job is to plant seeds of stewardship and
facilitate their growth.)
Facilitated Dialogue
A form of interpretive facilitation that uses a strategically designed set of questions—an
“arc of dialogue”—to guide participants into a structured, meaningful, audience-centered
conversation. Excellent for dealing with challenging or controversial topics, interpretive
dialogue respects alternate views while using interpretive concepts to help participants expand
their frames of reference.
Although designed for group experiences, the same principles can be used in one-on-one
discussions of any sort—whether when dealing with a trail violation to helping a visitor learn to
distinguish one species from another.
Attachment 1
63
The following trends related to natural resource-based volunteer management have surfaced
through interviews and research of other organizations:
Broad Trends
• Reorganization is common. It often takes time to get it right, and successful
organizations aren’t afraid to create and adjust.
• Departmental program names reflect what they do, not who does it.
• Changes in procedures or organization require plenty of advance warning. Introduce
new ideas slowly, starting with selected leaders among volunteers.
• Agencies with large volunteer corps have a Volunteer HR position that functions
much like a regular human resources department. This position is responsible for job
descriptions, recruitment, intake and orientation. Volunteers are then routed to the
appropriate program for job-specific training. This position continues to be available as
a volunteer advocate and resource for general feedback and conflict resolution.
• Technology is widely and successfully used for sign-ups, database and
communications. Continuing education is often a mix of online and in-person sessions.
Paper is being phased out.
• Agencies commonly offer multiple levels of volunteer training and responsibility, which
lightens the load on staff, while providing “career paths,” variety and stimulation for
volunteers.
• An annual “open enrollment season” for volunteer recruitment, applications and training
is common, especially in organizations with a large corps of volunteers and plenty of
applicants.
• Volunteer recognition for notable achievements includes “special privileges” that aren’t
ordinarily available, such as “behind the scenes” tours.
• Some natural resource agencies have renamed their Public Affairs Department to
“Community Connections” or “Community Engagement,” integrating the Volunteer
(HR/intake) Specialist and Community Outreach positions with media specialists and
spokespeople.
Appendix H
Regional Trends in Volunteer Management
Attachment 1
64
Interpretation & Education Trends
• New volunteers are paired with more experienced mentors.
• Agencies concerned about brand identity, quality control and consistency guide the
content of docent programs/activities.
• Advanced docents with proven competencies may be trusted to develop their own
programs.
• Less experienced docents do scripted programs and kit-based activities or education
stations developed by staff and advanced docents.
• Online resources for docents are curated and valued.
• Organizations that recruit and train to higher standards tend to attract and retain higher
quality volunteers.
Stewardship Trends
• Where the Stewardship program “lives” varies—sometimes with visitor ser vices,
sometimes with natural resources.
• Advanced crews have more rigorous training requirements.
Attachment 1
65
Appendix I
Recommendations By Category
Rec #
Category
Recommendation SummaryMe
s
s
a
g
i
n
g
-
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
k
e
y
me
s
s
a
g
e
s
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
an
d
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
St
a
f
f
/
V
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
&
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
s
to
b
e
t
t
e
r
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
Ot
h
e
r
T
a
s
k
s
1 X Rename programs
2 X Develop Interpretive Master Plan
3 X Develop step-down, preserve-specific interp plans
4 X Public communications tier to theme structure
5 X Formalize coordination of public messaging
6 X Develop communication strategies
7 X District identifies key annual messages for docent programs
8 X In-depth interpretive training, create quality standards, cre-
ate advanced docent category
9 X Add Interpretive Specialist(s)
10 X Expand participation (etc.); Implement staff certification in
NAI (National Association for Interpretation)
11 X Add Education Specialist(s)
12 X OEL standards, monitoring and mentoring
13 X Deepen/incentivize OEL training
14 X Update education program curriculum
15 X Add Trails Specialist
16 X Increase crew leader volunteers
17 X Evaluate volunteer candidates to inform best program fit
18 X Add VolS Program Coordinator/Office Specialist
19 X Expand training for volunteers with public contact duties
20 X Establish system for performance/program feedback for vol-
unteers; evaluation of additional training/tools as necessary
21 X Create formal mentoring program for TPVs
22 X Facilitate communication between volunteers, and between
volunteers and District
23 X Provide online training resources for volunteers
24 X Create institutionalized knowledge of program operations
and procedures
25 X Increased flexibility for experienced COVs
Attachment 1
66
Rec #
Category
Recommendation SummaryMe
s
s
a
g
i
n
g
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
of
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
,
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
co
n
t
e
n
t
St
a
f
f
/
V
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
&
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
s
to
b
e
t
t
e
r
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
Ot
h
e
r
T
a
s
k
s
26 X Formalize intra-departmental coordination, create and share
talking points
27 X X Implement consistent entry and signage standards
28 X X Interpretive panel planning and development headed by
I&E program, all team members receive interpretive training
29 X All District representatives with visitor contact receive inter-
pretive training
30 X Emphasize visitor feedback
31 X Outreach in diverse populations; emphasize bilingual skills in
hiring
32 X Work with social media groups that bring visitors to the
District to further educate and ensure compliance
33 X Staff the Nature Center on holidays
34 X Work with City of East Palo Alto to offer programs at Cooley
Landing
35 X X Develop bilingual or Spanish-only activities
36 X Implement cultural awareness and sensitivity training
37 X Create an education volunteer team to outreach in class-
rooms from diverse populations
38 X Support development of Friends group to support diversity
efforts
39 X Expand outreach in diverse communities
40 X Use partnerships and contracts to meet diversity goals
41 X Create a cadre of "interpretive specialist" rangers
42 X Cross-train rangers in interpretive skills
43 X Tailor social media content for urban and younger audiences
Please note that some recommendations span multiple categories.
Attachment 1
67
Docent Program: Interpretation and Environmental Education
The Docent program is supported by two full time staff: a Docent Program Manager, and a
Program Coordinator. There are 120 active Docents, who perform an average of 3,200
hours of service each year (equating to 1.5 full time equivalents). The docent program began
in 1977 to facilitate access to District preserves. Currently, more than 10 percent of the active
docents have been in the program for over 20 years.
Staff are responsible for multi-level public and docent communication elements in order to
provide interpretation and environmental education programming to the community, including
and not limited to: managing online reservation and scheduling platforms; newsletter
production; solicitation of program feedback; and responding to public inquiries and requests.
This program also manages related public events on preserves such as the annual Fremont
Older House and Garden Tours, and the Wingding Family Festival.
The District provides enriched experiences for the public on the preserves through guided
outdoor activities (walks, hikes, mountain bike and horseback rides), school field trips, and
visitor services/weekend hosting at the Daniels Nature Center. All of these program elements
are provided by trained docents in three programs: Outdoor Activity Docents (14-week training
course comprised of college-level lecture and field sessions), Outdoor Education Leaders (6-
week curriculum-based training), and Nature Center Hosts (2-day training).
Outdoor Activity Docents are trained in ecology, regional natural and cultural history,
interpretive techniques, safety, and administrative processes in order to develop, propose, and
provide guided activities on a quarterly basis (and by special request) with a wide variety of
themes and topics.
Outdoor Education Leaders lead the District’s Spaces & Species: Exploring Natural
Communities curriculum. The program is an all-day environmental science field trip for grade
3-5 students and is based out of the David C. Daniels Nature Center at Skyline Ridge
Preserve.
Nature Center Hosts greet and orient weekend visitors to the Daniels Nature Center, in
addition to interpreting the Center’s displays and exhibits, and providing hands-on discovery
activities.
All docent-led outdoor activities (over 250 activities offered on preserves, engaging an
average of 2,700 participants annually), school field trips (800-1,000 students served per
year), and visitor services (over 2,400 visitors are served annually at the Nature Center)
are conducted independent of staff. The programs are built on a platform of independence,
responsibility, and respect that serve the District’s operational model of decentralized regional
preserves and limited infrastructure very well.
Docents from all three programs also assist with special projects such as biological
monitoring; research projects; citizen science inventories; partnerships with other agencies
and organizations to provide high school and college field trip; and community outreach and
special events.
Appendix J
Existing Docent and Volunteer Programs
Attachment 1
68
Volunteer Program: Stewardship and Resource Management
The Volunteer program is supported by three full time staff: a Volunteer Program Manager and
two Volunteer Program Leads. There are 575 active Volunteers, who perform a total of 16,500
hours of service each year (which equates to 7.9 full time equivalents).
The District Volunteer Program features programs related to monitoring and maintaining
preserves and trails; protecting and restoring natural resources, assisting with a variety of
planning, administrative, and research tasks; providing community outreach to Bay Area
constituents; and educating visitors about proper trail etiquette, safety, and regulations. The
goal of the programs is to provide multiple opportunities for constituents to be actively involved
in land stewardship. Volunteers provide the following services:
Trail Patrol Volunteers hike and ride District trails, speaking with and educating visitors, and
reporting trail hazards.
Preserve Partner, Crew Leader, and Advanced Resource Management Steward volunteers
restore natural habitat, monitor resource management issues, construct and maintain fences,
repair trail sections, and perform a variety of other general maintenance tasks.
Community Outreach Volunteers assist the Public Affairs Team in staffing District outreach
booths at local events, schools, and companies, and Special Project Volunteers assist
with a wide variety of office and field tasks such as research, administrative help, general
maintenance, deer counts, bluebird box monitoring, and other special projects. Volunteer
maintenance and patrol activities are in addition to the work done by District rangers and
maintenance staff.
The Partnership Program involves creating partnerships with other stewardship agencies. This
program allows the District to engage more stewardship volunteers and to connect with a more
diverse audience.
Attachment 1
Rev. 1/3/18
R-18-49
Meeting 18-17
May 9, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Motion for Reconsideration of the Board of Directors’ April 25, 2018 action regarding the
Project Goals, Project Delivery Process, and Timeline for the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower
Long-Term Repair Project
ACTING GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Discuss Director Cyr’s request for reconsideration of the Board of Directors’ April 25, 2018 vote
to take no action regarding the project goals, project delivery process, and timeline for the Mount
Umunhum Radar Tower Long Term Repair Project. If the Board votes to reconsider the item, it
would be placed on an agenda at the next regular meeting.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
At the April 25, 2018 meeting, the Board voted 3-1-1 regarding the General Manager’s
recommendations on the Project Goals, Project Delivery Process, and Timeline for the Radar
Tower Repair Project. The recommendation was not approved because a majority vote of all
members of the Board (i.e., four (4) affirmative votes) is necessary for Board action.
Board Policy 1.03, Board Agendas allows reconsideration of an item as follows:
If the Board has previously voted on a matter, a Board member may place a request
for reconsideration of the prior Board action on the agenda if that member voted on
the prevailing side. A motion to reconsider may be made at the same meeting such
action was taken, the next Regular Board meeting, or any intervening Board
meeting. […] After a motion to reconsider has been made and approved by a
majority of the Board, unless the matter is reconsidered at the same meeting Board
action was taken, the District Clerk shall place the prior Board action on the Board
agenda for reconsideration at the next Regular Meeting, an intervening Board
meeting, or at the earliest feasible Board meeting if it is infeasible to agendize the
matter at the next Regular Meeting, unless otherwise directed by the Board. The
reconsideration rules contained in this Section shall not limit the Board’s inherent
legislative authority to rescind, amend, repeal, or otherwise nullify a prior Board
action at a subsequent Board meeting. The reconsideration rules in this Section are
not applicable to Board-appointed employees or their designees who may agendize
matters for reconsideration, amendment, rescission, or repeal if deemed necessary
to efficiently conduct District business or accomplish the District’s mission.
Director Cyr was a member of the prevailing majority when the motion was considered (3-1-1,
Director Harris opposed; Director Siemens abstained; Directors Hanko and Kishimoto absent).
On May 4, 2018, Director Cyr submitted his request to agendize this item for Board
R-18-49 Page 2
consideration (Attachment 1). If the Board of Directors votes to reconsider the April 25, 2018
motion, the item will be part of the May 23, 2018 Board of Directors’ regular meeting agenda
following the public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2018-19 budget.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with a motion to reconsider.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
If the Board of Directors votes to reconsider this item, it will be part of the May 23, 2018, Board
of Directors regular meeting agenda.
Attachments:
1. Director Cyr’s request for reconsideration
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager
Prepared by:
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Contact person:
Ana Ruiz, Acting General Manager
From:Jed Cyr
To:Ana Ruiz
Cc:Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:Fwd: Motion for Reconsideration for May 9
Date:Friday, May 4, 2018 2:23:51 PM
Sent from my iPad
Ana:
Please consider this email my formal request to place reconsideration of the motion to
approve the project goals, project delivery process, and timeline for the Mount
Umunhum Radar Tower Long-Term Repair Project on the agenda for the May 9, 2018
Board meeting.
This request for reconsideration is based on the desire for the full Board to receive
more information regarding the safety protocols and procedures necessary for staff to
enter into the radar tower structure under its current condition.
It is my understanding that if the Board votes on May 9 to reconsider the item, then
the actual reconsideration with a staff report will be placed on the agenda for the May
23 meeting. I am requesting that information related to safety procedures, protocols,
and programs for radar tower entry be available for Board reconsideration of the prior
motion as part of the report for the May 23 meeting.
Thanks, Jed
Attachment 1