HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180627 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 18-27
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Special Meeting starts at 5:30 PM*
Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
5:30 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54957)
Title: General Counsel Recruitment
ADJOURNMENT
6:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals (R-18-67)
Staff Contact: Hayley Edmonston, Climate Resiliency Fellow, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive informational presentation and provide feedback to
staff on developing a draft Climate Action Plan based on one of the following greenhouse gas
reduction goals:
• State of California goal (staff recommendation): 40% below baseline by 2030, 80% below
baseline by 2050
• More aggressive goal: 100% reduction by 2050
• Less aggressive goal: 80% below per-employee baseline by 2050
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 18-27
Rev. 1/3/18
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the
General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve June 12, 2018 and June 13, 2018 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. New Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy, and Annual Review of
Finance Policies for 2018 (R-18-69)
Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager and Disclosure Coordinator
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Approve the proposed new Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy
2. Retire Board Policy 3.02 – Safe Deposit Box
3. Approve updates to Board Policy 3.07 – Fund Balance
4. Approve Board Policy 3.08 – Statement of Investment for Fiscal Year 2018-19
5. Affirm Board Policy 3.09 – Debt Management for Fiscal Year 2018-19
4. Proposed Agreement with City of Mountain View to Provide District Radio Dispatch Services
(R-18-65)
Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute the proposed five-
year agreement with the City of Mountain View to provide District 24-hour radio dispatch services,
with the option to extend the agreement for five additional one-year extensions, in an amount not-to-
exceed $217,810 for Fiscal Year 2018–19, not-to-exceed $229,800 for Fiscal Year 2019–20, not-to-
exceed $238,952 for Fiscal Year 2020–21, not-to-exceed $248,470 for Fiscal Year 2021–22, and not-
to-exceed $258,369 for Fiscal Year 2022–23, for a total cost over five years of $1,193,401.
5. Authorization to Purchase Proposed Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2018–19 (R-18-68)
Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California Department of
General Services and associated contract dealers for five patrol vehicles, three maintenance
vehicles, and one administrative office departmental vehicle for a total cost not-to-exceed
$545,000.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California Department of
General Services and associated contract dealers for two excavators, two transport trailers, and
one tractor, for a total cost not-to-exceed $350,000.
Rev. 1/3/18
6. Award of Contract for Fire Ecology Services: Prescribed Fire Program Creation and
Development (R-18-72)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC of
Pleasanton, California to provide fire ecology services in an amount not to exceed $101,250.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $15,188, to be awarded only if necessary to cover unforeseen
conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $116,438.
7. Award of Contracts to Six Firms for On-Call Graphic Design Services (R-18-71)
Staff Contact: Peggy Gibbons, Public Affairs Specialist II
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into contracts for On-
Call graphic design services with Alex Atkins Design, Conifer Creative, Cartwright Design, Eric
Gouldsberry Design, Mills Design, and Switky Communications Group for amounts not-to-exceed
$100,000 (each) through Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22.
8. Award of Contract to Eric Gouldsberry Design for Graphic Design Services of District Annual
Financial Reports including the Budget and Action Plan Report, and the Measure AA (MAA)
Accountability Report (R-18-75)
Staff Contact: Peggy Gibbons, Public Affairs Specialist II
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract for
graphic design services of the Budget and Action Plan Report, and the MAA Accountability Report
with Eric Gouldsberry Design for an amount not-to-exceed $70,000 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-
22.
9. Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail Partnership Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (R-18-73)
Staff Contact: Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into Partnership
Agreement with the City of Saratoga to provide funding assistance for the engineering design and
environmental review phase of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail.
10. Award of Contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. for the Twin Creeks Demolition Project (R-
18-74)
Staff Contact: Matt Brunnings, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering & Construction
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Award a contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. of Castroville, California for a not-to-exceed base
contract amount of $667,132.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $100,069 to be reserved for unanticipated
issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $767,201.
11. Resolution in Support of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 (R-18-29)
Staff Contact: Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist
Rev. 1/3/18
General Manager’s Recommendation: Consider adoption of a resolution in support of the Water
Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 put forth by citizens’ initiative on the ballot for the November
6, 2018 statewide general election.
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.
12. Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project Alternatives and Caltrans Project
Study Report (R-18-66)
Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Resource Specialist III, Natural Resources Department
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to advance eight alternatives to the Caltrans Project Study Report
and Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) phase for the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional
Trail Crossings Project.
2. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with TrailPeople to bring all eight
alternatives through the next phase of the Caltrans process, adding $86,645 to the contract for a
total not-to-exceed amount of $386,305.
13. Award of Contract to a Design Build Entity to complete the Mindego Ranch Ponds
Enhancement Project (R-18-70)
Staff Contact: Matthew Chaney, Resource Management Specialist I, Natural Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Award a contract to the Design Build Entity consisting of Hanford ARC (contractor) and CBEC
Inc. Eco Engineering (engineering/design) for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $405,321.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $60,798 to be reserved for unanticipated
issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $466,119.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Design Build Working Group and Update
• Dunham Property Public Access Easement, El Sereno Open Space Preserve
• Hawthorns Historic Complex Update at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
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.
Rev. 1/3/18
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 June 22, 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
Rev. 1/3/18
R-18-67
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Receive informational presentation and provide feedback to staff on developing a draft Climate
Action Plan based on one of the following greenhouse gas reduction goals:
• State of California goal (staff recommendation): 40% below baseline by 2030, 80%
below baseline by 2050
• More aggressive goal: 100% reduction by 2050
• Less aggressive goal: 80% below per-employee baseline by 2050
SUMMARY
The purpose of this study session is for the Board to receive an informational presentation and
provide feedback to staff on the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals the draft
Climate Action Plan could be based on. This feedback is needed before staff can develop a draft
Climate Action Plan because the scale of the plan is determined by the scale of the underlying
GHG reduction goal. Project consultants will present the rationale and some example strategies
and costs for reaching the State of California’s goal, as well as a more aggressive goal option and
a less aggressive goal option. Based on Board feedback, staff will develop a draft Climate Action
Plan and draft Climate Change Policy for Board review at the September 12, 2018 study session.
The Board will formally set the District’s GHG reduction goal as part of the Climate Change
Policy, adopted concurrently with the Climate Action Plan.
DISCUSSION
Staff and project consultants from Cascadia Consulting Group will provide an informational
presentation and facilitate a Board discussion on the District’s GHG reduction goal. The
presentation will begin with a refresher on the District’s current and forecasted GHG emissions
(see Attachment 1, Midpen Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report) and background information on
peer agencies’ GHG reduction goals.
GHG Reduction Goal Scope
Staff recommends an administrative scope for the District’s GHG reduction goal that includes
emissions associated with the administration of the District: vehicles, maintenance equipment,
facilities, employee commuting, and tenant residences. Staff recommends excluding livestock
emissions from the scope of the GHG reduction goal based on the Board’s comments at the
March 28, 2018 meeting (R-18-28) that livestock serve a very different function than vehicles
R-18-67 Page 2
and facilities, provide environmental and community benefits, and exist within a complex
biological system. Strategies to offset livestock emissions will still be included in the Climate
Action Plan, and livestock emissions will be tracked in the District’s annual GHG Inventory. In
addition, the Board noted that visitor transportation to preserves is likely a large source of GHG
emissions that the District has limited control over. Like livestock, visitor transportation
emissions will be assessed and tracked in future years’ GHG Inventories.
There is precedent from other agencies, such as Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point
Reyes National Seashore, for using multiple scopes for setting GHG reduction goals and tracking
emissions. Both agencies have an administrative GHG reduction goal, and then for more
challenging emissions sources like livestock and visitor transportation, they still track emissions
and identify GHG reduction strategies for those sources in their Climate Action Plans.
Finally, separate GHG reduction goals could be adopted for livestock and/or visitor
transportation in the future as staff completes more research and analysis on those sectors. For
example, the Climate Action Plan will likely recommend further study on livestock, including
the extent to which soil carbon sequestration could be increased to offset emissions. A more
complete understanding of these emissions sources and potential solutions would allow the
Board to set supplementary GHG reduction goals in the future that are realistic and achievable.
GHG Reduction Goal Options
Staff recommends developing the draft Climate Action Plan based on the State of California’s
GHG reduction goal. Project consultants will present three options for GHG reduction goals:
• State of California goal (staff recommendation): 40% below baseline by 2030, 80%
below baseline by 2050
• More aggressive goal: 100% reduction by 2050
• Less aggressive goal: 80% below per-employee baseline by 2050
For each of the three GHG reduction goal options, the consultants will present pros and cons of
the goal and some example strategies and costs for reaching the goal. These examples are
intended to provide a high-level picture of what would be required to reach each goal option.
Staff will present more holistic and refined cost estimates as part of the draft Climate Action Plan
at the September 12, 2018 study session. A memo listing potential GHG reduction strategies that
will be analyzed for the draft Climate Action Plan can be found in Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this study session. There are sufficient funds in the
FY17-18 budget for Climate Action Plan development to date. The FY18-19 budget contains
sufficient funds to complete the Climate Action Plan. Staff will present fiscal impacts associated
with implementing the Climate Action Plan at the September 12, 2018 study session when the
Board reviews the draft Climate Action Plan and draft Climate Change Policy. Implementation
funding will be subject to Board approval and direction.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
No Committee review has occurred on this project.
R-18-67 Page 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
The Board will review the draft Climate Action Plan and draft Climate Change Policy at a study
session on September 12, 2018. Staff will incorporate Board feedback and bring a revised
Climate Action Plan and Climate Change Policy to the Board for adoption in October 2018.
Attachments
1. Midpen Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
2. Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies Memo
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Hayley Edmonston, Climate Resiliency Fellow, Natural Resources
Contact person:
Hayley Edmonston, Climate Resiliency Fellow, Natural Resources
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY REPORT
04.13.2018 REVISED DRAFT
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY REPORT
03.14.2018 DRAFT
Background and Key Objectives
In 2017, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”) initiated a climate action planning process
to assess District greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and develop strategies to reduce emissions. By creating and
implementing the Climate Action Plan, the District hopes to contribute to regional efforts to address climate
change. This 2016 greenhouse gas inventory establishes a baseline inventory of District operations to inform
future action. In addition, this report includes an overview of forecasted changes in GHG emissions through
2045. The forecast can be used to set reduction targets.
Greenhouse Gas E missions Overview
Methodology
The District is unique among agencies taking climate action; it is an independent special district created to
acquire and preserve open space land. Local government greenhouse gas emissions protocols were designed
with cities and counties in mind. As a result, there was no clear protocol to employ when conducting the
District’s inventory. Because the District somewhat functions like a local government (e.g., managing a vehicle
fleet, using energy in buildings, commuting staff), we primarily used the Local Government Operations
Protocol to set the boundaries of the inventory. To calculate emissions, we used guidelines from the Local
Government Operations Protocol and the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventories (GPC). The approaches, methodologies, and findings in this report are consistent with these
protocols.
GASES
For all emissions sources, we estimated the greenhouse gas impact form carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
and nitrous oxide (N20). We reported emissions in metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), the
standard unit for greenhouse gas inventories. For context, the average American individual produces about 20
MTCO2e per year.
BOUNDARIES
We used an operational control approach, as recommended by the Local Government Operations Protocol, to
assess the District’s emissions. We included emissions sectors that the District can influence directly through
operating policies.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 3
SECTORS
The emissions sectors included in this inventory are consistent with typical local government inventories and
include:
• Facilities
• Vehicle fleet, maintenance equipment, and business travel
• Employee commutes
• Other facilities (in this case, tenant residences)
Typically, the activities performed by local governments do not include owning or managing agricultural land.
However, managing agricultural rangeland is an integral part of the District’s character and activities, so a
livestock sector was added to the inventory to gain a more complete picture of the District’s emissions sources.
SECTORS EXCLUDED FROM INVENTORY
Some sectors were excluded from the emissions inventory due to lack of data. In future inventory years,
these emissions sectors can be tracked and included. Emissions sources not estimated include:
• Visitor, contractor, and volunteer transportation to open space preserves
• Contractor solid waste
• Industrial processes and product use (lifecycle analysis of products)
Inventory Findings
In 2016, the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District produced approximately
2,398 MTCO2e—equivalent to the amount of
carbon sequestered by 2,400 acres of the
District’s forest land in one year. Livestock
contributed the most to total emissions,
accounting for 37% of total emissions. The
vehicle fleet was the second highest
contributor (28%), closely followed by
employee commute (19%). Tenant
residences and facilities each made up
approximately 8%.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 4
Vehicle Fleet, Equipment, & Business Travel
The District owns a fleet of 80 transport
vehicles and five commercial trucks, as well
as maintenance equipment such as chippers
and chainsaws. The vehicle and equipment
fleet require diesel and gasoline. The District
uses vehicles to carry out maintenance
activities, patrol open space preserves,
provide emergency response, and transport
District employees. The fuel efficiency of the
vehicle fleet and frequency of use impact
total emissions. Maintenance equipment is
used to build and maintain trails, structures,
and facilities.
Business air travel is also included in this
sector. Airplane travel alone accounts for
4% of the total inventory.
Employee Commute
To estimate employee commute emissions,
District staff administered employee
commute surveys of administrative and field
staff. District employees all together
commuted nearly 1.5 million miles in 2016.
Over 80% of employees drive alone to work,
likely due to high housing costs and limited
public transit options, particularly for field
staff. While this activity is not directly under
District control, the District can influence
employee commute habits to reduce
emissions by promoting flexible work
schedules and alternative commute options.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 5
Facilities
The District occupies both administrative
and field offices. The facilities emissions
sector includes energy use from
administrative offices at 330 Distel Circle and
4984 El Camino Real, as well as the Skyline
Field Office, Foothills Field Office, South Area
Outpost, and assorted small buildings, gates,
and pumps. It also includes solid waste and
wastewater generated by District activities.
The top two contributors to this sector’s
emissions are electricity use and solid waste
generation (Figure 4).
FACILITY ELECTRICITY AND HEATING FUEL USE
The generation of electricity requires energy
and releases greenhouse gas emissions. A
portion of electricity generation emissions
are attributed to the District based on
electricity use. PG&E’s electricity mix in 2016
was 33% renewable. All metered electricity,
including electricity used for buildings, gates, lights, and well pumps are included in this sector. Table 1 shows
facilities ranked by electricity use. The administrative offices consumed the most electricity, followed by the
Skyline and Foothills Field Offices.
Table 1. Electricity Use by Facility in 2016 (Total = 348,444 kWh)
Type of Facility Address Facility Name Unit 2016 Use % o f Total Electricity Use
Office 330 Distel Cir AO1 kWh 162,358 47%
Office 4984 El Camino Real Ste 108 AO2-4 kWh 64,531 19%
Office 21150 Skyline Blvd SFO office kWh 50,325 14%
Office 7400 Saint Joseph Ave FFO office kWh 43,623 13%
Office 18171 Pheasant Rd SAO office kWh 12,889 4%
Operations 21150 Skyline Blvd Pump for SFO well kWh 3,598 1%
Office Cristo Rey Dr near FFO county park kWh 3,144 1%
Operations 21150 Skyline Blvd SFO Nature Center kWh 2,401 1%
Operations Ws Stelling N Prospect DOM pump kWh 1,977 1%
Operations 5460 La Honda Rd Event Center kWh 1,428 0%
Office 7500 Saint Joseph Ave FFO annex office kWh 1,275 0%
Operations 6635 La Honda Rd Small water pump kWh 607 0%
Operations 13130 Skyline Blvd Gate Gate kWh 255 0%
Operations 16062 Skyline Blvd Small light or gate kWh 33 0%
TOTAL kWh 348,444
Electricity emissions will likely decrease in future inventories because the District is now part of Silicon Valley
Clean Energy and Peninsula Clean Energy, which offer 50% or 100% renewable energy to their customers. The
District uses heating fuels in its operations, consuming small quantities of natural gas and propane to heat the
administrative office and field offices. Heating fuels contribute 26% to the sector’s emissions.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 6
SOLID WASTE AND WASTEWATER
The facilities sector includes emissions from all solid waste and wastewater generated by District operations.
The District’s operations generated 41.6 tons of landfilled trash in 2016. The field offices accounted for 87%
of the solid waste produced. This is due to the maintenance activities conducted out of the field offices, such
as building and repairing trail structures and fences. For example, those maintenance activities result in
truckloads of treated wood that must be disposed of at a landfill where the wood decomposes and releases
methane emissions.
Wastewater emissions are estimated to be small, only 1% of the sector’s emissions.
Table 2. Waste Generation by Facility in 2016 (Total = 41.6 tons trash)
Facility Unit 2016 Use % o f Total Waste
Generated
Administrative offices tons 5.6 13%
Field offices tons 36.0 87%
TOTAL tons 41.6
Tenant Residences
The District owns 40 homes that are leased
to residents. Tenant heating with natural
gas or wood and electricity use contribute a
small portion to the total inventory, 8% in
2016. These emissions were estimated
using the square footage of tenant buildings
and regional energy consumption averages
from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Improved data collection in
this sector, such as electricity bills and more
detailed information on other heating
sources, would help improve the accuracy
of emissions estimates for tenant
residences.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 7
Livestock
The District uses conservation grazing to
manage fuel (flammable vegetation) for fire
protection, enhance the diversity of native
plants and animals, help sustain the local
agricultural economy, and foster the region's
rural heritage. As part of the Coastside
Protection Area Service Plan, the District has
committed to conserving open space and
agricultural land, preserving agricultural
operations on the coast, and encouraging
viable agricultural use of District owned
lands. Currently, the District has about 400
cattle grazing on 10,800 acres. Grazing
tenants also keep other livestock, such as
horses, sheep, pigs, and chickens.
When ruminants like cattle digest grass, they
produce and release methane. Methane is a
strong greenhouse gas that has almost thirty
times the impact of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, so even a modest amount of methane emissions
produces a significant greenhouse effect. Methane emissions associated with grazing animals are the largest
source of emissions in the District.
This finding is consistent with Point Reyes National Seashore’s greenhouse gas inventory, which also found
cattle rangeland to be the largest emissions sector. Further research is required to understand the
environmental costs and benefits of conservation grazing, such as carbon sequestration on rangeland and
opportunities to reduce or offset livestock emissions.
Business as Usual Emissions Forecast
The business as usual (BAU) emissions forecast projects greenhouse gas emissions through 2045 to provide a
sense of which emissions sectors will grow over time and which will decline. District planning, expected growth
in staff, vehicle fleet growth, additional planned buildings, and new land acquisitions all inform the growth
projections in the forecast. The BAU forecast does include California state fuel efficiency laws and changes to
electricity emissions. The forecast presents a scenario where the District takes no additional action to reduce
emissions.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 8
Planned District growth is offset by regional and state changes to electricity carbon intensity and vehicle fuel
efficiency. The result is an overall 8% increase in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Without existing
state laws and renewable electricity from Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Peninsula Clean Energy, the District’s
emissions would grow 33% above the 2016 baseline by 2045. This business as usual growth scenario can inform
reduction target setting and climate action strategies.
Attachment 1
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report | 04.13.2018 DRAFT | page 9
Implications of Inventory Findings
This greenhouse gas inventory and emissions forecast will be used to inform the development of the District’s
Climate Action Plan. Climate action strategies can be prioritized based on their potential impact on overall
emissions. The forecast also provides insight into which emissions sectors will be reduced through state or
regional action and which require the District to take independent action. This assessment, and its contribution
to future planning efforts, supports the District’s goal to be a leader in addressing climate change.
Attachment 1
DATE: May 21, 2018
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Hayley Edmonston, Climate Resiliency Fellow
SUBJECT: Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies
_____________________________________________________________________________
This memo summarizes potential greenhouse gas reduction strategies that will be analyzed for
the draft Climate Action Plan. The purpose of this memo is to provide the Board with a high-
level picture of the District’s greenhouse gas reduction options.
Vehicles, Maintenance Equipment, and Business Travel
• Improve vehicle fuel economy as vehicles are replaced
• Replace vehicles with electric or hybrid vehicles where possible
• Reduce miles driven by changing work practices and using teleconferencing
• Change diesel trucks and equipment over to plant-based renewable diesel
• Replace maintenance equipment with electric equipment where possible
• Reduce travel to conferences and trainings, particularly air travel
Facilities and Tenant Residences
• Require new District-owned or leased buildings to meet high energy efficiency standards
• Assess and retrofit existing offices for energy efficiency
• Assess and retrofit tenant residences for energy efficiency
• Purchase 100% renewable energy through Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Peninsula
Clean Energy
• Study the viability of solar panel arrays on office roofs or parking lot carports
• Reduce the amount of solid waste generated by District activities
• Reduce the amount of wastewater generated by District activities
Employee Commuting
• Reduce commute days by expanding telecommute and compressed schedule options
• Incentivize commuting by public transit, bicycle, carpool, or electric vehicle by providing
financial incentives and educating employees
• Reduce commute distance by providing more District housing
Livestock
• Research the viability of increasing soil carbon sequestration to offset emissions
Attachment 2
• Research the effectiveness of the grazing program in reducing invasive species and fire
risk
Visitor Transportation
• Assess emissions from visitor transportation and add to GHG Inventory
• Install electric vehicle chargers at preserves
• Study the viability of a park shuttle similar to San Mateo County Parks’ pilot project
• Engage in regional planning to expand public transit and bicycle options to get to
preserves
Attachment 2
June 12, 2018
Board Meeting 18-23
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
La Honda Elementary School
450 Sears Ranch Road
La Honda, CA 94020
June 12, 2018
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens,
and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: Cecily Harris
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Interim Assistant General Counsel,
Gary Baum, Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Acting
Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, Planning Manager Jane
Mark, Planner III Leslie Chan, District Clerk/Assistant to the General
Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Natural Resources Manager Kirk
Lenington, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Engineering &
Construction Manager Jay Lin, Skyline Area Superintendent Chris
Barresi, Senior Planner Meredith Manning, Senior Planner Tina Hugg,
Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson
BOARD BUSINESS
1. Red Barn Public Access Site Plan (R-18-64)
Planner III Leslie Chan provided the staff report describing the history of the site, project goals
and objectives, and proposed program uses for the site. Ms. Chan described the various site
constraints: historic Red Barn, scenic corridor, active grazing activities, protected species,
emergency landing zone, soil contamination, Weeks Creek, etc. Ms. Chan reviewed the La
Honda Creek Master Plan process and Vision Plan, which both included public access to the
upper portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and connecting lower and upper La
Meeting 18-23 Page 2
Honda Creek. Additionally, for the Red Barn Public Access project, the District held several
public meetings in 2017 to receive feedback on the two design alternatives.
Mark Brandi of MIG reported that in response to the public feedback received in 2017, a third
design option was created to increase parking availability and limit the visual impact of the
parking lot by locating it down slope from the roadway and away from the Red Barn. Due to
roadway safety constraints and Caltrans requirements, the driveway cannot be relocated.
Additional traffic studies are planned, which results will be provided to Caltrans to determine if
additional safety measures are warranted. Mr. Brandi displayed visual simulations to
demonstrate the proposed design alternative 3 and proposed measures to camouflage the parking
area. Mr. Brandi described alternate parking locations as suggested by members of the public.
Director Riffle inquired regarding the previous traffic studies completed.
Ms. Chan described the previous traffic studies completed in 2016 and 2017 measuring the speed
of vehicles traveling and not based on the posted speed limit. Additional traffic analysis will be
included as part of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact study. Nick Bleich,
traffic planner from WTRANS described the type of speed and traffic analysis to be completed
as part of CEQA analysis, including emergency access to the site, driveway analysis and
evaluation, nearby traffic collisions, etc.
Director Riffle inquired if other potential access points are available to reach the interior of the
La Honda OSP.
Ms. Chan reported all access points were studied as part of the La Honda Master Plan, and the
Red Barn site was the only access point identified that met line-of-site requirements.
Director Riffle inquired if the Phase II site trails could be built without Red Barn parking access.
Ms. Chan reported if parking areas were not built at the Red Barn site, the District would likely
not provide public access to the site due to the concerns related to potential illegal parking along
Highway 84.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding collision data collected and analyzed as part of the traffic
study.
Mr. Bleich explained the data used as part of the previous traffic study was from May 2015 and
additional potential traffic mitigations to the roadway will be studied.
Director Hassett inquired regarding use of the existing driveway for emergency landing zone
access.
Ms. Chan explained the existing driveway could continue to be used for emergency landing zone
access.
Public comments opened at 8:01 p.m.
Robert White expressed his concerns regarding bicyclist safety along Highway 84 and
maintaining the view and rural character of the site.
Meeting 18-23 Page 3
Christian Bonner spoke regarding public access and the rural character of the area. Mr. Bonner
spoke in opposition to public access and parking areas at the Red Barn area stating its potential
negative impact on the community and the view of the site. Additionally, Mr. Bonner spoke
regarding the negative impact on the traffic in the area.
Claudette Bergman spoke regarding the former pond at the Weeks Ranch and spoke in favor of
restoring the pond instead of installing a parking lot on the site. Ms. Bergman spoke regarding
the danger of pulling onto Highway 84 and in favor of a parking area at the Driscoll Ranch site.
Linda Huntimer spoke in favor of preserving of open space for the wildlife in the area for the
residents and their children.
Richard Booth spoke in favor of the lack of parking lots between La Honda Elementary School
and Alice’s restaurant and spoke in favor of preserving the area’s views. Mr. Booth also spoke in
favor of creating a shuttle between the Driscoll Event Center and the Red Barn area.
Krista Kuehnhackl spoke regarding the dangerous traffic on Highway 84. Ms. Kuehnhackl spoke
in opposition to the Red Barn parking area and spoke in favor of dog access on the preserve.
Ken Takara spoke regarding the number of visitors to the site and their potential impact on the
community.
Mike Bushue spoke in favor of equestrian access to the La Honda Open Space Preserve,
including at Sears Ranch Road and the Red Barn areas.
Ed Haazer expressed his concerns regarding increased traffic, loss of rural views, and increased
problems that emergency vehicles would have to respond.
Sharon Dooley expressed her concerns regarding bus access and their potential negative impact
on Highway 84 and the area. Ms. Dooley spoke in favor of relocating the parking area to behind
the ranger residence, of locating a full time ranger at the site, and locating garbage cans at the
site.
Jeff Croke spoke in favor of the area and Red Barn site staying the same.
Farmer John Muller spoke regarding the valuable legacy of the property and community and
being a good neighbor. Mr. Muller spoke in favor of fundraisers and media surrounding the site
to raise money for the site. Mr. Mueller spoke in favor of the community fire department.
Zoe Harrington spoke regarding increased traffic and vehicle collisions and asked if additional
funding will be allocated for emergency services.
Dana Pitchon spoke in favor of the current beauty and rural nature of the site.
Barbara Hooper delivered additional signatures supporting the petition opposing the proposed
design alternative and described the resident cities of those who signed the petition. Ms. Hooper
spoke regarding the lack of traffic patrol by the California Highway Patrol and San Mateo
County Sheriff’s Office for the area. Ms. Hooper described traffic, collision, and fatality data for
Meeting 18-23 Page 4
Highway 84. Ms. Hooper spoke in favor District delivery of the La Honda Creek Master Plan
goals.
Lilia Lopez spoke regarding the previous traffic study and spoke in favor of conducting a traffic
study on a warm weekend. Ms. Lopez spoke in opposition to the proposed parking lot location.
Patty Mayall thanked the District rangers for their efforts, especially related to fire protection.
Ms. Mayall spoke regarding illegal speeders and racing on Highway 84. Ms. Mayall spoke
regarding high fire danger in the area during dry seasons, which fires are often caused by
vehicles collisions.
Steve Jones spoke in favor of the view of the Red Barn and in opposition to the proposed parking
area. Mr. Jones spoke in favor of preserving the Red Barn area.
Valerie Jones spoke in opposition to the proposed Red Barn public access area.
Kathleen Moazed spoke regarding the natural resources on the site, including wetlands and pallid
bats and spoke regarding potential litigation related to the site if the project is approved by the
Board. Ms. Moazed requested the District request data related to traffic and vehicle collisions in
the area and encouraged the District to donate fund to the local La Honda Fire Brigade to help
defray a potential increase in costs.
Nigel Webb spoke in opposition to the proposed driveway and spoke in favor of using Driscoll
Ranch for an interpretive center and in favor of shuttle buses to provide access to other locations.
Finally, Mr. Webb spoke regarding the dangerous location for the proposed driveway.
Jonathan Buser spoke in favor of limiting parking for the Red Barn site and in favor of
potentially creating small parking lots in the area.
Gordon Ray spoke in favor of the staff work on the project and support for the project goals. Mr.
Ray spoke in favor of creating a community group to study the options for the Red Barn public
access site.
Nicholas Parker spoke in favor of accessible trails in the area and spoke in opposition to shuttle
buses due to traffic safety concerns. Mr. Parker spoke regarding the dangerous nature of the
current ranger driveway.
Hilary expressed her concerns related to a loss of a scenic view and the impact on the volunteer
fire department. Hilary also inquired regarding the proposed location of the emergency landing
zone.
Kathy Gill spoke regarding many visitors to the area that enjoy the serene view of the Red Barn
and surrounding landscape. Ms. Gill spoke in favor of preserving the land and the wildlife living
there. Ms. Gill spoke in opposition to picnic areas due to an increase in trash that will created.
Ms. Gill spoke in favor of parking at and shuttles from the Driscoll Ranch area.
Martin Eberhard spoke regarding the view from Allen Road, which will be of the proposed
parking lot.
Meeting 18-23 Page 5
Marcia Castillo thanked the District for listening to the public and their time and effort on the
project. Ms. Castillo spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to traffic concerns and
potential emergency road closures affecting preserve visitors. Ms. Castillo spoke regarding the
potential negative impact on the volunteer fire department.
Lynnette Vega spoke regarding traffic problems on Highway 84 and a blind curve near the
proposed driveway location. Ms. Vega spoke regarding the high level of traffic on the weekends.
Vicki Skinner spoke in opposition to increasing parking at the Sears Ranch Road parking lot.
Ms. Skinner spoke regarding preserve visitors parking at the La Honda Elementary School and
other negative impacts on the school property. Ms. Skinner spoke in favor of locating parking at
the Driscoll Ranch parking area.
Suzanne Galvez spoke in favor of balancing preservation and public access. Ms. Galvez spoke in
favor of preserving the view and expressed concerns related to traffic safety.
Brian Domitilli spoke regarding hitting escaped cattle on the roadway and the need to close the
gates to grazing areas.
Lou Bordi spoke regarding the need for a future traffic study because traffic continues to
increase. Mr. Bordi expressed concerns regarding traffic safety and thanked the District for
preserving the Red Barn property.
Pat Thomasson spoke regarding the proposed size of the parking lot and the increased traffic it
would create. Mr. Thomasson spoke in opposition to a potential shuttle from Driscoll Ranch. Mr.
Thomasson spoke regarding the lack of traffic patrol in the area enforcing speeding cars racing
on Highway 84.
Kim Ray spoke regarding traffic and trash in the area.
Public comments closed at 9:20 p.m.
The Board recessed at 9:20 and reconvened at 9:29 p.m. with Directors Cyr, Hanko, Hassett,
Kishimoto, Riffle, and Siemens present.
Public comments opened at 9:29 p.m.
Linda Fischman spoke regarding the potential number of visitors that would visit the Red Barn
public access site.
Public comments closed at 9:31 p.m.
Director Hassett spoke regarding comments he has received from the public and a recent traffic
study he completed at the Red Barn public access area and noted various traffic violations he
witnessed. Director Hassett spoke against the proposed driveway location and spoke in favor of
equestrian parking at the Driscoll Event Center and in favor of additional parking at Sears Ranch
Road to allow hiking access to the Red Barn area.
Meeting 18-23 Page 6
Director Kishimoto spoke regarding the residents throughout the District the supporting the
District’s preservation of open space and spoke regarding the potential relocation of the proposed
parking area.
Director Riffle spoke regarding residents of the District desiring to visit the Red Barn area and
spoke in support of continuing to study the options for the Red Barn access area to allow
preserve visitors to access the central area of the La Honda Open Space Preserve. Director Riffle
spoke in favor of forming a community committee to look at options for the area.
Director Siemens spoke regarding public support for public access and expressed concerns
regarding protection of the rural views. Director Siemens spoke in favor of increased traffic
patrol by California Highway Patrol and increased traffic mitigation measures by Caltrans.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of expanding the Sears Ranch Road parking lot, including
equestrian parking spots. Director Siemens spoke in favor of increased access to the northern
area of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and spoke in favor of creating a committee of
community members to look at the project.
Director Hanko spoke in favor of creating a committee of community members to look at
project.
Director Cyr spoke in favor of public access to the central area of the La Honda Open Space
Preserve.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to direct the
Acting General Manager to hold off further work on the Red Barn Public Access Site Plan
Alternative 3 and optional Phase II in order to evaluate the following parking options for
consistency with the project goals and objectives:
a) Expansion of the Sears Ranch Road Parking Area
b) Development of a new parking area at the former Driscoll Ranch Event Center
c) Other feasible options to access the central and northern areas of the La Honda Creek
Preserve
Friendly Amendment: Director Riffle offered a friendly amendment to include study of
optional equestrian parking spaces at the Sears Ranch Road parking lot.
Directors Kishimoto and Siemens accepted the friendly amendment.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent)
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to direct staff to return to
the Board with information regarding options for establishing a citizens’ advisory committee
consisting of Board members and residents of the La Honda area.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Harris absent)
Meeting 18-23 Page 7
ADJOURNMENT
President Cyr adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 9:56 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
June 13, 2018
Board Meeting 18-24
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
June 13, 2018
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Acting
Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, Chief Financial
Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, District
Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Acting
Public Affairs Manager Cydney Bieber, and Governmental Affairs
Specialist Joshua Hugg
1. 2018 State of California Legislative Session – Board of Directors Briefing on
Matters of Interest to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (R-18-56)
Governmental Affairs Specialist Joshua Hugg introduced the District’s legislative consultants,
Russ Noack and Julee Malinowski-Ball from Public Policy Advocates, LLC. and Reed Addis
from Environmental and Energy Consulting.
Mr. Addis provided updates on various legislative topics of interest, including cap and
trade/greenhouse gas reduction fund, California budget and Proposition 68, wildlife corridors,
and water legislation.
Meeting 18-24 Page 2
Director Riffle inquired if the funds associated with cap and trade is tied to the high-speed rail
project.
Mr. Addis explained 60% of the funds are continuously allocated to existing projects, including
high-speed rail, and the remaining 40% of funds may be used for other projects.
Mr. Noack and Ms. Malinowski provided updates on various legislative topics of interest,
including wildfire prevention/forest health legislation, pension reform, and potential revival of
the former redevelopment agencies.
Director Harris inquired regarding AB 2470 asking if the bill would make the California Invasive
Plant Council redundant.
Mr. Noack reported the California Invasive Plant Council is in favor of the bill.
Public comments opened at 7:04 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:04 p.m.
No Board action required.
President Cyr adjourned the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:05 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
President Cyr called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to
order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Acting Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Acting
Assistant General Manager Christine Butterfield, Controller Mike Foster,
Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan
Jaskulak, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Visitor Services
Manager Matt Anderson, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Acting Land &
Facilities Manager Elaina Cuzick, Engineering & Construction Manager
Jay Lin, Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight, Information
Systems & Technology Manager Garrett Dunwoody, Acting Public
Affairs Manager Cydney Bieber, Real Property Manager Mike Williams,
Meeting 18-24 Page 3
Budget Analyst II Marion Shaw, Budget Analyst I Elissa Martinez, and
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Harris moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 7-0-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Harris pulled Item 3.
Director Kishimoto pulled Item 5.
Public comment opened at 7:07 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 7:07 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar, except for Items 3 and 5.
VOTE: 7-0-0
1. Approve May 23, 2018 Minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Call District Elections in Wards 1, 2, 5, and 6 and Request Election Consolidation
Services from Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties (R-18-57)
Acting General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District calling an election and requesting election consolidation services – Santa Clara
County, Wards 1, 2, and 5.
2. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District calling an election and requesting election consolidation services – San Mateo
County, Wards 5 and 6.
3. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District calling an election and requesting election consolidation services – Santa Cruz
County, Ward 2.
4. Reconfirm Board Policy 1.07 (Board Elections) regarding a maximum of 200 words per
candidate statement, payment of candidates’ statements and, if required by the respective
Meeting 18-24 Page 4
county, translations of candidates’ statements pursuant to the Elections Code of the State
of California, in those wards where two or more candidates have qualified to appear on
the ballot.
5. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District authorizing not listing any unopposed candidate for election on the November 6,
2018 ballots of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties.
Director Harris spoke regarding potential community interest to run for any open Board seats and
suggested the upcoming election may be an opportunity to encourage diverse candidates.
District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth reported on the current
process used by the District to notice the election. Additionally, Ms. Woodworth reported she
meets with potential candidates to describe the various meetings and events Board members
typically attend, to review government regulations governing Board members, to encourage
potential candidates to review past Board meeting minutes, and to encourage attendance
upcoming Board meetings.
Director Riffle suggested issuance of a press release announcing the election and notifying the
public of the seats up for election.
Director Siemens suggested creation of a list of frequently asked questions for potential
candidates, which would outline various time commitments for meetings and related preparation.
Ms. Woodworth expressed concerns related to estimating the amount of time required for Board
members to prepare and attend meetings, which may vary among Board members. Ms.
Woodworth suggested she could create a sample of the number of Board meetings and District
events for a period, including the length of the meetings, according to the approved minutes.
VOTE: 7-0-0
4. Temporary Appointment of Interim General Counsel for the end of Fiscal Year
2017-2018 (R-18-58)
Board President’s Recommendation: Appoint Gary Baum. Esq., as Interim General Counsel for
the period June 17, 2018 through June 30, 2018.
5. Resolution in Support of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 (R-18-59)
Acting General Manager’s Recommendation: Consider adoption of a resolution in support of the
Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 put forth by citizens’ initiative on the ballot for the
November 6, 2018 statewide general election.
Director Kishimoto expressed her desire to learn more about the initiative prior to voting on it.
President Cyr continued the item to the June 27, 2018 regular Board meeting.
Meeting 18-24 Page 5
BOARD BUSINESS
6. Approval of the General Manager’s Employment Agreement (R-18-61)
Director Riffle spoke regarding the recruitment process and the high quality of the applicants.
Director Kishimoto spoke regarding Ms. Ruiz’s tenure at the District and ability to lead the
District.
Public comments opened at 7:32 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 7:32 p.m.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to:
1. Appoint Ana Ruiz to be the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Manager
effective June 13, 2018.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the General Manager’s Employment Agreement.
VOTE: 7-0-0
President Cyr spoke regarding Ms. Ruiz’s high level of qualifications.
Ms. Ruiz thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve as the General Manager.
7. Consideration of the Controller’s Report on the Proposed Fiscal Year 2018-19
Budget (R-18-62)
Controller Mike Foster provided the Controller’s report outlining projected expenditures for
operating and capital expenses. Mr. Foster reported the tax revenue continues to grow and stated
the District’s FY2018-19 is affordable and sustainable. Mr. Foster provided his FY2018-198
cash projection, 30-year cash flow projection, and projected Measure AA tax rate for the life of
the bonds. Mr. Foster described potential costs related to District facilities, including the new
Administrative Office, South Area Field Office, and potential Coastal Area Office. Mr. Foster
stated the District will potentially issue a third tranche of Measure AA bonds in approximately
three years.
Director Kishimoto commented on the rising costs of capital projects.
Mr. Foster commented that as project costs go up, there is also an increase in property values,
which increases the District’s property tax revenues.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to accept the
Controller’s Report on the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget.
VOTE: 7-0-0
Meeting 18-24 Page 6
8. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-18-63)
Public comments opened at 8:09 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comments closed at 8:09 p.m.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the FY2018-19 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action
Plan.
2. Approve three new positions in the Visitor and Field Services business line.
3. Approve two new positions in the Finance and Administrative Services business line.
4. Approve elimination of one existing position in the Finance and Administrative Services
business line.
5. Adopt a resolution approving the Classification and Compensation Plan.
VOTE: 7-0-0
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
• Mount Umunhum - East Summit Closure and Visitation Update
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Harris reported on the Planning and Natural Resources Committee meeting on June 5,
2018.
Director Siemens reported on the Administrative Office Facility Ad Hoc Committee tours for
local public agency offices.
B. Staff Reports
Ms. Ruiz reported on a recent meeting with the City of East Palo Alto regarding the two
proposals received for operating the Cooley Landing Education Center. Ms. Ruiz reported the
Committee for Green Foothills may be interested in providing support for the operation of the
Education Center.
C. Director Reports
The Board members submitted their compensatory reports.
Director Harris reported her attendance at the Facebook Festival and commented on the
organizations represented there.
Meeting 18-24 Page 7
Director Harris reported he spent the last two Saturdays at the Sears Ranch Road parking lot to
share information about the Red Barn Public Access project and commented on the lack of
vehicles in the parking lot.
Director Siemens reported his attendance at a meeting of the Santa Clara County Chapter of the
California Special District’s Association and heard Cindy Chavez speak there.
Director Riffle thanked staff for their work preparing for the June 12, 2018 public meeting in La
Honda.
President Cyr commented on a recent trip to the Sears Ranch Road parking lot explaining that it
was filled to capacity.
ADJOURNMENT
President Cyr adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:30 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-27
DATE 06-27-18
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Payment
Type
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
100 EFT 11958 - PARS/Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2017-18 CALPERS 115 Trust Contribution 06/20/2018 500,000.00
97 EFT 11960 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALPERS-CERBT 2017-18 OPEB Pre-funding contribution 06/13/2018 250,000.00
78237 Check 11941 - PARC ENVIRONMENTAL Mt. Um Radar Tower Remediation Services to 5/31/18 06/20/2018 158,780.15
78157 Check 11369 - BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $889.40 Kitchen & Office Supplies - Tea, Coffee, Membership Fee,06/13/2018 109,970.16
Check $136.00 PSI Examination Fee for Professional License Fee 06/13/2018
Check $8,592.00 (20)Wildlife Cameras ($6,560), Batteries, Training 06/13/2018
Check $996.64 Permits - ECdM Creek - Oljon Trail & Parking Fee 06/13/2018
Check $951.33 Travel Costs for Open Space Conference 06/13/2018
Check $7,050.62 Portable Welder, Water Pumps for Canycoms, Bobcat Sweeper 06/13/2018
Check $1,392.65 CEQA Permit Fee 06/13/2018
Check $87.78 Breakfast (Bagels) & Office Supplies for Negotiations 06/13/2018
Check $18,455.70, Valley Oil (13,944.26), Vehicle Seat Covers for District Vehicles 06/13/2018
Check $331.83 Office & Kitchen Supplies - Batteries, Writing Pads 06/13/2018
Check $1,271.39 Special Parks District Conference Expenses, Facebook Ads, Website Maintenance 06/13/2018
Check $1,429.44 Trailer Rental, Hotel, Polo and Advertisement Fee 06/13/2018
Check $8,390.21 Geologic Report Review Fee (BC), Building Permit Restroom (PC)06/13/2018
Check $54.87 Post-it Easel Pads & Mr. Sketch Markers 06/13/2018
Check $446.55 Field Supplies - Steel Countersink, Bolts, Metal Blade 06/13/2018
Check ($84.27) Conference Hotel Refunds(342.20), Keys,06/13/2018
Check $54.50 Field Supplies - Windshield Cleaner Fluid for Diesel Vehicles 06/13/2018
Check $112.15 Mower Tires, Safety Glasses, Nut Washers 06/13/2018
Check $265.00 Cattle Sale Info - AUMS 06/13/2018
Check $160.26 Concrete for Gates, Caulking for Sign Board 06/13/2018
Check $925.54 Oljon Bridge Parts and Sign Board Hinge 06/13/2018
Check $73.86 Wiper Fluid, Cable Lock, Fix a Flat 06/13/2018
Check $396.58 Field Supplies - Saw Blade, ABS Pipe, Respirator & Rake 06/13/2018
Check $353.62 Inverter Install (M213), ABS Pipe, Drill Set 06/13/2018
Check $63.20 Docent Training Refreshments & "South Skyline Story"Books 06/13/2018
Check $870.10 Volunteer Supplies, T-Shirts 06/13/2018
Check $3421.26 SPDF Conference Exp, Promotional Gear, Video Software 06/13/2018
Check $1,363.41 Tyler Conference Expenses, Toastmaster App Fees 06/13/2018
Check $594.18 Trail Building Workshop Fees, Binder, Printer Ink 06/13/2018
Check $589.35 Field Supplies - Hex Bolt, Drill Bit Set, Doors (ATV15)06/13/2018
Check $27.77 Field Supplies - Neck Shades (10)06/13/2018
Check $143.70 Car Wash (A95), Pen, Cork Board & Calibrating Solution 06/13/2018
Check $4,715.82 Form Plus, Avenza Maps (3,898.96),Training Expenses 06/13/2018
Check $15.96 Recurring Online News Subscription 06/13/2018
Check $1,181.16 Demo Permit, IRWA Expenses 06/13/2018
Check $4,519.14 Project Management Staff Training, AFP Conference Expense, Parking 06/13/2018
Check $106.19 Drill/Drive Set & Switch Rocker for Trucks 06/13/2018
Check $102.35 Vehicle Car Wash, Office Supplies, Recognition Activities 06/13/2018
Check $6,522.32 District Uniform Items/SFO Steel Building (5,580)06/13/2018
Check $279.00 Job Posting Fee 06/13/2018
Check $81.22 PGM Summit Conference Expenses 06/13/2018
Check $32.74 Keysafe 06/13/2018
Check $529.40 Living with Fire Conference Expenses - Lodging 06/13/2018
Check $698.69 Field Supplies - Rebar, ABS Pipe, Cement, Digital Calipe 06/13/2018
Check $910.49 Name Badges, BCR Event Expenses, Storage, Office Supply 06/13/2018
Check $626.00 Intermediate Trails Maintenance & Management Course Conference Expenses - Lodging 06/13/2018
Check $865.35 Volunteer Training Food & Refreshments, Surge Strip 06/13/2018
Check $800.64 Tree Shelters (192)06/13/2018
Check $268.49 Stacking Chairs (8)06/13/2018
Check $650.69 Chainsaw Chaps, Welder Supplies, Battery for Wacker 06/13/2018
Check $639.81 Steel Shelf, Spade, Lumber, Crimping Tool 06/13/2018
Check $413.75 Motorcycle Helmet & Duty Bags for Rangers 06/13/2018
Check $700.33 Test Lead Set, Round Steel Stakes, Field Binoculars 06/13/2018
Check $100.41 Mower Part - Battery 06/13/2018
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 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-27
DATE 06-27-18
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
Check $889.91 Leadership Academy Lunch, Training Snacks & Ergo Items 06/13/2018
Check $514.98 Field Supplies - Nozzle Pack, Steel Water Carrier (GP)06/13/2018
Check $71.00 Parking Fees & Lunch Meeting 06/13/2018
Check $9,652.69 CAO Building Supplies Set Up, Concrete, Bldg Permit 06/13/2018
Check $484.64 Refreshments for Board Mtgs., Elections Workshop 06/13/2018
Check $10,382.48 VMWare Training, Firewall, Projector Screen, Cables 06/13/2018
Check $905.06 League of Cities Spring Conference Expenses, Heater 06/13/2018
Check $866.11 State Park Training Expenses, Paint, Bandsaw Blade 06/13/2018
Check $109.11 Recruitment Expenses 06/13/2018
Check $389.10 Field Supplies - Lumber, T-Post Strap 06/13/2018
Check $857.29 Volunteer Snacks, Tools, Canycom Bolts, ATV Tire 06/13/2018
Check $64.62 Clerk Training & Board Meeting Meal 06/13/2018
Check $61.86 Coffeemaker & Binders for AO4 06/13/2018
Check $154.74 Docent Training / Meetings - Food & Beverage Supplies 06/13/2018
78222 Check 11501 - HARRIS DESIGN Design & Construction of BCR Parking Lot 2/24/18-4/27/18 06/20/2018 53,436.81
78206 Check *10845 - CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW-FINANCE Radio Dispatch Services Apr-Jun 2018 06/20/2018 49,450.00
78192 Check 11665 - WATERWAYS CONSULTING Construction Drawings for Multiple Driveways 06/13/2018 38,160.01
78224 Check 10642 - HMS INC
Mt Um Radar Tower Exterior Analysis 4/23/18 - 5/31/18 + Twin Creek Property Asbestos Inspections + CAL OSHA Asbestos & Lead
Awareness Training 06/20/2018 36,530.00
78172 Check 10642 - HMS INC Twin Creeks Property Asbestos Inspections, Lab Fees & Webb Creek Bridge Asbestos Lead Inspections 06/13/2018 26,687.00
78174 Check 11939 - LEWIS AND TIBBITTS, INC Water Access Project - BCR 06/13/2018 22,500.00
78228 Check 11906 - LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. BAUM Legal Services Asstistant General Counsel May 2018 06/20/2018 18,762.64
78196 Check 11772 - AHERN RENTALS, INC.
Equipment Rental - Dozer (BCR) 2/8 - 5/31 + Oljon Trail Excavator JD 130 w/bucket 3/30 - 5/25 + Excavator Rental for New Trail
Construction - BCR 4/9 - 6/4 + Oljon Trail Kubota Mini Excavator 4/27 - 6/4 06/20/2018 16,733.16
78232 Check 11572 - MESITI-MILLER ENGINEERING INC.Webb Creek Bridge-Task 4- Services through 5/25/18 06/20/2018 15,844.66
78152 Check 11946 - A-1 FENCE INC.Alma College Fence Repair - BCR 06/13/2018 14,500.00
78167 Check 10235 - DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Ricky Dam Annual Fees 06/13/2018 14,471.00
78226 Check 10304 - LA HONDA PESCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Tax Compensatory Fee 06/20/2018 11,695.59
78178 Check 11922 - PATRICK TIERNEY Preserve Use Survey Expenses - Focus Groups and Presentations 06/13/2018 10,000.00
78233 Check 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Radio Reprogramming SFO/FFO/AO/SAO + Radio Installation (M228, M225)06/20/2018 9,852.08
78229 Check 11910 - LEE & JONES-TAYLOR PARTNERSHIP Professional Services 3/17/18-5/28/18 06/20/2018 9,327.45
78166 Check 11699 - DAKOTA PRESS Summer 2018 Newsletter Printing and Mailing 06/13/2018 9,041.20
78186 Check 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Employees Uniform Items - Jacket, Shirt, Pants, Shorts & Hat 06/13/2018 7,009.50
78181 Check 11929 - RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES Recruitment for General Counsel 06/13/2018 6,987.00
78267 Check *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District vehicles 06/20/2018 5,963.12
78180 Check 11241 - QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION Professional Engineering Services - PCR Lower Parking Lot Rest.06/13/2018 5,901.20
78218 Check 11236 - GRADETECH Sears Ranch Road Improvements & Parking 06/20/2018 5,892.83
78163 Check 11876 - CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP, INC.GHG Inventory and Climate Action Plan 06/13/2018 5,788.96
78165 Check 11397 - COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS 2018 Sponsorship of Annual Gala Honoring Former GM Steve Abbors 06/13/2018 5,000.00
78203 Check 10723 - CALLANDER ASSOCIATES Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design Services thru 4/30/18 06/20/2018 4,944.28
78221 Check 11593 - H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Alma College Bat Relocation & Habitat Replacement + Ravenswood Bay Trail Environmental Consulting 06/20/2018 4,770.04
78231 Check 10512 - MARK THOMAS & COMPANY INC Stake Boundary CE POST Property /& Riparian Fence 06/20/2018 3,750.00
78189 Check 11780 - TERRY J MARTIN ASSOCIATES SAO (Cristich) Design Development 06/13/2018 3,680.00
78214 Check 11803 - ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP Professional Services for December 2017 06/20/2018 3,510.00
78252 Check 11603 - SAN MATEO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Services Fee 06/20/2018 3,442.77
78200 Check 11148 - BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, INC.ECDM Sediment Control Monitoring 06/20/2018 3,370.14
78212 Check 10871 - DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREA Tuition for Basic Trail Program (Healey, Mckibbin, Towne)06/20/2018 3,000.00
78265 Check 11856 - WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC.Hazard Tree Trimming (RSACP)06/20/2018 3,000.00
78201 Check 10141 - BIG CREEK LUMBER CO INC Oljon -Concrete Mix/ Dobies/Rebar 06/20/2018 2,886.78
78211 Check 10463 - DELL BUSINESS CREDIT Qty 12 - LCD Monitors 06/20/2018 2,831.28
78223 Check 10222 - HERC RENTALS, INC.Equipment Rental - Dump Truck 4/28 - 5/28 (BCR)06/20/2018 2,829.58
78170 Check 10344 - GREG'S TRUCKING SERVICE INC Trucking Delivery Service - Materials (BCR)06/13/2018 2,673.00
78249 Check 10324 - RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC Truck Hauling of Rock (BCR)06/20/2018 2,506.35
78191 Check 11785 - WAND, INC.Sharepoint Taxonomy Library Subscription 06/13/2018 2,500.00
78168 Check 11803 - ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP Water Law Counsel 06/13/2018 2,488.50
78251 Check *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP)06/20/2018 2,444.73
78242 Check 11518 - RANCHING BY NATURE Mowing thistles & Raking 06/20/2018 2,432.50
page 3 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-27
DATE 06-27-18
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
78156 Check 11799 - AZTEC LEASING, INC.Monthly Lease for 6 Sharp Copiers 5/01-6/01/18 06/13/2018 2,326.06
78261 Check 10307 - THE SIGN SHOP Stephen Abbors Trail Signs + BCR MAA Sign + BCR Construction Signs + La Honda 06/20/2018 2,162.88
78246 Check 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC New Tires & Installation - P102, P101 06/20/2018 2,079.22
101 EFT 11377 - PERRY, KRISTIN Rental Security Deposit Refund 06/20/2018 2,068.00
78217 Check 10345 - GLOBAL STEEL FABRICATORS INC Metal Brackets for Oljon Bridges 06/20/2018 1,955.58
78227 Check 11409 - LA OFERTA Bond Oversight Committee Announcement-Translation & Publication 06/20/2018 1,892.00
78171 Check 10222 - HERC RENTALS, INC.Equipment Rental - Mini-Excavator 4/18/18 - 5/18/18 (FOOSP)06/13/2018 1,891.15
78155 Check *10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Repeater Site Lease - Coyote Peak 06/13/2018 1,876.00
78259 Check 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies (RSA&CP)06/20/2018 1,805.50
78179 Check 11129 - PETERSON TRUCKS INC.Vehicle BIT Inspections - M15, WT2, M17, M29, T07, M26, M-02 06/13/2018 1,654.00
78264 Check 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Sanitation Service (FOOSP) (SA) + Site Services Fencing (SA-Mt. Um) + Temp Power to Mt. Um Trailer 6/6 - 7/3 06/20/2018 1,633.75
78247 Check 10194 - REED & GRAHAM INC Oljon Bridge Erosion Control Materials 06/20/2018 1,581.94
96 EFT 11959 - NARAYANAN, CARMEN Reimbursement for per diem - Tyler Software Conference + GFOA Training 06/13/2018 1,523.68
78208 Check 10021 - COASTAL CHIMNEY SWEEP New Chimney Cap & Liner System Installed (Woodside/LaHonda) + Chimney Sweep at Smith House 06/20/2018 1,515.28
78213 Check 11831 - EAGLE NETWORK SOLUTIONS LLC Firewall Network & Active Directory Services Configuration 06/20/2018 1,500.00
78255 Check 10580 - SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS Sharp Copier Printing Costs for May 2018 06/20/2018 1,431.56
78209 Check *10445 - COMMUNICATION & CONTROL INC Repeater Site Lease 06/20/2018 1,172.00
78256 Check 10952 - SONIC.NET, INC.Monthly Internet Service July 2018 06/20/2018 1,167.00
78160 Check 11898 - BAY AREA TREE SPECIALISTS Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Removal 06/13/2018 1,022.98
78153 Check 11722 - ADLER TANK RENTALS LLC Water Tank Rental for Mt. Um Summit Construction May 2018 06/13/2018 1,013.70
78254 Check 10697 - SANDIS Stormwater permit compliance training for E&C Department 06/20/2018 1,000.00
78169 Check 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Shop Supplies - Danger Tape + Yellow Reflective Tape 06/13/2018 991.04
78262 Check 10146 - TIRES ON THE GO Tire Repair for Mule, New Tires for P105, ATV15 06/20/2018 950.79
78162 Check 11849 - CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC.Final Report McElyea Investigation 06/13/2018 922.50
78219 Check *11551 - GREEN TEAM OF SAN JOSE Garbage Service (RSA) (SAO)06/20/2018 794.84
78198 Check 10815 - AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR-FPR & First Aid Training May 2018 06/20/2018 781.00
78159 Check 10706 - BAY AREA NEWS GROUP (MERCURY NEWS)Twin Creeks RFB Advertisement 06/13/2018 729.49
78202 Check *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)06/20/2018 670.62
78207 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Maintenance Service - A103, A94, A101 06/20/2018 589.64
78245 Check 10589 - RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Recycling Service - (2) 16 YD Debris Box (GP)06/20/2018 570.92
78187 Check 10631 - SWRCB Application ID#498215 - Permit Fee 06/13/2018 568.00
78177 Check 10578 - OLD REPUBLIC TITLE CO Preliminary Title Report Fee - Habers Easement 06/13/2018 500.00
78194 Check 10357 - A-TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY Annual Fire Sprinkler Inspection (FFO)06/20/2018 495.00
78184 Check 11614 - Sequoia Union High School District Transportation Assistance Program - Woodside HS/ SRL 06/13/2018 486.50
78263 Check 10561 - ULINE Field Supplies - Gloves (SFO)06/20/2018 457.50
78195 Check 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Septic Service (RR)06/20/2018 425.00
78240 Check *11335 - PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC Postage Meter Lease 3/30/18-6/29/18 06/20/2018 422.37
78258 Check 10143 - SUMMIT UNIFORMS Baseball Hats for Field Offices 06/20/2018 419.52
78266 Check 11852 - WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO.Exterminator Service (RSA-Annex)06/20/2018 410.00
99 EFT 10500 - MCKIBBIN, BRENNON Meal Reimbursement for Intermediate Trails Conference 06/20/2018 393.00
78244 Check 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Storage Rack Materials 06/20/2018 391.53
78204 Check 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repairs (SA-MT UM)06/20/2018 367.50
78205 Check 10168 - CINTAS Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)06/20/2018 352.66
78197 Check 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Ad Gift Ideas - Creative Services, Digital Production & Research 06/20/2018 350.00
78234 Check 10191 - MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CENTER Concrete (RSACP) + Rock (PR)06/20/2018 342.79
78175 Check 11957 - MATTOX, JANIS Rental Reimbursement 06/13/2018 341.85
78248 Check 10093 - RENE HARDOY AO Gardening Services 06/20/2018 325.00
78173 Check 10313 - JOHN SHELTON INC Culvert (FOOSP)06/13/2018 318.17
78161 Check 10011 - BILL'S TOWING SERVICE P99 - Tow for Stripout 06/13/2018 312.50
78154 Check 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Ad for Bay Nature: Protecting Nature 06/13/2018 300.00
78230 Check 10135 - MADCO Welding Supplies - Cable, Electrode Holder & Ground Clamp 06/20/2018 287.98
78183 Check *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service - BCR 06/13/2018 286.94
78236 Check 10271 - ORLANDI TRAILER INC Receiver Hitch (M228)06/20/2018 271.13
95 EFT 10897 - ISHIBASHI, ALLEN IRWA Travel Expense Reimbursement 06/13/2018 256.46
78182 Check *11526 - REPUBLIC SERVICES Monthly Garbage Services 06/13/2018 251.92
78220 Check 10173 - GREEN WASTE SFO Recycle and Garbage 06/20/2018 238.64
78185 Check 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Repair Leaking Shower Valve At Skyline Ranch House 06/13/2018 227.16
page 4 of 4
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 18-27
DATE 06-27-18
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
78257 Check 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Rock (FOOSP)06/20/2018 207.19
78241 Check 10261 - PROTECTION ONE Alarm Services (FFO)06/20/2018 201.40
78158 Check 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Supplies (BCR) (RSACP)06/13/2018 164.57
78250 Check 10175 - RV CLOUD COMPANY Drain Pipe 06/20/2018 159.51
78260 Check 10338 - THE ED JONES CO INC Uniform Badge - Chief Ranger 06/20/2018 158.06
78225 Check 10421 - ID PLUS INC Name Tags for New Field Staff 06/20/2018 156.00
78216 Check 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Stihl Equipment Parts 06/20/2018 132.63
78176 Check 10664 - MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS AO Garbage Services 06/13/2018 130.91
78164 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Maintenance & Service - A91 06/13/2018 117.57
98 EFT 11907 - BORGESI, MELISSA Reimburse for Food on 6/12 Public Meeting at LH 06/20/2018 117.41
78199 Check *10294 - AMERIGAS-SAN JOSE Propane Tank Rental (RSA-Annex)06/20/2018 115.54
94 EFT 11952 - ALE, HELEN Uniform Reimbursement 06/13/2018 100.00
78238 Check 10253 - PETERSON TRACTOR CO Tractor Antifreeze 06/20/2018 88.94
78188 Check 10162 - TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER AO PEST CONTROL 06/13/2018 83.00
78215 Check 11549 - EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC Air Sampling (SA-MT UM)06/20/2018 59.60
78239 Check *10180 - PG & E Electric Service (SA-MT UM) + RSACP Restroom 06/20/2018 41.07
78210 Check 11210 - DATA SAFE AO-Shredding Services 06/20/2018 40.00
78193 Check 11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Monthly Pay Phone Service - Mt Um 06/20/2018 39.01
78253 Check 11059 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH DEPT Tick Testing 06/20/2018 30.00
78243 Check 10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)06/20/2018 28.25
78190 Check 10165 - UPS Shipping-A04 (fire pump to Cascade)06/13/2018 19.10
78235 Check 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Fire Pumper Part 06/20/2018 11.29
Grand Total 1,528,617.76$
*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-18-69
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
New Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy, and Annual Review of
Finance Policies for 2018
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the proposed new Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management
Policy
2. Retire Board Policy 3.02 – Safe Deposit Box
3. Approve updates to Board Policy 3.07 – Fund Balance
4. Approve Board Policy 3.08 – Statement of Investment for Fiscal Year 2018-19
5. Affirm Board Policy 3.09 – Debt Management for Fiscal Year 2018-19
SUMMARY
The Board is requested to approve a new Banking Relationship Management Policy covering
Banking Relations and Bank Account Administration, Financial Instrument Signatories, Safe
Deposit Box, and the Purchasing Card Program. This proposed new policy would supersede
previous policies on Financial Instrument Signatories (3.01) and Safe Deposit Box (3.02).
Additionally, the Board is asked to approve several policy updates to Fund Balance (3.07),
Statement of Investment (3.08), and Debt Management (3.09) as part of an annual policy review.
The General Manager recommends the Board approve the new policy and policy updates as part
of an annual review to ensure Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) policies
remain current.
DISCUSSION
Each year, the General Manager together with the Chief Financial Officer reviews the District’s
finance policies in preparation for an annual review and affirmation of the policies by the Board.
The review includes the Disclosure for Bond Issuance Policy (3.06) and the Statement of
Investment (3.08), among others. The 2018 review began as part of the budget cycle this past
spring and will continue into the coming months. At this time, the General Manager recommends
the following policy updates, with further updates expected later this year:
3.01 Banking Relationship Policy (NEW)
This policy combines and supersedes the previous policies on Financial Instrument Signatories
(3.01) and Safe Deposit Box (3.02). It also adds policy on Banking Relations and Bank Account
Administration as well as policy regarding the District’s Purchasing Card Program.
R-18-69 Page 2
3.02 Safe Deposit Box Policy retired and included in 3.01
Upon adoption of the new Banking Relationship Policy, the Safe Deposit Box Policy would be
retired and the number reserved for the future Accounting Policy, to be developed next fiscal
year.
3.03 Public Contract Bidding
Not yet reviewed, updates anticipated next fiscal year.
3.04 Budget and Expenditure Authority Policy
Reviewed and no changes proposed.
3.05 Capital Expenditure and Depreciable Fixed Assets
Not yet reviewed, updates anticipated next fiscal year.
3.06 Disclosure for Bond Issuances Policy
Reviewed and no changes proposed.
3.07 Fund Balance Policy
Updated for the newly created Committed Reserves for Capital Maintenance and for the
Promissory Note Sinking Fund.
3.08 Statement of Investment
Minor update to Paragraph 4 to align with the Fund Balance Policy.
3.09 Debt Management Policy
Reviewed and no changes proposed.
FISCAL IMPACT
No new fiscal impact. The revised policies will streamline existing procedures for banking, and
compliance with obligations and practices under current debt issuances.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Chief Financial Officer presented this item to the Action Plan and Budget Committee (ABC)
on May 30, 2018. The ABC unanimously recommended approval of the policy and related
updates to the Board of Directors.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no
environmental review is required.
R-18-69 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board, staff will implement the policy and related updates.
Attachments:
1. Banking Relationship Policy 3.01
2. Fund Balance Policy 3.07
3. Statement of Investment 3.08
4. Debt Management Policy 3.09
Responsible Department Manager:
Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager and Disclosure Coordinator
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Financial Instrument
Signatories Banking
Relationship Management
Policy 3.01
Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management
Effective Date: 6/27/18 Revised Date: 6/27/18
Prior Versions: 11/13/13, 09/14/16
Board Policy 3.01 Page 1 of 2
Purpose
The Banking Relationship Management policy provides a framework around Banking
Relationships, Financial Instrument Signatories, Safe Deposit Box, and the Purchasing Card
Program. This policy supersedes Board policies 3.01 Financial Instrument Signatories and 3.02
Safe Deposit Box.
Policy
I. Banking Relationships and Bank Account Administration
A. The District has a fiduciary duty to protect and safeguard public funds. The majority
of District funds are held on deposit in the Santa Clara County Commingled Pool.
The District Controller shall review the County’s investment reports on a quarterly
basis. Funds shall be transferred from the County to the District’s operating/payroll
accounts to meet near-term liquidity requirements.
B. Any change in the District’s banking relationship requires a resolution of the Board.
I.II. Financial Instrument Signatories
A. The authorized signatories to checks, warrants, withdrawal applications, and the
Santa Clara County claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for
payroll or for amounts less than $5,000 shall be any one of the following four
employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) either one of the Assistant General
Managers, (iii) the Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services.
B. The authorized signatories to checks, warrants, withdrawal applications, and Santa
Clara Ccounty claim forms of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in
amounts of $5,000 or greater, (excluding payroll,) shall be any two of the employees
listed in A. above.
C. Signatories for Bond Documents, to issue bonds or execute subsequent draw
requests or other debt management documents, will include the General Manager,
Controller, General Counsel, and the Chief Financial Officer/Director of
Administrative Services, or as otherwise noted in the previously issued bond
documents or Bboard resolutions.
II.III. Safe Deposit Box
A. The authorized signature for entrance into the District’s safe deposit boxes is any of
the following: General Manager, either one of the Assistant General Managers, Chief
Attachment 1
Board Policy 3.01 Page 2 of 2
Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services, District Clerk, and Senior
Accounting Technician.
IV. Purchasing Card Program
A. The General Manager or designee shall establish a list of District positions
authorized to receive a District purchasing card, as well as individual credit limits.
District staff may be issued a purchasing card to conduct District business for
supplies, materials, equipment, travel, services, and other approved District
expenses in accordance with this list.
B. The purchasing card program is considered a banking service. The District will
maintain adequate internal controls in order to prevent misuse or fraud, including,
but not limited to, monthly submission of receipts by the cardholders and approval
of those receipts by the cardholder’s supervisor.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Fund Balance Policy in Accordance
with GASB Statement No. 54
Policy 3.07
Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management
Effective Date: 11/25/14 Revised Date: 06/27/2018
Prior Versions: 11/25/14, 10/26/16
Board Policy 3.07 Page 1 of 3
Purpose
The following policy is created and approved by the Board of Directors in order to [1] provide
adequate funding to meet the District’s short-term and long-term plans, [2] provide funds for
unforeseen expenditures related to emergencies such as natural disasters, [3] strengthen the
financial stability of the District against present and future uncertainties such as economic
downturns and revenue shortfalls, and [4] maintain an investment-grade bond rating. This policy
has been developed, with the counsel of the District auditors, to meet the requirements of GASB
54.
This policy identifies the required components of fund balance, the level of management
authorized to approve or change target balances in each fund, the amounts that the District will
strive to maintain in each fund, and the conditions under which fund balances may be spent,
reimbursed and reviewed.
Policy
The components of District fund balance are as follows:
Non-Spendable fund balance includes amounts that cannot be spent either because they are not
in spendable form, e.g. prepaid insurance, or because of legal or contractual constraints. At all
times, the District shall hold fund balance equal to the sum of its non-spendable assets.
Restricted fund balance includes amounts that are constrained for specific purposes which are
externally imposed by constitutional provisions, enabling legislation, creditors, or contracts.
Individual funds will be identified by the General Manager and Controller and the amounts set
based on legal or contractual requirements. Funds may only be spent as specified by contract or
as externally directed. The continuing need for each fund and the amount reserved will be
reviewed annually.
Committed fund balance includes amounts that are constrained for specific purposes that are
internally imposed by the District Board of Directors. Individual funds and target amounts will be
established by the Board. Committed funds may include but are not limited to: Capital
Maintenance, Equipment Replacement, Infrastructure, Natural Disasters, and Promissory Note.
Projects to be funded by committed funds require the approval of the Board. The continuing need
Attachment 2
Board Policy 3.07 Page 2 of 3
for each fund and the amount reserved will be reviewed annually. Any changes require the
approval of two-thirds of the Board.
Assigned fund balance includes amounts that are intended to be used for specific purposes that
are neither restricted nor committed. Such amounts may be assigned by the General Manager if
authorized by the Board of Directors to make such designations. Projects to be funded by assigned
funds require the approval of the General Manager. The continuing need for each fund and the
amount reserved will be reviewed annually.
Unassigned fund balance includes amounts within the general fund, which have not been
classified within the above categories. The minimum amount of unassigned fund balance is
calculated as 30% of the Budgeted General Fund Tax Revenue. This minimum unassigned fund
balance is to be held in reserve in consideration of unanticipated events that could adversely
affect the financial condition of the District and jeopardize the continuation of necessary public
services. Any spending from this minimum general fund reserve requires the approval of the
Board. Any such spending will be reimbursed within two years. If such reimbursement exceeds 5%
of the Budgeted General Fund Tax Revenue, the Board may decide to limit the reimbursement at
5% and extend the reimbursement period beyond two years, as needed. The minimum reserve
amount calculation will be reviewed annually as part of the annual budget process.
The specific reserve funds are as follows:
Restricted Funds
[1] Retiree Healthcare Plan Fund: established in 2008 with a $1.9 million contribution to the
California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust; all withdrawals per Board-approved plan; amount of
annual contribution authorized by the Board as part of the annual budget.
[2] Hawthorns Fund: established in 2011 with a $2.0 million endowment from the Woods Family
Trust, to provide stewardship funding for the Hawthorns property in Portola Valley; amount to be
withdrawn each year authorized by the Board as part of the annual budget.
Committed Funds
[1] Capital Maintenance Fund: Implementation of the 2011 Strategic Plan, 2014 Vision Plan, and
Measure AA projects will require District assets to be in good working order; annual maintenance
costs for existing District assets are anticipated. Funding for such capital maintenance
expenditures is not available from general obligation bonds under Measure AA. The General
Manager will recommend, and the Board may authorize, an initial reserve amount associated with
maintenance of a particular improvement. The amount to be withdrawn each year for the Capital
Maintenance Fund will be authorized by the Board as part of the annual budget.
[2] Equipment Replacement Fund: Implementation of District projects requires corresponding
purchase and replacement of field and office equipment and vehicles. The General Manager will
recommend, and the Board may authorize, an initial reserve amount associated with equipment
Attachment 2
Board Policy 3.07 Page 3 of 3
replacement needs. The amount to be withdrawn each year for the Equipment Replacement Fund
will be authorized by the Board as part of the annual budget.
[3] Infrastructure Fund: Implementation of the 2011 Strategic Plan, 2014 Vision Plan, and
Measure AA projects will require expansion of field and office facilities beginning in fiscal 2016.
The amount to be withdrawn each year for the Infrastructure Fund will be authorized by the Board
as part of the annual budget.
[4] Natural Disaster Fund: The District must be prepared to undertake emergency expenditures
required to respond quickly to a major fire, earthquake or flood. The General Manager will
recommend, and the Board may authorize an initial reserve amount to prepare for natural
disasters. All withdrawals from the Natural Disaster Fund require the approval of the General
Manager.
[5] Promissory Note Sinking Fund: The District has the Hunt Promissory Note, an interest only
loan with a balloon principal payment due in FY2022/23. The General Manager will recommend,
and the Board may authorize an initial reserve amount, with annual contributions continuing
through FY2022/23. The amount to be withdrawn from the Promissory Note Fund (anticipated in
FY2022/23; intended for the principal balloon payment) will be authorized by the Board as part of
the annual budget. Once the principal has been paid and the Promissory Note is retired, this
paragraph may be administratively removed from the Policy.
Assigned Funds
None
Attachment 2
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Statement of Investment Policy 3.08
Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management
Effective Date: 1/8/97 Revised Date: 6/27/18
Prior Versions: 1/8/97; 1/10/01; 1/16/02; 1/8/03; 1/14/04; 1/12/05; 1/11/06; 1/10/07; 1/16/08;
1/13/10; 1/12/11; 1/11/12; 1/24/13; 1/22/14; 1/28/15; 8/12/15; 8/10/16; 5/10/17
Board Policy 3.08 Page 1 of 4
Goals
Goal 1. Capital Preservation
The primary goal shall be to safeguard the principal of invested funds. The secondary objective
shall be to meet the liquidity needs of the District. The third objective shall be to achieve a
return on funds consistent with this Policy. Temporarily idle funds shall be invested in a
conservative manner, such that funds can always be withdrawn at, or just above or below, full
invested value. Investments that offer opportunities for significant capital gains and losses are
excluded.
Goal 2. Liquidity
Temporarily idle funds shall be managed so that normal operating cash needs and scheduled
extraordinary cash needs can be met on a same day basis. Investments shall be sufficiently
liquid to provide a steady and reliable flow of cash to the District to insure that all land
purchases can be made promptly (within two weeks).
Goal 3. Income
Temporarily idle funds shall earn the highest rate of return that is consistent with capital
preservation and liquidity goals and the California Government Code.
Guidelines
1. Determination of Idle Funds
The Controller shall prepare a cash flow projection prior to all investment decisions involving
securities with a term to maturity exceeding one year. This cash flow projection shall be
reviewed and evaluated by the General Manager or Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The General
Manager or CFO are responsible for approving the Controller’s designation of the amount of
funds available for investment for longer than one year.
2. Restricted ReservesMonies
[a] MROSD Retiree Healthcare Plan: All funds are to be held by either: the Section
115 Trust California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) administered by CalPERS,
Attachment 3
Board Policy 3.08 Page 2 of 4
or 2) the Section 115 Trust offered through PARSand managed by CalPERS. as approved
by Board Resolution 18-07.
[b] Hawthorn Endowment Fund: All funds will be held in a separate account and
invested in accordance with this policy.
[c] Debt Service Reserve Funds Held by Bond Trustees: Funds held by such trustees
shall be invested in accordance with the bond indenture or other agreement providing
for the issuance and management of such debt.
3. General Fund Committed Reserves
At least one-half of the total general fund committed reserve requirement shall be maintained,
at all times, with the Santa Clara County Pooled Investment Fund (SCCPIF).
4. General Fund Un-Assigned Contingency Reserves
In addition to any committed fund reserve requirement, a general fund contingency reserve
equivalent to 30% of the currnet year’s budgeted General Fund Tax Revenueper the Fund
Balance Policy 3.07 of at least $10 million shall be maintained, at all times, with the SCCPIF.
5. General Obligation Bond Proceeds Held by Fiscal Agent
Bond Proceeds held by the District’s Fiscal Agent, either in the Debt Service Fund or Bond
Proceeds Fund, shall be invested through the investment department of the Fiscal Agent and in
accordance with the Fiscal Agent Agreement.
6. Non-Invested Funds
Idle District funds not otherwise invested as permitted by this Policy shall be deposited with the
Santa Clara County Pooled Investment Fund, the San Mateo County Treasurer’s Pooled
Investment Fund, the State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund or CalTRUST.
7. Selection of Investments
The Controller is responsible for selecting investments and directing such security transactions
that fit within the amounts and maturities as recommended by the Controller, as well as
directing security transactions. The Controller will communicate such actions to and by the
General Manager and or CFO. The Controller is also responsible for directing security
transactions.
8. Investments Instruments and Deposit of Funds
Investments and deposits of funds shall be limited to those allowed by and subject to the
procedures of Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and 53635 et seq. In the event of any
conflict between the terms of this Policy, and the Government Code, the provisions of the
Government Code shall prevail. Investments shall not be leveraged. Investments, and
“derivatives,” that offer opportunities for significant capital gains and losses are excluded. If
Attachment 3
Board Policy 3.08 Page 3 of 4
after purchase, securities are downgraded below the minimum required rating level, the
securities shall be reviewed for possible sale with a reasonable amount of time after
downgrade. Significant downgrades and the action taken or to be taken will be disclosed in the
next monthly report.
9. Maximum Maturity
The average maturity of the total District investment portfolio shall not exceed eighteen
months and no investment, except for debt service reserve funds held by bond trustees, shall
have a maturity of more than three years from the date of purchase. The maturity of
investments in trustee-held debt service reserve funds shall not exceed the final debt service
payment date of the bonds.
10. Diversification
Investments shall meet the diversification test of Government Code Section 53601.7(c), stating
that no more than 5% of the total investment portfolio may be invested in the securities of any
one issuer, except for the obligations of the U.S. Treasury or U.S. Government Agencies.
11. Marketability
For investments other than bank certificates of deposits the breadth of ownership and number
of securities outstanding shall be sufficient to establish a secondary market in which
investments can be readily converted to cash without causing a material change in their market
value.
12. Acceptable Banks
Bankers' Acceptances and Negotiable Certificates of Deposit may be purchased only from the
District’s commercial bank or banks and savings and loan associations with over $1,000,000,000
billion of deposits and reporting profitable operations and which meet all applicable criteria of
the Government Code. Certificates of Deposit may be purchased from other banks within Santa
Clara and San Mateo Counties which meet all applicable criteria of the Government Code if the
principal is fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
13. Acceptable Collateral
Securities collateralizing bank or savings and loan deposits must be rated “A” or higher.
14. Investments in Name of District
All investments purchased shall stand in the name of the District.
15. Reporting
Attachment 3
Board Policy 3.08 Page 4 of 4
The Controller shall submit a report of the District’s investment portfolio and security
transactions to the Board of Directors by the second Friday of each calendar month in
accordance with Government Code Sections 53607 and 53646. Such reports shall also be
submitted to the General Manager, CFO and to the District’s auditor.
16. Purchase of Securities
The Controller is authorized to purchase securities through the investment department of the
District’s bond trustees and fiscal agents and as otherwise permitted by the Government Code.
Any account resolutions required by bank investment departments will be submitted to the
Board of Directors for approval prior to any trading through that bank. The bank or other
investment institution from which authorized securities are purchased shall be instructed in
writing only to purchase securities in the name of the District and that all matured funds shall
be returned to the District’s commercial bank account. The bank shall also be instructed to
send receipts for all transactions to the CFO and the District accounting department.
Attachment 3
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Debt Management Policy Policy 3.09
Chapter 3 – Fiscal Management
Effective Date: 7/12/2017 Revised Date: N/A
Prior Versions: N/A
Board Policy 3.09 Page 1 of 5
Purpose
The Debt Management Policy and procedures contained herein (the “Debt Management Policy”)
sets forth certain debt management objectives for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(the “District”) and establishes overall parameters for issuing and administering the District's debt
in compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws. The Board may issue debt that does not
comply with this policy should the Board determine that doing so is necessary or desirable, and the
issuance of any such debt shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. This Debt Management
Policy is closely related to the policy for Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances –
Policy 3.06 of Chapter 3 Fiscal Management (the “Disclosure Policy”).
Policy
Article I: Key Participants and Responsibilities
The Key Participants in the Debt Management process are the members of the Financing Group as
identified and designated in the Disclosure Policy, Section 1.03. The Responsibilities of the various
members of the Financing Group are detailed in Section II of the Disclosure Policy. Disclosure Policy
Article II: Debt Limits
Section 2.01. Purpose for Debt Issuance. The District may issue new debt to finance and refinance
capital improvement projects or land acquisitions for either General Fund purposes or in support of
Measure AA portfolios and projects. Any General Fund debt must be repaid via the General Fund tax
revenue and budget, whereas any debt issued under Measure AA must be repaid via the special
property tax levy as authorized under Measure AA. As part of the calculation to determine the need for
new debt, the District will review the useful life of the proposed projects and ensure this useful life is
not significantly shorter than the term of the debt, and in any case compliant with Federal tax law
restrictions governing the weighted average maturity of a debt issue in relation to the financed projects’
useful life. The approach to determine the amount of new debt to be issued will include an assessment
of any self-funded pay-go funding sources and will be integrated into the District’s multi-year capital
plan.
Section 2.02. Legal Debt Limitations. The District is bound by, or utilizes, four different debt
limitations: State, General Fund budget, bond Indenture covenants and Measure AA voter authorization.
i. Under Public Resources Code Section 5568, the District’s legal authority to incur
indebtedness is limited to five percent of the assessed valuation of the real and
personal property situated in the District.
Attachment 4
Board Policy 3.09 Page 2 of 5
ii. The General Fund debt limitation is constrained by the property tax received, less
ongoing operating expenses. Each year, the annual budget is prepared and modeled
into the Controller’s thirty-year cash flow, which includes conservative inflation and
projects the viability of any increases in operating, capital or debt service in the
General Fund. Any proposed General Fund debt issuance, new or refunding, is modeled
using the Controller’s cash flow model.
iii. General Fund debt is limited by covenants made by the District to bond holders in the
bond indenture. The District covenants it will not issue debt that is senior in priority to
the existing general fund revenue bonds. In addition, debt on parity with existing
revenue bonds is limited by the District Act (Article 3 of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the
Public Resources Code), which requires that total debt outstanding does not exceed
the amount of general fund property tax revenues anticipated by the District for the
next five-year period, and that annual tax revenue in the most recent audited fiscal
year exceeds maximum annual debt service of outstanding bonds by 125%.
iv. The Measure AA debt limitation is constrained by the $300 million voter authorization
per the 2014 referendum as well as the limitation that Measure AA annual debt service
must be payable with the Measure AA property tax collections not to exceed the self-
imposed tax rate of $3.18 per $100,000 of Assessed Value. The calculation to ensure
that the debt service does not exceed a tax rate in excess of $3.18 per $100,000 of
Assessed Value shall be calculated at issuance of the debt with the information
available at that time and exclude any one-time funds, such as bond premium. Should
the tax rate exceed $3.18 at any time after the debt has been issued, no new debt shall
be issued until such time as the debt service payments can again be paid from tax
collections not exceeding a $3.18 tax rate.
Section 2.03. Types of Permitted Debt. The District may issue a variety of debt instruments and
obligations.
i. Long-term borrowing (maturity greater than 1 year) may be used to finance the
acquisition or improvement of land, facilities, or equipment for which it is appropriate
to spread these costs over more than one budget year. Long-term borrowing may also
be used to fund capitalized interest, costs of issuance, required reserves, and any other
financing related costs which may be legally capitalized. Long-term borrowing shall not
be used to fund operating costs.
ii. Short-term borrowing (maturity of one year or less), such as lines of credit or
commercial paper, will be considered as an interim source of funding to be utilized
when appropriate. Short-term debt may be issued for any purpose for which long-term
debt may be issued, including capitalized interest and other financing related costs.
iii. All long-term debt shall normally be issued as fixed rate debt. Variable rate debt may
be issued if determined to be advantageous to the District.
iv. Relationship of Debt to Capital Improvement Program: The District maintains a five-
year Capital Improvement plan, which it expects to fund through a combination of
Measure AA proceeds, General Fund Monies, and grants. While the District does not
expect debt to be the sole source of funding for the CIP, the District may issue debt in
addition to bonds approved under Measure AA (including those types of debt discussed
herein) should doing so become necessary to meet the District’s capital needs.
Attachment 4
Board Policy 3.09 Page 3 of 5
v. Policy Goals Related to District Objectives: The District’s objective is to meet its capital
needs economically, and intends only to use debt as a funding source when the Board
determines doing so would be both fiscally responsible and aligned with the District’s
policy objectives.
Article III: Debt Structuring
Debt issued by the District, new or refunding, may have various features and structures.
i. The debt shall be callable no later than eleven years from the date of issuance. If the
final maturity is less than fifteen years, a call feature shorter than ten years shall be
evaluated by the CFO and Controller together with the financial advisor and
underwriter as deemed appropriate by the CFO and Controller. If advantageous to
the District, the CFO and Controller may recommend the use of a shorter call
feature for maturities fifteen years or longer as well.
ii. The maturity for new debt issued is usually thirty years, unless the useful life of the
projects is significantly shorter than thirty years, in which case the maturity shall be
shortened to match the useful life, or, in the case of a large one-time capital
expenditure, where the cash flow need may be much shorter than thirty years. The
final maturity for refunding debt shall be no later than the final maturity of the
refunded debt.
iii. Given the District’s historically very strong credit ratings, utilizing credit
enhancement in connection with a debt issuance has not been financially
advantageous to the District. However, should credit enhancement prove effective
in lowering the District’s all-in borrowing cost on a debt issuance in the future, the
District retains the option to utilize such credit enhancement. Such evaluation will
be made by the CFO and Controller together with the financial advisor and
underwriter as deemed appropriate by the CFO and Controller.
iv. The use of derivative products (a financial instrument which ‘derives’ its value from
another instrument) is not permitted.
Article IV: Debt Issuance
The District shall assess the impact of new debt issuance on the thirty-year long-term affordability
model as developed by the Controller. This model includes future debt service, capital improvement
projects and operational expenditures, adjusted for inflation and growth over thirty years. Any debt
issued, and the associated debt repayment schedule, must be evaluated and affordable according to this
thirty-year model.
Section 4.01. Credit Objectives. The District shall make every reasonable effort to maintain its high
credit ratings. The District shall seek a credit rating on all new publicly placed bond issues from at least
one nationally recognized credit rating agency. The District shall maintain a line of communications with
the bond rating agencies reporting annual financial reports, budget and other major information as they
occur.
Section 4.02. Method of Sale. The District may issue debt via negotiated sale, a competitive bid
process or private placement. The CFO and Controller, together with the Financial Advisor, shall review
and evaluate the best method of sale for each issuance.
Attachment 4
Board Policy 3.09 Page 4 of 5
Section 4.03. Selection of External Financial Professionals. The District shall utilize the services of
various independent advisors, consultants and other financial institutions and professionals. Such
services, depending on the type of financing, may include financial advisor, underwriter, bond counsel,
disclosure counsel, trustee, verification agent, escrow agent, arbitrage consulting, and special tax
consulting. The financial advisor, underwriter, bond counsel, and disclosure counsel shall be selected via
a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process initiated and managed by the Chief Financial Officer
and evaluated by the Disclosure Working Group. Other services may be contracted via sole source or
directly authorized.
Section 4.04. Refunding of Debt. The District shall periodically review its outstanding debt to identify
refunding opportunities. Refunding will be considered (within federal tax law constraints) if and when
there is a net economic benefit from the refunding. In general, refundings which produce a net present
value savings of at least three percent (3%) of the refunded debt will be considered economically
beneficial. Refunding which produce a net present value savings of less than three percent (3%) will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating the economic benefit of refundings considered
“advance refundings”, the District will also evaluate the escrow efficiency in consultation with the
District’s financial advisor and underwriter.
Article V: Debt Management
Section 5.01. Disclosure. The District’s Board of Directors adopted a separate Disclosure Policy, which
policy includes 15c2-12 requirements, initial and continuing disclosure requirements, and outlines the
responsibilities of District staff, consultants and advisors. Disclosure Policy
Section 5.02. Investment of Bond Proceeds. The District shall invest bond proceeds consistent with
applicable federal and state law and tax requirements, including any arbitrage calculations and
reporting, as well as consistent with the District’s Board adopted Policy titled Statement of Investment
3.08. Statement of Investment
Article VI: Controls, Reporting, and Miscellaneous
Section 6.01. Internal Controls. To ensure the bond proceeds are managed and spent as intended,
the District has the following processes in place:
i. Reporting of bond funds generated by a financing secured by General Fund
revenues shall be included in the Annual Financial Report.
ii. Reporting and review of bond funds spent under Measure AA authorization is
outlined in the Measure AA election documentation:
An Independent Citizen Oversight Committee will be formed to verify expenditures of
bond proceeds. The Independent Citizen Oversight Committee will consist of seven
at-large members, all of whom shall be District residents. The Citizen Oversight
Committee will be selected by the Board and interviewed and approved in open
session, and will be subject to the conflict of interest constraints of the California
Political Reform Act.
The responsibilities of the Committee include:
• Review Plan expenditures on an annual basis to verify conformity with the
Expenditure Plan.
Attachment 4
Board Policy 3.09 Page 5 of 5
• Review District’s Annual Audit and Annual Accountability report and present
the Committee’s findings to the Board at a public meeting.
• Review any proposed amendments to the Expenditure Plan.
iii. Reporting of bond funds expended to refund existing bonds shall be included in the
final refunding report to the Board of Directors.
Section 6.02. Documents to be Retained. Section 5.01 of the Disclosure Policy provides document
retainage requirements applicable to debt issuances. Disclosure Policy
Section 6.03. Waivers. In addition to the General Manager’s authority to adopt an Administrative
Procedure to make this Board Policy more specific, any provision of this Board Policy or any related
administrative procedure may be waived at any time by the General Manager, with the written
confirmation to the members of the Disclosure Working Group. This authority to waive a provision of
this policy is triggered only if such waiver is necessary for timely and effective issuance of debt in
compliance with any applicable laws. Any waivers made under this provision shall be reported to the
Board of Directors, with conforming revisions recommended for the Board’s consideration at the next
update of this Board Policy and no later than three months from the implementation of such waiver.
Section 6.04. Periodic Review. This policy shall be reviewed and affirmed annually by the Board of
Directors.
Attachment 4
R-18-65
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed Agreement with City of Mountain View to Provide District Radio Dispatch Services
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to execute the proposed five-year agreement with the City of
Mountain View to provide District 24-hour radio dispatch services, with the option to extend the
agreement for five additional one-year extensions, in an amount not-to-exceed $217,810 for
Fiscal Year 2018–19, not-to-exceed $229,800 for Fiscal Year 2019–20, not-to-exceed $238,952
for Fiscal Year 2020–21, not-to-exceed $248,470 for Fiscal Year 2021–22, and not-to-exceed
$258,369 for Fiscal Year 2022–23, for a total cost over five years of $1,193,401.
SUMMARY
Reliable radio dispatch service is critically important to the District field employees and public
safety needs. In October 2017, the District conducted a request for proposals and qualifications
(RFPQ) for radio dispatch services. After an extended bid process to allow for additional
proposals, the District only received one proposal, which was from the City of Mountain View.
After a review of the proposal by Visitor Services and Land and Facilities Services staff, the City
of Mountain View proposal was selected as it met the requirements of the RFPQ for a long term
radio dispatch agreement.
DISCUSSION
Reliable radio dispatch service is critically important to the District field employees and public
safety needs. The City of Mountain View has provided contract radio dispatch services to the
District for over 10 years. On May 9, 2007, the Board of Directors authorized the General
Manager to enter into a six-year agreement with the City of Mountain View to provide the
District with 24-hour radio dispatch services (Report R-07-58). The Board also approved a six-
year Funding Plan for District dispatch services from 2007–2013, for a total amount of $737,740,
contingent upon future approval of budget expenditures after FY2007–08. Two (2) two-year
extensions were executed on the agreement; the final one expired June 30, 2017. The Board
authorized a new agreement for one year in FY 2017–18, which expires on June 30, 2018, with
one one-year optional extension for FY 2018-19 for $217,810 (Report R-17-84).
On October 27, 2017 an RFPQ was issued by the District to solicit radio dispatching services.
The RFPQ was posted on the District website, and District staff notified each local emergency
agency dispatch center via email about the release of the RFPQ. The deadline for proposals was
originally December 5, 2017, but was extended to December 19, 2017 to allow more time for
R-18-65 Page 2
potential proposers to prepare and submit a response. Each local emergency dispatch center was
notified of the extension, asked of a status update, and was encouraged to call or email with
questions, concerns, or seek any needed clarification. Only the City of Mountain View submitted
a proposal. A team consisting of an area superintendent, two supervising rangers, and two
management analysts in the Visitor Services and Land and Facilities Services Departments
reviewed the proposal and determined that it met the requirements set forth in the RFPQ. Staff
subsequently negotiated terms and cost with the City of Mountain View to create the proposed
agreement.
In the current agreement, the FY2017–18 annual cost is $197,800, with an optional extension for
FY2018–19 of $217,810. The City of Mountain View’s proposal is based on a cost recovery
model for the cost of one dispatcher. The ratio of one dispatcher to the total number of
dispatchers is roughly proportional to the number of District calls to the number of City of
Mountain View calls handled by the dispatch center. In preparation for the response to the
District’s RFPQ, the City of Mountain View used updated, more accurate estimates to calculate
actual costs for FY2018–19 of over $221,000 for full cost-recovery. However, Mountain View
agreed to honor the contract amount in the current agreement for FY 2018-19, for the first year
of the proposed five-year contract.
Annual increases in the contract are due to projected increases in costs for the City of Mountain
View staff wages and benefits. The increases in the contract include a catch-up to Mountain
View’s projected costs in FY 2019-20 and 4% for projected increases to staff costs each year. In
the past several years, the City of Mountain View’s dispatch costs have increased faster than 4%.
Staff anticipate that a five-year contract will provide more savings to the District than if the
District exercises the option to extend the current contract for one year and a new contract is
negotiated in future years based on updated costs.
The City of Mountain View’s dispatch services have been very satisfactory and have provided
the necessary services on a professional and reliable basis.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the Land and Facilities Services Department Support Services
FY2018–19 budget for radio dispatch services to cover the cost of the proposed General
Manager recommendation, which is not-to-exceed $217,810.
Annual cost increases from FY2017–18 through the end of the five-year agreement are included
below.
Fiscal Year Cost Annual % Increase
FY2017–18 $197,800 N/A
FY2018–19 $217,810 10.1%
FY2019–20 $229,800 5.5%
FY2020–21 $238,952 4.0%
FY2021–22 $248,470 4.0%
FY2022–23 $258,369 4.0%
Total $1,193,401
R-18-65 Page 3
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
Upon approval by the Board, the General Manager will enter into a five-year agreement with the
City of Mountain View for dispatch services through June 30, 2023, with five (5) optional one-
year extensions. The General Manager will come back to the Board for approval at the end of
the initial five-year agreement with a recommendation to extend the agreement or solicit
proposals for a new vendor.
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Land and Facilities Services
Prepared by:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
R-18-68
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Authorization to Purchase Proposed Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2018–19
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California
Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for five patrol vehicles, three
maintenance vehicles, and one administrative office departmental vehicle for a total cost not-
to-exceed $545,000.
2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California
Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for two excavators, two
transport trailers, and one tractor, for a total cost not-to-exceed $350,000.
SUMMARY
Annually, the District purchases vehicles and machinery to provide transportation and required
equipment for administrative, maintenance, patrol, and for capital projects. These vehicles and
machinery are purchased through an existing contract with the California Department of General
Services (DGS), which provides significant cost savings. All of the vehicles proposed for
purchase for FY2018–19 are either replacement vehicles or additional vehicles needed to serve
increased staffing and project demands. The cost of vehicles and equipment for Fiscal Year
2018–19 (FY2018–19) is not-to-exceed $895,000.
DISCUSSION
Annually, the District purchases vehicles and machinery to provide transportation and required
equipment for administrative, maintenance, patrol, and for capital projects including MAA and
non-MAA capital projects. These vehicles and machinery are purchased through an existing
contract with DGS, which provides significant cost savings. All of the vehicles proposed for
purchase for FY2018–19 either replace current vehicles that need to be retired (See Attachment
1) or are additional vehicles needed to serve increased staffing and project demands.
As additional and replacement vehicles are purchased, they are evaluated to reduce fuel
consumption. Examples of vehicles purchased in that effort are 1) plug-in hybrids for the
administrative office, 2) smaller Ford F150 trucks for seasonal ranger aides, and 3) smaller Ford
F150s (without fire pumpers) to replace some large F350s (with fire pumpers) in the ranger pool.
R-18-68 Page 2
In addition, diesel trucks have been replaced to meet new emissions guidelines. The District is
also investigating the use of alternate fuel sources, such as renewable diesel.
The additional vehicles and equipment proposed for FY2018–19 are needed to support additional
staffing for FY2018–19 as well as improving efficiency and reducing long term costs for the
special project crews created over the last two years. The increase in capital projects and the
crews that perform the work created more demand and conflicts for the use of existing
equipment. Examples of the ongoing and future capital projects that utilize vehicles and
equipment include the El Corte de Madera Preserve Oljon Trail, La Honda Creek Preserve phase
II trails, Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve phase I and II trails, and Sierra Azul Preserve Hendry’s
Creek restoration work.
When there is an ongoing need for specialized maintenance vehicles and heavy equipment,
purchasing, as opposed to renting, allows crews (special projects and general maintenance) to
improve the scheduling and transportation of equipment for projects. Relying on a rental
company’s stock of vehicles and equipment can compromise efficiency and quality, in addition
to risking project delays, while waiting for vehicle/equipment availability. Additionally, rental
costs for short-term rentals are very high, as is the transportation cost per hour of use. Given the
ongoing need for the proposed equipment and vehicles for MAA, capital, or general maintenance
projects, it is more cost-effective to purchase these vehicles/equipment in the long run. Rentals
remain efficient for short term needs of readily available equipment.
If the vehicles and equipment are not available through the DGS contracts, staff will attempt to
purchase using contracts from other approved cooperative purchasing agreements. If no
contracts are available that meet District needs, staff will return to the Board for authorization to
solicit bids directly from the manufacturer(s).
Further details on the current fleet and proposed fleet can be found in Attachment 2.
Vehicles
The following vehicles are proposed for purchase:
• Replacement: Four patrol vehicles and one maintenance vehicle have reached the end of
their useful life. These end-of-life vehicles will be sold at public auction and will be
replaced with new vehicles.
• Additional: One patrol vehicle assigned to the Foothills Field Office (FFO) will be added
to the fleet to support the increase in staff and additional territory requiring coverage.
• Additional: One maintenance vehicle assigned to FFO, a small/mid-sized dump truck,
will be purchased to support moving materials into areas of the preserves that large dump
trucks cannot access.
• Additional: One maintenance vehicle assigned to the Skyline Field Office (SFO), a
flatbed dump truck, will be purchased to support hauling large quantities or large-size
materials for construction and maintenance tasks in addition to towing smaller
R-18-68 Page 3
equipment. There has been more demand for this size and style of truck to support MAA
projects, and currently the District has only one.
• Additional: One administrative office (AO) department truck will support transporting
project managers and staff in Engineering and Construction to project sites.
Equipment (See Attachment 3)
The following equipment are proposed for purchase:
• Replacement: Equipment Transport Trailer 40,000 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) assigned to FFO – This is to replace a current trailer that only has a 24,000lbs
GVWR and is never used for transporting larger equipment due to its low carrying
capacity and limited maneuverability. This trailer will be sold at auction. The
replacement trailer will have a 40,000 GVWR capacity. It will be assigned to the South
Area and used by special projects and general maintenance crews for transporting
equipment to various project sites.
• Additional: Equipment Transport Trailer 60,000 GVWR assigned to SFO – A large
flatbed trailer will expand crew’s capability to transport the largest equipment that the
District rents. Primarily, the John Deere 135 excavator, which weighs about 35,000
pounds, is at the upper limit for crew’s capability to transport. Trailers are difficult, if not
impossible, to rent.
• Additional: Landscape Tractor assigned to FFO – Special Projects and maintenance
crews have competing needs for the current landscape tractor at Foothills Field Office.
Purchasing a second unit will allow both crews to be more efficient and give more
flexibility for scheduling and completing project work.
• Additional: Mid-size Excavator assigned to SFO – The mid-size excavator will expand
the capabilities of handling various projects like trail tread maintenance, post hole
drilling, culvert installation, debris clearing, and other tasks. The District currently owns
very small excavators (Cat 301.8) for trail work and a large excavator (John Deere 85) for
roadwork—this unit would be intermediate between these two for mid-size jobs and is
easier to transport. The mid-size excavator comes with a set of specific attachments that
can be very difficult to locate and rent for short term or episodically.
• Additional: Mini Excavator assigned to FFO – This excavator will be used to clear paths
and dig new trails to open more of Bear Creek Redwoods. It will also be used to excavate
and eliminate an existing portion of the old trail. Crews anticipate that a significant
portion of construction years 2019 and 2020 will be dedicated to these activities.
The table below contains the breakdown of estimated costs by vehicle/equipment. Costs include
tools and equipment needed to outfit the vehicles installed by the manufacturers, which can vary
depending upon the function of each vehicle.
R-18-68 Page 4
Vehicle/Equipment
Description
Additional or
Replacement
Cost Quantity Total
Vehicles
Patrol Vehicle:
Ford F350, F150 pickup or
similar
Replacement $53,000 4 $212,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Dodge Quad Cab pickup or
similar
Replacement $50,000 1 $50,000
Patrol Vehicle:
Ford F350, F150 pickup or
similar
Additional $53,000 1 $53,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F550 Dump Truck
Additional $100,000 1 $100,000
Maintenance Vehicle:
Ford F550 Flatbed
Additional $85,000 1 $85,000
Administrative Vehicle:
Toyota 4 Runner or similar
Additional $45,000 1 $45,000
Vehicle Total $545,000
Equipment
Maintenance Equipment:
Equipment Transport Trailer
(40,000 GVWR)
Replacement $60,000 1 $60,000
Maintenance Equipment:
Equipment Transport Trailer
(60,000 GVWR)
Additional $67,000 1 $67,000
Maintenance Equipment:
Landscape Tractor
Additional $80,000 1 $80,000
Maintenance Equipment:
Mid-size Excavator
Additional $95,000 1 $95,000
Maintenance Equipment:
Mini Excavator
Additional $48,000 1 $48,000
Equipment Total $350,000
Grand Total $895,000
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2018–19 District Budget includes $545,000 for District Vehicles and $350,000 for Field
Equipment. There is sufficient funding in the capital budget of the General Fund to cover the
recommended purchase contracts.
FY2018–19
District Vehicle Budget $592,500
Spent to date (as of 6/27/18): $0
Encumbrances: $0
[Recommended Action – Costs] $545,000
R-18-68 Page 5
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $47,500
The remaining $47,500 will be used to cover the cost of a vehicle on backlog from FY2017–18,
which was previously approved by the Board in June 2017 (R-17-83).
FY2018–19
District Machinery (Equipment) Budget $350,000
Spent to date (as of 6/27/18): $0
Encumbrances: $0
[Recommended Action – Costs] $350,000
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0
Three-year Capital Budget
FY2017–18 FY2018–19 FY2019–20
Vehicles $740,000 $592,500 $692,000
Machinery $330,000 $350,000 $310,000
Total $1,022,500 $942,500 $1,002,000
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
There was no Committee review for this agenda item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
No environmental review is required as the recommended action is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, staff will prepare purchase orders for the vehicles and equipment
utilizing the State of California Department of General Services contracts or other approved
cooperative procurement contract.
Attachments
1. Fleet Replacement Guidelines
2. District Vehicle Fleet Report
3. Equipment Images
Responsible Department Head:
Brian Malone, Land & Facilities Services
Prepared by:
Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land & Facilities Services
M
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Fleet Replacement Guidelines
May 24, 2017
The following serves as general guidelines for replacing vehicles and equipment based
on usage, operating costs, and downtime. Adjustments in time or miles will be made to
replacement criteria for individual units as conditions warrant.
PATROL (CODE 3) VEHICLES 7–10 years and/or 80–90,000 miles
MAINTENANCE TRUCKS 10–15 years and/or 85–100,000 miles
ADMIN VEHICLES 20 years and/or 100,000 miles
EQUIPMENT TRANSPORT TRAILERS 15–20 years
TRACTORS/EXCAVATORS 15 Years and 5,000 hours
FIRE APPARATUS
Slip-On Pumper Units 15 years
Attachment 1
District Vehicle Fleet Report
June 12, 2018
The District maintains an inventory of 86 vehicles of various models and types based on the needs of
different departments and job functions. Our fleet replacement guidelines, last updated August 21, 2012,
establish that we replace emergency vehicles between 80–90,000 miles and 7–10 years; replace
maintenance vehicles between 85–100,000 miles and 10–15 years; and replace administrative vehicles
at 100,000 miles and 20 years. Adjustments to the criteria for individual unit replacement are made
depending on condition, operating costs, and down time.
The type of field vehicle purchased and the assignment are made based on department and position
needs. The typical field vehicle is a four-wheel drive truck or sports utility vehicle. Field vehicles are
assigned to supervisors/managers; all other trucks are shared vehicles. The exception is resident patrol
staff and some resident maintenance staff, who are assigned vehicles to take home for call-out
availability.
The type of administrative office (AO) vehicles purchased is usually a compact SUV or similar sedan,
including hybrid and plug-in vehicles. Some AO vehicles need to be four-wheel drive to enable staff to
drive off-road in preserves. Additionally, some of the SUVs need to have higher seating capacity for
carpooling large groups. All AO vehicles are shared, with the exception of one vehicle each being
assigned to Visitor Services and Land & Facilities Services Managers, and one to each department:
Engineering & Construction, Real Property, and Natural Resources. These vehicles are assigned to staff
and departments due to their routine trips into the field to review projects and to meet with contractors,
consultants, and other staff.
Breakdown of fleet vehicles:
PATROL EMERGENCY VEHICLES
Emergency vehicles replaced at 80–90,000 miles and/or 7–10 years
FY17–18
• (31) vehicles total, 35 staff 33 FTE
o (8) SUVs (Ford Expedition typical)
Assigned to Visitor Services Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle), Area Superintendents
(2 staff, 2 vehicles), Patrol Supervisors (5 staff, 5 vehicles)
o (19) One ton trucks outfitted with 125 gallon slip on fire pumpers (Ford F350 typical)
Resident rangers are assigned their own vehicle for afterhours call-out availability
(7 staff, 7 vehicles)
Trucks assigned to field office pools (12 vehicles)
o (4) Half ton trucks (Ford F150 typical)
Trucks assigned to field office pools and Seasonal Rangers
FY18–19
Attachment 2
• (32) vehicles total (one additional vehicle), 36 staff 34 FTE
o (8) SUVs (Ford Expedition typical)
Assigned to Visitor Services Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle), Area Superintendents
(2 staff, 2 vehicles), Patrol Supervisors (5 staff, 5 vehicles)
o (17) One ton trucks outfitted with 125 gallon slip on fire pumpers (Ford F350 typical)
Resident rangers are assigned their own vehicle for afterhours call-out availability
(7 staff, 7 vehicles)
Trucks assigned to field office pools (13 vehicles)
o (8) Light truck (Ford F150/Chevrolet Colorado typical)
Trucks assigned to field office pools and Seasonal Rangers
MAINTENANCE VEHICLES
Maintenance vehicles replaced at 85–100,000 miles and/or 10–15 years
FY17–18
(42) vehicles total, 56 staff 47.5 FTE
o (10) Trucks w/four-wheel drive (Ford F150 or Toyota Tacoma typical)
Assigned to Area Managers (2 staff, 2 vehicles), Maintenance Supervisors (6
staff, 6 vehicles), Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and Facilities Maintenance
Specialist (2 staff, 1 vehicle), Capital Projects Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle)
o (6) Commercial trucks (not assigned to staff) (Peterbuilt or International typical)
Vehicles are two (2) water trucks and four (4) large dump trucks for various
projects and transporting large equipment
o (26) Service Trucks (26 vehicles, 28 permanent staff and 17 seasonal staff)
(10) Specialty four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F550 typical). Four (4) trucks are flat
bed with dump capabilities, one (1) is a one-yard dump bed truck and five (5) are
service body vehicles set up for Equipment Mechanic/Operator use
(16) Standard four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F350 typical). Trucks are configured
for different needs; most have utility bodies for project work and transporting
staff. Some are configured for specialty use, such as spray rigs
FY18–19
• (44) vehicles total (2 additional vehicles), 57 staff 48.5 FTE
o (10) Trucks w/four-wheel drive (Ford F150 or Toyota Tacoma typical)
Assigned to Area Managers (2 staff, 2 vehicles), Maintenance Supervisors (6
staff, 6 vehicles), Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and Facilities Maintenance
Specialist (2 staff, 1 vehicle), Capital Projects Manager (1 staff, 1 vehicle)
o (6) Commercial trucks (not assigned to staff) (Peterbuilt or International typical)
Vehicles are two (2) water trucks and four (4) large dump trucks for various
projects and transporting large equipment
o (28) Service Trucks (28 vehicles, 30 permanent staff and 17 seasonal staff)
(12) Specialty four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F550 typical). Five (5) trucks are flat
bed with dump capabilities, two (2) are one-yard dump bed trucks, and five (5)
are service body vehicles set up for Equipment Mechanic/Operator use
(16) Standard four-wheel drive trucks (Ford F350 typical). Trucks are configured
for different needs; most have utility bodies for project work and transporting
staff. Some are configured for specialty use, such as spray rigs
ADMINISTRATION VEHICLES
Administration vehicles replaced at 100,000 and/or 20 years
FY17–18
• (13) vehicles total, 98 staff 92.25 FTE
Attachment 2
o (7) Vehicles shared by all administration staff, available for reservation via internal
Outlook calendar
Two (2) hybrid cars (Toyota Prius typical), two (2) hybrid SUVs (Ford Escape
typical), three (3) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Ford Explorer/Toyota 4Runner
typical)
o (4) Trucks with four-wheel drive (Ford F150 typical)
One (1) vehicle assigned to Engineering & Construction Department, one (1)
assigned to Natural Resources Department, two (2) assigned to Volunteer
Program Leads
o (2) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Jeep Wranglers)
One (1) assigned to Land & Facilities Manager and one (1) to Real Property
Department
FY18–19
• (14) vehicles total (1 additional vehicle), 101 staff 95.25 FTE
o (7) Vehicles shared by all administration staff, available for reservation via internal
Outlook calendar
Two (2) hybrid cars (Toyota Prius typical), two (2) hybrid SUVs (Ford Escape
typical), three (3) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Ford Explorer/Toyota 4Runner
typical)
o (5) Trucks with four-wheel drive (Ford F150 typical)
Two (2) vehicles assigned to Engineering & Construction Department, one (1)
assigned to Natural Resources Department, two (2) assigned to Volunteer
Program Leads
o (2) SUVs with four-wheel drive (Jeep Wranglers)
One (1) assigned to Land & Facilities Manager and one (1) to Real Property
Department
Employee-to-Vehicle Ratio Tables
Current Fiscal Year 2017–2018
Employee
Category
Number of
Employees*
Number of
Transport
Vehicles
Number of
Commercial
Vehicles
Ranger 35 31 0
Maintenance 56 36 6
Administrative 94 13 0
Total 185 80 6
Attachment 2
Proposed for Fiscal Year 2018–2019
Employee
Category
Number of
Employees*
Number of
Transport
Vehicles
Number of
Commercial
Vehicles
Replacement
Transport
Vehicles**
Additional
Transport
Vehicles**
Additional
Commercial
Vehicles**
Ranger 36 32 0 4 1 0
Maintenance 57 38 6 1 2 0
Administrative 98 14 0 0 1 0
Total 191 84 6 5 4 0
*Reflects actual on-duty employees; not FTE **These vehicles are accounted for in the Number of Transport Vehicles and Number of Commercial
Vehicles totals
Fleet Program Evaluation
The current guidelines are working effectively to provide the vehicles necessary for the administrative and
field need for vehicles. As the District grows, we are making efforts to reduce the ratio of staff to vehicles.
The need for vehicles for administrative staff is relatively light. However, field staff need to move from the
field offices into preserves every day. Patrol staff perform solo patrols, so generally all on-duty Visitor
Services field staff need a vehicle. The Visitor Services Department is continuing the transition from
trucks assigned to each ranger to a shared fleet of trucks. The Land and Facilities Services Department
field staff perform work in crews ranging from one individual to an entire crew. This necessitates a shared
fleet. There are also specialty vehicles, such as the commercial trucks, that require a commercial driver’s
license to operate, so they generally do not contribute to transportation of staff into the field.
As new and replacement vehicles are purchased they are evaluated to reduce fuel consumption. .
Examples of vehicles purchased in that effort are 1) plug-in hybrids for the administrative office, 2) smaller
Ford F150 trucks for seasonal ranger aides, and 3) smaller Ford F150s (without fire pumpers) to replace
some large F350s (with fire pumpers) ranger pool. In addition, diesel trucks have been replaced to meet
new emissions guidelines. The District is also investigating the use of alternate fuel sources, such as
renewable diesel.
Several additional measures may be evaluated in the future. A future evaluation of the Fire Program may
recommend removing pumpers from most patrol trucks and purchasing more effective patrol rigs for fire
suppression. Electric vehicles, from standard sedans to electric motorcycles and ATVs, have been
evaluated and as their technology improves, we will likely recommend electric vehicle purchases in the
future. The need for four-wheel drive and specialty vehicles limits the ability to green the fleet until
technology catches up to those types of vehicles, but we will continue to include fuel economy in
evaluating purchases.
In addition to reducing fuel consumption, the fleet is also evaluated for reducing expenditures and utilizing
the life of vehicles up to the point where the maintenance cost, safety issues, fuel consumption, and
reliability issues make the sale of old vehicles and the purchase of new vehicles cost effective. Currently
we rely on the approved replacement guidelines, but we evaluate individual vehicles for use beyond the
mileage and age guidelines. In particular, retired Visitor Services SUVs are evaluated for use at the
administrative office when four-wheel drive vehicles are needed. Currently one retired patrol vehicle, a
Ford Expedition, is being used in this capacity. As the longevity of vehicles improves, particularly in the
administrative vehicle fleet, mileage and age guidelines can be adjusted if vehicles are lasting longer.
Attachment 2
Equipment Images
Mid-size Excavator
Mini Excavator
Equipment Trailer Example
Landscape Tractor
Attachment 3
Rev. 1/3/18
R-18-72
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for Fire Ecology Services: Prescribed Fire Program Creation and
Development
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC
of Pleasanton, California to provide fire ecology services in an amount not to exceed
$101,250.
2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $15,188, to be awarded only if necessary to cover
unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $116,438.
SUMMARY
Staff needs assistance from a qualified consultant to provide expert advice and best management
practices for fire ecology and management to develop the District’s Prescribed Fire Program. A
Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) was issued on May 11, 2018. Staff conducted
an optional pre-proposal conference on May 29, 2018. The General Manager recommends
contracting with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC to provide expert advice and best management
practices of the proposed Program in the not to exceed amount of $116,438 over a three-year
period beginning in FY 2018-19. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover
Recommended Action 1 and expenditures anticipated in FY2018-19. However, future budget
adjustment may be necessary to cover the contingency amount in Recommended Action 2.
BACKGROUND
Periodic fires were a part of the historic natural ecological processes on District preserve lands;
as a result, many species evolved with fire adaptations and need periodic fire for renewal.
Among the ecological benefits of periodic fire are opening forests to new generations of younger
trees, purging grassland of invasive shrubs, and stimulating seed germination and shoot growth
in chaparral. Fire-dependent and fire-adapted communities degrade without the regenerative
effects that fire provides, resulting in a reduction of biodiversity within both the plant and animal
communities. Additionally, wildland fuels in unburned areas can build up to such high levels that
when a wildfire occurs, it can have devastating effects. The District plans to take proactive steps
to reduce the severity and intensity of wildland fires, similar to ones recently seen in the North
Bay and Southern California, as well as provide training opportunities for suppression activities
by responding agencies.
R-18-72 Page 2
If approved by the Board, this contract will assist the District in establishing a Prescribed Fire
Program to address management of open space lands to meet the goals described above.
Consultant will participate in both internal and public meetings, serving as the subject matter
expert on fire ecology, provide recommendations for any changes to Board policy including the
District’s Resource Management Polices and Goals, and provide expert responses to public
comments that are technical in nature.
DISCUSSION
Staff issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) on May 11, 2018. Staff
circulated the RFQP through email and posting on the Midpen website. Staff conducted an
optional, pre-proposal conference on May 29, 2018. Five (5) firms attended and four (4) firms
submitted proposals. Staff evaluated the qualifications of each proposer, the quality of the
proposal, the implementation approach, and the overall team expertise.
Firm Location Proposed Fee
Chloeta Fire, LLC Midwest City, Ok $ 138,066.78
Marty Ecological Consulting,
Inc.
Sacramento, CA $ 45,370.00
Spatial Informatics Group,
LLC
Pleasanton, CA $ 101,250.00
Wildland Res Mgt Reno, NV $ 106,595.00
Evaluation criteria were determined prior to the release of the RFPQ that included the quality of
the proposal, implementation approach to the project, and the implementation expertise of the
firm. Although Marty Ecological Consulting was the lowest bidder, the firm’s implementation
approach did not meet the needs and intent of the project objectives and requirements as
described in the RFPQ.
Spatial Informatics Group, LLC was deemed most qualified and best suited for the project based
on their response to the RFQP, proposed project approach, and qualifications, and at a fair and
reasonable price.
The District will be contracting with a separate consultant to provide California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) services through an additional RFPQ process in summer of 2018.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 budget includes $116,000 for services and supplies, and
additional funds are allocated in the three-year Capital Improvement and Action Plan as outlined
in the table below. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover recommended action
and expenditures anticipated in FY2018-19. However, a future estimated budget adjustment of
$116,000 will be necessary to cover the anticipated project expenditures in FY2020-21.
R-18-72 Page 3
PRIOR
YEAR
ACTUALS
FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 TOTAL
Prescribed Fire Program
Development Budget $0 $85,000 $116,000 $116,000 $0 $317,000
Spent-to-Date (as of
6/12/2018): $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0 $0
Proposed Award of
Contract (including 15%
contingency) :
$0 $38,813 $39,589 $38,036 $116,438
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $85,000 $77,187 $76,411 ($38,036) $200,562
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
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. Public notice was sent to 213
interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This award of contract is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with Spatial Informatics
Group, LLC of Pleasanton, California for a three-year period beginning in FY 2018-19. In
addition, staff will update and maintain the interested parties list for Fire Management for all
future outreach efforts for the development and creation of a Prescribed Fire Program. With
regard to performing environmental review of the consultant’s recommendations, staff plans to
release a RFPQ for CEQA services before the end of this fiscal year. .
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
R-18-71
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contracts to Six Firms for On-Call Graphic Design Services
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into contracts for On-Call graphic design services with
Alex Atkins Design, Conifer Creative, Cartwright Design, Eric Gouldsberry Design, Mills
Design, and Switky Communications Group for amounts not-to-exceed $100,000 (each) through
Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22.
SUMMARY
The Public Affairs Department conducted a competitive proposal process for On-Call
Midpeninsula Open Space District (District) graphic design services. Typical projects needing
design services include brochures, maps, fact-sheets, logos, flyers, and other special projects. In
an effort to maximize flexibility and create opportunities for multiple firms, the General Manager
recommends awarding contracts to several qualified graphic designers on an On-Call basis. Alex
Atkins Design, Conifer Creative, Cartwright Design, Eric Gouldsberry Design, Mills Design, and
Switky Communications Group submitted the most qualified and economical proposals. The
General Manager recommends awarding contracts for a term of up to four years to each of these
firms for an amount not-to-exceed $100,000 (each) through FY2021-22. Funds for all contracts
are included in the FY2018-19 Budget. Funds for subsequent fiscal years would be included in
future budgets.
DISCUSSION
The District’s “Public Contract Bidding, Vendor, and Professional Consultant Selection, and
Purchasing Policy” allows qualified firms who submit proposals to be placed on a
prequalification roster for future related work and it also allows the District to enter into open
contracts for routine supplies and services. Specifically, the policy provides that multi-year
contracts can be entered into when appropriate and necessary to secure the best pricing or assure
continuity of service, provided that District staff reviews the services annually to assure that the
vendor is meeting the District’s needs and remains at a competitive price. The option to extend
the contract for up to four years is at the District’s sole discretion.
On May 15, 2018 in compliance with this policy, the Public Affairs Department issued a Request
for Proposals and Qualifications (RFPQ) to provide On-Call graphic design services. District
staff solicited requests for proposals through our website, an interested parties list, and referrals
from partner agencies.
R-18-71 Page 2
Responding firms provided work samples, hourly rates, references, and information regarding
general background and qualifications. Additional information provided included any
experience working with land conservation or environmental organizations, and/or non-profits.
In accordance with Board Policy 3.03 Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional
Consultant Selection, and Purchasing regarding selection of professional consultants, staff
evaluated the thirteen proposals and identified six that best fit the requested criteria according to
their qualifications and rates.
Thirteen design firms submitted proposals by the June 5, 2018 deadline with average hourly rates
that ranged from $65 to $165 with the firms below in bold providing the six most competitive
proposals. See rate table below.
Company Name Location Average
Hourly Rate
My House of Design Austin, TX $65
Mills Design Mountain View, CA $72
Conifer Creative Walnut Creek, CA $79
Alex Atkins Design Inc. Palo Alto, CA $80
Eric Gouldsberry Design San Jose, CA $88
Cartwright Design Studio Montara, CA $90
Switky Communications Group Menlo Park, CA $105
Rootid El Cerrito, CA $110
McCay Design Monterey, CA $110
Lowercase Productions San Francisco, CA $110
Zooka Creative San Jose, CA $130
Project 6 Design Emeryville, CA $145
Ideation Gardena, CA $165
After reviewing work samples, references, client satisfaction, and hourly rates, staff selected six
designers:
• Mills Design, Alex Atkins Design Inc., based on work product quality, accessibility, and
quick turnaround at a low hourly rate for straightforward projects.
• Eric Gouldsberry Design based on high quality work samples, style, competitive hourly
rate, and accessibility.
• Cartwright Design, Conifer Creative, and Switky Communications Group, based on
environmental agency experience, creativity, style, work product quality, and
accessibility.
When working on graphic design projects, staff will request quotes from a minimum of three of
these designers to determine with the objective of selecting the most qualified consultant for a
specific project at a price that is fair and reasonable.
The General Manager recommends awarding a contract for a term of up to four years to each of
these six firms for an amount not-to-exceed $100,000 (each) through FY2021-22. Contract
amount was determined based on an anticipated amount of $25,000 annually up to four years.
R-18-71 Page 3
While Public Affairs does not anticipate spending the entire amount of all six of the contracts,
the higher contract amounts will provide flexibility to choose which contractor is best suited for
the design project within the restraints of a yearly annual budget. Multi-year contracts can be
beneficial in cost savings on initial design creation, protection from escalating costs, and
reduction of District staff time in yearly proposal preparation and review. Funds for the
recommended contracts are included in the FY2018-19 Budget. Funds for subsequent fiscal
years would be included in future budgets.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the graphic design services contract has been included in the FY2018-19 Budget.
Funds for subsequent fiscal years would be included in future budgets.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no
environmental review is required.
NEXT STEPS
Once Board approval is obtained, the graphic design services contracts would be executed, and
Public Affairs staff would implement projects on an ongoing basis.
Responsible Department Head:
Christine Butterfield, Public Affairs Manager
Prepared by:
Peggy Gibbons, Public Affairs Specialist II
R-18-75
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to Eric Gouldsberry Design for Graphic Design Services of District Annual
Financial Reports including the Budget and Action Plan Report, and the Measure AA (MAA)
Accountability Report
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract for graphic design services of the Budget
and Action Plan Report, and the MAA Accountability Report with Eric Gouldsberry Design for
an amount not-to-exceed $70,000 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22.
SUMMARY
The Public Affairs Department conducted a competitive proposal process for graphic design
services. One of the typical projects needing design services includes annual financial reports
such as the Action Plan and Budget Report, and the MAA Accountability Report. Based on a
review of qualifications, design samples and estimated rates, Eric Gouldsberry Design (EGAD)
is the most qualified firm to design the financial report projects at a fair and reasonable price.
The General Manager recommends awarding a four-year contract to EGAD for an amount not-
to-exceed $70,000 through FY2021-22. Funds for this contract is included in the FY2018-19
Budget. Funds for subsequent fiscal years would be included in future budgets.
DISCUSSION
On May 15, 2018, District staff issued a Request for Proposals and Qualifications (RFPQ) for
graphic design services including the Action Plan and Budget, and MAA Accountability Reports.
The RFPQ was posted on the District website. District staff solicited requests for proposals
through the website, an interested parties list, and referrals from partner agencies. Twelve
designers submitted proposals by the June 5, 2018 deadline with average hourly rates ranging
from $65 to $165 and total project estimates ranging from $3,250 to $33,000 per report.
Company Name Location Average
Hourly Rate
Estimated
Average
Report Cost
My House of Design Austin, TX $65 $3,250
Mills Design Mountain View, CA $72 $6,465
Conifer Creative Walnut Creek, CA $79 $6,200
Alex Atkins Design Inc. Palo Alto, CA $80 $9,750
EGAD San Jose, CA $88 $7,800
R-18-75 Page 2
Cartwright Design Studio Montara, CA $90 $16,671
Rootid El Cerrito, CA $110 $6,480
McCay Design Monterey, CA $110 $23,000
Lowercase Productions San Francisco, CA $110 $22,500
Zooka Creative San Jose, CA $130 $33,000
Project 6 Design Emeryville, CA $145 $9,062
Ideation Gardena, CA $165 n/a
In accordance with Board Policy 3.03 Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional
Consultant Selection, and Purchasing regarding selection of professional consultants, staff
evaluated the twelve proposals and identified this firm as the most qualified consultant at a price
that is fair and reasonable.
Responding firms provided work samples, hourly rates, references, and information regarding
general background and qualifications. Additional information provided included any
experience working with land conservation or environmental organizations, and/or non-profits.
After reviewing work samples, references, rates and estimated project costs, Eric Gouldsberry
Design (EGAD) was deemed the best fit for the project, based on quality of work samples of
comparable projects, a structured project approach. EGAD provided a competitive hourly rate of
$88 and a total project estimate of $7,800 per report. While not the lowest proposal for reports,
EGAD has worked with the District in the past and provided high quality work products, and has
a history of strong attention to detail. In addition, the firm is local, has a fair hourly rate, and
experience working with environmental organizations.
The General Manager recommends awarding a contract for a term of up to four years for an
amount not-to-exceed $70,000 through FY2021-22. Contract amount was determined based on
estimated project costs with a 25% contingency for an anticipated total of $17,500 annually up to
four years. Multi-year contracts can be beneficial in cost savings on initial design creation,
protection from escalating costs, and reduction of District staff time in yearly bid preparation and
review. The District enters into multi-year contracts when appropriate and necessary to secure
the best pricing or assure continuity of service, provided that District staff reviews the services
annually to assure that the vendor is meeting the District’s needs and remains at a competitive
price. The option to extend the contract for up to four years is at the District’s sole discretion.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the graphic design services contract has been included in the FY2018-19 Budget.
Funds for subsequent fiscal years would be included in future budgets.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no
environmental review is required.
R-18-75 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, staff will execute graphic design services contract with EGAD and
implement projects on an ongoing basis.
Responsible Department Head:
Christine Butterfield, Public Affairs Manager
Prepared by:
Peggy Gibbons, Public Affairs Specialist II
Rev. 1/3/18
R-18-73
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 9
AGENDA ITEM
Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail Partnership Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into Partnership Agreement with the City of Saratoga to
provide funding assistance for the engineering design and environmental review phase of the
Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail.
SUMMARY
In early 2017, the City of Saratoga (City) approached Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (District) for Measure AA funding to support the engineering design and environmental
review phase of the trail project (Attachments 2 and 3). Both the District and City added the
project to their respective Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 capital improvement programs. In recent
months, District and City staff have collaborated to draft a Partnership Agreement (Agreement)
that describes the various roles, responsibilities, and expectations during project development.
On May 30, 2018, the Action Plan and Budget Committee (Committee) reviewed the terms of
the Agreement (R-18-51) and recommended forwarding the Agreement to the full Board of
Directors (Board) for review and approval. Saratoga’s City Council unanimously approved the
Agreement on June 20, 2018, and pending Board approval of this agenda item, the City will
initiate engineering design and environmental review.
Over the last several years, the City has worked to close a critical gap in what will become the
Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail, a regional trail connecting people from downtown Saratoga to the
Pacific Ocean. The trail is included in the Open Space Vision Plan and Measure AA Portfolio
#18, which encompasses “Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor: Protect wildlife corridor
along Highway 9. Connect trail to Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Skyline-to-Sea Trail.” The
Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail would start from downtown Saratoga through the newly opened
Quarry Park, San Jose Water Company land, and Sanborn County Park, connecting to the
Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.
DISCUSSION
Project Background and Timeline
The District has long supported the City’s regional trail planning efforts, beginning with the
City’s 2011 purchase of the Quarry Park property at 22000 Congress Springs Road from the
County of Santa Clara (County). The City and District each contributed $250,000 to match the
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department’s (County Parks’) $500,000 towards the
R-18-73 Page 2
$1M purchase price. The District also recognized this trail partnership project as a priority in the
Open Space Vision Plan that the Board adopted in 2014.
In 2014 and 2015, the City completed the Master Plan for Quarry Park and Phase 1
improvements. On April 2, 2014, Saratoga’s City Council adopted a resolution supporting the
District’s Measure AA. The Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail is specifically called out in Portfolio #18
“Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor: Protect wildlife corridor along Highway 9.
Connect trail to Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Skyline-to-Sea Trail.” Subsequently, Quarry Park
officially opened to the public on October 30, 2015 and will be a key launching point for the
Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail.
In 2015, the City worked with consultants to study several conceptual trail alignments from
Quarry Park through San Jose Water Company land to Sanborn County Park. A preferred
alignment was identified (Attachment 2), and in 2016, the City completed a trail extension within
Quarry Park to the anticipated future trailhead of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail. On October 19,
2017, a ribbon cutting ceremony celebrated the opening of this new trail extension and the site of
the future trailhead.
In January and April 2017, Saratoga’s City Manager James Lindsay sent letters to then District
General Manager Stephen E. Abbors requesting funding assistance for the final engineering
design and environmental review phase of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail (Attachments 2 and 3).
The Board discussed the prioritization of this trail partnership project at the 2017 Board Retreats.
Both the District and City added the project to their respective capital improvement programs for
FY2017-18.
As collaboration on the draft Agreement progresses, the City continues to work on related
components of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail, including a pedestrian walkway from Saratoga
Village to Hakone Gardens and Quarry Park. The Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway will
serve as a critical starting point from the downtown to the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail. On April 4,
2018, the City awarded a design contract to Bellecci & Associates to begin design work for this
walkway project.
On June 20, 2018, Saratoga’s City Council unanimously approved the Agreement. On June 21,
2018, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian convened and facilitated a meeting with
representatives and staff from the District, the City, and County Parks to discuss future planning
steps and priorities. In attendance were Supervisor Simitian, Saratoga City Councilmember
Howard Miller, Board President Jed Cyr, Board Director Pete Siemens, and former Saratoga City
Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith. Councilmember Miller identified prioritization of the project
on all three agencies’ work plans as key to ensuring the successful and timely completion of the
trail from Quarry Park through Sanborn County Park. The project requires funding for the
construction phase and closing an approximately one-mile gap in Sanborn County Park.
Supervisor Simitian acknowledged that lack of staff resources and funding affects County Parks’
ability to accelerate work on this trail gap and that shifting around County Parks’ priorities
would require Board of Supervisors’ discussion and approval. Supervisor Simitian committed to
convening a quarterly meeting with all three agencies at his office to ensure progress and
momentum are maintained.
R-18-73 Page 3
Conceptual Trail Alignment
In 2015, the City assessed several potential trail alignments from Quarry Park through San Jose
Water Company land to Sanborn County Park. District staff accompanied the City’s project team
and County Parks staff on site visits to walk the three proposed alignments. City staff and
consultants weighed the following factors as part of the selection of the preferred alternative:
1. Minimal impact to San Jose Water Company’s watershed
2. Topography
3. Slope stability
4. Number of creek crossings and bridges
5. Trail sustainability
6. Wildlife protection
7. Property ownership (e.g. easement from the County, privately owned winery)
8. Feasible connection to County Park
9. Construction cost
The preferred trail alignment identified as the most feasible is 3.2 miles long and consists of 2.41
miles of newly constructed trail, 0.41 miles along an unpaved road, and 0.37 miles along a paved
road (see Attachment 2). The majority of the alignment is within San Jose Water Company
property (2.99 miles), for which the City is in the process of acquiring an easement. The City
jointly filed a Stipulation for Judgment with San Jose Water Company (fee owner) and Pacific
Gas & Electric (owner of an easement crossing the Project’s proposed trail alignment) in
December 2017 for a permanent trail easement from San Jose Water Company, and is awaiting
court sign-off. Short segments are located within Quarry Park (0.05 miles), a private winery
property (0.12), and Sanborn County Park (0.03 miles).
The new trail segment will be approximately four to five feet wide with average grades of 5% to
12%, with short segments of up to 15%. The conceptual alignment is designed to minimize
erosion and potential impacts to water quality, and to avoid impacts to sensitive resources where
possible. The alignment has three stream crossings that each require a clear‐span bridge.
Proposed trail uses would depend on uses allowed within Sanborn County Park, San Jose Water
Company land, and Quarry Park.
The trail segment within Sanborn County Park follows an existing road, but also requires closing
an approximately one-mile gap, constructing two bridges, and addressing site cleanup. Following
Supervisor Simitian’s June 21, 2018 meeting with District, County and City, City staff will
continue coordination with County Parks and the District about future trail planning and design,
and discuss how the trail segment in Sanborn County Park could be included as part of the City’s
upcoming design and environmental review work.
Proposed Agreement Terms and Conditions
The City’s initial, conceptual estimate for the design and construction of the trail, including the
three bridges, is about $3.5M, although this estimate will change as more refined design and
construction estimates are completed. The Agreement applies to the portions of trail in Quarry
Park and San Jose Water Company property (Attachment 1, Exhibit A). The City would need
separate agreements for the trail sections in Sanborn County Park and the private winery.
R-18-73 Page 4
Proposed terms of the Agreement between the District and the City include the following:
• Three-year term for the City to complete engineering design and environmental review.
• Maximum reimbursement amount of $265,000 for work under the agreement.
• Authorizes the General Manager and City Manager to amend the agreement due to
schedule changes.
• Calls for City use and conformance to the District’s trail construction and maintenance
guidelines for design and construction of the trail.
• Acknowledges that the City will continue to pursue funds to complete the remaining
phases of work, including permitting, bidding, and construction.
• Requires the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Calls out that the District will provide technical support (from the Planning, Engineering
& Construction, Land & Facilities departments) and feedback on the design plans,
specifications, and environmental review documents.
• Specifies City submittal of biannual project status reports describing progress on
milestones, deliverables, planned work and budget.
• Specifies City repayment of funds reimbursed by the District, if required, in the event that
design and environmental review are not completed within the Agreement term. The
District reserves the right to consider extenuating circumstances and waive the repayment
requirement.
• Identifies City installation of signage on site during and after construction related to the
District’s funding contribution.
The phased approach was determined to be appropriate since all project parameters are not fully
developed and environmental review has not begun. Under this approach, the District and City
may amend the Partnership Agreement if necessary. Amendments to the Partnership Agreement,
with the exception of schedule changes that are proposed to be under the authority of Saratoga’s
City Manager and the District’s General Manager, would be brought back to the Board for
consideration and approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
The District’s adopted FY2017-18 Budget and Action Plan included $265,000 for the project,
and Plan rolls over the unused $265,000 as committed funds in the Capital Improvement and
Action Plan (CIAP) budget. The recommended action will be funded from the General Fund in
support of Measure AA #18, and may be eligible for future Measure AA reimbursement.
The City budgeted $350,000 in its FY2017-18 Capital Program towards the project’s engineering
and environmental review phase. The City’s budget also incorporated administrative and
R-18-73 Page 5
maintenance staff costs of $136,915. The City may request additional support in future years to
help fund the construction phase although the City is also interested in pursuing grant funding
opportunities to leverage City funds and District Measure AA funds. The District also continues
to monitor opportunities for applicable grants.
The following table outlines the District’s Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail budget:
FY2017-18 FY2018-19 TOTAL
Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail Project budget* $0 $265,000 $265,000
Spent–to-Date (as of 5/7/18): $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0 $0
Remaining Balance (proposed): $0 $265,000 $265,000
*Funds originally budgeted for FY2017-18 have been rolled over to FY2018-19 to align with
City spending needs.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The Action Plan and Budget Committee reviewed the terms of the Agreement on May 30, 2018
(R-18-51). See draft meeting minutes (Attachment 4). Based on Committee discussion and
questions, language and Exhibit A of the Agreement were refined to better identify the San Jose
Water Company property and list its Assessor’s Parcel Number.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Consideration of partnership agreements is not a project subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act. Environmental review will be completed by the City as part of the design phase for
the Project.
NEXT STEPS
Task Tentative Schedule
District Board of Directors approves Agreement June 27, 2018 (target)
City implements design and environmental review (three-
year term per draft Agreement)
2018 – 2021
Permitting Schedule to be determined
Construction start By June 2023 (target)
Trail opens to the public By June 2025 (target)
Attachments
1. Partnership Agreement with Exhibits A and B
2. City of Saratoga funding request letter dated January 20, 2017 and preferred
conceptual trail alignment
3. City of Saratoga funding request letter dated April 11, 2017
R-18-73 Page 6
4. Draft May 30, 2018 Action Plan and Budget Committee meeting minutes
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department
Prepared by:
Tina Hugg, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Graphics prepared by:
City of Saratoga
Tad Hammer, Data Administrator
- 1 -
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND
THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR THE
SARATOGA-TO-THE-SEA PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
municipal corporation, ("CITY") and the MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT, a public DISTRICT under the laws of California, ("DISTRICT"), dated ______,
2018.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, DISTRICT’s Mission is to acquire, restore, preserve and protect, in
perpetuity, open space land as part of the regional greenbelt, and to provide opportunities for
ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT’S Board of Directors approved the “South Bay Foothills:
Saratoga-to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor” as one of the Top 25 priority actions of the Open
Space Vision Plan (priority action #18) on January 29, 2014; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT has identified priority action #18: South Bay Foothills: Saratoga-
to-Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor in the Measure AA bond ordinance portfolio which includes
$1.365 million to “protect wildlife corridor along Highway 9 [and] connect trail to Saratoga-to-
Sea Trail and Skyline-to-Sea Trail”; and
WHEREAS, CITY’s Circulation and Scenic Highway Element and Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan (updated November 17, 2010) includes a vision for
the proposed Saratoga-to-the-Sea trail connecting from a trailhead near Hakone Gardens
(Saratoga Quarry Park) to Sanborn County Park, linking to the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail, through
the redwood forests into Castle Rock State Park, and ultimately to Big Basin State Park (the
“Project”); and
WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code section 5546 empowers DISTRICT’S
Board of Directors to contribute money to a municipality for the purpose of assisting in the
acquisition of lands or for improving the lands, when the acquisition or improvement is located
and planned as to be of benefit to the District; and
WHEREAS, CITY and DISTRICT desire to further their common goal of providing public
regional trails that increase access to open space and further the recreational opportunities of
their constituents; and
WHEREAS, CITY has undertaken a planning and development process for the Project to
provide this additional trail connection and the associated recreational values that come with
building the Project; and
Attachment 1
- 2 -
WHEREAS, CITY acquired the Quarry Park property in 2011 for a purchase price of $1M
using joint funding from DISTRICT and the County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation
Department (“COUNTY”); and
WHEREAS, CITY developed the Quarry Park property into Saratoga Quarry Park and
opened it to the public on October 31, 2015; and
WHEREAS, CITY now plans to design, permit, construct and maintain an approximately
3.2-mile trail that connects Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park; and
WHEREAS, CITY will work in partnership with COUNTY to ensure that the Project is
constructed, which includes a trail connection within Sanborn County Park to connect the
County Park to the existing Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail; and
WHEREAS, CITY jointly filed a Stipulation for Judgment with San Jose Water Company
(fee owner) and Pacific Gas & Electric (owner of an easement crossing the Project’s proposed
trail alignment) in December 2017 for a permanent trail easement from San Jose Water Company
(“SJWC”) on which property the Project will be constructed; and
WHEREAS, CITY has estimated that the design and construction of the trail will cost
approximately $3.5 million due to multiple clear-span bridge crossings and steep terrain; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT staff will provide technical support for the Project, including
review of trail plans and environmental review documentation prepared by CITY; and
WHEREAS, DISTRICT will also provide funding in the amount of $265,000 to support
CITY ’s design and environmental review of the Project; and
WHEREAS, CITY intends to fund the remainder of the Project design and environmental
review costs from its Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget, which currently allocates $90,000 towards the
$350,000 necessary for this purpose;
NOW, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations
contained herein, CITY and DISTRICT agree:
1. Project Site. CITY owns the real property in unincorporated Santa Clara County
(Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 503-48-045 and 517-32-001) in fee title and is securing a trail
easement over San Jose Water Company property (Assessor’s Parcel Number 503-73-003) as
shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Project Site”).
2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution hereof by the duly
authorized representatives of the CITY and the DISTRICT and shall expire upon the earliest
of: (a) completion of Project design and environmental review; or (b) three (3) years from the
date this Agreement is executed.
Attachment 1
- 3 -
CITY and DISTRICT may amend this Agreement in writing as necessary to accommodate
evolving conditions to effectuate the purpose of the Agreement. The Parties agree to timely
meet, and to negotiate in good faith toward an extension of this Agreement, if appropriate.
The District’s General Manager and the City’s City Manager are authorized to amend this
agreement in writing to allow for delays or changes in the project schedule.
3. Project Execution. CITY agrees to cause the construction of the Project (“Construction”)
and fulfill all conditions imposed by all pertinent permitting and regulatory agencies subject
to availability of funding for Construction.
a. CITY will use and conform to DISTRICT’s trail construction and maintenance
guidelines as described in Exhibit B.
b. DISTRICT will reimburse CITY for Project design and environmental review
costs in an amount not to exceed $265,000, in consideration of, and on
condition that, the sum be expended for the sole purpose of carrying out the
objectives as set forth herein.
c. CITY shall endeavor to secure all other necessary funds to accomplish
Construction of the Project. CITY shall obtain DISTRICT’S prior approval for
any material changes to the scope of the Project proposed by CITY during the
course of Project design and environmental review.
d. CITY must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local codes, statutes,
laws, regulations, and ordinances, including, but not limited to, financial
requirements, legal requirements for construction contracts, building codes, and
health and safety codes. CITY is the lead agency for purposes of complying
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For purposes of
CEQA review, neither the DISTRICT nor the CITY has committed to a definite
course of action by executing this Agreement and is not limited in any way in
exercising any discretion with respect to the Project, including but not limited to
(i) considering other feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or
minimize Project impacts, or (ii) determining not to proceed with one or more
component of the Project.
e. CITY or its designee intends to construct, operate, and maintain the Project for
public use and for the purposes described herein; namely, that the Project is
intended to consist of a public trail connecting Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn
County Park as part of a future linkage in the Saratoga-to-the Sea Trail. CITY
or its designee plans to maintain the surface and structural integrity of trails and
bridges, maintain appropriate directional signs and markers, take all necessary
precautions to guard against and eliminate fire hazards, and provide for patrols
and emergency response as warranted.
4. Signage and Brochures. CITY shall include DISTRICT logo and the following in
informational signage and materials about CITY’S operations in the Project Site: “Brought to
you in partnership with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.” CITY shall install a
“funded by Measure AA” sign provided by DISTRICT.
5. District Review and Collaboration. As Lead Agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), CITY will provide courtesy copies of Project environmental review
Attachment 1
- 4 -
documents prepared by CITY, and DISTRICT, as CEQA Responsible Agency, agrees to
promptly review any environmental documents. City will also provide draft trail plans and
specifications prepared by CITY, and DISTRICT will provide comments and technical
support of the plans and specifications.
6. Reporting. CITY will provide DISTRICT with biannual project status reports on or about
December 31 and June 30 of each year describing progress on
milestones/deliverables,planned work and budget in the next reporting segment.
7. Eligible expenses. DISTRICT will reimburse CITY upon CITY’S submittal of proof of
payment of costs and expenses for Project work. CITY shall submit invoices to DISTRICT
within six months of incurring costs or expenses eligible for reimbursement. Expenses
eligible for DISTRICT reimbursement include those capital project expenses incurred by the
CITY associated with use of consultants to prepare the design and engineering of the trail
alignment, environmental review, and other permitting costs. Reimbursement requests should
include the following:
a. CITY’S invoice including any supporting documents such as receipts or
consultant invoices for allowed expenses
b. Cover letter with description of Project activity during reimbursement period
c. Spreadsheet with expenses shown against budget including remaining
reimbursement amount
8. Insurance. At all times during the term of this Agreement, CITY shall carry general
liability insurance, or a policy of self-insurance, including owned, non-owned and hired auto;
property damage; and death and bodily injury, covering its risks arising out of the
performance of any acts pursuant to this Agreement or relating to its operation of the Project.
DISTRICT shall be named as additional insured on the policy. Said policy shall be in an
amount not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury and property
damage liability in aggregate per occurrence combined single limit and One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) combined single limit for auto liability. CITY shall furnish DISTRICT with a
Certificate of Insurance evidencing such insurance coverage. At all times during the term of
this Agreement DISTRICT shall carry general liability insurance, or a policy of self-
insurance, including owned, non-owned and hired auto; property damage; and death and
bodily injury, covering its risks arising out of the performance of any acts pursuant to this
Agreement or relating to its operation of the Project. CITY shall be named as additional
insured on the policy. Said policy shall be in an amount not less than Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000) for bodily injury and property damage liability in aggregate per occurrence
combined single limit and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for auto
liability. DISTRICT shall furnish CITY with a Certificate of Insurance evidencing such
insurance coverage.
9. Indemnification. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might
otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the
Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a Party shall not be shared pro rata but,
instead, DISTRICT and CITY agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each
of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other Parties, their officers,
Attachment 1
- 5 -
board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or
liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code 810.8) occurring by reason of
the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers,
employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority, or
jurisdiction delegated to such Party under this Agreement. No party, nor any officer, board
member, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason
of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other Party hereto, its officers,
board members, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by
reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other Party hereto, its
officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of
any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other Party under this Agreement. The
rights, duties, and obligations of the Parties as set forth above in this section survive
termination, expiration, and suspension of this Agreement.
10. Termination, Failure to Perform, and Dispute Resolution.
a. CITY may unilaterally terminate this Agreement at any time prior to DISTRICT
disbursement of funds by providing 30 days written notice to DISTRICT.
b. Failure by CITY to comply with the terms of this Agreement may be cause for
suspension or termination of funding by the DISTRICT.
c. If CITY fails to complete the project as required, or fails to fulfill any other
obligations of this agreement prior to the termination date, CITY shall be liable
for immediate repayment to DISTRICT of all amounts disbursed by DISTRICT
under this agreement. DISTRICT may, at its sole discretion, consider
extenuating circumstances and not require repayment for work partially
completed. This paragraph shall not limit any other remedies that DISTRICT
may have for breach of this agreement.
d. In the event there is a breach of this Agreement by CITY or DISTRICT, the
parties shall meet to resolve the matter. If the parties remain unable to resolve
the matter, DISTRICT or CITY may terminate this Agreement upon thirty days’
advance written notice.
11. Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of
the State of California.
12. Notices:
Any notice required to be given to DISTRICT shall be deemed to be duly and properly
given if mailed, postage prepaid with a receipt and signature from the receiving party, and
addressed to:
Attachment 1
- 6 -
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
General Manager
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
(650) 691-1200
or personally delivered to DISTRICT at such address or at such other address as
DISTRICT may designate in writing to CITY.
Any notice required to be given to CITY shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if
mailed, postage prepaid with a receipt and signature from the receiving party, and
addressed to:
City of Saratoga
City Manager
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1200
or personally delivered to CITY at such address or such other address as CITY may
designate in writing to DISTRICT, with a receipt and signature from the receiving party.
13. Waiver: The failure of any party to insist upon a strict performance of any of the terms,
conditions and covenants contained herein shall not be deemed a waiver of any rights or
remedies that CITY or DISTRICT may have and shall not be deemed a waiver of any
subsequent breach or default of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein.
14. Severability: If any one or more of the covenants or agreements or portions thereof
provided in this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final
judicial action to be void, voidable or unenforceable, such covenant or covenants, such
agreement or agreements or such portions thereof shall be null and void and shall be deemed
separable from the remaining covenants or agreements or portions thereof and shall in no
way affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement.
15. Captions: The captions in the articles of this Agreement are inserted for convenience
purposes only and shall not affect the terms of this Agreement.
16. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which will
be deemed an original.
17. Authority. Each of the parties represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal
capacity and authority to enter into and perform their respective obligations under this
Agreement.
Attachment 1
- 7 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and DISTRICT execute this Agreement.
For the CITY OF SARATOGA
By: _______________________ Date: ________________
City Manager
Attest: _____________________ Approved as to form for CITY:______________________
City Clerk City Attorney
For the MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
By: _______________________ Date: ________________
General Manager
Attest: _____________________
District Clerk
Approved as to form for DISTRICT:___________________________
Acting General Counsel
950230.3
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
SITE MAP
QUARRY PARK - SANBORN CONNECTOR TRAIL
FIGURE 1
Job: PW-SARATOGA TO SEA-685
Date: 3/8/2015
TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG
1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax)
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
à
à
à
Sa
r
atoga Creek
C
o
n
g
ress
S
p
rings Creek
Congre
ss
Springs Creek
Highway 9
QUARRYPARK
SAN JOSEWATERCOMPANY
WINERY(privateproperty)
SANBORNCOUNTYPARK
SANBORNCOUNTYPARK
1
6
5
0
700
600
1500
15
5
0
750
14
0
0
1600
20
0
0
1
6
5
0
1
4
0
0
1600
700
1650
1850
1850
1150
1250
11
0
0
185
0
1800
120
0
16
5
0
180
0
19
5
0
700
1
9
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
5
0
1
8
5
0
16
0
0
13
0
0
11
5
0
1
3
5
0
1400
600
145
0
1
8
0
0
1500
155
0
175
0
17
0
0
65
0
7
0
0
75
0
1650
1600
800
85
0
1300
13
5
0
950
12
5
0
1400
900
1000
1050
14
5
0
1100
15
0
0
1550
12
0
0
11
5
0
´0 500 1,000
Feet
NEW TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
New
Routed on old overgrown roadàProposed BridgeTRAIL FOLLOWING EXISTING ROAD
San Jose Water Company
Winery - private property
Sandborn Park
ROADS
Highway
Paved
Dirt
STREAMS
Ephemeral
Intermittent
Perennial
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Steep slopes (>70%)
Deep-seated landslide
PARCEL
QUARRY PARK
SANBORN PARK
WINERY (private property)
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 3
1
ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET COMMITTEE
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
May 30, 2018
DRAFT MINUTES
ROLL CALL
Director Riffle called the meeting to order at 3:18 p.m.
Members Present: Curt Riffle and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: Acting General Manager Ana Ruiz, Acting General Counsel Hilary
Stevenson, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Acting Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Acting Assistant General Manager
Christine Butterfield, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
Jennifer Woodworth, Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson, Planning
Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tin Hugg, Budget Manager Carmen
Narayanan, Budget Analyst II Marion Shaw, and Budget Analyst I Elissa
Martinez
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 2-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No speakers present.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Approve the May 1, 2018 Action Plan & Budget Committee Minutes
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the
Action Plan and Budget Committee minutes for May 1, 2018.
VOTE: 2-0-0
Attachment 4
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 30, 2018
2
2. Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail Partnership Agreement between the City of Saratoga and
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (R-18-51)
Senior Planner Tina Hugg provided the staff presentation summarized the background of the
project and associated timeline. Ms. Hugg described the preferred trail alignment and associated
considerations affecting the trail alignment. Finally, Ms. Hugg outlined the terms of the proposed
funding agreement and project next steps.
Director Riffle inquired regarding whether the proposed trail would be for hikers only.
Saratoga Public Works Directors John Cherbone explained the trail is planned to be a multi-use
trail; however, the preferred trail alignment presents several challenges, including steep slopes,
potential landslides, etc. that may require the trail to have narrower portions.
Director Riffle inquired regarding whether Saratoga requested funding for trail building.
Mr. Cherbone explained Saratoga hoped the partnership would continue, but Saratoga is working
on the project step-by-step and is not currently requesting funds for trail building.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of grant funding for the project stating grant funding may be
available once the construction designs are complete.
Public comment opened at 3:39 p.m.
David Moss, Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioner, spoke in favor of regional
connections to regional trails and encouraged the District and Saratoga to help facilitate these
trail connections. Mr. Moss also spoke in favor of creation of a future Palo Alto-to-the-Sea trail.
Jim Stallman, chair of the Saratoga Trails Committee, spoke in favor of bicycle access on the
trail to lessen the impacts on parking lots. Additionally, cyclists often volunteer to support trail
maintenance.
Public comment closed at 3:43 p.m.
Director Siemens spoke in favor of the Acting General Manager’s recommendation and spoke in
favor of District projects completed in partnership with other local agencies.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to confirm the terms
of the proposed Partnership Agreement and recommend approval by the full Board of Directors.
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent)
3. New Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy, and Annual
Review of Finance Policies for 2018 (R-18-55)
Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak provided the staff presentation describing the proposed
new Board Policy 3.01, Banking Relationship Management, which incorporates the previous
Board Policy 3.01 (Financial Instrument Signatories) and 3.02 (Safe Deposit Box). Mr. Jaskulak
Attachment 4
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 30, 2018
3
reviewed the proposed changes to other finance policies, including the Fund Balance Policy,
Statement of Investment, and outlined the other policies to be reviewed in fiscal year 2018-19.
Director Riffle inquired regarding how the District evaluates its banking relationships.
Mr. Jaskulak described the process used to evaluate banking relationships and explained the
benefits the District currently receives from Wells Fargo.
Public comment opened at 4:04 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public comment closed at 4:04 p.m.
Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to forward the
proposed new Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy and minor finance
policy updates to the full Board for their annual review.
VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Kishimoto absent)
ADJOURNMENT
Director Riffle adjourned the meeting of the Action Plan and Budget Committee of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 4:05 p.m.
__________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
Attachment 4
R-18-74
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 10
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. for the Twin Creeks Demolition Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Award a contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. of Castroville, California for a not-to-exceed
base contract amount of $667,132.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $100,069 to be reserved for
unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $767,201.
SUMMARY
The Twin Creeks Demolition Project (Project) will demolish and remove the existing structures
and improvements on a recently purchased property in order to begin restoration of the site. The
creek restoration will be completed through a separate project. The scope of work includes the
installation of erosion and sediment control measures, routine asbestos and lead abatement,
demolition of existing structures and foundations, and restoration grading of the areas where
structures have been removed. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff
issued a Request for Bids on May 31, 2018 and received two bid proposals on June 19, 2018.
Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Therefore, the
General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. for a base
amount of $667,132 and authorizing a 15% contingency amount of $100,069. Sufficient funds
for the contract are included in the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget. Work is
scheduled to begin in July 2018 and be completed in September 2018.
DISCUSSION
In May 2018, the District approved the purchase of the 153.59-acre 23760 Alamitos Road, LLC
property (Property), located at 23760 Alamitos Road, as an addition to Sierra Azul Open Space
Preserve (Preserve). See report R-18-35. The Property offers high natural resource value,
wildlife connectivity, trail connectivity, and the potential to recover sensitive riparian habitat
through creek restoration work.
The Property is bounded on two sides by the 19,030-acre Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve
(Preserve) and is visible from both the Preserve and Almaden Quicksilver County Park. The
Property is situated at the confluence of Alamitos and Barret Creeks, and drains into Almaden
Reservoir. Purchase of the Property advanced Measure AA Portfolio #23 Sierra Azul Open
Space Preserve: “Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation Projects,” which includes the
preservation of additional open space and completion of wildlife corridors in the Preserve. The
R-18-74 Page 2
Property also facilitates future trail connections between the Preserve and the adjoining Santa
Clara Valley Open Space Authority’s Rancho Canada del Oro Open Space Preserve.
The Property contains a number of dwellings in poor condition. There are approximately 42
structures, consisting of 37 dwellings and accessory buildings. Most are located in very close
proximity to Alamitos and Barret Creeks, with some cantilevering over the perennial creeks.
There is also a large community swimming pool and separate children’s pool on the site.
Originally developed in the 1930’s as a summer resort with rental cabins, the structures were
extensively modified to serve as year-round residences in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the
property was held for rental income. Several bridges cross Alamitos and Barret Creeks to
provide access to the dwellings and adjacent properties in Barret Canyon to the east.
Due to violations and habitability problems, the County recorded numerous building code
violations against the Property in June of 2016. The County filed a “Notice and Order to Vacate
Substandard Buildings” on January 19, 2017 and posted “Do Not Occupy Notices” at each
occupied dwelling on February 21, 2017. All units were vacated by March 20, 2017. In addition,
the County filed a complaint for nuisance abatement in Santa Clara County Superior Court on
March 8, 2017 to gain compliance from the previous owner. In April 2018, the prior owner
placed an order with PG&E to disconnect all electrical services to the vacated dwellings, and
submitted applications to the County to properly abandon existing septic systems and demolish
all structures. The County deemed the applications to be complete and issued demolition permits
for the work on May 16, 2018. The prior owner demolished three structures under these permits
before the District closed escrow on May 22, 2018. The demolition permits were assigned to the
District upon transfer of title and are valid for six months from the date of issue. Based on the
condition of the structures, poor maintenance practices, and health concerns associated with the
proximity of multiple septic systems to the creeks, the General Manager recommends that all
remaining structures be removed from the property
Preliminary Use and Management Plan
A Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) was approved by the Board as part of the
action to purchase the Property. The PUMP established the land management approach in the
interim between purchase and completion of a subsequent long-term plan for the Property. The
PUMP took effect at the close of escrow and remains effective until it is amended or a
Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Preserve Plan is approved for Sierra Azul Open
Space Preserve. Per the PUMP, the District has secured the site and posted signage, and the
District’s biological consultant (H.T. Harvey) has provided resource management
recommendations. This demolition and site cleanup contract is the next step of the PUMP. Other
changes to the physical environment, such as future creek and riparian habitat restoration, will be
subject to future design development and further environmental review.
This project will demolish all of the referenced dwellings and accessory structures that the
County deemed uninhabitable. In summary, the scope of work under the recommended contract
encompasses the following:
• Installation of erosion and sediment control measures
• Abatement of hazardous materials
• Demolition and removal of 42 structures including their adjacent improvements and
septic systems
• Minor restoration grading
R-18-74 Page 3
Public Notification
Staff has worked with nearby residents to keep them informed of the process and the plan for this
contract. Upon approval, adjacent landowners will be made aware of the demolition schedule.
Contractor Selection
A Request for Bids was issued on May 31, 2018 and released to three builders’ exchanges. A
legal notice was posted in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and the San Jose Mercury News, and an
Invitation to Bid was posted on the District website. A mandatory pre-bid site walk was held on
Tuesday, June 5, 2018 with ten contractors in attendance. Two bids were received on June 19,
2018 as listed below:
Bidder Location Total Base Bid
Percent +/- from
Engineer’s Estimate
($500,000)
Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. Castroville, CA $667,132 +33%
Coleman Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
Upper Lake, CA $478,866 -5%
In accordance to the Public Contract Code, Coleman Environmental Engineering, Inc.’s bid was
not responsive for the following reasons:
• Bid was not filled out on the correct bid form
• Bid addendum was not properly acknowledged with signature
Staff recommends awarding the project to the only responsive and responsible bidder because
reissuing the Request for Bids would not guarantee more or lower bids. In fact, during this
bidding process many contractors indicated that they did not have the capacity to take on the
project. Rebidding this project would add time to the project with no guarantee of more or lower
bids.
Therefore, the General Manager recommends awarding the contract to Randazzo Enterprises,
Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder who submitted a responsive bid. Randazzo Enterprises,
Inc. has completed multiple projects with the District in the past as the low bidder and is familiar
with District’s contracts, policies, and requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
The approved FY 2017-18 Budget holds $2.845 million for the MAA 23-007 Twin Creeks Land
Conservation project. The approved FY2018-19 budget includes $1 million for this project,
which is sufficient to cover the contract expenses in the upcoming fiscal year.
A 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting
and includes Portfolio 23, Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access and Interpretation
Projects” with a total portfolio allocation of $27.972 Million. Funds for this contract are coming
from key Action Plan Project budget MAA 23-007. The project budget for MAA23-007 covers
all costs associated with the demolition and site restoration associated with the Property.
R-18-74 Page 4
MAA23-007 PRIOR
YEAR
ACTUALS
FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FUTURE
YEARS TOTAL
Twin Creeks Land
Purchase Project
Budget
$0 $2,845,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $5,845,000
Spent-to-Date (as of
6/12/2018): $2,877,137 $2,877,137
Encumbrances: $43,492 $43,492
Proposed Award of
Contract (including
15% contingency) :
$0 $767,201 $767,201
Less Approved
GBMF Grant: ($750,000) ($750,000)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $674,371 $232,799 $500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $2,907,170
The following table outlines the Measure AA 23 Portfolio budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the Twin Creeks Demolition Project.
MAA 23 Portfolio: Sierra Azul: Mt. Umunhum Public Access
and Interpretation Projects Allocation $27,972,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 6/12/2018): $21,766,496
Encumbrances: $324,863
Proposed Award of Contract for Twin Creeks Demolition Project
(includes 15% contingency ): $767,201
Less Approved GBMF Grant: ($750,000)
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,863,440
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The purchase of the property was approved by the Board at the April 11, 2018 meeting. (R-18-35)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The determination of compliance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
demolish all structures and return the Property to a natural state was made by the County of
Santa Clara Planning and Development Department under their authority to review demolition
applications for compliance with all applicable statutes and issue necessary permits. Work
identified in the contract awarded to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. including the installation of
erosion and sediment control measures, abatement of hazardous materials, demolition of existing
structures and foundations, and restoration grading of the areas where structures have been
removed, will be conducted in compliance with County Permit #65660 & #65661.
R-18-74 Page 5
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Randazzo Enterprises, Inc.
Final contract signature is subject to meeting all Midpen requirements, such as having all
required insurance and bonding in place. The contractor will begin construction in July 2018 and
complete the work in September 2018.
Attachment
1. Project Site Map
Responsible Department Head:
Jason Lin, Engineering & Construction Department Manager
Prepared by:
Matt Brunnings, Senior Capital Project Manager, Engineering & Construction Department
Graphics prepared by:
Nathan Greig, GIS Analyst
TWIN CREEKS PROPERTY
APN 562-23-007
34
33
31
32
29
28
27
1953
52
51
50
18
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Pool
55
5456
57
59
76
75 74
73 72
71
7077
3
2
Laundry
Bathroom
Pool
House
Spa
House
1
Kid
Pool
Well Structure
Garage
20
37
Demolished
35
Carport
BBQ
AREA 1
AREA 3
AREA 4
AREA 2
Ala m i t o s C r e e k
B
a
r
r
e
t
C
r
e
e
k
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Alamitos Road
AlamitosRoad
1600
14
0
0
100
0
800
1200
800
800
Almaden
Reservoir
SIERRA AZUL
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
May 2018
Twin Creeks Property Infrastructure
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
S
i
e
r
r
a
_
A
z
u
l
\
A
l
a
m
i
t
o
s
_
R
o
a
d
\
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
\
T
w
i
n
C
r
e
e
k
s
_
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
_
2
0
1
8
0
4
1
7
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 600300
Feet
I
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.
SIERRA AZUL
OSP
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ17
Area of
Detail
à
D
&<
&É
dR
g5
UT
&,
Bridge
Power Pole
Structure (Post and
Pier Foundation)
Dump Site
Fitting
Valve
Meter
Pump
Tank
Well
Pool
Pool Deck
Demolished
Shed and Other Out Building
(Post and Pier or No Foundation)
Structure (Slab Foundation)
Water Line
Straw Waddle
Attachment 1
R-18-59
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 11
THIS ITEM WAS CONSIDERED AT THE JUNE 13, 2018 BOARD MEETING AND
CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 27, 2018 MEETING. ADDITIONS TO THIS REPORT
ARE BOLDED.
AGENDA ITEM
Resolution in Support of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution in support of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 put forth by
citizens’ initiative on the ballot for the November 6, 2018 statewide general election.
SUMMARY
On April 25, 2018, the California Secretary of State’s office placed a citizens’ initiative, the
Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 (Water Bond), on the November 6, 2018 general
election ballot (See Attachment 1). The measure is an approximately $8.9 billion bond designed
to fund a host of water-related projects across California (See Attachment 2). As of this date,
Secretary of State Alex Padilla has yet to assign a proposition number to the measure.
Details of the Water Bond funding allocations that apply to the Bay Area are included in
Attachment 3.
DISCUSSION
The Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 is a citizens’ ballot initiative conceived
following unsuccessful negotiations with California legislative leadership to include its
provisions in SB 5 (DeLeón), the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection,
and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018, now known as Proposition 68.
The Water Bond intends to address a variety of water related issues, including safe drinking
water, Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGMA) implementation, watershed restoration,
fish and wildlife habitat conservation, and water infrastructure repair among others. The Water
Bond aligns well with many of the Board’s stated legislative priorities and positions specified in
the 2018 Legislative Program, which the Board ratified on January 10, 2018. These include:
• Legislative Priority: Promote, establish, and implement a common environmental
protection vision with partners
R-18-59 Page 2
o Under the subcategory of Watershed Protection: The District supports legislative
or regulatory efforts that enhance the ability to protect watershed land, as well as
restore and maintain associated habitats.
• Legislative support positions under Natural Resources Protection and Restoration that:
o Enhances management of water quality for all priority watersheds (item 3)
o Protects local and regional watershed holdings and water quality protection (item 4)
o Incentivizes agricultural operations to invest in energy efficient irrigation
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water use (item 11)
o Creates or enhances new funding sources to implement local or state government
programs that benefit the environment such as: watershed protection, groundwater
recharge and sustainability, water conservation, GHG reduction, Areas of Special
Biological Significance compliance, Rare, Threatened, and Endangered species
management and recovery (item 13)
o Expands funding for (item 14):
a. Wetland restoration projects that provide carbon sequestration benefits.
A summary list of general funding allocations is contained within Attachment 2, which provides
a statewide view of the bond. A detailed list of funding allocations that could be available to the
District is contained within Attachment 3. However, as with any new funding source, District
staff will better understand the funding eligibility of District projects once grant guidelines for
the different sections of the bond are developed.
Per Board Policy 1.11, “Positions on Ballot Measures and Legislative Advocacy,” the Board may
consider taking a position on the measure if the measure meets the following criteria:
i. Would directly impact the District’s finances, responsibilities, legal authority, or
operations; AND
ii. Is in line with or inconsistent with the District’s mission and/or commitment to preserve
open space within its boundaries and sphere of influence.
The Water Bond Measure in Attachment 3 aligns well with Board priorities by allocating
funding as follows:
• $300,000,000 to the Wildlife Conservation Board for land acquisitions, protection and
restoration of oak woodlands, and community conservation plans
• $200,000,000 to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority to provide matching grants
for flood management, wetlands restoration, and other projects
• $135,000,000 to the State Coastal Conservancy for the protection and restoration of
coastal watersheds
• $100,000,000 to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program of the Coastal
Conservancy for the protection and restoration of San Francisco Bay Area watersheds
With requests for Water Bond endorsements just beginning to mobilize at this date, few
individuals and organizations have yet to endorse the measure. The list of endorsements
received as of June 22, 2018 are included in Attachment 4. Also included at the request of
Director Kishimoto, is the opposition letter to the Water Bond generated by Sierra Club
R-18-59 Page 3
California (Attachment 5). Attachment 6 is the response from the Water Bond campaign
to this letter.
Each County Registrar of Voters is expected to release a list of arguments in support and in
opposition to the measure in late August 2018. This information will appear on the following
local websites:
Santa Clara County: https://eservices.sccgov.org/rov?tab=vg
San Mateo County: https://www.shapethefuture.org/MyElectionMaterials/
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of a resolution in support of the Water Supply
and Water Quality Act of 2018. The ballot initiative includes funding that may facilitate the
completion of, or complement, numerous District Measure AA and non-AA projects. District
staff will better understand the funding eligibility of District projects once grant guidelines for
the different sections of the bond are developed.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
A Board Committee did not previously review this item as presented.
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
If approved by the Board of Directors, a copy of the resolution in support of the Water Supply
and Water Quality Act of 2018 will be forwarded to key partners.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 ballot measure language
2. Summary of major programs
3. Summary of funding sources relevant to the District
4. List of Water Bond Endorsements as of June 20, 2018
5. Water Bond opposition letter from Sierra Club
6. Rebuttal letter to Sierra Club from Water Bond campaign
Responsible Department Head:
Christine Butterfield, Acting Assistant General Manager
Prepared by:
Joshua Hugg, Governmental Affairs Specialist
Gerald H. Mera!, Ph.D.
PO 1103 Inverness, Ca 94937
ierrymeral@gmail.com
415-717-8412
August 11, 2017
Attorney General Xavier Becerra
Attention: Ashley Johansson, initiative coordinator
1300 I Street, 17th floor, Sacramento, Ca 95814
Dear Attorney General Becerra:
Enclosed are amendments to our water bond initiative, 17-0010. Please prepare a title and summary
based on this amended initiative. A copy in underline and strikeout is provided, as well as a clean copy.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely
Gerald H. Mera!
Cc: Legislative analyst
1 7 - 0 0 1 0 Arndt# /
RECEIVED
AUG 1 1 2017
INIDATIVE COORDINATOR
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Attachment 1
1 7 -0 0 1 0 Arndt.# I
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Division 38 (commencing with Section 86000) is added to the Water Code, to read:
DIVISION 38. State water supply infrastructure, water conveyance, ecosystem and watershed protection
and restoration, and drinking water protection act of 2018.
CHAPTER 1. Short Title.
86000. This division shall be known and may be cited as the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018.
CHAPTER 2. Findings and Declarations.
86001. The people find and declare the following:
(a) In our frequently very dry state, our high-tech, agricultural and urbanized economy relies on an
uninterrupted and high-quality water supply. By making water use more efficient, reducing the demand
for water, providing new and diverse water supplies, improving the quality of our source watersheds, and
protecting key environmental uses of water, this measure will assure that the economic and
environmental engines of California are not derailed by a shortage of water.
(b) California's recent historic drought raises serious questions about the Jong-term reliability of our
current water supplies. The drought underscores the need to use our existing water supplies more
efficiently, increase investments in our water infrastructure, and more effectively integrate our water
system from the headwaters to the end user.
(c) California's water situation requires implementation of the Governor's Water Action Plan to provide
for the water needs ofpeople, agriculture and the environment. This division will help provide a more
reliable water supply by reducing waste, increasing the amount of water available to meet our needs, and
improving water quality. This division also provides additional protection for our communities from
floods.
(d) This division will implement cost effective methods of water development and conservation to meet
California's present and future water needs in a changing climate, including capture of urban drainage
and stormwater runoff, groundwater and brackish water desalting, groundwater storage, water recycling,
waterconservation, and watershed management, restoration, enhancement and protection.
(e) Many of the water supply and water quality investments provided by this division will be matched by
agencies and grant recipients, more than doubling the effectiveness of the funding provided.
(f) Agencies implementing this division will give high priority to cost-effective projects, and to the most
durable and most environmentally beneficial projects. Funding will go to projects that contribute to
implementation of the Governor's Water Action Plan, the goal of which is to increase the resiliency of the
California water system and the ability of California communities to cope with drought conditions.
1
Attachment 1
(g) Every Californian has a right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible drinking water. By complying
with Section 106.3, agencies providing funds for safe drinking water pursuant to this division will help
achieve the intent of that Section.
(h) This division provides a fair and reasonable distribution of funds directly and indirectly benefitting
every region of the state.
(i) This division provides short and long-term cost-effective actions to address the water shortages caused
by the recent drought, and will help prepare local communities for future droughts. Droughts reduce
water supplies for people, agriculture and the environment. This division will help meet the water needs
of people, agriculture, and the environment and make California more resilient in the face of a changing
climate.
(j) By improving the health and water productivity of watersheds, communities will become more self
reliant with respect to water supply, and local environmental quality will be increased.
(k) By removing invasive plants such as yellow starthistle, giant reed (Arundo donax) and tam a risk, water
supply will be increased and habitat for fish and wildlife will be improved.
(I) Flooding can devastate communities and infrastructure. We can make better use of floodwaters by
capturing waters and putting them to use in our communities, on our farms, and by recharging
groundwater basins. By providing funds to intelligently manage our watersheds and floodplains, this
division will also help avoid flood damage, improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove pollutants from our
water supply, enhance groundwater, remediate aquifers and improve the environment. Better floodplain
management may allow improved operation of upstream reservoirs for water supply purposes.
(m) Severe fire conditions can lead to significant erosion, reduced water quality and impacts on water
infrastructure. This division provides funding to manage forests and watersheds to reduce fire danger,
mitigate the effects of wildfires on water supply and quality, and enhance water supplies.
(n) This division funds the following programs, which respond to human and environmental water needs
in California:
(1) Improvement of water supply and water quality utilizing cost effective methods, including
water conservation, desalting of groundwater and other inland saline water, stormwater management,
wastewater recycling, and similar water management measures.
(2) Better management of forest and rangeland watersheds, such as through the Sierra Nevada
Watershed Improvement Program to improve the pattern, quantity and quality of water runoff and
groundwater recharge. Improving soil health improves the ability of the ground to better contain
groundwater and moderate the rate of water runoff.
(3) Better groundwater management, including faster implementation of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act, and better recognition of the connection between surface and
groundwater.
(4) Provision of water for fish and wildlife, including restoration of the Pacific Flyway and
management of habitat in a dynamic way to respond to changing environmental conditions.
2
Attachment 1
(5) Increased capacity to convey water resulting in greater groundwater recharge and improved
conveyance and utilization of floodwaters for use in drought years.
(o) The State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and many other
agencies have recognized that providing funding for fish habitat enhancement is vital to restoring native
California fish populations, and that relying solely on flow to restore those populations will not be
sufficient. Providing funding for fish habitat enhancement is a vital complement to reasonable flows to
protect fish.
(p) California has lost ninety-five percent (95%) of its historical wetlands. These wetlands provide food,
water and cover for migratory and other birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and a vast number of
plant species. Many species may become endangered or threatened without wetlands and many more
survive only due to wetlands available today. This division combines work to sustain and protect current
wetlands with the potential to increase wetlands in California to support a thriving flora and fauna.
(q) The implementation of this division will result in cost savings to local governments immediately by
substantially more than one billion dollars, and reduce local government operating costs by hundreds of
millions of dollars per year. This division will provide funding that displaces local government funding,
resulting in the implementation of projects in the following areas. These projects would have eventually
been implemented by local government.
(1) Safe Drinking Water. State direct and matching funds will reduce the cost to local government
of implementing drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, and to some extent the operation of
those systems.
(2) Wastewater recycling. State funds will reduce the cost of these plants, reducing the capital
cost of the projects for local governments. By reducing local government capital costs, the cost of water
from these plants will also be reduced. Implementation of wastewater recycling plants will defer the need
for more expensive alternative sources of water supply, thus further reducing local capital and operating
costs.
(3) Groundwater desalting. State funds will reduce the cost of these plants, reducing the capital
cost of the projects for local governments. By reducing local government capital costs, the cost of water
from these plants will also be reduced. Implementation of groundwater desalting plants will defer the
need for more expensive alternative sources of water supply, thus further reducing local capital and
operating costs.
(4) Water Conservation. State funds will reduce the cost of these projects, reducing costs to local
government. More importantly, reduced water demand resulting from these projects will reduce
operating costs, and will temporarily or permanently defer the construction and operating costs of more
expensive capital outlay projects needed to provide new water.
(5) Repairing flood control reservoirs. State funds will reduce the costs of these projects for local
government.
(6) San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority funds. State investment in wetlands projects
providing flood protection around San Francisco Bay will reduce flood risk associated with climate change.
This will reduce the cost of other flood control measures, and more importantly will reduce flood damage
which often results in tremendous costs to local government for facility repair.
3
Attachment 1
(7) Stormwater funding. Regulations imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board and
various regional water quality control boards will result in the construction of various capital outlay
projects costing billions of dollars. Providing funds through this measure will reduce the cost of these
projects to local government.
(8) Fisheries restoration. This division provides hundreds of millions of dollars for fisheries
restoration. Local and regional water agencies are voluntarily undertaking many of these projects. By
providing state funds, this division will reduce local costs. In addition, the resulting increase in fish
populations will make it possible to improve local water supplies, avoiding local government costs to
provide replacement water supplies costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.
(9) Bay Area Regional Reliability. Bay Area water districts are undertaking extensive
improvements in their water distribution systems to interconnect their water supplies for greater drought
water supply reliability and other benefits. By providing funds for this program, this division will reduce
their costs by two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000).
(10) Friant Kern Canal Repair. Groundwater overdraft has caused subsidence of the Fri ant Kern
Canal. State funds to repair the canal will reduce the cost of repairing the canal to local water districts.
Avoiding the cost to finance this project will also save tens of millions of dollars per year in interest costs
which would have to be paid by these districts.
(11) Oroville Dam Repair. Although the costs of repairing Oroville Dam should be covered by the
federal government either through the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Corps of
Engineers, the federal government may not fulfill this obligation. If the State Water Resources
Development System contractors, all local agencies, are forced to cover all or part of these costs, this
division will reduce their costs by two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000}. Interest costs would also
be reduced.
(r) Substantial funds remain to be allocated to storage projects pursuant to Division 26.7. For this reason,
and so as not to interfere with the work of the California Water Commission in awarding these funds, this
measure does not include funding for the construction of specific storage projects.
CHAPTER 3. Definitions.
86002. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions set forth in this section govern the
construction of this division, as follows:
(a) "Conservation" means rehabilitation, stabilization, restoration, reduced water use, development, and
reconstruction, or any combination of those activities.
(b) "Conservation actions on private lands" means projects implemented with willing landowners that
involve the adaptive and flexible management of natural resources in response to changing conditions and
threats to habitat and wildlife. These investments and actions are specifically designed to create habitat
conditions on private lands which, when managed dynamically over time, contribute to the long-term
health and resiliency of vital ecosystems and enhance wildlife populations.
(c) "Delta" means the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as defined in Section 12220.
(d) "Department" means the Department of Water Resources.
4
Attachment 1
(e) "Desalination" means removing salt and other contaminants from polluted groundwater or other
inland sources of water containing salts, including brackish water.
(f) "Disadvantaged community" has the meaning set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 79505.5, as it may
be amended.
(g) "Economically distressed area" has the meaning set forth in subdivision (k) of Section 79702, as it may
be amended.
(h) "Finance committee" means the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Finance Committee
created by Section 86182.
(i) "Fund" means the Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Fund of 2018 created by Section
86169.
(j) "Groundwater sustainability agency" means an agency defined in subdivision (j) of Section 10721.
(k) "Integrated Regional Water Management Plan" means a comprehensive plan for a defined geographic
area that meets the requirements of Part 2.2 (commencing with Section 10530) of Division 6, as that part
may be amended.
(I) "Invasive plant" means a terrestrial or aquatic plant not native to California of no or negligible
agricultural value which does any of the following: displaces native plants, threatens native plant
biodiversity, harms agricultural or rangeland productivity, degrades wildlife habitat, contributes to fire
hazard, or uses more water than the plants it displaces.
(m) "Multi-benefit project" means a project that serves more than one purpose, including but not limited
to flood management, water supply, water quality improvement, environmental enhancement,
recreation, energy conservation, reduction of emission of climate-changing gases, and fish and wildlife
improvement.
(n) "Nonprofit organization" means an organization qualified to do business in California and exempt
under Section 501(c)(3) or Section 501(c)(6) of Title 26 of the United States Code, to the extent permitted
by state and federal law.
(o) "Protection" means those actions necessary to prevent harm or damage to persons, property or
natural resources or those actions necessary to allow the continued use and enjoyment of property or
natural resources and includes acquisition, development, restoration, conservation, preservation and
interpretation as interpretation is defined in subdivision (i) of Section 75005 of the Public Resources Code.
(p) "Public agency" means a state agency or department, special district, joint powers authority, city,
county, city and county, or other political subdivision of the state.
(q) "Public water systems" are defined in subdivision (h) of section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code
and means regional, municipal, and district urban water suppliers, including privately owned water
suppliers as defined in Part 2.6, Section 10617 of the Water Code Division 6.
(r) "Restoration" means the improvement of physical structures or facilities and, in the case of natural
systems and landscape features, includes but is not limited to projects that improve physical and
5
Attachment 1
ecological processes, including but not limited to erosion control; sediment management; the control and
elimination of invasive species; prescribed burning; fuel hazard reduction; fencing out threats to existing
or restored natural resources; meadow, wetland, riparian, and stream restoration; and other plant and
wildlife habitat improvement to increase the natural system value of the property. Restoration projects
shall include the planning, monitoring and reporting necessary to ensure successful implementation of
the project objectives.
(s) "Severely disadvantaged community" means a community with a median household income of less
than 60 percent (60%) of the statewide median household income.
(t) "Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program" is a coordinated, integrated, collaborative program
to restore the health of California's primary watershed by increasing the pace and scale of forest
restoration in order to maintain the important benefits that the Sierra Nevada region provides.
(u) "State board" means the State Water Resources Control Board.
(v) "State General Obligation Bond Law" means the State General Obligation Bond Law, Chapter4
(commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code.
(w) "Stormwater" and "dry weather runoff' are defined as in Section 10561.5.
(x) "Stormwater Resource Plans" are defined as in Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division
6.
CHAPTER 4. Accountability.
86003. (a) (1) The California Natural Resources Agency shall provide for an independent audit of
expenditures pursuant to this division no less than every three years.
(2) On or before January 10, 2020, and every six months thereafter, the Natural Resources
Agency shall publish on its website a report that contains all of the following information relating to this
division for the previous six months with the information summarized by section of this division:
(A) Funding encumbrances.
(B) Summary of new projects funded.
(C) Summary of projects completed.
(D) Discussion of progress towards meeting the metrics of success established pursuant to
Section 86157.
(E) Discussion of common challenges experienced by state agencies and recipients of
funding in executing projects.
(F) Discussion of major accomplishments and successes experienced by state agencies and
recipients of funding in executing projects.
(3) This subsection shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2028, and as of that date is
repealed.
(b) The Department of Finance or the Controller, or the California State Auditor at the direction of the
Legislature, may conduct an audit of the expenditures of any state agency receiving funding pursuant to
6
Attachment 1
this act.
(c) The state agency issuing any grant with funding authorized by this division shall require adequate
reporting of the expenditures of the funding from the grant.
CHAPTER 5. Improvement of Water Supply and Water Quality.
CHAPTER 5.1. Safe Drinking Water.
86004. The sum of seven hundred fifty million dollars ($750,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to
the State board for expenditures, grants, and loans to improve water quality or help provide clean, safe,
and reliable drinking water to all Californians.
86005. The projects eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter shall help improve water quality for a
beneficial use. The purposes of this chapter are to:
(a) Reduce contaminants in drinking water supplies regardless of the source of the water or the
contamination.
(b) Assess and prioritize the risk of contamination to drinking water supplies.
(c) Address the critical and immediate needs of disadvantaged, rural, or small communities that suffer
from contaminated or inadequate drinking water supplies, including, but not limited to, projects that
address a public health emergency.
(d) Leverage other private, federal, state, and local drinking water quality and wastewater treatment
funds.
(e) Provide disadvantaged communities with public drinking water infrastructure that provides clean,
safe, and reliable drinking water supplies that the community can sustain over the long term.
(f) Ensure access to clean, safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water for California's communities.
(g) Meet primary and secondary drinking water standards or remove contaminants identified by the state
or federal government to meet primary or secondary drinking water standards.
86006. The contaminants that may be addressed with funding pursuant to this chapter may include, but
shall not be limited to, lead, nitrates, perchlorate, MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), arsenic, selenium,
hexavalent chromium, mercury, PCE (perchloroethylene), TCE (trichloroethylene), DCE (dichloroethene),
DCA (dichloroethane), 1,2,3-TCP (trichloropropane), carbon tetrachloride, 1,4-dioxane, 1,4
dioxacyclohexane, nitrosodimethylamine, bromide, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, electrical
conductivity, and uranium.
86007. (a) (1) Of the funds authorized by Section 86004, five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) shall
be available for grants and loans for public water system infrastructure improvements and related actions
to meet safe drinking water standards, ensure affordable drinking water, or both. Priority shall be given
to projects that provide treatment for contamination or access to an alternate drinking water source or
sources for small community water systems or state small water systems in disadvantaged communities
whose drinking water source is impaired by chemical and nitrate contaminants and other health hazards
7
Attachment 1
identified by the State board. Eligible recipients serve disadvantaged communities and are public
water systems or public agencies.
(2) Eligible expenses may include initial operation and maintenance costs for systems serving
disadvantaged communities. Priority shall be given to projects that provide shared solutions for multiple
communities, at least one of which is a disadvantaged community that lacks safe, affordable drinking
water and is served by a small community water system, state small water system, or a private well.
Construction grants shall be limited to five million dollars ($5,000,000) per project, except that the State
board may set a limit of not more than twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) for projects that provide
regional benefits or are shared among multiple entities, including consolidation of two or more drinking
water systems, at least one of which shall be a small disadvantaged community. Not more than 50
percent (50%) of a grant may be awarded in advance of actual expenditures.
(3) For the purposes of this subdivision, "initial operation and maintenance costs" means those
initial, eligible, and reimbursable costs under a construction funding agreement that are incurred up to,
and including, but not limited to, initial startup testing of the constructed project in order to deem the
project complete. Initial operation and maintenance costs are eligible to receive funding pursuant to this
section for a period not to exceed three years.
(b) Of the funds authorized by this section, up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be available for
grants to provide school children with safe drinking water under the Drinking Water for Schools Grant
Program pursuant to Section 116276 of the Health and Safety Code.
86008. Of the funds authorized by Section 86004, two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) shall
be available for deposit in the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Small Community Grant Fund
created pursuant to Section 13477.6 for grants and loans for wastewater treatment projects. Priority shall
be given to projects that serve disadvantaged communities and severely disadvantaged communities, and
to projects that address public health hazards. Projects may include, but not be limited to, projects that
identify, plan, design, a.nd implement regional mechanisms to consolidate wastewater systems or provide
affordable treatment technologies.
86009. Of the funds authorized by Section 86004, up to sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) shall be made
available for drinking water infrastructure and/or wastewater improvements on private property, or for
interim replacement drinking water supplies.
(a) Funds may be used for the following purposes:
(1) To conduct water quality testing of drinking water wells.
(2) To install and replace laterals, repair or replace private wells or onsite wastewater systems,
properly close abandoned wells and septic system infrastructure, and provide infrastructure necessary to
connect residences to a public water or wastewater system.
(3) To replace interior drinking water plumbing and fixtures that contain lead.
(4) To provide interim replacement drinking water supplies.
(b) The State board may establish a revolving loan fund to facilitate financing for activities allowable
under this section.
8
Attachment 1
(c) Priority shall be given to projects that assist low-income homeowners, including mobile home owners,
and vulnerable populations.
86010. (a) For the purposes of awarding funding pursuant to this chapter, a local cost share of not less
than 50 percent (50%) of the total costs of the project shall be required. The cost-sharing requirement
may be waived or reduced for projects that directly benefit a disadvantaged community or an
economically distressed area.
(b) At least 10 percent (10%) of the funds available pursuant to this chapter shall be allocated for projects
serving severely disadvantaged communities.
(c) Up to 15 percent (15%) of the funds available pursuant to this chapter may be allocated for technical
assistance to disadvantaged communities. The State board shall operate a multidisciplinary technical
assistance program for small and disadvantaged communities which may include, but is not limited to,
outreach and education, needs assessments, review of alternative approaches to provide communities
with safe drinking water or wastewater services, project selection and design, board and operator
training, and other technical, managerial, and financial capacity building assistance for utilities serving
disadvantaged communities related to providing communities with safe drinking water or wastewater
services. The agency may also contract with a nonprofit organization, resource conservation district, or
other local agency to provide these services.
CHAPTER 5.2. Water Recycling and Desalination.
86020. The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State
board to award grants and loans to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 on a
competitive basis for wastewater recycling projects. Grants pursuant to this section may be made for all
of the following:
(a) Water recycling projects, including, but not limited to, treatment, storage, conveyance, brine disposal,
and distribution facilities for potable and nonpotable recycling projects.
(b) Dedicated distribution infrastructure to serve residential, commercial, agricultural, fish and wildlife
habitat, and industrial end-user retrofit projects to allow use of recycled water.
(c) Pilot projects for new potable reuse and contaminant removal technology.
(d) Multi-benefit recycled water projects that improve water quality.
(e) Multi-benefit recycled water projects that protect, conserve and restore wetland and other wildlife
habitat.
(f) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance related to specific projects for disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas.
86021. The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the State
board to award grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 on a competitive
basis for desalination of brackish groundwater, and other brackish water desalination projects which do
9
Attachment 1
not directly negatively affect riparian habitat, estuaries, coastal bays, coastal lagoons, or ocean waters of
California as defined by the State board. Grants pursuant to this section must comply with the
requirements of this section, and may be made for all of the following:
(a) Treatment, storage, conveyance, and distribution facilities. Projects may remove contaminants in
addition to salts, but shall be primarily constructed and operated to remove salt.
(b) Distribution infrastructure to serve residential, commercial, agricultural, fish and wildlife habitat, and
industrial end-user retrofit projects to allow use of desalted water.
(c) Multi-benefit salt removal projects that improve water quality.
(d) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance related to specific projects for disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas.
(e) Multi-benefit salt removal projects that provide water supply for wetland and other wildlife habitat.
(f) Technical assistance and grant writing assistance related to specific projects for disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas.
86022. No grant made pursuant to this chapter shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the project,
but this requirement may be eliminated or reduced for that portion of projects that primarily serve
disadvantaged communities, economically distressed areas, or wildlife habitat.
86023. Projects funded pursuant to this chapter shall be selected on a competitive basis with priority
given to the following criteria:
(a) Water supply reliability improvement.
(b) Water quality and ecosystem benefits related to decreased reliance on diversions from the Delta or
from local rivers and streams, and benefits related to attainment of beneficial uses and water quality
objectives in local receiving waters.
(c) Public health benefits from improved drinking water quality or supply.
(d) Cost-effectiveness, based on the amount of water produced per dollar invested, and othercost
effectiveness criteria adopted by the State board.
(e) Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions.
(f) Water supply or water quality improvements benefitting disadvantaged communities.
(g) Protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, as well as provision of a reliable water supply for
fish and wildlife.
CHAPTER 5.3. Water Conservation.
86030. The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
10
Attachment 1
department for the following purposes:
(a) Statewide turf removal program.
(1) The program shall provide financial incentives to public and private property owners to
convert their irrigated or watered landscaping to drought tolerant plantings, including appropriate low
water using plants. The department shall set a maximum amount each applicant can receive, and shall
allow greater incentives to low-income homeowners who could not otherwise afford to participate in the
landscape water conversion program. No less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the funds allocated to
this program shall be spent on programs benefitting residential property owners. The department shall
make awards to nonresidential applicants on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply.
Each grant must reduce water consumption by at least fifty percent (50%) compared to current water
use.
(2) The most cost-effective projects and those projects that provide the greatest environmental
benefits based on the state investment shall receive highest priority for funding. Environmental benefits
shall include, but not be limited to, planting appropriate drought resistant native and other plants,
reduction in consumptive water use, and increased availability of water for environmental benefits.
(3) The department shall not reject or reduce eligibility to residents residing in service areas
which have previously offered turf removal rebate programs as long as the resident was not a participant
in the program.
(4) The department shall cooperate with eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
86166 and the California Public Utilities Commission to develop an on-bill repayment mechanism to pay
for the consumer's share of the landscape conversion project.
(b) Leak detection.
(1) Competitive grants on a matching basis to public water systems to reduce leaks in their water
distribution systems, eliminate leaks in the water systems of their customers if the water system operator
determines that customer leak detection and elimination is a cost-effective way to improve the water
system operator's water supply and provides a public benefit, and install instrumentation to detect leaks
at residential, institutional, and commercial properties. The department shall make awards on the basis of
cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply. Water system operators receiving grants pursuant to this
subdivision shall give highest priority to leak detection and water waste elimination programs in
disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.
(2) No grant award shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the project. Cost sharing may be
reduced or eliminated for a grant award that primarily benefits residential property owners in a
disadvantaged community or an economically distressed area.
(c) Toilet replacement. Competitive grants on a matching basis to public water systems or eligible entities
as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to replace toilets using more than three gallons per flush
with new toilets that conserve water and flush 1.28 gallons per flush or less. The department shall make
awards on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply. Entities receiving grants pursuant
to this subdivision shall give highest priority to toilet replacement programs in disadvantaged
communities and economically distressed areas.
11
Attachment 1
(d) Water meters. Installation of water meters in disadvantaged communities that are not metered.
(e) Energy saving water conservation. Competitive grants on a matching basis to public water systems to
undertake water conservation projects that promote saving energy. These projects shall document the
greenhouse gas emission reductions coming from water conservation programs. The department shall
make awards on the basis of cost-effectiveness with respect to water supply as well as energy savings.
Highest priority shall be given to programs in disadvantaged communities and economically distressed
areas.
(f) In determining how to allocate the funds appropriated pursuant to this section, the department shall
determine which technologies are most cost-effective, produce the greatest environmental benefits, and
provide the most benefit to disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.
(g) Any entity receiving a grant pursuant to this section may use grant funds to establish a revolving fund
from which the entity may make loans to implement water conservation programs. The interest rate shall
be established by the entity, and the entity may charge a reasonable administration fee to be paid along
with the interest on the loan over the lifetime of the loan. Payments made on loans made pursuant to
this program shall be returned to the revolving fund to be used for additional loans to implement water
conservation programs. Loans made pursuant to this section may be for up to 15 years, or for the useful
life of the water conservation project, whichever is shorter.
86031. The sum offifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California
Energy Commission for the Water Energy Technology Program to accelerate the deployment of
innovative water and energy saving technologies and help continue to make water conservation a
California way of life.
86032. (a) The purpose of this section is to help make it possible to improve flows in tributaries to the
Delta, and to expedite the transfer of conserved agricultural water while minimizing impacts on water
rights holders.
(b) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000} is appropriated from the Fund to the department for
matching grants to local agencies to aid in the construction and implementation of agricultural water
conservation projects, and for grants in accordance with Section 79158.
(c) For the purposes of approving a grant under this section, the department shall determine if there will
be a net savings of water as a result of each proposed project and if the project is cost-effective and
technically sound.
(d) A project under this section shall not receive more than five million dollars ($5,000,000} in grant
proceeds from the department.
(e) The department shall give preference to the most cost-effective and technically sound projects.
(f) Priority shall be given to grants that result in water savings which are used to improve the quality of
fish and wildlife through increased flows in tributaries to the Delta. Grants improving internal water
district efficiency for other uses and transfers are also eligible for funding.
(g) No project may cause adverse impacts to fish or wildlife without mitigating those impacts below a
level of significance. The cost of mitigation may be included in grant funds.
12
Attachment 1
CHAPTER 5.4. Flood Management for Improved Water Supply.
86040. (a) The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000} is appropriated from the Fund to the
Central Valley Flood Protection Board for:
(1) Enlargement and environmental enhancement of existing floodways and bypasses within the
jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, including providing recreation opportunities.
(2) Improvement of flood control facilities and environmental enhancement within the
jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
(b) To be eligible for funding under this section, a project shall provide reduced flood risk, reduced
liability, or reduced maintenance responsibility for state agencies or local flood control districts or both.
(c) The Central Valley Flood Protection Board shall give preference to:
(1) Those projects that primarily benefit disadvantaged communities or economically distressed
areas.
(2) Multi-benefit projects designed to reduce flood risk and enhance fish and wildlife habitat by
allowing rivers and floodplains to function more naturally. These projects create additional public benefits
such as protecting farms and ranches, improving water quality, increasing groundwater recharge, and
providing public recreation opportunities.
(3) Those projects that include matching funds, including but not limited to matching funds from
other state agencies. Matching fund requirements may be reduced or eliminated to the extent the project
directly benefits disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas.
(d) The Central Valley Flood Protection Board may make grants to eligible entities as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to implement this section.
(e) The Central Valley Flood Protection Board may use up to one million ($1,000,000) of these funds to
develop a programmatic permit for authorization of habitat restoration and related multi-benefit floodplain
restoration projects whose primary purpose is restoration and that meet the criteria described in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(f) Of the amount appropriated in paragraph (a), fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) shall be awarded for
matching grants to public agencies to construct flood control improvements to existing dams on rivers in
the Sacramento Valley that provide flood protection to urbanized areas. If these funds are not awarded
for this purpose by January 1, 2032, they may be used for the other purposes of this section.
86041. (a) The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
department for grants to local agencies on a fifty percent (50%) matching basis to repair or reoperate
reservoirs that provide flood control either as a principal purpose or as an indirect effect of their
operation. Grantees must demonstrate that the proposed repair or reoperation will increase the amount
of water stored in those reservoirs that could be put to beneficial use. No funds appropriated under this
section shall be used to raise the height of any dam. Spillway modification projects that do not raise the
13
Attachment 1
crest height of the dam are eligible for grant funds.
(b) (1) To be eligible for funding under this section, a project must provide substantial increases in
recreational opportunities, such as trails along river channels, and significant net improvements to fish
and wildlife habitat in and adjacent to the river channel downstream of the reservoir, and to the extent
compatible with safe reservoir operation, within the reservoir. At least ten percent (10%) of project costs
shall be allocated to these recreational and habitat purposes. The funds to carry out these purposes shall
be allocated by the department directly to a state conservancy if there is a conservancy with jurisdiction
over the area of the project. If there is no conservancy, the Natural Resources Agency's California River
Parkways Program shall contract with an eligible entity as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to
carry out these purposes. The agency operating the reservoir being repaired or reoperated shall approve
the recreational and habitat elements of the project and shall not charge any fees for review, plan check,
permits, inspections, or any other related costs associated with the project, and shall provide permanent
operation and maintenance of the entire project, including the habitat and recreational elements.
Projects may include grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to implement
this paragraph.
(2) All costs associated with the requirements of this subdivision may be paid for with funds
provided to local agencies by this section, and do not have to be matched by the agency.
(c) Grants made pursuant to this section may be for the purpose of seismic retrofit.
(d) No grants made pursuant to this section shall be for reservoir maintenance or sediment removal from
the reservoir or upstream of the reservoir, except as necessary to complete projects authorized under
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
(e) Applicants shall certify that projects paid for by funds provided by this section will be permanently
operated and maintained.
(f) First priority shall be given to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
(g) Projects to assist in the reoperation of eligible reservoirs shall increase water supply for beneficial uses
through the purchase and installation of water measuring equipment, acquisition of information systems,
and the use of technologies and data to improve reservoir management.
(h) (1) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding under this
chapterto create recreational facilities or wildlife habitat may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those
funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of
those recreational facilities or wildlife habitat.
(2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in land,
recreation facilities or wildlife habitat with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in land,
recreational facilities or wildlife habitat to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization
shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain that interest in the
land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(4) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund
14
Attachment 1
pursuant to this subdivision, the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the
grant that it can maintain the land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat to be acquired or developed
from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or organization.
(5) If the interest in land, recreational facilities or wildlife habitat is condemned or if the local
public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization determines that the interest in land, recreational
facilities or wildlife habitat is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was
expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the agency that provided the
money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this section.
(i) The department shall give preference to those projects that coordinate reservoir reoperation with the
provision of water for groundwater recharge through conjunctive use or other integrated
surface/groundwater projects.
86042. The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the San
Francisco Bay Restoration Authority to provide matching grants for flood management, wetlands
restoration, and other projects consistent with Article 2 (commencing with Section 66704.5) of Chapter 5
of Title 7 .25 of the Government Code. For purposes of this section, matching funds may include funds
provided by local governments, regional governments, the federal government, private parties, or other
funds raised by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. No grant shall exceed fifty percent (50%) of
the cost of the project.
86043. (a)(l) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding under this
chapterto acquire an interest in land may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a
trust fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of that interest in land.
(2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in land
with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in land to another public agency, Indian tribe or
nonprofit organization shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain
that interest inland.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(b) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund
pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the
grant that it can maintain the land to be acquired from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or
organization.
(c) If the interest in land is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization
determines that the interest in land is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter
was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the agency that provided
the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter.
CHAPTER 5.5. Funding for Water Measurement and Information.
86048. The sum of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund for water
measurement and information systems, as follows:
(a) The sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) is appropriated to the department for development of
15
Attachment 1
methods and installation of water measuring equipment to improve estimates of water balance, water
budgets, diversions and water use to support water allocations, drought management, groundwater
management, water quality management and water rights.
(b) The sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated to the State board for development of
information systems, technologies, and data that improve the State board's ability to manage water
rights. These systems will include, but not be limited to, digitizing and making available the 10 million
pages of paper records on water rights within the State board and in other repositories and the creation
of a digital repository for water diversion and use data.
(c) The sum often million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated to the Water Data Administration Fund
established pursuant to Section 12420, to be used by the department in consultation with the State board
for the purpose of making California water information interoperable, consistent with Part 4.9 of Division
6 of the Water Code.
(d) The sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) is appropriated as follows:
(1) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the University of California for its multi
campus Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative to develop core elements of a water
resources information system, in cooperation with the department and the State board.
(2) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the California Water Institute at California
State University, Fresno to undertake research leading to improvement and conservation of water
supplies and improved water quality in California.
(3) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the Irrigation Training and Research Center
at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo to undertake research leading to improvement
and conservation of water supplies and improved water quality in California.
(4) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) is appropriated to the Office of Water Programs at California
State University, Sacramento to undertake research leading to improvement and conservation of water
supplies and improved water quality in California.
(5) The institutions of higher education receiving funds pursuant to this paragraph shall work
together to assure that their efforts do not conflict or overlap, but are complementary to each other.
CHAPTER 5.6. Capture and Use of Urban Runoff and Stormwater.
86050. (a) The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
State board for projects to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff. All grants
made pursuant to this section by the State board for construction projects must be to counties or cities, a
city and county, or a joint powers authority containing a city, county, or city and county with
responsibility for flood control or management. The State board may spend up to fifty million dollars
($50,000,000) for grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to develop
Stormwater Resource Plans. Funds available pursuant to this section shall be allocated to projects serving
and providing a direct benefit to disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities. The State
board may use these funds to make grants for technical assistance and outreach to disadvantaged
communities.
16
Attachment 1
(b) The sum of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California Tahoe
Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff in the Lake Tahoe
Basin pursuant to Title 7.42 (commencing with Section 66905) of the Government Code.
(c) The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000} is appropriated from the Fund to the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff
pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Public Resources Code in the area
defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 86080.
(d) The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the San Gabriel and
Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff
and storm water runoff pursuant to Division 22.8 (commencing with Section 32600) of the Public
Resources Code.
(e) The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000} is appropriated from the Fund to the State Coastal
Conservancy for projects to capture and use dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff pursuant to
Division 21 (commencing with Section 31000) of the Public Resources.
(f) Funds spent pursuant to this section shall be used for competitive grants for projects that develop,
implement, or improve multi-benefit projects identified and prioritized in Stormwater Resource Plans
consistent with Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 10560) of Division 6,as that part may be amended,
and shall include as many as possible of the following benefits: capture and treatment of stormwater or
dry weather runoff for beneficial uses; removal of pollutants from the captured and treated runoff;
creation or restoration of habitat or parkland to capture and treat storm water or dry weather runoff for
beneficial uses by using best management practices that improve environmental quality; removal of
pollutants from the captured and treated runoff; creation or restoration of habitat or parkland; storage,
infiltration or use of the captured and treated runoff to augment local water supplies; creation or
restoration of native habitat, trails, park land or other natural open space; reduction of urban heat
islands; and provision of other public recreational opportunities. Projects that include wetlands and
native habitat or project elements designed to mimic or restore natural watershed functions shall be
given the highest priority.
(g) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to subdivision (a), at least forty million dollars ($40,000,000}
shall be available for projects that reduce the flow of trash and other pollutants: (1) into a National
Estuarine Research Reserve, onto beaches, or into near-shore coastal waters in San Diego County, or (2)
into San Diego Bay. Priority shall be given to projects that reduce the flow of trash or other pollutants into
one or more units of the State Parks System.
86051. (a) Each state agency receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall require at least a fifty percent
(50%) cost share by recipients of grant funds, but may eliminate or reduce the matching requirements for
that portion of projects primarily benefiting disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas.
(b) Projects funded by this section must comply with water quality policies or regulations adopted by the
State board or the regional water quality control board with jurisdiction over the project.
(c) Project costs may include development of decision support tools, data acquisition, and geographic
information system data analysis to identify and evaluate the benefits and costs of potentialstormwater
capture and reuse projects.
17
Attachment 1
(d) Preference shall be granted to projects that divert stormwater or dry weather runoff from storm
drains or channels and put it to beneficial use.
(e) Agencies receiving funds pursuant to this section shall give high priority to projects benefitting
disadvantaged communities. Each agency receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall allocate at least
thirty-five percent (35%) of the funds they receive for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
(f) In implementing this chapter, each agency receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall consult with
the Natural Resources Agency regarding the integration and prioritization of the habitat, park land, open
space, recreational and public use components of storm water and dry weather runoff capture and reuse
projects, and shall seek assistance from the Natural Resources Agency in the review and scoring of
proposed projects.
(g) Projects may prevent stormwater and dry weather runoff from entering storm drains or channels.
86052. Entities defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 are eligible to receive funds under subdivisions
(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 86050.
86053. Funds allocated pursuant to this chapter may be granted to an eligible applicant for single or
multiple small-scale projects that are consistent with Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code,
regardless of whether that Chapter is still in effect.
Chapter 5.7. Integrated Regional Water Management.
86054. The sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) is allocated to the department to provide direct
funding support to approved Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) regional water
management groups for the purpose of maintaining ongoing IRWM planning and implementation efforts,
thereby sustaining the significant investment made through IRWM for regional collaboration on water
management.
CHAPTER 6. Watershed, Land, and Fisheries Improvements.
CHAPTER 6.1. Watershed Improvement for Water Supply and Water Quality Enhancement.
86080. The sum of two billion three hundred fifty-five million dollars ($2,355,000,000} is appropriated
from the Fund to protect, restore and improve the health of watershed lands, including forest lands
(including oaks, redwoods and sequoias), meadows, wetlands, chaparral, riparian habitat and other
watershed lands, including lands owned by the United States, in order to protect and improve water
supply and water quality, improve forest health, reduce fire danger consistent with the best available
science, mitigate the effects of wildfires on water quality and supply, increase flood protection, remediate
aquifers, or to protect or restore riparian or aquatic resources. No grants made pursuant to this section
shall be for reservoir maintenance or sediment removal from a reservoir or upstream of a reservoir,
except as necessary for field research required pursuant to subdivision (a). Funds shall be allocated as
follows:
(a) Two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) to the Sierra Nevada Conservancy for the protection,
restoration and improvement of Sierra Nevada watersheds, pursuant to Division 23.3 (commencing with
Section 33300) of the Public Resources Code and including the purposes outlined in Section 33320 of the
Public Resources Code. Funds shall also be spent for the implementation and to further the goals and
18
Attachment 1
purposes of the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program. Projects eligible for funding under the
Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program may include research and monitoring to measure the
impact of forest restoration work on water supply, climate and other benefits, including long-term air
quality, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage, habitat, recreational uses,
and community vitality. Projects funded under the Sierra Nevada watershed Improvement Program shall
be based on the best available science regarding forest restoration and must be undertaken to improve
water supply and quality, protect and restore ecological values and to promote forest conditions that are
more resilient to wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy may
make grants to federal agencies if it determines such grants are the most efficient way to implement the
intent of this division on federally managed lands.
(b) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the California Tahoe Conservancy for the protection and
restoration of watersheds of the Lake Tahoe Basin, pursuant to Title 7.42 (commencing with Section
66905) of the Government Code. Funds shall be spent for implementation and to further the goals and
purposes of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, pursuant to Article 6 ofChapter 1.692
of Division 5 (commencing with Section 5096.351) of the Public Resources Code.
(c) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program of the
Coastal Conservancy for the protection and restoration of watersheds of the San Francisco Bay Area,
pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 31160).
(d) One hundred eighty million dollars ($180,000,000) for the protection and restoration of watersheds of
Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties as follows:
(1) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy for the protection and restoration of the watersheds of the San Gabriel and
Lower Los Angeles Rivers pursuant to Division 22.8 (commencing with Section 32600) of the Public
Resources Code.
(2) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, for the
protection and restoration of the watersheds of Santa Monica Bay, the Upper Los Angeles River and the
Upper Santa Clara River pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Public Resources
Code, and the watersheds defined in subdivision (c) of Section 79570.
(3) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the Santa Ana River Conservancy Program of the Coastal
Conservancy for the protection and restoration of watersheds of the Santa Ana River pursuant to Chapter
4.6 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section31170).
(4) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the Baldwin Hills Conservancy for the protection and
restoration of the Baldwin Hills and Ba Ilona Creek watersheds, and for projects to capture dry weather
runoff and storm water runoff pursuant to Division 22.7 (commencing with Section 32550) of the Public
Resources Code.
(e) Forty million dollars ($40,000,000) to the San Diego River Conservancy for the protection and
restoration of watersheds in San Diego County pursuant to Division of 22.9 (commencing with Section
32630) of the Public Resources Code.
(f) One hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for the
protection and restoration of coastal watersheds pursuant to Division 21 (commencing with Section
19
Attachment 1
31000) of the Public Resources Code.
(g) One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) for the protection and restoration of the watersheds
ofthe Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers as follows:
(1) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
for protection and restoration of the Delta pursuant to Division 22.3 (commencing with Section 32300) of
the Public Resources Code. Highest priority shall be given to projects that benefit the restoration of native
species and that reduce the negative impacts of excessive salinity intrusion. Highest priority shall also be
given to projects that restore habitat important to species listed pursuant to the federal Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and the California State Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code
Sections 2050-2100). The funds may also be used for improvement of public recreational facilities in the
Delta, and for grants to local agencies and nonprofit organizations to increase community access to parks
and recreational opportunities for underserved urban communities in the Delta. The Conservancy may
implement programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Delta.
(2) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the San Joaquin River Conservancy for the
implementation of the San Joaquin River Parkway pursuant to Division 22.5 (commencing with Section
32500) of the Public Resources Code.
(3) Thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to the Lower American River Conservancy Fund created by
Section 5845.9 of the Public Resources Code. The Wildlife Conservation Board shall use these funds to
implement Chapter 10.5 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 5845).
(h) One hundred and seventy million dollars ($170,000,000) for river parkways, as follows:
(1) Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) to the California Natural Resources Agency for projects
pursuant the California River Parkways Act of 2004, Chapter 3.8 (commencing with Section 5750) of
Division 5 of the Public Resources Code. The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall allocate at
least sixty-five percent (65%) of these funds for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. With
the remaining funds, the Secretary shall seek to benefit poorer communities that do not qualify as
disadvantaged communities.
(2) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public
recreation, and water quality improvement along the Guadalupe River corridor.
(3) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public
recreation, and water quality improvement along the Russian River corridor.
(4) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public
recreation, and water quality improvement along the Santa Clara River corridor.
(5) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public
recreation, and water quality improvement along the Tijuana River corridor.
20
Attachment 1
(6) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public
recreation, and water quality improvement along the Carmel River corridor.
(7) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to nonprofit
organizations and local public agencies to implement river parkway projects for habitat restoration, public
recreation, and water quality improvement along the Napa River corridor.
(8) Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for river parkway
projects within the San Diego Bay watershed.
(9) Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to the State Coastal Conservancy for river parkway
projects along the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County.
(10) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) to the California Tahoe Conservancy to implement habitat
restoration, public recreation, and water quality improvements along the Upper Truckee River corridor.
(i) One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) shall be available for projects that restore, protect and
preserve the Los Angeles River and its tributaries, as follows:
(1) Seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy pursuant to Division 22.8 (commencing with Section 32600) of the Public
Resources Code, and Section 79508 of the Water Code.
(2) Seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Public Resources Code, and Section
79508 of the Water Code.
(j) Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the following:
(1) For the protection and restoration of the watersheds of the Sacramento, Smith, Eel, and
Klamath Rivers and other rivers of Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, and
the Carrizo Plain pursuant to Chapter 4 of Division 2 (commencing with Section 1300) of the Fish and
Game Code.
(2) For protection and restoration of oak woodlands and rangelands pursuant to Division 10.4
(commencing with Section 10330) of the Public Resources Code and Article 3.5 (commencing with Section
1360) of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code.
(3) For acquisition and restoration of riparian habitat, migratory bird habitat, anadromous
fisheries, wetland habitat and other watershed lands pursuant to Chapter 4 of Division 2 (commencing
with Section 1300) of the Fish and Game Code.
(4) Grants may include funding to help fulfill state commitments to implement Natural
Community Conservation Plans adopted pursuant to Chapter 10 of Division 3 (commencing with Section
2800) of the Fish and Game Code, and to large scale regional Habitat Conservation Plans adopted
pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
21
Attachment 1
(5) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, the sum of ten million dollars
($10,000,000) shall be available to assist farmers in integrating agricultural activities with watershed
restoration and wildlife protection. Priority shall be given to projects that include partnerships with
resource conservation districts.
(6) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, the sum of fifty million dollars
($50,000,000) is appropriated to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund established by Section 1363 of
the Fish and Game Code, and may be expended pursuant to Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the
Fish and Game Code.
(7) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, the sum of thirty million dollars
($30,000,000) shall be available for grazing land protection pursuant to the California Rangeland, Grazing
Land and Grassland Protection Act, commencing with Section 10330 of Division 10.4 of the Public
Resources Code.
(8) Of the amount made available pursuant to this subdivision, not less than sixty million dollars
($60,000,000) shall be available for projects that advance the conservation objectives of natural
community conservation plans adopted pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act,
Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. First priority shall
be given to plans that include protection of aquatic ecosystems. Funding pursuant to this paragraph shall
not be used to offset mitigation obligations otherwise required.
(k) Twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy for the
protection and restoration of the Coachella Valley watershed pursuant to Division 23.5 (commencing with
Section 33500) of the Public Resources Code.
(I) One hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for
protection and restoration of watershed lands within and affecting units of the State Parks System,
with high priority to redwood and other forest land important to protecting river and stream flows
and quality. In addition to other purposes authorized pursuant to this section, the Department of
Parks and Recreation may allocate funds to improve and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
State Park water supply and wastewater treatment systems.
(m) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the Department of Conservation for watershed restoration and
conservation projects on agricultural lands, rangelands, managed wetlands, and forested lands.
(1) No less than thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000) shall be used for grants pursuant to Section
9084 of the Public Resources Code.
(2) No less than thirty-one million dollars ($31,000,000) shall be used for the purposes ofDivision
10.2 (commencing with Section 10200) of the Public Resources Code.
(3) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be used for the Watershed Coordinator Grant Program.
(n) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the California Ocean Protection Council for projects
that: (1) reduce the amount of pollutants that flow to beaches, bays, coastal estuaries, and near-shore
ecosystems; and (2) protect coastal and near-shore ocean resources from the impacts of rising sea levels,
storm surges, ocean acidification and related hazards, including, but not limited to, increasing the
resiliency of near-shore ocean habitats. Projects may include, but are not limited to, projects that protect
22
Attachment 1
or restore beaches, coastal estuaries and watersheds, bays, and near-shore ecosystems including marine
protected areas. Of this amount, the Council shall use at least five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the
Local Coastal Program sea level rise grant program that supports Local Coastal Program updates to
address sea level rise, including sea-level rise modeling, vulnerability assessments, and adaptation
planning and policy development.
(o) The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Natural
Resources Agency, for water-related projects that implement the Natural Resources Agency's Salton Sea
Management Program consistent with provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 2940) of Chapter
13 of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code, and in fulfillment of the obligations of the State of California
to comply with the terms of Chapters 611, 612, 613, and 614 of the Statutes of 2003. These statutes were
enacted to facilitate the execution and implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement,
including restoration of the Salton Sea. The Natural Resources Agency may expend these funds on
projects that provide multiple benefits of ecosystem restoration, air quality improvement, and economic
recovery for severely disadvantaged communities.
(1) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to this paragraph, not less than twenty million dollars
($20,000,000) shall be available for purposes consistent with the New River Water Quality, Public Health,
and River Parkway Development Program, as described in Section 71103.6 of the Public Resources Code.
(2) Of the amount allocated pursuant to this section, the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be
available for a Salton Sea Integrated Watershed Plan providing technical assistance for, outreach to, and
engagement with severely disadvantaged communities.
(p) Five million dollars ($5,000,000) to the Delta Stewardship Council for the Delta Science Program as
described in Section 85280.
(q) Fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to the department for Urban Streams Restoration Program
competitive grants pursuant to Section 7048. The department shall allocate at least sixty-five {65%) of
these funds for projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. With the remaining funds, the
department shall seek to benefit poorer communities that do not qualify as disadvantaged communities.
(r) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for
grants for urban forestry projects that manage, capture or conserve stormwater, recharge local
groundwater supplies or improve water supplies or water quality through infiltration, sediment
management and erosion control pursuant to the California Urban Forestry Act, Chapter 2 (commencing
with Section 4799.06) of Part 2.5 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code.
(s) Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) to the Delta Protection Commission for expenditures, grants, or
loans for projects that improve water quality by improving wastewater treatment in Delta legacy
communities (as described in section 32301(f) of the Public Resources Code) and at recreational facilities
in the Delta. Funds may be expended on wastewater improvement projects serving Delta legacy
communities, or Delta legacy community households with failing septic systems which threaten the
quality of groundwater or surface water supplies used for urban, agricultural or fisheries purposes. Funds
may also be allocated to improve and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Delta recreational
facility wastewater treatment systems. Priority shall be given to projects that address public health
hazards. Projects may identify, plan, design, and implement regional mechanisms to consolidate
wastewater systems or provide affordable treatment technologies.
23
Attachment 1
(t) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the Department of Parks and Recreation for projects that
provide access to rivers for non-motorized recreation, and for grants to eligible entities as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for this purpose. First priority shall be given to projects that include
matching funds, and to projects that serve disadvantaged communities and economically distressed
areas, whether or not they include cost sharing.
(u) (1) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the construction of a
Pacific Flyway Center in the vicinity of the Suisun Marsh, to be operated by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and Wildlife may contract with a nonprofit organization to
oper_ate the Center. The Center shall be used to educate the public about the importance of California's
wetlands, agricultural lands (including rice) and riparian areas in benefitting waterfowl, shorebirds, native
plants and animals, the value of wetlands in absorbing gases that cause climate change, and similar
educational purposes. The operator of the Center shall make special efforts to bring people, and
especially students, from disadvantaged communities to the Center for educational purposes. If the
Wildlife Conservation Board determines that all or part of these funds is not needed to complete this
project, it may allocate the unneeded part of the funds to the purposes of paragraph (j) of this section.
(2) (A) Of the amount appropriated by paragraph (1), the Wildlife Conservation Board may make a
grant of up to four million dollars ($4,000,000) to a nonprofit organization whose principal purpose is
wildlife conservation to establish a trust fund, the interest from which shall be used exclusively to operate
the Pacific Flyway Center and bring people from disadvantaged communities to the Center.
(B) With the approval of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the nonprofit organization can
transfer the operation of the Pacific Flyway Center to another nonprofit organization. If such a transfer
takes place, the trust fund shall be transferred to the new nonprofit organization.
(3) If the funds allocated by this section are not all used to construct the Pacific Flyway Center by
January 1, 2028, any remaining funds are appropriated to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the
purposes of Section 86123.
(v) Eighty million dollars ($80,000,000) to the Coastal Conservancy for the removal of Matilija Dam, and
for associated levee and flood control improvements, water supply improvements, and related projects
on Matilija Creek and the Ventura River, and for river parkway projects along the Ventura River. The
Conservancy may grant all or part of these funds to Ventura County. Highest priority for the river parkway
projects shall be those which benefit disadvantaged communities. If the Coastal Conservancy determines
that all or part of these funds is not needed to complete this project, it may allocate the unneeded part of
the funds to the purposes of paragraph (f) of this section.
(w) The sum of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) to the University of California for the Natural
Reserve System for matching grants for land acquisition and for the construction and development of
facilities that will be used for research and training to improve the management of aquatic ecosystems,
natural lands and the preservation or conservation of California's wildlife resources. Priority shall be given
to projects that advance research on the impacts of climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, and adaptation of natural systems to the impacts of climate change.
(x) (1) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the Sierra Nevada
Conservancy for the purpose of awarding grants within the jurisdiction of the Conservancy to eligible
entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for the purpose of reducing the threat of wildfires
which would negatively impact watershed health. Projects may be for the purp·ose of hazardous fuel
24
Attachment 1
reduction, postfire watershed rehabilitation, forest management practices that promote forest resilience
to severe wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances, and development of local plans to reduce the
risk of wildfires that could adversely affect watershed health. Preference shall be given to grants which
include matching funds, but this preference may be reduced or eliminated for grants which benefit
disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas.
(2) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for the purpose of awarding grants in areas outside the
jurisdiction of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
86166 for the purpose of reducing the threat of wildfires which would negatively impact watershed
health. Projects may be for the purpose of hazardous fuel reduction, postfire watershed rehabilitation
and restoration, forest management practices that promote forest resilience to severe wildfire, climate
change, and other disturbances, and development of local plans to reduce the risk of wildfires that could
adversely affect watershed health. Preference shall be given to grants which include matching funds, but
this preference may be reduced or eliminated for grants which benefit disadvantaged communities or
economically distressed areas.
86083. Consistent with the other requirements of this chapter, funds spent pursuant to this chapter may
be used for grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166. Funds awarded to
eligible entities may be used for projects on land owned by a state or federal agency. With the exception of
funds allocated to grant programs, funds may also be used directly by the state agency receiving the
funds to implement watershed improvement projects consistent with this chapter. In making grants
pursuant to this chapter, agencies shall give high priority to applications that include cost sharing, and to
grants that benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas whether or not they
include cost sharing.
86084. (a) For a project to be eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter, the project shall have
watershed protection and restoration, water supply or water quality benefits, or ecosystem benefits
relating to rivers, streams, forests, meadows, wetlands or other water-related resources.
(b) (1) Funds appropriated pursuant to this chapter may be used for protection and restoration of forests,
meadows, wetlands, riparian habitat, coastal resources, and near-shore ocean habitat; to acquire land
and easements to protect these resources and avoid development that may reduce watershed health,
and to take other measures that protect or improve the quality or quantity of water supplies downstream
from projects funded in whole or in part by this chapter. Forest restoration projects, including but not
limited to hazardous fuel reduction, post-fire watershed rehabilitation, and forest management and tree
planting using appropriate native plants shall be based on the best available science regarding forest
restoration and must be undertaken to protect and restore ecological values and to promote forest
conditions that are more resilient to wildfire, climate change, and other disturbances.
(2) Fuel hazard reduction activities on United States Forest Service lands in the Sierra Nevada and
similar forest types shall be generally consistent with objectives of the Sierra Nevada Watershed
Improvement Program and the best available science, including United States Forest Service General
Technical Report 220 as it may be updated.
86085. Any entity receiving funds pursuant to this chapter that expends funds on private lands shall
secure an agreement or interest in the private lands to assure the purpose of the expenditure is
maintained for such time as is commensurate with the best practices for the type of project.
25
Attachment 1
86086. (a)(l) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding for a
project pursuant to this chapter may use up to twenty percent (20%} of those funds to establish a trust
fund that is exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of that project.
(2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in a
project with money from this chapter and transfers the interest in the project to another public agency,
Indian tribe or nonprofit organization shall also transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was
established to maintain that interest in the project.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(b) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund
pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the
grant that it can maintain the project to be undertaken using funds otherwise available to the agency,
tribe or organization.
(c) The interest from the trust fund shall be used only to monitor the implementation of a project,
and maintain a project and its water supply and water quality benefits implemented pursuant to this
chapter.
(d) If an interest in a project is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit
organization determines that the interest in the project is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money
from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated and shall
be returned to the agency that provided the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized
only for projects pursuant to this chapter.
86087. Funds allocated pursuant to this chapter may be granted to an eligible applicant for single or
multiple small-scale projects that are consistent with Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code,
regardless of whether that Chapter is still in effect.
86088. By April 30, 2019, the Natural Resources Agency shall recommend provisions for grant
approval guidelines to each state agency that receives an appropriation pursuant to this chapter in
order to ensure appropriate consistency of the guidelines. Each agency shall consider the
recommendations of the Natural Resources Agency as they adopt their own guidelines.
86089. Agencies receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall give high priority to projects that
benefit the native wildlife, birds and fishes of California.
CHAPTER 6.2. Land and Water Management for Water Supply Improvement.
86090. The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000} is appropriated from the Fund to the
Wildlife Conservation Board for the purpose of awarding competitive grants to eligible entities as defined
in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to improve the quality of public and private rangelands, wild lands,
meadows, wetlands, riparian areas and aquatic areas for the purpose of increasing groundwater recharge
and water supply from those lands, and for improving water qualityconsistent with protecting and
restoring ecological values.
86091. Funds allocated pursuant to this chapter may be granted to an eligible applicant for single or
multiple small-scale projects that are consistent with Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code,
26
Attachment 1
regardless of whether that Chapter is still in effect.
86094. In making grants pursuant to this chapter, the Wildlife Conservation Board shall give highest
priority to projects which:
(a) Are most cost-effective in producing improved water supply or water quality, and which provide
the greatest fish and wildlife benefits.
{b) Include matching funds.
(c) Benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.
{d) Are for the purpose of invasive plant control and eradication, restoration of riparian habitat, meadows
and wetlands, and other projects that improve the flow of water from the lands, and reduce the use of
water by invasive plant species.
86096. For a project to be eligible for funding pursuant to this chapter, the project shall have water
supply or water quality benefits or both. A project that targets the removal of invasive plants to increase
water supply shall only be funded if the applicant guarantees that the land from which plants will be
removed will be maintained.
86097. (a)(l) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that receives funding under this
chapter may use up to twenty percent {20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is exclusively
used to help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of the funded project.
{2) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that undertakes a project with
money from this division and can no longer maintain the project shall transfer the ownership of the trust
fund to another public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that is willing and able to maintain
that project.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(b) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund
pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the
grant that it can maintain the project in an appropriate condition.
(c) The interest from the trust fund established from the funds available pursuant to this section shall
be used only to maintain a project and its water supply and water quality benefits implemented
pursuant to this chapter.
{d) If the interest in a project is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit
organization determines that the interest in the project is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money
from this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated and shall
be returned to the Wildlife Conservation Board. The funds returned may be utilized only for projects
authorized by this chapter.
86098. In implementing this chapter, the Wildlife Conservation Board may provide incentives to
landowners for conservation actions on private lands or use of voluntary habitat credit exchange
mechanisms.
27
Attachment 1
86099. At least ten percent {10%) of the funds available pursuant to this section shall be allocated for
projects that provide a direct benefit to disadvantaged communities. These benefits may include range
improvement, among other benefits. These projects may include technical assistance for, outreach to,
and engagement with disadvantaged communities.
CHAPTER 6.3. Conservation Corps.
86105. The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California
Conservation Corps for projects to protect, restore, and improve the health of watershed lands, including
forest lands, meadows, wetlands, chaparral, riparian habitat and other watershed lands. Projects may
include, but are not limited to, regional and community fuel hazard reduction projects on public lands,
invasive species removal, and stream, river, and riparian restoration projects. The California Conservation
Corps shall allocate at least fifty percent (50%) of the funds pursuant to this section for grants to certified
local conservation corps. Projects shall improve water quality, water supply reliability, or riparian or
watershed health. Projects shall be undertaken in coordination with a nonprofit organization or public
agency.
CHAPTER 6.4. Central Valley Fisheries Restoration.
86106. (a) The people of California find and declare that the protection, restoration and enhancement of
native fish populations (including anadromous salmonids) of the Central Valley is necessary for the
ecological and economic health of the State of California.
(b) Fish need both suitable habitat and appropriately timed flows in rivers and their tributaries.
(c) The State Water Resources Control Board shall take note of the funding provided by this chapter and
the resulting fish habitat restoration as the Board determines flows necessary to restore Central Valley
native fish populations and fisheries.
(d) Many state and federal agencies, including the Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Board, Central Valley
Flood Protection Board, and federal Bureau of Reclamation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Marine Fisheries Service have prepared policies and plans to restore Central Valley native fish
and fisheries habitat, but these policies and plans are not fully funded.
(e) Many state and federal laws require the restoration of Central Valley native fish populations and
fisheries habitat, but funding has not been fully available to carry out the requirements of these laws.
(f) The sum of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California
Natural Resources Agency for the restoration of Central Valley populations of native fish and fisheries
habitat.
(1) (A) The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency shall appoint a Central Valley Fisheries
Advisory Committee made up of representatives from the Central Valley Salmon Habitat Partnership,
appropriate local, state and federal fish and water management and other agencies, nonprofit
organizations, commercial fishing organizations, universities, local agencies and Indian tribes with
relevant scientific expertise including representation from the upper watersheds. The committee shall
advise the Secretary on the annual expenditure of funds appropriated pursuant to this Chapter. The
28
Attachment 1
committee may solicit projects, and direct the creation of projects pursuant to this chapter, subject to
approval by the Secretary.
(B) The committee shall work closely with representatives from each river basin in the Central
Valley, including local government and water agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit.organizations, to
develop projects that are most suitable for the conditions in the basin, and which meet the other
requirements of this section.
(C) In proposing projects, the committee shall take into account the entire life cycle of the fish
species to be benefitted, and shall consider the interaction of the effects of each project within a river
basin with projects in other river basins. The committee shall also consider adverse impacts resulting
from poor watershed health, including severe wildfire and extensive tree mortality.
(2) Projects funded pursuant to this section shall increase self-sustaining populations of native
fish, or contribute to an existing fish population becoming self-sustaining in the future, with a minimal
requirement of expenditures to continue to operate the project. No funds may be expended on fish
hatcheries.
(3) The committee shall give high priority to projects that provide multiple benefits, such as
improved flood management, improved water quality, improved water supply, enhanced groundwater
sustainability, aquifer remediation and reduction of emission of greenhouse gases, while also improving
conditions for native fish species and their habitats. The committee shall also give high priority to projects
that can be integrated into an existing flow regime and provide multi-species benefits over a range of
flow conditions. The committee shall also give high priority to projects that are consistent with recovery
plan and resiliency strategies for native California fish species.
(4) Expenditures shall be for capital outlay projects, such as conservation easements, water
measurement needed to measure the effects of the project, projects that restore or enhance fisheries
habitat such as floodplain expansion, reintroductions of fish into their historical habitat, improved fish
passage opportunities, creation or enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat and other projects.
Acquisition of land or easements as part of a fisheries enhancement project must be from willing sellers.
Project costs shall include the costs of planning, environmental review, mitigation of the impacts of the
project, and permitting. High priority shall be given to projects that provide adult and juvenile fish access
to or fish passage through agricultural fields or floodplain habitats that will provide enhanced juvenile
rearing and food production opportunities.
(5) Of the funds authorized by this section, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency may
allocate up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for one or more grants for capital outlay and related
programmatic purposes to institutions of higher education for facilities that can be used to improve
scientific and technical coordination, communication and training among those institutions, the
department, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State board and other state agencies to assure that
developments in ecosystem and fisheries science and management are deployed and employed across
higher education institutions and state government agencies.
(g) Based on the recommendations of the committee, the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency may
make grants to any state or local agency, Indian tribe, or nonprofit organization to carry out the purpose
of this section. The Secretary shall give high priority to projects that include matching funds, projects with
a local agency as the lead agency, and projects supporting proposed actions in the Sacramento Valley
Salmon Resiliency Strategy (as published by the California Natural Resources Agency in June 2017, and as
29
Attachment 1
it may be amended), the National Marine Fisheries Service California Central Valley Steel head Recovery
Plan and other similar strategies as they are adopted.
(h) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to this section, not less than thirty-five million dollars
($35,000,000) shall be available for projects to restore rivers and streams in support of fisheries and
wildlife, including, but not limited to, reconnection of rivers with their floodplains, riparian and side
channel habitat restoration pursuant to the California Riparian Habitat Conservation Program, Chapter
4.1 (commencing with Section 1385) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, and restoration and
protection of upper watershed forests and meadow systems that are important for fish and wildlife
resources. Subdivision (f) of Section 79738 of the Water Code applies to this subdivision. Priority shall be
given to projects supported by multi-stakeholder public or private partnerships, or both, using a science
based approach and measurable objectives to guide identification, design, and implementation of
regional actions to benefit salmon and steelhead.
(i) Of the amount appropriated pursuant to this section, five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be available
to assist in the development of the Central Valley Salmon Partnership Habitat Implementation Plan.
(j) The Secretary shall give high priority to the removal of Dennett Dam on the Tuolumne River, if
additional funds are still needed to complete removal of the Dam.
(k) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization receiving funding under this chapter may
use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund, the proceeds of which shall be
used exclusively to pay or help pay for the maintenance and monitoring of the project being funded.
(1) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization is unable to continue to
maintain and monitor the project, it may transfer ownership of the trust fund to another public agency,
Indian tribe or nonprofit organization, with the approval of the Secretary of the Natural Resources
Agency.
(2) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(3) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund
pursuant to paragraph (1), the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the Secretary of the Natural
Resources Agency that it can maintain the project from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or
organization.
(4) If all or part of the project cannot be maintained or is condemned, the trust fund and any
unexpended interest are appropriated to the California Natural Resources Agency. The funds returned to
the Agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter.
(I) Of the amount appropriated to the California Natural Resources agency pursuant to this section, seven
million dollars ($7,000,000) is appropriated to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for native fish
restoration projects on the upper Feather River below Oroville dam for gravel restoration, stream bed
restoration, and salmon habitat restoration projects.
CHAPTER 7. Groundwater Sustainability and Storage.
86110. (a) The sum of six hundred seventy-five million dollars ($675,000,000) is appropriated from the
Fund to the department for projects and programs that support sustainable groundwater management
30
Attachment 1
consistent with Part 2.74 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 10720). The funds shall be used for
competitive grants that advance sustainable groundwater management through implementation of
groundwater sustainability plans and projects that protect, enhance, or improve groundwatersupplies. At
least ten percent (10%) of all grants made pursuant to this paragraph shall be made to groundwater
sustainability agencies whose groundwater basins underlie disadvantaged communities.
(b) The sum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated from the fund to the State board, for use
by the Office of Sustainable Water Solutions to implement a multidisciplinary technical assistance
program for small and disadvantaged communities, and support the involvement of disadvantaged
communities and the public in groundwater sustainability agencies and in the development and
implementation of groundwater sustainability plans.
86111. (a) Of the funds authorized by section 86110, six hundred forty million dollars ($640,000,000) shall
be available for grants to groundwater sustainability agencies implementing groundwater sustainability
plans pursuant to subdivision (k) of Section 10721 for the following purposes:
(1) Groundwater recharge and storage projects including but not limited to acquisition of land
and groundwater pumping allocations from willing sellers, planning of facilities such as feasibility studies
and environmental compliance, distribution systems, and monitoring facilities. No grant made pursuant
to this section shall exceed twenty million dollars ($20,000,000).
(2) Projects that implement groundwater sustainability plans pursuant to Part 2.74 of Division 6
(commencing with Section 10720). Projects eligible for funding include but are not limited to feasibility
studies, environmental compliance, engineering work used to develop groundwater use and sustainable
yield for specific projects, well use measurement and innovative decision support tools.
(3) Projects that assess and address saltwater intrusion including future impacts related to
climate change.
(4) Matching grants to groundwater sustainability agencies to develop groundwater sustainability
plans pursuant to subdivision (k) of Section 10721. No grant shall exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
and no groundwater sustainability agency shall receive more than one grant.
(b) Of the funds authorized by this section, the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000) shall be available
for research to guide investments made pursuant to this section. Research activities may include, but are
not limited to, geophysical surveys, system-level modeling and analysis, development of novel methods
and tools that can be applicable to local decision-making, cross-sector economic and policy analysis of
novel recharge methods, and development of new approaches to significantly enhance groundwater
recharge and fit-for-purpose watertreatment and reuse.
(c) Of the funds authorized by this section, the department may allocate up to ten million dollars
($10,000,000) for the development of publicly accessible decision support tools to assist groundwater
sustainability agencies in conducting drinking water quality analysis, including the development and
assessment of sustainable yield, undesirable results, measurable objectives and other required targets.
The decision support tools should also support vulnerability assessments to help determine communities
that may be at risk of facing water supply or contamination challenges. The tools should be available for
other efforts such as drought vulnerability assessments and shall be linked to the Human Right to Water
indicator housed at the State board.
31
Attachment 1
(d) Of the funds authorized by this section, the department may allocate up to five million dollars
($5,000,000) for one or more grants for capital outlay and related programmatic purposes to institutions
of higher education for facilities that can be used to improve communication and coordination among
these institutions, the department and the State board in order to assure that developments in
groundwater science and management are efficiently deployed and employed across higher education
institutions and state government agencies.
(e) A local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization receiving funding under this section may
use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund used exclusively to pay or help pay
for the maintenance and monitoring of the agency's or organization's interest in land acquired pursuant
to th is· section.
(1) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization that acquired an interest in
land with money from this section decides to transfer that interest to another public agency, Indian tribe
or nonprofit organization, the ownership of the trust fund established to maintain that interest in land
shall also be transferred.
(2) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(3) If the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund
pursuant to this subdivision the agency, tribe or organization shall certify to the state agency making the
grant that it can maintain the land to be acquired from funds otherwise available to the agency, tribe or
organization.
(4) If the interest in land is condemned or if the local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit
organization determines that the interest in land is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from
this chapter was expended, the trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the agency
that provided the money. The funds returned to the agency may be utilized only for projects pursuant to
this chapter.
86112. (a) The department shall give priority for funding pursuant to this chapter to the following in equal
priority:
(1) Groundwater basins designated by the department as critically overdrafted basins,
groundwater basins which are in danger of becoming critically overdrafted, and groundwater basins
where surface and groundwater are interconnected.
(2) Groundwater basins with documented water quality problems, land subsidence, impacts on
surface streams or groundwater dependent. ecosystems, or other undesirable results as defined by
subdivision (x) of Section 10721.
(3) Groundwater basins that protect important state-owned resources, such as state parks and
wildlife areas.
(4) Projects that support the use of floodwaters of acceptable water quality to recharge
groundwater basins. This innovative multi-benefit concept brings together four important California
water management objectives, including flood hazard reduction, sustainable groundwater
management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply reliability.
32
Attachment 1
(A) Projects may include adaptive modification of flood and conservation storage operations
at reservoirs, modifications to spillway facilities at existing reservoirs, inundation of new or expanded
flood bypasses or temporary flood storage land areas, application of floodwaters to agricultural lands
during fallow or dormant seasons, or increased use of existing groundwater recharge facilities.
(B) Projects may include using floodwaters for recharge of groundwater projects, with both
flood hazard reduction and groundwater sustainability benefits.
(C) Projects that provide benefits in flood hazard reduction and groundwater sustainability.
Project feasibility can also be supported by ecosystem restoration and water supply benefits.
(b) Of the amount appropriated in section 86110, the department may use up to ten million dollars
($10,000,000) for the following purposes:
(1) Assess statewide potential for use of floodwaters for recharge and prioritize locations based
upon proximity and conveyance connections in the State with flood hazard reduction and groundwater
sustainability needs.
(2) Complete a pilot study of a priority location to demonstrate potential water resources
management innovations to facilitate flood hazard reduction and groundwater recharge.
(3) Identify and demonstrate use of analytical tools and innovative water management
techniques to support development of available floodwaters and recharge of groundwater basins.
(4) Develop economic monetization techniques of groundwater recharge benefits.
(5) Demonstrate application of the department's climate change methodology to both water
supply and flood management applications.
(6) Provide technical assistance to groundwater sustainability and local flood management
agencies, as well as coordination with state and federal flood agencies.
(c) The department shall consider the following criteria when awarding grants:
(1) The potential of the project to prevent or correct undesirable results due to groundwater use.
(2) The potential of the project to maximize groundwater storage, reliability, recharge or
conjunctive use.
(3) The potential of the project to support sustainable groundwater management.
(4) The annualized cost-effectiveness of the project to achieve the goals of the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act, Chapter 2.74 of Division 6 (commencing with Section 10720).
(d) Eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166, including groundwater sustainability
agencies, shall be eligible for grants. Priority for funding shall be given to local agencies implementing the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
33
Attachment 1
(e) For purposes of awarding funding under this chapter, a local cost share of not less than fifty percent
(50%) of the total cost of the project shall be required. The cost-sharing requirement may be waived or
reduced for that portion of a project that directly benefits a disadvantaged community or economically
distressed area, or for projects the majority of whose benefits are to restore ecosystems dependent on
groundwater.
(f) No grant may be made unless the Department of Fish and Wildlife certifies that harm done to fish or
wildlife as a result of the project will be mitigated to ensure any potential impacts are less than
significant.
(g) Eligible projects may include such infrastructure improvements such as improved canal and infiltration
capacity.
86113. (a) For purposes of this section, "District" means the Borrego Water District.
(b) Of the amount appropriated in Section 86110, thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) shall be
awarded as a grant to the District for the following programs:
(1) Acquisition of land and acquisition of the right to pump groundwater from willing sellers to
reduce groundwater pumping in order to bring groundwater pumping within the boundaries of the
Borrego Springs Subbasin of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin to a level that is sustainable on a long
term basis pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, Chapter 2.74 of Division 6
(commencing with Section 10720). Lands acquired may be transferred to the Department of Parks and
Recreation, a nonprofit organization or another public agency for future management.
(2) Water end-use efficiency, including urban and agricultural water conservation, and water
conservation on recreational facilities such as golf courses.
(3) Restoration of lands acquired pursuant to this section.
(4) Stormwater capture for groundwater basin recharge and re-use.
(5) other District projects implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
(c) (1) No cost sharing by the District is required to implement this section. This is justified because the
community of Borrego Springs is a severely disadvantaged community, and because excessive
groundwater pumping can impact important resources in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park whose 500,000
annual visitors contribute an estimated forty million dollars ($40,000,000) annually to the region, as well
as support 600 jobs.
(2) The District may require cost sharing by beneficiaries when making grants pursuant
paragraphs (2) and (4) of subdivision (b).
(d) As a condition of this grant, the District must agree to:
(1) Implement measures which assure that lands not presently being irrigated will not come into
irrigation, and that presently irrigated lands will not become more intensively irrigated; and
34
Attachment 1
(2) Require new development to pay all costs of water purchases the District incurs, and all costs
of water projects the District undertakes in order to accommodate that development.
(e) (1) The District or a nonprofit organization that receives funding pursuant to this chapterto acquire an
interest in land may use up to twenty percent (20%) of those funds to establish a trust fund that is
exclusively used to help pay for the maintenance, monitoring and restoration of that interest in land.
(2) The District or a nonprofit organization that acquires an interest in land with money from this
chapter and transfers the interest in land to another public agency or nonprofit organization shall also
transfer the ownership of the trust fund that was established to maintain that interest in land.
(3) This subdivision does not apply to state agencies.
(4) If the District or nonprofit organization does not establish a trust fund pursuant to this
subdivision, the agency or organization shall certify to the department that it can maintain the land to be
acquired from funds otherwise available to the agency or organization.
(5) If the interest in land is condemned or if the District or nonprofit organization determines that
the interest in land is unable to fulfill the purposes for which money from this chapter was expended, the
trust fund and any unexpended interest are appropriated to the District. The funds returned to the
District may be utilized only for projects pursuant to this chapter.
(f) Any funds not needed by the District to implement the program described in this section may be
granted by the District to a nonprofit organization or the California Department of Parks and Recreation
to acquire lands adjacent to or in the immediate proximity of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park to prevent
development or irrigation of that land which might impact groundwater resources in the Park. These
lands may be inside or outside the boundaries of the District, but must be within the boundaries of the
Borrego Springs Subbasin of the Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin, which is the source of all potable
water for the Borrego Springs community and visitors to the Park. The lands may be used for wildlife
habitat.
(g) The District may award grants to nonprofit organizations in order to carry out all or part of the
programs authorized by this section.
CHAPTER 8. Water for Wildlife, Pacific Flyway Restoration, and Dynamic Habitat Management.
86120. The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
Wildlife Conservation Board (hereinafter in this section "the Board") to acquire water from willing sellers
and to acquire storage and delivery rights to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams, rivers,
wildlife refuges, wetland habitat areas and estuaries. High priority shall be given to meeting the water
delivery goals of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of Public Law 102-575). The Board
may arrange for acquisition, long-term lease agreements, or transfer of water rights if it determines such
actions are beneficial to wildlife conservation. The Board may sell, transfer, or store water or storage
rights purchased pursuant to this section, if the Board finds that the sale, transfer or storage will not
cause harm to fish and wildlife. In years when the Board does not require the water for fish and wildlife
purposes, the Board may temporarily sell or lease the water or delivery rights. Notwithstanding Section
13340 of the Government Code, the proceeds of any water sales pursuant to this section by the Board are
appropriated directly to the Board without regard to fiscal year. The Board shall use the proceeds of the
sale, lease or transfer of water or delivery rights to achieve conservation purposes authorized by this
35
Attachment 1
section. The acquisition of water using funds expended pursuant to this chapter shall only be used for
projects that will provide fisheries, wildlife or ecosystem benefits.
86121. The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife for the purpose of improving water supply and water qualityconditions
for fish and wildlife on private lands. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife may provide
incentives to landowners for conservation actions on private lands or use of voluntary habitat credit
exchange mechanisms. Such incentives shall be designed to be appropriately flexible and responsive to
the highly variable amounts of water required by fish and wildlife.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife shall use a portion of the funds provided by this section to develop a
programmatic authorization to expedite approval of habitat restoration and water quality improvement
projects not covered under Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code, and for the
implementation of that Chapter.
86122. The sum of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
Wildlife Conservation Board for coastal and Central Valley salmon and steelhead fisheries restoration
projects. The Wildlife Conservation Board shall give priority to projects that contribute to the recovery of
salmon and steelhead species listed pursuant to the state or federal endangered species acts, to enhance
commercial and recreational salmon fisheries and to achieve the goals of Chapter 8 of Part 1 of Division 6
(commencing with Section 6900) of the Fish and Game Code.
(a) Of the amount appropriated by this section, up to one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) shall be
spent for matching grants to local agencies for capital outlay projects to implement programs to improve
fish passage opportunities and to restore anadromous salmonid habitats, particularly juvenile rearing
habitat for spring run salmon, on rivers in the Sacramento Valley that have dams blocking the main stem
of the river.
(b) Of the amount appropriated by this section, at least one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) shall
be spent to install fish screens on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries and in the
Delta to screen anadromous fish from water intakes. High priority shall go to projects identified as high
priority in the Sacramento Valley Salmon Resiliency Strategy (as published by the California Natural
Resources Agency in June 2017, and as it may be amended).
86123. (a) The sum of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to
the Wildlife Conservation Board for projects to protect migratory birds through habitat acquisition,
easements, restoration, or other projects, and to provide water for wildlife refuges and wildlife habitat
areas to fulfill the purposes identified in the Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan, as it may
be amended, including:
(1) Projects to implement this section which may include conservation actions on private lands.
(2) Protection and restoration of riparian and wetland habitat in the Sacramento River Basin.
(3) Protection and restoration of riparian and wetland habitat in the San Joaquin and Tulare
Basins.
(b) Of the amount appropriated by this section, forty million dollars ($40,000,000) shall be deposited in
the California Waterfowl Habitat Preservation Account established pursuant to Section 3467 of the Fish
36
Attachment 1
and Game Code, for the purposes of implementing the California Waterfowl Habitat Program pursuant to
Article 7 (commencing with Section 3460) of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Fish and Game Code,
the California Landowner Incentive Program of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Permanent
Wetland Easement Program of the Wildlife Conservation Board, and the establishment or enhancement
of waterfowl nesting and other wildlife habitat cover on fallowed lands including projects authorized
pursuant to Section 1018.
(c) Of the amount appropriated by this section, ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall be deposited in the
Shared Habitat Alliance for Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Account established pursuant to Section
1572 of the Fish and Game Code and administered by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for the
purposes of providing hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to the public
through voluntary agreements with private landowners.
(d) Of the amount appropriated by this section, at least one hundred and ten million dollars
($110,000,000) shall be expended for acquisition and delivery of water to wildlife refuges, and associated
infrastructure projects, to achieve full compliance with the terms of subsection (d) of Section 3406 of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of Public Law 102-575).
CHAPTER 8.6. Sacramento Region Water Reliability and Habitat Protection.
86124. (a) Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for grants
to the Regional Water Authority and to the City of Sacramento on behalf of the Sacramento Area Water
Forum for projects that are consistent with the coequal objectives of the Water Forum Agreement.
Eligible projects include facilities, studies and other actions to improve flow and temperature conditions
and habitat in the lower American River, increase water use efficiency and conservation, or improve the
integration of surface water and groundwater supplies to provide for dry year water supply reliability.
(b) The Regional Water Authority and the Water Forum shall jointly develop and approve studies,
projects, or programs to be funded by the grants. Highest priority shall be given to improving water
temperature conditions in the lower American River, and to projects or programs that contribute to both
of the Water Forum's coequal objectives of improving water supply and protecting the environment. The
Regional Water Authority will be the grantee for water supply and water efficiency projects. The City of
Sacramento, on behalf of the Water Forum, will be the grantee for environmental protection, water
temperature studies, and habitat restoration projects.
(c) The amount allocated in aggregate to the package of projects shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of
the projects' total cost.
(d) No funds appropriated pursuant to this section may be spent to build new surface storage or raise
existing reservoirs.
CHAPTER 9. Bay Area Regional Water Reliability.
86125. Two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
department for a grant to the group of eight water agencies collectively known as the Bay Area Regional
Reliability Partnership (BARR) for new facilities that extend the benefits of surface water storage for
region-wide benefits in any of the following areas: drought supply reliability, drinking water quality, and
emergency storage, as generally described in the Final Mitigation Project List contained in the San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Reliability Drought Contingency Plan. The Contra Costa Water District may
37
Attachment 1
receive the grant on behalf of the Partnership unless the BARR Partnership has a governance structure in
place at the time of the grant award that makes its eligible to receive the funds directly. The participating
water agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Reliability Drought Contingency Plan will
determine and designate funds to one or any of the listed projects, however in no case will the amount
determined for any single project be more than 50% of the project's total cost. No funds appropriated
pursuant to this section may be spent to build new surface storage, or raise existing reservoirs.
CHAPTER 10. Improved Water Conveyance and Water Conservation.
86126. Even though the drought has eased, the effects of the drought are still being felt in many areas
throughout the state, including the San Joaquin Valley. Further exacerbating the impact of drought
conditions on water users were legal requirements restricting pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. One of the consequences of both the drought and pumping restrictions was a significant increase
in groundwater pumping as a means to replace reduced surface supplies. Such increase in groundwater
pumping lowers groundwater tables, which in turn causes wells to go dry and land to subside, which has
particularly been the case on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. The Friant-Kern Canal has lost 60%
of its capacity to convey water for both consumptive uses and groundwater recharge. Unless conveyance
capacity is restored and increased, the subsidence will continue to get worse and those local
communities, including disadvantaged communities, who largely rely on groundwater to serve their
citizens, will continue to suffer adverse effects. Significant public benefits will result from this state
investment, including avoiding increased unemployment, stabilization of groundwater, and securing a
more stable food supply for California.
86127. The sum of seven hundred fifty million dollars ($750,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to
the department for a grant to the Friant Water Authority for water conveyance capital improvements,
including restored and increased conveyance capacity to and in the Madera and Friant-Kern canals,
resulting in greater groundwater recharge, improved conveyance and utilization of floodwaters, and for
water conservation. Improvements with funds provided by this paragraph shall be completed consistent
with applicable state and federal laws and contracts.
86128. The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
Natural Resources Agency for actions that support projects defined in paragraph 11 in the settlement
agreement to restore the San Joaquin River referenced in Section 2080.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Before expenditure may occur, formal concurrence on specific projects to be undertaken is required by
the settling parties to the agreement.
86129. The diversion of water from Barker Slough to the North Bay Aqueduct adversely impacts listed fish
species, and also adversely impacts water quality served to a large urban area. There would be multiple
public benefits to relocating the diversion to the North Bay Aqueduct to the Sacramento River.
86130. The sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000} is appropriated from the fund to the department to
plan for a diversion of water from the Sacramento River to the North Bay Aqueduct to reduce the adverse
impact on listed fish species, and provide a higher quality of drinking water to those served by the
Aqueduct.
CHAPTER 11. Oroville Dam Flood Safety.
38
Attachment 1
86131. Oroville Dam provides flood control for the Sacramento Valley. The inclusion of flood control at
Oroville Dam was not an obligation of the public water agencies that receive water from Oroville Dam.
The flood control function of Oroville Dam was paid for by the federal government.
86132. The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
department for repair and reconstruction of the spillways at the Oroville Dam.
86133. The sum of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the
department. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) shall be spent for Feather River sediment management
and removal between Live Oak and Verona in coordination with the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency.
Six million dollars ($6,000,000) of these funds shall be awarded as a grant to the Sutter Butte Flood
Control Agency for floodwater attenuation projects at the Oroville Wildlife Area that provide downstream
flood control relief and ecosystem restoration.
86134. The sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to the department for a
grant to Butte County for capital outlay projects and equipment for emergency preparedness
coordination and communications consistent with the California Office of Emergency Services
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).
CHAPTER 12. General Provisions.
86151. (a) In projects involving voluntary habitat restoration, water quality improvement and multi
benefit floodplain restoration each agency administering provisions of this division shall encourage
interagency coordination and develop and utilize efficient project approval and permitting mechanisms,
including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 6.5 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code
(regardless of whether that chapter is still in effect) and programmatic permits for voluntary habitat
restoration, so as to avoid project delays and maximize the amount of money spent on project
implementation.
(b) Projects designed to primarily protect migratory birds through acquisition, easements, restoration or
other projects shall be consistent with the plans and recommendations established by the federal
Migratory Bird Joint Venture partnerships that encompass parts of California.
(c) Any agency providing funds pursuant to this division to disadvantaged communities or economically
distressed areas may provide funding to assist these communities in applying for that funding, including
technical and grant writing assistance. These funds may be provided to nonprofit organizations and local
public agencies assisting these communities.
(d) Any agency receiving funds pursuant to this division may contract for the services ofresource
conservation districts pursuant to Section 9003 of the Public Resources Code.
(e) Agencies may count in-kind contributions up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total project cost as
part of cost sharing. Agencies may count the value of the donated land in a bargain sale as part of cost
sharing.
(f) Agencies considering proposals for acquisition of lands shall also consider the ability of the proposed
final owner of the land to maintain it in a condition that will protect the values for which itis to be
acquired, and to prevent any problems that might occur on neighboring lands if the land is not properly
managed.
39
Attachment 1
(g) Trust funds established pursuant to this act shall be managed pursuant to the requirements of the
Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, Part 7 (commencing with Section 18501) of
Division 9 of the Probate Code.
(h) Projects designed to primarily protect riparian habitat through acquisition, easements, restoration or
other projects shall consider the plans and recommendations established by the California Riparian
Habitat Conservation Program pursuant to Chapter 4.1 of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code
(commencing with Section 1385).
(i) The administering agency shall provide advance payment of 50% of grant awards for those projects
that satisfy both of the following criteria:
(1) The project proponent is a disadvantaged community or eligible entity as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 86166, or the project benefits a disadvantaged community.
(2) The grant award for the project is less than one million dollars ($1,000,000).
(j) Eligible grant costs shall include indirect costs as defined in federal Office of Management and Budget
guidelines, as well as reasonable overhead costs.
(k) Agencies receiving funds designated for specific programs or grantees shall expedite the expenditure
or transfer of those funds with the least amount of process necessary to comply with existing state laws
and regulations, and the requirements of this division. It is the intent of this division that the expenditure
or transfer of funds shall be efficient, cost-effective, and expeditious, and generally should occur no later
than 90 days from demonstrated eligibility by the recipient for the funds requested.
86152. Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, quantify the amount of water generated for human and
environmental use resulting from proposed expenditures they make pursuant to this division. Agencies
shall, to the extent practicable, quantify the improvement in the quality of water generated for human
and environmental use resulting from proposed expenditures they make pursuant to this division.
86153. To the extent consistent with the other provisions of this division, statewide agencies making
grants pursuant to this division shall seek to allocate funds equitably to eligible projects throughout the
state, including northern and southern California, coastal and inland regions, and Sierra and Cascade
foothill and mountain regions.
86154. Applicants for grants pursuant to this division shall indicate whether the grant proposal is
consistent with the local Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, if one exists. However,
consistency with the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan shall not be required as a condition of
any grant, and grant proposals shall not be given lower priority if they are not consistent with Integrated
Regional Water Management Plans.
86155. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, a local public agency with a population of
less than 100,000 and a median household income of less than one hundred percent (100%) of the state
average household income shall be required to provide matching funds of no more than thirty-five
percent (35%) for a grant for a project entirely within their jurisdiction. State agencies making grants to
these local public agencies may provide funding in advance of construction of portions of the project, if
the state agency determines that requiring the local public agency to wait for payment until the project is
completed would make the project infeasible.
40
Attachment 1
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits a state agency from making a grant to a disadvantaged community or
economically distressed area that does not require cost sharing.
86156. Any repayment of loans made pursuant to this division, including interest payments, and interest
earnings shall be deposited in the Fund and shall be available solely for the purposes of the chapter or
section that authorized the loan.
86157. (a) Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding made available by this division
shall be responsible for establishing metrics of success and reporting the status of projects and all uses of
the funding on the state's bond accountability Internet Web site.
(b) Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding made available by this division
shall do the following:
(1) Evaluate the outcomes of projects funded by this division.
(2) Include in the agency's reporting pursuant to Section 86003 the evaluation described in
subdivision (a) of this section.
(3) Hold a grantee of funds accountable for completing projects funded by this division on
time and within scope.
86158. (a) For projects carried out by state agencies pursuant to this division, up to ten percent (10%) of
funds allocated for each program funded by this division may be expended for planning, monitoring and
reporting necessary for the successful design, selection, and implementation of the projects and
verification of benefits. An eligible entity receiving a grant for a project pursuant to this division may also
receive sufficient funds for planning, monitoring and reporting necessary for the successful design,
selection, and implementation of the projects. This section shall not otherwise restrict funds ordinarily
used by an agency for "preliminary plans," "working drawings," and "construction" for a capital outlay
project or grant project.
(b) Permit and plan check fees and reasonable administrative and indirect project fees and costs related
to managing construction shall be deemed part of construction costs. Project costs allocated for project
planning and design, and direct and indirect administrative costs shall be identified as separate line items
in the project budget.
86159. Notwithstanding Section 16727 of the Government Code, funding provided pursuant to Chapters 6
and 8 may be used for grants and loans to nonprofit organizations to repay financing described in Section
22064 of the Financial Code related to projects that are consistent with the purposes of those chapters.
86160. Not more than a total offive percent (5%) of the funds allocated to any state agency under this
division may be used to pay for its costs of administering programs and projects specified in this division.
86161. (a) Water quality monitoring data shall be collected and reported to the State board in a manner
that is compatible and consistent with surface water monitoring data systems or groundwater monitoring
data systems administered by the State board, consistent with Part 4.9 of Division 6. Watershed
monitoring data shall be collected and reported to the Department of Conservation in a manner that is
compatible and consistent with the statewide watershed program administered by the Department of
Conservation.
41
Attachment 1
(bl State agencies making grants or loans pursuant to this division may include specific expenditures for
compliance with local, state and federal permitting and other requirements.
(c) Up to one percent (1%l of funds allocated for each program funded by this division may be expended
for research into methods to improve water supply, water related habitat, and water quality relevant to
that program, in addition to any other amounts provided for in this division.
86162. (al Prior to disbursing grants or loans pursuant to this division, each state agency that receives an
appropriation from the funding made available by this division to administer a grant or loan program
under this division shall develop and adopt project solicitation and evaluation guidelines. The guidelines
shall include monitoring and reporting requirements and may include a limitation on the dollar amount of
each grantor loan to be awarded. The guidelines shall not include a prohibition on the recovery of
reasonable overhead or indirect costs by local public agencies, Indian tribes or nonprofit organizations.
If the state agency has previously developed and adopted project solicitation and evaluation guidelines
that comply with the requirements of this division, it may use those guidelines. Overhead or indirect costs
incurred by a local public agency, Indian tribe or nonprofit organization are eligible for reimbursement
and shall not weigh negatively in the evaluation of funding proposals pursuant to this division.
(bl Prior to disbursing grants or loans, the state agency shall conduct three regional public meetings to
consider public comments prior to finalizing the guidelines. The state agency shall publish the draft
solicitation and evaluation guidelines on its website at least 30 days before the public meetings. One
meeting shall be conducted at a location in northern California, one meeting shall be conducted at a
location in the Central Valley of California, and one meeting shall be conducted at a location in southern
California. Agencies without jurisdiction in one or more of these three regions may omit the meetings in
the region or regions within which they do not have jurisdiction. Upon adoption, the state agency shall
transmit copies of the guidelines to the fiscal committees and the appropriate policy committees of the
Legislature.
(c) At least 45 days prior to soliciting projects pursuant to this division, a state agency administering funds
pursuant to this division shall post an electronic form of the guidelines for grant applicants on its website.
Project solicitation and evaluation guidelines shall only include criteria based on the applicable
requirements of this division.
(d) Nothing in this division restricts agencies from enforcing and complying with existing laws.
86163. Each project funded from this division shall comply with the following requirements:
(al The investment of public funds pursuant to this division will result in public benefits that address the
most critical statewide needs and priorities for public funding, as determined by the agency distributing
the funds.
(bl In the appropriation and expenditure of funding authorized by this division, priority will be given to
projects that leverage private, federal, or local funding or produce the greatest public benefit. All state
agencies receiving funds pursuant to this division shall seek to leverage the funds to the greatest extent
possible, but agencies shall take into account the limited ability to cost share by small public agencies,
and by agencies seeking to benefit disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas.
(c) A funded project shall advance the purposes of the chapter from which the project received funding.
42
Attachment 1
(d) In making decisions regarding water resources pursuant to this division, state and local agencies will
use the best available science to inform those decisions.
(e) To the extent practicable, a project supported by funds made available by this division will include
signage informing the public that the project received funds from the Water Supply and Water Quality Act
of 2018.
(f) To the extent feasible, projects funded with proceeds from this division shall promote state planning
priorities consistent with the provisions of Section 65041.1 of the Government Code and sustainable
communities strategies consistent with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code.
(g) To the extent feasible, watershed objectives for private lands included in this division should be
achieved through use of conservation easements and voluntary landowner participation, including, but
not limited to, the use of perpetual conservation easements pursuant to Division 10.2 (commencing with
Section 10200) and Division 10.4 (commencing with Section 10330) of the Public Resources Code,
voluntary habitat credit exchange mechanisms, and conservation actions on private lands.
86164. Funds provided by this division shall not be expended to pay the costs of the design, construction,
operation, mitigation, or maintenance of Delta water conveyance facilities. Those costs shall be the
responsibility of the water agencies that benefit from the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or
maintenance of those facilities.
86165. (a) This division does not diminish, impair, or otherwise affect in any manner whatsoever any area
of origin, watershed of origin, county of origin, or any other water rights protections, including, but not
limited to, rights to water appropriated prior to December 19, 1914, provided under the law. This division
does not limit or affect the application of Article 1.7 (commencing with Section 1215) of Chapter 1 of Part
2 of Division 2, Sections 10505, 10505.5, 11128, 11460, 11461, 11462, and 11463, and Sections 12200 to
12220, inclusive.
(b) For the purposes of this division, an area that utilizes water that has been diverted and conveyed from
the Sacramento River hydrologic region, for use outside the Sacramento River hydrologic region or the
Delta, shall not be deemed to be immediately adjacent thereto or capable of being conveniently supplied
with water therefrom by virtue or on account of the diversion and conveyance of that water through
facilities that may be constructed for that purpose after January 1,2018.
(c) Nothing in this division supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the applicability of Chapter 10
(commencing with Section 1700) of Part 2 of Division 2, including petitions related to any new
conveyance constructed or operated in accordance with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 85320)of
Part 4 of Division 35.
(d) Unless otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this division supersedes, reduces, or otherwise affects
existing legal protections, both procedural and substantive, relating to the State board's regulation of
diversion and use of water, including, but not limited to, water right priorities, the protection provided to
municipal interests by Sections 106 and 106.5, and changes in water rights. Nothing in this division
expands or otherwise alters the State board's existing authority to regulate the diversion and use of water
or the courts' existing concurrent jurisdiction over California water rights.
(e) Nothing in this division shall be construed to affect the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Chapter
43
Attachment 1
1.4 (commencing with Section 5093.50) of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code) or the federal Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. Section 1271 et seq.) and funds authorized pursuant to this division shall
not be available for any project that could have an adverse effect on the values upon which a wild and
scenic river or any other river is afforded protections pursuant to the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
or the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
(f) Nothing in this division supersedes, limits, or otherwise modifies the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Reform Act of 2009 (Division 35 (commencing with Section 85000)) or any other applicable law, including,
but not limited to, Division 22.3 (commencing with Section 32300) of the Public Resources Code.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any agency or nonprofit organization acquiring land
pursuant to this division may make use of the Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000
(Division 28 (commencing with Section 37000) of the Public Resources Code). Funds appropriate pursuant
to this division that are not designated for competitive grant programs may also be used for the purposes
of reimbursing the General Fund pursuant to the Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act of 2000.
(h) Funds provided pursuant to this division, and any appropriation or transfer of those funds, shall not be
deemed to be a transfer of funds for the purposes of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2780) of
Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code.
86166. (a) Applicants eligible to receive grants, loans and contracts pursuant to this division are public
agencies, state universities (including university-managed national laboratories), resource conservation
districts, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, mutual water companies, public water systems as
defined in subdivision (h) of Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code, urban water suppliers as
defined in Section 10617 of the Water Code, federally recognized Indian tribes, federal agencies owning
or managing land in California, and state Indian tribes listed on the Native American Heritage
Commission's California Tribal Consultation List. State agencies granting funds pursuant to this division
shall give priority to eligible applicants with experience in planning, designing, and developing the types
of projects receiving funding from the agencies, or which have access to consulting help in these areas.
(b)(l) To be eligible for funding under this division, a project proposed by a public utility that is regulated
by the Public Utilities Commission, or a mutual water company, shall have a clear and definite public
purpose and the project shall benefit the customers of the water system and not the investors.
(2) To be eligible for funding under this division, an urban water supplier shall have adopted and
submitted an urban water management plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning
Act, Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) of Division 6.
(3) To be eligible for funding under this division, an agricultural water supplier shall have adopted
and submitted an agricultural water management plan in accordance with the Agricultural Water
Management Planning Act, Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 10800) of Division 6.
(4) In accordance with Section 10608.56, an agricultural water supplier or an urban water supplier
is ineligible for grant funding under this division unless it complies with the requirements of Part 2.55
(commencing with Section 10608) of Division 6.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, agencies receiving funds pursuant to this
division may reduce or eliminate cost sharing requirements when making grants of one million dollars
($1,000,000) or less to nonprofit organizations with budgets less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) if
44
Attachment 1
the agency determines that such grants would be the most effective way to achieve the purposes of this
division.
86167. Where feasible, projects funded pursuant to this division may use the services of the California
Conservation Corps or certified community conservation corps, as defined in Section 14507.5 of the
Public Resources Code. Public agencies receiving funding under this division shall give additional priority to
projects that involve the services of the California Conservation Corps or a certified community
conservation corps, or other nonprofit entities that provide job training and education opportunities for
veterans, foster care recipients, farmworkers or local youth in conservation or restoration projects.
86168. Each state agency that receives an appropriation of funding made available by this division shall
be responsible for establishing and reporting on the state's bond accountability website each of the
following: metrics of success, metrics for benefitting disadvantaged communities and economically
distressed areas, progress in meeting those metrics, status of projects funded under this division, and all
uses of the funding the state agency receives under this division. The Secretary of the Natural Resources
Agency shall annually report to the Legislature expenditures made pursuant to this division, and the
benefits derived from those expenditures.
86169. The proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this division (excluding the proceeds of any
refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 86192) shall be deposited in the Water Supply
Reliability and Drought Protection Fund of 2018, which is hereby created in the State Treasury.
86169.1 Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, moneys in the Water Supply Reliability
and Drought Protection Fund of 2018 are continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal year for the
purposes of this division in the manner set forth in this division. Funds authorized by, and made available
pursuant to this division shall be available and expended only as provided in this division, and shall not be
subject to appropriation or transfer by the Legislature or the Governor for any other purpose.
86170. Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government
Code does not apply to the development or implementation of programs or projects authorized or funded
under this division.
86171. (a) Funds provided by this division shall not be used to support or pay for the costs of
environmental mitigation, except for the costs of environmental mitigation for projects funded pursuant
to this division.
(b) Funds provided by this division shall be used for environmental enhancements or other public
benefits.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the costs of mitigation of the environmental
impacts directly related and limited to expenditures under this division may be paid for by funds provided
by this division.
(d) Funds available pursuant to this division shall not be expended to pay the costs of the design,
construction, operation, mitigation, or maintenance of Delta conveyance facilities.
86172. Every entity implementing this division shall give highest priority to funding projects that combine
relatively high cost-effectiveness, durability, and enhanced environmentalquality.
45
Attachment 1
86174. Acquisitions pursuant to Chapter 6 of this division shall be from willing sellers only.
86177. The requirement that a project be cost-effective does not require a full benefit/cost analysis.
86178. Agencies implementing this division shall give special consideration to projects that employ new
or innovative technology or practices, including decision support tools that support the integration of
multiple strategies and jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, water supply, wildfire reduction,
habitat improvement, invasive weed control, flood control, land use, and sanitation.
86179. Any contract (including a contract to provide a grant) between a public agency, Indian tribe or
nonprofit organization and the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Wildlife Conservation Board for
work funded pursuant to this division, or pursuant to Division 26.7 shall be considered a contract subject
to the requirements of Section 1501.5 of the Fish and Game Code, and therefor shall not be considered a
public work or a public improvement, and is not subject to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of
Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.
86179.1. Priority shall be given to the expenditure of funds on activities that affect the Delta and the
species that rely on it that are generally consistent with the report "A Delta Renewed: A Guide to Science
Based Ecological Restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta" prepared in 2016 by the San Francisco
Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center.
86179.2. In the awarding of grants to be made by any agency pursuant to this act or Division 26.7 after
the effective date of this act, overhead or indirect costs incurred by a local public agency, Indian tribe or
nonprofit organization are eligible for reimbursement and shall not weigh negatively in the evaluation of
funding proposals. Eligible grant costs shall include indirect costs as defined in federal Office of
Management and Budget guidelines, as well as reasonable overhead costs. For nonprofit organizations,
grants shall provide for reimbursement of indirect costs by applying the organization's federally
negotiated indirect cost rate, if one exists. If a negotiated rate does not exist, the organization may elect
to use the default indirect cost rate of 10 percent (10%) of its modified total direct costs as defined by the
Office of Management and Budget.
86179.3. No grants made pursuant to this division shall result in an unmitigated increase in a
community's exposure to flood hazards or in a net reduction in flood conveyance capacity of any publicly
owned flood protection facility.
86179.4. In awarding grants for land acquisition, the Wildlife Conservation Board shall give preference to
organizations that voluntarily pay property taxes.
CHAPTER 13. Fiscal Provisions.
86180. (a) Bonds in the total amount of eight billion eight hundred seventy-seven million dollars
($8,877,000,000), or so much thereof as is necessary, not including the amount of any refunding bonds
issued in accordance with Section 86192 may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be used for carrying
out the purposes expressed in this division and to reimburse the General Obligation Bond Expense
Revolving Fund pursuant to Section 16724.5 of the Government Code. The bonds, when sold, shall be and
constitute a valid and binding obligation of the State of California, and the full faith and credit of the State
of California is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of, and interest on, the bonds
as the principal and interest become due and payable.
45
Attachment 1
(b) The Treasurer shall from time to time sell the bonds authorized by the committee pursuant to Section
86182. Bonds shall be sold upon the terms and conditions specified in one or more resolutions to be
adopted by the committee pursuant to Section 16731 of the Government Code.
86181. The bonds authorized by this division shall be prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and
redeemed as provided in the State General Obligation Bond Law, and all of the provisions of that law, as
that law may be amended, apply to the bonds and to this division and are hereby incorporated in this
division as though set forth in full in this division, except subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 16727 of the
Government Code.
86182. (a) Solely for the purpose of authorizing the issuance and sale pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law of the bonds authorized by this division, the Water Supply Reliability and Drought
Protection Finance Committee is hereby created. For purposes of this division, the Water Supply
Reliability and Drought Protection Finance Committee is the "committee" as that term is used in the State
General Obligation Bond Law.
(b) The finance committee consists of the Director of Finance, the Treasurer, and the Controller.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any member may designate a representative to act as that
member in his or her place for all purposes, as though the member were personally present.
(c) The Treasurer shall serve as chairperson of the finance committee.
(d) A majority of the finance committee may act for the finance committee.
86183. The finance committee shall determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds
authorized by this division in order to carry out the actions specified in this division and, if so, the amount
of bonds to be issued and sold. Successive issues of bonds may be authorized and sold to carry out those
actions progressively, and it is not necessary that all of the bonds authorized to be issued be sold at any
one time.
86184. For purposes of the State General Obligation Bond Law, "board," as defined in Section 16722 of
the Government Code, means the Secretary of the Natural ResourcesAgency.
86185. There shall be collected each year and in the same manner and at the same time as other state
revenue is collected, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount required to
pay the principal of, and interest on, the bonds each year. It is the duty of all officers charged by law with
any duty in regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform each and every act that is necessary
to collect that additional sum.
86186. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of the Government Code, there is hereby appropriated from the
General Fund in the State Treasury, for the purposes of this division, an amount that will equal the total
of the following:
(a) The sum annually necessary to pay the principal of, and interest on, bonds issued and sold pursuant to
this division, as the principal and interest become due and payable.
(b) The sum that is necessary to carry out the provisions of Section 86189, appropriated without regard to
fiscal years.
47
Attachment 1
86187. The board may request the Pooled Money Investment Board to make a loan from the Pooled
Money Investment Account in accordance with Section 16312 of the Government Code for the purpose of
carrying out this division less any amount withdrawn pursuant to Section 86189. The amount of the
request shall not exceed the amount of the unsold bonds that the committee has, by resolution,
authorized to be sold (excluding any refunding bond authorized pursuant to Section 86192) for the
purpose of carrying out this division. The board shall execute those documents required by the Pooled
Money Investment Board to obtain and repay the loan. Any amounts loaned shall be deposited in the
Fund to be allocated in accordance with this division.
86188. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, or of the State General Obligation Bond Law,
if the Treasurer sells bonds that include a bond counsel opinion to the effect that the interest on the
bonds is excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes under designated conditions or is otherwise
entitled to any federal tax advantage, the Treasurer may maintain separate accounts for the bond
proceeds invested and for the investment earnings on those proceeds, and may use or direct the use of
those proceeds or earnings to pay any rebate, penalty, or other payment required under federal law or
take any other action with respect to the investment and use of those bond proceeds, as may be required
or desirable under federal law in order to maintain the tax-exempt status of those bonds and to obtain
any other advantage under federal law on behalf of the funds of this state.
86189. For the purposes of carrying out this division, the Director of Finance may authorize the
withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or amounts not to exceed the amount of the unsold
bonds that have been authorized by the committee to be sold (excluding any refunding bond authorized
pursuant to Section 86192) for the purpose of carrying out this division less any amount borrowed
pursuant to Section 86187. Any amounts withdrawn shall be deposited in the Fund. Any moneys made
available under this section shall be returned to the General Fund, with interest at the rate earned by the
moneys in the Pooled Money Investment Account, from proceeds received from the sale of bonds for the
purpose of carrying out this division.
86190. All moneys deposited in the Fund that are derived from premium and accrued interest on bonds
sold pursuant to this division shall be reserved in the Fund and shall be available for transfer to the
General Fund as a credit to expenditures for bond interest, except that amounts derived from premium
may be reserved and used to pay the cost of bond issuance prior to any transfer to the General Fund.
86191. Pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law, the cost of bond issuance shall be paid out of
the bond proceeds, including premiums, if any. To the extent the cost of bond issuance is not paid from
premiums received from the sale of bonds, these costs shall be shared proportionately by each program
funded through this division by the applicable bond sale.
86192. The bonds issued and sold pursuant to this division may be refunded in accordance with Article 6
(commencing with Section 16780) of Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code,
which is a part of the State General Obligation Bond Law. Approval by the voters of the state for the
issuance of the bonds under this division shall include approval of the issuance of any bonds issued to
refund any bonds originally issued under this division or any previously issued refunding bonds. Any bond
refunded with the proceeds of refunding bonds as authorized by this section may be legally defeased to
the extent permitted by law in the manner and to the extent set forth in the resolution, as amended from
time to time, authorizing such refunded bonds.
86193. The proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this division are not "proceeds of taxes" as
that term is used in Article XIII B of the California Constitution, and the disbursement of these proceeds is
48
Attachment 1
not subject to the limitations imposed by that article.
SECTION 2. Section 1 of this act shall take effect immediately upon approval by the voters of the Water
Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018, as set forth in that section at the November 6, 2018, statewide
general election. In order to fund a water supply reliability and drought protection program at the
earliest possible date, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
SECTION 3. Conflicting Provisions.
(a) The provisions and intent of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 shall be given
precedence over any state law, statute, regulation or policy that conflicts with this section, and the policy
and intent of this act shall prevail over any such contrary law, statute, regulation or policy.
(b) If this division is approved by the voters, but superseded by any other conflicting ballot division
approved by more voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot division is later held invalid, it is
the intent of the voters that this act shall be given the full force of law.
(c) If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter·addressed by this act receives the higher
affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts of this act shall becomeoperative.
SECTION 4. If any provision of this act or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications of this act that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or
applications, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SECTION 5.
Section 2799.7 is added to the Fish and Game Code to read:
2799.7. Subdivision (f) of Section 2787 does not apply to Section 2795. Notwithstanding other provisions
of this article and Section 13340 of the Government Code, as of July 2, 2020 funds transferred pursuant to
Section 2795 shall be continuously appropriated to the Wildlife Conservation Board for purposes of
Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 86120) of Division 38 of the WaterCode.
SECTION 6.
Part 12 is added to Division 6 of the Water Code to read:
Section 11860. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including Section 13340 of the
Government Code and Sections 39710 through 39723 of the Health and Safety Code), the fees paid, the
cost of compliance instruments acquired, and the increased cost of power purchased by the Department
of Water Resources, hereafter "Department," as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the
Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the Department from the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code, and the fees paid, the cost of
compliance instruments acquired and the increased cost of power purchased by the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (Statutes 1969, chapter 209, as amended), hereafter "District," as a result
of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to
the District from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government
Code.
49
Attachment 1
(b) The funds appropriated to the Department pursuant to this section shall be expended within the State
Water Resources Development System, and on consumer water conservation programs within the
jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Development System.
(c) The funds appropriated to the District pursuant to this section shall be expended within the water
storage, treatment, conveyance, and distribution system of the District and on consumer water
conservation programs within the jurisdiction of the District.
(d) Of the consumer water conservation programs authorized by subdivisions (b) and (c), highest priority
shall be given to those benefitting disadvantaged communities (as defined subdivision (a) of Section
79505.5, as it may be amended) and economically distressed areas (as defined in subdivision (k) of
Section 79702, as it may be amended).
(e) All expenditures pursuant to this section shall meet the requirements of Chapter 4.1 of Part 2 of
Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. The Department and District will provide an annual report to
the Air Resources Board on the prior-year's project implementation along with a plan for current year
implementation.
(f) No funds provided by this part shall be expended to pay the costs of the design, construction,
operation, mitigation, or maintenance of new Delta water conveyance facilities. No funds provided by this
section shall be expended to pay the costs of construction of new surface water storage facilities or to
expand the capacity of the California Aqueduct or the Colorado River Aqueduct. Those costs shall be the
responsibility of the water agencies that benefit from the design, construction, operation, mitigation, or
maintenance of those facilities.
(g) All reasonable and feasible measures shall be taken to reduce, avoid, or mitigate significant negative
environmental impacts from projects undertaken pursuant to this section.
Section 11861. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including Section 13340 of the
Government Code and Sections 39710 through 39723 of the Health and Safety Code), the fees paid, the
cost of compliance instruments acquired, and the increased cost of power purchased by the Contra Costa
Water District, hereafter "District," as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the Health and
Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the District from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as
defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code, and the fees paid, the cost of compliance
instruments acquired and the increased cost of power purchased by the San Luis and Delta Mendota
Water Authority hereafter "San Luis Authority," as a result of the implementation of Division 25.5 of the
Health and Safety Code are continuously appropriated to the San Luis Authority from the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund, as defined in Section 16428.8 of the Government Code.
(b) (1) The funds appropriated to the Contra Costa Water District pursuant to this section shall be
expended within the boundaries of the District, and on consumer water conservation programs within the
District.
(2) The funds appropriated to the San Luis Authority pursuant to this section shall be expended
within the water storage, treatment, conveyance, and distribution system of the San Luis Authority and
on water conservation, water quality improvement, water treatment, water supply and similar water
programs within the jurisdiction of the Authority.
(c) Of the funds appropriated pursuant to subdivision (b), highest priority shall be given to those projects
50
Attachment 1
benefitting disadvantaged communities (as defined subdivision (a) of Section 79505.5, as it may be
amended) and economically distressed areas (as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 79702, as it may be
amended).
(d) All expenditures pursuant to this section shall meet the requirements of Chapter 4.1 of Part 2 of
Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. The District and San Luis Authority will provide an annual
report to the Air Resources Board on the prior-year's project implementation along with a plan for
current year implementation.
(e) All reasonable and feasible measures shall be taken to reduce, avoid, or mitigate significant negative
environmental impacts from projects undertaken pursuant to this section.
51
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Short Summary of major programs in the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018
• Watershed Improvement $2355 million to a wide variety of state agencies. Pays for better
management of watersheds throughout the state to improve water quality and water supply.
o Watershed restoration after fires in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere receives $100
million. Funds state conservancies and state parks to better manage watersheds.
o $100 million for the Delta Conservancy, which helps fund the governor’s Eco-Restore
program.
o $150 million for the Los Angeles River
o $200 million for ecological restoration and dust control at the Salton Sea.
o $80 million for the removal of Matilija Dam, a silted in dam in Ventura County.
• Safe drinking water and wastewater treatment for disadvantaged communities. $750
million. Provides safe drinking water and wastewater treatment for disadvantaged communities,
especially in the Central Valley.
• Improvement to Friant Kern Canal and other Friant water interconnections. $750 million.
Restores lost capacity to Friant Kern Canal, pays for groundwater recharge programs, water
conservation and possibly new water conveyance in the Friant area.
• Groundwater. $675 million. Implements the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act,
stabilizing groundwater levels in overdraft groundwater basins.
• Stormwater management $600 million for a variety of state agencies. Capture and treatment
of stormwater flows improved river and ocean water quality and increasing water supplies
• Water and specific habitat improvements for fisheries. $500 million. Purchase of water for
fish and waterfowl.
• Fisheries restoration. $400 million. Restoring fish habitat. Supplements necessary stream
flows.
• Wastewater recycling. $400 million. Recycles wastewater mainly for landscaping and
industrial uses
• Groundwater desalination. $400 million. Converts salty groundwater to usable water supply.
• Urban water conservation. $300 million. Leak detection, toilet replacement, landscape
conversion.
• Waterfowl habitat. $280 million. Helps meet waterfowl obligations under the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, and other waterfowl habitat improvement programs.
• Bay Area Regional Reliability. $250 million. Improves interconnections between Bay Area
water agencies, making it easier to survive droughts.
• San Francisco Bay Wetlands and flood improvements. $200 million. Improves wetlands in
San Francisco Bay to provide flood protection and mitigate sea level rise.
• Oroville Dam Spillway Repair. $200 million. Makes Oroville Dam more flood safe. The
initiative also allows state and federal water contractors to recover the funds they pay in climate
change charges due to implementation of AB 32, and use those funds in their own systems for
water and energy conservation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Attachment 2
• Land Management for Water Yield. $100 million. Removal of invasive weeds, which use
excessive amounts of surface and groundwater such as tamarisk, yellow starthistle, and Arundo.
Estimates of water savings are in excess of one million acre feet per year.
• Central valley flood management, including flood plain restoration. $100 million. Makes
farms and communities more flood safe, and makes flood plains for habitat friendly. Additional
$50 million for retrofit of a reservoir (probably Bullard’s Bar) for better flood management.
• Completion of fish screens in Central Valley. $100 million. Will prevent baby fish from being
diverted into irrigation systems.
• San Joaquin River fisheries Restoration. $100 million. Restoration of Spring Run Chinook
Salmon downstream of Friant dam.
• Data management. $60 million. Better data collection and management: streamflow, etc.
• Agricultural water conservation. $50 million. Improves inefficient irrigation systems,
increasing river flows
Attachment 3
Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018:
Funding Sources Relevant to MROSD
Each of the provisions below may afford the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
additional grant opportunities for public access, natural resource restoration, land acquisition and
protection, among others. However, this will be subject to the guidelines that are developed by
each respective agency.
• 86042. The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) is appropriated from the
Fund to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority to provide matching grants for
flood management, wetlands restoration, and other projects consistent with Article 2
(commencing with Section 66704.5) of Chapter 5 of Title 7.25 of the Government Code.
For purposes of this section, matching funds may include funds provided by local
governments, regional governments, the federal government, private parties, or other
funds raised by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. No grant shall exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the cost of the project.
• 86080 (c) One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to the San Francisco Bay Area
Conservancy Program of the Coastal Conservancy for the protection and restoration of
watersheds of the San Francisco Bay Area, pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the
Public Resources Code (commencing with Section 31160).
• 86080 (f) One hundred thirty-five million dollars ($135,000,000) to the State Coastal
Conservancy for the protection and restoration of coastal watersheds pursuant to Division
21 (commencing with Section 20 31000) of the Public Resources Code
• 86080 (j) Three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) to the Wildlife Conservation
Board for land acquisitions, protection and restoration of oak woodlands, and community
conservation plans
• 86080 (m) Sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) to the Department of Conservation for
watershed restoration and conservation projects on agricultural lands, rangelands,
managed wetlands, and forested lands.
• 86080 (t) Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) to the Department of Parks and
Recreation for projects that provide access to rivers for non-motorized recreation, and for
grants to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for this purpose.
First priority shall be given to projects that include matching funds, and to projects that
serve disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas, whether or not they
include cost sharing.
• 86080 (x)(2) The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is appropriated from the
Fund to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for the purpose of awarding
grants in areas outside the jurisdiction of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy to eligible
entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 for the purpose of reducing the
Attachment 3
threat of wildfires which would negatively impact watershed health. Projects may be for
the purpose of hazardous fuel reduction, post-fire watershed rehabilitation and
restoration, forest management practices that promote forest resilience to severe wildfire,
climate change, and other disturbances, and development of local plans to reduce the risk
of wildfires that could adversely affect watershed health. Preference shall be given to
grants, which include matching funds, but this preference may be reduced or eliminated
for grants, which benefit disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas.
• 86090. The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) is appropriated from the
Fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the purpose of awarding competitive grants
to eligible entities as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 86166 to improve the quality
of public and private rangelands, wildlands, meadows, wetlands, riparian areas and
aquatic areas for the purpose of increasing groundwater recharge and water supply from
those land
• 86105. The sum of forty million dollars ($40,000,000) is appropriated from the Fund to
the California Conservation Corps for projects to protect, restore, and improve the health
of watershed lands, including forest lands, meadows, wetlands, chaparral, riparian habitat
and other watershed lands. Projects may include, but are not limited to, regional and
community fuel hazard reduction projects on public lands, invasive species removal, and
stream, river, and riparian restoration projects. The California Conservation Corps shall
allocate at least fifty percent (50%) of the funds pursuant to this section for grants to
certified local conservation corps. Projects shall improve water quality, water supply
reliability, or riparian or watershed health. Projects shall be undertaken in coordination
with a nonprofit organization or public agency.
Attachment 4 – Water Bond Endorsements as of June 20, 2018*
• https://waterbond.org/official-endorsement-list-for-the-water-supply-and-water-quality-act-of-2018/
Conservation Groups
• American River Conservancy
• American River Parkway Foundation
• American Woodland Conservancy
• Amigos de Bolsa Chica
• Anza-Borrego Desert Natural History
Association
• Anza Borrego Foundation
• Arroyo Seco Foundation
• Arroyos and Foothills Conservancy
• Bear-Yuba Land Trust
• California Invasive Plant Council
• California Native Plant Society
• California Urban Streams Partnership
• California Waterfowl Association
• California Watershed Network
• California Wildlife Foundation/California
Oaks Fund
• Carmel River Watershed Conservancy
• Carrizo Plain Conservancy
• Catalina Islands Conservancy
• CLEAN South Bay
• Climate Resolve
• Conservation Corps of Long Beach
• Delta Waterfowl
• Dry Creek Conservancy
• Ducks Unlimited
• Eastern Sierra Land Trust
• Endangered Habitats League
• Freshwater Trust
• Friends of Orinda Creeks
• Friends of San Leandro Creek
• Friends of the Napa River
• Friends of the Santa Clara River
• Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon
• Glendora Community Conservancy
• Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition
• Landpaths
• Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
County
• Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Committee
• Marin Agricultural Land Trust
• Mattole Salmon Group
• National Wildlife Federation
• National Wild Turkey Foundation
• Natural Heritage Institute
• Nor-Cal Guides & Sportsmens Association
• Northcoast Regional Land Trust
• Noyo Headlands Urban Design Group, Fort
Bragg
• Pheasants Forever
• Planning and Conservation League
• Putah Creek Council
• Quail Forever
• Sacramento River Watershed Program
• Sacramento Urban Creeks Council
• Salmonid Restoration Federation
• San Gabriel Mountains Regional
Conservancy
• Sanctuary Forest
• Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council
• Santa Clara River Conservancy
• Save our Shores
• Save the Bay (formerly Save San Francisco
Bay Association)
• Save the Waves
• Sequoia Riverlands Trust
• Sierra Foothill Conservancy
• Sierra Fund
• Sierra Nevada Alliance
• Sonoma Ecology Center
• Sustainable Conservation
• Sutter-Buttes Regional Land Trust
• Transition Habitat Conservancy
• Truckee Donner Land Trust
• Tubb Canyon Desert Conservancy
• Tuolumne River Preservation Trust
• Valley Foothill Watershed Collaborative
• Wildcat San Pablo Creeks Watershed
Council
• Wildcoast
• Worth a Dam
Agricultural organizations
• Agricultural Council of California
• California Agricultural Aircraft Association
• California Association of Pest Control
Advisers
• California Citrus Mutual
2
• California Cotton Ginners and Growers
Association
• California Dairies, Inc.
• California Farm Bureau Federation
• California Fresh Fruit Association
• American Pistachio Growers
• California Rice Commission
• California Rice Industry Association
• Fresno County Farm Bureau
• Tulare County Farm Bureau
• Western Growers
Resource Conservation Districts
• California Association of Resource
Conservation Districts
• Fall River Resource Conservation District
• Honey Lake Resource Conservation District
• Marin Resources Conservation District
• Mariposa County Resource Conservation
District
• Northwest Kern Resource Conservation
District
• Pit Resource Conservation District
• San Mateo County Resource Conservation
District
• Sierra Resource Conservation District
• Suisun Resource Conservation District
Environmental Justice Organizations
• California Greenworks
• Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods
• Community Water Center
• Grassroots Ecology
• Leadership Counsel for Justice and
Accountability
• Urban Tilth
• The Watershed Project
Social Justice Organizations
• Community Housing Improvement Systems and
Planning Association, Inc. (CHISPA)
Water agencies and organizations
• Alameda County Water District
• Arvin Edison Water Storage District
• Association of California Water Agencies
• Bear Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency
• Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District
• Big Bear City Community Services District
• Big Bear Municipal Water District
• Borrego Water District
• Calaveras County Water District
• CalDesal
• Calleguas Municipal Water District
• Casitas Municipal Water District
• City of Big Bear Lake, Department of Power
and Water
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Colusa Groundwater Authority
• Contra Costa Water District
• Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District
• Fresno Irrigation District
• Friant Water Authority
• Glenn Groundwater Authority
• Imperial Irrigation District
• Kern-Tulare Water District
• Kings Basin Water Authority Integrated
Regional Water Management Group.
• Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
• Lindmore Irrigation District
• Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District
• Madera Irrigation District
• Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District
• Mountain Counties Water Resources
Association
• Northern California Water Association
• Orange Cove Irrigation District
• Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
• Petaluma Valley Groundwater Sustainability
Agency
• Porterville Irrigation District
• Salton Sea Authority
• San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors
Water Authority
• Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater
Sustainability Agency
• Saucelito Irrigation District
• Scotts Valley Water District
3
• Shandon-San Juan Water District
• Solano County Water Agency
• Solano Irrigation District
• Sonoma County Water Agency
• Sonoma Valley Groundwater Sustainability
Agency
• Soquel Creek Water District
• South Valley Water Association
• Southern California Water Coalition
• Tulare Irrigation District
• Tuolumne Utilities District
• Upper Ventura River Groundwater
Sustainability Agency
• Valley of the Moon Water District
• Wheeler Ridge/Maricopa Water Storage
District
• Yolo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
• Yuba County Water Agency
Labor
• Contra Costa Building and Construction
Trades Council
Individuals
• Linda Adams, former Director, California
Department of Water Resources
• Phil Angelides, former State Treasurer
• Edwin Camp
• Michael Frantz, Director, Turlock Irrigation
District
• Brigadier General Gerald Galloway, United
States Army (Retired)
• Ron Gastelum, Former CEO and GM of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
• Brian Jordan, Vice President, Tetra Tech
• Fred Keeley, former Speaker Pro Tem,
California State Assembly
• Richard Morrison, former Senior Vice
President and head of Environmental
Policies and Programs for Bank of
America. ( retired.)
• Peter B Moyle, Distinguished Professor
Emeritus, University of California, Davis
• Mel Nutter, former chair, California Coastal
Commission
• Ann L. Riley, Ph.D.
• Dyan Whyte, water quality scientist ( Past
Assistant Executive Officer of the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board)
Local Government
• California Special Districts Association
Cities
• Dinuba
• Farmersville
• Livingston
• Orange Cove
• Parlier
• Truckee
Counties
• Regional Council of Rural Counties
• Contra Costa
• Fresno
• Imperial
• Plumas
• Tulare
Local elected officials
• Vinnie Bacon, Vice Mayor, City of Fremont
• Bruce Gibson, San Luis Obispo County
Supervisor, District 2
• John Gioia, Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors
• Susan Gorin, Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors
• Dave Pine, President, San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors
• Greg Scharff, Council Member, City of Palo
Alto
• Kate Sears, Marin County Board of
Supervisors
Business
• American Council of Engineering
Companies- California
• Bay Area Council
• Bay Planning Coalition
• Biz Fed Los Angeles County
• California Building Industry Association
4
• California Business Properties Association
• California Chamber of Commerce
• DM Camp & Sons
• ESA (Environmental Science Associates)
• Fresno Chamber of Commerce
• Kern Machinery Inc
• Madera Chamber of Commerce
• Sierra Business Council
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group
• Tahoe Mountain Sports
• Valley Industry and Commerce Association
• Visalia Chamber of Commerce
• Western Power Products, Inc.
• Northern California Water Association
Water Bond Support (November 2017),
and members:
Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
B&B Ranch
Brophy Water District
Browns Valley Irrigation District
City of Colusa
City of Redding
Crain Orchards, Inc.
Danna & Danna Inc.
Edwards Ranch
Feather Water District
Fedora Farms
G&K Farms, LLC.
Garden Highway Mutual Water Co.
Garner, Garner & Stoy
Glenn Colusa Irrigation District
Hallwood Irrigation District
Henle Family Limited Partnership
Hershey Land Row Crop, LLC.
J.A. Driver
Joint Water Districts Board
Biggs-West Gridley Water District
Butte Water District
Richvale Irrigation District
Sutter Extension Water District
Knaggs Ranch
Larry Pires Farms
Lindauer River Ranch, Inc.
Llano Seco Rancho
M&T Ranch
Maxwell Irrigation District
Meridian Farms Water Co.
Natomas Mutual Water Co.
North Yuba County Water District
Oji Brothers Farms, Inc.
Pacific Farms & Orchards
Pacific Gold Agriculture
Paul Bertagna
Pelger Mutual Water Company
Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Co.
Plumas Mutual Water Co.
Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation Dist.
Provident Irrigation District
R. Gorrill Ranch Enterprises
Ramirez Water District
Reclamation District 1004
Reclamation District 108
Reclamation District 2035
Richter Brothers, Inc.
Rising Eagle Ranch
River Garden Farms
Riverview Land & Equipment, Inc.
South Sutter Water District
South Yuba Water District
Sutter Bypass-Butte Slough WUA
Sutter Mutual Water Company
Sycamore Trust
Taylor Brothers Farms
Tehama Angus Ranch, Inc.
Thermalito Irrigation District
Tudor Mutual Water Co.
Tuttle Ranches
Western Canal Water District
William P. Locket
Yolo County Flood Control & WCD
Yuba County Water Agency
Members of Congress
• Jim Costa
• John Garamendi
June 2018
The “Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018”: A
Fiscally Irresponsible Approach to California’s Water Problems
Sierra Club California has taken an oppose position on a water bond on the November 2018
statewide ballot. This decision follows internal discussion, consultation with allies, and votes by
various entities, including the Sierra Club California executive committee and the California
Nevada Regional Conservation Committee.
The ballot measure is formally known as the Water Supply and Water Quality Bond Act of 2018
and would provide $8.877 billion for various water projects and programs.
Key Concerns About the Bond
Here is a brief list of key concerns about the proposed bond measure, leading us to oppose it.
1. It flies in the face of good governance by being written behind the scenes by those
who would gain funds from it, rather than through a legislative process. This bond
presents an example of the “pay-to-play” approach to policy making. Many interests
participated in writing the bond, but those special interests who are funding the measure’s
campaign reap a disproportionate amount of the bonds benefits. California’s ballot
process requires millions of dollars to pass a bond. The proponents of the bond have
added many wasteful items to attract rich investors to help support the campaign who will
ultimately profit from the bond at the taxpayers’ expense. Critical bond measure
proposals for drinking water and ecosystems are best created through a legislative process
that is transparent and open to the public. Tax funds should be used for projects that will
benefit taxpayers, not billionaires.
2. It would not require any legislative oversight of the spending or programs it would
create, unlike almost every other environmental bond passed by voters. It provides no
avenue for public oversight or control of the effectiveness of its programs or the
allocation of its funds. All of the bond funds are continuously appropriated, meaning that
there is no legislative appropriation, removing the public from overseeing how funds are
spent or if the programs are effective.
3. It will waste taxpayer funds for water projects, including dam-related projects, and
undercut the principle of beneficiary pays. Specifically, Chapter 10 in the measure
provides $750 million to the Friant Water Authority for water conveyance capital
improvements and water conservation projects. We do not support providing public bond
funding to the Friant Water Authority because it could—and likely will—be used to fund
Attachment 5
2
projects that are harmful to the environment and strongly opposed by the environmental
community. The Friant-Kern Canals are units of the Federal Central Valley Project,
which is funded under a beneficiary pays principle, not through taxpayer funds. Purported
needs for additional funding cite increased groundwater pumping that has led to
subsidence, which has damaged the canals. Those who pumped the water and caused the
damage should pay to repair the canals. The bond would send $850 million of California
taxpayer revenues to the Federal Government to pay for maintenance on infrastructure
owned and managed by the Federal Government. This money could be better and more
responsibly spent on maintaining our aging locally owned and operated canal
infrastructure. Finally, Chapter 11 of the bond measure provides $200 million for
Oroville dam repairs. This dam is a unit of the State Water Project, which has been
funded under a beneficiary pays principle, not by general taxpayers.
4. It could open new funding pathways for ill-conceived dams. Only chapters 8 and 9
and the new Section 6 (page 49-50) prohibits the expenditure of funds on new surface
storage or raising existing reservoirs. We are concerned that the only clear prohibition is
found in 3 specific places in the bond and nowhere else. This raises the issue that the
other chapters are not subject to that prohibition. Also, the bond measure’s proponents
rejected requests by environmental groups to overtly prohibit funds from being used to
construct, expand or improve conveyance facilities associated with any surface storage
project listed in the CalFed decision of 2000. We take this as a sign that it is possible—
and maybe probable—that funds in this bond will be used to advance several dam
projects we have opposed.
5. It could create incentives that harm threatened and endangered species. Section
86032 of the bond provides funding for agricultural water conservation in the tributaries
of the Delta for the benefit of flow and to expedite water transfers. This section does not
explicitly prohibit the expenditure of funds on activities that create adverse impacts to
wildlife, such as eliminating flooding of rice fields for decomposition or the disking of
fallowed agricultural lands to prevent the growth of plants that provide for upland habitat
for birds and other species. This section could provide perverse incentives that decrease
migratory bird habitat and habitat for other wildlife such as the threatened giant garter
snake.
6. It shifts money away from important upland habitat conservation. The bond’s
proposed addition of Section 2799.7 to the Fish and Game Code would send the Habitat
Conservation Fund money to water acquisition after 2020. We do not believe that 100
percent of that money should go only to acquire water. That fund has been important to
non-water related habitat. If there is to be a re-allocation of that fund, a substantial
percentage should go to wildlife corridor conservation in the face of climate change.
Attachment 5
3
7. Money that should be used to reduce climate pollution would be spent ineffectively.
Section 6 that adds Part 12 to Division 6 of the Water Code would provide for a
continuous appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) revenues
obtained through the cap-and-trade auction proceeds. Cap-and-trade related costs here
has a very broad definition, including the direct costs for complying with the cap-and-
trade regulation (i.e., the purchase of compliance instruments), the costs incurred by the
AB 32 Cost of Implementation regulation (which is a fee paid by greenhouse gas emitters
to cover the costs of carrying out regulations), and even the indirect costs of increased of
power from cap-and-trade that affects the selected entities as downstream power
purchasers. Further, the language "Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including...Sections 39710 through 39723 of the Health and Safety Code)" provides that
this appropriation bypasses the normal statutory controls for GGRF monies, e.g., the
section 39712 language on facilitating the achieving of greenhouse gas reductions, etc. It
is not likely that the big water agencies that will now be eligible for these funds will use
them as effectively or efficiently as needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
particularly if they are given this guarantee that they will get these funds.
8. Californians just passed a bond measure to support water cleanup and restoration,
and adding this new bond will substantially add to the natural resource debt
dependent on the general fund for payback. This bond would add $400 million of debt
service annually to the general fund, and bring the Natural Resources Agency’s debt to
over 50% of its budget. Because much of the general fund is dedicated to K-12 schools
because of Proposition 98, this could mean that other social and environmental programs
could be cut to pay for this debt. An economic downturn could worsen these impacts.
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
June 21, 2018
WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY ACT OF 2018
THE WATER BOND
Sierra Club California has released a new statement of opposit ion to the November water bond.
The water bond has continued to gain support from environmental groups across the state, and
Sierra Club California remains the one group publically opposed to the measure. Our response
to these concerns follows below:
1) It flies in the face of good governance by being written behind the scenes by those
who would gain funds from it, rather than through the legislative process.
General obligation water and park bonds have a history of being written and passed through
the citizen’s initiative process rather than the legislature. Prop. 50 (2002) and Prop. 84 (2006)
were citizen’s initiative bonds supported by the Sierra Club. Over 200 individuals including
water agencies, agriculture, environmental groups, environmental justice groups, business, and
many other sectors were all involved in the creation of the November water bond, which was
designed and structured to fund the Governor’s Water Action Plan. Governing through the
legislative process is always preferable but sometimes has limitations, and the wide support for
this measure demonstrates that this is quite the opposite of a narrow private -interest measure.
Sierra Club has strongly supported other funding ballot initiatives, including Proposition 70
(Park and Wildlife bond, 1988), Proposition 117 (Mountain Lion and funding, 1990), Proposition
180 (Park Bond, 1994), and Proposition 21 (License plate fee for parks, 2010).
2) It would bypass legislative oversight of the spending or programs it would create.
The water bond allows for full legislative oversight. The Legislature has always reviewed the
expenditures of programs created and funded through the initiative process. Just because the
funds are continuously appropriated to the agencies, the Legislature is not prevented from
having public hearings to carefully review the implementation of the programs.
The funding in this measure is appropriated directly to the state agencies, and would allow the
agencies to fund their priorities in a strategic and public manner. Nearly all of the programs
funded in this measure already exist within state agencies and continuous appropriation allows
these agencies to pursue their strategic plans.
The Legislature itself has approved measures which do not require later legislative
appropriation. Proposition 1 in 2014 directly appropriated $2.7 billion to the California Water
Commission for water storage programs, and did not require subsequent legislative action to
appropriate these funds.
Attachment 6
Proposition 204, a 1996 water bond placed on the ballot by the Legislature, continuously
appropriated all the funds to state agencies, and did not require later legislative appropriation.
Both these measures were approved by the voters, and have been very successfully
implemented, with careful legislative oversight.
3) It opens up state general funds to pay for repairs of water supply projects funded by
local water agencies, and undercuts the principle of beneficiary pays.
Bonds are created to reduce costs for local agencies, allowing them to pursue projects that they
might otherwise be forced to delay or forgo. Sierra Club California has supported many bond
measures, including the June ballot’s Prop 68, and all these measures serve to reduce local
agency cost in constructing and repairing local water supply projects.
Many important projects can’t be built without state assistance. Leaving infrastructure to decay
because local agencies cannot afford to fix it is not a sustainable practice, and goes against the
Sierra Club’s own water priorities of investing in repairing existing infrastructure rather than
pursuing new projects. To quote our previous response,
“the beneficiary pays principle can be a slippery slope. The Sierra Club has often supported the
use of state funds to build wastewater recycling plants, undertake water conservation and
clean up polluted groundwater basins. In each case, it would have been possible to identify
urban water users who would benefit from these programs. They could have been required to
pay. But the idea that these were appropriate uses of general funds to better manage water
prevailed, and the Sierra Club endorsed it. This was the right decision. Repairing the Friant-Kern
Canal benefits a significant part of the state, populated by millions of Californians. It is not
substantially different from urban water programs the Sierra Club has long supported.”
4) The bond appropriates cap-and-trade revenues from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund to State Water Project and Central Valley Project water agencies.
As we originally responded to Sierra Club California, “This measure INCREASES the protection of
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Instead of allowing the Legislature and Governor to
spend the funds generated by water agencies for any purpose, regardless of how questionable
its climate benefits, this measure requires that the water agency funds be used for water and
energy conservation purposes which directly result in greenhouse gas reduction. Moreover,
highest priority is given to projects which benefit disadvantaged communities.” This funding
must go to projects held to AB32 standards.
5) California just passed a bond measure to support water cleanup and restoration, and
adding this new bond will substantially add to the natural resource debt dependent on
the general fund for payback.
Attachment 6
Proposition 68, the parks and water bond that appeared on the June 2018 ballot was a great
measure, providing critical funding for urban park projects, conservancies, open space, and
some water projects. However, the November water bond focuses fully on water, with only an
18% overlap with Proposition 68. In each area of overlap there is a much greater need than the
cumulative amounts provided in the two measures. Examples include funding for Salton Sea
restoration, flood management, safe drinking water and wastewater recycling. The need for
water investment in this state is enormous, and Prop 68 made an important contribution, but
insufficient when compared to the need. With Prop. 1 (2014 water bond) mostly allocated,
demand for water grant funding over the coming years will only continue to increase.
6) Some of the projects funded by this bond would worsen envir onmental quality.
This is simply not true.
This measure provides more environmental funding than any previous measure, with nearly
half the funding going to watershed, land, and habitat restoration. There is no evidence
whatsoever that this bond would worsen environmental quality, in fact quite the opposite. The
two main repair projects funded by this bill, Oroville Dam and the Friant -Kern Canal will result
in improved flood management and a canal that can continue to serve one of its main purposes
in groundwater recharge, stabilizing groundwater basins in the South San Joaquin. These are
not “new” infrastructure projects that could cause environmental damage, but rather projects
that improve existing water infrastructure, a priority for Sierra Club California. Moreover, this
bond measure provides no funding dedicated to new dams.
The environmental benefits from this bond will be enormous and help continue the important
work that the Wildlife Conservation Board, state conservancies, and local environment al groups
do on a daily basis. The bond is supported by 75 national, state and local environmental groups,
such as Save the Bay, Planning and Conservation League, Sustainable Conservation, and the
National Wildlife Federation.
R-18-66
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 12
AGENDA ITEM
Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project Alternatives and Caltrans Project
Study Report
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to advance eight alternatives to the Caltrans Project Study
Report and Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) phase for the Highway 17 Wildlife and
Regional Trail Crossings Project.
2. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with TrailPeople to bring all eight
alternatives through the next phase of the Caltrans process, adding $86,645 to the contract for
a total not-to-exceed amount of $386,305.
SUMMARY
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff evaluated multiple locations along
Highway 17 as part of feasibility studies to construct dedicated wildlife and regional trail
crossings within the project study area (see Attachment 1). On July 27, 2016, staff presented
four alternatives to the Board of Directors (Board). Since that time, staff have continued to work
with the public, project stakeholders, and partner agencies, and have conducted additional field
investigations, resulting in four additional project alternatives, for a total of eight. On June 5,
2018, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (R-18-54) reviewed the proposed eight
project alternatives, including the four new alternatives. The Committee unanimously supported
the Acting General Manager’s recommendation to advance all eight alternatives to the full Board
for consideration at the June 27, 2018 meeting. The General Manager recommends advancing
and including these eight alternatives in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Project Study Report and Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) phase.
To complete this work, a contract amendment with TrailPeople in the amount of $86,645 is
recommended. At the completion of this phase of work, an environmental document will be
prepared that will support the selection of the preferred crossing alternative(s) to meet project
objectives of providing safe wildlife and recreational trail crossings of Highway 17. The suite of
project alternatives include both separate and combined crossing for wildlife and regional trail
users. Sufficient funds are included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 and proposed FY2018-19
budgets to proceed with the Caltrans process with support from TrailPeople.
R-18-66 Page 2
DISCUSSION
Proposed Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossing Alternatives
Four preliminary alternatives and crossing criteria were presented the public, project
stakeholders, and partner agencies at an August 2, 2016 public meeting for the project. Since that
time, staff have continued to work to address data gaps and address identified concerns through
additional field investigations, resulting in four additional project alternatives. Eight final
alternatives meet some or all of the project criteria originally identified in the Preliminary
Alternatives Report (See Table 1).
Table 1. Project Criteria
Wildlife Crossing Criteria:
1) Close proximity to the identified wildlife corridor
2) Appropriate dimensions and design features
3) Habitat connectivity
4) Line of sight
5) Less human exposure
Regional Trails Crossing Criteria:
1) Proximity to regional trail connections
2) Appropriate dimensions
3) Non-motorized recreation and transportation connections
4) Emergency and maintenance vehicle access
A Preliminary Alternatives Report fully evaluated the four original alternatives. An update to
this report is in progress to include the additional four new alternatives. Staff recently evaluated
all eight alternatives against the project criteria based on current information (See Table 2). This
table will be revised as the project progresses and more information is learned about each
alternative.
Table 2. Project Alternatives and Criteria Met
Project Alternatives:
Wildlife Criteria
met
Regional Trails Criteria
met
1. Ravine Creek Undercrossing
(wildlife only)
1,2,3,5 Not suitable for trail
2. Trout Creek Undercrossing
(wildlife only)
1,2,3,4,5 Not suitable for trail
3. Southern Overcrossing
(combined wildlife and trails)
1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4
3a. Southern Overcrossing NEW
(trail only)
Not suitable for
large wildlife
1,2,3
4. Montevina Undercrossing
(combined wildlife and trails)
2,3,4 1,2,3,4
4a. Montevina Undercrossing NEW
(trail only)
Not suitable for
large wildlife
1,2,3
5. Northern Overcrossing NEW
(combined wildlife and trails)
1,2,3 1,2,3,4
5a) Northern Overcrossing NEW
(trail only)
Not suitable for
large wildlife
1,2,3
NEW Alternatives shown in bold
R-18-66 Page 3
Contract Amendment – Additional Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossing Project Alternatives
The project consultant, TrailPeople, was originally contracted to bring four project alternatives
through the Caltrans PSR-PDS process (R-16-126). During the public and agency review
process, four additional alternatives were identified. After careful review, all eight alternatives
are recommended to advance through the Caltrans process.
Due to the increased number of project alternatives, a contract amendment with TrailPeople is
recommended to complete the analysis of each alternative, refine the criteria, conduct an
additional public meeting, and complete the Caltrans PSR-PDS.
This project will result in infrastructure improvements to the State Highway system. As such, it
is subject to the Caltrans planning and environmental review process, the first stage of which is
the PSR-PDS. This process will define the project’s scope, costs, and schedule and obtain
conceptual approval for the project within Caltrans. On November 9, 2016, the Board authorized
a Resolution to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans to fund Caltrans oversight of
the PSR-PDS (R-16-147). Alternatives may be eliminated from further project consideration if,
during more detail review, they are determined to not meet Caltrans standards or result in a
condition that cannot be mitigated (such as a potential restriction of building on top of
engineered roadway cut-banks). Otherwise, all alternatives will advance to a subsequent Caltrans
phase: Project Approval and Environmental Document (PAED). In the overall Caltrans process,
selection of a preferred project alternative occurs after both the PSR-PDS and PAED phases are
complete.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Measure AA (MAA) Expenditure Plan allocates $13.96 million for the Wildlife
Passage/Ridge Trail Improvements projects in Portfolio 20 to provide safe wildlife passage and a
dedicated Ridge Trail crossing of Highway 17. The westernmost future trail connections from
Sanborn County Park to El Sereno Open Space Preserve are also MAA eligible under MAA 19-
1: El Sereno Trails and Wildlife Corridors. All other costs to implement trail segments to connect
a future Highway 17 crossing to El Sereno Open Space Preserve and to the existing Ridge Trail
in Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve would be funded through the General Fund.
The rough order of magnitude costs currently associated with implementation of the wildlife and
regional trail crossings project ranges from $6.6 to $16.9 million (2016 dollars) for each wildlife
and regional trail crossing(s) (either two separate or one larger combined crossing). Using an
industry supplied cost escalator of 20 percent, the estimated project costs in 2021 would be $8 to
$18.1 million for each crossing. The estimates will be refined and updated during the Caltrans
PSR-PDS phase and included in the TrailPeople contract amendment scope of work (if
approved).
Allocated funding identified in MAA 20 is adequate to bring the wildlife and recreational trail
crossing project through full design, and fund a portion of the construction costs. Additional
partner and/or grant funding is required to complete the construction of the crossing(s) and
associated connector trails. Potential funding sources have already been identified and include:
Caltrans (Active Transportation and Environmental and Enhancement Grants), Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority, National Fish and Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Conservation
Board, Prop 68 per capita allocations (if passed by the voters in June), private donors, and/or a
combination of the above.
R-18-66 Page 4
In order to advance the eight project alternatives through the Caltrans PSR-PDS process, a
contract amendment for TrailPeople in the amount of $86,645 is recommended. If approved, this
would bring the total contract amount to $386,305 (of which $132,855 has been spent to date).
The FY2018-19 proposed budget includes $410,000 for the Highway 17 Wildlife Corridor and
Bay Area Ridge Trail Projects (MAA 20-001 and MAA 20-002), which is sufficient to cover the
recommended action. Expenditures for the TrailPeople Contract Amendment are split evenly
between the two projects (MAA 20-001 and MAA 20-002).
PRIOR
YEAR
ACTUALS
FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 TOTAL
MAA 20-001 (Wildlife
Corridor) Budget $191,657 $258,160 $228,579 $152,500 $309,500 $1,140,396
Spent to Date (as of 5/11/18): $362 $362
Encumbered: $4,500 $4,500
Proposed Contract Amendment: $43,323 $43,323
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $191,657 $253,298 $185,256 $152,500 $309,500 $1,092,211
PRIOR
YEAR
ACTUALS
FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 TOTAL
MAA 20-002 (Bay Area Ridge
Trail) Budget $317 $184,800 $201,970 $152,500 $309,500 $849,087
Spent to Date (as of 5/11/18): $0 $0
Encumbered: $5,000 $5,000
Proposed Contract Amendment: $43,323 $43,323
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $317 $179,800 $158,647 $152,500 $309,500 $800,764
The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio budget, costs to date, and the fiscal
impact related to MAA 20: Wildlife Passage and Ridge Trail Improvements:
MAA 20 Portfolio - South Bay Foothills: Wildlife Passage/Ridge Trail
Improvements Allocation: $13,966,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 5/11/18): $192,336
Encumbrances: $9,500
Proposed TrailPeople Contract Amendment: $86,645
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $13,677,519
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
On June 5, 2018, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (R-18-54) reviewed the
proposed eight project alternatives, including the four new alternatives. The Committee
unanimously supported the Acting General Manager’s recommendation to advance all eight
alternatives to the full Board for consideration at the June 27, 2018 meeting. The first Planning
and Natural Resources Committee Meeting for this project was held on August 2, 2016 (R-16-
95) in conjunction with a public meeting for the project. The Committee reviewed the
Preliminary Alternatives Report and four preliminary crossing alternatives. The Committee also
received public feedback and engaged with regional partners and stakeholder agencies.
R-18-66 Page 5
This fall, staff will conduct a second public meeting for the project. This public meeting is
required by Caltrans. This meeting will provide the public an opportunity to review and
comment on the new project alternatives developed since the last public meeting in August 2016.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public Notice was sent to the project
interested parties list on June 22, 2018 and is posted on the District’s webpage.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
At this time, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At
the completion of the Caltrans PSR-PDS phase, the next phase of the project (PAED) will be the
environmental review (CEQA and the federal equivalent, NEPA, if seeking federal funds). The
environmental review will guide selection of the preferred project alternative. CEQA and
environmental review is anticipated to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20 upon completion of the
PSR-PDS.
NEXT STEPS
If authorized by the Board, the General Manager will amend the contract with TrailPeople to
complete analysis of the additional alternatives. Staff would then continue to work with the
consultant team and Caltrans to prepare the PSR-PDS. A second public meeting, required by
Caltrans, is scheduled for fall 2018. Upon completion of the PSR-PDS, the next phase of the
project will be environmental review (CEQA). CEQA review may be undertaken by Midpen
using a competitively selected consultant, by Caltrans directly, or using a combination of the two
approaches. The decision for which entity will lead the next phase will be determined during the
PSR-PDS phase, and an additional co-operative agreement for the next phase of the project
would be presented to the Board for approval. Upon completion of CEQA review, a preferred
alternative would be selected to then proceed with project permitting and design.
Attachment
1. Map of Crossing Alternatives locations
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department and
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Department
Prepared by:
Julie Andersen, Resource Specialist III, Natural Resources Department
Meredith Manning, Senior Planner, Planning Department
Contact person:
Julie Andersen, Resource Specialist III, Natural Resources Department
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
Lexington
Reservoir
EL SERENO
OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
SAN JOSE
WATER CO.
ST. JOSEPH'S
HILL
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
SIERRA AZUL
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
SAN JOSE
WATER
CO.
SAN JOSE
WATER CO.
SANBORN
COUNTY
PARK
LEXINGTON
RES. CO.
PARK
BEAR CREEK
REDWOODS
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
LEXINGTON
RES.
CO. PARK
SIERRA AZUL
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
L i m e k i l n Tr.
FOCUS AREA
J o h n Nic
h
o
l
a
s
T
r.
Lo
s
Gatos
C
r
e
e
k
A l d ercroft C r e ek
Lyndon
C
anyon C r e ek
L i m ekiln Creek
D y er C r e e k
C oll i n s
C
r e e k
Tro
ut
C
r
e
e
k
B r i g g s Creek
W e b b C r e e k
H e n d r y s C r e e k
1
2
3/3a
4/4a
5/5a
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
a
_
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
d
e
\
H
w
y
1
7
_
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
_
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
\
_
M
a
p
s
\
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
\
H
w
y
1
7
_
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
_
2
0
1
8
0
3
1
2
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
h
a
w
k
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.
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ35
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ82
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ92
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ35
Half
Moon
Bay
San Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
East
Palo
Alto
Los Altos
Mountain View
Cupertino
Saratoga
Los
Gatos
Fremont
Santa
Clara
Area ofDetail
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(MROSD)
March 2018
0 0.50.25
Miles
I
Los Gatos
Creek
Trail
Project Overview
Midpen Preserves
Private Property
Watershed Land
Existing Trail
Existing Road
Other Protected Lands
Existing Bay Area Ridge Trail
Recommended Crossing AlternativeST#
Highway or Major Road
Potential Regional Trail Route
Attachment 1
Rev. 1/3/18
R-18-70
Meeting 18-27
June 27, 2018
AGENDA ITEM 13
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to a Design Build Entity to complete the Mindego Ranch Ponds Enhancement
Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a contract to the Design Build Entity consisting of Hanford ARC (contractor) and
CBEC Inc. Eco Engineering (engineering/design) for a not-to-exceed base contract amount
of $405,321.
2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $60,798 to be reserved for
unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $466,119.
SUMMARY
The proposed Russian Ridge Mindego Ranch Ponds Enhancement Project (Project) will enhance
habitat for federally endangered San Francisco garter snake (SFGS), threatened California red-
legged frog, and Western pond turtle (WPT), a California species of special concern, at the
former Mindego Ranch area of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (Preserve). The Project is
included in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Capital Improvement and Action Plan. The scope of work
includes design and engineering, permitting, construction, and revegetation at two ponds in
support of recovery efforts for SFGS and CRLF.
A request for qualifications for Design Build Entity’s (DBE) was posted on Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District’s (District’s) website and reached out to six firms on April 18,
2018. District received one statement of qualifications from a DBE and the submittal was
deemed qualified to complete the project. Five of the six firms that staff reached out to did not
submit a statement of qualification due to lack of capacity, or for other unknown reasons. The
qualified DBE attended a pre-proposal tour on May 17, 2018 and submitted a proposal on June 6,
2018. General Manager recommends awarding the contract to the DBE consisting of Hanford
ARC (contractor) and CBEC Inc. Eco Engineering (engineering/design) for a not-to-exceed base
contract amount of $405,321 plus a 15% construction contract contingency (or $60,798) for a
not-to-exceed total contract amount of $466,119.
DISCUSSION
Background
Biosearch Associates created a San Francisco Garter Snake Habitat Management Plan in
September of 2012. The Plan supports recovery efforts for SFGS and CRLF at the former
Mindego Ranch area of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The plan includes recommended
R-18-70 Page 2
improvements to aquatic habitat by removing non-native predators, increasing open water
habitat, and maintaining upland habitat through conservation grazing. The project includes
surveys, geotechnical investigations, design and engineering, permitting, creation and adherence
to an integrated pest management (IPM) individual work plan, and post-construction site
revegetation.
In October 2017, staff released a request for proposals and qualifications for the design portion
of this project. District received two proposals that exceeded the anticipated cost of $50,000
($92,610 and $150,270). Both of firms independently suggested that District adjust its approach
and complete the project through a design build project delivery process rather than a design bid
build.
Design Build Entity Selection
The District posted the request for qualifications for DBEs on the website and sent out the same
information to six firms on April 18, 2018.
One DBE firm submitted a statement of qualifications and was deemed qualified to complete the
project. Staff and the qualified DBE attended a pre-proposal tour on May 17, 2018 and a
proposal from the DBE was received on June 1, 2018. Staff reviewed and evaluated the proposal
and recommends awarding the contract to the DBE consisting of Hanford ARC (contractor) and
CBEC Inc. Eco Engineering (engineering/design).
Project Delivery Process (Design-Build)
Following passage of Senate Bill 793 and effective January 1, 2018, the District’s enabling
legislation (Public Resources Code 5580) and its corresponding revised Board Policy 3.03,
Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant Selection, and Purchasing Policy,
specify that the Board may award design-build projects pursuant to Public Contract Code
sections 22160-22169. The minimum project limitation of one million dollars for design build
projects set forth in the Public Contract Code does not apply to District design-build projects. Staff
evaluated two project delivery methods: (1) Design-Build and (2) Design-Bid-Build for this
project. Staff has identified the pros and cons for each method and the General Manger
recommends the use of Design-Build for this project to reduce the cost of design, attract a more
experienced and qualified team of consultants and contractors, and increase efficiencies
throughout the project. This project is the District’s first design build project. The design phase
of the project will take place from July through November. The permitting phase will last from
July through May 2019. Construction will occur from August 1 through October 31, 2019 with a
possibility of shifting to 2020 if permitting or other unanticipated delays occur.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 Budget holds $12,140 of unused funds for MAA09-003 Mindego
Pond Improvement. There are sufficient funds in the proposed FY2018-19 project budget of
$355,658 to cover the proposed contract expenses in FY2018-19 , which will include surveys,
geotechnical investigations, permitting, and design. A remaining $78,321 will be required to
complete the project in FY 2019-20 and FY2020-21. Funds for the project will either be obtained
through grant funding or a budget adjustment will be required in future fiscal years.
A 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at their October 29, 2014 meeting
and includes Portfolio 09, Russian Ridge: Mindego Pond Improvement with a total portfolio
R-18-70 Page 3
allocation of $5.56M. The Action Plan Project budget for project MAA09-003 will fund this
contract, which covers all work associated pond enhancements at the former Mindego Ranch.
MAA09-003 PRIOR
YEAR
ACTUALS
FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 TOTAL
Russian Ridge Mindego Pond
Improvement Budget $0 $12,140 $355,658 $10,000 $10,000 $387,798
Spent-to-Date (as of 6/12/2018): $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0
Award of Contract (including
15% contingency) : $112,355 $353,764 $466,119
Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $12,140 $243,303 ($343,764) $10,000 ($78,321)
The following table outlines the Measure AA 09 Portfolio budget, costs-to-date, and the fiscal
impact related to the Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement Project.
MAA09 Portfolio: Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing & Wildlife
Protection Allocation $5,560,000
Life-to-Date Spent (as of 6/12/2018): $71,875
Encumbrances: $0
Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement Project (includes 15% contingency ): $466,119
Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,022,006
Exploring Grant Opportunities
Staff plans to explore Habitat Conservation Fund grants and will meet with agency
representative this summer to evaluate next steps. If successful, a Habitat Conservation Fund
grant could provide approximately $200,000 in funding. Additional grant opportunities will also
be pursued where possible.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This project implements actions identified in the Russian Ridge Use and Management Plan
adopted by the District Board of Directors on January 22, 2014, and Planning and Natural
Resources Committee hearings in November 2012.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notice was provided to
neighbors, Russian Ridge tenants, and other interested parties on June 22, 2018.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
On January 22, 2014, the Board of Directors adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the amendment to the Russian Ridge Use and Management
Plan, which included pond restoration on the site. The scope of work associated with the Project
is permitted by District’s United States Fish and Wildlife Service 10(a)1(A) Recovery Permit,
the Integrated Pest Management Program, and the Routine Maintenance Agreement with
California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
R-18-70 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
If approved for award of contract, the DBE will submit all necessary bonds, insurance
certificates, and the final executed contract. The DBE will then begin surveys and investigations
associated with the project design. The design phase of the project should continue through
November of 2018. Additional permits required for the project, including 404 permits, Regional
Water Quality Control Board permits, and San Mateo County permits will be obtained by the
DBE on the behalf of the District by May 1, 2019. The construction phase will last from August
1 through October 30, 2019, or 2020 if permitting delays require a schedule adjustment.
Attachments
1. Map of Project Area
2. Map of Upper Springs (shown as Upper Lake)
3. Map of Knuedler Lake
Responsible Department Heads:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction
Prepared by:
Matthew Chaney, Resource Management Specialist I, Natural Resources
Graphics:
Jamie Hawk, GIS Technician, Information Systems and Technologies
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space DistrictFigure 1: Mindego Ranch Locality Map
October, 2012
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
_
R
i
d
g
e
\
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
M
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
\
S
F
G
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
_
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
R
a
n
c
h
L
o
c
a
l
i
t
y
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
h
a
w
k
0 10.5
Miles
I
(MROSD)
MROSD Preserves
Private Property
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Palo Alto
Redwood City
Mountain View
LaH ondaCr ee kOSP Area ofDetail
£¤280
Mindego Ranch
Other Public Agency
Mindego Ranch Property
£¤84 £¤101
£¤85
SF Bay
Russian RidgeOpen SpacePreserve
Skyline RidgeOpen SpacePreserve
£¤35
£¤35
Mo nteBell oOSP
Alpin
e
R
o
a
d
Mindego Hill Trail
KnuedlerLake
BigSpring
MindegoLake
UpperLake
Bay
A
r
e
a Ridge
T
rail
C
h
a
r
q
u
in T r ail
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
October, 2012
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
_
R
i
d
g
e
\
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
M
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
\
S
F
G
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
1
_
U
p
p
e
r
P
o
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
c
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
h
a
w
k
0 10050
Feet
I
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area ofDetail
Figure 11: Upper Pond Management Recommendations
Mindego Ranch
Pond
Upper Pond
Existing Fence
Proposed Cattle Exclusion Fence
Excavator Route
Proposed Spoils Area
Location of Berm Repair
Attachment 2
R
o
d
g
e
r
s
G
u
l
c
h
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
October, 2012
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
u
s
s
i
a
n
_
R
i
d
g
e
\
M
i
n
d
e
g
o
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
M
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
\
S
F
G
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
_
K
n
u
e
d
l
e
r
L
a
k
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
c
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
h
a
w
k
0 200100
Feet
I
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area ofDetail
Figure 13: Knuedler Lake Management Recommendations
MROSD Preserves
Mindego Ranch Property
Mindego Ranch
Knuedler Lake
Intermittent Stream
Pond
Existing Fence
Proposed Cattle Exclusion Fence
Private Property
MindegoRanch
Approximate Location ofNick Point/ Culvertfor Road Crossing
Attachment 3
DATE: June 27, 2018
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, AICP, General Manager
FROM: Dave Jaeckel, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: Design Build Working Group and Update
_____________________________________________________________________________
What is Design Build?
The design-build process incorporates design and construction services into a single contract.
Based on information from both the private and public sector, the advantages in using the design-
build process include:
• A single point of accountability as the same firm is responsible for both the design and
construction of a facility
• Fewer change orders and claims
• Reduced delivery time when design and construction overlap
• Greater cost certainty
• Lower overall project cost
History of Design Build at the District
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) enabling legislation has always
prescribed a conventional Design-Bid-Build (“low bid”) project delivery method for construction
projects. However, Senate Bill (SB) 793, passed in late 2017, amends the District’s enabling
legislation to empower the Board of Directors (Board) to award Design-Build contracts.
Effective January 1, 2018, the statute provides that upon approval by the Board of Directors, the
design-build process may be used to assign contracts for the construction of facilities or other
buildings in the district. The minimum project limitation of one million dollars for design build
projects set forth in the Public Contract Code for other local agencies does not apply to the
District. Section 5580 is in effect only until January 1, 2023, unless an extension is granted in
the future by the legislature.
Design-build is intended to allow the District to combine design and construction services early
in the design process to factor in construction constraints, cost-effective material options, and
value engineering strategies to reduce project delays and contain costs. In addition, design-build
allows agencies to base the selection of firms not only on cost, but also on qualifications and
experience. This is particularly important for the District to ensure high quality and care during
project construction given that most projects are located in remote areas with difficult access and
minimal utilities, and in highly sensitive and rare habitats where special-status species must be
protected.
Design-Build Working Group
In February 2018, the District established an internal design-build working group to determine
future projects that would be good candidates for design-build procurement:
Proposed Design Build Projects
Project Name Start Date / End Date
Mindego Ponds
• Knuedler Lake
• Upper Springs
Summer 2018 – Summer
2021 (2-3 years)
Potential Future Pond Projects
• Toto Ranch Ponds
• Ponds DR16, DR02, DR15, DR09 (LHC)
• Cherry Springs Lake
• Lower Lake
TBD – Next 5 Years
Potential Future Natural Resources & Engineering and
Construction Projects
• Sears Ranch tire removal (LHC)
• Twin Creeks Restoration (SA)
TBD – Next 5 Years
Modular Housing
• Ag Workforce Housing
Fall 2018 – Fall 2021 (2-3
years)
Restrooms
• Monte Bello lot
• Russian Ridge lot Skyline/Alpine
• Kennedy
• Lower Windy Hill 555 Portola Road
• Purisima Northridge lot Skyline Blvd.
TBD – Next 5 Years
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
CLOSING MEMORANDUM
1 JA5 KUa..1h 1<.
Ana Maria Ruiz, General Manager
-y4 ki
lain Reilly, Real Property Agent II
June 14, 2018
Dunham Property Public Access Easement, El Sereno Open Space Preserve
Escrow closed for the subject transaction on June 4, 2018 and title to and possession of this 100' x 140'
(0.33 acres) Public Access, Patrol and Maintenance Easement passed to the District.
The General Manager signed the Acceptance of Low Value Interest on May 17, 2018 for the Dunham
Public Access Easement totaling 0.33 -acres based upon the determination that acceptance of this low
value property is in accordance with the District Rules of Procedure. The Public Access, Patrol and
Maintenance Easement was recorded on June 4, 2018 and title to the easement has passed to the District.
In accordance with the District Use and Management Planning policy the Preliminary Use and
Management Plan was approved by the General Manager on May 17, 2018. Recordation marks the final
adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan. In accordance with the Public Notification Policy,
neighbors of this public access easement were notified of this low value purchase transaction.
The following chart presents dedication and acquisition details for this property:
DEDICATION & ACQUISITION INFORMATION
Preserve
&
Area
County
&
A.P.N.
Grantor
Acres
Ownership Status:
(Fee, Easement, Lease,
Mgmt Agreement)
Board Approval Date &
Resolution Number or
General Manager
Approval Date
El Sereno
Santa Clara
517-24-020
Dunham
0.33
Public Access
Easement
May 17, 2018
Closing Date
Mgmt. Status:
(Open, Closed, CMU,
or Other)
Dedication Date
Status (Intended or
Withheld)
Type
Funding
Value
GIS Code
June 4, 2018
Open
Withheld
Cash
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
1463
Misc. Notes:
1. This public access easement provides public access rights over Bohlman Road as it crosses the Dunham
Property.
2. The purchase of this easement is eligible for MAA funding under project #MAA-19.
Attachment: Property Map
cc: Administration
Natural Resources
Public Affairs
Board of Directors
Land and Facilities
Visitor Services
Real Property
Engineering and Construction
Legal
Planning
GIS
Asst. AGM
20171030 mxd
Path: G:\Pro'jects\EI_Sereno\Dunhom\ES DunhamEa seme
Created By ngr
Dun ham - Bohlman Ro ad
MIEl Sereno Open Space Pre serve
Private Pro perty
Santa Clara County Property
D unham,
APN
517-24-020
Dunha m Property
Proposed Public Easement
OO G ate
EL SEREN O
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
e Feet
0
E ast'P aalo Alto
Midpeninsula Regi onal
Open Sp ace District
(MROSD)
Octob er 2017
100 200
MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL
OPEN
SPACE
While the District strives to use the be st av ailable digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey a nd are merely a graphic illustration of geo graphic features.
DATE: June 27, 2018
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, AICP, General Manager
FROM: Meredith Manning, Senior Planner
Elaina Cuzick, Senior Property Management Specialist
SUBJECT: Hawthorns Historic Complex Update at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
_____________________________________________________________________________
Summary
On April 08, 2015, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board of Directors
(Board) approved a phased partnership approach with Richard and Ann Crevelt for the
rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorns Historic Complex (R-15-49) at Windy
Hill Open Space Preserve (Attachment 1). The proposed partnership had previously been
considered and forwarded to the Board by the Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee
(R-15-38) (Attachment 2). This approach is consistent with Midpen policy 4.02 addressing
improvements on Midpen lands that hold historic value. On June 8, 2016, Midpen staff provided
the Board with a FYI memorandum on the status of activities at the Hawthorns property
(Attachment 3). On August 8, 2016, Midpen executed a one-year license agreement with the
Hawthorns Preservation Trust Foundation (Foundation), which Mr. Crevelt formed in 2016 and
of which he became Executive Director. On June 8, 2017, the Foundation presented a proposal
to Midpen staff for an Independent Living Community with Jim and Patty White of Portola
Valley as co-proposers with the Foundation. The license agreement expired on August 8, 2017
and Midpen did not renew the agreement. However, Midpen is continuing to work with the
Whites on a separate, phased partnership approach for the Hawthorns Historic Complex
(Complex).
An Access License has been signed, and insurance documents have been submitted by the
Whites, who are proposing to reuse the Complex as an Independent Living Community serving
young adults with diagnosed developmental disabilities. Again, this approach is consistent with
Midpen Policy 4.02 addressing improvements on Midpen lands that hold historic value. This
action is also consistent with Midpen Board Basic Policy that includes a commitment to engage
cooperatively with other agencies, community organizations, and individuals to preserve open
space and to facilitate development and management of recreation facilities and public use,
including re-use of existing structures. The proposed use as a residence is also consistent with the
Conservation Easement on the property held by Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST).
The Whites are moving forward with initial investigations to determine feasibility and cost of
their proposal, which at the current time includes two main structures of the four-structure
Complex: 1) the mansion (main house) and 2) the garage (carriage house). Community outreach
will not be the responsibility of Midpen staff; rather, the Whites will conduct this effort. Their
preliminary neighbor outreach recently began in May of this year, and will accelerate once a
conceptual design is in place. The Whites would be the lead applicant for development of
designs and obtaining permitting from the Town of Portola Valley and other required permits to
implement any approved plans. Midpen set aside funds in Fund 20 in FY2018-2019 to perform
third-party review and discussion of these conceptual designs.
Background
On February 18, 2014, the Planning & Natural Resources Committee (PNR) confirmed the
issuance of a Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) to solicit proposals for a potential
partnership to rehabilitate and maintain the Complex. On April 3, 2014, Midpen released the
RLOI and, on June 20, 2014, received four proposals. One proposal was deemed nonresponsive
and was removed from further consideration. Midpen held interviews with the remaining three
proposers. Following the interviews, one proposer withdrew. Of the two remaining, Midpen
deemed the proposal from Richard and Ann Crevelt for reuse of the site as a private residence as
best meeting the goals of the RLOI and the partnership project, the requirements of the
conservation easement that affects the entire property, and the overall intent of the Woods
Family for transferring the property to Midpen. A proposal was also received by Yvonne Tryce,
Chair of the Friends of Historic Hawthorn Ranch for a nature center, which is discussed later in
this memorandum.
Discussion
According to a 2013 historic structures assessment, the historic complex includes the following
four structures: 1) mansion, 2) cottage, 3) garage, and 4) barn, although there are other buildings
extant on the property in various states of disrepair. At this time, the Whites are primarily
focused on the main house and the garage (or former carriage house), and do not have plans for
the remaining structures but would consider other proposals for those structures.
The access license allows the Whites to begin their investigations on the feasibility of repairs and
upgrades necessary to bring these severely degraded structures (circa 1880-1920s-era) into
current health and safety standards for human occupancy. As part of the Independent Living
Community proposal, the Whites’ intent is to rehabilitate the main house and the garage such
that future residents would be able and motivated to live independently on their own in
independent units while having on-site care available on a 24-hour basis, should it be required.
In accordance with the Board’s basic policy and policy 4.02 related to partnerships, Midpen
would work with the proposers on this partnership approach. Planning staff have provided the
Whites the CAD architectural drawings that were developed during as part of the 2013
assessment so they may be used as a platform for discussions with their own independent
architect. Staff from Land & Facilities is ready to instruct the Whites about proper procedures to
safely enter the buildings in order to perform the architectural inspections.
Any proposal for renovations and reuse of the property would be carefully vetted against the
April 2005 grant deed of Conservation Easement held by the Peninsula Open Space Trust
(POST) as part of the gift of property to Midpen. This easement restricts any expansion of use;
however, the type of residential use proposed by the Whites would be compatible with the
easement.
Additional Proposal
An additional, separate proposal has been submitted by Yvonne Tryce, Chair of the Friends of
Historic Hawthorn Ranch, for a Nature Center/Interpretive Center on the Hawthorn property
which has both natural and historic elements as well as opportunities for community sharing of
common interests such as hiking, riding, or art. There is currently a collection of natural artifacts
similar to those at Midpen’s Daniels Nature Center, including skulls, bird nests, pelts, etc. that
Ms. Tryce wishes to house somewhere on the Hawthorne property. Early discussions focused on
housing this collection within one of the structures comprising the Complex, but upon further
discussion it was agreed that concept may complicate any arrangement with the Whites and
would unnecessarily comingle the public with the proposed independent living facility.
Although this nature center proposal is not recommended for the partnership, staff recommended
that the proposal be evaluated as part of the larger Public Access Plan (Plan) that will be
prepared for the Hawthorn Property. As a result, Ms. Tryce proposes a new, standalone structure
be built on or near the proposed parking area for the Plan which is currently in the conceptual
design phase and is scheduled to accelerate this Fall 2018.
Schedule and next steps
Next steps and their estimated timeline is below for the independent living facility through the
end of this calendar year. The Whites are eager to move the process forward with their
architectural consultant; however, they have informed me that although they have discussed the
project with two architects and one builder, they still need to go through the process of gaining
access to the site. In addition, they will be absent for a majority of this summer. The timeline of
the project to date and the anticipated schedule is shown below.
2017 Aug-Dec Preliminary meetings with Jim and Patty White; Midpen meeting with
Town of Portola Valley Mayor and Vice-Mayor and staff
2018 May Access license and insurance documents submitted by Whites; early
engagement of immediate neighbors by Whites
2018 summer-
fall
Whites conduct assessment, development proposal, and provide financials
to Midpen
2018 summer Midpen conducts traffic studies as part of the concurrent but separately-
funded Public Access Project that would also help inform this proposal
2018 winter Midpen conducts internal review of submittals, and also conducts third-
party architectural review
2018 summer-
winter
(ongoing)
Whites engage larger community outreach and provide public input report
back to Midpen
2019 spring Town of Portola Valley study session with Planning Commission (per
request by Town Manager); Midpen not present at this session
2019 spring PNR or ABC Committee meeting (TBD)
Budget
Hawthorns Fund 20 is a unique fund code specifically set aside to manage the nearly two million
dollar endowment transferred with the property to Midpen in 2011 to be used towards its
stewardship. Funds were approved for FY 2018-19 in the amount of $78,000 for Planning
Capital Expenses in part for Midpen to provide third-party feasibility review of any architectural
drawings and other concepts developed by the Whites’ architect or other consultants.
Attachments
1. Report R-15-49, phased partnership approach to Board (April 8, 2015)
2. Report R-15-38, phased partnership approach to PNR Committee (March 10, 2015)
3. FYI memorandum, status of activities to Board (June 8, 2016)
R-15-49
Meeting 15-08
April 08, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed Partnership for the Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic
Complex at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Approve the proposed phased partnership approach with Richard and Ann Crevelt (Crevelt) for
the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC).
2. Approve issuance of a one-year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to begin initial planning, site
cleanup, and other preliminary work.
3. Approve ongoing discussions with Crevelt to further develop the terms and conditions for a
future long-term partnership.
4. Approve deferral of the second proposal for a nature center until the Public Access Plan for the
Hawthorn Property is initiated.
SUMMARY
On February 18, 2014, the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) confirmed the
issuance of a Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) to solicit proposals for a potential partnership
to rehabilitate and maintain the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC). On April 3, 2014, an RLOI
was released and on June 20, 2014, four proposals were received. One proposal was deemed
nonresponsive and removed from further consideration. Interviews were conducted with the
remaining three proposers. Following the interviews, one proposer withdrew. Of the two
remaining, the proposal from Richard and Ann Crevelt for reuse of the site as a private residence
was deemed to best meet the goals of the RLOI and the HHC partnership project, the requirements
of the conservation easement that affects the entire HHC, and the overall intent of the Woods
Family for transferring the property to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District).
Although the second proposal by the Friends of Historic Hawthorns Ranch (Friends Group) for a
nature center is not recommended for the HHC partnership, this proposal does merit further
consideration as part of the overall Public Access Plan that will be prepared for the Hawthorn
Property in the future. These findings and recommendations were reviewed and confirmed by the
PNR on March 10, 2015.
Attachment 1
R-15-49 Page 2
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2014, a RLOI was released with the goal of identifying potential partners who would
propose to rehabilitate and maintain the historic structures at the site with minimal cost to the
District. This approach is consistent with District policy 4.02 addressing improvements on District
lands that hold historic value:
Paragraph C. (3) except:
“When the District considers acquisition of a site which includes a structure or structures
which are listed on the National Register for Historic Places or are clearly eligible for
inclusion on that register, the District has a special responsibility to seek some means to
protect these structures. An important consideration in the decision to retain such structures
will be the availability of special funding programs or resources from other public agencies,
private organizations or individuals for the costs of their restoration, maintenance and
operation.”
In addition to meeting District goals for the partnership project, a viable partnership proposal
must also meet the conditions of the conservation easement that underlies the Hawthorn Property
and HHC. This conservation easement was prepared by the Woods, the Grantor of the property,
in 2005. Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) is the grantee and is responsible for ensuring that
all future development on the property is aligned with the conditions of the easement. The
conservation easement is extremely conservative, reflecting the Woods’ desires to have the
property maintained in its original and natural condition. For example, no new structures are
allowed unless these replace an existing structure or unless these are specifically associated with
public access requirements. No commercial activities, including commercial agriculture, can be
conducted onsite. No new roads or parking are allowed except as needed to allow for public
access to trails and to meet District operational and maintenance requirements. Therefore, the
potential uses that can take place at the HHC are restricted to residential use, or a use that is
complimentary with public access and public education.
On June 20, 2014, four proposals were received in response to the RLOI (Attachment A). A
proposal from Portola Valley Scouting was deemed to be non-responsive, as the proposal did not
include an intention to steward the structures, and was therefore eliminated from further
consideration. Nonetheless, the Scouting group has been added to the public notification list for
any future public access planning work at the Hawthorn Property.
Following review of the proposals, interviews were conducted with the three responsive
proposers (please refer to Attachment B for a summary of the findings from the interviews).
Subsequent to the interviews, Jasper Ridge Farms informed the District that they were
withdrawing their proposal because they felt they could not meet their program requirements
without demolishing the lower barn. The RLOI specifically indicated that the lower barn is one
of the four key structures contributing to the historic fabric of the Hawthorn Historic Complex. It
is also considered to be one of the oldest structures in Portola Valley. Therefore, the proposal to
demolish the lower barn was not aligned with the RLOI and would likely not obtain approval
from the Town of Portola Valley. The District therefore has two remaining active proposals for
consideration: Crevelt and the Friends Group.
Attachment 1
R-15-49 Page 3
DISCUSSION
Recommend Crevelt Proposal for the HHC Partnership Project
Based on a full analysis of each remaining proposal, including the revised Friends Group
proposal (refer to Attachment B), the General Manager recommends pursuing a potential
HHC partnership with Crevelt. The Crevelt proposal best aligns with the underlying zoning
requirements for the property, the constraints of the existing underlying conservation easement
(refer to Attachment C), the goals of the RLOI and the HHC partnership project, and the overall
intent of the Woods Family for transferring the property to the District.
Recommend Forwarding Friends Group Proposal for Inclusion in the Public Access Plan
The revised proposal from the Friends Group for a 500 square foot nature center may require an
amendment to the conservation easement and submittal of an application for either re-zoning or a
special use permit from the Town of Portola Valley. This proposal is also not consistent with the
intention of the Woods Family gift or the historic use of the site, and is not well aligned with the
goals of the RLOI. Nonetheless, the concept of a nature center at the Hawthorn Property may be
considered well aligned with the overall goals of the District for the larger property, versus the
HHC. For this reason, the General Manager recommends forwarding the Friends Group nature
center proposal for inclusion and further consideration as part of the Public Access Plan that will
be developed for the Hawthorn Property. This Public Access Plan is envisioned to be initiated
within the next 5 years.
Recommended Phased Partnership Approach with Crevelt
The General Manager recommends a phased partnership approach given that the viability of the
Crevelt Proposal is dependent on a number of yet outstanding factors. As part of this phased
approach, the District would first issue a one (1) year HHC access permit (permit-to-enter) to
Crevelt to allow for initial planning and design work to commence, as well as onsite cleanup and
additional stabilization prior to the actual rehabilitation of the structures and future reuse of the
site. The HHC access permit may include a “Letter of Agreement” that further details the agreed
upon responsibilities referenced below to avoid misunderstandings regarding Crevelt’s
responsibility for fundraising and disclaim any District responsibility for accounting, fundraising,
use of non-profit funds, or obligations to any donors pledging funds to the non-profit.
Benefits of initiating the partnership with a one-year permit-to-enter include: a) partner ability to
address immediate project needs; b) long-term partnership terms and conditions can
simultaneously be more fully developed, and c) deterioration of the structures will be arrested.
Crevelt Responsibility
During the first phase of the phased partnership approach, Crevelt would be responsible for the
following:
Secure non-profit status; legal paperwork for this non-profit has already commenced;
however, the entire process can take 12-18 months to complete.
Successfully develop and implement a fundraising plan.
Raise adequate funds to complete initial work on site (currently estimated to be
approximately $2.01 million).
Secure “pro-bono” services for design, engineering, and interior furnishings.
Coordinate with District staff and volunteers to conduct volunteer projects for site clean-
up and broom removal.
Attachment 1
R-15-49 Page 4
Work with the District and Town of Portola Valley to confirm permitting requirements
and discuss the potential to reduce and/or waive permitting fees.
Work with POST to discuss conformance with the conservation easement, including the
allowance of future fundraising events to occur at the site.
Once the non-profit is established and assuming clearance from POST, Crevelt would work with
their extensive community contacts to conduct fundraising events. As funds are raised, Crevelt
would a) finalize their negotiations for a lease with the District; b) work with architects and
engineers to complete the design documents; c) obtain required permits, and d) begin
rehabilitation at the site, starting with the Garage and then completing the work at the House.
Ultimately, their goal would be to raise sufficient additional funds for future rehabilitation of the
Barn and the Cottage (refer to Site Plan, Attachment D).
District Responsibility
In order to facilitate a phased partnership with Crevelt, the District would be responsible for the
following:
Review and approve minimal, near-term stabilization work as required to deter any
continued deterioration.
Participate in meetings with the Town of Portola Valley to review permitting and
development requirements.
Coordinate with District volunteers and other community volunteers to organize and lead
volunteer restoration and cleanup events at the site.
Participate in discussions with POST to monitor and confirm ongoing compliance with
the conservation easement.
Future Actions (refer to Partnership Development Timeline, Attachment E)
If the Board approves the phased partnership approach, a permit-to-enter would be issued for one
(1) year. After one year, staff will return to the PNR with either: a) proposed terms and
conditions for a long term lease; or b) proposal to extend the permit for up to one additional year.
After two years, if a partnership between the District and Crevelt has not been successfully
negotiated and no alternate partner is identified, the District would evaluate the options for
completing long-term stabilization or mothballing of the structures.
FISCAL IMPACT
The HHC Partnership Project is a Priority 1 project on the Planning Department’s Fiscal Year
(FY) 2015-16 Action Plan. If rehabilitation of these structures is not implemented as soon as
possible, deterioration will accelerate. The HHC Partnership Project scope for FY2015-16
includes partnership development activities and minor near-term stabilization measures with a
corresponding budget of $343,000, which includes a placeholder amount of $293,000 should the
potential partnership with Crevelt be unsuccessful and additional long-term stabilization or
mothballing measures deemed necessary. The larger Hawthorn budget also includes $200,800
for improvements to the Alpine Road House to prepare the house for lease or use as a ranger
residence. All costs are to be funded by the Hawthorn endowment.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
On March 10, 2015, the PNR confirmed the General Manager’s recommendations for a phased
approach to partner selection, issuance of a permit-to-enter to Richard and Ann Crevelt, and
Attachment 1
R-15-49 Page 5
deferral of the nature center proposal to be considered as a part of the future Hawthorn Property
Public Access project.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Interested parties and neighbors within
300 feet of the property have also been notified.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The proposed actions do not constitute a physical change to the environment, and are therefore
not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any future proposal to make
improvements or repairs to the structures would be subject to CEQA review prior to
implementation.
NEXT STEPS
Upon approval by the Board, the District would negotiate and enter into an initial partnership
with Richard and Ann Crevelt for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn
Historic Complex and issue a one (1) year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to allow initial site planning
and cleanup/stabilization actions to begin. In addition, the District would inform the Friends
Group that their proposal is recommended to be evaluated as a part of the future Public Access
Plan for the Hawthorn Property.
Attachment(s)
A. List of Proposals Received in Response to the Request for Letters of Intent
B. Summary of HHC Partnership Proposal Interviews
C. Hawthorn Property Conservation Easement
D. Hawthorn Property Site Plan
E. Partnership Development Timeline
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Gina Coony, Planner III
Attachment 1
PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
R-15-38
March 10, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Proposed Partnership for the Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic
Complex at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Confirm and forward the following items to the full Board for approval:
1. Proposed phased partnership approach with Richard and Ann Crevelt (Crevelt) for the
rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC).
2. Issuance of a one-year permit-to-enter to Crevelt to begin initial planning, site cleanup, and
other preliminary work.
3. Ongoing discussions with Crevelt to further develop the terms and conditions for a future long-
term partnership.
4. Deferral of the second proposal for a nature center until the Public Access Plan for the
Hawthorn Property is initiated.
SUMMARY
On February 18, 2014, the Planning & Natural Resources Committee (PNR) confirmed the
issuance of a Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) to solicit proposals for a potential partnership
to rehabilitate and maintain the Hawthorn Historic Complex (HHC). On April 3, 2014, an RLOI
was released and on June 20, 2014, four proposals were received. One proposal was deemed
nonresponsive and removed from further consideration. Interviews were conducted with the
remaining three proposers. Following the interviews, one proposer withdrew. Of the two
remaining, the proposal from Richard and Ann Crevelt for reuse of the site as a private residence
was deemed to best meet the goals of the RLOI and the HHC partnership project, the requirements
of the conservation easement that affects the entire HHC, and the overall intent of the Woods
Family for transferring the property to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District).
Although the second proposal by Yvonne Tryce for a nature center is not recommended for the
HHC partnership, this proposal does merit further consideration as part of the larger Public Access
Plan that will be prepared for the Hawthorn Property. These findings and recommendations are
included as part of this report for PNR review and confirmation.
Attachment 2
R-15-38 Page 2
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2014, a RLOI was released with the goal of identifying potential partners who would
propose to rehabilitate and maintain the historic structures at the site with minimal cost to the
District. This approach is consistent with District policy 4.02 addressing improvements on District
lands that hold historic value:
Paragraph C. (3) except:
“When the District considers acquisition of a site which includes a structure or structures
which are listed on the National Register for Historic Places or are clearly eligible for
inclusion on that register, the District has a special responsibility to seek some means to
protect these structures. An important consideration in the decision to retain such structures
will be the availability of special funding programs or resources from other public agencies,
private organizations or individuals for the costs of their restoration, maintenance and
operation.”
In addition to meeting District goals for the partnership project, a viable partnership proposal
must also meet the conditions of the conservation easement that underlies the Hawthorn Property
and HHC. This conservation easement was prepared by the Woods, the Grantor of the property,
in 2005. Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) is the grantee and is responsible for ensuring that
all future development on the property is aligned with the conditions of the easement. The
conservation easement is extremely conservative, reflecting the Woods’ desires to have the
property maintained in its original and natural condition. For example, no new structures are
allowed unless these replace an existing structure or unless these are specifically associated with
public access requirements. No commercial activities, including commercial agriculture, can be
conducted onsite. No new roads or parking is allowed except as needed to allow for public
access to trails and to meet District operational and maintenance requirements. Therefore, the
potential uses that can take place at the HHC are restricted to residential use, or a use that is
complimentary with public access and public education.
On June 20, 2014, four proposals were received in response to the RLOI (Attachment A). The
proposal from Portola Valley Scouting was deemed to be non-responsive, as the proposal did not
include an intention to steward the structures, and was therefore eliminated from further
consideration. Nonetheless, the Scouting group has been added to the public notification list for
any future public access planning work at the Hawthorn Property.
Following review of the proposals, interviews were conducted with the three responsive
proposers (please refer to Attachment B for a summary of the findings from the interviews).
Subsequent to the interviews, Jasper Ridge Farms informed the District that they were
withdrawing their proposal because they felt they could not meet their program requirements
without demolishing the lower barn. The RLOI specifically indicated that the lower barn is one
of the four key structures contributing to the historic fabric of the Hawthorn historic complex. It
is also considered to be one of the oldest structures in Portola Valley. Therefore, the proposal to
demolish the lower barn was not aligned with the RLOI and would likely not obtain approval
from the Town of Portola Valley. The District therefore has two remaining active proposals for
consideration: Crevelt and the Friends Group.
Attachment 2
R-15-38 Page 3
DISCUSSION
Recommend Crevelt Proposal for the HHC Partnership Project
Based on a full analysis of each remaining proposal, including the revisions to the Friends Group
proposal (refer to Attachment B), the General Manager recommends pursuing a potential
HHC partnership with Crevelt. The Crevelt proposal best aligns with the underlying zoning
requirements for the property, the constraints of the existing underlying conservation easement
(refer to Attachment C), the goals of the RLOI and the HHC partnership project, and the overall
intent of the Woods Family for transferring the property to the District.
Recommend Forwarding Friends Group Proposal for Inclusion in Public Access Plan
The revised proposal from the Friends Group for a 500 square foot nature center may require an
amendment to the conservation easement and submittal of an application for either re-zoning or a
special use permit from the Town of Portola Valley. This proposal is also not consistent with the
intention of the Woods Family gift or the historic use of the site, and is not well aligned with the
goals of the RLOI. Nonetheless, the concept of a nature center at the Hawthorn Property may be
considered well aligned with the overall goals of the District for the larger property, versus the
HHC. For this reason, the General Manager recommends forwarding the Friends Group nature
center proposal for inclusion and further consideration as part of the Public Access Plan that will
be developed for the Hawthorn Property. This Public Access Plan is envisioned to be initiated
within the next 5 years.
Recommended Phased Partnership Approach with Crevelt
The General Manager recommends a phased partnership approach given that the viability of the
Crevelt Proposal is dependent on a number of yet outstanding factors. As part of this phased
approach, the District would first issue a one (1) year HHC access permit (permit-to-enter) to
Crevelt to allow for initial planning and design work to commence, as well as onsite cleanup and
additional stabilization prior to the actual rehabilitation of the structures and future reuse of the
site. The HHC access permit may include as an attachment, a “Letter of Agreement” that further
details the agreed upon responsibilities referenced below to ensure there are no
misunderstandings regarding the Crevelt’s responsibility for fundraising and disclaiming any
District responsibility for accounting, fundraising, use of non-profit funds, or obligations to any
donors pledging funds to the non-profit.
Benefits of initiating the partnership with a one-year permit-to-enter include: a) partner ability to
address immediate project needs; b) long-term partnership terms and conditions can
simultaneously be more fully developed, and c) deterioration of the structures will be arrested.
Crevelt Responsibility
During the first phase of the phased partnership approach, Crevelt would be responsible for the
following:
Secure non-profit status; Legal paperwork for this non-profit has already commenced;
however, the entire process can take 12-18 months to complete.
Successfully develop and implement a fundraising plan.
Raise adequate funds to complete initial work on site (currently estimated to be
approximately $2.01 million).
Secure “pro-bono” services for design, engineering, and interior furnishings.
Coordinate with District staff and volunteers to conduct volunteer projects for site clean-
up and broom removal.
Attachment 2
R-15-38 Page 4
Work with the District and Town of Portola Valley to confirm permitting requirements
and discuss the potential to reduce and/or waive permitting fees.
Work with POST to discuss conformance with the conservation easement, including the
allowance of future fundraising events to occur at the site.
Once the non-profit is established and assuming clearance from POST, Crevelt would work with
their extensive community contacts to conduct fundraising events. As funds are raised, Crevelt
would a) finalize their negotiations for a lease with the District; b) work with architects and
engineers to complete the design documents; c) obtain required permits, and d) begin renovations
at the site, starting with the Garage and then completing the work at the House. Ultimately, their
goal would be to raise sufficient additional funds for future rehabilitation of the Barn and the
Cottage. Refer to Site Plan, Attachment C.
District Responsibility
In order to facilitate a phased partnership with Crevelt, the District would be responsible for the
following:
Review and approve minimal, near-term stabilization work as required to deter any
continued deterioration.
Participate in meetings with the Town of Portola Valley to review permitting and
development requirements.
Coordinate with District volunteers and other community volunteers to organize and lead
volunteer restoration and cleanup events at the site.
Participate in discussions with POST to monitor and confirm ongoing compliance with
the conservation easement.
Future Actions (refer to Partnership Development Timeline, Attachment E)
If the Committee confirms and the full Board approves the phased partnership approach, a
permit-to-enter would be issued for one (1) year. After one year, staff would return to the
Committee with either: a) proposed terms and conditions for a long term lease; or b) proposal to
extend the permit for up to one additional year. After two years, if a partnership between the
District and Crevelt has not been successfully negotiated and no alternate partner is identified,
the District would evaluate the options for completing long-term stabilization or mothballing of
the structures.
FISCAL IMPACT
The HHC Partnership Project is a Priority 1 project on the Planning Department’s proposed
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Action Plan. It is priority 1 because the Hawthorn historic complex has
been found to be eligible for listing as an historic district and therefore the District has a
responsibility to attempt to protect the four primary structures within the complex. If
rehabilitation of these structures is not implemented as soon as possible, deterioration will
accelerate substantially. If a partnership is not viable within the next two years, the District
would complete long-term stabilization to stem the rate of deterioration and to reduce on-going
maintenance and operations costs associated with hazardous deteriorating structures on District
lands.. The project scope includes partnership development activities and minor near-term
stabilization measures. These costs would be paid out of the Hawthorn endowment fund and are
anticipated to be no more than $50,000. An additional budget of $293,000 has been set aside in
the proposed Budget as a placeholder should the potential partnership with Crevelt be
unsuccessful and additional long-term stabilization or mothballing measures deemed necessary.
NOTE: The proposed FY2015-15 budget reviewed by the Board on 2/25/25 allocated $543,800
Attachment 2
R-15-38 Page 5
for Hawthorn’s related projects. In addition to the $343,000 budgeted for the HHC Partnership
Project, the remaining $200,800 is budgeted for improvements to the Alpine Road House to
complete design, permitting, remediation and renovations required to prepare the house for lease
or use as a ranger residence.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Interested parties and neighbors within
300 feet of the property have also been notified.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The proposed actions do not constitute a physical change to the environment, and are therefore
not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any future proposal to make
improvements or renovations to the structures would be subject to CEQA review prior to
implementation.
NEXT STEPS
Upon confirmation of the Committee, the recommended action items would be forwarded to the
full Board of Directors for consideration. If approved by the full Board, the District would enter
into an initial partnership with Richard and Ann Crevelt for the rehabilitation, reuse, and
maintenance of the Hawthorn Historic Complex and issue a one (1) year permit-to-enter to
Crevelt to allow initial site planning and cleanup/stabilization actions to begin. In addition, the
District would inform the Friends Group that their proposal is recommended to be evaluated as a
part of the future Public Access Plan for the Hawthorn Property.
Attachments
A. List of Proposals Received in Response to the Request for Letters of Intent
B. Summary of HHC Partnership Proposal Interviews
C. Hawthorn Property Conservation Easement
D. Hawthorn Property Site Plan
E. Partnership Development Timeline
Responsible Department Head:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Gina Coony, Planner III
Attachment 2
R-15-38, ATTACHMENT A
Planning & Natural Resources Committee
R-15-38, AttachmentA
Page 1 of 1
List of Proposals Received in Response to the Request for Letters of Intent
A. Jasper Ridge Farms
Scope: Existing non-profit “light commercial” type use; replace or reconstruct the
Barn for lodging of therapy animals and use an auxiliary building for an office;
Project Cost: $400K; already raised $300K.
Schedule: Had architect and contractor on board; requirements considered to be
simple and straightforward.
B. Richard & Ann Crevelt (Crevelt)
Scope: Private residential; creation of a non-profit for Crevelt to obtain private
donations to complete initial rehabilitation of the House & Garage; remaining site
(Barn & Cottage) would be funded and rehabilitated over time. Crevelt family would
live on site and provide basic maintenance of the facility.
Project Cost: $2,010,000. Cost assumes substantial amount of volunteer and pro-
bono work to complete design, construction management, site cleanup.
Schedule: Phased approach; approximately three (3) years to complete first portion
of work (Garage & House)
C. Friends of Historic Hawthorns Ranch (Friends Group)
Scope: Museum Complex; rehabilitation of entire site, including higher intensity uses
such as a nature center (within a converted garage) and a history museum (within the
restored house).
Project Cost: 8.5M; no current funds in hand.
Schedule: 3 years for design, permitting and construction; very aggressive
implementation schedule raises feasibility concerns (e.g. 3 months for design, 2
months for permitting).
D. Portola Valley Scouting
Scope: General scouting use; no proposal to rehabilitate or steward structures
Project Cost: None provided
Schedule: None provided
.
###
Attachment 2
R-15-38, ATTACHMENT B
Planning & Natural Resources Committee
R-15-38, AttachmentB
Page 1 of 2
Summary of HHC Partnership Proposal Interviews
A. Jasper Ridge Farms (JRF):
Proposal stated intent to “reconstruct or rebuild” the Barn. In the interview, JRF clarified
that their plan was to tear down the Barn and build a new barn in its place.
JRF was informed that the Barn was among the oldest surviving structures in Portola Valley,
and that demolishing a structure that contributed to the historic complex was infeasible;
they would therefore need to build within the interior of the old Barn and/or within the
footprint of adjacent structures.
JRF would require additional infrastructure (e.g. electrical, parking) that might not be
compatible with the conservation easement.
The proposed use is likely not in conformance with the Town’s underlying zoning, but due to
low intensity use, may be granted via a conditional use permit.
Proposed use would be in conformance with the historic use of the site. Woods family had
many animals and took in many “retired” animals.
B. Crevelt:
Richard Crevelt is a General Contractor with extensive experience in building and
maintaining estate properties.
Proposal is to establish non-profit and fundraise to complete rehabilitation of the structures.
Non-profit would fund all rehabilitation work.
Crevelt proposes to first refurbish the Garage, then use it to store materials from the House
that have to be removed to complete the rehabilitation of the House. Once the House is
complete, Crevelt family (Richard, wife, and two children) would move into and inhabit the
House. They would then fundraise to complete rehabilitation of the Barn and the Cottage.
At a conceptual level, the Crevelt proposal appears to comply with the conservation
easement, however, there may be proposed work (like installing sewer lateral) that may
require an amendment to the conservation easement.
Proposal relies heavily upon donated services and volunteer activities.
Crevelt proposal requested lease terms similar to Fremont Older house.
Crevelt indicated being amenable to ”sharing” use of the larger HHC site with other partners
as long as other uses does not impact his family’s privacy.
Crevelt proposal agrees to allow public tours, per RLOI conditions, minimum two per year.
C. Friends of Historic Hawthorns Ranch (Friends group):
The Friends group was informed that their $8.5 M proposal for an expansive museum
complex did not comply with the Town’s underlying zoning or with major provisions of the
conservation easement.
The Friends group was asked to re-evaluate their proposal, and issue a letter revising their
proposal to better align with the conservation easement and the underlying zoning.
Attachment 2
On October 02, 2014, the Friends Group submitted a letter with a revised proposal to limit
development to a nature center onsite. The revised proposal is for a smaller (approximately
500 SF) nature center to be located in place of the upper barn near Los Trancos Road.
On December 8, 2014, staff met with the Friends Group to discuss their alternate proposal.
On January 20, 2015 the Friends Group issued a more detailed description of their October
revised proposal letter, as requested by District staff.
.
###
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March 1st QTR 2nd QTR 3rd QTR 4th QTR
ON-GOING COMMUNITY OUTREACH
VOLUNTEER PROJECTS
CREVELT PREPARE & SUBMIT
NON-PROFIT PAPERWORK
NON-PROFIT
ESTABLISHED NON-PROFIT SPONSORED FUNDRAISING
JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
NEAR-TERM
STABILIZATION
PARTNERSHIP WITH CREVELT
LONG-TERM
STABLIZATION / MOTHBALLING
IF PARTNERSHIP NOT IN PLACE
BY FY 2017-18
ON-GOING DISTRICT PROJECT COORDINATION WITH POST & CREVELT
ATTACHMENT E
HAWTHORN HISTORIC COMPLEX - PARTNER DEVELOPMENT 2015-2018
FY 2015-2016 FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018
CREVELT PERMIT TO ENTER RENEW PERMIT TO ENTER
ENTER INTO PARTNER LEASE BY END OF FY
Attachment 2
DATE: June 8, 2016
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager
FROM: Allen Ishibashi, Senior Real Property Agent and Bryan Apple, Planner II
SUBJECT: Status of Activities at the Hawthorn Property
_____________________________________________________________________________
This FYI memorandum has been prepared in response to the Board President’s request on May
12, 2016 for an update on activities at the Hawthorn Property.
Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership
On April 8, 2015, the Board approved a partnership for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance
of the Hawthorn Historic Complex with Richard and Ann Crevelt (Crevelts) for use of the site as
a private residence (R-15-49). As part of this partnership the Board approved a phased approach
in which the Crevelts would first be issued a one (1) year access license to allow for initial
planning and design work, with a long term agreement to follow once the terms in the access
license were successfully completed.
The original intention was to execute the access license directly with the Crevelts while they
concurrently worked to obtain non-profit status for the new non-profit that would be dedicated to
rehabilitating and maintaining the Hawthorns Historic Complex. Later, the Crevelts requested
that the access license be executed directly with the new, non-profit Hawthorns Preservation
Trust Foundation (Foundation). This request delayed the execution of the access license until the
501c(3) was approved for the new Foundation.
The access license agreement was finalized on May 12, 2016 and sent to the Foundation for
review and execution. To date the District has not received a signed copy of the access license.
Per the terms of the access license, the Foundation must accomplish the following tasks before a
long term agreement with the District would be discussed:
1. Finalize the non-profit, tax-exempt status for the entity that would enter into a long-term
lease;
2. Develop and implement a fundraising plan and submit this to the District for approval;
3. Raise at least $1,000,000 for the rehabilitation, reuse, and maintenance of the site;
4. Solicit and identify potential “pro-bono” providers for design, engineering, and interior
finishes; and
5. Confirm permitting requirements with the town of Portola Valley.
Attachment 3
The General Manager will keep the Board updated on the status of this item if and when the
license is executed.
Realignment of Alpine Road Trail (roadside trail along property frontage)
On April 27, 2016, the Town of Portola Valley’s new Town Manager Jeremy Dennis met with
General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, and Planning Manager
Jane Mark to discuss the Town’s continued interest in realigning the Alpine Road trail that fronts
the Hawthorn Property, from Corte Madera School to Los Trancos Road. The Town had
deferred this item during the departure of the former Town Manager. Recognizing that the
Action Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 has been already developed and reviewed by the
Action Plan and Budget Committee, which includes numerous major and high priority projects
for the Board, many that are underway, the General Manager advised Town Manager Dennis to
formally submit the Town’s request to the Board in November, to be included very early in the
Board’s Priority Setting Process for the subsequent fiscal year. This request has also been noted
by staff and will be included with the various projects that the Board will consider for FY2017-
18.
Nature Center Request from Yvonne Tryce
As part of the Request for Letters of Interest (RLOI) for Rehabilitation, Reuse, and Maintenance
of the Hawthorn Historic Complex, the District received a proposal from Yvonne Tryce for a
nature center. This proposal was not selected as it did not meet the intent and goals of the RLOI.
However, it did merit further consideration as part of a future overall Public Access Site Plan for
the Hawthorn Property. As such, on April 8, 2015, the Board of Directors approved the deferral
of the nature center proposal until the Public Access Plan for the Hawthorn Property is initiated,
which at that time was envisioned to be initiated within the next 5 years (2015-2020).
Future Public Access Site Plan for the Hawthorn Property
Dependent on staff capacity and the progress of current Action Plan Projects come this fall, the
General Manager will consider recommending the initiation of the Public Access Site Plan for
the Hawthorn Property as part of the FY2017-18 Action Plan. If so, the Public Access Site Plan
would incorporate both the Town’s request for the Alpine Road Trail realignment and Ms.
Tryce’s proposal for a nature center. Other elements that would be included as part of this Public
Access Site Plan would include interior trails, connections to Town trails, signage, and parking.
Attachment 3
From:Jennifer Woodworth
Bcc:BOARD; Stefan Jaskulak
Subject:Board Questions for Tonight"s Agenda
Date:Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:49:51 PM
Good afternoon all,
Below in blue please find the responses to the questions submitted by Director Kishimoto for
tonight’s agenda items.
Jen
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk/ Assistant to the General Manager
jwoodworth@openspace.org
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485
E-mail correspondence with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (and attachments, if
any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to
public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.
item 1 - greenhouse gas. p. 3 of the inventory report. it seems 1 MTCO2e is offset by one acres of
forest land? Just curious what it would take to offset the GHGe emitted by the 750,000 residents of
our district or the two counties? California average was 11 tons/resident/year. I started looking at
Santa Clara County numbers - with about 2 million people, 22 million tons - with 1300 square miles
or 50 million acres. What is offset from grazing land or chaperral land?
The District’s Climate Program development is still focusing on GHG emissions from the District’s
operations, but will be beginning work in FY2018-19 to evaluate the carbon sequestration of the
District’s open space lands and habitats. Staff have completed some preliminary calculations of
redwood/mixed conifer forest sequestration and these habitats sequester, or offset, about 1 metric
ton of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2E) per acre per year. Based on that, it would take 8.3 million acres of
similar forests to offset the emissions of all District residents (750,000 residents * 11
MTCO2E/person/year = 8.3 million MTCO2E/year = 8.3 million acres/year). 8.3 million acres is the
size of 12 Yosemites. Put another way, our forest lands offsets the emissions of about 5,600 (<1%) of
our residents.
No amount of land conservation can possibly offset our region and our society’s current level of GHG
emissions. A recent study by The Nature Conservancy found that maximizing land conservation,
restoration, and carbon sequestration across the globe would achieve 37% of the GHG reduction
needed to stabilize the climate. This underscores the importance of dramatically reducing GHG
emissions at all levels.
Item 9 GM recommendation - in summary, funding authorization had already been approved, but is
being rolled over to this new phase? ($ amount not specified in GM recommendation)
The GM recommendation for Saratoga to the Sea is to approve the Partnership Agreement, rather
than specifically the funding amount. The funding amount is identified in the terms of the
Agreement on page 4, bullet #2. The $265,000 budget was approved in FY17-18 and has been rolled
over to FY18-19 and included in the Budget Book.
· Maximum reimbursement amount of $265,000 for work under the agreement.
Item 10 - Twin Creeks. The reasons (p. 3) for non-responsiveness seem quite small - not on correct
form, signature missing on addendum. Is there some other concern/reason for $200,000
difference? Qualifications?
The difference in the bid was $188,266, which is significant, so staff looked into their work
experience and references more closely. The experience that Coleman provided was less
complicated demolition/clean-up work after the Santa Rosa fires in 2017 and the Valley Fire in 2015.
Staff also called their two references, one did not return calls and the other said they did good work.
The Twin Creeks project is a complicated demolition and the second largest demolition project in
District history (second only to Mt Um).
Over the last five years Randazzo Enterprises has been awarded and completed the following
demolition projects for the District:
A. Lobner Demo - Monte Bello OSP
B. Powell Demo – Monte Bello OSP
C. Mindego Ranch - Russian Ridge
D. Driscoll Ranch – La Honda OSP
E. Dire/Pollen Cabin – La Honda OSP
Randazzo has an excellent track record of completing District jobs on time and on budget. They have
worked well in sensitive habitat and with biological monitors. They have handled complicated
hazmat abatement in our projects well and have a lot of experience working in Santa Clara County.
When Randazzo has not been the lowest bidder on District projects they have often come in second
place. Randazzo has completed many projects similar to the Twin Creeks Demo so they have the
required skills and attention to detail to complete this project.
At the time of purchase, the Board asked E&C to fast track the demolition as site security and safety
were a major concern. Awarding the contract to Randazzo on June 27, 2018 meets this direction, as
demolition will begin in mid-July. The alternative to approving this contract is to re-release the
“Request For Bids” which will push the schedule back with no guarantee of lower or more bids.